I joined this listserv specifically because I was attracted to the concept of the use of community-based social marketing to foster sustainable behaviour. However, I was hoping that there would be more discussion of fostering sustainable behaviour that addresses the causes of our unsustainable society and environmental degradation rather than simply with the symptoms. I believe the reason the environmental movement has been so spectacularly unsuccessful is because it has really only been dealing with the myriad symptoms rather than the root causes: /too many people; too much consumption/. These symptoms are conveniently tied up in our pathological insistence on continuous economic growth. Economic growth is an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services. Because it is facilitated by increasing population and per capita consumption, it can also be defined as an increase in throughput, or flow of natural resources, through the economy and back to the environment. Since everything humanity depends upon comes from the Earth's ecosystems, economic growth only occurs when natural capital from the economy of nature is appropriated for use by the human economy where it is converted to manufactured capital and consumer goods. Because of the tremendous breadth of the niche that we occupy, our economy grows at the competitive exclusion of biodiversity. This is fundamental to our understanding of the current problem of biodiversity loss. As the GDP goes up, ecosystems are automatically degraded or appropriated for our use and biodiversity is reduced. When the world was relatively "empty," the abundance of nature obscured the shortcomings of an economic model that ignored basic principles of physics and ecology. Now, however, the world is "full," and the 6.6 billion of us---heading rapidly toward 9 billion---are beginning to see the effects of this faulty economic model and feel the pinch of shortages as nature's stockpile runs ever lower, a result of the continual increase of our per-capita consumption. We have been harvesting renewable resources faster than nature can replenish them, which means we are eating into our natural capital and amassing a significant ecological debt. Further, our wastes are being dumped such that dwindling natural ecosystems are unable to assimilate them. Our pollutants are everywhere. These behaviours are not sustainable. We can no longer ignore the fact that an economic model based on infinite growth on a finite planet with finite resources---a model with no connectivity to the biosphere---is fatally flawed. Yet, the conventional or neoclassical economic model, under which much of the global economy operates today, assumes that infinite economic growth on a finite planet is possible; the economy is a perpetual motion machine that can run forever on its own output. While it is worthwhile to improve efficiencies and address symptoms on some scale, if we fail to address the root causes then all the other work we're doing will be for naught. As we're busy focusing only on symptoms, the economic growth machine continues to roll over ecosystems and biodiversity. And if we think climate change (a symptom) is going to be difficult to adapt to, biodiversity loss (another symptom) will make climate change look like a walk in the park. Why? Because it's the biodiversity of ecosystems that allows ecosystems to function and provide their life supporting ecosystem services which support all life on Earth. If we believe we can really solve our environmental and sustainability issues by dealing only with their symptoms then we may be expressing nothing more than wishful thinking. Unfortunately, as Richard Dawkins points out, "... wishful thinking counts, because human psychology has a near-universal tendency to let belief be coloured by desire." So my question to you all is, how can we use community-based social marketing to foster sustainable behaviour that deals with the root causes of our unsustainable culture and environmental degradation rather than just the symptoms?
Neil K. Dawe
The Qualicum Institute
Qualicum Beach, BC
Dealing with Symptoms rather than Causes
Sign in or Sign up to comment
Hi Karen -
I think you make some good suggestions, but I have a very different view of trying to make corporations "socially responsible" (and I'm talking large enterprises, not mom & pop local businesses). In a word, it's impossible. Here's why: There's only one thing that drives corporate existence: profit, no matter what you put in the charter. If the question arises of whether to be sustainable or profitable, the choice is clear - after all, a corporation can't exist, sustainably or otherwise, without profit. If double or triple bottom line is in the law (profit, environment, human rights), the corporation will spin, connive with their political buddies, and violate the law, calculating costs and benefits and considering penalties as a business expense (deductible or not). Furthermore, for many corporations the *only* socially responsible thing they could do would be to dissolve, e.g., Coca Cola, Exxon-Mobil, Nestle, et al. As the Supreme Court said about pornography, there needs to be an argument for redeeming social value. We have over a century of corporate behavior as evidence. There is only one solution for corporations: strip them of their constitutional rights and any influence on governing. In small steps to that effect, some communities in Pennsylvania and one in New Hampshire have done that, and Humboldt County's Measure T has done that in part. Some of the organizing around this issue has been effective in addressing sustainable behavior, because as people look at the harms corporations foist on their communities they start to connect the dots between how they live their lives and the negative effects of hyperconsumption.
Cheers!
Adam Sacks
Lexington, MA
Neil Dawe wrote: "...I was hoping that there would be more discussion of fostering sustainable behaviour that addresses the causes of our unsustainable society and environmental degradation rather than simply with the symptoms."
I agree with Neil that our predominant culture of environmentalism seems to be more focused on addressing the symptoms of the problems we're facing rather than the causes. (Traditional Western medicine also shares this characteristic as we tend to direct the majority of our time and dollars to medication and surgery rather than prevention and supporting overall wellbeing.) These issues of causation are obviously complicated so our solutions need to be similarly multi-faceted. I think a both/and approach is valuable here...
As Neil points out, developing new technologies, increasing efficiency, recycling, supporting green purchasing, and the like are all important pieces of the sustainability puzzle, but a crucial (and often overlooked) piece is also reducing our consumption. This is arguably a hard sell. Just as the most popular diets are the ones that suggest we don't need to exercise or change our eating habits to lose weight, the most popular solutions to climate change at first may be those that allow for business as usual. The mainstream media is pushing the stuff = happiness equation despite research to the contrary, therefore many people's current perceptions about reducing consumption (buying less, using fewer fossil fuels, etc.) are that it leads to related reductions in comfort, freedom, and happiness.
On the other hand, many people have voluntarily chosen to reduce their consumption, some for environmental reasons, but many just to improve their quality of life, have more free time, attend to their emotional and physical health, or reduce their debt. Encouraging reduced consumption will require that we help people see the connections between those behaviors and deeper satisfaction (however they may define that.) And of course, as the process of CBSM suggests, understanding our specific audience's barriers to change and using the tools we know already work is crucial (just changing the message to address consumption in addition to CFLs or recycling.)
Neil asks: "...How can we use community-based social marketing to foster sustainable behaviour that deals with the root causes of our unsustainable culture and environmental degradation rather than just the symptoms?" Some of the leaders in the simplicity movement have worked (and are working) to answer that question and provide resources for change from several different perspectives see: www.simplicityforum.org.
To address the economic resistance and arguments around sustainability one of my colleagues, John de Graaf (co-author of Affluenza), has partnered with Coop America to introduce a campaign at the Green Festival in DC called: "What's the Economy For, Anyway?" Hopefully, the dialog and campaign that emerges out of that will be a starting point for these discussions, emerging solutions and new models: http://timeday.org/economyconference/
Jennifer White
Director, Simplicity Forum
Co-Founder, ConservED Project
Karen--This is a really great response. I realize that it isn't going to be easy, but in order for any sort of world order to survive, yet alone to realize any modicum of a sustainable future for coming generations, corporate capitalism and the consumerism it creates will need to be dismantled first and replaced with some sort of "share and protect" as you briefly described. We are not now going in the right direction.....
Tom
Tom Shelley
118 E. Court St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
607 342-0864
[email protected]
http://www.myspace.com/99319958
Tom -
We *could* boot the idea around for a while as a thought experiment. If I were going to start such a thing, it would be in Ithaca. Start with the Ithaca Dollars alternative currency. Bernard Lietar (sp?) has a book on 'soft' vs. 'hard' currency that points in this direction. A 'share and protect' economy could start up as a parallel monetary system. You would trade an hour of permaculture gardening in my yard for an hour of Piano lessons from me. I wonder, though, how Ithaca Dollars interface with local merchants? "Share and Protect" is not a fully enabled economic model until you can trade an hour of pulling buckthorn from the local watershed for groceries. The biggest problem is that a 'share and protect' economy would, as it grew to encompass more human activity, run afoul of the military/industrial/profiteering system that demands hard cash for Halliburton. If a 'Share and Protect' economy still has to pay taxes to Halliburton, it becomes a victim of the extractive model of economy. So how do you create a parallel monetary system that *can* interface with hard currencies for capital expenditures on larger scale projects - yet *can't* be stripmined for taxes to fund 'compete and consume' activities?
-Karen-
It's all well and good to chat about replacing capitalism or changing the ground rules for corporations, but the simple fact is that neither of those goals is attainable in the short term. Look how much hay Rush Limbaugh, Cal Thomas and others have made of some small mathematical errors at NASA. Then imagine the tone of public discourse if we condition GHG remediation (much less biodiversity sustainment) on overthrowing the current US/G8 power structure. On the other hand, the current unrest in financial markets does offer an opportunity to get a key part of the message out. Financial market nervousness is not just about investments in subprime mortgages, even if that's as much complexity as the national media can handle. Investor nervousness is based on the fact that the recent "strong" economy has been propped up for years by consumer spending which is itself propped up by unsustainable levels of consumer borrowing. The local rag, this morning, had a 1/4 page article on how families who go through Chapter 7 bankruptcy are inundated with credit card offers, many specifically mentioning the bankruptcy, within a year. The obvious subtext: you can't manage your finances, you may have been tossed out of your home, but that's no reason why you should have to cut back on your consumption of disposable plastic junk. Tie sustainable activity to issues the public is already (or easily) concerned about. "Consume local, consume less, borrow less" is a message with several current news hooks: - The high level of debt is threatening the economy - Imports from China and other developing countries (driven by low costs) are a threat to consumers in the developed world - Third-world imports threaten family farms, just as they did manufacturing jobs - Globalization requires excessive transportation, which wastes scarce fossil fuels (not to mention creates needless emissions) Not all of these messages are ideal or pure in their support of the ultimate goal of changing the economy and achieving sustainability on various fronts, but each of them (presented in bite-sized morsels) can move the public discourse a step in the direction we need it to go. Appropriate communities for these messages include towns and cities, labor unions, fraternal organizations, veterans organizations, colleges and universities, even (give it an Amish-meets-Franciscan twist) religious congregations.
As Jerrilyn Steele (sp?) has sung repeatedly on A Prairie Home Companion, "the day's so short, and the night's so long -- why do you work so hard to get what you don't even want?"
Hi Karen -
I think we eventually have to get to the point where we disobey illegitimate law, that is, law created by people who represent us in name only but are in reality paying homage to oligarchical economic interests. On a collective level we call this "municipal civil disobedience." You can read more about the background in an article I wrote a couple of years ago for Food First: http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/2005/w05v11n1.html
Cheers,
Adam
Dear Karen and Adam and Colleagues--
What I think Karen was suggesting, and perhaps what Adam is suggesting, although I haven't had the time to read Adam's article, is that we create parallel alternative economies within our current economic structure. This is the idea of Ithaca Dollars and other local currencies that replace US dollars with an alternative local economic structure of sorts. This works well at the local scale, for the fairly limited number of those that participate, but the system is still tied to the greater economy and serves more as a "demonstration" alternative economy than anything else. "...law created by people who represent us in name only but are in reality paying homage to oligarchical economic interests." Here is the crux of the problem. Surmounting the collective consciousness that suggests that "exploitive and profit based economics based on continuous growth is a good thing" is going to be very difficult. We can use our demonstration economies to show others that there is a different path(s), but in the long run time is running out as we collectively trash the Earth. I try to be optimistic, but it is difficult to remain so.....
Tom
Tom Shelley
118 E. Court St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
607 342-0864
[email protected]
http://www.myspace.com/99319958
Quite right, Tom, time is running out. IMHO the most significant factor that will drive change, unfortunately, is global warming, which is accelerating far faster than anyone anticipated, even a couple of years ago. Survival will depend, I think, on successful localization (where that isn't precluded by adverse climate). The question is how do we mitigate and adapt in ways that foster democratic and sustainable life. Like you, I'm decidedly not optimistic, but we have to try.
Cheers,
Adam ---
There are very few family farms to "protect" from third world imports. The real problem is protecting local sustainable agriculture whereever it exists from the flood of government subsidized, chemically based, corporate agriculture. Factory farm grown American corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton and sugar is often cheaper in third world countries than locally grown crops. This is eroding local agricultural systems in many places.
The activist in me is finding great encouragement and direction from John Lennon's words: "There's no problem, only solutions."
Helen Venada
San Juan County WA
Well, Neil - you pose a good question. I'll throw you some ideas for fun. How about eliminating capitalism, and creating economies based in a 'service and renewal' standard, rather than a gold standard? Something like backing your currency with carbon offsets and reclaimed environments instead of gold. Eliminate "compete and consume" as the underlying operating system of society, and replace it with "share and protect." I'd base it in the work of Chilean Economist Manfred Max-Neef. Since I find that outcome highly unlikely, a second choice is, as much as possible, to shorten the cycle of materials usage - instead of extraction from nature, manufacture, use, disposal, and reintegration into nature - close the loop so that as few materials as possible are extracted from nature. Obsoleted wastes would be 'mined' for use in the next manufacture. Mine landfills for raw materials. (Again, not likely in the U.S. this century, but maybe later?) McDonough's Cradle to Cradle points in that direction. A third option would be finding legal remedies. In Minnesota, we're working to pass a law creating a different kind of charter for business: As a 'socially responsible corporation.' That charter would mandate annual reportage on the fiscal, social and environmental bottom lines. It would also mandate employee and community input on board decisions. In return, it would give CEO's protection from being sacked for making long range sustainable decisions, instead of reaping short term profits. The idea behind this is to break the back of stockholder demands for the highest level of throughput possible per quarter to maximize profit. I believe that it is going to take an infinite host of small decisions at every level to reach sustainability. It will take small changes and small bits of learning to position people in a place that they can see the next, more radical steps. As such, the work that is done in this list-serv is invaluable, even if incremental in approach. There. I've thrown down the gauntlet, let's see what people think!
-Karen-