The privilege of being eco-friendly

Image by Nattanan Kanchanaprat from Pixabay

An eco-friendly lifestyle is defined as having little or no damaging effect on the environment. Choosing this lifestyle should be an option for everyone, but instead it seems more like a privilege that’s increasingly out of reach. Aspiring toward eco-friendliness requires not just a willingness to change behaviors, but two items we never seem to have enough of, time and money, along with two items we often take for granted, access and mobility.

I grew up in the 70s, about 20 years before the term “eco-friendly” was first used. Curbside recycling wouldn’t be introduced until the 80s, so my brothers and I collected beverage bottles and cans and returned them to the grocery store to reclaim the small deposit fees. Everything else went in the garbage, including remnants from all the Styrofoam cups we used to chew on and tear apart. (We didn’t know then how toxic polystyrene is, but at least the cups held soft drinks sweetened with cane sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup, which hadn’t been invented yet.) My dad supported our family of seven on a modest salary that established us as middle class. My parents owned their home and two cars, and my mom stayed home to raise five kids and manage the household. Since 1968, however, dual-income families have doubled and now represent the majority.

Me, my brothers, and a neighbor with our Easter baskets and the Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser, circa 1973

When my husband and I became parents in the 2000s, we were also middle class and owned a home and two cars, but we both had to work to support our family of four. When both parents work, they have less time to manage a household, let alone think about garbage and eco-friendliness. When crunched for time, we rely more on convenience—think ready-made or prepped foods, takeout, delivery services, and plenty of online shopping. These conveniences come at a cost. Food is more expensive when it’s not prepared at home, and online shopping takes profits away from local businesses that support local economies. Rarely do we think of returns as convenient, yet 30% of all products ordered online are returned, compared to less than 9% of local purchases. Though convenience has become practically essential to our daily lives, it is inconveniently not eco-friendly given all the packaging and single-use waste that come with it. Convenience is one reason why the US produces more waste per capita than any other country.

The amount of post-consumer waste in the US has increased 300% since 1960, outpacing the population growth of 85%. While the amount of recycling has increased as well, it’s still a fraction of the waste sent to landfills, in part because only 43% of households recycle and 76% of household recyclables end up in the trash. Recycling isn’t federally mandated, so not all households have access to a recycling program. In communities that provide curbside pickup for recycling, and possibly even yard waste and compost, people most likely pay extra for those services in addition to what they pay for garbage collection. When budgets are tight, the extra fee isn’t always feasible. Some communities provide free drop-off stations, and as long as people have access to a vehicle and time to make the trip, this option is better than nothing, but those without the mobility of a vehicle aren’t likely to bother.

For the minority who do recycle, considerable time can be spent simply trying to throw things away responsibly. Recycling rules vary based on facilities, so you need to take the time to read the local guidelines to understand what items are accepted and how you need to sort and prepare them: whether to remove labels, wash containers, crush cans, or any number of tasks to ensure compliance. Get these first steps wrong and you risk contaminating an entire load of recyclables. Up to 25% of all recycling in the US is contaminated and can’t be recycled, so it gets diverted to a landfill or incinerator. This unfortunate outcome comes as no surprise, given that guidelines aren’t always clear, they’re prone to change, and there’s a disconnect between what we think should be accepted and what is accepted. You can contact your local facility directly if you have questions—but you’ll need to take time to do so. Otherwise, “when in doubt, throw it out” is honestly a better approach than wishcycling. Adding to the confusion, the “chasing arrows” symbol and the words “Please Recycle” appear on packaging almost by default, whether the items are accepted at recycling facilities or not. These once helpful indicators have become essentially useless. Worse still, plastic recycling is nothing short of a myth.

Aside from plastic recycling being inherently flawed, plastic itself is made from over 16,000 chemicals—more than 25% are toxic and only 6% are regulated—and as it degrades it creates microplastics that are even more toxic. For these reasons I’m always on the lookout for non-plastic, more sustainable alternatives to everyday products. I recently recommended a plastic-free deodorant that works great for those that can afford it: It costs two to four times as much as name brands that come in traditional plastic packaging. I’ve recommended other sustainable products, such as silicone food storage bags and metal razors, and while these products save money over time, I also recognize that the upfront costs can be dealbreakers for budgets. At the grocery store, I find that non-plastic alternatives almost always cost more. I compared common pantry items—peanut butter, honey, ketchup, mustard, and mayonnaise—and with one exception, items packaged in glass were considerably more expensive than plastic. (See table below.)

Similarly, organic foods tend to be more expensive than their conventional counterparts, but if you’re lucky enough to have access to a farmers’ market you’ll find that in-season produce can be competitively priced. Organic farming reduces nitrogen pollution, reduces greenhouse gases, and has a smaller carbon footprint than conventional farming. Organic foods are also healthier: Organic produce contains higher levels of nutrients, including certain antioxidants, and lower levels of pesticide residue. Organic meats, dairy, and eggs have higher levels of heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids, and organic meats have lower levels of dangerous types of bacteria.  

Evidently, consumers are being priced out of eco-friendly choices. Wages haven’t kept up with rising costs of living, and today’s dollar has 86% less buying power than it did in the 1970s: The consumer price index (CPI) has increased by over 500%, whereas wages have increased by only 80%. With inflation often comes shrinkflation, where prices stay the same, but you get less: What was once a pound of coffee might now be 12 ounces, a half-gallon of milk now 59 ounces. When more than half of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and are one crisis away from homelessness, stretching a dollar to meet basic needs matters far more than making an eco-friendly choice, and justifiably so. Conversely, in an economy with less spending power, consumers end up spending more on durable goods such as clothing, furniture, appliances, and electronics. Instead of investing in well-made quality items that last, consumers purchase cheaper versions they can afford, and end up repurchasing these items at a higher rate. We’re also less likely to repair items that can be replaced cheaply, choosing to spend dollars instead of time.

A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. – Excerpted from “Men at Arms” by Terry Pratchett

Shopping by retail price is fairly straightforward, but shopping by environmental cost is an abyss of unknowns. What materials were used, and how were they sourced? How much water and energy were used? How much waste was produced, was it toxic, and how was it managed? How much greenhouse gas was produced, including transport and delivery? With little transparency or regulation, corporations have made it increasingly difficult for consumers to make conscientious decisions about their purchases, and the marketing efforts of greenwashing deceive us into bastardized versions of eco-friendliness. “Green” brands tout their “green” products, but most often the claims are empty and the color just a color.

It’s become common practice for companies to promote sustainability on their websites, and while it’s easy enough to read a page of flabby promises and commitments, it takes time to dive deeper into audits and reports to see if a company can substantiate its claims. Amazon, for example, announced its Climate Pledge in 2019, but by May 2023 emissions had increased by 40%, largely affecting communities of color where most Amazon delivery facilities are based. Amazon quietly abandoned one of the pledge’s key commitments, “Shipment Zero,” and in response, Amazon Employees for Climate Justice took it upon themselves to disclose publicly that Amazon is failing its own Climate Pledge. Big business prefers that we not pay attention and think of our influence as small and insignificant. On the contrary, researching a company’s environmental impact, providing feedback to local businesses or major corporations, and contacting policy makers (including elected officials) are all worthwhile activities if you can take the time.

By the way, thank you for taking the time to read this article. If you’ve read this far, you might also be thinking of the irony: People who have the privileges of time, money, access, and mobility are likely to have larger carbon footprints. After all, the wealthiest 1% of humans worldwide are responsible for more carbon emissions than the poorest 66%. But the point here isn’t to place blame or burden on any one demographic, but to emphasize that an eco-friendly lifestyle should be available to all and not just the privileged few. Those who can should lead by example, but to effectively address the crises of pollution and climate change, we need a level playing field so that participation is possible for everyone.

Cost comparison of common pantry items: Plastic vs glass

Peanut butter
Brand	Packaging	Volume	$ Price	¢ Cost Per Unit (CPU)
Adams	Glass	36 oz	11.29	31.4
Jif	Plastic	40 oz	8.99	22.5
Signature	Plastic	40 oz	6.99	17.5
Honey
Brand	Packaging	Volume	$ Price	¢ Cost Per Unit (CPU)
Wholesome	Glass	16 oz	12.99	81.2
Craig Honey Co.	Glass	21 oz	13.49	64.3
Organics	Plastic	16 oz	6.99	13.7
Signature	Plastic	16oz	7.49	46.9
Ketchup
Brand	Packaging	Volume	$ Price	¢ Cost Per Unit (CPU)
Red Duck	Glass	14 oz	6.99	50.0
Primal Kitchen	Glass	11.3 oz	7.99	70.8
Heinz	Plastic	32 oz	7.19	22.5
Organics	Plastic	32 oz	5.29	16.6
Signature	Plastic	38 oz	5.99	15.8
Mustard
Brand	Packaging	Volume	$ Price	¢ Cost Per Unit (CPU)
Grey Poupon	Glass	16 oz	7.49	46.9
Grey Poupon	Plastic	10 oz	5.29	52.9
Signature	Plastic	12 oz	2.99	25.0
Mayonnaise
Brand	Packaging	Volume	$ Price	¢ Cost Per Unit (CPU)
Spectrum Organic	Glass	32 oz	18.99	59.4
Kraft	Plastic	30 oz	9.49	31.7
Best Foods	Plastic	30 oz	7.49	25.0
Signature	Plastic	30 oz	5.49	18.3
Miracle Whip	Plastic	30 oz	8.99	30.0

Sources 

• History of recycling: The story of curbside recycling – Everyday Recycler (Feb 2024)

• Two income families statistics and trends in 2024 – Gitnux (Dec 2023)

• Comparing the costs of generations – Consumer Affairs (Jun 2023)

• Must-know ecommerce return statistics – Gitnux (Dec 2023)

• National Overview: Facts and Figures on Materials, Wastes, and Recycling – US Environmental Protection Agency (Nov 2023)

• Population growth in the United States of America – Worlddata.info (Jan 2024)

• Data & trends: History of homelessness – United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (Aug 2022)

• Americans throw out more than three-quarters of their household recyclables: Report – The Hill (Jan 2024)

• World waste: statistics by country and short facts – DevelopmentAid (Mar 2023)

• Organic agriculture helps solve climate change – NRDC (Jun 2022)

• Organic foods: Are they safer? More nutritious? – The Mayo Clinic (Apr 2022)

• Plastics contain thousands more chemicals than thought, and most are unregulated, report finds – Smithsonian Magazine (Mar 2024)

• Amazon is failing its own Climate Pledge – Medium (May 2023)

• Richest 1% account for more carbon emissions than the poorest 66% – The Guardian (Nov 2023)