In this extract from his new book, George Marshall challenges us to think differently about climate change before we take the “Carbon Detox”.

I have to make a confession. When I hear people talk about climate change I often find myself alternating between despair and boredom. Most of what I see in the newspapers, in scientific presentations and in the information leaflets of government or green groups leaves me unmoved and unmotivated. I have dedicated my life to this issue, but only because I have worked hard to use my own imagination and create my own storyline. And if the standard communication leaves me cold, it can’t be doing much for anyone else.

I want to encourage you to abandon the usual messages about the things you can do to prevent climate change. I don’t ask you to ‘save the planet’. I don’t pretend that small, easy steps will ‘make a difference’. I want you to be true to what you know and believe and to change the way you think before you change the way you live.

Counting carbon

Consider your contribution to climate change as weight, as something that can be measured precisely and down to the last gramme. You can shift it around from one activity to another and choose which bit you want to drop first, but your objective must be to drop as much of it as you can.

 
No other problem can be measured in this way.You could never measure your personal contribution to the torture of political prisoners, land mines in Cambodia or stockpiles of nuclear weapons. With climate change you can consider your results and make direct and completely valid comparisons.You can say, ‘this year I made half the contribution to climate change that I made last year’.

Why “small steps” make little difference

Last month my local council posted a green magazine through my door that asks householders to ‘do your bit to save the planet’. It lists a standard set of actions, all of which are phrased as sacrifices – giving things up, doing with less and turning things down – and then assures us that these small personal actions can really ‘make a difference’.

 
Local residents also offered their own tips for low-carbon living. First prize goes to Mrs Roberts who suggests that we turn off the lights when we watch television, as we already have enough light from the TV. Great idea, Mrs Roberts. Sitting in the dark will inspire a lot of people.

And you can find similar things all over the place: on the television, in magazines, in a plethora of new books full of green lifestyle tips. All of these articles have the same formulae. First, they state that there is a huge global problem. Then they tell people that they have a moral responsibility to take personal actions to stop it.

And then they give a list of such actions that are so small and trivial as to appear largely pointless. I don’t doubt the sincerity and good intentions that lie behind them, but I have come to the conclusion that these lists of tips are ineffective and often counterproductive.

First of all, telling people that very small measures can resolve a huge problem is neither honest nor plausible. This trivializes the overall problem and makes us think that maybe it is not such a big deal after all. Putting trivial measures alongside alarmist warnings - headlines such as ‘Twenty things you can do to save the planet from destruction’ - can lead people to mock and reject the very notion of climate change.

Second, these lists are misleading because they encourage you to think of different actions as being equally important. A typical list will suggest that you never use a new plastic bag and fly less, even though the comparative impact of each is hugely different.

There is something very wrong

Clearly there is something very wrong with a list of personal actions that lumps together actions that have a one thousand-fold variation in effectiveness.
This is highly misleading and encourages people to adopt a trivial behaviour change and believe that they are being effective.

The truth is that there may be lots of good reasons for recycling your plastic bags - but they make doodly squat difference to climate change. An average plastic bag produces 31 grammes of carbon dioxide, about the same as comes from driving my car 300 feet. Once put within the context of our overall emissions, plastic bags are virtually irrelevant.

I’m sorry to tell you, but adopting some diversionary good behaviour is a classic psychological strategy of people who don’t want to face up to facts. In the case of climate change, this innate tendency is actively encouraged by all those articles that outline some catastrophic climate impacts and then provide a box of  ‘small easy things you can do now to make a difference’.

Organisations are also prone to absurd token activity. My favourite example is Virgin Airlines. In 2006 they announced the first step towards reducing the climate impacts of their transatlantic flights: planting trees to soak up the emissions of the limousines that pick up their first-class air passengers.

Although they smell like cynical publicity stunts, I suspect that the real intended audience is the company’s own employees. After all, most people want to believe their work is worthwhile and making a positive contribution to the world.

The lesson is that you need to keep everything in perspective. There are strong and accurate objective measures of our climate impacts and it is these that should guide our actions. The only thing that counts is the carbon bottom line.

Say no to sackcloth

Dropping the carbon is not a penance. First of all, let’s be clear – light living is not about becoming a climate saint: it is about doing things differently. People who are living light will choose very different ways to live, and nowhere is this more evident than in the area of treats. Treats are those occasional splurges that are fun, memorable and give you pleasure. Who would ever want to live in a world without them?

 
Treats may be extravagant, wasteful and decadent – that is what makes them treats, after all. It is the habitual ‘heavy’ behaviour that racks up the emissions, not the rare treat.  Driving around the corner to buy a sandwich because it’s raining and you don’t want to get wet is not good for you or the world, but easy and handy once in a while.

Green literature is scathing about unnecessary local car trips. They create congestion and urban pollution and make roads unsafe for children. I agree, and I recommend that you ditch the car. But in terms of the carbon bottom line it is habitual, long-distance driving that is the problem, so let’s get our priorities right.

Even if I ran a Ferrari Testarossa round a racetrack at full whack for 20 minutes I would still only have burned as much petrol as I would driving our sluggish Volvo estate to visit my mum. Come on kids, which one would you rather do?

Stop trying to ‘save the planet’

Finally, you should not believe that it is your responsibility to ‘save the planet’ or ‘stop climate change’. These are slogans to put on banners, not arguments for individuals. I want to say this to everyone, including the most dedicated greens: “Please don’t do this to ‘save the planet’”.

Of course, your actions contribute to the huge shift we will all make; you will be a positive role model; your purchases will send a signal through the markets. But you need to do it for the right reasons. If you are changing the way you live out of guilt or fear, then you are setting yourself up for a fall. Your reasons for changing must be more personal.

 
You are not going to give anything up. This is not a loss, it’s a gain. As we detox, we are not going to give anything up: we are going to do things differently. Do it because you don’t want to contribute any more to a major problem that will hurt people. Do it because it is the smart 21st-century thing to do. Do it because you want to do it.

George Marshall is Director of the Climate Outreach and Information Network (www.coinet.org.uk). His blog www.climatedenial.org explores the psychology of why are we doing so little about climate change.

From Ethical Consumer, Issue 111, March/April 2008