Is "Smart" the new "Green"?

Outdoor Education

Forums on all aspects of Outdoor Education

GREENFIRE

Views and opinions on environmental, outdoor and experiential education

Is "Smart" the new "Green"?

  • Comments 4

Watching and listening to "the discourse" on environmentalism in the popular press has been fascinating over the last five years. The sheer number of descriptors used to try to "brand" environmentalism for the 21st century seem to increase right along with our carbon emissions. Who are the losers in this game?

1. "Preservation/Conservation." Too "retro" and old-fashioned. Seems against "progress."

2. "Environmentalist" Too exclusive and cliche. Brings to mind birkenstocks, beards, and patchoulli.

3. "Organic." See above. Plus, what happens to "organic" when canned beans from China sold at Walmart are "organic"?

4. "Wilderness." The post-modernists took this one down. An environmental ideal without humans in it, hmmm....

5. "Sustainable Development." A classic oxymoron. Like "military intelligence." Or, "fresh frozen."

6. "Bio-regionalism." Sounds like something a professor cooked up in "ye olde ivory tower."

The winners?

1. "Sustainability." Lop off the "development" part and it sounds much better! Who cares if no one knows what it means!

2. "Eco." You can put the prefix in front of anything. "Eco-schools," "eco-parks," "eco-design," etc.

3. "Local." Appeals to our American, Mom-and-apple pie roots.

4. "Green." It cannot be as easily stereotyped as "tree-hugging environmentalist." And corporate America is on board.

But my sense is that all these may lose out to perhaps the best, most powerful, all-inclusive descriptor that has recently emerged. "Smart." Who doesn't want to be "smart"? A recent IBM advertisement brought this home to me. It featured scientists and engineers all over the world talking about "smart cities," "smart traffic flow," "smart energy grids," etc. "Smart" ties into our technological and scientific fetish. It implies that we don't need to stop progress, we just need to be "smarter." It appeals to innovation, to capitalism, and to optimism. It also appeals to our "flattened" world. This is not a euro-centric ideal. We can imagine "smart schools," "smart cars," "smart urban planning." And, importantly, it is hard to stereotype and pigeon-hole. If you are not "for" smart cars and cities what are you for, "dumb" cars and cities? Finally, it is not tied to the "environment" per se which avoids the "tree hugger" issues. Republicans, democrats, libertarians... we can all agree to be "smarter" about our designs, our living, and our consumption patterns.

Of course, there will be critics. "Smart" doesn't imply much humility. And, it seems awfully anthropocentric. But, we need visions, ideals, and a language that appeals not to the fringe but to the all important "radical center." Being "smart" may mean using the best of technology and innovation but it need not exclude the wisdom gained from more traditional cultures or long forgotten ways of being and thinking. A perfect example of this can be seen in the short film about the Druk White Lotus School in Ladahk, India  http://bit.ly/ivdn0.  Now that school, that vision, is "smart" in every sense of the word.

Words matter. Foucault once said that "language is power." Creating an inclusive, open, and inviting social movement is, in the end, the "smart" thing to do.

 

  • I like the content and attitude of this.  Your idealism of ridding ourselves of societies burden of cliche buzzwords is important.  And the understanding that smart technologies equates to responsible individual "smart" living is in the ten ring.  However, I, for one, think that those who consider themselves as over the top smart greenies are indulgent to the point that they are too elite for the rest of us that do what we can.  Point being, all those who think they're all over the green movement, beware, you're just making yourselves and your case look less credible because of your attitude and more often than not, your hypocracy.      

  • Brass Hat:

    I agree with you 100% We have to move beyond the "green police" mode of judging others based on the degree to which they are (or are not) green. In addition, we all know the adage about living in a glass house... The trick, it seems to me, is finding a way to make a movement inclusive, flexible, and effective all at the same time.

  • Jay,  I've recently read two books, Hot, Flat & Crowded and Green Hell.  Truth be told, I found that most of the "findings" in the former either are or will be bunk.  There some very good points about technology, but this country and its politics aren't even close to making green technology affordable for a tenth of our National population let alone the world.  And my opinion is not based on reading the latter, but more so from many sources including many overseas publications. From CF bulbs (and their inherent hazardous chemicals) to the C02 monsters in China, India, Mexico and most of Eastern Europe, there's much to be done and it should not come at the expense of the US. The US, There are too many groups looking to cash in on the movement, too many policies that sound and feel good-but lack real substance-and too many uninformed, well intentioned mind you,  people.  Again, we do what we can as individuals.

  • This is great. Every Friday I post info on my blog about various simple ways we can be "green" in our practices, and I often think "I wish there was a better term." I love this concept of calling it "smart." Thanks for writing this.

Page 1 of 1 (4 items)