Green Options

While July 2008 looked relatively normal in terms of Fourth of July celebrations and hot weather, $4 per gallon gas put a damper on that other summertime staple: the family road trip.

As you might imagine, we had a lot to say about that gas thing… but didn’t take a vacation from covering a wide range of topics.

July 2008

• Chad Crawford, our minister in residence, reviewed The Green Bible.
• Raz Godelnik of Eco-Libris dug into another book: Paper Trails.
• Robin Shreeves reported on a small town that found an innovative solution to big traffic problems: bike sharing.
• Birgitte Rasine of LUCITA sent up a flare for paper shredders clogged with junk mail.

This blog post was written in response to some unusually caustic replies received on my last Sustainablog post, “The Dissonance Between Dreams: Re-writing the Sust Enable Episode Scripts.” It was composed in the interrim between the second-to-last comment, and the final comment, which clarifies the author’s tone a bit and does lay out some common ground.  However, based only on reading the comment quoted below, the commenter inspired deep meditation into myself and to what extent I am trying to exploit privilege–even while claiming to be 100% supportive of global sustainability.  View the comments here.

—

“It’s only irrelevant in the context of one who still feels entitled to the comforts and privileges that being white in Western civilization has afforded her.”

Overall, I think the most crucial component of changing the world is not privilege: it is responsibility. As someone who was born into a world with social systems favoring her, it is my responsibility to address and counteract these effects. As someone who enjoys the benefits (but not the costs) of systems that hurt the environment for future generations, I have the responsibility to try to undo the harm done in my name or the name of the dollar I spend.

You disparage psychology, but I believe that our shared psychological needs-take Maslow’s pyramid, for example-absolutely influences the immediate decision-making process of every human being. For Americans, it means that we often don’t opt to do the most responsible thing, if it is not also the most convenient and most personally-positive thing as well. Once again, this all goes back to perspective-if a hot shower feels good to me immediately, and I will never feel the worldwide damage that such an action causes, then I can hide from such knowledge and forgive myself for a single shower. With millions of people making such inner decisions-in situations with varying stakes-well, most of us can see the problem we are facing now.

I think psychology will be key, too, in fixing this little biological oversight-we can create social systems which enforce a global responsibility in personal situations (where our limited perspectives are failing us). If we can unite on truly valuing the Earth’s biosphere, then we as people, as lawmakers, can create systems of justice-environmental justice-that as validly as possible account for additions and subtractions of valuable assets within the Earth’s limited resources. This idea may sound radical-but it is amazingly simple. Often, the average person forgets that he or she is a lawmaker-that laws are not sacred nor eternal. People make them and break them according to their needs.

“For any viewer who has been camping, a tent may not sound like the most… comfortable living option.  On the other hand, it has some real benefits to my mission to live sustainably!

…Inhabiting it uses no energy–neither heating nor cooling is an issue.  While it might seem like it at first, a tent is not just a summer option…  Look like cramped quarters?

Well, it’s big enough to sleep in and to store my clothes in.  And that’s all I need.  It means I will be spending more time outside, in nature…

Plus, unlike in an apartment, I have the ability to develop my home in unlimited ways!  Stay tuned for later episodes that show how I modify and enhance my living space to be more and more manageable, including temperature control, comfort and additional amenties.”

Dear Readers,

Sust Enable was my dearest fantasy.  Sust Enable meant that I would solve the entire world’s problem of environmental sustainability all by myself.  In an urban setting and with no money.  What’s more, I’d do so while producing a film about it!  Take that, thousands of years of environmental degradation!

For those of you who have followed my tumultuous three-month sustainable living experiment through my blog posts here at Sustainablog, you may think the quoted text above is a strange thing to say, or even bizarrely humorous.  Indeed it is.  Above is the exact wording of my original script to the Sust Enable episode on Shelter, last updated sometime in May.  As I sit in the video editing suite listening over my previously recorded voiceover, I cannot help but laugh out loud at the absurd, unsubstantiated statements I am making.  But these are sour laughs.

Because once, I believed these statements were true.

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.