The Myth of Conscious Consumerism
As a once avid consumer of zero-waste YouTube videos, I entered this debate somewhat in favor of conscious consumerism. I equated buying ethically with living morally and helping, in some almost insignificant part, to minimize one’s own share of the blame for climate change. After reading the CQ Researcher and the assigned articles, however, it has become abundantly clear that conscious consumerism is not an effective measure in preserving the environment. In fact, it may even act against legitimate means of change.
The illusion of conscious consumerism provides buyers with a false sense of doing good. It placates consumption-related guilt, encouraging us to end our efforts against global warming at the checkout line. As professor Halina Szejnwald Brown, a professor at Clark University, puts it, one’s “well-meaning” signal of buying one eco-friendly product doesn’t actually make a difference — especially if substitutes meaningful political action. Additionally, with greenwashing becoming a more pervasive issue, choosing a product with a green label doesn’t even guarantee that you are supporting an environmentally-conscious company. Time spent deliberating over such small decisions (ie what brand of household cleaner to buy) could instead be used on more meaningful actions — like protesting or lobbying.
Points like the one above overwhelmingly lured me over to the neg side of this debate. They had an impact and provided evidence. On the other hand, much of the pro side felt unsubstantiated. For instance, the CQ researcher mentioned that boycotting could be effective, but did not offer examples of how “voting with your dollar” had ever been successful. They also failed to give convincing evidence of how it could be effective in the future. The pro side’s best point- that striving to buy green achieved a “transformation of consciousness” — still fell flat. Wouldn’t more impassioned political movements also work to change our perception of consumption, much faster and more effectively?
I also did not like that the pro placed the expectation on the consumer to purchase and live ethically. That is not to say that the neg side is perfect; I still have much to figure out about how we can rally people to be more passionate about meaningful environmentalism, or get consumers to divert their money to lobbying. All in all, however, the neg side definitely “won”.
