What we are up against
People do care, but the world still looks the same
People are bombarded with mixed messages
What do people want in life?
People hate change, unless they drive it
People are self-centred and short termist
NEXT: Where we might be falling down
People do care, but the world still looks the same
People do care about the environment, that's clear, and many of them are specifically worried about climate change. But, in general, people are not doing much about it... Perhaps the problems don't seem as urgent as environmental campaigners keep telling them they are. After all, people get up in the morning, run the hot water, pour powerful detergent into the washing machine, drive to work, sit in a well heated office while looking forward to their next long-haul holiday, drive home again, eat the wrong sort of fish for supper, put on the dishwasher, turn up the central heating, have another bath and go to bed. All putting pressure on the environment. But when they wake up in the morning and open the curtains, everything is still the same and the trees in the park look just as nice as before, so how can the environment be in such a mess?
Even when awareness of issues is high, people feel helpless. Environment comes within their sphere of concern but they don't see it as within their sphere of influence. In other words, they generally care about it and it might worry them, but they think they themselves can't do anything about it.
People are bombarded with mixed messages
For every piece of information that people receive about the need to do something to help the environment, there must be a hundred promoting the opposite sort of behaviour. There are mixed messages and effective promotion of unsustainable consumption through every facet of society, from adverts in the media, to social status quos, to high street messages, to government policy itself...
For example, while one part of government might exhort us to cut carbon emissions, another is providing more roads and airport runways to enable us to increase them; while a news-feature in a newspaper might highlight new research on climate change, an advert on the next page is pressing us to buy cars and take long-haul flights; while a David Attenborough wildlife programme on BBC1 promotes wonder and respect for the natural environment, a Jeremy Clarkson motoring programme on BBC2 in effect promotes a 'couldn't care less' attitude towards the environment; and while the environmentally friendly washing powder now has a place on the supermarket shelf, it sits side by side with another brand packed full of phosphates and other chemical nasties that promises whiter clothes than ever before.
The popular national newspapers throw an especially large spanner into the environmental machine. They do not take green lifestyle messages seriously and some even actively oppose them; they reinforce the idea of niche and eccentricity. There is a subconscious feeling in most of us that if something is advertised or written about favourably in the newspaper, it must be right, acceptable and normal.
Our free-market and free speech system can legitimise bad messages.
Similarly, when a consumer buys a product or service, they are likely to feel they are transferring responsibility to the manufacturer or provider. After all, isn't it up to them to make sure the farm workers are paid enough money and the countryside isn't damaged by the chemicals they use? And if something really is so bad, why does government allow it anyway?
With such an unregulated free-for-all and conflicting array of messages promoting sustainability and environmentally challenging consumption at the same time, it's no wonder that people are left in a daze. People are genuinely confused as to what's expected of them and what isn't, and what is normal and what is unacceptable.
What do people want in life?
Consumerism runs so deep in modern society it has effectively produced subconscious driving forces that help to steer our behaviour. For many people, a key driving force in life is to accumulate wealth and then spend it, taking full advantage of all the goods and services available. There is often an ingrained presumption that faster is better, that greater consumption leads to greater happiness, and today success is most often judged by material possessions. Probably nearly all of us aspire to do better than we did yesterday in terms of our quality of life. People with children seek a better quality of life for their children than they had themselves and that generally means greater wealth and more consumer goods. Most people, even the well off, also have an in-built mechanism that tells them not to pay over the odds for anything (although pro-actively making savings might require effort and therefore be less of a driving force).
Some of us aspire to explore and try new things, some to keep up with fashions and the lifestyles of others. Others have a preoccupation with achieving a secure, safe home life and are consequently uninterested in issues at a global rather than local level.
People hate change, unless they drive it
We talk in terms of carrots and sticks as though the public literally were donkeys. Treating them as dumb animals that can be pushed and pulled into doing the right thing is probably not the right approach. People need to be taken on a shared journey, not exhorted to do things. It must be a journey based on dialogue between active partners about a shared problem. People hate change, unless they are the ones driving it. No-one likes being told what to do, especially when it comes down to living their private life. Similarly no-one enjoys being badgered. We should not seek to be the environment police, nor the nagging aunt.
People don't like being told not to do something but some might be more receptive to change if presented with ideas for doing new or even just different things, which they might ultimately grow to prefer, if allowed to in their own time.
People are self-centred and short termist
An accurate basic assumption might be that most people are essentially selfish, which is a natural human reaction and indeed a natural evolutionary driving force for any animal. Quality of life for oneself and one's dependants is always a key motivator for anyone. Any benefits from environmental behaviours, and there should be benefits from every environmental behaviour, must be tangible, immediate and specific to the person carrying out the behaviour. Benefits at the society level are unlikely to be a driver of change. Similarly long term benefits are unlikely to be an incentive. People discount the future: it's too far away.