To continue the class discussion, this is my personal conclusion- you can’t stop mass production or mass consumption, but you can make it less wasteful by taking responsibility for your actions.
I think it is fair to say that for the foreseeable future large corporations like Nike or Apple will continue to produce huge quantities of plastic goods, and our appetite for them will remain strong. Apple announced last week that the sales of I-pods had exceeded 60 million; this looks set to be replicated by their new I-phone.
However to accept this mass production/consumption/waste status quo and resign ourselves to believing that we can do nothing for the environment would be both cowardly and naïve. There are things we can do; one of these things is using our consumer power. If we the Consumer stop buying, they the Manufacturer will stop producing. It doesn’t take an economist to figure out no market equals no product. Alternatively if we demand as consumers more ecologically sound goods, they will eventually concede- and have done so on many occasions. Nike’s drop in sales following the sweat shop scandal forced them to sort out their manufacturing system. Toyota has released their Hybrid motor following consumer concerns about pollution from car emissions. The thing is that it is possible to be ethical and affluent, and everyone (especially manufacturers) loves the buying power of the affluent.
The difficult part is for enough consumers to make the choice to act on their nagging doubts about where all this indiscriminate mass consumption is taking us. Which brings us back to the first lecture, taking or deferring responsibility, and by implication the ethical decision that goes with it. I’m persuaded that most people understand that there is only so much abuse the planet can take. The real issue is that we continue to pass the responsibility of waste (and wastefulness) onto some one else like an ecological hot potato - and so long as we do nothing will ever get done.
The seemingly unrelated issue of the paparazzi and weekly glossies illustrates my point. Recently Kate Middleton (girlfriend of Prince William) complained about the constant and unrelenting intrusion into her private life. Seeing her point the media and the general population asked the politicians why there was no regulation to keep this from happening. The politicians deferred responsibility back onto the editors of the tabloids claiming they should have to deal with it. They then deferred it on to the consumer, claiming we only do it because you want to read it; nicely rounding off the circle of deferred responsibility, ready for another round of pass the parcel.
The exact same charade is going on with consumption and waste. It is time to stop the cycle and start taking responsibility on an individual basis. If you feel uncomfortable with your part in it, change how you live. If everyone took responsibility for their actions rather than hand it over to someone else, there could be large-scale economic ramifications. To use a quote from Spider Man, ‘with great power comes great responsibility’ perhaps what he meant to say was that with great responsibility comes great power.
I will concede that this bottom-up activism has its limits. Can we really stop them from producing tonnes of unnecessary rubbish by simply boycotting their products? Probably not, but they might feel pressurised into cleaning up their act to win your custom back. In which case they might still produce tonnes of plastic junk, but at least it will be better thought out, cleaner junk.
“The truth is rarely plane and never simple”.
ReplyDeleteIn your answer you quote Spiderman as saying “And you seem convinced of the wisdom and good intentions of the consumer in swaying companies into taking the correct moral decision; giving the example of Nike and of how consumer boycotting rightly forced the firm to rethink its sweat shop policy. Sadly though, not all consumers boycotting is used for good purposes, or at least, those I would class as “good”. In 1999 American consumers stopped buying from Benetton after the innovative Italian photographer Oliverio Toscani produced a series of billboard photographs showing men from various American death rows staring out. They were dressed in their colourful prison garb and under their haunted gaze were their details and somewhere the familiar words “United Colours of Benetton” shone forth. This so enraged America’s Pro Death-Penalty lobby that Benetton had to withdraw the advertisement, get rid of Toscani and return to rather bland images of cute multi ethnic models on their ads. Benetton’s publicity shots never recovered; middle America had won. The world had lost thought provoking images like a T-shirt with a bloody bullet-shot hole in it or a dying AIDS victim.
Let’s take this a step further there are companies producing too much waste and it is positive to react against this; but what if the company pulls a double bluff on us. How about saying “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” or Oscar Wilde’s famous quote:-“The truth is rarely plain and never simple”. Take IKEA the company with an excellent “green” track record. Every Christmas in several European countries the Swedish firm offers reasonably priced real Christmas trees, on returning the sad specimens after the festivities the customer is given a voucher for the value of most of the tree price, The returned trees are then shredded and the remains put to good use. All admirable but what about the petrol consumption and exhaust fumes wasted on getting the trees? Why couldn’t IKEA just sell the tree at a low cost? It is obvious, they are in business. The second visit brings in clients but are those well-meaning souls aware how much of their carbon footprint is being wasted?
I believe only real awareness can help. There is the problem of plastic re-cycling. How many of us think our actions are good when we self-righteously fill the plastic “bell” with our plastic waste? No dolphins being poisoned because of us. Yet the vast majority of European plastic waste is shipped to China where Chinese workers so in need of a wage are prepared to work in a dangerously toxic industry shredding and incinerating our waste for us. The fumes from the plastic waste are so dangerous and cacernomerous that the majority of the workers develop cancer within a few years- but thanks to the westerners they have a little food in their bellies as they await death---and the dolphins are still jumping. The Chinese city is always covered by a black cloud of smoke and is shrouded in secrecy. The re-cycling could be done in situ and safely, but it would cost a lot more. It would cost European wages so our plastic would cost more. How simple to take an old fashion shopping bag and start using re useable bottles again like the milkman brought.
So let’s not be complacent and fancy ourselves as super heroes. People power only makes sense if we the public are informed and don’t forget “people power can sometimes be opposed to your ideals and even ecological benefits.