Welcome Heather Rogers, and Host Josh Nelson.
[As a courtesy to our guests, please keep comments to the book. Please take other conversations to a previous thread. - bev]
Green Gone Wrong: How Our Economy Is Undermining the Environmental Revolution
Green Gone Wrong is the story of how our global economy — even some aspects of it that were ostensibly designed with sustainability as a priority — is undermining the ongoing environmental revolution. From the ‘beyond organic’ farms of New York’s Hudson Valley to the eco-villages of Western Europe, author Heather Rogers provides a first-hand account of the places and processes at the intersection of sustainable living and modern capitalism.
Rogers brings considerable reportorial skills to bear on this complex subject. Combining her passion for the livability of planet Earth with a healthy dose of journalistic skepticism, Rogers offers a balanced and nuanced take that moves the ball forward in our collective efforts to reconcile capitalism’s insatiable need for growth with the planet’s inherent limitations.
Heather Rogers wrote this book to explore the increasingly common perception that so-called ‘green’ consumer products can solve major environmental problems. As she writes in the introduction to Green Gone Wrong, “I started thinking about this book as I was doing talks for my last book, which was about garbage. Almost everywhere I spoke in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, at least one person in the audience would say he or she thought we could cure our environmental ills by consuming the right products. I began this project because I wasn’t sure the answer was so straightforward. Ultimately, I was concerned that the remedies being promoted in the marketplace may not have the power to keep biodiversity intact and the planet cool.”
In part one, Rogers digs into the organic food movement in the United States, highlighting some of the obstacles holding this burgeoning movement back. Among these obstacles are agricultural policies designed to favor corporate factory farm operations and misguided local tax codes, both of which leave many family-owned farms economically unsustainable. She also explores the limitations of the USDA’s official definition of organic, which amounts to a checklist of what you can and can’t add to crops, rather than a more holistic and sustainable approach advocated by many of the practitioners themselves. As Rogers notes, “Since the USDA fully implemented organic standards in 2002 — a process that began a dozen years earlier and went through several contentious rounds — many farmers, precisely the type that consumers imagine when they see the organic label, reject certification outright.” The implicit lesson is that the premium paid for ‘organic’ goods at the supermarket would be better spent on local produce at a farmers market. Rogers goes on to explore the impact of the global organic market on South America’s vast forests, which are rapidly being cleared in order to satisfy the demand for commodity organic crops. By flattening extremely biodiverse habitats in our quest for ‘organic’ agriculture, we run the risk of unwittingly doing irreparable environmental damage to critical habitats. This is just one of many examples Rogers explores in which the same dynamic appears to be at play.
In part two of Green Gone Wrong, Rogers looks at shelter and housing, visiting cutting-edge communities where people are making efforts to reduce the environmental impact of their dwellings. She looks beyond how these communities manage to live more sustainably by examining some of the factors preventing more individuals from adopting the same tactics.
In part three of the book, Rogers explores the ways in which people transport themselves from one location to another. From the palm oil plantations of Indonesia to the assembly lines of Detroit, Rogers provides a well-rounded look at the challenges associated with implementing a more sustainable transportation system.
In each of these three realms — food, shelter and transportation, Rogers digs beneath the obvious to reveal the structural forces at play. While many of the efforts Rogers highlights in the book do in fact lessen our negative impact on the environmental world, some of them may do more harm than good. Further, Green Gone Wrong makes it clear that a green version of capitalism, as currently practiced in much of the developed world, is an insufficient solution to the environmental challenges we face as a global society. In order to avoid pushing the planet past some of its inherent tipping points, we’ll need to go beyond simply consuming differently. Ultimately, in fact, we’ll need to consume less.
On a personal note, to me this book underscores the need for domestic legislation and international agreements sharply curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the problems we face are so vast that consumer behavior alone isn’t a viable solution, regardless of how many ‘green’ attributes marketers use to convince us otherwise.
Anyone interested in looking under the hood of the green revolution would benefit from Ms. Rogers’ thoughtful and compelling take on the subject as laid out in Green Gone Wrong.



79 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Heather, Welcome to the Lake.
Josh, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
Hi Bev,
Great to be here. Hi Josh.
Thanks Bev, I’m glad to be here.
Heather:
In the book you describe several industries and products that aren’t as green as marketers would have us believe. Can you tell us about a particularly good example of this?
Welcome to Firedoglake – glad you could join us!
One of the most striking examples, and one that many FDL readers will doubtless know about is biofuels. They’re getting tons of political, corporate and taxpayer support in the US because they’re supposedly renewable. But they cause serious social and ecological destruction.
Good afternoon Heather and Josh and welcome to FDL this afternoon.
Heather, I have not had a chance to read your book and forgive me if you do offer your take on this in the book but:
Do we stand any chance at all of surviving? (might as well cut to the chase – I know Earth will survive just fine, just maybe not human, animal and plant life as we know it today)
Welcome Josh and Heather!
As a technical note, there’s a “Reply” button in the lower right hand of each comment. Pressing “Reply” will help folks follow the ‘conversation’.
Note: Some browsers do not like to let “Reply” work correctly if attempted to push after a hard refresh of the page and it has not completed loading.
Dakine01 has a bigger-picture question here. It could be a book in itself, but Heather, do you want to take a crack at this one?
Yes, we do stand a chance of surviving. It’s important for us to understand that global warming and other forms of ecological devastation aren’t things that happen all of a sudden, but unevenly and at different rates around the world. Many countries such as Maldives, Tuvalu and Bolivia are already feeling dire direct effects of climate change, but in the US we feel it differently — for example the heat wave on the East Coast this summer. It’s not devastating, but it’s part of a larger system at work.
Thanks for the warm welcomes, all.
Feel free to keep commenting with additional questions. We don’t want to get too hard ahead of ourselves, but we can que up several at a time.
In the book you discuss some of the problems associated with using food crops for ethanol production. Do you think there is a place for ethanol based on non-food crops? If so, what types of plants hold particular promise for the sustainable production of ethanol?
This is such an important question. Using food crops is problematic for its impact on food prices–not supply, but prices because of commodity speculation. If we shift to making ethanol from non-food crops, those crops still have to be grown on land that is either taken out of food production or is converted from conservation (or native ecosystem). It’s a zero sum game in that regard. Lots of people are talking about second-gen biofuels, specifically ethanol made from grasses and corn stover (leaves, cobs, stalks) but the energy contained in that material is relatively low, so you need far more of it, volume-wise, which means transporting it from ever farther away.
My sense, without benefit of reading your book, is that ‘green’ is more about marketing than being sustainable; that capitalism and sustainability are inherently at odds with each other; and that no meaningful change will take place prior to some type of major upheaval or downfall.
Our lifestyles on this planet are unsustainable, and barring the discovery of a miracle energy source, earth’s inhabitants will continue forward, living beyond what the planet can provide.
What would the average person’s life look like in a truly sustainable environment?
Fascinating.
So how can we transport ourselves more sustainably? Should we be focusing on hydrogen fuel cells, electric cars or mass transit? Should we be finding ways to work and live in which less travel is necessary? Perhaps some combination?
This is a good question, Helena, thank you.
Yo, Heather. Here’s one:
Are you familiar with the recorded conversation between Derrick Jensen and Christopher Hedges discussing the question of whether resistance–even violent resistance– is justified in confronting environmental destruction?
http://media-monitors.blogspot.com/
Have we reached the point where direct, organized resistance against BP, Monsanto and their Congressional enablers is necessary?
In my book I talk about a community in the German town of Freiburg where they live on a fraction of the energy, use renewables like wind and solar, the urban design prioritizes mass transit, biking and walking, etc. It’s an impressive example of what is possible. What I learned there is that getting to greater ecological sustainability is a process, not a product that we can buy. It comes from working together in communities, using government’s regulatory abilities, and not simply relying on the market to fix things.
Heather: When there are multiple questions at a time feel free to skip over mine. I’ll ask them again if we hit a quiet spell later on.
Heather and Josh welcome!
FWIW, I think there are parallels between the environmental movement and the 17th and 18th century abolitionists. The little I know about the abolitionists is that they were almost entirely intellectuals and very fragmented. Among their many disagreements, most did not think the African slaves were human/equal to European Americans, they just knew slavery was wrong.
There is a strong basis in the Bible (Hebrew scriptures plus New Testament) for ethical treatment of animals and stewardship of the earth. John Calvin (d 1564), was particularly strong on stewardship. I just wondered if any religions were showing any tangible support for the environment.
This is just a driveby. I am running out, but look forward to checking the thread later. The book is on my list to purchase.
I know the current Ag Secretary supported Monsanto when he was governor. From what I have read that hasn’t stopped industrial ag from complaining to the senators that USDA seems to be paying more attention to alternative agriculture and more of the social issues of rural areas. Kathleen Merrigan can’t be the only person in the upper ranks of USDA to support alternative ag. I think we need to let the rural congress folks know there is more than industrial ag out there and big ag usually hasn’t been healthy for small communiies.
Yes, I’m a huge, huge fan of mass transit. When gas prices went through the roof, before the recession, people in towns across the country were clamoring for more mass transit. People want it. In the book I talk about how mass transit used to be widespread in the US until after WWII. Many of the city lines were bought up and destroyed by a corporate front group, National City Lines, backed by General Motors, Firestone Tires and Standard Oil. They were found guilty of antitrust activities by the US Supreme Court in the 1950s but given only symbolic fines and were basically allowed to continue. Also: One survey from swing states in 2008 showed the vast majority of people (80-95%) want vehicles that get much higher mpg.
Just to help you keep track, Heather, we’ve got pending questions at comment 18 and comment 21.
I have an article in the current American Prospect that gets into the sustainable ag question in the Obama USDA. Obama has welcomed a host of Monsanto-connected folks into positions of power: the guy who decides on where USDA research funding goes (worked with Monstanto to develop the world’s first genetically modified food, a tomato), the top ag trade negotiator and a key adviser to the the head of the FDA. It’s not a pretty picture.
I’m also a big fan of mass transit. Unfortunately, some of the plans currently underway in the United States can hardly qualify as ‘high speed.’ The Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland route in Ohio, for example, will only get a topspeed of around 80 miles an hour. There was a good article on this in Time Magazine about two weeks ago.
Isn’t the ethanol industry already responsible for Mississippi River pollution extending the dead zones further into the Gulf?
Here is the article: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=slowed_food_revolution
I’m not familiar with that conversation, I’ll definitely check it out. We need to be confronting those in power who are facilitating the destruction of the planet, for sure. There is a wide range of options available–from 350.org to direct actions to stop coal fired power plants (as promoted by Al Gore, some of you may recall). I believe we can practice environmentalism in a wide range of ways, esp educating ourselves to be critical thinkers and not just conscientious shoppers.
I’m not as close to those movements so I’m not sure. Anyone else have any insights on this?
How do you think critical thinking is learned? Or taught? A word that gets “thrown around” alot without details/description, so useless to those who do not know.
And Obama has only pledge $8 billion for high-speed rail, from what I’ve read. You also asked about hydrogen and electric cars. Hydrogen is still a ways off, it’s so expensive. One thing about hydrogen that no one really talks about is that much of it is made from natural gas, not water. And not only does the refining process require electricity (most often from coal power plants) but one of gas-based hydrogen’s byproducts is, you guessed it, CO2. Similar problems with electrics, we still get over 50 percent of our electricity from coal. We need a serious investment in true renewables such as wind, solar and geothermal.
That’s the other crazy thing about biofuels, they more deeply entrench industrial ag. They sort of breathed new life into Big Ag just as it was coming under increasing scrutiny for its processes as related to food production. And yeah, the nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizers run off into the Mississippi and on to the Gulf creating huge dead zones.
thanks for the link.
How set in stone is the USDA’s definition of organic? Are there opportunities to implement a more comprehensive and meaningful standard?
Excellent point. I hope that my work contributes to helping people develop critical thinking skills. It’s really a systemic issue to do with how we hold each other accountable in daily life, but also in larger public, political and economic spheres.
The USDA had a monopoly on organic at this point. And the standards are surprisingly weak. They don’t require chemical residue testing on org produce or soil, and they don’t ban practices such as deforestation in order to expand organic cropland.
Many farmers are shunning official organic and farming in ways that are even more holistic, some of them call it “beyond organic.” This is an important counterpoint to the official system that’s so heavily influenced by Big Ag.
Also, crucial to talk about the economic logic of our system, and the political framework that supports it. When profits come first it’s impossible to put ecological and human health first.
Did the Freiburg example result from a bottom-up movement or a top-down design?
If the world’s population were to achieve a Freiburg level of living standard, would Earth be ‘saved’ or still at risk?
The greening of the economy is not compatible with unregulated or even regulated capitalism for that matter. Though some corporations can make a profit and be green doing it, the vast majority of corporations can’t do green and keep their puffed up bottom lines. So they do marketing and logo BS and bait and switch.
Is there a movement to coalesce around an alternative standard?
There are two eco-neighborhoods in Freiburg. One has ten thousand people, the other has five thou, both are mixed income, BTW. I wrote mostly about the smaller one, which is called Vauban, largely because it is a bottom-up, community-based development. It offers not only examples of alternative building methods and materials, and locally (on-site) renewable energy generation, etc. but also it demonstrates how this relies on the social component.
If we all lived this way, using one-fifteenth (or less) the energy in our homes, and relying most heavily on low- or no-carbon transportation, we’d be in a much better place, no doubt.
I think it’s really important to talk about the logic of capitalism, as you point out. How can we continue to have an economy that must grow when that growth comes from extracting ever more resources from nature, and producing, consuming and throwing away ever more commodities? Seems to me that we need to differentiate between growth and development. We need to consume less and that needs to not be something that wrecks people’s quality of life.
This genetic engineering of food crops is another pernicious practice the way it is currently managed, giving private corporations patents and permitting sterile seeds. If one thinks the Pharmaceutical industry with its excessively long patents is bad. Just wait until the corporates are fully in charge of world supplies of food.
As I said in another thread, it is like relying on being able to feed the cancer.
There’s an organization called Certified Naturally Grown that does peer certification where farmers inspect and license other farmers as sustainable. Because of the peer-based model they engage in a lot of education and information sharing, which is key to more efficient and effective sustainable farming.
As for a formal network, I think that’s something that’s still in its early stages.
I have to run to dinner. Thanks Heather and thanks Josh. I look forward to reading all the good input when I return.
Recently someone told me that growth in and of itself isn’t bad, it just becomes destructive in the context of capitalism. I’m still digesting that but I’m curious if you have any thoughts.
That is interesting. Hopefully this develops into something more widespread and formalized in the years to come.
You mentioned above (and in the book) the need for people to consume less, rather than just consuming differently. Do you think this type of message can catch on in countries like the United States that currently have such a consumption-based culture?
Something else regarding sustainable food is to do with the livelihood of those farmers who go “beyond organic.” Many of them can barely make ends meet–they couldn’t afford to grow the very produce they grow and sell. That’s because of the higher labor costs (wages, but also unemployment, payroll taxes, workers’ comp), no meaningful access to low-interest loans, no crop insurance. And the real estate they must secure is high value because they’ve got to be close to urban centers. In all this they’re pretty much on their own meantime the USDA showers support on industrial ag.
If we talk about it in terms of reigning in consumption in a structural way, for example in the form of corporate profligacy. Most often cutting consumption is talked about as something individuals must do. The typical narrative: our own selfish choices have gotten us to this place of ecological peril, so it’s got to be our individual–consumer–choices that get us out. But this ignores, again, the logic of an economic system that needs us to continue consuming and wasting in order to stay healthy.
Are there any particular consumption or lifestyle changes that do have a significant positive environmental impact that most people aren’t aware of?
I do the best I can to make what I understand to be good choices, when I can afford it. But it really does come down to political and social engagement. Until we make systemic changes we can shop at the farmers market all we want and that sector still won’t be able to get beyond its place as a niche market for those with deeper pockets.
On a slightly different note, I went to India for the book to look at carbon offset projects funded by companies selling offsets to consumers in the West. What I found there, among other things, was that this “green” solution was actually hindering the creation of any kind of renewable energy policy, whether it be on the state or national level. That’s because if the government adopted truly renewable energy policies the country would no longer be eligible for the billions of dollars it gets in the form of direct investment for carbon-credit generating projects.
Is there any legislation currently being considered by Congress that you think is especially crucial to bringing these systemic changes about?
Alternately, are there examples of legislation on the state or local level that could be used as a model?
Development vs growth! How important is the distinction and much the two are confused.
We need to develop and protect and renew and sustain what we have, get more efficiency our of various systems and clean processes up to produce less and less bad stuff (pollution). This all involves work for people, but likely with little place for profit. Think of making a building more efficient. This is something which we invest resources but in the end we will use less energy to sustain that building. So where is the profit motive?
Heather, have you followed the CA lawsuit about Fannie and Freddie loans? How do you think this will be resolved?
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/15/2891124/california-sues-fannie-mae-freddie.html
California Attorney General Jerry Brown sued federal mortgage lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for blocking green financing programs around the state, saying the agencies’ actions put more than $100 million in federal stimulus funding at risk.
Do you think there is a productive role for carbon offsets at all, or is it an entirely misguided idea?
Thank you for your replies. I will look into this more.
When you say that Vauban relies on the social component, doesn’t that suggest the importance of a stable community that doesn’t experience a lot of transitory residents and population turnover?
I think selling/trading pollution is a dumb idea and just another market for commodities traders to have wet dreams about.
There are quite a few local and state initiatives in places such as California, especially to do with regulating CO2 emissions and requiring renewable energy production. These are not revolutionary, but they can start to force some concrete changes. This is a huge question, about how you bring about systemic change. It’s the subject of debate and discussion in social and ecological justice groups the world over, really. There’s no formula but where changes have started to happen are in places such as Freiburg as well as in the US with companies like Organic Valley, a dairy cooperative. The farmers who are members share power with management, which creates a far more transparent structure. They’ve been able to keep the company from “selling out” and becoming less ecologically sound. But it has meant they earn lower profits, so they’re carving out a space that begins to demonstrate another way of doing things.
I haven’t been following that story, good to know about it. On the green retro-fit of housing question, a lot of stimulus money has gone into weatherization but some key questions have come up. A big one is to do with labor, from talking to some people doing weatherizing in Washington State I’ve heard that there is a lot of tension between these newly trained “green collar” workers and union labor. Seems to offer an insight into the realities of switching to greener jobs. I’m interested in what it really means to make these changes: What happens when organized labor is left out of new job creation? How do we switch to renewable energy, in very concrete, practical terms without adversely affecting working people’s livelihoods?
I think CO2 offsets/credits an entirely misguided idea. Capping carbon is a great idea, but the offsets and credits undermine any real cuts.
Yeah, in some ways but it also means that we need to create structures that new people can come into and that will continue to work on their own.
Carbon trading is ultimately just another form of financial speculation.
In addition to your book, are there other resources you’d recommend people check out to learn more about products and industries being labeled as green?
I have a list of resources in the back of the book as well as on my website: http://www.heatherrogers.info
Josh,
Is there any federal, state or local laws you’re enthused by?
What do you think it will take to form a popular movement in the United States that demands more public investments in high-speed rail?
On the federal level I think pricing carbon is paramount. Unfortunately, the Senate appears to be incapable of doing so even with large Democratic majorities, and even in a limited capacity. Some of the incentives for renewables and efficiency in ARRA were a step in the right direction, but I don’t think we’re going to see the types of CO2 reductions we need without pricing carbon.
Lots of municipalities have already taken the lead on public transportation, implementing subway and light rail systems that allow city-dwellers to get by without owning cars. I’d be very interested in seeing more investments for public transit at the Federal level, but agree with your comment above that the Obama Administration’s efforts so far on this front have been insufficient.
I’d like to think the oil catastrophe in the Gulf would energize those demands. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. I think people will demand these changes but more slowly and over time as people grasp the need for resources like high-speed rail, and as the anger at Big Oil and Washington bubbles more to the surface.
Lots of states have also already taken the lead by implementing renewable electricity and clean air standards. Unfortunately, misguided efforts at the Federal level may pre-empt such laws in order to develop relatively weak federal standards.
As we come to the end of this Book Salon,
Heather, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon with us discussing your new book, and environmental programs.
Josh, Thank you again for Hosting this Book Salon.
Everyone, if you would like more information:
Heather’s website
Josh’s website
Thanks all.
This is an interesting point. It seems like the anger over the ongoing disaster in the Gulf has remained focused on offshore drilling, and to an extent, BP itself. Some environmental groups, and the President to a lesser extent, have started to make the case that the disaster highlights a broader set of energy-related crises, but I’m not sure this has taken hold with the public yet.
To be fair, though, historians and political scientists tell us it is probably too soon to see a broad public opinion shift yet, so perhaps we’ll see it yet.
On pricing carbon, in the UK they have a de facto carbon tax for transportation in the form of high fuel taxes. Consequently what we see there is the normalization of lower CO2 emissions. Exhibit A: Ford makes a version of the Fiesta that seats five, which it sells in the UK. That car gets about 74 mpg! Ford is releasing a different version of the Fiesta, marketed as a fuel-efficient model, which will only get about half the mpg.
If there was a carbon tax in the US you bet the auto firms would be giving us the green technology that already exists.
Thank you Bev.
And thank you Heather for joining us today. Green Gone Wrong is a fascinating book I’d recommend to all. As someone who follows these issues fairly closely I was surprised by how much I learned by reading this book.
Thanks for visiting and writing this book!
Bev, Josh and everyone who took part,
Thanks for the great discussion.
I agree with concerns about using green jobs to injure organized labor. Unions in general try to do a lot of education, so they can be a great ally. Yes, I also realize they have frequently partnered with Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Ag and others to kick greens to the curb.
The cornerstone of capitalism are the laws of supply and demand. AFAIK, those are like the law of gravity. You can ignore it, but it’s still there. A more immediate danger imho is the shareholder model of the oligopolies. Jack Welch (former chairman of GE has opinied that it is dead). Smaller corporations, with just owners, labor, and customers still have to follow the laws of supply and demand. Frequently, labor has an equity stake.
Given the speed with which technology moves, it’s difficult to target long lasting solutions. What is desperately needed imho are impartial ratings (Consumer reports is a good model). People have shown they are willing to spend more on stuff that is perceived to be more green than the alternatives. Insuring that the environmental options are truly delivering some ecological relief is a daunting task.
WRT climate change, I see smog is an unlikely ally. It forces people who deny climate change to deal with air pollution.
Heather, the fact that Jane let you into this Book Salon carries a helluva lot of weight with me. Jane trusts smart people who put the public interest ahead of their own narrow advancement.