In “Green, a Dead End for Social Networks?”, I continue to question the legitimacy of green social networks, even going as far as suggesting that they be abandoned altogether. Instead I propose a non direct approach to go around the ‘nice to have, but don’t need’ problem of green social media in general. One example could be a site that helps people manage their personal resources more effectively as food and gas prices continue to rise. Conservation and efficiency measures would obviously be featured prominently on such a site, but always first as a way to maximize personal resources, and only secondarily as feel-good green measures.
Another alternative is to treat green as what it is, a qualifier for all aspects of people’s lives. This is in sync with growing green narrative: green economy, green revolution, green jobs, green media, green homes, green cars, green living, etc. It is also aligned with the psychology of most people, for whom green is only a secondary benefit. Using that logic, it makes sense to not have separate green social networks, but instead green applications that come as a layer on top of existing mainstream networks. Imagine if you had the option of going green on YouTube, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Craigslist, eBay . . . seamlessly, at your discretion?
At the heart of both approaches, “roundabout green network”, and “green layered network”, is the recognition of green as a global necessity of the highest order, to be reconciled with the fact that it is only a secondary benefit on the personal level.
Like it, Marguerite. Seems like we are definitely on the same page. The question I am interested in is, what would something like this look like. That is, what would this product that layered on top of other sites and applications look like?
I like your idea that conservation and efficiency should be highlighted as a way to maximize personal resources. But, it would need to be a product that really was more than tips, but a useful empowering piece of software.
You are so right about the green movement needing to go beyond the feel-good factor. But I wish that was enough at the same time.
I think green social networking sites perform mainly two functions: connecting people who want to conserve energy and resources with each other, and often at the same time providing some tools to do so, like a carbon calculator. Being green is often presented like a game, and there are many people who like to play games, if only to connect with others through this common interest. As such, they certainly provide value, but only for a limited demographic. There are dedicated websites for almost any thinkable interest, so why not for green?
In the long run though, I see these sites (including all other interest-specific sites) disappear. That is, they’ll may still somewhat look the same, but they’ll be in fact based on generic, but customizable, platform. It’s too costly to have separate developer teams for all such niche networks, however big such networks might be. Ning is a good example of how things could be different.
Ning won’t be the end of it however, because Ning is still based on the idea of multiple “sites”. I don’t think this is the most natural way to communicate. Rather, I believe the future belongs to those sites who can give users access to their different networks (based on interest, profession, location or whatever) through one unified interface. Linkedin and Facebook incorporate this idea through their respective “groups” and “networks”, though they have a long way to go to reach the functionality of Ning for group usage.
A site like Digg shows the demand for network-specific content, not on their own site, but through it’s many clones like Hugg and Kirtsy. Reddit already does it somewhat better because anyone can create sub-Reddits.
Although I’m not really into playing the green game, I certainly belong to the green network, because I actually will consume much less than I can, and I’m willing to spend more on environmental friendly products. I’m really into saving the environment, not saving my wallet. I’m just not so passionate about it that I want to spend lots of time in figuring everything out, and talking about it all day long. My passion is for my personal effectiveness, not my footprint. As such, a more lightweight green network, integrated with my current social media usage would be very welcome indeed.
Of course you should abandon green networking sites if they do nothing for you – but others do appreciate them.
But are are right the most people aren’t influenced by them. When I worked at Changeworks (www.changeworks.org.uk) we recognised that people can only change when it suited them and getting people to change is not about preaching, but engaging. Many (if not most) want to be greener but feel they are too busy to work out and do what is best. A conversation can help to overcome these largely illusory barriers by identifying what change is suitable to the person in their current circumstances – and what the benefits are (and the benefits usually extend beyond the environmental). Such engagement is resource intensive (and requires considerable skill), so we always had problems getting people to fund it, but when they did it worked.
I think the investment is worthwhile. The behaviours the planet needs need to be normalised – the more people there are doing something, the more people will want to do it also. High profile influential people are particularly important – which is why I think you should change your hairdresser!
And thanks for the comment – you are welcome to visit anytime and teach us a thing or too about goats cheese – though I guess it’s a long way to row!
There seems to be a consensus here about the general direction to take. Of course executing is the real challenge, and there is room for more than one way. What I like about this discussion is its pragmatic tone, and connection with the psychological reality of citizens. We need not look further than ourselves, after all, to find some of the answers we need.
Indeed it’s much better to build something for yourself than for some perceived “other”.
I don’t think Gore is particularly active on Wecansolveit.com. 😛
Things get derailed when people are out of touch with their real selves, and build instead worlds for who they wish they were, or for imaginary people they think will use their site.
There should be a distinction here between green social networks and using social media to get your green message across. Any dialogue around green issues can only be a positive thing, good or bad, as long as there is engagement. Green social networks can have the effect of alienating people. Concentrated allegiance towards all things green can be a bit overwhelming. As Simon says engagement is the key. Social media tools, applications and widgets are all about engagement. This differs from a social network, which implies a meeting place for people who share similar ideas, values and norms.
Changing the way in which we consume requires a shift in our understanding around the relationship of the world’s natural resources and the way in which we use those resources. It is naive of us to expect the world to change the way it consumes without addressing the way in which we produce. So much of the green message is about boycotting the worst offenders and seeking out alternative ways to consume. The focus is on consumption when it should also be on production. Organizations like RMI http://www.rmi.org/ are doing wonderful work in this field. They are engaging with industry and changing the way they think about production through altering their mindset and showing them that this shift can be a win-win situation, leading to better use of resources, improved bottom lines and the ability to survive in a future where resources will no longer be available in the same way that they are today.
Engagement though social media verses the “us against them” of social networks is the way to go.
In theory you have a point. One vehicle that can filter the other gathering places….
But didn’t you finish your first sentence, abandon the “Green” thing all together. …. a site that helps people manage their personal resources more effectively as food and gas prices continue to rise.
Sites with tag lines:
Common Sense
Plants you can eat
Sometimes you have to visit 5 stores to save food money
I vote – drop this “Green” thing altogether
Alasdair, thanks for your point about distinction between green social media and green social networks. Too often the two terms are used interchangeably, when they really should mean two different things. This being said, I would still question the value of green media per say, as compared to a greening of the mainstream media. The problem I see with green media is that it is still pretty much a bunch of folks talking to each other, hence its limited value. I want to see newspapers, mainstream magazines, major TV networks, our cultural environment, get sprinkled with smart pieces of information that address real citizens’ needs while at the same time promoting a larger green agenda.
I also appreciate your point about the need to work with production channels. I recently wrote an article in CleanTech Blog, about that very topic: ” Green Supply Chain Management, It’s Good For the Environment, It’s Good For the Bottom Line”, reporting on McKinsey survey of top global executives. The survey highlight the differences between business leaders’ intentions, and actuality. There is a lot of work to be done there, as greening the supply chain ends up, in most cases, a win-win situation for both bottom line and GHG reductions.
John, thanks for visiting also, and for sharing your practical, consumer’s view.