From THE VN/VO:
I leave nearly every light on in my suburban house, even in rooms I don't plan on being in for hours. I drive an SUV-like vehicle, and I am notorious for making a single back-and-forth trip out of everything I need to get from various stores. I use copious amounts of paper towels to clean up any spill. I have never recycled a day in my life, and I prefer plastic to paper.
Oh, and I'm an environmentalist.
Hypocritical? Not so fast. You see, I could have listed a variety of personal likes, dislikes, and characteristics of mine that are much more eco-friendly- I work from home and probably drive only 40 miles total each week, I have a compost pile in my backyard, and so on. I could then rage on about how you, too, should follow in my footsteps in a communal effort to help our environment.
Today's environmentalists (by that I mean the past 30-ish years of the movement) practice what I call "back-filled morality." This is where one builds specific rights and wrongs around actions they already partake in because of personal preference. My favorite is the trend of modern, young urbanites to bike rather than take cars. One-hundred percent of the time, it's a completely personal preference first- driving a car in the city is a nightmare, its good exercise, its fun, and so forth. However, for those who bike and are of the "environmentally conscious" ilk, you'd be hard-pressed to find one that isn't convinced that cars are wrong for everyone, and that cars are an evil we've leashed onto the planet.
Funny how arguments of global rights-and-wrongs always fit nicely into- and demand zero sacrifice of- the personal likings of the individual making the argument.
Americans don't generally make sacrifices. I don't, environmentalists don't, no one does. It's not that we're selfishly corrupt and perilously greedy, as many like to think. Though many are in denial about it, we all inherently know, through centuries of inherited personal experience, that we actually have a system that figures out how to conform to both mass personal preferences and external necessities like a good environment- all without the need for much sacrifice at all. It's called the free market.
The big, ugly, money-obsessed, take-no-prisoners free market? Well, the "free market" is a bit of a misnomer. The "market" is only a small part of the whole system. When people think of the free market, they assume it applies only to the trade of goods, services, and currency. They assume that seemingly non-economic issues like environmentalism inherently exist outside of the free "market" and must be regulated through some other system. Not true.
Take, for example, the problems in America that are slowly arising from dependence on a depleting and hostilely-controlled oil supply, and foreign oil specifically. A problem, indeed. Yet, when you look at the adoption curve of alternative systems- like hybrid and non-gasoline cars- it mirrors the beginning stages of pretty much every other culture-altering invention before it. We, as a people- with minimal regulatory interference- invented and adopted electricity in a matter of a decade. We invented, learned to use, and widely adopted the Internet in a matter of a few years.
Will hybrid cars be the same? Of course. The instant such products become cheaper and more convenient as today's pure gasoline cars (and they will), is the instant we'll begin to decrease- and probably someday eliminate- our reliance on oil. Anyone who worries that we won't adopt such things is worrying about nothing (and could use a refresher course in American industrial history).
None of this is to say that adoption of environmentally friendly products in general, and alternatives to oil specifically, shouldn't be happening a bit faster. It should. And who do we blame for the slow-down? Environmentalists blame the oil companies, along with their government lobbyists, and public relations machines. I, however, blame the environmentalists.
Pipe dreams aside, oil companies have one responsibility, and thus one need: to make a profit. Over future decades, oil companies, for the most part, couldn't care less where this profit comes from- or even if it actually continues to come from oil itself- as long as its profit. No company that wants to be profitable has any agenda beyond pure profit. As harsh and unforgiving as it seems, this is a good thing. Only in a system where each entity has an essentially singular focus can global change happen. And, along these lines, such change can only happen with one other component: demand.
Environmentalists have spent the better part of the past 30 years attempting to force extra responsibility into the supply side of our economic culture (i.e. corporations), attempting to bypass demand through forced government regulation, and attempting to guilt the public into making sacrifices. Sometimes the result seems successful, sometimes it fails. However, in nearly every situation, the process is flawed.
Environmentalists do serve a critical role in our economy and culture- a role that is often ignored because of their general dogmatic prejudice against capitalism and the free market. That role- and the only role anyone outside the supply side of capitalism can take on successfully- is to inspire demand.
Demand is a pretty powerful thing. It may be the most powerful thing in our economic culture. Demand can't necessarily be fully manipulated, but often latent demand- like that which certainly exists for alternatives to oil- can be inspired. Thus, environmentalists hold the responsibility to work within the system (in other words, shed the guilt trips and hope for magic, quick-fix regulation) and figure out a way to marry the public's non-prejudicial need for cheap and convenient products with the environmentalists agenda.
Such responsibility is often shirked. It's a lot easier (effective or not) to complain about grand conspiracies and anti-environmental agendas. However, if you know anything about economics, the (often surprising) truth is that no corporation, organization, or any other entity can avoid or silence demand. All the lobbyists in the universe cannot squelch something that people actually want. Its never happened, it never will.
So maybe in ten or fifteen years I'll be writing a follow-up to this article on a landfill-friendly laptop, from my solar-heated house, where I park my hydrogen-fueled car. Certainly, if it makes my life easier, and is cheaper than other products, then I- like all people living in the free market- will be happy be that environmentally-friendly with my purchases. But- like all people living in the free market, including every single environmentalist- I won't make sacrifices for it. I won't need to.
Sacrifices, of course, are never necessary. The same economic culture which we all contribute to and take from just so happens to provide the right things, at the right time, at the right price. Any environmental problems will be lessened- or eliminated- in the process. They always are. Assuming, of course, that environmentalists are willing to take the responsibility for guiding such a demand.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Yikes, an article so sensible that no one can find anything to comment on. Good job.
Dave
2 - Christopher J. Falvey
Well, it was my first article posted to BlogCritics. And it was a Friday night. I was assuming everyone had just started their drinking for the weekend?
Heh.
I kid. Thanks for the compliment, Dave.
3 - Eric Olsen
very compelling Christopher, thanks and welcome! It is all about priorities, isn't it? We typically can't have everyting we want at the same time.
4 - Christopher J. Falvey
Eric:
Indeed it is about priorities. But its important to note how those priorities are "decided" globally. I find that environmentalists completely mis-understand this.
And, most importantly, their "understanding" of this would in no way *hurt* their cause.
5 - lono
Sorry Chris,
but you are a tool. First I'd like to say Welcome to Blogcritics though, as you mentioned this is your first post. I imagine judging by the very well written content that you and I will be sparring often.
In the meantime, you are a tool. Though we aren't terrific at making sacrifices, that doesn't mean we should all lay down to the Bush doctrine and give up potable water and breathable air.
Thanks, and don't take it personal. I don't dislike you at all... but I do really dislike most all Republicans.
6 - Dave Nalle
Lono, I like the way you're kind of an ambush bigot.
What makes you think Chris is a Republican or even a Bush supporter?
He made a completely reasonable, non-partisan posting and you assume that because it isn't kool-aid pro environmentalist he's a Republican ideologue?
Oddly enough people can hold sensible opinions and NOT be Republicans. I know you're used to all the common sense coming from Republicans, but it's not guaranteed.
Dave
7 - Christopher J. Falvey
Lono,
Don't worry, I don't take things personally. But I think you missed the complexity of my point. Maybe you were offended by my anecdote on my own "environmentalism."
Look. Environmentalism is not going to succeed without going through the free market. Sorry, it isn’t going to happen. That's reality. It has nothing to do with Bush- I am not sure where you got that?
(FYI, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I am technically a card-carrying Libertarian, but I differ even with them right now on some major issues like Iraq).
8 - Dave Nalle
>>Look. Environmentalism is not going to succeed without going through the free market. Sorry, it isn’t going to happen. That's reality. It has nothing to do with Bush- I am not sure where you got that?<<
He got that from his assumption that everyone who's not a dyed in the wool leftist must be a Bushite.
>>(FYI, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I am technically a card-carrying Libertarian, but I differ even with them right now on some major issues like Iraq).<<
You sound rather like me, so you're doomed to be lumped in with the Neocons by the unthinking lefties on BC.
Dave
9 - Christopher J. Falvey
Dave,
I mean Lono no personal offense here, but I agree... this is the unfortunate effect of this new universe of pure black-and-white political thinking.
In all honesty, you *can* most likely pigeonhole most people based off a few thoughts. People lately tend never to stray from the party line. So I can understand where Lono's comments *come from*.
Nevertheless, I believe one has a responsibility- if not to try and remove their own self from pure partisan conformity- to at least read into anyone else's complete thought to make sure they aren't pure partisan hacks (as I do believe I am not).
10 - Bennett Dawson
Wow, let me add my welcome. Great job on making me think about how really big cultural changes are market driven, and the the sneaky hypocracy of self proclaimed sacrifice.
11 - Dave Nalle
What Lono and others do is identify one issue position which they then assume can only be held by a certain group of people who subscribe to a whole different set of views too, be it Neocons or Bush supporters or Republicans.
The typical example of this is when you express any kind of support for the Iraq war they immediately decide you're a Bush-loving Neocon Republican. This despite the fact that there are a considerable number of Democrats who support the war, not to mention Republicans who oppose it.
It's bewildering.
Dave
12 - Roy Smith
More from NPR on Bush - Saudi Meeting. Bottom line: 1) Saudis are at max of current production capacity; 2) Any increase in production capacity will require massive investment; 3) Saudis may not wish to make that investment but would rather take the windfall in oil profits they are getting now.
13 - Tom French
So after reading your article I get the impression that you think the market buying public will sort out any dangers greedy corporations might want to inflict on unsuspecting consumers.
Without the environmentalists who would be alerting the country to water and air pollution that companies try to hide to guard their profits? The government?
Without environmentalists, who will call attention to the commercial pillage of oceans? Whale hunting. Overfishing. Unintended dolphin catching?
If fuel remains inexpensive, who brings attention to the massive air pollution your SUV and wasteful electric habits cause?
Only by a concerted nation wide anti-market influence will anything that is not harmful to the environment, but is helpful to someones bottom line, be effected.
14 - Christopher J. Falvey
The market is complex, unforgiving... but it works. In fact, its really the only thing that *works*, per se.
You mention "without environmentalists," but I never said anything to the effect of there being no environmentalists, or that they're wrong in their base opinions.
All I am saying is they're wasting a bunch of energy, and thusly are far less effective with their goals/message by not *using* the free market
Which they do not. They're generally against it. They generally, like even you are starting to hedge toward, think that the market works *against* their cause. The free market doesn't have a cause. Its all how you use it.
15 - Tom French
The free market does have a cause. To allow people to make money using whatever means does not hurt their profitablility. Without someone saying," hey all that oil were burning is going to kill us in the future" The power companies will keep on profiting from natural resources. The environmentalists aren't profitting from saying those things. So how are they working within the free market system?
The free market allows the strong to survive, but doesnt take into account the implications of its actions in the future. If we pollute and make the planet generally ininhabitable, there will be no free market.
PS There are plenty of people who do make sacrifices for a better environment. Saying everyone is as selfish and short sighted as your article makes you out to be is silly.
16 - sydney
I agree with Tom here.
And yes there are all sorts of holes in your argument. You seem to reduce environmentalists to a bunch of idiots who haven't thought about what they are doing.
Firstly, environmentalism and many social issues do exist outside of free market economy. The free market has one objective, other than to maximize profits. If consumer demand aligns itself with an environmentally beneficial position, than yes, in that case both come out winners.
Governmental manipulation of free-market is the best way to ensure the two align themselves. For instance, if the government mandated eco-friendly cars than our free market would only suffer a short-term loss while the environment would benefit enormously.
Ya I drive a car, quiet often, but I'm not going to dispute the merits of an environmentalist’s reasoning, because I know it to be sound. I haven't the personal discipline to live a totally eco friendly life. However, I would vote for changes that made it mandatory that we all live that life.
I don’t understand your argument that seems to suggest there are no con’s to a free market capitalism. It would seem something personal is blinding you to the reality. I don’t suggest it needs to be totally removed, but what is the matter with creating caps and restrictions where it would benefit society. Americans are so opposed to this because they see Capitalism as their baby. Well, I say, open your eyes! Look around you! There are plenty of improvements to be made.
17 - Tom French
agreed.
18 - Christopher J. Falvey
Sydney,
I don't believe the free market is perfect, but its just been proven over and over (in reality, and in any Econ 101 text book) that "government regulation of the free market" often does not produce the results that were wanted in the first place. Sorry, it just doesn't work. I don't have a personal agenda... maybe I could *wish* it works, but with the inherent complexities (read: ineffencies) of government, all I am saying is this... environmentalists are looking to the wrong place to extend their cause.
I use this anecdotal example often: go to the DMV to renew your drivers license sometime. This is how the sheer majority of government works. And *this* is who you want to cling to for your solution?! Its foolish.
I saw a documentary on Discovery Times about BP and their environmental commitment (yeah, I know a lot of people will be immediately disposed to laugh without checking it out, but I recommend it). I've forgotten the title. BP *knows* they're going to need to move away from their old practices on many fronts (environmentalism is one of them). Not because they're all just nice guys. Because it *will* be profitable.
I merely blame environmentalists for moving demand along so *slowly* by looking to Mother Government to do its dirty work, rather than inspiring demand in the market.
And you think this is impossible? Look at the movement- in the market- for organic products. The government didn't mandate this. People want it, and certain eco-friendly companies have done an excellent job marketing it.
19 - sydney
Ok , I take your point.
Your example of organic products is a good one. This is one case when a producer sees an opportunity to market something eco-friendly.
However, for everyone of those, their are 50 examples of products that are marketed though they do damage to our environment.
Even the whole goal of a market based economy is to create want, to increase the amounts of stuff we consume. The sheer increase in volume of stuff we increase is majorly increased by capitalism, and as such detrimental to our environment.
In Canada , the average person has doubled his/her living space in the past 35 years. That’s an amazing statistic isn't it? It speaks volumes about the effect of capitalism and market based economy on our consumption and waste production.
I agree that often governments are inefficient. Sometimes inefficiency is the price you pay in choosing the right direction. I hate to use Canada as an example, but I find it a vastly superior society, in many regards, to America, one reason is its social infrastructure, which as you say, are very inefficient. Granted I appreciate the innovation that was allowed to develop in the American Brand of capitalism.
I just think American capitalism is a beast with its own objectives, often opposed to the good of our society. I find Environmentalism to be an example of how the beast has taken us in the wrong direction.
Other than that, I'm all for using the free-market to improve our environment. Why not use both? The free-market and free-market restrictions?
20 - JR
I use this anecdotal example often: go to the DMV to renew your drivers license sometime. This is how the sheer majority of government works. And *this* is who you want to cling to for your solution?! Its foolish.
True story: I went to the DMV-Express in the mall when I first moved to Northern Virginia. I walked out 15 minutes later with a new driver's license and plates for my car.
Try having your car totalled and getting fair compensation from the other driver's insurance company. And this is who you want to trust for a solution?
I saw a documentary on Discovery Times about BP and their environmental commitment (yeah, I know a lot of people will be immediately disposed to laugh without checking it out, but I recommend it). I've forgotten the title. BP *knows* they're going to need to move away from their old practices on many fronts (environmentalism is one of them). Not because they're all just nice guys. Because it *will* be profitable.
Yeah, and Exxon Mobile is trying sell all the oil they can while it is profitable. There are different strategies to making a profit. In your "free market", what's to stop someone from exploiting all the resources in the short term and holing up in bomb shelters when the food riots start?
21 - Christopher J. Falvey
Sydney,
The big problem is you end your argument with "American capitalism is a beast with its own objectives, often opposed to the good of our society."
People drive the free market, the free market does not manipulate the people. Though you may think that this happens, it just doesn't.
People can remove demand very easily and kill anything they don't want. We do it every day. That which we don't kill, we can assume people want.
*You* may think its foolish or dangerous for people to want X, Y and Z... but you have to look at it globally. What happens when you force A, B and C over that which people want? What are the consequences of that?
More often than not, those consequences are worse... because you cannot ever force or manipulate demand.
22 - Christopher J. Falvey
JR,
In your "free market", what's to stop someone from exploiting all the resources in the short term and holing up in bomb shelters when the food riots start?
Simple. BP as a corporation, its shareholders and execs would much rather just stay in business- fulfilling NEW demans, rather than cause "the end of the world".
(Yes, I know you're exaggerating. At least I hope)
23 - Christopher J. Falvey
JR,
To address your other point:
Try having your car totalled and getting fair compensation from the other driver's insurance company. And this is who you want to trust for a solution?
Then leave your insurance company for not handling it for you.
No one said every participant in the free market is good. That's why companies (even insurance companies) go out of business!
(In all honesty, personal opinion here... I have had nothing but good service from the insurance industry. Now, I don't go bargain-basement... and if you do, then you get what you pay for)
24 - sydney
"People drive the free market, the free market does not manipulate the people. Though you may think that this happens, it just doesn't."
Well here is our fundamental point of disagreement.
My education, across many disciplines, always points to the fact that the free-market economy creates desires, and wants, which are often opposed to the betterment of society.
I'll give the most basic example. People know that smoking is bad for them, and that it is bad for society as a whole, yet we still create them, we still create a desire for them, we still load them with addictive additives, and so people still smoke them.
I smoke cigarettes, but I am all for banning smoking in all public places and banning them completely. If they weren’t sold I wouldn’t have ever started and I wouldn't be able to continue smoking. Sure it would suck for the first month or two but I would get over it.
This example can be extended to cars, pollutants, the effect of the media on self-image etc.. on and on and on... There are cons to the free-market, and people lack the organization and motivation to combat them. Instead people give in to the short-term temptations. In this way, the free-market controls society, not the other way around. The only way to control the free market with external restrictions that people can vote on and have uniformly set in place so that all abide.
This is not to say I’m all for censoring everything in sight and creating all sorts of restrictions on everything but I think that slowly, we should introduce more restrictions where the public deems it beneficial. America is so dead against this that it’s come to bite them in the ass.
So, I think that, often, by the time Society rises up to stop a "bad", it is too late.
25 - Christopher J. Falvey
Sydney,
I smoke as well. It was my choice. I cannot blame anyone for keeping me smoking other than myself.
Nothing is the antithesis to "freedom" than your statement to the effect of "everyone should be forced to stop because I want to stop". Come on.
Now, if you want to prosecute cigarette companies for *lying*, that is perfectly fair. They should be. But other than that, they worked within the free market.
Its called personal responsibility.
The only real *argument* that people have come up with to show some "danger to society" is health care costs.
Well, the government shouldn't be bankrolling healthcare for someone who became injured/sick from smoking!
Personal. Responsibility.