The Jevons Paradox questions the pervasive assumptioin — common in colloquial discourse and even in many academic discussions — that sustainability emerges as a passive consequence of consuming less. This assumption comes in two versions. The pessimistic version suggests that it is necessary for people voluntarily to reduce their resource consumption in order to become more sustainable. Examples might include taking shorter or colder showers, using public transportation, drinking tap water rather than bottled, or eating less meat. This is sometimes known as the sackcloth-and-ashes approach to sustainability. The optimistic version, preferred by many economists and most politicians, is that a future of technological innovations and the shift to a service-and-information economy will reduce our consumption of resources to such an extent that we will become sustainable without requiring people to sacrifice the things that they enjoy.
– The Jevons paradox and the myth of resource efficiency improvements

Hand-wringing about personal carbon footprints and overconsumption reminds me of Stein’s law: If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.

“You can’t build a solution to climate change by asking people to give up the conveniences of modern life…”

The biggest challenge for scientists is to keep the convenience unchanged when trying to reduce the carbon footprint. If we put our SE glasses on, “public convenience” is actually one of the biggest Requirements that must be satisfied by any solution to the energy problem. I believe formulating such a requirement is an an interesting subject on its own.

That said, if we agree on the fact that systemic changes are required, then I think that individual efforts are very worthwhile for at least two reasons.

First, they set examples and show that it is indeed possible to live (happy and fulfilling) lives that have a much lower carbon footprint than the average. This will motivate a few other people to change their lifestyle, which in turn will motivate more people, and so on. Many people are afraid to do something they consider radical unless they have a model to inspire and reassure them.

Second, as early adopters of “the new lifestyle”, people who try to reduce their carbon footprint make the process easier for the ones that follow them. Just like early adopters of new technology, they identify the problems and, by their feedback, they help improving the situation. They gradually build a critical mass that encourages both the market and the politicians to take this new class of people seriously, and to cater to their needs.

Basically, I think that the systemic changes that you mention won’t (and can’t) happen overnight. For that reason, someone has to take the lead and adopt a different lifestyle before it has become the norm, and even before it is comfortable to do so. It seems this is precisely what the actors of your carbon theatre are trying to do.

I’m arguing that we won’t effect such changes on a global scale by voluntarily trying to live greener lives. It takes a strong commitment to live that, because it’s counter-cultural. A small number of people are capable of such commitment, and I admire them for it. But that’s not an adequate solution to climate change because it doesn’t scale – you cannot get large numbers of people to make such changes to their lives while those changes require that much effort and commitment. The challenge is to find things that do scale.

Whenever you make any change in your personal lifestyle to make it greener, spend time asking yourself what would it take to get very large numbers of people to do likewise. What would remove the barriers for people who don’t have your passion and commitment? And then work on getting rid of those barriers…

I think I disagree with almost everything you say in this post (which is quite unusal), but I would in particular like to comment on your assertion that “You can’t build a solution to climate change by asking people to give up the conveniences of modern life.” (a variant of “The american way of life is not negotiable”).

Since you seem to agree that climate change is a real problem, let me ask you what you think would happen if, to make sure that we do not ask too much from people, we just let everyone go on with their current lifestyle?

If you think that everything will be fine, then clearly climate change is not an issue, and we should simply stop worrying about it.

If you think that big problems lie ahead, then you clearly see that your position is untenable: solving climate change *will* require us to change our lifestyle, and it is quite possible that, as a result, we won’t enjoy ourselves as much as we do now. But there really is no other choice if, as I believe and you seem to believe too, we are currently living beyond our means. Claiming, like you implicitly do, that we will find a solution to climate change (or energy supply, for that matter) without giving up *anything* is a very dangerous fallacy.

Maybe, just maybe, we will be able to find a magical solution, but promising it before we actually have it is, in my opinion, quite irresponsible.

Also, “single-action bias”; if people really do typically only do one thing, better it be the thing that has most effect.

re Jon’s “the implication that the conditions under which personal actions are acceptable is only when they are easy” – no, when they make it easy for *everyone*.
…otherwise we risk counterproductive hairshirted holier-than-thouism…which I think George Marshall stepped right into.

I think what I’m trying to say is that whatever personal action each of us takes, we should continually ask ourselves how such an action could scale, and what it would take for that to happen. And devote our energies to designing scaleable solutions (or systemic changes that enable them), rather than optimizing personal footprint reduction.

Hmm… nope, I’m not happy with this post.

I agree that “we need changes that scale up, and we need to change the economic and policy frameworks to support such changes” and that “we have to think in terms of whole systems.” Clearly this problem is one that’s bigger than any one of us, but that doesn’t imply there is no place for strong individual action.

I know, I know.. you’re not saying that, but you are saying something essentially like that though when you say that personal actions to, in this case reduce your carbon footprint, are “a waste of time if you’re doing it by giving up stuff that you’d rather not give up”.

What worries me about what you’re saying is the implication that the conditions under which personal actions are acceptable is only when they are easy. I’m particularly concerned about your statement that large scale changes won’t happen “if the people who understand what needs doing focus inwards on their own personal footprints.” This is just bogus and frustrating because it supports this weird idea we all have some finite reservoir of energy which we can either invest in changing ourselves or changing the world, but not both. Plus, it also suggests that somehow taking those personal actions which result in sacrifices are somehow always draining. I don’t agree with any of that.

Firstly, I think it is possible to take personal actions, to be deeply concerned about the them, AND to also, at the same time, engage with creating systemic change*. Those actions that are difficult may be difficult at first and may be mentally taxing to some extent, but not always, not forever, and not to the exclusion of any other work. I’m sure you can think of many people you know who are like this. In fact, many of the people I know who are engaged in working to create systemic change are also very conscious of their own lifestyles and habits, and are constantly making personal choices (and sacrifices) that reflect their views on what makes the world a better place.

Also: I find there is often great rewards that comes from the work of investigating my life, personal choices, habits and compulsions. Not flying across the country recently was a big decision in a way. It meant sore legs and broken sleep for three days… but I got to meet some fascinating people, see some amazing parts of the country and spend lots of time being slow and reflecting. So, I’m partly saying “look on the bright side” and “it’s not as bad as it sounds” but I’m also saying that I think we humans are capable of more than you’re giving us credit for. Taking the train may suck at times but, ultimately, so what? We deal with discomfort and sacrifice all the time and still achieve great things.

That said, I think it’s important to recognise that dealing with the discomfort in a healthy way is where the real work in taking personal action has to be done. “Worrying and stressing” over your actions isn’t, on it’s own, going to lead to much personal good — it’s probably going to leave you drained and despairing. I suppose what I’m saying here is that I disagree with you and think difficult personal actions are important and manageable *if* you approach them with the right coping skills and attitude. That’s my caveat.

But more so, I think that making positive systemic changes which stick is greatly aided by the people involved in making the change having a mindset consistent with that change. That is to say, if you’re interested in creating a more sustainable world it helps (but is neither necessary nor sufficient) to have the mindset of living sustainably and be deeply familiar with the intricacies and difficulties of the changes you propose. Making personal choices exercises that new mindset. It puts into practice, “in the small”, the kind of thinking that needs to happen “in the large”. This is especially true of personal actions which are difficult and challenging: that’s when you learn the most.

Anyhow, I think I’m veering slightly away from your point. I don’t disagree that there is plenty of green theatrics being played out. It’s seemingly done by people and organizations that want to appeal to the spirit of sustainability without having to actually make the difficult and tricky systemic decisions, commitments, and changes that have to be made. And, as you said in your original post on the matter, the conversation about personal choices (personal carbon footprints) often distracts us from the important work that has to be done systemically. Not only is it distracting, but it also makes us feel like our only way forward is through personal actions (which is both silly and harmful, as it puts the all the weight of the world unfairly on each of our shoulders).

So, I agree: theatre for the sake of selling false action and distracting us from conversations about systemic change: bad. But taking personal action and responsibility does not always mean you’re buying in to what’s on stage. I think taking personal action (even if it is, at times, difficult) is crucial aspect of understanding the problem and solutions, as well as, of course, making immediate, positive impact.

* If you’re wondering, I’m not saying this as a knock against hypocrisy: I think there’s a great place for hypocrisy in the world. You can’t always do what you think is the right thing, but that shouldn’t mean you don’t talk about it and promote. But that’s another thought entirely.