A recent (June 2013) World Bank report titled: ‘Turn Down the Heat:
Climate extremes, regional impacts and the case for resilience’, says
that South Asia, with India at its centre, will experience a temperature
rise of two degree Celsius. This will happen in next two to three
decades; much before the expected date of 2050. This will lead to major
climate crisis causing widespread food shortages, prolonged droughts,
unprecedented heat-waves, more intense rainfall and flooding, threat to
energy production, and most importantly water scarcity.
******************
Do we need more evidence to argue that the Earth’s environment is getting polluted and degraded? Probably not.
Do we need more education for people on the causes of this pollution and degradation?
Probably not.
We all seem to be aware and knowledgeable that our contemporary
lifestyles, rising global population, use and disposal of various
(modern) everyday things, excessive consumption, unregulated industries,
and means of travel have led to a faster rate of environmental
pollution and degradation than ever before. In fact, almost everyone is
aware that our everyday living in endangering the environment. The
captains of capitalism are warning us of the dangers and debilitating
consequences of unbridled development.
We are also using up Earth’s resources at breakneck speed in order to
supply people with plastic lamps, pens, mobiles and artificial ducks
for our backyards. Countries like India and China, exemplified as
successful case studies of the neo-liberal economy, have actually become
environmental basket-cases.
The data is out there. Information is available through the internet,
newspapers, television, films, and school text-books. However, most of
these informed people seem to be engaging in those very behaviours that
are damaging to the Earth. We do not see any visible evidence of
behaviour change – in a pro-environmental direction. Information is not
enough because we do not want to think about that information. Who wants
to think about dangers? Who wants to reflect? And none of our friends
want to talk about it. Who wants a dialogue on difficult things that may
require coming out of one’s comfort zone? Or the pain of changing
habits?
So, can we expect anyone to do something (or anything) about it?
We sought to find out whether people are moved – persuaded – to act
for the environment – in pro-environmental ways by engaging in
pro-environmental behaviours. By pro-environmental behaviours we mean
any and every behaviour – small or major – that is positive for reducing
pollution or for protection and conservation of the environment and the
planet.
We wandered in towns and cities in India and listened to different
kinds of people: college students and corporate employees, husbands and
wives, priests and pastors, farmers and fishermen, boatmen and
biologists. We asked them to tell us their views on pro-environmental
behaviours. We wanted to find what moved them or would move people
towards positive actions – what would resonate with them, connect with
them and compel them to change their existing unhealthy environmental
behaviours?
What did we find? What are people doing?
Almost all the people (adults) we talked to knew that the environment
was in danger; they invariably mentioned the consequences of a
deteriorating environment on their own health and safety, and the future
of this planet. Everyone said actions were necessary to conserve,
protect, save the environment. And NONE of the adults said, “I do not
want to do it. I do not want to do anything to save the environment.”
Great! We thought.
We probed further: So you must be doing things to save the environment? Tell us more.
The answer was: Hot Potato (Pass the Parcel).
When it came to action – actual change of personal behaviours in
their everyday lives –to save the environment, most adults regressed to
being a child. They seemed to be playing the children’s game of Hot
Potato (Pass the Parcel). Almost all of them said that it is not my
responsibility – alone. It is the government’s responsibility or
industries are spreading toxicity and they should be controlled, or
retorted that everyone else is doing it – polluting, throwing trash, so
ask them to change first. They conveniently passed the blame and
responsibility for changing behaviours to another.
Hot Potato – or – Pass the Parcel – is a child’s party game where an
object is passed around and whoever is left holding the potato is
punished – that child has to do something that is inconvenient. And most
adults did not want physical inconvenience in their everyday lives
despite knowing the inconvenient truth about the environment. So they
simply passed the hot potato – psychically.
Asking an adult to take actions to save the planet is like asking a child to clean his/her room.
The child knows the room is messy, but does not take the necessary
steps until it is pointed out by the parent. Most people know that
pro-environmental behaviour change is absolutely essential, but feel
that the required changes to their behaviour are difficult and do not
fit into their everyday circumstances. The adoption of pro-environmental
behaviours in everyday life requires people to go against the grain of
their contemporary everyday circumstances and current behaviours. People
use the examples of being habituated to electricity and electrical
gadgets, even operating electrical gadgets with gasoline (diesel)
generators during power outages, continuous water supply and showers,
traveling by cars, taxis or buses and of buying plastic and electronic
gadgets that are freely available.
Using the analogy of a child’s reactions to cleaning his/her room,
even the responses of adults to taking actions to save the environment
or changing personal behaviours can be further classified into five main
categories:
Response One: “I will do it later.”
Not today, Mom. Most children will first try to postpone the action
of cleaning a room because it is an inconvenience; it will take up time
that can be spent on more interesting pursuits such as texting a friend,
watching TV, or playing a video-game. This was a common response among
the adults to pro-environmental actions. Most people felt they could
continue with their behaviour for one more day and nothing much would
change. Thus, they could conveniently postpone action for tomorrow.
Response Two: “Others are also dirtying their surroundings. Why don’t you tell them to change first?”
This is almost like a child pointing to a sibling’s dirty room when
asked to clean his own room. Pointing to another or shifting the blame
is another way to deflect from the required behaviour change or
pro-environmental action.
Response Three: “I can’t do it. It’s too big for me. I am too small to be able to do this.”
A child uses this response because the magnitude and size of the
problem of a messy room just seems too big. Most adults see the big
picture of deforestation, carbon emission and ozone layer depletion and
they feel these problems are too big. This is a planetary problem and I
am just a small creature. However, they do not visualize the small steps
that they can take to solve the problem. They are presented the large
picture; they stay with the large picture and are unable to break it
into smaller pieces or steps. Therefore, they feel incapable of tackling
the issue.
Response Four: “I don’t know what to do or how to do it.”
The child is essentially saying that I do not have the necessary
know-how and skills to get the job done. So the mother or father assumes
that if take the child into the dirty room and start the process, show
the child the way forward, it will move to its logical conclusion of a
room being cleaned by the child. This response follows from not knowing
exactly how to go about pro-environmental actions. We assume that such
people, if given the correct knowledge, will automatically change their
behaviours. However, it is possible that “I don’t know what to do” is
another way of postponing the inconvenient. And more importantly, can
we wait for everyone to have the knowledge and skills about
pro-environmental actions?
*****************
Now that we had these four responses, our next question was: Do you think it is even possible to save the environment?
Who will save the environment?
Adults were openly pessimistic about the ability and motivation of
other adults to change their behaviours. One interesting response from
adults was that there is no point in educating and communicating change
to adults. It will not work. Therefore, most adults felt that all
resources and energies should be directed towards educating children
about pro-environmental behaviours. Children were the only hope of
saving the environment.
Now this is a convenient solution put forth by many speakers in many such meetings: Children will save the future. But isn’t this another convenient way of not taking responsibility and passing the “hot potato” (or parcel) to children?
To expect children to suddenly become responsible and take care of
the planet is almost like saying the child will rear the parents. Adults
had not thought through the question: how can children ever become
change agents? Children learn by imitating their parents and other
adults around them. Obviously, the children will see adults behaving in
environmentally-irresponsible ways. Children are instructed by adult
teachers who like other adults are incapable of being exemplars or role
models of positive environmental behaviours. Most importantly, children
learn a lot from watching television and what do television’s commercial
breaks teach our children?
When we raised these barriers that may hinder children from becoming
saviours of the planet’s future, the adults nodded their heads in
agreement. This led to a discussion on the kind of society we live in.
Interestingly, many people are highly aware of the kind of society
they live in. Just because they buy things blindly does not mean that
they are not aware of the manipulation through advertising and the real
meaning of discounts given by marketing. Some adults said that we live
in a society and culture where instant gratification is glorified and
sold 24/7 on television, radio, hoardings, and newspapers. Every item is
branded. Every sign and symbol around us exhorts us to give in to our
impulse – to go out and purchase a slice of heaven and experience it
here and now. We are constantly asked to go out and just do it – now;
which simply means – buy it.
On the other hand, pro-environmental actions or behaviours tell us
not to do those things – they require us to withhold our impulses for
instant gratification. Saving the environment inconveniences us. And
environmental behaviours are dissonant with our everyday practices. We
are used to buying things wrapped in plastic, we use various electronic
gadgets in a day; we consume gasoline for travel, and various chemicals
in our houses and on our bodies. We do not walk, ride cycles, use cloth
bags or go out of our way to that one shop in our city that stocks
ecology-friendly soaps and shampoos.
They were almost unanimous in agreement that communication alone is
not sufficient. Communicating to people about the threat to the
environment and about the required pro-environmental behaviours is
necessary but not enough, not sufficient.
So our next question was: What can we really do to change people’s behaviours?
This brought us to the 5th category of responses mentioned above.
Response Five: “If you do not discipline me, then I am less likely to do it.”
Going back to the analogy of the cleaning of the room, adults once
again regressed to being children. The fifth response clearly showed
that they wanted some enforcement or punitive mechanisms. If you want me
to clean my room there cannot be just communication or even a carrot;
there has to be a stick as well. Most importantly, if I am the child
asked to clean the room, I should also perceive the parent as being
strong enough to wield the stick if I do not comply, otherwise the stick
is meaningless.
Society-level actions are required, better policy and strong, strict
enforcement of that policy. One person gave us a graphic demonstration
of how the plastic sachet he threw on the road would end up in the open
gutters and then in the rivers or oceans and kill the fish or other
organisms. And he said he would probably keep doing it until he was
fined heavily (at least once) or even sent to jail. Strict enforcement
of a policy makes people perceive that government is serious about the
issue and that the issue itself is a serious one.
For the success stories of strict enforcement people cited the
examples of seat-belts, speeding laws, pollution control enforcement for
cars, and payment of income taxes. Many of them said that a car is
pulled up for not paying registration fees, or if the driver does not
have a license or if seatbelts are not worn. The driver or owner of the
car pays heavy fines and then complies with the required behaviour (at
least for a few months afterwards). They also cited the case of income
taxes – and how it is the fear of being punished that often makes people
pay taxes.
Most people said that if plastics are indeed bad for the environment
then there should be a ban on their production in the first place.
Companies that produce electronic gadgets should find a way to either
reduce toxic metals or chemicals in the product or factor in the cost of
disposal. People seem to know that the environment is suffering
collateral damage for two reasons: one is the over-consumption of
environment-unfriendly goods and products; and second is that the price
of damage to the environment is not factored into the prices of these
good or items. They alluded to the fact that these extra costs of saving
the environment could be added to the price of simple goods such as
soaps, shampoos, electronic gadgets, mobile phones and so on. Some even
said there could be a gradient of environmental add-on costs starting
from low add-on costs for those that cause less damage to high add-on
costs for those goods that cause severe damage to the environment.
However, they also agreed that it would increase prices and most of
them did not want to pay a higher price for any product or gadget. This
brought out the collusion that exists in today’s society between the
producer and the consumer. And the environment continues to suffer the
collateral damage. And we are postponing the payment of that
environmental cost into the future – in time – when our children become
adults.
Then, aren’t we as adults only playing hot-potato with Mother Nature and passing the parcel of a damaged Earth to our children?
*******************
We finally asked:
How can we make these adult-children become adults again and take responsibility for the planet, for Mother Earth?
The answer that emerged from people’s response is what we would like to term as “Communi-Action.”
Not communication – but communi-action.
What do we mean by communi-action?
The responses to the question on the future of pro-environmental
behaviours, especially cognizant that adults respond like children when
it comes to saving the environment, was a combination of two things.
First, they said that to encourage people to act pro-environmentally
more high quality interactions are required between the different
players – the families, communities, local government, civil society
agencies, industry and national government. People complained that there
is no such democratic platform where people can air their views on
environmental problems freely; and most importantly a platform that was
directed towards positive actions and behaviours that could help create a
better environment for that town or city.
All that people got were slanging matches on news channels and empty
promises and full bottles of alcohol during elections. A platform for
communication that is action-directed was needed at local levels. When
asked who would do this, almost everyone responded that it was the
governments’ job. If a non-governmental agency did it, they might even
be successful, but because of the success it would soon be discredited
by government and the paid media. People had a lot of hopes from their
democratic governments despite their general cynicism about it. They
also cited the fact that the government regularly takes taxes for waste
disposal but the work is not done. They were openly asking for open,
accountable government with a local platform to ensure that this system
worked. People were willing to give up their own privileges if such a
system was created. However, the condition was that it must work and
work consistently, not just be a flash-in-the-pan movement. People were
not asking for bigger government or a nanny-state, they were asking for
effective governance and local participation. Isn’t that an ideal of
democracy? However, it seemed ironic to us that India proudly calls
itself the largest democracy in the world by displaying its elections.
But, the people of the largest democracy, which means power of, by, for,
and to the people, were strangely powerless. And like children were
asking for someone, some superhero, to clean up their government and
restore their people’s democracy.
Or was the child (adult) daring the father (government) to clean up the house before asking him to clean his room?
Second, they said that any communication on pro-environmental
behaviours had to be backed-up with actions by the government. For
instance if the communication material (Television advertisement) told
people not to use plastics, then the communication had to be backed by
actions such as a strict enforcement of the ban on plastic, strict ban
on production of plastics or imposing heavy fines on such producers and
polluters. Government actions had to be clear, had to be enforced
strictly and consistently. Government could not be lax towards
industries and sellers while telling people that using plastics was bad
on their part. After all, an individual citizen did not sign the licence
for a polluting factory; it was the government official under the
protection and banner of the government that allowed these polluters to
set up shop. Wasn’t it the responsibility of those that allowed
polluters to start their business to also ensure that they stopped
polluting?
A few adults clearly told us that they were asked to separate waste
in their kitchens and put it in separate bins. They did it; diligently
separating the organic waste and recyclable waste. However, they would
see the garbage collector (assigned by the government) openly mixing
those bags and dumping their contents in the back of the same truck. So,
what was the point of the communication about separating household
waste?
According to people, saving the environment requires both the
‘communication’ and the necessary demonstration of enforced ‘actions’ by
the government. “Communi-Action” would, thus, serve two
purposes: it would make the communication messaging more potent and the
government or policy-maker more believable and credible. This
combination was more likely to cause actual pro-environmental behaviour
change.
Were these adult-children of Mother Earth telling us was that they wanted consistent parenting (with the government seen as a parent)?
Or were these adult-children once again passing the hot potato?
One elderly man said: When we go to war against a perceived enemy
country, we do not hold back, do we? If the government is serious about
it, many citizens voluntarily give up privileges so that the country can
fight the war; many industries are asked to give up privileges –
airlines stop flying to certain parts, media does not cover certain
issues, howsoever sensational, and so on. If our government takes up the
environment issue on a war-footing then things will fall into place.
Many adults will willingly start engaging in pro-environmental
behaviours. The idea of a war makes us believe that the government is
serious and so everyone takes it seriously and then changes are forced
upon people and they comply. If the environment is truly as seriously
damaged as we think then isn’t it time to go to war for Mother Earth?
However, the people in the house were divided; some were making money
out of creating the mess in the room; a lot more were having fun with
the mess, and therefore no child wanted to clean up the room. And the
house suffered, but who cared as long as the (consumption) party went
on…
As we walked away we thought the only problem here is that we have to go to war with ourselves? And does a child have the stomach to go to war with himself?
******************
© Nilesh Chatterjee & Dharmendra Singh, 2013.
Copyright:
All copyright belongs to the author(s). The Essayist does not claim
copyright over any of the materials published in this website. If you
want to use any material, please contact the author or contact
Essayist.in to get author’s contact details.
In this case, the authors have given permission for the material to
be used for free or as open access materials provided they are cited
accurately; and the following will appear at the end of the article that
cites this piece.
This is an Open Access Article and is to be cited as follows:
© Nilesh Chatterjee & Dharmendra Singh. Playing Hot Potato (Pass
the Parcel) with Mother Nature: Who will save the environment and How?
The Essayist July 2013. http://www.essayist.in/2013/07/PasstheParcel-Environment
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are properly cited. To view a copy of this license,
visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
References:
Climate Crisis in South Asia
Hot Potato (Pass the Parcel) Game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_potato_(game)
Our response to this very interesting article we found at the essayist.in
http://socialphysicsinstitute.blogspot.gr/2013/07/the-suicidal-organism-and-cells.html
Our response to this very interesting article we found at the essayist.in
http://socialphysicsinstitute.blogspot.gr/2013/07/the-suicidal-organism-and-cells.html
No comments:
Post a Comment