麻豆传媒

THERE鈥橲 a glaring incongruity in the public discussion of global warming. Here is perhaps the largest problem imaginable, the direct result of how people around the world have gone about producing and using energy for years. It is the epitome of a collective problem, and can be curtailed only if nations collectively agree to impose tough regulations on industrial carbon dioxide emissions while investing in new energy technologies.

Yet in the public sphere emphasis is repeatedly placed on individual behaviour 鈥� buy a hybrid car, turn out the lights, purchase carbon offset credits. As if reducing one person鈥檚 carbon footprint makes any real impact when the ground is continuously stamped upon by billions.

Andrew Szasz, a sociologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, understands why we maintain this delusion. In his important new book, Shopping Our Way to Safety: How we changed from protecting the environment to protecting ourselves, Szasz doesn鈥檛 even need the example of global warming to make his point 鈥� he cites a bounty of other cases in which the dangers we鈥檝e created in our environment have provoked individualist, consumerist responses when what we really need are solutions at the level of policy. It鈥檚 Dungeons & Dragons environmentalism: by acquiring special items 鈥� 鈥渘atural鈥� make-up, expensive sunscreen, organic food 鈥� we think we鈥檒l be magically protected from danger.

Alas, in the real world this stuff doesn鈥檛 necessarily work. Drinking bottled water? It鈥檚 not always safer than tap water, and you鈥檙e contributing to considerable environmental degradation. Buying organic food? You鈥檙e paying extra, which most people can鈥檛 afford to do, and it doesn鈥檛 present the much needed challenge to corporate agriculture.

We鈥檙e behaving, Szasz says, like the Americans of the 1960s who thought they could survive nuclear fallout by building personal shelters, or who fled to the suburbs to escape urban crime. It鈥檚 a problem of mentality 鈥� we鈥檝e grown accustomed to opting for self-defence over concerted collective action to achieve change. It is also a political problem. By weakening government and undermining regulatory agencies the conservative movement in the US has destroyed faith in collective solutions and pushed Americans into survivalist mode.

Besides being fundamentally irrational, such behaviour can have unintended consequences. The building of fallout shelters en masse could have made nuclear fallout more likely. Suburbanisation led to urban sprawl and an increased dependence on the automobile. The same goes for relying on consumerism as a last defence against environmental toxins, Szasz says. In attempting to shop our way out of the risk posed by chemical and other exposures we鈥檙e making clean-up less likely by imparting a false sense of security. (And in the case of bottled water, we鈥檙e hurting the environment to boot.)

鈥淪hopping to avoid risk imparts a false sense of security鈥�

Szasz鈥檚 message is timely and incisive 鈥� which makes it all the more unfortunate that it is poorly expressed. We don鈥檛 need 鈥� and it鈥檚 no fun slogging through 鈥� Szasz鈥檚 over-detailed and yet oddly non-definitive assessment of the actual risks we encounter when eating, drinking and breathing. What matters is that people perceive the existence of these risks and react by shopping. We also don鈥檛 need the repetition of Szasz鈥檚 coined phrase 鈥渋nverted quarantine鈥� 鈥� a result of academic 鈥渢heory鈥� addiction, no doubt.

Consumerism alone can鈥檛 explain these wrong-headed responses to environmental problems. Our fickle media, which inadequately reports on environmental policy-making, and even our 鈥済reen鈥� groups, which often emphasise individual action over policy change, must shoulder some of the blame.

Finally, we must read Szasz in the context of a far broader American failing: we no longer expect the government to do its job. It can鈥檛 protect us from terrorists and hurricanes or even keep our bridges from collapsing. We have entered an age of incompetence and drastically lowered expectations. In this context, individualistic, consumerist responses actually make sense, at least as a last resort 鈥� and that is what鈥檚 truly scary.

Climate Change 鈥� Want to know more about global warming: the science, impacts and political debate? Visit our continually updated special report.