Is Sustainability Only for the Privileged?
With the recent news of widespread fires across the United States, I’ve begun to think deeply once again about the effects of individual sustainability and the effect it has on the environment. Sustainability is generally defined as the avoidance of the depletion of natural resources in order to maintain an ecological balance. As we’ve come to know it, being sustainable means consuming less and creating less waste.
Sustainability in our day-to-day actions often takes form in buying reusable products and shopping at thrift stores, to the point where it has become trendy. Making sustainability “trendy” is helpful because more people will partake in eco-friendly practices and it makes consumers more aware of what goes into their products. However, companies also hop on this trend and start marketing products as “green” and “eco-friendly” without the facts to back this up. This is commonly known as green-washing. Green-washing products is essentially like lying to the consumer about how the products are made in order to justify an increase in price or bring in a new market of people.
As more and more companies release sustainable products, it’s crucial to analyze their legitimacy and also their reasons for selling sustainable products. You might remember when Hydroflasks became super popular last year even though each bottle sells for about $40. Reusable bottles have been around for years yet Hydroflask became popular for selling a more expensive version! We must think critically about the balance between sustainability and affordability. For example, if companies were truly adamant about their sustainability initiatives, wouldn’t their prices reflect this? Hydroflask isn’t the only company guilty of excluding consumers. Tesla and Reformation are some others that come to mind. It’s important to note that since certain brands are more ethical, the products can cost more to reflect the use of organic materials. But, as sustainability becomes “trendy”, there’s a rise in people shaming those who can’t participate. That’s where we get into dangerous territory.
There are many people who want to be sustainable but can’t afford that lifestyle. For example, paper products are much cheaper than the sustainable replacement of bamboo utensils and stainless steel mugs. We must recognize that in order for sustainability to be effective, it must be inclusive. I recently learned about how banning plastic straws is actually dangerous for people with disabilities. Banning plastic straws was all anyone talked about just a few months ago on social media and it quickly garnered support. But, this argument was mainly coming from able-bodied people who can afford metal straws or don’t need straws at all. In Alice Wong’s article on eater.com, she explains why plastic straws are essential to her day-to-day life and that banning is a serious issue. Many people need straws for drinks and need other plastic products like bags and water bottles available to them as well.
The sustainability movement should include voices from all different kinds of people who have different kinds of needs. These plastic products that we’ve labeled as wasteful are not wasteful for all and that’s important to be said. I believe the movement should focus on those who are choosing to not be sustainable, not those who can’t afford to be. As I close my case on this point, I’d like to note that sustainability is essential to our survival. But the best way to produce less waste is just to buy less products and hold corporations responsible for their actions. As individuals, we hold power by being sustainable in our everyday actions. But we also have a lot of purchasing power and can change the consumer goods industry for the better.
