"Living green" doesn't have to be mean

There’s a difference between being green and self flagellation. Or at least, there used to be.

If you’re reading this, you’re probably a gardener. And that means you’re probably respectful of things that grow and sensitive to your own influence on growth, for better and for worse.

The vast majority of gardeners I meet tell me they garden organically and resort to chemicals only when absolutely necessary. We’re all thoughtful members of our communities, so we are aware of the rules surrounding garbage separation and follow them. We love the outdoors, so we walk rather than drive whenever it’s practical. That used to be enough to be considered green.

With the environment a top issue for most Ontarians now, all sorts of neurotics have glommed on to green issues. These individuals are inventing endless new sins which, as far as I can tell, are predicated on the idea that we humans were born evil and our very existence on earth should be endlessly punished. Apparently, if we all re-use our dirty towels several times before laundering and flush our toilets “selectively”, we may be stinkier but we’ll be just a little holier.

If you’re not “on” Facebook, the Internet social networking group, you’ve probably heard about it. One of the most popular Facebook applications is called “I am Green”; users select and post their “green leaves” to show what swell environmentalists they are. The green leaves are statements like:

1. “I recycle even when it’s not convenient.”
2. “Most of my batteries are rechargeable.”
3. “I do not own any personal watercraft, aircraft or a Hummer.”

The first two are pretty reasonable; it’s hard to dispute the validity that these minor efforts make a small but positive difference to the environment. For the third, many of us could continue in that vain and declare: “I don’t own or operate any smelting plants”; “I never have drained a lake for commercial profit”; “I have never caused a major spill of crude oil”; and so forth. Other people—perhaps very worthy and environmentally heroic people—might balk at the third, particularly if they live or cottage on an island.

Many Facebook greenies, however, would argue that environmentally responsible people live in urban areas—yes, seriously—because that way they can walk instead of drive. Curiously, they also want to eat local fresh produce; I’m not sure where it comes from, since you get extra points for: “I don't have a yard, or it has only local, low maintenance [sic] vegetation.” Low-maintenance? How does less work in the garden equal a better environment? Because gardening makes you breathe a little heavier and exhale more carbon dioxide?

I suspect the push for smaller gardens by these urban-dwellers—who are also vegans, wear second-hand clothing as a badge of honour and pledge to have no more than one child each—stems from a disdain for lawn grass.

Lawns, if you hadn’t heard, are evil. Forget the extreme usefulness of turf grass in designing an outdoor space that is peaceful, cool and useable. According to the greenies, lawns use up too much water, require chemical treatments and are a monoculture. Of course, many folks don’t put chemicals on their lawns or even water them. And as for the monoculture argument: if you aren’t chemically weeding your lawn it almost certainly contains a wide diversity of species, and besides, monoculture areas are quite common in nature. What’s more, as green plants, lawns process carbon dioxide and cool the air. They also absorb and filter rainwater. And they stand up to foot traffic better than any other plant you’d probably care to cultivate.

Nonetheless, somehow Kentucky bluegrass got voted Canada’s Worst Weed by CBC Radio One listeners. It was up against Canada thistle and leafy spurge, two weeds so invasive they threaten farmers’ livelihood. It made the list ahead of poison ivy and field bindweed, two weeds so invasive they threaten gardeners’ sanity. Perhaps the farmers and gardeners were busy farming and gardening, leaving the majority vote to the childless ideologues in their loft condos.

There’s more.

We’re not supposed to travel long distances anymore because flying makes too many greenhouse gasses. I always thought visiting other countries helped one develop a wider world view which might, I dunno, make us less likely go to war or something.

We’re not supposed to do laundry in hot water, even though it keeps whites white and kills bacteria. We’re not supposed to dry clothes in a dryer, even though line-dried linens are torture for sufferers of hay fever. We’re not supposed to purchase Mexican produce in the dead of winter even though Mexican labourers cannot survive if they cannot sell what they grow.

Maybe this isn’t what you’d expect from the editorial message at the front of our Living Green issue. But the truth is, I’m worried about the environment because of all the ridiculous chastisement. Environmentalism is a great thing, but it is starting to overshadow a lot of other great things. What we’re hearing from so many corners is that we should do things that range from the really uncomfortable to the implausible to the impossible.

Here’s what we need to do, as individuals, to live green, and it’s not new: we need to think about our actions and weigh our options for a reasonable outcome. We each need to trust our intelligence and not simply assume that if something is difficult to do it must be for the best, that suffering is noble, and that the product with the greenest label is superior.

We need a balanced approach to environmentalism to keep it sustainable. I hope you find a balanced approach in these pages.

Editorial from Ontario Gardener Living Harvest 2007.