Each time I walk into a supermarket I am only too aware of the numerous products laying claim to "green" credentials. The list of ingredients on the back is meaningless unless you happen to be an industrial chemist, so one feels strongly the consumer is being conned. Without a doubt, this is commodification of green in its most exploitative sense.

Recently I bought a bottle of white wine because I was intrigued by the green story on the label.

The story was about care for the land and care to produce a carbon neutral product. It talks about the emissions which couldn't be reduced being offset by "contributing to accredited carbon reduction projects." This product tells the consumer an entirely different story to that found, by-and-large, on supermarket shelves and one feels it is sincere in its green endeavours as opposed to pretensions.

But what exactly are carbon reduction projects? We all know about tree planting and schemes to pay poor countries to plant trees and believe this to be a good thing.

But you write that planting too many trees in northern latitudes turns white tundra into dark forest that traps more heat.

What then of our ever expanding cities built of brick, mortar, concrete and tarmac? Are they not one of the biggest heat banks and as such, wouldn't they have a massive impact on climate? It stands to reason then, that if climate change is to be addressed so too must be cities around the world which act as heat banks - but how?

And what of the increasing population? More population means more resources are consumed and thus more pressure on the environment, more cities and so on. Should population control not be at the forefront of "green" thinking?

I do not agree that the science is settled, there are to many issues loitering around which attack the credibility of the science. But I do agree with your thesis on the commodification of "green",and that it has been turned into just another commodity.

James...you say:

All around us we see the industry that has grown out of Green.

Umm...yeah right.. let's just look at 'one'.

"NSW solar input subsidy.. 60c/kwhr paid to you for your solar system grid input,- 'feed in tarrif'"

Here's the speel:

The New South Wales (NSW) Government has announced a Solar Bonus Scheme. This Scheme is applicable from 1st January 2010. There are certain criritera to avail this Solar Bonus Scheme. The Solar Bonus Scheme will credit eligible participating customers with a "gross" feed-in tariff rate of 60 cents per kilowatt hour for all the electricity that their eligible solar photovoltaic (PV) system. The Scheme is valid for 7 years.

SEVEN years eh ?

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/nsw-to-slash-costly-solar-feedin-tariff-20101027-173hs.html

NSW is slashing the gross feed-in tariff for its solar bonus scheme because it is costing too much.
Premier Kristina Keneally today announced the government will cut the tariff from 60 cents to 20 centsc per kilowatt hour, and introduce a total capacity cap of 300 megawatts.

O---k... 'costing too much' ? hmmm me smelleth a very putrid rat!

I wonder if it's not more a case of "Electricity companies not making enough" ?

Amazing stuff.

We invest in Solar... = Income redistribution. "we pay more or get less"

We don't invest in Solar= "We pay more and get less"

Perhaps the place we need to 'get' is OFF the jolly grid!

Thank you everyone for positive comments. =) I think a lot of authors don't like to admit it, but many of us thrive on feedback, especially in the early days.

Otokonoko, it's definitely a guilt market. Many charities work in a similar way. Pelican, yes. We want to do something, so we reach into our consumer culture for a quick fix instead of changing our lifestyles. I don't just mean 'other people', either. I did buy that kettle myself.

Ibbit, the degree to which the albedo change from a small area of replanted forest, or a city, shouldn't be overestimated. It's small, but figures I remember seeing (though can't now find) said that it reduced or negated the carbon savings from the planted trees. Suffice to say, the best way of reducing carbon in the atmosphere is to try to keep it from getting there in the first place, not removing it afterwards. As for the science, it does take city heat bloom into effect. That actually pales in comparison to the CO2 emissions -- it's a factor, but a small one.

ALGORE, heh, I hadn't heard of that one. I have a suspicion that you might be right there. A nice analysis of the economics of climate change responses is found on this very site, here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11154
In that, the author argues that the least efficient of all interventions is the 'direct action' approch of subsidising individual efforts, but that that's the only line of attack that's getting any support. It's well worth a read.

finally a short succinct read..with some..clear thinking thrown in

i cant critique..the words..
thus seek only to add to..the absurdities you reveal

the cost...to make..the world...'green'..is built on lies
[the tempratures...fail to include..the fact..that the temp..is modified..by building in..close proximity..to the measuring stations]

there is clear fraud..in the models..used to sell this con
[to bring in this big new tax..for commodity traders to speculate in..and trade with...let alone...accord the credits..for]

take..uk..steel industry..got credits for closing a british-steel plant[lossing near 1000 jobs]..then the owners..took the..'credit'..and built..a much bigger plant..in india

add to the facts..these wind/mills..solarcells..are produced..[by industry...making more carbon..in their production...add in the facts..of spain..who went..green'..big time...and now its built..no more jobs..[and huge govt sovreign debt]

this green-creed..is so rife..the hrenies are a bigger danger,..that the issues they guilt us into...[home composting producing near the same foot-print...as cows]

those pretty subsidised..solar cells..on so many roofs..[were cleaned using a solvent..100 times worse..than co-2...

add in transport...building 'infastructure'..to these subsidised new industries,...often off the grid....there is a huge..new quongo...trying to suck more govt funds from the allready overburdened tax-payer..con-summers

add in this 2..BILLION subsidy..for nEW cars[more carbon]..and realise..the poor..CANT buy new cars..you see..yet more govt largess..to the rich..[or bail-out..of foreign ownedc multinationals..or poor car dealers]

see we SEEMINGLY...have destroyed..the globe..BUILDING..this current system..[so much so..that industry ran out of consumables..for us to buy]...but They..NEED to keep on building..SOMETHING...anything..

so green guilt..[and govt subsidy]...
and media..sells the spin...we know..their advertisers..run their pr

anyhow..i have vented...[as if penny wrong..holding NOW fionance...isnt a clear enough sign..of who's adgendas..she really is serving...[noting most the spokes-people...are economists..there you have it]

is it cheaper to bail them out now
or let capitalism sort them out tomorrow
we have our vote..by what we buy into...

stop the deciets,rupert[julia]..mr GORE..
and the rest of..the unwashed..investers in..wet/green-dreams

no subsidy to any wealthy person
let capitalism...decide..what it can afford
then let govt do the rest...

[govt entripeneeer-ship..thats a way to go...let the people..get the proffits..not bankers/investers]

and..stop selling off..the peoples assets

[and building..pipelines for exporters...
that 'infastructure'..THEY CAN PAY..THEMSELVES]

Actually, when it comes to consumerism, it is easy being green. You just embrace the Way of the Tightarse. Don't buy anything you don't need, and don't buy it new if you can get it second-hand. Grow your own vegetables if you have the space. Go dumpster diving. Steal (just kidding). You'll not only save the earth, you'll save lots of cash in the process.