The Big Green Gamble

At a recent gathering in New York City a group of well meaning people came together to discuss the role the so-called green consumer can play in saving the planet. Instigated by the Sustainability Practice Network and hosted by home furnishing department store, ABC Carpet and Home, the meeting was part discussion forum and part promo for the store itself -- perhaps not surprisingly, since one of the topics under the microscope was how corporations can be harnessed to help save the planet.

One of the key issues raised was the inherent conflict of interest corporations encounter when they try to promote more environmentally or socially conscious behavior among their customers (or "participants" as ABC prefers to call them.) ABC is a case in point: It is working reasonably hard to provide its customers (OK, OK, participants) with eco-friendly products. It can only go so far, however, before its bottom line begins to suffer.

Cheerleaders for the green consumerist lifestyle cite the many changes that conscious consumers can trigger as proof that we can buy our way to a healthy planet. Not only does their consumption draw less deeply on the world's dwindling resources, the argument goes, but buying products that are created in an environmentally friendly way by people who receive fair pay and work in humane conditions will help promote sustainable economic development where otherwise there might be poverty, sweatshops and environmental destruction. True enough. But this argument leads fairly swiftly into some morally challenging territory. One of the panelists at the green consumerism gathering pointed out that consumption supports economic activity, which can -- and often does -- lift people out of poverty. He added some inspiring numbers showing how countless millions of Chinese were in the process of being saved from poverty by the economic explosion taking place there.

A year ago I would have glibly agreed with this comment: indeed, I have expressed the same opinion in past editorials, asserting that economic growth must be good if it frees people from the misery of poverty. But this view is based on the simple assumption that poverty is bad and having a bit of cash to splash around is better. In truth, the equation is more complex than the simple poor=bad, rich=good. Sure, not having enough money to buy the stuff you want makes you feel miserable. But how many times have we heard the not-so-surprising revelation that buying loads of stuff doesn't automatically make you happy?

I recently spent almost two weeks in a remote part of north-eastern India among people who are indisputably living in extreme poverty. In their undeveloped corner of the Himalayas, these people still dress in traditional tribal clothes, barter their produce and scratch a living from land that would be discarded as uncultivable in most Western countries. They are exactly the poor people who could find themselves suddenly lifted out of poverty by an entrepreneur who decided to try selling their leather-soled socks in an up-market boutique in New York City.
Despite their lack of cash, though, they were among the most cheerful people I have ever met. To those of us used to central heating in the winter, air conditioning in the summer, water that comes from taps and reliable electricity from a socket in the wall, their lives might seem unimaginably hard. But they are quite happy -- certainly happier than the long-faced commuters I shared the subway carriage with on my way back home to New York. So, while it makes us conscious consumers and social activists feel happy, rescuing people from poverty does not necessarily make them happy.

There is no doubt that conscious consumerism is better than unconscious consumerism -- both for the planet and for those living on it. If people are going to buy something (and you can be sure they will) it's far better they buy something that does less harm, and enlisting corporations to help promote that movement makes sense. It is better than nothing. But not much better.
Entrusting the salvation of our planet to the corporate world is severely misguided. Saving the planet from environmental disaster is dependent not on doing things less harmfully, it is absolutely dependent on not doing things at all. The most environmentally friendly act a consumer can perform is not to consume. We simply cannot rely on corporations to promote that creed, and we shouldn't be so foolish to consider it.

Comments

[realitytrumpsbull]

100 square miles' worth of solar panels, backed up with BIG wind farms, would make a fair dent in the whole business. But, that'd be work...

[Henry]

We're morally bankrupt living a lifestyle of decadent materialism while standing up as the light on the hill for freedom.(seems strange)
It is amazing, the point I read recently, that if the U.S. had cars with the same mileage requirements as Europe, then the oil imports are no longer required. (seemed a bit agressive, maybe?).
But, a large point of this turns out to be that OPEC is a cartel. Some of its members are WTO members (Saudi Arabia for example) and the control & manipulation of price by cartel methods is a crime. Yet administration after administration for the USA does nothing, nada, nyet, about this. While little George rubs cheeks the the King, it becomes more clear who is being abused in this SUV climate of guzzling consumption that we exercise. It is disgusting that we are played for the fools (and skunks) that we are.

[dyakir]

I find the case you made about corporate responsibility interesting, but your conclusion, I suspect is different than the one I came to.

Simply put, most consumers do not have the wherewithal to deprive themselves. "Most" is the operative word. Corporations which are powerful entities must lead the way - as best they can - economic conflicts and all - it is the price they must pay to continue doing business with humanity. By the way, I believe government has a similar responsibility no matter how big a government is necessary to play the role.

In addition, I wonder if the happy native people in the remote region of India - if given the resources to obtain ? to their hearts desire, wouldn't do so. Even if that price was sacrificing their happiness.

[realitytrumpsbull]

When you say 'corporate', you're saying 'business', and businesses do two things, provide a product, or a service. Provision of either requires consumption of energy, either electromechanical, or human.
Typically, that also involves consumption of some sort of natural resources, raw materials to be processed and refined into the components of the final product, or paper, or clean water, or oil, or small furry animals, or whatever they can sell this week. Hey, it's a job.
Actually, it's an INDUSTRY. A GROUP of industries. Corporations bring us things like rubber bands, beer, light bulbs, computers,
themed slipcovers for your electric dog polisher, lead-based lunchboxes, pretty much if you can fit it in a Fed-Ex package, it probably came from a corporation, or a corporate-owned business of some kind. And, these corporation thingys are based in far-away and exotic locales, far enough away(hopefully) where you don't actually have to WATCH the small, furry things being processed or (GASP) participate in the processing. All in all, it's the Modern World, and hey, you're wearing it. Or eating it. Or driving it. So, rejoice in consumer nirvana as you swipe your Visa card, you unthinking eco-criminal bla bla bla bla(vague pious high-minded conscience­-wrenching admonishment HERE_________).

[sheila]

same goes for electricity and water. conservation is the key to sustainability, but it runs entirely counter to the depraved pyramid scheme of unchecked capitalism this country has developed to grotesquely enrich the few at the great expense to the many and to the planet.

the latest movement, to kill the desert to let utilities build massive power plants (even if partially run by solar or wind) is another example of how the corporations exploit resources that they should NOT be allowed to have access to for private profits.

we need to encourage, support, and buy LOCAL, decentralized, GREEN, free trade and non-rapacious power, water, and goods, to recycle and re-use and to conserve. this will take an enormous amount of pushback against the corporate-owned US government, the passive-minded consumption of individuals, and a lot more support from environmentalists, many of whom are too accepting of the inevitability of total annihilation of the desert in the interest of utility profiteers.

www.stopgreenpath.com

[joebhed]

You have a good point that the corporations' interest in promoting a more healthy environment ends at their bottom line.
As well, that people in certain parts of the world are better off without the introduction of cash societies into the economic culture.
I am hopeful, and may be naive in doing so, that your ultimate solution of "not" consuming is, in reality, a call for consuming less.
We are somewhat fortunate today that the financial calamity about to strike at the US economy will have a beneficial effect, environmentally speaking. Score 1 for the good guys.
As a result, US corporations, and especially those on American Main Street, will be forced to take measures to reduce their own wasteful consumption of resources. Efficiency and belt-tightening will become the watchwords of good business stewardship. Score 2 for the good guys.
Our job, if we choose to accept it, is to grab this opportunity by promoting the consumer ethic to be more efficient in our purchases.
If you don't need it, then don't buy it.
Buy it used if you can.
Recycle your own stuff.
It matters little to me if the corporations are promoting the message of the need to protect the environment for their own bottom line reasons, or not.
The fact that they are doing so means that each day more and more people will be drawn to address the question of what we should do, what we can do, and what we must do to protect the environment from industrially-caused calamity.
At some point, we will meet the enemy.