            E.5 Can ethical consumerism stop the ecological crisis?

   No. At best, it can have a limited impact in reducing environmental
   degradation and so postpone the ecological crisis. At worse, it could
   accelerate that crisis by creating new markets and thus increasing
   growth.

   Before discussing why and just so there is no misunderstanding, we must
   stress that anarchists fully recognise that using recycled or renewable
   raw materials, reducing consumption and buying "ecologically friendly"
   products and technologies are very important. As such, 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.

   Green consumerism is often the only thing capitalism 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 "concern for the environment" while off camera the pollution and
   devouring of non-renewable resources goes on. They also engage in
   "greenwashing", in which companies lavishly fund PR campaigns to paint
   themselves "green" without altering their current polluting practices!

   This means that apparently "green" companies and products actually are
   not. Many firms hire expensive Public Relations firms and produce
   advertisements to paint a false image of themselves as being
   ecologically friendly (i.e. perform "greenwashing"). This indicates a
   weakness of market economies -- they hinder (even distort) the flow of
   information required for consumers to make informed decisions. The
   market does not provide enough information for consumers to determine
   whether a product is actually green or not -- it just gives them a
   price supplemented by (often deliberately misleading) advertising
   designed to manipulate the consumer and present an appropriate
   corporate image. Consumers have to rely on other sources, many of which
   are minority journals and organisations and so difficult to find, to
   provide them with the accurate information required to countermand the
   power and persuasion of advertising and the work of PR experts. This
   helps explain why, for example, "large agribusiness firms are now
   attempting, like Soviet commissars, to stifle criticism of their
   policies" by means of "veggie libel laws." These laws, which in 2001
   had been passed in 13 American states ("backed by agribusiness") "make
   it illegal to criticise agricultural commodities in a manner
   inconsistent with 'reasonable' scientific evidence. The whole concept
   of 'veggie libel' laws is probably unconstitutional; nevertheless,
   these laws remain on the books." [Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation, p.
   266]

   We should not discount the impact of PR experts in shaping the way
   people see the world or decide to consume. A lot of resources are
   poured into corporate Public Relations in order to present a green
   image. "In the perverse world of corporate public relations," note
   critics John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, "propagandising and lobbying
   against environmental protection is called 'environmental' or 'green'
   PR. 'Greenwashing' is a more accurate pejorative now commonly used to
   describe the ways that polluters employ deceptive PR to falsely paint
   themselves an environmentally responsible public image . . . Today a
   virulent, pro-industry, anti-environmentalism is on the rise . . . PR
   experts . . . are waging and winning a war against environmentalists on
   behalf of corporate clients in the chemical, energy, food, automobile,
   forestry and mining industries." A significant amount of cash is spent
   (an estimated $1 billion a year by the mid-1990s) "on the services of
   anti-environmental PR professionals and on 'greenwashing' their
   corporate image." [Toxic Sludge is Good for You!, p. 125] See the
   chapter called "Silencing Spring" in Stauber's and Rampton's book Toxic
   Sludge is Good for You! for a good summary of this use of PR firms.

   Even apparently ecologically friendly firms like "The Body Shop" can
   present a false image of what they do. For example, journalist Jon
   Entine investigated that company in 1994 and discovered that only a
   minuscule fraction of its ingredients came from Trade Not Aid (a
   program claimed to aid developing countries). Entine also discovered
   that the company also used many outdated, off-the-shelf product
   formulas filled with non-renewable petrochemicals as well as animal
   tested ingredients. When Entine contacted the company he received libel
   threats and it hired a PR company to combat his story. [Stauber and
   Rampton, Op. Cit., pp. 74-5] This highlights the dangers of looking to
   consumerism to solve ecological problems. As Entine argued:

     "The Body Shop is a corporation with the privileges and power in
     society as all others. Like other corporations it makes products
     that are unsustainable, encourages consumerism, uses non-renewable
     materials, hires giant PR and law firms, and exaggerates its
     environment policies. If we are to become a sustainable society, it
     is crucial that we have institutions . . . that are truly
     sustainable. The Body Shop has deceived the public by trying to make
     us think that they are a lot further down the road to sustainability
     than they really are. We should . . . no longer . . . lionise the
     Body Shop and others who claim to be something they are not."
     [quoted by Stauber and Rampton, Op. Cit., p. 76]

   Even ignoring the distorting influence of advertising and
   corporate-paid PR, the fundamental issue remains of whether consumerism
   can actually fundamentally influence how business works. One
   environmental journalist puts the arguments well in his excellent book
   on "Fast Food" (from the industrialisation of farming, to the
   monopolisation of food processing, to the standardisation of food
   consumption it). As he puts corporations will "sell free-range,
   organic, grass-fed hamburgers if you demand it. They will sell whatever
   sells at a profit." [Eric Schlosser, Op. Cit., p. 269] He complements
   this position by suggesting various regulations and some role for trade
   unions.

   Which, of course, is true. It is equally true that we are not forced to
   buy any specific product, which is why companies spend so much in
   convincing us to buy their products. Yet even ignoring the influence of
   advertising, it is unlikely that using the market will make capitalism
   nicer. Sadly, the market rewards the anti-social activities that
   Schlosser and other environmentalists chronicle. As he himself notes,
   the "low price of a fast food hamburger does not reflect its real cost
   . . . The profits of the fast food chains have been made possible by
   the losses imposed on the rest of society." [Op. Cit., p. 261] This
   means that the idea that by using the market we can "reform" capitalism
   is flawed simply because even "good" companies have to make a profit
   and so will be tempted to cut costs, inflict them on third parties
   (such as workers, consumers and the planet). The most obvious form of
   such externalities is pollution. Such anti-social and anti-ecological
   behaviour makes perfect business sense as prices fall when costs are
   passed on to others in the form of externalities. Thus firms which
   employ debt-slaves in sweatshops while polluting the atmosphere in a
   third-world dictatorship will have lower costs and so prices than those
   employing unionised workers under eco-friendly regulations.

   The amazing thing is that being concerned about such issues is
   considered as a flaw in economics. In fact, seeking the lowest price
   and ignoring the social and ecological impact of a product is
   "considered virtuousness" by the market and by economists for, as green
   economist E. F. Schumacher, pointed out "[i]f a buyer refused a good
   bargain because he suspected that the cheapness of the goods in
   question stemmed from exploitation or other despicable practices
   (except theft), he would be open to criticism of behaving
   'uneconomically' which is viewed as nothing less than a fall from
   grace. Economists and others are wont to treat such eccentric behaviour
   with derision if not indignation. The religion of economics has its own
   code of ethics, and the First Commandment is to behave 'economically.'"
   [Small is Beautiful, p. 30] And, of course, such a consumer would face
   numerous competitors who will happily take advantage of such
   activities.

   Then there is the issue of how the market system hides much more
   information than it gives (a factor we will return to in [1]section
   I.1.2). Under the price system, customers have no way of knowing the
   ecological (or social) impact of the products they buy. All they have
   is a price and that simply does not indicate how the product was
   produced and what costs were internalised in the final price and which
   were externalised. Such information, unsurprisingly, is usually
   supplied outside the market by ecological activists, unions, customer
   groups and so on. Then there is the misinformation provided by the
   companies themselves in their adverts and PR campaigns. The skilfully
   created media images of advertising can easily swamp the efforts of
   these voluntary groups to inform the public of the facts of the social
   and environmental costs of certain products. Besides, any company has
   the threat of court action to silence their critics as the cost in
   money, resources, energy and time to fight for free speech in court is
   an effective means to keep the public ignorant about the dark side of
   capitalism.

   This works the other way too. Simply put, a company has no idea whether
   you not buying a product is based on ethical consumption decisions or
   whether it is due to simple dislike of the product. Unless there is an
   organised consumer boycott, i.e. a collective campaign, then the
   company really has no idea that it is being penalised for its
   anti-ecological and/or anti-social actions. Equally, corporations are
   so interlinked that it can make boycotts ineffective. For example,
   unless you happened to read the business section on the day McDonalds
   bought a sizeable share in Pret-a-Manger you would have no idea that
   going there instead of McDonalds would be swelling the formers profits.

   Ultimately, the price mechanism does not provide enough information for
   the customer to make an informed decision about the impact of their
   purchase and, by reducing prices, actively rewards the behaviour
   Schlosser condemns. After all, what is now "organic" production was
   just the normal means of doing it. The pressures of the market, the
   price mechanism so often suggested as a tool for change, ensured the
   industrialisation of farming which so many now rightly condemn. By
   reducing costs, market demand increased for the cheaper products and
   these drove the other, more ecologically and socially sound, practices
   out of business.

   Which feeds into the issue of effective demand and income limitations.
   The most obvious problem is that the market is not a consumer democracy
   as some people have more votes than others (in fact, the world's
   richest people have more "votes" than the poorest billions, combined!).
   Those with the most "votes" (i.e. money) will hardly be interested in
   changing the economic system which placed them in that position.
   Similarly, those with the least "votes" will be more willing to buy
   ecologically destructive products simply to make ends meet rather than
   any real desire to do so. In addition, one individual's decision not to
   buy something will easily be swamped by others seeking the best deal,
   i.e. the lowest prices, due to economic necessity or ignorance. Money
   (quantity) counts in the market, not values (quality).

   Then there is the matter of sourcing of secondary products. After all,
   most products we consume are made up of a multitude of other goods and
   it is difficult, if not impossible, to know where these component parts
   come from. Thus we have no real way of knowing whether your latest
   computer has parts produced in sweatshops in third-world countries nor
   would a decision not to buy it be communicated that far back down the
   market chain (in fact, the company would not even know that you were
   even thinking about buying a product unless you used non-market means
   to inform them and then they may simply dismiss an individual as a
   crank).

   So the notion that consumerism can be turned to pressurising companies
   is deeply flawed. This is not to suggest that we become unconcerned
   about how we spend our money. Far from it. Buying greener products
   rather than the standard one does have an impact. It just means being
   aware of the limitations of green consumerism, particularly as a means
   of changing the world. Rather, we must look to changing how goods are
   produced. This applies, of course, to shareholder democracy as well.
   Buying shares in a firm rarely results in an majority at the annual
   meetings nor, even if it did, does it allow an effective say in the
   day-to-day decisions management makes.

   Thus green consumerism is hindered by the nature of the market -- how
   the market reduces everything to price and so hides the information
   required to make truly informed decisions on what to consume. Moreover,
   it is capable of being used to further ecological damage by the use of
   PR to paint a false picture of the companies and their environmental
   activities. In this way, the general public think things are improving
   while the underlying problems remain (and, perhaps, get worse). Even
   assuming companies are honest and do minimise their environmental
   damage they cannot face the fundamental cause of the ecological crisis
   in the "grow-or-die" principle of capitalism ("green" firms need to
   make profits, accumulate capital and grow bigger), 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.

   As green Sharon Beder notes, green marketing aims at "increasing
   consumption, not reducing it. Many firms [seek] to capitalise on new
   markets created by rising environmental consciousness" with such trends
   prompting "a surge of advertisements and labels claiming environmental
   benefits. Green imagery was used to sell products, and caring for the
   environment became a marketing strategy" and was a "way of redirecting
   a willingness to spend less into a willingness to buy green products."
   This means that firms can "expand their market share to include
   consumers that want green products. Since manufacturers still make
   environmentally damaging products and retailers still sell non-green
   products on shelves next to green ones, it is evident that green
   marketing is merely a way of expanding sales. If they were genuinely
   concerned to protect the environment they would replace the unsound
   products with sound ones, not just augment their existing lines."
   Moreover, green marketing "does not necessarily mean green products,
   but false and misleading claims can be hard for consumers to detect"
   while the "most cynical marketers simply use environmental imagery to
   conjure up the impression that a product is good for the environment
   without making any real claims at all." Ultimately, green consumerism
   "reduces people to consumers. Their power to influence society is
   reduced to their purchasing power." It "does not deal with issues such
   as economic growth on a finite planet, the power of transnational
   corporations, and the way power is structured in our society." [Global
   Spin, pp. 176-80]

   Andrew Watson sums up green consumerism very eloquently as follows:

     "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." [From Green to Red, pp. 9-10]

   "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 and
   power that lies at the heart of capitalism nor the authoritarian social
   relationships it creates. Therefore it cannot really undermine the
   ecologically destructive nature of capitalism.

   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. Many companies have moved to developing countries to escape the
   stricter pollution and labour laws in the developed countries.

   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.

   Because ethical consumerism is based wholly on market solutions to the
   ecological crisis, it is incapable even of recognising a key root cause
   of that crisis, namely the atomising nature of capitalism 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, "[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. Yet this is precisely the immediate cause of
   the ecological crisis of our time -- a cause that has its historic
   roots in the market society that engulfs us." [Toward an Ecological
   Society, p. 81] This means that fighting ecological destruction today
   must be a social movement rather than one of individual consumption
   decisions or personalistic transformation. These can go on without
   questioning the ecocidal drive of capitalism which "will insidiously
   simplify the biosphere (making due allowances for 'wilderness' reserves
   and theme parks), steadily reduce the organic to the inorganic and the
   complex to the simple, and convert soil into sand -- all at the expense
   of the biosphere's integrity and viability. The state will still be an
   ever-present means for keeping oppressed people at bay and will
   'manage' whatever crises emerge as best it can. Ultimately, society
   will tend to become more and more authoritarian, public life will
   atrophy." [Bookchin, "The Future of the Ecology Movement," pp. 1-20,
   Which Way for the Ecology Movement?, p. 14]

   All this is not to suggest that individual decisions on what to consume
   are irrelevant, far from it. Nor are consumer boycotts a waste of time.
   If organised into mass movements and linked to workplace struggle they
   can be very effective. It is simply to point out that individual
   actions, important as they are, are no solution to social problems.
   Thus Bookchin:

     "The fact is that we are confronted by a thoroughly irrational
     social system, not simply by predatory individuals who can be won
     over to ecological ideas by moral arguments, psychotherapy, or even
     the challenges of a troubled public to their products and behaviour
     . . . One can only commend the individuals who by virtue of their
     consumption habits, recycling activities. and appeals for a new
     sensibility undertake public activities to stop ecological
     degradation. Each surely does his or her part. But it will require a
     much greater effort -- and organised, clearly conscious, and
     forward-looking political movement -- to meet the basic challenges
     posed by our aggressively anti-ecological society.

     "Yes, we as individuals should change our lifestyles as much as
     possible, but it is the utmost short-sightedness to believe that
     that is all or even primarily what we have to do. We need to
     restructure the entire society, even as we engage in lifestyle
     changes and single-issue struggles against pollution, nuclear power
     plants, the excessive use of fossil fuels, the destruction of soil,
     and so forth. We must have a coherent analysis of the deep-seated
     hierarchical relationships and systems of domination, as well as
     class relationships and economic exploitation, that degrade people
     as well as the environment."
     ["The Ecological Crisis, Socialism, and the need to remake society,"
     pp. 1-10, Society and Nature, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 4]

   Using the capitalist market to combat the effects produced by that same
   market is no alternative. Until capitalism and the state are
   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. Real change comes from
   collective struggle, not individual decisions within the market place
   which cannot combat the cancerous growth principle of the capitalist
   economy. As such, ethical consumerism does not break from the logic of
   capitalism and so is doomed to failure.

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI1.html#seci12
