A worm in the APLS
I hadn’t planned to talk again about YAWNs and APLS but Green Bean, arduous, and Iris left such good, meaty comments that I felt I couldn’t do them justice in comment form. Plus, Maggie’s already in bed so I’m on my own tonight for a post.
After thinking about it some more, I think my core problem with the term APLS is the difference in purpose between it and the YAWN acronym. YAWN is supposed to be descriptive and match up with a very specific demographic group. APLS seems like more of a rallying cry encouraging people to change how they see themselves. Both are fine purposes, but it seems weird to replace one with another.
We can continue to discuss specifics (and probably will), but basically it boils down to goals. If the goal is to have a drop-in replacement for YAWN as was stated in arduous’s post, then I think APLS fails. If you want to seed discussion in the green community, it’s working great!
But on to the comment responses! Here are some things I’ve seen people say and why I think they’re misguided. There’s also lots I agree with, but what fun is talking about that?
Comment #1 - Focus on the US and China/India will follow
I agree with Grean Bean that it’s important to realize that we’re a wealthy country, especially when we’re thinking about the sacrifices we’re willing to make for the sake of the environment. I don’t agree that India and China don’t also have a major part to play. In my mind, environmental impact follows a bell curve. The very poorest usually have little impact, especially on a global scale (although large populations can magnify that portion). From there, impact increases very quickly as you start getting to people who can drive, buy imported food, use fertilizers, etc. This doesn’t require a lot of wealth and, again, can be magnified by population size. Once you get rich enough though, your impact levels off and perhaps even decreases. You can afford to eat only local foods and live off the grid without impacting your lifestyle unduly. The “bang for your buck” solutions therefore often target the developing nations at the cusp of the impact curve. To match China reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 1 ton of CO2 per capita, the US would have to reduce emissions by over four times as much!
Comment #2 - Poor people can’t live sustainably
I see this argument in various forms all over the place and don’t really understand it, so maybe I’m missing something. Lots of stuff that we do in the US to live sustainably (like cutting down on consumption) don’t make sense in a developing nation, but that doesn’t mean that the goal isn’t available. Yes, it’s harder for someone making a subsistence living to make changes. But, on the other hand, they have fewer changes to make. The poorest countries already have an environmental footprint of less than 1 Earth (in fact, the first country with an environmental impact above 1 Earth is China).
Comment #2A - But Maslow’s hierarchy of needs proves it!
Maslow’s hierarchy is a great way of thinking about things but it’s not a literal truth. If it were, then fasting could never lead to self-actualization. In a less abstract sense, I agree with arduous that subsistence farmers don’t care that sustainability helps the planet. I just don’t accept that that’s the only value of sustainability. One of the reasons I think sustainability is a great concept is that it provides so many benefits. Not only does farming sustainably help the planet, it provides more food and water to those who need it. That’s one of the reasons I think promoting sustainability in developing countries should be a priority. It’s not just good for the planet, it’s good for them.
Comment #3 - If you’re not trying, it doesn’t count
The argument seems to be that unless you’re working towards sustainability, you don’t belong. I like that better than an arbitrary income (or even wealth) cut-off but it still seems a bit odd. Why shouldn’t people living sustainably be included even if they’re not working particularly hard at it? Does this mean that the Amish don’t count as sustainable because their sustainability is a side-effect of other life choices?
Of course, I’m also a philosopher by training, so edge cases usually bug me.
Comment #3A - It’s all relative
Another take on the inclusion principle is that it depends on the society you live in. It’s not about whether or not your lifestyle is actually sustainable but if it’s more sustainable than your neighbors. There’s some value in looking at relative sustainability, but I don’t think it’s a good long-term view. For one thing, it makes it a little more competitive and a little less communal, since your sustainability depends on others not being sustainable. Primarily, my problem with this is that sustainabilty really doesn’t depend on the people around you. If you’re living sustainably, you’re living sustainably no matter how your neighbors live.
Comment #4 - “Affluent” is good because it sparks debate
It does spark debate and a lot of the debate has been really interesting. If that’s your goal, then you’ve succeeded! On the other hand, if you’re trying to replace YAWN as an acronym, making APLS debatable detracts from that because people like me and Iris won’t feel comfortable with it.
Comment #5 - ‘Persons’ is elitist
Whoops! This one was actually mine, but ‘elitist’ was the wrong word for my concerns and arduous called me on it. I blame the constant low-grade mentions in the media for getting it stuck in my subconscious. I’ve never liked the word ‘persons’ because it doesn’t mean anything to me. I know what a person is, what people are, and what peoples are, but what are persons? What makes persons different from people? It took me a while to get used to peoples too, but now I can see that there’s legitimate need for it. Maybe eventually I’ll feel the same way about ‘persons.’ Until then, I’ll continue my irrational grudge.
arduous said,
August 7, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
Will, first off, I’m happy to see another post on this because I love debating with you! Thanks for another very thought provoking post. But I’m not sure that this was an entirely fair simplification of our arguments.
For example, Comment#1, I don’t think that China and India have no part to play. I’m not letting the off the hook by any means. But the fact of the matter is, these are growing countries. I believe strongly that is the obligation of developed countries to help developing countries. If we don’t want India to build more coal plants (which is what they’re doing) then we need to subsidize solar and wind. Think of it as the Marshall Plan 2.0. It is NOT fair for us to say, “You just shouldn’t grow” or “You shouldn’t use coal, but we’re not going to help you either.” That’s why, in a way, the onus is on the developed countries.
Comment #2: I’m not sure who was arguing that. I certainly wouldn’t argue that poor people can’t live sustainably.
Comment #3: I don’t think that if you’re not trying, it doesn’t count. I just think there is a difference between those who who live sustainably because they live in a village in India, and those who live sustainably because they choose to even though they live in NY City. In a village in India, you live sustainably because … that’s the way the community is set up. Society is geared towards sustainability. In NYC, the opposite is true. There is something to be said for those who go against the grain of society. It’s not a value judgement per se, it’s recognizing that there is a differentiation between the two groups. In India, even in the cities, there is an infrastructure in place that makes sustainability easier on the individual level. For example, someone will come to your door and take your soda bottles to be refilled. Rags are given to another person. Nothing gets thrown out because there is an infrastructure in place to make sure all these things get reused. Whereas if you live in the US, that infrastructure isn’t there, which puts the onus on the individual.
Comment #3A: I don’t mean the above to sound competitive. It’s not about being MORE sustainable than your neighbors. Rather, to me, the APLS movement is about BUILDING the infrastructure so that it’s EASIER on your neighbors to become sustainable.
As to the persons, I agree that it should really be person(s). Which I think explains why there is a need for it to be persons and not people. We’re getting a new logo eventually, so when we do, we can make that fix.
Will said,
August 11, 2008 @ 9:49 pm
And thanks for your comments, arduous! You’re really helping me hone my ideas.
My headlines were a bit tongue-in-cheek. It’s impossible to give a fair synopsis of a position in one line, so I hope people will go back and check the actual comments if they’re interested in the concept.
I agree that we should help China and India, among others, be more sustainable. However, I also think that people in China and Indian have an important role to play, even if they’re not “affluent” by our (or even the world’s) standards.
In your comment in my last APLS post, you said… “As to your point about how subsistence farmers can focus on sustainability, I respectfully disagree with you. They can’t.” So perhaps we have a semantic disagreement on the difference between “focus” and “live.” I agree that it’s harder to spend time thinking about living more sustainably when you’re worried about making ends meet, so in that sense, they don’t have a “focus on sustainability.” However, I think one of the best ways to help make a living is to live sustainably, so I think that focus is something all of us, affluent or not, should work on even though it’s hard.
Sure, there’s a difference between living sustainably in NYC and in India. There’s also a difference between living sustainably in LA and Bloomington. I’m not sure why APLS applies across one set of differences and not the other.
Building infrastructure to make it easier for everyone else to be sustainable is a great goal! I think it’s self-reinforcing too. If you make it easier for someone else to compost, they might turn around and help you recycle #6 plastic. To me, that concept isn’t embedded in the acronym APLS. “Living Sustainably” says to me that they’re making sure their own lives are sustainable. It doesn’t say anything about helping to make their society sustainable.
I don’t think it should be “person(s)”. “Person” would be fine or “people,” but since “persons” doesn’t mean anything to me, “person(s)” just combines a real meaning with a word that I don’t find meaningful.
Living better | GreenCouple.com said,
September 10, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
[...] This month’s APLS Carnival is about affluence, a suprisingly controversial topic–at leastwith me. [...]