Earth Island Institute logo, tap or click to visit the Institute home page

Go Back: Home > Earth Island Journal > Issues > Autumn 2011 > +/-


Consume Less – and Consume Better

Dr. Kevin Danaher is a co-founder of Global Exchange, Fair Trade USA, and the Green Festivals, all of which have created many good jobs, transferred wealth from rich to poor, and raised environmental awareness.

There’s no denying it: We Americans are the hogs of the planet. We represent less than five percent of the world’s people but consume roughly 25 percent of the world’s resources. So we definitely need to cut back severely on our consumption. And one way to do that is to consume more consciously.

It’s easy for intellectuals to bemoan the collapse of all biological systems and tell everyone to stop buying stuff. But everyone needs a certain amount of stuff to survive. When you buy toilet paper (and unless you’re using corncobs or last week’s newspaper, we all buy toilet paper) do you read the package to see how much recycled content is in it? When you buy coffee, do you ask if the beans were produced under fair- trade-certified conditions?

Even the most radical anti-capitalist activist (and I consider myself one) has to buy some things. So the question is: Should you buy corporate crap manufactured in sweatshops and made with toxic ingredients? Or should you be able to buy products that do not exploit people and nature?

Embedded within those questions for the buyer are some deeper questions for the producer. Socially responsible enterprise poses two key questions for any company: Were people or nature exploited during production? And what happened with the profits? Do they go back into the process of educating people about the need for sustainability, or do they go into a few people’s pockets? If we can answer these two questions correctly, we can redefine enterprise.

There is a huge difference between enterprise (producing goods and services that people need) and corporate domination. Transnational corporations are one of the most problematic institutions on the planet because (1) they are not organized democratically, (2) they have no loyalty to any specific place, and (3) they tend to make their money by destroying natural resources. A thousand-year-old redwood tree is not a gift of the creator that should be preserved for future generations to enjoy; it is $250,000 on the lumber market. So under normal capitalist logic the tree is killed and turned into money.

This just shows that it’s easy to critique large corporations. The more challenging task is to build up alternative economic institutions that create good jobs by incorporating social justice and environmental restoration into their triple-bottom-line model. If Derrick and I were to go into a low-income part of the world, and he has the best critique of capitalism ever uttered, and I am offering green jobs at decent pay, who will get more allies? People need jobs and income, not radical rhetoric from us privileged intellectuals (and I also consider myself one of those).

The combination of environmental destruction and Internet technology is creating an advantage for green and fair trade products. As the natural resource base gets destroyed, it raises the value of saving resources and developing renewable substitutes. And the technology is coming whereby you will be able to take your handheld device, shoot the bar code of a product, and view endless information about the social and environmental impacts of how that product was produced.

This gives a market advantage to green products, fair trade products, and salvage products (“upcycling” materials from the waste stream into useful items). Organizations producing these products want to tell the backstory of how these products were made. That is something Walmart, Target, and Home Depot are not likely to do, because their backstory is about sweatshops and pollution.

We know that “you can’t buy your way to salvation.” I wish the cynics would find a new mantra. Sure, you can find critical things to say about any green company, but there are many smart, committed, radical people using the enterprise model to redefine the economy from the grassroots up. We are doing nothing less than taking down the master’s house with the master’s own tools.

After ten years of producing Green Festivals in eight cities, Global Exchange and Green America have reached more than one million people with a different retail experience, one that funds environmental education and fun, while allowing people to kick the tires of a different kind of economy. Now the challenge is to take that hybrid model of enterprise and education into a permanent venue.

small excerpt of a poll pageReader OpinionWhat do you think? Can buying organic, fair trade, re-used, and other “green”
products help protect the planet? Vote and be counted.

What if every city had a GreenMart eco-mall that brought together the very cleanest green enterprises – the ones providing the best fair trade, salvage, and green products – and combined that with a community-organizing space that helped bring together social justice and environmental groups? Think: permanent Green Festival. The GreenMart would allow small, local companies to team up and compete with large corporations by sharing infrastructure and customers. Regular educational and cultural events would draw diverse audiences and inform people about the need for accelerating our transition to sustainability.

Let’s not have our righteous animosity toward capitalism blind us to the potential transformative power of enterprise. Instead, let’s create a revolutionary retail-service model that helps to grow the locally owned green economy, while generating enough profit to fund community development projects. (Wouldn’t it be nice, after all, to have a funding source for our political organizations that didn’t rely on begging from foundations and government agencies?) We will never get the ideal economy we want by pressuring elites to create it for us. It must come from ecological entrepreneurs who are devising ways to converge responsible enterprise with the social justice and environmental movements. In the end, that could be the ultimate example of biomimicry, a way to copy nature’s core principle: unity-of-diversity.

For an opposing view, read what Derrick Jensen has to say …


Email this article to a friend.

Write to the editor about this article.

Subscribe Today
cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJFour issues of the award-winning
Earth Island Journal for only $10



Zygmunt Bauman says that rational people will go quietly, meekly, joyously into a gas chamber, if only they are allowed to believe it is a bathroom. And Ill say that rational people go quietly, meekly to the end of the world if only you’ll allow them to believe that buying energy saving bulbs is gonna save the day.

The fact is that 98% of the old growth forests are gone. 99% of of the prairies are gone. 80% of the rivers on this planet do not support life anymore. We are out of species, we are out soil, and we are out of time. And what we are being told by most of the environmental movement is that the way to stop all of this is through personal consumer choices. It’s time for a real strategy that can win.

Where is your threshold? To take only one variable out of hundreds: Ninety percent of the large fish in the oceans are already gone. Is it 91 percent? 92? 93? 94? Would you wait till they had killed off 95 percent? 96? 97? 98? 99? How about 100 percent? Would you fight back then?

How about this? If a foreign power were to do to us and our landbases what the dominant culture does – do their damnedest to turn the planet into a lifeless pile of carcinogenic wastes, and kill, incarcerate, or immiserate those who do not collaborate – we would each and every one of us – at least those of us with the slightest courage, dignity, or sense of self-preservation – fight them to the death, ours or far preferably theirs. But we don’t fight. For the most part we don’t even resist.

Learn more about the fight for a livable future before it is too late:

By Deep Green Resistance on Sun, November 20, 2011 at 10:43 pm

The underlying assumptions of green consumerism are false.  The easiest way to illustrate this is as follows:  I choose to burn less gasoline by using a bicycle as transportation.  Since this is a personal choice, others may choose to drive cars.  If enough people follow my example, the cost of gasoline goes down and the car drivers rejoice and drive more miles.  In the end, nothing has really changed.

Even worse, it is entirely possible that so-called green products actually delay the inevitable collapse of the world wide industrial economy by making it more efficient.  In a worldwide economy, saving energy in one place just makes it easier for someone to burn it elsewhere.

I’m afraid that Green capitalists are totally out of touch with reality.  Faced with increasingly devastating economic pressure, most Americans will not spend more money to buy so-called “green” products.  They didn’t do it to save their own jobs, and they won’t do it to “protect the environment”.

By James on Fri, September 02, 2011 at 4:52 pm

For me the clear issue with your article is that while I wouldn’t say you’ve “sold out” but you have very clearly “bought in” ( co-founder of Global Exchange, Fair Trade USA, and the Green Festivals) and this puts you in a place where you clearly cannot contribute to this debate in an uninhibited fashion. You’re not just a part of the “green machine” to me its clear you helped create it.

By Jeremy on Fri, September 02, 2011 at 1:59 am

I agree. There are so many easy ways to help improve our environment. A personal favorite of mine is bartering. People throw so much stuff in the trash which are valuable for others. You can easily trade it for something you need. This will lower the need of newly produced stuff thus lowering the need for natural resources. There are a couple of websites but   I always use It’s highly recommendable!

By Daniel on Thu, September 01, 2011 at 6:09 am

Leave a comment

Comments Policy

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


Four issues for just
$15 a year.

cover thumbnail EIJ

Join Now!