Why do we individually struggle to engage with the Ecological crisis?

As this is the first blog post for ESGjourney.info, I thought why not start with a big topic. As a good friend of mine says, “ if you’re going to be a bear, be a Grizzly”. Great, if you’ve still got a forest to live in!

While the primary focus of this site is to help others take steps towards more purpose led careers in sustainability, efforts to drive change from within the organisations that produce our goods and services would be greatly accelerated with a reciprocal and collaborative cultural demand from all of us as consumers. As we’ve all experienced when trying to rearrange our own environments, moving a heavy object requires not only pushing from one end but pulling from the other.

The science supporting climate change is clear and now rarely disputed. In our tangible world around us we can easily witness the effects of being surrounded by plastic waste and we are still reliant on pollution and greenhouse gas emitting fuels, even when there are credible and cheaper renewable alternatives. Why do we struggle to move to address this even when many people would most likely agree that there’s not an option to go on as we are?

Firstly, it’s important to define the ‘we’. To keep this simple, let’s define the ‘we’ as:

1. Us. You and me, consumers, voters & investors.

2. Government. Policy and law makers, enforcers, and servants of the Us.

3. Commerce. Businesses small to multinational, supply chains, producers, financiers & services.

For this article I’m going to focus on the first group. All of us, me and you, for the most part citizens and members of society. Of course, the other two groups are completely comprised of the first group, although with distinctly different actions and goals than those of being an individual. I’m sure there’s going to be plenty to discuss about groups two and three in later blogs as well as the threads that interconnect them.

There are many pressing ecological issues – we’ve never had so much choice of what to be worried about, and that may be part of the problem! Like trying to find that perfect pair of shoes from the many options in the store, too many things to focus on can cause no action at all! Let’s make it a bit easier and use these three headline issues as the context:

• The effects of Human actions on the levels of Greenhouse Gasses in the atmosphere, which is linked to climate change.

• The proliferation of non-biodegradable & toxic waste in our environment.

• Deforestation and loss of biodiversity in our natural world.

So, what specifically is it about the ecological crisis we are facing that means we struggle to act, or is it just human nature to procrastinate in the face of overwhelming challenges? I wonder how society would react if, tomorrow, astronomers discovered that there was an asteroid, large enough to cause significant destruction, on a collision path with the earth that would impact in 500 years time? Would we rush into action now, designing and constructing a method to eliminate the threat, using the time we have to best effect, or would we wait – expecting that following generations will come up with the solution closer to the time?

With many options open to us as consumers to either adjust how reliant we are on non-renewable resources or reduce our impact on the environment, why do so many of us not take personal action?

I would love to hear your views on the reasons, here’s a few that come to mind:

As an individual, any improvement I make is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. There’s no point making an extra effort.

I sympathise with this view. It does feel like the scale and complexity of the crisis is so large that the goodness from any one person’s efforts will be so small in comparison that it’s almost not worth trying. It’s not helped by the way the situation tends to be reported as a global-only issue that needs a global solution to start to move the needle. When was the last time you saw a positive news report on T.V about local efforts on the environment? I’ve also seen passionate supporters of environmental change use the same narrative (with the best of intentions) to try to force the issue away from individual action to where they believe it will have the most chance of rapid remedy (government and commerce). But we need to be careful not to disempower individual efforts. Many great positive changes came about by the actions of smaller collectives of people. Influence for change that comes from positive shifts in culture do emerge this way, if enough of us demand it.

I wanted to get another perspective on this, so I reached out to Maria Wills of Green Center Coaching. Maria is a professional life coach and, amongst other skills, helps people find their purpose. She commented, “ We may think that because I am one person, one individual, what difference can I make? This tends to be because we forget our potential. We are not powerless beings at the mercy of our fate, although sometimes when we can't control an outcome, we may feel that way. If we want to change something, whether is a change in our own life or something we want to improve, that change first needs to start within. Ask yourself 'What is important to you and why?' This question helps you to understand your values and if these values are inclusive of others or only benefit you.

When we remember that we are all connected and our thoughts, emotions and actions have an impact beyond ourselves, that awareness is empowering because it helps us realise we always have a choice. The choice could be that we can look at how we can make a difference in our own way, even if it's a small step we can take that is more supportive to the environment around us and not adding to the problem.

We can't control everything but we can surely make a difference with what is within our own control. And it begins with making more aware and conscious choices in our day to day life, what our impact is and how we treat each other and our planet. That is something we can surely do”.

I’m not supposed to do anything about it. It’s the job of Government to fix it.

This might be true in an ideal world, but it’s rarely that simple. With so many competing factors and objectives, governments are going to struggle to be the pace-setters in this space. For them, finding a balance between a multitude of requirements takes time, negotiation, and compromise. If we wait for this, it may be too late. It’s not a criticism, but a situation we need to be mindful of. If something feels like the right thing to do, do we really need to wait to be told to do it before making our own changes?

We’re sick of hearing about it. It’s depressing and it’s just too much to handle.

I hear this, loud and clear. Climate change especially has almost become white noise. It’s a positive factor that it’s always in the news, but at a level and severity that feels overwhelming to the point that climate-based anxiety affects many people. There’re some wonderful resources available from the Climate Psychology Alliance on this matter which can be found here.

The good news is that there’s many companies and organisations that have dedicated themselves to supporting alternatives to the way we currently act and consume. Sure, finding them and sometimes changing our habits to adjust to working with them can take some small effort, but once you start on this path it becomes a natural way of life. It’s also a great way to overcome that feeling of the situation being too large to handle, with the satisfaction of knowing that even the smallest of actions makes a difference. Start small and build from there, flip the negative in to optimistic, infectious and uplifting actions. Doing good feels good!

We’ve still got plenty of time. I don’t notice too much change – while I think it’s real, it’s not the impending threat we are being told it is.

This feels like a natural human response. Possibly due to how we have evolved, we tend to see, understand and take action against tactical threats far better than those we perceive to be further in the future. If there’s a lion chasing after us, there’s a good chance that avoiding becoming its lunch will be our top priority at that moment. Gradually increasing threats such as climate change do not trigger the same response. Psychology is far beyond my expertise, but if you are interested in this as a reason to why we are not taking the action needed, this article with Harvard psychology professor Daniel Gilbert goes in to more detail. Can we address this ‘in-built’ disposition to place less effort on longer-term issues, or is just being aware of the effect enough?

I really want to help but I don’t know what changes I should make.

Beyond the well-publicised actions of taking less flights, eating less meat and making your home more energy efficient, your further options to reduce your impact can become unclear. There’s plenty of conflicting, biased, or confusing information that muddies potentially positive choices to the point where it feels like you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. One example of this is the decision to switch to an electrically powered vehicle (EV) or not. It seems like a simple choice; you can buy a car that runs on fossil fuels and pollutes, or you can drive a clean electric car. Simple… or is it? When you dig into the details, it’s really difficult to know which is the best choice. An internal combustion powered car will produce harmful emissions, but it may cause less pollution in its construction, may not have so many materials within it that cause social concern from their sourcing, may of had a longer usable lifetime to spread the original carbon investment from its manufacturing over and probably weighs considerably less than an EV, and as such will cause less periphery emissions through actions like fixing broken roads and replacing worn parts such as tyres and brakes. How does this compare with the benefits an EV could bring from its ‘fuel’ being able to be created from 100% renewable and clean sources as well as the reduced need for secondary, environmental impacting, consumables such as engine oil, as well as its main benefit of not producing local emissions?

I’m not trying to tell you to buy an EV or not, the point I’m trying to make is that it’s far from a simple choice and one where, unless you’re an expert in the field, it’s hard to get a proper comparison. It’s the same for many items we purchase. It’s no wonder that many decisions that have positive environmental outcomes aren’t made due to it being so hard to figure out if we’re really doing the right thing. This challenge scales all the way down to your dinner table as you try to figure out if it’s better to purchase locally sourced beef vs fruit and vegetables that are shipped to you from around the world?

There’s an urgent need for a simpler way to understand the environmental impacts and virtues of the products we purchase – maybe similar to the way some food packaging has a traffic light system for sugars and fats, there could be a standard labelling for the amount of CO2 or deforestation that was needed to put that shiny new phone in your hand? Would that change our habits as consumers? In the meantime, we all need to scrutinise and research the impact of our major choices the best we can.

I’m already recycling plastics from my purchases, isn’t this enough?

It’s great that this is being done and the effort is driven by a real want to help with the situation. Recycling is one option to help limit our impact, although care needs to be taken to understand how effective this action really is. How much of the plastic you purchase can actually be recycled, and how many times before it has to become landfill? The next step is to focus on avoidance rather than dealing with the consequences. Are there other ways to get what you require without repeatedly purchasing non-biodegradable containers? This is where the choices available to us become much reduced and further innovation is required from retailers. As with many ESG topics, we also need to be mindful of balance. For example, removing the option for foodstuffs to be wrapped in plastic might significantly reduce the volume of non-biodegradable waste in our environment, but how would this affect the shelf-life of food? Would we then cause an issue with increased food wastage, with items having to be discarded after only a short period in the stores due to spoiling?

I’m not willing to endure a change that might make my life less comfortable.

I thought about writing a compromised answer to this, but the fact is that things are only going to get less comfortable from now on. The choice is to either try to make a difference now, which might allow us to hold on to most things we enjoy to some extent, or do nothing and have no choice in the matter. I would hope that non-action will soon become a social taboo as it has for other damaging activities.

I’m passionate about making changes to support the environment, but the options are too expensive.

While items such as energy have matured to the point where they can be cost competitive (or better) with non-renewable options, many other products have not. It still feels like making green purchases is a luxury. If we consider our basic need for food; while we’re used to the cost of fruit and vegetables, the economics of producing meat alternatives and offering refilling instead of pre-packed mean that they generally cost more. Hopefully the economics of scale will reach a point soon where the volumes consumed will mean that the costs will reduce to comparable levels. If not, it may take legislation to finally address this.

It’s baffling to me (as someone that admittedly knows very little about farming and food production) how buying meat that was produced by an animal (with all the costs of rearing it and feeding it vegetation) can be less expensive than plant-based alternatives – but that generally is the case. Also, with larger items such as solar infrastructure becoming more popular, the subsidies that helped support the early adoption are starting to be removed. This has the effect of limiting availability to the wealthier, but far less numerous members of society, and thus greatly reducing the potential positive impact at scale. This is magnified by downturns in the global and local economies, with green products being amongst the first items that are discarded from our shopping lists. A solution to this is needed if we are going to transition to making sustainable, ethical, and eco-supporting products the bulk of our purchases. Maybe it’s time to reevaluate the true value of what we consume, with the total cost of addressing the damage caused by production fully factored into the end price? Would this help make greener choices the default and as such more affordable? Is there an appetite for this from consumers or would this be a step too far and unachievable without a major shift in world economics?

So, what other barriers do you see that might be preventing individuals from adopting an eco-friendlier lifestyle? Is there one big change that will become the tipping point or is it more about removing the friction in the options that are already available? Do we need to work on even more awareness, or has this already been over-communicated to the point that it’s causing the opposite effect? Or maybe you feel people are doing as much as they can given the constraints they live by? I’d love to get your views...