Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Green politicians use airlines, and Danes don't like it.
In Denmark, we've had another minor debacle about this hypocrisy. This time, Theresa Scavenius - who I happen to really like - has flown a lot from Aalborg to Copenhagen over the last two years, and it's been published in a fringe online newspaper. As she is basically a one issue politician, being all about changing climate policy, this has caused a minor stir, for now. She herself brought the news to attention and said, well yea, people fly. She states in her response upfront that individual actions don't change much. Policy does. The individualization of climate responsibility is a dangerous one, particularly because it doesn't work. Individual action is infinitisemal compared to the structure of Western industry and consumption, which governments repeatingly enable, actively. This doesn't take away from the hard work people do to recycle, use public transit, buy green-ish products, and such - because it is hard work. I used to be a vegetarian with a vegan girlfriend. We were doing all these things, never flying, only buying what I thought was as feasible as possible, and it took a lot of work just orienting myself in this whole mess. But in the end, what I and my ex did does not really matter.
Let's take a step back for a bit. Theresa Scavenius is an interesting character. She used to have a comfortable life doing university research on climate policy. Since little changed and she felt like she was yelling at a wall (even if it was calm, constructive yelling), she decided to go into politics to try and actually make a difference. She joined Radikale Venstre (Social Liberals), switched to Alternativet shortly after it formed (new party, basically Green Party), then made her own party, Momentum, after Alternativet had some major issues with a power scramble, and then after Alternativet had again scrambled and fixed itself, and Momentum failed to get seats, she joined Alternativet again. After the latest election, Scavenius is finally in parliament under Alternativet, and now she can actually get to work. (Alternativet's story is kind of crazy, and would warrant its own thread.) So that's the situation. Scavenius was sick of it and clawed tooth and nail to actually do policy making. I knew about her from back then, and my vote basically followed her when possible. Even to Danes, she's generally obscure.
Four years ago, Scavenius actually wrote an article on this issue. I've decided to quote the abstract here, since the abstract is freely available and sums up her position about individual responsibility:
To a reader, it may seem rhetorically dangerous. I understand. A lot of people, when faced with the difficulty of the climate crisis, throw their hands up in the air, and then continue dirty consumption. What Scavenius wants to do is not complicated. She wants people to vote green, she wants to do real work in changing production so that green is the better option for people, and she wants people to be OK with their situation after production is fixed.
Because the problem is not whether your neighbour is vegan or not. The problem is entrenchment and interdependency of dirty industries that Western governments actively promote. Technology as is has green energy the best option. Governments keep actively investing massively to keep oil alive. Denmark continuously tries to expand its meat industry. All is backed by tax payer money. It's all active policy, it's all subsidies - always were. Scavenius knows that our massive carbon footprint is a choice, but not a choice by my vegan ex, it's particularly and dwarfingly a choice of governance. It's investments and handholding by dirty industries. It would be a nice world if people all went vegan, if they all moved to houses with green energy, if they all bought green products - but they aren't. People are, mostly, aware of the issues, but even those with inclinations will spend an incredible amount of time finding obscure shops, checking and rechecking opaque production lines, only to make practically no difference. Practically, just telling people to individually go vegan if they want a vegan world, does not work in the face of governments that are handholding dirty industries, actively trying to trounce what could be good consumption.
And this brings us back to the planes. Politicians fly a lot. They just do. There's a lot to be done very quickly when campaigning and making policy, in places all over the world. When we travel for leisure, we also fly. It's the fastest, and often cheapest, unless you know where to look. The industrial web is as such, as an active choice, it's the material case - making sure fuel is cheap, lining out production for the planes, tax breaks for the airlines, throttling unions (whether actively or because of inaction). Scavenius doesn't want this.
Like, can a smoker be for a hard ban on smoking without being a hypocrite? I think most people would think, yes, a smoker could be for such a ban. Whether a ban on smoking would be feasible or not (criminalizing drugs usually doesn't work), one emotionally understands the practicality of being a smoker, the material conditions and dependency that's in this weird space of part-enforcement-part-punishment under the government, that it's due to commercial interests that we're in a culture creating addicts. There's generally a more innate connection to the material and cultural conditions that created the smoker to begin with, and one can understand the smoker's wish to just be stripped of their ability to get the drug. In extension, I don't think people actually have the same, innate understanding of the interwoven nature of their dirty creature comforts. (And sidenote, having the public be aware of what smoking entailed was a huge deal historically, with the tobacco companies clawing tooth and nail to give people cancer.)
Do you eat meat? Do you buy any electronics? Do you drive a car? Do you buy fruit? Do you recycle? Oh you do! Are you aware that most recycling is not recycled further down the line? Yes? Then you're morally square, not practically, but let's move on. Do you buy clothes from H&M? No? You buy from a local green clothes shop for 10X the price? Have you checked the whole product line, each associated company, digging into affiliates online, knowing how it's transported from production to production to production to your local area? Good. Anyways. Do you drink coffee? Do you have internal heating in your house? Do you use straws, cans, bottles? Do your food products come in any sort of container? Do you ever buy from McDonald's? What kind of paper do you use for your printer? Do you take the bus for a few minutes or walk for an hour? Do you buy from Nestlé? Do you know what you buy that Nestlé actually owns? Do you watch videos online? [etc.] Do you fly?
- If any of these, you can't actually be for change, can you? You hypocrite. I'm gonna ignore your qualms and level this forest over here.
- If none of these: unironically, I'm impressed and I applaud you. But I question its material consequences, because the difficulty of this consumption is intentional - not personally intentional, but structurally so - and it will be difficult for everyone else. We're living in an active, industrial choice, vested interests of companies, not because they're good for us, but because they don't want to die out.
Again, I don't want to minimize the work and awareness one does as an ethical consumer. For God's sake, keep doing it. I'm just saying that the material impact is infinitesimal and the cultural impact, while there, is ephemereal and uncertain. All while the Danish government, at least, invests absurd amounts of money in pigs and oil. Much more than you'll ever earn, so that others will spend their earnings on that.
.
So, the god damn airplanes.
Hypocrisy like this matters. Not because of its material situation, but because people do care about public performance. Detractors don't like it, because they don't like green policy, and think hypocrisy a proof they are right, that there is no alternative. Supporters don't like it, because it takes away from the purism. It can be said that it's rhetorically bad to follow dirty consumption patterns this way. And I have some ambivalence and sympathy as to thi.
There's just two issues as to whether this is rhetorically bad.
Firstly, the issue of practicality. Opponents will keep flying, green advocates would basically have to live in trains if they were to abandon flight. It's practical kneecapping, interestingly enough in the favor of dirty policy makers, which none of the detractors seem to have any issue with. Time is removed as an equalizer in favor of money (and is, instead, schewed towards dirty industry).
Secondly, the issue that this is just all spin. Flight is particularly in the public consciousness as a dirty industry, but the moment it's not useful anymore as a rhetorical device, the issue will switch to any other dirty consumption pattern. Pick any from the list above. If green advocates communally stopped flying, it wouldn't change the "outings", since basically all consumption is interwoven in dirty industry. And a person that completely opts out, moving into the woods, and making their own isolated, green system, abandoning the internet, etc., they can't really make policy.
The issue, rather, is... What can be done? For Scavenius, I like her views, but she's not really a great negotiator, and she doesn't seem to well embrace the emotional element of politics. She has switched parties a lot, has a very academic approach to what she says, and I know that she is often experienced as shrill. (There's a host of issues with this that I don't have the energy going into, let me just say that I don't like her being received like she is.) I think her as a situation points to some of the issue here. Again, she believes the solution is to vote green and have green parties push through green policy. But it has an emotional component - people will need to want to vote green. That green politicians fly reveals the hypocrisy of the whole situation, and people don't like it. But they don't like it for the wrong reasons. They don't like it because of the apparent hypocrisy, and because of the purism, instead of not liking it, because, like, air travel shouldn't be like that in Denmark. And here's a politician who wants to change that fact.
So my position & question is more... We can't do anything but embrace hypocrisy. Detractors can only point towards it, since it's ingrained in active policy making. So, rather, the question isn't how to abandon hypocrisy, but how do we talk about it, so we can remove its material conditions? How do we rhetorically navigate the doomscape?
For me, just trying to outline the above is my way of talking about it. Some people will listen to me, for some reason. But my way of ranting doesn't quite reach Brian in Ringkøbing. And I'm not sure Scavenius' academics will speak much to Søren Swineheard.
Notes on this thread:
This is a thread about public performance by climate policy makers, not:
Let's focus, please.
In Denmark, we've had another minor debacle about this hypocrisy. This time, Theresa Scavenius - who I happen to really like - has flown a lot from Aalborg to Copenhagen over the last two years, and it's been published in a fringe online newspaper. As she is basically a one issue politician, being all about changing climate policy, this has caused a minor stir, for now. She herself brought the news to attention and said, well yea, people fly. She states in her response upfront that individual actions don't change much. Policy does. The individualization of climate responsibility is a dangerous one, particularly because it doesn't work. Individual action is infinitisemal compared to the structure of Western industry and consumption, which governments repeatingly enable, actively. This doesn't take away from the hard work people do to recycle, use public transit, buy green-ish products, and such - because it is hard work. I used to be a vegetarian with a vegan girlfriend. We were doing all these things, never flying, only buying what I thought was as feasible as possible, and it took a lot of work just orienting myself in this whole mess. But in the end, what I and my ex did does not really matter.
Let's take a step back for a bit. Theresa Scavenius is an interesting character. She used to have a comfortable life doing university research on climate policy. Since little changed and she felt like she was yelling at a wall (even if it was calm, constructive yelling), she decided to go into politics to try and actually make a difference. She joined Radikale Venstre (Social Liberals), switched to Alternativet shortly after it formed (new party, basically Green Party), then made her own party, Momentum, after Alternativet had some major issues with a power scramble, and then after Alternativet had again scrambled and fixed itself, and Momentum failed to get seats, she joined Alternativet again. After the latest election, Scavenius is finally in parliament under Alternativet, and now she can actually get to work. (Alternativet's story is kind of crazy, and would warrant its own thread.) So that's the situation. Scavenius was sick of it and clawed tooth and nail to actually do policy making. I knew about her from back then, and my vote basically followed her when possible. Even to Danes, she's generally obscure.
Four years ago, Scavenius actually wrote an article on this issue. I've decided to quote the abstract here, since the abstract is freely available and sums up her position about individual responsibility:
A prominent argument in the climate ethical literature is that individual polluters are responsible for paying the costs of climate change.1 By contrast, I argue that we have reason to excuse individual agents morally for their contributions to climate change. This paper explores some of the possible constraints agents may face when they try to avoid harming the climate, constraints that might be acceptable reasons for excusing people’s contributions to climate change. Two lines of arguments are discussed. The first concerns the soft internal constraint: that democratic citizens do not experience their individual failures as failures per se. In other words, they do not psychologically ‘feel’ they are doing anything wrong.2 The second argument concerns the soft external constraint: a number of studies have shown that many consumers report that while they are concerned about environmental issues, they struggle to translate their concern into green acts.3 Put differently, while individual citizens may think they are morally obliged to avoid harming the climate, they struggle to fulfill these obligations. I argue that these constraints do not constitute reasons for not blaming individual agents. Instead, individual agents can be morally excused for contributing to climate change because external constraints on agency make climate change a case of imperfect duty, that is, a duty that is hard to fulfill.
To a reader, it may seem rhetorically dangerous. I understand. A lot of people, when faced with the difficulty of the climate crisis, throw their hands up in the air, and then continue dirty consumption. What Scavenius wants to do is not complicated. She wants people to vote green, she wants to do real work in changing production so that green is the better option for people, and she wants people to be OK with their situation after production is fixed.
Because the problem is not whether your neighbour is vegan or not. The problem is entrenchment and interdependency of dirty industries that Western governments actively promote. Technology as is has green energy the best option. Governments keep actively investing massively to keep oil alive. Denmark continuously tries to expand its meat industry. All is backed by tax payer money. It's all active policy, it's all subsidies - always were. Scavenius knows that our massive carbon footprint is a choice, but not a choice by my vegan ex, it's particularly and dwarfingly a choice of governance. It's investments and handholding by dirty industries. It would be a nice world if people all went vegan, if they all moved to houses with green energy, if they all bought green products - but they aren't. People are, mostly, aware of the issues, but even those with inclinations will spend an incredible amount of time finding obscure shops, checking and rechecking opaque production lines, only to make practically no difference. Practically, just telling people to individually go vegan if they want a vegan world, does not work in the face of governments that are handholding dirty industries, actively trying to trounce what could be good consumption.
And this brings us back to the planes. Politicians fly a lot. They just do. There's a lot to be done very quickly when campaigning and making policy, in places all over the world. When we travel for leisure, we also fly. It's the fastest, and often cheapest, unless you know where to look. The industrial web is as such, as an active choice, it's the material case - making sure fuel is cheap, lining out production for the planes, tax breaks for the airlines, throttling unions (whether actively or because of inaction). Scavenius doesn't want this.
Like, can a smoker be for a hard ban on smoking without being a hypocrite? I think most people would think, yes, a smoker could be for such a ban. Whether a ban on smoking would be feasible or not (criminalizing drugs usually doesn't work), one emotionally understands the practicality of being a smoker, the material conditions and dependency that's in this weird space of part-enforcement-part-punishment under the government, that it's due to commercial interests that we're in a culture creating addicts. There's generally a more innate connection to the material and cultural conditions that created the smoker to begin with, and one can understand the smoker's wish to just be stripped of their ability to get the drug. In extension, I don't think people actually have the same, innate understanding of the interwoven nature of their dirty creature comforts. (And sidenote, having the public be aware of what smoking entailed was a huge deal historically, with the tobacco companies clawing tooth and nail to give people cancer.)
Do you eat meat? Do you buy any electronics? Do you drive a car? Do you buy fruit? Do you recycle? Oh you do! Are you aware that most recycling is not recycled further down the line? Yes? Then you're morally square, not practically, but let's move on. Do you buy clothes from H&M? No? You buy from a local green clothes shop for 10X the price? Have you checked the whole product line, each associated company, digging into affiliates online, knowing how it's transported from production to production to production to your local area? Good. Anyways. Do you drink coffee? Do you have internal heating in your house? Do you use straws, cans, bottles? Do your food products come in any sort of container? Do you ever buy from McDonald's? What kind of paper do you use for your printer? Do you take the bus for a few minutes or walk for an hour? Do you buy from Nestlé? Do you know what you buy that Nestlé actually owns? Do you watch videos online? [etc.] Do you fly?
- If any of these, you can't actually be for change, can you? You hypocrite. I'm gonna ignore your qualms and level this forest over here.
- If none of these: unironically, I'm impressed and I applaud you. But I question its material consequences, because the difficulty of this consumption is intentional - not personally intentional, but structurally so - and it will be difficult for everyone else. We're living in an active, industrial choice, vested interests of companies, not because they're good for us, but because they don't want to die out.
Again, I don't want to minimize the work and awareness one does as an ethical consumer. For God's sake, keep doing it. I'm just saying that the material impact is infinitesimal and the cultural impact, while there, is ephemereal and uncertain. All while the Danish government, at least, invests absurd amounts of money in pigs and oil. Much more than you'll ever earn, so that others will spend their earnings on that.
.
So, the god damn airplanes.
Hypocrisy like this matters. Not because of its material situation, but because people do care about public performance. Detractors don't like it, because they don't like green policy, and think hypocrisy a proof they are right, that there is no alternative. Supporters don't like it, because it takes away from the purism. It can be said that it's rhetorically bad to follow dirty consumption patterns this way. And I have some ambivalence and sympathy as to thi.
There's just two issues as to whether this is rhetorically bad.
Firstly, the issue of practicality. Opponents will keep flying, green advocates would basically have to live in trains if they were to abandon flight. It's practical kneecapping, interestingly enough in the favor of dirty policy makers, which none of the detractors seem to have any issue with. Time is removed as an equalizer in favor of money (and is, instead, schewed towards dirty industry).
Secondly, the issue that this is just all spin. Flight is particularly in the public consciousness as a dirty industry, but the moment it's not useful anymore as a rhetorical device, the issue will switch to any other dirty consumption pattern. Pick any from the list above. If green advocates communally stopped flying, it wouldn't change the "outings", since basically all consumption is interwoven in dirty industry. And a person that completely opts out, moving into the woods, and making their own isolated, green system, abandoning the internet, etc., they can't really make policy.
The issue, rather, is... What can be done? For Scavenius, I like her views, but she's not really a great negotiator, and she doesn't seem to well embrace the emotional element of politics. She has switched parties a lot, has a very academic approach to what she says, and I know that she is often experienced as shrill. (There's a host of issues with this that I don't have the energy going into, let me just say that I don't like her being received like she is.) I think her as a situation points to some of the issue here. Again, she believes the solution is to vote green and have green parties push through green policy. But it has an emotional component - people will need to want to vote green. That green politicians fly reveals the hypocrisy of the whole situation, and people don't like it. But they don't like it for the wrong reasons. They don't like it because of the apparent hypocrisy, and because of the purism, instead of not liking it, because, like, air travel shouldn't be like that in Denmark. And here's a politician who wants to change that fact.
So my position & question is more... We can't do anything but embrace hypocrisy. Detractors can only point towards it, since it's ingrained in active policy making. So, rather, the question isn't how to abandon hypocrisy, but how do we talk about it, so we can remove its material conditions? How do we rhetorically navigate the doomscape?
For me, just trying to outline the above is my way of talking about it. Some people will listen to me, for some reason. But my way of ranting doesn't quite reach Brian in Ringkøbing. And I'm not sure Scavenius' academics will speak much to Søren Swineheard.
Notes on this thread:
This is a thread about public performance by climate policy makers, not:
- whether parliamental climate action is possible or useful
- whether it's an issue of capitalism (because yes, it is). I'm as red as you are, but we're not having a revolution within five years. These are the cards that we are dealt right now
- whether it's actually good for the climate to fly (even if, yes, there are instances where it is, such as the airline from Copenhagen to Rønne)
- whether the climate crisis is real
Let's focus, please.
Last edited: