The Inadequacy of Conscious Consumerism
Free-range, Organic, 100% recycled materials are some of the labels on the radars of ethical consumers. As the impacts of industrial practices on our environment and their subsequent contribution to climate change come into clear focus, consumers now look for ways to remedy the problems created by American consumerism. Many believe that the best solution to slowing environmental damage is to become a “green” shopper. Green shoppers are typically those who choose organic produce over non-organic ones, second-hand clothing over fast fashion, or reusable straws over plastic ones. They are generally more informed on how their purchases were produced and will pay extra to make sure their purchases don’t infringe on their moral principles. However, even with the rising popularity of green consumption, greenhouse gas emissions are still on the rise. Companies continue to use unsustainable production methods because it is more profitable than protecting the environment. While the trend of ethical consumerism encourages more consumers to think about the environmental impact of their purchases, it does not provide enough incentive for companies to sacrifice profits for sustainable production.
More consumers buying sustainable products does not stop the production of less sustainable ones because demand for unsustainably made goods remains high. Ethical consumerism is bound to fail in a market with rising consumer demands for almost every product on the shelf. Contrary to what some green shoppers may think, an increase in the demand for sustainable goods does not decrease the demand for less sustainable products. Incentives for companies to cut down production costs remain high. Take the single-use plastic ban for example, even with eight states banning single-use plastics and conscious consumers cutting down their plastic use, plastic production increased 0.9% in 2020 due to increasing consumer demand and it is forecasted to be the fastest-growing industry through 2030 (Glaun). With the rise of sustainability movements, the plastic industry is certainly aware of people’s concerns about its environmental pollution. However, in our economy, companies will always try to produce as many products as demanded in order to maximize their profit. Therefore, while there is a rise in demand for plastic substitutes such as tote bags, metal straws, and reusable water bottles, the plastic industry was not affected by these purchases because the demand for plastic remained as high as before. Such high demands exist for other industries as well, notably, the fast fashion industry which is still growing despite the rise of sustainable fashion, and the agriculture industry which remains the top source of water pollution even when more people are checking for green food labels. It seems that the efforts of conscious consumers are drowned out by our population’s reliance on unsustainable production practices.
Companies exist to make money. Since sustainable production methods are costly to implement, companies must be financially incentivized to deal with environmental concerns — and ethical consumers do not provide this incentive. Voting with your dollar to support ethical production does not change the bottom line of the top polluting industries because they can still get their dollars from the consumers who cannot afford to shop green. Despite calls to boycott Amazon Prime Day over factory conditions and ties to ICE, Prime Day sales continue to rise each year (Plante). It is impossible to get everyone to participate in boycotting unethical production because it is often used to produce the cheapest, most widely available goods. Ethical consumerism is only feasible for those with a steady income and who are educated about sustainability. So, if the combined wallets and values of green shoppers do not have enough power to impact corporate responsibility, the government must step in with legislation. The government has the financial power to incentivize sustainable practices to curb carbon emissions. Climate change laws have reduced carbon emissions by 38 gigatons since 1999 (Eskander). Government-sponsored programs such as Energy Star and LEED also made impacts by saving 170 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2016 and increasing the number of energy-efficient buildings (Weeks). Therefore, to enact systemic change we should spend more of our money on lobbying the government to incentivize sustainability and tax greenhouse gas emissions rather than buying green products and ignoring the industries that are still harming the environment. When ethical consumers keep their eyes glued on green labels, they sometimes ignore the bigger picture in which their cars and ACs contribute to GHG emissions, the leading cause of climate change.
The money that consumers spend on ethical purchases does not target the top polluting industry — energy. “This is exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants us to talk about” was Elizabeth Warren’s response to questions about regulating lightbulbs and banning plastic straws. Her response reflects the main flaw of conscious consumerism: it does not effectively address pollution coming from the fossil fuel industry, which contributes to over 70% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. This issue is substantiated by a 2012 study that found “no significant difference” between the carbon footprints of “green” and “brown” consumers (Csutora). While conscious consumerism promotes environmental awareness, consumers’ carbon footprints are not decreasing. With bigger houses to heat and cool, more electrical appliances, and more private transportation, most green consumers have the money to consume more electricity and gas than brown consumers who typically cannot afford to consume as much. Green consumerism is distracting because there is no emphasis on reducing energy consumption. For conscious consumerism to be effective, we must look beyond choosing the most sustainable clothing and groceries to more promising solutions, such as insulating our homes and driving fuel-efficient cars, to help curb our individual and national carbon emissions.
Here, some may argue that ethical consumption is effective because it changes consumer values which is enough to incentivize companies to reevaluate their practices. Sociologist Emily Kennedy identifies the ideological benefits of ethical consumption. She claims that it results in a “transformation of consciousness,” which is the long-term goal of consumer activism (Kennedy). This transformation occurs as more people think about the environmental impact of their purchases and more businesses try to develop solutions to climate problems. As a result of investors’ increased environmental awareness, 90% of S&P 500 companies now publish corporate social responsibility reports, up from 20% in 2011 (Mellor). Investors put their money into companies that align with their values, and many of these companies are now those that promote sustainability. While it is true that some companies respond to consumers’ environmental concerns and that there is a correlation between higher stock prices and sustainable practices. The biggest polluters — the energy and transportation industries — have yet to make changes. They make up only 15% of the S&P 500 index, yet they contribute over 70% of our GHG emissions (Mellor). Meaning more people investing in sustainable companies will not affect the profits of the energy sector as long as we maintain current consumption levels. Admittedly, the government and consumers are investing more of their money into green companies and products, however, this reveals that change can only come from those with the most money — corporations and the government — who are working together primarily to drive economic growth rather than solve climate issues.
Although it may seem that consumers are completely powerless if corporations and the government do not abandon profit to save our planet, we are not. There are many alternative solutions to helping our climate condition: buying less, making our homes energy efficient, voting for politicians that care about our environment, and supporting climate change legislation. Ethical consumerism can become a useful tool for change if consumers’ ideological shifts lead to material change in the future. However, it currently does not provide enough incentive for companies to stop polluting. It is ultimately up to the government and corporations to make our planet sustainable, which will only happen when they begin to consider the needs of our planet over their “fairy tales of eternal economic growth” (Thunberg).
