If the way of life with which we’ve all become familiar is a product, its brand manager will have to chart a middle path between the ruinous exploitation of the planet and the changing of our ways. Climate Change remains a little vague to be The BigBad that marshals effective global attention in opposition. I think it needs a face.

I see you’re calling for increased transparency so that consumers understand the true environmental costs of their decisions in the market. Now we can’t go having THAT! What do you suppose that’s going to do for Q3 earnings?

Which raises the point: When the yardstick is always and nearly only about increasing this thing called “growth” or GDP–to what often seems the exclusion of any other consideration–well, then we’ve already started down the wrong trail. After all, cancer grows too, and few of us would claim that a boon to replicate. I think, like you, that some of those uber free marketers have reified a system that, while effective–even good–when it comes to certain things (e.g. elevating a general kind of living standard that, for many, though certainly not all, keeps the wolf from the door), fails miserably at other things (e.g. an enlightened sense of the commonwealth, one that sees the necessity in putting /some/ things beyond the mere bailiwick of The Market, which only cares about profit of a limited kind…the tops of those mountains be damned).

At root, I think a recalibration of values may be in order. “Fast, cheap and easy,” as McKibbon notes, are not the kinds of terms one would like to apply to, say, one’s daughter. Why do we think they should be held up as a model for our economic and social life? Your call for transparency and better, more holistic information that provides people with more details about how they have an impact on the earth, is a great way to start moving in this direction, since the details will enable people to see the connections, and what’s really at stake–in terms of the environment and things like social justice. And, let’s not forget the social/communal implications of all these choices too: I would argue, as McKibbon does, that independent of the environmental costs, we risk all sorts of more subtle, relational costs. And then there are the aesthetic costs that touch both the environment and the relational, such as those articulated by J.H. Kunstler.

More and more I see the Great Refusal as offering a starting point. I’ve not fully embraced that yet (I suppose I’d be living on the playa if I did), but I /have/ really started working on this. My veganism is one step along the way.

What I’ve attempted to take more seriously is the old idea of “living your values,” actually putting into action that which I would see emulated by others. Among my values is increased community, connection, relationships that transcend (or at least don’t utterly depend on) mere market transaction. While I do believe that a more reflective, enlightened approach to our consumer choices (e.g. hybrid autos, freerange chicken) is imperative, personally I would, and have, gone further in an effort to live my values, which include minimising suffering for other creatures and being mindful of environmental impacts. So: I don’t own a car, and I don’t eat flesh.

I believe this more radical recalibration/realignment of my values with my actions results both in external benefits for others as well as internal, spiritual benefits for me.

Great to see the blog live!