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
Going Green
I took someone’s mention of Native Americans, and did some research yesterday. http://www.nativeamericacalling.com/ If you look at the notation for August 26, 2008, it looks like there’s hope. The Crow nation, in Montana is working with an Australian Company to turn coal into liquid fuel, it looks like environmentalists have issues with the project, but I wonder if that is political?
http://www.americaspower.org/ it looks like it is political here and it affects what our tax contribution will be. Again, I don’t mind that, if it solves the problem. We need one company to find a solution that works for all fuel companies and get behind them to create universal change.
AnnMarie Cunniff | 1 year, 2 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Going green - an additional thought
I have been talking about owning a few acres, using a mule, etc. I missed the opportunity to mention that one of the singular contributions to pollution has come from the chemicals used by the agricultural “industry”, a fact well documented by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring. I worked for a short while in the pest control industry and came to the conclusion in short order that I would be no better than a drug dealer if I followed the path of indiscriminate use of pesticides for profit when it has been proven that chemical free pest control in conjunction with common sense and consistent effort will do the same job with no residual detriment to the home environment.
The desire for and opportunity to acquire big bucks and the power and freedom that goes with it has and will continue to corrupt the social morality of individuals and corporations. Realistically, we need accountability and enforcement and we need to work hard toward that end. The road to hell, they say, is paved by good intentions. Without lobby free legislation strictly prohibiting environmentally damaging actions by corporations and/or individuals and the consistent application of effective unrestricted enforcement, good intentions, unfortunately, are all we will have to fight with.
Pasquale Bottiglieri | 1 year, 2 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Good Intentions
As long as good intentions are followed through and not just given lip service, then change takes place. Hitler controlled an entire army with bad intentions, and any positive attention creates 10 times more power than 1 negative action. When people begin to believe, in the power they hold to create change, then change will take place.
I am disappointed that you sound defeatist at the end of your post.
There are many new natural products to protect vegetation, than were available years ago. And the shift taking place in this country right now, I believe will be a test of time. It is time, that the wealth in the world, is spread more evenly, to protect “humans” from the eroding environment, and to provide them with the tools necessary to accomplish the tasks they deem worthy. There is a shift about to take place , and I personally, want to be on the side of freedom to choose what dangers are thrust upon us. We need louder voices, more voices, more education and awareness, to make a change in the world. The problem is, we only talk about change…Where do you think change will begin? Will we settle for a world where even breathing is a danger?
AnnMarie Cunniff | 1 year, 2 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Goog intentions
I did sound defeatist, didn’t I. I didn’t mean to, but I guess that’s what comes from living within walking distance of the capital, and the Pentagon.
I’m listening to the election year rhetoric and at the same time reading a dissertation concerning the major decisions that were made in 1940 by the men who held power at that time and at the same time following the situation in Georgia, monitoring the war in Iraq and sorting out the buildup of arms in the Middle East. All that did make me a bit tired.
In this election, “going green” appears to me to be a single chip on the table in the game of global enterprise.
I don’t ever intend to give up living my life in a way that is consistent with the Native American and Amish, for two touchable models, respect for and accordance with natural law. I don’t ever intend to stop advocating a common sense distancing from technology. I have a love and respect for the manual trades and, right now, am looking at carpentry to build furniture for the farm I hope to have some day.
I had the good fortune to work with a handful of what society calls rednecks in Florida, real cowboys who made their living working with livestock. I learned more from them in two and a half years than I did in all the years that preceded it when it comes to being able to survive off the land. One of those men delivered all four of his children without the immediate aid of a doctor.
I haven’t given up. I just know that in addition to mowing my lawn with a hand mower, or, hopefully, plowing with mules in the future, I have to accept that the power structure will only respond, at least in this country, to a massive statement big and powerful enough to put people in or out of office. Then, and only then, when the big corporations finally run into some legal hurdles they can’t buy their way around, will the major changes necessary to restore and protect the environment in this country and, hopefully, world wide take place.
Pasquale Bottiglieri | 1 year, 2 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Big business can't buy it's way out
I so agree with this: a massive statement big and powerful enough to put people in or out of office. Then, and only then, when the big corporations finally run into some legal hurdles they can’t buy their way around, will the major changes necessary to restore and protect the environment in this country and, hopefully, world wide take place.” That is exactly the answer. Many try to discourage me from reacting as I do, to the injustice of the wealthy business owners in the country, but my commitment, like yours, will someday be in the major voice necessary to stop the erosion of this planet. There are forces for “good,” shifting power to let the little guy’s voice be heard. I’m on the bandwagon, for green, no matter who is paying.
AnnMarie Cunniff | 1 year, 2 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Green--Manufacturers, Sellers, Buyers
Having worked to prevent lead, mercury, radon and chemical poisoning, alcohol and other drug abuse; promote ethical business practices, energy conservation, wellness…the list goes on and on…what I’ve gradually come to realize is that such issues and decisions are all interrelated.
When we know about the hazards, it seems to me that we need to act, no matter where in the cycle of being and doing we find ourselves. Blaming doesn’t help. But when, say the paint industry knows about the damage its product can cause, or the tobacco industry, or a chemical company—and they reduce the moral equation primarily to a numerical calculation of risk and potential profit, the “free marketplace” often benefits us all only if someone has the courage or fortitude to act. The action can be small, like a purchasing decision, or larger, such as telling or showing others about the bases for that decision, or even larger, such as engaging others in trying to figure out how to positively involve still more people in acting for the common good.
Therein, however, is one of the nubs of the challenge. Just how many people (more than one? All of “us,” Our community, our market niche or our country? The world? People we don’t even know…or even people we don’t like?). So…green? Who should pay? All of us who have a stake in the adverse effects of being not green. How open should our vision be? Ask the newborn infant. He or she is only beginning to know. But then we all “develop.” We begin to awaken and learn, and then, one would hope, make better decisions than those based only on direct pain or pleasure.
That’s why I admire people who do what they are not required to do and am encouraged when people change for the better as a result of incentives rather than coercion. When all else fails so that compliance is required, the mandate is only part of the picture. Let’s educate, use incentives, encourage, inspire, persuade, serve as role models, prove the benefits, minimize the barriers and be concerned enough about the quality of life to know that all of these strategies can make a difference.
Richard Brooks | 1 year, 2 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
It all begins with a thought!
It can be one thought in the mind of one person, or one million thoughts in the mind of one million people, as long as it begins…. If enough people hear one thing, that one thing will bring others. The cost added to our bills by corporations to offset the expense of “greening” their company should not be an issue, who pays should not be an issue, the only issue that matters is that it gets done. Although it is not ethical for companies to charge consumers without first asking, at least it is getting done. That’s ethical.
AnnMarie Cunniff | 1 year, 2 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Widgets pricing
When you price a product or service to be sold, you consider the fixed costs of your business, the costs of the product or service (including personnel, advertising, etc.). Then you add a markup (profit). If you’re selling two types of widgets, you can charge separately for each type.
If the environmentally aware widget costs more, you charge more – simple.
Of course you could run a campaign to the effect that “We now offer environmentally friendly widgets. These will cost you more because they are made from balsa wood instead of plastic”.
Cecily | 1 year, 1 month ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Paying For green
Green does cost, but there are incentive plans, tax rebates, etc. to help defray the cost for businesses to transition to green. Therefore, I find it appalling that businesses would have the audacity to ask others to pay for the business’s responsibility to conduct business in a safe manner.
Noel
Noel Jefferson | 1 year, 1 month ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
RE: If green costs, then pay
I’ll gladly help a company recover necessary costs to “go green” if it truly covers a valid cost, but such a cost should vary as the needs are met. If I find an unchanging fee, month after month, occasionally increasing as Cost-Of-Living dictates, then I have to assume that this is just another item on the “retail shelf” to gain profitability: a sham to the consumer and exploiting the consumer’s moral/ethical values with no real product.
Since “going green” should ultimately reduce operating costs, I would expect honest manufacturers to absorb the costs initially, and raise prices minimally, if at all.
Tim Cole | 1 year ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
< 1 2 3 (3 pages)