I repeatedly suggest that one of the largest barriers to a more sustainable economy is ignorance. Most people are simply not aware of the problems, let alone the solutions, and as such the pitch for a different lifestyle (call is environmentally sound, ecologically efficient or simply “green”) can be a tough sell. So if the problem is a lack of education who is responsible for fixing it? We are quick to point fingers at tech companies, developers, car manufacturers—the producers of “stuff” that we consume to keep our economy afloat. But at the end of the day we cannot pile all of the onus on entities and organizations to force information onto us, we too have a responsibility to seek it out for ourselves.
The rise in communication technology has transformed the conveyance of information between the suppliers and consumers in every corner of the marketplace. So much of sales is a race to spoon feed a product option to a hungry audience before others can penetrate the market. As a result, as consumers, the information often comes to us. Companies work to make the discovery of their product solutions as easy as possible in order to remove pesky exercises like comparison or prioritization. In the past decade we have become inundated with information enough for its transcendence into the realm of cultural norm.
When it comes to a new phone, MP3 player or an automobile, the consumer can easily shrug and say, “if you haven’t told me enough about your gizmo how do you expect me to buy it?” In an economy where consumer spending accounts for the majority of GDP, companies often submit to such rules and pour money into marketing. If both sides want to continue this love/hate relationship then that is all fine and good in the realm of consumer discretionary products and personal luxuries, but the practice can instigate a dangerous level of expectation and hinder progressive change.
We arrive at an encompassing topic like sustainability with qualities and goals that exist outside of the typical, seasonal product lines. The unique differences in green choices are often not visual, but hidden in parts of interconnected processes that most of us take for granted or are simply not interested in (production, packaging, distribution, etc.) The story behind these products is only part of the story for why they are so important, all of which is difficult to fit on a magazine page or a thirty-second sound byte. Consequently, consumer education of sustainability has been slow as Americans continue to wait to be guided to better options.
Well, we can do a bit more than that.
The same systems that have exponentially increased in their ability to let others bring information to us still work just as well, if not better, the other way. The internet alone allows for a grade school student to instantly access more information that someone could have found in a lifetime fifty years ago. As members of numerous overlapping groups, societies and ecosystems we cannot only wait for the answers—we have to meet them half way.
Companies in every sector of the economy are poised to provide new solutions for how we live our lives; they are waiting to meet a demand that has every reason to shift. In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal reporter Jeffery Ball points out that:
“Never before has there been such a flowering of practical energy-saving products, from double-pane windows to front-loading washing machines to hybrid gasoline-and-electric cars.”
So what are we waiting for? Government intervention? A return to higher oil prices? As it turns out, we are going to get those anyway.There is no shortage of resources to learn about sustainability and new alternatives to social trends. Tens of thousands of people devote time and money to websites, organizations, lectures and expos to promote the spread of information. The eager soul need not look far to learn.
The next phase in societal change towards a more sustainable economy can be instigated by consumers gaining a bit of knowledge for themselves and using it to craft the marketplace that they have control over. Change is closer than most people believe—in no small part because the case for change is so strong—but its traction lies in the transition from companies trying to meet a need that consumers don’t know enough to demand, to companies striving to meet the demand of educated consumers.
June 1, 2009 at 5:33 pm
hi T,
Interesting and true. To illustrate further: Early in 2007 we started a website in Dutch, Ecoluxe.nl aimed at affluent consumers demanding sustainble products. Thought behind that website was that the market for sustainable goods should be penetrated via the premium categories, thus getting larger groups to follow. The website on itself was fairly succesful, at this moment an international version is being developed, and will be released later this year.
Consumers AND companies are interested in either getting or giving information on sustainable alternatives. We still believe that, as with any other new product, one should start at the top of the market introducing it. A company like Tesla Motors off course is a fine example. Another is a company producing, and selling, natural beds.
Consumers ARE getting more and more interested AND want to act according to their ‘sustainable demands’.
June 2, 2009 at 4:08 am
Tyler,
This was an excellent post. I want to focus on the issue of how the government communicates ideas for policy or lifestyle shifts to the American public.
You have discussed this in the realm of environmental changes, but I would suggest that the channel of government/policy -> public communication gets a grade of F whether the topic is environment, health, or education.
Collectively I consider these three issues the triad of American problems. In the center of the triangle are economics and financial considerations, which effect and are effected by all three.
The government needs to pick clear, accessible ideas and concepts, choose only a few at a time, and pitch them clearly and convincingly to the American people. I think back to Ross Perot and his 1992 presidential campaign. While many mock his efforts in that year, people of all parties and viewpoints agreed that his decision to purchase one-hour TV spots, in explaining even complex subjects such as NAFTA and taxation to the American people, was extremely effective in getting important information to the public in a timely manner.
The government needs to go after the triad of issues in an orderly manner, picking one issue at a time and having the president, or maybe a bi-partisan team of the President and someone from the Republican party, present the issues, costs, benefits and ramifications.
Americans think about things like the environment, education and health and it is easy for them to get confused and feel scared by a lack of knowing. If instead, however, they were offered clear charts and details, they might instead say to themselves things like, “Oh, I get it…this change to environmental policy and spending habits costs $x now, but over ten years I will get $2x back in savings. That makes sense” or “I see, the initial investment in health is $x, but our government will save $3x in unneeded taxes and decreased spending in the long-term” or “I understand that education, the environment and health are long-term goals and this is the impact of not making a commitment to dealing with these issues.”
So many of your great posts focus on the message. I think this is vitally important. However, I think that in our country, the delivery of the message is the much bigger problem.
If the actual information conveyed to the public, the message, was delivered to the public and they retained even 50% of the quality of the idea or suggestion, that would be better than the 0-20% we seem to get across to them now. This, in my mind, would be the best allocation of the government’s efforts, better than tripling the quality of the message.
The message is good. We just need to get Americans to hear and understand it now. I put my chips in the Ross Perot school of communication skills.
June 2, 2009 at 9:24 am
hi tyler, nice post: i found it through the sustainable cities collective site. it resurrected an old thought about the nature of (un)sustainable products and the buildings in which they’re sold. thanks for that!
June 10, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Tyler-
Great blog. I look forward to keeping track.
I agree in general with your idea but also don’t think that education immediately reaps change (see this post).
People have correct information all the time that they do not react to, or obey. Being a very small government proponent I don’t immediately look to D.C. to solve this. I believe that technology and innovation will lead the way, and businesses are who make that happen, not governments usually. I think sustainability goes hand in hand with efficiency and when businesses make efficient decisions, they save money for themselves and their customers… and their competitors that don’t, fall to the wayside.
I see you read Amory Lovins at RMI so I’m sure you need no intro to this way of thinking. I think people vote with their wallet more than their head most of the time (at least I often do)… so it is convenient that as businesses discover the financial benefits of sustainability, that the rest of the public just gets to go along for the ride. Their education will come almost whether they like it or not. I know this is a simplistic way of looking at it, but I would bet on business to find ways to do things better than government any day.
July 14, 2009 at 11:26 pm
An excellent posting. Thank you.
I doubt education is the only answer. Smokers are fairly well informed and nagged about how deadly their habit is known to be. Never-the-less, when I learn about a product that might be of help, I take a look at what it would take to purchases and install the new product.
January 29, 2014 at 5:48 am
Sustainable Development is the means by which society maintains a harmonious relationship with nature and fosters a value system which ensures living within the carrying capacity of all ecosystems.