Living in the United States, there is a brand new fad growing amongst the upper-middle class called "Living Green." The idea behind the movement is that through small steps that everyone can take, we can finally save the environment from the impending fate that we have forced upon the Earth.
Take short showers!
Recycle!
Use reusable bags!
(If you're feeling ambitious) COMPOST!!!
Without even attacking the privileged assumptions that everyone can access recycling facilities or can afford pricey eco-friendly products, this new face of green living is rather problematic.
This Living Green fad has manifested in reusable water bottles and stores like Whole Foods getting praise for having multiple ways to recycle and being environmentally accountable. In essence, the (primarily rich and white) American public has finally jumped on the international bandwagon of attempting eco-friendly habits. But, realistically the USA is trying to play a game of catch up with the rest of the developed world and they aren't even trying. Most of Western and Eastern Europe has been recycling for decades, drive small cars, locally source their foods, and don't pine away in Capitalist consumerism. The fact that the US has just begun recycling initiatives is embarrassing.
The even larger irony is that there has been a whole new face of consumerism created around the Living Green lifestyle. You can buy t-shirts with the recycle sign on it, "Green is the New Pink" is written all over underwear, t-shirts, purses, and sweat pants at Victoria's Secret, and masses are throwing out their old cleaning products, paper towels, and toilet paper, in order to buy new eco-friendly brands. In true American fashion, the US has developed a way to make money off a movement that is trying to scale back the ecological impact of the sheer existence of human beings on this planet.
I write this article having just finished hearing my friend rave about her new iPhone 5. While I still don't understand the use of the new iPhone and how it's different from the previous models, one thing I did learn is that the new iPhone has a completely different charger than previous models of iPhones, iPods, and iTouch products. She explains that the purpose of the new plug is to make the phone more compact and to make space for all the new technology crammed into the little piece of metal, plastic, and conflict minerals. Why did Apple really create a brand new charging cord? Not because it is smaller, but because it means that masses of people will have to buy the new cord and throw out their old ones. In a few years it will be impossible to find the old cord and you will have to buy a completely new iPod, iTouch, or whatever else has been developed by then.
So, we stand in a place where it's more popular to claim that you're living green through your wardrobe than to actually critically think about your purchases and their strain on the environment. Simultaneously, the American government, media, and NGOs feed the American public the message that the little things they do that do not actually inconvenience their lives will make a serious impact in helping decrease carbon emission levels. As Maniates explained in his article back in 2007, the US is not moving fast enough or trying hard enough to actually help anything. We're playing a game of catch up with Europe, when even European policies need to be improved. Meanwhile ecological devastation is in full force.
Maniates is completely correct when he states that we need to up the ante and actually get moving in the United States to make a serious impact and reduce carbon emissions. But, he fails to acknowledge the reasoning behind these campaigns using the strategy of saying that being green is "easy." The reasoning is multi-fold, from American apathy, to the (primarily conservative) public claim that climate change is not happening, to the pressure to maintain our Capitalistic consumerist values that have propelled this nation forward over the the past century. These reasons do not justify American inaction, but they explain why the agencies who are fighting for the environment are using these techniques to get the public comfortable with the idea of small personal sacrifices so that one day, real sacrifices can be made. The debate over this liberal approach (as opposed to a more forceful radical approach) is valid and important to have in moving forward, but we are where we are and we need to figure out a way to move forward. I agree that the current strategies are not enough, but the problem of American inaction is larger than the advertising techniques of the eco-friendly movement.
Take short showers!
Recycle!
Use reusable bags!
(If you're feeling ambitious) COMPOST!!!
Without even attacking the privileged assumptions that everyone can access recycling facilities or can afford pricey eco-friendly products, this new face of green living is rather problematic.
This Living Green fad has manifested in reusable water bottles and stores like Whole Foods getting praise for having multiple ways to recycle and being environmentally accountable. In essence, the (primarily rich and white) American public has finally jumped on the international bandwagon of attempting eco-friendly habits. But, realistically the USA is trying to play a game of catch up with the rest of the developed world and they aren't even trying. Most of Western and Eastern Europe has been recycling for decades, drive small cars, locally source their foods, and don't pine away in Capitalist consumerism. The fact that the US has just begun recycling initiatives is embarrassing.
The even larger irony is that there has been a whole new face of consumerism created around the Living Green lifestyle. You can buy t-shirts with the recycle sign on it, "Green is the New Pink" is written all over underwear, t-shirts, purses, and sweat pants at Victoria's Secret, and masses are throwing out their old cleaning products, paper towels, and toilet paper, in order to buy new eco-friendly brands. In true American fashion, the US has developed a way to make money off a movement that is trying to scale back the ecological impact of the sheer existence of human beings on this planet.
I write this article having just finished hearing my friend rave about her new iPhone 5. While I still don't understand the use of the new iPhone and how it's different from the previous models, one thing I did learn is that the new iPhone has a completely different charger than previous models of iPhones, iPods, and iTouch products. She explains that the purpose of the new plug is to make the phone more compact and to make space for all the new technology crammed into the little piece of metal, plastic, and conflict minerals. Why did Apple really create a brand new charging cord? Not because it is smaller, but because it means that masses of people will have to buy the new cord and throw out their old ones. In a few years it will be impossible to find the old cord and you will have to buy a completely new iPod, iTouch, or whatever else has been developed by then.
So, we stand in a place where it's more popular to claim that you're living green through your wardrobe than to actually critically think about your purchases and their strain on the environment. Simultaneously, the American government, media, and NGOs feed the American public the message that the little things they do that do not actually inconvenience their lives will make a serious impact in helping decrease carbon emission levels. As Maniates explained in his article back in 2007, the US is not moving fast enough or trying hard enough to actually help anything. We're playing a game of catch up with Europe, when even European policies need to be improved. Meanwhile ecological devastation is in full force.
Maniates is completely correct when he states that we need to up the ante and actually get moving in the United States to make a serious impact and reduce carbon emissions. But, he fails to acknowledge the reasoning behind these campaigns using the strategy of saying that being green is "easy." The reasoning is multi-fold, from American apathy, to the (primarily conservative) public claim that climate change is not happening, to the pressure to maintain our Capitalistic consumerist values that have propelled this nation forward over the the past century. These reasons do not justify American inaction, but they explain why the agencies who are fighting for the environment are using these techniques to get the public comfortable with the idea of small personal sacrifices so that one day, real sacrifices can be made. The debate over this liberal approach (as opposed to a more forceful radical approach) is valid and important to have in moving forward, but we are where we are and we need to figure out a way to move forward. I agree that the current strategies are not enough, but the problem of American inaction is larger than the advertising techniques of the eco-friendly movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment