If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed.
Is it just me or is Green everywhere now? It reminds me of the Rubix cube phenomenon when I was in 4th grade: everywhere you looked, someone was playing with one (much to the dismay of our teachers).
A year and a half ago, I remember suspecting that we were rapidly approaching this green tipping point and it’s strange to see it actually happening. Green headlines pop up almost daily now and businesses everywhere–from Walmart to Nike our local Harv’s car wash–are in a mad scramble to demonstrate their efforts to be “green.”
And I hear two main camps out there: the skeptics critical of “green-washing” and the optimists that welcome wholesale “green for green’s sake.”
There’s validity to both perspectives: on one hand, green-branding can lead to an erosion of its potency and consumer confusion. Likewise, it allows questionable technologies (like ethanol) to emerge as popular and acceptable solutions.
On the other hand, the turning of the green tide also means a fundamental shift in consumer trends: at the very least, people are now saying they care about this stuff (otherwise, it wouldn’t be news and most businesses wouldn’t care). That’s exciting for me because it simply was not the case 10 years ago (when I myself didn’t care about it either).
The big question that needs to continue to be asked throughout this shift is still about fundamental motivations.
Is Green good just for Green’s sake? If so, then all green is equal and we will find ourselves slogging through the quagmire of green-wash.
If green is suddenly good because its profitable then better technologies that do not have as strong a present-day bottom line will be sacrificed for technologies with greater impact but less immediate return.
Fundamentally, the question comes down to whether or not people are really, genuinely wanting to do good or not.
Because Doing Good is more than just about Green: its deeper and more enduring. For us, Green is simply a starting point, equivalent to “first do no harm”. Green is also about improving quality of life: but, as many have already articulated, the people who can afford green already have a pretty high quality of life already. This line of thought has brought us to the question: what kind of Good can be done for the poorest of the poor, the ones who have to choose between starvation and cutting down the rainforests around them?
Ultimately, the problem with Green-branding as “market-share” is that it can ignore or cast a blind eye to areas of doing good that deserve as much attention as Green—it redirects First World consumerism toward a gentler footprint on the earth (which is a good thing to do) but it does nothing to right other wrongs in the world. Walmart can go on record as being a Green company by building green and offering more organic options, but is it doing good for its employees, is it doing anything to leverage its massive purchasing power to ensure manufacturers in other nations are treating their employees well.
While useful for the present day, there will come a day when Green means nothing. At that point, I think what we have left is Good.
Jason
7 responses so far ↓
1 E // Nov 1, 2007 at 10:39 am
One thing that strikes me as very different about the current trend is that the private sector is really starting to “get it” in terms of creating a more sustainable future.
We hear a lot about the 3 “E’s” these days– economy, environment, and equity. I think people are starting to realize that for too long it’s been about only 1, maybe 2, of them… and that in the end EVERYONE’s bottom line will be affected if we don’t start thinking holistically about what we’re doing.
I think there is still too much jumping on the “Green” bandwagon, as you’ve pointed out, and too often “being green” is just another marketing catch phrase.
2 jason // Nov 1, 2007 at 1:30 pm
You nailed it, E. I’ve heard it said, “As Africa goes, so goes the world…”–I’d love to have some great statistics to back that up (I’ve seen them out there), but I don’t right now. I think a lot of Americans don’t realize the level of dependency we have on Third World nations and how much we all will be impacted by the fate of their people, their environments, and their resources. Some time ago, we crossed a point of no return. We no longer live in a world where any one country can subsist in a bubble, impervious to what happens to others. Taking responsibility for the “poorest of the poor” is not only a Good thing to do for their sake, its a necessity for the sake of our own children and their children.
3 wburg // Nov 1, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Count me with the skeptics. The phrase “Greenwashing” was thrown about a lot during the last phase of environmental awareness in the early 90s, one that I certainly remember (maybe the fact that I did care then, since it’s hard to attend Humboldt State without being steeped in the political and environmental debate that hangs in the air of that place thicker than the pot smoke) although the strategy of greenwashing was also utilized by large companies during the environmental movement of the early seventies.
People act based on self-interest. That’s a predictable constant of human behavior. Both the “bottom line” mentality and environmental consciousness are merely differing approaches at self-interest: the bottom-liner pursues self-interest in the form of making lots of money to further their own survival, the environmentalist pursues protection of the environment because environmental degradation threatens their survival. The desired goal is the same: continued serving of interests. Even acts of self-destruction can be interpreted as self-interest, if self-sacrifice serves a goal greater than life.
Populations will shift their survival strategies based on what they perceive as the greatest threat, and act accordingly. What’s threatening your existence? Poverty? Global warming? Communism? Being cast into the lake of fire by an angry God? Government regulation? It all depends on what leadership figures, and/or a sufficient weight of other people, have presented as survival priorities. Organizations that survive based on being responsive to public wants (including both business and politicians) succeed by identifying these trends on capitalizing on them. Actual commitment to the values behind them is optional, because the bottom line is still self-interest.
4 jason // Nov 2, 2007 at 8:02 pm
wburg’s comment that both bottom-liners and environmentists are driven by the same basic drive–self-interest–is an interesting one and certainly has some merit. it leads me to the question, “is there something other than self-interest” that ALSO drives people to act. Is there such a thing as genuine altruism? Is self-interest the ONLY driver for our behaviors and beliefs and actions? We tend to see so little of altruism these days that I think skepticism is warranted, but I’m still a believer myself. And I also think its going to see a come-back…at least, I hope so.
5 wburg // Nov 5, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Altruism is self-interest. It constitutes behavior that is performed because it makes us feel good (self-interest,) because we want to serve as an example to others and encourage altruism in others (self-interest) and/or because it conforms to the dictates of a religion or philosophy (self-interest.)
Perhaps the key to altruism as self-interest is the greater realization of the individual’s part in the community: behavior that may be fostered by the rebirth of the idea of communities, encouraged by neighborhoods where people walk around and interact directly with each other, instead of being dispersed over wide areas and interacting only through artificially enclosed spaces (cars) which prevent personal, human interaction. So, the question is, how do we build communities to foster interpersonal connections, and thus spur greater human connections and create conditions for altruistic behavior? Part of the answer also lies in altruism, I suspect, on the part of the designer of those communities.
6 jason // Nov 5, 2007 at 6:05 pm
wburg, while I’m not necessarily convinced that all altruism is an expression of self-interest, I whole-heartedly agree with the connections you make between altruism and self-interest being most fully realized in the context of communities where care for others is also directly tied with care for self…and the question you pose is so in line with what we’re trying to aim for and are hope to help others (designers and everyday people alike) aim for as well. I love the idea of thinking about building communities through the lens of “creating conditions for altruistic behavior.” That’s a phenomenal guiding principle that deserves a lot more thought!
7 Mmicah // Nov 6, 2007 at 12:43 pm
WBurg,
It is troubling to hear such an mechanical definition of altruism. You mention in the “Giving Tree” post above this, about a gentile family that saved your professor’s life. I really have a hard time believing they performed that selfless act out of self interest. Pure self interest would not have thought of saving anyone at that point in history except themselves. I think that altruism is truly elevating others above oneself for the benefit of others not for self-serving “feel good” pleasure. I for one can tell you that serving others is not always pleasurable. Tell us more……
Leave a Comment