If we want things to change, I think we need to change the rules for everybody, for example with strong taxation.
The thing is, this "invididual reducing" is never enough or workable in itself. That isolated individual decisions by themselves can lead to sustainable change is the real myth (and the lack of real impact of all this "shorter showers" and "recycling" campaigns reflect that).
Invididual action only matters for large scale effects when it gets systematic and organised and ends up as some general guideline (from a new law to a regime change). However we like heroes, for example, Rosa Parks didn't end seggregation. Millions of black and white civil rights activists, demonstrators, lobbyists, etc, did.
Of course, all of these actions will increase the price for you, the final consumer.
Thereby inducing consumers to pay more and fly less. The effect is the same as if I (and others like me) were to decide never to leave NY.
I'm not disputing that fixing the cost of water specifically is a fantastic idea or that externalities should be properly taxed.
What I'm disputing is the idea in this essay that the industrial economy is somehow a bunch of evildoers polluting in order to get super rich and then light cigars with 1000 bills, unrelated to the rest of us. The industrial economy exists for the sole purpose of providing us with goods and services we enjoy and reducing the supply side is basically identical to reducing the demand side.
Well, there's also the part of systematically of them using everything, from 24/7 advertising, to the latest psychological/cognitive tricks, to downright purposefully adding addictive substances in foods etc -- all designed to make people "want" goods and services.
It's not like people are left alone to decide for themselves what they want to buy -- we constantly live in a baragge of suggestions and nagging, 10 times as much as it was 5-6 decades ago.
Wanting something after logical thinking and perhaps admiring it's quality/beauty etc, and wanting something because you're conditioned to constantly is a distinction that's worth making.
(And of course, Dunning/Kruger style, everybody thinks that ads and such have no or minimal impact on them).
But I'm sure you are right, everyone else lacks free will and the ability to make choices.
Either that or outliers in a sample set are not indicative of the general values.
I mean on one hand we have huge production and consumption levels and gigantic advertising budgets (and studies in consumer behavior), both rising enormously in the 20th century -- and those are hard facts --, and on the other hand we have the anecdotal evidence of a single person whose possessions fit in his checked bag and carry on...
>But I'm sure you are right, everyone else lacks free will and the ability to make choices.
Speaking of free will, one could perhaps resist answering every argument with quick snark like the above.
As if my argument that advertising has a major impact in consumption levels implies the extreme BS that "everyone lacks free will and the ability to make choices".
That free will and the ability to make choices can be compromised is a known scientific fact, with lots of studies and experiments behind it, and it's something put in practice daily, from the design of casinos to websites showing three pricing options to you so you will choose the middle one.
That of course doesn't mean that "everyone lacks free will and the ability to make choices" -- that's a BS strawman if I ever saw one.
You wrote: "What I'm disputing is the idea in this essay that the industrial economy is somehow a bunch of evildoers polluting in order to get super rich and then light cigars with 1000 bills, unrelated to the rest of us. The industrial economy exists for the sole purpose of providing us with goods and services we enjoy and reducing the supply side is basically identical to reducing the demand side."
And I argued that this idylic picture of the "industrial economy" being some benevolent industrialists striving to provide us with "goods and services we enjoy" is false.
How? In the sense that industrialists don't just cater to our (pre-existing needs) as you imply, but, with the aid of advertising, condition and manipulate us to consume and want those "goods and services" in the first place.
Hence, "corporate pollution" is not just the necessary result of our real consumption needs, but also of inflated advertisement driven consumption. Without the latter both consumotion and "corporate pollution" would be vastly less than what it is today.
P.S. And it's not just advertising industrialists use, there are other even more heinous things they use to help increase consumption, from ""planned obsolescence", to killing the public transit system to sell cars ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi... ), to modern-day killing of free municipal wi-fi to sell shity broadband options.
So I don't really understand the intermediate step. Corporations advertise. Then people choose to consume. People could choose differently if they wanted.
The only waste and pollution that was produced by the evil Air India corporation. And if I (and sufficiently many other consumers) were to cut back on consumption, it would have virtually no effect - those evil folks at Air India would continue burning jet fuel and polluting.
Spot the flaw? I paid Air India to pollute on my behalf. If I (+ 50% of a planeload of people) did not pay them they would not have wasted money polluting.
There are many specific cases where this is not true, agricultural water consumption being one of the most egregious. These are (economically, not politically) low hanging fruit and should be fixed. But if the article wants to argue that huge fractions of pollution fall into this category, it needs to do a lot more quantitative work.