Cameron Tries to go Green Online
by Matthew Sparkes, London, UK on 04.24.07
David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, has made environmental issues the keystone of his election campaign. Unfortunately his attempts to promote his greener side seem to constantly backfire. He started biking to work, but received negative press when it emerged that he had a car follow him to carry his documents. He attempted to install a wind turbine at his London home, but had to pull it down after it was found to contravene planning regulations. He has also made heavy use of Web 2.0 sites like YouTube to spread his green message, which also seems to have been a dismal failure.
According to HippyShopper, nobody seems interested in Cameron's regular WebCameron videos. Clips of the Tory leader explaining how he will create fairer aviation taxes are losing out to cutesy videos of animals holding hands. You can't blame them, the sample that HippyShopper have included in their post is hardly riveting. :: HippyShopper
So the guy tries to be green and environmentally aware and you rag on him? Get over yourselves and your politics. Being environmentally conscious isn't a political party/philosophy issue.
--
editor note: We didn't cause his troubles, we're only reporting on them. We appreciate his effort, and if he does something that really impresses us, we'll be sure to mention it too.
Ha Ha, my comment on the post about Blair seems to have had immediate editorial effect. Thank you.
I suggest that the reason for David Cameron's 'green' misfires is that he is not doing any of these things sincerely. The right-wing think-tank hired by the Conservative Party probably did some kind of focus group study and decided that 'green issues' could be the gimmick that swings it for them at the next election - after a decade or disastrous polling by the party.
[I must add at this stage that I am no fan of the current UK government but I have even less faith in a future Conservative cabinet]
I'm not complaining if the end result of the current green wave is easier, cheaper and more accessible green technology, but it's unfortunate how quickly the movement has been appropriated by insincere politicians (left, centre and right-wing) and by cynical big business who often see it as an opportunity for profit - ignoring the 'reduce, reuse' part of the green motto and concentrating on the 'buy more (green) stuff' part ...
"oh my, you're still wearing that non-organic T-shirt? you simply must rush out and buy a new organic, fair trade one from Marks & Spencer" etc.
(blame Edward Bernays)
The enthusiasm about biofuels feeds my cynicism. It seems that one of the key reasons the green movement is succeeding now rather than 20 or even 10 years ago is that big business sees a profit in it and the public feel like they can keep on driving (biofuels) and keep on taking cheap flights (carbon credits) while remaining guilt-free.
I am happy about the increase of choice and style today, but, however much I'd like them to be, organic t-shirts and Freitag bags are not the real reasons for the current green trend.
'Reduce, re-use' isn't a profitable idea, but it's surely the most sustainable.
Sorry ... I think I need to lie down
right on Michael, you hit the nail on the head. WalMart is the next big player in the lineup with a recent advertising message that goes, "Can a pair of pajama bottoms save the planet?" The answer given is of course they can, "if all 180 million WalMart shoppers would simply go out and purchase a pair of our 'new' organic cotton pajama bottoms we will show our support for the chemical free organic cotton farmers." I try not to judge WalMart because I believe its intent is geniune, but a company that has been driven by greed for so long is not capable of changing its spot with a flimsy green marketing campaign.
The tide is turning, but will the green movement fall victim to the incompatibilities that a consumer society places on sustainability measures? I hope not. Like Michael I appreciate the availability of choices that are more sustainable, however if the message is to replace everything in your life with new sustainable items before the previously purchased items wear out, then I must protest. To me this is stll greenwashing under another guise.