Gareth KirkbyCommunication teacher, professional communication, strategy
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Thesis
    • Thesis Intro: Click
    • My Master’s Thesis: Uncharitable Chill
    • Media
  • Strategic Communications
  • Journalism
  • Photography
  • Resume
00

Government Action, Not Consumer Guilt, is Solution to Climate Threat

March 30, 2014 No comments Article
FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrRedditLinkedInEmailPrint

“Don’t you have a car?” a friend was asked by a co-worker after shar­ing an opin­ion against approv­ing any new oil pipelines. “Isn’t it hyp­o­crit­i­cal to oppose pipelines when you drive, too?” Ouch!

The ques­tion seems rea­son­able on the sur­face — and I bet lots of peo­ple get asked that by co-workers and friends. After all, “green con­sumerism” is a major strand of both the envi­ron­men­tal move­ment and cor­po­rate mar­ket­ing. We’ve been told repeat­edly to make the right choice to make a bet­ter world by pur­chas­ing an option that is lighter on the planet in some way. Com­pa­nies pro­mote the choice option as a more fair alter­na­tive to gov­ern­ment ban­ning or reg­u­lat­ing the more offen­sive option. Often the right choice, say a refor­mu­lated clean­ing liq­uid, costs more and when con­sumer pur­chases go down when a reces­sion comes along, the com­pany with­draws the choice from the mar­ket. Some choice.

In the case of car­bon con­sump­tion, the “hyp­ocrite” accu­sa­tion avoids the big issue: it’s up to gov­ern­ment to lead the way to reduced car­bon emis­sions in a coun­try so depen­dent on oil, gas and coal. The accu­sa­tion is designed to shut down rea­son­able debate about an impor­tant issue. It is the nuclear option of come-backs — hit this but­ton and blow up the con­ver­sa­tion. No need to engage in a fact-based argu­ment. Just call your oppo­nent a hyp­ocrite and you can go back to feel­ing smug and supe­rior with­out exam­in­ing your own energy use or what should be done to reduce global warming.

More impor­tantly, the pos­ture is both obnox­ious and fatu­ous. It ignores the crit­i­cal issue, which is the whole con­text in which we live: a car­bon econ­omy. The West­ern world depends on fos­silized sun­shine to power the machin­ery of indus­try, trans­porta­tion, and home life.

Per­haps even more trou­bling, the oil, gas and coal indus­tries have huge influ­ence over indi­vid­ual politi­cians and even entire gov­ern­ments and a vested inter­est in max­i­miz­ing reliance on carbon-based fuels. Envi­ron­men­tally con­cerned U.S. cit­i­zens have long been frus­trated by the power of “Big Coal.” Recent rhetoric and tax threats aimed at envi­ron­men­tal groups by Cana­dian Prime Min­is­ter Stephen Harper and his cab­i­net have clar­i­fied for Cana­di­ans just how much our gov­ern­ment is either under the influ­ence of, or aligned with the world-view of, the energy industry.

How are most peo­ple, aver­age peo­ple, real­is­ti­cally able to change their energy con­sump­tion habits when the sys­tem is deeply entrenched? The game is rigged. Where are the real­is­tic alter­na­tives to most people’s gas-hogging cars and homes? Face it, pub­lic tran­sit in most cities, yet alone sub­urbs, is incon­ve­nient and under­funded. It costs too much for aver­age peo­ple to con­vert our homes — and work­places — from car­bon fuels to solar or geot­her­mal power.

Sure, we should all use tran­sit and reduce our home energy con­sump­tion. And it will make a dif­fer­ence if enough of us do it, of course. That’s a big if. There are lim­its to what green con­sumerism and indi­vid­ual actions can accom­plish. And besides, U.S. stud­ies as far back as the 1980s find that house­holds account for only one-third of energy use and between six per­cent and 51 per­cent of emis­sions of five air pol­lu­tants with the higher emis­sions com­ing from automobiles.

Research show that peo­ple don’t want to give up their car if their neigh­bor gets to keep theirs. That’s under­stand­able: peo­ple in North Amer­ica and Europe expect gov­ern­ment to pull the starter-pistol to trig­ger the race for reduc­ing car­bon. They’re wait­ing for, and expect­ing, mean­ing­ful action from gov­ern­ment. Peo­ple also know that indus­try won’t change unless gov­ern­ment inter­venes, and peo­ple want that intervention.

“Per­sonal action was seen to be point­less in iso­la­tion,” write researchers Irene Loren­zoni and Nick F. Pid­geon about their study of U.S. and Euro­pean atti­tudes about cli­mate change. “A respon­si­ble gov­ern­ment was called for to lay the foun­da­tions to meet the col­lec­tive inter­ests of soci­ety through pol­icy and by enabling indi­vid­ual duties. Yet polit­i­cal insti­tu­tions were said to be absolv­ing them­selves of that role and responsibility.”

Only gov­ern­ment can impose mechan­i­cal effi­ciency reg­u­la­tions, fuel con­sump­tion reg­u­la­tions, green taxes, cap-and-trade pro­grams, energy-efficiency build­ing require­ments, and pour large sums into a mas­sive expan­sion of our pub­lic trans­porta­tion infra­struc­ture. And let’s not for­get a roll-out of wind, solar and tidal power generation—and, arguably, nuclear power. Those are the mea­sures that will reduce car­bon emissions.

If you take indi­vid­ual action from recy­cling to dri­ving an elec­tric car, you deserve kudos for doing your bit. But if you’re ready to do your bit but feel dis­cour­aged by gov­ern­ment drag­ging their feet, don’t feel guilty. Instead, make the gov­ern­ment do what’s right. That’s our role as cit­i­zens in a democ­racy. That’s what the bal­lot box is for. And the law courts. And the court of pub­lic opinion.

Daily now, some of our neigh­bors are doing what they can to stop a dozen pro­posed pipelines from car­ry­ing var­i­ous liq­uid and gaseous car­bon across North Amer­ica. They’re work­ing to smother the pos­si­bil­ity of new car­bon sourc­ing, trans­port­ing, export­ing and burn­ing. They’re build­ing alliances with other con­cerned peo­ple to force gov­ern­ment to shift from pleas­ing the carbon-energy indus­try today and instead towards what we all need for a liv­able future tomorrow.

Mak­ing gov­ern­ment respond quickly to cli­mate change: that’s the real issue, not whether you have to drive a car to work today and so should shut up in shame.

 

– 30 –

 

Gareth Kirkby is a Webster-award-winning jour­nal­ist and pro­fes­sional com­mu­ni­ca­tor. He is a can­di­date for the M.A. in Pro­fes­sional Com­mu­ni­ca­tion at Royal Roads Uni­ver­sity, Vic­to­ria, Canada. His the­sis explores the impact on char­ity groups of recent fed­eral pol­icy and enforce­ment changes, audits, and anti-charity rhetoric.

Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: active citizens, alternative energy, carbon economy, carbon taxes, energy regulations, greenwash, pipeline opposition

Archived Posts

  • November 2015
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014

Tags

abuse active citizens alternative energy audit audits BCCLA bullying carbon economy carbon taxes charitable charities civil society complaints confusion CRA democracy enemies energy regulations enforcement environmentalists ethical funnel greenwash Imagine Canada interpretation investigation muffling NDP oil partisan PEN petroleum pipeline opposition policy political activities politicization power public Rankin RCMP rhetoric silencing spying targeting voices

All contents by Gareth Kirkby | Theme by Theme in Progress | Proudly powered by WordPress

facebook twitter linkedin Rss