Going Green: Who Pays?
Reduce your carbon footprint.
It’s the current mantra of environmental responsibility.
Many consumers have reduced their primary footprint by making changes in their daily lives, like shrinking electricity use, switching to more energy efficient light bulbs at home, and cutting back—or cutting out—driving a car.
Consumers who want to reduce their so-called secondary footprint have to make tougher decisions about products and services beyond their daily control, weighing the whole lifecycle of the things they consume, as well as the environmental practices of the businesses they deal with.
But in many cases, going green costs green—and raises a question about whether consumers should be responsible for paying the price of reducing a business’s carbon hoof marks.
Some small businesses are now asking their customers to pay extra to help them, the Wall Street Journal reports, citing a San Francisco engineering firm that tacks a modest surcharge on to every bill to help pay for the company’s own renewable energy credits as a way of reducing its carbon footprint.
So far, no customer has refused to pay the extra fee. “I think they would feel too guilty,” said the CEO.
But the answers were very different when the Journal posed this question to its readers: “Would you mind paying extra to help a business reduce its carbon footprint?”
“Yes, I would mind,” one person wrote. “I do not ask you to pay for my charity work. It is pretty arrogant and self-righteous to ‘slip’ that into the bill.” Another reader was also opposed: “I would not pay something to someone to do something they should morally be doing anyway.” And there was this more business-like response: “Couldn’t they just bill more and not charge a separate fee?
Tell us what you think: Should consumers be financially responsible for helping businesses go green? Where does personal responsibility end and business responsibility begin when it comes to the cost of helping the environment?
Add Comment Share This
Comments
Paying for green...
I have to agree with those who say that it’s not fair for the consumer to pay for the company going green. If a person or corporate entity decides to go green, then the responsibility stays with that entity. I, for one, would stop using a service that decided to charge me extra for doing something without my consent that does not directly benefit me.
While I do want a cleaner earth, charging me so a company can stay green is JUST like asking me to pay for their charity work. If I wanted the financial burden of such an endeavor, I would donate (and have donated) to worthy causes. To force me or anyone else to donate to some fund as “an additional charge” is not only wrong and immoral. I think should be illegal as well, since the company is weaseling in charges for their own purposes. No company would get away with adding in extra charges to give their management extra kickbacks, and the ends never justify the means. If it’s wrong to add on extra unnecessary charges for kickbacks, then it’s wrong for any reason other than the direct benefit of the individual consumer (not the world as a whole, which happens to include the consumer).
Julian Amici | 1 year, 6 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
if green costs, then pay
If a business alters its ways to go green, but it results in an extra cost, it makes sense that they have to recover that expense to maintain their profit. I don’t think that they should make it optional by asking only green oriented buyers to pay the price. It would be wise for them to explain the reason for the increase. Of course it is possible that going green might even lower their costs.
Ehes | 1 year, 6 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Plain Business Sense
As much as I hate “connection fees” and “universal data charges” and other vaguely-referenced billing items, they all add up to one thing – your bill. It could be at the company’s discretion (based on goods/services provided) as to how far they break down the total of your bill. It comes down to cost of business v revenue. If a company’s overhead goes up, they’re gonna find a way to offset the additional cost. The easiest fix is usually an increase in the price to the consumer. How many of us would tell our children that if making and selling lemonade cost $0.40 a glass instead of $0.10 a glass because they decided to serve it in bio-degradable containers, they should still sell it for $0.25 and just eat the extra cost because it’s the “moral” thing to do?
Dave Washburn | 1 year, 6 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Oh, the possibilities...
Yes, it is possible for a company to lower their costs by going green, but it isn’t likely (otherwise MANY more companies would be going green). Going green has always been more expensive than cutting corners and letting a little more pollution slide. Now, with companies raising their prices, that’s fine, with consumer products (anything you would buy at the store) because you have a choice in price right there between product 1, 2, or 3, or to just not buy it at all. However, when a company puts in extra charges to its customers for a service they already receive, especially without notifying them (which is what I understand is exactly what this engineering company did) then they have done wrong, no matter how good the intentions are. Companies are required to notify all consumers about changes in price for services with adequate reason and time to switch if they want. People who want to pay the extra can stay, people who want a cheaper service can move on to another company (assuming, of course, there is another company to go to).
Julian Amici | 1 year, 6 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Cost of "going green"
The real solution, to me, seems to be transparency in environmental practices and costs. If a consumer is informed about a company’s environmental policies and costs compared to those of a competitor, that person can make an informed decision as to with whom they want to do business.
“Going green” doesn’t necessarily involve higher costs—sometimes it involves an upfront expense that reduces costs over the long term (purchasing a composter that cuts the number of garbage pickups), sometimes it can even be a new profit stream or cost reduction. For instance, cabinet makers can, instead of paying to dispose of raw, untreated sawdust and wood chips, sell or give them to a school that composts its food scraps and needs woody materials as part of the mix. The school then has free mulch, lowering its landscaping costs. This is actually happening as a demonstration project at a university near me.
Sally G | 1 year, 6 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Cost of :going green"
I like the option you presented, Sally.
With the changes taking place with all big companies, trying to go green, a resourceful way to re-use product, is a great way to convince these companies to make the change.
I expect that we will all, as consumers, be confronted with the cost of companies going green and, as such, I personally would be willing to accept the additional cost if the company was complying with this country’s best efforts to change the environment.
With deregulation, we now have the choice to move to another company if we are not happy with the price, but as consumers, I think we should be ready to take on some extra expenses to save the planet for our children. I do feel that the companies should do everything possible to re-coup their losses before presenting the change in price to the consumer. And they should definitely not be “hiding” it in the price increase.
We should all be well informed and notified about price increases along with what changes the companies will be making, in order to make a reasonable choice.
We are “all” responsible to make changes in our lives to make the planet better for our children, and their children, and if it comes down to money, then it comes down to money, and we should be willing to share the cost with companies.
One way to share the responsibility with companies is to present more suggestions like the one you mentioned in your post.
AnnMarie Cunniff | 1 year, 6 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Cost of going green
Bill Gates said it best in his recent discussion about a moral form of capitalism that provides benefit to everyone involved, rather than just a few. I’d say that pollution of the environment is a benefit to be considered in that discussion.
The road to where we are now was paved by avarice and greed on everyone’s part and still is. Why did it take an emergency to wake people up to the impact of more and more bigger and bigger cars when alternatives have been available for quite some time. This is to say nothing of the McMansions that popped up all over the place. If there was no demand for constructs that degrade the environment, they would not be produced.
I think the best thing that could happen to the environment is that a cure for status anxiety is found and implemented. A laxative for uncontrolled greed and, hopefully, a long lasting truth serum would undoubtedly produce great rewards if administered to the right people.
Pasquale Bottiglieri | 1 year, 6 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Capitalism without Heart. . .
Thanks for the kind words.
I recently encountered a quotation, the source of which I didn’t make note, but which says “Capitalism without heart is evil”. Capitalism isn’t inherently evil, nothing else has been shown to work better, but those two words, “without heart”, are the key, as the earlier comment pointed out about Bill Gates’ moral, all-inclusive capitalism.
It’s the same as the old Golden Rule on which I was brought up: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. If employers treated employere, and vendors treated customers, in the way in which they themselves want to be treated, we would have many fewer problems.
Sally G | 1 year, 6 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Capitalism without heart
The idea that 90% of the wealth in this country is held by only 30% of the population validates both your statements. There are days when I wonder, why are actors, and athletes paid so much money, when children are starving, homeless, going without the best education possible, and the environment is still out of control? No one is willing to take responsibility for the state we are in. Most believe that “one voice will never be heard,” but they are not willing to make an effort to add more to the one and take a stand against the injustice of having to “go green”
We never seem to find a balance. I have been a fan of socialized medicine, and education for a long time and why not throw “going green” in there too? A balance of wealth is needed in the world to make things safe for everyone. Shouldn’t every child breath fresh air, shouldn’t every child be warm, and safe? “http://wecansolveit.org/” is a project to aid in going green. I wrote a blog about it the other day and I am taking an active role.
http://ourgratitude-rosee285.blogspot.com/
We “all” have to take responsibility for everything that takes place around us, and YES, I do believe we are responsible for what we are experiencing right now with global warming; and the cost of “going green” The cost should be equally shared by all, but in the mean time organizations like “We can solve it,” have to be created and activated for change. Let me just make this point “shared by all” when we are all equal, when there is a shift in the wealth of the world, yes, GLOBALLY.
AnnMarie Cunniff | 1 year, 6 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
cost of going green ...
Just for the record, I too decided to do what I could rather than sit around complaining about it. First, I got rid of my gas lawn mower and now have an old fashioned push mower like the one we used back in the 40’s. Then, I got rid of one of our cars. I know not everyone can do that, but I could and did.
The big one is my retirement dream. I intend to own a few acres somewhere if I can ever afford it. My wife and I are both farmers, she having been born on a farm while I chose the rural life over the urban. When and if we get that small farm, I intend to do all the work with mules, including pulling a clipper.
We are also looking at alternate electrical power.
Pasquale Bottiglieri | 1 year, 6 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
1 2 3 > Last » (4 pages)