re: Asceticism

(6/25/2009) - I started this post as just a quick response to a comment Landon made on my previous article.  I kinda kept going, and it turned into something of an article, so I thought I'd repost it here.  Here's Landon's comment:

"The only thing on that list I'm not willing to give up would be a computer. In fact, the only other items on the list I own are a cell phone (which I would rather not have, but seems essential for any job at this point) and a TV, which I only have because it was in the apartment when I moved in. I unplugged it months ago. I realize, though, that perhaps I shouldn't count since my ascetic lifestyle has more to do with my frugality than with concern over the environment, though that was my motivation for selling my car six years ago."

And here's my response:

I think left on my own, in the right city, I would lean toward the same asceticism you describe, if only because I prefer to spend my money on things that aren't listed above but aren't exactly "good" for the environment (i.e. air travel).  I've also realized more recently how my general outlook on spending and posessions has been influenced by a kind of protestant ethic that looks down on material pleasure and promotes thrift.  

But I think the main point I was trying to drive home with this post, and I don't think I did the best job I could, is that the values of our society are going to have to change so that you don't need to have a special or even identiable habit of consumption - normal is sustainable.  To be honest, I'm skeptical that we can reach such a place without the reality of the situation being forced upon us in terms of shortages and price increases (and hope we don't get too much accompanying mayham).  I think the best thing we can do at this point as a country is enact taxes or environmental policies that simulate this in a small manner so that we a) don't use things as fast and b) give ourselves a little time to adjust and build new infrastructure. 

On an individual level, however, I think living in an "environmentally friendly" way is fine and good.  That's how we're going to change people's perceptions.  Already the "green" movement is, I think, doing a lot of good, especially preparing the next (and our) generation.  However, I think there are two things that people are doing wrong in general at an individual level (if that makes any sense):  1) They aren't maintaining vigilance and protecting the "green" or "environmental" brand, so now we get things like Clorox's new "natural" cleaning products that aren't really too great.  2) We (consumers, but I think this is more a problem with businesses) focus too much on "green" products and "envirionmental" branding.  We need products seen as mainstream that are better for the environment, not just "green" products.  Right now, most businesses market products that are "better" for the environment ("green", "natural", what have you) using these terms.  They are almost always more expensive (its unclear to me that this is necessary), with the emphasis on their goodness for the environment, and not their overall effectiveness as products.  While they target a certain niche, even if its effective, the marketers are also self-limiting the products to that niche. While this might work for them as companies, it doesn't work for the earth.

Here's a paraphrased conversation I heard at the grocery store today:

Person 1: What cleaning product should we buy?

Person 2: How about the natural one?

Person 1: It's more expensive than this other one.

Person 3: How about we spend less money and get something that works.

That last point is key.  Consumers (and I don't think these 20-something year olds are an anomoly given my other experiences) believe that products that are marketed as environmentally conscious are inherently less effective.  And there's a certain logic to this: why would people make cleaning products with toxic chemicals if there was a way to make ones that are the same effectiveness?  (Yes, they could be cheaper, but I don't think a lot of people necessarily connect the cost of production with the retail cost - and for good reason - they aren't always connected).  Being environmentally friendly, the argument continues, requires sacrifice, so to be good one has to buy a shitty product.

I think it would be good if manufactuerers also marked their products as more effective than other cleaning products, not just better (though they can have this as a side bar).  For example, Simple Green is one of the most effective all purpose cleaners that I've run across.  The fact that its also made of all non-toxic, biodegradable is really just a bonus for me at this point.  If I discovered tomorrow that Simple Green was actually not good for the environment, I'd be sorely tempted to keep using it.  It would be great if the maker of Simple Green came out with a new brand (not emphasizing "green"), and put basically the same productin the bottle (with orange food coloring instead of green, just to mix things up). 

As an addendum to point number 2, I read (though have no personal knowledge) that environmentalism is an upper-middle class white movement.  I'm sure its not completely true, but if it is at all true, we need to reverse this trend.  Careing for the Finite World should be something that people of all ethnic groups and classes should feel comfortable getting behind.