The current marketing era highlights the vital role of maintaining a balance between nature and commercial activity in order to gain a competitive edge in the market. The rise of environmental marketing, which prioritizes sustainability, has become a valuable development within the marketing field. This approach has the potential to create a positive impact for businesses and consumers alike. According to Jacquelyn Ottman of J. Ottman Consulting in New York City, while it is true that every product has some impact on the environment, even if it is small, the terms “green product” and “environmental product” are still a priority for marketers today. Both of these terms are frequently utilized to describe a product that promotes a healthy environment by avoiding harmful substances, conserving energy, utilizing environmentally-friendly resources, reducing pollution, and optimizing the use of natural resources. In addition to this, Paul Hawken, in his book Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution, asserts that in an increasingly eco-conscious era, the production of sustainable products will require a significant increase in the production of natural resources. This will entail adopting a production model that is circular, relying on biological processes, while also reinvesting in and contributing to the natural capital of the planet. While the development of sustainable products is a crucial step towards reducing the environmental impact of businesses, how do we make sure that the products we produce are as effective and good as they are for the environment, society, and the economy?
Green myopia is a term used to describe a short-sightedness or narrow focus on environmental issues that fail to consider the broader social, economic, and political factors that contribute to environmental problems. Let’s cite for example in Palawan, Philippines, wherein the government demolished 33 homes in a low-income neighborhood to promote an ecotourism site. The proposal is supported by many environmental groups and activists since they live on an environmental estate, but some residents in the community are opposed to the project because it will displace local residents and will lose their livelihood. They argued that the city should focus on addressing issues of poverty and inequality rather than prioritizing the ecotourism site. Another example is the hydropower dams and indigenous peoples’ land in Sarawak, Malaysia. The government has been advocating the development of hydropower as a means of producing electricity and stimulating economic growth. However, this initiative has been met with opposition from the indigenous communities, such as the Penan and Kayan people, who claim that they have not been consulted and that the projects will lead to their displacement and the destruction of their ancestral lands and resources.
Another case is the geothermal energy projects in the Philippines. Due to its location along the Ring of Fire zone of Pacific volcanoes, the Philippines has been among the leading producers of geothermal power globally since 1983. According to data from the Philippine Energy department, geothermal power plants function as baseload facilities, which means they run
continuously unless there are scheduled repairs or maintenance. These facilities generated
10,681 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity in 2021, comprising 45% of the country’s renewable energy (RE) sources for the year. Hydropower plants, which are susceptible to droughts, produced approximately 39%, while biomass provided roughly 5%. On the other hand, solar and wind, which rely on weather conditions and location, accounted for a little over 12%. However, the deployment of renewable energy in indigenous people’s land can result in a range of negative impacts, including but not limited to: diversion of water, economic dislocation, displacement from ancestral lands, loss of community control over territory, and restricted community access to resources. In fact, of the seven (7) operating geothermal projects in the country which contribute 1,905 MW to the country’s power supply, about three (3) projects had to resettle households to facilitate the construction of the project and to avoid potential exposure of residents to emissions from the geothermal plant. The affected population is consisting of 21 households in Mindanao; 51 households in Leyte and 25 households in Northern Negros. The area given up by these 97 households facilitated the delivery of power to an estimated 14,660,000 rural homes. These figures bring us back to the concept of green myopia – things appear so narrow that the social impact is forgotten while economic development is achieved.
In conclusion, focusing solely on environmental concerns without considering the broader factors that contribute to them may not effectively solve the underlying problems such as overcrowding, famine, weather extremes, species loss, acute and chronic medical illnesses, war and human rights abuse. Therefore, it’s important to consider the social, economic, and political factors that contribute to environmental problems and to engage with a wide range of stakeholders in developing solutions as environmental sustainability is a multidimensional concept that involves not only the preservation of natural resources but also the well-being of people and its communities.
