Restaurant Social Media
Too much green.
When is green too much?
When is green too much?
Let me preface that I have been l have two compost bins, worms (in a bin, not me), I recycle and reuse, and have done so for years. I was a slow food leader for four years until..well, that's another story. Despite my personal commitment to good ecological behavior, I contend that green coverage has surpassed a the point of good effects. There is too much of it, and i is generally too facile.
Take this: http://www.sommelierjournal.com/articles/article.aspx?year=2009&...
Quote: "all the drinks are free of chemicals, hormones, antibiotics, and genetically modified organisms" nice, but silly. Aside from the C2H5OH issue, there's not a lot of chemical modification that goes into a good martini. Most of us would like our drinks free of organisms of any kind. As for a green drink..I’ll take a margarita any day.
Somewhere in the past years virtuous thinking and action went from being laudable to hysterical, and since then a growing pack of buck naked green emperors have running about the streets screaming words like "sustainable" and "no chemicals". As it snowballs the fringe hangers on have become less scientific and more emotional or just plain silly. The amount of nonsense spouted in "the planet’s" name is vast.
My current daily news feed brings up at least fifteen reports, assertions or admonitions of greenness or sustainable policy, plus perhaps two economy related articles. With all due respect to the undeniable importance of "the planet", that's not a logical balance.
The practical effects are disturbing, all on the surface for our common good. San Francisco in a rush to be the "greenest city" in America has recently passed draconian laws regarding garbage ($100 fine for putting the pizza box in the wrong bin) and is trying to stop the use of cars in the city. The growing number of well intentioned fiats aimed at restaurants and businesses, fueled by political pandering to an empowered green minded public is exceedingly burdensome.
The terminology generally refers to saving or destroying "the planet". Frankly, the largest thing I have ever destroyed was a 1975 2CV (wobbly French car / icy road), and the only thing I think I could save would be a Bearnaise ..so don't you think the suggestion that YOU could save/destroy the planet by bringing your own bag and separating your garbage is just a bit over the top?
Selling non endangered fish species, oil recycling, etc are things you should do. Planning new businesses with low energy and green components, furthermore, is extremely sound financial practice. Waste not, want not. But when a young mother at the farmers’ market told me she was going to raise her children vegan so they would not destroy the planet, ..well, that’s child abuse and a sign that the sustainable movements and messages are overreaching their boundaries.
So what's the problem?
There are too many unknown or unmentioned variables in the publication of the green agenda, which is undeniably political. The touting of battery powered cars conveniently ignores a limited world lithium supply and the potential pollution by the batteries. Business like a recently introduced "Fair trade" public relations company", beg any number of questions.
Aside from the fact that the over coverage of green is annoying, or actually not aside from that, the current hysteria, which might just be stinking journalism and good marketing, detracts from the value of thinking about what you are doing and surely to some extent the public willingness to embrace new habits and make extra efforts to do what is right without nagging. Following the comments to any green blogs shows some green weariness, which will grow. Your mothers' nagging didn't get your room cleaner. On the contrary. Green nagging is creating an audible/visible counter reaction. The more this happens, the more the well intentioned will feel justified in passing laws controlling individual behaviors. See San Francisco.
Zealotry rarely brings good ends, and the green focus of the country has devolved into a zealous race to save something. ("Save" is generally a part of any zealot's agenda, although it has been more often used for lesser concepts than "the planet" like souls and the master race). It usually ends in devaluating its focus. In the process of doing so, however, it succeeds in destroying liberties by redefining rights as "privileges". Good intentions paired with poorly informed public emotions easily become bad law.
When is green too much?
Let me preface that I have been l have two compost bins, worms (in a bin, not me), I recycle and reuse, and have done so for years. I was a slow food leader for four years until..well, that's another story. Despite my personal commitment to good ecological behavior, I contend that green coverage has surpassed a the point of good effects. There is too much of it, and i is generally too facile.
Take this: http://www.sommelierjournal.com/articles/article.aspx?year=2009&...
Quote: "all the drinks are free of chemicals, hormones, antibiotics, and genetically modified organisms" nice, but silly. Aside from the C2H5OH issue, there's not a lot of chemical modification that goes into a good martini. Most of us would like our drinks free of organisms of any kind. As for a green drink..I’ll take a margarita any day.
Somewhere in the past years virtuous thinking and action went from being laudable to hysterical, and since then a growing pack of buck naked green emperors have running about the streets screaming words like "sustainable" and "no chemicals". As it snowballs the fringe hangers on have become less scientific and more emotional or just plain silly. The amount of nonsense spouted in "the planet’s" name is vast.
My current daily news feed brings up at least fifteen reports, assertions or admonitions of greenness or sustainable policy, plus perhaps two economy related articles. With all due respect to the undeniable importance of "the planet", that's not a logical balance.
The practical effects are disturbing, all on the surface for our common good. San Francisco in a rush to be the "greenest city" in America has recently passed draconian laws regarding garbage ($100 fine for putting the pizza box in the wrong bin) and is trying to stop the use of cars in the city. The growing number of well intentioned fiats aimed at restaurants and businesses, fueled by political pandering to an empowered green minded public is exceedingly burdensome.
The terminology generally refers to saving or destroying "the planet". Frankly, the largest thing I have ever destroyed was a 1975 2CV (wobbly French car / icy road), and the only thing I think I could save would be a Bearnaise ..so don't you think the suggestion that YOU could save/destroy the planet by bringing your own bag and separating your garbage is just a bit over the top?
Selling non endangered fish species, oil recycling, etc are things you should do. Planning new businesses with low energy and green components, furthermore, is extremely sound financial practice. Waste not, want not. But when a young mother at the farmers’ market told me she was going to raise her children vegan so they would not destroy the planet, ..well, that’s child abuse and a sign that the sustainable movements and messages are overreaching their boundaries.
So what's the problem?
There are too many unknown or unmentioned variables in the publication of the green agenda, which is undeniably political. The touting of battery powered cars conveniently ignores a limited world lithium supply and the potential pollution by the batteries. Business like a recently introduced "Fair trade" public relations company", beg any number of questions.
Aside from the fact that the over coverage of green is annoying, or actually not aside from that, the current hysteria, which might just be stinking journalism and good marketing, detracts from the value of thinking about what you are doing and surely to some extent the public willingness to embrace new habits and make extra efforts to do what is right without nagging. Following the comments to any green blogs shows some green weariness, which will grow. Your mothers' nagging didn't get your room cleaner. On the contrary. Green nagging is creating an audible/visible counter reaction. The more this happens, the more the well intentioned will feel justified in passing laws controlling individual behaviors. See San Francisco.
Zealotry rarely brings good ends, and the green focus of the country has devolved into a zealous race to save something. ("Save" is generally a part of any zealot's agenda, although it has been more often used for lesser concepts than "the planet" like souls and the master race). It usually ends in devaluating its focus. In the process of doing so, however, it succeeds in destroying liberties by redefining rights as "privileges". Good intentions paired with poorly informed public emotions easily become bad law.
Tags: green, journalism, marketing, sustainable
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by susan holaday on -
While I agree that the article in question is more than a bit over the top, I'm not sure all the emphasis on "green" is zealotry so much as an effort to bring greater awareness of eco-consciousness to the masses.
-
Permalink Reply by Jo Lynne Lockley on -
There is some extremely grounded information out there and I am far from thinking that ecological issues should not be covered, but it is precisely the us versus them concept of "the masses" which moves a concept from a set of valid principles to zealotry.
In a recent meeting with Tony Bourdaine Alice Waters stated "They are beginning to care about what they eat."
http://www.examiner.com/x-277-Baltimore-Dining-Examiner~y2009m5d26-...
How consummately insulting this is and how untrue, if They means my mother or grandmother, me or anyone who visits the Hispanic or Chinese markets, where I do much of my shopping, but Waters' missionary zeal has pulled leagues of disciples who in turn want to "spread the word". Some of them, unfortunately write and/or blog, and most of whom have limited qualifications to actually judge the value of what they write beyond their passion and wish to do good.
These good intentions, aside from the dumb writing, have bad effects. I alluded to the political efficacy - much the same as that which prompted the banning of foie gras in several cities - which is the willing partner of those wishing to make things better. If public sentiment can be fired up enough to make politicians feel there is possible gain in pandering to it, laws are passed.
The writer of a book on the effects of fast food on the brain recently stated on NPR that he would find federal laws controlling what food could be sold to whom no more outrageous than the FDA's ban on cigarette sales to minors. That is zealotry. He has a belief, he knows he's right, and he would be perfectly willing to trample self determination, unfortunately not protected in the Constitution, to save us all from ourselves. (Well, you all. I don't eat fast food, but I recognize your right to eat anything you want to.)
Too much of a good thing is still too much, and my sentiments are that the incessant pounding of the green drums are in the long run both detracting from the strength of what is essentially a good message and contributing to an ever more restrictive set of community rules/ordinances/laws, many of which will be useless. Say Green Laws in place of the Blue Laws now slowly being repealed a century or more after they were passed. To save sinners from themselves.
This is, of course, far from the only over the top article. It is just the most recent.
-
Permalink Reply by susan holaday on
-
I'd like to think you're wrong, but I suspect you're absolutely correct! Bravo!
-
Permalink Reply by Jo Lynne Lockley on
-
I'd like to think I was wrong, too, to tell the truth.
Advertisement
Industry News
Food + Tech
Restaurant Jobs
Events
Videos
Restaurant + Finance
Are you looking for growth and expansion capital? Private equity or debt capital? Need advisors?
We have direct connections that may be helpful.
Contact Michael@fohboh.com
© 2012 Created by FohBoh.
