President Barack Obama deflected light from himself and shed it toward the “green” way of life. Monday Obama gave the green light to the Environmental Protection Agency to allow California as well as other states to regulate its greenhouse gas emissions from cars. This will allow progress in earth conservation as well as inspire innovation to effectively carry out this task. Although it is a great step in the right direction there is one aspect of this step within the green realm that consistently is not addressed: the price.
Ever since Al Gore’s Powerpoint presentation on the “Inconvenient Truth the green machine fad has shaded the nation, magazines created campaigns to recycle their contents and the high gas prices gave Americans an excuse to conserve.
Somewhere in corporate America, it clicked that this green theme could allow businesses to make a little green of their own. Green could be merchandised. Thus, the fad ensued: celebrities drive the latest hybrids, organic coffee, advertisement campaigns – the works, all encouraging Americans to proclaim green is the new black. Even apparel from retailers such as Victoria’s Secret and the Pepperdine Bookstore make the lifestyle a fashion statement.
This technique works in terms of creating awareness and encouraging some consumers to make the shift. There is one caveat that prevents everyone from joining in on the action: However, according to a NPD Group report conducted in 2007, 57 percent reported that they had interest in products more suitable for the environment, but only 19 percent believed paying the extra money these products and services require was worth the cost.
This fact proves that the obstacle of price is something that needs to be addressed, especially with the current state of the economy.
It boils down to math. Would a consumer in a financial bind rather pay $24,000 for a Toyota Prius, or nearly half that for a Ford Fusion – putting the question of quality aside? Would a college student buy a brand new ream of paper or pay three dollars for a recycled one?
When it comes to making houses more efficient and environmentally friendly, the cost skyrockets to hundreds of thousands of dollars. In The (Too) High Price of Being Green” Wall Street Journal columnist Jeff Opdyke wrote about the extra costs that it takes. He added that the conversion is easier said than done: “Philosophically I’m with you. But philosophy doesn’t pay my bills.”
The consumer’s willingness or ability to afford it will be key to keeping the dream alive. It would not be too far off base for someone to speculate that the green mentality is a fad but if it is what it takes for Americans to make their living space more inhabitable then the fad is a necessity. The key is to make sure the lifestyle is actually accessible.
Making the green fad accessible can still benefit businesses and America as a whole. “Enviro-cool” gear apparel and bumper stickers can still propel consumers into chic social statuses at a lower cost. Cheaper fuel alternatives will still reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Renewing the green fad in a cheaper more practical way will create new jobs-though it may cut others – with the benefit of pumping up the ailing economy.
Companies can lso still profit. The principles of capitalism can still hold while making the environmental-friendly lifestyle more accessible. Extorting it will only hurt the progress toward erasing contribution to pollution and abusing resources.
So far the green fad has allowed the country to make some strides in the right direction but now it is the producers’ and retailers’ turns to do their part. They must make it more feasible for change to continue to be the reality.
There are many factors to consider such as cost of production that affect the cost to consumers but the main issue of honesty. The message of giving to gain seems to be one missing from the green proclamation. If California gets its way then the people need the fine print.