RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Monbiot writes: "Every society has topics it does not discuss. These are the issues which challenge its comfortable assumptions."

Recycling is only a drop in the bucket toward saving the planet. (photo: unknown)
Recycling is only a drop in the bucket toward saving the planet. (photo: unknown)

Let's Stop Hiding Behind Recycling

By George Monbiot, Guardian UK

14 April 13


We have offshored the problem of escalating consumption, and our perceptions of it, by considering only territorial emissions.

very society has topics it does not discuss. These are the issues which challenge its comfortable assumptions. They are the ones that remind us of mortality, which threaten the continuity we anticipate, which expose our various beliefs as irreconcilable.

Among them are the facts which sink the cosy assertion, that (in David Cameron's words) "there need not be a tension between green and growth".

At a reception in London recently I met an extremely rich woman, who lives, as most people with similar levels of wealth do, in an almost comically unsustainable fashion: jetting between various homes and resorts in one long turbo-charged holiday. When I told her what I did, she responded: "Oh I agree, the environment is so important. I'm crazy about recycling." But the real problem, she explained, was "people breeding too much".

I agreed that population is an element of the problem, but argued that consumption is rising much faster and - unlike the growth in the number of people - is showing no signs of levelling off. She found this notion deeply offensive: I mean the notion that human population growth is slowing. When I told her that birth rates are dropping almost everywhere, and that the world is undergoing a slow demographic transition, she disagreed violently: she has seen, on her endless travels, how many children "all those people have".

As so many in her position do, she was using population as a means of disavowing her own impacts. The issue allowed her to transfer responsibility to others: people at the opposite end of the economic spectrum. It allowed her to pretend that her shopping and flying and endless refurbishments of multiple homes are not a problem. Recycling and population: these are the amulets people clasp in order not to see the clash between protecting the environment and rising consumption.

In a similar way, we have managed, with the help of a misleading global accounting system, to overlook one of the gravest impacts of our consumption. This too has allowed us to blame foreigners - particularly poorer foreigners - for the problem.

When nations negotiate global cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, they are held responsible only for the gases produced within their own borders. Partly as a result of this convention, these tend to be the only ones that countries count. When these "territorial emissions" fall, they congratulate themselves on reducing their carbon footprints. But as markets of all kinds have been globalised, and as manufacturing migrates from rich nations to poorer ones, territorial accounting bears ever less relationship to our real impacts.

While this is an issue which affects all post-industrial countries, it is especially pertinent in the United Kingdom, where the difference between our domestic and international impacts is greater than that of any other major emitter. The last government boasted that this country cut greenhouse gas emissions by 19% between 1990 and 2008. It positioned itself (as the current government does) as a global leader, on course to meet its own targets, and as an example for other nations to follow.

But the cut the UK has celebrated is an artefact of accountancy. When the impact of the goods we buy from other nations is counted, our total greenhouse gases did not fall by 19% between 1990 and 2008. They rose by 20%. This is despite the replacement during that period of many of our coal-fired power stations with natural gas, which produces roughly half as much carbon dioxide for every unit of electricity. When our "consumption emissions", rather than territorial emissions, are taken into account, our proud record turns into a story of dismal failure.

There are two further impacts of this false accounting. The first is that because many of the goods whose manufacture we commission are now produced in other countries, those places take the blame for our rising consumption. We use China just as we use the population issue: as a means of deflecting responsibility. What's the point of cutting our own consumption, a thousand voices ask, when China is building a new power station every 10 seconds (or whatever the current rate happens to be)?

But, just as our position is flattered by the way greenhouse gases are counted, China's is unfairly maligned. A graph published by the House of Commons energy and climate change committee shows that consumption accounting would reduce China's emissions by roughly 45%. Many of those power stations and polluting factories have been built to supply our markets, feeding an apparently insatiable demand in the UK, the US and other rich nations for escalating quantities of stuff.

The second thing the accounting convention has hidden from us is consumerism's contribution to global warming. Because we consider only our territorial emissions, we tend to emphasise the impact of services - heating, lighting and transport for example - while overlooking the impact of goods. Look at the whole picture, however, and you discover (using the Guardian's carbon calculator) that manufacturing and consumption is responsible for a remarkable 57% of the greenhouse gas production caused by the UK.

Unsurprisingly, hardly anyone wants to talk about this, as the only meaningful response is a reduction in the volume of stuff we consume. And this is where even the most progressive governments' climate policies collide with everything else they represent. As Mustapha Mond points out in Brave New World, "industrial civilisation is only possible when there's no self-denial. Self-indulgence up to the very limits imposed by hygiene and economics. Otherwise the wheels stop turning".

The wheels of the current economic system - which depends on perpetual growth for its survival - certainly. The impossibility of sustaining this system of endless, pointless consumption without the continued erosion of the living planet and the future prospects of humankind, is the conversation we will not have.

By considering only our territorial emissions, we make the impacts of our escalating consumption disappear in a puff of black smoke: we have offshored the problem, and our perceptions of it.

But at least in a couple of places the conjuring trick is beginning to attract some attention.

On 16 April, the Carbon Omissions site will launch a brilliant animation by Leo Murray, neatly sketching out the problem*. The hope is that by explaining the issue simply and engagingly, his animation will reach a much bigger audience than articles like the one you are reading can achieve.

(*Declaration of interest [unpaid]: I did the voiceover).

On 24 April, the Committee on Climate Change (a body that advises the UK government) will publish a report on how consumption emissions are likely to rise, and how government policy should respond to the issue.

I hope this is the beginning of a conversation we have been avoiding for much too long. How many of us are prepared fully to consider the implications? your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+12 # Walter J Smith 2013-04-14 19:24
There are many ways of deceiving ourselves, and they are not all in "accounting," though there is usually some type of false accounting going on in them. That lady you met at the party was revealing self-delusions from the moment she opened her mouth, and obviously was self-deluded about her capacity to even have one such delusion.

To the ordinary propensity of animals to not believe inconvenient truths, add both the venality peculiar to humans and also the propensity to seek distractions from inconveniences, and the turbulence of what Whitman called "irreconcilable interiors" begins rising.

Add to the ordinary venality & individually chosen distractions we see in celebrities of all sorts, especially the celluloid and electoral celebrities, and the turbulence of those interiors approaches hurricane force.

Add to that celebrity venality and ordinary self-deception, the power and wealth of senior government & other political agents working on behalf of their preferred interests, and the political superstorms we see today around the world become outright ominous, as in, loaded with richly portentious omens.

Thank you for an extraordinary article, extraordinary by the standards of any journal in print or any other medium today.
+1 # Interested Observer 2013-04-15 08:32
We continue to deceive ourselves on a grand scale with economic models that require endless growth to achieve prosperity and assume natural resources to be essentially without cost and infinitely available.
+2 # Rick Levy 2013-04-15 00:40
Personal effort towards environmental improvement is like sex. The ones who brag about it the most are most likely the ones who do it the least.
-1 # brux 2013-04-15 12:53
unless they do. kind of hard to lump all people together all of the time.
+3 # cordleycoit 2013-04-15 03:33
Living in the third world of America. I do not see riches but rather hunger and fear of government. We do not get the trickle down but rather the waste.
+1 # RLF 2013-04-15 06:57
Nothing will change. The rich are counting on starvation to thin the population of the planet so they can continue to have fun.
+1 # brux 2013-04-15 04:07
If we expect to fix the environmental problem,
we ALL need to live differently, because if just a few live high on the hog wasteful while the rest of us get shortchanged on our right to planetary resources while we are alive, those planetary resources are going to be destroyed. It's our human pattern and we have done it reliably almost everywhere human have inhabited.
0 # Nel 2013-04-15 05:48
The prevailing mentality is happiness-from- without, (external objects) while neglecting the within (our minds.) The result is: the more objects we get, the more empty we are. Hope the new Pope helps us to restore sanity.
0 # brux 2013-04-15 12:52
a lot of that is the way people are, and how we provoke that kind of attitude because of deep set patterns in our history and evolution. to change completely into a new paradigm, to actually try to take conscious control of human civilization ... i daresay is something that has not been tried since back in the time of say jesus christ or the invention of religion. we just poo-poo religion know kind of like we poo-poo the government now because as a human institution it has been corrupted and ruined... we need a higher order and guaranteed rights for all that do not leave any with the "right" to be enslaved.
+1 # RLF 2013-04-15 06:59
The population explosion may have slowed but it has already gone to the point of no return. The planet cannot sustain the people here NOW. Starvation will take care of that...coming to a country near you!
+2 # dickbd 2013-04-15 13:52
I love the article, but overpopulation should always be discussed as the main problem. Of course, the powers that be don't want that because it helps them economically. But wilderness areas are being wiped out. Maybe we can live without them--and maybe not!--but would life be worth living?

I suspect that there is a reckoning coming, and even the super rich will discover that you can't eat money.
0 # mdhome 2013-04-15 18:23
"I suspect that there is a reckoning coming, and even the super rich will discover that you can't eat money."
True, but I suspect they think they can buy the food so others starve. But IF I have a peck of potatoes to keep me from starving, do you think I am going to sell them to you at any price for money that will not feed me and mine?

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.