Comments on: GQ: You Can’t Save the Planet

By: JREnthusiast

JREnthusiast — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:58:22 +0000

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!

By: Nick DiGiacomo

Nick DiGiacomo — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:39:07 +0000

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.

By: Max Gladwell

Max Gladwell — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 21:50:37 +0000

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.

By: Nick DiGiacomo

Nick DiGiacomo — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:18:05 +0000

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?