Why Monbiot's wrong about ethical shopping

Yesterday's Guardian featured a rant by George Monbiot on green and Fairtrade consumerism. Headlined 'Ethical shopping is just another way of showing how rich you are', the odds were on me disagreeing with him (I edit Newconsumer.com, which George contributes to). I think he's wrong on three crucial points. The first is the opening plank of his argument, which is to knock Sheherazade Goldsmith's new green lifestyle book, A Slice of Organic Life, for not even mentioning politics. That's a bit disingenuous.

A Slice of Organic Life is a lifestyle book, while George's own book Heat (reviewed here) is a politics-cum-science book. As George knows, books have to be marketed, which is why Organic Life has no politics, and Heat has no 'lifestyle'. Sheherazade would look a bit silly knocking Heat for not featuring enough glossy lifestyle photos or uplifting lifestyle prose, no? The second point I have to take George's article to task on is the notion that "Green consumerism is another form of atomisation - a substitute for collective action."

I don't know anyone promoting ethical consumption - from New Consumer here to good blogs like Hippyshopper and Treehugger - who ever suggested ethical shopping and green/social politics were mutually exclusive. Ethical shopping is a start, not an end in itself. Of course you also have to write letters, join political groups and campaign. However, ethical shopping is a good 'in' for people who might be utterly apolitical now, but - through ethical shopping- become more educated, growing into the green lobbyists and politicians of the future.

In addition, ethical shopping is one of the few things people have immediate power over. Several Guardian readers quote Ghandi's 'be the change you want to see in the world', which I think sums up the reasons why we're buying stuff like organic cotton (less chemicals for the people picking it), local food (generally lower carbon emissions, generally better food) and other 'ethical' products. Buying less is clearly a part of ethical shopping, but there are quite a few essentials in life that can be 'greened'.

My last gripe is this paragraph from the article:

Ethical shopping is in danger of becoming another signifier of social status. I have met people who have bought solar panels and wind turbines before they have insulated their lofts, partly because they love gadgets but partly, I suspect, because everyone can then see how conscientious and how rich they are.

If people want to have a solar panel on their roof because they think it's a cool status symbol, fine by me. Yes, it's slightly dumb doing expensive stuff like generating power before doing cheap stuff like conserving it. Still, I don't think any of us have the right to make moral judgements on someone's motives when they lower carbon emissions through solar panels and make world labour a fraction fairer with Fairtrade.

George is right to question ethical shopping, but there's no need to sensationalise it, and certainly not to condemn it.

Comments

[Rhymin Simon]

Why the green Guy is wrong about ethical consumerism...

The essential problem with ethical consumerism is that it doesnt effectively promote lower consumption overall... which is the ONLY real solution to our social and environmental problems.

Encouraging people to have solar panels just because they get cred for their conspicuous consumption is a waste of time. Such forms of consumption are after all totally vulnerable to changing trends. There is no incentive for future consumers to perpetuate the trend - because it wont remain fashionable forever.

I agree that Sheherezade's book is designed for/marketed for a certain sector of consumer, but in general its not those people who need the help to go green. The majority of people dont have the ability to keep their own cow!

I remain to be convinced that ethical consumerism is likely to prove a good in for apolitical people, I think that most will use it temporarily to confirm societal status, and the true believers will do it because they always did. In general one preaches to the choir...

There may be 'a few essentials that cant be greened' but these are socially defined essentials arent they... all relative old chap, they sure arent essentials to the millions who live without them.

It may not be time to make moral judgements on peoples motives, but we can point out that to lower carbon emmisions on the one hand without being bothered to save energy on the other is pretty pointless, and simply gives a 'feel good factor' without actually serving the purpose it was intended to. Worse it allows/encourages a perpetuation of environmentally damaging behaviour!

Anyway enough of my leftie drivel, I enjoy your blog... can I write for newconsumer.com please ;)

[Simon M]

I'm afraid I'm with my Rhymin' counterpart.

Firstly, much of the media, including ethical consumerist media, presents ethical consumerism as an opt-in. "Hey, check out our funky organic clothes; look at how you can charge your iPod from solar rays; this yoghurt's fairtrade - and that's cool."

This fails to give a complete and meaningful picture of how even ethical choices can be the choice between conflicting issues. It also utterly denies the necessity of simply not consuming - make do, mend, buy less etc. And it is beginning to look increasingly like something you can opt into as and when you feel like it. Top Shop has an organic range. But it's right next to clothes that are made using cheap labour and intensive chemical processes. One should stand as a criticism of the other, yet here they're two options in the consumer panoply of choice.

It's simply wrong-headed to say it's OK for people to choose to put solar panels on their roof without insulating their loft. It means that person is at best ill-informed, and needs much better education as to what steps are most important now. And at worst it lets that person feel like they're doing their bit.

It's a phrase I meet more and more with friends. Intelligent, smart people feel they're hard pressed on time and money, and isn't it enough that they occasionally don't take the car to work, or they recycle their bottles? I've had people tell me they're "doing their bit" by recycling. Then I've looked in their fridge and seen hundreds of cardboard and plastic wrapped ready meals.

Me, I feel constantly guilty about not doing enough. I'm not advocating the guilt part. But we need to positively engage and challenge people - start showing them how to live better. Not pat them on the back for taking half a step in the right direction and an entire step in the wrong direction while loudly proclaiming how green they are.

Ultimately, as you are Editor of newconsumer.com, it'd be nice to see a bit more politics, a bit less "choice" and a bit more opinion and help in narrowing that choice, in newconsumer.

Si M

[kyb]

There will always be people buying things, even in a perfect eco world. The things they buy should be ethically produced. In fact, it should be socially unacceptable, and possibly even illegal to purchase unethically produced goods. There is no way to get from here to there, without promoting ethical goods at least as much as the unethical hawk their goods. This includes using many of their techniques. We're not aiming for believers, we're aiming for everyone.

Yes, it is important to make the point that less consumption is important, but that point is a separate point to the ethicalness of the production of the things we consume. Both points need to be made in their own way, and by their own enthusiasts. It seems churlish to criticise those promoting responsibility for the way the goods are produced (a good thing) for not also arguing for a variety of other topics as well. Surely there are few enough people promoting consumer responsibility that we shouldn't try to alienate any of them.

Now if someone was promoting consuming more and ethical consumerism at the same time, there would be room for criticism, but is anyone really doing that?

[Rhymin Simon]

I think that ethical production is only a small part of ethical consumption.

If we continue to consume more - there is more waste. More waste means more environmental damage.

If we continue to consume more - there is a push to lower prices. Lower prices means a greater gap between rich and poor, and greater exploitation. When are people paid 'enough'?

If we continue to consume more we use a greater amount of natural resources, greater use of these resources means greater degradation of our planet.

There is a hierachy of ethical consumption - we will always need to produce some new things, but that is right at the end of the chain. The first link is - 'do you really need to buy this item?' The second is, can you get it second hand... etc.

Anyway, I'm obviously right, and you're obviously wrong... ;P

[kybernetikos]

Good argument, I especially liked your final point :-)

In fact, I never doubted that you were right. I just think that it benefits both arguments if quantity of consumption and the ethical production of consumables are discussed separately.

I suppose what it comes down to is a personal view of how many people are increasing their consumption because of ethical brands. My personal view is that practically nobody is doing this. Therefore, I don't consider it to be a big problem, and I think that those promoting consumption of things from ethical sources are doing a good job, just as those promoting less consumption are doing a good job.

If you really think that there are people who are increasing their consumption or are not reducing it when they otherwise would have because of ethical brands, then I can see that you would come to a different conclusion.

[Pete]

I think the greenguy is right.

1) the more people who buy solar panels, the more they are speeding up the technology's development and making it more affordable for the rest of us.

2) and most importantly like Adam points out, the more people who engage in ethical consumption the more they will surely have to open their eyes to other incredibly unjust things. Surely it will only serve to make them think. Surely they will talk about it with their friends which only serve to make them think as well, and then we have a good domino effect. Once ordinary people start to think that's when there becomes an ability to force a real democracy, and then a society, that actually represents the people, and not the elite.

Since I really started to embrace ethical consumption a couple of years ago, I have been forced to open my mind up in all sorts of other areas - which ironically enlightens one to the discovery everything is connected anyway! I've been in heated debates that have forced me to further research other avenues, and I don't want to (I can't) stop now (tho a day job can be a serious hinderance). And I only hope more people do the same. So, yes I would say, a significant entry point to me really starting to open my eyes was trying to ethically consume.

And there is a saying I believe 'no publicity is bad publicity', so maybe George is stirring the pot a little, which is good - and not just for his own entertainment.

And btw, I refuse to see things as a matter of left and right. Politics needs to change drastically (not just) in this country, and polarizing things in such a manner is like being stuck in 17th century politics, and still giving power too our completely antiquated political system (in the UK or the US for example).

[Rhymin Simon]

A good example of why you are wrong is the Anya Hindmarch 'this is not a plastic bag' bag - supposedly a green totem, but in effect just a fashion accessory, which allowed its owner to have the appearance of being green, but really just allowing them to have a designer handbag for a fiver.

"The more people who engage in ethical consumption the more they will surely have to open their eyes to other incredibly unjust things" - I dont think there is any evidence, apart from anecdotal, for this.

There is an innate problem with the idea of consuming our way out of global poverty - the problem is... its a crap idea! It is based on the need for producers who want to be consumers... so there must always be a rich poor divide! Trade does have a vital part to play because of the nature of the system we're enslaved to, but lowering consumption is more important.

And no matter how much you dont like a left right split - it does exist. As a wise person once said... "When I fed the hungry, they called me a saint. When I asked why people are hungry, they called me a communist."

[Pete]

Of course you're right in that we have to consume less, I couldn't agree more. And I'm much more skeptical of eco-consumption nowadays myself.

And you're probably right in calling my evidence anecdotal. But if people are trying to do the right thing I think they will talk about it more which will then open up debates on all sorts of very important issues revolving around creating a better world.

I think powerful people who don't have such noble intentions feel much better about themselves by criticising others who are trying to do good. It's also empowering to the status quo because it makes people feel powerless, and it's this illusion that halts change.

Left and right for me is still something I receive in directions ;)

[The Bulldog]

Talking of ethical shopping, we have just launched a range of natural grooming products for men. We are trying to offer guys a mainstream alternative to the products they currently buy. We encourage our consumers to look at the back of our pack as none of our products contain parabens, sodium laureth sulfate, artificial colours or synthetic fragrances. We never test our products on animals and never use ingredients from animal sources. Our products are all made here in the UK, so minimal product miles. Please visit our website www.meetthebulldog.com for more details.

It's fair to say that we think ethical shopping is a good thing.

[Hugh]

Oh dear

I think George is right on the nail on this one - our expectations of what is an appropriate lifestyle and appropriate level of luxury are so inflated - that we cannot understand even the level of material existance that our parents lived with quite comfortably (it is wonderful not to have expectations of grander things).

That said.... with our current technological awareness - we COULD (but probably won't) have a thoroughly satisfactory material level of existence - provided a number of issues were addressed:

1) The repeal of the 95% rule of design. 95% of the content of a vast majority of manufactured items are good - but there is always the 5% which is crap - which causes the whole schmeer to collapse (usually 1 day after warranty expires) - the list is endless - cheap plastic bearing inserts in an otherwise excellent pasta maker, Canon printers which have an ink pad which becomes 'full' - and you have to chuck the printer, can openers with a bad grab wheel that collapses (as it is too brittle), expensive and complex devices that have custom LSI (Large Scale Integration) circuits, that are only supported for 5 years. Out they go - techno-trash. Go buy a new one.

2) The mantra has to be - REDUCE, REUSE, REPAIR and if all else fails RECYCLE
(Bye the way - RECYCLING means reducing to component materials and re-manufacturing - and that's all!!) A term taken over by the corporate world as a 'feel good' term.

3) Once, re-use supported a whole workforce that now depends on government handouts - the bottle washers in the pop-drink businesses and the small wineries. Repair shops were quite common (but we didn't pay $60 per hour either - another issue) - shoes were re-soled (and there was, as far as I can tell, no loss of social cachet, by doing so). Our society uses a great deal of containers - jars, bottles etc, which could be standardised - and REUSED (The Germans seem to at least be addressing this issue) - it is the lable and the contents that give brand recognition - you don't need to make the bottle look like a gherkin or naked madonna! (oh - but the label must strip off easily....). Think about it - there is more energy in the container- for most products- than in the contents (and besides, they have potentially very LONG lives - think of the - no longer- ubiquitous milk bottle). Not a very good state of affairs.

I could go on - we really need to re-assess the technologies that we have availabel and the economic systems that promote certain attitudes to (mis)use.

Changes such as these would hardly impact on our 'quality of life' - we would just have to take a modicum more responsibility to ensure that they work smoothly (the German supermarkets with the bottle-sorting and refund scheme are an indication of a way to go).

I could go on - there are so many issues like this that need exploring.

Cheers

Hugh