"What Do I Buy?" vs. "Do I Buy?"
making sense of the ‘environmentalism-through-consumption’ movement
Posted Apr 23, 03:25 pm in consumerism, economics, environment, sustainability
Continuing on the Earth Day themes I’ve been thinking about for the past few days, I’d like to talk about one of the latest environmental trends I’ve seen lately: commercial reuse. Before I start, let me say that I’m all for reuse in the sense that I support the idea of using resources we already have rather than producing new ones. Clearly, reuse can be a good way of avoiding all sorts of needless waste. Why buy a new lamp when you can, as I found out, get a perfectly good used one free on Freecycle?*
That said, yesterday, I saw a program on the National Geographic Channel called Garbage Moguls that managed to perturb me despite its focus on reuse. The premise of this particular episode, according to the show’s webpage:
Recycling gets a makeover with a quirky group of young “eco-capitalists” at TerraCycle, Inc. Using only materials found in the trash, the team will transform cereal boxes into notebooks, newspaper into pencils and cookie wrappers into kites.
An interview with the company’s founder at the opening of the show had him making the following statement (paraphrased): “I want to prove to people that you can save the world and make a boatload of money doing it.”
In and of themselves, I have no problem with either the description of the company or the founder’s statement. However, what I am finding increasingly disturbing is the environmental movement’s seeming exclusionary focus on the What Do I Buy? piece of the retail value chain, and the total lack of acknowledgment of the preceding Do I Buy? piece. I understand that reuse is a valuable contribution to the environmental movement, but it is increasingly worrisome to me that companies like this simply market and sell the ideas of “environmentalism-through-consumption,” which is at best a tacit approach to a problem that requires active solutions. Note, for example, that the quote from the founder explicitly likens buying TerraCycle’s products to saving the world.
Again, I don’t disagree that buying a recycled notebook is better than buying a new one; it is almost definitely better (provided that the energy costs of producing the recycled notebook more than offsets the environmental and energy costs of making a new one). But it’s not so much Terracycle’s products themselves that are offputting to me so much as the ideological by-products, which reinforce myths like “recycling = environmentalism.” I am concerned this attitude may be almost as harmful as a lack of environmental awareness.
Why? Because when this attitude is promoted, it leads people to believe that along with recycling, buying Terracycle’s products (and products like them) is tantamount to saving the planet, and therefore a complete strategy to offset environmental damage. But this isn’t exactly true. What it does is alleviate some of the damages caused by consumption. The only way to avoid causing damage in the first place is to cease consumption entirely; this is because ceasing consumption causes manufacturers to stop producing. But I should reiterate that my argument is not that we shouldn’t buy at all; instead, I would argue that along with reusing and recycling, more emphasis needs to be placed on the Do I Buy? decision (in the purple “consumer” section of the above diagram). Exercising this discretion could make all the difference.
*I’ve used, and continue to use, Freecycle, a website that connects you with people who want to get rid of perfectly good stuff (and often less than perfect stuff as well) and lets you take that stuff for free, and that will also connect you with people who will take your weird, useless knick-knacks lying in your closet that are only taking up space. I think it’s a cool service that has great potential to save you money and clean up your house, while enjoying some positive social impacts. I strongly recommend it.
You make an interesting point. If buying a reused/repurposed item avoids purchase of what would otherwise have been a new product, the result is clearly less impact overall. If one purchases something unnecessarily just because it is “green”, there is still more impact than if that item was never purchased.
A tougher dilemma is whether to buy something reused/repurposed, or something new but sustainable/compostable.
There is an argument to be made for supporting businesses that are more sustainable in a country dominated by unsustainable consumerism, but ultimately less is more. I always try to ask myself “do I NEED it?” before buying anything.
I second your Freecycle recommendation. It’s possible to find almost anything second-hand (thrift stores, garage sales, Craigslist, Freecycle, ReUseIt). Modern electronics is the big exception that comes to mind. PLENTY of cassette boomboxes, slow computers, and non-digital TVs out there …
— Reginald J. Poop · Sep 3, 05:15 pm · #