Interesting piece on how to get folks to make choices that are better for the environment:
A new study funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) says that ethical consumption is most likely to happen when it is approached as a political or societal goal rather than encouraging individual changes in lifestyle.
. . .
The research findings present a clear message says Dr Barnett: "If ethical consumption campaigns are to succeed they need to transform the infrastructures of every day consumption rather than focusing on changing individual consumer behaviour."
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 4:26 pm
07 Aug 2007
That whole post is worth quoting. Here's another chunk:A great deal of the consumption people do is not 'consumers' exercising 'choice'. Lots of consumption is embedded in relationships of obligation where people are acting as parents, caring partners, football fans or good friends. Some consumption is used to sustain these sorts of relationships: giving gifts, buying school lunches, getting hold of this season's new strip. And quite a lot of consumption is done as the background to these activities, embedded in all sorts of infrastructures (eg transport, energy, water) over which people have little or no direct influence as individual 'consumers'.
In order to successfully encourage people to adopt ethical consumption activities, it is important to call on their specific identities, as for example a member of the local community or faith group, rather than just targeting them as 'faceless' and 'placeless' consumers. The most successful initiatives are those that find ways of making changes to the practical routines of consumption. For example, by changing how and what people buy and from where through establishing initiatives such as Fairtrade networks or achieving the status of a Fairtrade town or city.I'm going to have to check out that study.
grist.org
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 4:54 pm
07 Aug 2007
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 12:18 am
08 Aug 2007
I don't mean this to be overly fatalistic, but rather as a framework to get the maximum carbon reductions. If our actions must be driven by ethical considerations, then we limit ourselves only to that segment of the market that is motivated by same. But if we can motivate people to behave selfishly in pursuit of the greater good (this is, at core, the genius of Adam Smith, although I don't mean this purely as a market-rant), we can get everyone to act. Put bluntly, Dick Cheney is not going to install more efficient lightbulbs because it's good for society. And if we want to maximize carbon reductions, we have to ensure that the Cheney's and the Lovins' both have incentives to act.
In any event, I don't disagree with the premise of the article - just somewhat frustrated by the consistent strain in the env'tl movement that doesn't get beyond an ethical incentive to act.
Permalink
pbearden47 Posted 12:39 am
08 Aug 2007
From birth marketing works on us to recognize "brands" and this is OK because we have lots of information we can read and we can make choices. I've heard this argument for marketing for years because it's all about making money, and individual parents can surely protect their kids.
Down on the ground it works differently. Individuals can work against the monolith of big business and marketing, but it doesn't mean our kids will be protected. Advertising is everywhere, in every form, in every venue. And good parents do encourage their children to explore the world and think for themselves. Unfortunately one adult trying to set an example is overwhelmed by the messages aimed at children from TV, radio and all multi-media outlets.
This fact is especially poignant when we get to people living on the edge of poverty. They go to the grocery store with $50 for a week of groceries for 2 adults and 2 pre-school kids. The kids want the brands, the cartoon characters, the Spiderman Mom! They don't look a the price, the nutritional value, the envirnomental impact of heavily packaged and processed food. The parent looks at price and chooses the lowest cost option which is never organic or fresh or locally grown or anywhere near environmentally friendly.
So what to do in a free-market, choice-laden country? I have no idea. I'm looked on as somewhat eccentric because I do want to recycle, use public transit, actually turn off electric appliances when not in use. Some individuals are convinced through reading and personal contact to start making babysteps along the environmental path, but most people are either living self-centered, oblivious or desperate lives and don't spend 1 second a year thinking about the environment or the future. Everyday they choose something not in their self-interest.
I find it baffling.
Aunt Phyllis
Permalink
kmp Posted 1:06 am
08 Aug 2007
Yet, that is exactly the point of this study. Dick Cheney won't buy CFLs, and neither will most other people, not because they do not know that CFLs are more efficient and better for the environment, but because they can still buy an incandescent bulb for $0.79. Until CFLs are the realistic, and in fact, obvious "choice," they will remain a minor slice of the market. What would make CFLs the obvious choice? Legislation. Legislation that eliminates the sale of incandescent bulbs, that subsidizes the cost of CFLs, that supports emerging technology to make CFLs perform even better. When CFLs stop being CFLs and become just "lightbulbs", that's when Cheney will have them in his home.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 1:38 am
08 Aug 2007
But all this is really only additive to my concern, which is that if the only framework is one of ethics, then the only option is mandates. If then framework is one of level-the-playing-field-so-that-selfish-people-can -make-money-by-doing-the-right-thing, you will eventually bring the Cheneys of the world on board, at least once they stop crying about their own lost subsidies. Even in that world, you may still need mandates, but it need not be the beginning of the process.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 2:14 am
08 Aug 2007
Consider the mandates for biofuels. A mandate creates certainty for investors in production capacity, which is why the industry pushes so hard for them. But what it does is transfer market risks to other sectors and economic agents.
Despite large differences in the contributions that particular feedstock-technology combinations can make to achieving these objectives, almost all of the mandates currently used by countries make no distinction among biofuels except between ethanol and biodiesel. Setting mandatory targets when the potential supply of biofuel feedstocks that can be sustainably produced is unknown, and the commercialisation of second-generation technologies remains an assumption, is risky to say the least.
Permalink
Books Alive Posted 2:16 am
08 Aug 2007
Success stories like this make me shout with joy that there will be a green revolution one day. Heck, let the Chinese know there's a new way to make glycerin and leave the anti-freeze to their auto industry.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 2:40 am
08 Aug 2007
At core though, I don't think you and I are in fundamental disagreement. There is a role for some mandates, but they ought to be the last tool in the policy makers arsenal.
The unfortunate political irony is that it is easier to impose a mandate or subsidy than to take one away. Thus we end up with a debate over who's subsidy is bigger rather than a debate about whether total societal resources (including tax transfers) are optimally deployed. Saying that ethanol requires a subsidy without also noting that petroleum requires a lot of income tax to fund persian gulf adventures is one hand clapping. This is independent of the environmental impacts of ethanol, and I raise here only to illustrate that for political reasons, we end up first looking to mandates & subsidies - exactly the opposite of where we ought to be. And thus, our conversation ends up falling back into ethical traps of who deserves the subsidy most, rather that being focused on actually getting something done.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:51 am
08 Aug 2007
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?lnk=v&ml_vid ...
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 6:52 am
08 Aug 2007
I realize that this was not the main point of the article, but it was an incidental issue that the article really highlighted for me.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 7:36 am
08 Aug 2007
The point of the article, as I see it, is that even the people who are ethically motivated to change their behavior can't do it in a meaningful way without making enormous sacrifices, while continuing to operate within the context of current culture, politics and (most importantly) infrastructure.
The fact of the matter is that even the most conscientious, ethically-driven people can't think about their footprint all of the time -- the would go mad. And, as has been pointed out, everyone else (which is the vast majority) will spare a thought for the environment on occasion, but won't make it a part of their daily routine.
Most people spend most of their time operating on autopilot. This isn't an indictment of humanity. It's just the truth, and it's been borne out by numerous psychological studies. If we want people to walk more lightly on the earth, we need to change the underlying infrastructure so that they can be green without having to think about it all of the time. There is no other way.
The challenge before us, then, is to shift public consciousness to the point where they are willing to demand, and pay the price for, restructuring the economy and the infrastructure so that it is green by default, rather than by exception. That is the value of "awareness-raising" events like Live Earth.
And really, aside from boosting the morale of the small number of dedicated green troopers, that's the only benefit of events of that sort. Which is not to say that they are unimportant. They are important. But we must realize that these activities are not an end in themselves. They are not even a means to and end. They are a means to a means to a means... to and end. It's a very indirect path, but sometimes that's the only way to get where you want to go.
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 7:59 am
08 Aug 2007
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:17 am
08 Aug 2007
I'm not saying this to defend the man. I'd just like to point out that there must be something that motivates ultra-conservative fascists to actually conserve energy. Maybe it is just a security issue for him. Fear of being dependent on utility companies. He miught have actually done the math and realized he will save money in the long run by investing in alternative energy and improved efficiency now. I think this could be used for some sort of marketing campaign... REAL PATRIOTS DON'T USE FOSSIL FUEL... ASK DICK CHENEY ABOUT HIS PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM. Almost fits on a bumper sticker.
Anyone know more about this?
Forward!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:09 pm
08 Aug 2007
Good stuff.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 3:27 pm
08 Aug 2007
That's why I liked this post: it recognizes we have to solve environmental problems at the level of public policy. That is, if we can democratically create "Fairtrade towns" we can create the social environment to save the rainforest without mandating what people can and cannot buy.
Let's say we want people to buy shade-grown, organic, fairtrade coffee. The free market approach means that people will buy the cheapest coffee, even if it means destroying the remaining rainforest. If we don't want to mandate that people only buy certain goods, then this article provides us with a third choice: create social environments that encourage people to do the right thing.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:39 pm
08 Aug 2007
So yeah, changing public policy in the form of national legislation is one way to change those systems. But there are plenty of others that don't involve gov't.
Imagine, for instance, that you belong to one of those mega-churches. Your church decides that saving energy is important, so it starts organizing carpools and vanpools. It distributes energy saving tips at potlucks. It organizes book clubs where people read books about ecology and renewable energy. Etc.
No individual in that church has to make the semi-heroic decision, "I'm going to strike out on my own and start reducing my carbon footprint." Instead, he or she just goes with the flow, participating in a community with which they already identify. It's the path of least resistance for individuals inside that community. It's a social, tribal activity.
My only point being: the (very valid) point that stressing individual ethical choices is often counterproductive does not imply that government is the only mechanism for change. There are plenty of communities and systems that are not governmental.
grist.org
Permalink