Not time to throw out those fluorescent light bulbs
On Friday President Obama will attend the Copenhagen climate change conference. There will be much anticipation about what commitments the United States and the other participating countries will make. While the big whigs discuss issues like “carbon caps” and “emission targets”, some folks back on the home front will probably feel relieved that they are doing their part – perhaps by driving less or turning to “green” technologies.
Mike Tidwell, however, tells these people in a column published last week to think again. It’s time to “stop going green” he says. No, he’s not a global warming denier. He’s a climate activist fed up with piecemeal contributions made voluntarily by individuals.
Tidwell writes,
December should be national Green-Free Month. Instead of continuing our faddish and counterproductive emphasis on small, voluntary actions, we should follow the example of Americans during past moral crises and work toward large-scale change…..surveys show that very few people are willing to make significant voluntary changes, and those of us who do create the false impression of mass progress as the media hypes our actions.
Tidwell is right that the sum of the voluntary actions taken by Americans probably make little difference in the overall progress of global warming. The incentives in our society are set up to promote the exploitation of resources. A ton of coal not burned has no financial value. Most polluters pay little of the cost of the environmental damage they create. All the best intentions by well-meaning people can do little to overcome the power of the marketplace. Yes, Tidwell is right that broader systemic change is needed. This recognition, however, should not lead one to dismiss individual efforts.
Tidwell sees the efforts of individuals as a zero sum game. A concerned citizen, for example, might have time and energy to devote two hours a week to combating global warming. In Tidwell’s world, that person can either choose to buy and install a few compact fluorescent bulbs in his household or he could write or call his elected representative and encourage him to support climate change legislation. Since this well-meaning individual only has two hours to spare, time spent on one activity will mean that the other activity gets sidelined. In such a world, I would agree that the person should send off that letter. But, we all know that the world doesn’t actually work that way.
Frequently our individual actions shape our policy opinions – and sometimes our advocacy efforts towards elected representatives. Let’s consider another hypothetical person. One could imagine a scenario whereby a typical consumer hasn’t thought much about the environment when making lifestyle decisions. The reality is that for most Americans these days it’s relatively low on the priority list. In fact, a Pew study conducted this year found that 85 percent of Americans felt that the economy was a top priority and only 35 percent considered global warming to be. In these tough economic times, there’s more work to be done to convince the American public of the severity of the threat.
But let’s say that this person decided to buy a CFC light bulb because this will save some money. When buying the bulb this consumer also learns about the environmental benefit that the purchase produced and feels good about it. In Tidwell’s world, that’s the end of the story.
Let’s consider what might happen later to this consumer. After repeatedly buying such bulbs, the person begins to think of himself as someone who cares for the environment and he might even eventually end up speaking up at a town hall meeting or even writing a letter to his congressperson. No, it won’t happen overnight and it certainly won’t happen for everyone. But, small lifestyle changes in the near term can eventually lead to greater sacrifices in the long term.
We should continue to ask consumers to make these small lifestyle changes even if they don’t immediately impact global warming. In the longer term policy, they just might. It’s also important that the President and our other elected leaders continue to highlight the security concerns presented by global climate change and the potential job-making opportunities of reforms. Yes, there will be short term costs, but these are outweighed by the long term benefits to the economy, our security, and the environment.
I’m also bothered by faddish environmentalism, but it’s not yet time to ditch the hybrid and throw out those flourescent bulbs.
Related posts: