We are frequently told how we can all practice sustainability, no matter the circumstances, and the ways in which we can do so. But just how truthful is this claim?

From the food we consume to the cars we drive, the choices we make in our everyday life affects our world’s climate, whether that’s at the top of the mountains or down to the very depths of the sea. The state of the climate cannot be entirely blamed on our independent choices (71% of our emissions are caused by 100 companies, but that is another story). However, we can still look at our individual impact and ways in which we can reduce it.

In recent years, there has been a growing trend in living a sustainable or zero waste lifestyle. These words have become ‘buzzwords’ across social and mainstream media, but what does sustainability actually mean?

Sustainability is a broad concept, but the definition supplied by the UN is as follows;

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

This, in essence, is making sure there are enough resources available for future generations in which they can thrive and live uncompromised. There are three main pillars when it comes to sustainability, all of which overlap.

As stated by Ishara Sahama in her eBook, Let’s ACT: Ecofeminism, for One Woman Project, these pillars are as follows;

Environmental sustainability focuses on sustaining environmental systems and ensuring that natural resources can replenish themselves.
Economic sustainability focuses on how economic systems are available for everyone to pay for goods and services; as well as financial needs.
Social sustainability is about ensuring kindness to one another and within communities, protecting people from injustices, discrimination, and exclusion. It also focuses on incorporating universal human rights and ensuring everyone has equal and equitable access to enough resources to live healthily and securely.

Being able to live sustainably is being able to choose a way of living that is beneficial to the three pillars of sustainability. Some examples of living sustainably are:

Growing/producing your own food.
Using public transport or cycling.
Shopping at zero waste stores.
Purchasing ethically sourced and made products.

If you have the choice to live more sustainably, it means you have the freedom to do so – the privilege. The aim of this article is not to demonise sustainable practices, but to illustrate that there is a disparity, with much of these practices not accessible for most people. If a movement is to be effective and inclusive, it must be approached intersectionally.

Intersectionality is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as the following;

“The interconnected nature of social categorisations such as race, class, and gender, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.”

Within the environmentalism movement, this often means that if you are white, able-bodied and belong to the upper-middle class, you would face very little difficulty in acquiring a sustainable lifestyle due to a lack of barriers from stopping you to do so.

Sustainability, as it is now in developed countries, focuses primarily on what those in privileged positions can do. The choice to be sustainable often comes down to your finances, access, and your location. For example, someone with a large income, living in an affluential metropolitan area will have greater advantages than someone working a minimum wage job living in a remote rural location.

It is common truth that many sustainably sourced products come with an expensive price tag; which is justifiable given that producing these products are often more costly due to higher quality materials and safer and fairer working conditions without exploiting employees’ rights.

However, many simply do not have the freedom of choice to choose these products due to this cost. Out of interest, I researched the prices of products produced by companies who practice sustainability; and others that do not. I started with the necessities – clothing. For the price of £3.50, I could purchase three pairs of socks from Primark. In contrast to this, from Thought Clothing, an ethical brand, one pair of socks costed £6.95 and a pack of three cost £18.95. Quite obviously, this is a vast difference in pricing.

Using the same two brands, I found a plain top for £5.00 from Primark and a similarly designed top for £39.95 from Thought. Again – a very big price difference. Following from this, I investigated the cost of other necessary products. A Tesco’s own brand 750ml shampoo bottle cost £0.50; Green People, a UK-based sustainable beauty brand charged £13.00 for 200ml shampoo bottle. The plastic-free alternative from another UK-based brand, Inanna’s Daughter, charged £8.70 for a shampoo bar. Another necessary item was sanitary protection – from Tesco’s, a pack of 18 tampons cost £2.60 and the menstrual cup cost £20.00. All these prices date from 10/02/2021.

For those with disposable income, purchasing items that are sustainably sourced and produced is not an issue – they are able to afford the upfront cost. However, for many, these prices are impossible. While we should encourage spending money on sustainable products, the difference in pricing alienates those who are simply unable to justify that amount of spending. This further establishes the ideology that sustainability is for the privileged.

When it comes to clothing, some may argue that shopping from second-hand stores is an alternative. This is true to some extent. However, essential items such as underwear, socks and other items of clothing (e.g. for work) are not available second-hand, with the next inexpensive alternative ultimately being to purchase items from large fast-fashion brands. In the UK between 2018-2019, according to the Social Metrics Commission, 14.4 million people were living in poverty, with BIPOC households more than twice as likely to live in poverty as the white population. The poverty line is set at 60% of the median UK income, equating to £325 a week for a single parent with two children, £439 a week for a couple with two children, and £239 a week for a pensioner couple.

Therefore, is it fair to expect these households to spend a large sum of their earnings on sustainable products? When much of their income will be set aside for rent, food, bills, sending kids to school, etc. it is an unreasonable to justify this spending.

Another aspect that is vital to illustrate within this movement is that the idea of living a sustainable lifestyle has become warped; with both consumerism and mainstream media playing a role in this. As already mentioned, one of the main ideologies of sustainability is to ensure the replenishing of natural resources. But what mainstream media has fed to us is an idea that achieving this lifestyle is through continued consumerism, which is contradictory to this concept.

Our social media feeds have become a surging sea of adverts for metal straws, stainless steel water bottles, eco-kit hampers and the like. It is easy to drown in the illusion that to live sustainably, you must buy these items to warrant living this lifestyle. Ironically, one of the crucial elements in pursuing this lifestyle is to use and reuse what is already at your disposal before investing in more products.

In addition to hygiene and clothing, food sustainability is another way in which this lifestyle has become elitist. A report from Sustain UK estimates that 8.4 million people are living in food poverty with BIPOC, disabled and the elderly the worst affected due to their lower income. One study revealed that 1.2 million people in the UK live in food deserts, a significant number of which being BIPOC households. Food deserts are defined as being populated by 5-15,000 people who have access to two or less big supermarkets. Food deserts tend to have many smaller convenience stores, which tend to be more costly.

Living in a food desert makes the task of shopping sustainably a challenge; many may need to stockpile food with a longer shelf-life and avoid fresh produce due to their quick expiration – though many may not even have the option of fresh food. You could argue that it is possible to grow your own food, which is a valid argument. However, a study conducted between 2014 to 2019 revealed that 10% of households in England do not have access to a private or shared garden, patio, or balcony, with Black people being four times as likely to have no access. So, whilst a sustainable solution, it is one that is inaccessible to all.

Shopping zero-waste or from greengrocers is another viable but expensive option. This further increases the gap for disadvantaged groups to be able to shop sustainably.

Within the sustainability movement, there is much emphasis on cutting down on plastic waste through shopping zero-waste and reducing our need for unnecessary plastic products. As already stated, for many, this simply is not possible due to socio-economic circumstances linked to factors such as income, race, gender and residence. The environmental movement is not without its flaws. Although many introduced policies have been well-intentioned, they have also been narrow minded and unintentionally discriminative.

When the ban on plastic straws was announced, many environmentalists at the time – myself included – rejoiced. But this policy ignored the needs of disabled people, many of whom rely on the plastic straw to eat, drink, and take medication. Many in the environmental community in response claimed that metal straws worked just as well; yet it is the flexibility of plastic straws that made them suitable. This act of ableism highlights the need for diversity within the environmental movement; for without diversity there is little chance of intersectional solutions.

Another example is pre-packaged products such as peeled oranges or chopped up pieces of fruit and vegetables. Many practitioners of zero-waste may shame these products as an unnecessary use of plastic. Yet for many disabled people with mobility issues, such as not having full use of their hands, these items are a way in which they can eat these foods.

Perhaps now more than ever, it is vital that this sustainability movement is transformed from one that favours white, privileged, middle-class individuals, to one of inclusivity, that acknowledges the experiences of people from all backgrounds. If sustainability is to work, intersectionality should be at the forefront of the movement.

For those of us who are privileged to live a sustainable lifestyle, our focus needs to be less on what we can do as individuals but what is possible as a global community. Advocating for change to give marginalised communities a voice within this movement is crucial in getting sustainable choices accessible by all, not just the few. We must also become more understanding of those unable to live this lifestyle and not alienate them through further scrutiny. Sustainability looks different for everyone - from Indigenous communities who thrive off the land, to the single parent switching to a vegan diet. We should not shame those whose practice is different to our own or those who are not seemingly ‘doing enough’. Our energy should be put into encouraging these changes, no matter how small.

We should focus on shifting our mindset too – sustainability is not something to be bought; the opposite is often true. Sustainable living stems from the idea of repurposing and reusing what is already in possession, not continued consumption. Focus on using what you already own and using the items as much as possible. And only then consider buying new.

If you have the choice to be sustainable, you must acknowledge your privilege which enables you to live this lifestyle and encourage those who can live sustainably, without detrimental effects to their lifestyle, to do so.

This article merely skims the surface of privilege within the environmentalism and sustainability movement; for further research I recommend:

Watching

Is Sustainability & Zero Waste a Privilege?

Sustainability Issues We Don’t Talk About Enough

Sustainability and Zero Waste Videos are Elitist…

Reading

Why Fast Fashion Is So Hard To Quit

Green for Whom? Injustice in Environmentalism

Is Sustainability only for the Privileged?

With thanks to Nathalie Dickson and Amelia Brooks for the gorgeous illustrations. To discover more of their work, check out their social media:

Nathalie Dickson
@nathalied_art
nathaliedickson.com

Amelia Brooks
@amelia__brooks
ameliabrooks.co.uk