Most people now realize that excessive consumption is damaging to the environment and the climate. Is “green consumption” a solution? And how would restrictions affect the economy?
“You are not poor if you have little, but if you want more.” With this quote attributed to the Roman philosopher Seneca, the Canadian environmental journalist James Bernard MacKinnon starts his book “The day we stop shopping”.
He describes in a multifaceted and exciting way what could happen if people in affluent countries were satisfied with less. The book offers a wealth of interesting information and background information – and one often wishes it would become compulsory reading for the citizens of rich nations.
The world is stuck in a dire spiral: its economies depend on consumption – but consumption increases carbon dioxide emissions. “The connection is so close that climatologists have long used growth in one phenomenon as an indicator of growth in the other,” explains MacKinnon. «If the fashion cycle accelerates, climate change accelerates; if the Christmas business shrinks, fewer CO2 molecules enter the atmosphere. “
MacKinnon does not believe in “green growth”
Governments and companies are guided by the idea that the entire economy, from textile factories to mass tourism, can be decoupled from damage to the environment, MacKinnon writes. There is a belief that technology can stop climate change without us having to make significant changes to our lifestyle. “This is the holy grail known as” green growth “: an endlessly growing economy that does not harm the environment.” Using many examples and discussions with experts, MacKinnon explains why this is very likely a misconception.
First of all, it is important to know that little or no economic growth has been the norm throughout human history. “From prehistoric times to the 18th century, the world economy grew very slowly – probably at a rate of around 0.1 percent per year. And this economic growth was almost entirely due to a gradual increase in population. ” Before 1800, a person usually went through life with roughly the same amount of possessions as their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents, and many of these things, such as clothing, have been passed on from generation to generation. The consumer economy was only born after the industrial revolution.
A hundred years ago it was customary for a man to be “married and buried” in the same suit and for a woman to wear clothes that were inherited from her mother and grandmothers, as the book says. Meanwhile, a 50 million ton mountain of new textiles is piled up every year. If the clothing market were a country, it would take 15th place among the major economies, and the number of people in employment there corresponds roughly to the population of the USA.
Does stopping consumption mean chaos and impoverishment?
What would happen if people suddenly actually settled for less? “Let’s say the world actually stops shopping one day. It is precisely this thought experiment that is the subject of this book. ” Halving the sales of the Levi’s company alone would deprive around 1.25 million people of their income at first. The consequences of doing without it would also be immense for the climate: “If global textile production were to be stopped for a year, this would have as much effect as stopping all international air traffic and goods transport by sea for the same period of time.”
MacKinnon explores the question of whether, as many economists fear, imploding markets, mass unemployment, deserted shopping streets, broken supply chains and “perhaps even mob rule and famine” would be the inevitable consequence of abstaining from consumption. Together with the economist Peter Victor, he tries to clarify whether a barely growing or even shrinking economy can be a viable system.
Shorter working hours, better products
The model calculations presented come to the conclusion that mass unemployment as a potential consequence of renouncing consumption can be prevented by distributing the remaining work among as many people as possible. The weekly working time could be reduced from five to four days. A switch to products that are more complex to produce but have a much longer shelf life would therefore also be a measure.
In general, planned obsolescence is an important point, as MacKinnon illustrates using examples such as lightbulbs and printers. This refers to the targeted efforts of manufacturers to develop devices and other products in such a way that they are used up quickly and have to be bought again, cannot be repaired or are subject to trends and quickly go out of style.
Today’s customers want to buy things as cheaply as possible – nobody wants to spend $ 5,000 or $ 10,000 on a cell phone that will last ten years. The much more sensible choice for the environment and climate are long-lasting products, an economy of fewer things that are better for them. On the one hand, so much waste is avoided and resources are conserved. And because of the higher price, less is bought overall.
Jane Stock is a technology author, who has written for 24 Hours World. She writes about the latest in technology news and trends, and is always on the lookout for new and innovative ways to improve his audience’s experience.
