The Good Life
Organic wool jacket from the Delano Collection at a staggering introductory price of $595. It throws in free shipping, for what it’s worth.
Something I don’t quite get about the environmental movement is the way some self-purported tree-huggers take the market trend toward eco-friendly, socially conscious goods as a kind of carte blanche to splurge unnecessarily. In essence, their modus operandi hasn’t changed—the only difference is that their habits have become, in the words of William McDonough and Michael Braungart, “less bad.” But is it enough to just be less bad? If sustainable living is about treading lightly and leaving behind as small an ecologic footprint as possible, doesn’t that also include rethinking the role material and hedonistic excess play in our lives?
Despite the socialist bent of many of my stances, I do believe in the power of the consumer—that conscious consumption by those of us who can afford to can fuel changes in industry practices to make sustainability affordable for everyone. But when I hear about women decked out in Linda Loudermilk couture and Loomstate jeans traipsing off to high-end “lifestyle” salons to get their highlights done ( “but it’s environmentally friendly henna, dah-ling”), it sounds disquietingly discordant. No wonder the current movement has been accused of being classist and patrician. In many ways, it is. And there’s a disconnect.
So not to get too kumbaya-ya on you, but lately I’ve been contemplating the idea of sufficiency—of having “enough” in a “more-is-better” world. In Sustainable Planet: Solutions for the Twenty-first Century, an essay by Vickie Robin expounds on the idea of inner fulfillment vs. material accumulation, while asserting that so much of our needs (”fun, play, love, imagination”) can be met nonmaterially:
There are some people who simply cannot imagine further frugality. They don’t have enough. These are the two billion living on one dollar a day, the low-income single parents who economize, pinch pennies, and still can’t meet needs without greater income. A truly sustainable future requires systemic changes to address the genuine material and financial needs of the poor. But for many, frugality can be a path to liberation.
When you put together personal frugality with the vast array of tools and mechanisms for meeting one’s needs, through informal trade, social networks, and public consumption slows down enough to let a lot of people off. Money is not such a mystery. It might not even be the insurmountable barrier to having the life you want. There is wealth beyond money. Riches are interior and interpersonal as well as material. Assets include character and community as well as property. Knowing this, you are strong in ways that the economy can’t touch. You have enough.
Chekhov has a sizeable collection of cat toys, including an expensive motorized, motion-sensitive mouse my sister-in-law bought him last Christmas. He eschews all these. In fact, nothing makes him more delirious with kittenish glee than the little piece of plastic that comes off a carton of milk. What does he know that us hairless bipeds don’t?
kevin said,
April 20, 2006 at 7:19 pm
I’ve been thinking about the same thing. We can permit ourselves the occasional treat, and greener choices are better, but green products shouldn’t be a license for excess - especially when the best solution to so many environmental and social problems is to simply not buy or do something in the first place. Cars, for instance, are bad for the environment, but the “no car” solution is infinitely preferable to “the greener car” solution. Same applies to many other choices.
I wrote a bit about this same idea here.
Your comment about Chekhov reminded me of when my kids were small and they always preferred playing with the boxes their Xmas presents came in to playing with the toys themselves. There was a lesson in that I should have paid more attention to!
kyrie said,
April 20, 2006 at 8:52 pm
yes! i was going to say virtually the same thing about boxes as opposed to toys. we have a ten month old whose favorite “toys” are measuring cups and spoons, or sticks from outside. i think we’ve almost managed to convince her grandparents that she doesn’t need all those plastic “educational” toys that are so popular.
jasmine said,
April 20, 2006 at 9:35 pm
While thinking about the argument that the environmental movement is classist — it may just be a problem of priorities. I have plenty of students whose parents can’t keep the phone line hooked up and they receive subsidized meals but they all have game boys and play stations and dish TV or cable. many of them have more than one TV in the apartment. If you can afford to take you child to mc Donalds then you can afford to cook them rice and beans (and culturally this is the food the parents grew up with). I am not sure what point I am trying to make other than many “poor” families have different priorities on what necessary expenses are and the priorities may have to do with convience and comfort and wanting more.
Laura said,
April 20, 2006 at 11:05 pm
What you wrote reminded me of why I enjoy listening to the radio. I guess it’s hard to explain without sounding cornbalish. When I listen to the radio I choose from a variety of stations that I can change at any moment. There are people throughout the world listening and making those choices, too. When there is a variety of quality programming a radio provides services such as education to anyone. A radio is a small item that offers a large bounty and aside from the cost of the radio, the programming is free. I have to give this some more thought but I immediately thought of it as I read your post. The other thing that your post made me think of is the duality of the surge in indie craft businesses. I love that many women are gaining business experience and creating new ways to navigate old practices. However, I find myself getting drawn into the coolness of the product and away from the usefulness. And handcrafting is somehow turning into a selling point for an unneeded commodity. (It’s a big topic and my brief thought is very small.)
cindy said,
April 20, 2006 at 11:18 pm
your spot on. if you have ever been on the simple living forums you will see in some threads people having trouble paring down the thousands of items of clothing or the billions of knick-knacks in their home. i don’t think going green but still consuming at a unsustainable rate solves anything. the people to learn from on those forums are the ones who cut their credit cards up, stopped purchasing willy nilly and payed off their mortgages early.
i love how babies mine included, basically give the finger to most toys and play with the empty boxes, zippers on mummies clothes, pinecones, the cat’s tail. it’s endless what you DON’t need for the little ones.
kathy said,
April 21, 2006 at 11:08 am
ah, yes. the so-called “milk ring”. Juliet also finds unending delight in these, to the point that I found half a dozen under various heavy objects when I moved out.
Bellen said,
April 21, 2006 at 5:31 pm
I’ve been thru the ‘ lots of stuff - it was only a $1. a box’ - to why in heaven’s name am I moving this stuff again, I haven’t used it in 10 years, much less known I owned it.. Less really is more - I use what I have and don’t buy anything that I absolutely don’t need. Have you checked out greatgreengoods.com? An organic coat for $595.! But you get free shipping. The only way to make the world a better to live is to live more lightly. Frankly, I’m a little tired of hearing just how much of world’s resources Americans use - can’t we be proud of using less?
Bellen said,
April 21, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Sorry - the coat was on your site. It was a bag made of recycled maps and slides for $150. Same difference however. Still not a good idea for either.
Liz said,
April 22, 2006 at 1:04 pm
I’m often trying to understand exactly WHY I feel so strongly about conserving and living simply. I think I found the kernel yesterday, and Kevin’s post summed it up so well for me. I truly (perhaps naively) believe that if everyone was satisfied with a little bit less, we wouldn’t be heading into the environmental crisis we seem to be headed for. What saddens me is that people have been sharing these thoughts about making do with less since time began, but most of society doesn’t seem to be listening.
jill danyelle said,
April 24, 2006 at 2:43 am
Yikes, in some ways I feel this is aimed at me. Well, not personally, but because this is more or less the focus of my site, http://fiftyrx3.com, where my project is to photograph what I wear everyday in attempts to be 50% sustainable while retaining style. As a reader, Jasmin, you know that I have talked on several occasions about consumerism. I was also involved in a nonconsumerism thread over at SuperNaturale. However, I do promote “sustainable style” and so I also promote the products. It is often hard to walk the line. I’d like to promote some of these designers by wearing their products, but I also don’t feel like buying just for the sake of buying. Usually when I buy something it’s because I either need it or I have fallen in love with the design and know I’ll wear it. I buy a ton of my stuff “reused” as well and when I am done with it, I put it back out on the “reused” market… or maybe cut it up and sew it into something else.
So, I am also wondering where you hear of “women decked out in Linda Loudermilk couture and Loomstate jeans traipsing off to high-end “lifestyle” salons to get their highlights done “? I am not one of these women, the only LL I have is a scarf that came in a swag bag and no Loomstate jeans for me at this point, although I support the use of “eco” fabrics that both of these companies have commited to and don’t see anything wrong with people who can afford it, buying it. Additionally, I am not going to deny that I have some expensive items in my closet that I certainly enjoy wearing.
I enjoy clothing and style, not necessarily fashion, and I will argue there is a difference. I don’t feel like a bad person for that. I almost collect clothes, but these are mainly obscure vintage items from the past. Going to the flea market and finding a perfect $10 dress is a bit of an adventure for me. I am fine when I am not near a store or flea market, but bring a horse to water… all the colors are just paints waiting to be combined on the blank canvas of me. I buy these things because I enjoy it and find personal style interesting, not because I need to keep up with the latest trends or want people to accept me because of what I wear. I actually prefer the challenge of trying to put together a look with the least money possible, but I also invest in quality pieces because I feel it saves money in the end.
That said, I am aware of living simply and am plenty frugal in other areas of my life. I also draw the line. I live in a small apartment and usually edit out the closet twice a year, donating or selling what I don’t wear and altering or repairing other items so that I can keep wearing them. I try not to buy things I don’t really need or that at least cannot fill a void in my closet. However, I am human and sometimes just buy something because I really like it and want it.
So, I am happy that everyone above likes to live simply, but I also don’t think I need to feel guilty about wanting to look good and feel good about what I am wearing. I think for the people who are happy with wearing the same pair of jeans their whole life, fine. I know fashion is frivolous, but sometimes we need a little fun in our life. My whole mission this year is to influence the apparel industry to clean up production and rethink manufacturing and I devote countless hours to researching, writing and networking about this stuff. So, yes, buying organic jeans is better than buying conventional jeans, but worse than buying nothing at all. But I don’t think we can convince people to buy nothing at all. Plus, buying a pair of organic jeans can hardly be compared with buying five pairs of organic jeans. So, we are talking about a couple of issues, that while related, are not exactly the same thing. Additionally I wonder if the LL and Loomstate were cheaper, would this still bother you? Does it bother you less than women buying conventional designer clothes and getting conventional highlights? Wal-Mart happens to be the largest purchaser of organic cotton, now ahead of Nike, so there are also options at a lower price.
I understand your point and agree that buying organic should not allow one to feel they have free reign to overconsume thoughtlessly. I agree that consumerism should be moderated, but I also feel like I want to consume better products in moderation. In additon, because we all agree here that consumption should be moderated, does that mean we believe production will stop? I think both messages are equally worthy, but I also think we need to be realistic in our expectations. No car at all is better than a hybrid, but tell that to the guy in suburban Indidanapolis. Sometimes you need to compromise.
I don’t drive. I use CFLs. I signed up for Green Solutions. My toilet and shower head are low flow/flush. I am trying to unplug things to decrease the phantom load. I support organic and local farming frequently. I make clothes out of recycled things. I recycle. I am even hoping to start composting. I have energy star appliances. And if the day comes that I can ever wrap my mind around spending more than $100 for a pair of jeans, I won’t feel bad about buying an organic pair and wearing them to the salon where I may pay almost as much to get some highlights thrown in my hair.
And, by the way, Jasmin, I have spent the last ten years working as a pediatric therapist all over this God foresaken city, so I know all about that mindboggling sensation of finding a huge t.v. and a closet full of videos, but no furniture in the apartment. I have been bit, kicked, drooled upon, cursed at, you name it. I have worried about and advocated for the welfare of countless children and bought Christmas presents where I knew there wouldn’t be any. I have been loved and learned a lot. At the end of those days it is good to throw on a nice outfit and enjoy myself. I think I earned it. I know you aren’t judging me, but sometimes you never know the story behind the book cover.
Jasmin said,
April 24, 2006 at 10:34 am
(I’m posting my e-mail response to Jill here in case other people felt the same way.)
Hi Jill,
I’m sorry you took personal offense, but the post wasn’t a dig at you, honest! I think you’ve totally misconstrued my meaning.
I love your Web site and especially the way you’re encouraging buying vintage and used, so you’re the complete antithesis of the type of person I was talking about. As a former clotheshorse myself, and someone who loves visuals, I understand and appreciate the need for fashion to be both functional and stylish. I would be among the first to revolt if environmentalists started asserting that we all wear hemp sacks and eschew aesthetics as being frivolous. Fashion should be fun.
I’m assuming you didn’t read a previous post of mine where I talked about Juliet B. Schor’s view of a new fashion paradigm (which I’m in agreement with): http://www.worstedwitch.com/?p=177
“What she proposes are the basic principles of “ecology and frugality” that prior generations maintained: “take only what you need, use it until it is no longer useable, repair rather than replace, refashion to provide variety.” By valuing “quality over quantity, longevity over novelty, and versatility over specialty,” we can be satisfied with a smaller, less varied, closet, but one for which we can spend more per garment so that our clothes are better constructed, will last longer, and have less of an impact on our environment.”
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I think your site encompasses these values, which is very admirable and inspiring.
The people I was talking about are the ones who haven’t changed their consumerist ways—are still wasteful and consume without thinking; using “eco-friendly” as an excuse for their ill-thought-out, random purchases without regarding them as long-term commitments—i.e., buying just for the sake of buying and having something to do.
I’m grateful to brands like Loomstate who give us a gentler option when there’s a serious need to buy new. (I’m more ambivalent about higher-end brands with astronomical prices that belie their workmanship and materials, but that’s another thread of discussion not quite relevant to this.)
So I think this is just a case of misunderstanding and we’re in fact on the same side. Please continue to do the wonderful work you are doing.
Living Green in LA » Carnival of the Green said,
April 24, 2006 at 5:37 pm
[...] from over-consumerism in the green movement to addressing illegal immigration and housing needs post-Katrina … and much more! [...]
jill danyelle said,
April 24, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Dear Jasmin,
All day I had angst about that comment. It probably isn’t ideal to type out responses at 2:30 in the morning.
I really didn’t take it personally, but I suppose some of my frustration from working between the fashion and environment arenas may have seeped in. I knew you weren’t directing it at me, as I stated a couple of times, because I know more or less we are on the same page about these things. My response may have been subconsciously influenced by my attempt to not buy anything new this year unless it is environmentally friendly… and that I haven’t been entirely successful. And also, call me naive, but who are the people buying tons of organic clothing with no purpose? Is this really happening?
And to some of the other comments above… yes, some of this stuff is expensive, which is all the more reason to influence the larger manufacturers to adopt sustainable practices and hence reduce the prices. Plus, there is a lot of expensive stuff out there regardless.
While I believe in the stuff you are saying and pretty much subscribe to Schor’s paradigm, I also feel uncomfortable telling people how to live their lives. Probably relatively few people actually “need” a new pair of jeans in the truest sense of the word and it can become a slippery slope. Who gets to define what is excessive? I believe that this is where manufacturing better options comes in as the hook, as people don’t want to feel limited. And as much as I advocate it, eco fashion is extremely limited, which is why so much of my stuff is “reused”.
Trust me, I am not now, nor was I, hurt or angry by your post, but am just raising up some questions around the topic. However, if you want to delete my comment, your response and this comment, I won’t be bothered in the least. Tone can sometimes be difficult to convey in writing and I’ve been writing until I’m bleary eyed lately so may not be adding cohesive thoughts at this point anyway!
I deal with these types of comments all the time (not yours, but the one below which was on the post on treehugger linking to my recent thtv segment.)
“Wow, the sheer frivolity of this! I mean, yeesh! OK, now I don’t think we should go back to loin cloths and live in TPs, but if nonsense like this takes up more than 5 seconds of your attention, you NEED a reality check.
Oil just hit $74. We’re contemplating tactical nukes to thwart Iran’s nukes. China’s cities are being inundated by toxic dust storms. Common, get a clue!”
My response is there:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/treehugger_tv_s.php
So, indeed, we are on the same page. I just haven’t heard of these Loomstate Loudermilk ladies running off to the salon. And I also am not faithful that the masses will drastically reduce their shopping anytime soon. But we could start a rally to mandate reduced consumption. Let’s start with mandatory carpooling.
Thanks so much for all of your support. Hopefully, we can find a time soon to meet up in person.
Jill
Amy Stodghill said,
April 25, 2006 at 9:11 pm
I’ll jump in to this comment conversation - albeit a few days delayed. because I’ve also been struggling with some of these issues.
I’ve returned home for the week for a friend’s wedding and have found myself judging my friends, family and random people everywhere. Home is suburbia outside of Seattle. The night I got home I went out to dinner with my dad and my brother - against my reccommendations, the place chosen was Applebees. The parking lot was crammed, the restaurant was full, and I thought to myself - why is this place always full? The next day I went to a big box electronics retailer to get a digital camera - the second I walked in I thought, why do people need a million-inch tv screen? A bit excessive and unecessary. The most important topic of conversation with my friends (aside from the non-green details of my friends wedding) was gas prices, even though two of my friends are planning on buying non-hybrid SUVs. But as I’m making mental critiques about ‘these people’, I realized I am really not too different from them at all. Just because i have a blog where i rant about some environmental policy now and then, does that make me better on the green scale than the rest of the world?
I also then realized that ‘these people’ are the people that need to be reached out to. These are just regular people, living life as best they can, providing for their families etc. This is the face of America. I then thought what if we worked with the big box retailers and giant manufacturers instead of fighting against them to get more less- bad products on the shelves. Then once all the shelves are filled with less bad products, maybe we can get even less-less-bad products to replace those. Then conflicted again, I thought, uh-oh, by saying ‘let’s work with the enemy’ I’m sure I would alienate every ‘good’ environmentalist out there.
I despise over-consumption, and excessive materialism, and would love to convert those who practice it into a less ’stuff’ oriented society. But with the way things are at the moment, I don’t think people are willing to sacrifice ‘things’ or what they perceive as ‘luxury’ or ‘luxurious necessities’ despite what it does to the environment (or human health). This is why I am all for ’sustainable style’ - what I consider to be the mainstreaming of green. While it kind of seems like a bit of a trendy novelty - at least as it is portrayed in the ‘green’ issues of Vanity Fair and Elle - it is making it into the mainstream, which is exactly where it needs to go. Hopefully this ‘hype’ right now will spur more people into becoming aware of all things us enviro-savvy folk are keen on, and hopefully it will spur ‘these people’ into using their purchasing power for good (less-bad) rather than for evil (all-bad).
okay - that’s enough ranting for the moment. :)
jill danyelle said,
April 25, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Well said Amy, thank God I am not the only adult child taken to Applebee’s by their parents.
Regarding the evil empire and the environmentalists…
http://fiftyrx3.blogspot.com/2006/04/whats-up-with-wal-mart.html
http://fiftyrx3.blogspot.com/2006/04/next-green-revolution.html
How technology is leading environmentalism out of the anti-business, anti-consumer wilderness.
lee said,
April 25, 2006 at 11:46 pm
i think you both rock. but i don’t like CFLs at all. LEDs are waykooler. and lifecycle-wise…
BUT i dig simplicity but dont think that we’re going to worldchange with simplicity unless it’s by cataclysms, if its going to be a mass evolution, might as well be with bioplastic gizmos (that get composted later) and some style. and hey im not much into marriage but think that the wedding dress made form recycled plstic bags kicks butt!
you both have great style, and its probably going to take both style for the privileged and then eventually a transition into simplicity, but maybe still with style… i often push people to these kids because i think this is an amazing way to be an individual
The Worsted Witch » Pretty People Prefer Priuses said,
April 29, 2006 at 12:18 pm
[...] Jerome, you’re a snarker after my own withered heart. Brava: Plenty of snarky, snide, vicious little jabs at Birkenstocks, lentils, tie dye, tree hugging, and any critique of capitalism—just so yesterday, m’dear. Trying to make it clear that Pretty Wealthy People Green-ness is a whole new, fashionable, stylish and above all upper-crusty thing, not some dreary shtick about, you know, serious ideas discussed by nonphotogenic vegetarian anoraks who drive old cars or godforbid ride a bike. Token third world activist—just one—Wangari Maathai. Everyone else seems white and 80 percent male. Feature pages: nifty expensive gifts to buy that are green or pseudo-green—how to Keep Consuming Pointlessly with a Clear Conscience. [...]
The Worsted Witch » Charge for Change said,
May 22, 2006 at 1:25 pm
[...] This Treehugger post made me rethink the plastic in my pocket, and how I could get my expenses to align even more closely with my ideologies. (My Amex gets regularly put through its paces because I’m quite lax at remembering to withdraw enough physical greenbacks. Since I’ve decided to live more frugally, however, my desire to splurge those accumulated points on the latest knitting hardcover or gift certificates to the Gap has all but petered out. Frankly, it’s been absolutely liberating.) [...]
The Worsted Witch » Kits for Crafts said,
June 29, 2006 at 9:39 pm
[...] I was brainstorming gift ideas, for the anti-consumerist Christmas I plan on making a tradition of … besides, y’know, 12 papier mâchè ash trays lovingly crafted from moldy copies of the New York Times … when I stumbled upon this online retailer that supplies kits for making your own natural skin- and home-care products. While ostensibly for children, Kits for Crafts has a certain all-ages whimsy and sophistication, as evidenced in its attention to detail and presentation. Already I can tell you, from my hours and hours of experience stalking the aisles of natural food stores and generally bugging out the staff, that the ingredients would cost significantly less if purchased on your own—you can find tons of recipes online or from books—and then packaged with materials gleaned through serendipity or ingenuity. (The hub, who knows me so well, stumbled upon a yard sale the owner of our local tea shop held last week, and secured, for a song, a few bail-handled canning jars that used to house tea leaves—too perfect!) Still, the site has scores of wonderful packaging ideas, along with ingredients, bottles, jars, and bags à la carte should you desire them. And you can always plonk down a nice chunk of change for the kits if you have more greenbacks than patience. Best of all, however, is the site’s free (yessiree, FREE) Making Labels section, where, once you register your e-mail, you can download and print pre-designed TOOCUTEFORWORDS labels and embellishments (including those paper outfits above) you can slap on your own fabulous creations. [...]
The Worsted Witch » Charmoné said,
July 20, 2006 at 4:13 pm
[...] While I definitely applaud the company’s entreé into the sustainable-fashion world and am heartened by an alternative for the Manolo Blahnik- and Jimmy Choo-obsessed crowd, at the same time I’m reminded of a quote Mollie of One-Change recently posted, as well as my previously stated ambivalence for green luxury goods: The urge to buy a new pair of shoes, sheets, or whatever else it may be often arises in response to feelings of discontent. But when you let your unhappiness talk you into a quick-fix shopping spree for stuff you don’t acctually need, you are contributing to the degradation of the environment–depleting our natural resources while filling the air, water, and soil with life-threatening emissions and waste.—Pat Daniel, Ph.D. [...]
The Worsted Witch » My Selfish Gene said,
August 2, 2006 at 4:29 pm
[...] I understand how the wheels of the consumer capitalist machine revolve, but I’ve always raised a skeptical eyebrow towards green consumerism, which is quite different from consuming consciously. The latter places needs above wants. The former, however, objectifies the movement but sees no inherent value in something other than keeping in step with the zeitgeist, persisting in the same excessive spending patterns reflexively with neither analysis nor forethought. [...]
The Worsted Witch » Money Quote said,
October 16, 2006 at 3:11 pm
[...] Related article: 1. The Good Life [...]