Over on Treehugger, Lloyd Alter claims to have enjoyed this Wall Street Journal piece by Dan Akst (yes, yes, subscription only). I can't say I did.
Since you can't read it, I'll summarize: People who build "green" houses that are huge and isolated are hypocrites.
It's a bit mystifying to me why this genre of writing is so prevalent. I suppose it's fun to point out that a preachy celebrity drives a Hummer, or that the head of an environmental group flies all over the country to give talks, or that some recycling suburban mom commutes 50 miles to work. For pundits, charges of hypocrisy are nigh irresistible, since they require no thought, research, or analysis. "Look, person says A and does not-A! Gotcha!" It's easy.
But is hypocrisy really that important? To the point that seemingly the bulk of writing on environmentalism begins and ends there?
I think not.
For one thing, "one ought to reduce one's energy consumption" is true even if spoken by a person who is not reducing their energy consumption. The speaker's failure to do what they say is entirely orthogonal to the truth value of what they say, whatever it might say about their character.
For another, the worst environmental problems are global and systemic. Ecosystem-destroying behavior is woven into our infrastructure, our manufacturing practices, our governing practices, our tax code, etc. Personal conservation is not irrelevant, but it is far, far from the most pressing need. We need solutions as big as the problems.
I am reminded of a passage from an (otherwise unrelated) post from Zaid Hassan:
At some point the implications of this hit me like an axe. The professor was basically making the case, demonstrating empirically, that a change of individual consciousness does not necessarily result in a more just society. When we're living in systems that are producing injustice due to structural reasons, running programmes that work with individuals -- no matter how well facilitated, will not necessarily change or impact a situation. There needs to be a conscious attempt to address issues of structural injustice. In other words, creating systemic change means working with individuals in order for individuals to change both themselves and the structures that generate injustice.
It is very difficult to live a genuinely green lifestyle in contemporary society -- structural factors work against it. It requires enormous persistence and commitment. It should be no surprise that even those who advocate for environmental change are unable to do it consistently.
Environmentalism's enemies use this fact to deride and marginalize it. I would just ask environmentalists not to help them, however tempting it may be.
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 2:42 pm
13 Jan 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:22 pm
13 Jan 2006
But that's kind of beside the point anyway -- at least the point I was trying to make. I certainly don't disagree with anything Akst said.
But is this really the best choice of target? Of all the entities and forces out there working against environmental health, is the daftness of well-meaning rich people really anywhere close to the top of the list?
It would be different if this column were just a novelty, some kind of counter-intuitive zinger. But it strikes me that a bizarrely high percentage of writing about environmentalism focuses on acts of personal hypocrisy. Such hypocrisy is not nothing, but it's not a particularly big deal in the grand scheme of things either.
www.grist.org
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:36 pm
13 Jan 2006
Did Socrates own anything?
On the other hand, a 6000 square foot green mansion featuring a 6000 square foot solar panel and a 6000 watt wind machine, heated and cooled with a geothermal geat pump, would put more power back into the grid than it used.
Really green design is a matter of ratio rather than size. The ratio of surface area covered with solar panels compared to the area that needs heating/cooling. The ratio of wind energy harvested to the energy used.
Could a home, or homes for all 300 million of US, that provided all the energy needed in this manner be designed? Will they ever be built?
Maybe wealthy individuals who build and publicize green mansions that follow these design principles will lead, the price will drop with mass production, and then all will be able to afford to embrace a life that is symbiotic with the natural world.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 12:53 am
14 Jan 2006
"To the point that seemingly the bulk of writing on environmentalism begins and ends there?" Of course not, but consider the point of view of a non-environmentalist (not necessarily an anti-enviromentalist). If you heard someone advocating something that requires some amount of sacrifice, as virtually all environmental actions do due to the societal and legal structures that you mentioned, but saw that person doing something contrary to that advocacy, wouldn't that make you somewhere between suspicious of and hostile to the position or action being advocated? This is not to say that there is any legitimacy to anti-environmentalists who jump at the most minisucle transgression in order to advocate against environmentalism, but should serve instead as a warning that our actions are being closely watched and we should try as hard as possible to make our words match our actions. Living like this will also give you much more credibility.
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:40 am
14 Jan 2006
Since I could not disagree with what you had to say, I jumped off on a tangent about status.
Your concern that the wealthy will just build huge-not green houses is a valid one. However, I think that articles like this one can convince them to build green-not huge houses if the perception takes hold that such homes have higher status. I know a very wealthy individual who traded in her Mercedes for a dinky Prius, with the navigation package of course.
Four or five articles in that vein in that paper could very well change the existing housing fad, resulting in literally tens of millions of much smaller, much more efficient homes, which would be a relatively big deal in the grand scheme of things. Twenty years later, people might laugh at the big McMansions that were once so hip in America. Capital hill in Seattle is covered with old run down mansions that were once hip.
People usually equate bigger with higher status. As some of the other posters have pointed out, status can be achieved in any number of ways. In fact, small houses in Seattle neighborhoods have much more status than many much bigger homes in suburbia (that status is reflected in the price). It would not be hard to build a small, super energy efficient, million dollar home, replete with solar panels, gardens, slate, stone, and art that would impress the socks off any guest.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
makower Posted 5:57 am
14 Jan 2006
And sometimes, the truth hurts. A few years ago, my wife and I were interviewing contractors to build our dream home -- replete with eco-friendly woods and efficiency up the wazoo. One environmentally savvy contractor took a look at the plans, heard my plea about being "environmentally responsible," and said: "To be frank, the most environmentally friendly thing you can do is to cut the size of the house in half."
It was an ego-deflating punch in the gut, but he was right.
In the end, we opted out of building, deciding to "recycle" our current house.
Permalink