EcoMoms have made it to the front page of the New York Times. This is an impressive group of green moms, 9,000 altogether, and growing strong. A group that is representative of a very active subculture in Northern California where I live. These women are on a mission and nobody can resist them, not even their husbands or children. They fill Whole Foods‘ parking lot with their Priuses, and are not shy about voicing their newly found green convictions all over the blogosphere, as in here, and here, and here.
Reading the article, one would be tempted to think that all is well on the mommy’s front, environmentally speaking. Until reality steps in. This morning, a friendly visit to my four year old neighbor’s house turned into an anthropological tour of American consumerism at its worst. Little Rachel wanted me to blow bubbles with her, and took me to her backyard. There, sitting in the middle of her parents’ picnic table, a big plastic thing dared me with its massive plastic construction. The Iplay Outdoor Bubble Machine from Target, ‘has a large capacity bubble mix tank for high volume bubble production’ and has a five star ‘guest rating’. It can be yours for $24.99.
The Iplay Outdoor Bubble Machine, unfortunately, is more representative of the reality of American moms today, than the EcoMom Alliance.
I only need to look at myself to understand why. As a mom, I have found it incredibly hard to resist the temptation of materialism, and I have documented my struggles often in this blog, as in here, and here, and here, and here. This being said, women do represent a positive force for the climate fight, as supported by all the latest research.
La Marguerite 
The EcoMoms, in their tone and approach, seem more like Soccer Moms; they’ve just replaced their SUVs with Priuses, and soccer practice with quilt-making. They just buy different stuff.
I don’t think that’s a productive way forwards. Real environmentally-friendly behaviour is much more humble, less driven than that, and is often not even intended. The single mother on minimum wage desperately trying to budget so that her children can both eat and be heated this winter in their little apartment, making sure her kids study hard and bringing them up to be honest and kind, to have a social conscience – this family has a smaller negative effect on the environment, and a larger positive effect on society as a whole, than any EcoMom.
Thanks, Kyle. And welcome back to La Marguerite! I hope your move went well.
I tend to agree with you. The EcoMoms movement represents a very small part of the population, and does not really address the core of the problem. Still any small step in the right direction, I will take.
As far as the poor single mom case, I have observed many times that necessity can have very positive consequences for one’s environment. As you point out, a limited budget often means smaller house, less money to buy junk and use for heating. This is not always the case however, and I have also seen people going into debt to buy an SUV and material things that they don’t really need but are pressured into wanting.
I think that the “EcoMom” movement and the human energy and sentiment it represents are great, an important step in the right direction.
Of course, even EcoMoms, indeed, even Superman and WonderWoman combined, can’t tackle global warming alone, so more will be needed.
But, the dilemma you point out is a very real one. It’s even hard to think about. All I can think to do right now is to sit here, in my easy-chair, with my pipe, and watch a good movie, while the EcoMoms fix the planet. (Joking.)
That said, the bubble machine is child’s play: What your young up-and-coming neighbor REALLY NEEDS is a Power Wheels (by Fisher-Price) Barbie Cadillac Escalade, for just $300! It’s pink, carries two young ladies, and goes five miles per hour. People somewhere are undoubtedly planning the marketing for the November-December holiday season as we speak, or at least soon.
I’m glad to see that EcoMoms (and women in general) are showing leadership on this issue. The Earth needs all the help she can get!
Jeff, thanks for all your positive energy!
Kiashu raises the Prius scenario. I did a little article on environmental impact assessemnt and life cycle analysis on cars in 2000 but I can’t find it.
I haven’t looked at the figures forthe Prius but it must require a great deal of energy in its construction.
If people are getting rid of traditioal cars instead of keeping them longer, this surely must be fueling consumerism. Eco green or otherwise
The high energy and resource input in the Prius manufacture not offsetting any gains in reduced running costs.
I walk into town, get the bus into the nearest major town/city, and the coach if I need to go to London etc.
It is remote ish here so a car is moving towards essential eg it may be required to get to work. Even in quite literary a million years could I ever see a Prius being a positive asset.
The construction energy of the Prius is far more than the miles I do.
I am pretty much with Kiashu on the entire comment.
You raise an interesting point, Roger. Embedded in that topic are several questions:
What happens to old less fuel efficient alternatives? Should we dispose of them? How? What is the carbon cost of such process? How about retrofitting old cars? What is the carbon cost of producing new more fuel-efficient alternatives? How do ‘fuel-efficient’ cars fit within carbon neutral objective?
Personally, I am a big fan of the upcoming Israeli electric cars experiment – joint venture with Renault.
The average emissions for car manufacture of all kinds is 17,500kg CO2e per 1,000kg of vehicle, or 17.5lbs/lb. The particular kind of car they come up with actually doesn’t make much difference. An electric engine requires less energy to create than an internal combustion engine, but the batteries if they’re any good require some uncommon and hard to refine elements. Luxury cars tend to have more handwork done causing no emissions, but they also take longer to make, so there’s more use of lighting in a factory per car made, etc. The variation is remarkably small, 15-20lbs CO2e/lb of vehicle.
The Prius weighs 2,890lbs, and so its manufacture will involve about 50,575lbs CO2e emissions. A lot of this is stuff the car-making companies (in general, perhaps two dozen different companies will be involved in the manufacture of parts for a car) can’t control, like how the iron or aluminium was mined and refined, etc.
The Prius is pretty average in terms of weight for its class of vehicle. So basically you’re looking at 24 tonnes/tons of emissions for each vehicle.
Average US fuel consumption per household is about 500 gallons, each of which causes 23.4lbs of emissions, or 11,700lbs in a year. So you’re looking at about four years of average driving before your emissions equal what it took just to make the thing.
I’ve driven in, though not driven, a Prius. It has a little gauge which tells you your current mpg or lt/100km. Basically the petrol engine kicks in every time you hit the accelerator, and the electric engine kicks in when you’re heading on a downslope or braking. Everything turns off when you’re sitting still.
It’s this last that gives you the big savings. In Australia – and I doubt the US is much different – about 20% of all fuel burned is burned when the vehicle is stationary at lights, in traffic jams, etc. It’s impossible to get worse mileage than burning fuel to stay still 🙂
Overall with a combination of city and country driving the Prius will get you about 8lt/100km (30mpg) as opposed to a comparably-sized and priced regular vehicle which gets you about 13km/100lt (18mpg). And so it uses about 60% as much fuel.
So if you drove the same amount, instead of 500gal/year you’d use 300gal/year, saving 200gal and 4,680lbs CO2e. It’d take you 12 years of driving for the fuel savings to offset the initial manufacture of the car. However, after 5-15 years (depending on how you drive and local climate conditions) you’ll need to replace the batteries on the car, which are about 1,000lbs – thus another 17,500lbs of emissions.
You could achieve the same fuel and emissions savings, of course, by driving 40% less. This is less dramatic than buying a Prius, I know, but just as effective.
Thus, if you have a working car already and buy any new car to replace it, overall you will have caused more emissions than if you just kept the old car, however inefficient it is.
If you have no car and are buying one, then it’s better to buy a fuel-efficient one, which includes buying any hybrid.
But in every case the person who buys no car will cause less emissions than the person who buys one. If you really want to be an EcoMom, get on your bike 😀
To me the EcoMoms are a perfect example of the idea that we can buy our way out of the problems we have. Since our problem is essentially overconsumption, the idea we should simply change what we consume but not how much is a bit silly. It’s a bit like an obese person changing to an all-salad diet… with heaps of mayo.
But as you say, M, it’s good that people are becoming more conscious of the issues. Once they accept there’s a problem, it becomes easier to suggest actually useful solutions.
Points that have been raised in recent posts illustrate one reason why it’s so important to have a robust carbon “cap-and-auction” or “cap-and-trade” system or a carbon tax. If the right price “signals” and incentives exist throughout the marketplace, that unleashes a lot of expertise (within companies) to make sure that they make sensible decisions and offer products that are sensible within the new context, AND it creates the right consumer motivations as well, directionally speaking. The entire economy must have the right motivation to reduce GHG emissions. If we have to rely on individual consumers becoming supercomputers, able to figure out what to do (e.g., buy car A or car B?) in order to reduce life-time emissions even within today’s product mix and pricing context, we’ll be in trouble. Most consumers do not think like supercomputers, of course, or at least not like rational emission-reducing supercomputers. We need to get the overall pricing environment reasonably right. Then, things will begin to move in more healthy directions. And, we can adjust as we go.
Otherwise, several things would block progress: First, if we expect consumers to become supercomputers. Second, if we don’t get the pricing environment reasonably right. Third, if we delay action until we think we have a perfected approach, i.e., a Hamlet-like hesitation. We don’t want the “perfect” to become the enemy of the “good.”
Cheers.
Thanks Kyle, for your great and very comprehensive analysis. This kind of information needs to get out in the open. You just put some meat on to what was just a hunch of mine!
Did you see the latest article on Infrastructure on World Changing? It is right down your alley 🙂
I completely agree with you, Jeff. A carbon tax or other form of carbon based financial regulatory mechanism is essential. I know, I need it as a citizen who want to do good, but can’t quite figure out how. It is also good economics. Assigning costs where they belong, in the new zero carbon economy, that is befalling us.
Citizens are like children in a way. We need limits in order to lead happy lives. Left to our own devices, we run wild, and the consequences are disastrous. This is why we have taxes, and laws, and policies, and social codes.
[…] 18, 2008 by lamarguerite EcoMoms are in the air. A few weeks ago, Lynn Anne Miller reached out to me with some great links, that […]
I am not in favour of a carbon trading system. After all, we didn’t abolish slavery by setting up a slave market. We just banned it, and reinforced the ban with gunboats. Now, I think we can be a bit more patient with carbon, so rather than gunboats I’d suggest taxes.
Your hunch was right, marguerite. And in general these sorts of hunches will be right. Which takes more energy, creating a car or using it? Well, ever made a chair or a table? Which took you more energy, building the table or using it? 🙂
Just walking to the shops rather than buying an expensive high-tech car to go there, it’s not as exciting or glamorous, but if you think about it, your hunch is going to be that it’s more effective.
The AIDG mentioned in the article is much like the Schumacher Society people. It’s sensible stuff. Economic development needs to be appropriate for the area, it needs to be something the locals can keep up.
An example of both economic development and making less impact on the environment, something probably closer to your woman’s heart, marguerite, will be crunchy chicken’s new project, goods 4 girls. Apparently, many young women in poor countries miss school during their period, so having access to cheap, reusable sanitary pads will actually help their education. She’s aiming to help there.
Like walking to the shops, it’s not a very exciting or glamorous thing, but can make a big difference.
Lastly, I don’t like the model of citizens as children. We’re not. We’re citizens. Children don’t get to tell parents how they’d like things to be done, we do. Children don’t get to elect new parents if they think their current ones are no good, we do. I prefer a concept of the citizen as an active participant in their democracy, rather than the citizen as a child to be directed about. That you’d even consider the citizen as child shows how far our democracy has degraded. It’s like a husband considering his wife as his property, an old-fashioned and dangerous idea.
Kyle, I understand your point about citizens being grownups with a developed conscience. That’s the ideal. The reality is the majority of people are not there, and do need the external structure from laws, and policies, and infrastructures, and social codes, and leadership to help them live their lives with a minimum of harmony. I do consider myself fairly conscious, and still I acknowledge the need for these external structures. Having these structures frees me from having to worry about what to do for day to day routine functions. In that sense I think the children/parent analogy does hold. And I do not mean citizens are children. The big difference is as citizens, we get to participate in deciding what kind of structures we want, and then willingly abide by them.
I’ve explained myself badly.
Certainly we need those structures, laws, institutions and so on. Not because we are children, though – but because we’re here to live our lives, rather than constantly organise and discuss everything.
As you say, the difference is that as citizens we get to choose those structures and institutions. I believe I said something like that above.
Just be careful with the analogies; analogies are little stories we tell about the world, and the stories we tell shape and even make the world.
[…] is happening. JWT calls it the ‘emerging new spirit of good-citizen ethics’. Like the EcoMoms phenomenon, however, it is a movement, still confined to a fringe of the American […]
[…] 21, 2008 by lamarguerite A trip to the neighbors across the street is almost always a culture shock. A peak into the reality of American culture and its excesses. This time, was Russell’s one […]
[…] there are the Eco-Moms, and the mommy bloggers, and a few token names in the environmental stratospheres. Frances […]
[…] It is happening. JWT calls it the ‘emerging new spirit of good-citizen ethics’. Like the EcoMoms phenomenon, however, it is a movement, still confined to a fringe of the American culture. The […]