Think Full Body Scans Are Bad? Wait Until You See What Environmentalists Have In Mind.
Image by AFP/Getty Images via Daylife
The installation of full body scanners in eleven American airports is occasioning full-bodied opposition. As diverse an array of people as American leftist Allison Kilkenny, German Pope Benedict XVI, and Swedish libertarian Nathalie Rothschild have raised legitimate and compelling criticisms of the highly invasive technology. I recommend Rothschild’s superb piece the most highly – she points out that the installation of full body scanners is simply another example of the ever-more intrusive surveillance operations of the state. (She’s writing about the UK, where personal liberty is in an even more precarious position than in the US.) As we’ve seen all too often, Americans, like their British counterparts, are increasingly required to sacrifice their personal liberties in the name of “security.”
The environmental movement is now demanding the same – this time in the name of “climate security.” (Note how the environmental movement has adopted the same rhetoric that terrorism hysterics utilize.) Many of the environmentally-conscious set are now arguing that Americans should sacrifice their personal liberties and privacy to achieve “security.” Sound familiar?
Daniel Gross of Slate magazine has put it most succinctly. Indeed, in a recent column, Gross argued nakedly for a sort of Full Energy Scan. That is: he thinks that people’s personal energy use should be made public, in order to shame them into turning down the heat. Here is a direct quote from the column in question:
But I’m more interested in having my utilities provide me with more information about how much electricity my next-door neighbors are using. Maybe that sounds nosy. Why should I care what other people are doing? Shouldn’t I just focus on my own behavior and energy use?
Well, reducing energy use—like reducing the use of all sorts of other resources—should be a simple matter of economics. Rational people seek to maximize profits, and hence should naturally seek to use less of valuable, expensive resources such as electricity or heating oil. But it turns out that people need other types of motivation in order to act. And one of those motivations can be peer pressure, or social norms.
Xcel Energy has been doing experiments about this in its service area. It sends report cards that “lets the customers know in a colorful bar chart how they rate when their combined electrical and natural gas use for the past month is compared with 100 neighbors in similar-size homes. It also lets them know how they did compared with their most efficient neighbors.” Those that perform well against these benchmarks receive two smiley faces. It sounds like second grade, but this information can be a powerful motivator. Utilities that have tried such efforts report that these efforts alone result in reductions of 2 percent to 3 percent, which is significant.
Peer pressure has proved to be a spur to sustainable practices in other areas, such as hotels.
Gross goes on to point to a number of studies in conducted in “behavioral economics” – that most dismal of dismal sciences – that have found that people can be shamed into cutting back their energy usage. Opinion aggregator The Atlantic Wire found this to be a compelling idea.
Gross is not the only proponent of publicizing the private in order to achieve higher environmental goals – he’s only the most recent, and grossest (sorry) example. The National Science Foundation has also advocated utilizing “peer pressure” to achieve environmental goals, and the British journalist George Monibot has demanded that the energy usage of all commercial buildings be revealed. Gross’s commenters seemed taken with the idea.
Set aside whether reduced energy use is a laudable goal. Consider, instead, the shift that is happening here: the traditional notion of what constitutes private information is being made public. First it happened as a result of fears over terrorism. Now it’s happening as a result of fears over a changing climate. Alas, the push-back against those who would publicize energy usage is markedly absent. Indeed, the the real question is: where is the energy in the pro-liberty movement?
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
The climate security site you linked to has nothing to do with advocating shame-driven emissions reduction strategies, and Gross’s story doesn’t mention climate security at all. It’d be absurd if Gross were arguing that we need to know our neighbor’s energy or else we’ll put our national security in danger, but no one’s making that argument at either of those links.
Anyway, there’s already a few good examples of this in practice. Carpool lanes and lawn-watering restrictions are citizen enforced in a number of places. As far as I know, it works. You can also find out whether your neighbor paid property taxes or has a history of housing violations. You can get the appraised value of your neighbor’s house. There’s a good deal of information that’s already available. You’ve also got things like snow shoveling and lawn mowing that are enforced by peer pressure in the same way. I don’t think this is a good idea at all, but it’s not a quantum leap in privacy invasion or anything.
[...] Think Full Body Scans Are Bad? Wait Until You See What … [...]
“journalist George Monibot”? I presume you mean Monbiot. Though he may write like a “journalist”, he’s anything but impartial. A more accurate term would be activist.
Frankly, if my utility bills had to be posted, I’d do two things: First, my utility bills are a the business of me and the utilities I deal with. Anyone with so much time on their hands that they felt obligated to confront me with this will be told to mind their own business. Do it more than once and I won’t even be that nice.
Second, I’d buy my own energy supplies and leave the utilities to fend for themselves. That kind of information is very subject to manipulation, and does not take in to account how many people live at the residence, whether there is a home business there, or whether there are hobbies or special needs that might raise or lower the bill.
Dimwit ideas like this fail to recognize the possibility that others might abuse the information. I know these people mean well, but meaning well and doing well are two different things.
[...] Think Full Body Scans Are Bad? Wait Until You See What Environmentalists Have In Mind. – Ethan… [...]
[...] Think Full Body Scans Are Bad? Wait Until You See What Environmentalists Have In Mind. – Ethan… [...]
As an environmentalist, I’m embarrassed by this.
This is the result when environmentalism assumes the trappings of a religion.
What’s next? Climate Inquisitions?
“Consider, instead, the shift that is happening here: the traditional notion of what constitutes private information is being made public. First it happened as a result of fears over terrorism.”
I’m not sure what any of this means. “The traditional notion of what constitutes private information is being made public.” The “notion” is being made public? Did it used to be a secret?
Also, what private information is being made public as a result of fears over terrorism? Sure, the government started snooping around in more of our lives, but that doesn’t mean the information is being made public. You seem really, really confused here.