Just finished reading an incredibly interesting (if slightly over-critical) article discussing the merits of what the New Yorker is calling "eco-stunts." Elizabeth Kolbert looks at a couple of blogs-turned-books/movies that we've covered quite frequently here (No Impact Man and Green as a Thistle). And, as you might have guessed, she's not amused...
Or, maybe she is amused, but for the wrong reasons? Kolbert's basic conclusion is that these green experiments ultimately do little good for the environment because they are marketing stunts — their main goals being book deals, movie deals, and a little bit of green fame. (She points most critically to the fact that Colin Beavan/No Impact Man came up with the idea for his green experiment over lunch with his book agent.)
But we're just not sure if these are good enough reasons to write off what these types of blogs/books are accomplishing. Sure, both Colin Beavan and Vanessa Farquharson got book deals, but we might argue that that was the point — to get people's attention. To show people the environmental consequences of some of their daily choices.
Read the whole fascinating article here. We'd love to know what you think. Do you agree with Kolbert... are these eco-stunts?
And if they are, is that really a bad thing?