I am really tired of the word "green." "Going green" went from what seemed like an honest way for people to intentionally change habits to seek out often more expensive products that were manufactured with better labor standards and more bio friendly materials. Really though? As more fair trade items are sold more widely, more low carbon emissions cars and so forth are produced, what is the actual impact on the environment and how many people are actually using this stuff to make a "difference?" And how do we measure this difference? If you actually buy these products by what measure are you solving problems such as fair labor practices and carbon emission reduction?
Mike Tidwell gives us a clue:
For eight years, George W. Bush promoted voluntary action as the nation's primary response to global warming — and for eight years, aggregate greenhouse gas emissions remained unchanged. Even today, only 10 percent of our household light bulbs are compact fluorescents. Hybrids account for only 2.5 percent of U.S. auto sales. One can almost imagine the big energy companies secretly applauding each time we distract ourselves from the big picture with a hectoring list of "5 Easy Ways to Green Your Office."
Many with an enlightened liberal sensibility will call this sort of reaction as cynical. "Well should we just sit back and do nothing then? I mean at least this is something." It's true that every little action towards a goal that solves a problem like environmental terrorism inflicted by toxic waste produced by the production of that little harmless plastic toy or that fertilizer for your green lawn. You can buy post-consumer plastics and use only organic fertilizer and that does something. So I am not being cynical to say stop doing those thing becuase we are all just going to die in a cesspool of our own chemical cocktails and enslaved thrid world countries.
Nonetheless, we have to start understanding what this "green" phenomenon is, for what it really has become. It is nothing but branding. Brands exist for one purpose and open purpose alone – to sell consumers more products. This is the oxymoron of the "green" brand on everything from cars to "all natural" mayonnaise: it is intended not to reduce consumption, but to increase it. If buy more of the same products that you currently use with a "green" label it is a carrot to get you to spend more. The behavioral economics is that those who are willing to spend more on something "green" are those who are already consuming the most goods. Those who are consuming the most goods are also those who are least likely to change their consumption habits. The net effect is an almost unnoticeable actual difference in the environment, labor practices, corporate policies, banking, etc. but the most active consumers feel better about consuming. A happy consumer is one who will continue to consume.
"Going green" is now a trick to get you to consume more or at the very least continue to consume the at the same rate and send more of your money into the economy since you think that it costs more to be ethical and moral in production and supply chain practices. However, since most consumers don't know what this cost should be or where products actually come from, all a corporate marketing department needs to do is brand it as such to make you "feel" better about consuming. And that's all it is.
In order to change environmental, political, labor, etc. practices there needs to be much larger changes in not what people consume, but in how much they actually consume. If you keep consuming what you do and do not change fundamental consumption habits regarding how much money you put back into the market cycle of business, the entire "green" brand has worked in reinforcing your consumption habits rather than change them.
It's the same problem as "dieting." This is a huge revenue stream for food producers and it means next to nothing. Why does it mean nothing? It does the same thing as "going green": it allows you to continue the habits that got you fat and will keep getting you fat. Losing weight is physics. Consume fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight becuase your body will consume the stored energy in your body fat. But to do this you need to consume fewer calories. It means changing fundamental habits that the economy refuses to cultivate because this US economy thrives on our greatest sin: gluttony.
Want to test this hypothesis? Do sermon series on how the consumption habits of our society are sinful and how without change we are all complicit in that sin together. See who among your flock is willing to change. Bet you get some "hate" mail and may even lose a member or two in the process. If you do, you touched the very spirit of sin itself people refuse to give up for even God.
Related posts:
