HOME / press box: Media criticism.

Green Is the New YellowOn the excesses of "green" journalism.

By Jack ShaferPosted Friday, July 6, 2007, at 4:21 PM ET

Illustration by Robert Neubecker. Yellow journalism now comes in a new color: green.

RSS

Often as sensationalistic as its yellow predecessor, green journalism tends to appeal to our emotions, exploit our fears, and pander to our vanity. It places a political agenda in front of the quest for journalistic truth and in its most demagogic forms tolerates no criticism, branding all who question it as enemies of the people.

Not all green journalism harangues, but even the gentlest variety sermonizes, cuts logical corners, and substitutes good intentions for problem solving. For an example of creepy gentle green journalism, there's no better example than the "Slate Green Challenge," a series that Slate started publishing last fall in conjunction with TreeHugger.org.

I've got no fundamental quarrel with TreeHugger. They're propagandists who are "dedicated to driving sustainability into the mainstream" and don't really pretend to be journalists. My bitch is that Slate, which ought to know better, boarded the trendy greenwagon to publish the group's flawed, if well-meaning, guide to reducing carbon dioxide from one's "diet."

Now, don't get me wrong. Carbon emissions may indeed be causing harmful climate change, and dramatic reductions by Americans may actually do some good. But in typical green journalism fashion, the feel-good TreeHugger copy gives equal emphasis to reducing your airline travel and installing an aerating shower head in your bathroom. (Carbon saving from canceling that New York to Los Angeles roundtrip: about a ton. Installing new shower head: about a thimble.)

There's not much in the TreeHugger-Slate package we haven't heard a million times since the first oil embargo: Install storm windows. Insulate. Weather strip. Keep the furnace settings low and the AC settings high. Turn things off. Buy energy-efficient appliances and cars. Avoid unnecessary trips. Carpool. Don't waste. But that's not good enough for the green worshippers at TreeHugger, whose aesthetic is ascetic. The series counsels readers to decarbonize by resisting new purchases of cotton clothes—unless of the organic variety—and to seek fibers made of hemp, bamboo, ramie, linen, silk, and lyocell (wood pulp). In greenifying Christmas, one must give up the carbon gluttony of Xmas cards, Xmas wrapping paper, Xmas trees, and electrified Xmas decorations. "If you're decorating with candles, choose the ones made from soy wax or beeswax," the article seriously advises. And, if you must eat, TreeHugger says, eat locally and organically, and avoid processed food and meat.

Slate isn't the only victim of green-brain disease. The malady swept through the New York Times Magazine in May as it published a feature on the glories of an experimental solar-hydrogen house "that might very well change our lives forever." The piece read great until a less-than-worshipful letter writer caught up with the magazine two weeks later. Using hydrogen as an energy-storage medium is wasteful, A.R. Martin wrote to the magazine. "For every 100 kilowatts of electricity produced by the solar cells, only about 40 kilowatts is recovered from the hydrogen fuel cell. By contrast, as much as 80 kilowatts could be recovered from a storage battery."

The entertainment press corps genuflected in Hollywood this year when the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences staged a "carbon neutral" Oscars ceremony. The academy accomplished the feat by paying the carbon-offset service TerraPass, which in turn pays landfills, foresters, and others to reduce greenhouse gases. In March, Business Week removed the eco-glitter of offsets with a feature, writing, "When traced to their source, these dubious offsets often encourage climate protection that would have happened regardless of the buying and selling of paper certificates. One danger of largely symbolic deals is that they may divert attention and resources from more expensive and effective measures."

Equally skeptical of the carbon credits has been the Financial Times. "Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on 'carbon credit' projects that yield few if any environmental benefits," the newspaper reported in April. Another brilliant FT piece cites several academic studies to show that imported foodstuffs aren't necessarily the carbon bombs that "localvores" make them out to be. The piece speculates that the car ride back from the grocery store might be the most carbon-intensive part of a fruit, vegetable, or leg of lamb's journey from farm to pantry. Compare this with the TreeHugger catechism in Slate, which holds that "there's no question that eating locally grown foods and shopping at your farmers' market help reduce CO2 emissions by cutting down on transport."

I don't mean to suggest all greenies are well-meaning dolts or propagandists. Some possess all the skepticism of their more enlightened brothers and sisters in the capitalist press. The troublemakers at the Center for Media and Democracy, for example, point to dozens of examples of "greenwashing," which they defined as the "unjustified appropriation of environmental virtue by a company, an industry, a government or even a non-government organization to sell a product, a policy" or rehabilitate an image. In the center's view, many enterprises labeled green don't deserve the name. If only a certain online magazine were so skeptical.

******

Seen a rotten example of green journalism lately? Or a good example of de-greening journalism? Send the links to me at . (E-mail may be quoted by name in "The Fray," Slate's readers' forum, in a future article, or elsewhere unless the writer stipulates otherwise. Permanent disclosure: Slate is owned by the Washington Post Co.)

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Jack Shafer is Slate's editor at large. Follow him on Twitter.

Illustration by Robert Neubecker.

COMMENTS

Remarks from the Fray:

The article is right on target criticizing green advocates who insist nobody can be pure enough unless they give up everything and live naked in a hot spring, eating only algae.

Still, green journalism has a place. Industry advocates and lobbying groups tell us and our elected representatives coal mining is clean, nuclear power is safe, automobiles shouldn't be blamed for pollution, agricultural runoff doesn't pollute streams, etc, etc. They're out there with their mouthpieces, feeding TV and print stories to the media outlets, urging us to blame ourselves, someone else, anybody except the (insert industry name here) people who are just trying to make our lives better by allowing us to live more comfortably.

Just as you don't have to be a vegan to eat a healthier diet and have a lower impact on the planet, neither do you have to give up shelter and transportation to stop global warming. Driving a Matrix instead of a Hummer would do a lot. So would building a 2400 square foot house instead of a palace two or three times that size. It's really not necessary to live in a yurt and walk barefoot through the snow.

I think most people already know all this, but we're being tugged and pulled between the two extremes. The one thing to which I do object is the implication that we can't be pure enough to satisfy the purists, so why try? That makes no sense at all. If we followed that kind of advice, none of us would live past 20. It's too hard to obey the 55 mph speed limit, so why not go 110? Drink the whole bottle of tequila. Spend all your money at once. Exercise no self-control whatever, in any realm.

Perfect is the enemy of good enough. Don't listen to either of the extremist viewpoints. They're only interested in being right, not saving the planet. Green comes in many shades. Pale green is better than not green at all.

--Arlington

(To reply, click here.)

I cannot understand how Mr. Shafer writes of the greening of journalism as if it were a curse. He accuses those writing "green" to be essentially under the influence of heart instead of mind.

But is that really so awful?

The Treehugger website was created to provide updates on different technologies, projects and ideas meant to help the planet. Treehugger serves as a place for those in the green creative fields to see what others are thinking of. It offers a place for people to become hopeful -- that in the face of numerous pending environmental catastrophes, people care and are trying to do something about it. Treehugger promotes an excitement about changing the world for the better, and this atmosphere is necessary to keep others intrigued, inspired, and inventive.

If people who care about the environment want to help save it by informing others, you can no more fault them for that than you could fault Christians for wanting to write of the love for Christ. It seems Mr. Shafer's whole hangup is on the definition of journalism..

To suggest that Treehugger should have the same standards of journalism that, say, the New York Times should operate under is fundamentally unfair. Treehugger has never professed to be a neutral report on the affairs of the world.

To those that insist that no one should write about things that could help save the creatures, land, water, and air: I insist that you should not be writing at all.

--divinehammer

(To reply, click here.)

Green journalism's problem is that given the premises, there just isn't much to write about. The earth is warming at a catastrophic rate, the warming is caused by CO2, immediate action is needed to prevent flooding and so on. The premises are dubious but that is not really the point. Achieving a substantial reduction in emissions would require dismantling much of our economy. As everyone knows, the main alternative energy sources, wind and solar, function only intermittently and are inefficient as well.

It adds up to a depressing scenario, but only if you accept the premises. But the Green Journalist cannot do this. Because taking a constant downbeat attitude is impossible, the only alternative for the green journalist is to write TreeHugger stories, or try to confuse the issue of energy independence (no imported oil) with the issue of no fossil fuels.

--Bottomfish

(To reply, click here.)

(7/7)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES