Red, Green & Blue: Is Shopping Anti-Environment?
Even as many retailers are adopting the marketing slogan, "Buy Green," a backlash movement is emerging calling on people to "buy nothing" or, at least, "buy as little as possible and, preferably, buy nothing new."
Now, I can pretty well predict how free-marketers would respond to this ("Aaaagh! There goes the economy!"). But how effective is the buy-nothing strategy environmentally? I’ve seen arguments both pro and con.
I try to buy responsibly (local produce, fair-trade and sustainable goods) and not to buy what I don’t need … but buy nothing (outside of the obvious food, medicine, essential clothing)? Is this a legitimate strategy for conserving and saving the Earth? What do you think?
Tags: buy green, consumerism, consumers, environmentalism, green, Red, Green and Blue, shopping
- Uncategorized
August 8th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Here I agree with you, Jimmy: while I’d be fascinated to see a top-to-bottom assessment of the environmental costs of everything we buy, that would be beyond onerous for many businesses … though I think WalMart could reasonably do it, given its resources and powerful control of its supply chain bottom-to-top. : )
I do like how you put it, too: choosing high-yield/high-return investments over agonizing about every little thing.
An interesting point, c! An oil tax might very well stimulate some businesses to start generating an environmental-cost assessment for their products, if for no other reason than to find ways to reduce their impact and, hence, their taxes. I’m all in favor of an oil tax to spur more environmentally responsible practices and clean energy research.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
I like the oil tax for the geopolitical benefits too. There’s no reason the intangible costs of Oil should not be seen at the pump.