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 will bomb a pipeline, thank you Hank
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:
Two studies using large, well-powered samples show that focusing attention on one’s sustainable behaviors rarely results in a decrease in support for a climate policy like a carbon tax.
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:
The only circumstances where this may be a concern is when there are notable financial costs of the policy that are framed as falling on the individual, and people only reflect on their behavior in a way that is devoid of activating their personal or social values and identity. Even under these “ideal” conditions for negative spillover, this effect did not reach significance in Study. However, a meta-analysis of this effect size across both studies finds an effect that does exclude zero, perhaps suggesting it is simply a small and somewhat noisy effect.
That is, if you’re already biking to work, spending an hour a week separating your recyclables, cooking your own 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 benefit 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:
It turns out that one of the most important ways that we show that something is an emergency is by acting like it’s an emergency. If we aren’t actually acting like there’s a problem, our brains have a hard time remembering that there is a problem.
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 demonstrably effective solutions?” We are experiencing an emergency, and it would be wise to 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.
Ok, I watched the video and I agree with Hank’s point. Taking action towards your values, even if it isn’t effective by itself (which Hank argues against), is always a good thing.
The thing is there are barriers within society that make it harder to make the ethical choice. For example if I wanted to be a vegan I’d have to pay extra since the dairy and beef industry have subsidies and most corporations charge extra for vegan/vegetarian options.
Or if I wanted to help with pollution and started to recycle yet most of the recycling gets thrown in landfills anyways because of how things are stored with other trash.
And I’m not saying that just because it is harder that people shouldn’t try and do the right thing but the thing is that most of these barriers are dynamic and will change to make it just as hard for people if it starts taking away power from people at the top.
I think the general point that is trying to be made when people say that collective action is needed instead of individual action is that individual action doesn’t really change underlying problem that is causing most of the harm and instead is just making the cause of the problem more bearable.
I’d say if you want change it is better to take action that encourages the system to change rather than taking action that doesn’t focus on effecting that at all.
I would argue you’ve actually articulated exactly why individual action inevitably leads to wider collective action. It take attempting to do the right thing on individual level for some people to see the systemic issues that are there (like the subsidies you mention).
Yeah you are right. It is just that we sort of get stuck at that level and are never willing to actually take systemic actions because it will disrupt the status quo by definition.
So instead we find new technological solutions or habits that distract us until the next miracle drug (action) is presented.
I also worry that the systemic vs individual argument is actually used by some as a distraction too. “No point me trying unless the whole system changes” particularly when the change might seem like it involves some level of sacrafice (which often isn’t as clear cut as it seems or is presented).
I wonder if its more about paralysing perfectionism rather individual vs system. “Can’t be zero emissions as an individual without structural change” so don’t do anything. Similarly on the other side “can’t overthrow the whole global system so no point doing anything”.
I really we wish we talked a lot more about the intermediates between I individual and systemic/national. There’s so many smaller organisations that individuals have more agency in changing and in turn have more agency in changing larger numbers of individuals and influencing more of the systemic level
It definitely is used that way and I probably should’ve worded my post a bit differently so I don’t discourage others from taking action.
What I actually think we need is individual level systemic actions which is sort of oxymoronic but I think it has some sort of logic to it.
For example if you think that capitalism is causing a lot of the worlds problems then stop buying stuff and try to find ways to reuse what you already have or get it without engaging with that system (swap shops, free cycle, etc).
It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. There is obviously some things that you can’t live without buying on some capacity, but like you were saying don’t let good be the enemy of perfect and it is better to find alternative systems or ways of doing things that still satisfy your needs.
And I’ll say this is true of climate related problems too. Even if capitalism isn’t necessarily the main cause, the goal should be to identity what system we think is causing these problems and gradually try and replace these systems in our daily lives with something hopefully better.
I agree that it’s a distraction, just like the “100 companies” is a distraction. I can’t stand the systemic/individual comparisons because people don’t even know the difference. For example, I can get a 30% tax credit for solar/storage, $2k on a heat pump, $12,500 off an EV in Colorado, and more coming soon for low/moderate income folks via the IRA in the US. When people go to buy this stuff, is it an individual action or the result of these policies? Does it even matter outside the context of this weird debate where the two things are falsely thought of as mutually exclusive? We can all walk and chew gum at the same time. Do what you can, vote, talk, etc. and don’t get caught up criticizing beneficial things others are doing because they aren’t exactly what you would do in their shoes. Building a culture around solving the issue takes many forms.
“For example if I wanted to be a vegan I’d have to pay extra since the dairy and beef industry have subsidies and most corporations charge extra for vegan/vegetarian options.”
That is not true as eating a whole foods plant based diet is 30% cheaper and it also saves you thousands in healthcare costs over the long term.
Stop being unethical and do what’s right for your health, the environment and for the animals. Go vegan.
“Oxford University research has today revealed that, in countries such as the US, the UK, Australia and across Western Europe, adopting a vegan, vegetarian, or flexitarian diet could slash your food bill by up to one-third.
The study, which compared the cost of seven sustainable diets to the current typical diet in 150 countries, using food prices from the World Bank’s International Comparison Program, was published in The Lancet Planetary Health.”
Source: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study
Apparently I’m already a flexitarian so baby steps I guess.
It’s not difficult to be vegan it just takes some habit changes. Here are some great resources to get you down on the right path. You can learn all the tasty plant based recipes you need to know in a month.
