Is it green, or does it just feel green?

The environment is an emotion-laden topic for many - unsurprising, given that it surrounds us, gives us life, and can awe us with its beauty. This lends itself to instances of environmental extremism, such as those who call for the dismantling of our economic system to return to more "natural" ways of living. This, thankfully is only a small part of the green community - although I was once called an "eco-terrorist" on another blog so perhaps it's all relative.

However, a more prevalent emotional response towards environmental policy solutions is the tendency to lean towards things that feel green, rather than judging them on criteria of whether they are green. There are many examples of this, but it is very appropriate that the RTFO came into force yesterday in face of mounting criticism of the dubious environmental credentials and equity concerns over biofuels. Biofuels? Bad? How can they be - they're made of plants! And plants are green!

I saw another great example of this on a Channel 4 or BBC news story about a school that had gone eco. The students were showing the camera crew their low-flush toilets and desk made out of recycled mobile phones. At the end, one of the students said (to the effect of), "it's makes us feel good because we know we're saving the planet".

It's not that I have a problem with people feeling good about environmentally friendly, it's that it often distracts us from real and useful activities, in face of clear and present environmental problems such as air and water degradation and climate change. When I look around, it is obvious that we as a society are constantly making ourselves feel green for the express purpose of avoiding real environmental improvements - particularly related to carbon reduction. And with the effects of climate change likely to manifest in the future, it's easy to keep procrastinating.

In the case of the eco school, why did we not hear about how the students had gone home and installed better insulation, lowered their thermostats and decided to make better transport and consumption choices? For all we know the staff ripped out their perfectly good existing toilets and tables just so they could replace them with these eco-toilets and tables. It is of course arguable that the important thing is getting the green message to kids. But in my mind, this should be done with real examples.

The issue of distraction links back nicely to a very interesting article which inspired this post, which I found via the ever omnipotent BoingBoing.

Written by Bruce Schneier, a security expert, the article reflects on the issue of feeling safe vs. being safe when it comes to (for example) airport or home security, and makes points that can easily be applied to environmental policy:

If we make security trade-offs based on the feeling of security rather than the reality, we choose security that makes us feel more secure over security that actually makes us more secure.

The key here is whether we notice. The feeling and reality of security tend to converge when we take notice, and diverge when we don't. People notice when 1) there are enough positive and negative examples to draw a conclusion, and 2) there isn't too much emotion clouding the issue.

Designing environmental policy faces the same difficults that Schneier highlights for security: trade-offs, uncertainty, and cognitive biases. His conclusion is also relevant:

Unfortunately, there's no obvious antidote. Information is important. We can't understand security unless we understand it. But that's not enough: Few of us really understand cancer, yet we regularly make security decisions based on its risk. What we do is accept that there are experts who understand the risks of cancer, and trust them to make the security trade-offs for us.

We're never going to stop making security trade-offs based on the feeling of security, and we're never going to completely prevent those with specific agendas from trying to take care of us. But the more we know, the better trade-offs we'll make.

Comments

[Jérémie]

That makes me think of people claiming that they are saving the world and take the plane every week to give very consensual talks in conferences (preferably not too far from the beach).

[Nathan Rive]

But...but...they offset their flights!

[Jérémie]

So they are genuinely saving the world!

[James Haselip]

Nathan you old cynic, I'm appalled. Personally, I'm interested to compile a complete list of the locations and number of attendees to all the UN-brokered climate change negotiations that have taken place since the late 80s. Of course there was Rio in 92’ where the local police gladly picked off pesky street kids with rifles to clear the vista for visiting dignitaries. Most recently Bali (can’t be bad), then Hawaii and Thailand last month I think. Would love to see that list. CC negotiations junketeering being perhaps the biggest case of eco-cognitive dissonance in the history of human hypocrisy?

[Nathan Rive]

In spite of my joke above, I think it's unfair to blindly point at the climate negotiations and call them hypocrites due their flying. Ok, they could optimize locations based on flying distance, but it's not feasible to meet and negotiate any other way.

What I have a problem with is the many hangers-on at these events, who are at best making only mild contributions to the issue. Not enough is spent thinking of whether the trip is really useful - and with project funding the way it is, there's little incentive to do so either.

[torbjornrive]

Hologram meetings, man...the way of the future.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=502599&in_page_id=1770