will start wanting to "kill dolphins" every time I see ads for Planet Green. Or ads for recycled tshirts at Walmart or ads for Poland Springs bottles with less plastic or local newspaper articles about the best "green collar jobs," such as sustainable furniture maker.

I don't know exactly what it is, but there is something that seems very counter-productive about this huge wave of fashionable greenism. Maybe it's just the inevitable greenwashing of every product available. Maybe it's the false sense of environmental do-gooding that people will eventually develop (buying a recycled tshirt is still consuming something that takes energy to produce and will end up in a landfill eventually). And, of course, the backlash that the article mentions.

Also, even though as an "environmental professional" I am psyched to see more people thinking about sustainability in their everyday undertakings, I think there is so much focus on so many trivial things-or maybe things that are unimportant to most Americans that it's taking focus away from the really important issues. I think all of this just masks the fact that we completely different ways of viewing the world, not just little substitutes here and there. Plus, I feel it trivializes some of the work that young environmental professionals do- sometimes when I tell people what I went to grad school for or whatever, I get the feeling they think I did it to somehow be trendy and jump on the bandwagon (and no, I'm not a sustainable furniture maker, and I don't go around petitioning people to recycle more).

I just don't like the "fashion" that is now surrounding environmentalism, and I really am getting sick of the word "green"! I think it's just that environmental problems are serious problems, and shouldn't be seen as some kind of fashion accessory or "the new black." From this description this cable channel seems like it is contributing to the mockery.

Even though I'm about as non-green as you can get, I think your fear is well-founded. The response of many, if not most, Americans to the green movement is "quit lecturing me -- you sound like my mother telling me to pick up my room."

The author writes about the Green Networks condescension as though the attitude were in a terrarium, and the condescension didn't exist in the everyday environment. In reality, most of us encountering someone who is wearing a recycled shirt, driving a Toyota "Pious" and sporting a third of the worlds supply of "smug" to be busybody jerks. It doesn't make me want to kill a dolphin -- it does make me aware that gas might not be $4 a gallon if America still had all the refineries it had before "NIMBY" greens made it impossible to build replacements for old ones. (I admit not all of this is on the greens -- oil companies closed some refineries in order to reduce production capacity, driving up the price on purpose).

But America will survived this. We survived "Future Shock" because it didn't happen. We survived global cooling. I bet we survive global warming. We can survive smug.

Great post.

The trendiness of "green" and the "greenwashing" of many products are very complicated issues, but I think we need to be careful not to be too dismissive. Environmentalists have had the stigma of snobbery for a long time and telling new converts that they are not hardcore enough risks its own backlash.

In the end, not everyone has to buy in fully to all aspects of what it has meant to be green. We don't want everyone to have to consider every decision with a carbon calculator in one hand and reading glasses for the footnotes. So if the public enthusiasm creates some messiness along the way to a greener economy then we just have to accept tthat.

Obviously this attitude can be taken to the extreme of not having any standards. What we need is more qualified groups to do certifications like FSC or Energystar so that the process becomes streamlined. At the same time, clear BS "green" actions or companies should be called.

Regards,

Blueshift

trapdoor,

"We can survive smug." Thats really funny, thanks.

Way off topic, but what do you mean we survived "future shock". My understanding of that term is that its something that could theoretically occur as tech changes accelerate. Was someone saying that it would occur by a certain date?

Blueshift

Smug? Trapdoor, is not smug also applicable to your attitude? You are basically saying that you have privileged information that asserts that environmental issues are non-issues. Therefore, you don't have to take them seriously. You wear your "non-green" choices as ....smugly...... as a lecturing greenie.

I agree that the word and wording of "green" has already become wearisome. And I agree that the trendiness has already worn itself out. But the issues are very real and the consequences are too. Use a little logic: 6+ billion people on the planet using ever more technology to expand their personal sphere of impact is not sustainable. Read Collapse, by Jared Diamond for an authoritative, thoughtful and thoroughly gripping tale of human-caused collapses of entire ecosystems and the resulting collapse of societies that depended on them. It may influence that smug sense that nothing is wrong.

Crowe: The difference between my apparent smugness and that of the more aggressive greenie lies in the fact that I don't require the greens to change their lives. They can do as they like, and if they are happier in a low-environmental impact life, more power to them. On the other hand, greens constantly lecture that the rest of us must live as they do to "save the planet." We don't need to save the planet. The planet will be here with or without humanity. At worst, over a very long period of time, we might be able to damage the biosphere enough that it won't support humanity -- personally I'd think we'd reach a Malthusian population collapse long before that happened.

So, while I don't think these are non-issues, I do think they are overblown issues. I remember reading Future Shock when I was 17 or so, and all the predictions about famine in the U.S., the thousand-fold increase in the prices of commodities, etcetera -- and I remember when these dire things were to take place. They were set to take place by the time I was 35, which was 10 years ago.

Mr. Patterson comes across like a smug and cynical a-hole in his bizarrely angry, ax-to-grind review of the "Planet Green" network. You want to "go out and kill a dolphin" – really?! This kind of naysaying and backbiting makes me sick to my stomach. How can the environmental movement ever get off the ground with this kind of negativity and hipper-than-thou attitude? It's the same thing that's stopped liberals and progressives from making any real progress for years. Nothing is ever good enough for people like Patterson and his ilk. As the t-shirt says, "Ironic detachment is the new giving a sh*t." Well, I, for one, do give a sh*t.

Gee -- a TV network wants to make money by showing commercials and stuff. How gauche! Like "Moment of Truth" or "Keeping up with the Kardashians" are doing anything good for the planet. At least these people are trying to make a difference. Why so quick to dismiss them or knock them down just for trying? At least Discovery Networks is putting its money where its mouth is with its new LEED headquarters and other eco-friendly initiatives.

The fact is, nobody is going to watch a 24-hour channel of Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth." There's nothing wrong with a little positivity and humor to lighten up the stereotypically dour image of treehuggers and climate changers. Hey, Patterson: you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem. You, my friend, are part of the problem.

But America will survived this. We survived "Future Shock" because it didn't happen. We survived global cooling. I bet we survive global warming. We can survive smug.

---

Now you're talking about an entirely different type of smug!

Greenboy70 -

Television networks with celbrities in power-guzzling homes do nothing to help the environment. If you only knew how the television industry works, you'd understand that the very thing you're defending in your post is what your larger political movement is fighting.

The amount of energy required to make one of these shows will more than offset any positive effect they might have on the environment, when you consider the necessary infrastructure.

I'm not even going to touch the fact that multi-millionaires, living in huge power-guzzling mansions, are the biggest hypocrites known to man.

Don't be ridiculous. If you really want to totally eliminate your carbon footprint, don't turn on a light, don't drive, don't buy anything -- and definitely don't have kids. Better yet, stand perfectly still in the dark and try not to breathe.

People are going to live their lives and watch TV. Why not watch shows that have some educational value or encourage viewers to do something positive to save the planet -- or at least slow down its decline.

Sure, changing your light bulbs for CFLs, driving a hybrid, or using environmentally-friendly cleaning products isn't going to accomplish much in the grand scheme of things, but it's a start. Baby steps. Or would you rather people do nothing at all besides sit back and criticize?

KevDurden:

I'm not even going to touch the fact that multi-millionaires, living in huge power-guzzling mansions, are the biggest hypocrites known to man.

You can say that again. Everytime Al Gore gets up and starts preaching about the environment, while he is one of the biggest power consumers on the face of the planet, I have an urge to punch him in the face.

Recently I had some friends come by and try to lecture me because I didn't recycle (it wasn't easy to do in my area). I immediately responded what is your per-household electricity usage? The whole problem with the green movement, like the original poster stated, is that it has become a fad and people don't actually even understand what it means to be green.

You want to be green? use less power, drive less, don't waste water. Thats pretty much it. Pretty much everything else is bullshit.

FirstIn, I think your post hits on both of the big problems with the "fashionization" of the green movement; first, it starts to amalgamate changes that are effective and changes that are primarily cosmetic. Second, as also hit on by trapdoor, it begets widespread moralizing by the people who don't have a real grasp of the actual ramifications of their actions.

The list of what to do in order to be green, btw, should also include, "Die childless." That, more than anything else, reduces your carbon footprint. Of course, carrying the moralizing to that extreme illustrates the silliness of trying to induce everyone to adhere to your worldview, so it's always nice to pass it along to Prius parents.

"Recently I had some friends come by and try to lecture me because I didn't recycle (it wasn't easy to do in my area). I immediately responded what is your per-household electricity usage?"

FILO, excellent point. I like to use that on someone who assumes (wrongly) that I am using too much gas commuting because my truck only gets about 20 mpg. They don't look at the big picture and realize I use less than a gallon a day because I am 6 miles from work. Whereas their 35 mpg car consumes 2 gallons a day because they choose to live far from where they are employed. Its the lecturing and superior attitude that is obnoxious.

Trapdoor-

I think you hit the nail on the head for one of the biggest problems I have with all this "green" business: "On the other hand, greens constantly lecture that the rest of us must live as they do to 'save the planet.'" This is probably the number 1 reason that politicians, the public at large, etc. don't take real environmental science seriously. It's actually been a huge issue in environmental policy since its inception in this country. The scientists and economists and policy makers that are there tackling the environmental problems are probably the least likely people to lecture anyone for not recycling something. Whether someone recycles or unplugs their appliances is an economic choice, so you can't change someone's behavior unless people have incentives for it. Some people choose to base these things on ethics, but even that, many would argue is simply a high value on ethics and therefore still an economic choice. I, personally, will encourage my family to recycle and take some other small precautions because right now they really do nothing (but I never say anything to anyone outside my family) but in order to do so you really have to give them a rational argument.

So, I'm not arguing that this TV channel is "bad" or that it's not really "green" due to the energy it takes to produce it, I';m just saying that all this green living stuff in the media right now *could* be adding to attitudes that can get in the way of getting good environmental science into policy and that it could be masking the really big issues.

bobills:

"Recently I had some friends come by and try to lecture me because I didn't recycle (it wasn't easy to do in my area). I immediately responded what is your per-household electricity usage?"

FILO, excellent point. I like to use that on someone who assumes (wrongly) that I am using too much gas commuting because my truck only gets about 20 mpg. They don't look at the big picture and realize I use less than a gallon a day because I am 6 miles from work. Whereas their 35 mpg car consumes 2 gallons a day because they choose to live far from where they are employed. Its the lecturing and superior attitude that is obnoxious.

Bobills- great point, and one that really illustrates what I mean by 'masking the larger issues.' We can lecture people on buying hybrids or riding bikes all we want, but we, yes we, made choices that led to a country that is designed completely around the use of cars. You can't tell people then, not to use their cars. We live in a culture were nothing is valued more than living 50 miles outside the city in a huge house with lawn (comprised of invasive plant species and fertilizers). In my own opinion, these underlying problems are the things that need to be addressed- why people choose to live like this and how is can possibly be changed.