Have you already heard about the video called The Story of Stuff? Even the New York Times wrote a front page story about it. What is it all about? As the title of the film says, it is a story about the stuff we consume. What is actually needed along the lifecycle to produce, distribute and get rid of it? And even more importantly, why do we consume so much stuff?
The 20-minute well made film with clear and simple arguments illustrates well the material flows, pollution and social inequalities related to production, consumption and disposal of stuff. The video shows all the issues that are hidden from us when we go shopping. In that sense the idea goes hand in hand with the ecological backpack concept, make visible the hidden flows required to produce a certain item.
The point is that we don’t actually pay the full price for the products we buy. The externalities like environmental costs and inhumane working conditions of production are not included in the price tag. What is even more important in my opinion is the critique towards the consumer culture. The current pace of buying and getting rid of stuff is certainly not sustainable. Telling people not to consume is not very efficient if people really believe they need all the new gadgets, larger homes and so on. But when you realise how the needs actually created by the advertisements and the pressure of the consumer culture, it is much easier to ask oneself if the needs are real or not.
The SoS film has been widely used by teachers in the United States to supplement the traditional materials because of the lack of important information about pollution and climate change. When we have presented the One did it concept in conferences, every time people ask when our site will be available in other languages and how they could use the site and material for education purposes. We know that some teachers have already used our site on their classes but wanted to provide something more.
During the Finnish sustainable consumption campaign week (Nuukuusviikko) in spring 2009 we provided some material for schools and other interested organisations to arrange a simple contest to raise awareness about ecological backpack concept. At the moment we are working together with the UNEP/Wuppertal Institute Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production, CSCP on a pilot project for introducing some electronic material and new concepts to bring sustainable lifestyle issues to high school classes. The pilot project will start in September 2009 in Germany and Finland. The learnings will be presented in two conferences in Germany and Belgium before the end of the year. We look forward to launch the concept for a wider audience after the pilot phase. We’ll keep you updated about the developments.
Showing posts with label consumption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consumption. Show all posts
Monday, August 10, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Skip the useless stuff, say no to freebies
Haven’t we laughed at the “free gifts” you are supposed to get when ordering something from the TV-shop. Bundle of useless products are told to offer value for your money. Really?
All sorts of gifts are also mentioned when you get a call from an enthusiastic salesperson. While listening you wonder if he is selling you the magazine or all the cosmetics, jewellery and stuff. If the gift is very stylish and you think the magazine is ok maybe you decide to make the subscription. At least you get the nice designer handbag if the magazine is no good.
Even if I try to be very conscious and say no thanks for gifts I honestly don’t need, it is not always easy. For instance when buying some cosmetics it is difficult to say no for samples you think are useful, well at least useful in a sense that cosmetic samples can be.
The freebies question was recently brought up by one of my friends in Facebook. She wrote on status update that she got some goodies from a bakery for free and raised the question why we are so happy about the things we get for free. While we are trying to figure out rational reasons for this very primitive behaviour the marketing agencies take a full advantage of all this. If the samples, gifts and freebies wouldn’t encourage us to buy more, there would be none of them available.
Basically there are two points why the rational person in me is irritated by the gifts. The first thing you come across when you are about to move and need to pack all your stuff. Many of those lovely gifts you find from the bottom of baskets and the back end of the closets, right behind a jacket you haven’t used for five years. You wonder why on earth you have accepted to take all this stuff even if you knew from the beginning that you would never make use of it. The next destination of all this stuff will be the recycling centre where customers wonder who in the first place decided to have an item like that. At some point, the lovely gifts will end at the landfill or incineration plant.
The second point is that even if the gift is ok, is the product itself something you’d really need? A good question to ask oneself is if you’d skip the gift, would you still buy the product?
My strategy is to let the salesperson to know that I don’t want the gift; I’m only interested about the real product. This also works on the other way round; if the original product is very poor you can say that the freebie doesn’t make it better. What is your strategy?
All sorts of gifts are also mentioned when you get a call from an enthusiastic salesperson. While listening you wonder if he is selling you the magazine or all the cosmetics, jewellery and stuff. If the gift is very stylish and you think the magazine is ok maybe you decide to make the subscription. At least you get the nice designer handbag if the magazine is no good.
Even if I try to be very conscious and say no thanks for gifts I honestly don’t need, it is not always easy. For instance when buying some cosmetics it is difficult to say no for samples you think are useful, well at least useful in a sense that cosmetic samples can be.
The freebies question was recently brought up by one of my friends in Facebook. She wrote on status update that she got some goodies from a bakery for free and raised the question why we are so happy about the things we get for free. While we are trying to figure out rational reasons for this very primitive behaviour the marketing agencies take a full advantage of all this. If the samples, gifts and freebies wouldn’t encourage us to buy more, there would be none of them available.
Basically there are two points why the rational person in me is irritated by the gifts. The first thing you come across when you are about to move and need to pack all your stuff. Many of those lovely gifts you find from the bottom of baskets and the back end of the closets, right behind a jacket you haven’t used for five years. You wonder why on earth you have accepted to take all this stuff even if you knew from the beginning that you would never make use of it. The next destination of all this stuff will be the recycling centre where customers wonder who in the first place decided to have an item like that. At some point, the lovely gifts will end at the landfill or incineration plant.
The second point is that even if the gift is ok, is the product itself something you’d really need? A good question to ask oneself is if you’d skip the gift, would you still buy the product?
My strategy is to let the salesperson to know that I don’t want the gift; I’m only interested about the real product. This also works on the other way round; if the original product is very poor you can say that the freebie doesn’t make it better. What is your strategy?
Labels:
consumption,
freebie,
gift,
waste reduction
Monday, May 25, 2009
Wants or needs?
The Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has launched a campaign “What does a person need”. According to the site the purpose of the campaign is to “inspire people to think about their everyday choices and their effects on the lives of people in other parts of the world”. What Finns believe they can do to affect the wellbeing of people in other nations? According to the survey prepared for the campaign, on top of the list was recycling. You know, not trashing the goods you don’t need any more but taking them to charity, recycling centres etc.
It is nothing new about this actually. Every time Finns are asked about what they think they can do to tackle the climate change for instance, recycling and sorting waste is high on the list. It is actually great that the reuse and recycle mantra has reached people. However, did we forget the first R, reduce? There would be much less recycling to worry about if we’d reduce first.
In my opinion, this is what the campaign is all about. We are reminded about the possibility to reduce consumption and to reconsider what we actually need instead of what we want. The question of needs and wants was a current one for me on last weekend. I was wandering around clothing stores searching for a suit for my companion. I didn’t question his need for a new suit (no doubt needs are based on social norms too) but I had difficulties questioning my own wants rising from colourful summer collections. Would I need a dress suitable for temperatures above 30 ⁰C if I’d stay the whole summer here in the North? At the end of the day my companion got the suit he was looking for but I managed to leave all the wants behind. I was proud of myself.
Next day I took a little cycling tour around Helsinki and got myself photographed in the fields of Viikki, a beautiful area with an arboretum, nature conservation area and the fields of the faculty of agriculture and forestry. When I returned home and arranged my photos, accidentally two almost identical photos appeared next to each other. In the first one I’m in Bucharest city centre in the autumn 2007 and the second one presents the recent moment in Viikki, where I’m trying to make friends with one of the cows on the field. I’m holding almost the same position and wearing the same outfit. Only the background is different. The two almost identical settings made me think if I should have bought a new outfit since I seem to have the same clothes in every photo a year after a year.
But in the end, did I really need the new outfit? I had enjoyed both of the Kodak moments a lot: the company, location, weather, and especially the freedom of a Sunday afternoon. How a trendy outfit could have made it better?
So what’s the difference between a need and a want? The need for something develops slowly and you won’t get over it easily. According to my experience the items you wanted might quickly end up on the pile of things waiting to be taken to the charity but the things you actually needed you will keep until they tear apart.
It is nothing new about this actually. Every time Finns are asked about what they think they can do to tackle the climate change for instance, recycling and sorting waste is high on the list. It is actually great that the reuse and recycle mantra has reached people. However, did we forget the first R, reduce? There would be much less recycling to worry about if we’d reduce first.
In my opinion, this is what the campaign is all about. We are reminded about the possibility to reduce consumption and to reconsider what we actually need instead of what we want. The question of needs and wants was a current one for me on last weekend. I was wandering around clothing stores searching for a suit for my companion. I didn’t question his need for a new suit (no doubt needs are based on social norms too) but I had difficulties questioning my own wants rising from colourful summer collections. Would I need a dress suitable for temperatures above 30 ⁰C if I’d stay the whole summer here in the North? At the end of the day my companion got the suit he was looking for but I managed to leave all the wants behind. I was proud of myself.
Next day I took a little cycling tour around Helsinki and got myself photographed in the fields of Viikki, a beautiful area with an arboretum, nature conservation area and the fields of the faculty of agriculture and forestry. When I returned home and arranged my photos, accidentally two almost identical photos appeared next to each other. In the first one I’m in Bucharest city centre in the autumn 2007 and the second one presents the recent moment in Viikki, where I’m trying to make friends with one of the cows on the field. I’m holding almost the same position and wearing the same outfit. Only the background is different. The two almost identical settings made me think if I should have bought a new outfit since I seem to have the same clothes in every photo a year after a year.
But in the end, did I really need the new outfit? I had enjoyed both of the Kodak moments a lot: the company, location, weather, and especially the freedom of a Sunday afternoon. How a trendy outfit could have made it better?
So what’s the difference between a need and a want? The need for something develops slowly and you won’t get over it easily. According to my experience the items you wanted might quickly end up on the pile of things waiting to be taken to the charity but the things you actually needed you will keep until they tear apart.
Labels:
consumption,
recycling,
Shopping,
waste reduction
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)