Local writer/director/producer Michael Gleason recently sent us a link to his short comic news piece called "Arrgh! Taxes!" which we were planning on profiling today given that it is April 15th. However, one of his other pieces struck a chord with us about a topic near and dear to this column's heart: environmentalism. In his clip "Eco-tistical," he defines being eco-tistical as "someone who is more concerned about looking like they are concerned about the environment, than actually being concerned about the environment." He takes us through his decision to replace his Ford Taurus with a Toyota Prius, but he is concerned that his decision to purchase a hybrid would be eco-tistical. That is, he is afraid he's making the choice to buy the Prius for the wrong reasons. He considers instead planting trees or riding a bike to work. In the end he does choose a Prius because his "eco ego needs massaging." While he says this in jest, it is a true commentary on the way our society has grabbed hold of the eco movement.

It seems like everywhere we shop now, being "green" is simply the latest marketing tool. I saw a (rather expensive) "GO GREEN" t-shirt in a high end shop the other day and it is extremely frustrating to see that someone would buy this t-shirt to be part of the latest trend. It would be more environmentally conscious to leave the t-shirt on the rack instead of purchasing yet another clothing item you don't need in order to advertise how wonderful your intentions are.

As Michael pokes fun of in his clip, the people who are eco-tistical are really just using the idea of saving the environment as a gimmick of self-promotion and a way to falsely create self-worth. Sure, one could argue that even though they are doing it for the wrong reasons at least they are doing it. But really, are they actually moving toward a "greener" life, or are they just picking and choosing those easy moves to make themselves appear to be environmentally committed? Celebrities, no matter what their true motivations or intentions, can at least be said to have somewhat of a positive impact because the image they are projecting is then being absorbed and emulated by the masses. What I'm talking about here is the average Joe or Jane. Does buying a $40 pair of organic cotton undies make you a better person? Take the example of the Anya Hindmarch "I'm not a plastic bag" hubbub last year. The theory behind the bags was a noble one—a famous handbag designer creates an inexpensive cloth bag to bring awareness to the plastic bag dilemma. But people quickly became magnanimous about the ownership of the bag—so much so that the bags that retailed at $15 were selling on eBay for ten times the price. That is a perfect example of how the movement has been consumed by the need for trendiness.

So where is this rant headed? It's to be taken as an advisement to make your environmental decisions based on what is most beneficial to the environment and also most realistic for you, not based on what's cool or what seems like the popular choice.

P.S. If you liked Michael Gleason's video clips, be sure to check out his "Caucus in Your Face" and "Orphan Highways."

Image Credit: Flickr user JasonJT