What Does “Going Green” Really Mean? (Part 4)
Across the street from our apartment, sitting there one morning as I was on my way to the laundromat, I noticed a very small car — a Smart Car — that gave off the impression of being an ecologically sound vehicle. It was comparatively tiny, and at first glance one could easily think that such a small thing wouldn’t be housing a gas-powered engine. But it does. You could go online, check its specs, and see that it gets a “respectable” number of miles per gallon, but it’s still a product that is dependent fossil fuels. The Smart Car looks great, it looks ecologically mindful, but so what?
Marketers, regardless of the product, are concerned about attaining public attention, keeping that attention, and influencing perception. If vehicles that do not require fossil fuels become, in the collective mindset, an “acceptable” and “normal” choice, then more people are apt to buy an electric car or to convert their diesel engine to run on vegetable oil. The “green” alternatives to the petroleum-dependent vehicle have been around for years, but with the turbulent mix of guilt, denial, and financial insecurity, to take a risk and move away from the familiar may feel, strangely or not so strangely, unbearable.
It appears that this world needs a new collective mindset, a shift in the momentum of public thought, so that choosing alternative, sustainable and earth-friendly forms of transportation isn’t perceived as taking a risk into unfamiliar territory. Or maybe people in general are already stronger than that; maybe the general population truly has had enough of living in ways that so clearly destroy the very planet of which they are inextricably, beautifully, a part.
What is your favorite form of “green” transportation, car or otherwise?
Personally, I imagine living in a city where the public transportation is clean, quiet, and safe; planned, designed, and structured so that no one would need a car at all (even when needing to travel outside of the city). Cities connected by light rail. Everything electric, powered by wind. No more cars. A lot more trees. Is this dream so unrealistic? Socially, we would be forced to look more closely at our long-held patterns of isolation. Psychologically, we would probably struggle at first, but with a revised sense of sharing an urban space, there would be the possibility of mental and emotional benefits derived from a renewed idea of community, a collaborative sense of accountability and intention centered not around consuming but sharing.
Part Five of What Does “Going Green” Really Mean?
Links
No Gas Required
“Would You Use Veggie Oil to Fuel Your Vehicle?”
2 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
I’ve been thinking about some of these questions as well, especially in light of some recent critiques of ethnanol and other biofuels. And again, electricity is only a clean energy source when it is generated by clean energy… I would have to say that it seems the old-fashioned answer is the best one: live, work and travel close to home; and walk, bicycle and take public transportation whenever possible. I remember having a conversation with someone from Germany, who noted that electricity prices in North America were too cheap and didn’t reflect the true cost of power. I wonder how our energy use would change if we had to pay more?
The concept and actuality of the suburban life seems antithetical to the idea of sustainability, considering the levels of traffic congestion between major urban centers and their outlying, and not so outlying, areas. The developer’s dream is the earth’s nightmare.
I figure that if enough energy-based vices are exposed (through an increase in what we pay, as you mentioned) then we’ll be forced to make changes. If the situation is absolutely financially insurmountable, then the general population will look for alternatives. What do you think has the most potential to influence positive change — further astronomical increases in the price of petrol, or a sense of responsibility to the earth? My hunch is that it’s, sadly, the former.
Yes, thank you for the implicit reminder that every solution seems to have a not-so pretty side. I want to trust that it’s in the continued analysis and dialogue that the public will find (and return to) healthier ways of living. I want to believe in the culture’s ability to make necessary changes before hitting rock bottom, before it’s too late to make those changes to achieve lasting positive effects.
Was it Robert Desnos was wrote something like, “Technological advancement doesn’t mean that things are improving”?
I was recently shown a digital image taken not too long ago of a scene in Amsterdam: Two rows of bicycles one night during a bar crawl; dozens and dozens of bicycles on either side of a narrow road, tires leaning against the buildings. My heart cycled with joy.