Free University of Bellingen

Lodge Cafe 241 Sunday 18 March 2012 3.00-5.00pm

The discussion at the Lodge 241 cafe was well supported and the presenter enjoyed the relaxed atmosphere of the cafe environment and the quality of questions asked.

Articles provided by Dr Joseph Reser

The power of voluntary actions

Social scientists respond to Mike Tidwell

Posted by David Roberts at 3:03 PM on 11 Sep 2007

Read more about: politics | environmental movement | green living

The following is a guest essay in response to Mike Tidwell's recent piece on Grist, "Consider using the N-word less." It is signed by a collection of social scientists, mostly psychologists. Their names are listed at the bottom.

----

We agree that institutional and policy changes are needed in addition to personal behavior changes, and that some pro-environmental behaviors being promoted aren't the ones that have the most impact. Unfortunately, Tidwell implies that voluntary behavior change and policy change are mutually exclusive options, and that the only personal behavior that matters for the environment is political action.

We strongly disagree, and we were surprised to see this argument featured so prominently in Grist, which normally supports voluntary behavior change through helpful columns such as Ask Umbra. To fight global warming, individual and institutional behavior change is needed, whether the change is produced by voluntary action or mandated by legislation.

Dismissing the importance of small personal behavior choices in favor of a sole focus on policy changes is a big mistake. Small behaviors are important not only for the direct environmental impact they have, but because they often lead to more and more pro-environmental behaviors over time. Research shows that personal action and political action to protect the environment go hand in hand, rather than undermining each other. When people do something like buy a more expensive and perhaps less aesthetically pleasing compact fluorescent lightbulb, they justify it to themselves and others. This tends to result in changes in their self-perceptions (I am a person who cares about fighting global warming), their beliefs (global warming is a really important problem), and how others see them (they really care about the environment).

The more people voluntarily engage in pro-environmental behaviors and justify it themselves and others, the more it creates social pressure to do good things for the environment. Numerous psychological studies have shown that people are more likely to agree to take a big action if they've previously agreed to smaller, similar actions. Thus, changing a light bulb may lead to higher impact behaviors like giving up plastic water bottles, insulating one's house, living closer to work, reducing meat consumption, and actively supporting legislation that will likely require personal sacrifice. When ExxonMobil hears about people changing lightbulbs and buying Priuses, they should expect public policy changes to follow.

Social and natural scientists need to work together to clarify which actions, including political action, have the most impact, and be sure to include these on the "10 things you can do" lists. Supporting policies that will require drastic changes in one's lifestyle is a difficult behavior, and will be much more likely after people have already made the choice to carry out other pro-environmental behaviors.

Another benefit of giving people an immediate, easy way to get started fighting global warming is that it may make them more willing to accept the evidence that global warming is a major problem. People reject scary messages like the danger of global warming if they don't think there is anything feasible they can do to fix it. They are understandably motivated to minimize their distress, so they'd rather be in denial than feeling anxious and helpless. In contrast to racial discrimination, where people of color are treated differently for an obvious (though unjustified) reason, global warming is not yet obvious and it is hard for people to understand.

Given this, there is plenty of room for people to reject the whole concept if they are motivated to do so. Environmental appeals need to provide more emphasis on what people can do to make a difference, not less. Too many global warming appeals -- including the otherwise excellent An Inconvenient Truth and a recent television ad showing a child about to be run over by the "freight train" of global warming -- scare the heck out of people, and only leave "what you can do" as an afterthought. Thus, "10 things you can do" may help people accept and act on the scary global warming message.

It is also important to keep in mind that restrictive policies are not without their problems. First, they're difficult to pass if the electorate isn't already convinced of the magnitude and urgency of the problem. Witness the massive unpopularity of carbon taxes. Second, restrictive policies engender resentment and actions to restore threatened freedoms, such as ditching the policies themselves or creative disobedience. Witness efforts to dismantle the Endangered Species Act, and the creative efforts to skirt its requirements. Third, high impact policy ideas often get watered down in the political process, so the resulting policy isn't nearly as effective as the original idea. For example, CAFE standards can help -- but only if they're high enough.

Finally, being forced to do something by an authority often undermines other reasons why people engage in pro-environmental behaviors. For example, if a person starts biking to work to reduce their carbon footprint and enjoy the exercise, but then a law tells them they can't drive, they may start thinking that they only bike because of the law. This can be bad if the restrictive policy ever goes away -- so does the desired behavior. Policy changes will be necessary due to the magnitude of the problem, but these policies should be carefully crafted so that they produce the pro-environmental behavior change that lasts.

The history of racial policy and WWII demonstrate the importance of both policy and voluntary actions. Much public debate and many small individual actions transpired to make racial discrimination less and less socially acceptable in the century and a half before LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. Try telling descendents of those rescued by the underground railroad that it didn't matter. Even in the more urgent crisis of WWII, in addition to the mandatory policies, mass persuasion campaigns encouraged voluntary actions. Politicians realized they needed public support for the war effort, and for legislation. Remember the "We can do it!" poster encouraging women to join the labor force? The victory gardens? Voluntary actions provided direct physical support, strengthened the norm of supporting the war effort, and boosted morale. Both voluntary action and policy changes were crucial to winning the war.

Finally, if articles such as Tidwell's tell people their actions don't matter, they may undermine any action to fight global warming at all, including political action. Immediate, small steps toward sustainability are surely better than no steps at all. And hypocrisy also gives ammunition to opponents of environmental legislation -- many may ask, why should I support a law asking me to sacrifice when those hypocritical environmentalists aren't even walking the walk? De-emphasizing personal actions may make us feel better -- "fixing the problem is the politicians' job, not ours" -- but it is delusion. To fight global warming in a democracy, we must do everything we can as individuals, including changing our lifestyles to reduce their impact on the environment and working for better policies. Policy is but one tool for producing the behavior change needed to halt global warming. Given the magnitude of the problem, all tools are needed.

Amara Brook, Ph.D., Santa Clara University

Susan Clayton, Ph.D., The College of Wooster

Gene Myers, Ph.D., Western Washington University

Joseph Reser, Ph.D., University of Durham, UK; Griffith University, Australia; James Cook University, Australia

Marte Fallshore, Ph.D., Central Washington University

Peter Kahn, Ph.D., University of Washington

John Scull, Ph.D., Cowichan Community Land Trust

Carol Saunders, Ph.D., Chicago Zoological Society

Christie Manning, Ph.D., University of St. Thomas

Joe Heimlich, Ph.D., The Ohio State University

Lance Olsen, Independent

Elise L. Amel, Ph.D., University of St. Thomas

Emily Chan, Ph.D., Colorado College

Kathleen L. Wolf, Ph.D ., University of Washington

Laura Johnson, Ph.D., University of Mississippi

Susan Johnson, Ph.D., University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Scott Finlinson, Ph.D., NORESCO

John Thøgersen, Ph.D, Dr. Merc., University of Aarhus, Denmark

Stephen Zavestoski, Ph.D., University of San Francisco

Kate Irvine, Ph.D., De Montfort University, UK

Gareth Davey, Ph.D., University of Chester, UK

Sarah M. Bexell, Ph.D., Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding, China

John Fraser, AIA, Wildlife Conservation Society Institute

Ethel Tobach, Ph.D., American Museum of Natural History

Kathryn Ross Wayne, Ph.D., Western Washington University

Peter Alexander, M.S., Biodiversity Project

Michelle Verges, Ph.D., Indiana University

For story: The power of voluntary actions

18 Comments | Post a Comment

Cognitive dissonance?

Isn't it an example of cognitive dissonance when a huge crisis is presented in all its glory -- for instance, global warming -- and one of the central solutions is to change a light bulb? I am not arguing about the benefits of small steps, but let me give you another example. Recently I took my children to see the movie "Arctic Tale", a very effective tear-jerker about polar bears and walruses (well, it was for me, anyway), and at the end of the movie some cute kids are talking about CFLs. Now, in a movie such as Arctic Tale, or Inconvienient Truth, for that matter, you've just gotten your audience to experience a deep, visceral (hopefully) feeling, maybe an epiphany. And yet there is nowhere positive for this to go. I've personally tried to present a positive vision of solutions.

But I can't do it alone. Wouldn't it help if there was a national organization that people could turn to that was advocating something that seems, well, utopian? Even if it wasn't presently politically practical, at least the solutions would rise to the level of the problem. What is wrong with advocating a world without fossil fuels, and a path to get there? Maybe such a path would not even include cars, or at least not big, fast, long-range ones.

Which leads to the next problem, which is that I fear that many activists are afraid that if they propose something too "outlandish", nobody will pay any attention. I am not saying that the entire environmental movement should "go utopian", but look at the work of the social scientist Paul Goodman or more recently, the social scientist Anthony Giddens, who suggests a "utopian realism": (from Wikipedia):

define[d] as envisaging "alternative futures whose very propagation might help them be realised". (The Consequences of Modernity). By 'utopian' he means that this is something new and extraordinary, and by 'realistic' he stresses that this idea is rooted in the existing social processes and can be viewed as their simple extrapolation. Such a future has at its centre a more socialized, demilitarised and planetary-caring global world order variously articulated within green, women's and peace movements, and within the wider democratic movement

Without a positive, long-term vision of the future, in addition to the smaller steps argued for above, we are likely to see only the trees, not the forest (assuming it hasn't been cut down or burned)

-- Jon Rynn, Ph.D.

by Jon Rynn at 3:52 PM on 11 Sep 2007

Phhht.

Not impressed. A psychologist who probably specializes in environmental issues decides to write a rebuttal. To give it an air of overarching legitimacy, she routes it to a bunch of other psychologists for review, asking them to add their name to the list.

Personally, I don't care for the tactic. It reminds me of my childhood in a ghetto where half a dozen kids would gang up on another. If you don't have the wherewithal to write your own piece and stand to defend it on its merits (sans letters after your name), maybe you shouldn't have written the piece. Unlike politics, science is not a majority rule game. Much of what I was taught in college in my anthropology and psychology classes, which at the time was widely accepted, has been overturned with time, and that was long after the Oedipus complex was debunked. E.O Wilson still talks about the time a student dumped ice water on his head at a lecture because her professors had labeled sociobiology as sexist and racist.

So, each of you, take you Ph.D status symbol and put it under a couch cushion for now. I know a number of psychologists with Ph.Ds. They are very, very ordinary people.

"...we were surprised to see this argument featured so prominently in Grist, which normally supports voluntary behavior change through helpful columns such as Ask Umbra."

I've got news for you. Grist isn't a church. At present, Grist is the only place on the Internet to come and debate all issues environmental. It is Grist's strongest suit. As such, it has made a remarkable impact. You can see the impact in what others write and in changing attitudes all over: "no less meat consumption".

You are welcome, as is everyone else, to come and debate but in my opinion, your attempts to gain the moral high ground by chastising Grist for what is essentially its open mindedness, backed by 22 signatures from twenty-something other psychologists isn't of the quality I've grown accustomed to here.

I'm not supporting Tidwell's argument in total. A call for draconian measures would very likely spiral into economic chaos and social upheaval. On the other hand, I agree that the "ten things you can do to save the planet lists", which have been around for over three decades now, are the focus of a lot of ridicule, and obviously have not done jack. Anyone wanting to wear the environmentalist label today is forced to rub elbows with the short cold shower enthusiasts, self-righteous vegan pseudo religionists and animal activist nutjobs, among others.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 6:45 PM on 11 Sep 2007

Here's One for All The Ladies...

Why is it that Enviros can't use the same tried and true techniques of advertising to sell their soap (um, awareness): S-E-X

Project:

Get all the smoking hot chicks between 16 and 23 to sign a petition which reads:

I will like totally not have sex with any dude that drives a vehicle which gets less than 38 mph. No way. Guzzling Gas is like something my dad would do. Gross!

Guys will be crawling over each other to trade in their Hum-Vees for a Aveo.

John Bailo

Sutext:

by jabailo at 6:51 PM on 11 Sep 2007

Ugh,

That post just dragged the average down a few notches.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 6:58 PM on 11 Sep 2007

Right on, BioD (about the post)

by Jon Rynn at 7:01 PM on 11 Sep 2007

[ Parent ]

Hear hear, BioD (& Jon)

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

by spaceshaper at 7:17 PM on 11 Sep 2007

communities

Both voluntary action and policy changes were crucial to winning the war.

I generally side with what you're saying--I think small things snowball. But there's still an immense gap to cross, and it's unclear how to do it, and I think we're not even totally comfortable with the language about how to talk about what we need to do.

I've been pushing "Habits of the Heart" everywhere I can recently, and I think it's particularly useful here. The problem with voluntary action isn't that it isn't useful, it's that we mostly think of it as individual action, and that's where it's limiting. Comparing now with World War II's voluntarism is illuminating, I think. I imagine the World War II effort as being much more broadly supported by the national community than global warming action currently is (except in pockets), not least because it had the support of government propagandists (possibly, probably, enabled by national support for the war effort).

I look around today, and I see lots of efforts to cohere a movement, but nothing gaining traction like it needs to. We need to make the jump to both broad policies and community standards.

by claxton6 at 7:31 PM on 11 Sep 2007

Us vs. Them

Red vs. Blue, Black vs. White, Rich vs. Poor, Men vs. Women..... Cat-People vs. Dog-People.

I guess it is human nature but it is disappointing to continually see this bickering amongst ourselves. Is there really an argument here? I see nothing wrong with CFLs. Yes - the constant chipper lists (even on Grist) are annoying but are they actually dangerous? Perhaps it was a chipper list, or a number of chipper lists, that led me here, to a greater understanding of the problems we face. I honestly do not remember, but likely a great combination of media exposure, life experience, character traits and pure chance led me here.

I do not know a single person who thinks that CFLs will save the world. I do believe that radical, political change is necessary to save our world. I think nearly everyone reading this site would agree on these two things. So wherein lies the argument? Must we bicker amongst ourselves about things that are essentially meaningless? Can we not applaud CFLs while still maintaining that so much more must be done? Do we chastise small children for learning their ABCs because they don't yet understand quantum physics?

We need both. Wiser voices than mine have said as much in this thread (not quite as angrily, to my shame).

Kaela

by kmp at 8:08 PM on 11 Sep 2007

Rubbing elbows...

BioD,

I'd agree psychologists are pretty ordinary. Though I did meet one once who had a tatoo!

Hey, you don't think they're doing an experiment on us right now, do you?

by Colin Wright at 10:57 PM on 11 Sep 2007

What's really exciting and cool

I think Jon's right on in trying to shift the focus to a positive view of solutions. Go back and read the discussion he links to.

What is it in all the cacaphony about climate change that is most exciting and positive? How are we going to excite the kids? Not by just telling them to go home and change the light bulbs (though yes, we should all do that, and I've done that at my home).

What's going to excite the kids and get them off their butts is big ideas, very cool ideas that are achievable. That you can wrap your mind around, put on a bumper sticker, and lobby for locally, statewide, and nationally.

CLEAN ENERGY.

(Hey there's a bumper sticker I'd buy -- "It's Clean Energy, Stupid"...)

It's a vision of wind farms juxtaposed against photos of West Virginia mountaintops and spewing smokestacks.

It's also FUEL FROM HERE, NOT FROM THE MIDDLE EAST.

(That's why Joe Schmo likes biofuels, and one reason the kids love biodiesel and veggie oil (despite all the issues, ably discussed elsewhere on Grist, and which I don't want to get off on here).

So let's get off our butts and push those memes. Because the logical conclusions from them is people being convinced to push for renewable portfolio standards, which is already happening in many states (and, hopefully, Congress), and carbon taxes or carbon trading.

by GreenMom at 6:29 AM on 12 Sep 2007

Agreed, GreenMom

I reread Jon's piece and tend to agree.

"How are we going to excite the kids? Not by just telling them to go home and change the light bulbs"... or take short cold showers.

The kids driving biodiesel cars are trying their best to be cool, as are the adults driving Priuses. The anonymous author above bases her arguments on the assumption that sacrifice will be required:

...why should I support a law asking me to sacrifice when those hypocritical environmentalists aren't even walking the walk...

Sacrifice is relative. It is largely a state of mind. A young woman on a thread last week was telling us that (in her peer group) it is "cool" to be vegan. Contrary to appearances, a monk performing self-flagellation isn't making a sacrifice. He's getting his jollies, as is the dedicated enviro taking a short shower, riding a bike. Switching from a 15 MPG Cherokee to a Prius isn't a sacrifice, it is a leap from an outdated status symbol to a new one. The thing one must try to keep in mind is that we all live inside different peer groups. This propensity is dictated by our genes. Christianity has splintered into over 2,400 sects.

There are many many subcultures and niches in human societies that provide a place to gravitate to, peer groups where we can compete. A vegan diet works in one peer group but not in all. Same for a Prius, solar power, a small home, urban living, bike and telecommuting, riding mass transit...

In a nutshell we need many more environmentally benign options with which to compete and differentiate ourselves with and we need wise governance to unleash the free market profit motive monster on carbon.

The above author is parroting a moldy mantra from the 70's: sacrifice. It has had three decades to prove itself. It is a dead end strategy. We knew three decades ago that we would one day run out of oil and that we were destroying the biosphere.

The new strategy is to make environmental benigness cool. To do that we need to spread the meme, as GreenMom suggests, and provide ways to express one's coolness in ways others can see because visibility is as much of a requirement for a human status symbol as it is for a peacock's (short showers don't meet that criteria).

One problem that has popped up is greenwashing. People are grabbing what they have been led to believe are environmentally benign status symbols--flex fuel SUVs being a good example. A big part of our job now is to ferret out through debate on this wonderful tool called the Internet, via blogs, those deceptions as they appear.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 8:47 AM on 12 Sep 2007

Less money to bad industries

My take on Tidwell's original posting wasn't that personal behavior wasn't important, just that political action deserved more attention. I agree that debating between the two is silly, both are needed. I do think there is a problem of too many people focusing on lifestyle as of late, in part because lots of people have an aversion to anything political. But even if you normally hate politics, everybody who cares about the environment should suck it up and start calling and emailing your legislators about environmental issues.

One benefit not really discussed of more people working to reduce their personal consumption means that these environmentally destructive industries- the oil industry, meat industry, mining industry, car industry, etc- has less of our money to use to lobby against political reforms.

by amc89 at 8:54 AM on 12 Sep 2007

Volunteering

I know Mike Tidwell has done a lot in the past 20 years, but I will always associate him with his beautifully written memoir of his Peace Corps service. The former Peace Corps volunteers I know say that while their service did very little concretely to solve the problem of world poverty, it made them advocates for the developing world for the rest of their lives.

That is the kind of voluntary action we should be promoting - not just actions that change people's self-image ("I am an environmentalist" just like "I am a hipster" or "I am the kind of person who listens to alt-country") but actions that bring them into contact with the reality of environmental damage. While unlike poverty, climate change is very hard to see (unless you burn thousands of gallons of jet fuel traveling to Alaska or the Maldives) I believe that concern about all environmental issues does tend to go together.

Adding "volunteer" to the list of 10 things you can do - whether that is to help clean up a stream, replant a forest, or beautify a neighborhood filled with toxic industries - could have a relatively small short-term impact, but change people's lives.

by eriqa at 11:56 AM on 12 Sep 2007

Who drives the changes?

"Small behaviors are important not only for the direct environmental impact they have, but because they often lead to more and more pro-environmental behaviors over time."

Only IF those who display the small positive behaviors get educated and are constantly aware that what they do is not enough. Unfortunately that is not the case often. On the contrary, it seems that as long as profits can be made with small behavior changes (by selling skin-deep "green" products and services to a happy-to-comply, guilt-ridden society) they will be supported by those who make the profits and who (at the same time) are not willing to support big changes because they are not profitable. Over- consumption cannot be solved with continued consumption.

Nice title collection. To bad it does not matter who says it - it matters what is said.

Karsten PolluteLessDotCom

by PolluteLessDotCom at 12:08 PM on 12 Sep 2007

Agree with the psychologists

I think the psychologists are correct, both in terms of psychological theory and in my own experience.

When people perform a small action, they begin to have part of their ego invested in change. Over time, they develop ideas that provide support for that behavior. For example, 30 years my grandmother defied the neighbors by planting her front lawn with vegetables. She got me involved by working on the compost pile. At the time, I just thought it was fun. But over the years, I've developed a philosophy and set of commitments consonant with that initial action.

Religions understand this. "Perform the action, and belief will come." They emphasize the repetition of small acts, knowing that this builds a pattern of behavior and belief.

Salesmen and propagandists understand it too. You get your audience to perform an action ("Squeeze the Charmin and see how soft it feels.") and you are on your way to convincing them.

It's just human nature, and these techniques can be used for good or ill.

Personally I'm exasperated with lists of 10 Green Things That Will Change the World, and I'm turned off by green consumerism. However, I try to keep my mouth shut, because I know that in the long run, it's a vital first step.

Bart

Energy Bulletin

by Bart Anderson at 1:31 PM on 12 Sep 2007

I hate to say it, but Bailo has a point...

It seems to me that a very salient point has been omitted from most posts apart from (and I really hate to say this) JBailo´s, and that is that for better or for worse we live in a very shallow world deeply influenced by the triumph of capitalism and emphasis on the individual. The average human today is trained to stop paying attention after :30 seconds with respect to visual and auditory messages and at most one paragraph with reading. The best way to capture people´s attention for those short time spans are: 1. (as Bailo hinted at) the insinuation that by "purchasing a particular product or making a certain lifestlye change" you will get lots of hot and steamy SEX, and 2. that by "" you will get lots and lots of stinky green MONEY. The VAST majority of us spend more time thinking about how to get more sex and money than we will ever spend considering the threat of nuclear annihilation, dwindling water and oil supplies, or global warming COMBINED. Religion might come somewhere in between the camps of self gratification and the consideration of long term threats to self gratification, but as often as not with religious moralization we become even more consumed by self centered toughts. That is to say religion typically fails at its general goal of stopping people from being so damned evil. What really gets me about the response from the social "scientists" to Tidwell´s piece is that they are so attached to the idea that people are capable of changing for the better and that small personal changes can affect the larger framework of money and power that govern the overarching business, political, and religious structures upon which our macro-societies are based. What gets me about Tidwell´s piece is that he implies that getting people to call a representative will do any more good than buying "green."

People are lazy, ignorant, and pretty much terribly self-centered assholes generally. People typically by a certain good or do certain actions in order to benefit themselves, and the most gratifying things for the vast majority of people are money and sex (and religion, but that´s too loaded of an issue to get into here). Remember when the Vatican issued the 10 driving commandments? Let´s take the 5th driving commandment which reads: Cars shall not be for you an expression of power and domination, and an occasion of sin.

Silly Vatican, one of the first purposes of automobiles after driving was as a shelter in which to commit the ORIGINAL sin. And as long as stupid 18 year old girls still go silly dumb for a guy driving anything that looks remotely cool and badass, then dudes with nice cars are going to continue to get lots of stupid 18 year old girls to take a ride with them (Grist hiring staff please take note of the richness of that pun).

We as a society cannot begin to start seriously tackling the problems facing us until we make them more relevant to the average joe and by positioning it such that he really believes that by making a change he will be benefitting himself monetarily and with the ladies. It is impossible to do this by moralizing the issue, because the average joe when confronted with a feel bad issue like the extinction of polar bears will say "aw that´s too bad" then flip the channel to see Paris Hilton saying "yeah, um, like, we´re here tonight, to like, save polar bears, or stop polluting, or something (cue ditzy and vapid and slightly terrifying/slightly sexy smile toward the camera)" and say to himself "I can dig that kind of environmental protection!" while turning back to his polar bear steak dinner. I´m not saying we should bring global warming into the gutter by placing ads on tv juxtaposing a bunch of cheerleaders making frowny faces :( with a hummer. But you know, maybe we should...I was going to say that we should first address the underlying sickness of our society, but then I remembered that our society is sick because humans are sick, so there is no cure. So sure man, let´s hose down a bunch of cute barely legal teens in bikinis and have them hug polar bears while frowning at pictures of the heads of coal fired power plants, Let´s give Dennis Kucinich some breast implants and a queer eye make over (is queer eye already not cool anymore), or spray dioxin on Fred Thompson´s face so he becomes as ugly as Viktor Yuschenko...it´s worth a shot and the worst case scenario is...well, we´ll fry to death knowing that we tried all options short of firing ze missiles.

It´s about the bling bling y´all...you explain that going green equals making green, then, well, we might actually manage to change something

by regularolyogamatt at 2:20 PM on 12 Sep 2007

You have to want it.

The way I see it, the problem isn't going away until society, global and local, decide that it isn't about buying one thing to offset another, a quick fix to sweep it all under the carpet, or keeping up with the earth-friendly Joneses by buying Organic or a bio-diesel car. Corporations, businesses, governments, and individuals alike need to be held tangibly accountable. This isn't a problem that is going to just "go away" by good faith, nor is it a problem that is going to be held at bay by a few clever green washing tactics.

People are going to have to make some serious changes, and I agree more and more that doing things on the micro level isn't going to make a true difference. Asking for global change through people who can make change...is the only way anything will really move in a new direction. People have to 'really' want it and convince their representatives to want it. Even with all the talk about environmental progress and change, it is still a trendy thought. Our long-term societal solution isn't concerned with polluting and saving polar bears...it is concerned with the all mighty dollar.

Just look at China. There is a country that has developed rapidly economically, but didn't have the foresight to manage the waste that has come of such growth. Respiratory and heart diseases related to air pollution are now the leading cause of death in China. Acid rain falls on 30% of the country. So they know the consequences of what they are doing, but have they halted all harmful activity? Have we stopped driving our cars to work or buying cheap products that drive such an economy? No.

China surpassed the United States as the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide, putting out 6,200 million tons, to America's 5,800 million. I did some research and from what I've come to understand we are going to have to cut that at least 25% by 2050, and 75% by 2100 (even though they've been steadily increasing by 2% every year). I'm horrible at math...but it doesn't take much to figure out that we are already in some serious trouble.

Listen to what people say and do around you. That really speaks to the reality of the situation. You might find your observations, even in such a progressive place like Seattle to be a little disheartening.

Today I listened to a conversation between two women talking about the necessity of two refrigerators in one house, their latest cheap fashion finds, and one woman's excitement over a recent SUV purchase. I might add I was listening to all this while I was standing in a cafe with my non-recyclable coffee cup and prepackaged breakfast cookie. We might do little things here and there...or be recycling Nazis, but we are all guilty of being apart of the problem because we are imbedded deep within a society who thrives off of dollar signs.

The cultural idea of having "stuff and status" is still strong. We are all guilty of wanting things, of having things, of wasting things. Society isn't going to change unless the only option is to do just that.

by beccabee205 at 11:32 AM on 13 Sep 2007

Ignorance

I think both sides are right. On one hand, people have to start doing things on their own and start being part of the solution and not the problem.

On the other hand there is so much information going around and the average person may not see the difference between unplugging their cellphone charger and lowering the thermostat on the airconditioner when they're not home. Or that a domestic solar heater can save them as much electricity as changing anywhere from 50 to 150 bulbs to fluorescent (whithout sacrificing comfort at all)

Unfortunatelly most people feel they have done their part say if they recycle and buy food whithout hormones or antibiotics. The problems we face are so complex that it's mind bogling and many people become turned off when they hear Global Warming or Enviromentally Friendly. Some are starting to think it's all BS created to sell products or for political purposes (although there are always people that use turmoil to their advantage). Don't get me wrong, if it weren't for some of these people we wouldn't have new products and policies to fix our problems.

It would be interesting if somebody could put out some sort of chart (havent seen one yet)to compare actions and their costs, against benefits or savings. Maybe separated by categories.