Through our discussions and readings, we can all agree that corporations will do anything to maximize profit, even at the expense of the environment. As Emily’s article pointed out, companies that try to utilize environmentally friendly techniques will only continue to do so if they are benefitting.
Nonetheless, about a month ago, an interesting article was published in the New York Times about the Cascade line of detergents. Because of stricter regulations that were enforced in 17 states, detergent producers such as Cascade were forced to reduce the amount of phosphates from their products. Users of these detergents were not very pleased with the results. Check out the article: Cleaner for the Environment, Not for the Dishes.
Do you see this as a step that will generate more changes that will help the environment? Or do you ultimately think that corporate interests will prevail?
This article was really interesting because it highlighted how many steps are associated with change, and how it involves the government, the corporations, and the consumer. In this case, government regulations impacted the corporation which impacted the consumer. Even though there has been some negative feedback, I think this can serve as a model that will generate more changes to help the environment. Again, as with the Frito-Lay example, it was disappointing to hear the consumer’s negative response. Obviously, consumers have the right to complain if a product is not working but I think they need to make the connection between environmental issues, like eutrophication and harmful algal blooms due to phosphorus runoff, to their own practices as consumers. The inconvenience really doesn’t seem like much when we are talking about working to prevent a serious problem in the environment. Andrew makes a good point though. If someone is using more detergent and water, is the change still a beneficial one? When implementing new regulation, cost and benefit analysis needs to be part of the follow-up.
In essence, we need to get used to the idea that our lifestyles are going to have to change. We cannot strive for changes in the environment without accepting changes in our own lives. As the article states, green products are often more expensive, less convenient, and often less effective. But if we are economically able, this is the price we need to pay. Plus I think Ivette Melendez, one of the trainers for the group, Women’s Action to Gain Economic Security, makes a good point as well. “There’s the myth that to be clean it has to shine or smell or make a lot of bubbles.” But often, she says, “products like vinegar, baking soda or the newer cleansers work just as well….” We are all guilty, as consumers, of being attracted to the new, flashy, fast-acting, and easy products (who can blame us?) Entering this new “green” era though, we need to start to understanding that simplicity is often the best alternative.