Green Greed (by Kim Szeto)
Paul Hawken, a well known environmentalist and author, comments that we may actually have to alter lifestyles and perhaps buy less, rather than simply buying green. I appreciate Hawken's sentiment, as our culture is constantly shouting at us through advertisements in all sorts of mediums to buy more. Buy more to make yourself feel good. Buy more if you are feeling good. Buy more if you are unsure of how you are feeling but because it's cool and everyone is doing it. The same strategy is being used on the eco-friendly consumer.
True environmental consciousness will challenge the way we respond to our culture of consumerism and create changes in lifestyles. I do think that you can be an environmentally conscious consumer. However, this will most likely mean being less of a consumer to begin with, and when you do have to put on your consumer hat, be critical and read between the lines of "brand organic" (as well as everyone else's) advertisements.
Reduce, Reuse, then Recycle. And if you still need something new, do your research before you hit the stores and know what all those "green labels" are/are not actually telling you.
Kim Szeto is a former Sojourners intern now working for the Community Food Security Coalition.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I completely agree. Switching from regular goods to green goods while continuing current consumption levels will do very little to help the environment or American culture.
It seems like so much of the new green movement isn't about protecting the environment, but making us feel better. I was driving yesterday behind a hybrid car with the license plate that said "Grnner" or something like that. I could feel the haughtiness oozing from the driver of the other car...and they paid extra for that vanity plate.
I liked how Thomas Friedman put it. He calls what we're going through "the green party" rather than the "the green revolution". It won't be a green revolution unless people are actually making sacrifices and getting by with less.
Posted by: Eric | March 26, 2008 2:55 PM
My wife and I were talking about this recently. We bought some paper plates from the Dollar Store and the package said it was a green product because it was made from trees which is a renewable resource. I thought that was pretty funny.
It seems to me like a few years ago a light bulb went off in the heads of marketing executives across the country. They realized that they could call things "Green" and people would buy it to make themselves feel better.
Posted by: Will H. | March 26, 2008 3:36 PM
Hi Friday: Nice work here. Thanks for sharing it with me; I'll remember to keep these thoughts in mind when I go shopping next time.
Posted by: Michael | March 26, 2008 3:50 PM
I agree, but I am heartened by the fact that more people are beginning to take an interest. Little by little we are making headway. We must keep educating!
Posted by: jane | March 26, 2008 3:57 PM
So - if my income allows me to purchase items that are of interest to me and my family - we are to stop buying them? Do you realize how many people that this would put out of work? I don't think that too many people are purchasing just to spend money. Many of my friends that are better off than I are very careful about their purchases compaired to some of my friends that have less of an income or on assistance.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 26, 2008 3:59 PM
I agree with Jane.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 26, 2008 3:59 PM
Oh yes I would agree with Jane. I would add if it is some product you buy anyway, toilet paper say, buy green. I would also agree there are a number of folks using green, natural and organic as just a way to up their prices - so shop around.
Mother Earth has a lot of good ideas on simple ways a person can go green, organic, recycle and such without breaking their bank account.
His Peace to all,
randy
Posted by: RandyT | March 26, 2008 4:06 PM
moderatelad - That's not what she's saying. She's saying that simply replacing green consumption with consumption of non-green products isn't going to make much of a difference. Buying green neccessities is good, but buying a low-enegy 53-inch TV because it's cool when you're 28-inch is good enough doesn't help solve the problem of over-consumption.
Posted by: Eric | March 26, 2008 4:14 PM
Posted by: Eric | March 26, 2008 4:14 PM
I stand corrected -
Being in Media and hoping to get a better job - I want the 53 inch flat screen TV. I will say - I have to shop and for years have made looking for consumables that are made of recycled material a priority. I spent more money on my house when I built it going with 2X6 outer construction rather than 2X4. Better windows with a low heat loss factor than what most of the homes in the area were built with. Cars with better gas milage - etc.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 26, 2008 4:41 PM
Moderatelad,
I think we can all agree that we want to provide good jobs and a living wage for all. The tough part for me is how to balance my level of consumerism with the teachings of our faith against materialism and greed, and the focus of our time and efforts.
Will
Posted by: Will | March 26, 2008 5:10 PM
Kim,
This the best article I have read on SOJO. I don't buy into the Global Warming Theory (I would say hoax). For me it just makes sense to reduce, reuse and recycle. My has done a good job with the second two, not as good with the first. Some of the newest green solutions are just not well thought through. My fear is there will be a backlash to green because some of it just doesn't make sense.
Again Kim, thanks for a great balanced article.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | March 26, 2008 5:40 PM
"if my income allows me to purchase items that are of interest to me and my family - we are to stop buying them? Do you realize how many people that this would put out of work?"
This is just why the most patriotic thing you can do, is to keep on shopping.
And why those cargo cult checks from Congress are so important. To those who have sacrificed so patriotically as to have maxxed out your debt load, the government stands behind, cashing in for the cashed out, banking for the bankrupt, offering credit to the creditless, spending for the spendthrift, solutions for the insolvent, so that you can keep saluting the ka-ching for the bling-bling.
"I want more, sir!"
Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 26, 2008 8:40 PM
Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 26, 2008 8:40 PM
"I want more, sir!"
You do not know what my spending habits are. Outside of the technology that my kids need to continue their education and a few games, I have very modest tastes. I collect rare books and LP's along with some fine art that I like. My cars are 11 and 13 years old and have 150M and 198M on them. I am no slave to fashion my motto is 'forever in blue jeans' and sometimes black. A treat for me is a 'black and blue' at my favorite watering hole.
So - no one is going to get rich on me and because the Dem's in St Paul refused to fund education, if I get to keep my job - no raise for the next two years. If I find another - no vacation.
80% of the time I am a very happy person. The other 20% for the most part is caused by other people that I will blow off because they are not worth dealing with.
Blessings-
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 26, 2008 8:52 PM
The problem seems to be in 2 areas - first with the idea that we need to sacrifice in order to be "green" and second that many don't know the difference between want and need. So many people in the world do not have what they need because the consumptive Western countries continue to fulfill their wants. Living efficiently needs to become the cultural norm. We reward excess and inefficiency somehow and belittle those who seek more efficient lifestyles. It would be great if everyone could learn the difference between want and need, live a bit more efficiently by keeping what is functional instead of pursuing the new and shiny,and having respect for others who embrace simpler lifestyles.
Posted by: Tinker | March 27, 2008 11:04 AM
One of my chores is carrying out the trash generated by a 5 person household. We live out in the country, beyond the range of commercial trash collection companies. So for me, carrying out the trash means taking it all the way to the landfill transfer station and recycling center - about 10 miles.
When you start paying attention to what you are throwing away, you will discover that packaging is by far the bulk of your waste stream. If you begin to meditate on your trash while carrying it away, you begin to think of ways to avoid bringing trash home in the first place.
Germany has long recognized that packaging is the major component of the nation's waste stream. In Germany, manufacturers are charged for the ultimate disposal of their packaging, thus manufacturers are given an incentive to minimize the bulk of packaging for their products.
I stopped our newspaper subscription when I realized this was generating about 200 lbs of trash per month - about half of which is advertising inserts, which we would separate from the newspaper's content and immediately toss away. Now we go online for the local news.
We buy eggs from a local egg farmer and recycle the egg containers.
The City of Seattle, which claims to recycle the highest percentage of the waste stream of any major city in the US, has now banned the sale of bottled water.
If you become a 'trashologist' you will think of many ways to reduce your own trash footprint.
Posted by: justintime | March 27, 2008 11:14 AM
"80% of the time I am a very happy person. The other 20% for the most part is caused by other people that I will blow off because they are not worth dealing with."
Then why the Hades do you come on here?
Posted by: lloyd crump | March 27, 2008 11:47 AM
There are people who shop to fill a void in their lives. I know because I used to be one of them. I won't say I'm completely reformed, but I am trying.
I too read my newspaper online for the same reason as justintime. I was able to recycle the papers, but the advertisement sections seemed like such a waste because we didn't even look at them. I've also stopped all but one magazine subscription. I go to Catalogchoice.com and opt out of getting unwanted catalogs, and I used Green Dimes to get rid of my unwanted junkmail. I recycle anything I possibly can, and I am starting to compost now too. I buy those 99-cent shopping bags that the grocery store offers, so that I'm not getting too many of those little plastic bags.
My community is fairly enlightened, but I'm always amazed at what I find in the trash can at work. I've been known to pull things out and put them in the recycling!
Posted by: Jane | March 27, 2008 12:01 PM
Posted by: lloyd crump | March 27, 2008 11:47 AM
Then why the Hades do you come on here?
You don't like a person that is happy 80% of the time????
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 27, 2008 12:12 PM
I am mostly in agreement with Kim's article.
1. There is no question that some Americans consume too much or consume the wrong types of things (things produced in a nonsustainable way). These types of consumption are among the various causes of environmental degradation.
2. There is no question that some products claim to be "green" when they really are not.
3. However, we need to be careful not to demonize consumption across the board. What if I've finally worked myself up into the middle class and feel entitled to a little comfort? Also, if I buy a product that truly is sustainably produced, what's the problem? (more on that next)
4. Some visionary environmentalists (Bill McDonough is the one that comes to mind) actually encourage increased consumption of sustainably produced things. They argue that if the thing is produced in a "cradle to cradle" system where there is zero waste, then (in McDonough's words) "growth is good." In essence, you keep "trading in" a green product for one that is even more green. And by "voting with your pocketbook," you fuel the economic engine that (with luck) will drive the market in a green direction. There is some merit to this theory.
My point: although I'm mostly on the same wavelength as Kim, I do think we need to recognize some need for nuance in the message. Although Kim does include some important qualifiers in her article, I think they're worth beefing up and emphasizing. Otherwise, we come across (to average Americans) as negative, arrogant, stingy and obsessed with political correctness.
Posted by: Bill | March 27, 2008 1:16 PM
For the green movement to succeed, I believe the market needs to kick in to make greenery more economically feasable so people will choose green--more importantly, as Bill points out above, is not so much choosing green, but choosing sustainability. Until sustainable products become affordable, we will not see them take over and become competitive in the market place.
However, and here's the hard part--as the greed fad kicks in, we will see more and more products promoted as green when they really are not--such as Will H's paper plates that were supposedly green because they were made from trees. As consumers, we really need to be very careful how we purchase green items if we are trying to do that. The more popular it becomes, I would guess the more shams will arise, which will not solve the problem.
Posted by: squeaky | March 27, 2008 3:48 PM
I am a big believer in being as green as possible. This ties to living simply and being a conscientious consumer. When I need (and I do mean need, not want) to purchase something (instead of making, borrowing, trading), I try to get the one produced most sustainably.
It's difficult to get the people around me to want to live green when it's phrased as "giving something up." Instead, it helps to focus on the benefits of biking instead of driving, line-drying instead of using a clothes dryer, sharing with a neighbor instead of storing a big machine in the garage, etc.
Living simply is a Christian ideal.
Posted by: Mitch | March 27, 2008 5:11 PM
unsustainable products are technically not cheaper. we may pay less for them at the point of sale, but that is only because corporations are allowed to "externalize" costs that they should be paying in the manufacturing of products (see storyofstuff.org for more on this).
david korton, reformed international capitialist and author, has been suggesting for years that many corporate habits, such as externalizing costs, even short-circuit the market's ability to self-regulate (create living wages, control costs, spark innovation, become more sustainable, etc). the solution he proposes is that we, the people, who give corporations their charter to do business in this country, push for legislation that requires corporations to stop subverting the markets ability to make them do better (see his book, The Post-Corporate World).
speaking of short-circuiting, we must also recognize that we have developed habits (and whole systems) predicated on short-circuiting the natural rhythm of things, but all we have to do is challenge ourselves to develop new habits. it's about cultivating the imagination to see new possibilities beyond those fed to us in ads. it's no easier to dump all of one's trash into the same waste basket than it is to separate it by throwing recyclables into one and non-recyclables into another (most of us have more than one trash can in our homes already). taking organic waste to one's compost pile requires no more energy than taking that same waste to the curb to be picked up with the garbage. we've just gotten into the habit of doing things one way, and now that we know that way is hurting GOD's good creation, we have the GOD-given ability to come up with something better.
Posted by: melvin bray | March 27, 2008 5:24 PM
I decided this year to see just how little I can buy new. That means only purchasing food, toiletries, services (i.e. haircuts and an occasional movie ticket or rental), and certain clothing items better bought new (like socks and undergarments). So far I've made it work, and it's proved enlightening about my buying/spending habits. I am very conscious of supporting our local rural economy, as well as putting sustainability, "green," and justice at the top of my considerations when making a purchase. It is difficult to be a careful, deliberate, thoughtful consumer, but we need to move in that direction--the sooner the better. There are no easy answers, but it's refreshing to see articles like Kim's getting press and people responding thoughtfully.
For those of you interested in reducing consumption, check out The Compact (YAHOO group). It's been a big help to me.
Posted by: prairiepastor | March 27, 2008 5:33 PM
melvin--you hit on a very huge part of the problem. The current proposed solution to that is to tax carbon or have a carbon cap and trade system. Many people poo-poo this as anti-capitalism (I think that's the argument, anyway). however, what it would do is make more innovative technologies more competitive and would actually encourage a true market on a level playing field. One way or another, we pay for the fossil fuel economy--it may not show up at the pump, but we pay for it in higher insurance premiums, higher taxes for cleaning up the environment and military forces to stabilize supply, and health problems. We are all subsidizing fossil fuels.
Posted by: squeaky | March 27, 2008 5:44 PM
I must disagree that consumption for the sake of consumption is an inherantly flawed idea.
At the heart of this question is an idea about rates. For example, as long as the rate at which we produce a "waste product", eg CO2, is balanced by the rate at which the earths systems can clean it up, then the situation is sustainable. Kind of like living off the interest in a bank account. If you spend down your principle, then your income will decrease.
Even if I use "biofuels" to sustain my consumptive lifestyle, I still have a negative impact - biofuels have to be grown on farmland somewhere, resulting in some level of soil erosion, etc. Unless new lands are put into production, biofuel crops mean the diversion of crops from food, which increases the price for food by decreasing the supply.
So yes, I will say that, even if you can afford it, just buying it because it "interests you" is problematic. I recognize that this might reduce employment in some sectors, but the economy has _got_ to be reorganized around re-use and recycling. That is one reality of living in a closed system.
I think this post begins to hit at the heart of the matter. If a "green" product is really designed and built with a "cradle to cradle" focus on recycling, then it is probably really "green". However, all to often "green" just means "less bad" - eg, less energy wasted in making, packaging, shipping the product.
Yes, this means we have to accept some limits on ourselves - and humans don't like to accept limits (consider the story of the fall...)
Eric Nord
Posted by: Eric Nord | March 27, 2008 6:54 PM
""I want more, sir!"
This was not referring to Moderatelad. More the great "us."
"My cars are 11 and 13 years old and have 150M and 198M on them."
Well, mine is 22 years old.
"If I get to keep my job - no raise for the next two years. If I find another - no vacation."
I was outsourced and offshored already.
So, I win the poverty righteousness contest!
Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 27, 2008 7:27 PM
Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 27, 2008 7:27 PM
Uncle - you win. Now is you are of a none white race and transexual - you could corner the market.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 27, 2008 10:09 PM
"Now is you are of a none white race and transexual "
Using a colloquialism inherent to Indiana to express confusion:
Do WHAT?
Posted by: squeaky | March 28, 2008 11:30 AM
A great online video that puts consumption in perspective is THESTORYOFSTUFF.COM . It gave me a different reason to "reduce,reuse,recycle"
Posted by: Dick | March 28, 2008 12:32 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?