The Complications: Not So Simple
Over two thirds of economic growth is tied to consumer spending. Consumption is the life blood of the economic cycle. When consumers buy, economies grow and when consumers don’t buy, then economies collapse. Every single central banking system in the world uses monetary policy tools such as lowering interest rates to stimulate consumer demand when it is falling. Businesses have perfected ways to generate consumer demand. The marketing techniques are more sophisticated than ever to track a consumer through the entire marketing funnel until they convert a sale. Internet has removed almost all barriers to consumption starting from price transparency, same day delivery, free returns etc.
In a world where all consumption are emissions free, climate change will not be an issue. But, our emissions are growing along side GDP growth and we are far away from a meaningful greener transition to decouple economic growth and climate change. Increasing consumption has diminished or cancelled out any gains brought about by technological change aimed at reducing environmental impact. Given the extreme urgency to act now, moderating affluent consumption is one of the most potent tool we have.
Source: Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nat Commun 11, 3107 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y
Reducing consumption remains woefully unpopular in research and political communities. Addressing household GHG emissions has often been explicitly excluded in government climate policymaking. Consumption has been the bed rock of every country’s economy. Any mass reduction in consumption creates ripple effects. Reducing consumption creates economic distress and causes political collapse.
In affluent countries a persistent, deep and widespread reduction of consumption and production would reduce economic growth (Gross domestic product (GDP). In current capitalist economies such reduction would imply widespread economic recession with a cascade of currently socially detrimental effects, such as a collapse of the stock market, unemployment, firm bankruptcies and lack of credit.
The question then becomes how a reduction in consumption and production can be made socially sustainable, safeguarding human needs and social function. Because of these reasons, many high-impact actions available to households remain unpopular politically and perhaps even socially.
Planned obsolescence is the production of products that will fail or become less desirable over time, encouraging the consumer to throw their old product away and buy something new. Examples of planned obsolescence include technology or car companies coming out with a new product each year with only slight changes, encouraging consumers to repurchase every year. The throwaway culture is an acceptable norm in western economy. The average American throws away 4.6 pounds of trash every day. This equates to over 1,600 pounds of waste per person each year. Planned obsolescence by companies fuels this consumer behavior. The consumer is against all odds to reduce consumption when the entire system is built around driving more consumption.
Source: liberalforum.eu, Ending over mending: planned obsolescence is killing the planet, The Guardian 3/17/21
“Climate change is a perfect and undetectable crime everyone contributes to but for which no one has a motive. There is no outsider to blame. We are just living our lives: driving to work, heating our homes, putting food on the table. But, all of these seemingly harmless acts have been a planet killer.
It becomes harder to act when solving for climate change requires immediate personal sacrifices now to avoid uncertain collective losses far in the future. Most people have never discussed climate change with anyone - it’s not been topic of discussion.
Human brain is disposed to an optimism bias and not geared to react to risks that are invisible, even more so risks that are in the future. The human sensory system is usually very efficient in detecting any potential threat. But, unfortunately, climate change contains none of the clear signals that are required to mobilize our inbuilt response mechanisms to a threat. So human brains tend to ignore the climate change crisis as a threat. To build a sustainable world, we must get around this significant biological barrier.”
Source: Why our brains are wired to ignore climate change and what to do about it, George Marshall & Guardian
Yes, every child will inherit a planet with more frequent extreme weather events than ever before. Climate change is an issue of intergenerational equity — consumption now creates costs for future generations. It is because carbon dioxide emissions from today stays in the atmosphere for a few centuries. All planet warming greenhouse gases that are trapped in the atmosphere will remain for several decades and continue to impact future generations until there is net reduction in emissions.
The children of today who have contributed the least to the crisis are the most affected. A child born today faces multiple and life-long health harms from climate change.
Climate change has raised an intergenerational justice issue. Present generations hold an obligation towards future generations. A duty to preserve and protect the environment is a duty that is owed not merely to all other human beings, non-human beings, and inanimate objects in present time but extends also to future generations.
Source: Based on various sources (Savethechildren.org, UNICEF.org, UN.org)
There is a time lag between cause and effect in our climate, and the ecological and socio-economic systems that depend on it. Thus, some of the impacts of human activity on climate change may be slow to become apparent, meaning we could cross some irreversible thresholds before we know it.
Studies have shown that the time between a pulse of greenhouse gas (GHG) and most of its warming is around a decade. Thus, we will experience the full effect of today’s emissions in 10 to 20 years time.
Unfortunately, the time lag works both ways. So, stopping all emissions today will not result in immediate cooling of the planet. We’ve accumulated enough GHGs in the atmosphere to keep trapping heat for some time, leading to the release of more GHGs like methane in the Arctic circle. Atmospheric CO2 levels would drop, but sinks like our ocean surface are saturating, and sediment uptake is slow.
The bottom line is we’ve already locked in a more difficult future, which is all the more reason to take drastic counter-measures now, even at an economical loss. Thus it is essential for us to combine emission mitigation with adaptation strategies.
Source: earth.org
Rainforests cover only 6% of the Earth’s surface but are home to half of our land-based species. They
are disappearing at a rate of some 13 million hectares per year. Deforestation activities alone release an estimated 0.8-2.2 Gt carbon per year into the atmosphere, which is approximately 20% of global CO2 emissions.
Increasing ocean temperatures and acidification are causing extensive ‘coral bleaching’, and scientists fear that coral reefs could be the first global ecosystem to die out completely, which would also leave many shore lines without protection against storms and floods.
Loss of or damage to ecosystems reduces their capacity to capture and store carbon. The climate system has tipping points, where feedbacks from ecosystems become unpredictable and ecosystems lose resilience, so that carbon sinks turn into carbon sources
Source: UNEP, Europa
After basic material needs are satisfied, an increasing proportion of consumption is directed at positional goods. The defining feature of these goods is that they are expensive and signify social status. Access to them depends on the income relative to others. Status matters, since relative income is one of the strongest determinants of individual happiness. With every actor striving to increase their position relative to their peers, the average consumption level rises and thus even more expensive positional goods become necessary, while the societal wellbeing level stagnates. This endless process keeps social momentum and consumption high with affluent consumers driving aspirations and hopes of social ascent in low-affluence segments.
The positional consumption behavior of the super-affluent drives consumption norms across the population. Positional consumption, structural barriers to sufficiency and the substantial advertising efforts by businesses together put consumption on a hyper drive. While digitalization is already a key driving force in societal transformation, it has so far led to more consumption and inequality and remained coupled with the indirect use of energy and materials, therefore sustaining resource-intensive and greenhouse-gas growth patterns at the macro-economic level.
Source: “Scientists warning on affluence” – Nature Communications, 2020,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y