Today’s topic is what might be an unfamiliar word “freeganism.” It’s pronounced like the word “veganism” (VEE-gan-ism) in English, and is similar in origin. Simply put, freeganism is a brand of anticonsumerist culture where by practitioners strive to “minimize their support of corporations and their impact on the planet.” They are the “scavengers of the developed world” who forage through trash for just-expired food, dress in castoff clothes, and furnish their homes with items found on the street or on Freecycle.org swapmeets. (All quotes are taken from a recent NY Times article on the subject, which I strongly recommend reading.
While turned off by typically overboard, American application of an otherwise worthy ideal, I was set to thinking by a quote from Bob Torress, a US sociology professor, who thinks that environmentalism “is becoming this issue of, consume the right set of green goods and you’re green, regardless of how many resources are used to distribute and manufacture the goods.” He also added that “If you ask the average person what can you do to reduce global warming, they’d say buy a Prius.”
With the recent spike in oil prices driving American retailers like Home Depot to offer environmentally-friendly products like a so-called “green chainsaw,” one has to wonder if Japan will not be far behind. I do think Japan is seeing a more determined shift to greener policies. A new law enacted in April mandates reduced packaging on consumer goods and offers retailers incentives for cutting the use of plastic bags. But at the same time, we also see greater media attention devoted to the logical backlash of somewhat misguided environmental policies.
Take Kunihiko Takeda, a professor at Nagoya University who made a big splash with his recent best-seller “The Lie of An Environmental Problem” (Kankyo Mondai wa Naze Uso Ga Makari Tooru no Ka, Senyosha). Takeda makes some startling claims – for example, that recycling certain products (such as PET bottles) actually generates more energy waste than it saves due to high costs and limited uses for the recycled plastic. He also states that reducing the use of plastic bags for packaging will actually hurt the environment, as purchases of new “reusable” cloth, plastic, and other bags will consume more resources than would have been spared. While controversial, Takeda agrees with the freegans in one aspect — that the most responsible thing for a consumer to do is to use what s/he already has for as long as possible, without buying new.
After much consideration, I think I agree. Forgoing the purchase of a canned drink from a vending machine and having a cup of barley tea at home is certainly cheaper, and more environmentally friendly, than buying that drink and recycling the can. Finding ways to reuse or redistribute items already in the “consumer food chain” is better than buying something new, even if it is cheap. In fact, one could contend that while the advent of a global manufacturing and distribution networks has cut prices and brought material prosperity, it has also cheapened goods to a dangerous level.
I remember being so happy when Uniqlo and Daiso brought cheap, quality items to consumers in Japan, but now I wonder if we haven’t gone too far. Maybe we should pay a little more for a little less, and use it longer. I’ll focus on more specific ways we can do this in a future issue, but for now, I challenge you to give this philosophy a try. While you certainly don’t have to go around foraging like a fanatical Freegan, try and think of ways you can simply ‘buy’ or ‘consume’ less. Any great suggestions? Contact us!
© 2007 Wendy J. Imura.