For the purposes of this discussion, let’s assume that the frequently repeated factoid that a handful of corporations produce many times more pollution, waste, and general environmental destruction than all individual citizens combined worldwide is true (mostly because I think it’s still an interesting question).
This belief/fact leads many to think that corporations and governments asking individuals to be more eco-friendly is a diversion so that said corporations don’t have to change or lose profit, and that the only real way individuals can meaningfully contribute is to target those corporations, either with public pressure, lawmaking, or something more… extreme.
So my question is, how much, if at all, does the sheer weight of corporate environmental fuckery absolve the general habits and lifestyle of the everyday middle class or lower American/world citizen?
It doesn’t absolve anything. You shouldn’t base your actions on what other people, corporations, or countries are doing. You should base your actions on what is the right thing to do.
I suppose, but if you’re going to expend energy to save the environment, why isn’t it wise to spend less time sorting recyclables or spending extra on an electric car and more time pushing on big business and spending the money on, say, political candidates? Or at least to regard corporate encouragement of consumer eco-friendliness as nothing but a cynical ploy to foist their massive responsibility, and its associated costs, elsewhere?
What informs the determination of what the “right” thing to do is? Is it the right thing to do to recycle every product you consume/use that is able to be recycled?
Sure. If someone said “I spend so much time recycling my own trash, that I didn’t have time to chastise big corporations for their waste” then I’d be cool with it.
Its not an absence of time to chastise, it’s an absence of awareness to realize that you’ve been snookered into a distraction while what really is the problem continues unabated.
Also, as information is accrued and knowledge expands, the understanding of what is “right” evolves along with it. That’s why distraction is so effective. It prevents relevant information from being able to be factored in to people’s decision making.
My understanding is it is not the right thing to do to spend time, energy and resources tackling a “problem” that isn’t actually a problem. So i say its not the right thing to do to focus on personal recycling. Recycling is a scam.
There is big money in sustainable construction and energy efficient products such as LED lighting. They also are behind lobbying for legislation to require the use of these products. The dealers and distributors have entire departments dedicated to getting government subsidies and rebates for commercial customers.
I once saw a trade pamphlet with a cover that read, in 60 point type
PEOPLE
PLANET
PROFITS
And I see a lot of wordplay around the word green. Cause it’s also the color of money.
Of course, the commercialization of sustainability has led us to ignore the simplest thing we can do. USE LESS STUFF. BUY LESS STUFF. Build a smaller home. Put two lightbulbs in each of those ceiling fixtures, not three. Eat your leftovers instead of tossing them and buying something else. Reuse what you can.
I’m a renegade. My big mouth can get me in trouble, like when I tell some rich guy that if he wants to be green, he should consider not building a 20,000 square foot house.
And recycling is a scam. And the laws that require it defeat the purpose. In another thread, someone mentioned that a greasy pizza box can ruin a whole batch of recycled cardboard. And I’m still going to recycle that greasy pizza box. Because if I don’t and there’s an address label on the box, my building will hit me with a fine. Because they’re scared the city will hit them with a fine. It’s a moneymaker for the city, nothing more.
In our area the greasy pizza box goes into the yard waste with food scraps. Nothing gets ruined. And that stuff gets composted and returned to customers in the spring.
While it is good to reduce packaging by buying things with less packaging, it is better to force companies to minimize packaging so that it is reduced for everyone whether or not they care.
And I’d be very happy if maximum profit goes along with minimal environmental damage. Win win.
The hypothetical is always wrong. I’m not sure why we need to find ways to force what could be complimentary things into being in conflict. The system is non zero sum.
The question is framed incorrectly. It should not be, which is more important, individual or corporate focus on the environment? Instead it should be, how can we focus both more on the environment, and do so in a way in which they encourage and empower each other’s efforts.
To the extent that the question gets at something meaningful, there does need to be some more effort at making all the parts of the system more transparent and easy to track so everyone can make it work better from whatever position they find themselves in.
I disagree with your premise, unless by a “handful” you mean several hundred worldwide industrial manufacturing, mining, and construction companies. Nevertheless, on the “absol[ution of] the general habits and lifestyle of the everyday middle class or lower American/world citizen”, the basic premise has to be collective responsibility. One person switching from a gas-guzzling car to a hybrid won’t move the needle on global pollution. 500 million people switching will. Also, businesses depend on customers and governments depend on citizens. If nobody’s buying gigantic 4x4’s, automobile corporations won’t be building them. Likewise, if a politician can get votes by pursuing a green agenda, he’ll pursue a green agenda. In both cases, the buying and political stance of individuals is what makes the difference.
I think you’re point is that individuals publicly promoting a green agenda are more effective than individuals quietly leading ascetic lifestyles. My opinion is that that’s mostly right. Most people’s bad actions aren’t caused by malice, but either laziness or greed. So to an extent, popularising a green agenda will influence people’s behaviour. However, my observation is that people are more motivated by self-belief that they are doing good than external negative forces telling them that they’re doing bad. So “The Earth is wonderful – let’s save it” is a better message than “Stop killing the Earth”. However, lots of green campaigners seem to focus on the second message. Also, both people and businesses respond to costs and incentives. So if there is going to be collective action towards positive environmental changes across society, their needs to be incentives for being environmentally responsible, and penalties for being environmentally irresponsible. Those incentives and penalties will ultimately have to come from governments. Which, while I acknowledge the effect of corruption, ultimately do respond to the will of the people.
Spot on. The environment is an essential shared resource and that is why the government should regulate practices that endanger the environment.
If people were nice enough to just do the right thing without government intervention, we wouldn’t need a government. But if I run a corporation and going green cuts my bottom line, I can’t realistically take that option. If I raise prices, competitors don’t, we go out of business, and I get fired. If I pass the cuts to shareholders I get fired (duh). If I layoff employees that tanks company morale plus productivity plus there’s a chance for a PR disaster.
On the other hand there’s a flipside. I can’t go around advocating for new regulations that make my business less profitable no matter how much I may agree with their reasons. If I say the costs are going to consumers competitors will run ads against my company saying so much. All the same groups above will get pissed off at me. So I lobby for government incentives instead of penalties. Everybody who I depend on to keep my job is satisfied. This is what I think business executives think about with regards to environmentally friendly policies.
I don’t think most people, on the other hand, care too much about the corporate costs of going green. They look at C-class salaries and bonuses and say, why not just cut his pay? There’s some truth to this but I think executive pay is being hailed as the solution to too many problems, like a nest egg in a financially insolvent family.
I think it should just be the cost of doing business, which means the costs are passed down to the consumer. The only entities that can enact across-the-board rules would be the government regulation or industry self-regulation under threat of government regulation. Normal citizens who engage with their government are doing the right thing.
The places that I order from have some sort of computerized ordering system that prints address labels.
Of course, I could pull it off. Still, I’m in a large apartment building and we are supposed to sort our trash into assorted cans, bins and piles located in a common area. And I promise you an item the size of a pizza box is going to end up with the cardboard recycle no matter where I leave it initially. Another tenant or building employee would think it was a mistake and move it to the cardboard pile.
