Forget Shorter Showers - Why Personal Change is not Political Change

[tinrobot]

WOULD ANY SANE PERSON think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal “solutions”?

Part of the problem is that we’ve been victims of a campaign of systematic misdirection. Consumer culture and the capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment) for organized political resistance. An Inconvenient Truth helped raise consciousness about global warming. But did you notice that all of the solutions presented had to do with personal consumption—changing light bulbs, inflating tires, driving half as much—and had nothing to do with shifting power away from corporations, or stopping the growth economy that is destroying the planet? Even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested, U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent. Scientific consensus is that emissions must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide.

Or let’s talk water. We so often hear that the world is running out of water. People are dying from lack of water. Rivers are dewatered from lack of water. Because of this we need to take shorter showers. See the disconnect? Because I take showers, I’m responsible for drawing down aquifers? Well, no. More than 90 percent of the water used by humans is used by agriculture and industry. The remaining 10 percent is split between municipalities and actual living breathing individual humans. Collectively, municipal golf courses use as much water as municipal human beings. People (both human people and fish people) aren’t dying because the world is running out of water. They’re dying because the water is being stolen.

Or let’s talk energy. Kirkpatrick Sale summarized it well: “For the past 15 years the story has been the same every year: individual consumption—residential, by private car, and so on—is never more than about a quarter of all consumption; the vast majority is commercial, industrial, corporate, by agribusiness and government . So, even if we all took up cycling and wood stoves it would have a negligible impact on energy use, global warming and atmospheric pollution.”

More:
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4801/

[handmade34]

1. K&R many times over

and over

[Tumbulu]

2. I have been a meticulous consumer

and kept my carbon consumption down... but I have been coming to the conclusion that of course, this is fine, but we need to address all this with legislation.

I think acting personally responsible does not prevent us from acting as a society to change the status quo- in fact how can we demand change if we are unwilling to reduce our own carbon intake etc.?

It is just that it is not at all enough.

However, for many of us, it is the only thing that we can do, work on our own habits- in fact this is why there is an organic industry. People as individuals growing organic food despite the fact that it was supposedly impossible to produce food/fiber organically..... and others choosing to buy this often blemished produce at higher prices....it did make a difference and still does.

[K8-EEE]

3. Meh.....I hate wasting water on a personal level

I will still tell my kids to turn off the shower after 5 minutes, even if golf courses waste water. Why should we waste MORE?

[readmoreoften]

4. I'm glad you're feeling good about yourself. But you haven't done anything except

make yourself feel good. If you want to ACTUALLY stop the current situation, you have politically organize to stop it. End of story. If our military were a state it would be the 7th most polluting nation on earth--and that's outside general US consumption.

Only 2% of all waste is household waste. You can keep patting yourself on the back for being a good liberal, but in reality, you are contributing absolutely nothing by your "sacrifice." What is needed is real political change and agitation: an end to planned obsolescence, an end to the wars in Iraq/Afghanstan/Pakistan, an end to destruction of merchandise for the sake of markets.

This is a do or die situation. Step up or stand back.

[K8-EEE]

12. Well I cut my DWP bill about 35% for one thing!

And I didn't say I supported the wars or any of that....nothing is to be gained by being wasteful on a personal level.

[TBF]

14. True, there's no need to be wasteful. The danger though is people

thinking they are doing these personal things (recycling, buying a Prius, etc...) and that is their sole contribution. As readmoreoften points out, it is going to take political action by millions of us (strikes, marches, etc...) to have any effect on the status quo. I agree that many of us are wasteful and can personally improve on that, but that alone is not going to change anything politically.

[Nihil]

38. Yeah, that works really well ...

> it is going to take political action by millions of us (strikes, marches, etc...)
> to have any effect on the status quo

It did a treat for stopping the invasion of Iraq didn't it?

Oh, wait ...

[Nihil]

40. Something is greater than nothing. Actions speak louder than words.

> I'm glad you're feeling good about yourself. But you haven't done anything
> except make yourself feel good.

And your desire to denigrate a genuine activist - i.e., someone who has
actually *ACTED* rather than *talked* - is what, exactly? Are you really
trying to do anything except "make yourself feel good"?


> If you want to ACTUALLY stop the current situation, you have politically
> organize to stop it. End of story.

"Politically organize"? Do you mean "bribe yourself in" (= "lobby" politicians)?
Just how is that going to change the current situation other than putting the
price up? (Bear in mind that the corporations have far deeper pockets than you)


> If our military were a state it would be the 7th most polluting nation on
> earth--and that's outside general US consumption.

True. It has been true for decades - despite all of the anti-war protests.


> You can keep patting yourself on the back for being a good liberal, but in
> reality, you are contributing absolutely nothing by your "sacrifice."

Wrong. It might not be much but it is a finite, measurable amount on its own
and it can encourage others by proving the benefit of acting locally rather
than just pontificating on a discussion forum or waving a banner at a "protest".
Your criticism, on the other hand, has contributed "absolutely nothing"
as it hasn't even produced that small, finite, measurable amount.


> This is a do or die situation. Step up or stand back.

I'll step back thanks ... and leave the pointless blathering about "the power
of the people" to clowns who drive to protests about oil, who want wind-farms
built out of sight of their holiday homes and who prefer to whinge at people
who are actually doing something in their lives because it is far more convenient
to "incite" others to do something instead.

Have at it hero! :eyes:

[drm604]

5. K&R

If you really want change - organize and fight for political change.

For example, we're always seeing puff pieces about some guy who runs his car on waste cooking oil from local restaurants. There isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, enough waste cooking oil to run everyone's car.

The individual is making himself feel good while accomplishing nothing for the world at large. He may not even be saving himself money when you take into account the time and resources that go into collecting, cleaning, refining, etc.

His efforts and resources would be better spent on organizing politically for better public transit and incentives for people to use that transit.

[Kringle]

6. tourism is an environmental disaster .nt

[unblock]

7. i'm still thinking about the naked dancing thing. i think that one requires closer examination.

i agree with you about dumpster diving, though

;)

[handmade34]

11. agree

[maryf]

8. "...the role of an activist"

is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems."

K&R

[blindpig]

25. Yes

Yes, yes, yes.

[RC]

9. You want to talk about waste?

How many/much resources are wasted by our military in bu$h's wars of choice? Drones, manned jets and helicopters, hauling support supplies, ships-both supply and war. Then there is all the destruction caused by blowing stuff up.
How does a shorter shower figure in all this?

[GliderGuider]

10. The value of personal action isn't in the immediate environmental savings

Taking personal action consolidates a shift in how you see the world. The effect of that shift then ripples out into everything you do. While individual acts are imperceptible on the scale of global industrial civilization, the value shift that comes from taking them allows you to act as an agent and model for change. And that in turn permits every action you take to have a multiplier effect as your attitude spreads out to those around you.

If the truism that a civilization is a collection of individuals is true at all, then every change ultimately starts at the personal level. Only those changes that come about as the result of a value shift on the part of individuals have any hope of becoming permanent.

Don't wait for top-down change, it may not come. However, each of us can make changes within our own circle of influence, be it large or small.

Be the change you wish to see in the world.

[K8-EEE]

13. Thank you!

I understand the point about militarism but to say that conservation of resources on a personal level is "a waste" is such nonsense.

[glitch]

15. Agreed. Just don't stop at personal change, organize to make systemic change. nt

[tinrobot]

16. The people who started the civil rights movement...

...already practiced the tolerance that they wanted to institutionalize.

But there was a point where they ran up against people unwilling to change their intolerant ways. That's where the government had to step in over the course of decades to affect the change and make it permanent.

So, yes, personal action is always a good first step. But it will still take decades of government action to drag the people who practice wasteful lifestyles into the next century. So, activism is the next logical step.

[GliderGuider]

17. I want to make sure that those who stick with personal change don't feel marginalized

Not everyone is cut out to be an activist. Denigrating the efforts of those who are not, but want to help in whatever way they can, as "dumpster-diving" is supremely unhelpful.

The movement (and the world) world needs ordinary human beings too.

[tinrobot]

21. Not denigrating anyone...

Not everyone who practiced tolerance in the 50's and 60's marched on Washington. They were just as important as the people who did march.

Not saying everyone needs to be an activist, but activism is definitely needed.

[GliderGuider]

23. I know you're not, and yes activism is needed.

The tone of the original article wasn't quite so charitable, though. I detected quite a strong tone of marginalization of individual effort in it.

The original article promotes a bifurcation fallacy. Our choices are not restricted to "capitulation to the corporate mindset" on one hand and "political activism" on the other. In fact the article completely ignores the idea that "The Personal is Political", which is at least one aspect of the path I promote.

[The2ndWheel]

18. Dragging people for decades isn't wasteful though?

Government requires the same growth that a corporation does. Government action isn't going to do anything for our environmental issues. If that type of action were to work the way it would need to work, the government would be taking resources away from itself over the long term. Which is why something like the civil rights movement could work, because that type of government action brings in more resources. It strengthens the government. It allows it to function.

That's the funny situation we find ourselves in. If conservation actually worked, we would have a weaker economy. Our economy is built on waste. Our jobs depend on waste.

[GliderGuider]

19. Good point about waste.

That's the "reasoning" behind the drive to privatize profits while socializing costs. The more extensive and diffuse the waste stream, and the easier it is to release unconsolidated waste back into the environment, the less cost it imposes on the original process and so more profit remains to be privatized.

This is one area where regulation can help a lot, because regulations and fines can raise the cost of waste production above the cost of reducing it or reincorporating it into another process. Essentially, regulation can promote a quasi-ecological view of manufacturing processes, where waste is minimized and unavoidable waste is seen as a potential input to other processes.

As you point out, such an approach is fiercely opposed by business (including the business of government). IMO this largely because neither business nor government is an ecological organism. For that matter, the "average consumer" is largely a creation of these entities, and so isn't an ecological organism either. Which explains why so many consumers are as fiercely anti-conservation as any corporation.

[The2ndWheel]

22. Good point about regulation

"This is one area where regulation can help a lot, because regulations and fines can raise the cost of waste production above the cost of reducing it or reincorporating it into another process. Essentially, regulation can promote a quasi-ecological view of manufacturing processes, where waste is minimized and unavoidable waste is seen as a potential input to other processes."

It's not a perfect analogy, but I think of the planet as a government, and each species as a corporation. Usually, what happens in one relationship, is mirrored by what happens in the other. Corporations don't like the regulations imposed by the government, and if they can do something about it, they do. Humans don't like the regulations imposed by the planet, and if they can do something about it, they do. It's simplifying the complexity, but I can't remember the last time I wondered why or how something like Monsanto(pick any corporation) does what it does. It's basically what we've been doing as a species for a long time, just on the larger scale that such collective effort allows.

[Nihil]

35. Very true.

> Don't wait for top-down change, it may not come. However, each of us can
> make changes within our own circle of influence, be it large or small.

In addition, by moving forwards ahead of the wave (so to speak) you maximise
your chances for the future by reducing the impact of the eventual, drastic,
changes that will be forced upon you - either by harsh regulation (once the
message finally sinks in) or by varying levels of catastrophic impact (if it
doesn't).

By reducing your own demand, you are scaling your requirements for the next
period of time - and yes, reducing your short-term costs in many ways - so
you will not suffer as great a wrench to your way of life, your "world",
when the inevitable happens.


> Be the change you wish to see in the world.

:thumbsup:

"Lead by example" is always more convincing than "Do what I say, not what I do".

:hi:

[Lorien]

20. I've been mentioning this every time someone says "The Gulf Oil gusher is OUR fault"

It's far from our fault. We as individuals can't build solar or wind farms to fuel our electricity plants. We can't manufacture our own affordable electric vehicles, we can't force most companies to use less packaging (as they do in Europe), we can't invest millions of our own money in developing new green technologies. All of that takes political force, and the political will to do it does not exist.

[GliderGuider]

24. We can reduce our individual use of oil and plastics, though.

And we can reduce our need for transportation of ourselves and the goods we consume. Enough of that recuces the presure on oil companies to pursue inherently risky strategies like deep-water drilling.

The circumstances that created the BP gusher were the outcome of our civilization's need for oil. But what is a "civilization" but large collection of individuals? We are not "them". We are "us".

[Lorien]

27. We have alternatives for oil, but we're 30 years behind other nations

in actually using them. Also-a National high speed MagLev rail system would both provide jobs, mobility, lessen impact on existing roads and curb both oil use and CO2 emissions. If South Africa can do it, we sure as hell could.

[tinrobot]

26. Actually, we can do a lot of that...

You don't have to build a solar farm, you just have to put some panels on your roof. With dropping prices and increasing incentives, it's actually getting affordable.

I own a used electric car. If you want one, you can have one, too. Just look around.

If you stop buying everything brand new, then packaging is much less of an issue.

If you stop eating take-out, then food packaging is also less of an issue.

The solutions are there, unfortunately, most people choose to take the route that's easy in the short term, wasteful and expensive in the long run.

[Lorien]

28. Point is: if the government mandates specific actions our dependence on forgeign oil

could be cut in half-but they won't, because Big Oil OWNS THEM. I buy only whole foods, don't eat out, eat mostly a vegan diet (which is more environmentally friendly than not owning a car), use hemp grocery bags, don't buy new or don't buy at all if possible...but most Americans don't share my lifestyle. Ever been to Switzerland? Their grocery stores have a smaller footprint than ours but often carry more of an assortment of items because they use so little packaging. The "prosonal responsibility" mantra lets government, mega corporations and big polluters off the hook. Fuck that.

Oh, and where did you purchase your used Nissan Leaf or Tesla Roadster?

[tinrobot]

30. Oil is definitely subsidized

We subsidize oil production as well as the pollution it creates.

We need to stop that.

I have a used MGB conversion. Got it reasonably cheap and it works great.

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. You know...

I turn off lights at work when leaving the restroom...

Does that count as personal or corporate?

[Nihil]

34. Depends on who's in them at the time ...

"nobody" = corporate
"somebody" = personal!

Win-win :evilgrin:

[wtmusic]

31. Yeah, voting is another highly-rated personal solution.

These threads are abhorrent.

[maryf]

33. abhorrent??

why? they don't say not to simplify, they just say its not what's going to make the difference that matters...I'm sincerely curious as to why you find that abhorrent?

[wtmusic]

44. Abdication of personal responsibility

is IMO abhorrent, whether it's not voting, or not accepting your share of your contribution to the environment. Every little bit makes a difference, every little bit matters.

[maryf]

47. Every little bit helps

yes, but the shame is the big "new people" on the block, the corporations, have no sense of "personal responsibility" and they are the major, really major, perpetrators of the abuse of resources; if its more cost effective to cut off a mountain top, why not??? If they can't wait to let concrete set right as the profit from oil can't be waited on...

Thanks so much for answering me.

[Beartracks]

32. Reminds me of the stupid attacks against Al Gore...

... because he <gasp> flies in a jet that uses <horror!> jet fuel! OBVIOUSLY the man doesn't walk the walk!! :eyes:

Ironically, while An Inconvenient Truth emphasized personal consumption reductions (as noted in the OP), Gore's own personal consumption was being used against him by conservatives dissing his book and movie.

Republicans like to attack environmentalists for not living off the land and eating roots and berries, when that's not really the point of a sound, sustainable, environmentally-friendly infrastructure that most environmentalists would like to see.

------------------------

[Nihil]

36. It might not be intended as such ...

... but the OP article comes across as very much the same attitude as the
parochial Hummer-driving burger-stuffing wasteful Homo Consumeris ...

:shrug:

All that dreaminess about politicians actually paying attention to the people
is so last century ... these days, anyone spouting crap about something
"needing political action driven by mass action" is just waving a big flag that
says "I've just re-read Marx and haven't caught up to the real world yet".

The decision makers in the real world don't give a fuck about you or me
unless you happen to be a billionaire with a few like-minded pals (and I know
damn well that I'm not!)

[hatrack]

37. Which is why I was surprised how little traction the actual message of the Copenhagen debacle got

To wit:

Don't fuck with growth.

Don't you dare fuck with growth.

Don't you dare even think about fucking with growth, now or at any time in the future.

[GliderGuider]

39. +1000

That about covers it.

[Nihil]

41. Yep, that nailed it.

That's the best (=most concise yet most accurate) summary of Copenhagen around.

[XemaSab]

46. Why am I not carrying your child?

(Metaphorically, of course. Real children are a blight on the earth; metaphorical children notsomuch.)

[GliderGuider]

42. There is one personal change that will make a measurable difference

Voluntary sterilization.

Get a vasectomy or tubal ligation before you have kids. It's a personal change that will reap planetary rewards forever.

[Bragi]

43. Great article

It's the same mass culture that has convinced individuals they are at fault when they lose their jobs, have their mortgages foreclosed, have their pensions stolen, etc. etc. This self-blame is critical to keeping Americans docile and fearful.

It's exactly the same culture that then pretends that the reason our environment is collapsing is because people are doing just too much littering.

[Odin2005]

45. It's self-serving pablum that distracts blame away from the system as a whole.

The Corporate-Capitalist system is what causes consumerist behavior in individuals.

[GliderGuider]

48. Consumers can change their behaviour even if the coporate system doesn't want them to.

We are not hostages or slaves. Corporate messaging has a powerful influence over our lives, but we still have some vestiges of free will. We should all change what we can, and whether or not we can alter Proctor&Gamble's advertising we all have the power to change our own behaviour.

[wtmusic]

49. Self-serving pablum like the OP?

OP likes OP's long showers; OP doesn't want to feel guilty about taking them. Self-serving.