Desperate (Green) Housewives
According to the New York Times, wealthy suburban moms aren’t arranging book clubs or Tupperware parties anymore. Instead, they are meeting for earnest discussions about how to make their lives more green.
Move over, Tupperware. The EcoMom party has arrived, with its ever-expanding “to do” list that includes preparing waste-free school lunches; lobbying for green building codes; transforming oneself into a “locovore,” eating locally grown food; and remembering not to idle the car when picking up children from school (if one must drive). Here, the small talk is about the volatile compounds emitted by dry-erase markers at school.
This article should come with two warning labels. One should explain that reporters from the New York Times will discover trends based on the habits of two of their friends. The other warning label is that any article that includes the word “mom” or even better yet “suburban mom” will be dripping with sarcasm and eye rolling. They have written that mommy bloggers are narcissistic, that moms push around huge strollers that threaten to steamroll the single hipsters, that moms let their spoiled spawn invade their neighborhood bars and restaurants.
In this case, the author takes shots at the suburban moms who are wasting all their time worrying about organic air fresheners, while they live in huge houses with wasteful lawns and drive mammoth SUVs. They fret over toys made in China and plastic table clothes. They approach environmentalism with the same zeal and perfectionism and stridency that have plagued the La Leche crew and the co-sleeping movement. Never has re-cycling been so unattractive. Even after reading the warning labels about trend articles on moms, I’m still turned off.
But let’s be fair — why should the mockery be limited to these suburban moms who at least have the sense to feel a little guilty about their energy consumption? If you’re going to mock, why not make fun of the whole green movement?
My issue of Domino arrived a few days ago. Domino is a home decorating magazine, aimed at a young, urban demographic. This month’s issue is devoted to green living. From this magazine, I learned how I could save the earth by buying $1,950 cement garden chaises, a $65 wicker hamper, or a $1,695 tree stump fashioned into an end table. I don’t mind when the magazine does its usual promotion of products, but this green issue is simply absurd. How many trees were killed to produce this glossy package of hypocrisy?
You want to save the earth? Here’s a little hint. Don’t. Buy. Shit.
The greenest people are totally unhip and unlikely to be photographed for the Times or a glossy magazine. They’re still wearing their clothes from twenty years ago. They aren’t keeping their home spa-worthy clean. No need to worry about polluting the air with chemicals, if you aren’t dusting every five minutes. They aren’t constantly renovating their kitchens and bathrooms, all of which uses enormous amounts of energy and resources; they are still living with the Formica numbers from the 70s. They aren’t jetting off to Europe to browse the Paris markets; they go bowling in the next town over. They aren’t constantly shopping for new things and tossing out the old things.
This is some poetry in all of this. Grandma with the Hummels has a smaller carbon footprint by doing absolutely nothing than the wealthy do-gooder in the Range Rover attending the NRDC fundraiser.
If you must have a hip home and global warming is a concern, then there are other ways to go. Pick up end tables from a garage sale and paint them. Buy an old house near the center of town. Don’t get your nails done. Don’t drive to the gym. Don’t join a gym and instead, burn calories by gardening. Stop recycling your San Pellegrino bottles and drink tap water.
You could also elect politicians who are willing to make serious efforts in conservation, mass transportation, and in the regulation of industry.
Let’s encourage the eco-conscious to ignore the calls of magazine hucksters to buy stuff, including $1,950 tree stumps. Let’s stop wasting our time with the band-aid solutions and guilt from the eco-moms.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to make a dent in global warming. But to do it, you need a serious, non-cosmetic, un-cool, and un-trendy change in lifestyle and habits. And frankly there’s no need to make a big fuss about it, get preachy or show off to others how environmentally correct you are. Excessive non-consumption aimed at impressing one’s friends and neighbors is just as annoying — and as conspicuous — as consumption.
Laura McKenna is a political science professor who lives in New Jersey. She blogs at 11D.
Greenie’s chronic hypochrondria aside, I have a feeling that the Ice Age is already putting a dent in Global Warming.
“you need a serious, non-cosmetic, un-cool, and un-trendy change in lifestyle and habits.”
Absolutely true. Buying a hybrid SUV does nothing. Butt mocking people who have generally taken an interest in the environment is not helpful either.
They could be worse. They could be people who ignore the scientific evidence. You know, the folks who will soon crowd this thread with their nonsense.
Irony of ironies, “going green” has been mainstreamed and turned into a business. Not unlike, say . . . global warming. Next to this crowd of hucksters, Ron Popeil was an amateur.
David Brooks wrote about this phenomenon in 2001: BoBos In Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There. Bobos are the bourgeois bohemians, looking for a way to reconcile the counter-culture values of the 1960′s with the large incomes they now enjoy. Corporate marketers are, of course, glad to help.
What “scientific evidence” might that be? I do not ignore the fact that the earth has warmed a degree in the last century. I do not ignore that that warming tracks closely with solar activity.
I do not apologize for my disregard, nay my mockery, of the global warming zealots.
Boris the mindguard has shown up here because he is tired of getting out logiced and out evidenced on more dedicated climate sites. whatever.
I think the greenest people I ever knew where my grandparents who came of age in Depression Era rural America. For them, reduce, reuse and recycle was not a hippie slogan but an ingrained way of life born of hard experience. They were also the most gloriously unhip people I have ever met.
I was struck while watching some of those home remodeling shows just how quick supposedly eco-sensitive remodelers were to junk perfectly functional attributes of houses just because they disliked the aesthetics. If they really cared about the environment they would value function over form.
I think most the green movement is about narcissistic holier than thou dominance behavior than it is about the saving the earth.
“You want to save the earth? Here’s a little hint. Don’t. Buy. Shit.”
I love the clarity and simplicity, expressed here.
If only people would do this — or more accurately not do this — we could easily, inexpensively and painlessly cut back on a tremendous amount of waste.
I don’t know if that would slow the melting of the polar caps, but it certainly would reduce roadside waste and landfill deposits.
This stuff really is the “New Religion.” Last spring, I was waiting in line at the check-in at Reagan/National and actually got a sermon from some eco-mom on why I should always unplug all my electrical appliances when I leave the house because, you know, that was required in order to save the planet.
I nodded politely and then turned back to my colleague while rolling my eyes. Next time, however, I’m going to say something like: “God in Heaven, will you eco-lunatics just leave me the hell alone? You’re worse than a bunch of damned Moonies!”
Did anyone else notice the San Pellegrino water bottle, shipped from Italy, sitting on their lovely coffee table while they were pontificating about sustainability?
Apparently, just using the term “scientific evidence,” sometimes followed by “the debate is over,” serves as a magic incantation that is supposed to instantly convert the masses. No evidence or debate is necessary. I’ll have to admit that, based on the repressive legislation being passed, it seems to be working.
I don’t sweat the small stuff that the EcoMoms are doing. It’s the big stuff that the politicians are doing that makes me uneasy.
If nonsense is reality, then I am one who is crowding this thread. Take your socio-politico movement & ***** **! Follow the green movement money & its political ambitions. There is where global warming is being “sold,” just as it is in the Times article.
Ms. McKenna hits the nail on the head by mocking those who knock
“deniers.” Average folks are beginning to see the movement for what it is with many of the power players. A chance to make more money & to gain power over others.
Hah,
Who knew I was eco friendly. I just thought I was cheap and messy. It’s hard to stay this way when everyone around gets a whole new wardrobe every season.
However, I think environmentalism has swung the pendulum into a good discussion that will yield a middle ground. It’s good to try to find paints that are less toxic, to have alternative sources of fuel. How about office windows that actually open instead of relying on air conditioning?
Environmentalism went from a fringe into mainstream. Yes, some things are extreme, and inconsistent, but good things have come out of this. America has recycling programs, there are biodegradable disposable products. When people see a problem, they figure out a way to solve it.
There are plenty of things that don’t make sense. My Dad was a chemist for Exxon, and he said that California had laws on allowed and unallowed chemicals that had nothing to do with chemistry. He also said that there are chemicals that you can’t smell that are much worse then those that you can, so educated people need to make some of these decisions.
A middle ground needs to be reached, and actual versus pretend problems do need to be identified these things take time and discussion, which is what is going on. Good Job America!
It seems to me this story offers a brilliant business opportunity, a chance to get in at the ground level.
“Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, we have GUILT for sale.”
“That’s right, if you feel guilty about your level of consumption, we have the answer, a totally biodegradable lifestyle! Includes an automobile made entirely from bark, leaves, and ground nuts.”
“Step right up, folks, step right up. Feeling guilty about your SUV? We have carbon credits in quantity. Just follow the green line to the Johann Tetzel Pavillion.”
“Are you worried that you live in a whitebread community lacking in diversity? Step right up and have a beverage in the Diversity Cafe, where you can chat with our staff drawn from genuine minorities from all over the planet.”
“Step right up, folks, try a bottle of Dr. Good, 100% organic, manufactured in the rainforest by Amazonian Indians, cures everything from suburban angst to a guilty conscience. Obsolves you of even the worse stains on your character.”
“Step right up, step right up . . .”
ummm, what the h*ll is so awful about Hummels?
I have inherited a bunch from my mother, who carefully packed them up for every move around the country, because she LOVED them… and
I love them too.
Some of the highbrow greenies demand “peer-reviewed” sources when confronted. LIke Al Gore’s book, for example.
This is the first time I’ve ever commented on a blog, but this just angered me & I couldn’t resist. This is a classic example of either someone who is very narrow minded or writes a blog to simply create controversy. Who cares if someone drives an SUV or lives in a huge house & how can it possibly matter what motivates someone to do more. Who cares? The fact is, they’re doing more than they were before… The “Modern Conscious Consumer” isn’t about to make major sacrifices with their lifestyle. They like the way they live, but they’re willing to do more. More is great!! Baby steps.
I also don’t care that businesses are jumping on the eco bandwagon to exploit it & make money. If the result is helping the planet, it’s still good!
I represent a website that’s all about fashion, beauty & lifestyle for the eco & socially conscious. The site will remain nameless, because it’s not good business practice to use other people’s blogs to promote yourself. However, we are geared to the to a person who has a realistic view of being green. They want to do more (sometimes a little, sometimes a lot) & it’s all great!
Yes, it would great if everyone gave up their SUVs & started composting, but that’s just not very realistic. I love the fact that people are getting together to look for ways to help, even if they’re doing it because it’s “in.”
“Grandma with the Hummels has a smaller carbon footprint by doing absolutely nothing than the wealthy do-gooder in the Range Rover attending the NRDC fundraiser.”
Oh, but that’s where you’re wrong. That wealthy do-gooder has purchased enough “carbon offsets” that he could commute via space rocket and he’d still produce no “net pollution”. His farts are carbon neutral.
Dan Hoffman,
I love the fact that people are getting together to look for ways to help, even if they’re doing it because it’s “in.”
Just a little tip, fashion and fads are poor means of implementing technical solutions. People who engage in visible and fashionable conservation distract from real solutions while creating the illusion that “something is being done.”
Like all narcissistic indulgences It’s actively destructive behavior.
“There’s nothing wrong with wanting to make a dent in global warming.”
Yes, there is. An action based on a false premise is inherently wrong. Whether the action is stupid or immoral, or both, depends on the particular false premise and the action chosen.
As for the various actions assumed by the commenters above to be good, please explain. Why is an opening window ‘better’ than air conditioning? Why is the use of an apparently non-renewable resource wrong? I have never found anyone able to reason from a discrete set of assumptions to either conclusion. The reasoning has always, always been circular.
Of course opening windows are better because ……….opening windows are better. As for the oil, please do not trot out the needs of your future generations or I will trot out my list of ‘non-renewable’ resources that are either now useless (flint) or in gross over-supply (iron ore).
This is a follow-up & correction to the comment I just made. Someone pointed out to me that I used the word “blog” instead of “article.” I was directing my anger & frustration towards the NY Times, not Laura KcKenna. Sorry if there was some confusion.
Dan
Consumption is relative. Let’s live in mud huts on the verge of starvation.
Exactly right! Instead of driving around in that $35,000 bumper sticker of a Prius give the old family SUV another few years. The Prius has its own “carbon footprint” and the SUV does not disappear. In fact it gets driven by someone in need of a used car, perhaps someone who was not driving beforehand. So now we have two cars. But, of course, it is much better to feel smug about oneself driving the Pius.
On a recent walk, I saw a Hummer parked in a driveway next to a SUV. The Hummer had a “Go Solar” bumper sticker and another sticker saying it had been “offset” by “TransGlobal”or some such name.
Let them be as snide as they like, the future belongs to those who show up for it.
Environmentalism has simply become the left’s religion. Author Michael Crichton gave a speech on the subject in 2003. You ca read it here.
Just as I would never push my religion on someone else, I would never push my decision to live a greener life on those who just don’t want to hear it. However, after starting my blog about green and frugal living, people started emailing me, asking for advice on how they could start living green–within reason–like my family and I do. So I started my Green Boot Camp blog, which has been really well received. Am I an Eco-Mom? I guess so. Will I rub it in your face? Never.
If everyone consumed less, we would have a recession and a lot of people would be poorer and more deprived.
What a strange contradiction.
Damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
“You mean you don’t pocket-mulch?”
http://www.snpp.com/episodes/CABF01
I have to agree with Leah’s statement as well as Dan’s. If green has become a marketing effort, so be it. It allows more green products to be available to the public.
When I built a couple of years ago using a lot of green materials, it was really hard since finding them in my area was next to impossible. Now, there are so many wonderful products out there because people are receptive to them.
I am not going to deny that there is overconsumption and people will say they are green as a status symbol.
However, I also believe people are going to consume no matter what and telling people not to is naive. At least they will be buying green, which one more step that they may not have done before.
Would I like people to buy in moderation and reuse what already is? Absolutely. However, everyone has their own priorities and agendas whether the rest of us like it not.
Like Leah, I started a blog, http//:www.green-talk.com to help people to build green from my own experiences. It has morphed into more of a green living site. I try and alert people to reusing and recycling based upon my own experiences. I can only hope that some people who read my blog will learn by my way of life and try changing theirs. I know I have learned a lot from my own readers.
So, if I am considered an EcoMom, then I join the crowd, but without the preaching.
Like Dan said, baby steps for now as well providing choices. You get a lot more done with honey than vingear.
I am selling carbon offsets. I did not fly 100,000 miles last year that I could have if I were as rich as Al Gore. I failed to put 40,000 lbs of CO2 into the environment.
That size of carbon offset is available from Terrapass.com for $198, Self.org for $200 and The Center for Environmental Leadership for $240.
I offer a better deal. For just $150 I will not fly 100,000 miles this year. What is more, I will donate half of what I get to feed and educate needy orphans.
If there is enough interest, I will refrain from flying 1,000,000 miles this year. Half of all funds will go to needy orphans.
This is a verifiable reduction in my potential carbon footprint for 2008. You don’t have to worry about whether a project will actually reduce the carbon footprint. I can guarantee results.
If we’re not being “peer” pressured into buying one new/hip/cutting edge kind of sh*t we’re being pressured into buying another new/hip/cutting edge kind of sh*t.
It would be pure genius if this “global warming” was simply the marketing/advertising money-making tool.
Pure genius.
About a month ago Yahoo had a news story posted most of the day that said China was having its coldest winter in over a century. A few weeks ago I heard the same about the midwest. Funny none of this made the evening news. Global warming, or climate change, caused by humans is just the latest in a string of Liberal guilt trips whose end game is control of our lives by a bunch of busybodies. How many of their apocalyptic warnings have been proven false over time? Remember dire predictions of the next ice age? DDT? Acid rain? All BS. GW is next.
Laura, last year I was in an online writing class with adult students from all over the US. We critiqued one another’s work. One guilty ecowife wrote about her neighbor who rides a bike and composts and how “the average person doesn’t do enough for the environment.” I checked her student bio and found out her husband was an airline pilot and she used to chauffer kids around to athletic meets. My reply to her was that the average person, by definition, isn’t that wasteful because they can’t afford a big SUV like a Cadillac Esplanade because their income is…average. She then admitted one of the neighbors on her block drove an Esplanade.
In a second class exercise submitted by a second ecowife, a vague argument was made that hinted our water treatment plants weren’t creating pure enough tap water. To this I replied that the ecologically conscious scientists who chose to work at those plants (with their families living nearby) were probably doing a diligent, consciencious job of cleaning up the water. I also stated that her writing implied a premise of there being a Golden Age Health via Pure Water in the 19th Century. But the 19th Century was characterized by a very high birth mother and infant mortality rate which even took the life of the wealthy Theodore Roosevelt’s first wife.
After criticizing these two women, I also want to state that the fault lies with the Green Movement’s guilt trip trumpeted in television, magazines, political parties, Al Gore’s movie, etc. They all have conspired to make these women feel guilty and not good enough Daughters of Mother Earth. These women need a champion like you, Laura, to tell them they are OK and worthy human beings if they don’t sew their own teepee and wash their family’s clothes in a stream with homemade soap, like Martha Stewart seems to do (if you believe every image you see on television).
Whatever problems we have today, will not be solved by Greenpeace arranging ecoguilt trips.
If these eco-moms were really concerned about being green, they wouldn’t have subjected the earth to their children in the first place. The world really does not need a lot of future consumers-to-be who will need houses, cars, trendy clothes, fuel, etc., in massive amounts.
Scientists have estimated that the natural carrying capacity for humans is under 2 billion, and possibly even under 1 billion. There are now 6.7 billion people. Choosing not to have children is possibly the most environmentally decision anyone can make to conserve resources and reduce pollution. China and India realized this ages ago. The eco-moms who still manage to maintain expensive consumerist lifestyles despite dabbling around the edges with “green” products need to realize this too.
If you think this is unreasonable or a joke, an Australian academic seriously proposed in December that that country impose a carbon tax on each child born to each couple after the second. This is significant because Oz has actually instituted a series of incentives for each child born-incentives this professor says should be eliminated. And he noted specifically that it makes no sense for Oz to encourage having children when China has strict population policies. We all live on the same planet, and our decisions to have excessive numbers of children today affects everyone else, like it or not.
Eh, lame article.
I am the Media Coordinator for the Holistic Moms Network – a national non-profit connecting parents who are into naural health and green living. I couldn’t agree more with Laura McKenna and her critique of the “Eco-moms” that drive their kids to soccer in gas-guzzling SUVs. Compare the average US citizen to a family in Ethiopia and see who’s really green. The greenest people on earth are the poorest who can’t afford to buy anything, and cant even get their basic survival needs met. We in the Western world have a consumption sickness which is eating up the scarce resources on this planet and polluting in disproportionate ways. It’s really quite obvious what we’re doing to ourselves and the answer is indeed to stop buying stuff and reuse as much as possible. I highly recommend that everyone watch the 20-minute animated film The Story of Stuff. You can find it online. It’s very enlightening.