Over the past few months we've read a number of comments across blogs eviscerating products (and the people who own them) that are expensive or newly purchased on the grounds that 'true' green living means being, essentially, frugal. Even if the products in question have definable green qualities or aesthetic value (i.e. sustainably manufactured, locally produced, durable or iconic, etc), these comments communicate a No-Exceptions policy: don't spend money, buy only secondhand, and don't buy it if you can DIY it. But this dogmatic view is at odds with the following fact: most products, practices, and designs that are shaping our world and changing it for the better cost money. So how can we demand better products if we're not willing to pay for them?
The confusing part about this line of thinking is that we'd venture to guess the same people who appear outraged at the price of a handmade textile or handcrafted piece of furniture, and who express distaste at the presence of a newly-purchased Knoll chair would also likely state that they support local artisans and believe in the importance of knowing where their stuff comes from, that they in fact believe it's very important for large, industry-standard-setting companies to implement strict environmental standards for their products and actively work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other waste, source their materials from sustainable or renewable resources, and eliminate the use of hazardous substances in their products. (All things Knoll states they're working on as laid out in their aggressive 8-point environmental strategy.)
So why is there a barbed undercurrent to these comments? Why is there such a backlash against any display of consumption?
Don't get us wrong: we support buying less. We support buying secondhand. We support DIY'ing. (In fact, we love nothing better than a great DIY.) But we believe this NOT because we're against consuming. Rather, we believe first and foremost that one should purchase things carefully, thoughtfully, and with an eye for what will make your home a healthier and more beautiful place. We believe in good design, and we believe in supporting the future of good, green design. And we know that doesn't come cheap.
Here's some food for thought, as written by William McDonough in Cradle to Cradle:
We are accustomed to thinking of industry and the environment as being at odds with each other, because conventional methods of extraction, manufacture, and disposal are destructive to the natural world... the environmental message that "consumers" take from all this can be strident and depressing: Stop being so bad, so materialistic, so greedy. Do whatever you can, no matter how inconvenient, to limit your "consumption." Buy less, spend less, drive less, have fewer children—or none. Aren't the major environmental problems today—global warming, deforestation, pollution, waste—products of your decadent Western way of life? If you are going to help save the planet, you will have to make some sacrifices, share some resources, perhaps even go without. And fairly soon you must face a world of limits. There is only so much the Earth can take.
Sound like fun? We have worked with both nature and commerce, and we don't think so...
We see a world of abundance, not limits. In the midst of a great deal of talk about reducing the human ecological footprint, we offer a different vision. What if humans designed products and systems that celebrate and abundance of human creativity, culture, and productivity? That are so intelligent and safe, our species leaves an ecological footprint to delight in, not lament?
Feel free to tell us where you stand on this.
Related Post: Are You a Radical Homemaker Failure?
(Image: The Estate of Things)
100 DIY Ideas for the 3-Day Weekend
Danielle's Charming, Classic Walk-Up
Good Food to Share 
The Big Book of Small, Cool Spaces 
Apartment Therapy Presents 
The Eight-Step Home Cure 
White Enamel Flatwa...
How To Cook Fluffy, Tasty Quinoa
Perfect Summer Cocktail Recipe: Honey Bourbon Lemonade
Thank you!!!! I couldn't agree with you more!!!!
Just a note that the picture is about Buy Nothing Day, which is specifically aimed at countering Black Friday. I think most simple living advocates want people to realize that consumption does not produce happiness and to consume less overall, not avoid consumption altogether.
I think the reasonable position is, as you state, responsible, thoughtful consumption. And civil commenting :)
AeonElpis, yes, you are correct, and I appreciate you pointing out the distinction. Perhaps the picture isn't the best example for the article. I will look for an alternate to avoid confusion.
Haters gonna hate! The rest of us will enjoy a splurge now and then.
Everything in moderation. Our communities and environments will benefit if we can try to live by that credo. An expensive purchase that benefits a worthwhile company or guarantees that you and your children will have a quality product to use for years to come is nothing to sniff about. Finding homes for your old items and attempting to breathe new life into other people's old items so that you can cherish them are two ways that you can keep things out of the landfill and avoid overconsumption.
It seems to me that there are a few problems here. One thing I find quite striking is the way these (expensive) new products participate in capitalism, particularly by manufacturing new desire, and by adding to cycles of obsolescence. When these great, new products are consumed (no matter how sustainable), they encourage more consumption. They produce desire amongst other consumers to get the hot new thing, to be as hip as possible. Ultimately, doing so diminishes the value of the object and opens the market for new, even better, even more sustainable things (and you'll have to get rid of your CFL bulbs to make room for the next generation of LED lights, etc).
I think it's great to spend a lot of money on a real good product that will last a very long time, but I'm skeptical about how long most new products will last, and also skeptical that the longevity of a product is the primary motivator for a purchase. Maybe it is. That would be awesome.
An article like this certainly congratulates the people who have the means to buy more things (and yes, it's great to make informed, conscious choices about one's consumption), but it does little alter the underlying structure of overconsumption. Or recognize the class issues that might be at the heart of the disagreement.
But then, somebody should support the great companies making sustainable products. I won't be able to afford the fabulous new things until after wealthy people buy them and then get rid of them when they move on to the next hip thing.
I want to congratulate those people that have worked hard to afford things of very high quality and price I am not so wealthy to do this all the time however I go without until I can get exactly what I want... It drives me crazy when people accuse the wealthy of over-consumption, Just enter a wallmart and you can see the demographic that is guilty of overspending on junk items and food ;)
There was also quite the uproar about mr Cruises house and how such a large and expensive home could possibly be sustainable, I'd bet money his house generates more clean energy than yours. And can you imagine being one of the lucky contractors gaining experience in how to build a structure conscious of energy use and sustainable practices no matter what the size is its a step in the right direction. you can look at his place as a generator of clean energy or a mansion for a lucky SOB.
In my opinion what makes a quality product is a quality product is generational until its biodegradable or recyclable
Speaking for myself - and only myself - I find that the products that I spend money on to get the quality and design that I want (whether it's furniture, clothing, or cookware), I tend to keep for a very long time - whereas the cheaper products that are poor quality or that I don't really like (or both), tend to end up at the Goodwill in a relatively short amount of time. Therefore, I think it's greener to spend the money when appropriate.
Of course, we could all get by with many fewer things in our lives and that would be more environmentally sound - but it has to be balanced against quality of life.
I totally support this post.
It seems to me that there's this very contradictory relationship when it comes to design (and just about everything else I can think of.) On one hand, many of us wish to purchase good-quality furniture that is a) beautiful and b) will endure, yet we're also pushed to keep consuming and pursuing "the best" and most current items available. Really I think there needs to be a new term developed to separate "mindful" consumerism from "mindless" consumerism; there's a huge difference, at least from my perspective, between accumulating things of value and substance (art), whether that takes the form of a $10, 000 sofa or a $20 vintage dresser, and accumulating things just to accumulate things. If we continue to measure our success by how much stuff we own vs. how much we love, use and need the stuff we own (and how well we take care of it), then a turn toward an eco-friendly, sustainable world will always be rendered impossible.
I've never had a whole lot of money, but I've always tried to buy good quality things. What's irritating to me is hearing "Wow, that's too expensive" or "I would never spend that much money" on items of importance by people who actually make good money and can afford it.
"Or recognize the class issues that might be at the heart of the disagreement."
Bingo. There is currently a huge bifurcation in life styles and personal finances which has many people lashing out.
recessionistas: my wife and i scour flea markets and estate sales for lots of great finds, offer many up for sale on her etsy site... and from the proceeds have been able to fund a few of these "outrageously expensive symbols of consumerism" (some second-hand)... so, i thank you for your own -- albeit ironic -- consumeristic tendencies to buy vintage and secondhand... and your willingness to pay to ship that widget 3K miles.
however, it's worth noting that i plan on owning my (__ herman miller/knoll this-that__) a lot longer than you'll be owning your dumpster find that you spent lots of time, excess materials and toxic chemicals to refinish... and after all of that, you still have a milk-painted, yellow-pine this-end-up dresser with limited second-hand re-sale value whereas my (___) will last about 38-minutes on craigslist before it goes to the next happy home.
as a product designer I would like to add that many of those "expensive" items are made in America (Knoll/Herman Miller), the designers, factory workers, and other employees work in good conditions and have health benefits--which add to the overall cost of the item. I think the average consumer has no idea what the cost is to bring something to market. Then if you add the low production run - it makes it that much more.
Thank you for presenting this topic, I constantly struggle with this one on a pretty regular basis. The fact of the matter is, industry will never be "100% green", simple as that. As a consumerist society, we strive to obtain things; we know what we want and we tend to get them in way or another. That being said, the "green" aspect of our world is unfortunately dramatically skewed, and most of the things we do want, even if they are "green", have received that title based on some element between its initial fruition, and it arriving in your home, that has been deemed to have less of an impact on the world than prior practices. So yes, being conscious of products that follow and are defined by environmentally friendly processes are great, being efficient in the way we go about our daily lives is even more important, its the little things that count.Even so, the bottom line: consumerism literally cannot equal 100% "green-ness".
The second part of this topic I relate to very personally. As a product designer myself, knowing where things came from, and the history behind a given work, makes something so much more valuable and meaningful, creating separation from just a run-of-the-mill product. Take Eames for example, their work has been defined as some of the most important product design EVER, but why? How many owners actually know the answer to that simple question? So many people own these pieces, many of which are based on trends; maybe what they saw it in Dwell mag., or maybe they just had some extra dough to spend. Either way, the piece completely looses its intrinsic value and its legacy, as people start to appreciate it less and less for what it has done for the design world as a whole. This is an enormous shame, because so few products arrive at your home bearing such an interesting story to begin with. This same concept crosses over to owning art, architecture, etc...everything has a story, don't be afraid to learn it!
All in all, if you must buy, be conscious of what is and isn't "green", but know that nothing comes without some sort environmental toll. And in terms of aspiring to obtaining higher end, "designer" things, learn about them...have a reason beyond the aesthetics to want them, sometimes setting such things on a mental pedestal adds more appreciation than one may expect.
Some very good points made here - I'm so glad to see the thoughfulness put into all these thoughts, many of which I wholeheartedly agree with.
I must say that it's an amazement for me to see the posts from folks who declare "That's too expensive" and "That's not Eco/Green" - then turn around and have no problem with future-toxic-landfill imported from China made by near-slave labor.
I think it would be great for someone (within the AT Community perhaps?) to actually do some investigative reporting and comparisons of like-items from different sources: Pottery Barn vs. IKEA, Mitchell Gold vs. Gus Furniture, Herman Miller vs. Chinese Knockoff - Not just comparing the basic quality but about the manufacturing and shipping processes that lead to the item arriving on the store shelf.
I think that it could be quite educational for many folks and a worthy addition to the overall discussion of enlightened homemaking.
I am all about buying wisely, keeping things away from landfills, DIY, etc., but these days, in NYC especially, thrifting comes at a price. You can't pick up second hand, without fearing for bedbugs. I will be selling/giving away a bunch of stuff through CL when I move out of my apt in the next few months, but will probably be buying new, wonderfully designed (albeit pricey) stuff I'll plan to keep for at least the next 10 yrs. I don't want to deal with the risk of a bedbug invasion!
Great post. I own two Eames/Herman Miller pieces - a vintage rocker that my grandmother bought in the 50s and gave to me, and a new lounge chair.
While I realize that these chairs are emblems of conspicuous consumption, I maintain a pretty low footprint in other areas of my life (no car, local food, etc.), and I have these pieces because I love them - not only for their comfort and quality, but their artistic value (I have an art history background and work for an art museum).
And I think durability is a really important point - according to my grandmother my rocker, which is almost 60 years old, looks and feels almost as good as the day she bought it. Three generations of my family have used the crap out of that chair and it's still in great shape. I have no doubt that I will be able to pass both pieces onto my grandchildren as well. And that's so much greener than IKEA :)
Appreciate this post and comments. I second bepsf's interest in some investigative journalism on behalf of consumers who lack the time or ability to research the true costs of seemingly comparable products. I often wonder whether inexpensive versions of things equal value (e.g. b/c I'm not paying for advertising/overhead) or instead represent some kind of hidden abuses...and conversely whether expensive things may reflect thoughtful manufacturing processes, or just extra markup that marquee/trendy brands get away with just because they can. I usually assume the worst in both cases. Would that I were a carpenter!
One thing these design sites may do is instill a sense of urgency regarding the things we DO purchase. My preference may be to wait and save for something of quality and longevity, but in the mean time I need somewhere to store my socks. Trying to avoid stopgap solutions is my personal struggle.
I third bepsf's comment that I would love, LOVE, to see some investigative reporting on the actual "value" vs. "cost" of some of the most commonly coveted brands/stores/designers on Apartment Therapy. It would be very helpful to hear about things that may be better/more sustainably and fairly made than we might think vs. companies/products that pay a little lip service to doing things "green" or "fair trade" but really don't.
I do think a lot about what processes and abuses must have gone on to bring me the cheap products I can easily afford. This is a little off-topic, but it's easier for me to get my head around and impress upon others with the example of food.
The question: Do you really want a $1.00 hamburger? Imagining what corners must have been cut to sell you a hamburger for a dollar absolutely blows my mind. I mean, working backwards, you take out the cost of the restaurant that sold it to you - the facility, the power to keep it running, the employees, even at minimum wage; then the shipping it to you from wherever the beef was "grown" - both the fuel, and the salaries of the drivers/workers; then the cost of operating the slaughterhouse; then the cost of raising one cow, keeping it alive long enough to become your hamburger, feeding it... Yes, I realize that there's a vast "economy of scale" going on, but still, how can all of those costs be funded (and turn profit) from $1.00? Do we really want our food to be so CHEAP?
Oh snap, @sfposter and yay, @ht. I agree with them because I know that we -- not necess arily everyone, but I know my husband and I -- will be much more attached to a carefully considered, somewhat expensive piece than to pieces that come cheap, plenty, discarded and often ugly (even if it's only ugly just before it's refinished). It's the crappy stuff or short-term fixes that I am tempted to ditch as soon as I find something better. But if you buy something wonderful in the first place, you'll always have it. I believe it's the cycle of not waiting for things, having to have it NOW, then buying something not ideal because you can afford it, that is destructive.
That's why I don't falter at buying new. It's not MY fault other people are going through lots of furniture. I won't bat an eye at buying new furniture for myself....but I won't buy three or four sets of furniture during my lifetime, either. If the house we buy doesn't have great wood floors, I will install them -- yes, killing trees -- but that means we won't ever have to replace them.
We're barely making ends meet, but if we buy something, it's good. We earn very little but, to tell you my favorite example, we have a very expensive all-natural latex and wool bed with a handmade solid-wood frame. We saved up for it and are happy with our purchase because I researched the company to death so I was satisfied with their supply chain, the treatment of their animals and their employees, etc. This "budgeting" means that we don't have a headboard, and our bedroom furniture is what was in my room as a little girl (and you can tell). We'll wait until we can afford something nice. And when we do, it'll be exactly what we want, and we'll be sure of the company's ethics.
in this age of consumerism, it pays to be an enlightened consumer, which is not an easy task. it means knowing many things: where & how an item is made; your own desires & economic limits; how to budget & shop wisely; how to judge quality; etc. i honestly don't know why consumerism isn't taught in schools (enlightened consumerism 101!) as it's a basic knowledge that one needs to know to be successful (& happy). also, i have noticed an increase in hateful comments on AT aimed at people who buy luxury items & have homes to match. no doubt such comments are due in part to the economy & people feeling the pinch; however, i think a great deal of it is due to people's limited knowledge of consumerism.
I think the recent West Elm vs. Room and Board bed post was pretty illuminating at least in terms of that particular product. And there are hidden costs, such as R&B's customer service. There were multiple posters writing about how they noticed/caused some minor/major flaw in their R&B product and R&B promptly sent out people to fix things/sent out a replacement. That sort of thing must be a major factor in their "exorbitant" prices. You can say that it's not fair because you take care of your things and you shouldn't have to pay for other people's carelessness, but we all subsidize some things.
My "biggest indulgence" is a $650 rug. No one "needs" a $650 rug, but I love it. I am also aware that the wholesale price is about $325 or so. Looking at it, I can imagine how much work it took, even if much of it is mechanized, and since I believe the people that make the things I buy should be able to maintain a certain standard of living, and I know these people happen to live in the US, I think the wholesale price seems very fair, even surprisingly low. The 100% markup is a bit harder to swallow. However, I bought the rug from a brick-and-mortar store (not that it would have been cheaper anywhere I saw it online) and certainly they have employees, rent, etc to pay. Maintaining showrooms is pretty expensive, and truthfully if I had not initially seen this rug there in person, and more importantly walked on it, I would never have bought it. So I have to acknowledge the go-between's importance. And I guess that means occasionally I will suck it up and deal with 100% markups. But... not that often.
(And then I learned that my 5'x7' rug can be considered pretty cheap, compared to hand-woven wool from tibet or whatever. Yeesh.)
I would like to see posts that track the costs that go into various products! Was it the pottery barn rug-production video that got linked? They also had other interesting videos, like the ones that compared the construction of their couch vs. a generic knockoff (or if not a knockoff, just one that looks similar). It would also be interesting to get an estimate of how much cheaper something might be if demand were much greater and economies of scale were working for the product....
These are all new concepts to me, but I love the idea of celebrating the freedom of a creative spirit and valuing what is truly valuable, rather than decrying all possessions. Few of us are buddhist monks, but learning to choose between what society wants us to believe we need and what we really need is all the difference between empty consumerism and loving ourselves...and our homes.