The very least the quoted individuals could do would be to utilize their expertise in foreign policy making, treaty negotiation, and international law to show us the way forward.

Oh wait. We already have people in power who were elected to do that job!

We do what we can in the present reality; and, when the time comes for political activism, we make a move: climb out of the design trenches armed with constructive ideas, on guard against any awful unintended consequences of the "big solution".

Just as the scientific consensus on climate risk has taken a side stage seat, design and consumerism will soon take similar status, delegated minor support role in the far larger public debate.

What then of punditry?

what an idiot. what more can be said?

Why are you suprised about the article , look at your web-site - the ads , the products in the ads . . . . Green has a cache that a lot of people are using to sell their products , expensive products . . . . Just in time for global warming ( Simple shoes ) . . . . How to green your sex life . . . . Al Gore ? , please , he's still running for office . . . .

I have to agree both that there is some kind of division and that we shouldn't let this division weaken the environmental movement. I personally believe that what is necessary to live a 'green' life is a range of lifestyle habits and actions. I think environmentalists will have to learn to live a simpler life (less consumption) and the little they consume needs to be better (greener products). Much like what I think about green homes: a green home is SMALL (less consumption) and better thought out (green materials, design, technologies, etc). The best green house is small AND intelligent. What greens should be striving for is a simpler, more intelligently lived life. One can't sacrifice one over the other. People will have to learn to adopt both to make the necessary reductions in their negative impacts on the environment.

But people move forward in this direction slowly - as their time, patience, resources, and knowledge permit. We need to encourage people in the small steps they take WITHOUT confusing them about what the end goal is. We must say: Bravo! Bravo for that small step you have taken. One more SMALL step in the CORRECT direction. Keep up the good work. Keep moving in the green direction.' We should not confuse them to think our words are: 'Bravo! Congratulations in your green habits. You are there. You don't need to do anything else. You have fulfilled your responsiblity to the environment by doing this or that small thing.'

If we stay closed minded & avoid change maybe all our problems will go away. I used this theory when i was 5 & thought if there are monsters in my closet I'll just hide under my sheets and they'll go away. Brilliant for a 5 year old but if you write for the NY times you may want to come up with something a little more reasonable.

"Why are you suprised about the article , look at your web-site - the ads , the products in the ads . . . . Green has a cache that a lot of people are using to sell their products , expensive products . . . . Just in time for global warming ( Simple shoes ) . . . . How to green your sex life . . . . Al Gore ? , please , he's still running for office . . . ."

Couldn't agree more. It seems corporate America (run by our purchases, mind you) always seems to be just in time with products like this. But, why not? If I was a blueberry farmer and all of the sudden blueberries were found to cure cancer, I would be advertising them everywhere!

I do love reclaimed lumber though. i think its so beautiful.

There's a silver lining to the way so many companies are pretending to be green these days. Since they are all suddenly so quick to reveal how green they are since they recycle their office paper (see recent Nintendo post), soon enough this disclosure will lead to competition over who's greener for real.

Signed,
No longer worried about greenwashing

I think that old-school environmentalism is wrong! The industrial world can take the step to a sustainable economy, without everybody becoming desire and life negating. If the movement had embraced the message of "Natural captialism" earlier, we would be much farther ahead. Its no wonder that eco was something undesirable in most people eyes, if the traditional "green" have been preaching them forever that they will have to forgo any comfort, if they want to have a clear conscience.
In my eyes that is just nonsense. Once we convince the majority that sustainability is necessary AND makes economical sense we will be able to avert environmental desaster. Keeping up this moral preaching will only scar the majority away. We should be glad that we have a lot of people with us now and try our best to convince them, that change IS possible. And that it will lead to a more satisfying life, not to one where you would have to forgo most of the comfort of modern society.

I came from a program in which I studied environmental communications, theory, and philosophy. We focused a lot on Greewashing (something I've noticed Treehugger doesn't pay much attention to, or at least doesn't seem to comment much on, maybe due to their advertisers own greewashing campaigns).

See:
http://www.greewashedout.blogspot.com

I feel like the New York Times article is totally legitimate in every single way. It makes some crucial points that instead of attacking, we should really seriously consider.

As environmentalists, one major question we must ask is, 'is the "light green" movement leading us in the direction of consuming less, and ultimately curbing the characteristics that defy ecosystems carrying capacities - or is it doing more damage than before by handing over a passionate demographic that wants to help, but is being told 'keep shopping', thus reinforcing consumer values and practices defiantly in the face of a global crisis?'

I feel like one HUGE misconception about the "light green" movement is the idea that there is nothing wrong with consumer capitalism itself, it's just the products that need to change. And as long as the companies convince consumers that they are green, not only should we purchase their products, but doing so actively heals the planets wounds.

A lot of people are mislead into believing that the eco and green products they buy HELP the planet. This is far from the truth. These products just do less damage. It's not a medicine for a sick earth. ALL production extracts from the earth, and creates and output. The greenest thing of all for the companies to not produce anything. Frighteningly, many of these companies produce 'green products' IN ADDITION to their regular products. This is actually making the problem worse because the net production is greater overall.

So here is something I will ask the readers: Is 'light green' a stepping stone in the greater scheme, or is it just a scheme all together? Can Feeling better about consuming lead to consuming less, and producing less overall?

I find that there are two types of people who "buy green".

The first type just sees it as a fashion statement. They don't really think green, they just buy it because it's in style. They don't care about the gas mileage of the Prius, they just care that all their friends have one. I suppose the times would be upset with these people but hey, I don't care why they're buying green as long as they are. So they don't know biodiesel from diesel jeans, who cares? At least they're buying green and their money encourages more green products.

The other type are people who buy green because they want to do more. They may never do more but that's because no one bothers teaching them how. Articles like the Times will discourage these people by telling them the rest of us think less of them. That's complete BS. I love seeing someone buy green for the first time, it's a wonderful first step and should be encouraged and supported. Perhaps the Times could try being supportive rather than divisive.

Gal

All this division does is alienate people further and make them complacent about their lifestyles. People need to become engaged and we all need to feel that we can make a difference. Starting with assessing your own lifestyle and improving your in-built assumptions and habits is just the beginning, but it is an important step. If you are making these changes yourself you are more likely to seek politicians and leaders who endorse change, not stifle and suppress it, or tell us that we may as well do nothing because its all pointless anyway.

When I first started reading the article, I'm saying to myself. "Yeah,roght." But then again. The guy doesn't bust his butt to hide his success. So, if you got it, why not flaunt it as green as you can. It's like all Americans Have to have a Hummer because the Jones has a Hummer. I once read That the old Colonel Who founded KFC used to ride around in public buses. Did he know something the rest of us didn't way back then?

Of course sub 5 second cars don't require 8 mpg....more people need to go the way of the Lotus. I'm sure with improvements it would be reasonable to see the lotus get 35 instead of 28 mpg.

I agree with Anonymous who says essentially that Treehugger feeds right into this problem of green consumerism as the fundamental action of environmentalism.

I love 90% of what you do, but when you make several posts a day about a designer or company's new green mouthwash or chair, I think that the reader feels like you guys love talking about and buying new products, as long as their branded green.

Of course there's the valid point that green consumerism is a move in the right direction, etc etc, but maybe you should have a concatenated products/objet d’art/clothing Of the Day post.

There may be a fine line between greenwashing and simply pointing out environmental endeavors. If you have a perfecrly good chair and decide to buy a "green" piece of furniture to replace it that's not very eco; but if you actually need a chair, why not buy the "greenest" you can. In some instances, Treehugger may show you the way.... it doesn't mean you have to buy every new chair they write about.
And yes, that chair will cost a lot of money, but it will/should be made from FSC wood, organic fabrics, etc. Right now it costs more for greener products.
And yes, the "guy" in the article is living in excess (3 car garage), but it's better than the non-organic Levis, incandescant, regular Lexus-driving guy next door (all other things being equal)-- at least a little.

Thank you for this article!

I've said this many times before, and will continue to say it. The green community needs to applaud every incemental change people make. People cannot quit cold turkey. The green community also cannot realistically expect to continue the class warfare. People with lots of money will always want larger homes and more toys. Accept it. Embrace it. Work with industry to make those homes and toys less of an impact. People with large homes that have massive solar panel arrays - is this good or bad? I say it's good. That person would have had that size home anyway - but they spent $100K or more on a solar array. That's wonderful.

My wife and I live in a 2600 sq ft home. Does that mean we aren't green? Nope - just not as green as we could have been. But since we've moved in, we've spent a LOT of money upgrading the efficiency of our home. We've replaced the 17-year old HVAC with a 16-SEER dual stage system, programable thermostat, replaced some old recessed lighting with new, sealed cans that allow insulation to be in touch with them, replaced many, many lights with flourescent and have increased the typical 1976 lack-of-attic insulation up to R-49 with recycled cellulose insulation. We're now saving to replace the old windows with more efficient ones. Our old vehicles (bought before our eyes were opened) are aging and within the next 2-3 years, we're going to have to replace them. We will buy the most efficient vehicles we can. In 3 years, we get a commuter rail station within 10 minutes of our house, I will ride that to work at that time.

Should we be castrated by the hard-core green community? No, but I bet someone will make a comment on how we should live in a smaller home or install geothermal or something that will make me more bitter toward the over zealous green community. My stance on promoting green and NOT tearing down people has actually spread the green mentality at work. People in my office come to me to ask for advice about what they can do. Would they do that if I cut them down for having 5K sq ft homes - or driving an SUV? Nope.

One could argue that by getting more people involved in little steps will make MORE of an impact to the world than the extreme person that alienates themselves to only hard-core greenies and lives in 250 sq ft homes made of straw. One person cutting their impact by 90% will make less of an impact than 10 people cutting their impact by 25% each. The hard core greenies need to learn that math.

I agree that the slant of the article isn't especially helpful.

But let's not discourage people from buying CFLs or hemp scarves just because they haven't rededicated their entire lives.

Let's think of the CFL or that scarf as a gateway drug, and try to use them to lure folks further in. After all, replacing that light bulb or driving that Prius didn't hurt all that much, did it? Well, you know there's something else out there that can give you an even bigger kick! They'll do a little more, enjoy it, do some more, tell their friends, and before they know, they're hooked and can't stop.

If you haven't bought a CFFL, I doubt you'll be laying down in the road in front of that power plant.

So, why not tell the guy who just bought the hybrid Lexus - "That's really great. What a sweeet ride! Did you know that you can buy some really efficient solar panels to recharge it? They'll look good on the roof of your garage, and any excess power can push down your electric bill!" One step at a time, folks.

Brian,
Excellent comment, though you risk criticism by posting the particular green trade-offs you have made. I say that entirely in support of those decisions, by the way.

I am, and will continue to be, a shameless advocate for just the sort of light-green consumerism that is so derided by hard core greens. We must recognize that the way to make the greatest impact is to convince the masses that green is good. If you want to get the bulk of Americans buying green, make it fashionable and Walmart will even stock it. If you want people to green their buying (sure, buying less is best, but not everyone will do that to start), give them green options that don't require sacrifice.

Hard core greens should be applauded for their efforts at reducing their impact. I envy those who can live in small spaces, and reduce their consumption, and I believe them when they say they are happier for it. I personally am in the midst of an experiment to take the bus to work in a mid-to-small midwestern city, even though it takes twice as long as driving my family's second car. But I recognize that many many people would look at my decision and think it strange or even dumb.

So, for a while at least, I think that green consumption should be ignored while the focus remains on getting more people to consume that way. Then, we can move to trying to convince everyone that less consumption is better--which is by far the harder task.

There IS such a thing as purchasing POWER in a free market society.

Shopping IS another way that Americans can cast a vote, which may possibly be more influential than filling out a ballot.

The civil rights movement was able to force change by boycotting buses and businesses that practiced discrimination. Martin Luther King realized the power of individuals to effect change. We are a consumer driven economy. WE set the agenda for business, not the other way around.

The pocket book is very sensitive part of the human anatomy. It would be foolish of the environmental movement to ignore this fact. In fact, I believe that the potential for profit is the ONLY reason that environmentalism has gotten any attention by the mainstream anyway.

We should not fool ourselves. The people that would divide us are businesses that do not want to make costly changes or do not stand to profit. They are using spin in an effort to protect their investments. If they get us to back down, they can return to business as usual. They are trying to trivialize our impact by referring to it as "shopping". Consumer confidence and trends have HUGE effects on markets.

Consumers need to keep up the pressure! It IS an important way to effect change, and it is a part of our American tradition in forcing the powerful to pay attention.

It's like weight loss . . . if you eat a lot of lower calorie (diet) food, you will not lose weight.

Like they said in the era of gas rationing, "Is this trip really necessary?"

It is a core attitude change, maybe increased awareness. A lot of people cutting back a little has a large effect. You see it in business news when retail figures are down because it snowed too much for a week or was a little warmer than usual in November, etc.

If something is working just fine, replace it with something more environmentally friendly when it breaks. Don't just replace it to have something else needlessly in the landfill.

If you just bought an existing large house, don't tear it down to put in a micro dwelling, just make sure it runs efficiently.

Tread lightly.

Good Luck,

vk

Jon -

I love that you and I have the same thoughs - applaud all incremental change - encourage people to take the next step and share their experience.

Anthonares -

I put the specifics on my upgrades out there for a reason. I proudly of what I've done to this house. People need to hear the good experiences. More good experiences = positive reinforcement = more people doing it. All good things!

vsk -

Exactly my point. A lot of people making a small change will make more cumulative change than one person cutting theirs to zero. This stuff is addictive. I'll be doing more and sharing my experiences, encouraging people to take those first steps on the path to addiction. :)

I just wanted to add that in the 70's, the ONLY place to buy organic vegetables was at the few health food stores, and at a very high price. I was a college student, and while I wanted to support the efforts of organic farmers and a pesticide free world, I simply couldn't afford the extra trip across town and a $6.00 head of lettuce.

But I prayed that someone could...and would.

Thank goodness that there were wealthy patrons that were able to support the cause. Because the competition bit into their profits, AGRIBIZ had to start paying attention. People that grew organic vegetables and health food store owners also grew a multi million dollar industry that promotes a healthier planet. (Yeah for our side!)

Now everyone can buy organic produce close to home, and when on sale, organic can even cost less than their competitors.

We should embrace our bourgeois brothers, not hang them out to dry! Solar panels, and the entire array of green merchandise, will become more affordable and accessible because of their willingness to put their money where their mouth is.

I, for one, am grateful and will stand up for ALL greens, against those that would vilify them in order to neutralize our resolve.

I say applaud anyone who takes a baby step towards the Green Movement. As several have said, it feels good when you do one good thing, and it's addictive. Besides, for those people who are coming into this because it's stylish, you have to break them in easy, haha....and hope that some of what they learn or do will stick with them and grow on them, enacting permanent changes.

Like Brian, I am not getting rid of things I already have that work fine. I tend to use things until they wear out, and then salvage what’s still useful from it after that, and recycle or pass on to someone else whatever’s left. I bought an older home (I hate urban sprawl, everyone does NOT need a brand-new McMansion in the suburbs!) and retrofitted it to be more efficient. We lack solar panels but that's an issue of cost. I have a regular gasoline-powered car but try to make up for it (until I need a new one, then I will buy a hybrid) by driving very little, combining errands, and carpooling, and will start taking the light rail to work once that is completed.

One serious issue I have with the NY Times article is that it apparently downplays people’s attempts at going green as not good enough or poseur. I think the writer’s real intent is probably to say that making real change towards going green will involve some sacrifice and isn’t achieved by simply buying the right things, but it’s an apparently very abrasive and condescending approach. True that people shouldn’t be conned into thinking buying organic cotton clothing or changing lightbulbs is all they need to do, but any step in the right direction….and educating people on what else they can do…..is a good move.

I have a question.Can you be green and a gear head?At the same time.

I own 120 acres.60 acres are all woods with the exception of 4 buildings.The other 60 is rented to a farmer.

First my cabin.Outfitted with small solar setup.Wood burning stove/with integrated hot water.

Second my pole barn.The roof is covered in solar.On the inside is radiant floor heating.Powered by a wood boiler which also services another building.

Third fuel storage building.Propane tank inside.200 gal storage gasoline.another 200 gal in diesel.

My three autos.

The first a ford excursion turbo diesel 4 x4.I tow 10 to 12 thousand pound loads 2-3 times a week.About 45000 miles a year on this.

Second my ford bronco 1979.Equipped with a 7.3 turbo diesel,5 speed and one ton drive train.My prior tow vehicle.About 2000 miles a year on this.

Third a 1987 jeep wrangler.Running a in line 6,5 speed and four wheel drive.Sitting on 33 inch boggers.It runs a propane kit for fuel.From PROPANE.COM.About 2000 mile a year on this.

I have taken all possible steps in the green direction.But cannot give in the way of vehicles.The area i am in roads are brutal-rough.And tear new vehicles to bits.Each vehicle is built for that reason.I also buy old " gas guzzlers " for parts.Taking them off the road permanently.In particular 1987-1995 jeep wranglers and 1978-1979 ford broncos.

I have gone as far as possible.Until a green option is viable for towing-severe duty 4 x4.At this point i am stuck.My home in the woods is independent of the power grid.They wanted too much to connect.It was cheaper to go off grid.

Editor notes welcome.

"...If you just bought an existing large house, don't tear it down to put in a micro dwelling, just make sure it runs efficiently..." Amen!

Everywhere I see corporations that are claiming to embrace eco-technology and green building, but what are they really doing? They sell the idea that we can just buy our way into sustainability and eco-friendliness. I don't believe them. Capitalism as a business model is not sustainable. When we create a sustainable world where we don't have to worry about food shortages because we grow our own food locally, what will food corporations do? They will fight tooth and nail to make sure that doesn't happen! When we don't have to buy all the garbage that fills the land-fills with cheap plastic stuff from China sold and sold by Walmart what are the corporations willing to do to PREVENT sustainability! As you can see this is not their interest. Wake up.

Corporations rely on massive amounts of the populations depending on them for their food, clothing, and even shelter. If people start building ecohomes from technologies like superadobe and straw-bale techniques for next to nothing in cost these corporations lose money. THE SOLUTION DOES NOT WORK BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MAKE CORPORATE CEOS RICH.

The whole ideology of capitalism will not work for creating a self-sustainable world. Our economy is not compatible with saving the earth, for providing for the people of the earth, and for the spiritual progress of humanity.

Call me a socialist but when your H3 and your McMansion lead to the death of the earth we will all have you to thank. We need RIGHT NOW is a spiritual, political and ecological revolution. Not more corporate lies, call their bluff guys: GET GREEN FOR REAL.