I have just finished reading a provocative essay by Derrick Jensen in the latest issue of Orion magazine. Jensen has a new bimonthly column entitled "Upping the Stakes" in which he explores the deeper issues at stake in the climate change debate. The current essay is "Forget Shorter Showers: Why Personal Change Does Not Equal Political Change." Here is a taste of what he writes:
Would any sane person think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal "solutions"?
Part of the problem is that we've been victims of a campaign of systematic misdirection. Consumer culture and capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment) for organized political resistance. "An Inconvenient Truth" helped raise consciousness about global warming. But did you notice all of the solutions presented had to do with personal consumption - changing light bulbs, inflating tires, driving half as much - and had nothing to do with shifting power away from corporations, or stopping the growth economy that is destroying the planet? Even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested, U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent. Scientific consensus is that emissions must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide.
[One problem with perceiving simple living as a solution to climate change] is that it accepts capitalism's redefinition of us from citizens to consumers. By accepting this redefinition, we reduce our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming. Citizens have a much wider range of available resistance tactics, including voting, running for office, pamphleting, boycotting, organizing, lobbying, protesting, and, when the government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we have the right to alter or abolish it.
I found the essay a useful reminder that I am just a small part of the larger world community. I do believe that making smart, informed, healthy lifestyle choices on a personal level is important, but it is not enough. It is just a piece of what needs to be accomplished to bring balance back to the relationship between humans and the rest of the living world. So, yes, I will continue to seek out local foods, to compost, to resist consumer culture's pressure to buy the next best gadget or gizmo, to bring my kids outside as much as possible and teach them the best I can about our responsibilities to the planet. But, I think I will begin looking for opportunities to "up the stakes." Profound and lasting change rarely comes easy. But, as I look at my children, I want one simple thing for them - a healthy, secure home here on planet earth where they can commit themselves to a life well lived.
