This spring, green is hip, green is everywhere. Metropolitan Home has a special edition on green design. Elle magazine has produced its first green issue. Barneys New York has a green fashion line. "The days when Eco-friendly meant compost heaps and Birkenstocks are long over," Elle proclaimed in introducing its issue. "Savvy conservationists know you don't have to sacrifice style to help the planet. Stella McCartney, Lexus and Lulu Frost are all in on the green game, as are a slew of beauty and stylish home décor companies."

Uh oh. Green is becoming a fashion statement. Don't get me wrong: I do not mean to belittle any well-meaning efforts to reduce our carbon footprint. (I like nice clothes. I have never owned Birkenstocks.) But the reality is that most things we can do to move towards a more sustainable lifestyle will not make you more glamorous, hipper or get you invited to great parties. They are dull, a bit inconvenient and sometimes even painful. More to the point: They are not about consuming more, but consuming less than you do now.

"I often say consuming different is good, but consuming less is better," said Colin Beavan, the so-called "no impact man," who - as an experiment - lived a completely carbon-neutral life in a New York apartment with his wife, daughter and dog for a year. While it is true that the Beavans' no-impact lifestyle did generate some buzz - including a book deal and a movie proposal - it was not, by any means, glamorous. He used only public transport, bought local and without packaging, even turned off the electricity for a time.

"There is this idea that if we just buy more products that are green, we'll be fine and everything will just go on," he said. "But the fact of the matter is, to control emissions we have to look at lifestyle change. And that doesn't mean just using differently, it means using less." Looked at from the perspective of carbon emissions, the fashionista version of green has its limits.

The Barneys organic collection consists of clothes made of organic cotton and leather wallets with a cute logo of a bicycle. The designer Stella McCartney (who makes great efforts to manufacture using low-carbon technology) has a line of "eco-friendly" garments. But a report last year from Cambridge University on sustainable clothing came up with a very different kind of suggestion for the fashion industry.

It concluded, for example, that rayon is in many ways the most eco-friendly fabric (more so than organic cotton) because it is easy to care for. Most of the emissions generated by a garment over its lifetime come from washing and drying rather than manufacturing. Rayon washes in cold water and dries naturally. Cotton, in contrast, requires hot water to clean effectively and needs to be ironed or tumble-dried to look good - and both steps generate huge emissions. Would Barneys consider rayon?

And rather than buy new Stella McCartney eco-friendly clothes each season, the Cambridge report suggests that shifting styles could be accommodated by lending libraries for clothes - just like for books - where customers lease a dress for a year. (No big sales here!) "Within the fashion sector the simple rule is 'buy less, wash less,' " to be green, said Julian Allwood, a professor of engineering who co-authored the report. "Wash your clothes and yourself less often, at lower temperatures." Not a tip you're likely to find in fashion magazines.

Among the eco-tips listed in Elle magazine is a trip to an organic winery in California to learn about all-natural wine-making. Not to discourage anyone from this appealing vacation, but: The emissions I'd generate flying from New York to San Francisco and then driving to Napa would far cancel out any knowledge to be gained there. Elle also plugs a line of eco-friendly greeting cards. How about an e-card instead? (But now I'm getting into dangerous territory: Why does this column appear in paper, instead of solely on the Internet?)

Metropolitan Home's first entirely green issue had some good tips about which materials to use in sustainable renovations. The architects "tried to avoid the burlap-and-Birkenstock earnestness that can afflict green projects." It went on: "The goal was for visitors to walk in and not recognize that it was a sustainable, green space." Yes, hide the ugly secret! Ultimately green is not an aesthetic. Indeed the best way to lower the carbon footprint of your home, Allwood says, it to turn down the heat.

"If you're not wearing a woollen sweater indoors in winter, your heating is set too high," he said. Said Beavan, the no-impact man: "Some companies are really trying to make greener products: They'll make a lamp made with LED bulb, but the whole ethos is that you'll buy it cause it's au courant and fashionable, and then get a new one when it's out of style."

Low carbon tends to be a bit more homely and hassle-filled. My kitchen looked better before the recycling bins, but I'm glad to have the eyesore there. Likewise, I was recently thrilled to find that our local barbecue takeout, Rack & Soul, no longer delivers in bags with plastic cutlery. They have switched to a reusable plastic bin. The delivery guy stands at the door while you unpack the goodies onto your plates, then takes the crate away with him.

(Por Elisabeth Rosenthal, Herald Tribune, 14/05/2008)