The trouble with environmental consumerism

With the backdrop of Gillard's stance to favour industry, and Obama's bill running out of steam, something about this supposed battle against climate change just doesn't smell right. Four years on from Gore's game changing An Inconvenient Truth, public opinion on climate change is increasingly divided and nonchalant. The balance of power seems to have shifted to what industry wants rather than what the public demand.

Despite a small rebound from January to June (due possibly to BP and signs of economic recovery), US public opinion on climate change seems to be moving in the opposite direction of scientific evidence. While some may suggest US climate change denial is no surprise when the country is still baffled by "evolution", other western countries like UK has seen similar trends. Closer to home, climate seems to be less and less talked about in everyday conversation, and Gillard's recent public consultation proposal met cynicism rather than overwhelming interest.

All alarming developments - as by my estimation, consumer awareness and action is the big difference maker in this cultural change.

Why is the public caring less?
Theories on waning public opinion seems to point to a combination of general confusion and perceived lack of urgency. Causes include:

1. The politicising of climate through rhetoric is distracting. Misinformation such as "30% of scientists question the validity of climate change" is catalyst to this confusion. These statistics sample anyone with a degree in science (even I've got one!), and not the pinnacle researchers in the field. With these so called "facts" in the rhetoric, it becomes hard to keep the most passionate focused. (ed Climategate here and here)
   
2. The "observing" nature of climate science leaves the public unsatisfied. Unlike biology or chemistry, lab work on climate is difficult due to the system complexity. Meanwhile, observing real world validation of theories take a long time, and even when concluded upon, is subject to debate as observations evolve. Examples of this include the ocean conveyor belt theory, increasing ice in Antarctica, as well as the ozone hole discussion. Adding to this, substituting technologies such as geoengineering further exacerbates the perception that the situation is perhaps not as dire.
   
3. The predicted effects of climate change pales in comparison to more immediate issues. Dan Ariely, behavioural economist at Duke suggests that people are irrationally biased toward instant gratification particularly when the object is abstract. An example is how individuals choose to smoke or drink drive without a calculated consideration for premature death. The notion of death seems abstract when the decision is made, as it does not present a real, relatable and immediate experience. In climate change, the threat of apocalypse seems tailor-made for low priority. It is distant in time and space and difficult to even visualise (ie more abstract than premature death).
4. Individuals seek meaning in defending a comfortable social status quo. Sociologists call this "system justification" - a desire to feel security in the social order, and a need to perceive existing social relations as fair and legitimate. Climate policy attempts to suggest that there is an immorality with the current "business as usual", persuading individuals to question economic and lifestyle decisions in a wholesale way. Without a clear picture of impending doom, any effort to educate and persuade away from this "justified system" becomes unconvincing.
   

Even when they CARE, why don't they ACT?
Furthering this problem is that even when individuals are converted in attitude, behaviour doesn't necessarily follow. The lack of reinforcement through behaviour makes any attitudinal change shallow and forgettable. Reasons for this include:

1. Environmental behaviour is more ego than eco. "Green" behaviour is often practiced for the purpose of supporting ego or conforming to social norms rather than on the basis of genuine environmental concern. Research suggests that individuals overstate their environmental behaviour and support only visible activities (ie driving a Prius). Driving hybrid cars and recycling also doesn't necessarily carry over to green consumption elsewhere.
   
2. Consumers are less than consciously engaged when consuming green. Green consumption seems to be habitual and substitutable. Research suggests that recycling at home is more common where individuals recycle in their workplace. Individuals also interchange one form of green consumption for another, such a cycling to work when recycling less as some sort of bargaining with mother earth.
3. There is a perception of hopelessness in individual action. Due to the scale of the climate problem and the next-to-no perceived effect of an isolated act, the feedback mechanisms to encourage green behaviour are absent. For instance, $1-a-day charities work because individuals can see real tangible effects of their action. (The growth of the child through letters and pictures).
   
4. There is no advantage in being the first mover. Green consumption behaviour is predicated on the behaviours of others. A fundamental problem in reversing the tragedy-of-the-commons scenario.

Why is it important to get consumers to be green?
The recent BP example (and their avoidance of any major punishment in light of some serious violations of public trust) points to the ineffectiveness of the compliance driven model for governing organisations. "Doing the bare minimum" ultimately does not change the profit maximising orientation to a social-benefit maximising one. As organisations get bigger and more global, governments are increasingly incentivized to curtail to the organisation's interests. The concern is that if the US is having this sort of trouble fighting the battle against an incorporated organisation, what chances do the minnows have?

Meanwhile, recent corporate investment on sustainability as more or less a marketing function is encouraging. Ironically much of BP's manoeuvres to "manage" their image (while risking individual and corporate credibility) is driven by this need to satisfy a more media savvy and environmentally conscious public. So it seems the only way to raise the "bare minimum" is to put the power in the hands of the consumer, to align the profit and social targets for organisations from the bottom up.

So the solution...?
Social frameworks need to refocus from enforcing compliance on organisations to empowering consumers to make the right choices. If cultural change within organisations starts with people, then is not a focus on consumer rather than organisation logical in the context of societal cultural change? And if it is truly about cultural change, then methods to holistically engage cultural dialogue (ie calling on artists, authors and poets to contribute) also need to be considered for their merits. (RE: the positive effects of science fiction on scientific development).

Meanwhile in more direct actions, the recent publication by the UK Institute for Government MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy is a really interesting development in the way public policy is thought about. What's apparent is a recognition that society and its consuming individuals need better solutions than the compliance and punishment models to change behaviour, particularly in seemingly harmless activities (ie littering). Needed are creative methods to be able to link the cause and effect of individual action, through better representation of cost to, or more immediate reward for, the individual (actors in banana costumes in the littering example).

Ariely also talks about using "% of planned holiday" rather than dollars in thinking about opportunity costs when trying to control spending on trivial daily vices. This makes the trade-off more realistic and effective to deter unwanted behaviour. So what is a better currency for green consumption? Seconds to annihilation? minutes to no water? There's a PhD thesis in this I think... Whatever it is, it has to be better than counting carbon...