In our consumerist culture, it is no surprise that companies have launched new product lines centered around the ‘green’ phenomenon, despite the obvious hypocrisy of pushing people to buy more in order to impact the environment less. Everyone has experienced the green-washing of material culture. We can’t help but be overwhelmed by the deluge of variations on a theme of the ‘I (heart) Recycling!’ T-shirt at Target or Urban Outfitters or the BU bookstore. The Exxon-Mobil commercial that aired during the Summer Olympics citing the oil company’s firm commitment to the environment made us feel good about fueling up the SUV at the Mobil station. Buying these products and endorsing these companies makes us feel like regular Rachel Carsons.
It’s wonderful that the cultural zeitgeist has embraced sustainability and greenness. However, we need the real deal. No phony ‘organic’ bologna. There’s ‘green’ and then there’s ‘fashionable green.’
Companies need to be held responsible for these green promises. Sometimes the naturalness of the product is insignificant compared to where it was produced. That organic sheepskin car seat cover from Nepal, which protects Mr. Chartruese’s precious Prius, has been transported across many seas, burning many gallons of fossil fuels to finally arrive at his LEED-certified doorstep.
Enter eco-paranoia. Companies are telling us that they are being environmentally responsible when they are actually not. So what’s next? Al Gore is actually a Hummer-driving oil tycoon?
What we should strive for is practical green purchasing. We as consumers can affect production by the demand we create. If we as a consumer bloc decide to purchase locally made and produced products with less packaging, producers will have to respond to this trend. From a production point of view, this is favorable because producers will spend less money on packaging, thus conserving resources that may have been previously shipped across the globe. Sorry for the econ 101 throwback, but economics are essential to understanding how we can try to bring about institutional change in today’s society.
Practical purchasing also means cutting back on consumption in general. ‘Green consumerism’ has been regarded by many as an oxymoron. We got into this mess because of overconsumption. Now we need to cut back. Many of the necessities of our generation were regarded as luxuries by our predecessors. We need to redefine what we know as necessity. Not by going backward to our parent’s generation, but by looking ahead to a new sustainable future.
America ‘– and the globalized world ‘-‘- has to come off this whole consumerist ride we’ve been on for more than a century and come to terms with the fact that resources are finite. And our ‘shop’ you drop’ motto cannot be simply altered by adding the word ‘green.’ It’s about reduction, not buying more green products to make your eco-friendly life complete.
Rachel Weil, a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences, is a weekly columnist for The Daily Free Press. She can be reached at rachweil@bu.edu.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
