Privileges

It is a common complaint that 'being green' is a privilege that only the wealthy can afford, but I want to understand the basis of this claim. It is entirely possible that the environmental movement has historically been driven by people from a relatively privileged background, but then the same can be said about many movements, largely due to the amount of free time that relative financial security affords such people to start thinking about such things. It is perhaps no surprise that progress of the labour movement accelerated as workers gained access to more free time. But in the 21st century we all have access to a reasonable amount of free time, so cannot claim time poverty. Even most of those who do claim time poverty have opted to do the additional work that deprives them of their free time. I don't doubt for a second that there are people in this country who can only keep their heads above water by working every waking hour, but these people are at the extreme end of the spectrum and are precisely the people the welfare state should be helping. The rest of us have free time, so it cannot be that which is the privilege required to care about the long term future of our planet.
In terms of monetary poverty, again I fail to see the argument. With the notable exception of those in extreme poverty, who I have already mentioned, we are all capable of affording to take the options that would result in lesser environmental damage. The fact that these options may in many cases deprive us of some luxuries is, I suspect, the greater reason for the reluctance. Indeed, why should we give up the luxuries for which we have worked so hard? Surely we are entitled to our foreign holidays, our abundant cheap clothes and food, and the freedom to travel wherever we want by car. Certainly the language used when discussing these things is the language of entitlement, but entitlement on what basis? Are we entitled to something just because someone else has it and it exists? Surely there is no other basis for our sense of entitlement than natural human greed.
I am beginning to sound like a member of the hair shirt brigade. I'm not. I believe life should be enjoyed, I just think that maybe we need to consider what actually gives us enjoyment and what its real cost is. That said, I've no idea how we quantify that cost. This to me seems to one of the biggest problems of the 'green' movement: the fact that it is a nebulous catch all for so many things means that the creation any kind quantifiable moral scale with reference to it is impossible. In the resulting maelstrom of righteousness, all sorts of ideas, concepts and lifestyles are given credence; some of them totally crackpot, some of questionable environmental benefit and some of them probably essential to the future of our planet. Unfortunately they get lumped together in random batches by people whose egos allow them to know what's best for you. So we end up with people telling us all our food should be organic and biodynamic, when one is a laudable aim and the other is a quirky approach to farming with no proven benefits of any sort. However, there are many who would argue that organically farmed food cannot be a solution, as it cannot provide sufficient quantities of food for the world's population. How this fact is worked out I don't know - half of my brain thinks it's a simple calculation, the other half thinks the data required for such a calculation must be considerable and ultimately unknowable - but assuming its veracity, does that mean we should give up on organic food production as an ideal? Politics used to be about taking ideals and making them pragmatic, but since the political class did away with ideals in favour of focus groups, all ideas must apparently be pragmatic before they can be considered at all. This disallowal of pure ideology is in many senses a diminishing of the horizons of ambition.
The question in terms of organic farming has to be whether its practice by those who can is detrimental to those who can't. Certainly, many would say that a less 'efficient' method of farming wastes the land available as it could have yielded greater amounts of food through more intensive farming methods. However, this is an extremely short-termist viewpoint if the intensive farming methods are unsustainable.
The question of privilege comes into the debate here because organic food is more expensive than 'conventionally' grown food. This is because it is more labour intensive, not because it's part of some middle class conspiracy. Food should at least be as expensive as the cost of its production, and it is only the artificial price manipulation of the supermarkets that has given us the idea that we are entitled to exceptionally cheap food. Buying food at its actual (i.e. more expensive) price would require us to be more frugal and therefore more thoughtful about how we use our food. But there is no impetus for this: as long as cheap food is available, people will continue to waste it. The real problem is that even if cheap food isn't available, those who can afford to will still waste it. Being wasteful is the way people have always demonstrated their wealth, even when they have none; overcoming the impulse for waste would be one of the hardest undertakings for anyone, especially as it can easily turn you into a bore. However, if we even have a vaguely altruistic inclination we need to consider it.
So what am I saying about privilege and the environment? I think all I can say is that wealth allows people to appear more environmentally friendly without actually being so, and it is this conspicuous greensumption that gives the impression that being green is a luxury of the wealthy. This becomes the perfect excuse for those who do not wish to change any aspect of their lifestyles: that they cannot afford it. In short, the lazy plead poverty.
However, possibly more reprehensible are those who create this impression: the privileged. Not only do they generate the impression that the environmental movement is a club exclusive to them, but they are simply hiding their wastefulness behind a plethora of 'green' fashions.
Finally I guess I have to ask 'who am I to judge?' Really I am in no position, like many people I often plead poverty when expense would preclude the 'green' option (such as taking the train to Europe) and convince myself that I am not part of the problem the rest of the time using my few 'green' actions as self-justification. Must try harder.