We could change this culture of littering in the city

May 29, 2015 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
A major challenge facing the city of Georgetown is the culture of littering. We use culture deliberately because this current negative environmental action, by some of our citizens, appears to be influenced by it.  In spite of the council’s rigid and on-time garbage collection schedule, in all section of the city some citizens seem not to be able to help themselves to keep the environment clean. Therefore, littering has become a way of life for citizens. This culture appears to have spread across all strata of our society. In “well to do areas” as well as poor communities one can see scattered refuse on parapets, and in canals. Empty food boxes, beer or fuzzy drink cans get tossed through the windows of mini-buses as well as posh cars and other vehicles. People who dress in expensive gabs as well as those who wear inexpensive clothes throw the wrappings from their purchase or the peelings from fruits they consume in public onto our pavements and into our street drains.
This unfriendly environmental attitude not only contributes to an ugly state of affairs but also encourages a verity of environmental problems. These include, breeding places for mosquitoes and flies, aggressive aquatic growth, and the risk of diseases.
Moreover, littering has an enormous impact on the city treasury. The council is forced to clean up parapet and roadside litter on a daily basis.  But the money it expends on this could be used for other developmental works like road repairs, drainage, maternal and child welfare, and other environmental services.  Therefore, the culture affects the way Council allocates money to do works in the city of Georgetown.  This leads to a serious point on development. This culture of littering influences the way the city develops and grows because this area is likely to receive more attention and resources than others.  It is more visible that others and can affect the image more than our day care service. But this service is critical to our working mothers. Yet we must spend more on the negative habits of litterbugs at the expense of other important areas.
What is worrying is that as soon as an area is cleared citizens just dump their refuse on it without considering the consequences of their action. So the process goes on and on. Freshly sanitized areas get dirty as soon as the council’s workers move to another location and a new gang of men must return to do it all over again. Some of these litterbugs shout the loudest that, “the City Council has done and is doing nothing to help the city”.
But there is hope. We could change this culture of littering in the city. Here’s how: if all stakeholders begin to take ownership and responsibility for the health of Georgetown then together we can make a significant difference in the way our environment is treated and protected. It really would not take much to effect this change. It calls for respect for the environment.  If we could only see the environment as the greatest natural resource from which all other resources came and upon which we depend for our very survival then we could easily change this negative attitude and see a Georgetown beyond litter. If we could only see that we can forth from the environment then we would appreciate that the environment is a part of us.  Therefore, the way we treat the environment is a reflection of the way we value ourselves, our level of pride, and level of understanding of our relationship with our environment.
One important group of stakeholders, who can make a significant difference, is media owners.  If they take a deliberate decision to put this issue on the front burner of the national agenda then they could help in raising public awareness and consequently encourage citizens’ action. The media has the ability to influence public opinion and action on various societal issues by the way they disseminate information. People need information to be empowered to act; to become involved and to take decisions on such issues that affect their communities.
It is very obvious that this culture of littering is affecting our local communities.  However, there is neither a programme nor a feature in our local media that addresses this issue in a frontal and aggressive way on a continuous basis.  One can argue that the media are not environmental agencies or environmental organisations therefore they do not have a responsibility to pursue such issues at the expense of others. After all, much more is going on in society. Still, if the environment is unhealthy and unsafe the media would not be able to do their work effectively because their workers, who live and operate within a filthy environment, would be preoccupied with the heath risk of working in such surroundings rather than focusing on their work. Also, the citizens who purchase the newspapers or watch the news channels would be more concerned about when the environment will be fixed rather than what is happening in other areas. In fact, the existence of all other areas in society, and society itself are only possible because there is the environment.
The media, in particular the newspapers, has a history of giving a voice to the poor and powerless.  However, many media are more concerned about their bottom line.
They are interested in what sells. At the end of the day, they must show a profit to their corporate boards or bosses. So they represent the interest of those who are financially comfortable and have the power to change their economic,social and other circumstances.  But, in many cases, even though powerful people contributed to the destruction of the environment, it is the poor, who are most vulnerable to the attendant evils of an unhealthy environment because they do not have the wherewithal to protect themselves and their families.  They cannot move easily from an unhealthy environment to a good one.  Or run away quickly whenever there is an outbreak of some disease or environmental disaster in their community.  They have to stay and manage the situation the best way they can.  Therefore, the media should be sufficiently interested in the environment to the point where they treat it as a high priority issue with very serious national consequences for our nation and all of our people.
Moreover, our local media could see this as part of their social responsibility to the city. This means that they are responding to a need in our society.  They have this obligation because society permits them to operate and do business. But business is not about economics alone. It has a social side, which caters for the needs of the society in which it performs.
Therefore, society expects something in return from businesses, which it allows to operate within its confines. History has shown that whenever there was a disparity between a business’s economics and its social responsibility, society found ways to address it and to fill the gap. One-way society has dealt with this disparity among mainstream media (msm) is through the Internet. Ti is cheap, quick and interactive. Therefore, it allows ordinary people to pull the information they determine to be useful to their circumstances.
Information leads to knowledge and knowledge to empowerment.  Therefore, the Internet empowers citizens to act on certain issues that are of concern to them.  Moreover, its interactivity allows them to add to the content of that information and to distribute it to as many people as they like as far as they like.  They are both consumers as well as newsmakers.  As such, the Internet has created new public spaces, which give ordinary citizens knowledge, empowerment and a voice in the way their environment is managed. They can connect with other with similar concerns. This has encouraged the growth of environmental organisations and groups with global influence on environmental justice.
However, some developing countries, including Guyana, are still a good way behind many others in the new media environment. Many are still concerned with the question of survival. They look more to the necessities of life not technology. This gives our local media a brilliant opportunity to work with municipalities, environmental agencies, groups and communities to discover creative ways to ensure the health and safety of our natural environment and consequently its
citizens. This could make a big difference in the current state of affairs and the way our society develops.
If we can encourage these partnerships then we can change the culture of littering. We would not only restore but also develop our city with the level of modernity that is becoming of a capital of a nation in the 21st century.
We could change the image and therefore the fortunes of the city. Yes, if we all play our part and be positive about it then we can look to a Georgetown beyond litter. What beauty, what glorious pride we, all, can share in such a glittering and progressing City.
Royston King

---

---