|
We'll Only Save the Planet if We are Forced to |
|
|
|
|
Contributed by Jim Elliott
|
|
Sunday, 24 February 2008 |
In a recent article in The Independent, a British publication (www.independent.co.uk), Johann Hari is suggesting a much more stident approach to saving this planet, our home. He is suggesting that when we are trying to buy the most energy efficient automobile or more carbon offsets, we are at best "guzzling down green-coloured placebos and calling it action".
He feels our reactions to global warming is going in waves. First it was blanket denial - how can an odourless, colourless gas change the climate so dramatically. Now we are in a phase of displacement - we assume we can shop our way out of global warming, by shovelling a few new lightbulbs and some carbon offsets into our shopping basket. He says this is a "self-harming delusion".
"Today", he goes on, "we are bringing an era to an end. By pumping vast amounts of warming gases into the atmosphere, we are creating a new era: the Anthropocene: in which man makes the weather."
He doesn't want to alarm people or attack people that think they are
helping. But he believes that by dispersing our consumer choices in
the way we are, we are predictably pushing the climate further up the
thermostat. Instead of trying to shift our behavior to one that is
greener, we should be simply banning the production of those that are
not the best. Some of that is happening. Incandescent light bulbs are
being phased out quickly. The plastic bag is starting to disappear.
But we need to be banning some automobiles, limiting air flight and replacing all of our meat production with a different protein source.
Our displaced sense of a need for markets and consumer choices, we
are continuing to produce products that are destroying our climate and
our world. It is not enough for you to change your bulbs. It is not
enough to eat less meat. It is not enough to fly less. Everyone needs
to change their light bulbs now. We all have to eat less meat, fly
less and holiday at home. Maybe not even consuming at all.
Johann Hari said, "Green consumer choices often drain away people's
political energy to do this [demanding that governments outright ban
certain products or services]. Every minute you would have spent
shopping around for a greener choice, you should spend volunteering for
Greenpeace, or Friends of the Earth, or Plane Stupid or the Campaign
Against Climate Change." He goes on, "Every hundred-pound premium you
would spend to buy a greener product, donate it to them instead. Why?
Because by becoming part of the collective action - rather than by
clinging to dispersed personal choices - you will help to change the
law, so everyone will have to be greener, not just nice people like
you."
Isn't it better to rely on persuasion and voluntary choice? And in
case you think that this might trample on the right to personal choice
or other corporate rights, think about this. Choice ends when the
planet takes away the options. Choice ends when you actually harming
another person. That is currently happening today. We are making some
countries extinct as we continue on our current path. More people will not
have food to eat, water to drink to basically survive if we continue to
consume at our present rate, whether it is green or not.
Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 24 February 2008 )
|
