Banner
    Environmental Guilt Is Big Business
    By Hank Campbell | August 26th 2012 03:00 PM | 6 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0® and co-author of "Science Left Behind".

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone...

    View Hank's Profile
    39% of Americans feel 'green guilt' for wasting food, a much higher number than letting the sink run while they brush their teeth or not buying those stupid low-flow toilets.

    The 2012 Eco Pulse results are in.  So look for the latest marketing campaigns from environmental activism corporations soon.

    Why does anyone do surveys on what people feel guilty about rather than what people care about?  They do it to sell it to environmental groups and no environmental group raises money on a 'things are great' platform, they raise money by telling you how much you are a parasite for Gaia. The Eco Pulse survey tells marketers at Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc. what your weak points are.  

    And environmental guilt - sorry, 'new avenues for engaging the public in sustainability efforts' - is Big Business.  Even the survey is Big Business. If you want to read the full Eco Pulse results created by the Shelton Group, it will cost you $4,500. And they only talked to 1,013 people so why charge a fortune for the results?  Hey, don't ask that question.  Do you hate the Earth or something?

    Fertilizers?  Go kick rocks, activists, the science is in and people feel no guilt at all. Light bulbs? Ditto. Banning incandescents was another in a giant list of things for social authoritarian progressives to outlaw, but people resented it and don't like that they will need to call in a Haz-Mat team if they break one of those ugly CFL bulbs. So they feel no guilt at all about the old bulbs they began hoarding.

    Middle class people felt the most guilt, the survey found.  Rich people, not so much.  Ditto for poor people. Rich people I can understand.  They are buying organic food and hybrid cars so they have already done their part for the planet.  If the food rots, they can ship it to poor peoples' yards and call it compost. Poor people, of course, can't afford to eat organic food, they eat at Burger King and don't let it go to waste, nor do they feel guilty about the wrapper - it's recyclable! Plus, they know if they are throwing away that average of $600 a year in food they are not actually poor.


    You, sir, are the problem and should feel guilty.  Because you wear a tie, which means you are not poor but not so rich you don't feel guilty about ruining the planet. Image: Shutterstock.com

    Basically, there is a hierarchy of needs.  You can't afford to care about the planet if you can't afford food or shelter.  This empathy and understanding is what the anti-science groups behind movements like Prop 37 don't understand; not everyone lives in an agricultural Mecca like California.  Organic farming limitations brought forth concepts like worrying over The Population Bomb in the 1960s.  What prevented mass starvation, food wars and the plot of Soylent Green was food science; farmers were able to grow more food while dematerializing' - they used less land than ever and the places where modern agriculture took root led to huge increases in wealth among the poorest, which led to more education and culture.  People who are against that are basically arguing that the poorest people should be permanently ghetto-ized or be stuck as modern feudal Serfs working for giant organic corporations as sharecroppers.

    Not many people were concerned about wasting water, 6%, and why should they be?  They have to pay for the water and they probably know most water in America is consumed by agriculture, not flushing toilets or brushing teeth. Only 9% are concerned about their clothes dryers.  If they have bought one recently, it likely said "Energy Star", which means they are more angry than guilty.  I have one and it takes a lot longer to dry clothes.  What is the opposite of an Energy Star rated dryer?  Because that is the one I want to buy next. Or I can buy one 25 years old that won't take twice as long to dry my pants.

    Environmental fundraising groups could focus on unplugging chargers and electronics, since 22% feel guilty about not doing that, but other than assuaging some liberal guilt it won't do much for the planet. On an individual level, Americans are pretty terrific about conserving electricity, the average home in the U.S. only uses about 960kWh per month, less than Canada and half a dozen other nations despite the average American home being larger - and Republicans and Democrats and global warming believers and skeptics alike all conserve electricity about the same.

    Poor people are the best about conservation so that and money are obvious reasons why they are not targeted for fundraising. When I was a kid, my parents wanted lights shut off every time we left the room but even as a teenager I knew the start-up energy draw made the crossover threshold about 5 minutes - if you were going to be gone 5 minutes or more it made sense to shut them off.  But with the new CFLs activists insist are better, any wasted electricity might be a good investment.  The 25 kHz electric ballasts CFLs use can't be heard by humans but that humming may be making your pets insane.

    Generally, there is a golden rule of conservation and therefore conservation fundraising - less consumption is better, yet only if it's for someone else - and the people who do the most consuming don't mind tithing to make the guilt go away.

    Comments

    Gerhard Adam
    Good article.  I've always felt that "guilt" was the most useless emotion, because invariably it caused you to make poorly thought-out decisions if you gave in to it.  In my view the solution to avoiding guilt was simple .... don't do the thing that makes you feel guilty.  If you can't help doing it, then stop feeling guilty.

    Seems simple to me.
    Hank
    Thanks! Obviously I am too idealistic in thinking there is a better way.  I worked for PA PIRG way back in the day, raising money, and I learned early on that 'Here's how much we have improved things thanks to your donations" did pretty poorly compared to "We're all doomed unless we do X" when it came to getting people to write checks.

    I felt bad for my co-workers back then.  While I cared, I knew that raising money was the job and eventually good things would happen even if the methods were distasteful - the only thing I scoffed at openly and refused to use was their anti-nuclear position.  But my co-workers all bought into an idealistic world view first, and the practical aspects of environmentalism really jaded them. Result: I raised more money than them, because I was never so high that I got disgruntled.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Stellare
    Good article Hank! Another hopeless guilt ridden solution is water-saving showers, or what you call it. For me at least, and for everybody else that have a certain amount of hair on their head, I am pretty sure we end up using more water than we would have done in a more efficient shower. And we definitely waste our time because it take like a zillion year to wash your hair in those stupid things. :-)

    Sigh!

    Another annoying thing is like you mention, shutting the light at all times. For a physicist it is just ridiculous. But there I can see a positive psychological effect. Making people aware of their consume.

    No need to play the guilt card though.

    Actually, I do not believe that playing on guilt - or we are doomed - work that well. Not in the long run at least. And we need a long run if we want to take better care of the planet.

    I do think we should take better care of the planet. Without guilt. :-)
    Bente Lilja Bye is the author of Lilja - A bouquet of stories about the Earth
    Hank
    I have to chuckle at this in the LA Times:
    "We know that telling people to save the planet does not work. The vast majority of Americans don't care," said Shelton. But consumers are more likely to be motivated by "solutions that offer a get-out-of-guilt-free card," such as text messages that remind them to use their tomatoes and provide recipes, or public service announcements that suggest they map out their menus and take leftovers to work.
    What else does the report offer to fundraising companies?

    What ingredients are people avoiding?

    How much does a company’s environmental reputation impact purchase decisions?


    The importance they place on sustainable features vs. traditional features (such as efficacy, brand value and price)

    How much more (if any) they’re willing to pay for greener products

    If engagement and environmental activism influence purchases – and how much

    Trends on green behaviors and habits

    Drivers and messaging that resonate best


    And these people are superior to Monsanto how, exactly?

    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    SynapticNulship
    There are a lot of movements and "solutions" which are not solutions at all. They try to make you think you can "do your part" and it will accumulate into something meaningful. I have heard of people shipping dogs from some other country to the US to save them. Ever heard of root cause analysis? Why the hell are all these dogs being born in the first place? If there is a water shortage, what is causing it and where is it happening? How can the source of the problem be truly mitigated and maintained. Who says reduction is any part of the solution at all? Maybe everybody should use more of a resource and the system needs to ramp up to demand.

    Based on the people in my apartment building, if anything, humans need to be taking MORE showers not less.
    Hank
    Based on the people in my apartment building, if anything, humans need to be taking MORE showers not less.
    Indeed, I am with you on the optimism.  While life is about boom and bust (perhaps, including ours) we have boomed overall. The cultures that sought solutions for problems and struggled thrived, the ones that mitigated and rationed died.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind