Last week, CBC's George Stroumboulopoulos was finally able to proclaim that his ambitiously lofty goal of One Million Acts of Green by Canadians had been reached.
The program involves regular ol' Canadians taking voluntary steps towards "greening" their lives, including everything from changing to a compact fluorescent lightbulb to giving up a car for a year. Everything is done online, where people can register their act(s) and immediately receive a calculation as to the level of CO2 emissions reduced as a result of their act of green.
What a great idea. And I offer my congratulations to the people at CBC and all those who registered their acts of green. But I've got a few issues with the Acts of Green.
Firstly, now that someone has talked the talk by signing up, are they really going to walk the walk? In many cases, the only incentive for these people to fulfill their act(s) of green will be a hearty pat on the back for being friendlier to the environment. Sure, that moment of inspiration where someone registers their act may be full of grand intentions, but how long will that last? One can hope everyone will fulfill their act, but hope isn't the most sturdy block to rely on.
Secondly, if everyone does fulfill their acts, what will be the overall effect? Will those who are not normally particularly environmentally-inclined change a lightbulb, for example, and move on feeling as though they have contributed greatly to the cause? This could reduce overall awareness of environmental issues (if people think they've done all they need to do), but could also result in a type of rebound effect. The rebound effect occurs when an act to reduce environmental impact is taken, but an opposite action that is of equal or greater force follows. For example, if somebody puts in a new, efficient furnace and uses the replacement as justification for making the home warmer and increasing the output of the furnace, the overall usage, energy used and emissions may actually increase compared to the levels prior to the new furnace, regardless of the increased efficiency. Any gains made by the act of green could be wiped out by acts of 'non-green'.
Furthermore, the act of green may steer people away from local environmental issues. For instance, here at Trent (which was recognized as the largest group in CBC's program) there are several environmental issues in play. A large hydro dam, the building of new residences and uranium mining are all on the local environmental table, but do not receive the rightful level of concern from the Trent community. Committing an act of green may well exacerbate this problem, as people turn a blind eye to their own backyard in place for one of CBCs acts of green.
I have serious issues with what the policy people would call 'voluntary policy tools'. That is, measures or programs implemented with no enforcement, regulation or serious incentive. These tools rely on the individual or group committing to the measure and fulfilling on a voluntary basis. One Million Acts of Green is a voluntary measure. While it has its problems, I love one specific aspect of it: it is not a government program.
Yes, I realize the CBC is heavily-funded by the federal government, but One Million Acts of Green is not a government program. Canada's federal government has traditionally used voluntary measures in place of effective measures, such as carbon taxes or regulations. Remember the One-Tonne Challenge? Probably not, but it cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars and amounted to nothing.
The One Million Acts of Green is great, as long as people fulfill their pledges and remember that this is only a step in the right direction.
Oh, and Harper, don't you guys even think about touching the One Million Acts of Green to try to appease the voters. Actually do something worthwhile with all your money for once.
No comments:
Post a Comment