Rise of The Neo-Greens
Karen Stewart and Howard Brown of Stewart + Brown (with daughter Hazel and dog Bridger)/Photo by Wired
From Wired: “Solar panels on the roof. Hybrid car in the garage. Organic-cotton clothes in the closet. Today’s eco-radicals are voting with their dollars.”
The surging popularity of organic material—fibers grown without pesticides or herbicides—demonstrates that the neo-greens want to know the source of what they buy. They associate organics with not just healthy eating but low-impact, earth-friendly, sustainable farming. For a generation of shoppers, the certified-organic label has become a Garanimals tag for grown-ups. According to the Organic Trade Association, sales of organic clothing were projected to reach $88 million in 2004—up 30 percent in two years.
Web sites have begun popping up to help consumers appear fashionable and still be environmentally defensible. Every month, more than 430,000 people visit Treehugger.com, which caters to “design-obsessed undercover bleeding hearts.” Launched in July 2004, this site is produced by a far-flung group of bloggers on four continents who earn $10 to $15 per post. Now the tastemaker of the green aesthetic, Treehugger postings help readers price-check sorghum ottomans or find that perfect pair of recycled tire-valve earrings. “We’re trying to make it easy by aggregating the sexy green stuff,” says Graham Hill, the affable 35-year-old Canadian who founded the site. Ventures like these, as well as self-described “organic pioneers” like Stewart + Brown, are finding opportunity by pushing back against both the high-style chic crowd and the high-doom environmentalists.
To the fashionistas, the neo-greens say: Fashion is a dirty business; wake up and see the consequences of what you’re doing. Stewart’s awakening occurred when she was working for Patagonia, one of the first clothiers to move to organic cotton. For a decade, she had been designing countless cotton garments without thinking about the source of the fiber. Then she toured a conventional cotton farm in central California. “It was so toxic we had to shower afterward to wash away the chemicals,” she recalls with a wince. To grow the cotton needed to make one T-shirt, she learned, farmers use one-third of a pound of pesticide. The bug killer can contain cyanide, dicofol, naled, propargite, trifluralin, and other carcinogens, traces of which can seep into the soil, infiltrate the cotton seeds, and cascade into the food supply. “Cotton is marketed as this pure white American commodity,” says Scott Hahn, a cofounder of Loomstate. “That’s deceiving.”
Also from Wired, its idea of an archetypal greenie who is “changing the world one purchase at a time.” (Um, okaaaaaayyy.)
c.e. said,
April 26, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Help! Please educate me :) In the diagram from Wired, “floors are made of old railroad ties”. Old railroad ties are probably heavily soaked in creosote, yes? I guess it’s better than them ending up in a landfill, is that the logic? Sigh, guess I’m not a cool kid after all ;)
Adelin said,
April 26, 2006 at 9:19 pm
This looks similar to the yindie critique in a lot of ways.
Brianne said,
April 27, 2006 at 12:30 am
Is it just me or is this really more about consumerism? Like, that one cares more about sustainable practices by the more they can buy/spend? Did I word that right? I’m feeling befuddled today. But isn’t that counterintuitive? It reminds me of the New York Times article you linked to about those lavish sweet sixteen parties where it was really about how much they could spend and show off.
The Worsted Witch » Pretty People Prefer Priuses said,
April 29, 2006 at 12:31 pm
[...] Then, oh frabjous day! I read David Roberts’ tirade on Wired: And speaking of hippies: the “Rise of the Neo-Greens” practically bursts a blood vessel admiring the clever young fashionistas “triangulating between the hippies and the hip.” [...]