Landfill and lightbulbs: are we ready to abandon our destructive past?

CONSUMERISM:The humble consumer - cause of, and solution to, most of our environmental problems. Now we're being asked to help save the world - are we really willing to change?

It's more than a tad ironic that consumers, given their collective track contribution to the destruction of the planet, should now be the ones asked to save it.

Everywhere you turn these days, consumers are being asked to do their bit to save the environment. Whether it's unscrewing your traditional lightbulbs, decommissioning your car or offsetting your airmiles, we're told our individual contribution is vital to the battle against global warming. Some of us don't have to be asked twice, while others have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the altar of environmentalism.

The world of business is watching these trends closely, and understandably so. Traditionally, most consumers were understood to be motivated by self-interest, or at best the interests of their family or close community.

But if consumers are suddenly tapping into hitherto unknown reserves of altruism, that means big changes in the way businesses provide for their customers. For one, it means that consumers might be ready to pay more for products that are kind to the environment. A minority already are, of course, but organic, green and fairtrade goods, while growing in popularity, remain niche products.

Before we succumb to heady optimism, however, consider the evidence. There are plenty of indications that consumers are willing to "talk the talk" when it comes to the environment, but it's less certain they will "walk the walk".

For example, 85 per cent of consumers told a global survey carried out by the PR company Edelman they were willing to change the brands they buy or their consumption habits to make the world a better place. Over 70 per cent told a YouGov poll carried out in the UK last year they had become more "green".

Yet only 25 per cent of the YouGov poll said they would support enforced changes to their lifestyle to save the planet, while 70 per cent rather cynically predicted that concern over green issues would drop off if times got harder economically. And when asked about a specific environmental initiative that would cost them money - a proposal to increase London's congestion charge - only 17 per cent saw it as a genuine attempt to reduce pollution.

"People respond best when they see change as being in their own interest," says Gerard O'Neill, chairman of Amarach Consulting. "But being green alone is not sufficient; a product has to offer quality and, often, value as well."

In a similar vein, a UK government study last November found that consumers don't consider environmental issues when purchasing food and drink. This is hardly surprising when you consider that one-quarter of all food is thrown out unused.

Meanwhile, Irish food researchers have found that consumers want to square the circle by eating food that is at once healthy, good value and "indulgent".

Equally bizarre is the vogue for eating organic food imported from Kenya and other far-flung places while local produce lies rotting because it isn't "photogenic" enough for an outing to the supermarket.

O'Neill cites the example of the Toyota Prius, his own family car, as a product that ticks all the right boxes. Ironically, the Lexus range of hybrids are usually marketed on their performance rather than being "better for the environment," presumably because that's what premium car buyers want to hear.

Oisín Coghlan of Friends of the Earth cites the strong response to the Greener Homes initiative as evidence of a growing appetite among the public for environmentally friendly technology.

"I think people are up for it, if they can get reliable information and good incentives."

Coghlan believes about 5 per cent of the population are willing to change their behaviour with minimal pushing, but many more belong to the "I will if you will" contingent. These are the people who need incentives, he says, whether it be the 22 cent saved from not buying a plastic bag or the grants for wood burning stoves in the Greener Homes initiative.

The health benefits of the smoking ban proved incentive enough for most people, as did an earlier ban on burning smoky fuels. But what are we to make of minister for environment John Gormley's attempt to ban traditional lightbulbs?

Here we have a proposed solo run by Ireland at a time when the technology to replace incandescent bulbs in all their uses is not yet ready. The European Commission is perturbed, the trade is antagonistic and consumers, who have had too many bad experiences with the first generations of low-energy bulbs, are downright sceptical.

This example shows the need for properly designed initiatives, composed of the right proportion of information-giving, carrot and stick.

The bulb ban offers nothing for consumers apart from minimal energy savings, which is unlikely to offset the higher product cost and inferior quality of many of the replacements.

Perhaps what these examples show is that consumers are not prepared to accept a pig in a poke, even if it's a green pig. And also that consumers, like St Augustine, want to be virtuous, but not just yet.