Are you a citizen or a consumer?

This interview done by Rob Hopkins with Tim Kasser over at Transition Culture is well worth a read.

Part One
Part Two

Here is an Excerpt from part one;

"What’s consumerism done to us? How have we been changed by fifty or sixty years of that?

I think what consumerism has done to us is turned us into consumers. Which sounds like a silly answer but we all have roles in our lives, and we have multiple roles: I’m a father, and I’m a professor, a teacher, I’m an activist and I’m a consumer too, and our roles like our values end up influencing what we think is important in life, they influence our behaviour and how we treat other people. I think what’s happened over the last fifty/sixty years is that in order for our economic system to maintain itself, it requires people to enhance the consumer role – to think of themselves more as consumers and I don’t know how it is here in the UK, but when you’re reading the newspaper in the US you’re much more likely to see people referred to as consumers instead of citizens.

To be a consumer has a very different set of implications than to be a citizen. To be a consumer is to think about “what is it I want to buy?” So first off there’s a selfishness already involved in the role and there’s a set of behaviours implied by the role. There’s this sense that as that role comes to dominate more and more of how we think about ourselves and how our policy makers think of us, it leads potential solutions to problems or potential decisions to be “well what’s good for consumption, or what’s good to make a citizen?”, as opposed to what’s good for people. If you think about what a citizen’s role is, it’s to think about the whole of the community and “what’s my role in the community?”

You’re obviously still thinking about yourself, but you’re not thinking about yourself and what you’re going to buy, you’re thinking about yourself and who you’re going to be in relationship to others. There’s sort of a transcendent characteristic or aspect to that role. That I think leads us to behave in very different ways. I behave very differently when I’m being a consumer to when I’m being a citizen. The way that our economic and thus our political system is oriented now, is very much attuned to people as consumers and less to people as citizens and therefore it develops all kinds of policies that end up maximising the consumer role and not too much for the citizen role.

I think that’s part of why it makes it easy for people to think about “Do I want this?” instead of “well, how is it made, and how does my buying this impact people?”, and to think, “well it’s Friday and I’m going to stay home and watch TV”, rather than “I’m going to go out enjoying my fellow citizens cleaning up the river bank”, or having a meeting to help determine town policy about zoning and whether Tesco’s is coming in.

Consumer society tells us what the optimal ways are to live our lives. That’s what any social system does, there’s nothing special about consumerism with regard to that. Christianity tells us how to live our lives, fascism told us how to live our lives… the particular way consumer capitalism tells us to live our lives is this way and through consumption and the maximisation of economic growth. Through working hard so you can have a lot of money and then you can spend it on stuff that you want to buy. Whenever you believe something’s important something else has to become less important and the value of consumerism and materialism crowd out other important things.

Has consumerism left us more or less able to respond rapidly to change? Are we less resilient? How can we know that?

I think to the particular kinds of changes which we’re likely to face here in the near future if climate science is right and if everything we read about what’s happening socially is right, I really think it’s left us less able to respond to those challenges and I think there’s a couple of different things that goes back to: one of them is that consumerism leads us (this is true of any social system) when we have a difficulty to think about certain ways to solve that difficulty and to not think about other ways.

If you take a look at people who accept that there is climate change or climate disruption and then they try to figure out how to solve that problem, consumerism says: “well, consume in a green way”, because that’s a very reasonable solution to the problem from a consumers’ perspective – we just need to consume different things and we need to decarbonise and we need to keep economic growth, but just have carbon clean economic growth. So we get locked into that set of solutions when we think about the problem of climate disruption from a consumerstic view point.

All the climate scientists I talk to and everything I read suggests that that’s important, but it won’t get us anywhere near the way to solve those kinds of problems. Plus, it’s not going to help habitat loss or the other environmental problems we have to do those things. That’s one issue – it tells us solutions which are far too partial.

Another issue is that because we know that materialism and consumerism and materialism in research is associated with behaving in less cooperative and more competitive ways and less empathic and more manipulative ways and less pro social and anti social ways. What all that suggests is that when push comes to shove, and there are significant problems that we face, we will have lost some of the interpersonal, social skills and community skills that are really needed in order to come together as a group and solve the problems and instead I think we’ll be more likely to continue our competitive mindset in ways that end up damaging us at the very time we need to work together to solve the problems. Because we don’t think about consensus and we don’t think about building a group and listening to everybody and treating other people like people instead of other objects to be manipulated when we take on that materialist mindset.

So that scares me. If things get really bad here we may have lost some of the important skills that we need to manage that and the aftermath. We have milk goats and my wife wanted someone to teach her how and there wasn’t anyone. A hundred years ago there’d have been all kinds of people to teach her. But we’ve lost a lot of the self sufficiency skills that we need. Instead we go to work to earn money so we can hire somebody else to do it because that’s good for the economy.

We’ve lost a lot of the skills that ultimately we’re going to need if we live in a more localised way and we live not in a self sufficient way, but in a group sufficient way."

"Green" companies still supporting US Chamber psuedoscience.

The US Chamber of Commerce represents, to me at least, unbridled consumerism, the erosion of personal rights in favor of corporate power, and the kind of business ethic that has created sprawl, traffic congestion, and an unstable debt based economy. As reported over at Climate Progress, companies are leaving other denier organizations;

PG&E, the major west coast energy supplier has issued this statement,

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another...."

I've posted before about green consumerism, greenwashing, and corporate sponsored media deception, and even a recent post on the companies leaving the US Chamber of Commerce over the Chamber's devotion to 19th century business principles. But what about the companies that are sticking with the Chamber and it's psuedoscience?

Several companies that have worked hard to gain "green" reputation seem unwilling to take the chamber to task. As reported over at Mother Jones;

"According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, at least 18 remaining members of the Chamber’s board publicly support federal climate policy. Bruce Freed, the president of the Center for Public Accountability, a shareholder activism group, is urging them to distance themselves from the Chamber. "Where there is a fundamental disagreement with company values, with company business strategies," he says, "companies really do need to act on that. Its a matter of companies holding their trade associations accountable."

The article goes on to discuss 6 major "green" companies that are sticking with the Chamber of Denial;

• "PNC Financial Services

The nation’s fifth largest bank, PNC controls a whopping $291 billion in assets, including a 35 percent stake in the high-profile investment group BlackRock. ... “Over the past decade, we’ve become one of the most active companies in the nation when it comes to doing good for the environment,” says the PNC website. ... BlackRock recently signed a statement calling for a global climate treaty that would slash emissions by 50 to 80 percent by 2050. “As one of the most progressive green companies in the nation,” PNC says, “we’re constantly looking for new ways to help the environment.”

Except, apparently, when it comes to using its considerable leverage inside the US Chamber of Commerce. ...

• Alpha Technologies Inc.

Alpha Technologies Inc, a member of the Chamber’s board of directors, manufactures solar panels that it says address the “growing concern” over climate change. Is Alpha concerned enough to raise a stink on the Chamber's board? An Alpha spokesman didn’t return repeated calls. ...

• Duke Energy

Duke Energy, the large southern electric utility, is one of at least seven Chamber members—six of them members of the board--that are also members of the US Climate Action Partnership, a group that wrote the framework for the Waxman-Markey climate bill. According to an anonymous source, several of these USCAP members sat down recently with Chamber president Tom Donohue to ask him to change the Chamber’s climate stance but were rebuffed. USCAP members PG&E, Excelon, and PNM Resources later quit the Chamber. But Duke Energy, General Electric, ConocoPhillips, Caterpillar, Siemens Corporation, Dow, and Alcoa have stayed on.

... Last month, the utility earned kudos from environmentalists when it quit the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a coal industry front group. “We believe ACCCE is constrained by influential member companies who will not support passing climate change legislation in 2009 or 2010,” the company said in a statement. Duke also cited differences over climate policy in leaving the National Association of Manufacturers earlier this year. But though the Chamber is likewise unlikely to back a climate bill, Duke is sitting tight.

“We think it’s important to stay a member because we do agree on some things,” said Duke Energy spokesman Tom Williams. ...

• Siemens Corporation

The front page of Siemens’ website features a panoramic photograph of windmills on a grassy plain. Clicking on the image reveals a US map studded with examples of the company’s work to save the planet: building the Smart Grid, helping a Manhattan skyscraper use 30 percent less energy than its neighbors, and, of course, manufacturing wind turbines. “We’re convinced that policymakers and industry alike must address climate change by actively pursuing integrated strategies,” says Siemens’ 2008 sustainability report. .... Siemens, unlike some other members of USCAP, hasn’t publicly confronted or disavowed the Chamber’s approach. Of course, Siemens is also in the business of constructing oil drilling rigs and pipelines. A company spokesman did not return a call.

• General Electric

General Electric's Ecoimagination campaign is much more than a marketing gimmick. Last year, its 80 climate-friendly Ecoimagination products--everything from wind turbines to halogen light bulbs--generated $17 billion in revenues. Next year GE plans to boost those earnings to $25 billion while investing $1.5 billion in cleaner R&D. It has also pledged to cut its own greenhouse gas emissions 1 percent below 2004 levels by 2012. "Climate change requires a long-term path for significantly reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions," GE says on its website. "Developing more energy- and fuel-efficient products and technologies is an important step, as is rethinking our own operations to use resources wisely."

But does rethinking its own operations include its use of the Chamber of Commerce? "We don't see the sense of urgency that we believe is necessary in their views on climate legislation," spokesman Peter O'Toole said, but added that GE didn't want to leave the group because its agrees with its stance on health care and financial regulation. He also pointed out that many of GE's industrial customers burn coal and other fossil fuels.

Asked if GE sits on the Chamber's 60-member Energy and Environment committee, which is supposed to oversee its climate policies, O'Toole didn't know. "If the answer is yes, I would 100 percent guarantee. . .that we advocate loudly and vigorously in any meeting of the Chamber for urgent action on the climate," he said. After pledging to investigate GE's membership on the committee and the actions it took there, he never called back.

• Johnson & Johnson

In May Johnson & Johnson and Nike sent a letter to the Chamber asking it to refrain from speaking about climate change unless its comments reflect "the full range of views" of its members. Yet the Chamber went right on speaking out against climate legislation while insisting that it represented "more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region." Exasperated, Nike quit the Chamber's board late last month in a strongly-worded letter. Johnson & Johnson's response has been more tepid.

Johnson & Johnson exhibited courage in challenging the powerful Chamber, but that might not be enough for its more eco-minded customers. Presumably, it's still funding the Chamber's activities through its dues. A non-irritating baby shampoo is nice. Seeing that baby inherit a non-irritating climate is even better."

Whether or not these companies deserve the "green" label was quite debatable prior to this revelation and the decision to stand firm with the backward looking Chamber further erodes confidence in their commitment to addressing climate change. I give them credit for their efforts thus far but they need to take the next step and join the exodus from the US Chamber of Commerce. If they are unwilling to do so it would seem that their efforts are really about profit, not the health of the climate.

You can take a stand on this issue and sign a petition that thanks APPLE computer for standing up to the US Chamber of Commerce and repudiating its shameful stance.

#5 Sheffield Star Green Scene Submission - by Robb

Here is my latest post to our local rag's green section on their website;

Sheffield Star Green Scene

Actionable Areas

There are many areas within our lives where we can address efficiency, reduce demand, conserve resources, and make our lives more resilient.

1. In our homes
2. What we eat
3. How we get around
4. What we buy

All of these are interrelated but by looking at them separately we can find many opportunities both for saving money and increasing the sustainability of our lives. But before we do lets consider some basic principles.

The first, our lives and lifestyles are completely dependent on cheap energy. If all the energy you use in your life were to be provided by people sitting on bicycle powered generators you would need 50 people pedaling a good clip 24 hours/day nonstop. We have built our extravagant lifestyles on the availability of cheap petroleum which is incredibly energy dense. When refined into liquid fuels it is 10 times more powerful than dynamite1. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your outlook, the age of cheap oil is over and the climate consequences of burning oil and other fossil fuels are becoming increasingly worrisome.

The second is that it is far easier and more effective to make an impact by simply consuming less than by consuming more. This runs contrary to what the gurus of green consumerism want you too believe. Every item we use, eat, or throw away embodies a significant amount of energy whether it is “green” or not. So for many reasons it makes sense to simply use less. But as we shall see this may not always be so simple.

The third basic principle is that using less doesn’t necessarily mean doing without. There are so many ways we can use less energy by becoming more efficient rather than cutting something out of our lives. A good example is keeping the heat we get from our radiators inside our house rather than letting it go outside. We don’t have to give up being warm but we still use less heating energy.

The fourth is that shifting to more efficient sustainable and resilient lifestyles will make us healthier, richer, and happier.

Is being green so hard?-By Robb

Over on celsias.com there a thread starting up about the difficulties of "Being Green"
It includes some good points and worth a read. I don't mean to deny that change isn't difficult but I think it needs to be put in context. The degree of change we, in the developed world, need to make are actually pretty minor compared to the level of change demanded of those on the front lines of climate change. I wonder, what do the citizens of Tuvalu think? Here is my post on the topic.

What's so hard about living an intentional life? For me it's simple, "being green" is about using less of anything produced with fossil fuels, being more self sufficient in as many ways possible, and helping others to do the same. It's the difference between being a citizen and being a consumer.

There is a well known mantra I try to live by at all times and I don't find it a hardship, REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE, with heavy emphasis on REDUCE.

"Being green" appears much less difficult than being an environmental refugee, starving to death, or drowning, all increasingly likely outcomes for billions of people, even those of us in the developed world, if we continue to consume fossil fuels.

Any action that reduces use of fossil fuel matters, the more the reduction, the more it matters.

For the citizens on the move in India due to the recent unprecedented flooding, those that didn't drown, a massive and immediate lifestyle change is required now. Right Now! No choice in the matter, no pondering how difficult it is, to survive it must be done.

We here in the developed world have the luxury of a continuum of change. It generally isn't forced upon us by calamity, though the citizens of the ninth ward in New Orleans might disagree. For instance, I personally have reduced my flying by over 60% per year in the last two years as I have come to understand it's impacts. Next winter's visit home I hope to be the last time I ever step foot on an airplane. After that I will travel by sea. It took effort, a bit of soul searching, some compromise with my family, and perhaps has been the most "difficult" aspect of my personal continuum of change. I know many people that have already sworn off flying for good, one man I know has not flown in 18 years. Not driving more than once every 2 weeks, not eating fast food more than once a month, not leaving devices on standby, drastically cutting meat eating while drastically increasing my consumption of organic food, changing all my lightbulbs to CFL's, buying only used clothing, growing as much of my own food as possible, staying out of debt to maintain flexibility, the list of actions grows and all are on some sort of continuum.

This is the luxury I have, this is to some extent the luxury I have created. Guilt comes from not doing these things, frustration is eased by understanding that the continuum is a necessary part of transition, and enthusiasm is not "dead of a thousand cuts" rather it flourishes on the life giving blood of a thousand efforts.

We have less than 10 years to get our emissions under control, do we have the luxury of the easy?

WWF report- "Weathercocks and Signposts"

Here is a quote from the foreword from the new report from the WWF that reinforces something I have believed for some time, that green consuming isn't going to cut it, we need less consuming, drastically less, as well as huge shifts in policy and a rethink of the very basis of our economy. Download the report here:

Weathercocks and Signposts

"A marketing approach to behavioural change, which this report begins by characterising, insists that we should ask people to take simple and painless steps. But the widening gulf between the cumulative impact if these behavioural changes and the scale of the challenges we confront is openly acknowledged" - David Norman, Director of Campaigns WWF-UK