Green Drinks

So I attended Seattle's Green Drinks tonight. Green Drinks is an "organic self-organizing network" of people who work in the environmental field. The self-stated purpose of the organization is: "Every month people who work in the environmental field meet up for a beer at informal sessions known as Green Drinks." Festivities are held at a new location each month and are typically hosted by "green-minded" companies, non-profits or organizations. This was my first Green Drinks. Apparently last month's Green Drinks in Seattle was the largest ever, for this city. Organizers attribute this to a listing in the local Seattle daily newspaper and increased buzz... just as more companies/organizations/individuals are drawn to the 'green' space.

I love the premise of the gatherings. They serve as a simple forum for like-minded Seattleites to meet and share ideas. And I love the idea that thinking 'green' has risen to such prominence on the national stage. Maybe I'm just prey to the trend, as this was indeed my first Green Drinks, maybe I'm just one of the many caught up in a fleeting trend. But I love that Al Gore has taken a stand on global warming in such a prominent way (he'll be in Seattle this month), I love that "Who Killed the Electric Car" gave a glimpse behind the scenes of why the best technologies and the best overall outcome (for society) may fall prey to parties protecting their wealth, I love that national magazines featured 'green' topics on their covers even in months other than April (Earth Day), I love that (yes, I know it may be election year politics) politicians near and far are endorsing renewable energy policy, I love that the BPs, Chevrons and GEs of the world are investing in renewable technologies, I love that solar is today's dot.com boom story... I like it all. I like that Green Drinks has grown. I like that Jay Inslee (representative from WA) mentioned Green Drinks in a speech he gave last week. It's all awesome.

So I was sitting at Green Drinks, and this is where the pragmatist, or realist, or whatever you'd call it, in me comes out for a chat.

I was looking around me (this week's Green Drinks was hosted by the Sustainable Style Foundation) at all this cool sustainable-yet-stylish furniture and I couldn't help but think about some of the fundamental contradictions in the environmental movement. Just to use this one example, environmentally-friendly home decor... on the one hand, we'd like to promote consumption of environmentally-friendly goods. But at the same time, that's still consumption, and consumption is counter to what we want. The best result would actually be no new consumption at all. So, the best option would be for Joe Schmo to continue using his old lamp, but replace the light-bulb to one that is more efficient, as opposed to buying a new lamp made of recycled cork. Because... it took energy, likely coal-fired electricity, and resources to create that new yet sustainable cork lamp.

While I commend all organizations/companies that help us take small steps towards reducing our impact on the environment, it's such a paradox because for them to "succeed" and "grow" as organizations, they'll have to... well, grow, which means more resource use, energy use, etc. OK, so that said, I suppose the goal of that Foundation is to affect change by changing consumption patterns such that all home decor products are produced in a green fashion with green inputs and a green afterlife. I can dig that. OK, here's another example. So the whole purpose of Green Drinks is to bring together people who will have a positive, collective, effect on the environment. Yet, we all drank our organic beer out of plastic cups. I hope those were recycled. Here's another one. What about green-living magazines that measure their success on circulation numbers? So in order to spread their message (for those that actually print as well as being online), they have to kill trees. But, you'd argue, that paper is recycled. OK. And you'd argue that message has an exponential effect on the environment because people who read that will affect greater positive change than the negative effect of printing the magazine.

Yes, I see your point. I guess my whole conflict here is there is so much inconsistency, irony in the 'environmental movement' and it runs so counter to what we'd typically call 'market principles.' In terms of the market, more is better, bigger is better, growth is good. Paper manufacturers want us to use more paper cups, print more documents, read more magazines. Green paper manufacturers want the same thing, yet they're green. It's not as if green paper companies want us to use less green paper. They want us to use more. So... whereas conservation might be key, any sort of green product, though green, fights against this key goal.

Sorry for the long, long, stream of thoughts.

But, in summary, I loved Green Drinks. And the plastic cups were clearly worth it. I drank from that plastic cup, maybe you'll go change the light bulbs in your house (not likely that this blog will affect any change anywhere, as I'm pretty sure no one reads it). And if you do, then the net effect on the environment will be a positive one.

So, yes, that plastic cup was a worthy sacrifice for getting you to change your light bulbs. Thanks for your help. (I still don't know about the green furniture-unless part of their message is just buy one lamp and hang onto it forever).