Green Consumption - Too Good To Be True?

Consumption has witnessed an explosive growth over the last 50 years or so, as with almost everything related to mankind. Forget about all the other functions you learnt in Math, the only important curve in modern times is the exponential one: 

Source

It is clear: we need a solution to the unsustainable levels of consumption we have created. Yet being the narcissistic homo sapiens race, compromising on our own satisfaction is often seen as a last resort. If we can engage in "green consumerism", why consume less? And in theory this sounds quite good: 

"Roll out from under the sumptuous hemp-fiber sheets on your bed in the morning and pull on a pair of $245 organic cotton Levi’s and an Armani biodegradable knit shirt.

Stroll from the bedroom in your eco-McMansion, with its photovoltaic solar panels, into the kitchen remodeled with reclaimed lumber. Enter the three-car garage lighted by energy-sipping fluorescent bulbs and slip behind the wheel of your $104,000 Lexus hybrid." (Williams, 2007) 

Treading a little lighter while keeping satisfaction levels high, what's there not to love? 

Two articles, "Buying Into the Green Movement" by the New York Times and "Green Consumerism Is No Solution" by Huffington Post tell us why "green consumption" may be too good to be true:

Firstly, both authors explain that green consumption over-simplifies environmental problems to a matter of making better shopping choices. It creates a false notion that the consumption of "greener" products equates to sustainable consumption, ignoring that the "cumulative effect of our consumption remains enormous and hazardous" (Williams, 2007). Wilk (2013) goes on to mention that new eco-friendly products on the shelves only offer consumers more choices, which is likely to offset any possible benefits of purchasing said products. 

In addition, Wilk (2013) also mentions that purchasing eco-friendly and in a broader context, "ethical" products, is often merely a form tokenism, which we engage in in hopes that this act of "passive activism" may cause greater changes in the environmental scene. 

There is a consensus that the root of the problem is not so much what we are consuming as it is HOW MUCH we are consuming. As such, green consumption does not really solve our problems. Williams cites examples given by environmentalists where no consumption is simply better than the supposedly "greener" choice (e.g. consuming fruits in season instead of importing them from abroad, even if they are organically grown). Wilk, on the other hand, believes that more direct action has to be taken, including "dramatic public events that bring shame on high consumers" (Wilk, 2013).

Indeed, green products casts a false illusion that we can get away with our obnoxious consumption habits by replacing the products we buy with greener ones. Now that I think of it, I have used the excuse that a product was organic/eco-friendly to buy more of it than I needed a couple of times. Definitely not reducing my ecological footprint. We are not going to save the world by buying tons (literally) of organic products. It is perhaps time to ponder if "green consumption" actually exists, or if it is just another oxymoron we created to distract ourselves from the real problem of environmental degradation. 

So...is green consumption all bad? I will present the other side of the argument in a follow-up post.

(To be continued...)

References:
       Wilk, R. (2013, June 14). Green consumerism is no solution. Huffington Post. Retrieved August 26, 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/american-anthropological-association/green-consumerism-is-no-solution_b_3437457.html

  Williams, A. (2007, July 1). Buying into the green movement. The New York Times. Retrieved August 29, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/fashion/01green.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&