Some of My Best Friends Are Lumberjacks
by Giulianna LamannaLast week, cartoonist Tom Fishburne posted a new political cartoon on his blog called The Art of Greenwashing, which he says “sprang fully formed from a New York Times piece on the ridiculous lengths that some brands are going to be considered for the Home Depot Eco Options promotion (including, yes, a brand of electric chainsaw).”
It’s a familiar sentiment, but ultimately moot, since an event last weekend COMPLETELY CHANGED EVERYTHING. Live Earth—the BIGGEST, COOLEST, most IMPORTANT concert IN THE WORLD, EVAR—featured such hot young artists as Madonna, the Police, and Jon Bon Jovi. I suppose that was meant to reflect how this concert is at least 30 years too late. Let’s face it: those little energy-saving tips Cameron Diaz gave us at the commercial breaks may have helped in the 50’s or even the 60’s, but refilling our water bottles isn’t going to save us now.
Is this really the best we can do? Sell “eco-friendly” chainsaws and parade celebrities around on elaborately lit stages in an attempt to “raise awareness” of global warming? We are in such serious danger and we’re taking such painfully small steps to help, and we expect such wild applause for it. Car companies (and their customers) seem oblivious to the fact that a car with relatively lower gas mileage is not “good” for the environment. Doing slightly less damage than you could is not an objective good, especially if a decade of SUV use has thrown any sane measure of gas mileage off the scale. This is too little, too late, too smug. This is Rome the day before the sack, with a few nobles idly wondering, “Say, is anybody watching the Visigoths?” Worse, this is the nobles laying back and assuring themselves, “Oh, it’s not a problem—we added a few more bricks to our defenses this morning.”
Apparently Brits care more about a dead princess than climate change - no surprises there.
Mind you, I didn’t watch either of them.
Comment by Vashti — 9 July 2007 @ 9:35 AM
While we’re rewilding (which I’m betting is you’re answer to what people should do here and now), do you think it’s worth worrying about how big our footprint is while we’re still living in civilization? Or would you say it’s more important to find the quickest, easiet (and therefore possibly more damaging) ways of living while on the journey to rewild.
I bring the question up only because it’s a moral dilemma that I’ve been facing for some time. I routinely try to do “the little things” such as buy local/ organic, buy 100% post-consumer waste, and eat a vegan diet (I know, I’ve heard what there is to be said, but I’m still convinced that the lowest footprint possible is with a vegan diet).
Is any of this really important? If collapse is inevitable anyway, should I worry about limiting my own personal damage in the way Al Gore et al are suggesting, or should I worry only of getting myself and as many people as I can “out” right now?
Comment by Jordan Mechano — 9 July 2007 @ 11:10 AM
That’s a good question, Jordan, and one I grapple with as well. I also try to do all the ‘little things,’ like take short showers infrequently (2-3X/week), buy post-consumer recycled goods, eat local and organic, use non-toxic cleaning supplies, etc. I’m also biding my time, saving money and breaking financial chains so that I can explore outside of civilization more than I am now (which is nearly nothing). I’m also trying to acclimatize myself to life without civilized ‘luxuries,’ so that the transition will be easier and more permanent, even if collapse hasn’t happened yet.
But is it making much of a material difference? Probably not. I don’t like to subscribe to the idea that ‘If everyone did X, we’d be great,’ because everyone isn’t going to do X, and it’s delusional to base your actions on people you don’t know doing things just as you’re doing in hopes that the cumulative effect will be salvation. Also, on a deeper philosophical level, I think that sort of categorical-imperative thinking is very much a civilized, imperial artifact, and at odds with cultural relativism and its emphasis on bioregional applicability. The whole human world shouldn’t live the same way, because the planet is highly varied, and the behaviors suitable to various locales are not necessarily transportable.
That said, I do think there’s something to be said for mindfulness and the spiritual effect that it has. Of course I can’t prove it, but I do think that the ‘little things’ do matter in a way that’s different than materially, and send out ripples of I-don’t-know-what to those around us, and I think that’s positive.
Also, ya know- hedge one’s bets: even if not everyone is going to go along with these actions (which are still in many ways fairly easy), it’s not going to hurt to leave a little less destruction in one’s wake, even if it’s neutral with respect to the end of empire.
Comment by Archangel — 9 July 2007 @ 11:55 AM
I don’t think there’s much point to all the ethical consumerism stuff - we could make a small difference, but in order to achieve any real change we need ethical industry and ethical agriculture too - both are impossible.
However, there are people I want to finance, and people I don’t, so in practice I end up trying to buy organic hemp yoghurt-knitted vegetables. This impulse conflicts with my wanting to save as much money as possible to pay off my debts … sigh.
Comment by Vashti — 10 July 2007 @ 3:23 AM
I put more focus on buying local. That alone prevents a good deal of waste. It also does a better job of keeping you in touch with your bioregion, imho.
It’s often not an additional expense, either.
Just my 2 cents.
Comment by jhereg — 10 July 2007 @ 7:38 AM
Many of the the “Grow the economy & be Green” folks like Gore do highlight some environmental issues. Buying offset credits and the like just is another bullshit way that they hope to make being ‘green’ economically viable within the current system.
People like Gore get busted for some of their half-ass environmental measures..buying credits to offset massive pollution/energy consumption on a 20, ooo sq ft mansion? A planned contraction and simplification of lifestyles is not something mainstream activist are selling. Changing your lightbulbs and planting a couple trees…to continue the modern consumer lifestyle and feel better about oneself–seems to be the goal. Thus business as usual. When people start tearing down the 2,00sq ft homes and building 1000sq ft homes then maybe culture will reflect different priorities. But as it stands, I think we are still on the path to watch the
system suffer catabolic collapse in 2008 and onward as complex systems fail, over and over again in the face of the many critical stressors both environmental and social/political. Hope everyone like’s rollercoaster rides…
Go ahead and change your lightbulbs, but embrace systematic lifestyle simplification before its forced upon you.
Comment by Bubba — 10 July 2007 @ 8:58 AM
The biggest trade-off for me is: organic or paleo? Paleo helps me prepare for the collapse and get into a healthier, more human lifestyle, but organic supports less damaging argriculture, which makes it a little more likely that more life will survive post-collapse. Not to mention keeping a good deal of weird chemicals and hormones out of my body. I can’t afford both. Hell, I can barely afford one.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 10 July 2007 @ 10:06 AM
Haha. Loved “hot young artists.”
Here’s a thought… Buying organic foods, they still may be shipping them thousands of miles to get to you, adding to the carbon blah blah blah. Perhaps the third option is buying local?
I buy mostly local, organic, paleo foods and I only spend about 50-70 bucks a week on groceries. Of course, I live in Portland OR where there is a lot of competition in local organic foods so the prices here are comparable to many “regular” grocery stores. I’m not a nazi about local/organic, but I am a nazi about paleo… wait… is calling myself a nazi godwins law? Fuck. Don’t ban me pleeeease!!!
Comment by Urban Scout — 10 July 2007 @ 12:13 PM
“Is this really the best we can do?”
Well, we aren’t them. But, yeah, I think this is the best that they will allow themselves to do. I think we’re going to have another round of we-are-the-world activism as a last gasp to syphon money from the people as collapse sets in. These people aren’t going down without a fight; they want to squeeze every last bit of party time they can out of this thing before there’s nothing left. Plus, they want to make themselves feel like they were doing the right thing all along.
Comment by thistle — 10 July 2007 @ 12:14 PM
I can’t believe how shit Live Earth was. I thought Live 8 was bad…
Kunstler also had a good rant about Live Earth.
Comment by Dan Bartlett — 10 July 2007 @ 12:54 PM
we watched the NBC coverage of Live Earth on TV at my friend’s house…nothing like watching little blond actresses get all excited about how they’ve learned all now that using one less paper napkin per meal, buying a light-bulb, and putting more air in their SUV tires can “save the planet”.
sigh. i mean, i don’t *wanna* be so cynical, really i don’t!
as for the other question–i always do local first if i have any clue about their practices. after that, bulk organic, and then Organic Valley or whatever at the co-op here.
i like this essay on the topic, via Ran’s site a ways back:
http://www.energybulletin.net/25115.html
(saying basically that whether it all adds up to any major change is not really the point–like, just because ME not murdering someone will not significantly impact the national or global murder stats, does that mean i should go ahead and do it? of course not!)
but greenwashing is totally EVIL, and it is only going to get worse, leaving lots of well-intentioned regular people spending more money and thinking they are doing something good for their health, “the planet” or whatever, but just getting ripped off. i’m constantly reminding my mom now that “certified organic” (by fed, state or some damn one) is what she wants if she can’t get local, and NOT “all natural” and the various other advertising trick terms.
in regional farm news here, i’ve good and bad–
good: we found a great little free-roaming, grass-fed, raw milk farm right near my folks’ place that sells direct if you stop by.
bad: my dad’s friend in Bedford with the small family dairy farm was forced this week to sell their herd. they were at the end of the pick-up line for the middle-man outfit that was taking their milk to Land’o'Lakes for butter. they’ve owned the land for many generations so i don’t think they’re gonna’ lose it…they just have to change what they’re gonna’ do there. they’ve been getting squeezed by the big players for decades now.
i know the ongoing discussion with the merits vs. problems with dairy here, and i’m cool with everyone not having to agree on that, BTW!
but what makes the above good/bad regardless i think, is that i’m afraid we’re really going to need the small farm outfits more and more as things come apart globally. of course their styles of farming are not sustainable long term, BUT they do have many other crucial skills, not to mention the land and networks, to shift to better methods as the times call for it. i’d rather walk down the steps one by one, than just jump off from the tenth floor, you know?
Giuli–as you mention toxins/poisons in various products, are you familiar with this resource: http://www.ewg.org
i use this one a lot: http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com
as i’m not quite ready to make my own soap or shampoo or toothpaste, and i’m still working someplace where that sort of thing is rather expected, i’ve found this database helpful!
Comment by patricia — 10 July 2007 @ 6:30 PM
Hey patricia, what does someone’s hair color have to do with this? You could have sounded a little less prejudiced if you omitted the “blond” part. Pre-judging a person based on hair color is no different than pre-judging someone based on skin color or ethnicity. If you replace “blond” with say, “asian”, it sounds a bit racist. Now if they were bleach blond, that’s a whole other story…
Comment by Andy — 11 July 2007 @ 7:26 AM
The thing that got to me most about the whole ‘Live Earth’ extravaganza was the degenerate state of the music it presented as the most ‘cutting edge’. Perhaps someone could point me to a single track by any of those artists that contains even a disguised political message or the slightest display of angst over the myriad social and environmental problems we face? What the fuck is going on when the best artists the planet has to offer are a bunch of sell-out yes-men just like everybody else?
The whole thing was the last evidence I needed to bury the naive hope that the Rainbow Warriors will rise from within civilisation’s ranks to avert catastrophe before it’s too late.
But an interesting thought occurred to me: what if the real function of events like these was to pacify public opinion which otherwise might be gearing up for something much more militant? What if Geldof and Bono and Live 8 and Make Poverty History are necessary to guide popular energy into the most ineffective channels and smother all the anger and revolutionary urges people feel, turning it all into a beige mulch of appeasement and sycophancy? Maybe they parade know-nothing dick-heads before us because they think we will assume them as our artistic representatives and in turn become know-nothing dick-heads ourselves?
These thoughts were fueled by my discovery of the ‘Alive Earth’ web-based alternative. The honest, gritty (sometimes a little hippy) music is still out there, you just have to want to find it. The problem lies with a music industry that selects more heavily than ever against ‘radical’ artists. As they say:
Comment by Ian M — 11 July 2007 @ 9:29 AM
On the eco-friendly products theme, did you know BAE Systems produce an environmentally friendly bullet (i.e. it’s lead free)?
See: http://rubyurl.com/omS
Comment by Disillusioned kid — 13 July 2007 @ 12:13 PM
I’m watching American Morning on CNN right now and they’re reporting a story about this designer cotton grocery bag. Everyone’s going insane for it; apparently, something like 30 people had to be hospitalized attempting to get it. It’s ugly and says, “This is not a plastic bag” on it in big blue letters. Ugh. I would actually consider getting one if it weren’t for that—if it were just a plain cotton tote you could use in any store and not a “LOOK AT ME, I’M MORE ECO-FRIENDLY THAN YOU!!!!” status symbol.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 18 July 2007 @ 8:05 AM