In today’s rapidly evolving world, being sustainable, reducing carbon footprint and going green are in trend. While Big MNCs are jumping on the trend, too many companies are in the race to rebrand themselves as sustainable. Social media influencers are building their content on zero waste living and environmental consciousness. Major MNCs like Nike, Zara, Coca-Cola, Zomato and others are spending billions on green marketing strategies.
Behind all these surface-level green practices lies an odd contradiction. The same person who advocates for reducing carbon footprint buys an SUV known for its higher fuel consumption. An influencer making content on green living receives 5 plastic-wrapped packages from Amazon daily. This inconsistency and contradiction highlight the reality of modern-day environmentalism.
Fast Fashion’s Not So Green Impact
Global Fast Fashion brands like Zara, H&M launch ‘Conscious Collection’, which constitutes less than one percent of their production. Meanwhile, they continue to produce and manufacture environmentally degrading clothing. Trending in the fashion industry are Thrift stores, which sell used clothes and hence reduce waste, providing a more eco-friendly alternative. Meanwhile, countering fast fashion brands are the organic, eco-friendly clothing brands that sell clothes at 3-5 times higher price of fast fashion chains. This creates a loop where consumers with lower incomes are systematically priced out, ultimately leading to environmental consciousness becoming a luxury good.
On average, a person discards 70 pounds of clothing annually, which ends up in the landfill. The need for stringent actions is urgent because the numbers are staggering. According to recent reports, the global fashion industry produces approximately 92 million tonnes of textile waste annually, with less than 15% being recycled. Textile production consumes 93 billion cubic meters of water yearly. If the usual scenario prevails in the fashion industry and no action is taken, the industry’s global emissions will double by 2030.
The Food Waste Crisis
While affluent consumers debate the merits of sustainable packaging and a zero-waste lifestyle, a stark reality exists. Globally, over 19 percent of food production is wasted, with households accounting for 60% of this waste. The typical American family discards around $1,500 in food each year, while households in developing countries frequently spend that much on food for the whole year.
Regular food choices available in a supermarket are cheap but unsustainable, and organic produce costs 20-40% more than the alternatives. This pricing creates a difficult moral hierarchy where environmental responsibility becomes a status symbol. This creates a situation where the consumers buying locally-sourced, minimally-packaged products feel morally superior. While families managing tight budgets at discount retailers are unintentionally portrayed as environmental wrongdoers. A typical American family discards around $1,500 in food each year, while households in developing countries frequently spend that much on food anually.
The Going Green Packaging Paradox
Another big contributor to environmental waste is modern-day packaging. Order a small charger from Amazon, and it comes in a box the size of a shoe, with multiple layers of plastic and bubble wrap. The package itself will be heavier than the product. According to reports by the US Environmental Protection Agency, an average individual receives over 1300 packages every year. Studies also estimate that 40% of this packaging is not required for product safety.
Packaging in Food presents a different yet equally absurd picture. Nearly 60 billion plastic packaging items are produced each year by seven leading supermarkets in the UK. This amounts to 2,000 items per household. But there’s a harsh irony: a lot of this packaging is too large for single-person households, the fastest-growing demographic in developed countries. Stroll through any grocery store, and the issue becomes clear. Vegetables are available in portions suitable for families. Meat is sold in packages designed for four or more individuals. Even common essentials such as bread, milk, and eggs are packaged for households that are now nearly nonexistent.
Automobile Industry’s heavy Carbon Footprint
Modern-day environmental contradictions can be clearly understood by the world’s obsession with luxury cars like SUVs, Thar, etc. The transport sector in India, excluding international aviation and shipping, emitted 272 million tonnes of CO2 in 2020. In the U.S., SUVs and trucks made up 80% of new vehicle sales in 2023, with numbers increasing every year. While people talk about reducing their carbon footprint, much of the elite upper class drives these high-fuel-consuming cars.
Even hybrid and electric SUVs perpetuate the problem. A Tesla Model X produces more lifetime emissions than a conventional compact car due to its size, weight, and battery requirements. Yet owners feel environmentally virtuous because it’s “electric,” ignoring that it’s still worse, regardless of the power source.
From large vehicles and excessive packaging to costly organic food and apparel, being “eco-friendly” or going green has shifted from shared responsibility to personal image. As corporations engage in greenwashing and consumers express environmentalism through selective choices, the Earth continues to suffer the consequences. Genuine sustainability cannot thrive in a world where living sustainably is a privilege rather than a fundamental right. Till the production and usage of sustainable and carbon-neutral items is done at a large scale, the cost cannot come down.
Instead of being an elitist or expensive affair, the masses have to be able to afford these items, which will make a real impact in the world. Closing the divide between awareness and action necessitates more than mere symbolic acts; it calls for systemic change and an inclusive approach.
