path: root/chapter1.md

## Chapter 1

Thesis: contemporary green rhetoric is a failure because it mis-diagnoses the
root causes of the problems, fails to identify credible routes to credible
solutions, and fails to identify an appropriate audience.

1. Contemporary green rhetoric (R) is a failure
2. R mis-diagnoses the problem
3. R fails to identify credible routes to credible solutions
4. R fails to identify an audience that can be persuaded to make a difference
5. The material results of R have been dismal

Since the 1990s, the green movement has been on the back foot. There have of
course been many green successes on the local scale. But, in stark contrast to
the 1960s and 1970s, when the green lobby succeeded in delivering strong
government legislation to protect clean air, water, and establish nature
reserves, in the last thirty years, most of the key social-scale demands of the
green movement have not been met, and even some of those earlier successes have
been partially rolled back.

- Tropical deforestation is accelerating
- Plastic pollution is increasing at an accelerating rate
- Public infrastructure is more, not less, car-dependent
- Overfishing is intensifying
- Green New Deal is nowhere to be seen
- Water pollution has gone backwards (in the UK at least)
- Energy transition shows no signs of starting
- Greenhouse gas emissions are increasing at an accelerating rate

All these failures beg the question: why aren't the green movement's strategies
working? In particular, I want to focus on green rhetoric.

Rhetoric, as I'm using the term, refers to an utterance with an agenda. When
green rhetoric works well, it solves a problem relevant to green concerns. In
order to solve the problem, the rhetor must persuade their audience that taking
action is good for them. For that action to be effective in solving the problem,
the rhetor must also address an appropriate audience: that is, an audience that
has or could have the means, motive, and opportunity to solve the relevant
problem. Furthermore, they must present their audience with a credible solution,
and if the solution is to be credible, the rhetor will be best placed if they
have accurately identified the root causes of the problem.

There are problems with dominant green rhetoric from beginning to end of this
process. First, green rhetoric mis-diagnoses the problem. Rhetors imply that the
root cause of green evils is the combined consumption choices of all the world's
individuals.

For example, \[EXAMPLE\]

This idea is further reinforced with the language of 'carbon footprinting.' The
idea seems innocuous enough: tot up the carbon emissions produced in the process
of producing all the goods and services consumed by a person, and you've got
their 'carbon footprint,' their personal contribution to global carbon dioxide
emissions.

WWF-UK offers a popular carbon footprint calculator on their website
[@wwf-footprint-calculator]. I'm promised that although 'our world is in crisis
\[…\] it's up to us to fix it' and I'm encouraged to 'take your first step with
our UK based environmental footprint calculator.' With each question, it ekes on
a little more guilt: how many flights did you take this year? How much did you
spend in your car last week? When's the last time you bought large electricals?
How much do you spend on clothes, or beauty products, in an average month? I did
my best to max out on every question. At the end, I'd chocked up over 39 tonnes
of CO_2. I was duly informed that I was just under four times more evil than the
UK average. Not to worry, I can install their My Footprint App.

> We’ve seen the devastating impact that human activity can have on the natural
> world, but it doesn’t have to be this way. We can build a better world by all
> making small changes in our everyday lives. \[…\] WWF-UK’s My Footprint app is
> your hub for positive change. Using this app is a step in the right direction
> to help our planet and keep you motivated to make sustainable choices.
> [@wwf-my-footprint]

This rhetoric is clear: human beings (that's me) are wreaking havoc, and I am
contributing more than my fair share to the mayhem. But if we all play our part,
by following simple tips to change how we choose to consume goods and services,
together we'll make a big difference. I just need to do my bit.

By calling on people to reduce their 'carbon footprint,' the rhetor suggests
that global carbon dioxide emissions are determined by the aggregation of every
individual's consumption choices, plus a bit extra for whatever can't be
directly linked to consumption. This analysis acknowledges inequality, but only
insofar as people have unequal spending power.

Thus Oxfam, in a report released in the midst of their lobbying at the 2015
Paris COP, stated that 'individual consumption is responsible for 64% of global
emissions, with the remaining 36% attributed to consumption by governments,
investments (e.g. in infrastructure) and international transport,' before
showing that the the poorest half of the world's people only account for 10% of
the world's 'lifestyle emissions.' [@oxfam-extreme-carbon-inequality]

However, this analysis downplays the degree to which consumption is constrained
by production decisions over which most people have no control. As Matthew Huber
puts it:

> Carbon footprint analysis is more deeply rooted in neoclassical economics with
> its particular theory of power in the economy known as "consumer sovereignty."
> Essentially, it assumes consumers drive the economy and production with their
> choices. \[…\] Since consumers have the power to drive production decisions,
> so the analysis goes, we must focus on shaping consumer choices. This is the
> only conceivable rationale for suggesting, as the Oxfam report does, that
> individuals have their own distinct "share" of emissions.
> [@climate-change-class-war, pp. 12-13]

But in reality, consumers are often at the mercy of production decisions. To
borrow Huber's illustration, the villain of the 'carbon footprint' narrative is
a rich consumer, say, someone who has the AC on all day in their spacious
suburban house and drives a over-sized diesel SUV to work. But imagine that
hypothetical rich consumer works in the manager's office of a fertiliser plant,
where one day he is presented with the option of sourcing low-carbon hydrogen
from electrolysis of water instead of extracting the hydrogen from coal. He
decides that the low-carbon alternative is too expensive and will make his
factory uncompetitive, so sticks with the coal. The carbon emissions of the
factory, which might be equivalent to 100,000 American consumers, are not
attributed to the manager of the factory, but to the 'carbon footprint' of the
thousands of consumers eating the food produced at the ultimate end of the
process, even though they are unlikely to have any power or even knowledge over
the manager's decisions. 'This person spends eight hours a day managing this
industrial capitalist enterprise and only perhaps forty minutes commuting to
work—so why do we only pay attention to the latter?' [@climate-change-class-war,
p. 16]

Because they have mis-diagnosed the root causes of the problem, they too often
go on to propose incredible solutions. The worst is simply to cut consumption.
Most of the world's people can't afford to cut back. A little better is
proposing market-based policies like carbon taxes. But there is no credible
route to implementing and sustaining an effective carbon tax, because it is
against the interests of almost everyone. The route green rhetors almost
universally promote is: listen to the science, then act rationally. This denies
the evident fact that society is driven by the private interests of those who
have power, not collective interests; and this is also true of science itself,
which, as we have proven time and time again, is up for sale to the highest
bidder. The spectre of the 'science denier' or 'science fraudster' as the
bogeyman behind all resistance to the collective interest serves only to hide
the real enemy: the powerful private interests that pay him.

Then, the rhetoric fails to properly identify an audience that can make a
difference. In line with its scientistic ideology, it pretends to speak to the
universal human citizen, as if we all have shared interests. But in fact, it
speaks only to the professional-managerial class (PMC). The whole point of the
rhetoric is to fight the interests of capitalists, so of course it doesn't speak
to them. Nor does the condemnation of indulgent over-consumption and the demand
for cutbacks have any way of resonating with the working class.

Yet this rhetoric doesn't even work for the PMC, because it has already failed
to identify a credible route change. The exhortations are addressed to the
universal human collective, or nebulous imaginary entities like 'countries': cut
carbon emissions! Give 'developing countries' money to stop chopping down
rainforests! Fund research! But these recommendations don't come with a credible
route to making them happen. It fails to diagnose why these things are hard to
do, i.e. identify the vested interests that are preventing change, and show how
to fight these vested interests and win.

The action that PMC people have taken so far (alternative consumption, political
protests, banning plastic straws, holding COPs, setting targets) have not been
effective. The result is that PMC people feel powerless.