The brands and trends that have sprouted from a growing eco-consciousness are exclusively for the rich
While scrolling through Facebook, there always seems to be a new brand advertising shampoo bars, reusable straws, and even unwrapped cotton swabs. These products all appeal to the growing trend of eco-consumerism. People want to use fewer plastics, have reusable items, and reduce their carbon footprint. Though the underlying sentiment is well-meaning, companies have taken advantage of the rise of eco-consciousness, using age-old advertising techniques to encourage people to rid themselves of all their old products and begin anew. The ideas of minimalism and eco-friendliness have warped into new monsters that are only adding to our wastefulness and increasing carbon emissions.
Minimalism is at the core of the idea of conservation. If we keep only the items we need, we waste less. Such is the hope. However, the transformative clarity created by ridding ourselves of “useless” or “emotionally extraneous” items has its consequences. There may be guides on how to make your own space beautiful and serene, but there aren’t many about which items can be recycled, donated, or repurposed. The junk that was cramping someone’s Zen style is now in a garbage bag in a landfill site. Out of sight, out of mind, but never actually out of the ecosystem.
Minimalism can also be surprisingly elitist. When people throw out things they don’t need, they often get rid of items that would likely have been kept by a poorer, more frugal person. For example, a richer person might throw out an old television or laptop, but anyone in a tricky financial situation would likely keep it. It is better to have a backup if something breaks, and often cheaper to repair something than buy a new device (see: The Benefits of Repair Cafés). A richer person might also throw away all their clothes, except a few favourite items. They might not see any problems with running the washer and dryer more times per week, whereas a poorer person with a demanding work schedule might find the process time-consuming and expensive. Even menstruation products, such as blood-absorbing underwear, reusable cloth pads, menstrual cups, reusable tampons, and biodegradable products can be prohibitively expensive and require extra time for cleaning. A menstruating person on a budget probably could not afford to buy these products. In this sense, following strict, prescriptive minimalism costs poor people more than just keeping all their original things.
Eco-friendliness has become something of an exclusive club, with its own name-brands and subscription services. Reusable containers and travel mugs do help keep waxed paper cups out of the landfill, and metal straws, if you are able-bodied and do not need flexible straws to drink, can also help cut down on single-use plastic. However, the problem lies in the branding of eco-consciousness. As with all other trends, people who consider themselves environmentally friendly tend to carry certain brands, such as Swell and Keep Cup. Some of these people are also getting rid of old products that weren’t branded as eco-friendly in favour of new products, even if the older items could still be reused. No one needs to buy a new set of Japanese-inspired bento-lunchboxes if they already have existing (albeit mismatched) Tupperware. No one needs to buy a certain kind of water bottle if they have an old canteen or even a washed bottle from a drink they bought earlier. This desire only comes from the longing to start anew, to become the environmentally conscious warrior we were always meant to be (with the help of these products).
Subscription services create another problem. Some curate items from local, environmentally friendly brands, while others offer entirely plastic-free, “unwrapped” goods. While catering to the delight of having neatly packaged novelties and reducing our personal carbon emissions, the transportation of these goods across countries requires great amounts of fuel. Shopping online for most products generally emits carbon dioxide during shipment, but subscriptions make for a consistent increase in emissions. In addition, subscriptions often bundle desired products with ones consumers do not even want, which leads to increased wastefulness and added carbon dioxide emissions from transporting the extra weight. This is the double-edged sword of eco-consumerism. Though everyone is entitled to buy what they like, those looking to be more eco-friendly must ask themselves if the small reduction in plastic packaging truly outweighs the emissions created in delivering their products. If we followed the idea that true eco-friendliness is reusing, recycling, and reducing overall carbon emissions, then we would realize that most of what we need to get started is already at the back of our cupboards. We simply need to be creative enough to see that the solutions are here.
Minimalism and eco-friendliness, while valuable in the effort to reduce our personal impact on the environment, can easily be misguided towards counterproductive purchases. Though it can be alluring to start fresh with products from an eco-warrior brand, we must think carefully about the companies’ true goals. Being environmentally conscious has never been about owning better things, but about using what one already has. If we forget this fact, then we fall into the same patterns of consumerism that made our society wasteful in the first place.
Comments are closed.