jump to navigation

Narcissistic Consumerism Is NOT Green October 30, 2010

Posted by nrhatch in Home & Garden, Less IS More, Sustainable Living.
trackback

Sierra Club must be seeking donations from the privileged few.  Either that, or global warming has impacted its ability to think sustainably (perhaps by frying its collective conscience?).

In the latest issue of Sierra (November-December 2010), Sierra Club implied that a two-story treehouse with running water and electricity constitutes green construction since it’s made with reclaimed lumber:

Comfort Zone:  Smart Designs for Pleasure and Planet

Maybe if the family lived in the treehouse full time, like Swiss Family Robinson, we could evaluate the greenness of its construction.

But they don’t.

And, no, it’s not their vacation home.

This two-story playhouse is built NEXT to their vacation home!  Yup.  It’s a vacation home when they get tired of their vacation home:

It’s a shame that Sierra Club is advocating narcissistic consumerism by encouraging people to build two story “playhouses” (with running water and electricity) next to vacation homes “overlooking the Puget Sound” . . .  while this privileged family pretends to be green.

Three homes . . . for four people . . . is NOT green!

Makes me wonder how much the family bribed  paid contributed to Sierra Club to get a two page spread in what USED TO BE an eco-friendly magazine.

I also wonder if Sierra Club endorses political candidates  known to have an open checkbook policy, rather than eco-friendly candidates with more restrictive purse strings . . .

Related post:  One Mistake People Make

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Greg Camp - October 30, 2010

If it were my choice, I’d go with just the tree house–plus an underground bunker, for the coming zombie crisis.

nrhatch - October 30, 2010

You smart!!! 🙂

Zombies, vampires, and things that go bump in the night.

Cindy - October 31, 2010

lol!

2. jannatwrites - October 30, 2010

Kind of like a hybrid SUV is eco-friendly. It only sells if we buy it…

nrhatch - October 30, 2010

And I’m not buying . . . or supporting the Sierra Club any more. 8)

3. souldipper - October 31, 2010

Love it when people stand behind their convictions. Good for you, Nancy.

nrhatch - October 31, 2010

Lately, I’m feeling “cynical” about many of the non-profits I used to support.

Not 5 minutes after the BP Oil spill hit the news . . . charity after charity came running to “me” with hands out.

PLEASE DONATE.

It opened my eyes. They’re non-profits who “profit” from natural disasters and human malfeasance.

Gruesome, no?

souldipper - October 31, 2010

Eeew! Good observation! I hadn’t detected that little anomaly.

nrhatch - October 31, 2010

I expect that most non-profits start with altruism as the aim . . . but then the people working there need to raise money to support both the causes AND THEIR OWN LIVELIHOODS.

They start sacrificing goals (and cutting corners) and figure the end justifies the means. Only some times it doesn’t.

This article by Sierra is ridiculous and silly and makes me question the motives behind its publication.

4. Naomi - October 31, 2010

Quite an eye-opener, thanks, Nancy 🙂

nrhatch - October 31, 2010

Well, it’s just a theory at this point.

But looking at the photos of the treehouse got the wheels turning . . . why would Sierra print something like this?

And then it hit me . . . CASH CONTRIBUTIONS.

The Sierra Club gives its endorsement and “GREEN label” so that the WHITES (and others of like ilk) can sleep at night knowing they’ve done their part to save the planet . . .

In reality, the WHITES have contributed more to the problem than they have to the solution. Not only do they consume out the WAZOO . . . they BRAG about their new TOYS creating demand in other narcissistic consumers.

5. Kalle Friedrich - November 11, 2010

Here is a link to a similar gr$$n home article I thought you might be interested in. Honestly, who edits these articles?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/xanadu/8129

nrhatch - November 11, 2010

Thanks!!!

A 5,600 sq. ft. home for 2 doesn’t quite seem “green.” At least it’s heated with geo-thermal heat. 🙂

6. Gwen - March 28, 2012

I would like to comment on the negativity towards this story and family. I know Bryan and his family. These people are good people, down to earth and humble. They go to the small pubs in Seattle to drink beer and shoot pool with the neighborhood surroundings. These individuals has worked long hours, traveled many a days and earned every moment of his dream. Bryan’s wife worked many years in non-profit. They are huge philanthropists and take care of their surrounding community. Their primary home in Seattle is quite modest. They are not extravagant people, unlike the Microsoft extravagance I live around. This is where journalism doesn’t do justice. There are so many good things to know about this family that is left out and so much assumption being inserted. Take some time to reflect on yourself and think a positive thought.

nrhatch - March 28, 2012

I never said they weren’t “good people.”

But your comments haven’t persuaded me that owning three homes is “green” enough to warrant a 2-page spread in Sierra magazine.

More than likely, some “green” greased palms.


What Say YOU?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: