
PSFK fave good-food writer Michael Pollan has a smart piece in an eco-themed NY Times magazine on the importance of personal eco-responsibility while the rest of the world (or the opposite side of it) seems to be pretty happy increasing their carbon footprint. He writes:
Let’s say I do bother, big time. I turn my life upside-down, start biking to work, plant a big garden, turn down the thermostat so low I need the Jimmy Carter signature cardigan, forsake the clothes dryer for a laundry line across the yard, trade in the station wagon for a hybrid, get off the beef, go completely local. I could theoretically do all that, but what would be the point when I know full well that halfway around the world there lives my evil twin, some carbon-footprint doppelgänger in Shanghai or Chongqing who has just bought his first car (Chinese car ownership is where ours was back in 1918), is eager to swallow every bite of meat I forswear and who’s positively itching to replace every last pound of CO2 I’m struggling no longer to emit. So what exactly would I have to show for all my trouble?
…The reasons not to bother are many and compelling, at least to the cheap-energy mind. But let me offer a few admittedly tentative reasons that we might put on the other side of the scale:
If you do bother, you will set an example for other people. If enough other people bother, each one influencing yet another in a chain reaction of behavioral change, markets for all manner of green products and alternative technologies will prosper and expand. (Just look at the market for hybrid cars.) Consciousness will be raised, perhaps even changed: new moral imperatives and new taboos might take root in the culture. Driving an S.U.V. or eating a 24-ounce steak or illuminating your McMansion like an airport runway at night might come to be regarded as outrages to human conscience. Not having things might become cooler than having them. And those who did change the way they live would acquire the moral standing to demand changes in behavior from others — from other people, other corporations, even other countries.
All of this could, theoretically, happen. What I’m describing (imagining would probably be more accurate) is a process of viral social change, and change of this kind, which is nonlinear, is never something anyone can plan or predict or count on. Who knows, maybe the virus will reach all the way to Chongqing and infect my Chinese evil twin. Or not. Maybe going green will prove a passing fad and will lose steam after a few years, just as it did in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan took down Jimmy Carter’s solar panels from the roof of the White House.
Going personally green is a bet, nothing more or less, though it’s one we probably all should make, even if the odds of it paying off aren’t great. Sometimes you have to act as if acting will make a difference, even when you can’t prove that it will.

Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon





Just a word of caution..
Let’s be mindful of expressions like “my Chinese evil twin” since PSFK has an office in Shanghai and a global readership. These kinds of comments, while not derogatory in their intent, can be misinterpreted. For an example of passion over patriotic and media issues, see: anti-cnn.com
April 21st, 2008 at 10:15 am
Sure. Well, it’s not PSFK saying it. For sure: it’s an interesting choice of words in today’s environment. I bet the article was written a while ago - so Pollan probably didn’t realize how they might sound today…
April 21st, 2008 at 10:29 am
“chain reaction of behavioral change”… mmmm
I heard this before… precisely 2008 years ago… and seems not working, sorry.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I saw your post and I just would like to leave you with a few thoughts…
a) China is producing as much as it does - not for the Chinese market but for the western world
b) if we, the west stop consuming as much as we do, we will be able to ease the demand on China.
c) sustainable consumption and sustainable production goes hand in hand… I don’t believe that we can see things in isolation anymore… we need to take responsibility for our actions and understand that the world is a lot smaller that it use to be
hopefully - you will carry on doing your bit, regardless what the other’s are doing
April 22nd, 2008 at 3:35 am
“And those who did change the way they live would acquire the moral standing to demand changes in behavior from others — from other people, other corporations, even other countries.”
Sounds a bit Fascist to me.
I am challenged that I need to be more responsible for my actions, but loving others into the future is the only way to go.
Tim
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:17 am