I don’t consider myself an environmentalist, per se, but I do think that protecting the environment is important. We shouldn’t litter. We shouldn’t dump trash where it doesn’t belong. We shouldn’t waste our natural resources. We shouldn’t recklessly endanger plants and wildlife. We shouldn’t intentionally try to corrupt the balance of nature.

I think those are fairly universal beliefs. I don’t know too many people who advocate dumping trash into the Colorado River. I don’t know too many people who think it’s OK to pollute the air we breathe with toxins any more than absolutely necessary.

Where the line is drawn, though, is what cost we are willing to pay for a cleaner Earth. How much does it cost to “go green?” How much effort does it require to be more eco-friendly? I’m as guilty as anyone at using the cost or effort rationale.

We all are consumers or natural resources, from the food we eat to the fuel to power the cars we drive and the electricity we use to the materials needed for the houses we live in, the furniture we own ... almost everything is consumer-based and consumption-driven.

Finding better, more efficient ways to produce and consume should be a goal. But whose goal? How much thought do most of us give to how an item was made when we are purchasing it? Are we willing to pay more for an eco-friendly product than for a similar not-so-eco-friendly product? Do we even think about it?

That’s why Earth Day was created, to give us cause to stop and think and act, if only for a day. It was hoped that one day’s thinking might beget a second day, then a third. It was a noble idea that has paid off in many regards since its inception 40 years ago.

Been to Los Angeles — or any big city — lately?

The first time I visited L.A. was in the early 1970s. My brother lived in Pasadena. We were there three days before I actually saw the nearby San Gabriel Mountains. They’d been obscured by smog the previous two days. Smog, while still an issue in big cities, isn’t as big an issue because of measures to reduce it, from pollutants being released by industries to emissions from automobiles.

Many waterways, once deemed too filthy for human use (swimming, fishing and in some cases even boating) have been cleaned up and reclaimed by society.

We’ve changed how landfills are used. Recycling programs are in place in many locales, reducing the volume of metal, plastics and paper thrown away. We still live in a disposable society but, in some areas, we aren’t disposing as much as we did a few years ago.

More products are biodegradable now, in nearly every industry.

It’s come at a cost, though. Some argue the U.S. has lost many industries and with it jobs because of environmental requirements: Many factories have been moved to countries where pollution regulations aren’t as stringent. Those countries, namely China, Mexico and India, are starting to see many of the some environmental problems the U.S. endured 40 years ago. The arguments, which do have some logic to them, are that (1) environmental regulations may have cleaned up the U.S. but its been by driving business elsewhere and (2) until those countries adopt some form of similar environmental regulations, the U.S. may be cleaner but the Earth will not be.

The cause/effect of environmental regulation is certainly subject for debate. Is there a better balance out there somewhere, one in which we have a cleaner environment without simply shipping industries, jobs and pollution elsewhere?

That is probably where the debate needs to be. Instead, a lot of people are getting caught up in the “climate change” debate. Some argue that man is forcing climate change (or global warming, or whatever you want to call it) while others point out that the Earth’s history is full of instances of climate change, from the Ice Age to the Jurassic Age to today.

Climate change is inevitable, with or without man’s influence. But to think that man’s influence has had no effect on the environment is just ludicrous. Environment and climate change are not synonymous. It’s not the same argument, though many people try to make it just that.

There always will be things we cannot control, like volcanoes, earthquakes and other natural phenomena like climate change. But the point of Earth Day was not to try to control those things but to control the things we can. Don’t litter, plant a tree to replace one cut down, be more efficient with both our production and consumption and be aware that what you do — or don’t do — does have an effect on the world around you.