1. When will people stop treating environmental organizations as if they are children? The doom and gloom vs self-interest is a well-worn discussion in environmental circles and among environmental behavior researchers. The environment is NOT a product that can be branded and made cool. If all it took was a good marketing strategy to make green cool we'd be much further along than we are now.

2. This article conflates "cool" with money saving, and then doesn't even bother to assess the problems with the money saving argument.

One fact of life needs to become a green-movement mantra: Wastefulness carries a financial burden. For everyone. Each of us has a selfish interest in ensuring that as few of us waste as possible - whether it's energy, environmental resources, or lightbulbs.

By focusing on the economic benefits of going green, hitting people where it counts (in their wallets), environmentalists can make environmentalism part of everyday life, rather than a passing fad, or simply a lovely but abstract idea.

Um in case the author hadn't noticed not all environmental actions are money saving at present, and there are MANY environmentally destructive options that are cheaper. To address the example used in this article: The premium paid for a Pruis may pencil out over the life of the car if you own it the whole time and gas prices rise, but for if you're interested in saving money you're better off buying a cheaper high MPG conventional car. And what planet does this author live on where "everyone" understands that that wastefullness "carries a financial burden?" Ever heard of free-riders? the commons? Our system is setup explicitly to obscure those burdens.

Branding green as cool is not going to do much to the price of green products and it is unlikely to do anything to internalize the environmental costs that often make other products less cheap. Environmentalists aren't very influential when it comes to "hitting people where it counts" It's regulations and incentives that can shift the balance of pocket pain to favor the environment, and environmentalists have been calling for that kind of change for decades.

sorry for the rant, guess I'm kind of cranky. Coffee was weak this morning.

Furthermore, arguing that we ought to just give-in to the dominate attitudes of the age, no matter how corrupt, will result in our own moral decay.  By embracing narrow self-interest as the sole or primary justification for our behavior, we are teaching ourselves that these kinds of consideration are always primary.  The result is that we start thinking about justice in purely economic terms, e.g., the reason we should oppose the war on drugs is because it is too expensive, or the reason we should oppose the death penalty is the it is too expensive, or the reason we should oppose the war in Iraq is because it is too expensive.  The problem with this view, of course, is that if we could lower the cost, we would no longer have any reason to oppose these issues.  (The issues I mention are merely examples; it makes no difference which issue is mentioned).

It is true that environmentalists by appealing to narrow self interest might be able to provide sufficient short term incentives to get people to do what is needed.  I fear that the long term consequence could be that we destroy any viable concept of justice.

L Mo

The article itself is poorly written and poorly researched; the text skips all over the place, drops a bunch of buzzwords and cliches and then at the end of it all, suddenly we're told that wastefulness is a financial burden and we should all be selfish, which will make us cool.

I interpreted Chip's comment along the lines of what we have discussed here in Gristmill of status-seeking humans;  we cannot possibly change our status-seeking ways, so we need to change the definition of what implies status, for example a Prius instead of a Hummer.  How does that equate to being selfish and saving money?

If saving money were really so cool, no one would live in Manhattan, a city that one could arguably label as "cool."

I think there was a point buried in the piece somewhere - it would be great for the environmental movement if wastefulness was deemed "uncool" and people's status-seeking behaviors turned to ways to conserve.  However this has nothing to do with money; status and money, although often linked, are not the same thing.

While "preservationism" is GREAT for parks and wilderness, it's a recipe for disaster on high-graded and overstocked forests. Embracing destructive fire instead of careful management of endangered species habitat is another example of extreme selfishness. Groups like the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity still have this "zero cut" agenda that is the epitome of "selfishness", burying their heads in the sand with NIMBYism while cozily snuggled in their open-beamed ceiling homes in the woods. Again, are you part of the problem, or part of the solution, thinking globally and acting locally?!?

Don't get me wrong, though. I thank those far-sighted "preservationists" for creating wilderness areas and National Parks, as well as protecting precious old growth. Yes, there ARE timber folks like me who DO see the big picture, having worked with conscientious "ologists", who are progressive enough to speak up, as well as listen.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

I did not get this either when we were discussing sacrifice, like using mass transportation instead of individual vehicles, figuring the enviro movement was better off encouraging a future where humans do not need to sacrafice convenience.

The wake up call from the progressive city dwellers was that they actually want to sacrifice personally for the cause.  Using less energy, consuming less, eating locally grown food instead of off season imports that use fuel, stuff like that.

This call for altruistic sacrifice actually boosts support, go figure.  And a future where energy consumption per person is cut in half is much easier, quicker, and cheaper.

Altruism is cool?  Yep, it's zen.  And zen will always be the heart of cool.  The path of enlightenment is the main thing, not all the possesions and consumption along the way, that only weighs one down.

Cynical self interest is just plain ugly.  who wants to lead an ugly life?  Hummer drivers, McMansioneers, corporate jetseters; these folk are just uncool, unzen.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Look at this way.  For people who aren't farmers or hunters, their concern for the environment usually begins with roadside litter. Remember that teary Indian in 70's PSA's?  Hey you selfish garbage-thrower, you're making that Indian cry!

Though understanding of environmental good has progressed far beyond eliminating litter within the movement, outside the movement the theme is the same. Just a year or two ago a very expensive sophisticated ad agency did an Earth Day campaign here in my city.  Its theme was the same old crying Indian thing: feel guilty.

The problem with that message is that, like with sex, prudery doesn't inspire.  It just drives negative behaviors into the background.  We need a message that's positive, one that's more about the fabulous world we could GAIN if we act right, not the one we could lose.  To give a tiny example, I want to live in a world where there are bats and butterflies and dragonflies in my urban yard... not just ants and rats. It's taken me 5 years of gardening but they're here now.

There's already one field out there where people understand this deeply.  It's with their houses.  All sorts of people will buy beater houses and work tirelessly (sacrifice) to fix them up.  They understand their dream house is years off but they still do it.  So I agree with an earlier commentator, calls to altruism, to do hard things, can be inspiring.  People just need to have a picture of where they're going.

To the extent the Philly article pushes things ever so slightly in that direction, it helps.

If environmentalism is to thrive it has to harness the core driving reasons as to why we do what we do - self interest.  

Even giving ones own life to aid another can still be considered an act of self interest.

In educating and promoting environmentalism the focus has to be on "what's in it for me?" -otherwise no one will care.  

Simply stating "ice caps are melting due to global warming from green house gas emissions" is not enough to get most people motivated.

Rephrasing this to say "ice caps are melting due to global warming from green house gas emissions - THIS MEANS YOU WILL NOT HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE BECAUSE IT WILL BE FLOODED, YOU WILL NOT HAVE CLEAN AIR TO BREATH AND CLEAN WATER TO DRINK - STOP POLLUTING THE EARTH NOW - Here are some key points you can do to do this" - is more effective to get actual action out of people.

It is one thing to get a reaction from your audience, it is another to get them to get an action.

The Selfish Environmentalist,

geocites.com/theselfishenvironmentalist