Putting aside the cartoon narrative style of writing, I found the analysis in Monica Hesse’s article, “Greed In The Name of Green,” to be shallow and flawed. 

Hesse’s assertion that consumers are buying green is not supported by the facts.  Our opinion research shows that consumers:  a) don’t know what “green” even means, along with many other terms commonly used by the media and policymakers; and for those who do have a sense of the terminology, b) buying green is way down on the list for buying products and services. 

Even the example used for buying organic is much more complex than what the article leads you to believe, with people just as likely to be buying organic to support local farmers, or because organic food tastes better, or because it is trendy.

People buy Toyota’s Prius or most other “green” products or services because what it says about them rather than any direct impact on the environment.  A prescription focused on conservation and not consuming is not very effective when people aren’t basing their purchasing decision on an environmental impact criterion in the first place. 

“Not buying,” or not trying, could also have unintended and adverse impacts on the environment.  Older vehicles represent a disproportionate amount of the stationary sources of carbon; older houses tend to be more inefficient in their use of energy.   Not switching over older cars or spending money to make houses more efficient are surefire ways to increase carbon emissions over time.

The majority of consumers are either not aware of good options, can’t afford good options, or don’t believe the options offered are acceptable.  Far from seeing green (in their greed), Hesse’s article is more likely to make frustrated consumers to see red.

Jamie Wimberly
CEO, EcoAlign
www.ecoalign.com
Washington, DC
(202) 483-4443