Conscious Consumerism Won’t Help — At the Moment
We’re currently living in a world where climate change looms over us while we fight off the other events occupying our everyday lives. Each day, we’re reminded that within a few decades, a climate crisis so big will happen that the change in climate will be completely irreversible. It feels like we’ve been kicking this can down the road for too long, and yet it feels like we’re going backwards. The United States withdrew from the Paris Agreement, and those warnings from scientists still persist. In the call for action against climate change, consumers are often put to blame. Commercials are played that tell us to reduce, reuse, and recycle. “Natural” and “green” products that are supposed to be better for us and the environment are marketed towards us. We’re told that we just need to buy more sustainable products in order to reduce climate change, but does being more conscious in our consumption really help climate change? As it is now, conscious consumerism will not help global conditions due to the fact that it is too inaccessible for the general public.
This is not to say that I am against conscious consumerism. I want so badly for it to be a viable option to fight against climate change, but at the moment, it’s simply too widely inaccessible for the impact of it to be worth it. If everyone was able to buy ethically made clothing, buy sustainable products from sustainable companies, and have electric cars, then conscious consumerism would definitely be a big player in the fight against climate change.
One of the largest reasons that conscious consumerism remains inaccessible to most people is because of its price. Although there’s been a push for the common people to start buying more sustainable products, these sustainable products are not accessible to those that they are marketed towards. It’s difficult to switch to buying sustainably when these sustainable products are many times more expensive than the products that one would normally buy. For example, take a Lush conditioner versus a Tresemme conditioner. Lush is a popular cosmetic brand that prides itself on being sustainable and cruelty free, while Tresemme is a hair care brand that is often sold at drugstores. A 33.8 fl oz bottle of Lush’s most popular conditioner costs $54.95 (Lush). A 39 fl oz bottle of Tresemme conditioner, however, retails for $7.59 at Target (Target). While these are just two examples and are not representative of all drugstore and sustainable brands, it does show how stark the prices can be between the two options.
Alden Wicker addresses these problems in their Quartz Article “Conscious consumerism is a lie. Here’s a better way to help save the world.” She focuses on the accessibility of sustainability in regards to climate change and what other options we have for having a positive impact on global conditions. One of their main points in the article is that there’s a heavy privilege in conscious consumerism. She explains how “The sustainability movement has been charged with being elitist — and it most certainly is. You need a fair amount of disposable income to afford ethical and sustainable consumption options…” (Wicker). In other words, Wicker is saying that sustainability is simply too expensive. As a sustainable fashion journalist that is involved in the movement, Wicker goes so far as to call the conscious consumer movement elitist, a movement only for the wealthy. When comparing the two prices of sustainable versus unsustainable conditioners, it’s easy to see why Wicker says this. For most people in the lower or middle class, spending $54.95 on a bottle of conditioner is unthinkable. It brings up the question of how we would reduce prices on items like these.
In a Vox article titled “Shopping has become a political act. Here’s how it happened,” Stephie Grob Plante discusses the different types of conscious consumerism and how they have or haven’t worked in the past. This different perspective of conscious consumerism could help lead to possible solutions of making sustainability more accessible. Generally, when I think of conscious consumerism, my mind goes straight towards simply buying green products or supporting ethical fashion brands. Plante brings up the idea of boycotting as a form of conscious consumerism. Stephie Grob Plante quotes a historian Lawrence Glickman, where he states that “‘the Montgomery Bus Boycott, he adds, is a rare example of an “unambiguous victory,” where the boycott attained its demands’” (Glickman, Plante). While rare, it has been done in the past where conscious consumerism in the form of boycotting has led to successful results. Is this a feasible solution though? Can we rely on boycotting and the people alone to create change? Or is some governmental action needed?
Some may argue that those who are able to afford sustainable products should buy as sustainably as they can in order to help reduce climate change as much as they can. While I agree that those who can afford sustainable options should seek out these options, I also believe that this will not be the only solution that will help to improve global conditions. With the wealth gap increasing, if there are less and less people who can buy these sustainable options, then companies will have less incentive to create them. The fact that consuming consciously has been too expensive for the general public for a long time points to a larger solution — — governmental action.
Wicker briefly touches on the possible solutions that she thinks the people could do in order to help climate change besides conscious consumerism. She lists a few things that individuals can do to try and help global conditions, for example “Instead of buying a $200 air purifier, donate to politicians who support policies that keep our air and water clean” (Wicker). She uses the expensive air purifier as a contrast to supporting politicians who want to help the environment. Instead of voting with your dollar through your purchases, vote with your dollar through donations. She makes an important point here, bringing up the idea that governmental action will probably help more than individual action. While I don’t think that supporting sustainable brands is futile, I also think it’s good to acknowledge that in our current state, conscious consumerism is not working on its own. We need some sort of push that will help products be more sustainable alongside creating stricter policies regarding pollution and manufacturing.
In the long run, conscious consumerism as it is now cannot be the only thing we rely on to help global conditions. We should focus on other large actions like pressuring the government and corporations to both create more sustainable options and to force corporations to pollute less. After we’ve pressured and boycotted to our fullest extent, it is then up to these establishments to do their part. We cannot be pressured into buying products that we cannot afford, and must acknowledge that there’s only so much we can do without assistance from the higher-ups. Hopefully in the future, most everyone will have the ability to buy sustainably, finally making conscious consumerism a viable option to fight climate change.
