In the next two parts of my conversation with Councilor Gordon, I'm trying to tease out some of the more subtle issues that environmental leaders have to deal with. In the first one I'm asking about how we respond to the feedback we get from the general public---who are often totally indifferent to the problems that future generations may have. I've listened to James' response quite a few times and had some ideas pop into my head as a result.
It strikes me that James and I see the demands of activism and politics in different ways. I think that for him what's important is what the general public will allow him to get away with. He's working for the audience. In contrast, my concern is about what the science says. It's something of a dilemma that all environmentalists face. The science is getting increasingly shrill in it's dire warnings. But the general public doesn't want to change the way it lives it's life, and many people will just "shut down" if you try to tell them the truth. That's why a lot of people in leadership positions won't tell the voters what they really believe---they sugar coat it because they believe that the general public "can't handle the truth".
Maybe they are right. I ran for public office many times saying things that people didn't want to hear and as a result I never got anywhere near getting elected to anything. But I have a sneaking suspicion that every time a politician sucks up to what they believe are the voter's prejudices they end up reinforcing the idea that there really isn't an Climate Crisis and that they won't need to make any sort of substantive change in their lives to prevent a real catastrophe. Sometimes we need to stop making "baby steps" and really do big things if we are going to deal with real problems. Where would we be, for example, if this same sort of timid, tepid response was used to deal with the Covid-19 crisis? What sort of hole would we currently be in?
Another way to think of this problem is to compare it to the dilemma we face when we see someone in a store who adamantly refuses to wear a mask during the current pandemic. A large school of opinion states that a small but significant fraction of the population just "double down" and become more obstinate in their behaviour if you try to get them to do something that they don't want to do---so talking to the guy without a mask will be counter productive. (If you wonder what I'm talking about, check out the video below. It's from the Now This website.)
There's another issue that people should think about too. In work life I've seen diabetic people who are having issues with their blood sugar levels act just as loony as the woman in the above video. After they got their blood chemistry under control they were profoundly apologetic. In my first aid training the paramedic who taught us said that diabetics die in police drunk tanks every year because they look like out of control drunks who eventually "quiet down" to "sleep it off"---only the "sleeping it off" bit is going into a diabetic coma and dying. So I would advise caution in making assessments about individuals you see freaking out. You never really know what is going on until you've got a pretty good understanding of the specific details.
Another school of thought states that if you allow "free riders" to get away with their behaviour, it undermines the willingness of everyone else to continue to support the group effort. Personally, I see evidence that both points of view have merit, which would suggest that there must be a statistical "sweet spot" where you ignore a certain percentage of infractions to avoid helping people get a "martyr complex" over mask wearing, but call out and sanction another percentage so the people who routinely wear a mask don't end up feeling like they are "being played for suckers".
It's much the same thing about the climate crisis. Some folks refuse to accept any limits on their "right" to have the largest environmental footprint possible. If we point the finger at them and point out how selfish and greedy they are, a lot are going to go out and buy a Hummer or do something else equally idiotic---just to give the finger to whomever told them off. But at the same time, there has to be at least some effort to point out publicly how viciously they are acting towards other people or else the people who are careful about their footprint will just give up because "what's the point? every molecule of CO2 I save is just being emitted by the jerk who drives his Hummer to the airport so he can fly to where he starts his holiday cruise."
&&&&
If you think these articles are worthwhile, why not subscribe? It's easy to do using Patreon or Pay Pal.
&&&&
In this second question we move on talk about the importance of "leading by example". I've had this conversation with a lot of people and there seems to be a real disconnect between most of the green leaders I know and many members of the general public. The leaders often don't understand why they should live less "large" lives than anyone else, and many voters say that these people don't really believe what they are saying---because if they did, they wouldn't be blasting around the planet spewing CO2 everywhere.
If you wonder what I'm talking about, take a look at this image from the Patriot Post website:
 |
| Used under the "fair dealing" copyright provision. |
I think that there are two sides to this thing.
I suspect that James is onto something when says that people often come from a position of privilege and aren't conscious of what they are doing. I have a hard time understanding this because I'm old enough and come from they type of background that I remember a time when almost no one except the very wealthy ever traveled on vacation. For example, my parents went on one over-night vacation in their entire marriage---to beautiful Chatham Ontario. And it was only possible because their children were old enough to take care of the livestock (and dad won the trip as a bonus for selling seed corn). That's because, as they said, farmers are "chained to their animals". Having grown up this way, I can understand that long distance travel for pleasure is an aberration in human history whereas a majority of Canadians see it as their birthright.
I also wonder about the honesty of people who complain about the hypocrisy of greens who go on trips, live in big houses, etc. There certainly are some greens who actually do "walk the talk". Why do the complainers fixate on the ones that don't? I suspect that even if every single person who said that we need to get off our fossil fuel addiction actually did go off meat, never flew again, got rid of their car, etc, most of these folks wouldn't lift a finger to change their lifestyle. That's because they aren't honestly complaining about the other guy, instead they're just looking for an excuse to do nothing.
There are examples from history, however, where "leading by example" was a genuine thing and led to great results. Consider the "Swadeshi" movement that was part of Indian Independence (which I was mentioning to James.)
Personally, I think that there is a real need for environmental leaders to lead by example. I have great sympathy with the idea that if you really do think that we are facing a tremendous catastrophe we owe it to everyone else to actually look like we really believe it and live accordingly. Possibly that explains the "rock star status" of Greta Thunberg when she was in the middle of her "fifteen minutes of fame".
&&&&
Moreover, I say unto you we have to deal with the Climate Emergency!
No comments:
Post a Comment