Here's how it could be a bad thing: people use this as an excuse to buy more things, or use it as an excuse not to do some other good thing they were going to do.

You assume the latter. As far as I can tell, that assumption is based entirely on your dyspeptic view of human nature in general and your fellow Americans in particular. Am I wrong? Is there something else, some evidence or something?

grist.org

I get that this isn't going to be a grand solution to our problems, but what I want -- for once! -- is a plausible story about how it's going to make anything worse -- increase consumerism, reduce activism, something. And if it's not going to make anything worse, I would like to know what justifies the self-righteous contempt poured on every such effort by enviros -- who, one might think, would be interested in pulling people in rather than crapping on people who aren't already on board.

grist.org

Working for personal consumption of crap is two-thirds of the economy and of the carbon.  All things 'green' are a distraction from the carbon crisis, or at best, just irrelevant.  Marketing green is an oxymoron.

Fortunately, it's not human nature that prevents us from saving the world but our destructive culture, and cultures can change--as ours is in the process of doing. Maybe not quickly enough, of course. Who knows if we have time--we might've been in overshoot for decades already, for all I know--but there could never be enough time as long as most people think human nature is the problem.

"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith

I also love how enviros throw around the 'need for people to consume less' as if it's as easily done as said: "Excuse me, Sir? Could you adopt a new paradigm? And get it done tonight? Thanks."

We've got to get on top of this paradigm thing, and we need to think much harder about what consumption means to people... and we'll never understand it if we're looking down our noses at people whose choices have been different than ours. People have reasons for what they do. You or I might be right, but that doesn't make us better. Fretting about the great unwashed becoming complacent is just as indulgent as buying a designer shopping bag.

Actually, when I first read that letter, I somehow came away with the impression that they had indicated the carbon footprint of every product listed. Now that would be paradigm-shifting.

1-800 CONTACTS
1-800-FLOWERS.com
1-800-PetMeds
123inkjets.com
4inkjets.com!
A&E/History Channel Store
Ace Hardware
Activa Sports
Adidas
Alibris.com
Alloy.com
Amazing Clubs
American Blinds
American Eagle Outfitters
Ann Taylor
Ann Taylor LOFT
Apple
Armani Exchange
Atlas Pen & Pencil
audible.com
Avon.com
Babies R' Us
BabyAge
Bacario.com
Back to Basics Toys
Banana Republic
Bare Necessities
Barnes & Noble.com
Bass Pro Shops
Bealls
Beauty.com
Bellacor
Best Western
BestBuy.com
Blair
Blinds.com
Bloomingdale's
Blue Dolphin Group
Blue Nile
Bluefly.com
BoatersWorld.com
BodenUSA.com
BodyBuilding.com
Boscov's
Bose
Boston Proper
Breck's
Brooks Brothers
Brookstone
Brylane Home
Buckle
Buy.com
BuyCostumes.com
Cabelas.com
Calyx & Corolla
Cambridge Soundworks
Camping World
Carrot Ink
Casual Male XL
CATHERINES
CBSSportsStore
Chadwick's
Championcatalog.com
Charles Tyrwhitt
CHEFS
Cheryl & Co.
Chinaberry
Choice Hotels
Circuit City
Coldwater Creek
Collectibles Today
Collections Etc.
Comp USA
Competitive Cyclist
Computers4Sure
Converse.com
Country Inns & Suites
Crate and Barrel
Crutchfield
Cutter & Buck
Dale and Thomas Popcorn
Dancing Deer Baking Company
Danskin
David's Cookies
Dean & Deluca
dELiAs.com
Dell Home Systems
Dell Small Business
Design Within Reach
DesignerLinensOutlet.com
DesignerShoes.com
Dick's Sporting Goods
Dirt Devil
Discounted Newspapers
Discovery Store
DisneyShopping.com
DKNY
Dockers Shoes
Domestications
drugstore.com
Duncraft
Dutch Gardens
Eastbay
Eastern Mountain Sports
eBags.com
eBay
eCost.com
Eddie Bauer
Eddie Bauer Outlet
Edmund Scientific
eLUXURY.com
Endless.com
ESPN Shop
ESPRIT
eToys.com
Factory Card
FansEdge.com
FAO Schwarz
Fashion Bug
figleaves.com
FineStationary.com
Fingerhut
Finish Line
Florsheim
FlowerStore.com
Flying Noodle
folica.com
Foot Locker
FootSmart
Fossil
Four Points By Sheraton
FragranceNet.com
Franklin Covey
FranklinMint.com
Fromyouflowers.com
FTD.com
Fujitsu
Fuller Brush Co.
Gaiam
gap.com
Gardener's Supply Company
Gardens Alive
Geeks.com
Get Organized
Gevalia
GiftBaskets.com
GiftCertificates.com
GNC.com
Godiva.com
Golfballs.com
GolfSmith
Gotfruit.com
Gurney's
H&R Block
Half.com
Hallmark.com
Hammacher Schlemmer
Harry and David
Hat World/Lids
HearthSong
Hello Direct
Hickory Farms
Hilton Hotels
Hobby Tron
Home Decorators Collection
Homeclick
homedepot.com
Hot Topic
Hotels.com
HP Home & Office Store
HP Small Business
hsn.com
ICE.com
Illuminations
Internet Florist
iRobot.com
Irv's Luggage Warehouse
Isabella
iTunes.com
J&R Computer/Music World
Jackson & Perkins
JC Whitney
JCPenney.com
Jessica London
JewelryTelevision.com
Joann.com
Jockey.com
Johnston & Murphy
Jos. A. Bank
Journeys
JourneysKidz
JustMySize.com
Kaplan Test Prep
KBtoys.com
Kiehl's Since 1851
King Size Direct
Kmart.com
Kodak.com

Kohl's
La Redoute
Lancome
Lands' End
LandscapeUSA.com
Lane Bryant
Lane Bryant Catalog
LEGO Shop at Home
Lenox.com
Lerner Catalog
Lillian Vernon
Limoges Jewelry
Linens n' Things
Lingo
Little Tikes
Liz Claiborne
Lucky Brand Jeans
Luggage Online
MacMall
Macys.com
Magazineline.com
Magazines.com
Magellan's
Magic Cabin
Marriott
Martha's Flowers
Michigan Bulb
Midnight Velvet
Mikasa
MLB.com
Modell's
Mondera.com, Inc.
Montana Legend
Montgomery Ward
Movielink
Mrs. Beasley's
MrsFields.com
Music123.com
Musician's Friend
NASCAR.com Superstore
National Geographic
Netflix
New York & Company
newegg.com
NFLShop.com
NHL Shop
Nike.com
Nirvana Chocolates
Nordstrom.com
Northern Tool
NutriSystem
OfficeDepot.com
Officefurniture.com
OfficeMax.com
oldnavy.com
Omaha Steaks
One Step Ahead
OneHanesPlace.com
Onlineshoes.com
Oriental Trading Company
Origins
Orvis
Overstock.com
Overtons.com
Pacific Sunwear
PajamaGram
Panasonic
Park Inn
Patagonia
Paul Fredrick
Payless Shoe Source
PC Connection
PCMall
Peet's Coffee & Tea
People PC Online
Performance Bike
Personal Creations
PersonalizationMall.com
PetCareCentral.com
PETCO
PetFoodDirect.com
PetSmart.com
Pfaelzer Brothers
Philips
Piperlime
Pitney Bowes
Plow & Hearth
Pro Golf
ProFlowers
PurchaseTix.com
Puritan's Pride
Quikbook
QVC.com
Radisson
RedEnvelope
Reebok Store
Regent International Hotels
REI.com
RitzCamera.com
Ritzpix.com
Road Runner Sports
Roaman's
ROOTS
Ross-Simons
Safeway.com
SeaBear Smokehouse
Sears.com
Sensational Beginnings
Sephora.com
Seventh Avenue
Sheraton
Shoebuy.com
ShoeMall.com
Shoes.com
shopbop.com
ShopNBC.com
Shutterfly.com
Sierra Club
Sierra Trading Post
Silhouettes
Simple Shoes
SkinStore.com
SmartBargains.com
SmileMakers.com
Smith & Hawken
Solutions Catalog
Sony
Spa Finder
Speedo
Stacks and Stacks
Stamps.com
Staples.com
StarbucksStore.com
StarDecorating.com
Stonewall Kitchen
Sunglass Hut
Sur La Table
Swell.com
Szul
T-Mobile
Target.com
TaxBrain
Taylor Gifts
Tech Depot
Teleflora
Terry's Village
Teva
TGW.com
The Body Shop
The Bombay Company
The Children's Place
The Company Store
The Home Marketplace
The Inside Store
The Popcorn Factory
The Scholastic Store Online
The Sharper Image
The Sports Authority
The Swiss Colony
Things Remembered
Thrifty Car Rental
TigerDirect.com
Timberland
Tire Rack
TiVo
Toshiba.com
Toys R' Us
uBid.com
UGG Australia
Ulla Popken
UncommonGoods.com
Underground Station
ValueMags.com
Vanns
Verizon Wireless
Vermont Teddy Bear
VintageTub.com
Vision Direct
Vistaprint
Vivre
Vonage
Vons.com
Walmart.com
Waterford.com
WeightWatchers.com
West Marine
Westin
Wilsons Leather
Wine Enthusiast
Wine.com
WolfCamera
YOOX.com
YourKidsDirect
Zales
ZAPPOS.com
ZIRH
Zones.com

" eliminate the global warming impact of the purchase" ????  Seriously questionable.  

There are more dimensions to consuming than global warming.  I'd like to see these internet sales companies collecting state sales taxes on all those purchases that would support our rapidly declining public school systems.  A bunch of non critical consumers ain't going to help the cause.    
 

Continuing to consider it as central to environmental advocacy, therefore, seems like a lot of wasted energy, especially now that sciences like green chemistry and engineering will soon lead to true cradle-to-cradle design: goods that easily break apart to recombine into other goods, or organic and easy to handle waste.  

That will take care of the "too much stuff" side of the "voluntary simplicity" argument.  What's left once that's gone?  Moral opinion.  I guess everyone's entitled to at least one.

egertz AT oneatlantic DOT net

A cultural revolution on consumption is not likely.  Consumers are more likely to be encumbered by credit from China, Murdoch's war with Iran, the Bush Nero syndrome, or some other random change.  

Offsets, efficiencies, renewables are great rhetorical topics but will not reduce carbon emissions anytime soon enough.

My reactive response is to shut down coal and let the chips fall where they may.  

A lot of people who heard Al Gore say that the climate crisis is really a moral crisis don't seem to understand the implications of that statement.

If you think that the alternate paths before us, in broad strokes, ultimately boil down to more business as usual (consumption-driven, economic "growth" [planetary liquidation actually, but recorded as growth by our autistic economists], extirpation of species, etc.) vs. a radical reordering of priorities (starting with recognition of the exceedingly stressed nature of the all-too finite biosphere and willing to see ourselves and not just others as contributors to that stress), and if you think that one path is ethically bankrupt and that the other is not, then you are likely to become most sensitive to precisely those things that act like the latter but are actually the former.

Look through that list of companies a few times.  Which of those are in a sustainable future?  Anyone giving resources to those companies is voting for those companies to prosper and continue  shoveling coal into the runaway train of consumer culture.

You label this "attitude" self-righteous, and that's fine.  I see calling out greenwashing and those who sell the seduction of "saving the planet through shopping" as an ethical duty; like most such duties, it's not about being popular.  The people who report pedophiliac priests were/are not popular, but they are acting ethically.  Maybe even self-righteously.

The 5% Project

Now, should we reward these people for a couple of green marketing attempts by buying a bunch of %#$!! we don't need?  Absolutely not.  But if we support them when we buy things we do need--and make a point to access them through their green marketing programs so they see the connection--we send a message that there is profit in caring about the world.  And I think we all agree that that's a good message to send.

(The three businesses are 1-800-PetMeds, 123InkJet, and Half.com if anyone was wondering.  Those last two kept FreeDonation.com running pretty much by themselves for six or seven years before it finally collapsed.)

And yeah, there are some big businesses up there, like Starbucks.  But as trendy and commercial as it is, Starbucks is a pretty nonmalevolent corporation, as corporations go.  They go to a great deal of effort to make sure the farmers who grow their coffee reap some of the benefits of their success--and as I understand it, the life of most coffee farmers frankly sucks something unmentionable in polite company.  But Starbucks pays far more for their coffee than the market average to help reduce these people's poverty, and even does things like build schools in regions where their coffee is grown.  If they seem to be interested in working to minimize their environmental impact, I'm willing to accept that they're sincere about that, at least until I see compelling evidence to the contrary.

And even some of the businesses that we usually think of as inherently evil--e.g., NASCAR and Wal-Mart--have been going to efforts to clean up their act at least somewhat.  Does that undo the environmental harm they do?  Of course not.  But it means they're moving, however slowly, in the right direction.  It means that someone at those companies either cares about the earth, or thinks there's a profit in appearing to care about the earth (which can amount to nearly the same thing).  We need to encourage this.  Extending a little good will, giving them a little validation, and at the very least, not attacking them for it...  We can take these tiny seeds of benevolence, and help them grow into something that will actually make a difference.  They might decide the steps they've taken are worth following up, and other corporations may be encouraged to follow their lead.  And then, when we point out that what they're doing still isn't enough, it will come across as a challenge rather than an attack.

We can, as consumers, move our consumer culture toward something that at least vaguely resembles sustainability; it's going to take time, and it's going to move in baby steps.  But there's something you have to realize about baby steps:  When a baby starts taking them, the thing to do is applaud him, and tell him what a big strong boy he is, and generally be the loving, patronizing parent.  If all you do is deride him for not being able to make a 100-yard-dash yet, he'll be back to crawling tomorrow.

Green marketing programs like this are baby steps for some of these businesses.  But encouraging them can help them learn to walk--and we desperately need them to learn that, if we're going to survive the next century or so.

And very exclusive ones too, as you note, in that record-breaking quote. : )  Too bad the irony was so little appreciated.

As for your being a "dyspeptic pessimist," never mind, that charge cannot stand.  It is at once refuted by all the energy and love that you clearly put into writing.

On another matter, it saddens me that that great prophet Sunflower should have been put off by the generosity of an old man collecting discarded bottles, and by the good-heartedness of the woman disturbed by the killing of gorillas.  Just because those two fine persons are not prepared yet to preach the gospel of the supremely looming danger of global warming, does not mean they should not be warmly welcomed to sing in our (hopefully) polyphonic choir.

Oh well, that happens often enough with even the greatest prophets.  They are out in the desert more than a normal person can stand, the Sun does something bad to their eyes, and their head turns a bit funny.

But just for a while.  They tend to come back to their senses, by and by.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

So, the topic of this post is very relevant from the standpoint of furthering the globalization of commerce.  Your purchases from these companies may be helping a wee bit on a global level, but what does it do toward weaning us off the globalization stampede and helping your local communities?  

The moral and ethical issues involved in trade extend much deeper than computing our CO2 footprint.  If localization is a real goal in building sustainability then we really need to think about internet commerce.  What kind of jobs and job skills is this system generating and where?  Does it select for the kind of skills, crafts, etc. that will be needed in a sustainable world, in the development of local economies?  

Does being able to sit at your computer and command the movement of goods from around the globe to your doorstep reinforce a cornucopian world view?  

http://the-seed-project.org

I just moved to a new apartment, and though I have very little stuff (according to my delighted friends), I still feel like I have too much. So I'm going on a "stuff" diet.

For a couple of years, a friend got rid of one item every day. It couldn't be something that was new and he'd get rid of anyway (like a magazine from last month), it had to be something that he'd had for a while (like a three-year-old magazine). I think I'm going to do that every week, and see where that gets me. Anyone care to join me?

On the one hand, I'm often dismayed at how every proposed solution to our problems has its imperfections exposed and is subsequently dismissed as having no value. In fact, although imperfect, many of these ideas often have substantial merit in moving us toward our goals.

On the other hand, Americans are gluttonous consumers without peer. Glorifying, encouraging, justifying....however you care to characterize it, this project strikes me as greenwashing to the -nth degree. And our "consumer culture", beyond being inarguably one of the most important contributors to the global environmental crisis in so many ways, is also the envy of much of the world in so many other ways. And its export threatens to become the ruin of the world (Darth Cheney's non-negtotiation stance notwithstanding).

DR is on a serious anti-coal jag these days. Justifiably so, without question. But the export of our "way of life" to places like China and India will mean that they will almost certainly engage in a dramatic ramping up of their coal consumption, not to mention other problematic aspects of becoming us.

So while I agree that many of us are often too hard on reasonable proposals for change, and I believe I have taken issue with the one JMG in some like instances, I think DR could have chosen a more defensible prospect to defend.

By the way JMG, could you have borrowed the "shoveling coal" metaphor from the author Brian Czech? If so, have you read his similarly titled book, and can you recommend it? I have had my eye on it for some time, and it strikes me from your postings that you are of a like mind on such things.

Indeed, all it does is divert some consumer dollars to a good cause.

grist.org

He coined the term "Financial Obesity" to describe the situation of people being so money-bound -- way beyond what they could actually use (digest) that they become sort of immobile...unable to really participate at a human level in society and so just go around the world flinging things this way and that either trying to get sympathy or just making a nuisance of themselves (almost all celebrity has-beens featured in the html of Grist fit that category).

My rejoinder to him was that perhaps we need a new twist on an old saw:

"You can't be too poor, or too thin."

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

I do highly recommend it ("Shoveling Coal on a Runaway Train" by Brian Czech), although I have some reservations about some of his prescriptions.  Still, a worthwhile antidote to so much of the sludge sold under the label of "economics" today.

The 5% Project

Jones above said that if we calculated "the carbon footprint of every product listed. Now that would be paradigm-shifting." Well, we do calculate it for every purchase and then we offset that footprint with a basket of renewable energy and pollution prevention investments. Both the calculation and the offsets are vetted by a coalition of the world's best-known environmental groups.

Enuf with the mechanics - here's the strategy: To make sure that, somewhere in consumer-land, there is a brand that signals real action on climate, and:

• Communicates the global warming impact of consumer goods & services (40% of the average American's carbon footprint) with integrity,
  
• Offsets the impacts of consumption with the highest quality investments in renewable, efficiency, and pollution prevention that really reduce emissions and make a difference in real people's lives, and
  
• Drives the global warming impact of production down because the less they emit, the less retailers and manufacturers pay us for offsets and the more Cooler's members love them.
  

In the coming years, we are all going to be inundated with global-warming marketing. Without Cooler, those claims could eventually become as meaningless as those made about the healthiness of various snacks. With Cooler, and ongoing collaboration with the environmental community, there's a beacon in the marketplace for quality and a platform for powerful consumer action.

PS: there's a stealth strategy too...the guidelines for every offset dollar we collect are set by our environmental partners. If, with your help, we get to scale, that means tens of millions of intentional dollars into a carbon offset market desperately in need of a conscience.

If you attack people, almost all of them will go into defensive mode, and, once they're on the defensive, they're unlikely to listen to anything you say. If you approach them with some humility, on the other hand, acknowledging the simple fact that none of us created the system that's eating the world alive and all of us participate in it to one degree or another, you can find common ground and begin to work together to improve things.

I disagree with you and Al Gore about the value of treating the climate crisis--or any other aspect of our ecological crisis--as a moral or ethical issue. That sort of rhetoric only works with those who are already inclined to agree with  you; those who aren't already inclined to agree will simply engage you in an argument about it which cannot be won by you or by them.

We were all born into a cultural system that by its very nature is destructive to the world, a locomotive that has 10,000 years of momentum built up--and there's simply no way to stop it quickly. If we're to stop the train at all, we have to stop treating the other passengers who don't yet realize we're heading off a cliff as enemies and recognize that they're victims here, too.

"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith

Then, I want someone to tell me why spending disposable income (the definition of consumerism) on envied, high status, but really small, super efficient homes with technology, like PV and passive solar integrated with their pricey plug-in hybrid car and bikes, which they don't use much because they telecommute with high speed Internet, all run entirely off zero carbon sustainable energy also purchased by said consumers would be a bad thing?

It is what you choose to buy, not so much that you choose to buy.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Raising money to decarbonize the grid is inarguably a good thing.  However, climatecooler doesn't help make the smartest choice that the purchase might not be necessary, that it might be purchasing wage slavery to boot, that beside the ghg, it might harm air and water supplies and other natural resources, keeps hidden how (given a good ghg footprint estimate) the ghg fee charged the seller is calculated.  Climatecooler looks green to me in the sense that in every good greenwash there is a grain of green.

Beside the footprint $#, explain how the new footprint can harm the economy and destabilize society, despite the seller's fee, and charge twice the calculation because the one purchase might lead someone else to make an additional purchase of the same thing.  Take the buyer through a few questions about whether the purchase is necessary to begin with, or whether purchasing a recycled item would suffice and where to do that, and how much better it would be to put all the money into decarbonizing the grid.  That might green it up, ask the participating merchants if they have a problem with that.  Coolerclimate now seems more like a tool for marketers to mine information than an environmentally green thing to join.

Mitigation will never replace the biodiversity lost from the destruction of natural ecosystems.  

And the appeal to peoples' senses of morals and ethics should offend only those who are closed to such appeals.  There can be no denying that there is a strong moral and ethical component of our environmental crisis.  Changed people change culture.  There should be moral and ethical involvement in our consumption decisions.  I don't need an intermediary footprint bookkeeper to help me buy my way to a better earth, zero my account, and place me with a happy church of saved consumers.  Sorry, JMG's satire did not go far enough.  

Many countries rape their environments because of our rampant consumerism, not theirs. Trade deficit, anyone?

DR:
"all it does is divert some consumer dollars to a good cause."

That's not "all" it does. The point is that it probably encourages more consumption than would otherwise occur, having a zero-sum effect. For example, for most people, when they get a raise at work, they start spending more money. If you have a hybrid car, you might feel justified in driving more, so that your net fuel use remains about the same. Etc.

I see this as only a short stretch from Bush's call for Americans to fight "terrorism" by going to the mall. It's time to start speaking the truth to everyone about the pickle we're in. And speaking it loudly. Sorry to offend the American Dreamers, but it's time they woke up to the nightmare reality that they've been missing while mired in their mindless slumber.

Another point I have, is that global warming will not be solved through us - a few thousand enthusiasts, but only when mainstream goes green. They are not likely to shop less or recycle just because we think they should, therefore I do like initiatives that makes it easy for people to help.

Both Climatecooler and Earthmoment is a step towards that direction.

I can't answer the second question, but to understand the first you'd have to understand Redefining Progress itself, how we work, how we think, and what we value.

I'll take the last one first: Redefining Progress values social, economic, and environmental justice. We value healthy neighborhoods, sustainable planning, reducing the Ecological Footprint, and ensuring that the people most affected by climate change have a place at the table when policymakers are discussing solutions. We believe that climate change can only be solved with economic and social well-being in mind.

How we think is easy: We think. A lot. We analyze data, we review policies, we look over planning documents and we wonder, "How could this be better? How could this policy or plan be made more just, more sustainable, better for the planet?" Then, we write about, or teach people about it, or tell people about it. That's our job.

Which leads us to how we work. The truth is, though our goals are the same, our methods can be different and sometimes contradictory. Our Environmental Justice group mobilizes people of color and disenfranchised people who are the first and the hardest hit by climate change. As a rule, Environmental Justice communities are not served by cap-and-trade policies. Our Sustainable Economics program, meanwhile, posits that though there are real reasons to oppose cap-and-trade, if the permits are purchased by polluters rather than given away, justice can be brought into the system.

The good part is we discuss everything, all the time. Some of our staff meetings can be quite long, but we debate (and debate and debate) internally and make sure that the actions and ideals we choose as an organization achieve the same ends.

Cooler is one of those actions. Like all shopping sites, it does enable the purchase of goods that could instead be made, bartered, repaired, or are simply not needed. But because Cooler is the brainchild of Redefining Progress President Michel Gelobter, we at RP know and trust that social, economic, and environmental justice are also the values by which Cooler structures it work.

Please--do not shop at Cooler just because it will raise funds for carbon offsets. Shop at Cooler when you need a specific product offered by one of the stores on the site. In the meantime, we'll keep continuing the good fight...

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/pgutis/musings_of_a_des ...

And my colleague Jon Coifman didn't think much of PETA's campaign and blogged on it here:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jcoifman/go_pluck_yours ...

Come join the conversation on Switchboard. We've got some good discussions going.

Cheers,

Phil

NRDC Phil My blog: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/pgutis/