Portland is consistently found at the top of lists celebrating the greenest, most sustainable cities in the United States. Living here, we hear and see adjectives describing things that appear to be eco-friendly, sustainable, organic and green nearly everywhere we go–and it’s become second nature.
Pretty much everyone recycles (there was a time when this was considered odd, perhaps even radical), it’s completely common to use environmentally friendly products, unexceptional to seek out organic food, normal to compost and garden, and not out of the ordinary to take public transportation or ride a bicycle to get around–we are living an environment that promotes earth-friendliness.
This didn’t come about overnight, and it didn’t come without effort–this is the result of the long-range planning, activism, work and in many cases, expense, of people dedicated to living better, healthier lives. The hardest work of all must have been convincing the less dedicated to make sacrifices, spend more time and money, and exert extra effort for the good of the world we all live in.
Portland, and the other places that have made sustainability a priority, might be ahead of the curve, but the rest of the country is starting to catch up. Why? Attribute it to enlightenment, to necessity and-more and more–to the marketing of “green.”
With consumers becoming more aware of environmental concerns, “green living” is seen as a huge economic opportunity, and businesses are eager to present themselves as “earth-friendly,” in order to create a bond with people looking to feel better about the way that they live.
According to many, the idea of living sustainably isn’t about changing consumerism, it’s about NOT consuming–buying less, using less, making and doing things for yourself, and re-using what you’ve already got.
Necessary consumption is encouraged when it is socially and environmentally responsible, and preferably local. The people who have invested in these ideals are justifiably alarmed by the way that “green” is being mass-marketed, but is it really a bad thing to sell more people on healthier living?
The latest and largest corporation to openly turn “green” into a commodity is Wal-Mart, the mega-chain of retailers that most conscientious consumers view as pure evil. They’ve done this in an effort to cut energy use and waste, boost their public image and to sell more products that their customers can feel good about using.
But they’re hardly the first major company to jump on the eco-bandwagon. Safeway has launched their brand of organics, Home Depot offers a line of green building materials–even Payless Shoe Source is adding a line of eco-friendly vegan shoes.
This presents a bit of a conundrum. None of these are companies that represent the philosophies or practices of sustainable living, since their success depends on mass consumption and maximizing profit. Buying cheap, and buying often–treating material goods as if they are meant to be disposable and perpetually replaced–this is the type of purchasing that these sorts of super-mega-corporations rely on.
They are able to make money because the public continues to buy cheap stuff that is basically just garbage-in-waiting.
Here’s the question: Does it make the world a worse place if “green” is usurped by big business, if sustainability becomes a marketing catch-phrase? What if “organic” doesn’t meet the same high standards, but is cheaper and more accessible to greater numbers of people?
What if “buying green” just becomes something that soothes people’s conscience while cheapening the concept? I’m going to have to employ the notion of good-better-best to answer this.
It’s good that some people are committed to taking the best possible care of themselves, their community and their environment. They will be rewarded in many ways–through the personal satisfaction in doing what they believe in and by their improved health and well being.
Even better, they will finally be able to see that those who have been less enlightened for so long are finally starting to catch on to their ideas about food production, more responsible consumer choices, energy consumption, transportation and building (even if they aren’t always doing it for the noblest of reasons).
Better yet, businesses are also falling in line with this sort of sustainable thinking (even if they’re doing so for the wrong reasons), recognizing that if they aren’t seen as accountable and concerned about the people and places they are profiting from, they will lose customers at an alarming rate.
Best of all, the more people aware of the problems that are being created by mass consumption, wastefulness, pollution and environmentally harmful practices, the more we will look for real solutions.
Those who have been buying organic, wearing bamboo pants and bringing their own reusable water bottles will continue to explore and practice the best ways to exist without doing any more harm than absolutely necessary, and they will continue to raise the bar for everyone who is willing to do their best, when given the right incentive and opportunity.
Any change for the better is, well, it’s just that–change for the better. I can consider the source and either laugh, or become indignant when I read Wal-Mart’s helpful tips on making less waste. But if, at the end of the day, the pile of garbage isn’t growing as fast–who’s getting hurt?
Even if we understand that most of the methods used to “motivate” people aren’t always based on goodness, appropriating “green” for commercial purposes is still easy to interpret as creepy and unprincipled. Finding that something good has come of it–never mind the source, never mind the motivation–that’s not really a problem at all.