Money is No Object(ion) to Going Green
by Warren McLaren, Sydney on 05. 9.07
Was trawling through the new TreeHugger Survey (What, you haven't penned your thoughts yet? Go on, maybe you'll win a Voltaic solar bag), and noticed a response, amongst the vast multitude, that struck a chord. Our question was: When it comes to saving the environment what area(s) do you need the most help in? This particular respondent said, “Money. If I had more of it, I could do more for the environment.” And while that might possibly be true, it is also accurate to suggest that a lack of money can indeed also look after the environment. Access to wealth can lead to purchases of often unnecessary ‘luxury’ items that bring their own eco-burden. The most environmentally conscious acts are often the cheapest. Like putting on a sweater rather than turning on, or up, the heating. Compact fluoro lighting saves money in the longer term. Owning and using a bicycle for city travel instead of a car. Catching public transit instead of paying a car's loan, insurance, maintenance, fuel, registration, etc. Buying secondhand, preloved goods, in lieu of new resource-intensive stryofoam wrapped or blister pack clad goods. Taking holidays locally rather than flying off to seemingly exotic locales (why fly to the Maldives if you can overland to Baja?) Placing a brick or weighted bottle into your toilet cistern, so it flushes less drinking water down the drain. Buying direct from farmers markets before visiting the supermarket. Reducing meat consumption, in favour of vegetables, fruit, grains and legumes. Not buying wasteful ‘packaged’ water, but refilling your own bottle with (the often more pure) tap water. Volunteering for your local conservation or environment group. Making your own heartfelt birthday cards instead of buying anonymously written Hallmark style ones. Wrapping presents in salvaged gift paper or even newspaper. Sharing books, lawnmowers, sporting equipment and any items that you don’t use regularly, and likewise borrowing too. None of these actions, and hundreds like them, require a bigger budget than the one each of us already has, but cumulatively they make a significant difference. (Indeed some believe the less money we have the more responsible citizens we are likely to be. See Your Money or Your Life for more on that idea.)
See also:
Can’t Buy Me Love (or Longevity), and
Global Rich List
THANK YOU for posting this! I'm relieved to know that I'm not the only one with this sentiment.
If more people did these little things they would make a big big difference in the world! However, there are other areas that, partially because they are still a specialized market on a small scale and partially because "green" or "eco" are marketing hot words, are more expensive then their mass produced environmentally unfreindly compadres, like when no farmers market or small expensive farmers markets are available, whole foods or grocery stores with organic selections are extremely over priced. Even at farmers markets, items like bread and cheese are extremely expensive. Clothing or apparrel that bear the organic label are extremely over priced! The suburban sprawl has created a culture where people work up to and over 60 miles from where they live and hybrid cars or the train system in those areas are extremely expensive. The people would live closer, however the areas that jobs are located are too expensive to live in. Also there is a want for too much space that has been adopted in the american culture...
All in all, there are many little things that are cheap that people can do to help out, however there are also many things that, because of our culture and big business or the want of money are too expensive to be economically sustainable.
I agree that a lot can be done for the environment with little money and that sometimes money can breed waste. However there are a lot of environmental options that are too expensive for people. My house desperately needs new insulation, but I can’t afford it, I would like to replace my refrigerator with a Sunfrost, but they are $2700 and I just don’t have that much money. Your survey respondent’s quote, “Money. If I had more of it, I could do more for the environment.” Might not necessarily apply to their own lifestyle. Look at the prevalence of flat screen TVs today. They exist in an affordable form (and for LCDs that’s a good thing because they use little power compared to a vacuum tube TV or a Plasma) because people with money bought the first models for up to $6k. New technology should be driven by the wealthy, but in the case of efficient appliances and environmentally friendly products, rich people seem to have little interest. If myself or the person who’s survey you looked at had the money, we would be putting it toward environmental products and causes. I strongly believe in the message your purchase sends to corporate America and we all know that the more of something they manufacture the more affordable it becomes. If I bought a tankless water heater or a solar system for my house, I would be doing my part to make them more affordable for everyone else and to prove to companies that they are viable products. If I take my theoretical “more money” and invest in an environmentally focused Socially Responsible Investment fund (SRI) I’m sending a message to Wall Street that environmental issues matter to investors. It isn’t that nothing can be done to make your lifestyle more environmentally friendly if you don’t have any money, its just that a lot more can be done for you and the rest of the world if you do. Now if only we could convince the people who already have money to forgo the purchase of that Escalade and get a bank of solar panels instead, we’d be making some progress.
"...it is also accurate to suggest that a lack of money can indeed also look after the environment. Access to wealth can lead to purchases of often unnecessary ‘luxury’ items that bring their own eco-burden."
So by that logic, it stands to reason that when access to wealth is prevented, the environment will be saved. Poverty becomes a virtue.
That must explain those pristine environments found in Africa and Asia, thanks to billions of virtuous Africans and Asians.
I think you've basically summed up where an increasing number of people see this is all really going -- Green is the new Red.
So by that logic, it stands to reason that when access to wealth is prevented, the environment will be saved. Poverty becomes a virtue.
No. That is a logical fallacy. The author made the assertion that not having an abundance of disposable income can leave one more open to conservation methods which are a good idea. The author did not assert that preventing access to disposable income would necessarily result in environmental protection, nor did the author assert that poverty is a virtue. A number of simple economic examples show this to be nonsene, anyway. Beyond that, though, the spirit of the article was clearly a reminder to not be fooled by the prestige product industries and remember how many things one can do which is good for the bottom line.
That must explain those pristine environments found in Africa and Asia, thanks to billions of virtuous Africans and Asians.
Actually, an extreme disproportion of wealth distribution has had a lot to do with the problems that plague Africa. Much of the continent is still reeling from having been on the bad end of European colonialism. Much of it now reels from new forms of colonialism. But, your rhetoric contains a new fallacy you've introduced-- you personally asserted that "poverty is virtue" and now you assert that "rising virtue lifts all boats". You're erecting straw men at a rate of one per paragraph so far, and your paragraphs are short.
I think you've basically summed up where an increasing number of people see this is all really going -- Green is the new Red.
Communism is no more about preventing access to wealth than capitalism is, so you've again made a false argument. But, your response is also not in good faith, so this is to be expected.
Green is the new Red
Flamebait.
"No. That is a logical fallacy. The author made the assertion that not having an abundance of disposable income can leave one more open to conservation methods which are a good idea."
Then it must follow, conversely, that you assume those with an abundance of disposable income would be less "open to conservation methods which are a good idea"? Which is what I was saying the author implied to begin with.
"The author did not assert that preventing access to disposable income would necessarily result in environmental protection, nor did the author assert that poverty is a virtue."
I never said the author asserted any of those things. He did, however, quite obviously imply them, which is my entire point.
"A number of simple economic examples show this to be nonsene, anyway."
As I have shown.
"Actually, an extreme disproportion of wealth distribution has had a lot to do with the problems that plague Africa."
Once again, you are simply restating my point. Given that North America has a more even wealth distribution than Africa, that probably contributes greatly to the fact that North America has a much cleaner environment on the whole.
"Much of the continent is still reeling from having been on the bad end of European colonialism. Much of it now reels from new forms of colonialism."
Well, if your professor at whatever liberal arts college you attend, and Noam Chomsky say so, then it must be true.
"But, your rhetoric contains a new fallacy you've introduced-- you personally asserted that "poverty is virtue" and now you assert that "rising virtue lifts all boats".
Uh, no. That is not my "personal assertion". That is the logical conclusion of what the author is stating.
My own personal assertion is that poverty is *not* a virtue. Does that lessen your confusion?
"Communism is no more about preventing access to wealth than capitalism is, so you've again made a false argument."
I have? Then it's probably just a coincidence that every single communist country which has ever existed has had a perfect batting average for preventing access to wealth (not including actual high-ranking party members, of course).
I don't know if you've noticed, but those poor people on rafts rescued off the coast of Cuba were actually trying to leave Cuba -- on purpose, no less! The Berlin Wall was not designed to keep people out of East Germany. The machine gun turrets were pointed in the wrong direction for that.
To sum up, as to whether socialism or capitalism is better at preventing access to wealth, the facts of history tend to back me up on this one.
Well, if your professor at whatever liberal arts college you attend, and Noam Chomsky say so, then it must be true.
Flamebait.
Then it must follow, conversely, that you assume those with an abundance of disposable income would be less "open to conservation methods which are a good idea"? Which is what I was saying the author implied to begin with.
No, it doesn't follow. This is like saying "f(x) is monotonically increasing for values greater than 0, so it must be monotonically decreasing for values less than 0". You cannot merely invert an assertion and claim the inversion is also true.
I never said the author asserted any of those things. He did, however, quite obviously imply them, which is my entire point.
My point is that you have inferred things that the author did not imply, you have inferred them wrongly, and you still are.
Well, if your professor at whatever liberal arts college you attend, and Noam Chomsky say so, then it must be true.
No, flamebaiter. I do my own historical research and draw my own conclusions there. I don't "attend" college outside of doctoral research credit hours in computer science at a major university, and I use Chomsky in formal languages and theory, not as the backbone of my reading of history. By the way, that's fallacy ad hominem.
My own personal assertion is that poverty is *not* a virtue. Does that lessen your confusion?
I'm not confused. You brought a disconnected assertion to the discussion. You erected a straw man to attack. Now you're just flamebaiting.
To sum up, as to whether socialism or capitalism is better at preventing access to wealth, the facts of history tend to back me up on this one.
Apples to oranges. Leninism-Stalinism, Maoism, and the backwards policies of Fidel Castro bear as much resemblance to socialist principles as Chrisian Bale bears to Michael Jackson.
I know flamebaiters, so you'll respond, but I won't be coming back to amuse you further.
The point of my post (as was observed by some) was that there is plenty that can be done to improve the welfare of our planet that does not require more money than you already have.
This does not in any way negate the options for judicious spending, if you have that capability. If you are wealthy (and if you own the computer you're reading this on, then by global standards, you are) then feel free to contribute your money to whatever green improvements you wish.
And yes, money does talk. As the rush of businesses trying get a slice of the organics industry clearly indicates. The success of Herman Miller's innovative Aeron office chair surely spurred them on to produce a less expensive rendering, the Mirra, which opened up a broader market for them. So purchasing green products does send the right signals. But that doesn't mean we have to buy 'new' or 'expensive' green products in order to be green.
Until one has the funds to buy the perfect fridge: stick with one that is the right size, have the seals checked (and maybe replaced) on older models, turn down the internal thermostat one or two degrees, ensure it has plenty of ventilation around the rear coils to allow excess heat to escape, place bottles of water inside when it is near empty to displace the volume of air that needs cooling, turn it off when away from home for a few weeks, avoid opening/closing the door unnecessarily - the new warm air entering has to be cooled again. All possible without the expense of forking over big bucks for a super green fridge.
If you can't afford new insulation for your house, then consider the cheaper options like door seals, curtains and pelmets for windows, DIY double glazing films also for windows, check the caulking around window seals, close doors to heat occupied rooms, rather than trying to heat a whole house simultaneously.
Technological fixes are one answer. But they are, by no means, the only answer.
Oh and look out for an upcoming post (tomorrow) on the surprising energy consumption of TVs.
I'm doing a project on green buildings and going green in a class it all seems so simple but people make it sound so hard i am trying to write a position paper but can't really find anything to say!!!