About two years ago, Mumbai made headlines across the world with its initiative for a blanket ban on single-use plastics. Albeit not for the first time: the city had once tried to implement a similarly ambitious directive in 2005, post the disastrous July floods, and again, something similar in 2012, via the Plastic Management Rule. Hefty fines were levied with the aim of becoming plastic-free by May 2020. Cut to today, the Municipality is close to nowhere with regards to eradicating the usage of plastics. Although several fines were levied and enough plastic has been seized, the issue remains unsolved. This whole exercise, however, popped open a slew of questions concerning how sustainable living is viewed.
The organic way of living, by utilizing the bounties of nature available around us to sustain ourselves is a novel concept. And particularly to Indians, the entire culture is built on the foundation of divinizing nature, inculcating a steady practice of respecting everything that nature or ‘matru bhoomi’ has to offer. Thriftiness is an omnipresent habit across Indian households; clothes eventually become rags and each kitchen houses that one plastic cover which stores many other plastic covers for reusing later.
But, as is the case with the development of any society, rapid consumption of mass produced, cheap products overtook the circular lifestyle, leaving us at the footsteps of a problem that the entire world now faces- excessive consumption resulting in massive carbon footprints and ultimately climate change.
Awareness about environmental degradation has lingered ever since. School textbooks try to teach students judicious consumption, while white-collar conferences host a panel on the necessity of a green future. Amidst this, perhaps the most noticeable trend is that of adopting eco-friendly and/or organic products in one’s daily life. Seen as the necessary drop in the ocean of sustainable development, consumers are being increasingly nudged to switch over to these alternatives as a means to contribute.
This situation inadvertently encourages a conversation about the practicality and sensibility of a shift towards a more environmentally-friendly way of living. For instance, consider the aforementioned plastic ban. While it is a welcome move to eliminate the synthetics, the ‘sustainable’ alternatives remain inaccessible to most. Cloth bags and jute bags offered by shopkeepers often carry a price, dissuading people from opting for them. It’s simple math - a consumer would rather use the free plastic bag lying in their house instead of paying ₹30 for a cloth bag. Further still, the disadvantaged sections of the society may not be able to afford a cloth bag. Thus, what the plastic ban possibly did was make the mundane task of carrying one’s belongings an act of privilege.
Such is the backdrop of most consumption patterns in the modern day. To add, humanity’s food habits have garnered significant attention. There have been long-standing debates around the constituents of one’s diet and its source. Even though organically produced food is morally the right choice to make, currently available products carry a surcharge. Such products are often available in plush supermarkets, whose accessibility to those out of the middle-class income bracket is questionable. Additionally, much deliberation has taken place on the consumption of non-vegetarian food items, since meat-eating has a considerable carbon footprint. One fails to account for the fact that a complete switch over to vegetarian/vegan food would only shift the incidence from meat-production to agriculture, given that people’s caloric and nutrition requirements would not change. However, the confines of sustainable products encompass fast-moving consumer goods as well, increasing their presence day by day. A simple scroll on Instagram or Facebook would reveal the number of accounts selling them, from bamboo toothbrushes to wheat fiber utensils. Known as ‘green consumerism’, the phenomenon can be termed as a new genre of capitalist expenditure, which, unlike the usual spending on conventional products, focuses on sustainable ones. Against the backdrop of increased awareness, people seem to have developed a sense of ‘eco-guilt’, or the guilt of buying ecologically harmful products. An evolutionary cognitive approach terms this as ‘balancing heuristics acts’. It simply means that, as humans, we harbor a tendency to restore a moral balance for the wrongs that we have caused; therefore, the attempt to purchase eco-friendly products could be a result of the same.
While the intention in itself isn’t harmful, its consequences reveal otherwise. A large part of this consumer group have come to conclude that the supposed conscious buying is a one-stop solution to mitigating climate change. A popular example of this would be the purchase of carbon offsets while flying. These are schemes that allow air-travelers to buy offsets, donate to environmental projects, to undo the pollution, or compensate for the additional carbon footprint. Presently, the estimates for the global carbon market range between $40 billion to $120 billion. These offsets, however, are treated like an immunity deal against our impact. While buying an offset is a noble choice, a decision to avoid frequent flying would potentially have a much more desirable effect.
A bulk of these actions conclusively point towards one issue - it is seldom acknowledged that, while eco-conscious alternatives are welcome, a total reduction in consumption is the ultimate answer to alleviate climate change effects. There lies a clear distinction between green-living and light-green living, and this perchance must be made aware to more people. If the cumulative impact of sustainable products is the same, then we are essentially back to square one. The ideal would be to de-clutter one’s lifestyle and reduce the usage of everyday articles to only those which are indispensable. It is okay if those plastic tupperware boxes are not discarded, but we can definitely do without fancy china saved for guests who never show up.
Shrishti Achar
