A few excerpts from yesterday’s NY Times article When ‘Green’ Consumers Decide, I’ve Done Enough’ concerning a recent study at the University of Toronto that sought to to answer the question, ‘Are consumers of “green” products more likely to be miserly and thieving?’ Surprisingly enough (or perhaps not surprising at all), the answer appears to be Yes. I hate to keep harping on environmentalism on here – I personally consider a great deal of it to be very admirable and worthy – if only it didn’t illustrate the darker side of the Zeitgeist quite so well, i.e. the double-edged sword of feel-good denial and self-empowerment/-righteousness:
“People do not make decisions in a vacuum,” the researchers concluded, adding that “while mere exposure to green products can have a positive societal effect by inducing pro-social and ethical acts, purchasing green products may license indulgence in self-interested and unethical behaviors.”
[The results can possibly be explained by the] psychological phenomenon known as the “single-action bias,” a term that arises often in discussions of climate change. The Center for Research on Environmental Decisions at Columbia University in New York describes the single-action bias this way:
“In response to uncertain and risky situations, humans have a tendency to focus and simplify their decision making. Individuals responding to a threat are likely to rely on one action, even when it provides only incremental protection or risk reduction and may not be the most effective option. People often take no further action, presumably because the first one succeeded in reducing their feeling of worry or vulnerability. This phenomenon is called the single-action bias.”
The students in the University of Toronto experiments were not exposed to any perceived threat, of course, but it is possible that their willingness to curtail generosity and resort to thievery was motivated, in part, by having already completed a single, relatively minor action that, to their minds, benefited the world.
And that action, it seems, gave them subsequent license to quietly — and sometimes quite fraudulently — pursue their own private gains. If that is the case, it is perhaps little wonder that neither the practical risks of climate change, nor the moral imperatives attending it, have done much — at least so far — to bring nations together on a solution.
COMMENTS
2 responses to “The License To Be Green”
Leave a Reply
I like this blog, but the constant anti-environment stance keeps on advocating an us vs them mentality where it does not need to exist. I don't feel you've actually commented on the green movement, just it's stereotypes.
Just as others demonize Christianity based on it's stereotypes (wars, homophobia, hypocrisy, etc) and not it's heart, you are demonizing the green movement based on stereotypes and not because the heart behind it is to actually help our current natural state (our rivers, our drinking water, landfills, the air we breathe, etc…).
For the future of Mockingbird, I hope the thoughts on social issues become more holistically Christian, more forward thinking, and less judging of possible imperfections. If your preface of considering a lot of environmentalism "very admirable and worthy" is true, I haven't seen it on the blog.
Much love.
Dear Anonymous,
You probably get a lot of unwanted mail with that name;-)
At any rate, you said, "I don't feel you've actually commented on the green movement, just it's stereotypes."
Despite the fact that this article is from a published scientific survey, so we can be assured, when using it, of not resting on stereotypes, your observation of our "enviro-coverage"is spot on.
If you go back and read our posts on the "green movement," you'll see that we are purposefully pointing at the extremes as a helpful cultural analogue to reliance on "works of the Law."
Particularly as a non-Christian manifestation of a secular morality—replete with versions of repentance and absolution (ie. selling your Hummer and buying a Prius)—this topic is completely fertile(!) ground for observations about how the law works outside the walls of the Church.
We are trying to expose the underlying sense of self-determination, self-control and, ultimately, self-reliance that fuels much of the "green movement," without denigrating the lofty aims of the movement itself.
In fact, we would all count ourselves as "holistic Christians" who do our best to conserve and protect the environment; I really like clean water and have nothing but love for Manatees:)
But, that some Christians have developed a better stance towards the environment than "shoot it or pave it" is commendable and somewhat interesting, but not, for us, as important as the religious (ie Law/Gospel) overtones.
Unfortunately for all of us, I am afraid that the future will provide us plenty more opportunities to observe this current religious fervor, but I hope that you will point out where you feel we've been unfair or "demonizing the green movement," because that is certainly not our intent.
Anyway, it really would be more helpful to use a real name, more holistic even;-)
Much love to you too!
Jady