Ryan ChartrandTen years ago, if you came home to your mom and told her you were “going green,” she might retort that, “Green hair wouldn’t do much for your tawny complexion.”
Now, “going green” is more often associated with environmental sustainability and those oddly-shaped hybrid cars. This growing trend has found its way among university scholars, former presidential candidates and even made an appearance at the 2007 Academy Awards. Going green isn’t just for hippies or paranoid crazies who scold Starbucks patrons for neglecting to recycle their postconsumer cups. It is bandwagon-ready and set to charm/scare the heck out of the masses.
“Going green,” just like any other trend, made a significant splash in Hollywood, where the Academy Awards boasted its first- ever totally “green” ceremony. But they must have been confused; “green” stands for global sustainability, not money. Although I commend the Academy for its efforts, it is awfully hard to take an industry that profits from selling us things we don’t need seriously. As for touting sustainability, Hollywood can hardly sustain audiences for over 30 minutes, let alone the four hours they held viewers captive until they announced the winner of “Best Picture.”
Truly devoted allies of the environment should have turned their televisions off the second Al Gore walked up to receive his award for “An Inconvenient Truth;” while the actual awards were reportedly “green,” the billion or so viewers watching their TV sets in their heated homes were not. That, and Gore’s acceptance speech was preachy and predictable.
While I agree that the proliferation of global sustainability is an important step toward realizing that as humans, we are incredibly wasteful and reckless creatures, I am not convinced that the Hollywood crowd should be the ones advertising it. Yes, most citizens care more about who is going to the Oscars than who is attending the National Democratic Convention; but, should the country really be led, for example, by a city smothered in smog and cement? This, my friends, is what I like to call “the paradox of ‘green.'”
The hypocrisy of Hollywood’s supporting sustainability has, no doubt, tainted the movement’s credibility. After its leading role in the Academy Award ceremony, many have found its goals undermined by the entertainment industry – especially because Melissa Etheridge’s song “I Need to Wake Up,” from “An Inconvenient Truth,” robbed “Dreamgirls” of its Oscar. To do some damage control, I have devised a plan to regain the public’s trust and confidence:
Step 1: Vacate power-leaching Hollywood, and try to find a location more supportive of the cause. Might I suggest Humboldt County? The people there are already environmentally conscious, and Humboldt has an impressive amount of greenery. Unfortunately, such “greenery” is later smoked and contributes to yet more pollution, which is why the second step is essential.
Step 2: Do away with the “green” slogan. Sure, grass is green and Earth appears green from space, but don’t forget that the color green also symbolizes envy, greed, novice, illness and Kermit the Frog. It doesn’t look good to be associated with a creature that once claimed “it isn’t easy being green.” Speaking of slippery creatures, I can think of another that may be detrimental to the movement: Al Gore. Hence, my third suggestion:
Step 3: Dump Gore. Is it just me, or does the washed-up politician- -turned movie star seems to spend more time eating Eskimo Pies than saving Eskimos? In lieu of Gore, I recommend Hillary Rodham Clinton. I know what you’re thinking, but if anyone knows long-term sustainability it’s the woman who has sustained a marriage with Bill Clinton for nearly 30 years. Gore was only able to last eight.
Finally, in order to prevent the world from melting, then flooding, then spontaneously combusting (I added that last one), the issue of global sustainability must be known to the world.
To heighten awareness, I think a hydrogen blimp should tour the skies with a sign that says some sort of clever slogan telling the world to buy electric cars, recycle and subsist only with solar power. OK, so I haven’t quite ironed out the kinks in my plan, but with a few modifications …it’ll catch on.