L OS INSTRUMENTOS PARA LA KOINONÍA : C ARTAS

For people who are committed to living environmentally conscious lives, such as Evans and Abrahamse’s (2009) respondents, there are inevitably contradictions and inconsistencies, because of the temptations of non-sustainable products and

experiences (for example flying for holidays) or because of the many pressures and difficulties involved in going against the mainstream society, for example wanting to eat sustainably but being unable to afford organic food or living where the only organic food available must be bought from big supermarkets and likely to have travelled a long distance. The multiplicity of issues involved makes it a difficult process, fraught with inconsistencies and dilemmas, and trade-offs for some, though some respondents also noted the joys found in living a more simple, healthy and ethical life. Respondents made the point, however, that the inconsistencies and contradictions they face are the result of the structural and social limitations of the society in which they live.

In 2009, the Waterworks Valley community in Hobart, Tasmania, began a project to raise awareness of ways in which individuals and households could reduce their carbon footprint; as part of this project they surveyed (online) a range of sustainable behaviours, with over 400 respondents (Waterworks Community 2010).The group identified ten barriers to more sustainable behaviour: lack of time, for example to grow vegetables or walk children to school; excess disposal income encouraging expenditure on things like overseas trips and unnecessary house renovations; the cheapness of energy; disempowerment, that is the feeling that one can’t make a difference; intangible rewards, that is reducing GHG is invisible; being trapped in consumer culture; technology fixation – the belief that using renewable energy technology means there is no need to reduce consumption; social pressure; and ‘Western individualism’, that is, individual ownership and lack of resource sharing, for example resistance to using public transport. In an addendum to the survey, respondents were asked to identify which of those barriers applied most to them: time poverty was by far the most popular option (around 21 percent) followed by Western individualism (around 17 percent). The study confirms that the kinds of economic, social, cultural and political factors identified in the academic literature and

discussed in Chapter Three are the most significant barriers to more sustainable living, including reducing GHG emissions.

The participants in Szmigin, Carrigan and McEachern’s (2009) study of ‘conscious consumers’ were aware of their consumption choices, yet their decisions were subject to ‘other social and economic forces … (e.g. family, convenience, price) such that positive ethical choices are not always made’ (p. 224). Starting from the position, derived from the literature, that ethical consumers ‘possess strong feelings of obligation and accountability for others that impact on their purchase choices’, the authors point out that flexible decision-making, that is, trading off factors such as price and convenience against ethical factors, creates a situation of dissonance: ‘inconsistency between the self-concept and behaviour’ (p. 226). To maintain their ‘moral and global integrity’, their self-image, consumers then engage in self-

affirmation, rationalising and justifying their behaviour or leaving it unrationalised and affirming some other aspect of their behaviour that supports their self-image.

However, despite most of the study participants freely admitting the inconsistent and contradictory nature of their purchasing decisions, only one

rationalised what he saw as his possible hypocrisy. The authors advance a number of reasons for the lack of self-affirmation in the face of inconsistency with the

respondents’ expressed principles, including that while the respondents were reluctant to ‘take the moral high ground’ they nevertheless felt their behaviour was better than most, so their self-image was not harmed; also that the inconsistencies in their behaviour were simply not considered important enough to create dissonance. The authors conclude that while ‘ethical consumption is indeed embedded in

relationships of obligation’, consumption decisions are part of the ‘complex balance of personal values and daily life’ which vary among the diverse circumstances of

conscious consumers (Szmigin, Carrigan & McEachern 2009, p. 229).

Horton (2006) noted that activists with child-rearing or full-time work responsibilities find it difficult to find the time and space in their lives to continue to participate politically or socially in the green network, leading to ‘a decline in performances of green identity and the gradual disassembly of a green lifestyle’ (Horton, 2006 p. 143). From his observations of the activists’ lives, Horton concludes that there is a certain kind of ‘architecture’ to them, that is, certain structures and resources available to the activists which enable them to live consistently with their political beliefs. Such an architecture is generally only available to those who have the time and who have deliberately sought it out; it is not available to the broader

population due to many social and structural factors, and will need to be made more available if the practice of environmental citizenship is to become more widespread. Wolf, Brown and Conway (2009) refer to the ‘barriers that stem from current socio-cultural norms and structures’ which prevent or discourage even citizens who express a sense of responsibility to act on climate change, from taking measures that lead to substantial emission cuts (p. 518). Such barriers, referred to in numerous studies and discussed in Chapter Three, arise from the way in which modern

industrial society is organised (infrastructure), for example the lack or inconvenience of public transport in many areas and the expense or lack of availability of renewable energy; social, psychological and cultural factors, such as the desire to fit in with the mainstream and the need to keep in touch with family which, especially in large countries like Australia with many immigrants, may mean flying; political and economic factors, such as the fact that flights are so cheap in comparison to other forms of public transport, which are also often not as convenient (Monbiot 2006). These factors, in turn, arise from the political-economic system in which we live, which for the past few decades in Anglo-American countries at least has become increasingly under the sway of neo-liberalism and associated individualisation.

Nash and Lewis (2006), in their examination of the DSP in the context of ecological citizenship, found that the DSP was at its strongest in relation to global issues, whose size and complexity lead people to place their faith in dominant

institutions, as individual action, they reason, will achieve little. When confronted with immediate, local environmental issues, however, people in their study were able to transcend the influence of the DSP – in particular their belief in the ‘techno-fix’ and the liberal political system, that is, that the role of government is not to interfere with the market economy. The economic dimension of the DSP in terms of the respondents’ own lives, however, remained strong, reflecting the important role that individuals’ economic interests play in determining their environmental attitudes. Macnaghten and Urry (1998) and Macnaghten (2003) also emphasise the importance of the connection to people’s everyday lives for them to feel a level of concern which will translate into changed attitudes and actions.