The difference between green and greener
Mon, Jun 22 2009 at 11:23 PM EST
Read more: GREEN BUSINESS
Photo: Flipped OutFlickr None of us are green until we're all green.
A couple of months ago on Twitter I (half) jokingly suggested that green was dead, victim to a glut of people, products and companies claiming to be green. My contention was that we needed a new term to describe something that's actually environmentally and socially sustainable. It was late at night and I was feeling kind of silly and came up with "freen". It actually took off and got semi-popular for a few weeks on Twitter, people dug the idea of something beyond what "green" has become.
I've come around to using "greener" in place of "green". "Green" suggests something that does no harm to the environment, society or individuals. A leaf falling off a tree is green -- it lands on the ground and turns back into dirt. A loaf of organic bread isn't green. It's greener -- it's still wrapped in a plastic bag sitting in a store that it was driven to after being baked. The company that made and sold the bread has office space that needs power and electricity and their employees drive to work every day.
Organic T-shirts are greener. They are free of the pesticides conventional cotton shirts come bundled with, but they still require a lot of energy (and equipment) to manufacture, market, and sell, not to mention 2,500 liters of water each.
There's a big difference between green and greener and we as a society need to recognize it. We can't pat ourselves on the back thinking the job is done when we're all greener, we need to keep on chugging until we're all green. The only way that's going to happen is if EVERYTHING is green. The electricity that comes out of the outlets and the fuel used to drive from the factory to the store need to come from renewable sources, the cars used to dive us to the store need to be powered by green energy, the materials used to build it need to be either compostable or fully recyclable.
We have a LONG way to go to get green. We're just dipping our toes into greener, green is a good generation or two away, even under a best-case accelerated track.
There's a fantastic article on the Times Online that looks at life-cycle assessments (LCA) -- reports that go into precise detail about the environmental impact of a product. When I say precise, I mean PRECISE -- a glass jar could have thousands of steps with trackable environmental impacts, ranging from the mining of the silica to the baking of the glass to the shipping and packaging. That glass jar isn't green until each one of those thousands of steps comes with no associated negative environmental impact. To get that one little glass jar to be green we need to green up everything around it.
That's why we're a long way from the world actually being green. It's a complex bleeping problem.
Thanks to my green pal Aysia Wright, owner of The Green Loop (awesome eco-chic fashion), for sharing the life-cycle assessment link.
Are you on Twitter? Follow me (@sheagunther) there, I give good tweets.
And if you really like my writing, you can join my Facebook page.
(MNN homepage photo: aaaachoo/iStockphoto)
Link
EMAIL
Stumble
Tweet
CLOSE
link:
link:
The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect
the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions,
MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.
| « Previous UK cops tackle activists at climate camp | Next » Darryl Hannah arrested protesting mountaintop removal mining |
Comments(4)
Posted By Nicole - Wed, Jun 24 2009 at 9:12 AM ESTWill total Green really help?
Is being totally Green really possible? Won't there always be some sort of "side effect" to any products we have? I feel that the only way we can really make less of an impact on the environment is to cut down on consumption, rather than Green up.
Posted By Shea Gunther - Sat, Jul 25 2009 at 9:50 AM ESTI think so
I don't think it's an either or question. We need to cut done on wasteful consumption, but the stuff that we consume needs to be greener on the way to green.
Posted By Daisy - Tue, Jun 23 2009 at 1:51 PM ESTComplex is right
I'm not sure our society will ever reach the Green ideal. Awareness comes first, and by examining the impact of each step of each process we can bring others to at least the "greener" stage.
Blue-Green may also work...
This is a good discussion, and good points are made. However, one thing the article forgets to mention is that the earth can absorb a certain amount of inefficiency such as wasted energy, on the way to totally renewable sources for all activities. We do not need to be perfect in order to be sustainable, but waste has to be cut quite a bit. I am also against processes that create enduring pollution, namely plastics, toxic pesticides, and many other chemical by-products. So, there is a way to.... More