Skip to main content

The Modern Consumer Dilemma

If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.
There is a paradox facing the twenty-first century consumer. For those of us wishing to make responsible, ethical and sustainable choices, every decision we make is a land mine of contradictions.

I wish to reduce my plastic consumption, so I buy a tote bag to take to the supermarket. Then my friend tells me that producing a tote bag uses more energy than a plastic bag – I’d have to use my cotton tote 393 times before it had the same environmental impact as using a plastic bag three times. But then... my carbon footprint might be higher, but at least my bag won’t end up in landfill or the ocean.

At the supermarket, I wish to buy “eco” vegetables. But these are packed in plastic, unlike the non-organic loose veg. And the organic peas I buy here in Sweden have 50% higher emissions than the normal peas.

I also want to protect my fellow customers from COVID-19, so I wear my handmade facemask. I can re-use my fabric mask, unlike those surgical ones you need to buy in bulk. I've seen those lying on the road and being pulled out of oceans. But my fabric facemask isn’t as effective as a surgical one. Yet the proceeds for my fabric facemask went to charity.

When I get home, I get back to studying. I try not to print things – I read all my course literature online to save paper. But every second I spend on Google produces enough CO2 to keep 23 trees busy.

In the evening, I do some online shopping. H&M are selling cotton jeans marked with a nice green label telling me that wearing them is good for the environment. But then I find out that that very cotton might have been the product of forced labour by Uighur Muslims in China. That is morally corrupt.

I look in to getting solar panels fitted to my house to reduce my carbon footprint. But once again, the polysilicon that makes up those same solar panels may also be the product of Uighur labour. That is entirely unacceptable.

I think you get the point.

It seems that today, there are no good decisions. The more I educate myself on ethical and sustainable consumption, the harder it is to distinguish between better and worse decisions. At a webinar I recently attended, I was told by representatives of the food industry that they were working on improving labelling to make it clearer to consumers what the impact of their purchases was. But even then, how will we navigate the daily decisions we have to make in order to live responsibly in the twenty-first century?

Of course, there are no perfect alternatives, but businesses and entire industries need to try harder to make their products more ethical and sustainable.

This article was originally published on TheLatest.com

Popular posts from this blog

We Need To Talk About Bridgerton (spoiler alert)

My social media has been spammed lately with fans of the programme Bridgerton lamenting the departure of the much-loved Duke of Hastings (Simon) played by RegĂ©-Jean Page. The seriousness with which people have taken this is what I am lamenting. No, @regejean ! You CANNOT leave me like that. I WILL NOT have it! @bridgerton !!!!!! — Dionne Warwick (@dionnewarwick) April 3, 2021 I have an admittedly unpopular opinion on the programme Bridgerton, in that I think it is objectively bad. Bridgerton is a Netflix series based on a series of novels by Julia Quinn. The programme is set in London during the reign of King George III, and the first series followed the life of the upper-class Daphne Bridgerton, and her courtship with the aforementioned Duke of Hastings during her first season out. Daphne and Simon Bridgerton, Netflix I watched the first series of Bridgerton upon the recommendation of several friends, and I had (relatively) high hopes. I really like period dramas, and I am a fan of...

Power Play at the Olympics

I have really enjoyed these Olympics. We have been treated to new sports, surprise victories (naming no names, Italy), and the usual astonishment when humans achieve the impossible. However, there is always an extremely political side to the Olympics, and that's what I wish to analyse in this article. Superpowers wear gold The term “superpower” was first used in 1944 to describe the UK, US and the USSR. During the 20th century, Britain lost influence and, with the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the US became the only superpower. This led Samuel Huntington to write : “There is now only one superpower. But that does not mean that the world is unipolar [rather] a uni-multipolar system with one superpower and several major powers.” So what we can learn about the current world order from this year’s Olympics? It's no secret that sport isn't the only thing in play during the Olympic Games. Many will remember the US boycotting the 1980 Olympics in Moscow, and medal races between Ru...

On the health of our leaders

In May 1996, journalist Alistair Cooke remarked, “I thought I knew everything about the physical condition of President Kennedy and how much of it was, by an unspoken agreement in those days, kept secret.” Cooke describes a “code, unwritten, never brought up, which would have made it tasteless to mention such things”. [1] He describes how, during the 1960 Democratic primary campaign, then Senator Lyndon Johnson’s team suggested that then Senator Kennedy had Addison’s disease. At the time, this was a “foul accusation” (although true) which was quickly denied by the Kennedy camp. However, secrecy regarding the health of our leaders can be dated to much further back. For example, in October 1919, President Woodrow Wilson, with 18 months left in office, had a stroke which left him bedridden and partially paralysed. First Lady Edith Wilson became the intermediary between the President and his Cabinet, deciding which matters were important enough to be brought to her husband. The President...