24 rims

24 rims

This summer, the Discovery Channel network launched Planet Green, a 24-hour channel dedicated to promoting conservation. The website says:

"Our experts will help you navigate the options for detoxifying your home, life, and planet - without the jargon or the guilt trips - so you can start being the change you wish to see in the world. Passionate, positive, and always practical, Planet Green is bursting with smart tips and inspiring advice."

An entire cable channel and associated website dedicated to the "greening of the planet" seems like a great stride in spreading environmental awareness. At last, the environment has become important enough for its own television channel. Planet Green is riddled with the paradox of "green consumerism." This media network defers environmental solutions to consumers, leading them to believe it is possible to save the planet by consuming green media and products. While Planet Green may at least draw attention to some of the problems, it fails to examine the questionable nature of certain behaviors.

Below are descriptions of 2 programs offered by Planet Green. Further below is an example of a Planet Green online article contrasted with an article from the Guardian:

Greenovate

"Greg and Kimberly Garmon live in a 8,250 square foot, 8 bedroom, 8 bathroom house, and they need all the space they can get. They have 8 kids and for their green remodel, they're giving each child their own sustainably designed, uniquely themed room..."

"Greenovate" demonstrates eco-friendly renovation strategies. It's possible that the Garmon's eight kids are adopted, but somehow I doubt it. If this family already has eight bathrooms and a thousand square feet for each kid, this is an indicator that this is a family of heavy consumers. I've never seen the show but I doubt there is a dialogue that questions the necessity and inherent anti-greenness of eight children. How terribly rude but a suggestion to initially limiting family size to half that or less would be a step in a right direction. There isn't any question of why 8,250 square feet are necessary in the first place. This suggests to viewers that it is possible to have a *green* family of eight and a *green* 8,250 square foot house.

Battleground Earth

"With a few notable exceptions, the hard-living, party-hearty, carbon-pumping world of rock 'n roll excess doesn't earn many green points. But that's going to change, thanks to Tommy Lee and Ludacris and a new show on Planet Green called Battleground Earth. Yep, rock and rap are going head to head in a battle against the toxic forces destroying the planet as the two travel across the country on a 10-episode tour."

I tried to tolerate this show for 5-10 minute increments, but it was too annoying. The two stars each take a crew and a biodiesal tour bus and supposedly engage in some kind of earth saving planetary mission. A thirty second commercial sums up the entire show:

Ludacris tells Tommy Lee the chain he has around his neck is made from recycled car rims. Tommy Lee says his tattoo is made out of soy ink. Ludacris tells Tommy Lee the hot tub at the hotel he just stayed in was filled with women instead of water. The ad ends when Tommy Lee tells Ludacris how many gallons of water he saved by not showering for seven days. It goes on and on.

If I could make it through an entire episode, it would be interesting to take note of who sponsors this program. Since the show focuses more on the zany antics of Tommy Lee and Ludacris than on disseminating of useful information, the only reason it seems to exist is for the sake of the advertisers.

Article: "Have an Eco Friendly Layover"

"Airports are serious eco-offenders. You might find yourself inside one for a long time. Here are some tips to keep yourself green...."

This article comments on the horror of discovering a disposable plastic plate placed on top of a throwaway paper place mat. After the section titled 'What to Eat' comes the section titled 'What to Buy'. After preaching against the evils of travel-sized toothpaste, the article offers this advice: "If you buy a magazine, don't throw it away when you are done. Give it to another world-weary traveler or simply leave it on a seat. Someone will pick it up and read it." Meanwhile, there's no mention of the elephant of commercial air travel, just sitting there ever so quietly. Rather than questioning the greenhouse gases expended by planes, the article sends the message that eating a green lunch is going to somehow negate these effects.

Perhaps irrelevant to my popculture environmentalism paper, but to me it is immensely interesting that the results of a google search 'air travel+the environment yield (at least in the first 2 pages) sources almost exclusively from the UK. Around here, we avoid these angles and don't participate the Kyoto Treaty because it's bad for business and shit.

From The Guardian UK
Thursday September 21 2006
George Monblot

On the Flight Path to Global Meltdown

"There is no technofix to the disastrous impact of air travel on the environment, argues George Monbiot in the final extract from his new book - the only answer is to ground most of the aeroplanes flying today."

This section pretty much blew me away:

"The transport department suggests that the aviation industry should "pay the external costs its activities impose on society at large". This is an interesting proposal, but unfortunately the department does not explain how it could be arranged. Should a steward be sacrificed every time someone in Ethiopia dies of hunger? As Bangladesh goes under water, will the government demand the drowning of a commensurate number of airline executives? The idea is strangely attractive. But the only suggestion it makes is that aviation fuel might be taxed."

And that kicked Planet Green in the ass.

Though certainly there is useful information imparted from the Discovery Channel and Planet Green, it wouldn't exist if it weren't for advertising revenue. Until it questions the very nature of a consumer driven society, Planet Green isn't actually green at all.