Smaller or Techier?

Today’s environmental movement is experiencing some philosophical tension. Or at least I am. As green gets more and more attention, including constant exposure in the press, green issues in everything from Rolling Stone to Fortune, a documentary by Leonardo DiCaprio, and even recognition by the Bush administration, the pieces are falling into place for serious environmental progress. Yet whose environmental vision will we follow? While it is becoming trendy to buy hybrids and purchase carbon offsets for everything from corporate operations to individual plane flights, is that the point? Does green necessitate technological innovation or a complete lifestyle change?

The short (and easy) answer is that it will take a bit of both. As consciousness rises, households will buy CFLs, efficient windows and appliances, and greener consumer products. Businesses will realize that economic and environmental conservation are aligned. Lifecycle costs matter more than sticker price, and a bit more up-front investment pays huge dividends down the line in energy savings and reduction of waste materials that are toxic to the bottom line and human and natural environments alike. At the same time, a cap-and-trade or carbon tax system will push innovation in low- and no-carbon technologies, erasing the polluting impact of today’s activities through renewable energy and more efficient recycling and re-use of materials.

That is a comfortable view of the future and one that does not require exceptional change from the average person. But it is also incorrect. The short, easy answer is oftentimes the one that goes astray. When the move to go green lived on the fringes, it took pleasure in radically re-orienting society. It re-designed communities, creating micro-communities where families live closer to each other and to schools, parks, and businesses, where walking, bicycling, and greenspace take preference over commuting, big business, and pavement. It frowned on flying cross-country every week and sought to localize both our lives and our impacts. Small was beautiful.

I like the latter view. By modeling our lives after natural processes (local, homegrown, and community-based), we can solve many of our biggest environmental and social problems. We will know our neighbors, send our children to better schools, know what a healthy forest smells like, even inside of a city. Yet do I walk my talk? Across my entire block, I know two neighbors (and them not well). I do not own a car, and I fly infrequently, but my network of family and friends could wrap around the world a few times over. My computer is not Enegy Star certified. If I am not willing to make more sweeping changes in my own life, what do I expect of others? So I find myself hoping that technological innovation comes quickly, because deeper change is going to take a long time.