Stickybuffalo.com

Last weekend was “Earth Hour” for 2011. I participated, to the extent that a negative can be participation, i.e. I turned off all of the lights in my apartment and spent an hour eating dinner and then reading (I decided that a couple of candles were “okay”).

I had mixed feelings about the concept, though, even beforehand. And when I read some exasperated criticism at Good, this week, I had to pretty much agree with the main points, and conclude that maybe I would just opt out if I had the weekend over again.

I still don’t know, though; one of the big problems with the “Earth Hour” concept is that it seems to create the perfect unwinnable situation from the perspective of environmentalism. Like “National Opt-Out Day,” it seems to demand a very unlikely mass turnout, and non-participation would seem to send the message that “oh, apparently no one else is worrying about the environment either; I guess I don’t need to.”

On the other hand, unlike “National Opt-Out Day” even significant participation in “Earth Hour” would, short of absolutely overwhelming numbers, also be a potential defeat. Because a “turn off your lights for an hour” event seems to send a really, really poor message, contrary to what environmentalism struggles so hard to prove.

Some years back, Tony Juniper was asked “Wouldn’t you rather that people just didn’t travel?” The Friends of the Earth honcho replied “No, I don’t think the Friends of the Earth message is that we should sit in the dark, be cold and not travel. Our message is that we can do all of the things we need to do, have very high quality lives and do it in a low-carbon way.” But “Earth Hour,” as the fellow at Good lamented, seems very explicitly to send the message that “we should sit in the dark.”

Now, I can argue that it isn’t about that or shouldn’t be seen that way. What’s wrong with taking an hour to chill out; it should be seen as almost an art event; if you can’t find some way to entertain yourself for an hour in the dark, wink wink nudge nudge, then your life must be about as boring as, well, mine.

And, obviously, “Earth Hour” is only a symbolic gesture rather than a policy recommendation… but what does it symbolize, if not “environmentalism means deprivation?”

Even more vexing, in yet another way that “Earth Hour” seems to be an astonishingly no-win situation, I’m kind of stuck for what would be a better gimmick.

Oh I can think of ideas, sure. The problem with all of them is that, unless the gimmick is fundamentally a non-action like going without lighting, and is therefore deprivation, then it runs up against another unhelpful concept of environmentalism’s own making: the “footprint.”

Oh, I hate the footprint, especially but not exclusively its most prolific form, the “carbon footprint.” Like any tool, the carbon footprint can be put to good use, but this particular tool seems to invite far more abuse than constructive use. Want to rubbish environmentalism? All you need is a calculator (assuming you don’t want to just make up numbers) and the carbon footprint concept.

Al Gore? Bam, carbon footprint for his “mansion.” Bono? Bam, carbon footprint for a concert tour. International climate change conference? Bam, carbon footprint for flying delegates there and back home.

And so, I suspect, would be the same for any alternative “Earth Hour” which wasn’t based on deprivation. Instead of “see, they really do want to take away your stuff” it would be, bam, carbon footprint and “see, those hypocrites who want to take away your stuff are out wasting stuff on a pointless PR stunt.”

I wish I knew what would really be a “safe” conceptual framework (or gimmick), which could never be abused, of course; realistically there probably isn’t one. But if it’s impossible to entirely prevent the abuse of our tools, the environmentally-aware community might at least stop abusing those tools, ourselves.

Instead, the unfortunate fact is that many of the most enthusiastic players of the “footprint” gotcha/shame game are environmentalists and progressives. And not just when it comes to carbon footprints.

The site Good is, in fact, a perfect example. I’ve been reading it for what, several weeks now, and it’s a source of much great information, but it’s also home to just enough silliness to make me occasionally wonder if I should just drop it from my reading list. (I would never last at Daily Kos, that’s for sure.)

Some weeks ago, I came close more than once to writing up a blog post after their absolutely ridiculous item extolling the virtue of an insect-based diet. The most offensive bit of nonsense in the piece was the suggestion that “you’re already eating bugs, after all!” (By this logic, obviously, we should deregulate a whole list of toxic substances, since many of us are already ingesting trace amounts of them, as well.) But right behind it was the not-unique invocation of the “agricultural footprint.”

You frequently find this trotted out by enviro-ascetics as an argument for giving up red meat, or meat generally. Beef requires far more arable land in order to support the production of an equal number of pounds, or calories, or protein or whatever compared with other food, therefore beef is wasteful and unsustainable and environmentally-unfriendly and therefore we should banish it from our diets. (And then eat something with a much smaller agricultural footprint instead, such as a vegan diet or, per the Good item, bugs.)

And y’know, I don’t eat much red meat and wouldn’t particularly miss it, but this is just stupid and childish. As with the arguments for a forcible clampdown on salt “for our own good,” it’s appallingly easy to come up with applications for this “logic” sure to turn away pretty much anyone.

How about drugs, for example? I’m guessing that most environmentalists and progressives like some or other sort of drug, after all. But you don’t need them, not even that coffee; no matter how much one may protest to the contrary no one is going to die without it. Whereas everyone does at least need protein, and food in general, in some form. By contrast, every acre devoted to coffee beans, to weed, to coca and to nicotine, as well as every grape and every grain of wheat, barley, rye, etc., diverted into alcoholic beverages, could be considered a complete waste. Talk about unsustainable squandering of natural resources.

And yet I’m pretty sure that greens out there lamenting the “footprint” of java, joints, or José Cuervo are awfully few in number compared with those preaching about the (relatively modest) inefficiency of using natural resources for beef. I’m guessing, here, that environmentalism includes relatively few strict Mormons or devout straightedgers, though of course we could probably come up with some sort of “excessive footprint” activity or product which they don’t want to give up, either, if necessary. The stupid carping about specific, entirely-subjective forms of “waste” never stops, meanwhile.

Apparently, sticking with an emphasis on simple, specific, old-fashioned “regulate and litigate” tactics and then just letting everyone determine their own definition of what is “waste” versus what is still a reasonable value, once the market price reflects appropriate externalities, is as “bo-ho-horing” and tedious for most progressives as it is for society at large. I guess that, as per our friend Gray’s remarks the other day, the desire for instant gratification and entertainment value is usually going to trump patient, persistent advocacy of rational, practical policy, about as much on the left as on the right.