Garrick Blalock’s talk gave me a lot to think about. He began by asking a simple string of questions designed to get us to think about what it takes to get people to do something thats good for them. His example for us was driving a Prius. We all know that Prius’s are better for the environment than traditional cars, but few people drive them. We thought about the reasons people had for not driving a Prius. Everything from style to cost was mentioned.

Then we applied these concepts to clean burning stoves. People who have cooked over open fires for their entire lives show some resistance to investing in a cleaner alternative. Some of the reasons might be similar. What seemed to be a major obstacle was convenience. Cleaner alternatives are costly, different, and difficult to get and maintain.

My issue with the conceptualization of this issue started in the first section. Prius are great, and it would be wonderful if more people drove them. They’re not accessible to many people. But whose fault is that? It is certainly not the fault of the working class people who can’t afford them.

One of the questions Blalock asked tried to show the importance of the long term returns on a Prius. He basically lead us to say that if you’re buying a car, the cost difference between a Prius and a regular car can easily be made up for by the money you save in gas. But who is buying new cars? Certainly no one where I grew up. I don’t think I know more than five families from my neighborhood that could have considered buying a new car from a dealership.

So whose fault is it? Its not the fault of working class people. Its not the fault of the people who can’t switch to the cleaner stove either. The entire system is flawed. Targeting the behavior of the people who are struggling is no way to make a change.