|
問：你為什麼棄政治運動而就商業組織？
答：那本書完全是在講經營青少年組織，算是告訴青少年如何改變世界的入門書。我拿到一筆足夠的預付金給我經濟上的自由，可以離開中學到我想要的任何地方自己生活。所以我決定搬到華盛頓首府，在那裡自願為好幾個組織擔任遊說保護原始森林的工作。我覺得這對我真的一點吸引力都沒有。在政府層級工作實在充滿挫折感。
問：怎麼講？ 答：你也知道那是什麼樣子的，而且這聽起來實在像個過於天真的評論，但華府是個非常政治的都市，想待在那裡你得熱愛政治才行。而在我被邀請與副總統高爾（Al
Gore）會面時，我了解到它並不適合我。我在白宮和其他充滿政治熱忱的年輕人一起，他們對與高爾會面都非常興奮，而整個過程我唯一能想得到的就是，如果把餐巾帶走不知道會不會有人注意到。能在雞尾酒會裡有白宮的餐巾該有多好啊
問：所以你對派對的興趣更甚於政治。你在那時就決定轉換跑道了嗎？
答：在我第二本書即將出版時，我邀請了當時寫這本書評的華盛頓郵報記者到家裡作客，她不停地對傢俱和我上的菜餚發問，最後刊出了一篇有關生活方式的報導：「這是不是生活方式的新潮流呢？你吃飯和生活的方式會不會是改變世界的新方法呢？」那多少在我心中埋下種子。我想，這正是我們沒在社會運動中作到的──我們要求人們改變生活方式，卻沒有告訴他們該怎麼做。為什麼不提供所有如何做的資訊，讓它美好且世俗，不要過於政治化，僅只是生活方式而已。我一直在想，如果瑪莎‧史都華（Martha
Stewart）是個環保人士？你能想像她將如何改變這個國家嗎？ 問：但就算不曾流行過，它的確自70年代起就是一種生活運動。
答：短短5年前，健康食品店都還是個滿是灰塵、放著過期食物髒兮兮的地方，美容產品選擇有限，服飾，更不用想了。床寢傢俱看來都如出一轍，了無新意。你想盡辦法找到的都是些哄抬價格質感不佳的東西。你並不想要「它好像對你有好處」這樣的產品，而應該是：你渴望它。
|
Q: Why did you leave political activism
for commercial enterprise? A: The
book deal was all about running a teenage organization, so it was a
how-to for young people -- how they could make a difference. I got a
decent advance and that gave me the financial freedom to live on my own
right out of high school and live anywhere I wanted to. So I decided to
move to Washington, D.C., where I volunteered at various organizations
to lobby for old-growth forest protections. I decided it really didn't
interest me. Working on a federal level was very frustrating.
Q: How so?
A: You know what it was, and this sounds
like such a naive comment, but Washington, D.C., is such a political
town. You have to love politics to stay in D.C. I realized it wasn't for
me when I was invited to meet Vice President Al Gore and I'm there in
the White House with a group of other young political up-and-comers and
they were all so excited to meet Al Gore, and all I could think the
whole time was, I wonder if anyone would notice if I took the napkins.
How great would it be to have White House napkins at a cocktail party?
Q: So you were more interested in the
details of the party than the details of the politics. Did you decide
then to switch gears?
A: When my second book was going to be
published, I invited the reporter from The Washington Post who was
reviewing it to my house and she kept asking questions about my
furniture and the food I was serving. And when the story came out it was
a lifestyle story: Is this the new lifestyle trend? Is the way you live
and eat the new way to make a difference? That sort of planted a seed in
my head. I thought, this is the one thing we're not doing as a movement.
We're asking people to make lifestyle changes, but we don't tell them
how to do it. Why not provide all the how-to information, and make it
beautiful and sensual and not so political, but all just lifestyle. I
kept thinking -- what if Martha Stewart were an environmentalist? Can
you imagine how she would change this country?
Q: But of course it had been a lifestyle
movement since the '70s, however unstylish.
A: Even as little as five years ago, the
health-food store was like a dusty, grungy place with expired food.
Beauty products were limited. Clothing -- forget about it. Bedding and
furniture and all that kind of stuff, you had to go out of your way and
find stuff that was overpriced and didn't feel good. You don't want the
message to be: It's good for you. It has to be: You desire this.
|
|
問：你是對政治運動的長期投入耗損了理想之後，才想要投身綠色消費這個領域嗎？
答：夥伴們對我有很多批評，說我出賣了理想，似乎認定我所作的每一件事，名流諮詢、生活書籍寫作、產品設計等等，都是為了錢。大家總是想：「噢，這全都是為了好萊塢──他只是想跟名人在一起而已。」諸如此類的。但事實是，我在經營事業。假如我能夠成功經營一個營收不錯的媒體事業，同時創造正面形象和不會傷害環境的產品，我看不出錯在哪裡。像這樣對一邊賺錢一邊試著維護環境的人做出批評，聽到了實在很有挫折感。基本上這個訊息就是：「不要賺錢。」而我就是覺得自己不需要為此道歉。我所經營的許多產品和企劃的利潤都全數贈予慈善團體。
問：那麼你覺得自己正在朝環保理想前進嗎？
答：絕對是。我覺得政治組織固然是環保運動的重要成份，但我們一直缺乏驅策消費者的運動，我覺得消費者在推動市場及產業朝環境友善的方向上有很大的力量。
我所做的，正是使這缺乏影響力的生活方式變得更簡單而可及，讓更多消費者接受。假如我製造一件混合了40%有機棉花和60%普通棉花的產品，就會有人說：「這個嘛，你還是在推廣和使用化肥種植的棉花。」但在我們看來，能讓一名國內零售商朝有機原料的方向前進就已經夠驚人了。這即是邁進了一大步。如果你的想法是：「寧為玉碎，毋為瓦全。」你會什麼都得不到
問：當然，其中的界線是很微妙的：你要在環保原則上做多少讓步以使主流群眾覺得它們可行或有吸引力？
答：看看油電混合動力車就好了。它雖然還是使用汽油，但往正確的方向邁了一大步，也易於行銷：駕駛Prius（豐田油電混合動力車）帶來一種地位感，彷彿在說：「我比你聰明，因為我的車不代表我多有錢，而是代表我對世界的貢獻。」
問：但風險在於如果把重點放在消費主義，大眾得到的訊息將會是：我們可以只靠消費解決問題。而到最後，買3件有機棉混紡的T恤對環境而言並不會比買1件由化學種植棉花製成的T恤來得要好。換句話說，鼓勵人們購買環保商品的結果，卻還是支持了傳統集約式利用資源的行為。
答：我想這算是以有點負面的態度去看它。事實上，即使是死硬派環保人士也需要肥皂，他們也需要枕頭、一張鵝絨被，一張床來睡覺。他們可能也需要一輛汽車。這些都是基本需求。
我們不是鼓勵大家以買東西來做環保，只是鼓勵他們改變購買所需物品的方式。這並不是「買得更多」，而是「買得正確」。我把推廣這些產品、概念和環保先鋒的零售商當作自己的職責，好讓消費者注意到這些產品並被吸引到商店裡。
問：你擔心名不符實的環保形象包裝（greenwash）嗎？
答：不。我想現在真的只有極少數公司以名不符實的環保形象為包裝，因為他們會擔心被揭發後失去客戶的信賴。我相信很多這類公司的確擁有偉大的操守，並決心盡可能創造環保的最佳產品。
問：有哪些可以舉例的產品嗎？
答：有一種太難找而且太貴的廚房清潔用品，像這種我就一直沒辦法幫它背書。但我後來發現一種Method
Home公司的Target產品，要價約三塊錢、聞起來像小黃瓜、可被生物分解而且沒用動物做實驗。那真是太棒了！我喜歡一個和平組織Ethos出的瓶裝水，它包裝真的很討喜。Recycline用石田農場公司（Stonyfield）的回收優格杯做了很棒的牙刷。高價產品方面，我愛通用電氣。該公司的能源之星（Energy
Star）生產線，出了許多設計很棒的不鏽鋼產品。我還喜歡通用電氣的一款電冰箱Profile signature
fridge，但它要價美金五千元，我買不下手。同時我也真的很喜歡星巴克的蔭栽咖啡有機咖啡。 (待續)
【文章連載】
■環保宗師少年郎 與丹尼‧徐對談(上) (中) (下) |
Q: Did you feel like going into the
green-consumer category after your longtime commitment to political
activism diminished your ethical connection to the cause?
A: There was a lot of criticism from my
peers that I sold out. There seems to be this belief that everything I
was doing was just for money -- consulting celebrities, writing
lifestyle books, product design. There were all these opinions that,
"Oh, it's all about Hollywood -- he just wants to be with celebrities,"
and all that kind of stuff. But the fact is, I'm running a business
here. If I can do a successful media business that does well on the
bottom line but also creates a positive message and products that aren't
hurting the environment, I don't see the fault here. It's very
frustrating to hear criticism against people who are trying to make
money while doing positive things for the environment. Basically the
message is, "Don't make money." And I just don't feel like I need to
apologize for doing that. One hundred percent of the proceeds for many
of the products and projects I work on go to charities.
Q: So do you feel like what you're
doing is advancing the environmental cause?
A: Absolutely. I feel like the political
organizations are a strong component of the environmental movement, but
where we've been lacking is a movement that is consumer-driven. And I
think that consumers have a lot of power in terms of moving markets and
industries in the direction of environmental good.
What I'm doing is making the low-impact lifestyle accessible and easy
to a broader realm of consumers. If that means I create a product that
is a blend of 40 percent organic cotton and 60 percent conventional, not
doing 100 percent to keep it affordable, there are going to be people
who say, "Well, you're still promoting and using chemically grown
cotton." But in our view, it's pretty astonishing that a national
retailer is moving in the direction of organic materials. It's one big
step at a time. And if your attitude is, "Well, it has to be all or
nothing," you're going to get nothing.
Q: Of course, it's a fine line: How
much do we have to dilute environmental principles to make them
appealing or adaptable to the mainstream?
A: Well, look at the hybrid-engine car.
I mean, it still uses gas, but it's a big step in the right direction.
And it's easy to market: There's a sense of status that comes from
driving a Prius. It says, "I'm smarter than you because my car doesn't
represent how much money I'm worth. It represents what I contribute to
the world."
Q: But the danger is that if the
emphasis is on consumerism, the message that goes out to people is that
we can just buy our way out of our problems. And in the end, buying
three T-shirts made of an organic-blend cotton is no better for the
environment than buying one made of chemically grown cotton. In other
words, telling people to buy green products is still promoting
resource-intensive practices.
A: I think that's sort of a negative way
to look at it. The reality is even your hard-core environmentalists need
soap. They're probably going to need a pillow to sleep on. A comforter.
A bed. They need a car. They may need a car. These are basic
necessities.
We're not encouraging people to buy their way to be greener, we're
just encouraging them to change the way they buy the things they need.
The message isn't "buy more" but "buy right." I sort of see it as my job
to promote the products and the ideas and the retailers who are in the
vanguard of doing green things, and to make consumers aware of these
products and draw them into the stores.
Q: Are you concerned about
greenwashing?
A: No. I think that there are really
very few consumer companies that greenwash today. They're too scared of
being exposed and losing consumer confidence. I really believe a lot of
these companies really have great integrity and are determined to create
the finest products that are as green as possible.
Q: What would be an example of some
of the products that pass muster?
A: For the longest time, I wouldn't
endorse a kitchen cleaning product because it was too hard to find and
too expensive. But I found one at Target by Method Home for about three
bucks, smells like cucumber, biodegradable, and not tested on animals. I
mean, how great is that! I like Ethos bottled water. It's a peace
organization and I think the packaging is really sexy, too. Recycline
makes these great toothbrushes from Stonyfield yogurt cups. On
big-ticket items, I love General Electric. They have a lot of the really
sexy stainless-steel products in their Energy Star line. I just love the
GE Profile signature fridge, but it's $5,000 so I just can't justify
buying it. Also I really love Starbucks' shade-grown and organic
coffees.
|
