Narated by Annie Leonard

This sparse effective animated lesson about sustainability starts with critiques of the current wasteful global production and consumption cycles and evolves into an active and engaging lesson of greening for the future.

Voici une petite vidéo destinée aux petits et aussi aux plus grands expliquant très bien le cycle insensé de la surconsommation de masse (vous devrez cliquer sur les vidéos suivantes afin de voir la suite- partie 2 jusqu’à 7):

I’ve mentioned the Story of Stuff before, as a quirky little video that introduces many of the problems with consumerism. It’s come in for a bit of an attack recently, and Mark has been engaging with the debate over at Breathe. Definitely worth a read, although you might want to watch the video, and its indignant riposte first.

Ecco il link al video “The Story of Stuff” di Annie Leonard. Pone una serie di questioni rilevanti sulla sostenibilità dei modelli produttivi e di consumo attuali. Quali sono le possibili soluzioni, secondo voi?

A while back I posted on The Story of Stuff. And I received a vociferous response from a blogger called clancop. Though his comments had actually just been pasted into another website which featured The Story of Stuff, I thought they merited a reply. 

What’s the point in criticising consumerism if it creates jobs and is an important part of our free society? How can we be sure that some of the facts and figures being swapped around are correct? Isn’t consumerism a great good that lifts people out of poverty by building a strong economy?

These are the big questions. So I thought I’d try to take the discussion further. 

You can see the critique of The Story of Stuff, by Lee Doran, here. This post is a critique of the critique!  Hang on to your hats…

Should kids watch it?

Perhaps the best place to begin is to try and defuse some of the bombs that have been thrown in this debate already. I am not here going to argue that The Story of Stuff should be shown in classrooms in the US or the UK. Some of the facts in the video are overstated. With younger kids this would give me cause for concern.

Having said that, I don’t like it when my young children watch TV ads – they are slickly presented to use psychological and social pressures to influence children. Presumably critics of The Story of Stuff are just as tough on this kind of moulding of young minds?

Simplicity

I said in my original post that The Story of Stuff (SOS – is that deliberate?) was simplistic. I stand by that judgement. The critique video (SOSAC??) rightly takes Annie Leonard to task on her over-long and over-reactive section about toxins (I was worried about this). By the same token, though, simplicity is a feature of mass communication – which is, if we think about it, a drawback of our media-driven society.

Ironically, the critique video is no different. I was interested, for example, by the comment: ‘People who eat meat do it to increase their standard of living’. We will come to this theme again. The statement is true only up to a point. Meat eating does indeed provide enjoyable cuisine, occasion for feasting (at least, it did until it became so common), and certain nutrients. I eat meat; I’m very thankful to be able to do so. But if we just keep on eating more and more food (including meat) our standard of living does actually begin to decrease due to obesity and other hyper-consumption disorders. Lee Doran is a fan of graphs, but his video misses the point that in the US and UK there are now serious concerns that life expectancy will start to fall.

Can we please move on now?

I enjoyed the passion for debate in the critique of SOS, and I was grateful for it setting some facts straight. But as the video progresses it becomes ever clearer that we are straying into a right-left ‘big government’ debate.

Is it just me who worries that this is unhelpful? Isn’t there a risk that bringing right-left battles into a debate about natural resources and consumer culture is just going to stir up a set of old rivalries and tired arguments? The reference to communism at the end of the final part brings back the reassuring enmities of the cold war. Can we get beyond that now, please? Aren’t the issues of consumerism, lifestyle, the environment, trade justice and the poverty of billions enough to prompt us to address this question in a fresh and open way?

A few responses on specific points are in order.

Efficiency

One of Doran’s points is that as we get more efficient, the harnessing of the earth’s resources and the creation of waste is not so much of an issue. There’s always more we can utilise and we are getter better and better at making the most of it and then disposing of it efficiently.

There is mileage in this. But only so much. The critique states: ‘Mining has been going on since the Roman Empire’. Sounds great. It implies that mining could go on forever. But in terms of normal fossil fuels I think most people would doubt this.

Again the critique states: ‘We haven’t scratched the surface’ (accompanied by a picture of the whole globe, chopped open so we can see the crust, mantle, outer core, etc). Is this a little optimistic? It’s an argument from possibility. Some efficiencies and new technologies will undoubtedly come to our aid. But is it wise to ignore the warnings from a majority of scientists about resource depletion in the hope that ‘something will turn up’? Perhaps Lee would like to take a lead in being more creative with the earth’s resources by setting up home in the outer core of our planet…

Prices

A little economics can be a dangerous thing. And students of economics would be wise to question some of the dogmas they imbibe (isn’t that part of the purpose of education?). Doran rightly points out that the market can, in theory, self-correct as things become scarce (is he accepting then that things are becoming scarce?). What he doesn’t say is that ‘the market’ doesn’t know or care what the cost of this might be to the actual people who are living on the earth.

‘People self-ration their resources’ he states. Do they really? If prices spike (e.g., food prices across Africa 2007-8) many people will not be able to ration their resources.

Sometimes they die. Where does that fit on the graph?

It doesn’t.

I would be suspicious of basing an entire social order around a mathematical construct that takes no note of whether people live or die. Economically speaking, if people die the demand curve will lessen leading to a drop in prices. Thank goodness there are more ways for human beings to speak than simply in terms of economics.

Naiveté and turning a blind eye

Doran seems to believe that prices always capture the real cost of a product. This is a literalism that economic theory cannot bear even on its own terms. Prices, in pure theory, are simply where supply meets demand. They reflect what people who have money are prepared to pay for something. Economic theory works with this notion as the definition of ‘price’. But this system is ill-fitted to embrace all that we mean by the ‘cost’ of producing something.

I am astonished by the faith some economists place in the market. If I trusted in God half as much I would be a saint!

At the end of the day, there is a legitimate discussion to be had about the proper constraints of a free market and the role of government. There are reasons to entertain the point attributed to Churchill ‘It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried’. Perhaps this applies to capitalism too. Perhaps. Though there is more than one way to run a capitalist system. However there is a level of naïveté that is unacceptable.

The critique of SOS remarks: ‘I’d love to find the central planners in a free market society’ assuming that there are none. Has he never heard of Milton Friedman? Does he think that politicians make no decisions at all?

The critique says: ‘the point of an advertisement is to make the citizenry aware of the goods and services in society’ (I detect the troublesome symptoms of a swallowed textbook). Advertising is simply about raising awareness? This is incredibly naïve. Now whose head is in the clouds? I doubt any advertiser will offer him a job soon!

The critique says: We go to other countries for production because of ‘economies of scale’. Certainly this is true. But only because of that? Are there no other reasons why production is cheaper outside the richest nations? What about the greater concern for human rights? What about the fact that communities are strong enough to protest against developments they don’t like? What about imbalances of power that make poorer nations indebted to rich nations? What about the fact that international trade bodies are weighted not according to population (as if people mattered most) but according to political power and wealth? Is Doran ignorant of the political deals that are struck? Who owns the land and resources that change hands? How do we know such transactions are legitimate?

I remember once living in a world where economic theory governed things so simply. But I just don’t recognise it anymore. The constant recourse to simple models, and the shrill repetition of financial dogma makes me begin to wonder if the critique is trying to hide from a complex world behind the simplicity of economics.

But naiveté is more dangerous than merely being intellectually unsophisticated. Doran’s video defends that fact that corporations have such huge resources at their disposal. This is not a problem to him. But it should be. Any lover of pure economic theory knows that monopolies distort price curves. Any realist knows that with such huge figures at stake companies will be tempted to use all manner of means to further their interests. Some of these, like unofficial cartels, will illegally distort the market; others the market may allow, like lobbying overseas governments to allow dangerous work practices that would never be allowed in the US or UK, but they still work against human flourishing.

The power of the corporations is one aspect of the real politik that we may have to live with. But to argue that it is not a problem opens the door to the worst kind of abuses. What initially sounds like an enlightened, balanced rejoinder to The Story of Stuff ends up encouraging us to turn a blind eye to some of the most powerful human organisations on the planet who need the accountability a watching public can provide.

The rigid assertion made in the critique (‘only capitalism is sustainable’) makes sense on the lips of a wealthy corporate advocate, or indeed any member of an elite country with immense political and military power. It might even turn out to be true. But I would be wary of what else gets smuggled in under such a certain guise.

Opening up the debate

Where do we go from here?

At the end of the day, what frustrated me most about the critique of The Story of Stuff was the way it seemed to close down debate. At one point, the video presents a simple choice: either live an impossibly poor life in grinding poverty OR get a crap job to make cheap goods at the whim of the market. I accept that for many people on the planet, this choice is a real one.

But is it really the only option? Actually, no. There is Fair Trade, which provides a more secure income and a premium to invest locally (no, I am not suggesting that if the whole world went Fair Trade this would be a good thing). Governments, NGOs and charities intervene to improve health, education and employment opportunities. Microfinance initiatives encourage grass roots entrepreneurship (several friends of mine are doing this right now around the world). The concept of human rights has lifted many people out of abject working conditions (I don’t think it’s a cheap shot to point out that economic arguments were once made against the abolition of slavery). There is a serious campaign to lower unfair trade tarriffs – perhaps this is an issue we could unite on across the political spectrum.

In other words, there’s more than one way to develop a healthy economy.

For instance, to take up the analogy used in SOS and its critique, we can save $5 by getting a cheap radio so we can pay the newspaper boy, thus stimulating the economy.  OR we can pay $10 for a better-made radio because we make things to last, refuse to be so wasteful and enter into trade agreements so we know that the people who made our products are better treated. The $10 will still trickle down through our beloved economy. But it will trickle down much further than just our local paperboy (who will probably survive just fine). It stands a much better chance of getting to the people who need it most.

So here’s the big question: Do Lee Doran and my intemperate blogging friend ‘clancop’ believe in creativity? Do they believe in providing new, better options and the surprising resourcefulness of humanity to find not just new resources but better ways of working within a broadly capitalist system?  Or is this a done deal?

In a world where it is estimated that 1 billion people are going hungry I don’t think we have the luxury of closing the debate down. I’m not convinced that this is the moment for unquestioning trust in corporations and blind application of economic theory.

The best traditions of the liberal democratic spirit (not to mention the solemn injunctions of the Christian faith) lead us to a different approach. They lead us to a realistic appraisal of political power and the inherent dangers of human nature left to its own devices. And they lead to a tireless, open, constructive debate on how best to steward and develop the resources we have. 

Doran’s video is concerned about guilt, and this is understandable when thinking of children watching The Story of Stuff. But he seems to imply that we should all think about this less. I don’t want to think about this less.  I want to think about this more.  I don’t want to close down options.  I want to hear from creative people whose eyes are open both to the benefits of capitalist consumerism and its current costs.

If you’re interested in that endeavour, then I’d like to hear more.

From its extraction through sale, use and disposal, all the stuff in our lives affects communities at home and abroad, yet most of this is hidden from view. The Story of Stuff is a 20-minute; fast-paced, fact-filled look at the underside of our production and consumption patterns. The Story of Stuff exposes the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues, and calls us together to create a more sustainable and just world. It’ll teach you something, it’ll make you laugh, and it just may change the way you look at all the stuff in your life forever.

On Tuesday’s “O’Reilly Factor,” Glenn Beck explained why he doesn’t trust public schools to educate his children:

Because I saw a change in my older kids when they went to school. And I also — I just don’t like revisionist history. I don’t like the fact — when my daughter, my second to oldest daughter decided she was going to go to college and she was going to study ancient history, I said, “How about some current history? You know, America is kind of good. How about, you know, studying some…”

The enthusiastic home-schooling father said his daughter told him, ”Dad, American history, every time I look into it, we’re always on the wrong side. We always are doing the wrong thing.”

This depressed Beck. He said he thought to himself that if his daughter, growing up in his household which is filled with flag-waving and patriotism “she still can’t beat it…there’s no chance.”

Works for me.

Beck examined another piece of leftist propaganda on a recent show. That anti-capitalist, anti-individualist video made by former Greenpeace employee Annie Leonard and the extreme-left Tides Center, is being shown to schoolchildren across America.

Meanwhile, the doltish Joy Behar of the TV show “The View” trashed Beck. “He was an alcoholic and a drug addict at one time … and it sort of follows, yeah, that he would be crazy now,” she said. Keep it classy, Joy.

Annie Leonard says she spent 10 years traveling the world (polluting it and adding to global warming, a fact she conveniently left out) in an effort to track how stuff is made and where it ends up.

At about the 2:02 point in her video (storyofstuff dot com) she tells our kids that it’s the government’s job to take care of us.

Really?

Since when?

Thomas Jefferon warned us, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground.”

And Gerald Ford said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have,” in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974.

Government is close to taking everything we have. Time to send them all home over the next 7 years and start fresh.

A ativista norte-americana Annie Leonard é a roteirista e apresentadora do vídeo

The Story of Stuff, ou A Histórias das Coisas, é um video de 20 minutos que mostra de uma maneira bem provocativa o custo real de nossa cultura consumista.

O filme é inicialmente endereçado ao público norte-americano, mas tem rodado o mundo em DVD e via Internet, com legendas em várias linguas, e sua mensagem é do interesse de qualquer cidadão, seja qual for a nacionalidade.

O roteiro é de Annie Leonard, uma ativista que passou os últimos dez anos viajando o mundo para salvá-lo das ameaças ao meio ambiente.

No vídeo, a autora examina o custo real da extração de recursos naturais, além da produção, distribuição e consumo de bens.

A História das Coisas foi produzido pela Free Range Studios e financiado pela Sustainability Funders e Tides Foundation.

An environmentalist named Annie Leonard, formerly with Greenpeace, made a video ostensibly for environmentalists that is now being shown to many school children.  As Lee Doren’s critique shows, it is almost pure propaganda.

This video is part 1 of 4, the rest are available on Lee Doren’s YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/HowTheWorldWorks