Sustainability vs economy: greenwash or brainwash?

So green is the new black, even Argos are advertising environmentally friendly products such as recycling bins and rotary clothes lines. But I’m not so sure that anything has actually changed. Some retailers have made a real half hearted effort at looking sustainable. Despite Argos’s double page spread of green products they still sell patio heaters and their products are shipped from the other side of the world. Woolworths aren’t even bothering to try and are going with the economy instead: as prices on everything else are going up, woollies are selling kids clothes from 70p. The irony of getting an Asian man to advertise clothes made in Asia isn’t lost on me. But the fact remain that if they can afford to sell t-shirts for 70p then someone along the line is missing out. As things go from bad to worse in the UK economy its likely that more people will be making decisions based on price rather than sustainability or humanitarian issues. Reports show that sales of sewing machines are increasing and more and more people are learning how to make meals out of leftovers. Maybe we’re entering a new phase of economising where consumers are actually consuming less and making do with what they have rather than just replacing it with cheap items made by underpaid workers in developing countries. We can only hope.

Swings and roundabouts: why some things just have to be done the unethical way

It may sounds a little harsh but sometimes you have to do things the unethical way. I’m not talking about anything big like human rights or killing animals, but the little things. I’m all for being ethical where you can but the whole point of my ethical crusade is doing things that aren’t going to impact on the way I lead my life but make a huge change in my world view. For instance, it’s been 7 months since I started my ethical shopping and not many people know that I refuse to buy things in chain stores. OK, I haven’t actually been out shopping with anyone in that time but I’m not wearing rags or anything. I’ve been doing really well with buying things from charity shops and small local stores and it’s even changed the way I buy food. I’m buying local, organic and fair trade food as much as I can now, despite the higher prices. But there are some things I have discovered I can’t live without. For example, finding shoes that fit in second hand shops isn’t very practical and small local shoe shops seem to be fairly rare. Also CDs and DVDs (although not essential are great stress relief when you’re a busy racing rat) are hard to find. I have bought some great finds from charity shops though. And finding a pair of black trousers if just impossible! But overall, I’m pleased with myself. My frivolous spending is totally under control and limited to charity shops only.

So imagine my confusion when I read this article in the developments magazine saying that avoiding products from far flung places could have a negative impact on the people in developing countries. Even if a product isn’t fair trade it doesn’t necessarily mean that the product is taking advantage of people. The trouble is; we consumers can only make decisions with the information that is available to us. Until someone develops a food labelling system that takes into account the people, the environment and the distance the product has travelled and this labelling system is rolled out to every product available, then we can only do our best. We just have to read the labels, judge the packaging, the distance and hope we’re making the right decision.

Is being green the new black?

It seems now that being green is becoming mainstream. In my local cornershop the other day I found PG tips tea bags sold in association with the rain forest alliance meaning that at least 50% of the tea bags were the equivalent of fair trade. I also found Andrex toilet roll in association with WWF. Pedigree dog food is supporting dog adoptions too. I’d like to think that this means that consumers are demanding more ethically conscience brands, but the cynical part of me wonders if the big brands are just jumping on the bandwagon. Maybe they are afraid that they will lose out as more and more people are switching to organic, fair-trade and free range so are taking steps to be more competitive. I suppose, either way it doesn’t really matter. As long as some charities and local people benefit then whether it is a real change or just a marketing idea then it’s worthwhile. But I really do hope that this isn’t just a passing phase but that its means that ethical products are actually here to stay.

Recycling problems: living in a disposable world

I spent most of the day yesterday polishing furniture. Whilst I lovingly worked the wax into the tatty looking wood I thought of my friends. One of whom, until recently, thought that furniture polish came in a spray can with a duck on and the other who has told me that she has never polished a pair of shoes in her life. This got my thinking: why is everything so disposable? It started off with disposable nappies, which is fair enough (being face to face with poop isn’t everyone’s cup of tea), but now it seems that everything is designed to be thrown out. You can buy disposable cleaning wipes (because washing out a cloth is such a hardship), use kitchen towel instead of a mop, use make up removing wipes instead of a flannel and the old favourite, Kleenex instead of hankies. I use the brand name here on purpose as the manufacture of Kleenex in particular is wiping out vast tracks of forest throughout the world.

The government is urging us all to recycle more but they don’t seem to mind that it is becoming increasingly hard to recycle and minimise waste. We are bombarded with easy solutions to domestic problems; advertising tells us to pour chemicals down our drains to clear blockages even though a simple plunger is far cheaper and better for the environment. Until there is more education to consumers about these wasteful products or the government brings in legislation to make all products recyclable then I can’t see how things will change. I suppose I’m rather old school, doing things the hard way and polishing my shoes and furniture to make them last longer. Most people my generation would just replace them. But there goes my guilt again, every time I throw something away.

Can everyone afford to be ethical?

There has been a lot in the press recently about being green and being ethical with regards to energy bills and free range chickens. Most people would agree that it usually comes down to a matter of choice. It may cost more to switch to a green energy tariff or buy a free range chicken but most people can afford a couple of pounds a week extra to do their bit. My opinion is that is you are a bit strapped for cash them maybe smoke or drink less to save the money to afford these things (that is assuming you have enough spare cash for cigarettes and alcohol: no-one should expect families on the breadline to make their lives any harder). The real question is ‘where do you draw the line?’

I’ve been on my ethical shopping crusade for several months now and it’s been fairly successful. I have mostly been avoiding temptation and staying away from shops. I have walked past all the high street sales and ducked into the charity shops instead. So I’m feeling pretty snug and self righteous with my ethical shopping but I have struck upon a rather massive spanner in the shopping works: I have bought a house. The house isn’t the problem, its second (or third, or fourth) hand and it’s not from a high street chain store but how do I decorate it? The house needs a little work and I’m viewing it as akin to a piece of second hand clothing that needs a little repair work before I can wear it. My dilemma is do I buy a great environmentally friendly paint like ecopaint or scrimp every penny to pay the mortgage and just buy it from B&Q?

At what point do I, or anyone else for that matter, say ‘enough is enough, I’ve done my bit’ and go with the easy and cheaper option? It’s all well and good when the government and media start telling everyone to be green and turn our thermostats down but when we’re shivering with cold under three layers of blankets isn’t it time to think about ourselves again? I think some of us actually could go the whole hog if we thought that MPs and government officials were tucked up shivering in their blankets too but I sincerely doubt they are. It is a matter of personal choice and I know many people choice not to even think about it. Being ethical is difficult and it can become expensive. I have drawn my line and it lies between need and want. I need food and I need paint. I only want clothes, conditioner and non essential bits and bobs. I’ll buy food (although I try to get local, organic and free range as much as I can) and I’ll buy paint. My clothes and other frivolous spends will be ethically sourced.

Free range food: What is the price of freedom?

You can’t help but to have noticed that more and more supermarkets are starting to stock free range and organic produce. These previously speciality foods are slowly making their way into the mainstream and its about time too. Organic produce has been around for donkey’s years but it has taken such a long time to build up the amount of support it has got now. But it’s still not nearly enough, which is why the TV chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall has launched his chicken out campaign to raise awareness of the poor conditions of most of the chickens in this country. Really there is no excuse for us to be keeping animals in these kinds of conditions. I’m sure most peoples’ excuse for not buying free range is that it’s too expensive but then it boils down to personal choices. I believe that everyone (within reason) can afford free range. By cutting down on luxuries such as alcohol, cigarettes and takeaways you can easily save the couple of pounds that would make the difference between intensively farmed chicken and free range. But then sadly a percentage of people in this country will not care or just won’t bother to think about it.

Low energy light bulbs – the great mercury shock

Like many people these days I’m keen to reduce my carbon footprint and do all the usual energy saving stuff. Changing your tungsten light bulbs to energy saving bulbs is one of the easiest ways to make a difference without breaking the bank. So I, like most people, found the recent news that these ‘planet saving’ light bulbs are in fact fairly toxic rather shocking. It’s now come to light that low energy light bulbs contain mercury and need to be disposed of by the council and good luck to you if you break one! I’m familiar with the recycling of electrical waste legislation and I know that new electrical goods have to have an ‘end of life’ strategy incorporated into their design. And this is why I’m so confused about this whole light bulbs mess. Why isn’t there any information on the box about how to dispose of them? Are they really better for the environment when they contain mercury? And most worrying of all; are people going to switch back to the old style energy hungry light bulbs because they are afraid? At a time when people are switching to organic produce and avoiding parabens in toiletries it’s surprising that something labelled as green can be so deceptively dangerous.