Top scientists say they see few scenarios that would meet Paris target to limit temperature rise to 1.5C. https://t.co/CaKkBZdwFM
Left-wingers conserve like this, right-wingers conserve like that…
In a Grist interview, Colin Beavan (aka No Impact Man) muses over the question of why some critics seem eager to cast his project as a poor alternative to political activism, rather than as a complementary step:
> I didnt realize it when I started the project, but part of the reason is this: collective action is at the root of liberal ideology and individual action is at the root of conservative ideology. To straddle individual and collective action feels like, whichever side youre on, youre betraying your political heritage. To suggest that we should do both is strangely radical. Its almost like you need a whole new political party.
Now, I’m broadly sympathetic to this sort of reasoning. Carbon offsets themselves have over the years come in for some criticism in part because they don’t slot very well into any ideologically convenient categories.
That said, Beavan’s characterization of the situation just seems wrong. Liberal environmentalists have traditionally placed probably too much emphasis on the agency of individual people or corporations as the cause of or potential solution to environmental problems. On the flip side, there really isn’t much of a coherent conservative environmental movement in the U.S., but to the extent that there is, it seems to favor market-oriented fixes such as carbon taxes or cap-and-trade. These are broad generalizations, yes, but the point is simply that Beavan’s own broad generalization points in the wrong direction.
I think the real reason some have raised an eyebrow toward Beavan’s project is concern that its gimmicky nature trivializes an urgent issue. Further, the project plays into various unflattering stereotypes about environmentalists. Finally, many are no doubt frustrated by the disproportionate media attention paid to lifestyle issues, despite the fact that political action is the more important goal.
None of these criticisms is necessarily fair to Beavan, who himself seems to hold nuanced views of these matters. But, you know, such is the nature of public debate, and Beavan is at least fortunate to have a pretty big soapbox to shout from. (Rumor has it that Will Smith will star in the No Impact Man movie. Seriously.) In general, Beavan places too much emphasis on the importance of cultural change and underweights the importance of technological change, but I do think he gets at something important here:
> I dont believe in individual action over collective action. I believe in both. Its what I call engaged citizenship, a combination of both living your values in your own life and also living those values in your community life, volunteering for nonprofits and putting pressure on your political representatives.
It strikes me as implausible that people will push for political action unless on some level they value the environment, and it further strikes me as difficult to value the environment without engaging the question of one’s own impact. This has always been one of the motivating principles behind TerraPass, and I guess it’s something we share with the No Impact project.