It seems to me that since the start of the mass environmental movement and the start of a "politically correct" version of history in 1960's U.S. society, many people have begun thinking that people in non-western cultures such as Native Americans, Africans and Asians are somehow more 'in tune with nature' or ’close to the Earth' than people of the 'Western' tradition. Young Americans are given this worldview from movies like 'Pocahontas' and various books, films, and articles shown to them in school.
In some ways, this idea of white, Christian Europeans caring for the environment less than people in non-Western cultures has its basis in fact: one need only read up on the damage done by colonial powers to the natural environment of most every place they conquered to see that the idea has some validity.
Consider that before the Europeans arrived in N. America, a squirrel could jump from tree top to tree top all the way from New York to Georgia without hitting the ground. Consider also that the average U.S. citizen consumes up to 50 times what the average 3rd-world African does in a year, and that 40% of the petroleum consumed in a year is consumed in the U.S.A. alone. Also, consider that the Christian tradition which has been the dominant religion in the West for centuries, holds that while nature is to be revered and protected, it is not fundamentally sacred and is there for man to use and exploit (hence the growing popularity of 'Earth-centered spiritual traditions like Neo-Paganism).
However, the above points notwithstanding, people make a grave error in assuming that Westerners inherently do not care about nature and the environment. While folks in non-Western cultures inherently hold the opposite view. Consider that Europeans did not significantly damage the natural environment more than other peoples until the Industrial Revolution of the 1760's. Consider also Rachel's Carson's point in "Silent Spring" that until the astounding technological developments of the late 19th and 20th centuries, man did not have the technology and industrial capacity to fundamentally alter the Planet Earth's environment as we are doing in modern times. The point is this: the fact that the U.S. and Europe consume natural resources at a faster rate than other societies is more a product of modern technology and a highly industrialized economy than an inherently callous attitude toward nature. There are undoubtedly some Americans who are happy with their gas-guzzling automobile, enormous wooden house and disposable paper cups who wouldn't change even if asked to. Still, I think that the majority of Americans (and People generally) want clean air, clean water, and conservation of natural resources. The question is, how do we balance this need for environmental activism with ever-increasing demands for material prosperity and consumer goods all over the world? When one considers that China is fast becoming the world's #1 producer of greenhouse gases, one sees that industrialism without adequate environmental planning causes problems for any society, no matter what its cultural background happens to be. This brings me to my original point: environmental issues here in Mali. I'll start off on a more philosophical level by stating that since coming to Mali, I have definitely felt 'closer to nature,' if only because I AM closer t nature here on a daily basis. The only time I need to be indoors is on a rainy or windy day; beyond that I can eat, sleep, socialize, read and prepare food for cooking outdoors. This is how Malian villagers live: 3 generations of people will share the same space, sleeping, eating, and talking outdoors unless weather forbids it. Malian huts only serve three purposes: to provide shelter from bad weather, to provide storage space and to give the adults a place to go when they want to make more children. This is just one example of how Mali connects you to nature and the outdoors: here, you are constantly surrounded by animals, mostly donkeys, sheep, cows, chickens, and Kamis (a beautiful white bird that produces really yummy eggs). Even the sounds of flies buzzing and crickets chirping and roosters crowing in the morning provide an ever-present reminder of one's natural surroundings. Buying and eating local food is fascinating since I can actually see the fields where rice and tomatoes are grown, the trees from which mangoes and cashews are picked and the chickens and Kamis whose eggs I am buying. That, and whenever I take a walk in Sheouba I am close to rows of Mango & Palm trees as well as in view of some beautiful cliffs which have ridges like Devil's tower in WY. Thus, in a Malian village, especially down South where it is more lush and verdant, it is much easier to feel the presence of plant and animal life and of the landscape around you in all that you do. In many ways, living in Sheouba is like camping all the time, day in and day out.
However, it is important not to fall into the trap of thinking that Mailan villagers necessarily care more about or are really more 'connected to' nature because of how they live. Consider: animals here are mis-treated and underfed, even in villages where people can afford to feed them well. The soil in this region has been depleted for decades by farmer who don't let the land lie allow to replenish it. Because Sikasso region has plentiful trees, some folks cut them down at will, not understanding what a precious resource they are. The streets of most villages here are littered with garbage, except for the villages which are so poor that they can't afford many products like tea, cigarettes, and other things that come in cardboard boxes and plastic bags which, ironically, makes streets littered with trash a sign of prosperity here. On the plus side, Malians do an excellent job of re-using cans and bottles, and the bottle return policy is very strictly enforced, but this is because glass and metal are so scarce that the stores can't afford NOT to reuse and conserve, not because they are really environmentalists.
Anyways, my point is essentially this: Malians on the whole consume far less than Americans, Europeans or East Asians, and thus their lifestyle has much less impact on the environment than that of industrialized societies. However the only reason I can see as to why Malians do not over consume is that as residents of the 3rd-poorest nation on Earth, they can't afford to. Furthermore, in some ways the extremely poor economic conditions cause environmental problems; for example, auto emissions is a huge problem in the cities because most cars are very outdated and the government doesn't have money to enforce regulations requiring clean cars and gasoline. However, this is not to say that I blame Malians most of whom are living hand-to-mouth on a dollar or two a day in US money for not being hardcore environmentalists. Every country has a long ways to go on this issue: after all, the USA has only had a Clean Air Act for 3 decades and I can remember being 8 or 9 and recycling for the first time.
Furthermore, there is evidence that the Peace Corps' efforts at environmental education are already succeeding. In the past few years PCV's have planted 20,000 trees, taught hundreds of farmers the science behind soil conservation and composting, and delivered countless lectures to schoolchildren on the importance of watering and caring for trees. In fact, the NRM (Natural Resource Management) sector's agroforestry program is similar to what the CCC did.