Beware some dangerous and neglected monsters that lurk in the underbrush of the new green revolution. They’re scary, well-disguised, and they do a good job of hiding on the moral high ground. They’re the Green Gotchas.
What's a "Green Gotcha?" An attempt to embarrass, expose, or disgrace someone or something with a green attack.
A green gotcha knows no ideological home, it can come from anywhere and be used against anyone, from George Bush to Al Gore or from Exxon to the Nature Conservancy.
A green gotcha is closely related to a real green critique. But a green gotcha is different in purpose, tone, and use. A critique is an honest attempt to uncover or understand a neglected or unsolved problem, and a productive critique can often help in finding a solution. A gotcha is an attack designed to use green issues as a weapon against an enemy, with solutions being at best a secondary purpose.
Why bring up this unseemly subject? Why say anything negative about the green movement that I hold dear? Because it seems to me that there is presently no way to rein in the purists among greens who would take the movement down in flames in pursuit of a staunch and often misanthropic ideology.
Naming and shaming green gotchas is a good start.
If you doubt the need, consider what builds standing in the green movement. Answer these questions for yourself, and if you agree with my answers you should help find a solution. Perhaps by working with me to refine this list of green gotchas.
1. Who wins the moral high ground in a typical green argument? Often it’s the person who holds out for the purest and most extreme position. Practical progress often gets derided as "selling out," "caving in," or otherwise failing to stand strong.
It shouldn’t be this way. A statement of green dreams is good, and green progress in the right direction is also a good thing that deserves admiration.
2. What passes for green cred? Self-denial and sacrifice, like attempting to live in New York City with zero impact, despite the incredible unreality of such self-indulgent and hair shirt-type pursuits. Green credibility seems to rise alongside guilt and pain.
This is backwards. Green cred should go more to the problem solvers of the world, and novelty pursuits like sacrifice and penance should be recognized as nothing more than cute stories.
3. What green messages stand out? The green screeds that talk about how foul, evil corporations are trashing the planet because of greed. It would be nice if life were so simple that we could rely on such cartoonish us vs. them narratives, but few green problems are caused by bad people or truly rotten systems.
So what to do about these symptoms of a movement in decay?
I think we need a countervailing force, a simple way to name and shame green gotchas so they lose their status as the moral watchdogs of the green movement.
To that end, I hereby open the discussion on green gotchas. Here’s version 1.0 of my list of Green Gotchas.
1.
Absolution—critiquing green efforts in order to force specific penance. In its most pernicious form, the penance involves paying a fee.
2.
Imperfection—attacking green efforts if they fall short of some imposed high standard.
3.
Original Sin—some green efforts will never be accepted, like improving fuel economy in SUVs, improving sustainability of fast food, or selling sustainable products in a big box store.
4.
Profit—green efforts that make money are tainted, as though every good green effort must be expensive.
5.
Pleasure—green gotchas claim that a good green effort should require personal sacrifice, so if there’s no suffering involved it can’t be real green. Even worse, if there's pleasure involved it must be really, really bad.
I guess it's ok if you sink a big old warship and call it a "reef." In fact, it's not only OK, it's an economic opportunity. Project officials expect the $8 million cost of the project to be recovered in just a year of wreck-diving related revenue. 
