Download docx - Excessive Consumerism and the Global Climate

Running head: EXCESSIVE CONSUMERISM AND THE GLOBAL CLIMATE 1

Excessive Consumerism and the Global Climate

Sarah Marais

SCI 256

January 6, 2014

Professor Chargualaf

EXCESSIVE CONSUMERISM AND THE GLOBAL CLIMATE 2

Excessive Consumerism and the Global ClimateConsumption is the obvious purpose of our nation because only through production,

sales, and amenities does modern civilization operate, calling it progress when more is produced

and purchased each year. Even worsening health is seen as creating wealth as it provides more

jobs and products, counting toward indicators of economic health. However, this requires

extracting and using natural resources beyond necessity, creating toxic byproducts, while the

commodities themselves create pollutants and waste. Additionally, the highest populations

globally use a fraction of resources the richest nations use, and so the issue is resource use above

population. According to Richard Robbins, the biggest reason why consumerism is overlooked

the most may be, “because it is so much a part of our lives that to change would require a

colossal cultural overhaul, severe economic disruption, and massive unemployment” (as cited by

Shah, 2005).

The Problem

According to the U.N. nearly 90% of global resources are consumed by wealthiest 20%

in the world and this requires additional expansion of the resource base into other people’s lands

to meet demand for marginally nutritious cash crops, but which drives a large market, depriving

the poor of their own resources. Monopoly land ownership drives local rural workers out of jobs,

resulting in increased urban migration to cities and affluent countries, resulting in over-crowding,

higher pollution, and health problems. Others will move to less arable land or forested areas and

clearing them to farm, resulting in further loss of habitat for wildlife (Shah, 2005). Additional

land is cleared, including parts of rainforests and other ecosystems, and used for cattle-raising for

commercialized beef exports. Over 50% of grain and water is used in the U.S. to feed livestock

that would directly provide for more people (Shah, 2005). Industrial agriculture uses

monocultures, eradicating biodiversity of crops, leading to ecological imbalance and increased


crop disease. To combat this, widespread commercialized pesticide use and genetic modification

extends environmental damage over larger regions. Other extractions include oil, metals,

precious stones, and raw minerals (Shah, 2005). Legislative enforcement influenced businesses

to, “migrate dirty industry to poorer countries exempt from emissions reduction standards” and

hazardous wastes are exported to other regions with minimal or non-existent environmental

regulations, contributing to the total consumer waste of our throw-away culture (Shah, 2005).

Human Impact on the Environment

“Our ecological footprint measures show that the world reached its limits in 1986” and

Schor (2010) stated that we have outstripped our planetary biocapacity by 40% (as cited by

Akenji, 2014). Jackson (2009) observed that CO2emissions are still rising over 3% annually

along global extraction of metal ores (as cited by Akenji, 2014). Future projections from the

International Energy Agency (2009), the OECD (2008) estimate that, “current rates of

consumption demand will rise by 40% and further deterioration to urban air quality will occur in

cities” (as cited by Akenji, 2014). Why don't the poor just follow the example of the affluent? In

answer to this, considering their resource base is being used to support our increased wealth,

getting out of economic poverty is not possible; the only resource available them is more people,

thus an increase in population. Moreover, if those countries tried to reclaim their resources for

their own justifiable progress, it would be considered a threat to those currently controlling their

resources. Wars occur because of this control of resources, desire to maintain this way of life,

even if excessive; protecting those resources adds military needs to consumption and toxic waste.

Who is Responsible?

Efforts to understand why ethical behaviors fail to embed and attitude– actual behavior

discrepancy still exists, despite the consistent message of saving the environment. Exploration


demonstrated that providing more information did not necessarily convince people to act on it.

Carrington et al. (2010) contend that, “consumers are ‘people engaged in socially embedded

everyday practices’ in which consumption is ‘deeply intertwined with social relations and

norms’” and Banerjee’s (1992) demonstrated how people learn from and conform to behaviors of

others (as cited by Yeow, Dean, & Tucker, 2013). However, focus on green consumerism (eco-

labelling, public awareness campaigns, and recycling programs of post-use products) that has

molded procedural tactics to affect the need for structural systemic shift lays responsibility on

consumers to maintain fiscal progress while concurrently carrying the burden to drive society

towards sustainability; which distracts from the critical mechanical alterations needed in order to

accomplish this evolution. The paradoxical consequence of promoting green consumerism is

that, despite ethical and environmental standards, production outstrips the efficiency gains.

Consumer behaviors are locked in by systemic barriers and decisions are subject to social

dynamics outside their direct control. To understand the characteristics of the attitude–behavior

gap, macro factors that influence consumer behavior must be considered.

Solutions

The system of provision’s structure has hardly transformed, yet, it is essential to establish

ecological limits on speed and amount of extraction, pollution, and waste generation; prioritize

reusable and recyclable materials, and “shift taxes away from economic goods to economic

“bads”, while removing incentives and subsidies for fossil fuel extraction” (Akenji, 2014). Lebel

and Lorek (2008) proposed a “sustainable production–consumption systems” (as cited by Akenji,

2014). Across society, daily household consumptive activities are culturally embedded in social

practices and system designs and infrastructure decide the degree of flexibility an individual has

in accepting sustainable lifestyles. The Attitudes Facilitators Infrastructure model demonstrates


sustainable consumption policy design involving, “values, reorganization of ways of meeting

needs and redefining the notion of societal progress. Returning to local community bonds over

globalization; housing developments planned as hubs that integrate social facilities,

transportation options, and communal utilities” (Akenji, 2014). Given the urgency of the issue,

this model highlights four structural policy methods to shift society to sustainable consumption:

1). changing the default option away from mass-produced unsustainable goods in the market; 2).

measure well-being not only growth; 3). encourage grassroots innovation. Attempts in

sustainable consumption programs have largely been top-down, expert-driven, market-driven

and technical solutions; demoting behavioral ownership, and sidestepping accumulative common

knowledge. However, there are current initiatives practicing sustainable consumption, which can

provide early solutions for larger macrosystems. At grassroots level, people feel connected and

belonging within a self-reliant community they comprehend and trust; inspiring individual

accountability to community.

Conclusion

Clearly, consumer demands and commodity perception toward all life on earth and the

environment is so ingrained into our culture, the thought of lifestyle and economic system

adjustments seems too much to consider. As a direct result, poorer countries face more pollution,

though their consumption is a fraction of ours and, because food is a commodity, only those who

can afford to pay will eat; they are suffering at our hands. As Robbins stated, “someone has to

pay for our consumption levels”. The economic system needs to be brought to within safe

ecological limits, via substantial macro changes and systemic transformation.


References

Lewis Akenji. (2014). Consumer Scapegoatism and Limits to Green Consumerism. Retrieved

from: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0959652613003405/1-s2.0-S0959652613003405-main.pdf?

_tid=d84bb0de-9535-11e4-aff4-

00000aacb362&acdnat=1420502102_ace96f26313274610152d54a59e9abeb

Shah, A. (2005). Effects of Consumerism. Retrieved from:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/238/effects-of-consumerism

Yeow, P; Dean, A; Tucker, D. (2013). Bags for Life: The Embedding of Ethical Consumerism.

Retrieved from:

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/1610893141?pq-

origsite=summon