outsourcing morality
In today's world of RED campaigns*, carbon offset purchases, and fair trade products, it seems easy to feel good about what we're doing.** But can any real good could come of these seemingly selfish, easy and convenient ways of raising money for the poor and "saving the world"?
Special events and galas don't raise that much money after factoring in all expenses, but they do have other effects in terms of raising awareness and recognizing important donors. But does it not seem odd that people come to galas wearing $10,000 gowns when they've only donated $5,000 to the organization or the cause? The RED campaign does not alleviate the injustices of the clothing sweatshop industry, but money is going to help AIDS in Africa right?
Are all these methods still effective and able to do some good because they redirect funds and resources to those who need it? Or do they perpetuate injustice (and perhaps cause more damage) even as they carry the illusion of helping the greater good?***
I stumbled upon an interesting article in Spiked, Is carbon offsetting just eco enslavement?, that criticizes the recent trend of buying carbon offsets. Carbon offsets are a marketing genuis-- they're so wonderfully abstract-- what exactly are they? I don't know. But who cares? They're good for the environment and they'll slow down global warming, right?
Some excerpts from the article:
The details of this carbon-offsetting scheme are disturbing. Cameron offsets his flights by donating to Climate Care. The latest wheeze of this carbon-offsetting company is to provide 'treadle pumps' to poor rural families in India so that they can get water on to their land without having to use polluting diesel power. Made from bamboo, plastic and steel, the treadle pumps work like 'step machines in a gym', according to some reports, where poor family members step on the pedals for hours in order to draw up groundwater which is used to irrigate farmland. These pumps were abolished in British prisons a century ago. It seems that what was considered an unacceptable form of punishment for British criminals in the past is looked upon as a positive eco-alternative to machinery for Indian peasants today.
...
Carbon offsetting is not some cowboy activity, or an aberration, or a distraction from 'true environmentalist goals' - rather it expresses the very essence of environmentalism. In its project of transforming vast swathes of the developing world into guilt-massaging zones for comfortable Westerners, where trees are planted or farmers' work is made tougher and more time-consuming in order to offset the activities of Americans and Europeans, carbon offsetting perfectly captures both the narcissistic and anti-development underpinnings of the politics of environmentalism. Where traditional imperialism conquered poor nations in order to exploit their labour and resources, today's global environmentalist consensus is increasingly using the Third World as a place in which to work out the West's moral hang-ups.
The rise of the carbon-offsetting industry shows that a key driving force behind environmentalism is self-indulgent Western guilt. It is Western consumers' own discomfort with their sometimes lavish lifestyles - with all those holidays, big homes, fast cars and cheap nutritious foods - that nurtures today's green outlook, in which consumption has come to be seen as destructive and a new morality of eco-ethics and offsetting (formerly known as penance) has emerged to deal with it (6). It is no accident that the wealthiest people are frequently the most eco-conscious. British environmental campaign groups and publications are peppered with the sons and daughters of the aristocracy, while in America ridiculously super-rich celebrities (Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt) lead the charge for more eco-aware forms of consumption and play. The very nature of carbon offsetting - where the emphasis is on paying money to offset one's own lifestyle, in much the same way that wealthy people in the Middle Ages would pay for 'Indulgences' that forgave them their sins - highlights the individuated and self-regarding streak in the Politics of Being Green.
As the world grows increasingly complicated, and the effects of my actions have the potential to lead to unanticipated negative consequences, I wonder: how do I go about living a life that is in shalom (in peace, in harmony, corresponding to the way God intended it to be) with the created world and with other created beings?
*The U2 Bon Jovi campaign that designates certain products as RED-- if you purchase them, a certain (oftentimes meager) amount of the profits will go towards helping out with the AIDS crisis in Africa. For more information and commentary, please see my entry on Campaign Red.
** Take a look at Selfish Giving.
*** A large megachurch in the United States donated millions of dollars to development and aid in Rwanda (I believe....). Though the immediate impact was helpful, its long-term effects were devastating. It completely destroyed the micro-finance industry and many businesses, because of all the "free money" available. If you dump a lot of fish somewhere, people might forget how to fish.
**** Other links to pursue: Wikipedia's entry on carbon offsets, Nonprofit Eye's commentary on fundraising events (be sure to read the comments). Feel free to add more links in the comments.
3 comments:
Why just exploit people when you can kick them while they're down and look moral in the process?
I may vomit.
Jacques Ellul is out of fashion these days, but he talked about stuff like this. I've been reading his book Hope in Time of Abandonment where he says the following:
We are witnessing a strange phenomenon, which could without exaggeration be called "imposture." It involves the transmutation of the original intention into its opposite. This is not the same thing as the classic disparity between dream and reality, a gap between purpose and result, a divergence between the action as contemplated and its realization. All that is simply a part of our ancestral experience. But today it is no longer a question of disparity, of a gap, of a divergence. It is a question of the diametric opposite. When a movement is carried out on behalf of freedom, it produces the worst slavery. If it is on behalf of justice, it gives rise to countless and endless injustices. I don't know of a single one which has accomplished, even in the slightest degree, what it set out to accomplish.
Of course this is part of the diagnosis of hopelessness that he gives in this book, where he says that "God is silent." The second half of the book goes on to discuss a Christian response to this situation, something other than an activism which accepts the world's views on what is wrong and how to fix it.
As much as I enjoy good self-loathing, I must remind everyone else in the global upper crust that we do spend more time and money (okay maybe more money than time) on social charity than any other economic strata. I would be amiss if I did not also mention that a lot of this charity benefits ourselves (i.e. green goods, theatres, education, etc).
This is I suppose only a natural consequence of human nature - and it's so much more difficult to really understand the problems of people so distant from ourselves. On the other hand, there's proof right here that these issues do bother people and that against our natures we do in fact aspire to improve our lot. So, kudos all around and spread the word.
It's a little old-hat now, but if anyone's familiar with Alvin Toffler, he talks a lot about the "third wave" post-industrial society - referring to us, the so-called digerati, children of the information age. And like the industrial revolution before it, this new wealth-producing paradigm is responsible for the current crisis facing our middle class. It's disappearing, because now our industry has to compete with cheaper markets like China and India.
But that's not the point; the point is that like our predecessors during our industrial adolescence, perhaps it's our time to adapt our society - cut back on our arugula and latte to raise the standard of living for everyone else.
Well, it's not like that's such a new idea, but at least we can see a historical precedent. Slow change is sometimes the best change. I'm sure a lot of stuff we do now will look monstrous to generations after us too.
Post a Comment