The Fairy Tale of Conscious Consumerism
It’s no secret: the earth is experiencing a climate emergency. One-third of our forest coverage has vanished (Ritchie, 2021). The occurrence of natural disasters has increased tenfold since the 1960s (ETR, 2020) We’ve entered a possible sixth mass extinction, with the current rate of extinction being anywhere from 100 to 1,000 times higher than the normal background rate (Begum, 2021). These crises, among many others, are owed almost entirely to human activity; scientists attribute 100% of all observed warming (partially culpable for the previous developments) since the mid-20th century to human activity (Hausfather, 2017). In fact, scientists predict that without further efforts, humanity will reach a “point of no return”: the date after which no amount of counteraction could reverse our environmental damage (Sorab, 2019). Dates for the arrival of this doomsday vary. Some scientists postulate that it could come as soon as 2026 (Sorab, 2019). Others suggest 2045 to be more accurate, considering the measures currently being implemented to fight climate change (Sorab, 2019). While dates vary, however, one grim fact remains: if us perpetrators do not take more drastic measures we are effectively guaranteed to witness the beginning of the destabilization of life on earth within our lifetimes (Franzen, 2014). This means crop failures, starvation, disease, extreme weather occurrences, and more, all pointing towards a catastrophic collapse in both global economies and ways of life (Figueres and Rivett-Carnac, 2020).
To circumvent this apocalyptic future, scientists and activists alike have suggested a diverse series of solutions to the climate crisis. Some even encourage the individual to consider their actions in the grand scheme of the environment. Conscious consumerism is one such solution that’s gained massive media traction in recent years, with reputable publications such as Forbes and the New York Times advocating for its implementation. A surface level examination of conscious consumerism does yield promising results. In the status quo, the production and use of household goods produces 60% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Cho, 2020). The assumption follows that consuming items with cleaner manufacturing processes could mitigate the impact one leaves from using everyday goods. The idea is also associated with “voting with your dollar” — consumers have the ability to encourage eco-friendly practices by increasing demand for clean products (Wong, 2019). With even a moderate amount of research, however, the fable of conscious consumerism deteriorates. Actions on the individual level cannot effectively resolve an issue that requires change on a far larger systemic scale.
The reality is that the market only offers an illusion of ethicacy when it comes to conscious consumerism. Greenwashing is one such illusion that makes conscious consumerism an ineffective means of environmental “activism”. Greenwashing is the practice of misleadingly branding products as eco-friendly; companies often invest more money into marketing their products as green than actually investing in cleaner operations (Osman, 2020). Take single-use plastic bottles. The Coca-Cola Company and Nestlé, and Niagara Bottling are all being targeted by a class-action lawsuit, alleging that their “100% recyclable” bottles are in fact barely recyclable at all. These companies promote their bottles as being environmentally conscious, knowing full well that the chemical composition of single-use bottles are generally unprocessable at most, if not all, recycling facilities (Rizzi, 2021). Deceptive marketing — in this case, lying entirely to consumers — makes it almost impossible for the individual to make the clean choice at their local supermarket. Choosing a “green” product over the standard may not mean anything at all. Put simply, greenwashing makes conscious consumerism futile. It places the responsibility of environmental stewardship on the individual, when in reality, it is the corporation who is culpable.
Even discounting greenwashing, the individual, and especially their efforts to buy cleaner, does not make a measurable impact when you consider how much pollution is attributed to companies and their production processes. In fact, since 1988, “just 100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions” (Riley, 2017). One person’s action, or inaction, on the part of their environmental footprint does not even register on the totality of the issue that is climate change. If all of Earth’s inhabitants somehow decided to adopt conscious consumerism, we would not observe a noticeable difference in the state of our world — the issue lies within the production, not within the consumer. Encouraging individuals to exercise more cautious spending shifts attention away from the real perpetrators of environmental degradation, allowing them to perpetuate their unsavory production practices.
Even the companies who have formally committed to internal climate goals often still take performative half-measures. Rather than accounting for the greenhouse gas emissions from the full life cycle of a given product — including the ones that come from a product’s use and disposal (i.e. downstream emissions) — companies take responsibility for only a small fraction of their true impact. P&G, for example, has committed to reducing emissions by 50% by 2030 (Axelrod, 2019). While this ambition appears progressive on paper, a deeper probe reveals that the company only aims to reduce emissions generated by the energy and operating demands of their own facilities. When taking the emissions generated by sourcing and disposing of materials, we find that P&G’s climate objectives account for a measly 2% of their actual emissions (Axelrod 2019). To the well-meaning consumer, brands who tout progressive measures against emissions (like P&G) may seem like a prime company to support with their coin. Yet again, however, the consumer and the public are misled into buying into false promises of being green. Given the current market, conscious consumerism is all but impossible. It is a false hope in the battle against climate change.
Proponents of the “solution” may interject here, stating that conscious consumerism affects a “transformation of consciousness” with long-lasting effects (Plante, 2019). To this, I ask: how long will it take? How long do we have to bring about such a change before we have passed the point of no return? In what world would holding the individual accountable for an impact that was not theirs trigger meaningful change? Perhaps in an alternate universe, where companies were not motivated solely by profit and infinite growth, politely using your dollar to ask a company to be nicer could work. Maybe even a well-meaning fruit basket would be enough to convince a CEO to care about the world and its inhabitants. As lovely as that reality sounds, it is not our own. We have much to do within the constraints of our current timeline.
What can we actually do to turn the tides before it’s too late? There is no single-solution to climate change; addressing an issue of this magnitude requires action on several fronts. It is crucial, however, for companies to actually take accountability for their actions. Government and regulation has a crucial role in facilitating change. No longer can companies act with impunity; governments should liberally levy their legal ability to fine pollution violations. To actually incentivize a company to change its production patterns, it must become unprofitable to pollute. In a similar vein, our environmental standards must be raised to accurately reflect the time demands of our environment.
Our future is bleak, but it doesn’t have to be. With quick and drastic action, we may still be able to reverse what we have started. While it is foolish to expect to consume our way out of climate change, the intent behind conscious consumerism is certainly a well-meaning one. It is just not enough; no one simple solution — especially on the part of the individual — could affect the type of drastic change that our Earth so desperately needs. To truly change our future and our climate, we instead must redress the root causes of pollution and emission: companies.
