There is a lot of wordplay with “green”.  Some of it is good and some of it, “not sa much”.  I probably should avoid it entirely, but this just makes so much sense.  I need a term to define unhealthy green ideas.  You know there are some.  These are the ideas that are characterized by the decay of common decency and good taste.  They are the ideas that will cause the death of the movement, if left uncorrected.  Thus, “Gangreen” just makes too much sense.

“Gangreen” is a play on gangrene.  Gangreneis a medical condition defined by wikipedia as “a complication of necrosis, the unnatural death of living tissue, and is characterized by the decay of body tissues. It is caused by infection or is the result of critically insufficient blood supply.  This condition is most common in the lower extremities.”

 The usual pronunciation is “gang green”.   The wikipedia page has pictures.  Trust me, they are GROSS.  Jack Daniels, maker of Jack Daniels Whiskey, actually died of gangrene.  Also according to wikipedia, some punk band from Boston is called Gang Green.  It is a cool name for a punk band.

Frequently, I run across some gangreen ideas but until now I just let them go unmentioned.  Then I got one from the hubby courtesy of a friend from high school.  It is just too bad to pass up.  So keep reading under the “gangreen” tag.

I love the Ecoist Wrapper Bags.  My fave is the Ultra Bag - it looks like a classic quilted Chanel with chain shoulder strap.  I am amazed that each is handmade - unlike Chanel - that anyone would have THAT much patience and skill. 

Ecoist finally got some cool production pics on their webite, so I copied them to show the process.  The candy wrappers come in rolls from the printer - uncut.  These rolls of candy wrappers would end up in a landfill, if Ecoist did not “rescue” them.  Next, women in a fair trade cooperative, cut each wrapper to get the needed colors for the design.  Then the cut pieces of candy wrapper are hand folded into each bag. 

The Fair Trade aspect is very important.  Fair Trade guarantees these women receive livable wage, healthy working conditions, no mandatory overtime, and there is no child labor used.  Fair Trade Cooperatives provide things like education, healthcare, clean water, child care and other much needed services to poor, often rural villages.  They also provide women with economically sustaining jobs, which are scarce for all, but especially scarce for women.

There are four pics - rolls, cutting, folding and finished. 

I have had a love-hate relationship with retail my entire adult life.  I like what I do but the hours can really suck.  I hate mall/big box retail and would work in such a job only out of sheer desperation.  One of the biggest issues is WHEN you have to work.  I am a person who needs somewhat of a set schedule, some regularity to my life.  I also need regular periods of rest and relaxation.  

I raised very religiously conservatively.  One did not work on Sunday unless absolutely necessary.  More than just going to church, one was supposed to actually rest, to spend time with family, to relax, etc.  Even though I am very liberal and do not attend a Christian church, I still very much support the idea.  A recent article on the sabbath idea on Sustainablog points out that the idea of a sabbath, a period of rest from work or whatever, is no longer exclusive to Jews and Christians.  The idea, in its original biblical context, even extended to a period of rest in their farming practices by letting their fields “go wild” every seventh year (Leviticus 25:2-7), something unheard of in modern farming, especially agribusiness.   By allowing the land to rest, ancient Hebrews could guarantee bountiful harvests in the future.

The article points to how the idea of a sabbath is essential to sustainability:  “This conscious use of self-restraint in order to conserve natural resources can be applied in so many ways. We might take a periodical sabbath from driving our cars, from eating meat, even from using (non-essential) electricity. We might honor the Earth by looking beyond immediate self-interest to the bigger picture, to the welfare of the entire global community, by giving it a time to rebuild its strength a little bit at a time…The Earth and all the things in nature take sabbaths–for example the fallowness of winter, the stasis of dry seasons, or the hibernation of some animals. Sleep is a natural sabbath for humans and all living creatures. There are many sabbaths in nature, big sabbaths and little sabbaths, that reveal the sensibility of resting by self-restraint.”

Throughout most of my retail career, I have refused to work on Sundays.  Not because I went to church or even followed Christian teachings, but because this was the only day of the week that I could dedicate to family, rest, house cleaning, recreation, etc., with my husband (and later daughter).   In effect, I have been practicing a conscioussabbath.  The Sustainablog article points to this idea, too:  “…we can also practice consciousSabbaths of self-restraint in order to conserve natural resources. We can, indeed perhaps at this time we should, try to live sensibly by taking sabbaths, big and little, when and how we can…”.

Finally, the article asked some questions that have made me think.  Perhaps, they will make you think as well.

From Sustainablog: 
What other things might we take a “sabbath” from in order to conserve resources?
Is self-restraint really necessary or useful nowadays, and if so in what areas might it be most useful (e.g., agriculture, consumerism, energy production, land management)?
Is it problematic to think of self-restraint and sensible living as a “sabbath” given that word’s connection to Judeo-Christian tradition?

I love this new blog I “found”:  “Its Getting Hot in Here. Dispatches from the Youth Climate Movement”

 I just read a fabulous post on “The OC”.  I know, what could a now (thankfully) ended teen drama on prime time TV have to do with environmentalism??  A lot - a least in the episode(s) discussed.  The author tortures himself by watching an entire season of the show to catch a reported reference to Rainforest Action Network (there is one). Note that the italics and bold emphasis is mine in the quotes.

 What the author posts is a very clear understanding of the image of environmentalists in popular media and culture. S/he then very succinctly makes the connection between that image and and the (lack of) actual meaning behind that image.   In analyzing the  “change of heart” of one of the characters, the author observes:

“At first the change is presented as a botched attempt at self-discovery, and in direct opposition to the character’s past associations with designer clothing and celebrity gossip; her transformation is as much fashion (un-)makeover as political awakening. And this is exactly how anyone would expect it to be depicted; in the United States, radical political consciousness and environmental activismoften seem to occupy roughly the same discursive position as, say, “emo” — a moderately deviant consumer lifestyle choice, not a vital concern to our future as a species(no offense to any emos out there)”             My note - “emo” is a sub-genre of the punk scene

In short, radical politcal consciousness in US Society is presented by the mainstream media and is understood by the mainstream viewer as a variant consumer lifestyle rather than an actual personal and societal transformation.  What is also evident is that obviously one cannot have a political awakening without a wardrobe change. 

I am not the only one who makes this connection.  Further along, the author posts “Later, much to the writers’ credit, the character goes on to discover that her commitment to the movement is real; the end of the series sees her signing up for a tour as a student organizer with a fictional green NGO. Maybe after the alternate universe episode they were out of any other ideas, but the show actually managed transcend — ever so slightly — the easy caricature of the environmental movement as a pot-fueled patchoulifest, as much fashion identity as political commitment.”

This last sentence really gets me.  I used to be a political organizer.  I understand commitment.  I know what it is like to work from 9AM to 2AM in the weeks leading up to an election because you truly believe in something.  I understand about moving your family from 2300 sq feet of suburban split level to 1100 sq feet of urban bungalow.  I know what it is like to live with only one car in St. Louis in winter.  I understand what it is to cry because there is not a small hybrid SUV that meets your physical and environmental needs.    

NONE of those choices were about my “fashion identity”.  Yet that is exactly what most people assume - or worse.  They are only capable of understanding them as “lifestyle choices”, not ethical statements and political commitments.    The funny part is that this business is a direct result of my political commitments and ethics.  I dared to ask the question “why is it that in order to dress in a manner consistent with my ethics, I have to adopt a certain look?”  I dared to go beyond the caricature.

I have shopped resale all my life.  I got hand-me-downs and shopped garage sales as a kid.  As a college art student, I have raided Goodwill and other thrifts with glee.  I have shopped vintage just for the fun of it.  (Really, it was recreational consumption without the guilt or the cost).  Recently, I discovered shoe shopping at Scholar Shop.  I can afford new shoes  - just not the brands I get used.  I am paying $30-$50 for “used” (some of them have never been worn) shoes. 

As a kid, it was certainly economic.  My parents were working class, frugal, and practical.  Seriously, why buy new for someone still growing?  There is NO WAY they can wear it for more than 6 months, and 30 years ago, clothing didn’t self -destruct after the third wash.  Plus, wastefulness was considered a sin by my conservative Christian parents.  “Waste not, want not.”  They had a point.  

Still, there are people who would think it “gross” that I wear used shoes.  Others would never wear “used” anything as it is simply “beneath” their social standing.  And they would think less of me if they knew I did.  Wearing used clothing has a long standing social stigma in this society.  It is something the poor must do, but certainly something that “proper middle class people do not do”.  Wearing “used” hints that you are economically unsuccessful.  And in a country that is “equal opportunity”, the only reason for not being economically successful is laziness and sloth (or possibly, stupidity). Being poor casts a societal doubt on your character.  Social class is about morals as much as economics.

I know about the stigma of wearing used clothing because in fifth grade I was ostracized by my entire class after a classmate was at my house and overheard my mother mention my aunt and cousin were bringing over their hand-me-downs for me.  I wore used clothing.  I was no longer allowed to sit at any lunch table.   I could not sit with my class at all. Anyone who let me sit with them risk being accused of wearing used clothing as well.  It was as if “poor” was contagious.

I wish someone had read “The Emporer’s New Clothes” to me.  I had honestly never seen the book until I had my daughter.  I read it to her monthly.  She understands the economics and the environmental reasons for shopping resale.  I have always hoped I can better prepare her for the social issues than I was.  If we are lucky, I won’t have to do so…

(bold emphasis added by me)

From the NY Times: When Conscience and Closet Collide

By Ruth La Ferla
Published: June 12, 2008

REVIEWING her wardrobe earlier this season, Elizabeth Marvin had a moment of reckoning. “How did this closet become so massively overstuffed?” she mused, disconcerted by the sight of so many Marni jackets, Chloé bags and Jimmy Choo shoes jostling for space on the racks. “From my green perspective, part of me feels guilty about being such a major consumer.”

But Ms. Marvin, the New York sales director for the National Audubon Society and a self-described “major environmentalist,” felt neither so guilty nor so strapped that she planned to stop shopping cold turkey. “Instead of buying that Chloé jacket that I want right now,” she said, “I’m much happier purchasing something at a consignment store that is much less.”

In recent months, high-end designer resale shops have been the beneficiaries of a subtle shift in consumer thinking, as fashion lovers, even those who can afford to splurge, reassess their priorities. Unsettled by continuing recession fears and the soaring prices of designer clothes, and assailed by queasy consciences as well, many find these shops a way to update their wardrobes without seriously denting their bank accounts — or their sense of social propriety. “Everyone is feeling the pinch these days or knows people who are feeling the pinch,” said Linda Kenney Baden, a prominent lawyer in New York. “It’s good to buy a used car again, and it’s chic to buy used clothes.”Shoppers like Mrs. Baden, some with formidable retail habits, are turning to consignment stores to offload designer clothing and accessories and to accumulate spare cash, as often as not plowing the profits back into the very same store. Cash-strapped bargain seekers and affluent trophy hunters alike are paring their closets, earning 40 to 50 percent of the resale shop’s asking price. Resale shoppers pay roughly a quarter to a third of the original market value of still-coveted Saint Laurent Muse bags, Stella McCartneyjumpsuits and Louboutin pumps.Merchants report that the number of shoppers and consignors is climbing and that business has rarely been so robust. “The rise of the euro, sky-high retail prices and the idea of recycling — those are some of the things that drive customers right to our door,” said Laura Fluhr, an owner of Michael’s, the 54-year-old grande dame of fancy resale stores on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.“In an otherwise bleak retail scene, consignment is a thriving area,” Ms. Fluhr said, noting that her business is 30 percent ahead for the first four months of 2008. She added that the extravagant prices of new designer fashions and the influx of European visitors scouring New York for bargains have contributed to the growth. “People are really resenting designer prices at conventional stores,” said Ina Bernstein, the owner of Ina, the designer resale chain in Manhattan. “In a way, that’s why our business is up.” She said that sales are ahead by 15 percent from January through April at each of her five boutiques. Vicki Haberman, who sells privately and through vintagecollectionsnyc.com, ascribes a heightened interest in consignment shopping partly to consumers’ apparently unquenchable appetite for luxury labels, even those that are gently worn. “Every time you open a magazine, you see somebody wearing a quote-unquote vintage designer gown,” she said. “Shopping vintage and consignment has lost much of its stigma and become mainstream.” April was a record month for Ricky’s Exceptional Treasures, a luxury resale store on eBay. Ricky Serbin, the owner, reported that his site had about 150,000 hits and some 4,000 visits a day. “These people do not need to be shopping on eBay,” Mr. Serbin said of his well-heeled customers. “They tell themselves, ‘I’m getting a $13,000 gown for $2,000 or $3,000,’ which is nothing to them.” If a customer parts with $1,000 for a jeweled Lanvin necklace at the site, it’s a bargain compared with the original $8,000 tag. “They may see that as a tightening of the belt,” Mr. Serbin noted tartly. Certainly the rewards of buying and selling through resale shops can be more emotional than practical. As Judy Yun, a customer and consignor at Ina, acknowledged, there are no savings in getting back $350 for a Balenciaga bag that cost $1,600, then spending the money on a $400 pair of Manolo Blahniksandals. She buys and consigns nonetheless because, she said: “I like seeing that little bit of extra cash. Actually, it’s not so little when you’re talking about a Balenciaga handbag.” Among the covetable pieces at Ina last week were a Prada pink mock-crocodile evening bag, which was selling for $825, compared with the original price of about $2,200; a D & G evening dress in bronze-colored lace for $475, $1,800 new; and a $325 pair of Louboutin pumps, originally $775. At Act II, a designer resale store in Kansas City, Mo., pieces from St. John, Yves Saint Laurent, Prada and Dior are quick to vanish from the racks, said Gloria Everhart, the owner. Chanel bouclé tweeds and Hermès handbags can fetch prices in the thousands wherever they turn up. Other labels that once sizzled have lost their draw. “Escada has gone cold, and so has Armani,” said Barbara Nell, the owner of the Daisy Shop on Oak Street in Chicago. But for the most part, clothes that have gathered dust in closets for months rarely molder on consignment racks. That is because high-end merchants turn their inventory frequently, buying pieces that are no more than a few seasons old and dropping prices every few weeks to ensure that the wares look fresh and will sell at a reasonable cost. Both merchants and consumers say that purging the closet and buying castoffs can be cleansing for the soul. “The whole idea of recycling and going green motivates some of our customers,” said Ms. Fluhr of Michael’s. “People are aware that Jimmy Choos fill landfills, too.” Ms. Yun said she has grown increasingly sensitive to environmental issues. “Selling to resale shops becomes a platform to recycle,” she said. “Besides, I tell myself, ‘It’s obscene to have so much.’ ” Five years ago, Mrs. Baden, the lawyer, rarely gave much thought to paying full retail for an evening dress she was unlikely to wear again. But in the weeks approaching a recent gala, she bought a Chanel gown at Ricky’s on eBay for one third of its original $10,000 price. “I was going to wear it to just one function,” she recalled. “To spend that kind of money — I couldn’t justify it.”

I found this on a blog called “It’s Getting Hot in Here…Dispatches from the Youth Climate Movement”.  It is quite possibly the BEST post I have ever seen explaining the economic injustice our system perpetuates.  It is a must read for anyone who wants to understand better what is really going on.  Therefore, I am posting the article in its entirety.   Please note: all of the bolding is my added emphasis.

Sustainable Justice

Published by andrewmunn, April 9th, 2008You may have heard this piece of wisdom in Econ 101. “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Someone is footing the bill.  The mass material affluence that characterizes much of American society is a testament to the power of our economic and political system. The cities we inhabit, the cars we drive, the gadgets we use, the ways we communicate, the food we eat, and the energy we consume are all products of its success.  But remember, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Someone is footing the bill.Allow me to modify that statement. There is no such thing as a dollar menu. Transactions inflict costs on the real world that are not reflected in a market pricing system. A friend of mine is particularly fond of McDonald’s Dollar menu, and makes a habit of ordering $1 cheeseburgers. The $1 he spends covers the costs McDonald’s has incurred - buying the ingredients, shipping, operational, and labor costs - and of course a slice of profit. However, those are only a fraction of his cheeseburger’s true cost. Enter the world of externalities.The Economist defines an externality as “An economic side-effect. Externalities are costs or benefits arising from an economic activity that affects somebody other than the people engaged in the economic activity and are not reflected fully in prices.” (1) My friend’s dollar spent does not include the side-effects of cheeseburger consumption, such as longterm costs of carbon emitted by transport and methane toots of former cows. Entirely unconsidered is the irreversible loss of biodiversity from the conversion of rain forest to industrial soy-bean monocrops to feed the hamburgers-in-waiting of American factory farms (2). Humans and nonhumans alike bear the cost of our externalities.To call carbon emissions and rain forest destruction external, however, is simply misleading. It implies that they are at most tangentially related. However, had industrial monocrops never replaced native biodiversity, cows could not be fed on a scale to bring the price of their flesh to less than $1 per patty. If there were no fossil-fuel-powered transportation network, it would be uneconomic for hamburger-patties to traverse continents. The $1 cheeseburger’s existence is predicated on the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of biodiversity.A $1 cheeseburger from McDonald’s is easy to scape-goat. In bringing attention to it my aim is not to single out McDonald’s $1 cheeseburger, but to use it as a window through which the much larger shortcomings of our economics can be seen. All material goods are intertwined in a labyrinthine web of externalities. Externalities are the bedrock on which our system of production and consumption stand.Adbusters is an anti-corporate magazine that aims to break the insanity of contemporary consumer culture (3). Recognizing the dangerous disconnect between the market price of a good and the true costs it inflicts in reality, they advocate for the implementation of true cost economics (4). True cost economics claims that it is possible to eliminate this gap by internalizing externalities through regulation and taxation. For now, leave aside the monumental question of economy-wide implementation and turn your attention to a bin labeled “externalities.” It’s tucked away under the desks of economists, business-men, politicians, and citizens where we can toss the “side-effects” of our past, present, and possibly future economic and political actions. What’s in the bin?Near the top sits greenhouse gas emissions. This one has garnered enough attention that it may soon move to the bin labeled “regulated.” Under greenhouse gases, you will find global deforestation and habitat destruction. Destroyed mountain tops. Beside this wreckage are cancer victims living in the shadow of industrial facilities. Casualties of war can be found in much-honored, yet rather gruesome, patriotically-draped clumps. Do not avert your eyes. The dead water of one-hundred-forty-six oceanic deadzones, where marine life cannot survive, dampens everything. Smog-suffocated children and elderly cough in a corner. Careful not to get lead poisoning as you rummage. Pesticide-poisoned farm workers wash their hands, but it is futile. Do not drink the water - it is polluted. Children in sweatshops. Men and women in sweatshops. Do not shut your ears. Sprinkled throughout are the countless species driven to extinction, and thousands more on the brink. Sense the human lives spent and lost in factories, mines, and labor for an insufficient wage. Homeless people live in the bin. Slavery. Four-hundred years of race-based slavery. The harvesting and harnessing of humans to build the foundation of our economy. To dig through this, you must also uncover the perpetual economic, political, and social disenfranchisement of people of color down to this day. Do not close your mind. It runs deep. You near the bottom, but first there is genocide. Systematic genocide of indigenous people and cultures world-wide. The economics and politics we’ve inherited had no need for them, but it coveted their land, so here they lie in the bin. Many are beyond resuscitation.Consider these words. Extinction. Slavery. Ecological Collapse. War. Climate Change. Exploited Lives. Toxic waste. Genocide. Open your heart.Externalities or Atrocities? Do not underestimate the power of semantics. Words can illuminate or obfuscate.We are not evil, yet our political and economic system does not account for the true cost of “external” atrocities. Why? A central problem of true cost economics may point to the reason our economic system does not internalize “external” atrocities. In a true cost economic system, how would you include the cost of a life cut short? What is the price of biodiversity? A life stolen by slavery? Generations damned by climate change and ecological collapse? To internalize “external” atrocities through pricing or taxation is to say that all this has an abstract monetary value. Ask a child, ask yourself. There is no alchemy to transfigure life’s beauty, degradation, or destruction into economic terms. Infinite value defies quantification. The calculus of our politics and economics cannot internalize the unquantifiable, so the infinite is made non-existent. Ours is an economics of denial.The cities we inhabit, the cars we drive, the gadgets we use, the ways we communicate, the food we eat, and the energy we consume are all products of economic success. Definitely in sweat and perhaps in blood and carbon, someone has, is, or will foot the bill. Mass material affluence is predicated on the denial of real mass atrocity.I believe that we can have a carbon-neutral society. I believe that we can have a just society. However, the two are not synonymous. Carbon-neutral atrocities can underpin carbon-neutral mass material affluence. Or the vision of Sustainable Justice can underpin the end of atrocity.Sustainable Justice is a vision of cultural transformation. In Sustainable Justice we step from the reality of atrocity and into the dream of justice and sustainability. This is not an abstract eco-utopian dream. It is a reawakening to the ecological relationships that bind all beings.The society we have inherited and continually mold is but one possible collective manifestation of human nature, and it is far cry from Sustainable Justice. Climate Positivity recognizes the multiplicity of human potential with the statement that not only are we the cause of climate change, we are the solution. If this is true, then it is also true that we are the seeds of Sustainable Justice.We are participants and teammates, not enemies and slave masters. We are beginning to awake from our denial and realize this truth. For many of our human and nonhuman teammates, this awakening is already too late. Our role, as a movement, is to bring society into a conversation that will catalyze the awakening before it is too late for us all.The infinite is at stake.Citations1. The Economist www.economist.com2. Conversion of rain forest to industrial soy-bean monocrops to feed hamburgers-in-waiting in American factory farms http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0406-greenpeace.html3. Despite my criticism, Adbusteres is an awesome publication. The best magazine in print. www.adbusters.org4. Adbusters advocates for truecost economics www.truecosteconomics.org5. Climate Positivity http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/03/18/washington-post-and-msnbc-80-by-50-not-good-enough/#more-4449

I have a Guru.  No, not one of those Swamis in a turban and a Rolls telling me to be happy with less.  A business Guru who makes me actually DO the data entry in Quickbooks,  gets me to plan out my PR in advance, and guides me on other such business practices.  In short, my Guru won’t let me fly by the seat of my pants, make it up as I go along, and do things in a half-done manner.  I have to THINK about it logically and strategically and then see it through to completion in a professional manner.  I have to keep an eye on the bottom line. What a concept. 

You may have in mind a guy in a very conservative blue suit with an MBA and $$ in his eyes.  Think again.

Picture this: your business consultant FORCES you to take off one day per week and tells you it is OK to do NOTHING occasionally.  She gives you “Ask and It Is Given Cards” to read every day (like Chicken Soup for the Soul but about abundance) and insists that you see yourself as successful beyond financial terms.  She actually understands (and reminds you) that you are trying to create a sustainable, ethical life, not just make money to pay bills.  

That, as the Mastercard commercials say, is priceless.  Because trying to explain Fair Trade and Sustainability and Ethical Business and the 4th Sector to your average business consultant/MBA/corporate type is almost impossible.  I CAN NOT imagine trying to work with a conventional consultant. 

Apparently, she doesn’t mind explaining it, though, because she writes a blog doing exactly that for Fast Company Magazine online.  Check it out here:

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog-post/fair-trade-why-settle-only-monetary-success

These people were green when green wasn’t cool:

1200 A.D. - In the middle of a wood shortage, Greeks and Romans began building cities and houses towards the sun to make use of solar energy.

1272 - England’s King Edward I banned his country from burning coal because he was not satisfied with the level of air pollution caused by the resulting smoke. Unfortunately, even though the ban came with the threat of execution or torture if caught burning coal, almost no one stopped using this popular heating fuel.

1366 - Realizing that the rotting animal carcasses and other waste from butchers and leather producers heavily polluted the city’s air and water supply, Parisian lawmakers forced people working with animals and animal skins to dispose of the remains outside of the city.

1641 - The Massachusetts Bay Colony became the first western nation to adopt a humane law, stating in the 100 laws of the colony that “No man shall exercise any Tirrany or Crueltie towards any bruite Creature which are usually kept for man’s use.”

1666 - The shogun of Japan, noticing the damage created by deforestation, urges his citizens to plant tree seedlings to avoid erosion and flooding.

1739 - In Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin passed a law similar to the Parisian one, removing tanneries and disallowing the dumping of waste in the city.

The Industrial Revolution that followed could be called the dark ages for green, but here’s to a fabulous green renaissance!

Found this on Treehugger. Fabulous.  What kind of green are you??  

* Single Green Fe/Male: This shade includes any environmentalist actively seeking a significant other. These folks see all Earth Day festivals, rallies, and so forth as opportunities to schmooze and scope for hotties.

* Greenalicious: Any desirable or eye-catching person, place, or thing related to the environment or environmentalism. A frequent term used by the SGFs and SGMs.

* Spring Greening: These people seem to follow the seasons physically and emotionally. They like only spring and summer, when things are warm, alive, and growing. If you have Seasonal Affective Disorder, then you fall in this shade.

* Ooey Gooey Green: All the folks who turn into poets, philosophers, and purveyors of grand clichés whenever they see something “beautiful” (meaning just about everything) in nature.

* Virtually Green: These environmentalists spend nearly all their time online and/or otherwise partaking of nature via technology.

* Greed Green: Largely but not exclusively the shade for corporations, this variety goes green only because it brings in plenty of green. One example, and there are many, is this statement from the spokesperson of a very prominent organic produce company: “I’m not necessarily a fan of organic. … Whether we stay with organic for the long haul depends on profitability.”2 Although purists will surely bristle at all signs of this shade, I am not as quick to condemn a business or person for going green only to make a profit. Certainly I would prefer a pure heart in everything, but when companies go green in any way, even if their motives are mixed, they expand the availability of environmentally friendly products, make more people aware of environmentalism and so able to take part, and so in the end help to make a positive impact.

*Greenback: Here you find all the über-rich environmentalists–those folks with eco-friendly mansions, state-sized estates donated as easements and treated as wildlife/habitat preserves, fleets of hybrids, etc. Although Greenback does not necessarily start from a base of Greed Green, it sometimes may.

* Mean Green: As I have discussed in my two-part posting “The Worst Pollution,” many environmentalists adopt extreme measures of rhetoric and action/activism in the process of trying to protect the Earth. While anger is easy and effective to use as a method of pushing the green agenda, I personally find this approach to be counterproductive, self-destructive, and damaging all around. (Remember the Incredible Hulk?) These people have auras that glow like the toxic waste in cartoons and B-movies. (Remember the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?)

* Gloomy Green: Gloomy greens focus on, and feel overwhelmed by, all the bad news and problems with the environment. Missing the forest and the trees, they are constantly depressed–and depressing. For them, there is no hope for a better future–or for any future at all.

* Grumpy Green: Often blending with Gloomy Green, these folks are not only depressed but bitter sourpusses as well. (Remember Oscar the Grouch?)

* Better Off Green: These folks go green simply to be on the safe side, not because they believe it is really all that better than any other mode of living.

* Gang Green: If you go green because everybody else is, because it is trendy and chic and ultra-cool, then you fit in here.

* Green-Eyed Monster: Although very similar and often mixed with Gang Green, this shade is less worried about keeping up with the Joneses than about one-upping them or envying their greenness. But, as the good book sayeth, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wind turbine.

* Grean: These are the well-meaning folks who either 1) would like to go green but simply cannot figure out quite how they should do it or 2) try to be environmentally friendly but end up doing the wrong thing or doing more harm than good.

* Green Lite: This shade includes those individuals who do maybe one or two things–e.g., put in one CFL–but nothing more.

* Green?: These are the skeptics about whether environmentalism is worth bothering over or even necessary. They question most of the arguments for going green, from global warming to the oil crisis, and anyone who believes the “myths.”

* Other Guy’s Green: Similar to the skeptics of Green? The difference, though, is that whether or not they believe going green is necessary and useful, these folks simply leave it for their neighbors to do everything.

* Greenie Weenie: For all the environmentalists you dislike.

* Green Thumb: All the farmers, gardeners, etc. who adopt organic and sustainable methods.

* Ganga Green: Self-explanatory. This green can be tricky to identify, though, because it is often obscured by clouds of smoke.

* Green but Not Forgotten: Here you find all those who were environmentalists before it became cool. May they be praised.

* Greenhorn: At the other end of the spectrum, people of this shade are newly enlisted in the green movement and so bear the green of newly sprouted seeds.

* Litigate-A-Green: All the environmental attorneys and activists who fight the good fight in the courtroom and seek to change the laws.

* Yellow+Blue=Green: All the scientists and other academics who do much of the work that informs the environmental movement, whether or not we understand them.

* Gospel of Green: These are the proselytizing greens, those folks who hold signs, pass out flyers, and get up on the soapbox to spread the good word. Although we may pick up our pace when walking by them, we have to admire their fortitude and gumption.

* Gaia Green: The true green against which all greens must be measured. The green of leaves, grass, and all the wonders of nature. Also to be found in the hearts and veins of everyone who loves the great Mother.

My favorite blog is The Sartorialist.  The man has style.  Serious Style.  He does what I would love to do which is walk around New York (and Paris, Milan, London, etc.) with a camera and take pictures of other people with style.  (This sounds easy, but it is far from it.  Having studied photography in college, I know this is not an easy job.  It is however a fabulous job.)

On his blog he lists the professionals which keep him and his clothing impeccable.  These are the people that everyone should have but few do nowadays in our throw-away culture.  I used to have them when I lived in Texas.  I haven’t since I moved here and it shows, so I am on a mission.  I need professionals.   Looking good requires effort and skills.  You have to make the effort and you either have the skills or you pay for them. 

Tailor:
Michael Vurro, Master Tailor
11219 Manchester Rd at Geyer Road
Kirkwood, MO 63122
314-965-1878
-No one tailors like the Italians.  No one. 

Dry Cleaners:
West 100 Cleaners - Organic/Non-toxic Dry Cleaning
H.K. Suk, owner
13844 Manchester Road
St. Louis, MO 63011
636-527-0240
-NO chemical odor, perfectly cleaned. Treats my vintage cashmere with care like no other.

Shoe Repair - I am looking for a good old-fashioned shoe craftsman for my vintage Ferragamo, Weitzman, and other deisgner shoes.  Several need new heels.  The first part of the three R’s is reduce - that means repairing rather than replacing.  (Plus, I couldn’t replace these shoes if I tried.) 

Spa/body Care: I have never been a spa person.  The cost is mostly to blame, but also the fact that I have such sensitive skin and allergies, that it isn’t relaxing to be afraid you are going to get hives or a migraine from the products.  Most of the so-called “aestheticians” have no clue other than trying to sell their product lines.  I have too many times had one say a product was “hypoallergenic” only t read the ingredients and see it is loaded with almond oil, walnut shell, or other known allergens (sometimes this is after I have told them NO NUT products - they either can’t or don’t read the ingredients or are so ill-trained they do not know what I mean).  Chemicals are worse: FD&C #whatever, fragrance, parabens, sulfates, urea (a urine derivative) - all are irritants.

 Hair Care.  I had a fabulous hair studio in Houston and have never found one here that I loved as much.  Currently, I have been cutting my own hair and trying out a few places for highlights. I have a list of a few places that I plan to try.  I am on  a mission for this.  I used to have fabulous hair even though it was fine and thin.  Now I wear a lot of hats.

Mani/Pedi - This is definitely a cost issue.  In Houston, a full set of acrylics (yes I had them) cost $25 and refills were $10. A mani/pedi (no fakes) was $20-$25.  When I moved here, much like many other things, the cost was shocking.  It was almost double the price in Houston.  I refuse.  I bought a foot soak tub and some products at Sally Beauty Supply.  I do my own mani and pedi now, plus I don’t get fakes.  I do it weekly in the spring/summer and twice a month in the winter.

One that The Sartorialist doesn’t mention that I insist upon is a jeweler.  Good jewelry is a must, especially a nice watch.  Invest and keep it forever.  I have a Pulsar with my college crest on the face.  It was about $300 - ten years ago.  Works great, always looks nice.  One should also have one signature or statement ring (semi-precious or precious stone[s]), pearl studs & diamond studs for the ears, and one necklace or broach to go with the earrings.  Never, ever buy jewelry at a store that sells things other than jewelry (department, or worse, warehouse stores) , or at any mall chain store.  ALWAYS go local.

For the ethically-minded, NOTHING beats vintage.  If you have your grandma’s, you are very lucky.  No one in my family had such money.  All of mine came to me before I knew of ethical issues with jewelry and all were gifts.  Now, I haven’t bought new in several years and probably won’t.  But I have a great jeweler that repaces my watch battery, fixes loose stones, or re-sets if needed.   

Paramount Jewelers on Manchester in Maplewood.