Which is more destructive to the environment, big business or consumerism?

Question

Or, in actuality, are they so interlinked that they cannot be separated?

Meaning, pollution from the industry that caters to the consumer, and pollution created by the consumer as they consumer greater and greater amounts of the fruits of industry.

Answer 1

What a GREAT question!
I wish I had an equally-great answer, but that would take someone a lot smarter than me to sift through all the complex issues your question raises.

I agree with most of the other answers: they're interlinked. So, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Had Henry Ford not created such demand for the automobile, would all the smoke-belching factories have been built? Probably not; they only became necessary as consumers demanded more vehicles.

At the same time, if consumers had actually demanded that someone invent a cheap, reliable automobile, would that have consequently generated the need for more factories? Or might someone else come along and invented an economical means of transportation that didn't require factories to built it and didn't end up with all those pesky vehicle emissions?

Certainly consumer demand creates the need for industrial development. But, wouldn't the environment be less damaged if consumers could be satisfied with one kind of soap, one brand of automobile, one type of telephone and one tomato soup label? Capitalism would be diminished, but the environment would probably thrive!

Wow! What a GREAT question! Thanks! -RKO-

Answer 2

Well since consumerism drives the big business to further produce harmful products, I'd have to say consumerism. Ultimately the consumer has all of the power to stop harmful products from doing well and therefore stop the sale of them all together. If a business were not going to make a profit on a product then they would not produce it. If everyone decided that SUVs have inefficient gas mileage and said, "No, we're not going to continue our dependence on foreign oil and continue emitting so many harmful fumes into the air, we will only by fuel efficient vehicles from now on", then soon companies would not sell any gas-guzzling SUVs and they would stop making them and focus on only making cars that were fuel efficient and good for the environment.

Though... you can say business is partially responsible because of advertising. Making people feel like they need a product, that it is good for them, when in fact it may not be. So many people are uneducated, and these ads really take advantage of that fact.

Anyway... I think it should start with the consumer though, because you can't stop capitalism... look at the drug trade??? If they weren't making money, they wouldn't be selling drugs. It is up to the people to stop buying.

Answer 3

I feel they are interlinked. Without the consumer, big business doesn't need to produce. Consumers could purchase from "green" businesses. This would help the environment.

Answer 4

They are interlinked however it is the individuals within these
groups that are destructive...Some more than others...
One coal mining company may be very destructive to the environment yet another coal mining company in the next state
may be fairly benign...It is not the company , it is the individual
people who decide the how destructive the company may be.
Some consumers throw their trash in the trash can, some
throw it in the river...