Over at the New Yorker, James Surowiecki draws our attention to this oddity:
The curious fact is that many people buying three-ton Suburbans for that arduous two-mile trip to the supermarket also want Congress to pass laws making it harder to buy Suburbans at all.
This is, he notes, not an isolated phenomenon: individuals often support policies that will force them to make different choices -- choices they're not willing to make of their own volition. Furthermore, this is not irrational behavior. Oftentimes an individual decision will confer competitive advantage, but the collective result of those individual decisions is deleterious. So it makes complete sense for an individual to say, in essence, "force me (and others) to make different decisions."
This is relevant to the constant hubbub about environmental hypocrisy. How dare Al Gore advocate for policies he doesn't follow in his personal life!? Well, turn it around: if even someone as committed as Al Gore is not willing to make these decisions, because they will disadvantage him in one way or another, isn't that a powerful argument on behalf of policy?
This is also relevant to the mind-numbingly self-righteous hectoring of the public we still, to my ongoing chagrin, hear from greens. It should be clear at this point that "doing the green thing" in many cases puts an individual at a disadvantage, either economically or socially. Maybe if we nag people enough we can overcome this dynamic, but I doubt it. The thing to do is to change the playing field so that green choices confer advantage.
Comments
View as Flat
miles44 Posted 4:59 am
23 Jul 2007
http://thegreenmiles.blogspot.com
Permalink
odograph Posted 5:05 am
23 Jul 2007
"I'll stop grazing my horses just as soon as we all agree to."
So I'd put "commons" up against "competitive advantage" but in the end they might be complementary explanations.
Permalink
amc89 Posted 5:05 am
23 Jul 2007
It's all about economy of scale. Often the more ethical and green a product or service is, whether a hybrid or carton of free range eggs, the more expensive it is, and only those who are truly dedicated will buy it, though many more people would like to be able to. Government policies can help makes services and products affordable to the masses.
Permalink
justlou Posted 7:43 am
23 Jul 2007
I question this premise which has been widely accepted by the public and our political leaders as conventional wisdom. Are the auto companies not manufacturing this demand with their incredibly seductive advertising?
Imagine yourself in the great outdoors? What is the ticket? An SUV or pickup hauling that 40 pound kayak or 15 pound surfboard. You get the picture.
You want to project an image of power? Imulate every politician you see and put yourself in a big, bad, don't even think of messing with me, shiny black SUV.
Project an image of wealth? Got you covered.
Project an image of sex appeal? Got your ride.
The auto industry has helped to create these senses of identity.
So, if this underlying premise is questionable, I am not so sure about the validity of the main point here. The infrastructure is tailored for the auto. So why not tailor the consumer to fit the whole package?
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 9:37 am
23 Jul 2007
That said, I don't think there's necessarily a total contradiction here. For example: I don't really 'enjoy' paying taxes, but I'm OK with paying my fair share as long as others are paying theirs. Put another way: if paying taxes were completely voluntary, would I be motivated to pay as much as I do today under today's obligatory system? Would you? I doubt it.
Many people don't mind being 'forced' to make sacrifices for the common good as long as they feel that others are having to play by the same rules. But I think there's a nagging concern that if I make all the personal sacrifices on behalf of the environment, somebody else will benefit at my expense by (for example) enjoying cheaper gasoline for their SUV, or less traffic on THEIR 40-mile highway commute because of MY efforts to use public transit. Et cetera. If you can't reward me for making the right choice, at least don't reward those who persist in making the wrong ones!
You get the idea. Sometimes for the general welfare, people DO want people in authority to establish rules that we can ALL agree to play by.
At least, I like to think so. But maybe the 'Reagan Revolution' succeeding in tossing the concept of 'caring about the general public welfare' out the window until such time as we realize we really do need to work together, or perish together.
Permalink
justlou Posted 11:21 am
23 Jul 2007
Part of the answer is that the outcome of ethical restraint is often somewhere out in the future while the outcome of not restraining our behavior is right now. Restraint, delayed gratification, conserving, and saving for the future are ideas that are not widely valued anymore. Many of our public policies do not reward this behavior. And our economic system depends on people not restraining their desires or wants.
We live like we are the last generation to live on earth. This may be the tragic outcome from so many people living apart from earth -- from living in such an artificial, domesticated landscape where dire outcomes are willfully ignored or denied, hidden from view, or delayed by masking feedbacks essential to our survival.
Permalink