Blaming Consumers Instead of The System
National Geographics has created a Greendex. A "worldwide tracking survey on consumer choice and the environment."
The findings show that consumers in Brazil and India tie for the highest Greendex score for environmentally sustainable consumption at 60 points each. They are followed by consumers in China (56.1), Mexico (54.3), Hungary (53.2) and Russia (52.4). Among consumers in wealthy countries, those in Great Britain, Germany and Australia each have a Greendex score of 50.2, those in Spain register a score of 50.0 and Japanese respondents 49.1. U.S. consumers have the lowest Greendex score at 44.9. The other lowest-scoring consumers are Canadians with 48.5 and the French with 48.7.
I have quite some problems with those surveys of 'consumer choices.'
It is likely that U.S. people, on average, are more wasteful with resources than they could be. But that may be less a question of bad behavior, than of availability of choices.
In the late 1990s I made many business trips to the states. I was set up in hotels like this
tower near Tysons Corner. There are no sidewalks there. There are no
shops or restaurants reachable by foot unless you are willing to take a
real chance to end up as roadkill. The residents in that area do not
have a chance to shop for nessacities or a barsnack without using a
car. How much then does a question on 'using public transport' reflect
their 'choice'?
At least to some degree this is not their choice. It is a choice of politicians fed by 'special interest' money prefering other solutions.
The same goes for people in India. To have local markets and go there by foot or bike is not a choice per se, but a consequence of their economic political existance. Some people in India would love to be able to waste water like the U.S. citizens do. But there are mechanisms to prevent them to do so.
The point I try to get to is that state intervention, regulation and locally accepted 'decend behaviour' moral standards are more important than 'choices'. The study (pdf) even somewhat acknowledges that:
Though Germans' Greendex score is in the middle of the pack, these consumers are less likely than others to say they are working hard to reduce their environmental impact. They are also less concerned about environmental problems and the environment. These findings may reflect the fact that environmental priorities were institutionalized in Germany well before most, if not all, other countries. Certain green behaviors are more standard in Germany than elsewhere and are less likely to be considered an effort.
When your dishwasher is regulated to use less than 3 gallons of water, (i.e. less than dish washing by hand,) there is not much to answer to a question of "Frequency of Minimizing Use of Fresh Water?" The answer will be "low" when you have reached a certain point.
The same logic applies in the other direction. The answer to "Frequency of Keeping Heating/Cooling at Low Setting to Save Energy" is high in Spain, little heating is needed there, versus low in Russia with deep cold periods and a traditionaly unregulated heating system. The way to cool an overheated Russian office is to open the window. There simply are no regulation valves on the typical Russian radiator.
The study is trying to blame 'consumer choice' where it is obvious that political interests, often outside the consumer's realm, have and are precluding consumer abilities to choose.
The trend in this is to blame individuals, where the failure is with the system and the few who profit from it.
Posted by b on May 8, 2008 at 20:10 UTC | Permalink
Good insights. There is also the old "negative externalities" problem - especially in the U.S. Most people waste energy and water because it seems to be either free or relatively low cost. The cost of dealing with the pollution, the devastated ecosystems, and the health effects are not borne immediately in the upfront price paid in the monthly water bill or the price of fuel (even with the relatively dramatic increases recently.)
Posted by: Maxcrat | May 9 2008 0:23 utc | 2
@ b, tysons corner
wow, that looks scary. like bacteria cultures.
Posted by: | May 9 2008 0:48 utc | 3
thanks b
my friend works near Tyson's corner and it came up. I said "it's really creepy, know what I mean?" he laughed and said he knew exactly what I meant. What I meant was that this god awful monstrosity (IIRC) is perched at the feet of a skyscraper with Northrup Grumman on it. The area is awash in $$$ from the military/security spending boom. The cars on the street are nicer than what I remember in Silicon Valley circa 2000.
so thanks, but this does not let us off the hook, our idiotic politics perpetuates it... "working, hard working, white Americans" anyone?
Posted by: boxcar mike | May 9 2008 1:08 utc | 4
Yes, such studies and their covert assumptions actually contribute to trivializing and minimalizing the problems, and neglecting to make any arguments for moves forward. The discourse reinforces the status quo. I ran across the term greenwashing the other day, wish I’d invented it myself. Greenwash. Rinse. Repeat!
More seriously, Kyoto, with all its amendments, etc. did much the same thing, setting arbitrary targets after political jockeying and relying heavily on what is in effect backward outsourcing.
This brief vid from the Aus. Gvmt. on CO2 is clever. Again, it is individuals who are supposed to ‘understand and react.’
http://infosthetics.com/archives/2008/04/visualizing_co2_emissions.html> via info aesthetics
Posted by: Tangerine | May 9 2008 15:58 utc | 5
The comments to this entry are closed.
The whole system of morality is based upon blaming the individual.. It is always a single bad apple that corrupts the barrel and to make the system rational the necessity of free will is invoked. And everybody believes in it.
Posted by: jlcg | May 8 2008 22:23 utc | 1