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.