Monopolized by the drafting of my book, « Consommation et luxe » (Consumption and luxury), to be published next fall, it is impossible for me to continue publishing a weekly chronicle. I will thus take a short break and begin anew in September. To receive word of my chronicles’ resumption, I invite you to subscribe to the RSS feed.
In the meantime, if you wish to communicate with me, use the email address accessible in my profile; I’ll gladly answer you.
Have a great summer!
The G8 summit is an occasion for me to make a return on the chronicle «Kyoto and consumption» chronicle, published on April 27, 2007, in which I wrote: «Are those highly virtuous citizens, allegedly worried about the environment, truly willing to make an effort to change their habits and reduce their consumption?»
I was then, and still remain, with good reason, sceptic about the will of Quebecers, like citizens of other provinces and countries, to make an effort to reduce polluting emissions. True, a minority of citizens is willing to radically change their way of life to safeguard the planet, but such is not the case of the majority. Evidence of this can be found in the article « Environnement : oui aux mesures indolores » (Environment: yes to painless measures), published on Wednesday May 30 2007 in La Presse daily newspaper. Journalist François Cardinal wrote: «A very large majority of Quebecers are ready to act to counter climatic changes provided that this action does not require any sacrifice on their part.»
This article is based on the «Changements climatiques au Québec méridional: perceptions de la population générale et suggestions d'adaptations futures» (Climatic changes in southern Quebec: perceptions of the population at large and suggestions for future adaptations) survey from the «Institut national de santé publique du Québec» (Quebec national institute of public health). Here is an eloquent extract (page VIII): «Besides, it would seem that a majority of citizens would support national and international initiatives in as far as they do not require a significant change in their life style or sacrifice of their comfort for collective well being and in as much as that does not cost them a penny. Lastly, the majority would also have a strong attachment to status quo and would risk more to avoid a loss than to obtain a benefit.»
For millennia, the earth has gone through several cycles of warming and cooling; the current one is undoubtedly more pronounced due to human activity. This is not a reason to panic the population, set unattainable objectives and propose impracticable solutions. Obviously, it is imperative to act… intelligently. I favour setting perhaps less ambitious, but realistic objectives. Privileged solutions must be simple to implement and not constitute an obstacle to the population’s way of life, a position supported by Mario Roy.
In an editorial published on Monday February 5 207 in La Presse (page A15) this journalist wrote: «Quebecers talk big about being world champions of the environment. […] Why are Quebecers opposed are to a rise in electricity tariffs and to exploitation of hydraulic power? […] Why have sales of the largest and most luxurious sports utility vehicles (SUV) progressed by 17% and 6% respectively in Canada in 2006?» Amongst other things, he attributes this apparent contradiction to the fact «that the citizen indicates he will not sacrifice comfort and freedom which modernity gives him.» He looks upon technological development as a promising way to find solutions to climate warming: «Like the industrialist, the citizen will put a price on his sacrifices. Better still, he will prefer new clean technologies to them, new green processes, correct ecological behaviours… as long as they are without pain.»
Humans have shown their inventiveness at the time of humanity’s greatest crises; science has the made colossal progress. Think of antibiotics, technologies of communications, data processing and nuclear energy, which have resulted from research undertaken during the Second World War.
The same will be true today, provided that we devote resources and energies needed, rather than remaining locked up us in sterile polemics.
Last weekend, wanting to eradicate undesirable weeds that invade our terrace, I went to a gardening centre to buy an herbicide; I accept the fact that dandelion be part of our lawn's ecological balance but refuse to see it invade the patio. On the other hand, concerned to use a weed killer without any toxicity for humans and animals when applied, and which doesn't leave any toxic residue in the environment, I wanted a so called ecological product. The one recommended by the merchant satisfied these criteria; its label mentioned the active element, acetic acid, in a proportion of 62,5 g per litre. I figured that it was an acetic acid solution a little more concentrated than vinegar. I thus bought a one litre spray bottle costing of 7,97 $ Can.
I applied the product; there was indeed a strong vinegar odour. I must admit its effectiveness; after an hour or two, the plants already started to desiccate. On the other hand, curiosity pushed me to search the Internet; I learned that commercial vinegar was usually a 5% acetic acid solution, that is to say 1,01 g per millilitre, therefore 101 g per litre. Vinegar sold in grocery stores is thus a solution 1,6 TIMES more CONCENTRATED than the product I bought. Pursuing my investigation further, I consulted the manufacturer's Web site; the detailed descriptive product leaflet indeed mentions as active ingredients acetic acid mainly (5-10 Wt.%), and in a lesser proportion, citric acid (3-7 Wt.%).
I was surprised, indeed shocked. Would it be a less concentrated solution of vinegar to which a small amount of citric acid was added? Save that the presence of a small proportion of lemon juice is the key of the effectiveness of this product? Being neither a chemist, nor a horticulturist, I cannot pass judgement with certainty on this question. On the other hand, if such is NOT the case, perhaps I was swindled! I bought vinegar at 7,97 $ Can. a litre, when I could have bought 4 litres for 2,59 $ Can. in a supermarket (Loblaws, «no name» brand)! I hate to admit this, but I fear this may be the case. The Agricultural Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture has tested vinegar, including the household variety, as a weed killer; you can read the results for yourself.
Ecological products are popular. Motivated by easy and quick profit, several companies undoubtedly will try to exploit the consumer with various «environmentally safe» products whose effectiveness is doubtful, or which could be replaced by inexpensive solutions.
Once again, the Latin expression «Caveat emptor», buyer beware, makes a lot of sense. I would very much like that people who have precise information concerning the product mentioned, or ecological products in general, post this information on the blog.
Absorbed with grading student papers and exams, I present a shorter than usual chronicle today. While briefer, it will nonetheless be interesting, because I know the subject to be highly controversial and that my comments will leave no one indifferent. Some will applaud my intervention, but others, perhaps a majority, will disagree with me. I nevertheless allow myself this criticism. As I recently wrote a reader of this blog: «If I did not want to be criticized, I need only not publicize my opinions».
Some of us have seen advertising or a newspaper article concerning the «Body Worlds 2» exhibition presented at the Montreal Science Centre, from May 10 to September 16 2007. Thanks to the plastination process, those wishing to do so may now preserve their body indefinitely, and even display it publicly after their death. I agree that it is an innovative and useful technology to train scientists, doctors for instance. However, I have yet to be convinced about the allegedly educational and artistic use proposed; I don't understand why some reporters praise the genius of exhibiting corpses. I see nothing brilliant about exposing artificially preserved human bodies in grotesque postures.
In faculties of Medicine, respect is demanded for bodies donated to science by people wanting to contribute to the advancement of knowledge. Where is respect in such a display of human flesh?
If the consumer society has favoured the emergence of a fundamentally individualistic, indeed selfish, world, we have now reached a summit in narcissism for people who thus display themselves after their death. For those paying to see this gruesome show, it is more appropriate to talk about a voyeurism-like phenomenon. Moreover, it is truly revolting to see some get rich using such dubious methods.
Egocentricity in some, voyeurism or craving for profit in others; it is quite sad to see people thus forgetting human’s divine nature!
I'm eager to read your comments… whether you agree with me or not.
Again this year, the SAAQ (Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec) displays a lack of discernment in its choice of advertising theme. Confronted with a degrading road safety record, it chooses to use fear and guilt to induce an attitude change in faulty drivers. The chosen theme for 2007 is «Accidents hurt… a lot of people» and the setting is dramatic not to say plainly morbid. You may watch those ads on the SAAQ Web site.
Now, for a long time, studies show that the use of fear and guilt is not without danger. In fact, this strategy may induce a reaction opposite to the one intended (D. Cohen, Advertising, 1972, p. 418): «However, studies in the communication process have indicated that where people are highly anxious, the fear approach may not be successful, but in fact may boomerang so that the highly anxious individual would not accept the message». Furthermore, studies by Janis and Feshbach (1961) and Terwilliger (1963) have shown that a message calling upon fear, used for already anxious people, stimulates a person’s defences and impedes the change of attitude wished for. This phenomenon is confirmed by recent studies (K. E. Clow et D. Baack, Integrated Advertising, Promotion, & Marketing Communications, 2002, p. 308): «On the other hand, an advertisement with a high level of fear can be detrimental. A message that is too strong causes feelings of anxiety. This leads viewers to avoid watching the ad, by changing the channel or muting the sound».
It is surprising to see the SAAQ use this type of advertising again in 2007, since their use did not succeed in improving the road safety record; on the contrary, based on this organization’s own survey, it has worsened if anything, thus showing the low utility of the concept.
In addition to the risk of seeing those ads not allowing the SAAQ to meet its commendable objectives of reducing accidents and deaths on the roads, one must also consider another perverse effect: that of traumatizing sensitive people, in no way targeted by this advertising.
Completely on the other hand, the CSST (Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail) understands that intense fear and shocking scenes are useless, even harmful. If the 2002 advertising «Do not let death do its work» called upon really gruesome scenes, the 2007 campaign «Do everything so that nothing happens» is on the contrary very positive; it illustrates the benefits of safety, using a subtle level of fear, which suggests dangers without causing negative reactions.
What do you think of SAAQ and CSST advertising?
Do you believe that SAAQ ads are too shocking? Too gruesome?
Do you agree with the use of the fear and the guilt in advertising from governmental or paragovernmental agencies?
The media storm surrounding the
A growing number people seem to surround their consumption with concerns based on fundamental values of social equity and environmental safeguard. For example, statistics from Ipsos indicate that, between 2000 and 2002, the proportion of French people «having heard about equitable trade» almost quadrupled, reaching 32% (Plate-Forme pour le Commerce Équitable). In the
True consumer requirements, societal expects are involved in all sectors and are impossible to ignore by companies. For instance, low consumption vehicles to reduce environmental pollution harmful and preserve oil, a limited resource. Also think of raw material recycling such as paper, glass, etc. Societal expects also concern recovery of dangerous material, those of the information technology industry for instance, whose products contain toxic metals. The service sector is also affected; several stakeholders in tourism have ecological (ecotourism) and social (sustainable tourism) concerns. One can also mention cultural heritage conservation, a major stake for several town planners, architects and other stakeholders in urban planning.
The highly mediated outburst around the Kyoto protocol and the ensuing political hijacking demonstrate that expects, societal and other, can often be emotive rather than strictly rational. Minister Baird’s plan is rational; it proposes a balanced solution between economic and environmental constraints. I’m quite certain that Premier Harper’s government will do more when it CAN. Criticisms are more of an emotive and symbolic nature;
What do you think?
Is the alarmist talk of some people more emotive than rational?
Must the
Are you personally satisfied with the plan suggested last week by Minister Baird?
What other concrete and achievable measures would you like to propose to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases?
