As environmental claims get attached to more luxury products it begs the question: is greening products that cater to the upper class a good way to help fund innovation and promote an evolution of consumer products? On the other hand, putting a sustainable label on a luxury product that likely represents the hallmark of consumerism is a bit disingenuous and does not do much in addressing the issues of consumption and waste production that linger in the background of our culture.
I recently came across news that the luxury car companies are joining their more economical counterparts in adding a green model to their portfolio. Companies like Porsche, Ferrari and Bentley all have new models in the pipeline that promise higher efficiency to wealthy buyers that enjoy a smooth ride but might find the strikingly low gas mileage weighing on their conscience. While these should roll off the assembly lines by 2013, competitors at Lotus, Lamborghini and Jaguar are all planning on following suit. As one can imagine, cost savings on fuel is not the motivating factor for a consumer that is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on an automobile and these newer models are not marketed as a bargain. Housing is a similar topic and whether or not a McMansion can actually be “green”.
A recent article over on Triple Pundit suggested that more luxury brands will be leaning towards sustainable marketing pitches in order to help tip the scales of customers committing to a purchase in an economic environment that has more people questioning whether or not a new item is essential. I would say that the fact that people are asking themselves the question in the first place is a great indication of progress that we do not want to undo. However, I do agree with the article that if we are going to get people to buy things then their sustainable attributes should have to do with “timelessness, durability, innovation, craftsmanship, and a meaningful brand and retail experience.”
While it is commendable to have a wealthy class wanting to live a more sustainable life, this is still a high priced product that is marketed to a strikingly small group of affluent customers. This will limit a positive effect that any of these products could have on product supply chains. More importantly, these items are still perpetuating a mantra of material excess that encompasses the American image of “success.” Arguably, until this begins to change our ability to curb the amount of energy we use or waste we create, its contribution could be minimal.
However, small steps may still be one of the most realistic paths to change and these efforts are not without their accolades.
The Porsche Spyder 918 Concept Car
Some of these products are actually efficient additions to the road rather than greenwashing masks meant to drag in uneducated consumers. In the case of Porsche, the company is slated to roll out a plug-in hybrid dubbed the 918 Spyder that will clock in at 78 mpg. Despite how much it costs (MSRP $682,260), any car that can get over 75 mpg is nothing to point fingers at while the national average for cars on the road in 2008 was 22.6 mpg according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Others are less successful, such as the Ferrari California that will be less than a third as efficient as its Porsche competitor (20.45 mpg) yet emit almost four times as much CO2 per mile.
Using the upper class as a testing bed for new products is a common practice in our economy and serves as a catalyst for the process of product development. In exchange for initial access to new technology early customers pay a premium that often goes to perfecting systems or outfitting supply chains that can give products the bump they need to tune up for large scale deployment. Eventually, newer releases and economies of scale help depress prices and transfer luxury novelties into the realm of mass consumer products.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rft_1RVbhVo]One of our most recent examples is flat screen TVs. In 1997 Phillips presented the first 42” Plasma screen television in limited numbers to the general public. The price tag was $14,999 with installation for a picture that was not that much better than “big screen” projection TVs of the day. Early buyers that invested in the infant age of a new technology effectively funded subsequent models that are now larger, cheaper, have High Def pictures and are increasingly more energy efficient. Moreover, LCD and LED screens replaced the production of traditional tube TVs with their cathode ray tubes that are notorious eWaste polluters, containing mercury and lead in addition to an interwoven combination of glass and plastic.
Now, it’s true that making a Porsche more efficient and affordable to the upper class is not quite the same as making a household item available to everyone while using less energy. In fact, even when combining all of the sales of Ferrari, Bentley, Lotus and Porsche one doesn’t end up with even 0.5% of the global automobile market. However this kind of technology is not always model or dealer specific and Bentley is a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, which does substantially contribute to the global supply of cars. More purchases of greener Bentleys could mean more sustainable VW’s for the rest of us.
For Americans, the wealthy often exist as the manifestation of aspirations of the rest of the country. Right now, one of the ways to change the type of lifestyle that Americans aspire to achieve is to alter that image at the top. Having wealth be synonymous with greener measures could be a boon for securing sustainability in realm of cultural standards rather than simply a passing trend. Unarguably, there is still a level of severity concerning sustainability that escapes the general populace as people wait to see if it is something that is going to stick around rather than merely a cost they can wait out.
Image Credits: automobileupdates.com , kienda.com ,