![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
What shade of "green" are you?
May. 16th, 2009 11:37 pmAlex Steffen on WorldChanging.com has an good post on "The Environmental Spectrum". Basically, he breaks down the different strands of environmentalism into "bright green", "light green", "dark green" and "grey". While some might think of it in terms of needless taxonomy, it's kind of an interesting way to categorise schools of thought with regard to solving environmental issues.
The short definitions are as follows:
The reason I'm not entirely "bright" green is due to the hint that is given in the description - I don't think entrepreneurs and capitalism have all (or even most) of the answers. More significantly, I don't think that technology is evolving fast enough to pull us all out of the hot water in time. Sure, it's picking up pace, but since everyone is still spending several times more in building fucking weapons than doing R&D on actual life-enhancing technology, we're about 40 years behind where we might be otherwise. We won't even mention bullshit things like teflon, and, hah, the Internet (although that was well-and-truly repurposed by the academics, that came out of military budgets. What if even half of that spending had been devoted to non-military R&D, rather than government scientific research agencies and universities having their budgets and grants cut again... and again.. and again? It makes me sick thinking of it. Anyway, the reality is that insufficient resources have been devoted to sustainable technology for decades - I don't think they can catch up, although maybe they will. However, we are going to have to pull something out of our hats technology-wise if we want to keep generating power without dwindling fossil fuels or drowning in the super-high oceans.
Now, the "dark" green philosophy is appealing in many ways, except for the BIG strain of Calvinist puritanism that can be embodied in it, and the anti-technology and anti-urban strains. We cannot all live on patches of ground where we grow sufficient crops to sustain ourselves. There simply isn't enough fertile land to sustain the world's population if that were the case. And while I might sympathise with Malthusian ideas, a lot of the time the people who espouse them are assuming that those other people should be the ones who die off in the epidemics or whatever. Funnily enough, a lot of the time, those other people are consuming the least resources. On a global level, it is more often efficient to grow sheep in countries where there is ample pasture than in countries like England where there is less room (although growing sheep in the Scottish and Welsh highlands where you can't grow much else makes perfect sense). It is more often efficient to grow veges in warm climates and ship them than grow them in heated greenhouses year-round. Of course, eating as much as possible in-season would reduce the need for either of these strategies. However, I would not like to return to the diet of my ancestors, which was turnips (potatoes arrived from the Americas, but I suppose they grow happily in Ireland and most places), cabbage and mutton. In most countries, there is simply not enough wild food to sustain appreciably-sized populations. However, shortening supply chains, buying local wherever possible, and consuming less - consuming less is the most crucial factor here - is just good sense. The capitalist notion of growth at all costs is simply not sustainable.
With the "light" green philosophy, it's the thought that "every little bit helps". However, composting your kitchen scraps makes fuck-all difference if you're constantly consuming dirty coal-fired electricity, both directly and in all the imported consumer goods you acquire. Buying organic meats is a mere drop in the ocean of factory-farmed everything. Read David MacKay's book (free PDF download, and most of it accessible on the website pages) on sustainable energy - in terms of national figures - and you'll see that "every bit makes a difference" can be a dangerously disingenuous way of thinking. He describes the scale of trying to hit current energy consumption targets using sustainable resources. If you keep electing fuckwit politicians who try and reduce their Kyoto targets, don't impose carbon taxes, deny the issue, dodge any meaningful responses (look all the fucking highways that are being built with public funds while mass transport still can't attract proper funding), and encourage the export of waste and energy issues to overseas manufacturers, you are not helping. Even with your compost bucket. Ok, it is good to "do your bit" - but without the larger context, your bit is pretty damn minimal. However, if everyone gets rid of the incandescents (and I am replacing all my bulbs as we speak), that will actually achieve something. And I hope that the tipping point of sustainable farming happens sometime within my lifetime. I don't buy non-organic or non-sustainably-farmed meats any more... except when I'm buying takeaway food (and I'm trying to reduce that). Oh, and sustainably-farmed does not have to be organic. You can have "organic" factory farms that produce unhappy animals (the feed is organic, but they're still crammed into small cages/barns/whatever); you can have sustainably-farmed food that isn't counted as "organic" because the grower doesn't have the appropriate certification, or feeds their totally free-range chickens 95% scraps and forage, but 5% non-organic grain. Sheep in NZ is totally free-range, as are most cows, although I was disgusted to hear recently that there are a few feed lots in NZ. What the hell for? Farmers' markets are handy, if you can talk to the growers about their practices (and even visit their farms if they sell from the farm gate).
So, as you can see, that categorisation has been good food for thought.
In a slightly more practical vein, I've been trying to find out info on sustainable fisheries in Australia. The authoritative body here seems to be the Australian Marine Conservation Society, but unfortunately, they make you pay for their Sustainable Seafood Guide, even the wee pocket version. I personally think this sucks - if you're serious about helping people make sustainable choices, some information needs to be free. However, the ABC has a small guide on sustainable fisheries. It boils down to the only fish you should eat is barramundi, hoki, blue-eye, yellowfin tuna (none of the other tunas), bream, ling (blech), whiting and oily fishes like mullet and mackerel. No orange roughy, trevally, shark, scallops or baby octopus. They have objections to rainbow trout because it's an introduced fish (although if they're fishing existing stocks, I personally don't care) and Pacific oysters (same reason; ditto).
Now, in NZ, the Forest and Bird Society have produced a comprehensive guide to the "best fish" to buy, which is freely downloadable. However, nothing is perfect yet - as they say on the full guide, "As in previous years, no fishery qualified for green (sustainable) status, but several species (kina, anchovy, pilchards, sprats and blue mackerel) are within 1-2 points of making it on to the green list. If improvements are made to fisheries management we may see some species being added to the green list in the future." Again, stop buying orange roughy! Hoki doesn't do well in their terms, and nor do the sharks, tunas (albacore and skipjack are less bad, yellowfin is dire) and snappers.
Finally, Appropedia is an interesting wiki about sustainability. Some impractical or self-promoting crap, but some interesting ideas as well.
The short definitions are as follows:
- "[B]right green environmentalism is a belief that sustainable innovation is the best path to lasting prosperity, and that any vision of sustainability which does not offer prosperity and well-being will not succeed. Bright green environmentalism is a call to use innovation, design, urban revitalization and entrepreneurial zeal to transform the systems that support our lives"
- "Light green environmentalists tend to emphasize lifestyle/behavioral/consumer change as key to sustainability, or at least as the best mechanism for triggering broader changes. Light greens strongly advocate change at the individual level."
- "Dark greens, in contrast, tend to emphasize the need to pull back from consumerism (sometimes even from industrialization itself) and emphasize local solutions, short supply chains and direct connection to the land. They strongly advocate change at the community level."
- "Grays ... are those who deny there's a need to do anything at all, whether as individuals or as a society."
The reason I'm not entirely "bright" green is due to the hint that is given in the description - I don't think entrepreneurs and capitalism have all (or even most) of the answers. More significantly, I don't think that technology is evolving fast enough to pull us all out of the hot water in time. Sure, it's picking up pace, but since everyone is still spending several times more in building fucking weapons than doing R&D on actual life-enhancing technology, we're about 40 years behind where we might be otherwise. We won't even mention bullshit things like teflon, and, hah, the Internet (although that was well-and-truly repurposed by the academics, that came out of military budgets. What if even half of that spending had been devoted to non-military R&D, rather than government scientific research agencies and universities having their budgets and grants cut again... and again.. and again? It makes me sick thinking of it. Anyway, the reality is that insufficient resources have been devoted to sustainable technology for decades - I don't think they can catch up, although maybe they will. However, we are going to have to pull something out of our hats technology-wise if we want to keep generating power without dwindling fossil fuels or drowning in the super-high oceans.
Now, the "dark" green philosophy is appealing in many ways, except for the BIG strain of Calvinist puritanism that can be embodied in it, and the anti-technology and anti-urban strains. We cannot all live on patches of ground where we grow sufficient crops to sustain ourselves. There simply isn't enough fertile land to sustain the world's population if that were the case. And while I might sympathise with Malthusian ideas, a lot of the time the people who espouse them are assuming that those other people should be the ones who die off in the epidemics or whatever. Funnily enough, a lot of the time, those other people are consuming the least resources. On a global level, it is more often efficient to grow sheep in countries where there is ample pasture than in countries like England where there is less room (although growing sheep in the Scottish and Welsh highlands where you can't grow much else makes perfect sense). It is more often efficient to grow veges in warm climates and ship them than grow them in heated greenhouses year-round. Of course, eating as much as possible in-season would reduce the need for either of these strategies. However, I would not like to return to the diet of my ancestors, which was turnips (potatoes arrived from the Americas, but I suppose they grow happily in Ireland and most places), cabbage and mutton. In most countries, there is simply not enough wild food to sustain appreciably-sized populations. However, shortening supply chains, buying local wherever possible, and consuming less - consuming less is the most crucial factor here - is just good sense. The capitalist notion of growth at all costs is simply not sustainable.
With the "light" green philosophy, it's the thought that "every little bit helps". However, composting your kitchen scraps makes fuck-all difference if you're constantly consuming dirty coal-fired electricity, both directly and in all the imported consumer goods you acquire. Buying organic meats is a mere drop in the ocean of factory-farmed everything. Read David MacKay's book (free PDF download, and most of it accessible on the website pages) on sustainable energy - in terms of national figures - and you'll see that "every bit makes a difference" can be a dangerously disingenuous way of thinking. He describes the scale of trying to hit current energy consumption targets using sustainable resources. If you keep electing fuckwit politicians who try and reduce their Kyoto targets, don't impose carbon taxes, deny the issue, dodge any meaningful responses (look all the fucking highways that are being built with public funds while mass transport still can't attract proper funding), and encourage the export of waste and energy issues to overseas manufacturers, you are not helping. Even with your compost bucket. Ok, it is good to "do your bit" - but without the larger context, your bit is pretty damn minimal. However, if everyone gets rid of the incandescents (and I am replacing all my bulbs as we speak), that will actually achieve something. And I hope that the tipping point of sustainable farming happens sometime within my lifetime. I don't buy non-organic or non-sustainably-farmed meats any more... except when I'm buying takeaway food (and I'm trying to reduce that). Oh, and sustainably-farmed does not have to be organic. You can have "organic" factory farms that produce unhappy animals (the feed is organic, but they're still crammed into small cages/barns/whatever); you can have sustainably-farmed food that isn't counted as "organic" because the grower doesn't have the appropriate certification, or feeds their totally free-range chickens 95% scraps and forage, but 5% non-organic grain. Sheep in NZ is totally free-range, as are most cows, although I was disgusted to hear recently that there are a few feed lots in NZ. What the hell for? Farmers' markets are handy, if you can talk to the growers about their practices (and even visit their farms if they sell from the farm gate).
So, as you can see, that categorisation has been good food for thought.
In a slightly more practical vein, I've been trying to find out info on sustainable fisheries in Australia. The authoritative body here seems to be the Australian Marine Conservation Society, but unfortunately, they make you pay for their Sustainable Seafood Guide, even the wee pocket version. I personally think this sucks - if you're serious about helping people make sustainable choices, some information needs to be free. However, the ABC has a small guide on sustainable fisheries. It boils down to the only fish you should eat is barramundi, hoki, blue-eye, yellowfin tuna (none of the other tunas), bream, ling (blech), whiting and oily fishes like mullet and mackerel. No orange roughy, trevally, shark, scallops or baby octopus. They have objections to rainbow trout because it's an introduced fish (although if they're fishing existing stocks, I personally don't care) and Pacific oysters (same reason; ditto).
Now, in NZ, the Forest and Bird Society have produced a comprehensive guide to the "best fish" to buy, which is freely downloadable. However, nothing is perfect yet - as they say on the full guide, "As in previous years, no fishery qualified for green (sustainable) status, but several species (kina, anchovy, pilchards, sprats and blue mackerel) are within 1-2 points of making it on to the green list. If improvements are made to fisheries management we may see some species being added to the green list in the future." Again, stop buying orange roughy! Hoki doesn't do well in their terms, and nor do the sharks, tunas (albacore and skipjack are less bad, yellowfin is dire) and snappers.
Finally, Appropedia is an interesting wiki about sustainability. Some impractical or self-promoting crap, but some interesting ideas as well.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
