WP2 Rough Draft: Does Conscious Consumerism Help Environmental Conditions?

Published in

The Ends of Globalization

5 min readFeb 23, 2022

In part due to the rise of social media which has accelerated news reportage, humanity is experiencing a rude but much needed awakening to the current environmental devastation caused by human activity. As a method to help combat this destruction as an individual, people have turned to conscious consumerism which has now become commonplace in the United States. Otherwise known as ethical consumption, conscious consumerism is the practice of purchasing from companies whose values you align with, while simultaneously boycotting companies which conflict with your personal views. The logic behind this practice is it gives companies an economic incentive to adopt certain popular values so that they can make more revenue. In the context of environmentalism, this would be like buying products from an organization who minimizes carbon emissions rather than competitors who are less cognizant of their carbon emission levels. Although boycotts can be effective, it is foolish and over-optimistic to utilize conscious consumerism as a main method to combat a global issue as severe as global warming because the typical high-cost of eco-friendly alternatives discourage many people from being able to participate in ethical consumption.

To be sure, I am not rejecting conscious consumerism. It most definitely has the potential to induce positive changes through influencing the market which we have witnessed throughout history: Boycott of British Goods and Montgomery Bus Boycott. However there are plenty of ineffective attempts such as the annual Amazon Prime Day boycotts which do not faze Amazon’s climbing sales.

Boycott failures are a result of a multitude of factors, a main one being limited access to ethical products due to affordability. Better eco-friendly products far too often are tagged with a heightened cost, which are an economic barrier to many people. Especially in America where currently more than 1 out of 10 live under the poverty line (11.4%), many people would prefer to purchase more affordable alternatives despite environmental consequences (United States Census Bureau).

Consider water, a basic necessity that all people consume on a daily basis. Recently aluminum bottled water, a greener alternative to the traditional plastic water bottle, has become a more and more common appearance in grocery and convenience stores. Aluminum is an infinitely recyclable material unlike plastic which loses quality after about three recycles (Mananalu). Unusable plastic waste often ends up in oceans, killing marine ecosystems and ultimately harming Earth’s entire biosphere. Consuming and recycling sustainable metal bottles would mitigate the amount of trash flowing into the ocean and in turn foster healthier ecosystems. Who wouldn’t want to combat ocean pollution? There of course is a caveat: “the raw material cost for a can is about 25–30% higher than a PET bottle of a similar volume” (Wood Mackenzie). Simple economics teaches that higher costs of production translates to higher sale prices; we see this trend in stores all the time. Walmart currently sells a 24-pack case of 18-ounce aluminum bottled water for $40; meanwhile, Walmart also offers a 40-pack case of 16.9-ounce plastic bottled water for just $4.58 (Walmart). To be frank, most people would not sacrifice an extra $35 just for aluminum containers; they don’t even get nearly as much water compared to the plastic option. This is especially true when some people need to save that cash to afford other necessities.

Heightened prices lead to another barrier to ethical consumption: convenience. Stores predict that most consumers would choose less sustainable, though cheaper options; therefore many businesses do not bother to stock their shelves with greener products. Cycling back to the aluminum versus plastic water bottle example, popular groceries stores like Costco and Safeway currently do not sell aluminum bottled water; they only provide plastic options. Say even if someone went to a store with the intent of shopping consciously, more often than not, they would struggle to find environmentally-cleaner items. This sparse availability of more sustainable products poses yet another barrier in participating in conscious consumerism.

This affordability and convenience logic applies to even non-necessity items. I myself am, dare I say, an avid boba tea connoisseur and on average drink one cup each week. Having explored more than my fair share of Los Angeles boba shops throughout my first semester of college at USC, I have noticed when I go to shops like Boba Bear which sell their drinks in glass containers, my bill comes out to over seven dollars. Meanwhile, I can get the same drink of the same size for less than five dollars at places like Pot of Cha, Cup of Joy, and Boba Time which sell their beverages in plastic cups. Call me unethical, but I much prefer to save a few bucks and buy the plastic containers, even if that implies some environmental repercussions.

Rather than relying on individual choices for societal change, enforcing federal legislation would prove much more effective. To be specific, voting environmentalists politicians into office is an overall quicker and more successful way to promote environmental change compared to ethical consumption. In her Vox article “Shopping Has Become a Political Act. Here’s How it Happened.” author Stephie Grob Plante asserts that while “Only 46.1 percent of voters aged 18–29 voted at all in 2016… 90 percent of millennials (aged 21–34) are willing to pay more for eco-friendly and sustainable products.” According to these statistics, only a little more than half of people who take part in ethical consumption vote. If these 90 percent of millennials who are willing to participate in conscious consumerism redirected their efforts towards voting for environmentalist candidates instead, more environmental legislation could be passed which would generate much more immediate and clear benefits. In essence, taking advantage of voting power and the democratic structure of our government is a reliable way to foster systematic changes in our society.

In summary, while people should continue to actively make purchasing decisions, other solutions must be considered to combat environmental destruction. Fundamental flaws in conscious consumerism make it an unreliable means to restore the biosphere. Financial and convenience barriers prevent many people from participating in ethical consumption, and conscious consumerism cannot succeed in influencing significant environmental benefits without large public support. Practices like reducing overall consumption, donating to environmental organizations, and electing environmentalist politicians into government are all more effective ways to mitigate environmental devastation and should be implemented simultaneously to conscious consumerism.

Sources

WP2 Rough Draft: Does Conscious Consumerism Help Environmental Conditions?

Written by Jackie Pham