The "needle exchange" approach to planetary damage

There are two ways to reduce the harm to the planetary habitat we depend on for our health, happiness and security. One is to reduce the amount of resources we consume or degrade--air, forests, atmosphere, water, etc--and the other is to make the consumption of those resources less harmful.

In other words:

Resources Used x Environmental Harm  = Total Planetary Damage

Strangely enough, I adapt this equation from a paper published by Robert J. MacCoun in the American Psychologist in 1998 about the then new "harm reduction" paradigm for treating drug addicts. The somewhat controversial harm reduction movement in drug treatment arose out of the need to decrease the prevalence of HIV cases, about a third of which were among intravenous drug users in the United States.

Central to the harm reduction paradigm, according to MacCoun, "is the belief that it is possible to modify the behavior of drug users, and the conditions in which they use, in order to reduce many of the most serious risks that drugs pose to public health and safety."

HIV transmission among intravenous drugs users is caused by sharing needles. The idea was, that if you can't get addicts to stop using drugs, then at least you might be able to prevent transmission of the virus by providing new needles, educating them on "safe use," or getting them to take their drugs orally instead of by injection.

So in drug treatment, the equation goes:

Total Drug Use x Average Harm per Use = Total Harm

What intrigues me about this approach is that when you accept that the message of "just say no" simply isn't going to reach all drug users, you can begin to develop methods of reaching those who are intransigent. You can help them try to prevent their own deaths and the spread of disease. It doesn't mean that you don't promote abstinence, but it means you can reduce the harm caused to and by those who will never abstain.

The same message applies to consumption of resources. There is no question that excess consumption both causes damage to the planetary habitat and has the potential to make people less happy. A "reduce consumption" message is good for the planet and good for the people.

But some people aren't ready to hear it. The message of "just say no" to consumption simply isn't going to reach all consumers, or for that matter, producers. On the other hand, we may be able to convince them to take approaches that do less harm.

We may not be able to get some individuals to clean with vinegar and baking soda, for example, but we may get them to switch to Clorox's new brand of household cleaners Green Works (no pun intended). I'd like us to get away from disposable products, but I accept that we may not get Kimberly Clark to stop using trees to make tissue. We may, though, one day, get them to manage forests sustainably.

In other words, in my equation at the top, we may not be able to get them to reduce their resource use, but we may be able reduce the Environmental Harm and, therefore, the Total Planetary Damage.

Some people resist the harm reduction paradigm to consumption. Just as in the drug treatment world, they are worried that a harm reduction approach waters down the message of abstinence.

But the fact is that many drug treatment agencies, particularly in Europe, have found that once they develop a relationship with users through the needle exchange program, they are then able to help the users to move from needles and onto oral use. From there, with a relationship developed, they can help some of them decide to completely abstain, people they never would have reached under the "just say no" model.

Perhaps we can do the same. Perhaps, by introducing consumers and producers to the idea of reduced harm, we will get them to thinking in such a way that will eventually get them to thinking about reduced resource use. Perhaps we will help them to move from recycling to reusing to reducing.

Comments

[Clay Collins]

equations!

[Rohesia]

Excellent point.

It might be useful to break the equation down a step further:

Impact per Person x Total Number of People x Average Effect per Impact = Total Effect

I know, even worse equations! ;)

The point is though that you can increase any of the three terms without changing the total provided you decrease one or both of the others to compensate

So if you've got a total of say 1million humans they can probably chew through the resources and churn out the waste like there's no tomorrow and still be very close to sustainable. Now there's 6.7billion of us, forget it.

Obviously we have to keep the negative impacts per person way down but it's also going to help a great deal if the harm done by each instance is reduced.

[Elizabeth Pisani]

I've worked a fair bit in harm reduction for addicts, and I think you're on to a loser here. It's hard enough selling harm reduction for something most people agree is a harm. Rightly or wrongly, most people think consumerism is just dandy.

[Andy]

I like where this is going, but it's certainly missing a few key parts. As one commenter pointed out, number of people matters quite a lot too, but I don't hear any concern about population in this country and little concern worldwide about population.

The other issue is that it's not just making a simple change from bleach to green works. Somehow, we need to convince people that 95% of what they buy is just pure crap. If you go to Walmart or most any big box type of stores, just look around at what people buy. It's almost all junk. You can just tell that most of what they are buying is going straight to the trash in a few days. Your point of making some incremental changes only works for those that are trying to buy mostly what they need to live a comfortable life. But what about most Americans that still have absolutely no clue about these issues and continue to buy junk? When I do go to the big stores, it's because I have one specific item I need, not because I'm looking for a good deal on a bunch of junk, but unfortunately that is how most people shop. They wander through isles thinking that what they are going to buy will most certainly make them happy, which we all know fails in the end.

I just get stuck here. If you try to explain to a regular Joe that buying less would be better for them and the planet, they think you are crazy. It's like a God-given right to be able to consume. It's the mentality of "I earned this money and I'm going to spend it!" that drives consumption. But wait until gas prices get even higher and goods cost more and people can change.

As I said before, the focus of this blog is starting to lose my interest. More general talk about reducing consumption isn't going to change much. I can't walk away and think I learned something new from your experience from this post, unlike the first 5 or 6 months when most every post really made me think and make real changes. After reading about how you use much better cleaning products, you now make links to chlorox and are easing off on the real issues. Sure, buying green products is better than the harsh chemical ones, but it's still consumption from big companies that only care about bottom line. What we need is major change, on all levels, globally, now... and buying green products isn't going to make that happen. I see two scenarios: either everyone gets on board caring about the future and our energy descent glides down nicely, or we are swadled in thinking that green consumption solves the issues and we crash down the slope.

What happened to the hard-hitting no-impact-man lifestyle?

[Joy]

Personally, I like this analogy. "In your face" type of behavior rarely works, especially in areas of religion and the environment.

I think Andy makes a valid point--many people do search for happiness in what they buy, which of course eludes them. However, I think the needle exchange analogy is great because it opens people's minds. Perhaps you can't get them to make a giant leap forward. Maybe though, they will take one small step. And then another.

[jewishfarmer]

I think there's potential here, but you need to think about what is being exchanged. You really should read Thomas Princen's _The Logic of Sufficiency_ for why simply exchanging more efficient or lower harm substances probably won't be sufficient.

So we need to ask what we're going to trade here - an addict needs a clean needle to avoid HIV transmission - that's pretty clear. But a person who is consuming needs a self-evidently better option to consumption *itself* - not a better product, because while shifting our dollars to greener products will make a marginal difference, it remains only marginal. And because right now there's no good way of tracking energy used in product production, it isn't clear to me that while Greenworks may be better for the city water system and the health of the users, that it produces any less plastic, or carbon or any other bad thing.

The difference between an HIV infected needle and a non-infected one is enormous - at best, the difference (if there is one - Greenworks still lists inert ingredients unspecified, which may be more toxic than we think) between greenworks and clorox cleanup is fairly small. We need something as big as the uninfected needle, and a way to get it to consumers.

Personally, I think Timothy Breen is definitely on to something with the idea of rituals of non-consumption, a trade off that gives us something for not consuming. But that has to come with a widely understood and powerful incentive not to consume, a mass campaign to stop doing something typical for a much greater good.

Frankly, Colin, I think you have a large enough platform that you could start such a campaign, if you wanted. But you'd really have to think "ok, what are we giving the consumption addicts?" and "how big a difference does it make" and then you'd have to do the hard work that needle exchange advocates have done of gradually selling the idea to the people it matters most to.

Personally, I'd be fascinated to see you put such a campaign together. But the big issue is coming up with the thing that can substitute for consumption itself, something that makes a big difference.

BTW, when you mention the same commercial product, no matter how noble, twice in a row, I start wondering whether you are getting paid for your endorsement, like the Sierra club? No criticism implied, it just seems like product placement.

Sharon

[Leslie]

I've been the biggest supporter of individual effort but all of a sudden I realize that the best use of our efforts might be to rout corporate influence from the government. Corporate influence is the single greatest hindrance to action on climate change.

Colin, you have so many good ideas. The most important one has been contacting our representatives.

Sorry to be off topic. The announcement of Gore's $300 million initiative on climate change made me realize that our government is just paying lip service.

[Miranda]

I miss Colin's "comments about the comments". Colin, can you please weigh in on some of the points made here?

[JenRob]

If people don't care enough about the environment to slow their consumption, I find it hard to believe that they could be convinced to hunt down green products in the store and then pay more for them than the brands they are buying now.

[Nick - Green Electricity]

Good article, think this is a great site. I just came across it today!

[Sue]

The existence (and increasing prevalence) of products like the one Colin's repeatedly mentioned are indications that the perspective of the consumer has already shifted -- without knowing anything about the *true* impacts (what are those mystery ingredients? how much energy/waste was involved in the production and distribution?), without truly being any more informed than they were last week, consumers will now pick up the product that says "green" or "natural" on the label. And think they are doing their part, or as much of a part as they have time/can afford to do. As others have mentioned, I believe the only truly sustainable (and therefore worthwhile) changes are those that move us away from the corporatocracy. Simply encouraging corporations to market their products as "green", with or without actual lowering of impact, is not only not enough, but has to be balanced against the potential harm of people thinking that it *is* enough.

Sue in the Western Great Basin

[anne]

I just saw a new Wal-Mart commercial on TV. It's telling people to buy a water filter from Wal-Mart so that they can save money and the planet by not buying bottled water. It will be obvious to all of us that they don't actually need the filter--their tap water is likely to be perfectly fine without it--but it seems apropos of Colin's concept of a clean needle. I'm no fan of Wal-Mart, and they obviously want to make a nice profit off those filters, but I still think it's quite extraordinary that they've joined the chorus against plastic water bottles. People who might not otherwise get the message may begin to rethink their consumption of bottled water.

[Diane Gandee Sorbi]

Rohesia and Andy brought up an important point. Population really does need to be factored into the equation. In fact, I think it needs to be front and center in this discussion. Even if everyone decided tomorrow to vastly reduce their consumption, if the population reaches the projected 9-10 billion around 2050, it's not going to be enough. No matter how carefully we conserve our resources, there just isn't enough land for growing food, or enough water, for that many people, particularly when climate change is likely to cause worldwide droughts and flooding. I realize it is a sensitive subject, but I think it is important to address it.

[arduous]

I think this is a great point Colin, but I think you can take it further. (I know a lot of people will disagree with me here, but bear with me.)

Sharon is right. The difference between Clorox Greenworks and Clorox Clean-up is kind of small.

But what if we use the "needle exchange" paradigm on say residential energy use. Instead of telling people to cut their energy use, we focused our energy on getting the government to erect photovoltaic cells in the Southwest. Scientific American claims that the technology is here and now and that by 2050 we could be entirely indpendent of foreign oil and completely slash our greenhouse gas emissions.

In my opinion, most people are not going to turn their a/c off until there is not a drop of oil left in the world. So why not focus on making that a/c run on 100% solar power as opposed to fossil fuels?

[Labrat]

You can say the same about giving condoms to highschoolers; they are going to have sex no matter what you teach, so let's reduce the incidence of STDs and pregnancy by giving away something which can prevent both. We are wired to have sex, and drug addicts are wired to be addicted. You cannot fight Mother Nature. I don't live in the world of abstinence, I live in a world where people have closed their eyes to the truth of what it means to be human; I see very young, very poor, very rich, very Religious young people getting STDs and getting pregnant everyday.

And so we march forward and try to keep the human factor in our efforts, whether it be in persuading someone to use a clean needle, a condom, a recycling center, a glass cup, a compost pile, less electricity, more bicycling, etc. etc.

Dehumanizing our population is what's gotten us into this mess, so I applaud anything that speaks to our humanity, even if that involves giving clean needles to addicts to prevent the spread of HIV.

If the same equation works to save our planet, (indirectly anyway; we are really trying to save ourselves), then more power to it!

[jewishfarmer]

Re:population. Population is an issue, but it can't be added to the equation the way people suggest - because every person doesn't have anywhere near the same impact. The average Kenyan uses 1/30th the resources of an American. The average person in China still uses 1/8th of the resources of an American. So population isn't a fixed impact - of course it matters, but consumption matters even more - a Kenyan would have to have 26 more children than the average Kenyan does to even compete with one American child in total impact.

Actually, right now the world grows enough food to feed 10 billion people an adequate diet every single day, and there are plenty of ways we could up those quantities - for example, by using millions of acres of lawn to grow food, by growing more intensively, etc...

What don't have is enough land to grow food for 10 or even 5 or probably even 2 billion people who all live like Americans, eat meat like Americans, drive cars like Americans using biofuels, etc...

Populations are stabilizing all over the world - and will eventually most likely decline. We should enable and encourage that decline - but that takes a couple of generations. We can alter the consumption paradigm quite quickly, however.

Population does matter - but an overly simplistic understanding of population doesn't help us much.

Sharon

[fritz]

I really like this piece. I'm so frustrated with the either/or approach to environmental solutions talk. In the past few years, the environmental movement has become deeply divided about consumption reduction vs. technology improvement. In a lot of ways, the environmental movement has become many movements. I'm not sure that we can call all the people who are members of this community who care about the future of the planet one group-- members of the 'environmental movement' anymore. I've never heard so elegant an argument that unites this dichotomy. This gives me hope!

[Another Colin]

Another expression similar to this described is known as the IPAT equation. Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology. It is meant to be conceptual and not intended to be mathematically rigourous so debate about weighting each of the variables is not really valid. It is however a good starting point to examine the interaction between populations, economic growth & technological change.

[Recovering Food Waster]

I agree with Fritz...why can we not make drastic, no-impact changes in our lives, and yet also be happy when the larger portion of the population manages to make at least some change? Some progress is better than no progress.

[Mandy, Within Reach Movie]

recycle, reuse, reduce...

...renew!

(let's remember to keep the cycle evolving beyond our wildest dreams)

And this post is so well done! Thanks for reminding us that we are all on our own journey toward sustainability, each at a different pace.

[Natalie]

I've been ruminating on something similar lately: the lessons learned from other social change movements. I hadn't thought about the needle exchange program. Good call!

I'm hardly a student of this topic, but I have been trying to figure out what makes some social movements so successful and others not. As viewed from my limited vantage point, the ones that seem to really affect change have a few things in common - the participants are quite attached to the issue emotionally; they are very well organized (but not always well funded initially) and therefore seem to present a united front; and they get out ahead of the issue.

It seems that getting out ahead of the issue is key. It imparts a certain ability to control the future of the dialog.

Some movements employ guilt and shame in their rhetoric, and I wonder if that makes them less successful. I'm thinking of the smokers I know who have had a total knee-jerk reaction to the anti-smoking campaign. Rather than trying to become non-smokers, they have become entrenched in the battle. Hardened in their vision of themselves as smokers.

I'm intrigued (obsessed, to hear my husband tell it) with the idea of affecting social change on a massive scale. Of course, I don't have any real answers - and definitely no equations! - but I think we could put to good use the best of what has come before. I suppose, in the end, timing is everything. And I believe our time is coming soon!

[Meryn Stol]

I really like your way of trying to learn from successful influence projects in different areas. There are generalizable patterns to be found. I think you're right that it's better to go easy on people. I don't think people can imagine themselves changing their whole lifestyle, so you can better start by showing them that a small change doesn't have to hurt at all.

You might also want to explore the Fostering Sustainable Behaviour site.

I can also highly recommend the book "Influencer" for various case studies and general insight into influence strategies.

Finally there's a blog by Marguerite Manteau-Rao. I think she should be on your blogroll.

[EJohan]

No its not "recycle, reuse, reduce...

...renew!"

The original phrase went: refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle. A big difference if you refuse first and foremost.