In an article today in the online publication Grist, Michael Tidwell argues that there's a possible downside to encouraging people to undertake small, local actions to combat climate change. The heart of the argument is that those "10 Things You Can Do to Combat Climate Change" lists published in well-meaning magazine articles could either have the effect of minimizing the scope of the problem ("If my changing a few lightbulbs will right our course, then the problem must be a small one so I needn't worry") or causing us to despair ("If all I can do personally to fix this is to pay a few dollars for carbon offsets when I fly, then we're doomed"). Tidwell argues that personal action needs to be augmented by sweeping, dramatic, legislative reform of "Churchillian" magnitude.
I think parts of this argument are correct. There is a real risk that grassroots campaigns to fix the environment will be derailed by despair. In fact, I bet that Tidwell's motivations in writing this article were driven to some extent by despair. People aren't changing their ways voluntarily, so perhaps it's time for the jackboots and the truncheons. I understand the feeling. I stand at a busy streetcorner every morning, waiting for my turn to cross a road crowded with cars filled with single occupants commuting to city jobs from McMansions in the suburbs. I watch parents sitting in cars waiting for their children to come out of school, engines idling to keep the A/C running. Waiting for their children. I see people clamouring to find $5 t-shirts at discount stores, either oblivious to the human costs of getting those shirts on the shelves, or feeling helpless economically to do otherwise.
When election time comes, what would those people do to the politicians who proposed legislation that forced us to live in an environmentally responsible manner? People are basically good, thoughtful, well-meaning. We care about what happens to our children, and their children. But we're not making the connections between our own actions and what is happening to the planet. Psychologically, we're not 'wired' to make those connections easily. Ironically, many of the technologies that we've been able to develop with cheap carbon-intensive energy sources (rapid transit, instant telecommunication) have conspired to disconnect us further still from our spatial relationship with the rest of the planet.
It's been said so many times before, but I'll muster the breath to say it again. In a democracy, people get the government that they ask for. Governments will only enact tough laws to curb carbon outputs if we ask them to do so in very large numbers. It's getting to the 'ask' that matters, and that's where those local actions count. Getting to the 'ask' means understanding how we're connected to the planet and its problems, and this is a psychological problem, not a technological or political one.
Comments