Money Trees

Around 2006, it seemed like every single magazine on the market was publishing ecology-centered issues. The Cosmo/Marie Claire/Allures of the magazine world featured articles on environmentally-friendly beauty products. Bride magazines talked about throwing a green bridal shower - I'm sure even Dog Fancy analyzed your puppy's carbon pawprint. Basically at that point if you wanted a new angle on an old piece, you just had to "green" it.

Well, that era has passed, it seems. And while I'm glad I won't have to see any more plays on "Green is the new [pink is the old] black", I'm not so happy the environment has been eked out of people's minds. Instead, a great multitude of articles now focus on saving money. Eco's been replaced by econ, and I guess saving green is the new black. These penny-pinching issues have become more and more frequent as the nation's economy has looked more and more bleak. Still, I was surprised to open my New Yorker Wednesday and find an article on the both the economy and the environment. The article, a short piece in The Talk of the Town, focused on the inverse relationship between economic prosperity and environmental responsibility. Author David Owen writes:

"The world's principal source of man-made greenhouse gases has always been prosperity. The recession makes that relationship easy to see: shuttered factories don't spew carbon dioxide; the unemployed drive fewer miles and turn down their furnaces, air-conditioners, and swimming-pool heaters; struggling corporations and families cut back on air travel; even affluent people buy less throwaway junk."

Even though the media and individuals aren't focusing on the environment, they're actually doing much more to prevent global warming than they were when it was the actual concern. I've definitely noticed this in my own life - specifically with my work. My company has prided itself on being green for quite a while now - but it's always been quite a battle for me, sometimes feeling like the sole eco-cheerleader (I know, Mom and Dad: you must be so proud/shocked). Getting people to reuse paper or make fewer copies is hard to rally support for, but when cuts are being made and you bring up the cost of all that paper, suddenly there are many more proponents.

While much of the article falls into the kind-of-intuitive-if-you-really-think-about-it category, it also does a nice job of taking things a step further. The article begs the question: if the environment and the economy do have an inverse relationship, how can we fix the economy without losing the footing we've made on the environment? For so long, the U.S. has been such a society of prosperity and excess. While many economists have suggested me may never go back to that level of superabundance (and I personally don't see that we need to go back), there is a happy medium in there. Is there enough money and jobs to be made out of green industries? It seems like now is the time to start looking for solutions that won't have us back to square one if the economy ever does go back to the "normal" of the past decade.