People have debated for years about who is responsible for tackling environmental problems. Are individual consumers responsible, for example when they choose to fly to a distant holiday destination or not? Or should the government take responsibility by prohibiting environmentally harmful behaviour or by making it more expensive? Unfortunately, that debate is based on an incorrect and harmful antithesis.
By presenting the question of responsibility as either/or, everyone continues to point to the other and ultimately no one takes responsibility. In the light of the climate crisis, we have absolutely no time for that stalemate.
In the past, the Dutch government pointed at consumers with the public campaign ‘A better environment starts with you’. The government conducted this campaign based on a misguided liberal idea that it did not have the right to interfere with the privacy of citizens. This idea is misguided because liberalism legitimises government intervention if it prevents damage to others, such as environmental damage. Today, the political winds have completely changed directions.
This is exemplified by books such as Een beter milieu begint niet bij jezelf [A better environment does not start with you] by Jaap Tielbeke, editor at news magazine De Groene Amsterdammer. According to Tielbeke, only structural change through political intervention makes sense and we should stop focusing on individual behavioural change. He believes that the world will not change because consumers demand environmentally friendly products. The world will change only when the government takes control. Therefore, says Tielbeke, it is not consumers that should take initiative, but politically motivated citizens.
Tielbeke essentially makes a good point. Only government policy can effectively address environmental problems. But opponents of individual responsibility tend to overlook the actual process of societal change. Citizens do not suddenly demand a new government policy out of nowhere. Instead, a transition process takes place during which forerunners first show society that reasonable alternatives are available, such as plant-based food, sustainable energy, holidays without flying and smaller families. It is only when large parts of the population see sufficient alternatives around them that public support for government policy will emerge which makes these alternatives the norm. For example, it is inconceivable that the government would introduce a meat tax before there is a market for meat substitutes based on consumer demand.
In addition, political messages tend to fall on deaf ears if the politicians do not practice what they preach. Even though a politician could theoretically make a rational argument that his monthly holiday flights to Australia do not violate his party's programme to ban this type of behaviour, the majority of the population will seriously doubt the integrity of that politician. It is not without reason that the tabloids are eager to report such alleged inconsistencies, particularly those involving ‘green’ politicians.
But this also applies to political conversations within the family, at work or between friends: it is difficult to persuade others of the importance of green policy if there is no connection whatsoever with your own lifestyle. How seriously would climate activist Greta Thunberg have been taken if she had flown around the world for her campaign?
It is not surprising that there are doubts about integrity. A central tenet of ethics is that you should live only according to rules that you believe should apply universally. This is the famous categorical imperative of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant.
That is why it also leads to an ethical short-circuit to engage in environmentally harmful behaviour, such as flying from one place to another, when at the same time you want the government to forbid or tax the same behaviour. Ethically consistent behaviour means that you would choose not to fly, regardless of the introduction of environmental taxes on flying.
Ultimately, only the government can achieve significant environmental improvement by changing the societal rules of the game. But the support that is needed for this policy only emerges when sufficient numbers of consumers have taken the lead voluntarily.
The last thing we need are stories that individual action doesn't matter. A better environment does start with you.
You have a part to playOur society is facing major challenges. Radboud University wants to contribute to a healthy, free world with equal chances for everyone. With ‘Je bent nodig’ (You have a part to play), Radboud University aims to reach people who want to contribute to that goal. At Jebentnodig.nl you’ll find more articles.Do you want to be kept updated of our articles? Register at Radboud Recharge.