Grasping at (Paper) Straws

Rather than pushing people to accept less for themselves, we need to demand more from our leaders and institutions

Way back when I was deciding what I wanted to do with my life, I ended up (much to my surprise) gravitating toward product design. I’ve always been drawn to creative work, but what really sparked my interest in this field was its can-do attitude.

Creating new things that would profoundly enhance people's lives required understanding the push and pull between their stated desires and actual behaviours, going beyond merely observing society and commenting on it (which I, obviously, also enjoy) to actually transforming it.

Despite working in design and communications in Canada for over a decade and a half since then (which can easily crush anyone’s bright-eyed spirit), I still think this way. I hate and refuse to accept the attitude that we don’t need better, that what we have is more than enough.

In recent years, that complacency has gone into overdrive, which may explain why I’ve been drawn more to the alternative path I considered back then (writing) in an attempt to persuade people that we can, in fact, do better.

The notion that we should accept less for ourselves, without at least an equivalent effort from our leaders and institutions, does not align with my vision of progress. While individual responsibility is crucial, it’s insufficient on a large scale without systemic competence and a recognition of the need for continuous change.

Regrettably, those very leaders and institutions seem determined to avoid systemic change at all costs.

I consider the pushback against climate initiatives in Europe and especially the UK in this context, with their prime minister promising to “slam the brakes on the war on motorists” (which sounds awfully familiar to us in Canada who remember our crack-smoking Toronto mayor Rob Ford saying ending the “war on cars” was a priority, circa 2010).

I actually support the idea of a more "bright green" agenda, moving away from "dark green" alarmism - but I tend to view conservative initiatives like these more as excuses to scale back on programs and circumvent ambitious environmental objectives than as serious alternatives (knowing, as I do, that Rob Ford's tenure as mayor saw extensive budget cuts and cancellations of progressive projects without any viable competing vision, resulting in stagnation that persists to this day in my city).

However, my stance on the problem and its roots goes beyond condemning conservative efforts to stall progress. I am also of the opinion that the recent trend among progressives, focusing too much on punishing people for using the systems we have as they were intended to be used, and too little on advocating for the necessary work to design new systems, contributes significantly to the emergence of these types of inertia-driven setbacks.

Consider our federal and provincial governments’ approach to our carbon taxes, as an example of a more current Canadian conundrum. 

My opinion is that carbon taxes could have been more effective if they were designed in a way that forced businesses to rethink their practices more thoroughly. However, their design has leaned more toward nudging consumers to greener options over time, rather than taking a more assertive approach in encouraging businesses to invest in the necessary technology and infrastructure to make these options more viable. 

Rather than hitting people already struggling with the cost of living with yet another burden, the taxes could have been more precise and targeted to businesses (and they wouldn't have faced as much public resistance).

Expanding on this, it's important to recognize that even when businesses are mandated to make changes, the solutions they adopt often miss the mark. Take the transition from plastic to paper straws, for example.

Paper straws, while marketed as an eco-friendly alternative, fall short in terms of biodegradability. Recent studies have also revealed their potential to transfer “forever chemicals”, posing risks to both human health and the environment.

This situation underscores a fundamental limitation in the substitution approach to sustainability. A more comprehensive solution could entail reducing the overall reliance on disposable products, rather than just replacing them.

In addition to the somewhat baffling fact that few seem to consider the simple act of sipping beverages directly without straws, another often overlooked solution is embracing a broader systemic change, such as promoting remote work. This shift could effectively reduce the demand for on-the-go disposable products altogether, addressing the root cause of the issue more efficiently.

Such strategies have the potential to yield more significant and lasting environmental benefits without unduly burdening consumers or, at the very least, causing them considerably less annoyance.

I'm concerned that by failing to adopt these strategies, we've emboldened resistance from individuals who, frustrated by behavioural changes imposed without the necessary systemic support, are now pushing for a rollback of initiatives rather than backing the kind of reforms actually needed to address climate change.

Ultimately, the failure to get buy-in for inconvenient measures, strongly pushed but with little impact beyond papering over old systems, undermines future efforts.

We only need to look back at the Covid era, when remote work was proven feasible on a large scale, to see how an extensive push (even to the point of being mandated) attempted to paper over a different set of problems, revealing the practical consequences of relying on symbolic solutions.

Outsized efforts to promote mandatory mask-wearing, often accompanied by shaming non-compliance, diverted attention from crucial systemic changes needed to combat diseases like Covid long-term. This short-sightedness resulted in less focus on key issues such as strengthening healthcare systems and ensuring universal access to sick leave, leaving these problems to persist alongside the challenges posed by an aging population and increasing system demands.

Consequently, our healthcare systems continue to grapple with significant strain. Senior health bureaucrats, sounding like a scratched vinyl repeating without progress, persist in holding masked press conferences today. They express hope that people have adopted the habit of using masks during the “respiratory virus season”, extending well beyond the initial claim that these measures were solely for Covid. But the lack of vision inherent in relying too heavily on radical individual behaviour changes to resolve systemic issues is a big part of the reason our fundamental problems remain unresolved.

All too often, we allow governments and public institutions to escape scrutiny by shifting blame on to us when they fail in their responsibilities.

This shirking of institutional accountability could also shed light on the seeming paradox of promoting abstinence from alcohol while simply minimizing the harms associated with drug use, instead of promoting recovery. Both of these trends imply that we shouldn't expect the systems we need to function when we need them.

Recommendations for extremely limited alcohol consumption, such as allowing no more than two drinks a week, place substantial emphasis on individual responsibility to adhere to rigid behavioural limits. These strict guidelines imply that the healthcare system may lack the capacity to offer comprehensive support for the health consequences of even relatively minor poor eating and drinking habits over a lifetime.

Rather than expanding healthcare resources or reconsidering the administration and organization of the healthcare system, this approach aims to make people much less dependent on it. The issue is not whether you agree with this in principle (which I do, kind of), but rather how far you push it - your specific recommendations and their extremeness - as this can, once again, undermine the argument's overall strength.

Because this approach often resorts to shame tactics, to make people feel guilty for not managing their health well enough to avoid needing healthcare altogether, then we must ask: what happens when the problem is too complex to be shamed away?

In this context, an excessive emphasis on harm reduction policies for hard drugs can also highlight institutional weaknesses. Prioritizing the reduction of drug use harms over promoting abstinence and recovery suggests that Canada's addiction treatment infrastructure isn't sufficiently robust to provide effective rehabilitation services.

In both cases, these approaches can be interpreted as responses to a healthcare system that lacks the resources, expertise, or capacity to offer more comprehensive solutions to either physical or mental health issues.

But I don’t believe we actually can’t do things, to this degree. I believe it's more that we've allowed bureaucratic bloat and a culture of inertia to run rampant to the point where it seems that way to too many in authority - but we can’t let them get away with that.

It's crucial to remember that institutions are meant to serve us, not the other way around. Passively accepting their failings will never lead to progress.

Changing the way we live, even gradually, is a substantial undertaking. While we often doubt our ability to significantly enhance people's lives, the fact that we've so effectively introduced annoying challenges and justified them as “for the common good” should (ironically) encourage us, in a way. It demonstrates our capacity for meaningful change, whether we like it or not.

Our excessive reverence for institutions, often focused on self-preservation rather than service, perpetuates our inertia problem. It's high time we demand that our institutions actually fulfill their purpose for the betterment of society.

Our approach shouldn't become fixated on removing elements that once provided satisfaction within systems that are no longer suitable for their intended purpose. Instead, we should prioritize the development of entirely new systems, offering innovative and forward-thinking solutions, which would naturally replace the outdated structures.

Covid taught me, if nothing else, that we can indeed overhaul our entire way of doing things overnight. The only thing holding us back is our attachment to the systems we've created, which we too often mistakenly believe are somehow now beyond our control.

This is why I support the idea of not blindly complying with impractical rules, and I also think we should advocate for challenging and changing rules and processes when they no longer serve us well.

Because I really want to continue believing that we can, in fact, do things. I eagerly anticipate the moment when meaningful actions once again have every opportunity necessary to truly speak louder than words.