But wait? If we discard green consumerism . . . that will reduce the flow on my treehugger rss feed by a huge percentage! What will you post about to keep the flow?

/\ Eh? I don't see how that's relevant.

I've know this for... well ever since I started caring for the environment. We may not have to "change our lifestyles" in that we all have to live in tents and grow our own food, but simply replacing things certainly will not help.

The comment about clothing is a little unfair. Usually old clothes are given to charities where they will be distributed to people who will wear them until they wear out. If something is going to wear out and you can give it to someone who will wear it out and then buy something green to replace it, assuming you really need the thing, you've done something positive regardless of the product. If you don't need the thing in the first place but give it to someone who is seeking the thing out you are preventing the production of one more of those needless things. Still a positive. If you throw out a perfectly working refrigerator to buy a new energy efficient one it becomes debatable. Regardless, we all can and should live with less. Not everyone buys into this right now so if your old stuff can be used by someone else by all means give it away (or sell it on eBay and give the money to your favorite charity - my address is...)

..She quotes Lazy Environmentalist Josh Dorfman saying "Buying stuff is intrinsically wrapped up in our identities"

Actually, stuff may not be so central to our identity. Psychologist Bruce Alexander wrote the Roots of Addiction a few years ago. This report finds that addiction is caused by dislocation--from family, culture, nature etc. and that addicts try to cope through drugs.

An obvious extension, which Alexander has fleshed out in his latest book, is that many of us cope with dislocation through shopping, not street drugs. Some of us cope by working too hard. So, a compromised sense of our identity is a problem, but consumerism doesn't become part of our identity, it is just used to try to make us feel better.

Read the original report at http://www.cfdp.ca/roots.pdf

I get the point, but I still say supporting truly Green industries is key.

Dear me, why give Linoleum a bad name?
It is not a 'bad' product , quite the reverse. It is actually an organic product that is made from solidified linseed oil, cork and wood dust. It is often backed by canvas or hessian. Unfortunately it tends to cost more, so people go for the cheaper alternative.

Vinyl floor coverings (polyvinyl chloride) - what most people use today is less hard wearing and uses lots of nasty chemicals to make it flame retardant.

Treehugger is practically the ne plus ultra of green consumerism, mixing reports of environmental innovation with blurbs on $1000 bamboo lamps and $250 organic cotton jeans. My favorite was probably the post of $125 overalls for your baby! Still, I love you!

Sounds like he article and the commentary are both off base.

How we spend and invest individually and as a society will have enormous impacts on what becomes of the world and its' continued suitability for humans. But that's far from the only story. Sometimes a newspaper article can't cover the entire cosmos, even if you'd prefer that. Lloyd, have you ever tried to get published in the WP? Maybe they'd benefit from a column or two from you.

Some thing wear out and need to be replaced, or eaten, and something more environmentally responsible would be an improvement. There is value in doing something better, even if it is not the best thing imaginable.

Using something serviceable until it wears out is also a responsible choice. Even if that product or material is not very green.

Buying the greenest thing you can, when you have no use or need for it, would be wasteful and destructive.

Stop slagging on Paul Hawken. You disagree with one sentence he's written? Well, go put up some numbers to prove him wrong. Living the typical suburban life and trying to substitute some green products will take the edge off, but really won't produce much net benefit. It will require personal changes for many people. Now might be a good time to start.

'Linoleum' is often used interchangeably to refer to vinyl compposition tile or sheet goods. But you knew that. Perhaps that author could have been a bit more thorough and specific. But Treehugger is no angel in that regard - when you tend to barely rework other posts or press releases.

Glad you caught the error on air miles for the duvet. Maybe you could now do some original research into the relative energy and emissions impacts of land and ocean borne shipping versus airfreight. How about comparing the growth rates of the tonnage shipped by different methods? I think you'll find airfreight to be growing far faster than other shipping modes. A rich, impatient consumer culture wants its stuff tomorrow - and that creates enormous waste.

Sad, but true. I think this is the most pressing green political issue, how can we push green in a society that panics when sales dont show growth, let alone decline? Buying less means less profit for companies, which means job cuts, which means recession, which means what? We really have to take a step back and look at how we plan to develop an economy that incorporates the "less is ok" mindset, let alone the less is more one. And i can think of about 400 greener things to do with 400 dollars than buy a stool made of reclaimed wood. Its hard to avoid the mission creep here.

green consumerism is such a facade. i has done, will do, and can do NOTHING TO SAVE THE EARTH!!....the only thing we can do as a people is....

1. lobby for better pollution control policies,
2. re imagine our cities to consume less resources.
3. legislate consumption taxes, including carbon taxes which affect every one.

this will force people to re imagine their life styles, and consume less. and it will only happen if people wake up and organize.

consuming more is going to be bad, it does not matter if your new crap is made from hemp, or plastic baby seal caucuses.

I believe that this kind of "sacrifice" is only temporary. If the entire world went Cradle to Cradle, and nothing had any impact, then the only limit to consumerism would be money and space.

I think there's a big distinction between "smart" green consumerism and "ignorant" green consumerism. You don't need to change your lifestyle radically or discard the idea that buying green will make a difference, you just need to recognize and understand what you're buying, what it really costs in both economic and environmental terms, and what it's really worth personally and societally.

This article is intentionally inflammatory, and that should be your first clue that it doesn't have legs to stand on...

Here is a case in point. Last year I bought a heat pump. It reduced my carbon footprint, lowered my utility bills, and, if anything, has made my lifestyle more comfortable by providing the air conditioning, which I didn't have before.

Personally, my friends and I were delighted to see this article. We are avid treehugger readers, but this one flew around with positive reception--much more than most articles in the past year. Too bad you only attacked it. It brings up great points. I think this type of commentary alienates the majority of environmental citizens and researchers who realize that we can support green businesses in moderation, buying better stuff that lasts longer, but NOT MORE STUFF!

I read the article. What it's really talking about is consumerism itself, more than anything else. But that has nothing to do with being green. Buying stuff you don't need just because it's green, while better than buying something not green, is not good for the environment.

We can't just buy our way out of all of our environmental problems. We're going to need to change how we think and act, and get others to do the same on a massive scale. However, when we do buy stuff that we actually need, buying green can make a difference. (I wrote a bit about that idea here.)

It seems as if everything is turning green nowadays. And people just can’t understand why consumers aren’t buying more of it. Not rocket science – really. People buy for many reasons – not just the environmental impact. You think you can sell a “green” blow-up doll? Maybe look at functionality, price, quality etc first before turning everything green. Then we can start changing the consumers. More on this on my blog at http://angryafrican.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/make-it-better-can-i-interest-you-in-a-green-blow-up-doll/

If this blog is really about being earth-friendly, why are you making fun of someone suggesting we reduce our consumerism?

Well said, Ari.

I'm surprised as well to see that Treehugger is attacking this article rather than promoting it.

Was the article so ambiguous, or is this site really just all about "lazy environmentalism," where people need to put in no effort and make no sacrifices in order to help our planet?

I felt that the quote from The Lazy Environmentalist - which you were "relieved" to see in the article" - was actually echoing the sentiment of big corporate greenwashers, just making excuses for consumers to avoid any responsibility and to buy more, more, and more.

Meanwhile, I was nodding along with that "some Paul Hawken guy," whose quote I can find no fault in. Are we really under the delusion that we can keep living on the way we do if we want to make a better world?

Carl above summed up the article nicely. The article is not saying that we should stop buying anything and everything; it's saying that you shouldn't become so wrapped up in becoming "green" that you throw out what you already have to replace that with "greener" goods.

That's just a selfish mechanism to make ourselves feel holier-than-thou, as though we are being "activists" through consuming - at no cost to us. Oh gee, having to buy more things. Poor us!

In the end, the article made the argument that if you need to buy something, choose the green option, if not, then don't buy anything at all, even if it's "green". It is a perfectly sound recommendation - and a much needed one, at that.

P.S. A duvet from Switzerland weighs only three pounds and therefore the emissions from its transport is negligible? What, do they just throw the thing over to us since it's so small? That naive comment turns the whole food miles argument - featured extensively on Treehugger - on its head.

People who think charities "distribute" old clothing to the poor are in need of a reality check. First world cast off clothing ends up in the 3rd world, thus destroying the local fabric production.

in my book any new green consumption that involves maximizing energy efficiency and reducing energy use (like the heat pump aforementioned) or adding extra insulation or upgrading your windows, etc is absolutely the way to go. There are many green industries, small and large, that do indeed need our purchasing power to make a go of it and help replace more toxic, inefficient products.

However, why buy a new set of sheets at Target, even if they are organic, when i can go to thrift store and buy a perfectly good set for a fraction of the price? I am an inveterate thrift store shopper, and believe me, there are enough toys, clothes, dishes, sheets, furniture out there already for everyone to be outfitted for years to come. It may not be fashionable, it may not turn a buck for some chain store or "designer" but the planet would appreciate it.

Just posted about this; been thinking about Hesse's article since last week's publication. I disagree that Paul Hawken's suggestion that reducing our intake is integral to balancing our relationship to the planet. Consumption may be culturally encoded, but that doesn't mean it is necessary — that it is part and parcel of living a good life. Dorfman's 50 pairs of jeans still take a toll, don't you think?

People tend to get twitchy when they are asked, or told, to reduce their consumption. It's guilt-inducing. It makes us confront our ethics.

Your thoughts?

I had posted something nearly opposite on my blog Swye.net last week and now with this, I posted a follow-up. I somewhat agree with the sentiments, but I think it's a little misdirected, especially to the already eco-concious crowd.

take a look at the post: http://swye.net/2008/03/25/follow-up-to-my-good-magazine-post/