“Green” products have become the latest trend, but consuming them doesn’t necessarily help the environment.

Stephanie Phillips, Staff Writer
Ideology: Environmentalist | Writing From: Portland, Oregon

Ever since Al Gore released “An Inconvenient Truth” and Americans started to worry about climate change and subsequently feel twinges of guilt about their lifestyles, “green” has become a very trendy word. Corporate advertising quickly caught on to the trend and “green” is now a popular marketing tool. It’s everywhere: at the grocery store, food is labeled as “natural” and canvass shopping bags are available at the stores’ entrance. You can hire people to “green” your home, or plan your “green” wedding. Clothes now come in a wide variety of hemp, organic cotton mixes, and you can dress yourself up as an environmental champion.

We all know that Americans love to consume, so isn’t it great that we can now consume in a “green” variety?

Sadly, no. This trend has failed to address the real problems, and distracts from the fact that today, the United States still emits far more CO2 per capita than any other nation. As much as we might love the idea that spending money can fix our problems, the individual cannot buy out of their impact on climate change. An individual’s impact doesn’t have anything to do with products they buy; rather, it has to do with their place in the pervasive American habits of overconsumption and waste, and the structures of production and distribution. Companies championing “green” products are still hoping that you will buy as much as feasibly possible and then throw it out and buy new products next season; it’s the cycle they rely on for profit, and even though the marketing pitch has changed, that structure hasn’t. It’s the same coal fired electricity that goes into processing that “green” food and the same diesel truck system that delivered the organic cotton clothing.

In terms of CO2, the new “green” market is the exact same place with the same impacts, it just has a new coat of paint – it has officially been green washed.
The first reality of this green market is that often companies spend more money on marketing than actually greening their products. In November 2007, TerraChoice, an environmental marketing group, conducted a survey of 1,108 large-store environmental products, and found that 1,107 of them had made misleading environmental claims to increase their appeal. 57% were labeled “green” based on one small environmental attribute, 26% were “green” with no ability to back the claim up and 11% used vague terms like “all-natural” that have no official definition, but imply “greenness.”

The second reality of the green market is that even when corporate intentions are in the right place, the products still aren’t “green” compared to other available lifestyle choices. This is simply because buying new stuff is never as green as using less. When Whole Foods launched their “I am not a canvas bag campaign” in New York City and sold a limited number of trendy “green” reusable shopping bags, New Yorkers flocked to their stores, and waited in line for hours to get their hands on one. I heard that knock-offs were sold in Chinatown. The knock-offs were, of course, wrapped in plastic.

The irony of this is that everyone has a canvas bag lying around the house somewhere. So instead of using that to carry food, we wait in line and buy an overpriced bag that was shipped using fossil fuels and made using new energy. Does that make any sense? This bag is certainly not better at holding food than the canvass bag at home, and will only equally avoid the use of plastic bags. Relatively speaking, there is nothing “green” about this purchase.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not blaming corporations – they are just abiding by existing marketing structures. Some of them very well may have corporate responsibility in mind; it’s clear that Whole Foods thought the bag would raise environmental awareness. The problem is that it’s the wrong kind of awareness – people satiate their guilt, become content buying green and live the same impactful lives.
I’m also not chastising people – it’s clear that we are more concerned today than ever about the environment and have very little guidance in how to fix the problems. Green consumption is nice, it’s trendy and people feel like they are doing something. It taps into that American individualism. Even though it doesn’t do much, I would just say, so be it, there is nothing wrong with fads. However, in reality it detracts from the environmental movement. It provides an outlet for anxiety that could be used to actually push change, and distracts from larger problems centered on the American lifestyle and industry pollution.

That is not to say that the individual doesn’t matter. In fact, the individual is key and can make a world of difference. To begin, each of us could simply use less. We could try living in smaller houses, or within walking distance of work, and get rid of our cars. We may find at the same time that proximity to others increases community and allows more time with our families. When unified we also have enormous political power and can use our voices to demand that government regulate and create incentives for industry to change. Much more impact will come by moving away from coal and oil as a nation then any combination of personal efforts.

All in all, far more “green” good may come from organizing a protest than buying a whole closet of hemp.