Redefining Green
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/magazine/15green.t.html?ex=1188619200&en=001bc45c59eacc19&ei=5070
- log-in required) about redefining "green." If we really want
environmental sustainability, it has to be cheap enough for the masses
(i.e. China) to pay for it. And the only way to get it that low is
through free-market capitalism.
It's a drum I've been banging in this space a lot, but let me say it
again: if you're screaming green and then talking about how free trade
is bad and capitalism is bad and Walmart is bad and China is bad, can
you really find a lever effective enough to make change? Or are you
just screaming green to make yourself look good?
Or are you willing to think through what it might take to blast green
initiatives on a very, very large scale. We're talking policies
that'll reduce the carbon impact of China's 1.3 billion people, we're
talking getting Walmart and McDonald's to drastically improve the
effect of their purchasing and selling, we're talking venture
capitalists figuring out a way to save a buck and save the earth.
That's what I want green to mean to my kids.
Comments