Friday, August 08, 2008
Green hypocrisy and low horizons
Anything that winds up George Monbiot, the Guardian’s most high profile environmental columnist, is worth looking into. He wrote a comment entitled “Hypocrites unite!” in response to a new book by Julie Burchill, a well known British writer, on hypocrisy. Monbiot deployed what could be called the standard hypocrisy defence. In addition to admitting to being a “posh git” (his father was deputy chairman of the Conservative party) he goes on:
“Sure we are hypocrites. Every one of us, almost by definition. Hypocrisy is the gap between your aspirations and your actions. Greens have high aspirations - they want to live more ethically – and they will always fall short. But the alternative to hypocrisy isn’t moral purity (no one manages that) but cynicism.”
This conveniently absolves him of any need for consistency but it is also untrue. Greens are characterised by their low expectations rather than high aspirations. It is their glum view of humanity that leads them to elevate the idea of natural limits to human action. It is hard to imagine a more cynical outlook.
Those who want a more considered critique of green elitism and double standards should read James Heartfield’s book on the subject (see 17 February 2008 post).
“Sure we are hypocrites. Every one of us, almost by definition. Hypocrisy is the gap between your aspirations and your actions. Greens have high aspirations - they want to live more ethically – and they will always fall short. But the alternative to hypocrisy isn’t moral purity (no one manages that) but cynicism.”
This conveniently absolves him of any need for consistency but it is also untrue. Greens are characterised by their low expectations rather than high aspirations. It is their glum view of humanity that leads them to elevate the idea of natural limits to human action. It is hard to imagine a more cynical outlook.
Those who want a more considered critique of green elitism and double standards should read James Heartfield’s book on the subject (see 17 February 2008 post).
Labels: book, environment, ethics
Monday, July 21, 2008
Review of Wall-E
Spiked has run my review of Wall-E, Disney Pixar’s new anti-consumerist movie featuring a recycling robot as its central character and humans as little more than fat blobs.
Labels: consumption, ethics, film, spiked
Friday, July 18, 2008
God’s gone green too
The green message is so pervasive nowadays that it extends from children’s cartoons (see 13 July 2008 post) to god. Speaking at an event in Sydney, Australia, this week the pope recycled the predictable message of self-restraint and anti-consumption:
“Religions have a special role in this regard, for they teach people that authentic service requires sacrifice and self-discipline, which in turn must be cultivated through self-denial, temperance and a moderate use of the world’s goods. In this way, men and women are led to regard the environment as a marvel to be pondered and respected rather than a commodity for mere consumption. It is incumbent upon religious people to demonstrate that it is possible to find joy in living simply and modestly, generously sharing one’s surplus with those suffering from want.”
Evidently for god’s representative on earth “living simply and modestly” - what most people call poverty - should be treated as a joy. Let us pray that he is not taken seriously.
“Religions have a special role in this regard, for they teach people that authentic service requires sacrifice and self-discipline, which in turn must be cultivated through self-denial, temperance and a moderate use of the world’s goods. In this way, men and women are led to regard the environment as a marvel to be pondered and respected rather than a commodity for mere consumption. It is incumbent upon religious people to demonstrate that it is possible to find joy in living simply and modestly, generously sharing one’s surplus with those suffering from want.”
Evidently for god’s representative on earth “living simply and modestly” - what most people call poverty - should be treated as a joy. Let us pray that he is not taken seriously.
Labels: consumption, ethics, film
Friday, June 27, 2008
Indians and chickens
After writing my piece on the campaign against the use of Indian child labour by suppliers to Primark (see 24 June post) an interesting parrallel occurred to me. It seems to me there are similarities between the campaign to “save” Indian children with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s campaign for chicken welfare at Tesco. Both sets of campaigners see themselves as superior beings protecting lower creatures from the forces of greed.
Labels: consumption, ethics, food, india, television
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Against ethical consumerism
Spiked has published an article by me on the recent documentaries on child labour in India. It argues that ethical consumerism is nauseatingly elitist.
Labels: consumption, ethics, india, spiked, television
Sunday, June 22, 2008
On consumerism and globalisation
Benjamin Barber, a professor at the University of Maryland, writes that the contemporary world as besieged by two forces: consumerism and globalisation. Both of them, in his view, lead to the erosion of national autonomy. Consumerist capitalism is driven by an ethos of infantalisation which encourages narcissism and an obsession with consumption (he identifies key critics of this trend as David Riesman, Theodor Adorno and Jean Bauldrillard). Meanwhile, globalisation encourages privatisation This again, in his view, leads to an unhealthy atomisation of society.
Although much is wrong with Barber’s arguments there are elements of truth. For example, there is certainly a strong sense of powerless about what nation states can achieve. There is also an erosion of sovereignty of weaker states. In addition, there is an obsession with consumption in contemporary society.
However, his arguments are also one-sided. Nation states in the developed world are in many respects more powerful than ever. Indeed privatisation can be understood as in some ways representing an extension of state activity rather than its diminution. And obsession of consumption is itself a result of a more fundamental trend: the diminished subject. In other words the pervasive sense that people can do little to control their own lives.
Obviously such ideas demand a more thorough critique. Earlier posts on Barber were published in posts on 7 May 2007, 13 January 2008. 9 March 2008 and 28 April 2008.
Although much is wrong with Barber’s arguments there are elements of truth. For example, there is certainly a strong sense of powerless about what nation states can achieve. There is also an erosion of sovereignty of weaker states. In addition, there is an obsession with consumption in contemporary society.
However, his arguments are also one-sided. Nation states in the developed world are in many respects more powerful than ever. Indeed privatisation can be understood as in some ways representing an extension of state activity rather than its diminution. And obsession of consumption is itself a result of a more fundamental trend: the diminished subject. In other words the pervasive sense that people can do little to control their own lives.
Obviously such ideas demand a more thorough critique. Earlier posts on Barber were published in posts on 7 May 2007, 13 January 2008. 9 March 2008 and 28 April 2008.
Labels: consumption, economics, ethics, modernity
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Indian cheap labour obsession
It seems that British documentary film-makers are becoming obsessed with cheap labour in India. After the awful Blood, Sweat and T-Shirts on BBC (see 18 April 2008 and 14 May 2008 posts) it seems that Panorama has a programme on the topic next week while Channel 4 is planning one entitled The Devil Wears Primark (see 1 June 2008 post).
In a pre-emptive strike against possible criticism from Panorama it seems that Primark, a bargain clothes retailing chain, has cut ties with Indian suppliers that used child labour.
There seems to be little understanding that simply cutting such ties is likely to make the plight of poor Indians worse. Child labour is a symptom of extreme poverty rather than its cause.
It is reminiscent of the spoilt western fashionistas in Blood, Sweat and T-Shirts hectoring Indian workers about how their working conditions are “disgusting”. Indians are well aware that they are poor - the difficult part is finding ways to make them rich.
The broader context for this discussion is the feigned concern for developing country workers from the likes of Joseph Stiglitz (see 6 May 2008 post).
In a pre-emptive strike against possible criticism from Panorama it seems that Primark, a bargain clothes retailing chain, has cut ties with Indian suppliers that used child labour.
There seems to be little understanding that simply cutting such ties is likely to make the plight of poor Indians worse. Child labour is a symptom of extreme poverty rather than its cause.
It is reminiscent of the spoilt western fashionistas in Blood, Sweat and T-Shirts hectoring Indian workers about how their working conditions are “disgusting”. Indians are well aware that they are poor - the difficult part is finding ways to make them rich.
The broader context for this discussion is the feigned concern for developing country workers from the likes of Joseph Stiglitz (see 6 May 2008 post).
Labels: consumption, ethics, film, india, inequality
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Ethics and economics of climate change
The May edition of Scientific American includes a useful primer on the ethics and economics of climate change by John Broome. It includes references to further discussion of the subject by the likes of William Nordhaus, the IPCC and Nicholas Stern. The New York Review of Books (12 June) has also recently carried an article by Freeman Dyson that touches on similar themes.
Personally I do not see the emphasis on potential conflicts of interest between present and future generations as useful. It seems to me the best we can do for future generations is to encourage as much development as possible.
Personally I do not see the emphasis on potential conflicts of interest between present and future generations as useful. It seems to me the best we can do for future generations is to encourage as much development as possible.
Labels: climate, economics, environment, ethics
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Protection harms workers
It is becoming increasingly clear how mainstream concern for labour standards has become (see 6 May 2008 post). It used to be the case that radicals would typically support workers in their struggles against employers. Today self-appointed defenders of labour standards seek to protect employees against greedy companies. In the past it was about expressing solidarity for workers’ battles today it is primarily a case of using state institutions to defend employees as victims. The two notions could not be more different.
Two recent examples of how this works. The awful British fashion brats from BBC3’s Blood, Sweat and T-shirts (see 18 April 2008 post) appearing on Newsnight to talk about labour standards in the developing world. The group were at best gormless (wearing an £800 bracelet while working in an Indian cotton factory) and more often contemptuous of their Indian hosts. Yet they somehow have the moral authority to talk about Indian labour standards on a premier news programme.
A more perceptive piece by TA Frank, a former sweatshop inspector, appears in the April issue of Washington Monthly. Among other things it reminds readers that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have criticised trade deals as unfair to American workers while arguing for future agreements to have higher labour standards. It also makes the point that Robert Reich started cracking down on American sweatshop when he was labor secretary in the Clinton administration.
It is hard to think of many things more nauseating than protectionism masquerading as support for workers. Nor, as some of the Indian workers featured in Blood, Sweat and T-shirts pointed out, is it as simply as banning child labour in the developing world. The alternative for many child workers and their families is often extreme hardship and even starvation. The solution is economic development in the poorer countries. Child labour is rare when countries become rich.
Two recent examples of how this works. The awful British fashion brats from BBC3’s Blood, Sweat and T-shirts (see 18 April 2008 post) appearing on Newsnight to talk about labour standards in the developing world. The group were at best gormless (wearing an £800 bracelet while working in an Indian cotton factory) and more often contemptuous of their Indian hosts. Yet they somehow have the moral authority to talk about Indian labour standards on a premier news programme.
A more perceptive piece by TA Frank, a former sweatshop inspector, appears in the April issue of Washington Monthly. Among other things it reminds readers that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have criticised trade deals as unfair to American workers while arguing for future agreements to have higher labour standards. It also makes the point that Robert Reich started cracking down on American sweatshop when he was labor secretary in the Clinton administration.
It is hard to think of many things more nauseating than protectionism masquerading as support for workers. Nor, as some of the Indian workers featured in Blood, Sweat and T-shirts pointed out, is it as simply as banning child labour in the developing world. The alternative for many child workers and their families is often extreme hardship and even starvation. The solution is economic development in the poorer countries. Child labour is rare when countries become rich.
Labels: development, ethics, india, inequality, television
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Food wastage hysteria
The lead story of today’s Independent (London) is a hysterical rant about food wastage in Britain. It notes that:
“Each day, according to the government-backed report, Britons throw away 4.4 million apples, 1.6 million bananas, 1.3 million yoghurt pots, 660,000 eggs, 550,000 chickens, 300,000 packs of crisps and 440,000 ready meals.”
But to me the striking thing is that, in a population of 60m people, how little is wasted: “The roll call of daily waste costs an average home more than £420 a year but for a family with children the annual cost rises to £610”. But this means the average family with kids wastes less than £2 a day on food. Given the difficulty of matching food purchases to changing family circumstances this seems pretty efficient. A certain amount of food wastage is inevitable given the difficulties of matching individual purchases and consumption. Indeed it is desirable because it is symptomatic of living in a richer society.
It is worth noting that the government has played a role in whipping up such hysteria. The figures come from Waste & Resources Action Programme (Wrap), a government waste campaign.
In a related leader the Independent makes the correct point that it would be wrong to counterpose wasted food in Britain and food shortages in the developing world. But it immediately goes on to suggest such a moral link:
“Ordinary shoppers in Britain are not to blame for the rising price of food across the world. The fact that we are richer and consume more calories than vast swathes of humanity should not be a source of guilt. But in our increasingly connected and exploited world, there does exist a moral responsibility on all of us to consume resources responsibly and sustainably. And that includes food.”
“Each day, according to the government-backed report, Britons throw away 4.4 million apples, 1.6 million bananas, 1.3 million yoghurt pots, 660,000 eggs, 550,000 chickens, 300,000 packs of crisps and 440,000 ready meals.”
But to me the striking thing is that, in a population of 60m people, how little is wasted: “The roll call of daily waste costs an average home more than £420 a year but for a family with children the annual cost rises to £610”. But this means the average family with kids wastes less than £2 a day on food. Given the difficulty of matching food purchases to changing family circumstances this seems pretty efficient. A certain amount of food wastage is inevitable given the difficulties of matching individual purchases and consumption. Indeed it is desirable because it is symptomatic of living in a richer society.
It is worth noting that the government has played a role in whipping up such hysteria. The figures come from Waste & Resources Action Programme (Wrap), a government waste campaign.
In a related leader the Independent makes the correct point that it would be wrong to counterpose wasted food in Britain and food shortages in the developing world. But it immediately goes on to suggest such a moral link:
“Ordinary shoppers in Britain are not to blame for the rising price of food across the world. The fact that we are richer and consume more calories than vast swathes of humanity should not be a source of guilt. But in our increasingly connected and exploited world, there does exist a moral responsibility on all of us to consume resources responsibly and sustainably. And that includes food.”
Labels: consumption, ethics, food
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Celebrities and development
The cover story of today’s New York Times magazine looks at celebrities and the causes they support. It focuses particularly on Natalie Portman as she is evidently an “ambassador” for the Foundation for International Community Assistance (Finca) a microfinance organisation. Others mentioned in the piece include Bono, George Clooney, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.
No doubt even many of the critics would argue that at least celebrities do some good by raising “awareness” of important issues. In fact, as Mick Hume has previously argued on spiked, such initiatives are typically based on the assumption that the West has to “save” the people of the third world from themselves. In the case of Natalie Portman she is – inadvertently no doubt – reinforcing low horizons in relation to development when she promotes microfinance.
No doubt even many of the critics would argue that at least celebrities do some good by raising “awareness” of important issues. In fact, as Mick Hume has previously argued on spiked, such initiatives are typically based on the assumption that the West has to “save” the people of the third world from themselves. In the case of Natalie Portman she is – inadvertently no doubt – reinforcing low horizons in relation to development when she promotes microfinance.
Labels: development, ethics, film, finance, spiked
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Infrastructure helps build new ethics
My comment in the latest issue of Fund Strategy argues that, if conditions are right, investment in infrastructure can be seen as part of an ethic of high expectations.
Infrastructure funds seem to be the latest fad. As Cherry Reynard reports in this week's cover story several groups have set up such portfolios.
Two key trends seem to be driving the surge in infrastructure investment. First, is the increasing privatisation of utilities and other infrastructure projects. In Britain such projects are part of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) while internationally they are referred to as Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT). Such privatisations have given private companies the opportunity to invest in infrastructure.
The second driving force is the strong growth of the world economy and the developing world in particular. As poor countries become more developed they need more infrastructure including bridges, roads and telecoms networks. Such investment is vital for rapid growth to be sustained.
If the first trend makes private investment in infrastructure possible the second makes it desirable. In broad terms the more investment in infrastructure the better. It should help bring the developing world closer to the levels of production and consumption enjoyed in the West.
There is always a chance that infrastructure investment can be wasted. But the problem is too little infrastructure rather than too much.
Africa is an example of the difference infrastructure can make. It is in the middle of an economic boom that has lasted several years. However, its growth is heavily dependent on the production of natural resources. Developing infrastructure should make it possible to diversify its growth away from a heavy dependence on raw materials.
The rapid growth of mobile telephone networks is already making a big difference to people's lives in Africa. From a starting point of nothing many Africans are getting access to mobile phones. A conventional fixed line network would probably have taken a lot more time and effort to extend.
Of course private investors generally invest to make a return rather than for broader social reasons. In this respect infrastructure funds claim to offer risk and return characteristics that put them somewhere between bonds and equities. In this respect they can help diversify portfolios.
But if investors want to invest "ethically" how about an ethic of high horizons? More cars, more roads, universal access to electricity, access to a modern water grid, a mobile phone for all. That is the kind of ethic we could do with.
Infrastructure funds seem to be the latest fad. As Cherry Reynard reports in this week's cover story several groups have set up such portfolios.
Two key trends seem to be driving the surge in infrastructure investment. First, is the increasing privatisation of utilities and other infrastructure projects. In Britain such projects are part of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) while internationally they are referred to as Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT). Such privatisations have given private companies the opportunity to invest in infrastructure.
The second driving force is the strong growth of the world economy and the developing world in particular. As poor countries become more developed they need more infrastructure including bridges, roads and telecoms networks. Such investment is vital for rapid growth to be sustained.
If the first trend makes private investment in infrastructure possible the second makes it desirable. In broad terms the more investment in infrastructure the better. It should help bring the developing world closer to the levels of production and consumption enjoyed in the West.
There is always a chance that infrastructure investment can be wasted. But the problem is too little infrastructure rather than too much.
Africa is an example of the difference infrastructure can make. It is in the middle of an economic boom that has lasted several years. However, its growth is heavily dependent on the production of natural resources. Developing infrastructure should make it possible to diversify its growth away from a heavy dependence on raw materials.
The rapid growth of mobile telephone networks is already making a big difference to people's lives in Africa. From a starting point of nothing many Africans are getting access to mobile phones. A conventional fixed line network would probably have taken a lot more time and effort to extend.
Of course private investors generally invest to make a return rather than for broader social reasons. In this respect infrastructure funds claim to offer risk and return characteristics that put them somewhere between bonds and equities. In this respect they can help diversify portfolios.
But if investors want to invest "ethically" how about an ethic of high horizons? More cars, more roads, universal access to electricity, access to a modern water grid, a mobile phone for all. That is the kind of ethic we could do with.
Labels: development, economics, ethics, Fund Strategy
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Poverty redefined as ethics
American Prospect, a US magazine, has teamed up with Demos (an American think tank rather than the British one of the same name) to produce a special report on “Ending poverty in America”. It is striking how it defines poverty in terms of ethics rather than having anything to do with political struggle or power. The report seems to focus on personal behaviour and providing incentives for people to work:
“In assigning and editing these articles, we were struck by a paradox. There is now growing ideological convergence on what it takes to end poverty. Liberals and conservatives agree that ending poverty is about both personal behaviors and rewards to work; about both values and economics. Ending poverty requires opportunities for wealth creation as well as income support, empowerment as well as transfer payments. It requires all children to be school-ready, which takes both stronger families and more effective public programs.”
“In assigning and editing these articles, we were struck by a paradox. There is now growing ideological convergence on what it takes to end poverty. Liberals and conservatives agree that ending poverty is about both personal behaviors and rewards to work; about both values and economics. Ending poverty requires opportunities for wealth creation as well as income support, empowerment as well as transfer payments. It requires all children to be school-ready, which takes both stronger families and more effective public programs.”
Labels: America, ethics, inequality
Friday, December 08, 2006
The Economist versus ethical food
This week’s Economist (9 December) includes some useful criticisms of the idea of “ethical food” while also making unnecessary concessions. It points out that organic food is far less intensive than traditional agriculture; so therefore more expensive and able to feed fewer people. Fairtrade discourages farmers from diversifying and local food often uses more energy than that produced a long way away. However, it is untrue that the ethical food movement aims to encourage development while there is nothing inherently positive about protecting the environment. The final conclusion, that only politics rather than ethical consumption can bring change, is certainly correct.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Australian radio appearance
I appeared today on the Counterpoint programme on ABC Radio National in Australia talking about Bono's Product RED initiative as well as related issues such as ethical consumption and economic development. You can listen by clicking here.
Labels: consumption, development, ethics, media appearances, radio
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Madonna’s little black baby
Madonna has found a new way of expressing herself: she is adopting a little black baby from an orphanage in Malawi. Whereas ordinary people sometimes wear white wristbands or flash American Express RED cards to express their piety the mistress of makeovers evidently needed something more. She chose a baby from the children in the orphanage in a similar way to a shopper choosing a pair of shoes.
The symbolism of Madonna’s adoption of baby Davie was clear to an unnamed source at the orphanage quoted in today’s Sun: “She … carried him on her back, which was very symbolic as that is the way Malawian mothers carry their children.” Presumably this blatant display demonstrates what a worthy person she is. Madonna follows Angelina Jolie, actress and UN Goodwill Ambassador, who has adopted an Ethiopian and a Cambodian baby.
Such expressions of celebrity colonialism do no good for the third world but no doubt they help celebrities feel they are somehow spiritually pure.
The symbolism of Madonna’s adoption of baby Davie was clear to an unnamed source at the orphanage quoted in today’s Sun: “She … carried him on her back, which was very symbolic as that is the way Malawian mothers carry their children.” Presumably this blatant display demonstrates what a worthy person she is. Madonna follows Angelina Jolie, actress and UN Goodwill Ambassador, who has adopted an Ethiopian and a Cambodian baby.
Such expressions of celebrity colonialism do no good for the third world but no doubt they help celebrities feel they are somehow spiritually pure.
Labels: Africa, development, ethics
Monday, September 25, 2006
Gordon Brown against prosperity
Those who did not listen carefully to Gordon Brown’s speech at the Labour Party conference today might have got the impression he was against Western intervention in the third world. But a close reading shows the Labour chancellor is railing against affluence:
In other words prosperity in the rich countries is “unsustainable”. And somehow it detracts from development in the poor countries (it should also be noted that Brown’s definition of development is an exceedingly narrow one).
Earlier in the speech there is another hint that what he really wants is changing behaviour - presumably to limit consumption or at least the growth in consumption:
“I make this promise: tackling climate change must not be the excuse for rich countries to impose a new environmental colonialism: sheltering an unsustainable prosperity at the expense of the development of the poor.”
In other words prosperity in the rich countries is “unsustainable”. And somehow it detracts from development in the poor countries (it should also be noted that Brown’s definition of development is an exceedingly narrow one).
Earlier in the speech there is another hint that what he really wants is changing behaviour - presumably to limit consumption or at least the growth in consumption:
“let me say candidly of the environment: Yes it is about personal and collective responsibility to change our behaviour, and I know too that governments across the world have been too slow to recognise the threat of climate change.”
Labels: climate, consumption, ethics, sustainability
Sunday, September 24, 2006
The new philanthropy: a dirty deal
Philanthropy seems to be in fashion. Bill and Melinda Gates have donated huge amounts to ending global poverty. Warren Buffett has followed their lead. Bono and Bobby Shriver seem to be trying to popularise the movement further with their Product Red campaign.
The latest high profile event in London is Tuesday’s Fortune Forum dinner at Billingsgate including Bill Clinton, Michael Douglas, Deepak Chopra (spiritual guru), Zac Goldsmith (eco-toff and editor of the Ecologist), and a comeback performance by Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens). For those who are interested prices start at only £1,000 a plate.
On the face of it what could be wrong here? The wealthy are giving substantial amounts of money to worthwhile causes such as curing AIDS and malaria, tackling climate change and reducing global inequality. But closer examination shows that a dirty deal is implicit in this arrangement: the rich will give a little money to the poorest of the poor in return for the mass of the population giving up the ambition of broader development. Unpicking this arrangement will be one of my tasks over the coming months.
The latest high profile event in London is Tuesday’s Fortune Forum dinner at Billingsgate including Bill Clinton, Michael Douglas, Deepak Chopra (spiritual guru), Zac Goldsmith (eco-toff and editor of the Ecologist), and a comeback performance by Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens). For those who are interested prices start at only £1,000 a plate.
On the face of it what could be wrong here? The wealthy are giving substantial amounts of money to worthwhile causes such as curing AIDS and malaria, tackling climate change and reducing global inequality. But closer examination shows that a dirty deal is implicit in this arrangement: the rich will give a little money to the poorest of the poor in return for the mass of the population giving up the ambition of broader development. Unpicking this arrangement will be one of my tasks over the coming months.
Labels: debt, development, ethics, health, inequality
Monday, August 21, 2006
Crunchy cops
Not long after discovering “crunchy cons” (green conservatives) it seems we now have crunchy cops. Or as an article in today’s London Evening Standard puts it: “Now the boys in blue are going green”. Evidently the Metropolitan Police:
The politically correct PC is a long way from the stereotype of the sandal-wearing, long-haired leftist which used to be seen as the typical green.
”has ordered its first hydrogen powered patrol cars which emit no exhaust and run almost silently. Meanwhile it is already using almost 100 cars with cleaner diesel / vegetable oil engines.”
The politically correct PC is a long way from the stereotype of the sandal-wearing, long-haired leftist which used to be seen as the typical green.
Labels: environment, ethics
Friday, August 18, 2006
An ethical blessing to consume
It seems that even the Wall Street Journal - one of the closest things there is to a true neocon organ - is going ethical. Or at least the Weekend Journal supplement to the Wall Street Journal Europe (WSJE) has a guide to consuming with a conscience. For those who have the cash ethical brands include Giorgio Armani (clothing and accessories for Product Red ), Katherine Hamnett (a range of clothing and accessories that is “ethically made and as environmental as possible”), Izze Beverage Company (all-natural juice drinks), Green & Black’s (organic chocolate) and Kuyichi Europe (making fair trade and environmentally friendly materials cool).
Meanwhile, while the rich go ethical the consumption of Champagne, once seen as a drink primarily for the rich, is increasingly seen as vulgar. The WSJE also has an article from London on how Champagne is becoming popular with “chavs”. Apparently the Oxford English Dictionary defines these as young people characterised by: “brash and loutish behaviour and the wearing of designer clothes”. But to me it seems like a snobbish term to describe - and deride - ordinary young people.
So for the rich consumption can be OK as long as it is blessed with an ethical tag. For the rest of us to aspire to the best in life is uncouth or even uncool.
Meanwhile, while the rich go ethical the consumption of Champagne, once seen as a drink primarily for the rich, is increasingly seen as vulgar. The WSJE also has an article from London on how Champagne is becoming popular with “chavs”. Apparently the Oxford English Dictionary defines these as young people characterised by: “brash and loutish behaviour and the wearing of designer clothes”. But to me it seems like a snobbish term to describe - and deride - ordinary young people.
So for the rich consumption can be OK as long as it is blessed with an ethical tag. For the rest of us to aspire to the best in life is uncouth or even uncool.
Labels: consumption, ethics
