Mythbusters: More debate about conscious consumers

by Michaella, October 5, 2009 at 5:10pm

Sustainable consumption: does it mean living a simple life that benefits the environment, spending money wisely, or both?

The Shelton group, an ad agency specializing in motivating consumers to make sustainable choices, found that "people who buy eco-friendly products at least occasionally are more interested in spending their money wisely than in improving the environment."

Buying green goods has gotten a bad rap recently: Mother Jones reported that researchers found a correlation between buying eco-friendly products and increased selfish behavior like cheating and stealing. I was under the impression that there was a positive correlation on being thrifty and environmentally conscious. New Dream board member Juliet Schor's recent survey found Conscious Consumers tend to be more likely to be politically active. Who to believe? The Washington Post recently wrote an article featuring ten green myths about green consumption. The article spells out the actual costs of supposedly sustainable actions which seem to be cost effective and good for the environment.

The first myth, "never leave the lights on when you leave a room" surprised me, due to the fact my mother always reminds me to turn off the light when I leave my room to conserve energy. Though the fact that turning compact fluorescent lightbulbs on and off within a short time period may shorten the operating life, I was a bit wary about other claims such as the fact locally produced foods do not have a big impact on reducing your carbon footprint.

 

Myth

You can reduce your carbon footprint by eating locally grown foods.

 

Reality

While locavores often cite "food miles" -- that is, the distance food is shipped to market -- as a reason to eat local, Christopher L. Weber and H. Scott Matthews, professors at Carnegie Mellon University, say that transportation accounts for only 11 percent of total greenhouse-gas emissions associated with food, while 83 percent is related to production. Produce grown close to home may be fresher and taste better. But food grown where conditions are most auspicious will require less fertilizer, pesticides, labor and investment in tools, says Art Carden, who teaches economics at Rhodes College in Memphis. If you really want to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet, cut back on consumption of red meat, which Weber and Matthews say is responsible for producing 150 percent more greenhouse gases than chicken or fish.

In these cases, such as this it is important to take a look at both sides of an issue before making a decision on whether or not something is true or false. Environmental action isn't always an either/or: If we can reduce some of that 11% of greenhouse gases stemming from food transport, why shouldn't we? Besides,the locavore movement is not just about calculations: it's about connecting consumers with the people who produce their food. Does any 3000-mile Caesar salad make sense, regardless of how "auspicious" the growing conditions are?

Check out information on the local farmer's markets located on the marketplace website.

Feel free to share your thoughts on whether or not you believe the statements are "green myths" or reality.