The Green Consumption Myth
It is important to be aware that the idea of merely “greening” consumption will not achieve the necessary absolute reductions in use of resources and creation of waste. As we saw earlier the scale and urgency of issues such as Climate Change, ecosystem collapse, energy, water and food famine and poverty are such that “slightly better” just will not do. The crucial part of the above definition of qualitative development relates to the “carrying capacity” of natural systems. These are already overloaded. The scale of things like at least 80% reductions in carbon by 2050 are truly breathtaking – especially in the context of expected “business as usual” growth.
World GDP is projected to grow by 325% between 2007 and 2050 and 60% of GDP is currently accounted for by Consumer spending on goods and services. By 2025 it is expected that there will be 220m middle class Consumer households in China alone – a fourfold increase from 2004. As these households increase in wealth – so their footprints will increase. China needs to grow by 7% every year just to absorb the flows of works from rural areas and defunct state-owned industries.
The solution to over-consumption is not simply to buy more ‘green’ stuff, however more efficient or ‘green’ it might be.
It is therefore clear a “green consumption” approach will not work. What is needed is a shift in developed-country societal focus to psycho-spiritual real needs and away from an approach which attempts to deliver to created desires through relative materialism. In addition we need to take an approach which no longer makes a god of growth and aims for a steady-state economy.
Unfortunately the “green movement” of NGOs, consultancy boutiques and think tanks has largely fallen for the green consumption myth. They make the same mistake as the rest of the current system in treating people as Consumers rather than Citizens, playing to their intrinsic selfish sides. Minor successes such as a greater proliferation of hybrid cars and LED bulbs may still be a sign of the population’s continual weakness for over-consumption and materialism. The solution to over-consumption is not simply to buy more ‘green’ stuff, however more efficient or ‘green’ it might be. This thinking is just not radical enough to effect the real change that is needed in society today.
We know this is not helpful.
NGOs need to be wary also. In a twist of irony, many are in serious danger of morphing into the type of Corporate entities they came into being to hold to account.
If the trends of 1992–2002 continue then global CO2 emissions will rise by 90% in the next 50 years. To get anywhere near 60% reductions needs radical action. To reach even 40% cuts, based on current annual CO2 intensity reductions, developed countries will need to manage without any growth in GDP.
To save the planet we need reductions so urgent and so huge that no manner of efficiency is going to help.
What the planet and the science are calling for is huge and rapid absolute reductions in carbon emissions and wider ecological footprints. All the green consumption – using eco paints when you are re-decorating, or buying an energy efficient dishwasher – is not the answer. If you go on the government’s website you can read how to reduce your fuel bills by insulating your roof. However, appealing to self-interest – highlighting the financial savings of insulation and energy efficient light bulb – will divert attention away from community action or political change. To save teh planet we need reductions so urgent and so huge that no matter of efficiency is going to help.
As eminent Oxford University economics Professor Dieter Helm says of the idea that we can keep consuming and growing the economy and reduce climate emissions, “How can this be? How can ever more consumption and ever more people consuming be so benign? The trick in the Stern report, and in much conventional economic analysis, is to assume that we can readily substitute the natural environment for man-made goods and services. We might for example lose lots of species and rainforests but, never mind, lots of ipods and new buildings will compensate us.”
