Why We Do The Things We Do

  By Finditandmore.com  with  AI help

Mow Around the Clover

  Let’s imagine a world where environmental policy goes just a little further in its logic. Say we pass a law that requires homeowners with solar panels to leave clover and bee-attracting flowers uncut during lawn care—because bees need a reliable source they can revisit. You’d be legally required to cut around the flowers with a mower, like a botanical obstacle course, all for the bees.

And for wind turbines? Let’s go even greener. Every turbine must now come equipped with a bird feeder. Why? Because we’re going to attract more birds to make up for the ones that are killed by the blades. Net positive, right?

Sounds ridiculous?

Exactly.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: these ideas aren’t that far removed from actual eco-friendly policies that are just as impractical, misguided, or flat-out counterproductive.

We live in an era where good intentions are treated as good enough. Where slapping a “sustainable” label on something absolves it from the scrutiny of real-world outcomes. But many well-meaning environmental initiatives are little more than rituals of moral purity, offering symbolic gestures rather than impactful results.

Here are just a few real-life examples that rival the satire:

• “No Mow May” campaigns that encourage pollinator-friendly lawns... while cities continue enforcing weed-height fines.
   
• Reusable bag mandates that result in people stockpiling thick plastic bags with a larger carbon footprint than the “single-use” ones they replaced.
   
• Biofuels that reduce our reliance on fossil fuels—by incentivizing deforestation and monocropping.
   
• Carbon offsets that allow corporations to pollute more… as long as they fund a few trees or vague conservation efforts somewhere else.
   

The pattern is clear: lots of optics, very little follow-through.

Environmentalism has, in many circles, become a performance. We're encouraged to take actions that feel green, even when the data says otherwise. It’s easier to legislate how people mow their lawn than to confront the complex realities of land use, global supply chains, or industrial waste.

Worse, some rules create the illusion of progress while burying real solutions under bureaucracy or shifting the burden to individuals—often those who are least equipped to handle it.

Environmentalism doesn’t have to be absurd. But for it to be effective, it must be:

• Evidence-based, not emotionally driven.
   
• Simple and scalable, not micromanaging.
   
• Focused on systems, not just symbolic individual actions.
   

Want to help pollinators? Fund native wildflower corridors in agriculture, rather than regulating grandma’s lawn mower technique. Concerned about bird deaths from turbines? Invest in radar-based turbine shutoffs or smarter siting, not bird feeders next to spinning blades.

Being eco-conscious is important. But if we want people to take it seriously, we have to admit when our policies are more about feeling green than being green.

Otherwise, we’re not solving problems—we’re just mowing around them.