I saw this ad for organic coffee at a restaurant in Yosemite National Park last weekend. There are some good management initiatives in the park, including free hybrid shuttle buses and a fairly extensive recycling program, but this ad stuck with me, in particular, for negative rather than positive reasons.
Am I the only one who feels skeptical about messages like this? It’s obvious that “green” is a powerful new marketing strategy that every big biz with even a half a clue has picked up on (e.g. here it’s Delaware North, the supplier of Seattle’s Best). One of the messages we’re getting is that it’s okay to continue our rampant consumerism so long as it’s “green” addiction or “green” gluttony. I hate to be so cynical, but sometimes buying green seems like little more than a way to reassure ourselves that we’re doing the right thing without actually having to change our behavior in a substantial way. The whole idea seems facile. Are we really this easily bought?
And I posit my own hypocrisy as an example. I took this picture of the ad, while holding a cup of hot black organic coffee in my other hand. I’ve got a caffeine habit that gets me out of bed (just like my oil habit got me from my home in the city to this park). Since I’m addicted and I’m choosing not to kick the habit, I guess it’s preferable to drink organic, fair trade coffee. But I’m not going to persuade myself that I’m doing the right thing for the planet by drinking this coffee when an actual, substantial change of consciousness and behavior would mean not consuming this substance that my body has no genuine need for.
I bring it up because although I think that moving towards greener economy is a good trend, I also think that we also need to ask ourselves “Do I really need this?” more often. I also think that we need to ask ourselves, “Who here stands to profit?” Otherwise, “eco” risks devolving into little more than a marketing tool that’ll get co-opted by every corporation looking to maximize profits by the most strategic means possible.
You can find it under the following topic(s): Eating Out, Food, Green Business, Op/Ed, Organic, media crit.
Follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Eco-Chick RSS Feed
This is an excellent post, and I think your uneasiness is shared by a lot of people. On one hand, we don’t want being eco-conscious to be co-opted by big business as marketing strategy (eg. Greenwashing). On the other, we don’t want all the aims of our work to be like veganism- a great idea shared by very few people. We should want big companies to take social responsibility seriously, and get it out there to the masses. Otherwise, what’s the point? (And yes, buying locally grown food/wares etc. is great, but not everything should be/can be made within 100 miles of your home, though that is a good thing to keep in mind).
You know, I take more issue with the idea of all those paper cups than people actually drinking fair-trade organic coffee, which if done properly, provides a very good wage for the people who grow it. Coffee can’t be grown in New York (I don’t know about Cali) and people are def. going to keep drinking it- they have been for a couple hundred years now. If people aren’t going to give up coffee, I say make the process as good as it can be. Organic, fair-trade, and in a non-disposable receptacle!! I think energy going into convincing people to carry their own mugs is easier and will have a bigger impact than trying to convince people to not drink coffee because it isn’t grown in their region. Plus, I don’t think it works. People aren’t going to give up something like coffee until you pry it from their cold, dead hands! (I’m not a coffee addict myself, but I’ve seen what it does to my friends!)
November 6th, 2006 at 11:08 amWell put Brianne. I have read quite a few posts lately on this topic, in particular. The mass marketing of moralism is bringing about a sense of catharsis by spending that dollar “red” products (as in the Bono campaign for Africa,) or ‘green’ products, but far less thought is given to consumption in general. Bottom line is, its bad for business. The co-opting of eco-consciousness is a subject that has been debated on this site, and others, ad infinitum, and it is an important dialogue to continue.
While I agree, as I have heard some green entrepreneurs put it, that “it raises education and awareness to have people buy green,” I also think that going to the source in any power structure, provides far more insight into the true motives of any organization. Who benefits?
The whole terrapass gas credit issue addresses this concern directly. I read a bunch of articles (on CNN etc.) about how people are getting to pay a “guilt tax” now by using the terrapass as a justification for hauling around in big rigs. While I can see the benefit provided, by teaching people about alternative energy sources and investing in those resources, the reality is, you are offsetting, not directly changing your ways when you participate.
Buy green - just please, dear god, KEEP BUYING…. ugh.
November 6th, 2006 at 11:57 amI agree with your main point, people need to think about what they are consuming and if we really need it. But I cringe inside when I read things like “just give it up.” I’m one of the people who you’ll have to pry coffee away from.
Yes, I could live without coffee, and a million other things, but then you get to a point where life isn’t so fun anymore. There are some things I’m willing to give up or put a little extra effort into (recycling), but the majority of the American population will just completely dismiss environmentalism even more if the solution is “give it up.” Yes, sometimes we have to cut back, but if you can’t cut back, fair trade, organic coffee in a reusable cup is better than doing nothing isn’t it? I think we have to take little steps. Expecting giant leaps isn’t realistic.
November 7th, 2006 at 7:21 amWonderful post and to me it addresses the very heart of the matter. As Candice puts it, “Expecting giant leaps isn’t realistic.” She’s absolutely right and, unfortunately, in being right she spells out quite clearly the reason why we are all, most likely, well and truly fucked. Without giant leaps in the immediate future (i.e. the now), we will not stabilize CO2 output and the trends, as you all know, will become if they are not already, irreversible.
Expecting consumers to “get it” and self-educate is unrealistic. Yes, this smacks of intellectual elitism, something I deplore and something that infects, along with far too much egocentrism, the sustainability movement. However, it’s a fair assessment. People won’t “get it” unless people are presented with heavy doses of imminent reality. We keep sugar-coating things or proffering up ineffectual partisan viewpoints that alienate a neat fifty percent slice of the population. We idolize “leaders” who, given the chance and the mandate, did nothing (Clinton/Gore Kyoto debacle, anyone?).
I live in the ‘wine country’ of Northern California - a hyper-liberal segment of a fairly liberal state. While NIMBY-ism is horrifically prevalent, working to offset much of the liberalism, I still recognize that the people around me are far from indicative of the wider U.S. population - for better and worse. They “get it” but they don’t understand that giant steps are needed. To them, shopping at Whole Foods, driving a Prius (worse mileage than a 1995 Geo Metro, btw) and yakking into a RED Motorola Razr(tm) represent ethical and righteous living. Don’t get me wrong, eating right and driving efficiently are wonderful and to be emulated, but they represent the smallest of baby steps in a time when we all need to strap on seven-league boots. Bono, too, understands the situation, and works on many levels to raise awareness, but in my opinion the RED campaign has been something of a tactical error.
From Lovelock, Monbiot and Lester Brown, to Elizabeth Kolbert, the brightest minds and best writers are attempting to wrangle the bullhorn away from the politicians and celebrities so that they might scream that, well, the sky really is falling, but they’re finding the stranglehold on the public’s attention is not so easy to loose.
We are, at present, a leaderless movement, which presents opportunities and challenges. It is fantastic that sites like Eco Chick ask questions like this - questions that almost buck the developing, calcifying status quo that is already derailing our movement. We must, collectively, maintain our edge and refuse to follow any set ideology or pledge any political allegiances. We are too easily co-opted, our message too easily flipped into a marketing campaign. We’ve been here before. This all happened in the early 1990s, remember? The Stern Report is merely a rehashing of the 1991 IPCC report that set Europe marching while the U.S. citizenry merely took the reports of global warming as an opportunity to sell coffee and shoes. Anyone familiar with the genius output of John C. Lilly knows we humans operate in loops and cycles - it’s in the breaking free of them that we advance, personally and culturally.
I see our movement looping already. We’ve gone from a selfless focus on the environment to a selfish focus on eco-economics. Youthful idealism (a wisdom most pure) morphs into a desire for personal security. This grasping, this me-ness, is not a bad thing - it is, after all, human nature. Yet, I can’t help but wonder if we can’t strike a better balance. Everywhere I go, idealism is smashed, ridiculed and ignored. Giant, rapid strides? Not possible. (Happened in WW2 when the U.S. gov’t took over manufacturing, offering subsidies to major manufacturers to transition to troop supplies) A third party that focuses on the environment? Unrealistic and juvenile. (Happened here in the U.S., resulting in social security, minimum wage, unemployment benefits, child-labor reform, welfare - basically our nation’s backbone). Keep a close eye out next time you scan the eco-sphere - you’ll notice the idealism-bashers are shockingly well-represented.
Again, thanks for bringing this up. I’d love to see you dive more into the latent hypocrisies that threaten to derail us.
November 9th, 2006 at 3:25 pm