Dickinson to Durban » Consumption » A step in the right direction
A step in the right direction
Combatting global climate change is an incredibly pressing and controversial issue. The predominant strategy of confronting climate change in place today is consumption. Ironically, this is precisely the root of the problem. Consumption of goods, even those with the “energy saving appliance” emblem, fails to reach the heart of the problem. Promoting the consumption of these more efficient technologies, Michael Maniates argues in Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?, only scratches the surface of reducing human impact on the environment. Rather than companies and communities alike banding together to demand political change as a sweeping force, purchasing power has created a sense of complacent “individualization of responsibility” where buying a reusable shopping bag and using efficient lighting satisfies consumers about their concerns for climate change. Consumerism, in a sense, acts as blinders and inhibits more drastic action on a large scale.
Planting a single tree cannot save the world, however, it can open the path for further contribution. Contrary to Maniates, I believe the individual is a very important component in countering global climate change. Furthermore, I believe that if individuals expect to combat the changing climate, it is far more efficient to investigate the root problems proactively rather than acting from a reactionary position. While recycling a glass jar is a better alternative than tossing it in the trash or dumping it in the woods, reusing the jar is a much better solution. Decisions such as this can help reduce waste as well as eliminating the need for a new bottle.
Ultimately, though, people consume goods. Maniates criticizes the consumer for simply buying “green” products and becoming complacent and unmotivated to accomplish further environmentally responsible acts. I think this is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue. Currently we are in a period of transition between older, less efficient technology and newer technology. Things break and people will need to replace them. Buying goods with sustainability in mind can help reduce our carbon footprint while maintaining a comfortable lifestyle. Purchasing environmentally friendly products, like planting a tree, is merely a stepping stone in the fight against global climate change. When people begin to gather and demand radical change to production and policy, humanity will be on its way to a brighter future.
Filed under: Consumption
Thanks for using my work in your analysis. I do hope that it was useful. Cheers and best wishes, Michael Maniates
Upon reflection, though, I might offer two correctives. First, I do not, as you suggest, think that the individual *is not* critical to any transition to sustainability. I sought, in fact, to say that individuals — you, me, our friends, perfect strangers — are the key ingredient to change. I fear, however, that our ability as individuals to effect change is being marginalized and controlled by those who would tell us that the best that we can do is the “easy” stuff, e.g. buying green products that save the earth and save us money. We’re capable of much more, as thinking creative citizens who like tough challenges. So, please, do not read me as denigrating the power and promise of individual, acting creatively, to solve the big problems of the day. If you read me that way, I’d ask that you read my work a second time. I think that we’re being sold short when we’re asked to change the world one tree, or lightbulb, at a time.
Second, you are right that we may be at a moment of technological transformation. The question to consider is who is primarily responsible for driving this transformation and, indeed, how do social/technological transformations occur? My concern is that the “individualization of responsibility” says that these transformations happen when we get everyone on board to shift their consuming habits; and that responsibility for these transformations rests on the shoulders of masses of individual consumers. My reading of the history and theory of social changes suggests that both of these formulations are wrong, and horribly disempowering. Social and technological transformation has historically been driven by elites, and consumer demand has followed. I don’t know of a single important transformation in production or consumption related to the environment that has been consumer led. (You might check out my piece on “choice editing,” which is available at one of the first links on my website.) Rather than agonizing over paper or plastic at the checkout counter, we ought to be spending our time putting pressure on key elites to make the system changes necessary to shift the terrain of consumer choice.
So…I think that we agree more than you might realize. Individuals are key — but in what role? And technology is important — but what do history and theory tell us about fundamental shifts in the technology underpinnings of society in the past, and how did ordinary people best make a difference during these periods?…by being smart shoppers, or by adopting other strategies altogether?
Continued good fortune to you in your investigations!!!
Cheers,
Michael Maniates