I remember the days, not too long ago, when I would eagerly flip through any magazine featuring articles with titles like, “It IS Easy Being Green.” I recall my palpable anticipation for the release of “An Inconvenient Truth” as I realized that society was on the verge of a tipping point. I was witnessing a movement in the making, watching eco-mantras appear from thin air, “Green is the new black,” “This is NOT a plastic bag!”

One of the most unique developments of the environmental movement in the past few years is precisely this trendy appeal to individuals that engages and empowers them by highlighting what they can do to make a difference for the cause. So now that being green is trendy, the subculture junkie in me asks: Who is part of this trend? What does this trend mean to individuals? Does the trend actually promote change? And most importantly: What happens when the trend fizzles out?

This trend has motivated people to make eco-friendly purchases and lifestyle decisions, promoting revolutionary and defining principles of our current environmentally conscious society. Consumers are now willing to invest in socially responsible products and are beginning to adopt eco-principles such as paying more upfront for an energy-efficient Prius or organically, locally grown tomatoes, realizing that the long term benefit exceeds the initial cost.

However, a critique of this environmental trend is that it caters to a very specific group of people: affluent, non-minority, suburban people. So what about the rest of America? How can lower-income Americans view themselves as part of the green movement if they can’t afford to adopt eco-principles through consumerism? In analyzing how the grassroots eco-trend gains momentum, I am concerned that this social movement lacks sustainability and conviction because it is not defined by specific ethics, and therefore polarizes Americans based on who has enough green to go green and who does not. In empowering higher-income Americans through creating a trendy green status image, it only emphasizes a feeling of apathy and perhaps resentment among lower-income earners. Environmental stewardship should not be dependent on socioeconomic status if its intention is to create real change.

The social-marketing geniuses behind this eco-movement recognize the need to appeal to all Americans in order to create a shift in normal behavior and promote the concept of “green collar jobs” as a solution. Green-collar workers are vocational and technical employees who focus on green development, such as electricians who install solar panels on buildings and carpenters who construct green buildings. Green-collar jobs are a way to enhance the movement by engaging working-class America to build up a green infrastructure in our country.

Congressman Edward Markey’s latest climate change legislation, the Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act (iCAP), includes the creation of green-collar jobs using revenues from “Cap and Invest” emission credit auction system as part of a plan to cut carbon emissions by 85% by 2050. In the words of Solis’s Legislative Director Megan J. Uzzell: “Chairman Markey understands the importance of saying to America’s workers, particularly those in urban and rural underserved communities, that there is a place for them in the green economy.” http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/23/152948/562

But what about this “place” instills a sense of principle or empowerment towards the green economy in lower-income green collar workers, especially when compared to the affluent “place” in the green economy which creates a sense of empowerment and contribution through conspicuous spending on green luxury goods? There is definitely the danger of making going green a class issue, where the lower-income green worker begrudgingly installs expensive solar panels on the yuppie suburban household on a scorching summer day. One solution is to create a social campaign, similar to what we are seeing in the consumer realm with top-ten “how YOU can go green” tips, that acknowledges and appreciates green-collar contribution to the movement. This acknowledgment would not only serve as a “gold-star” for the workers, but more substantially it would define an important principle of the green movement: the need for infrastructural change, and the need for people (the workers) to help create this change in our country.

If the environmental movement intends to promote a long-lasting and real change, there must be ethical principles that define it, which will serve the critical role of uniting Americans in this social cause. If socially responsible, long-term investments and purchases are considered a principle, it should have an appeal to all members of this movement, including those for whom conspicuous spending is a challenge. So how do we universalize these ethics? Perhaps we should begin by acknowledging the environmentally-friendly principles fostered within the lower-income arena, such as re-using products and reducing waste, which not only stretches the dollar to its maximum potential, but also uses the earth’s resources in an efficient, effective way. This acknowledgment validates the green collar place in the movement, and should hold affluent members responsible to maintaining this principle. On the flip side, creating a platform for the green movement might also encourage lower income members to see CFLs and chico-bags as more than status symbols, but as important investments that they can try to commit to as part of the green cause.

The definition of a platform which upholds clear principles and strategies for creating a true social change is important in uniting Americans and spreading the awareness necessary to embrace large-scale, effective and innovative solutions.