Bright green environmentalism is anenvironmental philosophy andmovement that emphasizes the use ofadvanced technology,social innovation,eco-innovation, andsustainable design to address environmental challenges. This approach contrasts with more traditional forms of environmentalism that may advocate for reduced consumption or a return to simpler lifestyles.
Light green, and dark green environmentalism[1][2] are yet other sub-movements, respectively distinguished by seeing environmentalism as alifestyle choice (light greens), and promoting reduction in human numbers and/or arelinquishment of technology (dark greens).
The termbright green, coined in 2003 by writerAlex Steffen, refers to the fast-growing new wing ofenvironmentalism, distinct from traditional forms.[3][4] Bright green environmentalism aims to provide prosperity in an ecologicallysustainable way through the use of new technologies and improved design.[5]
Proponents promote and advocate forgreen energy,electric vehicles, efficient manufacturing systems,bio andnanotechnologies,ubiquitous computing,dense urban settlements,closed loop materials cycles and sustainable product designs.One-planet living is a commonly used phrase.[6][7] Their principal focus is on the idea that through a combination of well-built communities, new technologies andsustainable living practices, thequality of life can actually be improved even whileecological footprints shrink.
Around the middle of the century we'll see global population peak at something like 9 billion people, all of whom will want to live with a reasonable amount of prosperity, and many of whom will want, at the very least, a European lifestyle. They will see escaping poverty as their nonnegotiable right, but to deliver that prosperity at our current levels of efficiency and resource use would destroy the planet many times over. We need to invent a new model of prosperity, one that lets billions have the comfort, security, and opportunities they want at the level of impact the planet can afford. We can't do that without embracing technology and better design.[8]
The termbright green has been used with increased frequency due to the promulgation of these ideas through the Internet and coverage by some traditional media.[9][10][11]
Alex Steffen describes contemporaryenvironmentalists as being split into three groups,dark,light, andbright greens.[12]
Light greens see protecting the environment first and foremost as a personal responsibility. They fall into thetransformational activist end of the spectrum, but light greens do not emphasize environmentalism as a distinct political ideology, or even seek fundamentalpolitical reform. Instead, they often focus on environmentalism as alifestyle choice.[12] The motto "Green is the new black" sums up this way of thinking, for many.[13] This is different from the termlite green, which some environmentalists use to describe products or practices they believe aregreenwashing, those products and practices which pretend to achieve more change than they actually do (if any).
In contrast,dark greens[14] believe that environmental problems are an inherent part of industrialized,capitalist civilization, and seekradical political andsocial andcultural change. Dark greens believe that currently and historically dominant modes of societal organization inevitably lead toconsumerism,overconsumption,overproduction,waste,alienation from nature andresource depletion. Dark greens claim this is caused by the emphasis oneconomic growth that exists within all existing ideologies, a tendency sometimes referred to asgrowth mania. The dark green brand of environmentalism is associated with ideas ofecocentrism,deep ecology,degrowth,anti-consumerism,post-materialism,holism, theGaia hypothesis ofJames Lovelock, and sometimes a support for areduction in human numbers and/or arelinquishment of technology to reduce humanity's effect on thebiosphere.
Dark greens may point to effects like theJevons paradox to argue limits to the benefits of technological approaches such as advocated by bright greens.
InThe Song of the Earth,Jonathan Bate notes that there are typically significant divisions within environmental theory. He identifies one group as “light Greens” or “environmentalists,” who view environmental protection primarily as a personal responsibility. The other group, termed “dark Greens” or “deep ecologists,” believes that environmental issues are fundamentally tied to industrialized civilization and advocate for radical political changes. This distinction can be summarized as “Know Technology” versus “No Technology” (Suresh Frederick inEcocriticism: Paradigms and Praxis).
More recently,bright greens emerged as a group of environmentalists who believe that radical changes are needed in the economic and political operation of society in order to make it sustainable, but that better designs, new technologies and more widely distributed social innovations are the means to make those changes—and that society can neither stop nor protest its way tosustainability.[15] As Ross Robertson writes,
[B]right green environmentalism is less about the problems and limitations we need to overcome than the "tools, models, and ideas" that already exist for overcoming them. It forgoes the bleakness of protest and dissent for the energizing confidence of constructive solutions.[11]
Some have includedopen source technology as part of this new approach.[16][17][18]
December 2007
