Comments on: Supply and demand

By: Moose

Moose — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:18:47 +0000

I think these companies do want to make as much money as they can, which is often at the expense of our planet unfortunately. But I don't see the point in fighting against all these companies either, rather that we should work with them and move them towards a green economy. That way they can make all the money they want and we don't have to endure further economic melt down.

By: Tim G

Tim G — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:45:55 +0000

But sadly that just will not happen. As it was said in a previos response, these global companies are in it to make as much dollar as possible and on there way, yeah they'll make an organic tee and yeah they will have a 'skate for the planet day', but ultimately they'll just want to make big bucks by making lots of product!

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:01:13 +0000

Nice one Ruth.
You're a great writer and I look forward to hearing more.

I feel you're right. But at the moment, the decision making comes down to those of us who can afford to buy organic etc and therefore continue to build a demand for these products, therefore making them cheaper in the long run.... Hopefully.
Keep doing what you're doing.
Peace.

By: Katie

Katie — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:59:42 +0000

I agree with eco-steve. People often forget that reduction is what's needed more than anything to help this situation.

By: eco_steve

eco_steve — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:51:00 +0000

Nice column Ruth. It very much is a chicken and egg scenario with what people want and what companies are prepared to do. I think both are just waiting for the other to respond.

However, the best solution would be for companies to not produce so many clothes in the first place. That's the most eco-friendly option there is.

By: Ruth

Ruth — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:56:01 +0000

Thanks Tim, I hear exactly what you are saying. That's precicely what I thought for a long time, but I've been trying to explore matters from the other side recently too. I'm not saying that it's right that it should be up to the consumers, but right now I feel like it might be.

I think big brands a lot more that they can do about this situation than they currently are for sure. But then it's the whole you can take a horse to water thing, and unless the consumers want to drink they won't. It's got to be up to them.

Rip Curl could go completly green and loose half their customers in the process. I'm not sticking up for them, but I do understand why they might be scared to do so. But if we as customers say it's okay, it takes that fear away.

I think a good example of where consumer demand really changed a global industry for the better would be the case of 'dolphin friendly' tuna. It was consumer demand that really pushed for that change and it worked! Well, it sort of worked, I don't personaly believe there is any such thing as anything friendly tuna right now but that's another story...

By: tim 'off da radar' Radar

tim 'off da radar' Radar — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:27:42 +0000

First up, great column Ruth, but I actually disagree that turning the surf industry green is reliant upon that 99% of high street shoppers. The responsibility absolutely lies with the huge global brands that produce these items for massive profits so they can make a select few within these companies very very wealthy.

In order to do this, they need people to buy buy buy! If that means them making a plastic pencil case for the kid whose starting school, then they will make them by the truck load.

I just don't think that global brands can ever be good to the planet, they can be less bad if you like. As you quite rightly say, not everyone can afford to by an organic hemp tee printed without chemicals so they have to make a cheaper option but I think it's hugely unfair to put blame on the consumer. It's very easy to assume that buying a £25 organic tee could be done without much thought but for many, there are much better ways to spend that money.

It's the like's of Rip Curl that have to make money to operate so they have to sell cheaper and therefore, often a more un-freindly product.