Consumption: The Root Cause of Climate Change

[Karmadillo]

The author asks why economic growth is more important than survival. Given that science suggests we have little time to act, changing our consumption patterns might be better than waiting for techno-miracles.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jul/15/technofix-climate-change

Technology is part of the solution to climate change. But only part. Techno-fixes like some of those in the Guardian's Manchester Report simply cannot deliver the carbon cuts science demands of us without being accompanied by drastic reductions in our consumption. That means radical economic and social transformation. Merely swapping technologies fails to address the root causes of climate change.

We need to choose the solutions that are the cheapest, the swiftest, the most effective and least likely to incur dire side effects. On all counts, there's a simple answer – stop burning the stuff in the first place. Consume less.

<edit>

Climate change is not the only crisis currently facing humanity. Peak oil is likely to become a major issue within the coming decade. Competition for land and water, soil fertility depletion and collapse of fisheries are already posing increasing problems for food supply and survival in many parts of the world.

Technological solutions to climate change fail to address most of these issues. Yet even without climate change, this systemic environmental and social crisis threatens society, and requires deeper solutions than new technology alone can provide. Around a fifth of emissions come from deforestation, more than for all transport emissions combined. There is no technological fix for that. We simply need to consume less of the forest, that is to say, less meat, less agrofuel and less wood.

<edit>

Our level of consumption is inequitable. Making it universal is simply impossible. The scientist Jared Diamond calculates that if the whole world were to have our level of consumption, it would be the equivalent of having 72 billion people on earth.

With ravenous economic growth still prized as the main objective of society by all political leaders the world over, that 72 billion would be just the beginning. At 3% annual growth, 25 years later it would be the equivalent of 150 billion people. A century later it would be over a trillion. Something's got to give. And indeed, it already is. It's time for us to call it a crisis and respond with the proportionate radical action that is needed.

more...

[BlooInBloo]

1. Life: The root cause of death.

[CrispyQ]

5. Life is a sexually transmitted terminal condition.

;)

[scheming daemons]

12. Facetious, but true. We can end all human suffering on the planet by killing all humans too

That's basically what the wacky author's point is.

[HopeHoops]

2. Marriage: The root caues of divorce

[HopeHoops]

3. Garlic: The root cause of garlic breath

[Howzit]

4. Excessive consumption also produces significant tax revenue

What government in the world would want to give that up?

Now if only the government could find a way to raise taxes and reduce consumption, how popular would those elected officials be?

[CrispyQ]

6. We are consuming our planet for the profit of a few. --nt

[The2ndWheel]

7. You would have make the process that leads to consumption

more expensive. Seeing as how both corporations and governments require economic growth to survive and function, that isn't likely to happen.

[FarCenter]

8. The real proble is too many people. Drop the world population to 70 millioin

And the problem mostly goes away.

[scheming daemons]

10. Ok... let's start with you

Don't want to go first?


Hmmm... who should?

[slackmaster]

13. Fat people first, then smokers

:sarcasm:

[scheming daemons]

14. Fat smokers on the fast track....

[FarCenter]

18. Now or two decades from now?

I guess it wouldn't make too much difference.

[Uncle Joe]

9. This article makes a good point even if it's difficult to accept.

We're vastly over-consuming and that dynamic is destroying the Earth's ability to sustain humankind.

Thanks for the thread, Karmadillo.

[zeemike]

11. A point on which I totally agree.

But an unpopular one because few want to give up anything or change their behavior.
Mass transit is the obvious solution to transportation but the auto is so much a part of our culture we are afraid to give it up.
So if we don't have fundamental change in our behavior we will make our children and grandchildren pay the price.

As a song once said
If man is allowed to destroy all we need
he will soon have to pay with his life for his greed.

[imdjh]

15. I don't care about gasoline. I really don't.

We're using it for what it's good for, some estimates are that we have at most another 100 years of gasoline out there, and some say next week; these estimates can be found as far back as 1920. Alternatives to gasoline have been on the drawing board for nearly as long as there has been gasoline (fuel oil, whatever) because some folks have thought we we close to the end since Day One; rather like those who have thought that The End Is Near for the last 2000 years. It will or it won't. The family packing into the car to go to the beach doesn't bother me. Jack driving to work alone so he can have some quiet time doesn't bother me. Teenagers forming Carhenge at Taco Bell on Friday night doesn't bother me. It's just gasoline, and to the best of my knowledge it has no other use. Transportation necessary, functional, and recreationally rewarding.

What bothers me is the immense amount of crap we buy and discard.

I have three large drawers in my kitchen which are full of crap. Almost all of it has been given to me as gifts. Only the occasional new gadget actually does something useful without requiring twice the clean-up. People are nice to give me things, but most of this stuff is crap. My family loves dinner parties at my house, but if they were to arrive early, they would see that I use one knife, two of my favorite spoons, one cutting board, my Cuisinart, tongs, two glass baking dishes, and a set of nesting bowls that I bought for myself years ago. I did splurge not too long ago and bought myself a pizza wheel, which I actually use for pizza and pastry.

When I clean out my mother's house once a year, I throw away or carry to a charity some six to ten bags of crap that she has accumulated. Most of this stuff is Dollar Store type stuff that she thought was something "someone might need". Well, if a homeless person needs a giant ring toss game or trunk organizer than I can tell him where to find it- but we didn't need those things and they are now at the thrift store.

This started with Matchbox cars. It was the first "gotta have 'em all" toy. I never got Matchbox cars. Oh, I asked my dad to buy them for me, but I never really understood the concept or what they were good for. Now the Esso firetruck that actually sprayed water, that was another matter. The gas engine plane on the end of the string, that was another matter. But Matchbox cars? Collectible junk. Beanie Babies, neo pets, Pokemons, Barbies, you name it and everything has become a "collectible". It's future trash awaiting its destiny. It's waste.

[The2ndWheel]

17. "What bothers me is the immense amount of crap we buy and discard."

"It's future trash awaiting its destiny. It's waste."

Whatever is cheap, will be wasted. You're not going to get one without the other. If the energy is cheap enough to go to the beach, drive alone, and go to Taco Bell, then we're also going to get the future trash awaiting its destiny. If fewer people can afford to go to the beach, drive alone, and go to Taco Bell, then we'll also have less trash awaiting its destiny.

[imdjh]

20. Then I'll shut up and take the status quo on junk.

If the energy is cheap enough to go to the beach

If we have to make the beach inaccessible to struggling families then I'll take the status quo. When I was a kid, my mom would pack us up in her old Rambler and "waste" four gallons of gasoline to take us 30 miles to the beach on a hot summer day. It was freedom and joy. It was also about $1.60 in gas plus five PBJ sandwiches, a bag of potato chips and a gallon of Kool-Aid. It was also six dollars at a time when that was about all the extra she had, but it was what she could do with the resources she had. My whole family lives near the beach now, but back there where we used to live are young families with 15 year old cars and kids that love going to the beach and I'm not going to vote to price them out of that because of some ersatz intellectual philosophy which amounts to elitism. It's gang planking. It's like raising tolls on bridges to the point where the hoy polloi can't afford to come into the city.

I also don't buy your premise. We can reduce the consumption of junk by creating a shift in the public mind regarding thrift. Just as hard work and self reliance are cultural, so is thrift. We can encourage thrift without gouging the less fortunate and ourselves (those of us who don't have a lot of money). How paternalistic is it to decide that the only way to educate these poor dumb schmucks is to price them out of choices?

[The2ndWheel]

21. Junk is the foundation of the economy

We can see what a lack of buying junk does. It requires even more spending.

I'm not looking to educate anyone into or out of anything. I used to care. However, people are going to do what they do, and you can't force them either way. You can't force thrift, and you can't force junk consumption. Well, you can force thrift or consumption, but it never works out the way you want it to. All I said was that depending on if the energy is cheap or not, that will dictate whether we have junk or not. We all waste energy anyway. I waste it. We can't help but waste it. We still exist within physical reality.

"We can reduce the consumption of junk by creating a shift in the public mind regarding thrift."

I just don't see how attempting to shift the public mind regarding thrift isn't canceled out by cheap energy. Individually it can be done. I don't own a car. I don't plan on ever buying one. What has that saved? Nothing. In fact, all its done is probably helped cost some GM worker their job. But when you're talking about an entire system that requires growth, be it profits or taxes or population, I don't see how the two can co-exist on any large scale.

Like you say, I guess thrift could be encouraged, and not so much forced. Who would do the encouraging these days though? Not the corporate world obviously. The government? Not while it tells us to spend money or lose everything you ever had. Other people can't tell other people what to do, since we're all in our particular economic situations, and one size doesn't fit all.

[CrispyQ]

23. Good for you for keeping up on your Mom's place.

My sister & I didn't do that & when Mom died two years ago, going through her stuff was an incredible chore. We called one room The Billy Mays room. ;) If Billy pitched it, it was probably there. There were stacks & stacks of shipping boxes, some not even opened, that were full of stuff she had mail ordered. It was like this weird, twisted Christmas - no wrapping paper, no bows, no Mom. In the end, from that wall of boxes, I took away two things & my sister took a few more. The rest was given to a thrift shop. And the pile of boxes that went into the recycle bin was stunning. x(

I decluttered my entire house six years ago. The next year I tackled our storage bin, which we were paying $110 a month for! That required diligent work for the entire summer, but I got everything out of there, with very little of it coming back to the house. The ladies at the thrift shop used to light up when I drove up in my little pickup truck. That summer they got 9 loads from my storage bin & the wild life center got 3. It's time for another minor declutter session, but overall, I've been satisfied with how little I've accumulated over the past few years. My mother once told me that I had the least cluttered place she had ever seen. :7

This made me laugh: Well, if a homeless person needs a giant ring toss game or trunk organizer than I can tell him where to find it- but we didn't need those things and they are now at the thrift store.

[imdjh]

24. Don't get me started on mini storage. !!! nt

[sam kane]

16. Industrial Consumption!!!

Individuals are at something like 3% of the problem.

[FarCenter]

19. A good start would be to make advertising illegal

Maybe in-store advertising would be OK, or advertising on the on-line site actually selling the goods or services.

But ads in media, infomercials, outdoor billboards and displays, flyers in newspapers, discount coupons, etc. should all be outlawed.

[Maru Kitteh]

22. less meat, less agrofuel and less wood.

To many insecure American men, meat = big penis.

The disdain rightly shown for the unbridled gluttonous consumption of materials and resources must also include the gluttonous consumption of meat. It is killing our planet and it needs to stop.