EKOS Communications, Inc.

I finished my last blog with the implication that even so-called "ethical" or "green" consumers may be significantly contributing to the challenge of bringing renewable energy to the market place. Where does this allegation come from? In part from an article that appeared in the Globe and Mail a few days back. It reported on a study conducted by researchers from the University of Leeds in the UK. The study found that "green shoppers were more likely to apply their ethical standards to purchasing everyday items, like food or clothing..." however, "they would compromiise those same ideals when it came down to buying more expensive items." (1) Said one of the researchers: "With goods like foord, consumers find it easier to buy green products because they can experiment, it's cheap, and if they don't like it, they can buy something else the next week. Whereas, with some of the bigger items, like fridges and cars, price comes in big time there, because, there's more of a risk. It really reduces their environmental values." (2) These are generalized conclusions. At a finer degree of analysis, the study identified at least three types of 'green' consumers: "Translators are green in some aspects of their lives. They are motivated by a sense of trying to "do the right thing" and are open to change and willing to make a certain amount of sacrifice if they see a clear rationale for adjusting their lifestyle. Exceptors have a personal philosophy about consumption, sustainability is a priority in every aspect of their lives. All their consumption choices try to achieve the least environmental impact with the most social justice Selectors are the most common type of green consumer. They act as green or ethical consumers in one aspect of their lives, like being avid recyclers, eating only organic food, or supporting fair trade, but are less focused on other issues." (3) This last group contains folks who rarely see or acknowledge contradictions in their choices, such as driving a few blocks to buy organic foods. Even the highly conscientious exceptors have their "blind spots" such as the purchase of certain luxury items which come with high environmental and social costs. Consider the tonnes of toxic materials produced in the manufacture of electronic products, such as computers, personal digital assistants, cellphones and portable media players, each year and then subsequently released into the environment when they are discarded for the newest technological innovation. The numbers are staggering and frightening. Now let me be the first to amid that, as much as I aspire to be the greenest of the exceptors, I fall short in countless little ways, not the least of which is my dependence on many of the electronic products just mentioned for the work I do through ekostv.com. I'll also confess to passing up "green" products if I perceive them too expensive. Two points arise here. First, tying back to the theme I've been developing, it becomes clear from this study that, for the renewable energy sector to gain sufficient traction to be a more immediate solution to our high-carbon diet, there is an urgent need for tax-shifting such that the cost to consumers for these technologies is reduced, while the cost of high greenhouse gas emitting technologies is increased, prompting consumers to choice the former over the latter. The second point is the issue of apparent hypocrisy among ethical or green consumers, including myself. I'll address this issue in my next blog. References: 1. Deveau, Scott. "'Green' consumers just as likely to succumb to a good deal" a Globe and Mail Update. Posted Oct. 30, 2006. Retrieved Oct. 30, 2006 from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061030.wgreen1030/BNStory/ Science/home 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid.