Citizens and consumers
This post started bouncing around in my head in response to Andrea’s comments on my post about Eating local and the environment. And then she posted a long piece today in which she amplified her frustration at with the idea that we’re going to change the world through consumer activism. So you might want to stop over there first. But the key paragraph (I think) in her essay is this:
Being a good consumer is a minuscule part of the overall puzzle. Helping to make the world a better place, if that’s something you want to do, is not something you can buy. (I find it so depressing that even activism these days has become a shopping spree, something you do so you can get the t-shirt or the mug or the plastic bracelet, another opportunity to aquire more meaningless stuff we don’t need, as if the whole idea of doing something that won’t add to our collections is simply incomprehensible. Do we really need to be bought off with another cotton shopping bag?) You have to be a citizen.
I think Andrea’s over-emphasizing the contrast between being a citizen and a consumer, and under-emphasizing the contrast between acting on your own and trying to engage others, regardless of whether you’re acting as a citizen or a consumer. Going by yourself into the voting booth on election day and voting for the candidate of your choice is as symbolic — and practically ineffective — as choosing to buy a locally grown heirloom tomato instead of one that’s been genetically engineered for pest resistance and durability and shipped across the country. Except that the locally grown tomato probably tastes good. Both activities are only likely to change the world if you convince a bunch of other people to do them too.
Without dismissing the importance of political action, I actually think collective consumer action is more likely to have an impact, at least in the short-run, and at least in the U.S. Because having 20 percent of the public support the environment in the voting booth gets you a lot of speeches in the Congressional Record, and that’s about it. The system is so winner-take-all that even a substantial minority has very little opportunity to move public policy. But if you changed the consumption patterns of 20 percent of the public, that’s a pretty big niche market.
And I believe that shifts in demand do change what’s available, even in the housing market. At least in the Washington DC area, they’re literally pulling down small older houses to put up bigger ones — McMansions, as they’re not so fondly referred to. And, from everything I’ve read, the consumer pressure on McDonalds to improve the way the cows/beef it buys was treated had a dramatic impact on the entire slaughterhouse industry in the US.
A while back, landismom had a post in which she explained that the essence of political organizing is giving people Anger, Hope, and a Plan. Andrea’s worried that people aren’t angry enough. I think there’s a real risk of pushing people right past anger and into despair, which is as much the enemy of action as indifference.
How do I put this? If Andrea is right, and a sustainable environment really requires North Americans to voluntarily (either as individuals, or by voting in governments that would mandate it) reduce our consumption by more than 50 percent before we have no choice about it, then I hope the cockroaches learn to write poetry. I recognize that pretty much everything that we can do as consumers is an exercise in slowing down our race to the brink, rather than in changing the overall trajectory. But if it buys us just a few more decades between when we (as a society) recognize that our current path is unsustainable and when it’s too late to do anything about it, that could make all the difference.
May 31st, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Perhaps it is the near-decade here in Washington and the time as a Capitol Hill staffer working in the salt mines of a Senator’s mail room (pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!), but I find myself chuckling at Andrea’s (and Jared Diamond’s) emphasis on voting and writing your representative as some sort of meaningful action.
PUH-LEASE.
The sheer number of voters and constituents it would take to motivate the entire Congress to pass meaningful legislation on an environmental issue is staggering. Much less so than the number of people it would take to create a measurable shift in the marketplace. Companies are about a thousand times more nimble than the legislative branch of the U.S. government. Look at CAFE standards, for example. Congress has been punting that issue around for, what, a decade? But all of a sudden, gas prices climb and stay high, people start shying away from SUVs and Detroit/Japan start responding by introducing smaller, more fuel efficient cars.
I’m not saying that it’s worthless to vote or write your Congressman, but to pretend that so-called ‘political action’ is somehow more meaningful than making a carefully weighed consumer choice is laughable.
June 1st, 2006 at 12:18 am
Great post Elizabeth. What touches my chords is “I think there’s a real risk of pushing people right past anger and into despair, which is as much the enemy of action as indifference.” I think the possibility of dispair (and the hopelessless) it engenders is extremely dangerous.
Now I have another point of view, as well, which is that exaggeration produces opposition in me, not action. If you try to frighten me by exaggerating the facts, about global warming, about plastics, antibiotics, co-sleepoing, or breastfeeding, I retreat to my scientific pedestal and talk about the inadequacy of evidence.
bj
June 1st, 2006 at 10:51 am
Hmm, that’s odd. My last comment didn’t show up. Are you moderating? I can’t remember. Maybe I didn’t type the code in properly.
Anyway, I wrote another post about some of the concerns you’ve raised here, and I’m going to trackback you.
I also want to say (and I’ve been meaning to say this now for about two weeks) that none of this is directed at you, or any other commenter or blogger or whatever. I get incredibly cranky over this stuff (I mean, it’s my job and I’ve been dealing with this sort of thing now for twelve years, including my education) so I get frustrated. And I can never tell if it sounds like I’m harassing or scolding people. But I want to make it clear that if it sounds like that, it’s not intended; please feel free to tell me so and I’ll apologize.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:03 am
Picture This
It’s Easter Island, back when there were still a few trees and birds left. The leaders of the twelve political areas are sitting around, discussing deforestation, hunting and climate change and their responses to it, while servants bring them food…
June 1st, 2006 at 11:26 am
Review: How to Save the World in your Spare Time, by Elizabeth May
I was going to post this tomorrow, but I have nothing for today since I spent my time writing a fairly extensive post on the other blog (which you can check out, if you’d like, here Americans probably don’t know…
June 1st, 2006 at 1:43 pm
In the short term I think one of the best things a person can do to affect change is with their wallet. If nothing else thinking about what we purchase is a good jumping off point. Looking at the big picture, sustainability has to move beyond just what we purchase as individuals. We have to come together ad communities and as a nation to make the necessary changes happen. My hope is that awareness that stems from the former will lead to the latter.
June 1st, 2006 at 1:54 pm
(OT–hi! I’m an idiot. I mistakenly trackbacked you w/ the BB post too. Sorry about that. I meant to trackback somewhere else. *clearing throat*)
June 1st, 2006 at 2:09 pm
To echo the comments of the other DC-area-dwellers, Wal*Mart’s new environmental initiatives (http://walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=587) will do more for sustainability than anything a note to Jim Moran or Tom Davis would. And why is Wal*Mart even starting these initiatives? Maybe to be responsive to consumer demands. And maybe, putting aside my native cynicism, there are some well-intentioned Wal*Mart executives who care about the environment and realize they have the power to DO SOMETHING.
There are now organic foods in my local Safeway, in addition to the new Whole Foods and the relatively new (3 years?) My Organic Market near my house. Certainly, those options didn’t appear because they were legislated into being – there is increasing consumer demand for organic product availability, and the market is responding. My hope – as I pay ridiculous amounts of money for organic chicken breasts – is that my financial outlay to buy almost 100% organic is going to, first, be healthier for my family, second, be healthier for the environment, and third, contribute to the creation of an increased demand for organic products, a demand that should lead to increased supply.
And, most important, my purchase gives me some hope that I, despite my intimate and cynical view of the way Washington works, can also DO SOMETHING. Keeps me away from the dangerous despair.
June 1st, 2006 at 3:22 pm
merseydotes, you need to get out and spend some time in Congressional districts. Also in the low-population flyover states. There are many places where mail and phone calls actually mean something, and where the legislators are listening. In low-population states like Iowa, it’s actually possible for people with neither money nor position to help write/revise major legislation.
June 1st, 2006 at 3:34 pm
“Certainly, those options didn’t appear because they were legislated into being ”
Of course it was, Maggie. From Wikipedia:
“In the United States, agricultural products that claim to be “organic” must adhere to the requirements of the Organic Food Production Act of 1990 (found in 7 U.S.C.A. ยง 6501-22) and the regulations (found in 7 C.F.R. Part 205) promulgated by the USDA through the National Organic Program (“NOP”) under this act. These laws essentially require that any product that claims to be organic must have been manufactured and handled according to specific NOP requirements. A USDA Organic seal identifies products with at least 95% organic ingredients, as defined by the National Organic Program.”
Where would organic foods in Safeway be without the piece of legislation that offers consumer protection in knowing that what they’re buying is actually organic? Without it, it would be meaningless. And where do you think that legislation came from? The politicians decided to be nice guys? No. They were pressured into it by groups who cared about organic farming and agribusiness.
Legislation provides the rules for society by which people make their decisions. People making damaging decisions today because legislation structures their lives in such a way that those damaging decisions are in their own self-interest. The rules have to change, or the behaviour won’t change, either, except for among a very small group of mostly-elite individuals. That’s not enough.
Personally, I think the single most important action to prevent further environmental degradation is to change the form of our built environments, to change the way we build cities and to retrofit existing ones. To increase densities, allow for mixed uses, and preserve more and better urban greenspaces. Those changes alone would allow for huge reductions in fossil fuel consumption, not only for transportation but also for electricity; it would slow or halt sprawl, reduce congestion, which would reduce smog and ghg emissions, and also allow for greater protections and mobility for other species. But as it stands right now it is illegal in most places to build such neighbourhoods–local and state/provincial laws actively prevent building liveable high-density housing that is supportive of communities, prevent mixed-uses through zoning legislation, prevent higher densities through laws governing the width of roads and the provision of cycling and walking paths, and so on, never mind the many ways they fail to encourage better practices (through rebates for fuel-efficient standards, greenspace protection, green roofs, alternative energy sources and so on). If we don’t change those laws, cities can’t change; if cities don’t change we will be unable to change our destructively resource-intensive lifestyles.
Seriously, I don’t care if you call yourself a citizen or a kumquat; but collective action is desperately needed, to change business practices yes, but also to change laws.
June 1st, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Actually, I think My Organic Market and stores like it were established because, despite the 1990 law, there was no way for consumers to determine what food was really organic until the 2002 (I think) very contentious labeling regulations were promulgated in final form. And part of the pressure on USDA to promulgate the regs was the increasing frustration of consumers being unable to find organic foods, and mainstream supermarkets wanting to salvage their customer base that was beginning to peel off to smaller organic-focused markets.
Ultimately, I think we all end up in the same intellectual place. Collective action is important, but it can be exercised in many ways – and some ways end up being more influential than the direct attempt to influence those actually crafting legislation. It’s best to change the laws eventually, but the laws tend to change (these days) only after public opinion and pressure forces them to change, and a large part of the forcing (these days) is done by corporations responding to consumer demands.
September 25th, 2008 at 6:54 am
I’m for the environment! Well, except when it gets in the way of something I like to do…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/24/ethicalliving.recycling