1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
|
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>E.7 Can green consumerism stop the ecological crisis?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<p>
<H1>E.7 Can green consumerism stop the ecological crisis?</h1>
<p>
No. In fact, it could make it worse by creating new markets and thus
increasing growth. However, just so there is no misunderstanding: we fully
recognise that using recycled or renewable raw materials, reducing consumption
and buying <I>"ecologically friendly"</I> products and technologies <B>are</B> very
important,
and we would be the last to denounce such a thing. But such measures are
of very limited use as solutions to the ecological problems we face. At best
they can only delay, not prevent, capitalism's ultimate destruction of the
planet's ecological base.
<p>
Green consumerism is the only thing the establishment has to offer in the
face of mounting ecological destruction. Usually it boils down to nothing
more than slick advertising campaigns by big corporate polluters to hype
band-aid measures such as using a few recycled materials or contributing
money to a wildlife fund, which are showcased as <I>"concern for the
environment"</I> while off camera the pollution and devouring of non-renewable
resources goes on. They also engage in <I>"greenwashing"</I>, in which companies
lavishly
fund PR campaigns to paint themselves "green" without altering their current
polluting practices! Companies cannot face the fundamental cause of the
ecological
crisis in the "grow-or-die" principle of capitalism, nor do they address
the pernicious role of advertising or the lack of public control over
production and investment under capitalism. Hence it is a totally inadequate
solution.
<p>
Andrew Watson sums up green consumerism very eloquently as follows: <I>"green
consumerism, which is largely a cynical attempt to maintain profit
margins, does not challenge capital's eco-cidal accumulation, but actually
facilitates it by opening a new market. All products, no matter how
'green', cause some pollution, use some resources and energy, and cause
some ecological disturbance. This would not matter in a society in which
production was rationally planned, but in an exponentially expanding
economy, production, however 'green', would eventually destroy the Earth's
environment. Ozone-friendly aerosols, for example, still use other
harmful chemicals; create pollution in their manufacture, use and
disposal; and use large amounts of resources and energy. Of course, up to
now, the green pretensions of most companies have been exposed largely as
presenting an acceptably green image, with little or no substance. The
market is presented as the saviour of the environment. Environmental
concern is commodified and transformed into ideological support for
capitalism. Instead of raising awareness of the causes of the ecological
crisis, green consumerism mystifies them. The solution is presented as an
individual act rather than as the collective action of individuals
struggling for social change. The corporations laugh all the way to the
bank"</I> [<B>From Red to Green</B>, pp. 9-10]
<p>
Green consumerism, by its very nature, cannot challenge the "grow-or-die"
nature of capitalism. Even "green" companies must make a profit, and hence
must expand in order to survive. "Ethical" consumerism, like "ethical"
investment, is still based on profit making, the extraction of surplus
value from others. This is hardly "ethical," as it cannot challenge the
inequality in exchange that lies at the heart of capitalism nor the
authoritarian social relationships it creates.
<p>
In addition, since capitalism is a world system, companies can produce and
sell their non-green and dangerous goods elsewhere. Many of the products
and practices banned or boycotted in developed countries are sold and used
in developing ones. For example, Agent Orange (used as to defoliate
forests during the Vietnam War by the US) is used as an herbicide in the
Third World, as is DDT. Agent Orange contains one of the most toxic
compounds known to humanity and was responsible for thousands of deformed
children in Vietnam. Ciba-Geigy continued to sell Enterovioform (a drug
which caused blindness and paralysis in at least 10,000 Japanese users of
it) in those countries that permitted it to do so. Ciba-Geigy, by the way,
also sprayed a pesticide called Galecron on unprotected Egyptian children
to test its safety. The company later claimed it deeply regretted using
the children as "volunteers." Many companies have moved to developing
countries to escape the stricter pollution and labour laws in the
developed countries.
<p>
Neither does green consumerism question why it should be the ruling elites
within capitalism that decide what to produce and how to produce it.
Since these elites are driven by profit considerations, if it is profitable
to pollute, pollution will occur. Moreover, green consumerism does not
challenge the (essential) capitalist principle of consumption for the sake
of consumption, nor can it come to terms with the fact that "demand" is
created, to a large degree, by "suppliers," specifically by advertising
agencies that use a host of techniques to manipulate public tastes, as
well as using their financial clout to ensure that "negative" (i.e.
truthful) stories about companies' environmental records do not surface in
the mainstream media.
<p>
Because ethical consumerism is based <B>wholly</B> on market solutions to the
ecological crisis, it is incapable even of recognising the <B>root</B> cause of
that crisis, namely the atomising nature of market society and the social
relationships it creates. Atomised individuals ("soloists") cannot change
the world, and "voting" on the market hardly reduces their atomisation.
As Murray Bookchin argues, <I>"[t]ragically, these millions [of 'soloists']
have surrendered their social power, indeed, their very personalities, to
politicians and bureaucrats who live in a nexus of obedience and command
in which they are normally expected to play subordinate roles. <B>Yet this
is precisely the immediate cause of the ecological crisis of our time</B> --
a cause that has its historic roots in the market society that engulfs us."</I>
[<B>Toward an Ecological Society</B>, p. 81]
<p>
Until market society is dismantled, solutions like ethical consumerism
will be about as effective as fighting a forest fire with a water pistol.
Such solutions are doomed to failure because they promote individual
responses to social problems, problems that by their very nature require
collective action, and deal only with the symptoms, rather than focusing
on the cause of the problem in the first place.
<p>
</BODY>
</HTML>
|
