Loading ...
GQ magazine writes a green compilation feature with a skeptical tone and some pragmatic advice.
We confess that we subscribe to GQ magazine. Otherwise, we probably wouldn’t have see this article. To be clear, though, it’s not something we paid for. The subscription was part of a frequent-flier-mile exchange, where the miles were expiring. And we do have some fashionistas in the family who enjoy keeping up with style trends. So each month we skim it for green-themed stories and typically find nothing. This month’s issue made up for it with the feature story, “You Can’t Save the Planet: But if can eat better than you ever have, travel like you’ve always wanted to, and surround yourself with beautiful things — and still help out with the environment. Just follow GQ‘s smug-free guide to living green.”
As admitted outsiders to the green movement, GQ provides an interesting perspective. “We can’t pinpoint the exact moment in this past year when the green movement crossed the line from admirable to ridiculous,” they say. GQ seems to be echoing some of the sentiments of Indecision Green: too much green noise and greenwash is leading to green fatigue and frustration. So GQ quotes from a range of sources and presents some practical solutions aimed at its style-conscious readership. They’re clearly not preaching to the choir, so it can make a difference.
The headline may come across as a baiting tactic for angry letters to the editor, but we think there’s more to it. As they say, “Major life decisions made from a place of fear, anxiety, or moral superiority are almost never sustainable.” Instead of “saving the planet”, what if we “tried to think more holistically about our relationship to our space and our stuff? What if we considered ideas from people we might not always agree with? Beyond the politics and the hysteria, living green can actually make your own life richer. And it’s not about denial or sacrifice; it’s simply making everything in your life–what you eat, what you drive, where you live–better.”
The article sets up with a short piece about consumption: “It’s hard to believe that we can solve a problem of overconsumption simply by consuming ‘greener’ products. A better solution is to try to see the beauty in consuming less.” This can’t jive well with too many of GQ‘s advertisers, each of whom want readers to consume more.
The adjacent sidebar, though, makes a case that buying expensive stuff is green in and of itself. If it’s “more expensive…you’re less likely to throw it away when your needs and tastes change.” And “you can always sell [it] or give it away to another design-conscious consumer. Higher quality means more durability means you consume less.” In this case, it’s a $319 chair. So this may not be a universal principle but rather a case-by-case consideration, based on the materials used in the product and one’s ability to afford such things.
On the same page, GQ endorses a LivingHomes pad as opposed to a McMansion. “It shows how sustainable living isn’t just an imperative; it’s about treating yourself right.” No coincidence that this is also one of our top-10 ways to conspicious conservation.
Next, GQ dispells with some of the “eat organic” myths and advocates eating locally, reasoning that “smaller farmers probably do things the right way: naturally, ethically, nontoxically.” A quote from Dan Barber, chef-owner of Blue Hill restaurant and Blue Hill at Stone Barns, states that “the organic label is starting to mean nothing. It does nothing for the organic movement to feed dairy cattle organic grain when they’re not meant to be fed grain. It’s unhealthy for them and us.”
On the transportation side, the Prius does not meet with GQ‘s design or performance specs. Instead, they recommend a Mercedes E320 BluTech diesel (26/32 mpg), a Porsche Cayman (20/29 mpg), or an Mini Cooper S (26/34 mpg). Or just wait for the Chevy Volt. In the sidebar, Virgin chairman Richard Branson speaks for entrepreneurs. “It’s up to business to come up with the inventions that enable people to still enjoy a good lifestyle. I’m just finishing converting Necker Island, an island I own in the Caribbean. It’ll be 100 percent carbon-neutral. The cost of putting in windmills will be paid back in four and a half years. And after that, we’ll have free fuel going forward for the next fifty years. Going green shouldn’t cost you.”
In a “Reality Check” chart, GQ covers five of the top green issues:
1. Water: Support Matt Damon’s H2O Africa. Curiously, no mention of bottled water and how we shouldn’t use it. Might have been an advertiser conflict.
2. Energy-Efficient Appliances: Energy Star is the way to go, but just shutting off those we’re not using is the cheaper and easier solution.
3. Solar: Too expensive for typical home use, so wait until the price comes down (they say).
4. Ethanol: Indirectly destroying rain forests. No mention of cellulosics or importing sugar-cane ethanol from Brazil, each of which needs more political support.
5. Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs (CFLs): Cut energy usage by 75 percent compared to incandescents, but most are made in Asia. Would be curious to see how many incandescents are made in the U.S. ‘Seems that most of these types of things are made in China. No mention of the mercury issue, which is made moot by the fact that a coal-fired power plant emits many times the amount of mercury found in a CFL directly into the atmosphere with all of the energy wasted by incandescents.
Finally, GQ aligns with us on the opinion that “green” means more than being eco-friendly and combatting climage change. It’s about living better as citizens of planet earth and supporting causes such as The Red Cross, Oxfam International, Safe Darfur, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, National Coalition for the Homeless, and Care.org.
As far as its claim of being “smug-free”, the jury is still out. Is it possible for anything that GQ writes to be completely free of smugness? What do you think?
4 responses so far ↓
1 Nick DiGiacomo // Jun 22, 2008 at 12:18 pm
GQ’s approach may be closer to the mark that it first appears.
The planet, after all, has done quite well for itself over the last few billion years. Species come and go, lava, ice, CO2, methane appear and disappear, and the planet just keeps on keeping on. Even the most anthropomorphic among us can’t possibly believe that the earth will give up the ghost in despair if we find a way to shorten our (so far very short) stay.
Living responsibly (which includes worrying about climate change) is, at its core, about “save your lifestyle”. We like the planet the way we found it, and we want it to stay that way. We like the beaches and cities where they are, and the temperatures the way we remember them.
In fact, “save your lifestyle” may turn out to be a more effective call to action for responsible living than “save the planet” – simply because it appeals to blatant self-interest instead of altruism.
And what more appropriate pulpit from which to broadcast a “save your lifestyle” sermon than GQ?
2 Max Gladwell // Jun 22, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Nick: We’re with you 100%. “Save the planet” is another way of saying “save ourselves” or “save the planet for our own sake.” The planet will be just fine. It’s us that we’re worried about.
Saving our lifestyle is possible, but it’s not going to happen merely by switching to CFLs and driving a Prius. It requires a bottom-up movement that demands better leadership and less influence from entrenched interests like coal, oil, and (yes) the military industrial complex. It requires top-down policies that eliminate waste in government and the private sector by ending corporate welfare programs for wasteful, polluting industries.
A cost needs to be placed on waste and pollution. Every gallon of gasoline and every plastic water bottle should include a fee for the damage they inflict on us and the environments in which we live. Only then will the necessary changes take place that will assure our continued lifestyle. Only then will we start to design things differently and build a clean-energy economy.
More on that in a bit…
3 Nick DiGiacomo // Jun 22, 2008 at 5:39 pm
The challenge in leading with the phrase “save the planet” is that many thoughtful people take that literally, and dismiss those who use it as naive and presumptious – no matter how sound the underlying warnings.
For the things you list to happen, a critical mass of the world’s population has to feel the “lifestyle cost” at a personal level.
Expressing the pain in abstract and altruistic terms that relate to the planet just won’t reach the people who are most self-interested – either because they have much and want to keep it that way, or have little and are just want to survive.
To paraphrase P. T. Barnum, no one ever went broke overestimating the self-interest of the American people.
4 JREnthusiast // Jun 24, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I’m considering joining the World Wealth Society, a group started by thought leader, James Arthur Ray (I’m a big fan) and wanted to see if anyone had any tips or info about going carbon neutral as a business owner. One of the requirements of the society is, as a business owner, to take your company carbon neutral and to set up an environmental policy. I’m totally onboard, but frankly, I’m a little intimidated and would love to hear from some other business owners who have done this and what the costs and time commitments are to make this happen. James talks about why we need to do this in his book, Harmonic Wealth (check out the Relationship chapter – as in relationship with the world! – on page 133), but I’d love some more specifics. If you are interested, check out his website: http://www.jamesray.com or http://www.harmonicwealth.com.
Thanks!
Leave a Comment