Being green is in the long-term economic interest, although it is primarily perceived as against many Canadians' financial interests, at least in the short term.
Unfortunately, manufacturers know they cannot count on the "early adopters" (those who are willing to pay a premium to get the latest technology) phenomenon because many of those that are green at heart cannot afford it. This is why I believe the following steps are necessary to restore a little ecological balance to the financial system: 1. promote the perception of value of green; 2. label goods with their environmental footprint; and 3. adopt more holistic financial incentives to encourage suppliers, investors and consumers to make, sponsor and buy more "green."
1) Promoting the value of "Green". Cynics will be quick to undermine any public awareness campaign as being motivated by personal gain (some under-educated author of a letter-to-the-editor called David Suzuki a "light-bulb salesman" for his part in the PowerWise campaign - I am still ashamed of that). You and I know that in the vast majority of cases, that is simply not the prime motivator, and even if it is, they can't be faulted for working within the capitalist/free enterprise system (or does that make them feel betrayed? hmmm). What has to be made very clear is that green buyers are motivated by something a lot larger, a lot more honorable, than greed.
2) Footprint labeling. It is very difficult for consumers to "vote with their dollars" when there are no effective means of comparing the environmental footprint (harm caused in the production and eventual disposal) of one product over another. And how to know which is better when marketers and advertisers flaunt their wares with such meaningless terms as "all-natural" and the like? There is also no standard for the "organic" certification. If manufacturers are unwilling to self-regulate, the federal government should impose regulations and standard labels much like those for nutritional value in foods and hazardous materials in... just about everything.
3) Holistic financial incentives. On this point I believe the Ontario government deserves a lot of credit: they have eliminated the PST on qualifying EnergyStar appliances, offered mail-in-rebates for hi-eff furnaces and air conditioners. All these programs reduce the cost barriers to the acquisition of environmentally-friendly yet more expensive products. Another incentive, much less known, is a pay-per-output mechanism where companies must share the cost burden of recycling all the packaging materials that accompany their products. If this cost-sharing mechanism were to be extended to cover the recovery and recycling of their actual products, manufacturers would pay a little more attention to what materials are used in production. These costs would have to be shared with consumers, so products compete on the basis of the cost-efficiency of raw materials, transformation, AND end-of-life recovery. The flat rate deposit per item (tires, engine oil and most recently electronics in Ontario) doesn't provide this kind of competition. One thing I am glad every government has firmly resisted is reducing the gas tax - such a move would be a counter-incentive and confuse the pro-environment image they are all currently trying to create for themselves.
Being green shouldn't mean buying less, it should mean buying better. Implemented together in a concerted effort, promoting the value of green, imposing footprint labeling standards, and extending financial incentives and burden-sharing programs will effectively harness the competitive forces and neutralize the barriers to adoption of a more sustainable lifestyle for all to enjoy for generations.
No comments:
Post a Comment