The power of voluntary actions

Social scientists respond to Mike Tidwell

Posted by David Roberts at 3:03 PM on 11 Sep 2007

Read more about: politics | environmental movement | green living

The following is a guest essay in response to Mike Tidwell's recent piece on Grist, "Consider using the N-word less." It is signed by a collection of social scientists, mostly psychologists. Their names are listed at the bottom.

----

We agree that institutional and policy changes are needed in addition to personal behavior changes, and that some pro-environmental behaviors being promoted aren't the ones that have the most impact. Unfortunately, Tidwell implies that voluntary behavior change and policy change are mutually exclusive options, and that the only personal behavior that matters for the environment is political action.

We strongly disagree, and we were surprised to see this argument featured so prominently in Grist, which normally supports voluntary behavior change through helpful columns such as Ask Umbra. To fight global warming, individual and institutional behavior change is needed, whether the change is produced by voluntary action or mandated by legislation.

Dismissing the importance of small personal behavior choices in favor of a sole focus on policy changes is a big mistake. Small behaviors are important not only for the direct environmental impact they have, but because they often lead to more and more pro-environmental behaviors over time. Research shows that personal action and political action to protect the environment go hand in hand, rather than undermining each other. When people do something like buy a more expensive and perhaps less aesthetically pleasing compact fluorescent lightbulb, they justify it to themselves and others. This tends to result in changes in their self-perceptions (I am a person who cares about fighting global warming), their beliefs (global warming is a really important problem), and how others see them (they really care about the environment).

The more people voluntarily engage in pro-environmental behaviors and justify it themselves and others, the more it creates social pressure to do good things for the environment. Numerous psychological studies have shown that people are more likely to agree to take a big action if they've previously agreed to smaller, similar actions. Thus, changing a light bulb may lead to higher impact behaviors like giving up plastic water bottles, insulating one's house, living closer to work, reducing meat consumption, and actively supporting legislation that will likely require personal sacrifice. When ExxonMobil hears about people changing lightbulbs and buying Priuses, they should expect public policy changes to follow.

Social and natural scientists need to work together to clarify which actions, including political action, have the most impact, and be sure to include these on the "10 things you can do" lists. Supporting policies that will require drastic changes in one's lifestyle is a difficult behavior, and will be much more likely after people have already made the choice to carry out other pro-environmental behaviors.

Another benefit of giving people an immediate, easy way to get started fighting global warming is that it may make them more willing to accept the evidence that global warming is a major problem. People reject scary messages like the danger of global warming if they don't think there is anything feasible they can do to fix it. They are understandably motivated to minimize their distress, so they'd rather be in denial than feeling anxious and helpless. In contrast to racial discrimination, where people of color are treated differently for an obvious (though unjustified) reason, global warming is not yet obvious and it is hard for people to understand.

Given this, there is plenty of room for people to reject the whole concept if they are motivated to do so. Environmental appeals need to provide more emphasis on what people can do to make a difference, not less. Too many global warming appeals -- including the otherwise excellent An Inconvenient Truth and a recent television ad showing a child about to be run over by the "freight train" of global warming -- scare the heck out of people, and only leave "what you can do" as an afterthought. Thus, "10 things you can do" may help people accept and act on the scary global warming message.

It is also important to keep in mind that restrictive policies are not without their problems. First, they're difficult to pass if the electorate isn't already convinced of the magnitude and urgency of the problem. Witness the massive unpopularity of carbon taxes. Second, restrictive policies engender resentment and actions to restore threatened freedoms, such as ditching the policies themselves or creative disobedience. Witness efforts to dismantle the Endangered Species Act, and the creative efforts to skirt its requirements. Third, high impact policy ideas often get watered down in the political process, so the resulting policy isn't nearly as effective as the original idea. For example, CAFE standards can help -- but only if they're high enough.

Finally, being forced to do something by an authority often undermines other reasons why people engage in pro-environmental behaviors. For example, if a person starts biking to work to reduce their carbon footprint and enjoy the exercise, but then a law tells them they can't drive, they may start thinking that they only bike because of the law. This can be bad if the restrictive policy ever goes away -- so does the desired behavior. Policy changes will be necessary due to the magnitude of the problem, but these policies should be carefully crafted so that they produce the pro-environmental behavior change that lasts.

The history of racial policy and WWII demonstrate the importance of both policy and voluntary actions. Much public debate and many small individual actions transpired to make racial discrimination less and less socially acceptable in the century and a half before LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. Try telling descendents of those rescued by the underground railroad that it didn't matter. Even in the more urgent crisis of WWII, in addition to the mandatory policies, mass persuasion campaigns encouraged voluntary actions. Politicians realized they needed public support for the war effort, and for legislation. Remember the "We can do it!" poster encouraging women to join the labor force? The victory gardens? Voluntary actions provided direct physical support, strengthened the norm of supporting the war effort, and boosted morale. Both voluntary action and policy changes were crucial to winning the war.

Finally, if articles such as Tidwell's tell people their actions don't matter, they may undermine any action to fight global warming at all, including political action. Immediate, small steps toward sustainability are surely better than no steps at all. And hypocrisy also gives ammunition to opponents of environmental legislation -- many may ask, why should I support a law asking me to sacrifice when those hypocritical environmentalists aren't even walking the walk? De-emphasizing personal actions may make us feel better -- "fixing the problem is the politicians' job, not ours" -- but it is delusion. To fight global warming in a democracy, we must do everything we can as individuals, including changing our lifestyles to reduce their impact on the environment and working for better policies. Policy is but one tool for producing the behavior change needed to halt global warming. Given the magnitude of the problem, all tools are needed.

Amara Brook, Ph.D., Santa Clara University
Susan Clayton, Ph.D., The College of Wooster
Gene Myers, Ph.D., Western Washington University
Joseph Reser, Ph.D., University of Durham, UK; Griffith University, Australia; James Cook University, Australia
Marte Fallshore, Ph.D., Central Washington University
Peter Kahn, Ph.D., University of Washington
John Scull, Ph.D., Cowichan Community Land Trust
Carol Saunders, Ph.D., Chicago Zoological Society
Christie Manning, Ph.D., University of St. Thomas
Joe Heimlich, Ph.D., The Ohio State University
Lance Olsen, Independent
Elise L. Amel, Ph.D., University of St. Thomas
Emily Chan, Ph.D., Colorado College
Kathleen L. Wolf, Ph.D ., University of Washington
Laura Johnson, Ph.D., University of Mississippi
Susan Johnson, Ph.D., University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Scott Finlinson, Ph.D., NORESCO
John Th�gersen, Ph.D, Dr. Merc., University of Aarhus, Denmark
Stephen Zavestoski, Ph.D., University of San Francisco
Kate Irvine, Ph.D., De Montfort University, UK
Gareth Davey, Ph.D., University of Chester, UK
Sarah M. Bexell, Ph.D., Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding, China

John Fraser, AIA, Wildlife Conservation Society Institute
Ethel Tobach, Ph.D., American Museum of Natural History
Kathryn Ross Wayne, Ph.D., Western Washington University
Peter Alexander, M.S., Biodiversity Project
Michelle Verges, Ph.D., Indiana University

For story: The power of voluntary actions
39 Comments | Post a Comment

Cognitive dissonance?

Isn't it an example of cognitive dissonance when a huge crisis is presented in all its glory -- for instance, global warming -- and one of the central solutions is to change a light bulb? I am not arguing about the benefits of small steps, but let me give you another example. Recently I took my children to see the movie "Arctic Tale", a very effective tear-jerker about polar bears and walruses (well, it was for me, anyway), and at the end of the movie some cute kids are talking about CFLs. Now, in a movie such as Arctic Tale, or Inconvienient Truth, for that matter, you've just gotten your audience to experience a deep, visceral (hopefully) feeling, maybe an epiphany. And yet there is nowhere positive for this to go. I've personally tried to present a positive vision of solutions.

But I can't do it alone. Wouldn't it help if there was a national organization that people could turn to that was advocating something that seems, well, utopian? Even if it wasn't presently politically practical, at least the solutions would rise to the level of the problem. What is wrong with advocating a world without fossil fuels, and a path to get there? Maybe such a path would not even include cars, or at least not big, fast, long-range ones.

Which leads to the next problem, which is that I fear that many activists are afraid that if they propose something too "outlandish", nobody will pay any attention. I am not saying that the entire environmental movement should "go utopian", but look at the work of the social scientist Paul Goodman or more recently, the social scientist Anthony Giddens, who suggests a "utopian realism": (from Wikipedia):

define[d] as envisaging "alternative futures whose very propagation might help them be realised". (The Consequences of Modernity). By 'utopian' he means that this is something new and extraordinary, and by 'realistic' he stresses that this idea is rooted in the existing social processes and can be viewed as their simple extrapolation. Such a future has at its centre a more socialized, demilitarised and planetary-caring global world order variously articulated within green, women's and peace movements, and within the wider democratic movement

Without a positive, long-term vision of the future, in addition to the smaller steps argued for above, we are likely to see only the trees, not the forest (assuming it hasn't been cut down or burned)

-- Jon Rynn, Ph.D.

by Jon Rynn at 3:52 PM on 11 Sep 2007

Phhht.

Not impressed. A psychologist who probably specializes in environmental issues decides to write a rebuttal. To give it an air of overarching legitimacy, she routes it to a bunch of other psychologists for review, asking them to add their name to the list.

Personally, I don't care for the tactic. It reminds me of my childhood in a ghetto where half a dozen kids would gang up on another. If you don't have the wherewithal to write your own piece and stand to defend it on its merits (sans letters after your name), maybe you shouldn't have written the piece. Unlike politics, science is not a majority rule game. Much of what I was taught in college in my anthropology and psychology classes, which at the time was widely accepted, has been overturned with time, and that was long after the Oedipus complex was debunked. E.O Wilson still talks about the time a student dumped ice water on his head at a lecture because her professors had labeled sociobiology as sexist and racist.

So, each of you, take you Ph.D status symbol and put it under a couch cushion for now. I know a number of psychologists with Ph.Ds. They are very, very ordinary people.

"...we were surprised to see this argument featured so prominently in Grist, which normally supports voluntary behavior change through helpful columns such as Ask Umbra."

I've got news for you. Grist isn't a church. At present, Grist is the only place on the Internet to come and debate all issues environmental. It is Grist's strongest suit. As such, it has made a remarkable impact. You can see the impact in what others write and in changing attitudes all over: "no less meat consumption".

You are welcome, as is everyone else, to come and debate but in my opinion, your attempts to gain the moral high ground by chastising Grist for what is essentially its open mindedness, backed by 22 signatures from twenty-something other psychologists isn't of the quality I've grown accustomed to here.

I'm not supporting Tidwell's argument in total. A call for draconian measures would very likely spiral into economic chaos and social upheaval. On the other hand, I agree that the "ten things you can do to save the planet lists", which have been around for over three decades now, are the focus of a lot of ridicule, and obviously have not done jack. Anyone wanting to wear the environmentalist label today is forced to rub elbows with the short cold shower enthusiasts, self-righteous vegan pseudo religionists and animal activist nutjobs, among others.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 6:45 PM on 11 Sep 2007

Here's One for All The Ladies...

Why is it that Enviros can't use the same tried and true techniques of advertising to sell their soap (um, awareness): S-E-X

Project:

Get all the smoking hot chicks between 16 and 23 to sign a petition which reads:

I will like totally not have sex with any dude that drives a vehicle which gets less than 38 mph. No way. Guzzling Gas is like something my dad would do. Gross!

Guys will be crawling over each other to trade in their Hum-Vees for a Aveo.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 6:51 PM on 11 Sep 2007

Ugh,

That post just dragged the average down a few notches.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 6:58 PM on 11 Sep 2007

Right on, BioD (about the post)

by Jon Rynn at 7:01 PM on 11 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

Hear hear, BioD (& Jon)

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

by spaceshaper at 7:17 PM on 11 Sep 2007

communities

Both voluntary action and policy changes were crucial to winning the war.

I generally side with what you're saying--I think small things snowball. But there's still an immense gap to cross, and it's unclear how to do it, and I think we're not even totally comfortable with the language about how to talk about what we need to do.

I've been pushing "Habits of the Heart" everywhere I can recently, and I think it's particularly useful here. The problem with voluntary action isn't that it isn't useful, it's that we mostly think of it as individual action, and that's where it's limiting. Comparing now with World War II's voluntarism is illuminating, I think. I imagine the World War II effort as being much more broadly supported by the national community than global warming action currently is (except in pockets), not least because it had the support of government propagandists (possibly, probably, enabled by national support for the war effort).

I look around today, and I see lots of efforts to cohere a movement, but nothing gaining traction like it needs to. We need to make the jump to both broad policies and community standards.

by claxton6 at 7:31 PM on 11 Sep 2007

Us vs. Them

Red vs. Blue, Black vs. White, Rich vs. Poor, Men vs. Women..... Cat-People vs. Dog-People.

I guess it is human nature but it is disappointing to continually see this bickering amongst ourselves. Is there really an argument here? I see nothing wrong with CFLs. Yes - the constant chipper lists (even on Grist) are annoying but are they actually dangerous? Perhaps it was a chipper list, or a number of chipper lists, that led me here, to a greater understanding of the problems we face. I honestly do not remember, but likely a great combination of media exposure, life experience, character traits and pure chance led me here.

I do not know a single person who thinks that CFLs will save the world. I do believe that radical, political change is necessary to save our world. I think nearly everyone reading this site would agree on these two things. So wherein lies the argument? Must we bicker amongst ourselves about things that are essentially meaningless? Can we not applaud CFLs while still maintaining that so much more must be done? Do we chastise small children for learning their ABCs because they don't yet understand quantum physics?

We need both. Wiser voices than mine have said as much in this thread (not quite as angrily, to my shame).

Kaela

by kmp at 8:08 PM on 11 Sep 2007

Rubbing elbows...

BioD,
I'd agree psychologists are pretty ordinary. Though I did meet one once who had a tatoo!

Hey, you don't think they're doing an experiment on us right now, do you?

by Colin Wright at 10:57 PM on 11 Sep 2007

What's really exciting and cool

I think Jon's right on in trying to shift the focus to a positive view of solutions. Go back and read the discussion he links to.

What is it in all the cacaphony about climate change that is most exciting and positive? How are we going to excite the kids? Not by just telling them to go home and change the light bulbs (though yes, we should all do that, and I've done that at my home).

What's going to excite the kids and get them off their butts is big ideas, very cool ideas that are achievable. That you can wrap your mind around, put on a bumper sticker, and lobby for locally, statewide, and nationally.

CLEAN ENERGY.

(Hey there's a bumper sticker I'd buy -- "It's Clean Energy, Stupid"...)

It's a vision of wind farms juxtaposed against photos of West Virginia mountaintops and spewing smokestacks.

It's also FUEL FROM HERE, NOT FROM THE MIDDLE EAST.
(That's why Joe Schmo likes biofuels, and one reason the kids love biodiesel and veggie oil (despite all the issues, ably discussed elsewhere on Grist, and which I don't want to get off on here).

So let's get off our butts and push those memes. Because the logical conclusions from them is people being convinced to push for renewable portfolio standards, which is already happening in many states (and, hopefully, Congress), and carbon taxes or carbon trading.

by GreenMom at 6:29 AM on 12 Sep 2007

Agreed, GreenMom

I reread Jon's piece and tend to agree.

"How are we going to excite the kids? Not by just telling them to go home and change the light bulbs"... or take short cold showers.

The kids driving biodiesel cars are trying their best to be cool, as are the adults driving Priuses. The anonymous author above bases her arguments on the assumption that sacrifice will be required:

...why should I support a law asking me to sacrifice when those hypocritical environmentalists aren't even walking the walk...

Sacrifice is relative. It is largely a state of mind. A young woman on a thread last week was telling us that (in her peer group) it is "cool" to be vegan. Contrary to appearances, a monk performing self-flagellation isn't making a sacrifice. He's getting his jollies, as is the dedicated enviro taking a short shower, riding a bike. Switching from a 15 MPG Cherokee to a Prius isn't a sacrifice, it is a leap from an outdated status symbol to a new one. The thing one must try to keep in mind is that we all live inside different peer groups. This propensity is dictated by our genes. Christianity has splintered into over 2,400 sects.

There are many many subcultures and niches in human societies that provide a place to gravitate to, peer groups where we can compete. A vegan diet works in one peer group but not in all. Same for a Prius, solar power, a small home, urban living, bike and telecommuting, riding mass transit...

In a nutshell we need many more environmentally benign options with which to compete and differentiate ourselves with and we need wise governance to unleash the free market profit motive monster on carbon.

The above author is parroting a moldy mantra from the 70's: sacrifice. It has had three decades to prove itself. It is a dead end strategy. We knew three decades ago that we would one day run out of oil and that we were destroying the biosphere.

The new strategy is to make environmental benigness cool. To do that we need to spread the meme, as GreenMom suggests, and provide ways to express one's coolness in ways others can see because visibility is as much of a requirement for a human status symbol as it is for a peacock's (short showers don't meet that criteria).

One problem that has popped up is greenwashing. People are grabbing what they have been led to believe are environmentally benign status symbols--flex fuel SUVs being a good example. A big part of our job now is to ferret out through debate on this wonderful tool called the Internet, via blogs, those deceptions as they appear.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 8:47 AM on 12 Sep 2007

Less money to bad industries

My take on Tidwell's original posting wasn't that personal behavior wasn't important, just that political action deserved more attention. I agree that debating between the two is silly, both are needed. I do think there is a problem of too many people focusing on lifestyle as of late, in part because lots of people have an aversion to anything political. But even if you normally hate politics, everybody who cares about the environment should suck it up and start calling and emailing your legislators about environmental issues.

One benefit not really discussed of more people working to reduce their personal consumption means that these environmentally destructive industries- the oil industry, meat industry, mining industry, car industry, etc- has less of our money to use to lobby against political reforms.

by amc89 at 8:54 AM on 12 Sep 2007

Volunteering

I know Mike Tidwell has done a lot in the past 20 years, but I will always associate him with his beautifully written memoir of his Peace Corps service. The former Peace Corps volunteers I know say that while their service did very little concretely to solve the problem of world poverty, it made them advocates for the developing world for the rest of their lives.

That is the kind of voluntary action we should be promoting - not just actions that change people's self-image ("I am an environmentalist" just like "I am a hipster" or "I am the kind of person who listens to alt-country") but actions that bring them into contact with the reality of environmental damage. While unlike poverty, climate change is very hard to see (unless you burn thousands of gallons of jet fuel traveling to Alaska or the Maldives) I believe that concern about all environmental issues does tend to go together.

Adding "volunteer" to the list of 10 things you can do - whether that is to help clean up a stream, replant a forest, or beautify a neighborhood filled with toxic industries - could have a relatively small short-term impact, but change people's lives.

by eriqa at 11:56 AM on 12 Sep 2007

Who drives the changes?

"Small behaviors are important not only for the direct environmental impact they have, but because they often lead to more and more pro-environmental behaviors over time."

Only IF those who display the small positive behaviors get educated and are constantly aware that what they do is not enough. Unfortunately that is not the case often. On the contrary, it seems that as long as profits can be made with small behavior changes (by selling skin-deep "green" products and services to a happy-to-comply, guilt-ridden society) they will be supported by those who make the profits and who (at the same time) are not willing to support big changes because they are not profitable. Over- consumption cannot be solved with continued consumption.

Nice title collection. To bad it does not matter who says it - it matters what is said.

Karsten PolluteLessDotCom

by PolluteLessDotCom at 12:08 PM on 12 Sep 2007

Agree with the psychologists

I think the psychologists are correct, both in terms of psychological theory and in my own experience.

When people perform a small action, they begin to have part of their ego invested in change. Over time, they develop ideas that provide support for that behavior. For example, 30 years my grandmother defied the neighbors by planting her front lawn with vegetables. She got me involved by working on the compost pile. At the time, I just thought it was fun. But over the years, I've developed a philosophy and set of commitments consonant with that initial action.

Religions understand this. "Perform the action, and belief will come." They emphasize the repetition of small acts, knowing that this builds a pattern of behavior and belief.

Salesmen and propagandists understand it too. You get your audience to perform an action ("Squeeze the Charmin and see how soft it feels.") and you are on your way to convincing them.

It's just human nature, and these techniques can be used for good or ill.

Personally I'm exasperated with lists of 10 Green Things That Will Change the World, and I'm turned off by green consumerism. However, I try to keep my mouth shut, because I know that in the long run, it's a vital first step.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

by Bart Anderson at 1:31 PM on 12 Sep 2007

I hate to say it, but Bailo has a point...

It seems to me that a very salient point has been omitted from most posts apart from (and I really hate to say this) JBailo´s, and that is that for better or for worse we live in a very shallow world deeply influenced by the triumph of capitalism and emphasis on the individual. The average human today is trained to stop paying attention after :30 seconds with respect to visual and auditory messages and at most one paragraph with reading. The best way to capture people´s attention for those short time spans are: 1. (as Bailo hinted at) the insinuation that by "purchasing a particular product or making a certain lifestlye change" you will get lots of hot and steamy SEX, and 2. that by "" you will get lots and lots of stinky green MONEY. The VAST majority of us spend more time thinking about how to get more sex and money than we will ever spend considering the threat of nuclear annihilation, dwindling water and oil supplies, or global warming COMBINED. Religion might come somewhere in between the camps of self gratification and the consideration of long term threats to self gratification, but as often as not with religious moralization we become even more consumed by self centered toughts. That is to say religion typically fails at its general goal of stopping people from being so damned evil. What really gets me about the response from the social "scientists" to Tidwell´s piece is that they are so attached to the idea that people are capable of changing for the better and that small personal changes can affect the larger framework of money and power that govern the overarching business, political, and religious structures upon which our macro-societies are based. What gets me about Tidwell´s piece is that he implies that getting people to call a representative will do any more good than buying "green."

People are lazy, ignorant, and pretty much terribly self-centered assholes generally. People typically by a certain good or do certain actions in order to benefit themselves, and the most gratifying things for the vast majority of people are money and sex (and religion, but that´s too loaded of an issue to get into here). Remember when the Vatican issued the 10 driving commandments? Let´s take the 5th driving commandment which reads: Cars shall not be for you an expression of power and domination, and an occasion of sin.
Silly Vatican, one of the first purposes of automobiles after driving was as a shelter in which to commit the ORIGINAL sin. And as long as stupid 18 year old girls still go silly dumb for a guy driving anything that looks remotely cool and badass, then dudes with nice cars are going to continue to get lots of stupid 18 year old girls to take a ride with them (Grist hiring staff please take note of the richness of that pun).

We as a society cannot begin to start seriously tackling the problems facing us until we make them more relevant to the average joe and by positioning it such that he really believes that by making a change he will be benefitting himself monetarily and with the ladies. It is impossible to do this by moralizing the issue, because the average joe when confronted with a feel bad issue like the extinction of polar bears will say "aw that´s too bad" then flip the channel to see Paris Hilton saying "yeah, um, like, we´re here tonight, to like, save polar bears, or stop polluting, or something (cue ditzy and vapid and slightly terrifying/slightly sexy smile toward the camera)" and say to himself "I can dig that kind of environmental protection!" while turning back to his polar bear steak dinner. I´m not saying we should bring global warming into the gutter by placing ads on tv juxtaposing a bunch of cheerleaders making frowny faces :( with a hummer. But you know, maybe we should...I was going to say that we should first address the underlying sickness of our society, but then I remembered that our society is sick because humans are sick, so there is no cure. So sure man, let´s hose down a bunch of cute barely legal teens in bikinis and have them hug polar bears while frowning at pictures of the heads of coal fired power plants, Let´s give Dennis Kucinich some breast implants and a queer eye make over (is queer eye already not cool anymore), or spray dioxin on Fred Thompson´s face so he becomes as ugly as Viktor Yuschenko...it´s worth a shot and the worst case scenario is...well, we´ll fry to death knowing that we tried all options short of firing ze missiles.

It�s about the bling bling y�all...you explain that going green equals making green, then, well, we might actually manage to change something

by regularolyogamatt at 2:20 PM on 12 Sep 2007

You have to want it.

The way I see it, the problem isn't going away until society, global and local, decide that it isn't about buying one thing to offset another, a quick fix to sweep it all under the carpet, or keeping up with the earth-friendly Joneses by buying Organic or a bio-diesel car. Corporations, businesses, governments, and individuals alike need to be held tangibly accountable. This isn't a problem that is going to just "go away" by good faith, nor is it a problem that is going to be held at bay by a few clever green washing tactics.

People are going to have to make some serious changes, and I agree more and more that doing things on the micro level isn't going to make a true difference. Asking for global change through people who can make change...is the only way anything will really move in a new direction. People have to 'really' want it and convince their representatives to want it. Even with all the talk about environmental progress and change, it is still a trendy thought. Our long-term societal solution isn't concerned with polluting and saving polar bears...it is concerned with the all mighty dollar.

Just look at China. There is a country that has developed rapidly economically, but didn't have the foresight to manage the waste that has come of such growth. Respiratory and heart diseases related to air pollution are now the leading cause of death in China. Acid rain falls on 30% of the country. So they know the consequences of what they are doing, but have they halted all harmful activity? Have we stopped driving our cars to work or buying cheap products that drive such an economy? No.

China surpassed the United States as the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide, putting out 6,200 million tons, to America's 5,800 million. I did some research and from what I've come to understand we are going to have to cut that at least 25% by 2050, and 75% by 2100 (even though they've been steadily increasing by 2% every year). I'm horrible at math...but it doesn't take much to figure out that we are already in some serious trouble.

Listen to what people say and do around you. That really speaks to the reality of the situation. You might find your observations, even in such a progressive place like Seattle to be a little disheartening.

Today I listened to a conversation between two women talking about the necessity of two refrigerators in one house, their latest cheap fashion finds, and one woman's excitement over a recent SUV purchase. I might add I was listening to all this while I was standing in a cafe with my non-recyclable coffee cup and prepackaged breakfast cookie. We might do little things here and there...or be recycling Nazis, but we are all guilty of being apart of the problem because we are imbedded deep within a society who thrives off of dollar signs.

The cultural idea of having "stuff and status" is still strong. We are all guilty of wanting things, of having things, of wasting things. Society isn't going to change unless the only option is to do just that.

by beccabee205 at 11:32 AM on 13 Sep 2007

Ignorance

I think both sides are right. On one hand, people have to start doing things on their own and start being part of the solution and not the problem.
On the other hand there is so much information going around and the average person may not see the difference between unplugging their cellphone charger and lowering the thermostat on the airconditioner when they're not home. Or that a domestic solar heater can save them as much electricity as changing anywhere from 50 to 150 bulbs to fluorescent (whithout sacrificing comfort at all)

Unfortunatelly most people feel they have done their part say if they recycle and buy food whithout hormones or antibiotics. The problems we face are so complex that it's mind bogling and many people become turned off when they hear Global Warming or Enviromentally Friendly. Some are starting to think it's all BS created to sell products or for political purposes (although there are always people that use turmoil to their advantage). Don't get me wrong, if it weren't for some of these people we wouldn't have new products and policies to fix our problems.

It would be interesting if somebody could put out some sort of chart (havent seen one yet)to compare actions and their costs, against benefits or savings. Maybe separated by categories.

by solar greg at 4:44 PM on 13 Sep 2007

SCIENTISTS MISSED TIDWELL'S WHOLE ARGUMENT

I really want to first of commend these researchers for commitment to sustainability and defense of voluntary action.

But in my opinion, I did not read Tidwell to argue that, unless I am completely missing something. He never stated that voluntary actions were incompatible with policy. He does not even imply that.

What he says is that "everytime an activist or politician hectors the public voluntarily reach for a new bulb or spend extra on a Prius" it compromises their will to act on this particular issue.

Tidwell criticizes the way our mass-media system calls for voluntary action.

The mainstream media weakens the principles of opposition to climate change and the concrete solutions in its messages.

For example, we probably won't see a "number one: become a vegetarian, and try not to slack" on CNN. We'll probably see, "just try to eat less meat." Those convey two different principles.

Also, the content is watered down. You probably won't see "fasting" ever listed, even though its a voluntary action.

So if I understand what Tidwell is saying, these scientist don't address his argument, in fact they compliment it.

(Personally, I don't agree with his policy recommendations. If we are going to demand policy, why not demand eletric cars, not hybrids?)

As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields. -Leo Tolstoy

by iprefertherain at 12:37 AM on 14 Sep 2007

Can Lights are the (other) enemy of the human race

Just as a side comment on a phrase in Solar Greg's post, I wonder how many of those who talk of sacrificing comfort by changing to CFL's are using them in recessed ceiling can lights? This would indeed be unsatisfactory but you should be getting rid of your can lights anyway: they exemplify the energy-squandering, doesn't matter what you do to get the job done attitude that has got us into this carbon emissions mess in the first place. They are leaky, inefficient, wasteful and mostly unnecessary.

Get rid of your cans, light your rooms mostly with good-quality CFL's in a few well-chosen floor and table lamps. Your optical comfort will be assured and so will your personal energy balance.

Now if there were only a good low-energy substitute for the halogen spotlight! OK. Back to the main thread.

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

by spaceshaper at 5:01 AM on 14 Sep 2007

Voluntary Actions

I believe the power of voluntary actions can and does make a difference. People I know see what I do and ask questions about my actions. Many have made an effort to change their own ways of doing things to make a difference.
It's a small start but over time, it's amazing how my family and friends have changed.
Tony Esposito

by Habitat Steward at 5:52 AM on 14 Sep 2007

LED's

I'm getting off the main subject but where are the LED's for lighting. They last forever, very easy to create infinite designs (things have to be pleasing too) They can also be turned on and off with motion sensors, light intensity sensors, etc.

Back to the subject, it's easy for the average person, who is to busy trying to make ends meet and pay for his credit card spending habit, to just label most of us on this blog as fannatics and ignore the whole problem altogether. "If I ignore it it will go away"

Push for policies but remember, big companies usually have more leverage$$$.

Some things will only come about if there is money to be made in the process. We all use it.
Right now the ones making most of it are big businesses. What we need to do is let these big businesses know that we are changing our purchasing habits and start demanding CERO emitions vehicles, not halfway "OK here, have this, are you happy?"

Let's push for compressed air power in cars, for industries. Batteries to me are a half-way solution. Imagine everybody driving cars that filter the air and cool it too. Air conditioned traffic jams! Maybe even make them Monorail compatible? You would get the bennfits of mass transit without losing your independence to drive around.

Demand from thermal solar installers to start applying ground storage methods for space heating. You could stop burning fuel in winter altogether.

We may be past the point of no return with climate change but don't just sit there and wait for answers. If you can't find it, build it.

by solar greg at 6:47 AM on 14 Sep 2007

Small but necessary steps

You cannot have a revolution if the masses don't believe in the ethics of the change. While getting people to change their lightbulbs is not an effective solution, it does give ordinary people a very tangible step towards greater efforts, and gets them involved in these issues. Once we have people invested via small, tangible steps, we can then propose massive structural changes that will be well-received by the general public.

Being so involved in the green movement ourselves, it is easy to overlook the fact that most people haven't even stuck their toes in the pool, much less jumped in. Sweeping changes only work when the time is ripe, and a quality force is behind the transformation. We don't have that right now.

This is an excellent discussion. Perhaps one of the most important metadiscussions that we can have.

Below is a quote by artist Joseph Beuys that I find very fitting.

"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."

by zacaroni at 8:16 AM on 14 Sep 2007

Pull the plug

The psychologists responding to Mike Tidwell's apparent dismissal of voluntary actions are thinking in terms of a too narrow range of responses, although they do refer to lifestyle changes. We must define these changes, because switching light bulbs and getting a less polluting car are not by a long shot the level of voluntary action that will cut the mustard. Pulling the plug massively and deeply on our energy use is already overdue, as is forestalling the effects of what will be Peak Oil-generated petrcollapse. So the end of the energy orgy is nigh, and very little action that's ongoing is radical enough or widespread enough. I wrote about this in a Gristmill essay in response to Mike on Sept. 5, at
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/5/163546/9216
I further explored the issue in Culture Change on Sept. 12, "Fasting for the climate and self":
http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content ...
Jan Lundberg
San Francisco

Jan Lundberg, Culture Change

by janlundberg at 9:51 AM on 14 Sep 2007

I still don't think...

...that Tidwell is saying voluntary actions are completely incompatible with policy change.

I thought he was criticizing the way mainstream media is presenting voluntary action. I think that Karsten and Joan also commented on some of those same problems.

Maybe I'm wrong, but if so, can someone please show me where he states that ALL voluntary action and policy change are incompatible?

As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields. -Leo Tolstoy

by iprefertherain at 10:24 AM on 14 Sep 2007

Oops, I meant Jan - not Joan

As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields. -Leo Tolstoy

by iprefertherain at 10:24 AM on 14 Sep 2007

Voluntary actions can be an excuse

I've also seen reliance on voluntary actions used as an excuse to not have regulatory mandates. We're in court because our county is relying on unworkable "voluntary" protection of wetlands rather than mandatory protections. Some of the County's voluntary measures that relieve property owners of mandated protection are ludicrous (i.e being registered in a "backyard wildlife sanctuary program").
I'm sure there are other examples of this phenomenon. Imagine the politicos: "sales of CFLs are up 400%, so we don't need to address climate change."
This is the flip downside of voluntary action - it may be used by the politicos as an excuse not to take the hard regulatory steps.

Steve E. Whidbey Environmental Action Network

by paintbrush at 12:38 PM on 14 Sep 2007

Listen to the psychologists!

I really really agree with this letter, and I disagree with the disparaging view of voluntary action expressed in the Tidwell column. In my own life I have seen the power of a modest initial step, first getting efficient light bulbs, and building up to a solar heated and solar powered house and a hybrid car. I do not think my personal actions are trivial, and I think Tidwell has an overly hopeful view of political action. I vote for the environment every chance I get but I see no point in complaining to my legislators about the environment. They already vote the way I prefer, for the most part. I know it's boring to read about the same small first steps in the popular media. That doesn't matter, because you and I are not the intended audience. I also think that having earned a doctorate in a subject in no way disqualifies a person from expressing an opinion on that subject. I suspect biodiversivist flunked out of college and is still mad about it. Every time you are annoyed by the same small steps advocated by ABC news, just come to the Grist and compare notes with your peers. My house is 100% solar powered and 90% solar heated. It didn't cost a lot to build either. I spent $17K on a car that gets 52MPG. That doesn't seem expensive to me. I know where to buy beef that has never caused environmental damage, because it was raised entirely on grass, never taken to a feed lot, and it tastes absolutely great and is healthier for you. Anyone know where to get environmentally responsible fish?
Cheers,
Susanna Gross

by sjg at 11:57 AM on 21 Sep 2007

BioD's schooling; "damage"

To SJG:

BioD got no further than the third grade, in fact, but that seems to have slowed him down not a jot. I wish I were half as intelligent as he. As for his reaction to that catalogue of Ph.D.'s, it is just that he seems to have an unusually low pretense-detection threshold.
Grass-fed cattle usually have a much less miserable existence than cattle raised in factory farms. However, they necessarily experience the same stressful, difficult and dangerous long-distance transportation to the slaughterhouse, followed by their arrival there, their last stop, and the horrendous and terrifying final act that ends in their death. That is a gravely significant kind of "environmental damage," whether or not we have been encouraged to think of it that way.
The Monterey Bay Aquarium's website is one of the most reliable sources on the various kinds of seafood sold in the US, though not the only one. Generally, the wild salmon fishery of Alaska, for example, is considered to be managed in an exemplary sustainable way. Of course, one must always take into account that there is no "humane" way to put fish to death. Also, methods of catching fish often result in the by-catch and pointless death of marine mammals, turtles and birds.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 12:41 PM on 21 Sep 2007

simple action's...increase empowerment

As a first time grist mill participant, it seemed like this was the perfect discussion to contribute too. 18 month's ago, a group of us realized how desperately ineffective the gov't, corporate america, and the high powered environmental groups, have been able to reach the vast population and get EVERYONE involved in change. We designed a bumper sticker which encourages driver's to "drive easy...CONSERVE. wE USED THE ORANGE SLOW MOVING VEHICLE SYMBOL, AND GREENED IT. We set our Pine County pine tree in the center and started printing them like mad.

We have encouraged 20,000 driver's in our area and adjoining state's to slow down a little...and drive easy, thus saving fossil fuel's and reducing CO2 emmissions. All this is from the grassroot's. We then designed a micro version for the dashboard of the car as a reminder for them to "drive easy...conserve. The cost of production of a "dashboard reminder is about .02 cent's. Well, why not let everybody get involved. It is simple, free and effective.

check us out at greenslowmovingvehicle.com and let us know if we are just wasting our time and we should do nothing at the grassroot's level. The people need to get involved with the solution too, after all, we are the consumer's and have some responsibility for this mess.

toward a green future

Fulton

Toward a green and sustainable future, Fulton, rural Pine County, Mn.

by Fulton Hanson at 8:51 PM on 21 Sep 2007

Social scientists' response to Tidwell

It isn't surprising that social scientists would emphasize individual action as key to solving societal problems. Social scientists have been the last ones to acknowledge that there are influences on human behavior beyond individual choice and "free will", such as inherited and evolutionary behavioral traits. Indeed, ecological theory and thought have had to struggle to overcome social science's fervent but ultimately fruitless attempts to place the human species in a separate category from other animal species, in order to discard unpleasant aspects of human behavior or to pretend that humans are not influenced by anything outside of human society. These outside influences include religion, family values, political institutions, national policies, community traditions, education, peer groups, and status seeking, not to mention behavior and responses that may have been socially acceptable, ecologically appropriate or evolutionarly adaptive to our ancestores. By defending the importance of voluntary, individual behavioral choices, they bolster the relevance of their chosen discipline and downplay (and often dismiss) the ecological, anthropological and biological disciplines which cast far more light on human beings and their social structures and belief systems than the social sciences will ever do. The social sciences would do well to let their discipline be absorbed into a comprehensive inclusive study of human origins and evolution. Today their importance is less and less relevant because of their self imposed isolation from these other crucial disciplines which refuse to limit their inquiry and critiques to superficial observations of human behavior.

by lorna salzman at 11:22 AM on 22 Sep 2007

Please share the secret.

"My house is 100% solar powered and 90% solar heated. It didn't cost a lot to build either."

Do tell us how.

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

by spaceshaper at 1:55 PM on 22 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

Little shifts change the whole trajectory

Small changes make all the big changes happen. You can look at this from the most fundamental level, if it is a difficult concept for you. In my book, "Little Shifts," I came up with a bunch of radical acts which include things like stopping, breathing, and what I call candle power -- spending an evening at home with the power turned off. Our panic-based responses to the dire-seeming condition of the planet tell us that nothing is really enough. This attitude leads straight to apathy, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars. We can instead take a cue from simple physics. To change anything changes everything. Begin. Where is the argument?
Suzanna Stinnett

by Suzanna at 1:15 PM on 23 Sep 2007

Huh?

regularolyogamatt, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you think Dennis Kucinich would benefit from breast implants. If the average joe and josephine are as shallow and appearance-fixated as you say, wouldn't they be inclined to reject a candidate who appeared to be physically deformed? Perhaps I am missing something here.

Let the jaguars return!

by Storm Dragon at 3:44 PM on 27 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

lower cost solar

We've made a web page about our house at
http://strike.colorado.edu/solar. The
basic house was $80K, ordered from Guerdon
manufactured homes in Idaho. The solar
heat comes from our solar basement, which
is covered by windows on the south, and
can get pretty hot. It did cost a bit more
than a conventional basement, because of
the windows and extra insulation it has.
Maybe it cost $30K more? I am not sure,
because our contractor did not itemize.
The solar electricity was about $20K, and
it doesn't have a grid intertie. We do
conserve electricity, although we run a PC
24 hours a day, and we have a regular electric
fridge from Sears. We don't have a generator
or any wood burning appliance. For the details,
go ahead and download the seminar slides in PDF
from our website. We have made an effort
to quantify our solar heating system especially
but the solar electricity is quite conventional,
especially for our neighborhood.

by sjg at 9:24 AM on 16 Oct 2007
[ Parent ]

Small steps are necessary!

I strongly agree with this alternative view from the group of psychologist's and disagree with Mike Tidwell's perspective in this case.

Lots of little actions are required before people are willing to take big steps. This was the case in the Civil Rights movement and this is the case for Global Warming as well.

Big leaps often end in disaster. Little incremental steps are much safer and can more often get you to a good result with less wasted effort.

reduce, reuse/freecycle, recycle

Cheers,
Tim Oey
timoey.com

by timoey at 4:05 PM on 12 Jan 2008

privat life energy-saving technologies

It's not a secret anymore that energy-saving technologies represent one of the best methods of fighting global warming. Curiously enough, such technologies are popular in all spheres of life and the sexual is not an exception. I was really amazed by discovering eco-friendly sex toys and it's great that even such private part of our life can be friendly not only with us, but with the environment as well.

by Amfora at 8:03 AM on 07 Feb 2008

eco-friendly sex toys

I agree that sex toys are fun, but only them, many other things can fit such technologies.

by savweb at 8:31 AM on 07 Feb 2008
[ Parent ]

Being right is not enough

Mike Tidwell argues that legislation is the appropriate response to global warming as it was for racial discrimination in the sixties: "By 1965 we had... banned racial discrimination in housing, employment, voting, and other realms of national life."

However this was only possible because (as he also points out), "The majority of Americans understood [legislation] to be the only appropriate response to a colossal national injustice." Unfortunately there is no such consensus today concerning global warming. So global warming legislation would have to enacted and enforced against the will of the majority.

The power of individual actions lies in their potential ability to help build a consensus. To this extent the psychologists are right.

However there is a further subtlety. How individual actions are interpreted by others is as important as the actions themselves.

So if someone changes a light bulb, and environmentalists condemn him as a hypocrite only seeking to assuage his guilt, there is a risk he may regard himself like that. In many (most?) cases that will lead to apathy and self-protective denial rather than greater commitment.

On the other hand, if someone changes a lightbulb, and environmentalists unite in congratulating her for taking a valuable first step, supply a supportive peer group, and encourage her toward further actions, then she may well respond by doing more. She may even support legislation because she can do so without condemning herself.

With global warming we do not win by being right, or behaving radically ourselves. We only win if we get everyone onside.

A prerequisite for effective legislation and individual actions may be that as committed activists we learn how to resist being judgemental and learn how to encourage and persuade those who do not yet agree with us.

by hendersonishome at 9:55 AM on 21 May 2008

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.