An Interesting Thought, But So Wrong

Philadelphia Inquirer (Philly.com): "Let's make green selfish."

"For many, conservation, pollution and the environment are simply too much to think about. The problems are too large, the realities too harsh. And the rhetoric - driven by the notion that we must save the planet for future generations (do it for the children!) seems hopelessly abstract and far away. Until the polar ice caps melt and wash out our living rooms, global warming, for many of us, will continue to be a purely conceptual problem, easily crowded out by work conflicts, relationship stresses or money woes. And that's why the environmental movement may want to reconsider its tactics and whip up a new marketing plan..."

Author Julie Gerstein argues that to be effective, green has to answer 'what's in it for me?' I'd agree, but limiting that to "selfishness" belittles rather than expands its appeal. Let's take some leading green integers:

Gas efficiency. It's green because it creates less carbon, less pollution, less global warming. What's in it for me? Less guilt -- no one wants to live like a pig, wallowing in our own filth. Pride -- we're doing something to help our fellow humans. Altruism -- we acknowledge a greater good beyond our own needs and desires. And oh yeah, how about saving ourselves some money. Um, well, that's selfish. But good selfish!

Organic food, clothing. It's green because it puts no pesticides or synthetics into the environment. What's in it for me? It tastes better. It's healthier. It's better for our bodies. That's selfish. But good selfish!

Riding a bike instead of driving. It's green because it does not pollute. What's in it for me? No car-repair bills, no car insurance, no car payments. Healthier lifestyle -- quit the club and save that monthly membership fee! Far less frustration finding parking places and sitting in rush-hour traffic. Plus your employer gets "green" credits and tax benefits. All selfish, yes.

Gerstein dismisses the "save the world for our children" urge a bit too glibly for my tastes. I know a lot of new parents who are extremely concerned about the future for their children. Maybe Gerstein doesn't have kids and maybe people who don't have kids aren't going to care. But I can't agree that this is a reason to abandon familial values for selfish, me-first-and-the-hell-with-all-of-you rationales.

I guess my point is this: If you do something "green," you can't help but be selfish in some way or other. It's really a moot point. So why emphasize "selfishness" when it's pretty much gotten us into this mess in the first place. You could just as easily say "green is greedy" (as I have re Wal-Mart in previous posts). Isn't self-preservation, certainly a form of selfishness, the ultimate goal of green? Again, Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" addresses this point with a memorable image. A weight scales with a bunch of gold ingots on one tray and the Earth on the other. Wouldn't it be great to have all that money, he notes. But if we don't have an Earth...

global warming ecological footprint carbon footprint GreenforGood sustainability green lifestyle