Agree with Friedman (he’s a badass), generally disagree with you. The tips your suggesting (consume less) are only slightly more radical than what he’s regarding as a waste of time.

I mean, isn’t:

-turning the lights off,
-changing the thermostat,
-using a smaller car for tasks,

really just perfect examples of the tips he’s referring to in the quote?

You have a solid point on the shipping of food worldwide, but that’s one of those things that should solve itself by economics – how can it be cheaper to ship something all the way around the world than doing it locally (I mean, I understand why it’s cheaper, and why its done that way, but it could be cheaper locally)? Do our local growers need to man up and get efficient?

As long as it has to be a conscious choice to buy local (as opposed to an automatic one, because, gosh darnit, it’s 20% cheaper to buy local), my cynical brain says a nation-wide trend to buy local is a pipe dream.

Sorry to, as they say, “bring the ruckus”, before some more constructive comments chime in.

Josh, good post. Cynically I agree with Friedman, and also with Eric, but I still think that both the micro level stuff that you mention is important, as well as the “pipe dream” and decision to buy local. I’m not sure if you’ve read Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire by Brian Walsh and his wife Sylvia Keesmaat (Scot McKnight is currently blogging through it), or Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community by Wendell Berry, or The Art of the Commonplace by Wendell Berry…but i think those books have really helped me a lot in terms of understanding things theologically and practically in terms of the challenges ahead.

Theologically speaking, i think that the micro-stuff helps to shape us on a formational and personal level as followers of Jesus, and can help us to think on a larger scale through the routine and regular practice of smaller scale actions. the actions must start somewhere, and i think that without micro-level actions, the macro-level changes will be difficult to come by.

great post…

Nice post. I was about to start feeling guilty for wanting to post another “green links” post on my site, but I’m still going to do it because I think that the “tips” at least give people a place to start. Jack Johnson’s song about Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (or was that Bob the Builder?) may be like putting a band aid on a gaping wound, but micro-level/personal decisions and actions are helpful in changing perspective, as you have amply testified to in previous posts.

I agree with Josh H in that the micro level decisions and actions are necessary, or the “macro-level changes will be difficult to come by.”
You do bring up the more salient point, however, which is about Consumption. Well said.

I take the third road. I think it’s great that green is catching on. Even if it is a very consumeristic individualist greenage. I think a 100 mile diet has merit even if there are exceptions or flaws. But we have to start somewhere, and it it takes little green tips to get everyone slowly moving in the same direction is that bad?

I mean what has anyone done recently to change mass consumerism in america that has caught on?

Sure there is a better way, but lets see someone lead it.

There’s much personal merit in looking to consume less, clearly: we have become despoilers of our own environment, and it’s clearly bad for us.

But for every American/European who would benefit from consuming less, there’s several people elsewhere in the world (or on our own doorsteps) who would actually be rather more comfortable/healthy if they consumed rather more.

To take the CO2/climate change issue implied the text you quote: there’s clearly a fixed amount of fossil fuel in the ground. We’re clearly going to keep taking it out until it becomes uneconomic to do so. Global CO2 emissions simply aren’t going to fall. The only question is who gets to benefit from the energy thereby made available.

nice comments everyone. i hope you guys didn’t think that i was bashing green tips. even if they are of the oprah consumeristic type like nick said.

i guess my point is that the real issue is not simple tips. but rather sweeping changes in how we consume. this doesn’t have to be restricted to a total local economy and politic. although i think that would work wonders. but rather we should think about the systemic issues that globalization creates. and how consumption in general plays into a less sustainable planet.

it’s not an erasing of consumption. but rather a better appropriation of our consumption.

something that i think friedman too often misses the point on is cheerleading for globalization.

Even if every person in the world wasn’t gluttonous, it wouldn’t have a huge impact on CO2. Transportation, production, and consumption are all a basic part of quality of life. And as the quality of life improves worldwide, human-caused emissions of CO2 will, as well. The only way to prevent CO2 emissions from rising is to enforce poverty.

I’ve also read some good articles about how ‘animal’ emissions are one of the largest contributers of CO2. Also that the oceans themselves release more CO2 the warmer they are.

So much of this is based on stuff that we really don’t understand. Crichton said something very smart a few years ago – if you had asked somebody in New York City in the late 19th century what the biggest problem would be in the coming century, they would have said manure. In reality, the “solutions” that will make life better in 100 years are simply not within our sight right now, and our predictive abilities are pretty pathetic when it comes to anything, but particularly when it comes to climate.

You might not be able to imagine how silly a lot of the “green tips” appear to someone who is pretty convinced that the biggest contributor to global warming is the sun. It’s output does fluctuate, after all, and it is the only reason we have a relatively stable climate to begin with. We are beginning to see evidence that other planets in our solar system are warming, as well. But for some reason, the people most scared about global warming don’t want to bother considering whether the sun is truly a factor…

In any case, I agree with Friedman more than you. Changes of consumption will only have a very small effect, and when they come, will happen very slowly. Changes in technology will change everything, and when it comes, it will happen very fast.

you don’t think we’re consuming more over the last 50-150 (post industrial age) years then we did before it?

i don’t want to debate global warming. if it wasn’t on the democratic agenda. the conservatives would believe it. and vice versa.

i just think it’s clear that consumption is at an all time high. while the fabric of our cultures is tightened as it has never been before.

if society and culture is apexing towards technological revolutions that will fix all the crap wrong . . . then how come as technology has increased, things have gotten progressively worse? i’m not advocating a neo-lithic stone age. but for any advancement in technology that are beneficial there is another that has been detrimental.

and what does friedman’s proposal (rely, wait, and invest in technology to fix it) have to say about us? to me it say’s we’re selfish. that we’re so lazy and spoiled that we’d rather go ahead and screw shit up now, because after all it’s going to be fixed later?

i could go off here about how that is so ingrained with platonic thought. and how platonic dualism seeps over into the present versus eternity. the earth and heaven. etc. etc.

but it just seems a bit of a cop-out to reap the benefits of technology while not also taking an assessment of the “by-products”.

and not just to the bottom line and the environment. at some point we have to realize that our “growth” is built on the backs of others. the niger delta, sudan of recent. china in the future. and afghanistan and iraq in the past.

we can’t take a pass on the economic, political, and environmental cracks that globalization is creating around the world. all because of the american “right” to consumption. which unfortunately hollywood, the media, and other platforms have romanticized to the world. so we’ve now become the pattern of consumption to emulate.

which is scary. the world can barely sustain much of the western advancements in technology. wait until the 2nd and 3rd worlds start consuming at half of what we do.

but we can talk again in 20 years.

maybe by then we’ll just be shuttling our waste. where of course we’ll never have to worry about it again.

“i don’t want to debate global warming. if it wasn’t on the democratic agenda. the conservatives would believe it. and vice versa.”

That’s simplistic. And not true. I don’t appreciate hysterical hype no matter who is pushing it. Whether it’s global cooling or global warming, whether it’s Al Gore or Ahnuld. That’s true of every person I know who is skeptical about global warming.

“that we’re so lazy and spoiled that we’d rather go ahead and screw shit up now, because after all it’s going to be fixed later?”

You don’t want to debate global warming, you just want to assume it’s man-caused, and that if we don’t act now it’s going to be catastrophic. That seems awfully typical, honestly. What if CO2 wasn’t the problem to begin with? Wouldn’t that change everything?

Your problem with relying on technology to “fix it” means you have to believe something is fundamentally a problem to begin with.

I do believe there is a problem, but it’s not global warming – it’s that our current method of energy production, over the long-term, is not sustainable. And that there are, currently, cleaner methods of energy production (nuclear), and there will be, in the coming decades, safer and more efficient methods of energy production. The other problem is our reliance on energy from sources that are, more or less, our stated enemies, and that in the short-term it would be better to reduce the prominence of those providers. But liberals like to prevent any progress on either of those fronts – by keeping us from using our own oil potential (Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, etc) as well as preventing us from expanding nuclear production. So until something changes, either politically or technologically, we’re stuck with funding Iran and Venezuela’s nonsense (if even only indirectly).

“but we can talk again in 20 years.”

By which time, many prominent climatologists believe we’ll have entered a cooling period again. And the whole issue of the “green revolution” will seem extremely silly. None of the global warming predictions have proved to be true thus far, and what they’re doing is more guesswork than it is science. So as far as I’m concerned, I’m willing to wait and see.

“then how come as technology has increased, things have gotten progressively worse? i’m not advocating a neo-lithic stone age. but for any advancement in technology that are beneficial there is another that has been detrimental.”

You really think that, on average, things are worse now than they were 100-150 years ago? In what ways? Life expectancy? Nutrition? Education? Yes, consumption is at an all-time high. But poverty today looks incredibly different from poverty a century and a half ago. Worldwide, standards of living are much higher overall. (In cases where it isn’t, there is always an oppressive, corrupt government involved.) Technology is the primary factor for these improvements.

The solution to brokenness has always been to “be the change you want to see in the world,” as overplayed as that term is. Josh, you’re being aware enough and active enough to do that, and your consistent blogging on this topic is exhibiting leadership in this area.

Cynics abound, but I’d agree with the above posters that it takes micro-level change gaining steam to make macro-level change even possible…and when those on the micro level are passionately anti-consumerism and materialism and their lifestyle reflects that commitment, they should be commended and encouraged!

It’s called taking responsibility for what we can control and trying to live a contagious lifestyle (in the best sense of the phrase)

Derek,

For being a Christian, it sure is interesting how quickly your thinking shifts to American nationalism time and time again.

And I’m fairly certain those offering serious scientific evidence that global warming is in fact a reality aren’t in the “hysterical hype” business. I have yet to see a wild-eyed Al Gore running in the streets screaming. In An Inconvenient Truth, I saw an even-handed look at global trends in temps and CO2, as well as constant quotation of scientific backup along the way.

The science on this reality is irrefutable. I’d be interested to see the names of those “prominent climatologists” you say exist. And if you can pull up their names, I’d love to see how many went to Liberty University or (Insert Name Here) Fundamentalist Bible College.

Have you even viewed An Inconvenient Truth at all, at the very least because it’s good to expose oneself to opinions and suggestions different than those one carries?

Good post and great comment conversations. I believe that, as Western Christians, our more fundamental problem is our lack of a theology/spirituality of Creation. Without it, we end up getting involved in “causes” (regardless of whether they are based on accurate science or not). I genuinely believe that, should we renew this lost sacramental relationship to Creation, we would have greater wisdom and direction on how to respond to climate, ecology, consumerism, etc.

Peace,
Jamie

“For being a Christian, it sure is interesting how quickly your thinking shifts to American nationalism time and time again.”

Fine, take it out of an American context. Do you think Chavez is a net benefit or detriment to the world? Do you think that the oil he commands is a positive or a negative thing? Do you think that abundant, clean energy would lessen the prominence of regimes such as his as those in the middle east, and lessen the dangers they represent? The points are all still the same. These issues are global as much as they are American, but since America uses a much higher share of the global energy market, our decisions affect things greater than any other single country (and most others combined, as well).

“The science on this reality is irrefutable. I’d be interested to see the names of those “prominent climatologists” you say exist. And if you can pull up their names, I’d love to see how many went to Liberty University or (Insert Name Here) Fundamentalist Bible College.”

See, you say it’s irrefutable, and Al says it’s irrefutable, but there are plenty of scientists who do refute it. And then they’re made out to be some kind of crazies (as you imply as well). But the ones who are publicly against it are the courageous ones. The climate (no pun intended) against skeptics is very negative right now – you speak out against global warming, and you’re cut off from the rest of the scientific community, including, in many cases, funding. Nobody is being literally burned at the stake, but the similarities to the church persecuting scientific dissenters regarding cosmetology (who were speaking out against the “consensus”) is evident.

I see new articles from time to time about prominent skeptics. And usually they involve prominent scientists across the globe. It can’t be limited to the kind of thing you’re implying skeptics are always related to.

Maybe I’ll start blogging about it more, but you can start with these:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af&p=2
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
http://www.showmethemooneys.com/mooneys/2007/02/inconsistent-truth.asp

Honestly, I’ve not watched all of Al Gore’s movie. I should, but I’ve seen Al Gore talk enough about it (including clips from Truth) to know his basic approach. It usually starts with the “consensus” thing (which isn’t true, and even if it were, consensus is irrelevant in science), and/or the irrefutable thing, show a nice graph or two, ignore variation in solar activity, and just move on to how bad things will get (you don’t have to act hysterical to promote hysteria).

My basic point is this: climate is too complex for us to pin things down to one factor (except maybe the sun, without which, we’d have serious global cooling problems), and our predictive capabilities are pathetic. Yet we’re supposed to believe these predictions about global warming over the next 100 years? The basic idea is irrational, and the conclusions they force are irrational.

As far exposing myself to different opinions, why do you think I participate here? :p

That most people aren’t aware of prominent scientists who disagree with the “irrefutable” “consensus” about global warming reveals how difficult it is for skeptics to crack through the media. If you’re not listening in the few places where they get noticed, then you’ll never hear about them.

The first guy, Richard Lindzen, may be skeptical that planetary disturbances are all from human activity, but he’s not saying definitively that they’re not. Here’s part of a report from the National Academy of Sciences panel he was on;

Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.

So Lindzen’s against carbon as the sole reason for climate change, not diametrically opposed to the suggestion that it is affecting climate change. He warns about Chicken Little-style hysterics, not sober warnings.

Check out Tim Ball’s credentials from Wikipedia. Here’s an excerpt; “Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a “scientific advisor” to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.

And it’s tough to judge how impartial Senator Inhofe from OK is when his homepage has a oil well front and center and he’s received the “Lifetime Achievement Award” from the OIPA

If you watched “An Inconvenient Truth” in its entirety, Derek, you might have gotten a bit of insight into Al Gore’s deep sense of caring for the earth we’ve been given to take care of and use well. It should be fairly obvious that carbon emissions aren’t ALL the problem, but they are contributors to the problem, and therefore we should take action to reduce our consumption and materialism to reflect earth care. In case you weren’t aware, Derek, that’s right in the first few chapters of Genesis as a basic expectation for the faithful people of God.

So when someone’s pushing environmental concern in an even-handed manner, I think a solid first response would be a pat-on-the-back and a commitment to hearing them out.

The names I mentioned in my comment above are from the links Derek posted in his comment

“So when someone’s pushing environmental concern in an even-handed manner…”

I wouldn’t describe declaring the debate as “over,” and those who are skeptical as being in denial, as being even-handed. Whenever political or religious power is used to silence dissent, be wary.

And Lindzen is more opposed to Al Gore than you might like to characterize him, based on quotes from the article I linked to:

There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we’ve seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes… The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman’s forecast for next week.

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn’t be as steep as the climb in emissions.

And the report you quoted? Lindzen has criticized it. Read Lindzen’s article, he points out many important discrepancies that are worth being aware of.

And your characterizations of Tim Ball and Senator Inhofe is typical – if someone is connected, in any way, with any oil company, than anything they say must be dismissed. Forget the reasoning, forget any scientific debate (because, of course, it’s “over”). If anyone disagrees, they must be paid by an oil-company or some kind of religious nut. The pattern is tiresome. Instead of attempting character assassination, how about responding to what they’re saying?

While hunched over pulling weeds from between rows of organically grown chard my brother and i talked about the U.S. and what it was that irked us most about it.

The conversation eventually came around to globalization and the spread of American consumerism to every corner of the globe (currently we are in Ireland and have been disgusted to see suburban spec homes filling up farmers fields. Ah, Americas contribution to Irish culture.)

I think maybe i’d be a little less vehement about Americas lifestyle if Americas way of living was contained within its borders. But it isnt. The insane way of living that you see in most of America is being replicated in country after country, village after village, around the globe.

It’s not only about Americans going green and changing the way they live, it’s about the global community assessing whether or not it should be participating in the insanity that encompasses the consumerist capitalist way of life.

Thanks for this post Josh. Good stuff.

[...] define that for your circumstance and lifestyle and so forth). For a lively discussion, check out Josh Brown’s wrestling with whether “green tips” make any difference and whether w….  Hit these green links at your [...]

Check out our blog which has lots of green tips and ideas. http://www.cipacs.org