Numerous times on this blog, I've argued that while individual behavior is not irrelevant, it certainly shouldn't be the focus of environmental advocacy. Individuals are highly constrained in their choices; substantial environmental improvement will only happen with structural changes in our laws, regulations, and business practices.
Brad Plumer makes a similar point today, drawing from Heather Rogers' Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage:
... the entire anti-litter movement was initiated by a consortium of industry groups who wanted to divert the nation's attention away from even more radical legislation to control the amount of waste these companies were putting out. It's a good story worth retelling.
...
In essence, Keep America Beautiful managed to shift the entire debate about America's garbage problem. No longer was the focus on regulating production -- for instance, requiring can and bottle makers to use refillable containers, which are vastly less profitable. Instead, the "litterbug" became the real villain, and KAB supported fines and jail time for people who carelessly tossed out their trash, despite the fact that, clearly, "littering" is a relatively tiny part of the garbage problem in this country (not to mention the resource damage and pollution that comes with manufacturing ever more junk in the first place). Environmental groups that worked with KAB early on didn't realize what was happening until years later.
And KAB's campaign worked -- by the late 1950s, anti-litter ordinances were being passed in statehouses across the country, while not a single restriction on packaging could be found anywhere. Even today, thanks to heavy lobbying by the packaging industry, only twelve states have deposit laws, despite the fact that the laws demonstrably save energy and reduce consumption by promoting reuse and recycling.
This is a familiar story. Personal-behavior campaigns have a certain traction for environmental organizations -- they speak to people where they live, they're catchy, they bring in donations. And they play on progressive guilt over living in an affluent society.
They also have a certain traction for industry, allowing them to look like responsible citizens while distracting attention from regulations that might actually constrain them.
But they do not address the real, systemic environmental problems. I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's no substitute for political engagement.
(via too-rare Gristmill contributor John McGrath)
Comments
View as Flat
farnishk Posted 9:32 am
23 May 2006
"We recycle what we can."
That really is it.
And why should I be surprised? Maybe I should be pleased about the recycling, but I'm not; I'm really disappointed. Not because people recycle, but because for almost everyone I talk to - and I guess my friends and acquaintances are more environmentally sensitive than average - that's where the buck stops...
In our version of a civilised, free society, people will almost always take the least cost, least effort option. So what's the problem if people only want to recycle?
No problem, no problem at all. But if you do care whether the world gets better or not then you will already be doing far more.
http://earth-blog.bravejournal.com/entry/15780
So, for goodness sake, if someone says that the answer to the environmental crisis is recycling, then remind them that it's just the money makers that want us to do that - reducing consumption is simply not good business.
http://www.theearthblog.org
Giving The Earth A Future.
Permalink
Heidi Posted 11:11 pm
23 May 2006
http://groxie.com
DIY Environmentalism
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:53 am
24 May 2006
"..for instance, requiring can and bottle makers to use refillable containers, which are vastly less profitable."
That is another way of saying that refillable containers are vastly more expensive for consumers.
If all competitors were forced to use refillable containers, their profit margins would be untouched, the cost would simply be passed along to the consumer, where it belongs. Consumers would have no choice but to pay more for their beverages because everyone would charge more.
Carbon offsets and gas taxes are government actions I favor if applied to all competition and if the money is put right back into the hands of consumers instead of remaining in the hands of bureaucrats.
I shudder at the thought of putting my children's futures solely into the hands of government when I look at the Iraq war, our national debt, and the subsidies propping up industrial production of biofuels made from food crops.
Discourse on the internet may help lead us out of this mess.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink