Time in Mind

There are a number of words mass media tags to the notion of sustainability; "eco-friendly," "green," "crunchy," "happy," "trendy." Sustainability's unspoken meaning to consumers and corporate America? Hassle. Sacrifice. Most alarming, pointless. It seems far too easy to fall into the uninterested, disengaged mindset of “I am only one.”

The United States’ pace to the latest technological advancements makes growing a green thumb comparable to tripping a speed train with a straw. Racecar mentalities demand regular updates to the latest breakthrough product, leaving a trail of perfectly functioning resources tagged “outdated.” Try to imagine the percentage of the environment being wasted away in the name of the latest trend. And in the most dangerous respect, this is considered savvy consumerism, as our lives are driven by what Cool Hunter dubs “the shiny and new.” Factor in the presidential election, and the likelihood of a Democratic shift in policymaking is high. Layer on the government’s recent shove via the $170 billion economic stimulus package, and consumption and spending are likely to increase even more should the Democrats take the reigns.

Why wouldn’t this work?

Enter, massive consumer debt. The plunge in consumer spending across the board clamors loudly against the government’s tax rebate clad message that whispers, “consume.” Nose-diving sales from luxury items to dry cleaning services rings a message loud and clear that consumers are floundering for a sense of monetary balance and control.

So what does all this mean for sustainability? Picture sustainability as no longer eco-friendly consumption, but less consumption made with time in mind. Consumers, now armed with less cash, have a sharper sensitivity to purchase endurance. Time has an increasing value in a consumption decision in the sense that consumers are starting to re-conceptualize the value of a dollar from “what will it buy me now,” to “how long will this purchase last me?” Consuming and spending less feels comfortable, and certainly more environmentally friendly, but in the end how will we correct the ironic imbalance between the long-term implications of “going green” with the short-term demands of our economy?