I see Maywa beat me to the "I really like Michael Pollan, but ... " post. I too was disappointed with Pollan's answer to the question of "Why Bother?" As in, why bother taking personal steps to reduce one's contribution to climate change? I will say this, though: the article did sharpen my thinking about why I think we should bother.
One of the things I've always admired about Pollan's writing is his knack for delivering sly polemic that hangs equally on scientific arguments and common sense. It's a neat trick that makes simple acts like reading an ingredients label seem slightly radical and even fun. I read his stuff and think, "Of course I want to get on board with this. Why wouldn't I?"
Like Maywa, I was dismayed by Pollan's disparagement of "grand schemes" to address climate change. But beyond that, I was struck by the fact that the essay seemed to teeter on the edge of the sort of petty moralism that infects a lot of thinking on this topic. Where was the sense of fun?
When I consider my own (highly imperfect) conservation efforts, it seems clear that I'm guided not by morals but by values. That is, not by a sense of right and wrong, but by a sense of what's important -- to me, personally. The difference between values and morals might seem slight, but a lot turns on it.
Quite often, morals can be kind of a drag: you shall or you shan't. Values are affirming: I feel good when I can express my values (and unhappy when prevented from doing so). Morals are exclusionary: people who don't share your morals are, almost by definition, bad. Values are inclusive: it's possible and even common to admire values that you don't yourself possess.
The article approvingly mentions morality (and its synonym, virtue) eight times. It mentions value once -- in a negative light. Pollan highlights the economic concept of value to criticize carbon pricing and other schemes that attempt to "nudge our self-interest down the proper channels."
On the contrary, I think this dual meaning of value -- economic and personal -- perfectly encapsulates why the concept is such a powerful one. Economic and personal values can reinforce and even catalyze one another. Why bother cutting our carbon footprint? Because action increases our commitment to our values. Because action signals to other citizens and politicians the depth of those values. Because values are transmitted socially. Because we'll get where we're going a lot faster, and more happily, if we're committed for more than just pocketbook reasons.
This might seem like a very minor reformulation of Pollan's message, but it would have done a lot to make a flat message more compelling. U.S. citizens abroad often note the dramatically higher rates of recycling, bicycle riding, or other "green" habits in other countries. Does anyone suppose that such habits arise in response to moral imperatives? Of course not. Culture, infrastructure, economics, and values shape these everyday choices more than morals ever could.
Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting
This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Comments
View as Flat
JMG Posted 1:58 am
23 Apr 2008
Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:43 am
23 Apr 2008
Whoops, it's a cliff. Too late to turn.
A human example:
Donuts taste good. people eat donuts when they see other people eating them.
Soon there are donut stores everywhere. Donut stocks soar, Crispy Kreme was a big bubble stock!
Obesity rates soar, drug company stocks soar on the wave of treatment.
The moral of the story? Indulging in too many donuts is a character weakness to be avoided, all good people shall have this inculcated from birth.
The values (fractals) of human beings that are expressed? Life is short, momentary experience of a grease and sugar high is most important to me right now. But later I'll realize I value being thin, healthy, and happy. And consume something that fullfills my craving to experience the world, like the feeling of running down the trail.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 2:51 am
23 Apr 2008
JMG, the environmental movement is fairly obviously not lacking for discussions of morals.
www.terrapass.com/blog
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 2:54 am
23 Apr 2008
Likewise that's probably why I end up at a local chain grocer (TJ's) that has a suspiciously high organic content as well as more babes scanning the salad greens. I'm there so I buy what I need getting organic stuff when the price shift isn't that bad. I don't want to look cheap.
Swirly light bulbs put a LOT more money in my pocket for beer and the Xtracycle loaded with groceries is an attempt to get said beer gut in check. I learned how to garden growing herbs popular with college kids and it became a habit.
Accidentally doing all this gives me a cheap and easy ego boost when I see some guy roar by in his monster truck. I couldn't afford one of those when gas was $2.70/gal. and I really can't afford one now. So my Toyota Matrix bought used and cheap makes me look like a genius now.
Who needs virtue?
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:58 am
23 Apr 2008
It's hard not to read your piece and think about whether and how it might relate to your position as a seller of carbon offsets.
Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 3:17 am
23 Apr 2008
Environmentalism is a religion not a science, and its followers are either dupes, while its proponents make fraudulent use of science to further their sense of power over other men. Such is the nature of all tyrannies.
We have a lot of work to do.
Wes Rolley
CoChair - EcoAction Committee
Green Party US
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 3:32 am
23 Apr 2008
Likewise, I can't really read anything you write without thinking of your constant retreading of tiresome Kunstlerisms; your self-described status as a misanthrope; your bottomless disapproval of others; and your evident glee explaining to them why they suck. You say you want to inject more moralism into your favored positions? Shocker! Maybe you can write a blog post explaining what circle of hell cap-and-trade proponents will be consigned to.
What's the proper level of moral discourse for a movement? I have no idea. It's a question I'd be delighted to take up with a thoughtful writer like Michael Pollan. With you? Not so much.
www.terrapass.com/blog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:03 am
23 Apr 2008
An example of the latter: The conduct pertaining to the so-called Protestant Work Ethic, which historically underlies much of the practice of modern entrepreneurs and other businessfolk, is characterized by certain virtues. But within the very societies in which that Ethic flourishes, other, more fundamental ways of ethical evaluation might judge the practisers of those virtues to be monstrous and perverse, and the fruits of their actions to be destructive.
"Value" is a general term common to many types of analysis in which comparison has a part. Pollan was very careful to refer to "economic value." But there are a number of other applications of value that are implicit in his appeal to cultivating gardens: The moral value of gardening might be the most fundamental, but that would also include aesthetic value, social value, medical value, and environmental value, for starters.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink