Having become increasingly invested in solving the problem of global warming over the last few years (starting with the 2006 release of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth), I am convinced that the only way to truly solve the problem is through economics. Companies and individuals are simply not going to combat global warming in a meaningful way unless it’s profitable to do so, as much as we’d like to believe otherwise. I believe the notion of tree huggers around the world uniting in one giant force to solve this problem – simply for the sake of solving it – is counter to capitalism and unfortunately not realistic. That being said, everyone has a huge incentive to solve the problem, and I believe we can do so, and profitably.
Imagine walking into a grocery store, market, clothing store, book store – really any consumer-facing retail store – and seeing everything labeled and given a rating – based on the amount of carbon emitted in the production, transportation and disposal of that product.
Let’s take one product – detergent. Today consumers are loyal to a brand or simply choose the cheapest one available. Brand loyalty comes from a variety of things – they like the way the detergent smells, they like the colors on the bottle, they like the way it cleans, they think it’s the “best,” etc. Price shoppers are more black and white – they constantly look for the best bargain and switch to it, regardless of the brand.
In either case, the consumer is really choosing between – let’s face it – nearly identical products.
Now, imagine this same exact scenario, with all of our preconceptions about brands and our price sensitivities – only this time with the benefit of knowing how much carbon was emitted in the production, transportation, and disposal of the product.
What if a product wasn’t just the cheapest but was also the lowest carbon producer (ie. the best for the environment)? Would you be willing to pay a few extra cents – even a dollar more – for a product that is the most eco friendly? What if consumers began fighting global warming with their collective pocket book, choosing products based on their lowest carbon emissions?
Just imagine the burden that would create on companies, if this information were presented to consumers in an easy-to-understand way. Their sales and profits would be under pressure, and with consumers making a decision with their pocketbook, they would have to change, or die. It would be a race to the most “ecofriendliness” in every product (and potentially service) category.
With a universal system applied to all products (and services), showing us the carbon “tax” on our buying decisions, I believe consumers – who want to do the “right” thing but don’t have the information to do so right now – would gravitate towards the lowest carbon products (and services), creating a paradigm shift and forcing companies to adapt – and be more environmentally conscious.
This may not be the only way, but I know one thing for certain – as long as I don’t have the environmental impact information – I can’t proactively make an environmentally conscious choice.
