"Why Not Have Another Go at Exxon Instead?" Bibi van der Zee Takes on Monbiot
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on 07.27.07
The Guardian columnist and environmental thinker George Monbiot usually manages to provoke a strong debate in our comments sections. Some time ago, our post on his new book Heat raised a fierce exchange of views about the impacts of flying, meanwhile his flight to Vancouver to promote the above mentioned book lead some to level accusations of hypocrisy against him. This is not necessarily something that Monbiot himself would deny, at least if the introduction to Heat is anything to go by:
“And which of us – except perhaps Mayer Hillman [British environmentalist and academic] – can really claim to live as we urge others to live? Most environmentalists – and I include myself in this – are hypocrites.”
Monbiot’s main point, it seems, is that personal abstinence is not particularly effective, and only a broad political movement can bring about the changes necessary to reverse climate change. Not everyone agrees however. His latest assertion that ethical consumerism is fast becoming “a pox on this planet” has drawn a sharp response from Bibi van der Zee on the Guardian’s Ethical Living blog:
“On behalf of anyone who has ever stood in a supermarket looking at an organic chicken, thinking "can it really cost £13?" - and gritting their teeth to buy it as your household budget splinters into a zillion pieces - for every commuter who has ever held up a queue of caffeine-cravers by demanding a fairtrade latte, for everyone who has ever clenched every nerve in their body in order to ask the bank clerk if they have an ethical screening policy... my blood boiled.”
Bibi goes on to admit that George does, to some degree, have a point. While she argues that green shopping sends an important message to governments and corporations about the type of world we want, she concedes that it makes up only a tiny portion of overall spending. The message is indeed pretty weak then.
However, Bibi also argues forcefully that ethical consumerism may be a first step for many would-be environmentalists, and George and co. should be encouraging such folks to move further in their efforts, rather than criticizing them as inadequate:
“So perhaps the actual impact of so-called ethical consumption is negligible. But the people doing it - the ethical consumers (what a horrible title) - are on your side, for God's sake. They may be on a far earlier stage of the long journey into greenness, but they're going in the right direction. Remember, in certain parts of the UK, using a beer trap to catch slugs instead of pellets, or asking for English strawberries instead of Spanish ones can be seen as weirdy-beardy radicalism. There's a possibility that the man buying sheep's wool insulation this week will be chairing a meeting on saving his local wood next week. Why not have another go at Exxon instead?”
All of this kind of reminds us of Lloyd’s response to criticisms of Earth Day earlier this year, in which he argued that “Small steps lead to education and awareness and that leads to votes and votes lead to change.” While George may have a very valid point that shopping will not, in itself, save the planet, we can’t help agreeing with Bibi that there may be better targets for his anger. ::The Guardian::
If you're an intelligent person, aware of your surroundings and your impact on other people, sooner or later you're charged with knowing whether you're making a difference, or just being theatrical and annoying.
If green thinking and living are to succeed, they have to be accepted by a broad segment of the population, not just an elite. Even if it's clear that a movement is intended to benefit all people, people will resist it.
This is why we get such self-defeating behavior as low-income people resisting raising taxes on the rich, and clergymen endorsing offensive wars.
(These are examples from the right end of the spectrum. I'm sure there are also examples from the left.)
If Middle America decides it doesn't like environmentalism, they will ignore all the benefits it could bring them, and attack it, simply out of a perverse mob psychology. Elite greenies in their black turtlenecks on their $1000 bikes must never forget this.
Ya gotta love George. Go to his website, and the latest post is title "Eco-Junk" then subtitled "Green consumerism will not save the biosphere."
Move down three posts and you see, "Heat is now out in paperback."
Not unlike that book focusing heavily on the supposed evils of flying, then flying to promote it.
He should stop projecting his own frustrations with his personal hypocrisy onto humanity at large in an attempt to feel better about his own actions.
"Green consumerism sucks! Now buy this green book!"
Dilbert: "What are you doing, Dogbert?"
Dogbert: "I'm writing a self-help book for compulsive shoppers."
Dilbert: "What do YOU know about compulsive shoppers?"
Dogbert: "I know they buy a lot of self-help books."
(All kdding aside, I don't begrudge Monbiot nor the Archbishop of Canterbury or anyone a plane ride, especially for a good purpose. Otherwise, you get into silly piety one-upsmanship. Witness George Bush Jr setting up a LIttle League field on the White House lawn, while slashing education budgets, yet still being seen as caring about the next generation.)
(We don't have to trash useful infrastructure like airplanes and airports, just make them economically responsible with offsets.)
When purchasing something that you need, rather than want, shopping green is a great thing.
I think that Monbiot is probably focusing more on the people who don't address the core issue first - consumerism.
Buying loads of eco-junk is very harmful. However, living simply and keeping your purchasing to a bare minimum, and THEN making sure that what you buy is "green" is the way to go.
Monbiot is popularizing the facts presented by scientists like NASA's James Hansen, namely that we have 5-10 years left in which to seriously reduce our emissions or it will be too late for humanity.
Do we really want someone who is doing so much for the Climate Change debate to take on the global publishing industry, and how they promote books? I think his plate is pretty full.
Furthermore, Monbiot appeared by video in Toronto, so one might think that he used a very smart strategy: compromise and create buzz in person, then use your fame to leverage video appearances.
Lastly, Monbiot cycle-commutes on a busy motorway. He may be a lot less hypocritical than the stone-throwers. The whole canard of Al Gore's energy or Monbiot's book/plane rides is really pathetic. Monbiot, of anybody, is not demanding perfection, he just wants Government to do its job.
Monbiot, of anybody, is not demanding perfection
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Honestly, awareness is the key for a change. Think always start slowly and actually become "defacto" standard in the years that follow: Very Rarely immediately. (if they ever become a standard).
I remember a time where I was sitting at a meeting for "Baning tobacco smoking" in specific public building in Canada (Quebec). 27 persons around a tables, 25 smokers, a lot of smoke in the meeting room: Decision, banning smoking in specific building in the next 2 years: Adopted unanimously. (I did find it funny at that time).
The same thing needs to occur for the environment: Replacing a single Hummer H2 by a Prius or Honda Civic hybrid might save some CO2 but have no tangible effect on a Worldwide basis. (a single Walker or bicycler are not much better on the grand scheme of thing). When thousands do it, then we start something.
Consequently, I loudly applaud even the worst polluter to ask themselves and others to reduce their level of pollution. This is the normal start of a chain reaction that can give the world the largest benefit. Actually, this is my only hope.
Many peoples want to feel normal and might change their behaviour only when they feel that more than 50% of the others do a specific action. This might be true even if this new "So call, acceptable behaviour" is against their usual value.
I think Monbiot is pointing out that goverments and large businesses have greater latitude to make changes that will have profound downstream effects. If we are ONLY focused on individual behavior we will reduce the environmental crisis ENTIRELY to personal morality. For instance, if governments instituted a noticeable or substantial carbon tax we would start to see huge changes in a few years. In the media and on blogs like Treehugger, we are inclined to make things a matter of personal choice because
A) we feel more powerful than we are
B) It "sells" more page views/papers.
There does need to be a critical mass or active leadership for ethical consumerism but it shouldn't become the exclusive focus.
P.S. I am also thankful to Monbiot for pointing out the dangers of biofuels (which are now more broadly acknowledged) about a year before others have realized the environmental risks.