Chris Rock made this corny movie in the 90’s called CB4. One of the best parts in the movie is when some cops arrive at an apparent murder scene. The victm is so covered in gold chains, you can’t even see his chains. One of the detectives says to another cop “looks like he died of OG.”
“What?”
“Death by Over-Gold.”
I am currently suffering from a different type of OG. I was so happy to see this article in the NY Times today that validated my frustrations. The OG that ails me is not Over-Gold, or even Original Gangster, but Over-Green. Growing up in the Rockies I was always within earshot of the Sierra Club and other conservationist groups that were spreading propaganda warning against the apocolypse caused by people not cutting their plastic six-pack rings before discarding them. As much as I felt like a lot of their claims were a bit on the extreme side, I could tell that the fundamental argument of un-sustainability was a viable issue that would eventually become paramount. My community was of the same persuasion to a certain degree. For example, we had curbside recycling when I was still in Jr. High. As a result, I feel like I have tried to live my life in a way that is (insert your favorite eco-friendly pop-culture adjective of the day). In order to do this, one has to become educated regarding which practices will reduce ones carbon footprint, etc. Well, what happens when “going green” suddenly becomes a marketing tool and the amount of information suddenly spikes? I have read so much contradictory eco-nazi garbage lately it is making my head spin. I swear, if I hear one more ad campaign with the word “green” as part of the pitch, I will permanently boycott that product just based on the annoyance factor. Don’t get me wrong. I am a huge (HUGE) advocate of sustainability. I get so angry about things like Lake Powell, and Suburbans. Because it doesn’t really take any careful analysis to know that if you buy a gas guzzler, you are a direct cause of excess carbon emission and depletion of a finite energy source. Or that if you live in Phoenix, Las Vegas, or any other area that depends on water from the Colorado river basin, you are directly contributing to the overextension of an already weak water system.
Ok; so, I don’t drive a suburban [check], I don’t live in an overextended watershed [check]. After that, things get trickier though. Does it use less energy to recycle a disposable “to go” cup, or to wash a ceramic, or stainless cup in the dishwasher? Is it worse to buy a hybrid car that will have a huge toxic battery core to dispose of at the end of its life, or to just buy a fuel efficient tradition engine car that produces more emissions? I read in the elevator that one of the Japanese car makers is going to put a fully electric car into general production next year. So, I guess that carbon coming out of a smokestack is supposed to make people feel better than if it comes out of the exhaust pipe? How much of what I do in an effort to be environmentally conscious is actually negated by some transactional byproduct that isn’t talked about? I wish that there were incentive for someone to come up with all of these answers in a fashion that was not self dealing. So for now, I will just do my best to sift through all of the green spam and judge for myself what is true and what is marketing. Let me know if you find the answers.