Without a doubt the phrase and practice of ‘going green’ is one of this countries fastest growing phenomenon. Celebrities and homemakers alike are becoming increasingly aware of how to minimize their impact on the environment. Fascinating new technologies are popping up everywhere offering consumers opportunities to make lifestyle changes that are more environmentally conscious. Companies are innovating and changing in order to become the ‘most green’ in their respective industries. ‘Going green’ appears to have tremendous momentum, but I would argue that there is an element missing from this movement that, if included, would help propel environmentally conscious living even further and faster. The element that’s missing from the green movement is a proper emphasis on the economic viability of adopting green principles.
There are two primary obstacles standing in the way of green technologies and practices from becoming mainstream among most Americans; the initial costs and an understanding of why it’s important to go green. Many of the big flashy green technological innovations (hybrid cars, solar panel electricity, grey water recycling systems, radiant wall heating system, indoor greenhouse, earthships, etc.) require an initial investment that many Americans cannot afford. The second obstacle is even more problematic because the issue is philosophical for the most part. Philosophical change takes much longer as people must understand and evaluate what they know and decide that their knowledge could benefit from new knowledge. Fortunately there is a philosophical principle embedded within American society that speaks to all people very clearly, money. It is through an appeal to this unifying entity that green industry should focus more of their attention in order to grow a movement that has enormous potential (I will not make the argument for money as a sound and moral foundation in which to advocate the green movement beyond stating that I think it is such a foundation).
The first question that needs to be addressed is how can expensive green technologies, technologies with obvious benefits, become more accessible (cheaper and more widely available) to more people. One could say that that process has already begun with those who are able to afford such technologies taking advantage of fantastic innovations. More and more we see celebrities and the exceptionally wealthy make small changes in their lifestyle that have the potential to impact other consumers. Solar panels and hybrid SUVs can be found in an increasing number of homes in Beverly Hills. From the other end of the perspective, grass roots type community movements are springing up across the nation as people are learning more about organic produce, simple green improvements for their homes, recycling programs, and the like. The result of these miniature movements is an increase in the number of products and services offered on the ‘green market’. As the market grows, more products become available. As more products become available, competition increases. Better competitors are determined by who can offer the best and cheapest products. This example, of course, is a basic economic principle. We see examples of this principle in action with the ever increasing green products available (just walk into any Lowes or Home Depot), the falling costs in various green technologies, and even the creation of a green television network (Planet Green). All of these phenomena would not exist without a growing market. So the issue of green products becoming less expensive and more accessible seems to be a problem that should continue to get better so long as consumers see value in what they are buying.
It would seem then that to expedite an explosion of green technology and green living one would have to show the consumer that it is in their best interest to invest in green products. Since products and services are acquired through an exchange of money the most logical strategy would be to appeal to the economic advantages of choosing green products over non-green products. It may simply be an artifact of those who started the green movement that such an emphasis was not a part of the agenda from the beginning, but continuing to deemphasize economic benefits to going green in favor of an ambiguous sense of altruistic sacrifice for the sake of the environment is misguided at best. Most Americans live apart from the environmental elements and processes that sustain their life and lifestyle. While many see this as a problem I would argue that such an issue doesn’t matter. In terms of green technologies, for the most part, what’s green is also what’s more economical in the long run. This idea is due to nature of green technologies and innovation; such innovation leads to improvements in efficiency of production and waste disposal. Humans, like all other organisms, are products of the environment and must live with what they produce. Human progress depends on how well we manage what we produce and the byproducts (waste) of such production. Getting people to understand this principle, or rather think about this principle when deciding what to buy is unrealistic. Luckily such a principle can be represented when a person chooses to buy solar panels for their new home rather than connecting to the power grid. There may be a variety of reasons why they made such a decision, but I would almost guarantee that such a decision is not made without a foreseeable economic payoff. And so should be the impetus for promoting green products, not petitions to people’s conscience about how buying this widget helps prevent polar bear extinction because it reduces greenhouse gasses. People don’t think about polar bears when they’re buying a car. They think about whether or not making such a purchase makes sense given the price.
The pitch for any green product or service should be simple: Buy our product because it will save you X amount of money because it’s X times more efficient than the other product. IBM has a fantastic line of commercials highlighting the fact that economics and the environment don’t have to oppose each other. Most people do not make decision without considering how things will benefit them. The easiest way to appeal to this characteristic of humanity is to appeal to what we care about most, our means of sustaining and improving our lives. Money is what we’ve chosen to represent our means of survival and progress. Our survival and progress depends on a healthy and efficient use of our environment. Why not take full advantage of such a relationship? A greener, cheaper, more efficient future is waiting, we must simply acknowledge that those three adjectives are one in the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment