What do you think? Are dramatic cuts in consumption necessary to prevent environmental disaster? Are there reasonable alternatives to the growth and consumption we associate with our modern society?
What do you think? Are dramatic cuts in consumption necessary to prevent environmental disaster? Are there reasonable alternatives to the growth and consumption we associate with our modern society?
brenden, 
sharonshi 4:42 pm on January 19, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I believe that “dramatic” cuts in consumption is hard to achieve and may deal other problems into the situation (for example, a reduction of money circulation, decrease in GDP…). However, I do believe that small, but significant cuts in consumption that are regulated for long periods of time will help prevent environmental disaster. Reasonable alternatives is to produce/consume goods and services that are sustainable and environmentally friendly. That way, consumption reduction does not have to be reduced to such an extreme, but environmental disaster can still be prevented. However, an issue that may arise there would be whether the consumer would be willing the spend the extra dollars on “environmentally friendly” products, and the parallel, whether the produces will be willing to make the investment.
jonl 10:11 am on January 26, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I definitely agree that the cuts are difficult, though probably necessary. The thing with increasing prices (or having to spend extra) is that people will want to be paid more in their jobs thereby going on and on in an endless cycle (kind of like the teachers’ strike). I have no idea of a solution to curb our societies desire for continuous growth and consumption. If we take a step back, we can see that we actually have way more than we need and I’ve noticed that I do sadly waste a lot of things.
msmith92 1:45 pm on January 21, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Yes, I do think that dramatic cuts in consumption are necessary. However, I also agree that this is incredibly hard to achieve because it is exceedingly difficult to place limits or control what people choose to spend there own money on. As the idea of scarcity society indicates, the only way to create an ecologically sustainable future is if human gratification is decoupled from material consumption. This suggests that there would essentially need to be a reversal of humanity’s shared ideals. This is extremely difficult to manage, as it would likely require authority to impose and enforce this. This in turn would likely result in a host of other political problems. I suppose it is difficult for most people to imagine another form of our society where growth and consumption are not the driving factor.
jenniefrench 4:10 pm on January 26, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I liked your reply. It is very hard for people to envision a different future, and to not believe that bigger is better and more is necessary. Do you think people (from any background) are ever content with what they have and where they are? I think that in order for people to change it has to start at the ground up. For example, I need to decide that I don’t need that bottle of wine, that second pair of shoes, or that pretty pillow. I need to make the change in myself. Like you said it is hard to place limits or control people. But we can control ourselves.
nytsuen 3:00 pm on January 22, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Yes, dramatic cuts in consumption are necessary and without taking this action, it is likely that countries will continue with their rate of consumption and worsening the problem. However, I agree with everyone above that it will be extremely difficult. It is evident that there are many disagreements on cuts in consumption as expressed by different countries. Developed countries wish to do something about it but can’t reduce their consumption to the level that is suggested without sacrificing something. Developing countries think that this hinders their chance to expand and grow; they think it’s unfair. The only alternative that I think is possible is the same as what sharonshi had suggested. In the module, it kept going back to “sustainability” and making sure that our actions and our way of life does not affect the lives of the generations to come. Therefore, we must find sustainable alternatives that allow us to consume but not to a disasterous level.
katehaxt 3:06 pm on January 22, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Yes dramatic cuts in consumerism are necessary. I think the whole system of consumer capitalism probably has to change but at the very least everything we buy should be built to last for a lifetime, no more disposable crap, and everything we but should reflect its true cost ie blueberries shipped from Argentina should cost a fortune to reflect the carbon footprint of shipping, plastic wrapped food should cost more than unpackaged food to address the cost of recycling/land fill etc etc. Cheap air flights shouldn’t exist. Unfortunately this will disproportionatly hurt the poor, while bankers who made millions trading fradulently on the stock market can go on as usual. This is what makes me question the whole system. I also do not know the answer when it comes to developing nations- how can we ask them to give up luxuries such as cars and cheap air travel when we’ve been enjoying them for decades. We can’t. Yet if all of India and China decides to start driving and flying we are truely screwed.
hannahepperson 3:43 pm on January 23, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Kate – I like your reference to commodity chain analysis. It does seem like consumer products should reflect the more comprehensive costs of extracting/producing/manufacturing/shipping … but like you aptly pointed out, this sort of system only increases the gap between social classes. For example: if you look at the case of obesity in North America – it is paradoxically predominantly in the lower classes that obesity occurs, because there is a tendency for really shit quality food to be much cheaper than high quality, fresh, organic alternatives. And so I also agree with you, that our overtly libertarian economic values – and the market systems that are attached – are very much at the core of this (and indeed many other) discussions.
Keaton Briscoe 2:01 pm on January 23, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Yes, I believe that dramatic cuts in comsumption are necessary, but i agree with the other comments that it is too hard to acheive. There is no way to manage what people choose to buy or waste and not having the end result escalade into other political issues. I do agree that everything we buy should be built to last a lifetime, instead of rebuying items over and over again. In all, I don’t think that there is a reasonable way to limit the ways of consumption without limiting different societies and nations. A more environmentally friendly approach to living by everyone with help contribute to the environment in the long term, but it needs to be implemented by all, not some.
bgibson 4:51 pm on January 23, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I wanted to reply to the statement you made suggesting everything we buy should be built to last a lifetime. I have mixed feelings on this point. On one hand I truly enjoy well made and well designed products that will last. I work part-time at MEC, which sells outdoor gear (climbing, hiking, skiing, etc.) and offers a “life-time” warranty on all products. On the other hand I took a materials science course in first term and we looked at all sorts of awesome emerging technologies and devices. Unfortunately many great innovations simply are not conducive to longevity.
hannahepperson 4:04 pm on January 23, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I feel like a broken record, but I honestly think that the education system is too often neglected in these discussions. In Sheila Watt-Cloutier’s address, she underscores the importance in Inuit hunting culture of teaching values, where ‘values’ AND ‘teaching’ are both key words. Just for example, things like – the tragic lack of intergenerational dialogue used as a method of consensual learning; or academic assessments that are woefully mechanical and uncomprehensive (ie multiple choice, standardized testing!?) … I don’t know how we can hope for very real, comprehensive and wide-spread change unless there is a massive paradigm shift in the way we teach each other and our children how to think, be critical, be compassionate, creative and empathetic. These seem like the most important tools to be equipped with in the face of something as huge, complicated and terrifying as global warming…
But we can start by translating our own words into actions. Like President Nasheed articulated, we shouldn’t be content to shout about the perils of climate change … and we as individuals have to break from our OWN habits of complacency towards climate change if we are to expect our neighbours and our world leaders to as well.
hannahepperson 4:05 pm on January 23, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
dumpster diving date, anyone?
bgibson 4:21 pm on January 23, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As an aside, your comment about the current education system reminded me of an article I read last week about Apple’s new electronic textbooks. The article talked about how new technology and the rush to digitalize education was creating a shift in the way certain subjects were taught and how rushing ipads and laptops into elementary classrooms might not be ideal. I’ve been trying to find the article for the last 15 minutes with no luck. If I have a brainwave I’ll try and post a link.
hannahepperson 5:29 pm on January 25, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
If you can unearth that article, I’d be keen to check it out. Thanks!
bgibson 4:39 pm on January 23, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think it has been aptly pointed out that “dramatic” cuts to consumption will be exceptionally hard to accomplish, and perhaps impossible. Not only because of the logistical challenges and the dramatic cultural change that would have to accompany such a drop in consumption but also because such changes would have dramatic effects on the current market system (as Sharon pointed out). If nothing else the recent financial troubles have illustrated how nothing seems to get people upset quite as much as messing with their bank accounts. I think reasonable alternatives are emerging to curb the consumption currently associated with modern society. I think of a recent interview I heard on the radio talking about how big data centers run by massive online corporations like Amazon and Facebook were being moved and set up to run on mostly sustainable power (solar, wind, etc.). I found it interesting because I never really associated using Facebook or accessing websites as having a significant environmental impact. However if these data centers (which require a significant amount of energy to run) are operated using coal or other “dirty” energy sources it can be argued that using Facebook may have a certain environmental impact.
I see the developing nations in the Southern hemisphere and Asia as being a great challenge for sustainable growth and consumption. These nations are experiencing an industrial and technological revolution, and as has been discussed in this module curbing excess and growth may prevent development. The hope would be that instead of following the development arc of “Western” nations (including the largescale industrial pollution that allowed for growth) such emerging nations could leapfrog years of polluting and jump to cleaner, modern technologies. If this can be accomplished it may be possible that growth could be attained without the associated environmental disaster.
brandond 7:52 pm on January 24, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Brenden,
Here’s a recent article detailing the locations of some of the world’s largest “server farms”: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8850861/Global-server-farms-around-the-world.html
Many of the major ones are located along the Columbia River. It’s kind of interesting to think about how our virtual worlds are largely powered the Columbia!
emilym 6:58 pm on January 23, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Dramatic cuts in consumption are absolutely necessary, but as everyone has pointed out, they will be extremely difficult to achieve. I also agree that most consumers will not change their buying habits based solely on the ethics of environmentally conscious consumption without an economic incentive. I think an environmental tax put on items which have a highly negative impact on the environment (such as airfare and styrofoam) would be a good start. Still, even if we can manage to convince consumers to think about the environmental impacts of their purchases and cut consumption, the massive population growth and industrialization of countries like India and China will lead to increased consumption and depletion of our finite natural resources.
youngblutt 11:46 am on January 24, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Are we so horrified about the prospects of a “communalistic”, “authoritarian” governing approach to society and climate change mitigation, that we continue to opt for the slow, remote possibility of a discourse for middle-class restraint to eventually defeat the fat-cat, socializing mandates of transnational corporations in a market society? Isn’t climate change a “dire circumstance”? I can’t help but feel like we’re choosing agonizingly modest solutions because we’re scared of what real change looks like. Capitalist nations are too busy with new enjoyments like trading carbon credits in a fun new market game to ever seriously change consumption rates. These systems are based on profit and there is simply no profit to be had by limiting consumption. So we have plea’s to the masses and educational reforms concerning gratification beyond material consumption, but these have proven to be easily marginalized by the media freedoms enjoyed by the same transnational conglomerates that at once whimsically cast seeds of doubt about climate change and fear-monger against extreme left politics. I think Ophuls’ prediction of resource scarcity is accurate but his Marxist/socialist fear is Cold War-inspired. The real educational reforms should be geared towards systems of thought that encourage global, communal responsibility. We should be looking at the amazing things happening right now in South America, where eco-socialists are running towards in the hopes that a real system change is occurring.
hannahepperson 1:33 pm on January 24, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Ok – this is good. This guy called Slavoj Zizek wrote that “power generates its own excess which it then has to annihilate in an operation that imitates what it fights.” I think this paradoxical logic offers an interesting point of departure in a discussion of the economic concept of “scarcity.” There’s this other guy, James O’Connor, who argues that capital is its own barrier because of its self-destructive forms of power appropriation, along with things like the capitalization of external nature. Ok, so O’Connor advances this notion by suggesting that so-called “natural barriers” are in fact capitalistically produced. So in a capitalistic context, the notion of “scarcity” is conveniently translated into economic jargon, where an idea like ‘Limits to Growth’ is cast as a necessary evil, over which capital/ism must exercise brute force and declare its anthems of ‘progress,’ ‘efficiency’ and ‘expansion.’ The capitalist obsession with identifying “limits” and “barriers” to growth is, I think, an internal function of capitalism, where barriers assume the form of economic crisis – a mess in need of cleaning up. Seen in this way, it is tempting to suggest that the so-called “barriers” of capitalism are in fact that which structures capitalist excess. Put another way, “scarcity” is the phantom-limb of excess, which capital/power/excess is compelled to see as the Other of itself, something which must necessarily be annihilated. we fail to identify ourselves, our excesses and our greed, with the production of Scarcity. From this perspective, it is not difficult to recognize the extent to which capitalism is inherently crisis-ridden and crisis-dependent. What I find troubling is the potential for a supposed crisis of scarcity to be expounded as a scientific absolute, an assertion which effectively disarms the capacity for open discussion and prevents important questions from being asked about destructive patterns of consumption. Like, how is it that real needs have become so disastrously supplanted by the greedy patterns of a libidinally driven economy?
There is so much more to say here, I feel my comment is unfinished, but this is taking much longer to articulate than I had anticipated … In any case, thanks for your comment.
brandond 5:26 pm on January 24, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Up to this point, it seems that most everyone agrees that dramatic cuts in consumption are necessary, and particularly necessary for individuals living in the global north. I still wonder about the question of how such dramatic cuts could be implemented politically. Ophuls warns that an authoritarian political response might lead to widespread violence and war (maybe due to Cold War fears as Derek suggests). At the same time, he also feels optimistic toward the possibility of a democratic movement in which the citizenry would voluntary cut back their consumption habits, which is something a number of you have suggested might be possible. As someone raised in the consumption mecca of America where freedom is equated with the ability to buy things, I don’t know if I share his optimism. I wonder what you all think about this issue. Is it possible to make dramatic cuts in consumption in a democratic society, or will democratic governments need to behave more like the Chinese government, which has, among other things, enforced quotas on the number of babies women can have and, more recently, on the number of cars people can own? Any thoughts?
hannahepperson 5:44 pm on January 25, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I’m just thinking about connections between things like voter apathy and the concerning complacency of so many people towards climate change/global warming … do you think there is something seriously amiss with the way our culture neglects the important relationships between things like ‘art’ and ‘science,’ or ’emotional’ and ‘rational’? The reason I bring this up is because I have talked to so many people who have said that they just have to ‘shut off their emotions’ towards things like politics and climate change in order to simply function on a day to day basis, or hold a job, or get a degree, etc. I don’t think people can be MOVED into taking action on any issue unless they can FEEL something. This is an incredible talk/animation which I find very very interesting, especially within the context of this discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
brandond 11:05 pm on January 25, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I’ve watched a few of the RSA talks and am surprised by how much I enjoy them. I wish someone could make such drawings for all the presentations I attend!
I know I have to take measures to avoid thinking about certain aspects of American politics, which can make me very disturbed. One worry with this course is that there is too much doom and gloom, and that students will walk away in a state of despair and not want to think about these issues ever again. Finding ways to move people can be hard. I’d say an artists might be more skilled at this than academics.
hannahepperson 11:35 pm on January 25, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Funny you should say that about artists vs. academics … yesterday, in a ‘state of despair’ precisely about the content of this class, i wrote a new song. This has been a pattern through my whole undergrad: finding ways to translate academic discourse into expressive alternative mediums. i feel like people should be more encouraged to exercise this sort of cross-discipline, intermedia approach. ok for example, here’s one song written in response to the 2010 olympics during a particularly tumultuous academic semester… http://hannahepperson.bandcamp.com/track/we-will-host-a-party
brandond 1:12 pm on January 27, 2012 Permalink
The song was pretty rockin’! I share many of your sentiments towards Vegas.
paige 5:51 pm on January 24, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
While dramatic cuts in consumption would be ideal, that may not be realistic. There are still people out there who do not believe that climate change is happening. I was listening to last weeks This American Life podcast and one of the acts was about a young girl in an American high school who believes that global warming is “propaganda”. Many schools in the states are now teaching both sides of the climate change debate as if it is a matter of opinion and not scientific fact (if they are teaching it at all). This little aside is just leading to the fact that it is hard, as we have seen in the past, to get people to change. This is even harder if people do not believe there is reason for this change.
At this point if we are going to think of ways that can save our planet, changes in consumption are more likely to lead to a result than waiting for reductions. Consumers and producers need to come together to support a system of sustainability and dramatic reductions in over-consumption need to occur.
jlin 9:49 pm on January 24, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
This is a short 3min clip about increasing working hours despite the arrival of technology which was believed to increase productivity and hence give the common citizen more leisure hours:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nk2_rk0FLw
The clip talks about how, aside from the regulation of employee working hours by firms, the culture of consumption has led to the “up-scaling of the American Dream” and so people have began to work more and more in order to meet their consumer desires and realize the bigger than ever American Dream.
The idea of freedom and consumption is interesting and I think this video alludes to some of my own thoughts on the balance between the two. In a sense, I think the video shows that by increasing our abilities to do more (in this case, via technology) we increase our “wants” and therefore our freedom (because we are less limited, we have more choices). For example, because we have the automobile and it can be refilled with gas, people have the choice of going down to the outlet across the border to buy things. Does it mean everyone who has a car will do this? No, but the availability of such an option is surely attractive to some consumers.
The amount of exhaust that comes from driving down to the States (and the long hours it take) scares me sometimes. However, when I think about discouraging such actions from a political view and the intervention of governments, that idea also scares me.
I don’t think governments need to be more “authoritative” in order to achieve cuts in consumption. The above examples of the Chinese government is a threat to individual freedom, something I think our culture, aside from being a consumer one, also highly values (and rightly so). I don’t think any government should have the right to say what anyone, as an individual, can or cannot buy/consume. Instead, I think the government can cut consumption indirectly by limiting the productivity of larger corporations who mass produce on a regular basis. While I recognize that legally, corporations are treated as “natural persons”, I don’t think putting a cap (such as the amount of GHG emissions allowed annually, for example) on its productivity is the same thing as dictating what a consumer can/cannot do by law.
At the individual level, I think the government can also encourage responsible consumerism through educational programs and via different platforms of communication (i.e. advertisements, social media, etc). As a government, I believe that it has the responsibility of informing citizens on the state of the world and especially by incorporating advice on how we should act in order to ensure the well being of our planet and the sustainability of the economy. Growing up in a society characterized by its consumer culture, it is difficult for people today to realize the significance of their consumer behaviour aside from “boosting the economy”. Is it time to take the environment as seriously as the economy? Yes. Do we hear enough about it? No. I am not against supporting the economy in any way, but I think instead of having an over emphasis on one thing, the leaders (especially political ones) of our world should broaden the level of awareness we citizens have. Our discussion as a class should not only occur on this wall but it should be addressed on a daily basis, discussed in conversations with friends and recalled whenever we feel the urge to buy something.
brandond 11:02 pm on January 25, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Joyce,
You make a number of good points. It’s easy to forget that our ability to consume is directly tied to our need to work endless hours to afford all the things necessary to enjoy the “good life.” Your point about China made me realize that while the Chinese government readily regulates its population it largely gives transnational corporations a free ride. I will say that the one major shortcoming with government education programs is that political leaders, especially in Canada and the U.S., have largely failed to take a positive stand on issues like climate change.
roypat 2:30 am on January 25, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think a dramatic reduction in consumption is absolutely necessary – note the Great Pacific Garbage Patch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch – However, with birth rates decreasing in much of the developed world, it’s really areas of the developing world which will have a much greater impact on the future of our planet. As mentioned in the article, they’re trying to “catch up” and want the same opportunities that developed countries had to ‘become middle class.’ I think that true, sweeping change will only really happen when a large shock to the global economy occurs (peak oil is confirmed, panic ensues, prices for everything go up, consumption goes down…?)
tsung 12:34 am on January 26, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Dramatic cuts in consumption are necessary, however, just as everyone has mentioned, it will be hard to achieve and implement as consumption in modern times has become a part of our lives. Naturally people don’t like changes to their everyday lives, however, dramatically cutting consumption and changing everything in the short term may potentially create chaos in other aspects. In a capitalist society, cutting down on consumption is potentially impossible. Society has been socialized into buying and wanting things. The media a major contributor in perpetuating the trend of consumerism therefore it is virtually impossible to escape consumption. Although short-term change might be impossible, long-term changes may potentially help. If each of us begins acting local -doing little things that may better the environment, we may potentially create positive results. By avoiding doing the little things to help or saying how climate change won’t affect us and will be dealt with by the next generation, we are constantly creating excuses. Escaping a highbrow lifestyle and trying to adapt and indulge into something much more “green” can be hard, however, we must do it.
jaydee 1:14 am on January 26, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I feel as though there are parallels between this kind of issue and the history of the Greenland Norse. Here we have reached a societal standard of living with little understanding of the consequences. Now that the global environment is changing, we may very well come to the same fate.
However, I feel that, as Ophuls argues, our society will reach a breaking point, resulting in civil unrest and turmoil. Coming from Alberta, which is heavily dependent on the oil industry, I find it hard to believe that our society is capable of such a drastic change in such as small amount of time.
That being said, our generation has a very different perspective on climate change and global warming compared to our parents. With increased education on climate change in the school systems, perhaps we can raise a generation of ecologically responsible citizens. It is difficult to foresee the outcome of our actions at this point.
sampethick 3:23 pm on January 26, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that it’s fairly obvious that dramatic cuts in consumption are necessary to prevent environmental disaster; the issue is people’s willingness to do so. A theme I’ve noticed in some of our readings so far, and in Sheila Watt-Cloutier’s talk is respect. I’ve noticed that many people hold the idea that once society begins to see our environment with a new respect we can begin to change the way we live, and therefore cut back on our consumption and eventually prevent environmental disaster. Like some of you have already said dramatic cut backs in consumption would be really hard to achieve and it might be best to strive for smaller “baby step” cut backs. But then, will that help? Because it seems to me that we need to make a dramatic change right now, or else it’s going to be too late. Maybe we can find a happy medium.
Cutting down on growth and consumption will require (as discussed by Nasheem Mohammed) the breaking of old habits. He makes the point that our consumption is a bad habit, not necessity. Once this bad habit is broken we may be on the road to changing the disastrous effects of climate change.
jenniefrench 4:08 pm on January 26, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I absolutely believe that we should cut our consumption in the developed world. After World War 2 there was a golden age of commercialism and materialism, where believe believe (perhaps rightly so) that they deserved to indulge, once they were able, after the horror they had faced. However, saying we should limit consumption is all fine for some in the developed world, but the developing world may take offense as they do not have nearly the standard of living we do. It is easier for us to say we need one less TV in our house, than for those in the developing world to forgo clothing and food. Also, there are those in the developed world, the poor and homeless, that should not be included in the faults and failures of the wealthy. The fallacy of growth is important. Like the Earth we should look for equilibrium, between peoples, incomes, and standards of living. In the developed countries we should set an example of how to live wisely, using what we need not always what we want. However, society needs a huge shift in attitude and perspective to come around to this way of thinking.
lcoulthard 7:14 pm on January 26, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that the only solution would be to dramatically cut back in consumption, but it is not easily achievable. There are a lot of different parts of the globalized economy that people living in “Western” nations are addicted to, and the idea of a Democracy of Restraint implies that the majority of the people must take it upon themselves to radically alter their lifestyle. They would have to sacrifice various foods and items that are produced cheaply in other parts of the world, and it would be expensive to keep the same production going back at home. I also do not think that using an alternative material to keep the same type of lifestyle would be viable. Efficient disposal and recycling programs require precious space and money, and the alternative materials would require these programs. Landfills and garbage combustion are already two issues at hand today…
hoskinso 8:34 pm on January 26, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I believe that current trends of consumption, resource use, and pollution are unsustainable in the long term. It is difficult to avoid over-consumption because most countries and people want to enjoy the benefits of an affluent society while few would willingly make compromises for the benefit of others.
It is inevitable that consumption and growth will eventually decrease from their current unsustainable rates. If economic activity and resource use continue increasing as they have been, the result would be permanent environmental damage in the form of pollution, climate change, resource depletion, and the loss of habitat and biodiversity. This would result in economic slowdown or recession. This was seen to some extent in the most recent major recession (late 2000’s). A recession might result from cumulative effects of environmental damage, resource depletion and unavailability of cheap energy.
To reduce the environmental harm this scenario would cause, another possibility is to retool our society for lower per-capita consumption. For example as information technology increases in affordability, ubiquity and ease of use, more of our lives could be conducted online from the comfort of our own homes. This would save on the expense of office buildings, automobiles and intercontinental travel. I believe this change will come about both voluntarily (due to the increased convenience and productivity) and involuntarily (due to rises in the price of transportation and fuel).
It is crucial that the cost of environmental damage is reflected in the price of the resulting product. This way there would be a natural tendency to switch to more environmentally friendly options because they are cheaper.
midara 10:59 pm on January 26, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Yes, I agree that dramatic cuts in consumption is necessary and essential to prevent (or improve the already happening) environmental disaster. And like many of us have written on our replies that this is extremely difficult to achieve; as quoted in our lesson, I believe “only if human gratification could be decoupled from material consumption” will the cut be gradually achieved. This reminds me of an example that probably everyone have seen in their daily lives: cellphones (or to be exact, Iphones). I saw many people in my class or even my cousin keeps buying new cellphones or new generation Iphones because they do not want to use the “older” models regardless of the fact that the machine they owned are still functioning properly. I believe it is mainly because of their chasing after the newer products that severes the problem of excessive wasting and pollution; in other words, if people keep their habit of overly consuming there is no way to solve the environmental disaster.
All in all, I truly think that materialism and capitalism are some of the main factors that contribute or add burden to the consumption and growth problems. While many people thinks that they are spending the money they earn, they are in fact occupying resources of all mankind. This resembles to the inequity problems happening between the developed and developing countries. I guess in many ways putting limitations on accessing to resources to different countries will be seen unfair; while developed countries feel like losing control to their own authority, the developing countries are losing the chance to catch up further to development.
In my opionion, the only alternate way I can think of at this point is that instead of capitalism or materialism, reusing and recycling should be pushed further in education to all people. The change and result will take a long period of time, but I guess altering our habits from bottom down may be a good way to give everything a fresh start.
erikaw 12:23 pm on January 27, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I absolutely agree that drastic cuts in consumption are necessary to prevent environmental disaster. At current we are not only over burdening our own country with burning of carbon and excessive waste but we are also placing extremely heavy loads on the developing countries from which we accumulate most our goods and energy. This excessive waste and destruction will never allow developing countries a fair shot at clean and sustainable development. Instead of learning from our failures, they will continue in our paths, if they even get a chance.
Even though some consumption patterns have become slightly more sustainable in the past (stemmed from global and ethical awareness) us as the Northern Developed nations still consume at a rate that is above and beyond attainable for the entire globe. It’s one thing to make greener choices, but to think that we can still keep consuming at our current rate (or even higher levels) is completely unattainable. The problem is that even when people recognize their consumption patterns, and how excessive or destructive they are, individuals are still quite selfish (for the most part) and continue on with this consumption even though they know there is wrong in it. I see this in myself, even though I buy 100% organic fair trade food (bla bla bla) and live a pretty low key lifestyle (no car etc etc) I’m still consuming above about 95% percent of the population I would say! So even though I see wrong in my actions it’s hard to change on a personal level when you live in a society driven by consumerism and consumption. This is part of the reason I believe greater initiatives need to be taken at a governmental level to cut consumption and thus environmental disaster (both locally and globally.)
There are no doubt strides being taken in more environmentally friendly products that are cleaner and better for the environment and human kind in general. And as time continues I hope these products become more mainstream and readily available (luckily I live in Vancouver where many of them are!) But these alternatives are not just to cut environmental destruction. These environmentally friendly products and resources need to be coupled with mass cuts in consumption and consumerism to really make impact on global change.
Danni 3:12 pm on January 29, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
A reasonable reduction in consumption helps gradually preventing environmental disaster, but not a dramatic cuts, especially in a short period of time. I think a balance between growth and consumption is more important to prevent environmental disaster. A dramatic cuts might induce other issues, related to economy and society. On the other hand, I did, like other classmates, observe lots of typical scenarios about over-consumption. I agree that it will eventually lead us to environmental disaster. However, the plan of reasonable reduction is complex, which might elicit lots of political issues. In those case, our time and resource will be spent on negotiation, in lieu of actually reduce in overall consumption. One of the alternatives to this issue could be achieved via education to the public, promoting public concerns about the environmental disaster. We could actually prevent this situation by reasonable cuts in consumption, instead of waste all time and resource on the negotiation table between countries.
phoebe 3:55 pm on January 29, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I also agree that drastic cuts in consumption are neccessary to prevent environmental disaster. However, smaller steps are probably more realistic then to expect everything to change all at once. Although it might not be much, I have noticed that since bottled water became popular, people in Vancouver have become used to bringing along their own water bottles and coffee mugs. The reduction in the use of plastic bags is also much more common in supermarkets by implementing the use of a small 10 cent tax on each bag and encouraging customers to bring their own bags at home. These are very small steps and like everyone else I agree that steps such as these should be further encouraged.
kimzzzy 8:40 pm on January 29, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think drastic cuts in consumption will only be possible through changing the values societies have. People will not cut down on consumption if they can not see how they are connected with their nature. The majority of people living in urban areas are consuming at an increasingly high rate because they are disconnected with nature and so unable to see how their lifestyle damages it. I think we need to shift to measure growth in terms of sustainability which I believe is often left out of the equation. Only when all economic sectors begin doing so, will we start seeing trends in technological advances and in life style changes that helps to preserve our nature.
natashap 9:07 pm on January 29, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think changes are definitely needed to reduce the current rates of greenhouse emissions – whether these greenhouse emissions and “climate change” will lead to an environmental disaster is not certain yet though. So I would say no, dramatic cuts in consumption are not needed to prevent an environment disaster because it is not obvious that one is coming.
If cuts in consumption were to happen, the economy and government structure as we know it would likely need to change dramatically. In order for dramatic cuts to happen, there would no doubt be a lot of industries that would completely collapse or need a lot of government stimulus to survive as they switched over to new technology. Our current economy is based on growth so a change that reduces consumption and causes it to shrink could cause unpredictable effects throughout the world – as we’ve seen recently with Greece, even a small country can have widespread effects on the worldwide economy, this would no doubt be much larger.
yitailiu 1:39 am on January 30, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Dramatic cuts in consumption is necessary to prevent environmental disaster in our world of growing population. Although making dramatic cuts would significantly reduce the negative environmental impacts, it is difficult and very unlikely to be implemented. To enforce such dramatic cuts through authoritarian political control would confront strong opposition, possibly even violence. However, I agree with Ophul’s alternative way of dealing with material consumption, which it is not the authority but an idea that a “democracy of restraint” would influence individuals’ values. So that a significant cut in consumption would likely be made willingly by each individual instead of having a politically enforced dramatic cut.
alyumam 9:54 pm on January 30, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
To answer the question regarding the cuts in consumption, my short answer would be yes. And at the same, also as a short response, I do believe there are plenty of alternatives that can help to allay the uncontrolled growth and consumption modern society today has.
However and perhaps seen from a collective perspective, in my opinion, it seems a difficult chore to reach these goals and this possibly might be unrealistic (at least for some countries); therefore, there might be the need to apply these cuts and as a consequence the growth and consumption in certain countries will be diverted.
I believe some examples are already happening in countries like Greece or other members of the European union.
if a dramatic cut would be even possible, I do not see it happening any soon. This is not because
I think these two questions should integrate also a
brenden 3:49 pm on January 31, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I believe that we do indeed need dramatic cuts to our consumption to prevent environmental disaster and while there are reasonable alternatives which can help us control our over consumption, our current economic structure is preventing their use. In a capitalist society where the dollar is king, there is very little incentive for individuals to do what is environmentally sustainable when it does not coincide with what is economically profitable. So long as our non-renewable resources our provided to us at a cheaper price then their sustainable alternatives, human will continue to consume and over-consume them. Only when our natural resources have been exhausted and the market forces have driven their prices above their sustainable alternatives will individuals reduce and substitute their consumption habits. I feel that based on this theory it is important for governments to enforce strict controls over natural resources including price regulations and import/export bans as the market forces of supply and demand will continue to regulate individuals behavior regardless of the environmental consequences
Olga F 11:06 pm on February 8, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that before considering dramatic cuts in consumptions, we have to consider how to stop or even decrease population growth. Even if each person on the plant will cut its consumption of whatever, resources, food, meet, water etc, the population will still be growing and putting pressure on everything.
In my opinion, our main goal in the modern society is to stop being so greedy. we WANT too much, and thus we get too much. we always want to upgrade to better technology, because we are made (by large corporations) to believe our technology doesn`t work well, or we HAVE to get something getter or newer. I just think greed is our biggest challenge!