Is Pro-Environmental Behavior a Scam?
A Sociological Provocation
In the book Deep Green Resistance in which the authors promote radical climate action as a reaction to mass extinctions, rising temperatures and a radically changing ecosystem, co-author Lierre Keith (2011) sarcastically writes about sustainability (p. 25):
The word sustainable — the ‘Praise, Jesus!’ of the eco-earnest — serves as an example of the worst tendencies of the alternative culture. It’s a word that perfectly meshes corporate marketers’ carefully calculated upswell of green sentiment with the relentless denial of the privileged. […] To doubt the vague promise now firmly embedded in the word — that we can have our cars, our corporations, our consumption, and our planet, too — is both treason and heresy to the emotional well-being of the most progressives.
This quotation, I believe, sets the tone for this essay quite well, although I do not intend to talk about sustainability per se, but more specifically about the terms ‘pro-environmental behavior’ and ‘sustainable lifestyle’.
What do people mean when they say they try to lead a sustainable life or be ‘eco-friendly’? Does it amount to a near-religious belief system people can cling to as Keith suggests above? What do consumer culture and the belief in green capitalism — economic growth paired with a slowing or halting of climate change — have to do with pro-environmentalism? Is pro-environmental behavior a scam for the good-willed? And is doing nothing at all sometimes the best possible choice?
In this academic essay, I hope to provide the reader with food for thought about individual — rather than systemic — solutions to climate change. I will also point to lines of research about pro-environmental behavior (some existent, others not yet according to my knowledge).
Pro-environmental Outcomes of Non-action
In environmental psychology, one research interest in recent years has been pro-environmental behavior, short PEB. Henning Best (2011) states that environmental values and attitudes are also central to environmental sociology. According to psychologists Audra Balundė, Goda Perlaviciute and Linda Steg (2019), PEB “can be defined as all possible actions aimed at avoiding harm to and/or safeguarding the environment […], either performed in public (e.g., participation in environmental movements) or private domains (e.g., recycling […])” (p. 2).
Let us focus on the private domain. What about the actions not performed, or at least not performed with the clear aim, but with the outcome of not harming the environment? What about the plastic bags not bought, the carbon emissions not emitted by flights not taken and private cars not used, the large flat with high heating costs not owned — but possibly without further thought put into it, further reflection on its environmental impact? What about the second-hand clothes that were not purchased and the reusable steel bottle that was not bought? Does pro-environmental behavior have to be intentional?
Of course, this thought could lead to the simplistic equation ‘poor person = less purchasing power = lives more sustainably’. While there is some truth to that — as societal elites have by far the highest carbon emissions — , it can go beyond that. There can be a ‘person who thinks mostly about things unrelated to climate change = is a busy workaholic = barely has time to buy things or travel and thus lives more sustainably’ or other scenarios.
While research on pro-environmental behavior looks at what people do ‘for the planet/environmental’, a concept of unintentional sustainable action, or non-environmental behavior, could look for the people who have done a good deed for the climate by their mere ‘non-doing’.
Pro-Environmental Pessimism — and Pseudo-Solutions
In their study Taking back a little bit of control, Noah MacKendrick and Lindsay M. Stevens (2016) asked 50 US-Americans about their ways of living with knowledge about the pervasiveness of chemicals that can enter the human body. The researchers found that their interviewees had developed heuristics, i.e., techniques for dealing with and mitigating the perceived chemicals. Many of their respondents also stated that learning about the pervasiveness of potentially dangerous chemicals in the surroundings and the human body had initially been frightening and disturbing (MacKendrick & Stevens, 2016, p. 320).
Both the feeling of frightening impotence and trying to find heuristics are imaginable when thinking about the climate crisis: Many people feel what climate psychology has described as eco-anxiety, or a “chronic fear of environmental doom” (Climate Psychology Alliance, n. d., p. 22). It is probable that in a similar manner to MacKendrick’s and Stevens’ research subjects, people would develop heuristics for living with the idea that climate change is a looming danger that one has limited control over.
I propose thinking about green consumerism as one possible heuristic of living with the knowledge of climate change. Green consumerism appears as a perfect adaptation to a capitalist economy that does not threaten the status quo seriously, as it means purchasing products and paying for services, which boosts the economy — but with a feel-good factor. It is a translation of ecomodernism (the belief in technological solutions to climate change, embodied like no other by Elon Musk) into individual action. It is a pseudo-solution that suggests that by buying products that are at least less harmful than a potential alternative, one does a good deed. Yet, every product consumes resources in its making, and the electric car with its harmful mineral extraction is just one example: While it solves some environmental problems of the combustion engine, it creates new ones.
The following is a made-up statement I consider probable enough to represent a Westerner’s mindset based on my own thought process:
Although climate change is definitely happening and we are all doomed, I would rather face it feeling good about myself. Hence, I will shoulder my backpack made from recycled plastic bottles, wear the used jeans I bought in a fancy thrift shop in Berlin and drink coffee from my reusable steel coffee mug — oh wait, coffee is not that sustainable either. Well, then…coffee only once in a while.
Who Decides What is Pro-Environmental?
On top of that, some seemingly pro-environmental actions may not be as pro-environmental as one thought, or even worse for the environment.
We can first examine the eBook: Viewed by the tech-savvy as the optimal alternative to printed books, the latter imagined as devouring immense amounts of wood provided by felled trees, eBooks are actually not very eco-friendly. Toby Miller (2015) writes that “the average e-reader uses 33 pounds of minerals; a paper book uses two-thirds of a pound” (p. 655). Hence, the production process of printed books is much more resource-saving than that of digital alternatives. Digital reading additionally means energy use to produce electricity and relying on the invisible ‘cloud’, as communication technologies around the world also do. Miller also points out that discarded e-readers ultimately result in harmful e-waste. All in all, the seemingly eco-friendly e-reader with ‘all books on one device’ does little to benefit the ecosystem.
Second, let us look more closely at thrift shopping and buying second-hand, especially clothes. This practice does not challenge consumerism, and it may contribute to impulsively shopping for clothes because 1) they are cheap, 2) the consumer can resell or donate them to another thrift shop easily and 3) somebody else might even see the value of the item heightened by the vintage flair surrounding it. Furthermore, thrift shops in the Global North have to throw away many of the clothes they receive (although some are already selective when it comes to taking in clothes in) or even ship them to the Global South, as it has been revealed for clothes thrown into containers by the German Caritas and other organizations.
Who, then, guarantees that pro-environmental behavior is truly ‘good for the environment’? Could we re-frame behavior that was intended to be pro-environmental but mistakenly turned out not to be ‘accidental non-environmentalism’? We are back at square one: Perhaps not buying anything — in this case, not getting any new books but reading only those from the library or friends or only swapping clothes in one’s circle is a better solution. Or not getting any books or clothes — the extreme solution. We know this is hard to implement in Western society, be it solely out of peer pressure. It is also hard to measure the impact of all human actions.
Pro-Environmentalism in Action — or Pro-Environmental Inaction?
Could the belief of acting pro-environmentally in one domain boost peoples’ morale so much that they ‘compensate’ for what they believe to be ‘good’ behavior by allowing themselves mishaps in other domains? We could think of that as compensatory non-sustainable action or compensatory pro-environmental inaction.
Exemplary attitudes can be conceptualized in the following fictitious accounts, loosely based on my experience and discourses from friends, family and acquaintances:
A: Yes, I try to buy foods with less plastic packaging. But if I had to beat myself up about not buying regional and seasonal produce, it would just be too much.
B: I eat plant-based and believe it is the most pro-environmental diet, but I know that the quinoa, chia seeds, bananas and coconut milk I buy are not sustainable, as they have traveled far and our Western consumption probably drives up prices.
C: Yes, I go to ‘Fridays for Future’ demonstrations and avoid flying completely. And I know skiing is bad for the environment because producing artificial snow is so intense in energy and resource consumption. But it is my guilty pleasure.
D: In my job, I work with climate issues. I work so hard that I sometimes need to fly abroad for a proper vacation – and there’s sometimes no way around flying for work either.
Maria Wolrath-Söderberg, a Swedish researcher in rhetoric, studies exactly that. Her most recent book published with Nina Wormbs in 2024 describes the arguments people use to justify behavior that knowingly harms the environment — it’s called ‘Ursäkta mig!’ (Excuse me).
Always seeing your ideal self as one that engages in pro-environmental behavior, yet knowing your shortcomings in practice, can be depressing. Scientifically put, it can lead to cognitive dissonance. This has been described in psychology as a mental state where people’s intentions and actions fail to align. Individuals who smoke but are aware that it increases the probability of lung cancer attempt to find solutions to the discomfort they feel when realizing this.
Similarly, people may be aware that possible consequences of climate change like droughts or floods are imminent yet continue to do things they believe drive climate change rather than mitigating it. One easy solution or heuristic is intentional ignorance, i.e.: Choosing not to think about it. There is even an emerging research field called ‘ignorance studies’, as established in a publication by the sociologists Matthias Groß and Linsey McGoey (2022).
Just like the US citizens interviewed by MacKendrick & Stevens (2016) who attempt to divert their attention from all the potentially harmful chemicals that could have entered their bodies by embracing intentional ignorance, people confronted with the massive task of leading a ‘pro-environmental life’ may purposefully ignore some actions whereby they could have acted more pro-environmentally. Intentional eco-ignorance or pro-environmental inaction, if you will.
Van der Verff, Steg and Keizer (2013) use the notion of the ‘environmental self-identity’ to describe “the extent to which you see yourself as a type of person who acts environmentally-friendly” (p. 56). But what if people incorrectly see themselves as such? Ultimately, is pro-environmental behavior perhaps nothing else than green-washing one’s own life?
Coming to an End Or: What Now?
An obvious counter-provocation to my essay is: If not at least attempting to act pro-environmentally, what is there a climate-change-conscious individual can do to help at all? Advocates of systemic action will readily jump into the debate and point to political levers, social movements, strikes, civil disobedience and the like. But people can feel despair facing these massive systems, even in democratic societies where more people have turned to populism in recent years in the hope of finally having somebody ‘listening’ to their concerns. What is there to do individually for the planet? Well, I do not have the answer.
It is easier to criticize than to propose better alternatives — this admittedly holds for this essay. I have more questions than answers — and those are only possible because they were inspired by previous research and my own perceived inadequacy. I am not saying the concept of pro-environmental behavior should be forgotten. After all, this essay is centered around it. My attempt was simply one of putting down conflicting thoughts and challenging optimistic solutions with some realism.
Buying a used pair of jeans instead of a new one could be a positive step in the right (or pro-environmental) direction, although it is also a proverbial ‘drop in the ocean’ on the grand scale of things. On the other hand, it is by changing oneself that the whole world changes — a belief one can find in many Eastern religious and spiritual teachings, among others in Buddhism. In that holistic worldview, what one person does out of kindness and compassion can positively affect humanity and other species. This makes sense when every living being is believed to be interconnected.
Perhaps it is not science alone, then, that can provide insights into individual solutions to climate change: That is, the quantifiable ‘pro-environmental behavior’ measured by psychologists or sustainable action, needs and desires, or intentional ignorance described in theory by sociologists. Perhaps it is with a strong will do to one’s best and walk this planet mindfully that each of us can reduce our debt to the earth as our only home.
Keith (2011) might have been right all along with his quote at the beginning of this essay: Sustainability has become the “‘Praise, Jesus!’ of the eco-earnest”. But perhaps we can all use some faith not to give up when living with the knowledge of the climate crisis — and not giving up might be what pro-environmental action is mostly about.
Thanks for reading my perspective. You might also enjoy this:
© Annika Wappelhorst 2024
References
Balundė, A., Perlaviciute, G. & Steg, L. (2019). The relationship between people’s environmental considerations and pro-environmental behavior in Lithuania. Frontiers in Psychology 10, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02319
Best, H. (2011). Methodische Herausforderungen: Umweltbewusstsein, Feldexperimente und die Analyse umweltbezogener Entscheidungen In Groß, M. (2011). Handbuch Umweltsoziologie. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Climate Psychology Alliance (n. d.). Handbook of Climate Psychology. https://www.climatepsychologyalliance.org/images/files/handbookofclimatepsychology.pdf
Groß, M. & McGoey, L. (2022). Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies (2nd ed.). Routledge.
MacKendrick, N. & Stevens, L. M. (2016). “Taking back a little bit of control”: Managing the contaminated body through consumption. Sociological Forum 31(2), 310–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12245
McBay, A., Keith, L. & Jensen, D. (2011). Deep green resistance. Strategy to save the planet. Seven Stories Press.
Miller, T. (2015). Unsustainable journalism. Digital Journalism 3(5), 653–663. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2015.1026683
Van der Verff, E., Steg, L. & Keizer, K. (2013). The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 34, 55–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.006
