Agree or disagree: Going green on a budget is a losing battle
Yesterday, I opened up a bit of a can of worms when I tried to find cheap ways of dressing in an eco friendly and ethical way. And I'll be honest; the cheaper the items - whether organic, 'sweatshop free' or laying claim to any other eco-buzzword - the harder it is to find out just how green they really are. Organic certification, the Fairtrade logo and the new standards coming in for beauty products and restaurants do command a higher price-tag, and it's therefore no wonder we want to believe it when a shop offers us organic clothing for a tenner.
So what I want to put to you is that being green is a luxury. Much as we may want to do something, those of us on a tight budget will have to accept that until the excitement about being green dies down and it stops being fashionable again, we'll have to occasionally make choices we disagree with.
Or, are those who can afford to pay extra missing the point and forgetting that - with a bit of extra effort - it's quite possible to be green without falling for the hype. What have you done to go green that actually saved you money, or at least didn't leave you out of pocket?
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://shinymedia.headshift.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/27788
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Agree or disagree: Going green on a budget is a losing battle:
Comments
Buying clothes from a charity shop is as or more environmentally conscious, and way cheaper, than buying cheap "green" clothes.
Posted by: KW | April 18, 2007 2:27 PM
wouldn't agree that being green is a luxury per se. The problem is that the possibility of pricing green or otherwise conscientious products more highly solves a traditional economic dilemma for retailers.
Retailers would like everyone to buy their products for the most amount of money each person can afford, assuming that price at least meets their costs. Ideally Starbucks would sell bankers a coffee for the £20 a cup they can afford and let the cleaners at the same bank buy an identical cup of coffee for 70p, all from the same shop.
This sort of dynamic pricing is very hard to achieve - customers resist it as somehow unfair, and in any case the canniest consumers tend to be the ones with the most money (for example discount cards are most used by the rich).
Badges like "ethical", "fair trade" and "organic" are a god-send to retailers because they let consumers self-select a massive price increase for what is, from the retailers' point of view, a functionally identical product. Seen from the retailer's end, the message "I'm feeling conscientious: I'll buy fair trade/organic today even though it costs a bit more" is the same as saying "I can afford a price hike of 5%/10%25%".
This is, of course, a bit rough on people who want to buy green (etc) but on a budget. Alas, until the retailers find a new way of getting richer buyers to self-select higher prices for goods that cost the same to the retailer, anything with a hint of ethical is likely to sell at an entirely artificial premium
Posted by: Seamus McCauley | April 18, 2007 3:22 PM
I wouldn't agree that being green is a luxury per se. The problem is that the possibility of pricing green or otherwise conscientious products more highly solves a traditional economic dilemma for retailers.
Retailers would like everyone to buy their products for the most amount of money each person can afford, assuming that price at least meets their costs. Ideally Starbucks would sell bankers a coffee for the £20 a cup they can afford and let the cleaners at the same bank buy an identical cup of coffee for 70p, all from the same shop.
This sort of dynamic pricing is very hard to achieve - customers resist it as somehow unfair, and in any case the canniest consumers tend to be the ones with the most money (for example discount cards are most used by the rich).
Badges like "ethical", "fair trade" and "organic" are a god-send to retailers because they let consumers self-select a massive price increase for what is, from the retailers' point of view, a functionally identical product. Seen from the retailer's end, the message "I'm feeling conscientious: I'll buy fair trade/organic today even though it costs a bit more" is the same as saying "I can afford a price hike of 5%/10%25%".
This is, of course, a bit rough on people who want to buy green (etc) but on a budget. Alas, until the retailers find a new way of getting richer buyers to self-select higher prices for goods that cost the same to the retailer, anything with a hint of ethical is likely to sell at an entirely artificial premium
Posted by: Seamus McCauley | April 18, 2007 3:23 PM
I think there is a way in which marking a product with a "green" label, like any label, adds a certain vendibility which makes it attractive to a particular market, a consumer base that is prepared to pay a little (or even a lot) more in exchange for the feelgood factor of selecting a product which claims to be less damaging to the environment; and so, as Seamus says, consumers can be charged a premium.
But I think there is also a simple economy of scale at work. Niche products with smaller overall sales do tend to be priced higher than mass-produced products with high sales turnover. If such products sell well, then I we do see prices coming down. Foods which used to be only available in health-food stores at niche prices have become more popular and now retail in supermarkets at more typical consumer prices. Free-range eggs now cost no more than their battery counterparts, because there has been sufficient demand to increase production and retail to a level where the eggs can be sold at mass prices. Products like the Mooncup were pricey when they entered the market in the US, but are now much cheaper (retailers are apparently hoping to see a similar effect in the UK, according to an email I received recently).
A third matter is of saving over time versus an initially higher headline cost. For example, energy-saving lightbulbs cost more than normal lightbulbs, but last many times longer. Installing loft or cavity-wall insulation involves an initial outlay, but returns saviongs on energy bills. So it can be said that there is value for money in making "green" choices, but these require an initial upfront investment which not everybody is equipped to make.
In the long term, we can hope that an increasing demand for greener products enables lower retail prices, that help becomes available for those on a budget who wish to do their bit for energy saving, and maybe even that the novelty and cachet of greener products wears off and reduces the premium-charging, labelling effect.
Posted by: Lise | April 18, 2007 7:39 PM
If it's new it's not eco.
I'm not sure why or how people think buying clothes you don't need is helping the earth even if it is organic. There are shops, they are called thrift shops. I like to call them o.g. (original gangster) "green," clothes...lol...isn't consumerism the reason we're in this mess anyway?
I want to make some reference to purity of the pot in the past in comparison to the pot now, but I'm too stoned to do that right now...
Take a look at this link in regards to the "Green Age."
http://bralessliving.wordpress.com/2007/03/26/the-green-age/
If your green shopping is costing you more mone, then you are green shopping, but not the kind of green that you think.
Cheers,
Lo Fleming
Posted by: Lo Fleming | April 23, 2007 4:06 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
