let’s revisit the question raised by last month’s post about burgerville. especially after responding to Jim Kunstler’s writings, i was somewhat fired up and wanting to further flesh out the question of whether and to what extent consumer choices can have the necessary impact on polluters and other purveyors of death culture. well, we need not go much further than Brian Tokar’s book Earth for Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash. my suggestion: order the book. while you’re waiting for it to arrive, check out the intro, where his analysis cuts to the heart of the issue:
“Green consumerism” arrived on the scene during the lead-up to the 1990 Earth Day anniversary. It is based on the myth that environmental problems are largely the result of individual consumer choices, neglecting all the ways these choices are shaped and constrained by decisions made in corporate boardrooms, well beyond the reaches of public scrutiny. Corporate managers indeed make the vast majority of decisions about what is produced and how, seriously limiting individual choices and shaping patterns of consumption in countless unacknowledged ways.
Green consumerism largely overlooks this reality, instead viewing all of life as one big shopping mall. If everyone is equally responsible for the destruction of the earth, the solution is merely to buy more natural and recycled products, and companies are more than willing to make such products available at a premium price. Not only does green consumerism dilute the challenge that an ecological ethic might pose to the very idea of a consumer society, but the corporate promotion of fashionable “green” products makes life more difficult for small, local producers of everything from organic food to hand-sewn clothing. Further, as “natural” products have become a niche market for those affluent enough to pay a premium, the goods available to everyone else are even shoddier and more toxic than before. In a highly individualistic, economically-driven society such as ours, green consumerism makes it possible for people to feel they are doing something for the earth without questioning the lifeways or the economic system that have indeed driven us to the brink of ecological collapse.
Thus three closely related phenomena—the absorption of the mainstream environmental movement by the political status-quo, the emergence of corporate environmentalism, and the proliferation of “ecological” products in the marketplace—have all helped fuel the perception of a declining popular commitment to environmental protection. Indeed, they have helped set the stage for today’s anti-environmental backlash. To better understand the backlash against environmentalism, and its considerable popularity among corporate managers and political operatives, will require a look at some unique and widely misrepresented economic realities.
the organizers in the bay area in the 1990’s who were urging us to “fuck corporate earth day!” had a lot of this in mind. so, with all that as a lens, the catalog from Real Goods arriving in our mailbox was that much more interesting. i’ve bought stuff from them before, all the while wondering what this purchase was really all about. but this catalog has a frontpiece by the founder, John Schaeffer, which while it didn’t make me want to scream “boycott!” or anything, just laid even more bare where they are coming from. JS says in his little missive to potential buyers,
Dear Customer, On June 8, 1978 Real Goods Trading Company was born. On the cusp of our 25th anniversary, as I reflect on the tremendous changes we have helped to engender in the world, I feel proud. But there’s still so much more we need to do to make our planet sustainable in the 21st century. That’s why I invite you to explore the pages that follow.
now, don’t get me wrong. i believe these folks mean well. as do some of the folks who started all those natural grocery places like the now anti-union and harsh-to-workers Nature’s. but there’s two things about this that twist my biscuit:
1. hey, instead of saying “explore the pages that follow” maybe you could just say, “buy our stuff!”
2. “tremendous changes we helped to engender…” ok, so exactly how are things so much better now than they were in 1978? less pollution? nope. less corruption? nope. better regulation? COUGHCOUGH!! um, nope. any real progress in terms the impact we can measurably expect ot have in the areas of animal rights, clearcutting, carcinogenic crap in our food, water, air, and packaging? don’t think so. an increase in the number of people buying “green” stuff and recycling isn’t necessarily related to these factors. take a look at jay’s and rachel’s for lots more info on those issues.
3. “so much more we need to do to make our planet sustainable in the 21st century” dude. who ever thought that the planet itself wasn’t sustainable. it’s pretty human-centered to think that we and we alone are responsible for whether or not the planet continues to spin. and as you may or may not have noticed, despite basically all life being wiped out multiple times, the planet keeps regenerating. a bumper sticker was made a while back echoing professor Paul Erlich’s take on this issue: “Nature Bats Last”. indeed, long after the last pair of green cotton flax seed aromatherapy spa booties are completely turned to dust [yes, after i was able to breathe again from laughing so hard at that, i found the link and they are real] and the last “healing voice - sacred sounds” compact disc has been fossilized, earth will freeze over, then thaw, then likely spawn some form of life. if we don’t make it, well, bummer.
not that i don’t think water filters and solar power etc are important and good and something i want to have, but let’s have some perspective, shall we? maybe those things would be available to all of us if we had a real democracy. what do you think?