Saving the world one receipt at a time

I’d like to think of myself as politically active ““
that I care about the world around me, the impact my country is
having on other countries and the social inequalities no rational
person can deny exist.

And I’d like to think I do more than just care; I’d
like to think I make a difference.

But this is easier said than done.

Throughout my college career I’ve tried different methods
of making a difference.

At the beginning I coordinated a campaign to register new voters
and get out the college vote for the UCLA chapter of the California
Public Interest Research Group.

Like any leadership role in a politically motivated campus
group, this not only took time but a lot of effort ““ and a
high endurance for stress.

After spending hours in meetings without even knowing whether
I’d persuade one politically apathetic person to vote, I
decided there had to be a more efficient way to promote my
political views. And then I came up with the answer: conscientious
consumerism.

It sounded perfect. I could buy products from companies I
supported, while eliminating those that had policies I didn’t
agree with.

And all I had to do was live my life as usual with the slight
extra effort of spending money on one thing as opposed to
another.

So I started to make as many political purchases as possible
““ if I needed clothes, I went to American Apparel; if I
wanted coffee, I bought Fair Trade; if I needed produce, I would
buy locally grown vegetables and fruit at the Westwood
Farmers’ Market, and if not that, I would definitely go for
organic.

Unfortunately, my state of politically active bliss was
short-lived. While my politically motivated choices may have made
me feel politically active, in reality they weren’t all that
active in achieving anything.

As The Economist dutifully pointed out, some of my well-intended
choices may actually have caused more harm than good.

For example, while organic food production uses less fertilizers
and is generally thought to be better for the environment, it uses
three times as much land for the same yield. In other words, if all
the world’s food were grown organically, there probably
wouldn’t be any room for rain forests.

Furthermore, while buying locally grown produce is thought to
reduce the amount of energy used to transport the food, a study of
food transportation by the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs in Britain showed that half the transportation
involved there was people driving to the supermarket and back
again.

And most people live closer to a supermarket than they do to a
farmers’ market. This might be a bit different in the U.S.,
but considering that California is its fruit basket, I don’t
think my non-exotic fruit travels that far.

Besides which, buying locally grown produce is at complete odds
with the goals of fair trade, which are to bring wealth to poor
farmers in developing countries by buying their products.

Fair trade is a system that charges a little more for products,
then sends a subsidy back to the farmer who produced it. That all
sounds fine, except that the reason agricultural products are
priced so low is because they are overproduced. By offering extra
money to farmers for producing the same sorts of products, except
maybe under slightly better conditions, fair trade is discouraging
farmers from diversifying and thus further depresses prices.

But this doesn’t extend to everything. One choice I will
continue is that of American Apparel. Yes, maybe their ads are
reminiscent of the trashy Calvin Klein ads of the 1990s, but the
list of benefits their employees receive is impressive ““ they
offer bikes to borrow and free on-site bike maintenance.

Even if buying clothes from them doesn’t obliterate
sweatshops, the success of American Apparel as a business goes to
show how much people care, and how an ad campaign based as much on
politics as on sexual images can influence people’s buying
choices.

And what customers think can change certain things. As an
article in The New York Times detailed, clothing companies in
England are becoming more and more concerned about creating a
sustainable clothing market because their customers care.

Maybe it’s hit and miss, but by the end of the day, my
choices all level out to not making much of a difference. Even if
the person making my shirt gets health care and $13 an hour,
I’m still using resources and energy.

Fortunately, my passion for making a difference hasn’t
abated. Maybe all those meetings that seemed to get nowhere ““
but may have gotten that one extra person to vote ““ were the
most beneficial thing I’ve done. And maybe twisting my brain
around the nightmare that is politics is the best, if slow, way to
create change.

E-mail Loewenstein at lloewenstein@media.ucla.edu. Send
general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *