It does to this one

Is the starfish story really just bunk?

Posted by JMG (Guest Contributor) at 10:05 AM on 01 May 2007

Read more about: green living | environmental movement | messaging | ecological footprint

The estimable biodiversivist wrote, in another thread, that "What we do as individuals is insignificant compared to changes in carbon neutral energy generation and transportation infrastructure."

Which is both true and not true, I think. It reminds me of the story about the little tyke throwing starfish stranded on the beach back into the water, and being told by the parent that it didn't matter, leading the child to say, "It does to this one."

Cute story, all chicken-soupy-for-the-environmentalist's soul and such -- but is it really just bunk?

Of course, at one level, it's absolutely true -- compare the consequences of any one person's actions to those of some 300 million people and you can't even measure the one next to the other.

But wait. Isn't what we do as a society nothing but the cumulative sum of "what we do as individuals?"

Let's see -- what did I get done for carbon neutral energy generation and transport infrastructure today? Well, we kept our electric use well down below average again, which we hope makes it easier to convince the powers that be to adopt a renewable energy portfolio standard and concentrate on a response to global heating. We avoided using our one car again, keeping us on track for a sub-4,000 mile year of driving; I rode a bike and my bride took a bus, helping show support for both modes of low-carbon transport.

Would we have been able to do more by ignoring our own actions and energy use and considering them insignificant? Did I do less for the environment than the enviro lobbyists who drive over to Springfield from Big Town?

In the thread on the "I got mine school of environmental leadership," a number of people said in a number of ways that my calling attention to this one thing -- jet travel by a handful of enviros attending an outdoor leadership school -- was counterproductive or just plain stupid, because the impact of that travel is trivial compared to other negatives affecting climate. In other words, "What [they] do as individuals is insignificant compared to changes in carbon neutral energy generation and transportation infrastructure."

Someone else noted that pro sports teams use a hell of a lot of energy flying around, but of course it could probably be said in truth that, "What [they] do as individuals is insignificant compared to changes in carbon neutral energy generation and transportation infrastructure."

And so it goes.

I'm wondering whether there's anything that can't be justified if its environmental consequences are compared to the environmental cost of everything else and found to be "insignificant" in comparison.

I'm not saying that we can address the serious threats we face (that we cause is probably a better way to state that) without a serious governmental response, shifting the center of gravity from personal responses (optional) to personal responses (required).

But I do note that the states in the lead in this area are precisely those where the people have led the way by ignoring this kind of calculus and showing that they want more than just business as usual. Does anyone think Arnold the Environmentalist would be as green if he was governor of Nevada or Arizona?

What's that line about where the people lead, the leaders will follow? How does one lead if not by worrying first about your own environmental footprint before turning to concern with the footprint of others?

For story: It does to this one
19 Comments | Post a Comment

We're all important

The insidious message behind the "I got mine" philosophy is that the excuses used by environmental leaders to justify excesses like air travel and large houses are somehow more valid than those offered by the rest of us. Contrary to their own self-important views, environmental leaders rely on the same convenient excuses for what they do. The consequence is that the average Joe, such as the road warrior salesperson who travels for living to provide for his family, doesn't buy the hypocrisy. We all get the message. What we need from environmental leaders is to work along side the rest of us in figuring out how to lead sustainable yet still important and influential lives.

by allgouda at 10:55 AM on 01 May 2007

the other half of the discussion

In the thread on the "I got mine school of environmental leadership," a number of people said in a number of ways that my calling attention to this one thing -- jet travel by a handful of enviros attending an outdoor leadership school -- was counterproductive or just plain stupid, because the impact of that travel is trivial compared to other negatives affecting climate.

Well, that was one line of argument from that thread.

The other line of argument is that the benefit to the environment (in terms of raised consciousness, awareness and motivation) offsets the environmental harm. There's alot of power in that perspective, and its one that you seem to have entirely ignored.

by GreenEngineer at 11:20 AM on 01 May 2007

The other line of argument

GE, I don't have much to say about that line of argument that's not covered by my comments about our ability to rationalize the choices that please us. I suggested in several ways that the people who take NOLS courses are probably already fully conscious, environmentally aware people who are pretty darn motivated--I bet you don't see a lot of folks going "Hmmmm, do I build a coal power plant or do I take three months to go hike a glacier and hang out with vegans while sleeping in a tent."

NOLS can point to its great grads and what great green leaders they are, just like Harvard can point to its rich grads and what great jobs they get. The question is whether the institution is just acting like a rooster that thinks the sun comes up because it crows.

Isn't the burden on those arguing that travelling around on jets to distant places benefits the environment more than it costs? That's how we analyze claims for biofuels and a hundred other things. Show me something other than self-serving handwaving and maybe I'll agree that the program nets out positive. But don't forget to include all the costs--the direct harm of the flights, and the indirect harm of the message conveyed (jets are ok).

The 5% Project

by JMG at 11:45 AM on 01 May 2007
[ Parent ]

Mmmm, sushi /;' ).

It's the old "If I appreciate eating the tuna maybe I'll do something to save it" arguement. That worked really, really well for North Atlantic cod. Reducing emissions means reducing emissions.

Explain to us all agian how those good feelings remove tons of carbon dioxide and water vapor from the upper atmosphere. Please link to peer reviewed journals.

Put the Carbon Back

by Pangolin at 12:29 PM on 01 May 2007
[ Parent ]

Can't do it

You're asking me to quantify the value of motivation -- the personal psychological energy required to daily swim upstream in the hope/faith that doing so will eventually lead the stream itself to reverse -- and then compare that to tons of CO2 generated.

It can't be done. The most important components of the question cannot be measured numerically. Does this mean they don't count? No. But it cannot meet the standard of proof you require.

by GreenEngineer at 12:47 PM on 01 May 2007

Little actions

If we compared each of our little actions to the cumulative whole, then we would throw our hands up in despair and say screw it, and that wouldn't help anyone or change anything. Cumulative change is a snowball: it'll pick up momentum with not only how we act as individuals, but how we teach our children and those around us. What a cliche, huh? But that's what we have to hold onto.

The starfish analogy is beautiful, and I don't think I need to bring up any more, although a lot suggest themselves. I guess I'll just say straightforward that little actions make a difference and we need to have faith in that, and that bigger actions (political, institutional) will follow because of magical devices like markets and democracy. Those devices are flawed, sure, but they're how the world works, and so we operate under them.

Jabailo (i.e. doubters) would say that the little actions only help out the "3%" and that they'll be able to exploit more effectively in the absence of others' consumption. Maybe that's true. But I think that's a pretty radical assumption to base your own actions on - the assumption that what you save will inevitably be used up by others. What we know for sure is that we are almost all living irresponsibly, and so each of our responsible actions can make the world a more responsible place. I guess I'll choose the positive tack (my good action will make the world better) over the negative (my good action will make somebody else even worse).

by blueberrysushi at 1:10 PM on 01 May 2007

Then it's all kind of moot isnt' it.

GE-Can't do it
You're asking me to quantify the value of motivation -- the personal psychological energy required to daily swim upstream in the hope/faith that doing so will eventually lead the stream itself to reverse -- and then compare that to tons of CO2 generated.
It can't be done. The most important components of the question cannot be measured numerically. Does this mean they don't count? No. But it cannot meet the standard of proof you require.

Bottom line; the guys and gals who drive SUV's and massive pickups are NOT about to abandon their vehicles before the end of their service life so that ecoboy can take another flight to Nepal.

It seems that so far that Global Warming activists don't really have an interest in practicing what they preach. Think of the impact if Al Gore suddenly started travelling everywhere by airship instead of jet. Or rail instead of flying. Or insisting that his airport pick-up be in a Prius or electric car every time.

I grew up reading the "Whole Earth Catalogs." Some of the solutions we fuss about have been around for fourty years without implementaion.

Somebody has to be the good example and it better be the rich and beautiful. The poor and ugly are going to keep driving SUV's until they are convinced that biking home from work in the rain to a straw bale house is the apex of class.

Put the Carbon Back

by Pangolin at 1:24 PM on 01 May 2007
[ Parent ]

Not much time left to resolve this

Revkin's piece in NYT today: Sea ice melting faster than previously thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/us/01climate.html?_r=3& ...

The 5% Project

by JMG at 1:30 PM on 01 May 2007

assessing negative effects is the easy part

GreenEngineer,

Thank you for bringing up the other half of the discussion here. While it is difficult to quantify the benefits of an activity -- such as travel -- I think it is an essential element of the discussion, especially if we are considering condemnation of the activity.

There must be more than one sociological study of the benefits of eco-tourism -- or other travel -- out there. Its an excellent topic for a PhD thesis.

I suggest the "law of unintended consequences" comes into play here. Do we really know the full effect of everyone just staying "home" for the rest of their lives? Is it an experiment we are prepared to do? If I recall correctly, our current so-called leader did not travel beyond North America until after he was elected President. Is he representative of what happens to a person who isn't exposed to a bit more of the world? What about the people who voted for him? More or less likely to have visited other countries? Wouldn't it be better to focus on minimizing the environmental harm from an otherwise benign human activity?

by wiscidea at 2:20 PM on 01 May 2007
[ Parent ]

impacts

Think of the impact if Al Gore suddenly started travelling everywhere by airship instead of jet. Or rail instead of flying.

Yes, indeed. Think of the reduced impact that he could have on the public awareness of global warming if he had to spend 2-4 times as much time in transit, making proportionally fewer appearances.

You can devote your entire life to reducing your own personal footprint to near zero, and it will make diddly-squat difference in the end.

You can, and should, cut out gross excesses, such as daily car commuting and frequent flying. But beyond a certain point, you cannot reduce your footprint without seriously compromising your ability to function and participate in society.

If your form of participation is to sit in a cube farm and support the bad behavior of big corporations with your daily efforts, then fine: the less you do, the better.

But if you are actually working on addressing the problem directly, whether through political action or technical problem solving, then your sacrifice that reduces your effectiveness also reduces your ability to make a positive contribution.

by GreenEngineer at 2:27 PM on 01 May 2007

The Little Tyke and the Starfish

It's tricky business discussing little tykes and starfish. It certainly did matter to the starfish. But what was the starfish doing on the beach in the first place? If the starfish was put there by another human being, then the child probably did the right thing by returning it to the sea.

Most likely, however, the starfish was washed ashore and stranded by a natural event. Perhaps it was ill and could not anchor itself to sea floor. Perhaps it was pure chance. What if there was a rare bird hovering above, looking for a meal for one of its chicks? Perhaps it was a bad year and one more stranded starfish could have helped the bird survive. The child, focused on saving one organism's life, could very well have deprived another of life.

I suppose it is easier to deprive something of life if you have never bothered to visit it or understand how it survives in the world. By focusing on the beach and not learning about other organisms, the child felt justified in saving only what he recognized as valuable. And he was quite proud of himself for his morally superior stance.

by wiscidea at 3:04 PM on 01 May 2007

Gandhi Walked....

Yes, indeed. Think of the reduced impact that he could have on the public awareness of global warming if he had to spend 2-4 times as much time in transit, making proportionally fewer appearances.

It's a shame he had no impact. How you do something is at least as important as what you do.

Put the Carbon Back

by Pangolin at 3:21 PM on 01 May 2007
[ Parent ]

Calculating impact

I think we're running into a lack of information. While we have multiple ways of calculating one's ecological footprint, we have no set way of calculating the ecological good one can do.

If one of Gore's speeches motivates 50 people to replace incandescent bulbs with CFLs, five people to start carpooling and two people to quit their cube farm jobs and go to work installing solar panels, what is the net impact of his trip?

People's lives have unavoidable, if shrinkable, footprints. These are the ecological costs of living. But, since we are sapient creatures, we also have impacts from our work, from our volunteering, which are a different calculation, and one much harder to make.

UNICEF calculates the good that people do for their programs as their handprint. Perhaps the green community could use some such calculation as a counterpart to the ecological footprint.

by Dawn Pillsbury at 3:22 PM on 01 May 2007

Al Gore had no impact...

Pangolin, what planet are you posting from? Clearly it's not the same one I am sitting on.

by GreenEngineer at 4:11 PM on 01 May 2007

Are we serious?

Does anyone -- anyone -- think the world would be a better place if Al Gore had stayed at home and whittled down his personal carbon footprint?

I find this whole discussion surreal.

grist.org

by David Roberts at 4:58 PM on 01 May 2007

Ecotourism

Five years ago I thought it was a great idea when some friends flew to the Caribbean to stay in a tent in a low-impact ecotourist resort. Call me slow but it's only in the last year I've learned how bad the flying part is. Hell, how recently was it many of us were bio-fuel enthusiasts. We have a huge paradigm shift under way here, it'll take a while for everyone to get up to speed, and there will be some legitimate divergence of opinion on how to get there. In the meantime how about we cut each other a little bit of slack. Call it like it is, for sure, but let's focus on the big hitters with no redeeming value. We don't need to worry about whether Gore's jet travel is sustainable: if he's effective in his goals he will be able to stop, if he isn't he'll have to stop.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

by spaceshaper at 5:19 PM on 01 May 2007

Who said Al had to stay home?

Does anyone -- anyone -- think the world would be a better place if Al Gore had stayed at home and whittled down his personal carbon footprint?

Al Gore could have or can still change his ways and increase the impact of his message. Willie Nelson has a biodiesel bus. Charles Darwin went around the world on a sailing ship. Gandhi walked almost everywhere. They all manage(d) to get their message across.

There are altenative ways to get around beside jet travel. Maybe if Al Gore actually had to deal with the rail system on camera in the US and Europe we would have something that shows the disparate impacts of a vital rail system compared to jet travel.

Al Gore could have reduced the load his several houses put on the coal fired grid several times over. Given that he was constrained from installing solar panels there were other options. Al could have showed off his off the shelf combined heat and power electrical generator and his
geoexchange thermal system if only he had them. Those systems would take a big whack out of his footprint. Shit, George W Bush has a more eco-friendly house in Crawford than Al Gore.

I knew these systems existed five years ago why didn't Al? Oh yeah, he was carbon-trading with himself. Sorry but carbon credits have yet to shut down a single coal-fired power plant.

The concept that we get to have everything exactly the same and still mitigate Global Warming is pure fantasy. It will not work.

Nobody gets to be a saint on his press alone. You gotta walk over the hot coals and heal the sick. Then it gets tough.

Put the Carbon Back

by Pangolin at 8:05 PM on 01 May 2007
[ Parent ]

Micro-chp

The link Pangolin offers for off-the-shelf micro-CHP is a 220V UK product probably not suitable for US grid-connection. It's basically a gas-fired domestic water heater that generates a small amount of electricity (1 kW) as a by-product. Wouldn't do a damn thing for Al's carbon footprint

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

by spaceshaper at 5:03 AM on 02 May 2007

All this talk about flying

I don't think it's fair to villainize people who are spreading the message of environmentalism as successfully as Al Gore has done. It's too easy to cry "hypocrisy," here, and ignore the positive impact made. Think of spreading the message as an investment that if successful will return results better than any individual can produce on their own, and that will make up for the pollution caused to do so. Making green mainstream is a good thing. Changing peoples' minds is an essential first step to getting them to change their lifestyles.

"The idea of revolution coming from outer conditions, in the industrial field or the so-called reality of economic conditions, can never lead to a revolutionary step unless the transformation of soul, mind and will power has taken place." -Joseph Beuys

by zacaroni at 8:16 AM on 02 May 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.