by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
The greatest problem, in my opinion, with eco-friendly products, goods and services, as well as taking things for recycling, etc., is that the costs of most of those things puts them well beyond the reach of the poorer strata of society.
Let us not even talk about the poor in countries not as “rich” as the USA, the UK and Western Europe in general, or Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
It is nigh on impossible for those that do not have a car, for instance, to bring glass, cans and such to the recycling centers and there is also no real incentive for anyone to do so in the UK. If there be payment on the other end for bringing in the glass bottles and jars, the cans, and what-have-you, as there is in the USA, as an example, then just maybe but. Nor do many of those poorer people in the Western societies have a way to, say, compost food waste, without incurring the cost of, for example, buying an indoor composting unit. Then again, if they do not have a means to compost food waste they more than likely also do not have a way to make use of such compost produced.
Other eco goods and services are also, basically, unfordable to those in the lower and poorer strata of society in our developed world, e.g. the working class and even the lower middle class. Now, with the “credit crunch” biting this is going to be even more so the case.
While there are things that we all, I know, can do without it costing us really anything, the so-called green habits and the green mindset (we shall talk about that in due course – the mindset, that is), others are just well out of reach of those groups; financially that is, for those that are on a low and fixed income.
All of us can turn off the lights in the house when they are not in use and not needed. Does the landing light really need to be on when no one is using the landing and everyone is in the lounge? Or the lights on the stairs when no one is going up or down them? Same with any other light in any other location. If you do not need it then turn it off. It saves money aside from emissions and whatever else and is therefore good for wallet and Mother Earth.
The same is true as regards to turning down the thermostat of the heating by a couple of degrees to say 18 Celsius. This alone makes a great saving for oneself as well as for the Earth. Who needs to have the heating on in the house at 25 Celsius or even higher. That's fine for a sauna but for the living room and even bedrooms it is not funny.
Turning off appliances instead of leaving them on standby is another thing we all, rich and poor alike can do and it will make us just a little richer if we do, due to the savings that we can make. The same is true for turning off or unplugging that charger for this or that device. When nothing is being charged by them what are they doing turned on. They still are running even then and are wasting, needlessly, electricity, and, in the end, you money.
On the goods side, however, and the side of green services, it is a definitely appears to be a class thing as most products and services are well out of reach of those on the lower rungs of the income ladder.
If we do not wish environmental and eco concerns and the execution of same to be a class thing, and possible only to those with the financial means to do so then we must, by needs, make things more affordable and also, and this very important, be enablers of those on the lower level so that they can be, as I am sure they would with to, part in this endeavour to help this our Planet, and in the end humankind, to survive.
So far it definitely is still a class thing, however, when, as I said, it comes to green goods and services and those in the poorer strata of our society are not able to fully participate in this and thereby are also unable to reap any financial benefits from this, such as cost reductions in electricity and heating usage, though using energy efficient light bulbs (still rather expensive compared to the incandescent Edison bulb) and other such things.
I do know that CFLs have come done in cost considerably over the last number of years but to someone who has to turn a penny over a couple of times before they can think of spending same such CFLs are still rather pricey compared to the Edison bulb that can be had for 10% of the cost. And, I must say, I have, although I use a fair number of CFLs, have not found the incandescent ones to have a short lifespan. I have bulbs running here that have been here for years and years. That is how those that have to live within rather limited means look at things. While they wish to do their part, if they but could, they have to look how to feed their families rather than as to whether they can save a little money by buying CFLs that are lot more expensive than are the old style bulbs. The problem is that, in due course, they will no longer be able to by the Edison bulb (at least not in the UK, and also not in the USA, so I understand) while the CFLs will not come done to the level of the Edison bulbs in cost, of that I am sure. So, we are forcing people to go green even though they cannot, maybe, actually afford it.
Reliable wind-up flashlights too have come down in price and some are cheaper now that are good ordinary battery powered torches, but “Energy Star” white goods, for example, are those that are the most expensive, it would seem, and someone who has to watch the money, so to speak, will hardly pay double for “Energy Star” when they can get the same type of appliance without that rating at a much lower price. Personally, I must say that I cannot and do not blame them.
The same is also true for many recycled goods. Those are the most expensive on the market often. In some instances you can now even get money for old rope, as long as you can dress it up as “recycled” in a crafts item.
Trying to be “green” is not being made easy, that is for sure, to those of the poorer sections of society in the developed world. As I indicated before, I do not even want to talk about and make mention of those (poor) living in the developing world; that part of our planet that was once referred to as “Third World”. Most people there do not stand a chance even in that respect.
It is a disgrace also that recycled goods produced by such poor people in the Third Wold countries, such as Africa, India, the Philippines, South America, etc. often in small crafts co-ops, and such, are being sold in the countries of the developed world at horrendous prices when the producers and makers only get a very tiny proportion of that in return for what they do.
Those buying “green”, and this includes those buying such goods, always want to also be seen as ethical shoppers. If that is so then we must vote with our pocketbooks in such instances and look for the products elsewhere and maybe buy them, if we so much want them, from those producers and makers that sell direct or via agents who do not charge the world for the products but just a percentage.
In conclusion, my question is, to a degree, how do we enable the poorer strata of our society to be able to be a part in this? If we do not, then we will leave them in the cold, literally even, maybe, and if it comes to the forced introduction, as we can see in the UK already, of this or that, such as the fact that no more incandescent light bulbs will be allowed to be sold and used, and also that people will be forced, as in legally forced, to insulate their roofs, install energy efficient glazing, and other such measures, then those that can least afford it will first of all see it as a definite class thing and secondly they will rather resent it all, instead of getting enthused about all things “green”.
© M Smith (Veshengro), June 2008
Exclusion of the poorer folks
