Environmentalism in the Real World is a Touchy Subject

David Rogers, of Massachusetts’ Wicked Local news blog, touched upon a pretty interesting and multifaceted issue in his column yesterday: since even the best-intentioned movements can be co-opted for fashion and profit, how should we react when we see this happen with environmentalism? Should companies be called out for using such a hot-topic issue as a marketing strategy, or is going green enough? Rogers is not so sure, and reusable bags are the first item on his philosophical chopping block.

Go to your local supermarket, for example, and you’ll find reusable shopping bags for sale for a few bucks. The idea is, reusable bags reduce the need for plastic bags which are made partially out of oil don’t break down in landfills. Supermarkets make out because they have to buy less plastic and paper bags. Plastic bags cost about a penny each to make while paper bags cost more than 5 cents each.

On the one hand, it’s true that grocery stores do save money with not having to order as many plastic and paper bags; on the other hand, however, it’s not like they pay out of pocket — those rates are passed along to the consumer via the price of comestibles, and more and more shops have actually started returning those rates to customers with reusable bags in tow.

Rogers goes on to question the integrity of paper (and money)-saving direct deposit paychecks[1] and electronic airline tickets, culminating in a critique of the rain barrel standing outside of his local Topsfield town library as part of its “Going Green” campaign.

Even that leaves me feeling a little uneasy. That’s because the rain barrel is technically a display model. On the barrel itself is a flier that encourages those who like the barrel to buy one from the Peabody-based New England Rain Barrel Company. The flier announces that residents can purchase for a limited time only for “only $61.50.” The regular price is $99.

Even a little more disconcerting is that Topsfield officials are allowing this quasi-advertisement outside public buildings. Before heading over to the library, the barrel was set up outside the Water Department building off Route 1. So, in a sense, they are using taxpayer money to help earn money for a for-profit industry. That would be akin to the Fire Department allowing a smoke detector company to leave display models inside the station.

Although, as far as using taxpayer money for a profitable industry, both scenarios certainly seem pretty tame next to soda conglomerates doing business with public schools, yes/no?

Rogers does have good points in his essay; the problem is that it’s a double-edged sword — obviously, one really wants to think that environmentalism ought to be done solely out of the goodness of one’s heart. But, of course, businesses are going to look at their overheads every time they make a marketing decision. That said, there are far, far, far worse ways for large corporations to cut spending costs, and if they can find a way to do it that actually benefits the world at large and pushes environmental awareness in the process, how worthy a cause is it to complain? Should we charge forward with critical guns a-blazing, or should we pick our battles wisely? It is often said that, for a more effective dialog, one should avoid putting the less receptive side on the defensive — perhaps when it comes to business versus environmental policies, it would do good to let them have their bottom line if it means a greener world in the process. The minute they go back to their old ways, however, we’ll have our skeptic six-shooters at the ready.

[1] Your humble narrator has been looking forward to direct deposit paychecks for years now, as they save her an extra mad dash miles out of the way to the bank during business hours. Think of all the gas wasted biweekly!

Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 at 10:51 am and is filed under The Daily. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.