Here's
a few questions for baby boomer readers: Was there a seismic shift in
thinking in the 1960s and early 1970s? If not, how do you account for
the political forces that brought about the end of the Vietnam War, and
important legislation like the Clean Air Act? And if so, what happened
to that shift?
I remember those years well, and fondly, but in
retrospect I'm not sure if I understood them well enough to answer the
questions above. I am inclined answer 'yes' to the first question, and
to attribute the loss of momentum to two paradoxes that George Monbiot
calls The Rebound Effect and the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate.
Taken together, these paradoxes describe human behaviour that abhors
change and seeks equilibrium. If a lot of people buy fuel-efficient
vehicles, pretty soon demand for gas goes down, price drops and
gas-gulpers become economical again. And with the savings from their
fuel-efficient vehicles, people can afford to drive further and more
often, and make other changes that negate the benefits their change in
thinking might have brought about.
In Canada recently we've had
two seismic changes in thinking that are about as paradoxical as they
come: Global warming soared to the top of the polls as the most
important issue facing us today (and the black market is getting $150 a
ticket for tonight's speech in Toronto by Al Gore), yet, at the same
time, right-wing conservative, Kyoto reneger and global warming denier
Stephen Harper has soared in popularity and put his party back ahead in
the opinion polls.
How does one account for this? Well, as I explained in an earlier post,
the media have been hyping the subject of global warming to the point
it's now top-of-mind to most of us. But Canadians don't like the new
Liberal leader, Stéphane Dion, who, despite being an environmentalist,
is a long-time party stalwart (of a party still stinging from recent
scandal) and a Francophone who's rather clumsy in English. There is
clearly resentment that the Liberals missed the chance to pick a 'new
blood' leader, and instead picked another leader from Québec. So the
surge in popularity for Harper is really more a drop in popularity for
Dion. Nevertheless, this should give environmentalists pause -- the
battle to get Canada to live up to its Kyoto commitments is clearly far
from over.
The situation in the US is not all that different.
Despite Americans having the worst, and most ideologically extreme
conservative, president in decades, the 2008 presidential race is
shaping up to be one among four moderate conservatives (Clinton or
Edwards versus Giuliani or McCain), none of whom has a environmental or
peace agenda. Canada has Elizabeth May (Green) and the US has Dennis
Kucinich, both of whom have both environmental and peace credentials,
but neither is given any chance of becoming their country's leader. And
even when Al Gore was VP and environmental laws were actually being
enforced, megapolluters like ExxonMobil and Koch Industries flaunted
the law more than they did under previous anti-environment regimes.
What's going on is illustrated in the graphic above:
- Case 1a: Remember 'acid rain'? Public pressure over this scourge led to Clean Air laws that improved things for awhile,
but this very success led to public and political apathy, and more
recently a backsliding, with an upsurge in new coal plants and failure
to act on set objectives. The situation is rapidly worsening and we're
still a long way from even starting to address it seriously again.
- Case
1b: Through much of the 1970s and 1980s, there was a big push to use
environmentally friendly products. Detergents with phosphates were
justifiably demonized, and the chemical industry lobbied furiously, succeeding in getting Nixon
to obfuscate labeling requirements, deny the dangers of phosphates to
aquatic life, and to refuse to enact a phosphate ban, instead devolving
regulatory authority to state and local governments. With the chemical
industry and government in collusion, environmental shoppers finally
concluded that our paltry efforts to make a difference by buying
no-name brands were futile, and we gave up. In most of the world, your
box of Tide still contains 10% phosphates.
- Case 2: The issue of
global warming is the best example of most people thinking that
something should be done, but not considering the issue urgent enough
to actually do anything about it. Sales of hybrids vs. SUVs vary with
gasoline price, not level of concern about global warming.
- Case
3: A few decades ago it became clear that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
posed a severe and immediate threat to the atmosphere. There were
alternatives available at the same cost, governments took the necessary
action to get these alternatives in the market and withdraw
CFC-containing appliances, and quickly the amount of CFCs was
dramatically and sustainably reduced.
The lesson is clear. Shall I say it again? We do what we must (what's urgent), then we do what's easy, and then we do what's fun.
Even when there is a sense of urgency, the rebound effect, or ignorance
over what to do, or lack of political or social will, will usually
preclude any sustainable change in results. And if there's a sense of
importance but not urgency, we'll be content to talk about it but not
act. If we really want to bring about sustainable change, we need to
make it (i) easy and (ii) either inexpensive or perceived to be important.
If
hybrids and other energy-efficient vehicles were heavily subsidized and
available in every size and shape, they would quickly take over the
market. To prevent drivers from driving them more with their savings,
this subsidy would need to be financed by a large tax on gasoline.
Similarly, European-style bicycle-only lanes and other facilities to
make it easier to use zero-emission transportation could lead to
permanent environmentally friendly behaviour changes, even among those
who don't care about the environment. The same easy + (inexpensive or important) approach applies to achieving enduring social and environmental change in every area where it is needed.
Can we bring about necessary seismic shifts in human thinking, and commensurate changes in behaviour? My answer?: It doesn't matter.
Those shifts won't be enough to make a sustainable difference. Making
it easier (and cheaper) to do the right thing will. Innovators, this is
the challenge we need you to take up: Help make a better world easier.
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
