Hank Green on the importance of individual action, not because it helps directly (which it does), but because it helps remind our brains of the problems which need to be solved.
Social scientists have studied this, and they’ve found that people taking individual action leads to more pushes for policy change, not less. The original idea is that if you focus more on individual action there will be less push for policy change. It turns out to be the opposite of that.
As social psychologists Leor Hackel and Gregg Sparkman said in their 2018 article, “People don’t spring into action because they see smoke; they spring into action because they see others rushing in with water.”
I’ve seen a lot of the “It doesn’t matter what individuals do because 90% of the emissions are done by 50 companies” sentiment on Lemmy, and find it concerning. What are the best ways to address this?
I think that “It doesn’t matter what individuals do” is very explicitly the opposite position that this Lemmy instance stands for. I have a lot of admiration for Hank Green. He covers several different versions of this position, which is good. But this video is wrong in that it misses a very important facet of that discussion.
We are very pro-science here. I agree with Hank that having these discussions based on ‘vibes’ is the wrong idea. I’m happy that he linked the paper so we can all validate his conclusion with data. He’s usually correct, but in this case he’s wrong – and I can point out where I think he went wrong:
I highlight rarely, because that word is doing some heavy lifting in that sentence. The paper does not report on society at large, but rather a self-selected group from Amazon Turk, and ‘rarely’ refers to the frequency of the result in their study based on the framing in their questions, and not the frequency of that result in the society at large. So it’s irresponsible to not look deeper into the ‘edge-case’ they outline in their study. I endorse reading the full paper on sci-hub (j.erss.2021.102150), which I can quote here if there’s interest, but the sciencedirect summary does it justice:
That is, if you’re already biking to work, spending an hour a week separating your recyclables, paying a premium for bland vegan meals, and a congresscritter announces a new sales tax to subsidize boomers trading in their old cars for a new Tesla, you’re much more likely, and I think justified, to vote the slimeball out of office. The paper doesn’t teach us anything new about human psychology, it just re-iterates something obvious about framing. The reality on the ground is that working people are already doing more than their share of the climate change mitigation labor. In order for effective climate change legislation to lead to overwhelming public support, it needs to be paid from the pockets of the rich and the elites, and leave the infrastructure and programs that benefits the general public alone. That’s exactly how the questions in the paper’s survey were typically framed.
But this is exactly what the capitalist political system is designed to prevent. For legislation to pass, it needs support from the capitalists that put politicians from both parties in office. Since they’re unlikely to approve of something that reduces their wealth and power, any pro-environment legislation will be subject to the so-called “rare” condition: it can be framed as taking away from people who are already tapped-out due to other demands on their limited resources. The condition is not rare when it describes the rhetoric and framing typical of the Republican Party and their pundits. And it’s only ‘rare’ if you believe that legislation to stop climate change is mostly funded exclusively from the pockets of the rich and elite, has no effect on the funding of other social benefits, and has no knock-on effects on the price of food or other costs of living.
Because years of capital’s suppression of leftist movements, the overton window has shifted so far right that the Republican party is now openly fascist. The Democratic Party has to concede very little to the average voter to still be worthy of their corporate sponsors. This situation is mirrored in most other Western countries, as the escalating crisis results in ever-more radical solutions becoming expedient, and the only significant parties with radical postures are the ones whose solution is to find scapegoats. Alone, political or electoral solutions to the climate crisis will be ineffective.
Furthermore, this paper ignores the well-documented counter examples used to emphasize why individual action can be flawed. The ‘Crying Indian’ ad was famous for changing the public’s relationship with plastic. Instead of steering consumer choices away from single-use plastics, the message was simply don’t litter - shifting the responsibility for plastic pollution on individuals instead of corporations, and more insidiously, made the problem less visible. This had no effect on actual plastic pollution, as single-use plastic production continued to increase, and now its pollution permeates the entire biosphere. Likewise the book “50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth” became a ubiquitous 1990’s staple, but in all of its tips about carpooling to work, cutting 6-pack loops, and taking showers instead of baths, had very little to say about organizing mass action. Unsurprisingly the 90’s zeitgeist of individual climate action it promoted has resulted in the revolutionary temperature we’re feeling today.
So Hank missed an important point when he glossed over that the study showed even in its limited population sample and curated questions they found evidence that individual climate action fatigue can effect policy support. I think Hank is right when he says:
But making casual lifestyle changes does not constitute ‘acting like’ there’s an ‘emergency.’ So when people like me express skepticism about proposed individual actions, it is from the frame “is it effective enough to justify the fatigue towards other more effective solutions?” We are experiencing an emergency, and it would be wise individually assess how to use our limited resources to mitigate the worst effects. I’m proud to support the several communities on this platform that distribute information about individual means to resist climate change. But I’m not interested personally in trying to shame people into being vegan, riding a bike, or even voting, as each of those behaviors carries a cost that is different to each individual. I trust each person to be a better judge than I am of what actions are appropriate for their values and situation.
Individual action is ineffective, and political solutions are ineffective, then what is effective? We can look to the past to predict the future, and during the civil rights era, it wasn’t either of those that changed government policy; it was organized mass movements engaged in direct action. They organized boycotts, held demonstrations and marches, and shut down society to draw attention to the crisis of racism in the United States. I hope that Solarpunk grows to be a significant force in a modern version of that struggle. Whatever meager resources we each have individually are amplified when we work together. Whatever individual actions you decide to implement (and thank you for that!) I hope you don’t neglect the most effective action of all - Organize!
you are a jewel
Although I agree with a lot of what you said, I can’t help but feel like you’ve used a few valid questions to undermine a broader point without offering any real substance behind it. For someone claiming to engage in a “pro science” manner, flat out calling someone “wrong” for the conclusions they drew from research doesn’t exactly meet the standard. You can’t just say anything from turk is biased and worthless, we know that it is biased but that can be corrected for and it’s far from worthless. You also seem to buying into this concept of fatigue without any real proof of the concepts effect on the extremely wide variety of both free/expensive, low/high cost behavior adjustments. Lastly, if you’re going to go this far in the weeds to undermine others’ points on what actions are worthwhile, we need more detail than just “organize”. Are you talking about participating in CCL? Talking to neighbors? Posting memes on Lemmy? Showing up at bike to work day? Hanging outside the courthouse with a sign? Like what does this actually look like to you and what aspects make this effective? Incremental progress is boring but it can absolutely work. Organized movements can absolutely fail, e.g. occupy wall street too. Let’s say your post really spoke to me and I’m inspired to organize - what do I do next? How can I support what you are organizing?
As an anecdote (I know it’s worthless), I become more engaged the more I lean in. I have talked to more neighbors about solar and heat pumps since I installed mine than ever before. It’s not taking away energy I was going to use to “organize” it’s taking energy I was going to spend talking about gutters or sports or what types of tomatoes I might plant this year with my neighbors. I fundamentally don’t understand how you expect someone that can’t be bothered to do any of the low hanging fruit items to effectively organize a movement to net zero. We need to build a culture of stewardship and sustainability that champions every reduction in CO2-eq because that’s the only metric that matters, and that starts at home and builds organically through actions and conversations, including those to our representatives, companies, and anyone else that might listen. I’m basically just advocating for doing all the things that you can while keeping your sanity.