Is Green the New Glitz?

by nanne Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 12:44:54 PM EST

This comment by Millman here on the European Tribune left me a bit confused:

I'm starting to dislike the Prius as much as SUVs, because the message is "consume differently" rather than "consume less." Basically the definition of "green" in this country drives me nuts - it's just another consumer style, not a solution.

(Crossposted from DJ Nozem - Berlin's Irregular Spin)

If consuming differently helps the environment, then what is the problem?

Let's first look at the issue itself. There is a feeling that I have sometimes noticed in environmentalists that the movement risks being subsumed or overtaken by outside forces which it attempts to influence. We'll call this the abyss complex.

Do you risk being overtaken by the government if you lobby it, or even participate as a party? If you advocate green consumption, do you risk selling environmentalism as just another business of 'you gotta have it'? Or, alternatively, do people assume that they've done their part after they bought their new green gizmos?

You can take another step and ask what message you want to send. Do we want to alienate the shallow environmentalists? One pervasive argument against environmentalists is that they are just like another secular religion, concerned with the spiritual soundness of people's actions. Another argument is that they are ideologically extreme. There's something about criticising the Prius that cuts into both of these. But there is also something unsatisfying about all the anxiety of not putting people off by sounding too extreme. Even if it's politically expedient, it would feel better to just speak our minds.

I don't think that green is just the latest fad in consumer culture, though. By buying hybrid cars, ecological food, and compact fluorescent light-bulbs, people are making a further step in their environmental awareness. These people will also be more likely to support political decisions and to take further action. Get them on to green stuff, and the other stuff will also come.

Is Green the New Glitz? | 27 comments (27 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

I agree (4.00 / 5)

More and more people that I know or come in to contact with, are talking about these issues. They are not so well informed because the media they absorb are not promoting the facts - yet. I've talked to people about the power hungry plasma screens, about supporting the farmers, about cutting down on waste, about all sorts of things.

It is slow - probably too slow. But anger will not help. Dogma won't help. People are confused - they have enougt to worry about.

My overall feeling - at least in Finland, which has a good rapport with nature - is that just creating memes will spread the word. Peope are not bad - they just haven't seen the alternatives.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 01:35:53 PM EST

Re: Is Green the New Glitz? (4.00 / 5)

The danger is that some superficial changes will allow people to think they have done their bit and then to go back to ignoring the problem.

Take a typical US driver at 10,000 miles per year. He upgrades from a 30 MPG car to one that does 80 MPG. The net savings is 208 gallons of gasoline per year or about $500 at current rates. For a typical household at $50,000 per year this is saving 1%. The savings doesn't amount to much but it lets people off the hook.

The real costs of owning a car (steel, roads, rubber, etc.) are ignored. It's like the person who gives a dollar to a beggar and then feels they have done their bit to solve the issues of poverty. The fundamental way economies are organized, which depends upon consumption and materialism, needs to be addressed if things are really going to change.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 03:16:47 PM EST

Re: Is Green the New Glitz? (none / 1)

Your comment is very similar to the way I tend to feel about charities, it is a step in the right direction, but does it make up for all the other things that you are doing.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 04:19:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Green the New Glitz? (4.00 / 3)

Take a typical US driver at 10,000 miles per year. He upgrades from a 30 MPG car to one that does 80 MPG. The net savings is 208 gallons of gasoline per year or about $500 at current rates. For a typical household at $50,000 per year this is saving 1%. The savings doesn't amount to much but it lets people off the hook.
The real costs of owning a car (steel, roads, rubber, etc.) are ignored.

I get the point you're making, but you're jumping from savings to costs here, which is strange. It would be more intuitive to compare the investment to the costs. The Prius is roughly $4000 to $5000 more expensive compared to similarly sized cars, while the MPG jumps from about 20 to around 50. This means that it takes 10 years for the investment to be returned (which is not realistic, cars tend to be turned in earlier, I think, though it could be that the return value will be high, etc.).

The point that Priuses are not enough is entirely right. The things still contribute to climate change, unless you drive them on biofuels - and Toyota's manufacturing process hasn't been completely greened either, I presume. But I think that a Prius owner will be more supportive of say, fuel taxes, than an owner of a far less efficient vehicle. So I think that the danger that they will assume they have done their part is exaggerated.

What I'm saying is, instead of looking at such dangers, let's look at the way we can build upon the new appeal of 'green' to consumers.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 05:07:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The problem with hybrid cars (4.00 / 4)

is that they are not used to consume less, but to get a bigger car for the same consumption.

Have you seen which cars are marketed? Huge Lexus SUVs, and other manufactures are also providing SUVs. Even the Prius is a pretty big car (it's the size of a Passat or Mondeo, at least).

People still have a V8, 300hp car, but hey, it's a hybrid, problem solved. That's what's dangerous.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 05:41:55 PM EST

Re: The problem with hybrid cars (4.00 / 3)

The Prius gets the same or worse gas mileage than a Geo metro depending on model year. The metro came out 17 years ago. Most people are not willing to part with their middle class status markers. That's the source of my frustration.

People don't understand Jevon's paradox and what it takes to deal with it, although I don't get angry about it - after decades of practically free energy it takes a lot of effort to get people to think in terms of energy rather than money. In fact the path from the Geo Metro to the Prius is a good example of Jevon's paradox in action.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 08:01:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The problem with hybrid cars (none / 1)

I think my old Ph.D. advisor drives a Geo Metro ;-)

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 27th, 2006 at 03:34:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The problem with hybrid cars (4.00 / 3)

I found this the other day, which bears on Jevons' Paradox

Many economists of all persuasions, whether pro environmentalist or otherwise, seem united in their conviction that improving energy efficiency through technological means, could by lowering the implicit price, result in increased, not decreased, energy use, an effect called the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate (or hypothesis). This conviction is the result of over a century - since Jevons in the 1860s - of theoretical discussion on resource use, and empirical evidence from historic analysis of energy use in economies.
...
A dissenting voice is that of Richard Howarth. He questions both the conceptual underpinnings and the empirical evidence for this effect. According to his model improved energy efficiency cannot give rise to increased energy use except under implausible assumptions (Howarth 1997). His model (using a Leontieff formulation rather than a Cobb-Douglas function for the energy service sector) and hence his conclusions, will no doubt will be challenged by other economists.
To resolve this issue is no easy task. Howarth (1997) comments: Sorting out the empirical dimensions of the Khazzoom-Brookes hypothesis...would require detailed models that merge engineering approaches to energy efficiency, microengineering studies of the demand for energy services, and macroeconomic models of savings and investments. The construction of such models is an ambitious task...
Perhaps the KB hypothesis should be analysed more as history than as economics. Richard Howarth again (1998) makes some very pertinent comments, which may pave the way for future research paths, when he remarks: ...the Khazzoom-Brookes hypothesis is most credibly grounded on the story of the steam engine, coal and the Industrial Revolution. In important respects economic history, evolutionary economics, and institutional economics shed more light on this issue than neoclassical growth theory. One can specify growth models that account for the stylised facts surrounding this development, but in a sense the event marked a type of structural change in technologies, lifestyles, and social institutions that transformed economic relationships rather than fostering smooth change in a continuous model.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 27th, 2006 at 03:42:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The solution to Jevons' paradox (4.00 / 2)

as I've said repeatedly, is to keep on regularly increasing the gas tax / carbon tax, so that nobody gets used to any level and stops making efforts. The road is long enough that we will need constant proddign to do better. Small but regular increases might do the trick.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 27th, 2006 at 04:06:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The problem with hybrid cars (none / 1)

I know Jevon's paradox as the 'rebound effect'. EurActiv had a summary of this when it discussed the EU's energy efficiency plan:

A 2005 study by the International Energy Agency looked at the energy efficiency critics and concluded: "Energy efficiency analysts who suggest that the rebound effect erodes some of the energy savings due to technical efficiency improvements do make a valid point, based on the empirical evidence. Some consumers and businesses will increase their demand for energy services as the cost of the service declines. But empirical evidence suggests that the size of the rebound effect is very small to moderate, with the exact magnitude dependent on the location, sector of the economy, and end-use".

One empirical study on the topic shows the rebound effect to be quite small: between 0 and 15%.

(Berkhout, Muskens and Velthuijsen (2000) 'Defining the Rebound Effect'. Energy Policy 28 (6-7))

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Nov 27th, 2006 at 04:56:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The problem with hybrid cars (none / 1)

I don't think that's very realistic. The premium on a hybrid engine is pretty high. The Blue Book value of a ('compact' SUV) Lexus RX400h is $42.314, the comparable RX330 is $33.374. That's almost $9000.

What you are suggesting, though, is that they are going to switch from a $18.140 Mazda 3 (which gets comparable mileage) to a Lexus RX400h, which would result in a price difference of $24.000. IOW: it's not going to happen.

The extra mileage you get out of a hybrid does not make up for the price difference. So, because these things are much more expensive, consumers that buy them should be more likely to shift from a bigger to a smaller car than the other way around.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Nov 27th, 2006 at 04:31:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The problem with hybrid cars (4.00 / 4)

I don't think that's very realistic.

Fifteen years ago, car ads focused on fuel efficiency. Now they focus on size, comfort, performance, status.

Fifteen years ago, you had no SUVs. Now they are everywhere, especially the big ones. Price and fuel efficiency are essentially irrelevant for the people buying these.

Prestige, the impression of power are the drving factors. Make these compatible with "saving the planet" is a heady brew - one perfectly masterd by Toyota/Lexus, whose only ads for its hybrids in Europe are for the biggest models.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 27th, 2006 at 05:58:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The problem with hybrid cars (none / 1)

I can hardly disagree with you on the effects of advertising (I just wrote something on it this weekend, will crosspost that as well). And selling huge SUVs with a hybrid engine is a bit perverse.

Still, I don't know to what extent the demand for SUVs is insensitive to the price. If people don't care what they pay for them, making them more expensive will also not work. Banning them from inner city traffic or something like that would be a better approach.

I also don't think that 15 years ago, the people now driving SUVs were driving small hatchbacks. They were more likely driving up-market sedans (still better than an SUV, though). It may be that we've got more 'haves' now, thanks to the 90s boom and tax cuts.

Maybe these hybrid SUVs are a handy way for Toyota to improve its fleet fuel efficiency.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Nov 27th, 2006 at 10:51:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The problem with hybrid cars (none / 0)

I don't think you can do an accurate comparison of hybrid versus conventional car costs. The combination of recoving development costs, marketing factors, and unit volumes make comparisons very difficult.

What is it about hybrid cars that makes them so expensive, in your opinion? Is it the battery? It's made up of a around 150 "D" cells that cost about $5 each. Is it the electronics? Look under the hood of a modern conventional car--there's electronics everywhere already. Is it the mechanics? The complexity of the Honda system is minimal. (The Toyota system is mechanically comparable to an AWD car.)

by asdf on Mon Nov 27th, 2006 at 07:47:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The problem with hybrid cars (none / 0)

I'm comparing the current cost on the marketplace with comparable cars, not the manufacturing costs. Part of the current cost is due to a higher premium collected by dealers (the blue book also lists the invoice price paid by dealers, they get up to $1000 more on these cars), probably because of the demand for the cars and their limited volume. The manufacturers too may be creaming more profit off them.

Another part will be due to recovering the development costs. Aside of the cost of (re)designing the cars, the cost of making changes in the manufacturing process can also make an impact. All of these costs should drop once the volume goes up.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Nov 28th, 2006 at 02:47:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Green the New Glitz? (4.00 / 6)

Interesting you wrote this diary, nanne. We just talked about this very issue today with Migeru, a few hours ago. Should people try to consume less instead of consuming "green" products? Is being "green" just the new kind of cool? A different kind of consumerism, but consumerism nevertheless?

Miguel has his point of view that he might like to share. I personally think that ends justify means in this case. Take the Red campaign, for instance. Bono is a realist, who knows people won't stop consuming just because it's the most ethical and environmentally friendly thing to do. Society is not ready for such drastic steps. So, instead, he comes up with a plan which is far from the ideal solution, but it's better than a stick in the eye. It is what the masses can chew at this moment. Whatever reason people decide to buy a "green", or shall I say, ethical product for, as long as their purchase is a better alternative to what they would normally spend their money on, it's a good thing.

To make a true difference, thousands, even millions of people must embrace a particular way of thinking. In case of environmentalism it's absolutely crucial. Yet when the masses begin, in however rudimentary ways, to endorse thinking that was previously the domain only of the "enlightened" few, we tend to dismiss it as trendy and shallow, instead of rejoicing that maybe there is a change on the way.

"If you cannot say what you have to say in twenty minutes, you should go away and write a book about it." Lord Brabazon

by Barbara on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 06:24:01 PM EST

Re: Is Green the New Glitz? (4.00 / 2)

I hate the (RED) campaign, I thought the issues of "The Independent" guest edited by Bono and Armani were a bad joke, and I find the campaign ad (I wish I could find an image of it) with the fashinably dressed woman and the half-naked african in tribal dress (with the slogan "my card, his life" or some such idicy) positively offensive.

Would you like a (RED) iPod, a (RED) credit card, a (RED) poster of Kate Moss in blackface?

I don't know whether I am an armchair ideological purist, or simply out of touch with the world I live in.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 06:56:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

both? <dux> n/t (none / 0)

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 08:23:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: both? <dux> n/t (none / 1)

I'm sure there are more than 2 ways. you could probably add hypocritical if you argue doggedly enough.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 27th, 2006 at 03:32:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: both? (none / 1)

funny, i read the word 'hypocritical' in your post as 'hyper-critical'.

the latter describes your online persona, to a t, in a GOOD way.

as for hypocritical, i think you are exemplary in your desire to dig in deep, scanning for the unconscious,, irrational denial-pacts we make with ourselves...

hypo would mean you used your critical thinking too LITTLE.

from where i stand, that's the least of your issues, lol!

blogging with you this last year has sharpened my perspective no end.

and you rock a wicked wit too.

shakes head bemusedly....

anyway thanks for your input, it's a treat, and a keystone of ET

may it be never-ending!

oh, wait...:)

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Nov 27th, 2006 at 06:13:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Green the New Glitz? (4.00 / 3)

How about NO iPod, NO credit card and NO poster of Kate Moss? Ideally, sure.

But what if I really, really, really want an iPod? Is the (RED) iPod not better than the ordinary one?

Quote from the (RED) website: "Music matters. And when you buy an iPod nano (PRODUCT) RED^TM Special Edition, it matters even more. That's because Apple contributes $10 from your purchase price to the Global Fund, to help fight HIV/AIDS in Africa."

I'd say £10 is not such a negligible amount, given the price of the iPod. And consider this:

"Global Results:
In less than four years, the Fund has achieved some substantial results. By June of 2006, Global Fund financing provided:

* · 544,000 people with treatment for HIV and AIDS
* · 5.7 million people with voluntary HIV testing
* · 1.43 million people with treatment for tuberculosis
* · 7.3 million people treated for malaria
* · 11.3 million families with insecticide treated mosquito nets

The Global Fund has selected several established grants for distribution of (RED) money. One of these programs is in Rwanda."

Oh no, a campaign for the masses! Horrible! Now EVERYONE, even the worst consumerist pig, will have the opportunity to help!! EEEEEEEEE!!!! I'm outta here!

In this case, my beloved M., you can stick your ideological purism in the same place that you suggested in June that Ritter stick his carrot.

You may disagree, but the choice would be clear for me. And I bow to Bono for helping this happen.

"If you cannot say what you have to say in twenty minutes, you should go away and write a book about it." Lord Brabazon

by Barbara on Mon Nov 27th, 2006 at 06:54:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Green the New Glitz? (4.00 / 3)

Yet when the masses begin, in however rudimentary ways, to endorse thinking that was previously the domain only of the "enlightened" few, we tend to dismiss it as trendy and shallow, instead of rejoicing that maybe there is a change on the way.

My little comment, which I didn't think would see the light of day like this, does make me look like a smug little elitist prick, always a risk for left-leaning middle class kids like me. In this case it's mostly my increasing level of desperation now that I understand what has to change. I can see the gigantic wall of fire on the horizon and I see too many people around me remarking on how cool and stylish these new purple garden hoses are. I can convince a few of them that we need big firehoses, but I don't think everyone's combined efforts are going to be enough, and that makes me sad.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 09:42:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Green the New Glitz? (4.00 / 3)

And you are absolutely right, there is so much to be done and we're not even making a dent in it. It will take probably a true disaster, a complete ecological and economical crisis, to shake people out of their complacency. The glass isn't even half-full, I guess only the bottom is barely covered. It makes me sad as well. And yes, it can lead people to a delusion when they buy themselves a fuel-efficient car or a new (RED) T-shirt at GAP and get their warm and fuzzy feeling knowing that a buck of that T-shirt went to a Zulu in Africa, and, TA-DAAA, I'm done with my share for the environment for the day.

The problem is, at the moment, such choices are all voluntary. The law does not obligate people to behave in an ethical way. Nobody charges you for not recycling your paper and plastic, or for eating out in restaurants every day, or for consuming meat three times a day, or for not fixing your leaky tap in the bathroom for a month. It's all unfortunately up to our good will and effort. But at least the choice is there, which is more that we had before. I can choose home organic delivery of local produce instead of tasteless Tesco apples and plastic carrots. I can buy everything for my cleaning needs from ECOVER, fairtrade chocolate and even a mango plantation for a family in Ecuador for Christmas. I can buy 100% recycled TP and eco-friendly nappies. The demand for such product in recent years has skyrocketed in Britain, which is a good sign, no matter how you slice it. Hopefully, given some years, such products will become the norm and preferred choice for most people.

"If you cannot say what you have to say in twenty minutes, you should go away and write a book about it." Lord Brabazon

by Barbara on Mon Nov 27th, 2006 at 06:38:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Green the New Glitz? (4.00 / 3)

The law does not obligate people to behave in an ethical way.

If it did, it wouldn't be ethical behaviour. There is no moral virtue in following the law.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 27th, 2006 at 06:51:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Green the New Glitz? (4.00 / 2)

The fact it that our non-ethical behaviour is in reality criminal. Being ethical in today's terms is simply doing what has to be done for all of us to make it. It's not a question of virtue anymore.

"If you cannot say what you have to say in twenty minutes, you should go away and write a book about it." Lord Brabazon

by Barbara on Mon Nov 27th, 2006 at 06:57:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Green the New Glitz? (none / 0)

There is no moral virtue in following the law.

I vigorously disagree. If that were true, you'd need 100 times more enforcers (police/etc...).

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 27th, 2006 at 02:34:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Green the New Glitz? (4.00 / 2)

Doing the right thing because it's legal is easy.
Doing the wrong thing because it's legal is perverse.
Doing the wrong thing despite it being illegal is criminal.
Doing the right thing despite it being illegal is courageous.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 27th, 2006 at 03:02:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is Green the New Glitz?

Top Diaries

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - December 2023

Clean Energy Wire's Fact Sheet on Upcoming Dutch Election

Recent Diaries

Mark Rutte: Using the Nation to Become Secretary General

December 2023

Netanyahu Tells Biden Fu*k Off

Keeping Up with COP28

A Sort-a Truce Extended 24 Hours

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - December 2023

NeXiT the Trump Era of Dutch PM Wilders

Erasure of Palestinians the Zionist Dream

21st Century Pax Americana and Violence

Dublin Far Right Riots After Knife Attack

Clean Break From Peace to War

Woodrow Wilson's Collapse and the Peace Movement

A Children's Sing-Along Annihilate Everyone In Gaza

Xi - Joe Launch a New Communication Probe

The Israeli War Hoax of 40 Beheaded Babies

If Palestinians Are 'Animals'? What Are the Israelis?

Gaza Atrocities and the UN Fail

Clean Energy Wire's Fact Sheet on Upcoming Dutch Election

Broadening the War to Lebanon and Syria-Iraq

Dishonest Hope and Trust In a Two-State Option