I spend some time highlighting aspects of sustainability that are passed over because they represent truths that we don’t want to accept. People don’t want to hear that we are car-dependent. People don’t really like to hear that their purchasing power matters so every purchase they have counts towards shifting a marketplace. No one looks forward to being told that he is part of the “environmental problem.” However, when it comes to the discussion of sustainability, even stalwart climate hawks have to saddle up with an inconvenient truth of their own. Greens are also part of the problem. Naturally I include myself in this group, so the title is really “We Are Hypocrits.” It hurts a bit, but it’s true.
I recently came cross a great blog post by Scott Bartlett, which I found by way of blogger Simon Wild, titled “How Admitting You’re A Hypocrit Can Save the Planet.” Even from the pro-environment position, Barlett doesn’t pull any punches even though he is, at least partly, swinging at himself.
“We don’t have perfect environmental records. We’ve engaged in all kinds of unsustainable behaviours in the past. Even since the day we realized how urgent humanity’s environmental problems are–and started trying to persuade others to be more green as a result–we still do things that are harmful to the environment. We’re hypocrites.”
He’s right, of course. We live, we consume. All of us. Even those of us that try and raise awareness of what impact our decisions have on the natural world still leave a wake of waste in our paths. I recycle everything I can, but I still don’t walk my food waste to the compost collection in Union Square yet. I make sure to turn off the lights and electronics when they’re not in use, but if it’s too cold to sleep with the windows open, I still suck energy by keeping a fan on (I like the white noise). We can all take a number of positive steps every day that wind up with a net gain for sustainability, but perfection is far beyond our grasp and I found that to be Barlett’s most important point. Not only is a lack of perfection okay, but admitting it could make our goals more palatable to a wider audience.
Regardless of climate change, the environmental lobby has a tendency to come across as scolding rather than informing; demeaning rather than trying to help; dare I say, at times, condescending? Our (helpful and well-intentioned) insisting can get stern enough so that the old image of sandal-wearing, frisbee-tossing, pot-smoking hippies in tie-dyed shirts dissolves into a throng of stingy professors in organic cotton, shamrock suits holding long, firm bamboo rulers to slap hands committing environmental transgressions. Barlett says it well that “environmentalism is too often portrayed as some kind of lofty virtue, and those who don’t identify as environmentalists are too often looked upon with contempt. We can’t afford that…If we represent environmental consciousness as this angelic ideal, we risk alienating people who feel they don’t measure up. So let’s be honest, with ourselves and with others.”
I believe that carbon neutrality is possible for modern humanity, but if we get there it will be the result of technological advances and changes in societal norms, which means the better part of society will need to take part. We need participation more than feuds. We need people to be educated more than scolded. We also have a great deal of material to work with. Sustainability has many different facets that can appeal to people in different climates, economic classes and lifestyles. Environmental advocates should capitalize on this and refine the message every now and then to make sure that we are focused more on solidifying commonalities rather than strengthening differences.
Image Credit: ecosnobberysucks.com
September 17, 2013 at 2:40 pm
This article raises many key issues with the argument of “green enforcement”. You don’t have to be a sociologist to know that human behavior will not change unless there are measurable consequences for ones actions. The problem is we are indirectly taught that it is acceptable to be wasteful. It is too easy to not care and until we see a direct negative result of our poor judgment, life as we know it today will sadly continue.
I also try to do my part and minimize my waste stream, eat vegetarian once a week, turn off any electronic device I can when not needed (I admit, I too like the white noise of a fan)…Is it really having any impact? I don’t know, but it makes me feel better about myself at least.
September 24, 2013 at 3:24 pm
I agree with Mark, and I think you could even say it more strongly, not we are taught it is acceptable to be wasteful, but that it IS acceptable. Good thing too, because when it is not acceptable, we are falling into a world where someone has decided what IS wasteful and what is not. Sounds like Big Brother.
I think that focusing on shaming and “getting” people to do something is the wrong course. Innovation that makes green the smart choice for a person is the path to a future of less waste. Instead of getting better at seeing “poor judgment” we should work to show people what is in it for them. It is like saying, people should be nicer, and maybe they should, but why?
September 24, 2013 at 3:34 pm
Exactly, Gary. Thanks for stopping by. I am guilty of encountering a lot of situations where the knee-jerk reaction is to take blatantly wasteful practices and try to regulate them, but it’s an incredibly slippery slope. Once you start drawing those lines then it’s hard to know where to stop.
The flip side of that is looking to all the energy that we save and the innovation that we promote due to energy efficiency standards. We have had Federal standards for things like boilers, furnaces and air conditioning systems for a while right now — good thing too because it’s only due to those measures that home energy usage per capita has remained fairly flat since the 70’s.
I think it’s a tough problem for our society to go out of our way to make things like energy, water and food so cheap but then try to turn around and make a great financial argument for efficiency. One ends up undercutting the other. Like you said, I think that we should be trying to point to positive results for positive cultural changes, but to a certain extent we may be stacking the deck against ourselves. (That being said, I think there are reasons aside from dollar signs to make some of these changes, but they certainly not as good at catching attention as monetary savings).