Many of us have probably wondered in a store, this product is so cheap, how can it be profitable for the seller? This is what everyday life looks like for consumers when the hidden costs of products – to the climate, nature, and people on the other side of the planet – are not reflected in the price tag. How do your small and big daily choices change when the cheaper, unsustainable option is always more readily available than the sustainable alternatives?
Our planet simply cannot sustain our current level of consumption. The Greens also emphasize how “everyday life matters,” but it is quite a demand for every individual to first research the hidden climate and environmental impacts of every single product and service, and then possibly pay significantly more for their sustainable choices (compared to unsustainable alternatives).
The sustainable option should therefore always be both the easiest and the most affordable choice, and this requires changes in our system. This can be achieved by removing the competitive advantage of production at the expense of the environment by making these hidden costs visible to consumers. The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is a good example of how this works: the price of emission allowances directs production towards less polluting alternatives, which is also reflected in consumer prices.
This would benefit everyone: currently, for example, domestic and sustainably operating companies are forced to compete against global fast fashion under unfair conditions. A system similar to the EU’s emissions trading for the energy sector should be expanded to cover all products and services, making sustainable and responsibly produced products more competitive. This would encourage consumers to favor high-quality and sustainable – and often domestic – production.
This systemic approach can also be extended to city-level actions that concretely support sustainable choices. For example, by developing public transport or simply making the vegetarian option the default choice in lunch lines, environmentally friendly choices can be made both easy and attractive.
Reducing consumption does not mean destroying economic well-being but rather rationalizing and redirecting consumption. It is clear that many livelihoods and communities depend on the current production model, but we must also boldly seek sustainable alternatives. When consumption increasingly shifts towards more sustainable options, this also means investing in innovations that create high-quality jobs while reducing environmental impact – as we have already seen happening in the energy sector.
I explored these ideas particularly from the perspective of fast fashion and the Finnish clothing industry in my opinion piece published in Helsingin Sanomat on January 10, 2025 (free translation below):
Eila Parviainen calls for greater consumption to save the Finnish clothing industry in her opinion piece (HS 8.1.). The article raises important questions about the future of the domestic clothing industry, but in the midst of the climate crisis, greater consumption cannot be the solution.
As climate change and biodiversity loss worsen, consumption must instead be reduced. New Year’s resolutions, such as limiting clothing purchases, are a step in the right direction. Consumption must also be directed towards sustainable and responsible products – preferably domestic ones. The biggest obstacle to this, however, is that the true climate and environmental impacts are not reflected in product prices.
The sustainable option should always be both the easiest and the most affordable choice. In the clothing industry, domestic entrepreneurs are now forced to compete against global fast fashion under unfair conditions: the price level of fast fashion is based on overproduction, low-wage labor, and environmental degradation, which are not accounted for in pricing. Domestic production cannot compete with this without structural changes.
One solution could be a comprehensive system similar to the EU’s emissions trading, where producers would pay for their emissions and environmental impacts, and these costs would also be reflected in product prices. This would make responsibly produced products more competitive. At the same time, consumers would be encouraged to choose domestic, high-quality, and sustainable design.
Instead of demanding consumers to buy more, we must encourage our production and consumption patterns to become more sustainable, as has been done in the energy sector through emissions trading. Political and economic measures are needed so that future generations remember us as promoters of responsible choices, not as consumers of cheap fast fashion.
Cosmo Jenytin
Master of Science in Technology, Espoo