PowerSwitch

I thought consuming is what got us into this mess:

http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/i/3870/

'In a speech to UK business lobby group the CBI yesterday, Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne urged companies to tap into ‘green’ consumers.'

Jon

Chambers Dictionary has a few definitions other than environmentally friendly:

green adj (greener, greenest)
1 like the colour of the leaves of most plants, between yellow and blue in the spectrum.
2 covered with grass, bushes, etc • green areas of the city.
3 consisting mainly of leaves • green salad.
4 said of fruit: not yet ripe.
5 colloq said of a person: young, inexperienced or easily fooled.
6 showing concern for, or designed to be harmless to, the environment.
7 said of someone's face: pale; showing signs of nausea.
8 not dried or dry • green bacon • green timber.
9 extremely jealous or envious.
10 healthy, vigorous, or flourishing • green old age.
11 applied to the currency values in which EU farm prices are expressed • green pound

It is and it isn't an oxymoron. It is in the context of the subject of the OP's post.

JohnB, thanks. I had a good laugh at imagining consumers with those qualities! I liked numbers 5 and 9.
Jon

Defo No 7 is the most accurate.

But you needn't take it from me: go and look at people's faces as they emerge from those big out-of-town shopping places. They invariably look miserable and out-of-sorts.

We are all consumers to a certain extent- otherwise, we'd probably be dead of starvation and dehydration, for one thing...

Yeah I agree mostly and one could say animals are consumers too. But I suppose 'consumer' has two meanings one of which is related to economics and perhaps more specifically to capitalist or growth economies (related to consumerism). In the this second sense I could see 'green consumers' as an oxymoron.

Prono 007 wrote:Yeah I agree mostly and one could say animals are consumers too. But I suppose 'consumer' has two meanings one of which is related to economics and perhaps more specifically to capitalist or growth economies (related to consumerism). In the this second sense I could see 'green consumers' as an oxymoron.

I think the problem is excessive consumption, and realise it's a problem I need to get right myself first. One can have too many CDs and books and spend too long on the computer. Or even eat and drink too much.

The thing is we have to work out how to avoid excessive consumption, and (as you are right in saying) the economic problem accompanying it, driving it even, that continual spending of newly-produced and often un-necessary items is needed to drive much of the economy.

It's consumerism as opposed to consuming...the latter just means, taking stuff and metabolising/destroying it in order to continue living, the former means believing in consuming as a way of life, specifically believing that the more consuming is done, the better.

RenewableCandy wrote:...specifically believing that the more consuming is done, the better.

Roll on Retail Therapy!

the_lyniezian wrote: The thing is we have to work out how to avoid excessive consumption, and (as you are right in saying) the economic problem accompanying it, driving it even, that continual spending of newly-produced and often un-necessary items is needed to drive much of the economy.

Exactly. Even if you're not particularly materialistic, chances are that your job depends on other people being materialistic. That's certainly been true of my line of work for the past decade.

I used to work in a company that produced software for mobile phones. I was surprised when I joined that my (well-paid) colleagues didn't all have flash cars, and that many of them actively despised mobile phones. One of them even campaigned against a mobile phone mast near his house!

Consumerism is fine, as long as it's supported by productionism. Otherwise it's like assuming that restaurant customers can make potatoes grow faster by complaining to the manager that their meal hasn't arrived yet.

Production and consumption are two sides of the same coin. What we need is to concentrate on getting the homeostat between the two operating correctly.

Andy Hunt wrote:Consumerism is fine, as long as it's supported by productionism. Otherwise it's like assuming that restaurant customers can make potatoes grow faster by complaining to the manager that their meal hasn't arrived yet.

Production and consumption are two sides of the same coin. What we need is to concentrate on getting the homeostat between the two operating correctly.

Production requires energy so we need to reduce production and also energy per unit of production. there are two ways of reducing energy per unit of production; one is by reducing the amount of energy used to produce a unit: the other is by increasing the length of time the unit functions, thereby decreasing the number of units manufactured overall because they last longer. A lot of both would be the ideal.