Being an environmentalist is easy as pie. All you have to do is make money. Lots of money. And you don't even have to give up the comforts of your cushy lifestyle. Great bargain, right? In this wonderful new age of indulgences, you can have your Hummer AND snazzy "Save the Planet" to adorn it.
Or at least that's what Al Gore would say.
Al Gore is the face of the new environmentalism, where everything is okay, as long as you make up for it by planting trees or buying carbon-free tickets (scathingly referred to as indulgences by the New York Times). So basically, you can keep your fancy cars, private jets, and mansions with $30,000 energy bills (sound familiar, Al?), and as long as you have extra dough to cough up to buy "green" energy and offset your "carbon footprint", it's fine.
Honestly, Mr. Gore, would it kill you to turn off a few lights every once in a while?
The major problem I have with this theory of environmentalism is that it concentrates on making up for whatever damage you've done to "Mother Earth" instead of eliminating it (or at least reducing it) altogether. It functions on this idea of free passes, but only you have the money to donate to some random company that claims to plant trees in the Amazon. It really doesn't surprise me that so many of America's rich and famous back Mr. Gore's environmental campaign because it lets them save the world without lifting a finger, and give them feelings of self-righteousness about it, too.
It doesn't matter if you're using green power or coal power: you're still using electricity, and the less you use, the better. Same goes for carbon coupons. If you just USED LESS instead of gabbing about how great you are for planting trees, the world would be a better place. You don't even know if those companies you're giving money to are actually doing anything. They're probably just taking your money and stashing it in a bank account in the Bahamas.
I guess what I'm saying is that this road towards saving the world is not going anywhere. As long as there are huge McMansions sucking up energy, there will be blackouts. Come on, people, do you really need 6,000 square feet for a family of four?
What happened to less is more?
And the other issue I have with Mr. Gore's theories is that, well, the vast majority of Americans, or humans in general, don't have an extra thousand or so bucks a year to spend on offsetting their carbon emissions. Most people are spending that money on FOOD. So, his message doesn't really apply to them.
In fact, if all the Hollywood bigshots who loaded up An Inconvenient Truth with Oscars lived like the poor Americans did, there wouldn't be an energy problem. You don't see clotheslines or people taking the bus in Beverly Hills, do you? Well, maybe you should. I find it ironic that the best methods of saving energy are the ones that are most stigmatized by American society. Take a hike (or a bike), and turn off your energy guzzling stereo systems and giant TVs. Set the air conditioning to 74 and deal with it. Hang your socks up to dry. Make an effort to be energy conscious, if only because it saves you money. Do all that stuff and more, it's great. But please, don't drive a Hummer and tell me you want to save the environment.
Indulgences were yesterday's news in 1517. Why should today be any different?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
indulgences are an interesting parallel, but i'm not sure i agree. i definitely don't condone the use of carbon coupons the way you describe them here, but it sounds like you're making some pretty broad generalizations. carbon coupons are meant to be a substitute for energy use reduction in circumstances where actual reduction is either impossible or hugely inconvenient, and i believe such circumstances exist. another theory is that some corporations and consumers buy the coupons as a temporary solution until they figure out a permanent energy-reduction solution. either way, i do admit some of your examples of abuse are pretty infuriating. i really liked the idea of coupons in the first place, and if what you say and the article claims is true, it's sad they're becoming a cop-out.
Post a Comment