Miss Opinion on the Green Movement

Go Green, Not Extreme

Extreme views of green movement need to be evaluated

Source: grainedit.com via Sarah on Pinterest

Phasing out human life is necessary in order to restore the earth’s biosphere back to good health. This is the core belief of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT), one of the top environmental extremist groups in the world. To propose a movement where humans should voluntarily agree to abstain from breeding in order to protect the earth is on the heavy end of the green spectrum.  The movement has become more extreme than ever and recognizing opposing viewpoints is just as important when deciding which end of the spectrum you will stand.

There is no doubt the earth has limited resources and that we need to be sensible and aware of our carbon footprint. But there is such a practice called greenwashing, a term deemed as the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.

This is a term that has surfaced because of the extreme practices of eco-friendly fanatics.

Many people take on blind views when it comes to being environmentally responsive. According to the website 7 Sins of Greenwashing, unsubstantiated claims are made about how a product can benefit the environment. There is much emphasis on certain green aspects while hiding features that are not so eco-friendly and thus greenwashes individuals into thinking that they are being environmentally savvy. For example, the words "all-natural" on a label may trick buyers into thinking a product is green, but this isn't always the case.

Consumers are also deceived by the time and effort that goes into going green. For some, it may be as simple as walking across the room and throwing a paper in a blue garage pale. For others, it may be paying extra for recycling bins to be purchased and picked up or physically doing it yourself. A simple 3 minutes per week for over 300 million citizens to recycle can take up 7,800,000,000 man-hours of time per year. Many people put in much more time than that. It’s easier to say ‘go green’ rather than to be green.

The cost of going green is even more extreme than the time and effort. For example, when building a home, bamboo flooring is often considered an eco-friendly alternative to hardwood. Bamboo is harvested in China, so it must be shipped thousands of miles to the United States. Transportation of the bamboo consumes large amounts of fuel that pollutes the air which contradicts this green product. Society wants to be part of this movement but it is not always feasible. Specpan, a research firm, surveyed home builders and found that the greatest number estimated a 10% to 19% cost increase when going green.

Your standard daily green products (e.g. hair spray, cleaning products, organic food, etc.) often cost more due to the high cost of new research and technology needed to produce these products. These higher costs are also due to the small volume of green products in the market. Manufacturers are not yet able to enjoy the cost-cutting benefits of large-scale production which green marketing promises.

So let’s recycle and save 17 trees, reduce our heating bill, use a compact fluorescent light bulb, but let’s not risk human lives to protect the earth that depends on us to protect it. Go green, not extreme.