The US EPA is hosting a series of Webinars on Sustainable
Consumption. More information on these seminars can be found here. In the first Webinar, David Allaway spoke
about some of the opportunities and barriers regarding sustainable consumption he
has observed in his work with the State of Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality. In his talk, he reviewed a
couple of papers that he authored that provided more details about the
issue. What follows are some excerpts
from these papers that might be relevant to folks interested in sustainability.
“To achieve sustainable development and higher quality of
life for all people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns
of production and consumption . . .”
The Commission on Sustainable Development defines
sustainable consumption as “the use of services and related products which
respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life while minimizing the
use of natural resources and toxic materials as well as the emissions of waste
and pollutants over the life cycle so as not to jeopardize the needs of future
generations.”
Current global consumption patterns are unsustainable...
efficiency gains and technological advances alone will not be sufficient to
bring global consumption to a sustainable level; changes will also be required
to consumer lifestyles, including the ways in which consumers choose and use
products and services.
Business, governments and society (including consumers) must
work together to define sustainable products and lifestyles.
[…] “we are living beyond our ecological means” and “an
economic model that overshoots natural resource constraints while failing to
meet peoples’ basic needs is, quite literally, unsustainable. What’s needed,
therefore, is a new model of economic development in which all people can meet
their basic needs without disrupting healthy ecosystems, which serve as the
foundation for sound economies, sustaining and enhancing human life.”
Waste prevention represents an effort to be “less bad,” as
opposed to a vision that is healthy and/or restorative. Another way of thinking
about this is that waste prevention, as commonly interpreted, is only about
“consuming less.” In contrast, sustainable consumption involves both “consuming
less” and “consuming differently.”
Creating stronger momentum toward sustainable consumption
patterns will be challenging and may require approaches outside of DEQ’s[Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality] historic (and traditional) roles, but
doing so is consistent with the broad goals of conserving energy and natural
resources and protecting the environment and human health.
[…] governments traditionally advocate for providing more
and better information to consumers (via labeling schemes, outreach, etc.),
under the belief that if consumers just had access to better information, or
were extorted to change, they would make more sustainable decisions. […] consumer
decisions are in fact driven by emotional and even biochemical forces,
underlying values, force of habit and a variety of external factors including
availability, affordability, convenience and social norms. […] information by
itself often has limited effectiveness in changing consumer behavior.
[…] gains in reducing unsustainable consumption leads to
unanticipated increases in consumption in other areas.
[…] fiscal incentives and information campaigns are helpful
if part of a larger strategy, but on their own are insufficient to spark
pro-environmental behavior change of the kind and scale required to meet
existing challenges.
[…] material goods and services are deeply embedded in the
cultural fabric of our lives. Through them we not only satisfy our needs and
desires, we also communicate with each other and negotiate important social
relationships. […] motivating sustainable consumption has to be as much about
building supportive communities, promoting inclusive societies, providing
meaningful work and encouraging purposeful lives as it is about awareness
raising, fiscal policy and persuasion.
Individual behaviors are guided as much by what others
around us say and do, and by the “rules of the game,” as they are by personal
choice. We often find ourselves “locked in” to unsustainable behaviors in spite
of our own best intentions. Policymakers sometimes express ambivalence about
intervening in these behaviors. […] policymakers are not innocent bystanders in
the negotiation of consumer choice. Policy intervenes continually in consumer
behavior both directly (e.g., through regulation and taxes) and more
importantly through its extensive influence over the social and institutional
context within which people act.
[…] social survey evidence shows that although people strive
for financial security and to live in material comfort, their deepest
aspirations are nonmaterial. Material consumption is needed but by itself does
not contribute significantly to personal happiness or subjective well-being
beyond a relatively modest threshold. […] needs are few and finite, the most
prominent being subsistence, protection, affection, identity, creation and
freedom. These needs can be met in different ways with varying ecological
footprints.
Motivational strategies to create supportive social
environments, to foster a sense of community, and to impart shared values offer
better prospects than moralizing or appealing to individual altruism. But
motivational techniques must go hand in hand with creation of alternative
behavioral opportunities for fulfilling needs that are comparable to
preexisting alternatives.
[…] the core challenge to sustainable consumption is that
the current economic system is inherently flawed: “...for businesses as well as
governments, incentives point us in the direction of consuming resources that
will become ever more scarce and expensive. In effect, our current system is
inherently flawed, with the very human quest for better lives in conflict with
the maintenance of a healthy planet.”
Making consumption more sustainable, […], will require
changes to the systems in which businesses and government operate: a change to
much longer time horizons than most businesses and governments currently
consider; changing accounting systems to account for externalized costs; and
changing accounting systems to capture measures of human well being and the
degree to which society’s goals are met through economic activity, as
opposed to merely measuring the volume of economic activity.
[…] “green consumption” is unhelpful. Individual consumption
choices are important, but control over these choices is constrained, shaped
and framed by institutions and political forces that can be remade only through
collective citizen action. […], emphasis on individual consumer action – a
mentality of “plant a tree, ride a bike, do your part,” – is not merely
ineffectual, but detrimental, because it crowds out activity that would have
real impact.
[…] green consumption may simply relieve individuals of
their duty to do something really substantial and more difficult. Further,
green consumption might also just become a less noxious form of conspicuous
consumption.
If organizations or individuals are attempting to change the
behaviors of others, be they firms, institutions or individuals, they must
themselves live up to the values they are espousing.
[…] meeting needs through social relationships and community
ties rather than commodities decreases material consumption and increases
well-being.
[…] humanity has reached a fundamental turning point in its
economic history. The expansionary trajectory of industrial civilization is
colliding with non-negotiable natural limits; consumption will decline
regardless of whether individuals and institutions want it to or not. […],
government (and civil society) should play a role in managing this transition:
“economic contraction need not entail catastrophe and sorrow if the process is
managed well.”
No comments:
Post a Comment