Up for discussion:

Environmentalism needs to be gradually introduced into the background of our culture in order to be successful. I don’t think that environmental pressures are yet bad enough to force a revolutionary change in our way of life, and I think at the point where they are bad enough it will be too late. On the other hand, I think that there is a lack of a concerted effort to cause a significant evolutionary change, because government and corporations have been very successful at their standard game of three-card Monty. People simply don’t care enough yet to check up on the façade of movement.

I believe that the secret to getting the masses to care about an issue is not to appeal to its importance. For, outside of a small minority, it is impossible to convince the population that anything is more important than their creature comforts. Environmentalism simply cannot compete in the same ballpark as our redirected sex drives or craving for attention and social acceptance. If the battle were to be direct, SUVs, cheap coal power and plastic packaging would always win.

So if a direct battle is impossible, then the only choice other than surrender is a war of attrition. And here is how that must be done: it must be easy for the public to care about environmentalism. We find a way to make it easy for environmental factors to be directly hooked into purchasing decision, and there by leverage the entirety of the market against the problem. If there were a choice between two equivalent cars, yet one was manufactured by a more environmentally sound corporation, we must influence the consumer decision towards that car. Hopefully, with that consumer pressure, the fiscal arms race would start and drive the economy (and the consumer) towards a more sustainable society. Of course, this would not be an overnight effect, potentially spanning multiple generations, but it would buy time and encourage development of important technologies.

Currently, no such easy metric exists. While there exist some organizations that attempt to monitor and grade companies in small domains (forestry, being an example), corporations usually start up competing “neutral” organizations designed to hand out favourable marks, which they proudly trumpet on their packaging. Furthermore, while a company may itself be a model of environmental soundness, a short walk down its supply chain (the chain of companies that supply it with components) may yield a mine in Indonesia leaching acid into the local aquifer. Furthermore, an environmentally sound company may belong to the same umbrella company that owns a clear cutting company, or a dirty coal power plant. It must be easy to find and punish these companies.

So I suggest that a strong component of our social evolution is a matter of communication and information collection on a grand scale. A solution to this is a wiki-style system for collection two things: supply chain and ownership information creating the network of our economy, and the environmental information which will bleed along the edges of this network. This system will also push the other way, as end consumers will exert their force on the entire network, not just one company. Must like being able to simultaneously attack the whole hydra rather than just one head. This means that people will be able to pay attention to small areas of the network, while receiving the benefit of the entire structure. Hopefully, without simplifying too much, this will distill into a single number- a measure of soundness.

Not to say that this will be easy. The system must be resistant to tampering and collusion, easy to use and contribute to, and must pick up a critical mass of users quickly. Furthermore, agreeing on a single measure for combining various factors will be difficult and controversial for It would be a lot of work, but I think that it might be an important and useful tool, if it doesn’t already exist.

This is a fantastic read and there is a lot of thought put into this.

I think I disagree on one fundamental point though.

I'm sure most of us will share a similar sense of urgency about the environment, greenhouse gases and climate change. Correct me if I'm wrong but the rationale you've presented is that if the information possessed by the average consumer was optimal, with regards to the product he was buying, then he would buy and reward the product whose respective production chain, punished the environment less, while punishing the product whose respective production chain punished the environment more. Therefore you've forwarded the idea of a grand scale depository of information, necessary for consumers to make this decision.

This is very interesting and original. You've said that this won't be easy and I would agree with that. It's probably an understatement, however I don't think it is viable for the following reason:

A consumer will always be driven by his self interest above all else and the average consumer's self interest may or may not be the environment. Attempting to re-define environmental causes as being in everyone's self interest is necessary but it will never substitute the basic material needs of the individual and the small economic cell that we call a family. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand, has I believe, met it's match when it comes to the environment.

I believe in another solution. Two words, that would not only solve global warming and extend our species' lease on planet earth, but one that is painless to consumers and the population in general. Clean energy.

Replacing fossil fuels with nuclear, wind-power, hydro-power, hydrogen fuel, solar energy, etc.

All that is necessary is a combination of human ingenuity (which we already possess) and political will. The strategy you've suggested would lead to consumers increasing demand for cleanly produced products and lowering demand on products produced at the expense of the environment. This would lead to the abandonment of means of production that pollute. I don't think that it will ever be possible to generate the kind of consumer-motivation necessary for this to function. I think it would be simpler and easier to phase out the polluting production of the supply, by replacing it gradually with clean energy sources, directly.

The only reason this shift isn't taking place fast enough is because it is not in the bottom line interest of production. Nor governments for that matter since tax is collected off of this production. Of course both government and consumers have important roles in making it their bottom line interest. Changing the mentality of consumers in a way that it pressures production to change is useful, but more difficult then to have governments pushing for immediate change with a variety of tools that are at their disposal.

Ending subsidisation of polluting energy sources (i.e. oil companies) and shifting massive incentives to clean energy sources and eventually ending military interventions over fossil fuels. Heavily penalising manufacturers who fail to make the shift if necessary, etc.

I fear as you do that we will only get results when it is far too late and I can imagine a few coast-line cities around the world swimming in saltwater before we see the kind of change we'd like to see right now.

I think it is incredibly frustrating to see politicians drone about carbon markets when fossil fuels should have by now been ferociously discouraged and their emissions in decline. Worst of all was seeing the odious Jim Inhofe, a man who denounces global warming as a secularist conspiracy and regularly compared scientists to Nazis, as the chairman of an American congressional committee on the environment. That's been taken care of however. Hello Barbara Boxer and thank you very much voters of California.

EDIT:

Of course clean energy sources will never rule out conventional pollution such as dumping acid and other industrial garbage into water supplies and soils. Unfortunately I think that motivating the average consumer to rethink his purchasing priorities or preferences, according the consequences of global warming is difficult enough. I think it may be possible one day to collect the information necessary for consumers to make better decisions, but I don't think it will ever be possible to have consumers motivated for it unless there is a seriously pressing issue that may cause harm directly to them and the people around them. Acid in an Indonesian swamp just won't cut it.

I think that this is the source of our disagreement. I see what you are saying, but let me forward an alternate view of people:

They aren’t rational, they are boundedly rational. That is, they’re rational up to a certain point, but then heuristics kick in. I don’t believe that cars are sold based on their actual features, I believe they’re usually sold on their image. Minivans are safe and promote family fun time, sports cars will win you the respect of your peers, co-workers and younger women, SUVs will allow you to escape your urban routine and become a more rugged, primal, man. They’re personality boosters, not just methods of transportation. You don’t sell to the rational mind; you sell to the churning sea of insecurities, fears, and desires.

I think that current environmental advocates have done a great job at two things: firstly spreading awareness that there is a problem with the environment and secondly, but more importantly, inspiring a sense of guilt among the consumer. We now feel a little guilty about screwing the planet over. However, this sense of guilt is not enough to encourage major life changes. Maybe we’ll recycle the occasional pop can, but we will still drive rather than bike to work. In the middle ages, the Church had successfully inspired guilt about sex into society. This didn’t stop adultery, sex with non-Christians, children out of wedlock or anything like that. Why? Because sex is a natural and innate drive. It can’t be stopped. What they did manage to do is convince guilty nobles to purchase indulgences and donate money to found monastic orders. They were able to convert society’s guilt into hard currency and temporal power (which ironically discredited them and lead to the downfall of the universality of the church). It is in the spirit of the corrupt clergy that I suggest we proceed.

My imagined scenario is this: a man or woman walks to the store to buy toilet paper. They walk into the toilet paper aisle, and are immediately assaulted by choices. They must choose better different packages offering large, fluffier, and more numerous sheets. This is the current market balance. At this point, amid this confusion, half-remembered commercials and past experience play their part. However, imagine in addition to this one company trumpets that they recently received an environmental score of 8.35 by a well known standard, more than 0.2 points above their major competitor! They’re the “green” choice! Now the consumer is a little more inclined to buy their product. Products also have an emotional impact, and if a product offers to fulfill an emotional need, namely to assuage their fears that they are not being “environmentally conscious”. They will hopefully walk out of the store with that brand thinking that they’ve done “their part”.

The public, as far as I can determine, thinks mostly by slogan. Why else would people have such strong brand loyalty to Coke as oppose to Pepsi, or RC cola, or any other cola? Or why people continue to buy 4x4s for urban commuting? The idea is to tap into this sort of irrationality- to manipulate the emotions of the consumer. I’m just suggesting taking what marketing does best, and use it to create environmental change rather than increased profits. It’s meant to be a simple exploit on the existing guilt, forcing a change in purchasing behaviour, in turn influencing corporate behaviour. However, the actually service needs to be rationally defendable, because it will need to resist attacks on its credibility and encourage actual, positive, and continued change across society.