DESPITE the expense and the occasional back strain, Mary Burnham, a public relations consultant in San Francisco, felt good about the decision she made a few years ago to buy milk -- organic, of course -- only in heavy, reusable glass bottles. For the sake of the environment, she dutifully lugged them back and forth from the grocery store every week. Cutting out disposable paper cartons, she reasoned, meant saving trees and reducing waste. Or not. A friend, also a committed environmentalist, recently started questioning her good deed. "His argument was that paper cartons are compostable and lightweight and use less energy and water than the heavy bottles, which must be transported back to a plant to be cleaned and reused," she said. "I have no idea which is better, or how to find out.".... Ms. Burnham, 35, recycles religiously, orders weekly from a community-supported farm, buys eco-friendly cleaning products and carries groceries in a canvas bag. But she admits to information overload on the environment -- from friends, advice columns, news media, even government-issued reports. Much of the advice is conflicting.
Call me a heretic, but I've still not managed to hop on the green bandwagon in the way most people have since it once again became hip. I don't drive a hybrid, and while there are a lot of other "small" things I do, I'm not yet convinced that the "green" movement is actually making a difference...or merely helping us to feel better about ourselves. I'd like to think that I'm wrong, or if I'm not, that I'll soon be proven wrong. Let's be honest, though; how much empirical evidence is out there that recycling, or driving hybrids. or using biodiesel...or any of the other myriad "green" behaviors out there is making a noticeable difference? I certainly hope they are, and I'd agree that doing something is certainly better than doing nothing at all. Still, there's the whole "Law of Unintended Consequences" argument that's been seriously underplayed. What happens to a hybrid vehicle's batteries when it comes time to dispose of them? These batteries, a toxic stew of highly dangerous chemicals, require special handling...because they're environmental nightmares just looking for a place to happen. Somehow, this reality never seems to get factored into the equation...and the issue of hybrid vehicle batteries is but one aspect of the "green" movement that seems to be getting lost in the hype and the marketing. I wouldn't for a minute suggest that going "green" isn't a good thing, but doing so without a full understanding of the consequences (both intended and otherwise) is little more than self-delusion and foolishness.
DO the benefits of driving a hybrid for their higher gas mileage outweigh the potential environmental issues posed by the question of how to dispose of their batteries? I don't have an answer...and I'm not certain that anyone else does, because this question really hasn't been part of the public dialogue. Most of us have taken it as a matter of faith that hybrid vehicles are more environmentally friendly- high mileage apparently trumps all other concerns and realities. While there's certainly nothing wrong with higher gas mileage, it's the "collateral damage" (batteries) I'm concerned about. In order for us to evaluate "green" technology, wouldn't it stand to reason that we need to honest assess ALL aspects of that techology?
I'm not trying to be a skpetic, nor am I about to denigrate those who really do want to make a difference. Their (our) hearts are certainly in the right place. What I am saying is that there are still far too many unanswered questions. So much "green" hype is just that- marketing ploys designed to sell more products and prop up a company's stock price. In many respects, I think that we're heading in the right direction, but we're nowhere near where we need to be...and we're probably not making nearly the difference we think we are.
Honda just announced plans to bring an zero-emission hyrogen fuel cell vehicle to the US. It will be available in only very limited quantities initially, and the numbers will make it financially unwieldy for any but the most committed environmentalists...or celebrities. Another step in the right direction, to be certain, but what the long-term benefits will be remain to be seen. Remember, "zero-emission" does not ipso facto correlate to "zero-pollution", particularly at the end of a vehicle's lifespan.
I'd like to think that we're doing the right things for the right reasons. More than that, though, I'd like to know that what we're doing is actually making a difference and not merely putting off the day of ultimate reckoning until sometime in the future. We can all make a difference if we're willing to make the commitment, but to do so without fully understanding the ramifications of the changes we're making is sheer foolishness...and it ultimately may do more harm than good.
Change for the sake of change doesn't have to be the moral equivalent of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We can all make a difference, but calling something "green" doesn't make it so. Without some honest evaluation, there's a pretty good chance that little of our "green" lifestyle changes will make much of a difference at all. This isn't to say that going "green" is futile, but doing it without thinking it through from manufacture to landfill can be. Being "green" isn't necessarily about the choices we make; it's about recognizing the impact that those choices can and do have.
