Why bother coining a clunky phrase like "PoMa", when plain old "w@nker" describes them perfectly?

Reading this article also put me in mind of this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/24/ethicalliving.recycling

"People who believe they have the greenest lifestyles can be seen as some of the main culprits behind global warming, says a team of researchers, who claim that many ideas about sustainable living are a myth."

Irrespective of what they are calling themselves now (or what others are calling them), these people have always been around; and they are insufferable, boring, arrogant and hypocrital farts.

I second that from Clownfish and Leigh. Rick S care to comment on this post? He's one of your mates. I'm starting to see how the we could use the Sustainable People lobby as a hit squad for people who write this stuff.

"In a PoMa household there’s almost always someone with a food allergy or intolerance."

enough said.

Interesting article. I recognize many PoMa or Green Idealist types - very middle class, earnest and as far from bogan as you can get. This class overlaps with the "Volvo socialists" of the 70s and "chardonnay socialists" today.

The economic system merely expands to take them in too. The eco industry is a robust market niche - like Dick Smith's shops.

It's fair enough to point out inconsistencies (huge air miles versus recycling), but surely the ethical sensitivity of this class is better than having no concern for ethical behaviour at all?

One thing that annoys me is how governments and electricity utilities provide a "market" mechanism whereby people can voluntarily (altruistically) nominate that they want to use "green" electricity. This is an absurdity. If governments and utilities really believe there is a benefit for the whole community and the planet through such sourcing (though I think there's a pea-and-thimble trick in there somewhere), why don't they make it a community service obligation the whole community should pay for, mandate that x% of electricity has to be sourced this way, and *everybody* has it reflected in their bills? Otherwise it's an appeal for some people to provide charity for someone else's benefit. Altruism is a great thing (where would we be without the army of volunteers?), but it's nowhere near effective in providing solutions to a problem of this magnitude – that is, if you accept that greenhouse warming IS a problem AND that we're one of the causes.

I’m a keen recycler, and have bushwalked throughout NZ, Chile and Argentina, and Iceland, and been in about 50 countries ... !

People differ greatly in ethical concern and in how much they’re prepared to pay for those concerns – actually buying free-range eggs, fairtrade coffee, and so on. Some people reckon that everything is reducible ONLY to dollars and cents. Alan Moran, for example, told an environmental economics conference once that the solution to problems like the Franklin River was to put the river up for sale, see who’d buy it, and let the market decide. Barbarians at the gates!

Having an "ethical sensitivity" is all well and good, but when the results of someone's actions are at complete odds with their publicly stated intentions, then I think "hypocrisy" is the word.

Recalling my long-gone Sunday School days, I think the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax-Collector is well worth considering in this context.

Once again this excellent book describes the extraordinary complexity re all of the world-wide connections involved in even the seemingly simplest of actions.

And how the many, if not all, ecological systems are under mpotentially disastrous stresses, including the inner ecology of our bodies, due to all of the previously non-existent chemicals we now breathe in and ingest.

http://www.ecoliteracy.org/publications/daniel_goleman.html

They're trying.

Sure, they're failing, but I'll take someone who at least attempts to do the right thing, over someone who belittles those who take an interest in such matters and justifies their laziness by pretending that nothing they do has any impact at all.

I ain't a PoMa. I won't be in a position to buy a Prius anytime soon. But I don't like seeing pieces like this used as an excuse to justify apathy.

Ok, so a fair amount of this is satire - but at its core, I'd like to see more of a discussion about the standard of living we accept as sustainable - on a more serious level, the piece appears to be lambasting people who aspire to the upper-middle class, which is portrayed as inevitably being environmentally unfriendly, and still a vicious cycle of consumption.

So... what's a genuinely fulfilling, non-hypocritical and most importantly, an *acceptable* standard of living which takes into account environmental concerns and sustainability?

I agree with TRTL.. having read the article through twice, I can't see this hypocrisy other posters are banging on about.. please explain?

Yes it is satire but the author seems to be pointing out that an attempt to live more ethically may be more expensive than not caring. So? TRTL, who says they are failing? So they spend more $$ on stuff that others wouldn't bother with, to achieve a more sustainable (presumably) lifestyle. How does that equate with 'failure'?

Spending a higher proportion on services than goods does not equate with failure or hypocrisy as far as I can see. Some of these folk are undoubtedly w&nkers but I don't see it as a 100% correlation.

What is the point of this article? Sure it was a bit of fun and the bait appears to have worked. But was the intent to validate those who don't give a damn about anything much at all except their own comfort or to excuse apathy. The whole article makes some huge broad sweeping generalisations.

Have you ever met one person that fits tightly into the group you have described?

Lately there have been a number of articles about a return to old fashioned vegetable gardens in the backyard. Was this false reporting? I have seen it in my own city where more and more people are growing their own and/or buying locally grown products.

You can be a discerning consumer in whatever way rocks your boat (fair trade, organic, GM free, Australian made,vegan, locavore) without blowing your trumpet to all and sundry.

What is is to anyone else if someone wants to ride a bike in the inner city to work or live largely self-subsistently on a few acres.

Thoughtful consumerism is not something to be scorned. It is afterall one of the few powers we have as ordinary people to make a difference - but it only works in numbers and apathy is its greatest enemy.

So far apathy is winning, probably due more to exhaustion over the number of hours we now work trying to live lifestyles that we can't enjoy because we are too busy working.

Bottom line is the way we live our lives is a personal choice and we do have the power to change it if we really want to.

I agree with pelican and TRTL. It is good to seek to make a difference. Apathy is an enemy, but so also are nihilism and cynicism, and also moral and ethical relativism. All sap personal spiritual and community wellbeing.

The attitude that nothing matters, or that good and bad are merely 'in the eye of the beholder', is a cop-out from responsibility and from the sort of judgmentalism that is absolutely necessary to be able to discern between what is constructive and what is destructive. Not caring which is which is very destructive of civilization.

The article is shallow, playing on stereotyped people the author has probably never met. Not a whiff of data or fact. Sure, there are lots of pretenders in every strata of society, but lots of people are also making at least some effort to become more informed about what is responsible, urban, pleasant living.

And where does he get this guff about 'they almost always have someone with a food allergy?' What is HE taking?

What? Not another @#%&* label? Please......
Oh, I am not one of those, but if it is 'Post Materialist Consumer' (in case that term actually makes sense), shouldn't it be PoMaCon? Quite frankly, it IS all a Con. The lot. I live in a remote area. And possess none of the following:
4WD, McMansion, expensive BBQ, large mortgage, clothes dryer, dishwasher. I don't cycle to work, and never go overseas, for holidays or whatever. None of these. I eat fruit, vegies, meat, eggs, dairy. Do not know anything about Yoga, no food intolerances. Experiences? They don't involve cafes, theatres or book stores.
Oh, for Goodness sake! First it was Yuppies and Dinks. Now this acronym with the first 2 letters thing. Someone sensationalising reality to sell a book! Someone pointing the finger at a group, in order to take the spotlight off the Mega-consumers, and somehow justify their behaviour. May God spare me! The world is truly falling apart. Noone really knows how to solve the climate crisis. And it is a crisis. Global financial 'Crisis'? Wrong word, in that case. A financial crisis is where we can't afford food or a roof over our heads. For Pete's sake, get real.
'Post Materialist'? What is all this 'Post-' in front of everything since Post Renaissance? Materialists have been around for as long as Non-Materialists, or has everyone forgotten 406BC - Epicurus, for example? He moved to the country, away from the salons of Alexandria, and no longer wore fashionable clothes. I have done that. Guess that makes me a 'down-shifter'. Mustn't let that get me 'down', though. Get back to reality, the lot of you.

This is just old school class politics.

These people are the upper middle class. Well educated, in service industries, not very rich.

There is nothing new about it.

It's fascinating to watch the anti-green brigade parade themselves as virtuous because they aren't green - and, I assume, do little more than satisfy both social and market expectations of behaviour. By delighting in the stereotype of the yup greenie, the feral greenie, the fundamentalist greenie - you thereby release yourself from any kind of obligation except not to be like them. I'm sure you're all incredibly ethical, altruistic and caring.
What a nauseating display.