Our awareness and concern about global warming is rapidly increasing (thanks Marcy for pointing this out). For example, according to the recent New York Times/CBS News poll, public opinion overwhelming agrees that immediate action needs to be taken to address global warming. But the same polls showed that when it comes to a gas tax, or changing our driving habits, few Americans supported taking personal responsibility or significantly altering their habits.
If you agree with the argument that addressing climate change will require an overhaul of American society and the functioning of our economy, then in addition to choosing energy efficient appliances and homes, Americans need to commit to walking, biking, taking public transit, and eating meat-free meals. Transforming our frequent flyer miles into a frequent flyer surcharge – or rather requiring a carbon offset charge for every mile flown – might be another big adjustment for an affluent generation in love with finding cheap flights to visit family on the holidays.
And, as Deborah mentioned, if equity and fairness are a concern, it must be pointed out that current policy discourse on necessary reductions does not even take into account historic global emissions. Applying the well known “polluter pays” principle to climate change, one notes that industrialized economies have contributed the most to the cumulative increase of carbon in the atmosphere, yet will presumably suffer the least as our wealth makes our societies more resilient and adaptable. If we Americans (especially those of us so fond of the ethic of personal responsibility) are to do our fare share then the time to start taking action has long since come and gone.
Yet, expecting us to clamor for the needed changes gives rise to an obvious question: when in human history have a people of privilege willingly relinquished their privileges without confrontation? Would we Americans really be willing to surrender our luxuries so that future generations and today’s impoverished billions could live well?
It is true that consciousness of these issues is shifting. For example, post-Katrina murmurs and mumbles about climate change have driven Al Gore’s riveting movie about his slide show lecture to become the third highest grossing documentary of all time (a whopping $24 million dollars from sales in over 580 theaters). Assuming an average of $10 a ticket that means 2.4 million people saw the movie. That’s almost 1% of the US population! Maybe these people represent the base for a new social movement, but I’d argue that the threat of climate change alone is unlikely to provide the necessary stimulus for mobilizing a large social movement. In a city of tens of millions, so far only a few hundred New Yorkers could be mobilized for Step It Up – a national day of climate action held last month.
I’ve been watching an interesting BBC series called Century of the Self, about the advent of PR firms and the intentional construction of the ideology of consumerism. The documentary claims that after the World Wars, corporations paid PR firms to intentionally recast the American Citizen as the American Consumer. If being a citizen implies an ethic of active responsibility, what does being a consumer imply?
If millions of people are to be mobilized to demand needed changes – including new taxes, regulations, and government investment – an inspiring vision of the future must be placed alongside scientists’ dire warnings. The new movement must be able to explain how an improved quality of life can be decoupled from ever-increasing consumption. This is not an impossible task as empirical studies (pdf) consistently show that gains in income (and resulting consumption) do not lead to greater happiness. A new social contract will need to provide people with more personal time for hobbies and other artistic, creative, spiritual activities or just to spend with friends and family. In other words, the needed vision must emphasize the gains in well-being to be had from consuming less and living more.
With close to half of Americans believing that the world will end in their lifetimes, what is needed in America today is a completely new vision that truly inspires faith in a positive future. The anachronistic vision of The American Dream manufactured after World War II – a house in the ‘burbs, two cars, glowing green yard and white picket fence – begs to be replaced. In its stead, Americans need a portrait of our future that is both feasible and attractive. A plausible image of a positive future (pdf) acts as an attractor, inspiring necessary action to make the transition from a society of inequality and over-consumption to one of ecological sustainability and social justice.
Furthermore, this vision needs to help Americans understand ourselves as citizens within an emerging global society (pdf), with duties and responsibilities to address poverty and sustainable development needs in other countries. Absent massive investment from developed countries, developing economies will not be able to leapfrog polluting technologies as they seek to lift themselves out of poverty. Addressing climate change calls for a great transition in values, culture, and worldview.
We have the necessary technological capacity and material resources. If we can imagine an inspiring future, humanity still has enough time to develop the will to make the needed great transition. But to do so we must look soberly at the full implications of our current situation. It is time we realized that the future is not some place we are going, it is something we are creating.
Way back in1992, this message was powerfully articulated by a young child activist in her speech to members of the United Nations. She challenges not just Americans, but all adults of the world to uphold their responsibility to their children and grandchildren. It’s worth listening to.
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/5g8cmWZOX8Q" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
Orion wrote: “Would we Americans really be willing to surrender our luxuries so that future generations and today’s impoverished billions could live well?”
Such a tough question. I believe there is a chance we would. With all of our luxuries, so many of us are still so empty and unfulfilled. There is an incredible healing that occurs when we can give freely. I had two dear friends who lost everything in a fire last week. They wrote to the community that they were feeling awkward to be receiving so many gifts while returning nothing. Yet we all gained so much by giving to them. By having an opportunity to simply share what we have, we were made happier. By giving away our money or things, we supposedly have less. Yet the feeling or esteem that comes with this giving, allows us to appreciate what we have left so much more. If we can replace each luxury with a valuable exchange shared in community, a little bit at a time, I believe we will.
I wonder what the 12-year-old is doing today at the age of 27. Is she an active environmentalist today when she is more in control of her own lifestyle? The point, as you note, is that, as more and more people are aware that change is needed, the will to make the needed changes lags behind.
I would gladly give up more than half my wealth IF—and these are huge IF’s—I believed that I was part of something larger that would make a profound difference and IF I believed that others generally were not (or soon would not be) taking advantage of my sacrifice to indulge themselves more.
It is my understanding that that is how America responded during World War II.
Yet, it is not enough to see that the crisis is as profound as Nazi Germany and Japanese imperialism (and its direct attack on the U.S.) People are getting that environmental destruction (including way more than global warming) may be an overwhelming threat to human life as we know it.
In addition to seeing the profound threat, we must feel that we are part of a powerful movement that can win this WAR. And it is a war, though our “enemies” are not other people. Our enemies are greed run amok (not even making the obese “consumer” happy), shortsightedness, ignorance, and outright delusion.
In order to feel that we can win the war (that our sacrifices are not in vain), in order to feel that our sacrifices are shared by others, we must form a movement with an identity that we can feel. We must feel it gather momentum. We must be able to believe we are part of something bigger than each one of us, something bigger that can have real impact.
Then, and only then, would we willingly give up our luxuries because we want our world—our families, our friends, our children and our children’s children—to thrive and enjoy life. If we see that stubbornly holding onto what we can acquire will destroy the very fabric of the life sustaining biosphere AND we have reason to believe that letting go in shared sacrifice and community with our neighbors (which on Spaceship Earth, means everyone) will save us all, then only a traitor would refuse to do so.
And while there were traitors and greedy people in America during WWII, they weren’t celebrated in People Magazine, the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, etc. If you were a greedy traitor, you knew you had better do your best to hide it.
Dan
PS. This video, on the mass extinction of species, helps demonstrate how dire the crisis really is: http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/305
And these videos on global warming (featuring Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and others) make not taking this crisis seriously seem like an act of outright insanity: http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/218
Dan, isn’t it an issue of what “wealth” really is? As Jason said above, his community “gained so much” by giving freely to people who had suffered in a fire. If you measure your true wealth by how much you give, not how much you have, then the question of “sacrifice” utterly changes.
Orion has spoken of the concept of the transition from “citizen” to “consumer” that took place after World War II. We have no way of knowing what most people really thought about the concept of extravagant wealth prior to that time. Sure, some people were wealthy. But did ordinary folks aspire to a “lifestyle of the rich and famous” as people today seem to do?
I wonder if the values we hold today are temporary values … shift-able values. I believe they are.
I think you make a lot of very important points, Orion. Specifically, I think a *believable* positive vision of the future is what we need. We need not just a vision of how things could be different in the future, but how we get there from here. This is something that is usually missing from positive visions and unfortunately it leaves them as fantasies. But if the vision is broadened to include a vision of the steps that will take us there, and these steps are just as compelling to people who hear them as the end goal, then we have something powerful.
I am not a big believer in sacrifice. I think strategies that demand perpetual sacrifice from a broad range of stakeholders will fail. It’s not very inspiring to people. Certainly short term sacrifice can be sold to people when there is a big payoff on the horizon (like rationing during World War II). But long term people will rebel.
I do think the future will require that western countries reduce their resource usage, but this does not have to be sacrifice. We can learn to do things more efficiently and we can reframe our needs. As Orion points out, most of our “needs” are constructed by corporate marketing anyway.
Here’s a problem with practical change: Architecture 2030 (www.architecture2030.org) estimates that nearly 50% of our carbon burden is related to building and heating and cooling the buldings we live in. Our built environment changes very, very slowly. They do outline a path to carbon neutrality in buildings by 2030, but I think we need to go further. They do not take into account the pattern of land use in their calculations: it’s not just the buildings themselves but how they arranged that drives carbon (through driving). The surburban model of development will never be carbon neutral, even if all the buildings are hyper efficient. Bottom line is the way we arrange our lives (where we live, work, shop and play) has a huge impact on CO2 production.
I believe better models could be built or retrofitted today with current technology. We need more examples of how this done. We need to see real people living happily in new arrangements. And this needs to be not just for new developments, but for all of our existing communities as well. The biggest hurdles are the conservative forces: bankers fear of losing money on something unproven, city building codes and zoning, and most importantly social expectations about the good life and how we want to live.
I am in favor of a carbon tax to help move things along. There are already some encouraging developments. Many cities and professional organizations around the world have adopted the 2030 Goals already. Massachusetts is the first state to ask developers to estimate the carbon production of new projects. Things are moving.
We can make it happen: it is just a matter of will. The ingenuity is ready and waiting.
Brendan
Dear Friends,
Thanks for these encouraging comments. It is inconceivable that we will NOT acknowledge, address and overcome the global challenges that are presented to humanity by the human overpopulation of Earth in Century XXI.
Please note that young people are indicating in the form of similar declarations that there is nothing THEY can do to save the world. ALL IS LOST, they suggest,……………and I suppose, because we have not enough scientists like Rachel Carson who will stand up, speak loudly and comprehensibly to the economic powerbrokers, the megalomaniacal leaders of mulltinational conglomerations, the bought-and-paid-for politicians and their minions in the mass media. Science is our guide, is it not? Whatsoever is is, is it not?
Sooner or later, the sons and daughters of Galileo are going to speak the truth as they and, evidently, our children see it. Then the world as organized by the self-proclaimed masters of the universe will be changed for the better, I trust.
Sincerely,
Steve
Orion writes: “Yet, expecting us to clamor for the needed changes gives rise to an obvious question: when in human history have a people of privilege willingly relinquished their privileges without confrontation? Would we Americans really be willing to surrender our luxuries so that future generations and today’s impoverished billions could live well?”
I couldn’t agree more…and yet.
Hope SPRINGS eternal in the human breast!
Orion writes of changing perspectives. Societies perspectives on nation, race, gender, war, sexuality all have changed in recent decades. They continue to change, and there is resistance to change. Still, change is inevitable.
I think it is possible to focus on the positive apsects of change, on the future we are leaving, not only to our grandchildren, but to ourselves. I think its possible to make people happier with less.
I think that’s the challenge.
I’m not sure about “technology is going to set us free.” I’m not sure about “technology is the problem.”
I think, as always, it comes down to all of us.
I think sometimes, when an idea’s time has come, it can spread incredibly quickly. As Mao said, “A single spark can start a prarie fire.”
All we need is a spark.
We need to be sparks.
Dear Orion,
Would an individual ever be able to accomplish the destruction of the Earth we are seeing at the hands of our ‘corporate citizens’ today? In the light of a reckless incorporation of the very surface of Earth we inhabit by big business conglomerations, that is occurring before our eyes, what can the words “corporate citizenship” possibly mean? Corporate citizenship is an oxymoron. What concerns me is that the ethic of personal responsibility has virtually vanished, like the honeybees, from the American experience.
With thanks for your work, Orion,
Steve
I definitely agree with those of you who are pointing out the immense satisfaction and joy that comes from community. Feeling connected to each other, helping each other, celebrating together, and mourning together — having community helps provide meaning and purpose in life, alleviates alienation, and provides perspective that can rebalance our priorities.
In addition, connecting to nature, being present to non-human life, watching the stars, noticing the vastness of forces beyond human control, recalling our ancestors journey into civilization — all of this provides perspective, reminds us of the long view.
The wisdom of stewardship is not promoted by our consumer culture, it is not well taught to children, it is not well demonstrated by our leaders. We live in a culture that preys on our anxieties, that appeals to our unhealthy hungers for sugar, burnt fat, and salt — that purposefully manipulates us with images plastered everywhere to generate increased sales.
The barren wasteland of the strip mall, spreading congested sprawl, is the manifestation of the forces and factors which undermine our ability to rise to the challenges we are now facing.
A useful distinction can be made between the many blessings of Democracy on the one hand and the post World War II appearance of an increasing number of global challenges associated with the unbridled, amoral, personally irresponsible and soon to become patently unsustainable growth of Corporatocracy now rampantly overspreading the small, finite planet God has given us to inhabit as stewards…..and not to overrun, I suppose.
In the moments after 9/11/2001, and the magnitude of the moment of destruction and death had sunk in, the President made a single appeal to the citizens of the USA…………..consume. Do not stop consuming, he implored. It was suddenly a partriotic act to buy a new car. Of course, sales popped up.
It seems to me if consumerism is what our country needs from us in a time of great peril, then I suppose the time has come for us to take look at ourselves and at what we are doing in our planetary home.
What does it mean when consuming becomes the highest and most necessary expression of partriotism to my country in wartime?
Perhaps the time has come to also ask some other questions.
1. What does it mean to be a human being in the post WWII world era?
2. What meaningfully characterizes an adequate relationship to other human beings?
3. What is our relationship to all that lives on Earth?
4. What are to be our personal responsibilities to and for the planetary home God has blessed us to inhabit?
IF, for example, the questions above are answered in the following way:
Answer to question 1 —- consume and accumulate resources;
Answer to question 2 —- encourage others to keep up with me and with
“the Joneses”;
Answer to question 3 —- consume whatever it is I desire;
Answer to question 4 —- consume as much as possible, THEN we will soon devour everything. We will literally eat up the finite natural resources of Earth as well as the living things which depend upon the Earth for existence. There will plainly and transparently not be adequate resources remaining, even for our children’s survival.
At the current scale and rate of growth of the personally irresponsible American lifestyle, just with regard to per capita consumption of resources, where will humanity likely find itself in 2050 when a fully anticipated 9.2 billion human beings will be members of the human community?
For a moment only, imagine what the world of 2050, the world of our children, might look like. What might the words, “American ethic of personal responsibility” mean then.
At least for me, even now, the words “American ethic of personal responsibility” appear hollow, without either meaning or a ring of truth in them.
Sincerely,
Steve
Steve,
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, you are so alive to the urgency of our moment. This is the hour, we are the ones we’ve been waiting for, as they say.
Peace,
Orion
Go Colbert! As wacky and wierd as he is, I’d vote for him.