I know people are tired of hearing the word ‘green’–a number of my students, for example, have already written about their contempt for people who flaunt their green credentials–but it’s still a mildly useful substitute for “eco-conscious” or “environmentally friendly.” The problem with ‘green,’ I think, is that it’s too easy for corporations to appropriate the green mantra as their own and splash a green logo on any conceivable product, no matter how absurdly antithetical to ‘green.’ Exhibit A: The Chevy Tahoe commercial featuring Kermit the Frog who proclaims, “I guess it is easy being green.” Exhibit B: “The Lincoln driver wants to spend money and enjoy it, but not at the expense of other people or the environment.” Reminds me of the Pope selling indulgences. You can sin, and have you heaven cake, too.
Being green isn’t easy, but I think it’s important to think of environmental impact in relative degrees of green-ness rather than green and not green. A green logo isn’t a license to consume without guilt; forgoing consumption is always the greenest route. However, if you you’re going to buy a Tahoe, it’s better that you drive a mildly fuel efficient one than the standard model. A green product is often just the lesser of two evils. [And for all you Hybrid Tahoe haters, myself included; when a person switches from a regular Tahoe to a hydrid Tahoe, that reduction is much more significant than a Camry driver switching to a Prius. The Mile-Per-Gallon convention obscures the math.]
The same logic should be applied to reusable products. If you already have enough reusable shopping bags to stockpile your home for World War III, then there’s no ecological justification for another spiffy bag, no matter the cause or style. If you already have a couple BPA-free water bottles, do you really need a new trendy metal bottle? Reusables are only good for the environment if using and reusing them prevents the production of disposables, such as bottled water and shopping bags. Many well-meaning Coscto customers make this mistake when they buy those giant Costco reusable bags. Costco doesn’t provide bags, but rather offers boxes for reuse, and so the ‘green’ bags aren’t all that green. And the reusable product with biodegradable or recyclable materials is always better than one that’s not; the same can be said for disposables.
But often the choice simply isn’t clear. Just the other day, a few of my students and I were discussing whether wooden or mechanical pencils were greener. Yes, mechanical pencils are reusable, but they’re made of usually made of polystyrene, which is made from oil and not recyclable, whereas wood pencils and especially wood shavings are readily compostable. “How long does the average student maintain a mechanical pencil?” we wondered. The abundance of contemplations and calculations can stymie the best of intentions.
For these (answer here) and other green dilemmas, you should check out “The Green Lantern” column, written by Jacob Leibenluft and Brendan Koerner at Slate.com. I saw Koerner on Colbert awhile back (see below) promoting his new book, but never thought to check out the column, which I randomly came across today. He addresses loads of interesting green questions such as Blockbuster v. Netflix, Whether paper recycling is worth the effort, To Handwash or Dishwash and many others. The answers/arguments are reasonably fair and balanced; no eco-proselytizing.
