Green Capitalism: Today’s Big Mama Hope Quandary
One of my biggest concerns about the popularization of the sustainability movement has been that too much meaning will be stripped away from the words “green” and “eco-friendly.” When there’s a lot of money to be made and no outside verification, you can see how easy it is for even well-meaning folk to jump on the bandwagon without a true life-cycle assertion that a green product actually makes an impact.
I originally wrote this little diddy as a response to a thoughtful comment by Green Mamma on eco-certification and USDA labeling. Her thoughts brought up the issue of green washing and the growth of green capitalism, and she made the point that the mere existence of green washing means that more consumers are caring about the environment — a good thing.
The Question of Green Consumerism
But here’s my question, the big question I’ve been pondering (more on this to come…): if we’re all making small changes, “baby steps” as it is sometimes called by the “light green” movement, but we’re still continuously consuming, will that be enough to make a difference?
Or is the marketing of consumption, even green consumption, ultimately still a part of the end for rivers, glaciers, species, forests, us?
To me, it takes a scientist, not a marketer, to answer these questions. Which is why I’m interested in the idea of eco-certification. From what I have read, existing nationalized programs abroad (in countries like Germany, France, and Sweden) seem to rely:
- First, on a body of scientists creating a set of standards for a certain product line based on life-cycle assessment,
- And then on a system for companies applying for certification when those standards have been met.
In the U.S., my sense is that far too often the party making the decisions as to standards is heavily influenced by politicians or worse corporate lobbyists and scientists in the employ of corporations. It’s not a necessary arrangement, but agreed, it is one that devalues the whole concept, the whole basis of any sort of independent labeling system.
But I have read stories regarding the voices of consumers which have managed so far to protect the USDA definition of organic, so my hope is that our voice is needed and valuable and that our governing body, in my mind a vital and necessary aspect of free market capitalism, is not beyond “hope” as it were.
Of course I’ll be continuing my research foray into eco-labeling, green washing, and all things “light green” as I feel I’ve only touched the tip of the iceberg. Until then, lend me your thoughts:
Are we just marketing Consumption?
Do we need to be wary of green consumerism turning into simply a condoned version of excessive materialistic consumption with a green veneer? Or is every little change a good change? Alex Williams of the New York Times sums it up:
It’s as though the millions of people whom environmentalists have successfully prodded to be concerned about climate change are experiencing a SnackWell’s moment: confronted with a box of fat-free devil’s food chocolate cookies, which seem deliciously guilt-free, they consume the entire box, avoiding any fats but loading up on calories.
By asking this question I’m not implying that any one of us is, should, or could be a perfect “green angel” in our daily lives, but shouldn’t the message be pure? Shouldn’t we be motivated to do things that make a real difference?
Ideally, yes, we should be motivated by things that are “pure” and make a difference. Our reality is, though, that the U.S. is a hungry consumer culture who shops for pleasure and disposes, usually without much thought, of items they’ve lost interest in, or which, poorly constructed, are not usable.
I agree with Alex Williams’ comment about trendy green consumerism in the U.S. because like folks eating snackwells, living green is mainly an exercise in self-control and delayed gratification. For example, should I purchase new curtains that cost $5 and will last 6 months or should I wait to find used curtains that are the same price and may last 1 year or more?
Getting the idea of living green and making more environmental choices is going to take time. Along the way, “real” environmentalists may get discouraged that folks are not living up to the ideal, however, at least people are acknowledging that global warming exists and is not made up! I can hardly get over the fact that many people consider global warming a myth. Convincing such a group of people that our environment is suffering is almost impossible, but just think, these same individuals may slowly start recycling, carrying reusable grocery bags, and finding biodegradable products, etc.
There is hope, Hope. =)
I wrote on this topic myself some time back. It’s a definite frustration of mine that so much of being green is seen by many people as buying the right stuff. Just look at some green sites that heavily promote all kinds of products.
It’s nice to know which products are greener, but some push the definition of green much harder than others. You really have to figure out who to trust and what do you really need to add to your life anyhow?
We are in a decidely consumeristic culture and my suspicion is that by helping people to make better choices, we’re making the easy improvements only. The greater challenge of just plain buying less stuff, making your own, reusing and so forth will take much longer to get across.
There’s progress. Just look at how many grocery stores now sell reusable bags. That’s a very important step, as it gets us away from both paper and plastic bags that many use once, then throw away. Look at all the green cleaning supplies hitting the market.
It may not be the progress we would most like to see, or even what many people feel we need, but it’s something. Keep up the good work, keep teaching the children, and live the example as best you can.
I have been increasingly irked by green consumerism. It may not make sense to me but the world isn’t going to leap into green living overnight. Baby steps.
The more I think about this the more I realize that it’s all about information for me. As we move into this new age where our interest in becoming more sustainable actually has economic motivations (rising fuel costs) and not just forward-thinking, the way we attribute meaning seems crucial.
For example, when we speak of “going green” it’s hard to distinguish between green efforts like you mentioned Stephanie — buying less stuff, making your own, and reusing — and other green efforts like, say, buying a fashionable organic cotton wardrobe every season. It’s hard to distinguish them because we don’t yet have the vocabulary.
Building that vocabulary is what seems to drive change. Just as the word “green” helped make “environmentalism” mainstream, and the word “attachment parenting” helped build support for millions of parents doing something different, we need words like “up-cycling” and “simple living” to build movements.
As we each write about these things we produce new words which in turn create new realities.
In this way, rather than diminish the importance of “green shopping” we can instead distinguish it from something else — a piece of the puzzle that’s truly important and simply does not fall under the same category.
This is shaping into a great idea for another post! Thank you so much guys for your comments and for helping build a dialog that moves me!