The Adnostic

I want to live a greener lifestyle. I want to move to a city with better public transportation so I can drive less. I try to avoid drinking bottled water by using a Britta filter for my daily drinking water, reusing the PET bottle a few times when I can't avoid it, and requesting a glass of the city's finest when I'm dining out. I carry a baggu bag with me wherever I go and use it at every possible occasion. I hardly have any plastic bags for trash anymore. I buy organic food even though its more expensive and I'm not gainfully employed. I recycle sparingly, but I want to increase that effort once I'm in my own place (my roommate isn't much for recycling so I hide my bottles and cans in the neighbors' recycling bins). I want to start buying carbon offsets eventually, but I'm not sure if that's any more effective than investing in socially responsible mutual funds. And so on, and so forth.

Here is what I don't want to be - I don't want to be a green know-it-all or a nag, but I'm worried. I'm worried that the sense of an immediate need for a united effort, from for businesses and consumers, isn't being felt and that a greater part of society isn't taking it seriously or doesn't believe it at all. It's not like I am completely certain that increasingly severe weather patterns are a continuous trend and not just a blip along the history of existence. But this video made it easy for me decide:

- If we do nothing and there is no climate crisis, then things continue as they are.
- If we do nothing and global warming continues, disaster is immanent.
- If we so something and climate change abates, then we consume less, are energy independent, produce less waste, etc.
- If we do something and the climate crisis turns out to be very real, then hopefully we can do enough to end or even reverse the pattern of causation.

Either way, it is far better to do something than to do nothing.

But what can we do? According to this article in the New York Times, many people who want to do something feel paralyzed by conflicting messages.

"An environmentally conscientious consumer is left to wonder: are low-energy compact fluorescent bulbs better than standard incandescents, even if they contain traces of mercury? Which salad is more earth-friendly, the one made with organic mixed greens trucked from thousands of miles away, or the one with lettuce raised on nearby industrial farms? Should they support nuclear power as a clean alternative to coal?"

Sure, we would all like to see the issue as black and white - if we do these things then the planet will be saved, but its usually not that simple. Especially for the larger purchases. The only way we can cease to have an impact is to not consume at all, otherwise, everything else is a trade off. Bamboo floor vs. wood = renewable resource vs. smaller carbon footprint. It is the act of making a conscious decision to weigh the costs and benefits to the earth and our future well-being that is important.

Therefore, it is our job as marketers to empower consumers to weigh the pluses and minuses without feeling overwhelmed by them. The M&S carbon footprint label is a good start, but it only tells one part of the story. We can't be can't all be Ed Begley Jr. (he's a borderline nutcase), but we can at least have the information we need to make the buying decisions that make us more good than bad.