Green Options

Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.

What do you love about nature? What place, animal, thing, or experience opened your eyes to the sacredness of the natural world? Who in your life provided a role model for stewardship, activism, or scholarship? Why on Earth do you give a hoot about this planet Earth?

In A Passion for This Earth, edited by Michelle Benjamin and published by Greystone Books and the David Suzuki Foundation, twenty of the biggest movers and shakers in the fields of writing, science, and social activism come together to explore these questions. At the same time, each writer seeks to continue the multifaceted approach to making positive change begun more than fifty years ago by David Suzuki, Canada’s foremost environmentalist.

The book is very reader-friendly and engaging, and the obligatory instances of fêting Suzuki that pop up are not gratuitous, awkward, or irrelevant. Instead, all of the individual pieces coalesce as the writers express their personal perspective on nature and environmentalism. The book’s title may have you suspecting a mélange of ooey gooey green effusions–you know, the sort of stuff I generally tend to write. But what the book delivers is a truly enlightening anthology addressing four different topics relevant to Suzuki’s legacy: “Falling in Love with the Wild,” “Rise Up and Reclaim,” “Uncompromising Dedication,” and “Travels with David Suzuki.”

Early pioneers of the green movement must be conflicted: Their message has been heard and the green movement has seeped into every facet of our lives, from cars to buildings to food.  But with the movement’s popularity has come what many see as a hijacking of green sensibilities by people and companies who are trying to sell their products, many of which are either only marginally green or completely unnecessary. If the goal is to leave a smaller carbon footprint, to reduce waste, or to conserve energy or resources, we should buy fewer products, not more.

Let’s not start demonizing the corporations, especially those who have advanced conservationism through energy and fuel saving technologies, new environmentally-friendly products at lower prices, and new ways to recycle.  It’s no coincidence that the popularity of the green movement increased dramatically when corporations began to adopt - and promote - green practices.  Conservationism cannot be seen as the enemy of consumerism, but rather a lens through which to view it.

Now that the proverbial dust has begun to settle from my recent discussion with Caroline Savery on defining “sustainability,” I have been reflecting on it all with great appreciation and pleasure.

The main realization I have come to is that Caroline and I seem to be focusing on different audiences in most of our posts. (Caroline, if you are reading this, please feel free to correct me if you disagree with what I say here!) That is, most of my posts feel more appropriate for and geared towards “beginners” in sustainable living…those folks who are taking their first steps on the path of Green. Having done a lot with various methods of sustainable living and environmentalism (as an “-ism”) so far, I have felt called to use my experiences along the path to help others with little or no experience.

At the same time, and by doing so, I have been most dedicated to celebrating all the things in nature that I believe are sacred…and that so often get overlooked, even by us environmentalists! It is easy to forget about the sacred things in nature that are all around us, wherever we happen to be, and it has been a joy for me to sing their praises with all my heart and voice.

Caroline seems to be focused a bit more on speaking directly to the more experienced members of the sustainability crowd. Her Sust Enable experience/experiment of living off the grid, in my mind at least, is largely something that people would look to in order to take the next step in adapting to a more completely sustainable lifestyle. These sorts of folks would be more acclimated to that lifestyle already and so ready to, and likely more successful with, inching closer to being 100% sustainable. (Of course, much of what Caroline shared is also relevant for beginners in green living, just as what I have written is useful for anyone at any stage. But her sort of life off the grid as a complete life experience seems to me more appropriate for the seasoned sustainabillies.)

From what you write, Caroline, it is clear that at this point your heart (or mind–or both!) compelled you to try the 100% sustainable, Sust Enable “experiment.” And you learned and shared many good things with us–mistakes not to try again and great methods for living sustainably. That is wonderful, and it is surely going to stick with you; after all, we learn best not only from direct experience but, I believe, from “mistakes” as well.

Obviously you are not disregarding changes others make, nor are you screaming at them from your soapbox on high to go all the way. My concern, though, is that focusing on such a 100% approach on a larger scale would turn off people to environmentalism. As I said before, there has to be an equal (even greater?) focus on small steps, an equal (even greater?) celebration of little changes, in order to help keep the mood positive and morale high–and the changes occurring, the momentum building, the tide turning!

I think we are both on the same vibe in the end. Heck, we both feel urgently the need to do good for the Earth and to help others do so as well. We both share a desire to see positive things happen and to serve our fellow beings by using all our “tools” to help build a better, safer community. I think we differ mostly in terms of focus and emphasis in the nature of what we write.

I believe, then, we need both the point and the counterpoint within the environmental movement itself. Die-hard Socratic that I am, I believe we need to question all things—in particular the accepted “norms”…and more especially the things we think are “right,” “true,” etc. This self-reflective, synergistic approach to environmentalism will keep it green and thriving, a sustainable force driven by the symbiosis of its dynamic elements.

I honor the sense of urgency you express in your post, Caroline, especially because of the fact that you are not feeling it and then getting frozen by fear with a sense of not knowing what to do. Nor are you simply screaming and dictating what others should do without getting active yourself. Instead, you are striving to realize 100% sustainability now, in your own life–and then sharing your experiences along the way. That is priceless, and we need more people with that much dedication…no matter how far they take sustainable living.

But here is my reaction to what you have written. One danger of such an approach to sustainability is that it presents an all-or-nothing, zero-sum scenario in which only large (”extreme”) measures are valued or presented as viable options. If that becomes the predominant model of sustainable living–and of environmentalism–then it has the strong likelihood of turning off many folks who are not entirely convinced or who do not share your sense of urgency.

Plus, it seems to present a sort of cold-turkey path to going sustainable: Drop everything you know in your life so far and live “green”…or else! To expect the majority in modern society, which is going more towards ease and convenience along the Western paradigm than anything else (just think of China, for example), to do this sort of sudden break with habit is just not realistic.

My feeling is that the most effective, realistic approach to sustainable living for the broadest demographic of individuals is a slower approach–starting at, say, 40% sustainability and then increasing at a pace that is comfortable but not indulging complacency–with or without a goal of reaching 100%.

Hi Justin,

I deeply appreciate your thoughts and your comments from “Towards a (Re)Definition of Sustainability - #1″.  I can tell that this is something you’ve been chewing on!  Me too.

I believe that changing a million lightbulbs to CFLs is absolutely NOT sustainable, because CFLs are currently (and probably will never be) manufactured sustainably, and so that option is simply unacceptable in terms of one-Earth sustainability.  It may be more “green,” but it’s only an excuse to continue exploiting the Earth and its priceless natural arrangement.  Besides, what are the benefits of using more electricity versus not putting more and more mercury into our landfills and environments due to CFLs?  I’d like to see those numbers, too.

I think I seem radical (and truly, some of what I’ve tried has been too intense for me to even handle) because I demand sustainability NOW, and reinforce that sustainability can be possible NOW.  You are correct in saying that, in terms of basic “impact,” 10 people living off the grid makes less of a global difference than 1,000 people changing lightbulbs.  But will using “green” lightbulbs–or any kind of lightbulbs at all!–ever be one-Earth sustainable?

For more on this same kind of lens/perspective, check out Derrick Jensen.  He argues that, for instance, using less gasoline doesn’t mean all the gasoline won’t get used up.  We are simply attempting feel-good tactics to remove ourselves from the guilt that comes with this awareness: that we are utterly dooming ourselves and all of life on Earth by our worldwide actions.

So what’s the trade-off there: a life that’s slightly more inconvenient (but possibly more satisfying) that allows for life on Earth and a thriving ecosystem… or one single lifetime that is convenient, comfy and luxurious, at the expense of hundreds of lifetimes to come?  

[Authors’ Introduction: This represents the first in a series of posts in which Sustainablog contributors Justin Van Kleeck and Caroline Savery discuss sustainability--in both philosophical and practical terms--and ultimately grope our way towards some definition(s) of "sustainability." The posts grow out of e-mails that we traded recently relating to Caroline’s Sust Enable project. This is not a debate or an argument, nor are we trying to prove one perspective right or wrong; it is a discussion, a chat, a pow-wow between two folks trying to live green. Each of us will post three articles (for a total of six), and in our final ones we will give our own definition of sustainability. We encourage readers to comment on individual posts and on the overall dialogue at the end.]

Caroline, having followed your posts on the Sust Enable project with great interest, “Hard Lessons in Sustainable Living: The Tent Trauma,” in particular sparked me to touch base with you. I have been thinking a lot about what you are doing and about sustainability in general.

I want to say first off that I greatly admire and respect your “experiment” with trying to live 100% sustainably. Your bravery is just awesome, not to mention inspiring, and the fact that you were able to share some very useful insights with others makes it even more commendable. It is easy to hold up folks like Thoreau who go out “into the woods” and rough it for a given period of time without in turn actively working to learn from and protect nature. You have taken on that challenge, Caroline, and I commend you.

But what I have been thinking/wondering about is the overall importance of efforts like yours vs. smaller-scale, less “extreme” efforts at sustainability. Let me explain what I mean. There are folks like yourself who go whole-hog and try to be 100% sustainable, to “live off the grid,” to be a complete closed cycle, to consume no or virtually no resources, etc. These folks definitely make a difference and can inspire others to live conscientiously–even if not to the same degree, and even if they do not share their experiences with others.

Okay. Let me get this one out of the way: gas hasn’t been all bad. In fact, gas has allowed us to accomplish some pretty amazing things. To be clear, when I say “gas,” I’m using the term as an easy way to loosely refer to all liquid fuel products made from buried and fossilized hydrocarbon deposits.

Ooooh… I can hear the flamers’ keys clicking away furiously already. But, before you type that horribly thought out gunslinging response, hear me out.

One of the great benefits of technology nowadays is the ability to do many, many things electronically. With a decent connection (even dial-up, used by poor stone-age folks like me), a willingness to trust sensitive data to cyberspace, and companies offering e-services, you can do everything from pay your bills to read the newspaper online. And, of course, you can e-communicate, too: Why write a crotchety old letter when you could e-mail, IM, blog, teleconference…?

Besides the general convenience and speed that going paperless provides, managing your life electronically also can help out the Earth. When you go paperless you require less paper, ergo you reduce the number of trees that have to be cut down, ground up into pulp, and then magically transformed into yet another bill, catalogue, or credit card offer.

The number of trees saved when you do it the e-way is pretty significant. Paxton Ramsdell at The Nature Conservancy shares these numbers:

If only one in five households switched to electronic bills, statements and payments, the collective impact would save 151 million pounds of paper, avoid filling 8.6 million garbage bags and eliminate 2 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions.1

Since our friends the trees do so much for us, from sequestering carbon to producing oxygen to inspiring our wonder and our fear, you can feel great about going paperless in every way. Yes, sometimes being an environmentalist has its benefits–in this case convenience cum sustainability. So why not go e-green?

Well, here is one possibly good reason to be wary of going paperless in toto. At least I think it is a good one.

Long before I was a conscientious environmentalist, I was…a bookworm. And more than that, I was…a bibliophile…a book addict with a serious craving. I have an affinity for old books in particular. The ones that make you sneeze with dust when you open them. The ones that require tweezers and padded cushions even to be read. The ones that cannot even be looked at too hard or too long lest you damage them. The ones that require climate-controlled basement rooms without windows kept precisely at specific temperatures and humidity levels.

In what is just another example in a long stream of such, the US Army is beginning to realize that it is not only good for publicity, but essentially cheaper, to turn their operations green… er. Going green was never solely about making some cheap points on the PR board; it has, from the start, been a cheaper option across the board.

The Army had begun pushing for environmental sustainability in all of their bases, starting with Fort Bragg in North Carolina. And they’re thinking it through as well; not only are they thinking about the current footprint (I’m not going to say it), they’re thinking about the future as well. Since 2001, each village set up within Fort Bragg for training purposes has been made up of shipping containers, reducing the cost from $400,000 to $25,000, and keeping the shipping containers out of the solid waste stream.

But the goal is not solely to save money, but also lives as well.

One of the greatest steps forward that local communities have taken of late is the push to collect rainwater to offset your water use. It is often an easy way to help out the environment and, in the long run, simply save water. There don’t really seem to be any catches to it either. Rain falls from the sky, hits your roof and runs in to your drums or barrels or tanks.

If only it were that simple.

Notch up another one for the members of the Idiots Anonymous who have apparently been camping out in Bellingham, Washington. Apparently, rainwater doesn’t actually belong to individuals, but to the state as a whole. Therefore, all the wonderful efforts of communities to collect water are actually illegal.