Opinion
‘Green’ changes need federal fix
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Ryan Greenfield:
- Community Car a smart move for consumers, environment (September 23, 2008)
- Broken center in need of overhaul (September 9, 2008)
- Drinking age tramples rights, endangers health (September 2, 2008)
- Madison eateries need calorie info (April 28, 2008)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
American consumers face a lot of choices and wield tremendous economic power; they drive two-thirds of the American economy. But do they keep the environment in mind as they make their decisions? Most people have at least a passing concern for the environment and will choose what they perceive as the more environmentally friendly good or service, all other things being equal.
Consumers must process information from the latest sustainability and “health benefits” studies, which is often in conflict with messages they received in previous studies. Think of margarine and butter. I’m sure we’ve all heard both margarine and butter are better for you than the substitute at different times, but do most of us really understand the science behind each choice and which causes more carbon emissions? My personal decision-making process goes something like: “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter” tastes pretty good to me, so I’m going to buy that.
And consumers face many of these dilemmas throughout life. After we use a public restroom, does it cause more environmental harm to use a disposable paper towel or run an electric hand dryer? Well, I really don’t want to hang out for 30 seconds while hot air dries my hands, so I grab a paper towel and go. When consumers face imperfect information and uncertainty between tradeoffs, it’s irrational to assume they will frequently make environmentally friendly decisions.
Recently released studies have brought the conventional environmentalist wisdom into question. Two studies released in the journal Science found that biofuel production actually creates more carbon emissions — once you consider the land use changes to grow more crops and all the inputs required to grow, refine and transport the crops — than if we just stick with gasoline. Yet gas stations cheerfully advertise the 10 percent ethanol additive in the gasoline they sell, and consumers feel great about buying it.
In his new book, British environmentalist Chris Goodall questions whether walking is actually more environmentally friendly than driving. He says if the walker replaces the lost energy from walking with animal products — such as milk — it likely leads to more carbon production than if the walker had simply driven to the store.
Conservatives will try to fit these new studies into a narrative about the futility of government involvement in the economy for environmental protection. But I believe these studies furnish further proof that people can’t be relied on to preserve the environment through the idealization of personal responsibility and public awareness.
It also shows that local governments, like Dane County and the city of Madison, don’t have the resources, jurisdiction or the information to confront the kind of monumental environmental challenges we’re currently facing. While it might be a nice gesture for Madison to ban non-plastic grocery bags or disposable water bottles at public events, it’s truly a drop in the bucket.
The federal government must ensure the right incentives are created on a national and international scale to encourage the truly environmentally sustainable activities and discourage the destructive ones. When Ireland imposed a fee for plastic grocery bags in 2002, their consumption dropped 94 percent within weeks. Use of plastic grocery bags quickly became socially unacceptable.
Not only must the prices be adjusted, but consumers must be made to really feel the costs and benefits of their behavior. John Tierney reported in The New York Times last week on a new study from California that showed a neighborhood the cost of their energy consumption right on their thermostats. It also allowed for a comparison to their other neighbors’ average consumption. While the experiment worked for the higher users, the lower users actually increased their consumption. Only when “smiley faces” were associated with being below the average usage did low users remain frugal.
This research is fascinating, but at the end of the day, only federal government action can create the kind of economic and societal restructuring of incentives that face consumers through taxes, subsidies and investments so that Americans can finally begin to shop their interests.
Ryan Greenfield (rgreenfield@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in political science and economics.
2 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Department of Green Land Protection, coming up!
“… at the end of the day, only federal government action can create the kind of economic and societal restructuring of incentives that face consumers through taxes, subsidies and investments so that Americans can finally begin to shop their interests.”
In other words, only by government forcing people to act in certain ways can Americans act in their interest. That’s the most bizarre thing I’ve ever heard.
The whole idea of “protecting the environment” is evil. People live by exploiting nature, not be protecting it.
The proper goal is to protect rights, including property rights. It’s people’s lives, property, and freedom that need to be sustained, not “the environment.”