THE ESSAY

WE’RE SPENDTHRIFT “ENVIRONMENTALISTS”

CONSTANCE HILLIARD
Eight out of 10 Americans regard themselves as environmentalists. Yet
while we Americans comprise a mere 5% of the world’s population, we
consume an estimated 30% of its non-replenishable resources. So much
of what we call “environmentalism” in this country, from recycling
soda cans to petitioning Congress for wetlands preservation, represents
little more than a clamorous sideshow to the far more painful issues at
hand.
We may be quick to take sides in political debates over environmental
issues, but upon closer inspection, we often are all on the same side in
the larger ecological debate. Our voracious patterns of consumption
engulf gadgetry-addicted, fossil-fuel-guzzling environmentalists and
anti-environmentalists alike.
The more single-mindedly we grab for that elusive, nirvana-like
American Dream, the more inexorable the slippage in our quality of
life. We suffer more stress-related illnesses now than ever before while
neglecting family and intimate relationships in our time-consuming
struggles to surpass the Joneses.
America’s most pressing ecological crisis stems from our societal
addiction to consumerism. Our patterns of overconsumption reflect a
dependency, a need for constantly whispering promises of untold bliss
that mere goods simply cannot keep. In the book Consuming Desires,
editor Roger Rosenblatt notes this unbridled consumerism is
“threatening the ecological balance of our entire globe.”
In this holiday season of frenzied shop-’til-you-drop spending, those of
us who call ourselves environmentalists might just wish to take time
out to re-evaluate our personal patterns of consumption. What
emotional or spiritual wounds do we really think that new items will
heal? More to the point, what are the unspoken costs to the fragile,
GROUP 5
unreplenishable resources of this planet of our endless material
acquisitions?
And we Americans call ourselves environmentalists.

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ESSAY

Most Americans regard themselves as environmentalists, but their
words do not match their actions. It is overconsumption that negatively
affects the environment, not overpopulation. In an essay titled "We're
Spendthrift Environmentalists”, Constance Hilliard argues that
citizens’ daily consumption habits pose a threat to the environment. In
this essay, we will discuss that Hilliard’s argument is unconvincing.
There are no direct logical fallacies but the manner in which the
argument proceeds seems to have lost direction. Does the author blame
American overconsumption for most of the environmental harm? If so
she drags issues into the argument that she does not develop well.

Hilliard’s basic argument can be summarized as follows:

1. 80% of Americans regard themselves as environmentalists.
2. Although Americans comprise only 5% of the world's
population, they consume 30% of its non-renewable
resources.
3. They do take actions to save the environment but those are
too small for the real problem.
4. Despite our political differences, we share a common goal
of preserving the environment.
5. Our voracious patterns of consumption engulf
gadgetryaddicted, fossil-fuel-guzzling environmentalists
and antienvironmentalists alike.
6. The more we chase that elusive American Dream, the more
our quality of life declines.

GROUP 5
 7. We suffer more stress-related illnesses now than ever while
neglecting family and intimate relationships in our
timeconsuming struggle to surpass the Joneses.
8. America’s most pressing ecological crisis stems from our
societal addiction to consumerism.
9. American’ patterns of overconsumption reflect a
dependency, a need for constantly whispering promises of
untold bliss that mere goods simply cannot keep. (from 8)
10. In the book Consuming Desires, editor Roger Rosenblatt
notes this rampant consumerism is “threatening the
ecological balance of our entire globe”. (from 8)
11. New items don’t really heal emotional or spiritual wounds.
12. The unspoken costs to this planet's fragile, non-renewable
resources of our endless material purchasing are too big.
13. Therefore, in these uncontrolled spending days,
environmentalists might just want to spend time re-
evaluating our shopping habits. (from 11, 12)
Hilliard’s essay is provocative and clear. However, her overall
argument is flawed for several reasons.
First, statement (1) is not true, 80% of Americans are concerned
about the environment and take small steps to make a difference; this
does not mean 80% of Americans are environmentalists.
Second, statement (2) is true. The exact percentages may vary
slightly depending on the source, the general idea behind the statement
is true. The United States citizens, accounting for less than 5% of the
world's population, consume more than 20% of the world's total energy
and 30% of the world's total non-renewable resources.
Third, her claim in (3) that Americans do take actions to save the
environment but those are too minimal for addressing the actual issue
is true. Small actions, such as recycling soda cans and petitioning
Congress for wetlands protection, are vacuous to address the thorny
issue. While there are certainly many Americans who try to save the

GROUP 5
environment, individual actions alone are not enough to address the
significant environmental issues facing our planet. It requires collective
action on a larger scale, including policy changes by governments and
corporations, to make a meaningful environmental impact.
Fourth, statement (4) is true. While there may be differences in
opinions and approaches to environmental issues, many Americans
recognize the importance of preserving the environment for future
generations and agree on the need to take action to protect it.
In the first premise, the author claims that Americans regard
themselves as environmentalists but their actions are not enough for the
real problems. The real problems according to Hilliard are our
consumption patterns and specifically overconsumption. She feels that
overconsumption is responsible for great harmful effects.

In statement (5), the author says that: “Our voracious patterns of

consumption engulf gadgetry-addicted, fossil-fuel-guzzling
environmentalists and anti-environmentalists alike”. It means although
Americans thought they are friendly to the environment, their patterns
of consumption cause harm to the environment, they are
gadgetryaddicted, they guzzle fossil fuel, and also anti-
environmentalists. This premise is logically consistent with the claims
that Hillard mentioned.
The author has asserted that the concerns of Americans about the
environment are vacuous because of their overconsumption. She has
introduced another issue-(7)-that comes from her premises. She feels
that overconsumption causes stress-related diseases to increase. In
addition, she adds that family and intimate life are decreasing, and
consumerism is the reason for all problems that affect mankind.
But the problem in her argument is that the issue is related to the
environment. For instance, she can claim that overconsumption and
consumerism lead to harm to the environment. However, she discusses
emotional harm and harm to the family. These are important issues, no
doubt, but these are not part of direct 'environmental' issues.

GROUP 5
 If Hilliard is discussing the harmful effect of overconsumption in
general, she shouldn’t blame the US people for being responsible for
an ecological crisis (8). She says that ecological crisis comes from
dependence, a need for consumption (9), and adds that Roger
Rosenblatt notes consumerism is “threatening the ecological balance of
our entire globe” (10).
The language is clear and precise but the passage meanders from
environmental concerns to quality of life and neglect of family. There
seems to be little cohesiveness in her argument. She starts criticizing
almost anything about Americans, including the American Dream (6).
She also talks of quality-of-life slippages (6) but does not specify how.
The argument is not complete because the author meanders into issues
that are distant from the basic premise. All relevant evidence has not
been taken into account. There are no direct logical fallacies but the
manner in which the argument proceeds it seems to have lost direction.
Hilliard needs to be clear in her mind as to whether she is discussing
the harmful effect of overconsumption on the environment or the
harmful effects of overconsumption in general.
Hilliard begins to address another issue in (11). It no longer holds
the main idea that she is discussing the harmful effects of
overconsumption on the environment, her argument is diluted. The
issue of emotional harm is not related to an environmental issue. It
commits the fallacy of hasty generalization, as it assumes that all
individuals with emotional or spiritual wounds will not benefit from
new items.
Statement (12) is true. Many scientists, researchers, and
environmentalists have extensively studied the impact of human
activities on the environment. The use of non-renewable resources,
such as oil and coal, contributes to the depletion of these resources,
environmental degradation, and climate change. The extraction and
production of these resources also have bad effects on the environment,
including pollution and habitat destruction. Therefore, it is essential to
consider the impact of our material acquisitions and try hard for
sustainable practices to ensure the preservation of our planet's resources
GROUP 5
for future generations. However, it is important to note that the
argument may be open to challenge or counter-arguments. For example,
someone might argue that technological advances and innovations will
make it possible to find new ways to extract resources or create
substitutes for non-renewable materials. Alternatively, someone might
argue that the economic benefits of material consumption outweigh the
environmental costs, or that the environmental impact is not as severe
as some people claim.
Statement (13) is true. Re-evaluating our shopping habits is a
good way to reduce our impact on the environment and control our
spending. By being more mindful of what we buy, we can make better
choices for our wallets and the planet. Here, Hilliard is on the right track
to offer a solution to the main problem under discussion:
overconsumption affects the environment. But it would be useful to
define what is meant by “uncontrolled spending days” to provide
clarity for the reader. However, this statement may contain a logical
fallacy known as Hasty Generalization, which assumes that everyone
is engaging in uncontrolled spending and that environmentalists are the
only ones concerned about this issue.
In conclusion, while Hilliard has shown that overconsumption
brings negative effects on the environment, she fails to support her
claim with evidence. Her arguments are unconvincing because the
evidence and premises she showed commit fallacies, standards in
logical thinking, Logical Correctness Standard, Consistency Standard,
Hasty Generalization Fallacy and Clarity Standard.

GROUP 5