This morning in my local newspaper, The Bangor Daily News, I read the opinion piece "Ulysses and the Hedge Trimmer" by Martin Bunzl, philosophy professor and director of the Initiative on Climate Change, Social Policy and Politics at Rutgers University's Eagleton Institute of Politics. In this piece he discusses how he bought a hedge trimmer that mixes oil and gas, producing copious amounts of carbon dioxide--but it was cheaper than the more eco-friendly model. He also drives a diesel vehicle (it was cheap) and likes Hummers. Flippantly attributing this behavior to akrasia, the state of acting against one's better judgment, he says, "I spend most of my waking hours worrying about how to reduce my output of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Yet my behavior seems to march to a different drummer. I need to get the best deal. For me, not the world."
This is the problem with consumption in North America. Right now I'm reading Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole by sociologist Benjamin R. Barber. He discusses how markets have "infantilized" consumers by producing needs for unnecessary goods. We have enough products, but we don't need all of the them. Consumerism thus produces the perceived need and thus drive to go buy more stuff, regardless of how it is impacting the environment, workers in other countries, or our own happiness.
Bunzl's solution for making him buy the more reasonable or efficient products is to remove temptations: "Take the Hummers away. Don't clutter my world with things I should not have. Don't dangle them in front of me, creating desire, only to then try to have me renounce them." Ah, the market at work, making poor consumer/philosophy professor have a moral dilemma. We do have a consumption problem, but who is Bunzl blaming here? The abstract concept of "the market" and the vast network of businesses and trade that it describes? The only way the market is going to change is if we as consumers respond in a certain way. Take some responsibility.
I'm a college student, middle class, and I don't have someone sticking money in my bank account every month for my personal amusement. I work--in retail and in a moldy archive, not at a cushy paid internship--to pay for school, books, gas, clothes, etc. I'm often strapped for cash, but I repress the urge to buy things senselessly in order to buy fewer goods that are "green" or fair trade or organic or whatever. These goods are more expensive in most cases because productions workers are being paid a living wage or crops are being grown without harmful but cheap chemicals. I can put my money where my mouth is. My conscience overcomes whatever consumer akrasia supposedly plagues me and every other good spender in this country. And I'm not even in charge of a climate change initiative.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Very dangerous, where your thoughts take us.
Though not for 'environmental concerns' there have been countries that limited what you were allowed to buy on a massive scale, generally stating that it was for the 'good of the State' or the 'good of the People' . . . . people had gobs of money, but waited in line for hours in order to get some bread that was stale (or worse), but could buy all the alcohol they wanted for next to nothing.
In the end, 70 horrible years passed, and over 100 million people were systematically killed by this system. We called it the USSR. They called it 'home'
We must never let another entity tell you which model of car to buy or which grocery store you should buy from, under any sort of penalty of law.
People like Bunzi tend to forget what happens when their idealistic ideas become reality. Surviving family members of people sent to Gulags for grumbling against the soviet empire, or for buying 'black market' food to feed their starving family do not forget.
Exactly. Well, I didn't even think of that way, what would happen if "they" did take the Hummers, etc. away. But I do think it's foolish to expect regulations to "protect" us from consuming in a certain way. Most of us are adults and should be able to handle ourselves. If we as a society, a nation, a world really want to improve things, we should suck it up and do it, not just talk about it. Hypocrisy is the hobgoblin of indecisive children, not responsible citizens.
--------
ce.apocryphalpublishing.com
The truth is, people buy what they can afford. The reason why high mileage cars are not bought widespread is because of how expensive they are (Or, they have had to be lightened to increase mileage, which reduces safety. Try selling a LESS safe car to a mother with little kids)
I don't live 'green.' When I buy things, I don't think about the effect on the environment or whether or not the company that makes whatever I buy has any 'carbon credits.'
I buy what I can afford, and try to live efficiently for the purpose of cost savings. As such, I live MUCH more green than enviromentalist champion and nobel prize winner Al Gore. He uses more elecricity in a month than I use in a year. (In fact, he spends more on electricity alone in a year than I MAKE in a year)
He flies around in a gas guzzling jet to meet up with a train of SUVs and Limos (which get horrible gas mileage) to go and speak to college students and anyone else who will listen about how YOU need to live more green.
And buy carbon credits. From the company he owns.
When Al Gore lives as green as I do, then we can talk about my need to change my life. When China becomes less polluting than the United States, we can talk about needing further pollution controls.
You are right, it is up to the individual to live as they believe they ought.
Thanks LaceKates for sharing that Al Gore spends more on electricity in a month then you make in a year...this is very telling! Was I the only one who saw the irony in his movie...how at least half of the footage was shot on airplanes, which he preaches against in his movie as one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gasses?
Also, how can the guy who runs the committee on evironmental change or whatever drive a Hummer? Doesn't that just seem beyond crazy? If he's worried about being cheap, the Hummer is the last vehicle he should be driving...
Wow, the world continues to be more fucked up then I can even believe...
As for being economical, often the most environmentally friendly choice is also the most economic...saving elecitity, turning the heat in your house down, growing some of your own food, flushing the toliet less, riding a bike to work and or school...all of these choices are super economical, and save the environment! Yahoo for poor college students who are saving the environment because they can't afford to destroy it!
Love ya,
Carrot