Saturday, February 12, 2011

Chapter 7 Culhane Relational Summary: Disasters, Toxic Hazards, and Pollution

 The assignment portfolio in our on-line class revolves around the creation of a "relational summary" for each chapter in the Bell, Greene, Fisher and Baum textbook "Environmental Psychology" and the ultimate creation of our own academic reference supported version of "eutopia"  (the "good place").

This year, without being told where to start, the majority of our classmates chose to begin their personal exploration of Environmental Psychology through interpreting their relationships with Chapter 7: Disasters, Toxic Hazards and Pollution.  It could be the result of a certain Zeitgeist -- with fictional films like 2012  suggesting to the superstitious and gullible that the clock is ticking before inevitable environmental destruction next year, and documentary evidence telling us that regardless of what some ancient Mayan calendar suggests, climate change, pollution and technological vulnerabilities will increase the number and intensity  of  potential disasters we experience on this earth during our lifetimes no matter what we believe, it is no wonder that given a choice most students will be attracted disproportionately to that part of the curriculum that might offer some answers or insights that can mitigate some of the fear and anxiety.

If you aren't told what you have to study, if the dictatorship model of education, wherein you spend hours learning about things you aren't quite sure are helpful to your personal situation simply because you fear getting "a bad grade", is suddenly transformed into a free election of information according to your own needs, wouldn't you choose to study things that address your immediate personal concerns rather than things merely prescribed by priests of education?

As in previous years I make no demand upon my students that we follow a certain order as we explore our relationships to the ideas in the  textbook -- this is the age of Soja's Postmodern "Third Space" where linearity has less to offer the pedagogic environment than it ever had.  In a non-linear world there are definite benefits to NOT "towing the line", and for all of us to be literally "on the same page" seems less and less productive.  In fact, diversity of experience and opinion so enrich the class discussions that it is hard to remember why we thought following the curriculum from A to Z was either necessary or important.  Even computer game designers and museum exhibit creators  have realized that it is counterproductive to provide a sequential path toward the desired end-goal -- permitting free exploration in an environment replete with the necessary attraction gradients and exit gradients seems to remove many of  the problems resulting from psychological satiation, boredom and fatigue (see Chapter 13: Work, Learning and Leisure Environments, page 453). There seems little question that once people have tasted the fruits of freedom and learned how to wayfind successfully in a free environment, they show little desire to go back to being told where to go, what to do and how to do it.

Free will and politically  unconstrained choice are marvelous gifts and perhaps the greatest benefits of living in a democratic society.  The mass protest jubilee we see unfolding in Tahrir (Liberation) Square underscores the importance we so human animals place on the freedom to choose and the risks we will take to get it.

Interestingly, from the perspective of Environmental Psychology, the tension between freedoms and dictates lies at the heart of disasters, toxic hazards and pollution.

Certainly it can be argued that people desire the freedom to live where ever they desire and that this often puts us directly in harm's way.  To be told by the government "no, the coast of California is off limits because of the risk of earthquakes and the coast of Florida is off limits because of the risk of hurricanes" would rub most of us the wrong way. As free people we demand the right to assume our risks.  Similarly people get infuriated by government actions that "take away" their assumed freedom to knowingly put themselves at risk because of toxic hazards (think of reactions against laws prohibiting smoking, drinking alcohol or taking recreational drugs).

But what about the freedom NOT to be harmed by OTHERS?

Certainly you would think that this would be the foundation of society and its freedoms.  In fact the "Golden Rule" seems to speak exclusively of this: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" and its corollary "Don't do unto others what you would that they not do unto you."

The case of cigarette smoke is illustrative of how the right to no harm has been underplayed by powerful corporate interests while the rhetoric has been flipped around to make it seem as though we were talking about taking away the "freedoms" of smokers. Even the film "Thank You For Smoking" makes it appear as though what we were really concerned with was protecting smokers from themselves, and while  Al Pacino's "The Insider", another film made around the same time about the cigarette industry, clearly demonstrates how the tobacco companies deliberately put toxins in their products that increase the addictive quality of the substance to smokers and non-smokers alike we come away thinking more about the impact on the smoker than the innocent bystander.   Bell, on page 245 writes "For a number of years we have known that tars and nicotine can have major effects on the health of smokers".  But most of us agree that what you do to your own body is really your concern.  The no-smoking laws really have nothing to do with the impact of toxins on adults who have free choice. What the laws seek to protect is the freedom of those who are unwillingly subjected to unfreedoms: "There is now considerable evidence that nonsmokers breathing the air  in a room where others are smoking may also suffer ill effects... passive smoking has also been described as a major cause of premature death (Goldman and Glantz, 1998)... the 1986 Surgeon General's report on involuntary smoking concludes that passive smoking can cause disease..."

I personally experience severe allergic reactions to the toxins in cigarette smoke, so until Germany and Egypt finally passed their Johnny Come Lately no smoking laws two years ago, going to restaurants and public places was absolute hell for me.  But I could say nothing for years -- in fact I was treated as if my discomfort with being poisoned was actually creating some unfreedom for others.

The key to understanding environmentalism, as far as I'm concerned, is understanding what we can do to reduce "involuntary" harm.  I personally have no problem with people trashing their own environments if they can confine the damage to their own bodies, homes or backyards.  The premise of the NIMBY movement ("Not in My Backyard" see page 246) was supposed to bring to the fore "the age-old struggle between the welfare of the larger group and that of a small group" and give people the right to keep the pollutants and hazards caused by one group from harming another, particularly when the aggrieved party or parties did not agree to sacrifice any welfare for the gains that accrue to the risk taker (unfortunately NIMBYism has, like so many other movements, been twisted so that it only really favors the wealthy!).   

And so it has been with nearly all environmental injustices -- the victims bear the burden and often had no rights to redress the situation.  Whether it was dangers in the work environment, the home environment or the spaces in between, we were all told that we should shut up and put up, because the wealthy were profiting from the situation and the rest of us had no political clout.

I've written a song about it, called Talkin' Trash, that you can see here:

As history would have it, much of the modern environmental movement was actually born as part of the civil rights movements that reached a head in the 1960s (see for more on their intertwined histories).   The freedoms and rights of blacks, women and other minorities included freedom from environmental injustices such as exposure to radiation, toxic chemicals and other pollutants,  and protection from environmental deprivation such as loss of access to clean water, air and healthy food, arable land, sources of vital raw materials, safe shelter, biodiversity and other foundations of human security.  As Bell points out on page 246 "the disadvantaged in society are thought to bear an unfair burden. Hazardous plants are rarely built near affluent communities but are instead more likely to be found in poorer areas in which minority groups are more likely to live... at times the circumstances surrounding the siting and remediation of environmental hazards arouse suspicion. For example, in 1979 in Houston, six out of eight incinerators were sited in African-American neighborhoods. "

But somehow the focus of "environmentalism" was quickly co-opted into a discourse about preserving primarily the scenic values of landscapes accessible primarily by wealthy whites.  And once "the environment" came to be seen as primarily an upper middle class concern abstracted into debates over the rights of non-humans and their eco-systems  (important as they are) it became nearly impossible to get broad consensus on policies to eliminate the core causes of harm and deprivation that lead to sustained poverty, suffering and deprivation.  In fact such abstractions allowed the absurd "jobs vs. environment" debate to flourish as industry leaders, eager for the higher profits they knew could only be obtained by refusing to responsibly manage their production residuals, decided to fool the working class into accepting their negative externalities as the Faustian bargain paid to guarantee job security.

The environmental justice movement (Taylor, 2000, cited in Chapter 7 on page 247; the concept is introduced in Chapter 2 on page 31) sought to redress that separation and even used the term environmental racism "to describe the disproportionate exposure of minorities to environmental hazards (for a review, see Taylor, 1999). he tendency for hazards to be located in minority communities may be as much a matter of discrimination against lower socioeconomic status (SES) as well as membership in a minority group." (p.247).

However it is framed there is little doubt that the poor bear the greatest burden from environmental degradation, from disasters, toxic hazards and pollution. As we saw during Hurricane Katrina the wealthy can simply move away in most circumstances. Even when they lose houses and other physical assets, they are usually well compensated by insurance and can often retain or even improve their property values (as Bell states, "wealthier people may have the means to buy homes elsewhere, and less well-off residents may be able to afford housing only on sites whose value is depressed because they are located near toxic sites." What often happens is that a disaster or hazard makes it profitable for the wealthy to buy up large areas of land at very low cost, then make minor remediations and pass it on at a considerable profit to the low SES communities.  Since less wealthy individuals tend to have poorer educational opportunities they are usually "insufficiently informed about the dangers to be as concerned as they should about hazards or where they are sited (e.g. Bullard, 1993; Taylor 1989, cited on page 247).  This is what happened in 1970s leading to the Love Canal disaster, referred to by the EPA as "one of the most appalling environmental tragedies in American history" (   We also see this effect depicted in the true stories popularized in the Julia Roberts films "Erin Brokavitch" and "The Pelican Briefs". 

To talk about "natural disasters" and "technological disasters" as though either were somehow inevitable seems to me to skirt the real issue of precisely who is suffering and precisely why.  Living in Beverly Hills but working in the ghettoes of South Los Angeles  during the 1994 Northridge Earthquake taught me a lot about environmental injustice.   For one thing, while we had 64 tragic casualties, the disproportionatley  greater wealth of the U.S. and the building standards and low-density housing that such wealth permits made the impact of the quake relatively minor; similar quakes in the Near East and Asia claimed tens of thousands of lives.  Second, the wealthier communities like mine were much much quicker to restore vital services such as electricity, gas, water, sewage and food delivery while it took many weeks to bring the poorer communities back on line.

While we may not be able to avoid being taken by surprise by  as yet unpredictable events such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions,  we can usually avoid an upleasant aftermath from such occurrences if we are willing to make health and safety top priorities and invest in the proper infrastructure and relief measures.

The field of "industrial ecology" teaches us that there really isn't any such thing as pollution -- pollution could be defined as "the right thing in the wrong place at the wrong time".  In Industrial Ecology every output from one process becomes an input for another process (see for details).   In an properly designed industrial ecology system we find "robustness to disaster" just as in a healthy natural ecology system we find buffers built in to the system that prevent major catastrophes.  I remember observing this on a visit to El Yunque Rain Forest when I went to present in  Puerto Rico for the National Science Teachers Association.  Where the rain forest had been cleared for logging or agriculture or development the 1992 Hurricane Andrew had tremendous impact, destroying land and homes and fisheries (diving on the coral reef we found it had been silted to death). But where the rain forest and mangroves had been left intact the hurricane caused very little damage.  The ecosystem was able to absorb much of the damage and bounce back quickly.

This idea of "robustness" and "buffers" is being explored by natural scientists everywhere (see "The role of buffering capacities in stabilising coastal lagoon ecosystems" at for example) but can equally be applied to civilizations.  Most famously, Wall Street trader and economist Nicolaus Taleb (author Fooled by Randomness and The Black Swan) has been speaking extensively on how we can apply these concepts to our financial system (see to avoid further "economic meltdowns" and other "black swan" disasters.  The principles drawn from "natural ecosystems" and "industrial ecology" seem to work across the board.

Mostly it is a technical issue -- design systems resistant to fragility through built in redundancy and inherent checks and balances based on diversity and most deep disasters can be avoided.

But a lot of it comes down to morality -- in order to design and implement systems that are more disaster-proof than not, we have to build it in to the foundational ethics of our society. We have to care enough to invest so that doing no harm to others is a higher priority than profit maximization.

I believe that if  we reframe  the discourse of environmentalism to once again be in alignment with social justice we may find  a common ground. And we may then  find that most disasters can be avoided.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Chapter 14 Relational Summary: Changing Behavior to Save the Environment

The night this course began I was staying at the elegant five star Fairmont Four Seasons Hotel in Hamburg planning a Spring Environmental Event with the head of marketing and the head of Engineering.  This year, 2011, Hamburg has been elected the "green capital" of Europe, and a trip to the environmental information center next to the main train station explains why:
Hamburg is "burying" 35 kilometers of congested and noisy highway this year, taking a section of the busiest road that has separated two sections of the city for a generation and caused terrible air and noise pollution, and sticking it underground in a tunnel. Where the highway currently creates an eyesore and social barrier there will instead be parkland, cafes, bicycle paths and water features.  In addition, Hamburg has inexpensive "for rent" bicycles all over the city and a network of vegetated bicycle paths that makes it one of the most bike-friendly cities in the world.  Hamburg boasts 250,000 street trees and 180,000 more in parks and green spaces throughout the built environment.  Special electric charging stations are being erected throughout the city for electric vehicles whose purchase are encouraged through government subsidies.  The trains running through the city are already powered by 100% renewable energy from hydropower, wind, biogas and solar installations; even the once unsightly toxic landfill is now a biogas producing green hill of parkland covered with photovoltaics and windmills, demonstrating to the public that industrial ecology can turn all wastes into things of value. Even the Four Seasons luxury hotel boasts awards for its low energy LED chandeliers and room and hall lighting, its meticulous waste separation and its new computer controlled heat transfer system that moves hot air and water in the winter  from places in the hotel where they are in excess to places where they are needed -- and does the same things for cold air and water in the summer.

How has Hamburg been able to do this when so many other post-industrial cities are laboring under their environmentally destructive legacies?

One reason is the strong history of the green party in Germany (the land where green political parties began).  Instead of being a fringe thing, environmental consciousness is part of German pride.  The other strong factor is that the citizens of Hamburg believe that environmental improvements are economic improvements. The Germans are known for their attention to efficiency and efficiency IS the essence of environmental technology -- waste and pollution and degradation are considered by many Germans as mere symptoms of badly designed systems.

Are the Germans unique in this? Can all of us change our behavior to save the environment?

In Environmental Psychology (5th edition), on page 478, Table 14-1 shows the "Relative Impact of Interventions to Save the Commons". The authors weigh the impacts of 9 factors that influence "environmentally sound behavior" and come up with the following table relating "factor" to "impact":

Social Attraction: 0.12;  Group Identity 0.11; Trust 0.08; Moral Suasion .05; Structural Privatization .30; Communication .15 (according to one set of authors) .44 (according to another); Reinforcement Feedback .16, .19;  Reward 0.09 (one group of authors) 0.17 (another group) 0.26 (yet another group of authors) Punishment 0.19 (one group) 0.40 (another group).

Obviously there is a lot of variance between different author's conclusions. Can these "impact" statistics be relied upon?  The authors of Environmental Psychology state on page 494 in a section called "Individual Sacrifice and Commitment to Conservation":
A look at Table 14-1 suggests that appeals to pro-environmental action through moral suasion and altering social relations are relatively ineffective compared with interventions such as rewards and punishments that directly benefit or punish the individual.

But then they note,

While there is every reason to believe that appealing to self-interest motives is effective (e.g pocketing savings from energy conservation, free tokens for using mass transit, payments for recycling  aluminum cans), there is a growing body of evidence that people's dedication  to saving the environment can lead at least some to forgo selfish benefits, assume personal responsibility, and endure personal sacrifice in order to promote conservation of the enviornment (e.g. Geller, 1995; Kaiser & Shimoda, 1999; Werner & Makela, 1998). Those high in self-transcendant, biosphere oriented or ecocentric values and low in self-interest values do tend to have much more favorable attitudes toward preserving the environment and do report more environmentally friendly behavior.

I have a problem with both the impact studies and the conclusions of the author.  It isn't that what is being studied or reported or theorized is not "true".  It's that when we talk about attitudes toward "the environment" we aren't saying much at all because there is no such place. There is no such thing as "the environment", and the so called "impacts" are a moving target in a nebulous and ever changing landscape.

There is so much confusion about what constitutes "environmentally friendly behavior" that it is hard to know if people reporting their successes aren't merely parroting a particular zeitgeist, winning approval points for doing whatever is currently in fashion in their social group.  If being "transcendent" is the "in-thing" (as it was temporarily in the late 1960s when the "environmental movement" began) then when it falls out of fashion and "self-interest" becomes popular (as it did in the 1980s during the era of Wall Street and Reaganomics) those same people suddenly become "anti-environmentalists". Yet ask them what they are doing and they will say, "I'm just being realistic" or "I'm going with the flow" or "look, don't blame me, I'm doing what I'm supposed to". 

"Mother Culture" dictates the behavior of most people under the Bell Curve and the outliers are always outliers until the bell curve shifts.  What we really want to know if we want to change behavior to "save the environment", in my opinion, are three things:

1) What shifts the bell curve?
2) Which environments are we trying to "save"?
3) Which environments do we actually want to "change".

Then we need to start applying what we know about shifting masses of behavior to targeted outcomes. The problem is we don't really have a clear idea about what we want to accomplish.

  Is it better to replace all your old light bulbs with new, more efficient ones?  It depends on the size of the effort.  Some would argue (not me!) that by getting rid of old light bulbs that are perfectly good (even if energy wasteful) we add to the waste burden and consume more energy in the manufacturing of new bulbs (however efficient) than we save by keeping old lights burning.  The same argument is made by some for automobiles. When I visited Havana and went around western Cuba I noticed that they had kept those old Plymouths and Chevrolets from the 1950's running and in great condition. It was like going back in time standing on a street corner in Cuba's capital city watching the parade of old vehicles.  Is it really better to scrap all your old cars (which takes energy and creates waste) and manufacture millions of new cars, just because they are smaller and burn less gas? Some might argue no.

Of course there is a rational way out of this mess.  It is called "life-cycle analysis" or LCA (see for a description and history).  LCA takes a "cradle-to-grave" approach to every item and asks the question "from the moment you start bringing the resources together to make this thing to the moment it is thrown in the landfill, how much energy does it use -- to manufacture, transport, use and discard throughout its whole life cycle?"

Ecological Economists use LCA to make good side by side comparisons of products and processes and can help us decide when it is good to replace, when to reduce, when to  re-use and when to recycle (the last three being the  three R's of environmentalism, see

Generally LCA produces great results. But LCA has been used improperly too -- for example when economists antagonistic to solar energy put out studies suggesting that solar panels consume more energy in their manufacture than they deliver during their useful life. It turns out that on deeper analysis they don't but the entire field of LCA for renewable technologies suffers from lack of transparency in calculations, poor methodology, use of outdated data and shifting horizons.  As Katharine Myrans points out in her 2009 paper "Comparative Energy and Carbon Assessment of Three Green Technologies for a Toronto Roof" (

In general, improvements to the silicon process, as well as in accounting
methodologies, have led to significant decreases in energy inputs and carbon outputs over
time. However, because a large range of values continues to exist, even among the newest
studies, it was necessary for this study to conduct a basic process-chain analysis of
material and energy inputs into silicon panels to accurately determine carbon emissions.
And there is one of the most frustrating things about life cycle analysis and any kind of attempt to be an 'environmentally conscious consumer'.  The sheer rate of technological change makes it impossible to really quantify any given technology's impact over the lifetime of the concept.   Can we really say that driving cars is "bad"?  What if all those cars were electric and powered, like the trains of Hamburg, with 100% renewable, clean energy?  And what if we all used Amory Lovins Hypercar concept (see and each car was its own mobile power station. (Amory Lovins runs the Rocky Mountain Institute, the green think tank mentioned on p. 499 of Environmental Psychology).  Might we not have an obligation to unplug our car from our houses (where they charged overnight from the energy produced from last night's kitchen garbage) and drive our cars over to our workplace and plug them in again to help power the building? Wouldn't any employee who didn't bring his hypercar to the office be accused of "not doing his share to help the environment"?  Like many things, what makes something "bad" is not the object itself but what it does to the health of and well being of others.

More useful to me are rather mundane questions that any 3 year old understands:
"By doing what you are doing are you hurting anybody else?"
"Is there a way to do what you want without making somebody else suffer?"
"If there is, why aren't you doing it the nice way."

For me environmental improvements are all about "playing nice".   Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute ( is cited in our textbook for his work helping industry profits by going green. 

For example... the U.S. Post Office in Reno, Nevada spent $300,000 in lighting improvements and saved $50,000 per year in energy costs -- enough to recover the investment in 6 years.  A major discount retail  chain built an environmentally friendly store in Lawrence, Kansas, which used natural lighting through skylights on one side of the store; cash register sales where twice as high on the naturally lighted side of the store.  A major manufacturer "greened" up a new building to drastically cut energy use and found that worker absenteeism fell 15% and productivity rose 15%, more than making up for the increased cost of the building (RMI, 1994, quoted on p. 499).

So if going green saves money and increases profits, what is all the fuss about?

Well, in parts of Germany like Hamburg there isn't much fuss. The families that live in and run businesses in Hamburg have been there for centuries and they don't want to go anywhere. It is THEIR environment. So it has very little to do with saving THE environment -- they are investing in and recouping the profits from saving THEIR environment. Is this transcendence or self-interest? Or both?
But in many places in America business is run like a Casino, as I have written in previous posts. People are in to "get rich quick". And when you are trying to get rich quick you don't play nice.  Like locusts, you want to swarm in, take as much as you can, and get out. To hell with "the environment" in the place you are raping and pillaging.  As marauding armies have known for millenia, this strategy is all about sacking the village and moving on; leave it to the survivors to put things back together. But it isn't just wanton destruction by an army of insensitive miners or loggers or developers that leads to terrible environmental degradation. The sum total impact of each of us, refusing to consider the impact of our behavior on others (because, hell, we can always move to Florida when the Bronx gets too messed up, right?) creates the mess too.

So we get back to the "Tragedy of the Commons". 

Platt (1973) conceptualized the commons dilemma as a type of social trap. Platt described three such categories of social traps, each of which is relevant to environmentally destructive behavior. The commons type of trap, or individual good-collective bad trap, involves a group competing for a valued resource, such that destructive behavior by one participant has minor impact on the whole, but if all engage in the same individual behavior, the impact on the commons is disastrous. The one-person trap, or self-trap, involves a disastrous consequence to one person. Typical of these traps is addiction to drugs or food The momentary pleasures of the present have disastrous consequences in the long run.  The third type is the missing hero trap. Whereas the commons trap and self-trap involve unfortunate actions that we take, the missing hero trap involves an action that we fail to take, such as refusing to help someone in need or failing to warn others of the toxicity of a substance with which they work. (p. 475).

We are all caught in such social traps, and the real problem for me is that we fall into these traps no matter what we think of the mythical place called "the environment".  Each of us really wants the best environment we can have around us, but is trapped into harming both our internal and external environments, and those of our loved ones and friends and neighbors, and even people and other creatures thousands of miles away, through the little actions we take.

Figuring out how to live without harming another is part of what this life journey is about, and one very good reason for getting an education.  We may not have all the answers yet, but one thing for me is certain, whether we live in Germany or the U.S. or anywhere else -- we can no longer be part of the missing hero trap.  There are some things we can all agree to do now to play nice and stop hurting others.  So let's start doing them.

Find the hero -- in YOU.