Eco-Prefix

Every time I see the word “eco” used as a prefix, I brace myself with the thought that it's going to be utter crap. A lot of the time it is too. For instance I have regularly been described as an “eco-adventurer”.

When it’s used to describe products “Eco” tends to mean this version is less damaging than the non-eco one. I always jump to the assumption that the non-eco one must therefore be shamefully bad, and the Eco one can at best boast that it’s not as horrific.

The other thing that annoys me about the Eco prefix is when it’s used as a catch-all simplistic way of summing up complicated issues and totally blurring them in the process. For instance, an “Eco-Coal Fired power station” doesn’t produce harmful spent uranium rods. It’s a trite example but the point is that while some aspects of the eco-solution might be great, the prefix often ignores a whole realm of un-eco facets.

“Harmful” is another one. When I worked as a tour guide and I didn’t know the date of some battle or church I’d say it was from the olden days. It was a very effective fudge. Harmful how? Is it one of the harms we should be worried about, or is one of the trivial harms we can live with.

Anyway, I guess the fact that I’ve got to get back to working on my “Eco-Bus”, makes me an Eco-hypocrite, so far less harmful than a normal hypocrite.