Bright green environmentalism, as defined in Wikipedia:

aims for a society that relies on new technology and improved design to achieve gains in ecological sustainability without reducing (indeed, increasing) the potential for economic growth. Its proponents tend to be particularly enthusiastic about green energy, hybrid automobilesW, efficient manufacturing systems and bio and nanotechnologies, are supportive of W.

Origin and evolution of bright green thinking

The term "bright green", first coined in 2003 by writer Alex Steffen, refers to the fast-growing new wing of environmentalism, distinct from traditional forms.[1] Bright green environmentalism aims for a society that relies on new technology and improved design to achieve gains in ecological sustainability thereby increasing the potential for economic growth and attending to human needs.[2] Similarly the principle of demographic transition shows that as populations gain access to greater technology and a better standard of living their rates of population growth generally slow or even reverse.

Its proponents tend to be particularly enthusiastic about green energy, hybrid automobiles, efficient manufacturing systems, bio and nanotechnologies, ubiquitous computing, dense urban settlements, closed loop materials cycles and sustainable product designs. "One-planet living" is a frequently heard buzz-phrase.[3][4] They tend to focus extensively on the idea that through a combination of well-built communities, new technologies and sustainable living practices, quality of life can actually be improved even while ecological footprints shrink.

Dark greens, light greens and bright greens

Contemporary environmentalists are often described as being split into three groups, "dark", "light", and "bright" greens.[5]

"Light greens" see protecting the environment first and foremost as a personal responsibility. They fall in on the transformational activist end of the spectrum, but light greens do not emphasize environmentalism as a distinct political ideology, or even seek fundamental political reform. Instead they often focus on environmentalism as a lifestyle choice.[6] The motto "Green is the new black" sums up this way of thinking, for many.[7] Though many environmentalists of all stripes use "lite green" to describe products or practices they believe are greenwashing.

In contrast, "dark greens" believe that environmental problems are an inherent part of industrialized capitalism, and seek radical political change. Dark greens tend to believe that dominant political ideologies (sometimes referred to as industrialism) are corrupt and inevitably lead to consumerism, alienation from nature and resource depletion. Dark greens claim that this is caused by the emphasis on economic growth that exists within all existing ideologies, a tendency referred to as "growth mania". The dark green brand of environmentalism is associated with ideas of deep ecology, post-materialism, holism, the Gaia hypothesis of James Lovelock and the work of Fritjof Capra as well as support for a reduction in human numbers and/or a relinquishment of technology to reduce humanity's impact on the biosphere.

More recently, "bright greens" emerged as a group of environmentalists who believe that radical changes are needed in the economic and political operation of society in order to make it sustainable, but that better designs, new technologies and more widely distributed social innovations are the means to make those changes - and that society can neither shop nor protest its way to sustainability.[8] As Ross Robertson writes, "[B]right green environmentalism is less about the problems and limitations we need to overcome than the “tools, models, and ideas” that already exist for overcoming them. It forgoes the bleakness of protest and dissent for the energizing confidence of constructive solutions."[9]

The term "Viridian" is also used (signifying a shade of green that does not occur naturally) for example in the Viridian design movement. See Wikipedia:Bright green environmentalism#Currents.

Arguments of supporters and critics

Their ideas can be contrasted with what they consider traditional environmentalism: pessimistic, return-to-primitivism, unattractive, "dark green" ideas that depend on a reduction in human numbers or a relinquishment of technology to reduce humanity's impact on the Earth's ecosphere.

Others contrast "bright green" environmentalism with "light green" environmentalism, which they characterize as superficial moves to buy or use products which claim to be environmentally preferable, but in fact offer limited sustainability benefits. Many environmentalists of all stripes use "light" or "lite" green to describe products or practices they believe are greenwashing.

Critics of bright green environmentalism consider it to be an unrealistic way of reducing pollution and increasing sustainability. They view such bright greens as wanting to have all of their environmental goals without needing to reduce material prosperity and comfort. Many dark green movements take a moralistic approach of emphasizing catastrophe, suffering, and guilt, while framing environmental progress in terms of tremendous sacrifices, lowered standards of living, and renunciation of the benefits and possibilities of future technological growth. To them, bright green is a pointless attempt to conjure a win-win situation where these major sacrifices would not be required.

Ecosocialist critics of bright green environmentalism argue that the idea that technological progress will solve ecological problems is popular because it deludes people into hoping that it will prevent them from having to seriously question and change their individual and collective way of life.[verification needed]

Joel Kovel posits an eco-socialist analysis, that patterns of production and social organisation are more important than the forms of technology used within a given configuration of society. Under capitalism, he suggests that technology "has been the essential condition of growth", so even in a world with hypothetical "free energy", the effect would be to lower the cost of automobile production, leading to massive overproduction of vehicles, "collapsing infrastructure", chronic resource depletion and the "paving over" of the "remainder of nature".[10] This suggests he sees capitalism as intrinsically unable to regulate itself, in spite of environmental regulation in Western countries leading to massive improvements in many areas (though not yet in terms of greenhouse gases).

In the modern world, Kovel considers the supposed efficiency of new post-industrial commodities is a "plain illusion", as miniaturized components involve many substances and are therefore non-recyclable (and, theoretically, only simple substances could be retrieved by burning out-of-date equipment, releasing more pollutants). He warns "environmental liberals" against over-selling the virtues of renewable energies that cannot meet the mass energy consumption of the era; although he would still support renewable energy projects, he believes it is more important to restructure societies to reduce energy use and not relying on renewable energy technologies alone.[10]

Organizations and websites

Organizations and websites with an explicit "bright green" philosophy include:

Of course the ideas are widely shared, whether or not the term "bright green" is used.

Notes

See also

Interwiki links

External links

Template:Attrib wikipedia

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.