Over the weekend, I got into a discussion with a good friend of mine about climate change. What began as a friendly, casual interchange soon developed into one of those exaggerated conversations. You know the kind: where each person temporarily adopts extreme and opposing views, simply the hopes of spicing up an otherwise tepid chat. (Editor’s note: no punches were thrown, but tears were definitely shed.)
Anyway, here’s the gist of our discussion: The 1990s (as I remember it) was a time when individuals were encouraged to become more aware of their consumption habits. Remember the three “Rs”: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle? Remember the UN Earth Summit of 1992, and the resulting Rio Declaration? Remember Jessie Spano launching her “No Oil at Bayside” campaign? (Please excuse the “Saved by the Bell” reference - it is the work of the author and may not represent the views and opinions of GetSolar.) The point is that, back then, we were encouraged to make small personal sacrifices in the name of the environment, often by agreeing to consume less “stuff.”
Fast forward a dozen years and the opposite seems to be true: we’re not called on to consume less, we’re just encouraged to consume differently. From the “Red Campaign” and carbon offsets to organic food and the Prius, there are an increasing number of ways to “vote with your dollars.” People aren’t consuming any less, which makes this approach economically viable. And, since a cup of organic coffee is still a cup of coffee, individuals don’t have to make any major lifestyle adjustments in order to lead a “greener” existence.
Ultimately, my friend and I disagreed (or at least pretended to disagree) on whether this new paradigm - which requires no personal sacrifice and does little to reduce consumption - was a “good” thing or “bad” thing. This is, admittedly, the debate that lies at the core of sustainable development. And while I’d love to continue on this topic for several more paragraphs, the responsible blogger in me thinks it’s better to stop here and invite others to add to the discussion.
I get in these discussions frequently with friends and what happens, depending on my sparring partner, is one of three things: (a) we agree our approach to consumption has to change, and considering that our current consuming patterns really only started post-WWII, and intentionally, at that, such a thing shouldn’t be too hard; (b) we agree that trying to convince a public attached to the consumption=economic health=happiness equation to consume less will be pretty much impossible; or (c), we start throwing things at each other because one of us might be inclined towards Socialism and one of us might be inclined towards Objectivism, and never the twain shall meet.
Seriously? I like option (a) best, and here I get around to the good v. bad question. Our current paradigm is at least revving up that 90s RRR discussion again, and getting “green thinking” into the public consciousness. What I hope the next step will be is changing the definition of “green” from the type of products you consume to the way in which you consume. Included in that change will be the elimination of the word “sacrifice”–if our society can readjust so that fulfillment comes from traditional sources like time with family, learning, and richer leisure time instead of from the acquisition of stuff, we won’t be looking at less stuff as a sacrifice. We’ll be looking at it as an opportunity to invest wisely in our own happiness. So yes, I think what’s happening right now is good, but only because it’s a stepping stone on the way to something much, much better.