Consumers Feeling Overwhelmed By "Green Noise"

New York Times:

DESPITE the expense and the occasional back strain, Mary Burnham, a public relations consultant in San Francisco, felt good about the decision she made a few years ago to buy milk -- organic, of course -- only in heavy, reusable glass bottles. For the sake of the environment, she dutifully lugged them back and forth from the grocery store every week. Cutting out disposable paper cartons, she reasoned, meant saving trees and reducing waste.

Or not. A friend, also a committed environmentalist, recently started questioning her good deed. "His argument was that paper cartons are compostable and lightweight and use less energy and water than the heavy bottles, which must be transported back to a plant to be cleaned and reused," she said. "I have no idea which is better, or how to find out."

Ms. Burnham, 35, recycles religiously, orders weekly from a community-supported farm, buys eco-friendly cleaning products and carries groceries in a canvas bag. But she admits to information overload on the environment -- from friends, advice columns, news media, even government-issued reports. Much of the advice is conflicting.

"To say that you are confused and a little fed up with the often contradictory messages out there on how to live lightly on the earth is definitely not cool," she said in an e-mail message. "But, heck, I'll come out and say it. I'm a little overwhelmed."

She is, in other words, a victim of "green noise" -- static caused by urgent, sometimes vexing or even contradictory information played at too high a volume for too long.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[HappyRabbit]

Living green is just a common sense reaction to reality. There are no "one size fits all" answers. Every life style and economic circumstance suggests different options. Conspicuous consumption and waste will become as disgusting to us in the future as lingering racism and sexism are today. Peer pressure and education has changed the smoking habits of the nation but it has taken years. Now we need to focus our intolerance on over consumption. Surtaxes might help but I, personally, am too cynical to trust our government to not exempt the worst transgressors. Perhaps our "best government money can buy" will change but until it does, those who care will have to shame those who do not. And also we might demand, for instance, access to the high mileage, clean diesels that are available in Europe and Asia. Even Ford and GM produce and sell these product throughout the rest of the world. Why not here?

[MGhamma]

Ya, I'm turning a little green from hearing green this and green that and if it's not green, it's mean.

[WilliePilgrim]

I think people are seeing that, as with any burgeoning social movement, there is a lot of BS being tossed around and the conventional mechanisms are being employed (guilt, badgering, hate, fantasy) to manipulate people to do what a wide assortment of "experts" advise, filled with contradictions and nuances that cannot be understood unless one really studies. AGW itself is a great example of this in that experts say contradicting things and use logic in almost arbitrary fashion and yet the actual debate is not allowed in part because it's too technical.
Ultimately, it's unlikely there'll be much support for the one approach which is really going to work: make one'self an example of lowering one's impact...not just some hokey Carbon Footprint, but one's overall consumer impacts, which is why the celebrities all look like hypocrites when they plead with us regular folk to "take the bus" and "recycle our top ramen bags" as they jet off to Bali. Ha!

[axt113]

South Dakota is one of the windiest places on earth, and its not heavily populated, prime location for building up wind farms

Offshore wind farms can supply enough power to cover all of our energy needs

A mix of Solar, Geothermal, ocean thermal and wind can fulfill our energy needs past 2100

And yet here we are still talking about things like ANWR

[noneIn2008]

Look at the energy production from solar, geothermal and wind. Look at the land space required. It will only work for a small percentage of our needs.
You did not mention hydro? Another bust.
Look at the total energy cost of solar, including production of the panels.

[Portnoy]

"Green" is just a marketing gimic. Give it some time and the elite will come up with some new cause to champion. My bet is the "Back to the Stone Age" movement.

[N567]

Yeah, it must be the fault of them thar sneaky elites. Hey, it might even be a cabal of them elites. I was telling the wife just the other day that if any of them danged elites come around here I'ma gonna set the dawgs on em.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Note to self: Buy a big ol Dawg.

We need another word for our corporatist overlords than "elites." George W. Bush does not qualify as an "elite" (perish!) but he's a member of the Cabal.

I say "Globalistas" should suffice. The corporatists (read: Mussolini-styled fascists) looking at top-down command and control solutions to the problems THEY THEMSELVES caused. What a bunch of poopyheads.

[axt113]

Yeah we hate those elites, with their degrees, and education, and arugala, i'm clinging to my guns

[mijumom]

So, consuming less is elitist? Considering what you are spewing into the environment and into your body is elitist? Taking the time and care to explore where your purchases are coming from and what the ramifications of their production are is elitist"?

I suppose, to you, it is less elitist and less presumptuous to just mindlessly gorge yourself on crap, right?

This is not a "cause", this is what human beings who care about their own survival do, THINK.

[noneIn2008]

Agree, neogreen is a marketing gimic. Buy your green instead of living it. Al Gore is making money on companies selling carbon credits.

[dac253]

As a pack-a-day cigarette smoker, I am doing my part to rid the planet of at least one more polluter.

[jsarets]

This issue is way too complex for most consumers to figure out on their own and vastly too complex for government bureaucracy to address in any competent manner. The only way we can green the global economy for real, as opposed to kinda hoping that we're making the right choices, is to increase energy prices and let the consequences of expensive energy percolate through the global economy.

Furthermore, it's essential that the energy prices increase uniformly around the world. A carbon tax, however the price is set, won't work unless it's levied globally, which is highly unlikely to happen. The citizens of most liberal democracies aren't going to demand that their governments make energy more expensive, and if they do, they are likely to change their minds within a few years.

The only way that energy prices are going to increase in defiance of supply and demand and without direct government intervention is through a covert collusion of governments and global capitalist elites to manipulate the commodities markets. The market giveth the unsustainable American Dream, and the market will taketh away.

Economies will gradually restructure themselves around expensive energy, and the energy corporations, absorbing the artificial windfall, will end up becoming the collectors of the global energy pseudo-tax. The question for America is, do we trust the energy corporations to reinvest our quasi-tax dollars in sustainable development, or do we have the government tax their windfall profits and hope for no more corn ethanol boondoggles?

[mijumom]

It is a big positive that we have this growing consciousness of conservation, cleaner fuel and global warming (and if you aren't a fan of the global warming theory, how about just the fact that we are polluting all of our resources and making ourselves ill).

It is not necessarily about being the greenest person on your block or saving the world, it is about being more grateful and aware of what you have, especially in relation to the rest of the world. And of course, considering where your money goes, the consequences of your purchases and the healthiness of what you put in your body and environment seems like a logical evolution for our species.

Sometimes we are forced to recognize our dependance and enabling of toxic and unethical processes (lead in the toys from China and gas prices too high for most of us to afford). It is nice to believe we are capable of having a little forethought and rather than having to hit the wall every time just be logical about what we want to be breathing, drinking, consuming.

I hate that this even becomes about global warming and what could happen in the future. How about the ramifications of all of our polluting on the planet now? Any species interested in survival would stop doing things that it collectively knows does physical and irreversible harm to itself.

No, I'm not stoned, just got inspired by the topic.

[happyez]

Its only hard if being environmental plays second to current lifestyle (McMansion, high tech or other)
Which is why high oil prices are fantastic.
Now people are forced to deal with it beyond their comfort zone.
Fighting it (ie complaining about oil companies, then assuring self that is all because of speculators, and there's tonnes of easily accessible oil everywhere) doesnt work, but it does keep the niceynice lifestyle at bay.
Notice how many otherwise intelligent people start clamouring for us to drill in the Arctic . . . but would say usually that they recycle and reuse bags at the supermarket?

Thats why the Green message always seemed quaint and left to lifestyle liftout sections in the Sunday newspaper. It just dont matter in the end.

Now it does.

[noneIn2008]

Comments from Chairman of Nestle:

The biofuel craze, egged on by global warming activists, has helped fuel a huge agricultural crisis.

If there's one certainty, it is this: The production of biofuels has stimulated a massive, and destructive, reorientation of the world's agriculture markets. The U.S. Department of Energy calculates that every 10,000 liters of water produces as little as five liters of ethanol, or one to two liters of biodiesel. Biofuels are economical nonsense, ecologically useless and ethically indefensible.

The world's agriculture and water crisis is only going to get worse. As China and India grow, their populations are demanding more and wider varieties of food stuffs, and competition for arable land is intensifying. Food prices are rising, in large part because agriculture suppliers can barely keep up with today's demand

So what is the world doing? Reorienting land away from food production and toward plants cultivated for energy needs. This could be the single most destructive set of policy mistakes made in a generation. From time immemorial, mankind has struggled to produce enough food.

So why introduce a new competitor for this scarce resource? The blame falls squarely on global warming advocates.

[capitalismisntamoral]

"The blame falls squarely on global warming advocates."

WHAT??

Is this 'argument' just pathologically dishonest or delusional? I can't decide.

hhmm, so pointing out the scientific­ally-accep­ted truth of anthropomorphic
climate change means that those who inform and educate others of these
facts are somehow 'blamed' for the stupid POLITICAL and ECONOMIC
decisions made in response?

Agreed that to divert agricultural resources to energy needs is dumb. But
is certainly ain't the fault of those who accept REALITY and use their time,
energy, and credibility to inform and educate the public. The so-called
'advocates' aren't making those decisions!

I suppose facts are just inconvenient and have no place in your corporate
public relations-based 'reality'.

[noneIn2008]

It is not scientifically accepted. It is politically accepted. 31,000 scientists have already signed the petition stating they do not agree with man made warming. This includes many of the IPCC scientists, who were not allowed to have input on the IPCC summary, which was political, not scientific.

[justplainvolks]

noneIn2008 , if you must quote someone please use quotation marks so that we know where that person's comments end and yours begin. Further, it is very easy to be a naysayer. Your entire post is negative and offers no viable alternatives to the oil crisis which we have created for ourselves.
Granted, biofuel from corn is a bad idea but that is the source that will allow large, entrenched corporations to continue to make a profit. Truly practical biofuel will be produced when we can start producing substances such as biodiesel from hemp that can be grown in arid soil. Another benefit of hemp will be its use in fabric and paper production. thereby freeing more arable land for food crops.
A company in Quebec has been producing biofuel from garbage and has just won an international contract to develop this technology. This is just one of many new approaches to energy production.
Intelligent, motivated people are accomplishing great things, even as you and the chairman of Nestle deny the obvious threat of global warming and, like all those without vision through history,sit on your hands while pooh-poohing all efforts at progress.

[noneIn2008]

Quote marks included, everything that follows:

"The biofuel craze, egged on by global warming activists, has helped fuel a huge agricultural crisis.

If there's one certainty, it is this: The production of biofuels has stimulated a massive, and destructive, reorientation of the world's agriculture markets. The U.S. Department of Energy calculates that every 10,000 liters of water produces as little as five liters of ethanol, or one to two liters of biodiesel. Biofuels are economical nonsense, ecologically useless and ethically indefensible.

The world's agriculture and water crisis is only going to get worse. As China and India grow, their populations are demanding more and wider varieties of food stuffs, and competition for arable land is intensifying. Food prices are rising, in large part because agriculture suppliers can barely keep up with today's demand

So what is the world doing? Reorienting land away from food production and toward plants cultivated for energy needs. This could be the single most destructive set of policy mistakes made in a generation. From time immemorial, mankind has struggled to produce enough food.

So why introduce a new competitor for this scarce resource? The blame falls squarely on global warming advocates."

[incontempt]

Its simple...pick the ones that work for you...and you will be able to sleep well with good conscience.

The solutions are going to matter in what community you live in and what resources you have.... try to match/make use of any waste you see, get to know what each is about...consider it an education to save the world.
You can learn so much just by reading articles on the internet. I would recommend first to build/buy a solar hotwater heater/pre­heater...w­ater comes out of ground at 40 degrees, a simple water tank laying in the sun inline before your water heater will allow the sun to raise water temp to 100+ degrees. When when evening baths come around your water heater fills with warm/hot water instead of 40 degree ground water...HUGE cut in energy costs and it extends your amount of hotwater available for the long shower or big bath to 70,80 or more gallons heated. They also now make a solar heater that sits on the exterior of your house the size of a slider door but throws some serious heat for less then $2000.

Basic point is, this is really an adventure of discovery for me. I want to be the first to be independent in the neighborhood, perhaps get rich in an advisory role;-)

[newworldman777]

How about some discourse on overpopulation: possibly the most troubling of all detrimental factors regarding the environment. Our natural resources are quickly diminishing, and except for the Chinese, no other country on earth enforces limitations for human procreation. Of course, if a political candidate were to actually seriously address this issue, and even (God forbid) run a platform of limiting our family sizes, then he wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected.

Meanwhile, an uncontrolled world population is exerting incredible demands upon our global microcosm: more fresh water than what the earth can recharge; huge quantities of seafood, resulting in the decimation of aquatic species in our oceans; more and more cars, which are spewing tons pollutants into the atmosphere; literally mountains of lumber for the growing construction industry, resulting in the deforestation of our planet; growing urban sprawl, which steadily reduces the shrinking natural habitat for wildlife; etc., etc., etc. The list is endless -- all due to way too many people.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Looky! Malthus is in da HOUSE! He doesn't know the "uncontrolled world population" canard is both racist and untrue. There is plenty of food, mineral resources and energy (lots of different kinds) for everyone; it's just being hoarded, and today it's concentrated in the hands of a small cabal of very rich white people who like to use them as weapons.

[whereswaldoandobl]

So concern about unchecked population growth is a canard? The world population is approaching seven billion. When should we be concerned, when it reaches ten billion, a hundred billion, a trillion? Maybe we should wait until there is no longer a place to sit down amongst the crush of bodies.
The facts are that the Earth's resources are finite but mankind's urge to reproduce is indefatigable.
The real canard is being spread by people like you who scream that concern about population growth is racist. Reasonable people know that growth must be controlled in technologically developed societies because they have the highest consumption of resources.

[noneIn2008]

It is especially easy to simply be a neogreen. Keep doing your thing and buy carbon credits. What is really tough is to be a real green. You would need to do research and actually understand 90% of green hype is just hype, not real green. Being real green will be tough work and will require knowledge. It's easier to buy credits and claim green.