How do you solve a problem like…?
Early on I established that my position with respect to scaling down was not that I thought it was hip, the next big thing in architectural fashion but, that we would have no choice in the matter.
Last week’s post generated a bit of discussion and I’d like to push it along. When it comes to the environment most people will agree that we should stop damaging it. Sounds so simple, just stop damaging the environment. Well what can you do to stop damaging the environment? As an individual, unless your home consumes electricity like Al Gore ’s or water like Lance Armstrong ’s, your personal sacrifices don’t mean much in the grand scheme of things. Sorry.
I recently finished reading "What We Leave Behind " by Derrick Jensen and Aric McBay. This book is full of fun facts (It’s also very disturbing and leaves you kind of sick with guilt.) Here’s one, the authors cite an EPA study that estimates municipal solid waste in the United States to average 1660 pounds per person. That multiplied by 300 million people is 249 million tons. Sounds like a lot right? Sure but, the same study puts annual industrial waste production at 7.6 billion tons or about 30.5 times all the household trash. When it comes to garbage, home owners are dwarfed by industrial trash production. Industrial energy consumption? Forget about it.
One of last week’s comments suggested that the government should stop subsidizing energy and pass the real cost (environmental and actual) on to consumers. My first reaction to this comment was "how do you recoup the environmental cost?" Dollars can’t fix habitat, beavers and birds aren’t suing for damages and compensation. Once we wreck a forest or a river the only fix is to stop the damaging activity and allow nature to bring it back into balance. I guess some dollars could go to clean-up and remediation costs but, the simpler solution is to not damage habitat in the first place.
That’s where it get’s sticky. If we stop damaging the environment we damage our culture (although I think much of our culture could use a good thrashing) and our society. If we stop cutting down trees, where will paper and construction material come from? If we don’t mine the earth where will we get gold and rare-earth metals and oil from? We need that stuff!
But we will have renewable power and lithium battery cars is the new mantra. You need oil and rare-earth metals to make the hardware required to harness, store and use "renewable" energy. (True renewable power - not everyone thinks it likely - here’s some of the broad-strokes .) Lithium batteries? If you think the tar-sands are messy what do you suppose this will look like strip-mined?
How do you stop damaging the environment without damaging our society? We can do things that use up less of our natural resources. Slowing the damage will not stop climate change or habitat degradation - we’ll still be doing damage - just slower. What about the damage done? Unless we stop doing damage there is no way the earth can heal itself. So, what do we do?
Nobody wants to see others go without and nobody wants to go without themselves. That’s the bitch of the bunch really. We’re willing to make the little sacrifices - reusable shopping bags, CFL’s, e-bikes - but how many of us would turn off the power to our homes? How many of us would park our car, forever? Could we do these things voluntarily? Sure. Do people do these things? Sure. Would you?
When I wrote about my problem with the big problem this is where I ended up. Stuck.
Scaling down is absolutely the first step and we can do it in an organized way. But, it needs to be aggressive and across-the-board. No exceptions. Then we have to keep scaling down and down and down. I’m no eco-warrior. I want to live a "normal life" and go along with the flow. I don’t want to sacrifice. I want to be comfortable.
As I’ve said before - my problem is that I have become aware of "The Problem".
"A gram is better than a damn."
"Sombody pass the soma ."
Post Feedback
Although Green is the new Black for many, some of us have been worrying about the destruction of the environment most of our lives. A friend made this comment to me about 15 years ago when describing the our difficulty in making the changes - “this is a tragedy, not a crime” by which he meant, there is no one to blame except evolution. That doesn’t, however, let us off the hook.
By ‘blaming evolution’, we mean that humans have found our “metaphorical New Zealand”. When rats were introduced to New Zealand, they destroyed many species of small flightless birds through no “fault” but rather because they were natural prey for the rats and the rats had no natural predators and were therefore able to have a population explosion not dissimilar to humans once we were able to harness the environment through agriculture.
So, trying to solve the problem means turning back every natural instinct of expansion that we are hardwired to have. It’s not impossible, but it is actually as big a philosophical question as it is an engineering question, if not bigger. Maybe it even means considering what the next step in human evolution is or ought to be rather than assuming we can preserve our culture through recycling our pop cans.
From Wikipedia:
Willful blindness (sometimes called willful ignorance or contrived ignorance) is a term used in law to describe a situation in which an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable. For example, in a number of cases, persons transporting packages containing illegal drugs have asserted that they never asked what the contents of the packages were, and therefore lacked the requisite intent to break the law. Such defenses have not succeeded, as courts have been quick to determine that the defendant should have known what was in the package, and exercised criminal recklessness by failing to find out before delivering it.[citation needed]
I think this legal concept can be used to describe our collective ignorance. In our society we are led from the top down in a manner that successively decreases culpability. Since the highest levels of government and business do not place the earth at the highest priority each lower leadership level reduces its importance to the point where the average person can not conceive that their world and their life and their choices have any connection to the wellness of the earth.
James … you are 100% right about the problem … and being stuck … the thing to remember is that it’s still worth it to leave the lightest footprint you can. (yes, as I sit here wasting electricity on my computer made of a multitude of toxins!!!). Someday when we’re old and gray we can hopefully find comfort in knowing that we fought for a better world and that each of us personally gave our future generations a better chance. Sounds cheesy but you gotta believe!!
One of last week’s comments suggested that the government should stop subsidizing energy and pass the real cost (environmental and actual) on to consumers. My first reaction to this comment was “how do you recoup the environmental cost?” Dollars can’t fix habitat, beavers and birds aren’t suing for damages and compensation. Once we wreck a forest or a river the only fix is to stop the damaging activity and allow nature to bring it back into balance. I guess some dollars could go to clean-up and remediation costs but, the simpler solution is to not damage habitat in the first place.
______________________________
…”Not to damage the habitat in the first place.”
That was my overall point, James. Consumers must change their behaviours.
And the damage created must be repaired which requires funds to do so - or wait a few decades for nature to do it. But toxic cleanup, brownfield remidiation all require funds.
“Nobody wants to see others go without and nobody wants to go without themselves. That’s the bitch of the bunch really. We’re willing to make the little sacrifices - reusable shopping bags, CFL’s, e-bikes - but how many of us would turn off the power to our homes?”
Exactly - that was the point made and demonstrated by those who responded to my comment.
Would I go without power? Nope. Would I choose alternative power sources if it were cheaper and more accessible? Yup.
Am I willing to pay MORE for eco-friendly goods? Nope.
We’ve got it bassackwards in North America.
We’re punished financially for conserving or going green and rewarded by maintaining the status quo.
Right. The TRUE costs of our consumption are almost never fully recognized. At least not in actual dollar costs. Your comments remind me of a book called Natural Capitalism (link below).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Capitalism
Basically, the premise is that if we account for all costs (including environmental) when valuing goods or services, the more sustainable or eco-friendly opetions are actually cheaper.
For those interested, Natural Capitalism is available at the Leddy Libary
Windsor SystemPrint Call Numbers for this library
Leddy LibraryPrint Call Numbers for this library HC106.82 .H39 2000 Leddy: Book Collection (circulating) - Main Bldng
Except I’m getting it first
Chris, you say that consumers must change their behaviors. Then you say that you (as a consumer) are not going to chose to pay more for eco-friendly goods.
BP says that when all costs are factored in the eco-friendly choice has the most value.
Zellers says “the lowest price is the law”.
Changing how products are produced and sold to a more sustainable model based on an individual’s spending habits will not make a significant difference fast enough. Change must come from the top down. World governments must take responsibility for ALL people and lead by example and law. Environmental laws must be universal and ALL countries and corporations must make changes.
It’s not about choice, it’s not about freedom, it is about our inalienable right to survive.
If you haven’t checked it out yet, the Health Unit Population Report for Windsor Essex has been released and it is very interesting.
Regarding this topic, the stats on the number of people who drive to work alone in their cars is almost 90%.
here is the link. http://www.wechealthunit.org/healthy-living/news/2009-windsor-essex-county-population-report-now-available
Thanks Margaret, this will come in handy.
$62 billion - “hidden” environmental cost of burning coal
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=askBI3llM0Lo
James -
A selective citation of my overall point, misses the point, and misrepresents the point I was demonstrating.
Few consumers are not willingly going to choose the most expensive in the current market place unless there is a personal reward; or more a choice that satisfies their self-interest.
Thus, the point I’m making, is that consumers must be encouraged - through the most basic of mechanisms - relative financial gain or punishment.
It is no different than that of the tobacco tax. By increasing taxes on tobacco, the government has a created an incentive to cease smoking - financial punishment. (Although it has developed a very lucrative black market).
With energy, it is, shall we say, a little more different to create a black market. One can’t really build a power plant on the down low.
I maintain the most effective way (which has been my point all along, since you have acknowledged that even though I know the “costs” I’m not willing to sacrifice self-interest of personal financial stability) is to tax the crap out of goods and services that bring harm; or conversely, vis-a-vis tax credits or removal of GST or some other permisable measure; make “good” or “healthy” choices more affordable.
Individuals still have the “choice” - removal of choice is a red-herring.
The choice made has certain costs and opportunities. Nothing is preventing an individual from purchasing, for example, a 1,000 calorie greasy burger or a 250 calorie veggie burger. Even if the greasy burger costs $10.00 and the veggie burger costs $1.00.
You still have a choice and by paying the more expensive price, you are accepting that this choice has consequences and you’re going to pay for it.
You’re right in that it doesn’t stop behaviours that are damaging, but to do otherwise infringes upon the concept of “choice”.
James, you also write:
“Changing how products are produced and sold to a more sustainable model based on an individual’s spending habits will not make a significant difference fast enough. Change must come from the top down. World governments must take responsibility for ALL people and lead by example and law. Environmental laws must be universal and ALL countries and corporations must make changes.”
Good luck with that, and if you believe this will be faster than a consumer based approach, well, I point only to Kyoto as an example.
Top down is rather dictatorial.
What you are proposing, albeit an option, would be hugely disruptive to the global economy in my opinion because you will NOT see 100% participation. You’d be lucky to see 60% participation.
And without 100% participation, it will fail. Kinda like the US’s protestations over Kyoto. If certain countries are exempt, that presents an unfair advantage against the US and penalizes US citizens and rewards China.
It’s all well and good that so and so MUST and SHALL make changes, but what if they don’t? Central planning failed for many reasons.
Now we’re getting into enforcement and the various shapes and forms it would take.
Consumer behaviour elicits a response from the market.
Modify consumer behaviour through various means, and the market will respond rather quickly.
Thanks BP for the link - I’m going to find this book at the UWindsor library. It looks like a very interesting read.
From the summary you presented, it seems to suggest, that a market based approach to a market based problem, is an appropriate response.
Thanks again.