This is a VERY good article from the New York Times about the trend (and backlash) of the "light green" movement, and the various pros and cons of said movement. Getting down to brass tacks, being "light green" means being an eco-friendly consumer. Which is all well and good, but to some, including myself, consuming and being green is oxymoronic (I think I just made up that word, as I see the red line under it, but I like it). As someone said in the article, instead of owning a vacation home made out of recycled lumber, just own one home. Buy a fuel-efficient car that runs on regular gas rather than a hybrid SUV that takes up more gas per gallon.
I understand the viewpoints of those in the article who support the "light greens" as being onto something. In order for this climate change movement to gain traction, you need the Home Depots, the Walmarts, the Joe-Six Packs, as it were. But I think it's a flawed viewpoint, in that it's quickly becoming apparent that token steps and gestures to being green or enviromentally conscious aren't going to work. Installing flosucent light bulbs is great, but I don't see steps like that even putting a dent into this. True sacrifice is required. Less consumption is required, period. But sadly, in this era of the IPhone, this isn't a realistic option. So where does that leave us?
Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/fashion/01green.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=7374899c96860ba1&ex=1183608000&pagewanted=print
No comments:
Post a Comment