Consumption--The Other Side Of Sustainability
I want to discuss something that rarely gets discussed in the sustainability world but which I think is going to be a subject of increasing attention. It's the fact that sustainability is really a two-sided coin. On the one side is sustainable production, which is what all of us in business like to talk about--how companies can get leaner and greener. But on the other side is sustainable consumption, which is something that we don’t talk about much.
I want to frame this issues by talking about globalization--not in economic terms, but in environmental and social terms.
One of the most interesting and important aspects of climate change is that it is a global issue with global impacts. If China continues to burn coal at the rate it needs to sustain its economic growth, Manhattan, Boston, and Miami will be threatened by rising seas, and farmers in Kansas and Nebraska will have to switch crops or move. When farmers in Brazil cut down rainforests, the temperature in Boise goes up.
There is no place to run from climate change. Polar bears living at the North and South Poles are threatened.
Globalization has also produced social impacts that are worldwide. We've thrown out most of our toys that were made in China, even after China executed the official who was in charge of product safety. (And we complain about tough government regulations here!) We import so many products from China that their product safety issues affect us directly. To some extent, the same is true for child and slave labor. China's social issues are also our issues, whether we like it or not.
And resource issues have also become global. We are due to run out of oil and a number of metals that we need to feed the manufacturing infrastructure that supplies us with everything from building materials to cutlery.
Water is the most dramatic example of the coming resources crunch. The list of areas that are likely to run out of water in the next thirty to fifty years is scary, and it is already happening right here at home. Las Vegas, the fastest-growing city in the U.S., is built in the middle of a desert, and the lake that supplies it with its water is drying up from the top and silting up from the bottom. Similar things are happening in many large areas of the world.
Andy Liveris, the CEO of Dow, has said that "water is the oil of the 21st century." The Pentagon has conducted scenario planning around the idea that the world will be engulfed in a series of regional wars fought over water in the next century.
But in this globalized world, consumption has not yet become globalized. It's well known that the United States, with only five percent of the world’s population, consumes twenty-five percent of the world's fossil fuel. We have only one fifth of the population of China, but we account for more global warming than they do (although the gap is rapidly shrinking).
Jared Diamond recently observed that the average American consumes 32 times as many resources as the average Kenyan. When you consider that a billion people live on less than $1 a day, that my lunch cost probably $20 and I am already thinking about dinner, you'd think the ratio would be even higher.
Now put this in a global context. It has been calculated that if the rest of the world were to start living at the same standard of living as people in the U.S., it would take twelve planet Earths to support our collective lifestyle. When I think about how much stuff I throw out every week, that doesn't really surprise me either. But as far as we know, we only have the natural resources of one planet Earth at our disposal.
The papers are filled with articles about how people in the West are obese, but you don't read very much about the fact that the economies of the West are also obese.
And you certainly are not likely to hear this from corporations that are in the business of selling more stuff. To the extent they are focused on sustainability, they are focused on being more efficient in manufacturing and selling us more stuff. But if you look at the numbers, the kinds of efficiencies they can make are not going to reduce our consumption to a sustainable level, not by a long shot. We can all buy hybrid cars and low-impact fluorescent bulbs, but that only slows the growth of pollution.
The fact is that we need to practice sustainability on both sides of the coin: sustainable production and sustainable consumption.
It's rare to hear companies say, "Consume less," and rarer still to hear them say, "Consume less of our products." A few years ago, McDonald's in France ran some ads saying, "If you have a weight problem, don't eat here so much." The corporate PR guys on Oakbrook Illinois found the people who were responsible and sent them to the (corporate) guillotine.
There are a handful of industries that are just beginning to address the issue of sustainable consumption.
Twenty-five years ago, when I was just getting involved in environmental matters, Massachusetts passed a law that would pay electric utilities for getting their customers to use less energy. Under the new scheme, the utilities would get paid the same, and in some cases more, if they sold less energy by convincing customers to use less, or to use it during off-peak times.
This became a national program called Demand Side Management (DSM). It has the potential to revolutionize the consumption of electricity all over the world. We need to apply this model to other areas of consumption.
Reducing our level of consumption is going to be tough for us in the developed world to swallow, and I frankly don’t know how it is going to happen. We have the strongest military in the world, now unconstrained by any opposing force. And we have proved very willing to fight to maintain our life style, with the war in Iraq (motivated at least in part by the desire to guarantee access to that country's oil reserves) seemingly just the latest example.
I think sustainable consumption will come about--if it does--through a combination of five factors:
Market forces. If you've traveled recently, you know that our standard of living is down because of the weak dollar. Imported goods are also more expensive. At the same time, the prices of gas and other natural resource will continue to climb. All of this will tend to bring our standard of living down, closer to that of the developing countries.
Regulation. China legislated only one child per family, and although I don't think we will ever go that far, I do envision more consumption taxes and possibly the rationing of various commodities. We are already going down that road with water use.
Technical innovation. Science may help alleviate the resources crunch. I'm thinking about things like genetically-modified organisms, clean hydrogen or nuclear fusion, and cost-effective water desalinization. But technology will not solve the problem. We're not quite as smart as we like to believe, and there is no technological genie waiting to grant our every wish.
International conflict. The next century will see a lot of battles over resources, and the West is destined to fight a number of wars like the war in Iraq--wars we realistically cannot win. These military defeats may be a necessary evil to wake us up to the need for sustainable consumption.
Redefinition of consumer preferences. This is the hardest one of all. It requires redefining quality of life by understanding that "Less is more." The simplicity movement needs to go from a cult to a mass movement.
I think you can see now why this topic doesn't get discussed much in business circles.
I had the pleasure of being a keynote speaker with Yvon Chouinard of Patagonia at a "net impact" event late last year. He has done as much as any CEO to make sure that his company is respectful and protective of the environment. Yet in front of 100 net impacters, he said (I am paraphrasing), "I have talked to some serious scientists, and most of them believe we have passed the point of no return. We have no hope left to save the Earth."
We all want to think we can go on living this way forever, and that our children should have more than we did. But deep down we recognize that this can't be the case except for a smaller and smaller percentage of us. Not only are there billions of people who want to escape from grinding poverty--and obviously deserve a chance to do so--but in addition the world's population is still growing. By 2050, it is projected to increase from the current six billion to nine billion, and three-quarters of this growth will be in the developing world. So we are going to have a lot more mouths to feed, hands to wash, and people without homes or hope.
I apologize if this message seems like a downer. Maybe I need to find my Prozac. But the issue of sustainable consumption isn't going to vanish just because we prefer to ignore it. I think we're grown-up enough to start talking about it. What do you think?
Labels: China, Climate and Carbon, Jared Diamond, Las Vegas, McDonalds, Patagonia, Personal Musings, Sustainable Consumption, Water, Yvon Chouinard
Email blog entry to a friend
Comments
Add a comment
By 
MEL, on
February 27, 2008 10:16 AM
Reduced consumption isn't going to happen with current market forces.
We need to find a way for people to make money by getting other people to spend less! :)
Right now, the entire system is set up to reward those who get us to consume more.
I am a big fan of capitalism and free speech, but excessive marketing and consumption seem to be a fatal flaw.
I am not sure what the solution is, but I don't think excessive restrictions and rules are it. You have to change the internal incentives of the system itself.
Maybe one solution is "absolute truth" in advertising... Including restricting those subtle associations - like Mt. Dew will make you cool and happy.
Another one might be a company has to also pay for the consequences of its products... could be difficult to measure...
Something to think about anyway.
By 
Luke, on
February 27, 2008 4:16 PM
A courageous and thoughtful article. The discussion is as far reaching as to redefine the age-old concepts of "consumer" and "end-user."
By Michael, on
February 27, 2008 5:15 PM
Hi Andy:
You said: "The fact is that we need to practice sustainability on both sides of the coin: sustainable production and sustainable consumption."
I guess I don't see the big revelation here. Upstream production and downstream consumption both entail energy and material throughputs, and always have. The whole economy is consumption -- stuff comes in on one end, and goes out the other. The links along the way are just links along the way. Is this a big surprise to anyone?
Furthermore, why constrain the discussion to the ecological slant? We're talking about sustainability, right? Multi-bottom line? If so, we need to talk about resources produced by corporations, not just consumed by them; and also vital resources needed by people for their basic well-being, not just extra ones for their self indulgence.
These non-ecological resource considerations have nothing to do with what you're talking about, and yet they are still part of the triple bottom line concept -- your mantra. Mine, too.
Regards,
Mark
By Mark W. McElroy, on
February 28, 2008 12:26 AM
Thanks for your comments folks. Mark I wonder if you could elaborate on what you mean by everything is consumption (since you then seemingly draw a distinction yourself between production and consumption) and also more about looking at what corporations produce.
Ultimately it is the "demand" for goods and services by the ultimate users that drives consumption. so that's where I am focused. Upstream, companies are already trying to make more with less because it's cheaper.
I also think we need to find ways to talk about this in plain language, becuase the langauge we use is part of the problem. The word "demand" as in supply and demand is a case in point. Maybe we should start using the phrase "supply and persuasion or "supply and need" The former would describe the situation in the rich world, the later in the poor.
Andy
By AS, on
February 28, 2008 7:10 AM
Hi Andy:
What I mean is as follows. Here's a quote from Chapter 1 of "Confronting Consumption), by Princen et al:
:...'consuming' occurs all along the chain, not just at the downstream node of consumer demand. Nodes of raw-material extraction and manufacturing, for example, represent not just production and value added, but also consumption and value substracted. Producers are consumers; production is consumption."
So to say that producers are simply responding to end-user demand is not to absolve producers of the effects of their own consumption. Businesses are run by people, too, and those people can make choices about their impacts in the world.
Indeed, end-user 'consumer sovereignty' is a dangerous myth; producers hide behind it; and the earth and its inhabitants suffer accordingly. I'm simply saying it's time to debunk the myth, and one way of doing so is to expose businesses for the consumers that they are.
Regards,
Mark
By Mark W. McElroy, on
February 28, 2008 11:31 AM
Hi! I really like your blog...at the beginning of this post you mentioned P.Bears at the poles; they are at this time only in the Arctic...I thought you might find this article from Spiegel Online (Nov 23, 2007) interesting:
POLAR BEARS FOR THE SOUTH POLE?
Biologists Debate Relocating Imperiled Species
By Philip Bethge
As global warming changes the face of habitats around the world, scientists are asking if humans can help save species from extinction by moving them to cooler climes. But before polar bear resettlement and tiger transports begin, is it time to take a look at easier alternatives?
DPA
Bengal tigers are dangerous neighbors for people living in the Sundarbans, a lush wetland area of Bangladesh. As the wetland mangrove forests are reduced -- due to both man and rising sea levels -- the tigers' habitat shrinks, pushing them closer to people.
Climate change is driving thousands of animal and plant species into new environments. Now biologists are debating whether it makes sense to help them make the move.
Indian and Bangladeshi fishermen appeal to Bonobibi, the goddess of the forest, before they set out into the swamps. They also send their prayers to heaven to placate Daksin Ray, the tiger god.
But no amount of prayer can deter the Bengal tiger. People are killed by tigers almost weekly in the Sundarbans, the world's largest mangrove forest, located in the delta of the Ganges and Brahmaputra Rivers. The region is one of the last refuges for Bengal tigers. Though still the masters of the forest, a gas could prove to be the tigers' undoing. The gas is called carbon dioxide, and it's warming the earth.
The Sundarbans are one of the first ecosystems on earth that could be destroyed by the effects of climate change. According a report by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), three-quarters of the region, a World Heritage site, could be underwater by the end of the century. All it takes is a 45-centimeter (1.5-foot) rise in sea levels for the Bengal tiger, also referred to locally as the "man-eater," to become one of the first victims of climate change. And if scientists' predictions are right, it will not be the last.
FROM THE MAGAZINE
Find out how you can reprint this DER SPIEGEL article in your publication. According to a report issued in April by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 20 to 30 percent of all species would face an "elevated" risk of extinction if the average global temperature rises by more than 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit). And a study published in the journal Nature, concluded that by 2050 up to two-thirds of all animals and plants could be forced to move to new habitats in order to survive.
Given these dire predictions, a hotly debated issue among biologists is whether man should lend a hand, moving species when their habitats become too hot. Or will animals and plants manage to save themselves after all?
"Changes in the climate are normal for animals and plants, and they have always had to adjust to them," argues Munich State Zoo biologist Josef Reichholf.
But others disagree. "Climate change is one of the greatest threats to the diversity of species on Earth," says University of Toronto forestry professor Jay Malcolm. Mark Schwartz of the University of California at Davis agrees: "The magnitude of impending climate-driven extinctions requires immediate action."
Schwartz and a number of his colleagues have published a study that asks a radical question: If certain animals and plants are unable to flee rising temperatures, should we help them? "One obvious solution," Schwartz says, "is to help species at risk move to new environments where they may thrive." The truth is that animals and plants are already reacting to global warming, most of them migrating northward. Butterflies and bats are moving toward the poles. Scarlet dragonflies and praying mantises are becoming prevalent in southern Germany. Ospreys and house martins have begun wintering in the Mediterranean instead of Africa.
These changes are not necessarily a bad thing. "Many species benefit from climate change," says Reichholf. For instance, cranes and bald eagles, both considered endangered or threatened species until now, would encounter better living conditions in a warmer Europe. Pests like the bark beetle are feeling increasingly comfortable in northern latitudes. Elk and wild boar are expanding their range as favorite foods become more abundant.
But biologists calling for quick and decisive action are worried about species physically prevented from moving to new habitats.
If the climate changes as quickly as many scientists are predicting, these species will hardly have enough time to make their way to more favorable climes. In some cases, they will be forced to negotiate rocky and difficult paths. The earth no longer looks the way it did at the end of the last ice age. Cities, agricultural fields and roads dominate the landscape today.
Getting past these hurdles is impossible for many species. "The fragmentation of our landscapes prevents many animals and plants from moving about freely," says Volker Hammen of the Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research in the eastern German city of Halle. "A single major highway is enough to deter some butterflies."
DPA
Alpine snowbells thrive at high altitudes and low temperatures. Global warming may leave them with nowhere to go.
Hammen is part of an international project titled "Assessing Large Scale Risks for Biodiversity with Tested Methods." He and other researchers involved in the project warn that climate change could threaten more than half of all European plant species. For instance, they predict a drastic disappearance of species native to the Alps and the Pyrenees. As they flee rising temperatures, plants like red saxifrage are already fighting their way to higher altitudes. But at some point they reach the summit and cannot migrate any further. Glacier buttercup and Alpine snowbell are among the potential victims.
Latin America's golden frogs are another example. Two-thirds of the brightly-colored amphibians have already gone extinct in the last 20 to 30 years, falling victim to a fungus. Climate change escalates the process by providing better living conditions for the deadly fungus in the mountainous cloud forests of Costa Rica and Panama, where average nighttime temperatures are rising.
"Rare species that live in fragile or extreme habitats are already being affected," says Camille Parmesan, an ecologist at the University of Texas in Austin. Parmesan, who has evaluated hundreds of studies, does not believe that species can escape heat-trap habitats simply by adaptation. "To really come up with something new that's going to allow a species to live in a completely new environment takes a million years," says Parmesan. But the problem is that they have only a "few hundred years" to complete the process.
What can be done? Biologists' recommendations range from doing nothing to taking decisive action. The example of polar bears illustrates the dilemma. The shaggy denizens of the Arctic have become icons of climate change. The images, widely publicized in the media, of the giant creatures perched on tiny ice floes suggest that the situation is urgent. But the reality is a different story altogether. Seven of the 12 polar bear populations studied to date are stable or even growing.
This has biologists puzzled. Do polar bears really need ice to survive? Or can they emulate brown bears and hunt on land?
AFP
Two tranquilized polar bears are airlifted out of Churchill, Manitoba in Canada. Polar bears head to the icepack near Churchill to hunt for seals every winter. The fate of polar bears in a warmer world is unclear.
Fortunately, no one so far has suggested a massive airlift of the Arctic's polar bears to the Antarctic, where there is still ice in abundance. The predators would presumably commit a bloodbath among the southern continent's nesting penguin populations.
But resettlement is being discussed as a viable option for other species. The endangered Florida torreya tree, for example, leads a sorry existence along the banks of Florida's Apalachicola River. Although there are still about 1,000 torreyas left, the ailing trees are no longer producing seeds. "The torreya is trapped in the river valley," says Mark Schwartz.
But the tree has its supporters. A group called Torreya Guardians wants to see seeds from botanical gardens planted in areas where the species is currently nonexistent. "Why wait?" asks Paul Martin, a professor of geosciences at the University of Arizona.
In the end, resettlement could be the only option to protect the species from extinction in the wild. Besides, a torreya resettlement program could serve as a test case for studying the advantages and drawbacks of a method that could ring in what Martin calls "a radically new era of conservation."
The idea of deliberately resettling animals and plants in new habitats goes against the rules of species protection. Biologists normally shudder at the thought of species being accidentally or irresponsibly introduced into foreign habitats. Cane toads, for example, were originally imported from Hawaii to Australian sugar cane plantations, where it was hoped that they would decimate pests. Instead, the voracious toads embarked on a destructive march through Australian wildlife.
NEWSLETTER
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday.
It is examples like that of the cane toad that prompt many scientists to recommend that instead of resettling climate change refugees, we should clear the way so that they can migrate on their own. Agronomist Hammen suggest developing wild animal corridors. The Nature Conservancy, a US-based conservation group, is trying to establish a protected area of grasslands in China's highland Yunnan Province. Alpine forests rarely grow at lower altitudes, and if warmer temperatures drive them up to higher elevations, the protected grasslands could serve as areas where they could reestablish themselves.
Even Schwartz admits: "assisted migration is only a last resort." He also warns against "cowboy environmentalists," who are already "moving around species simply because they think it's a good idea."
"Its going to be a train wreck if we wait for species to start going extinct, then panic and start moving them," says Jason McLachlan of the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. "We need to have the conversation now, because it will probably take a decade to reach some consensus."
Indeed, scientists cannot even agree on the fundamental issues yet. "The debate over climate change completely distorts our perspective," says Josef Reichholf. According to Reichholf, global warming is not a key factor for the extinction of species. "Industrial-scale farming," says Reichholf, "is the No. 1 killer of species." For this reason, he argues, it is questionable "whether climate change can even cause anything to become extinct." Reichholf could be right, at least in the case of the Bengal tiger in the Sundarbans. About half of the forest cover in the region, home to more than 4 million people today, has been eliminated within the last 200 years.
Even without global warming, the tiger is losing his cover.
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,519271,00.html
By voyager, on
March 7, 2008 10:58 AM
great post andy. i have been living in europe under heavy value added taxes (almost 20% in Germany) on practically everything you buy really makes you think twice about buying that extra item. i have learned to restrict my consumption and live much simpler.
am loving your blog and i have you on my blogroll, please check me out my blog at m-cause.com
--ryan
By , on
March 14, 2008 5:39 PM
Great post!
"The Story of Stuff" with Annie Leonard (http://www.storyofstuff.com/) is an eye opening video related to consumption. Definitely worth checking out!
Mary