The New Environmentalist: Less Consumption or Greener Consumption?

Over the weekend, I got into a discussion with a good friend of mine about climate change. What began as a friendly, casual interchange soon developed into one of those exaggerated conversations. You know the kind: where each person temporarily adopts extreme and opposing views, simply the hopes of spicing up an otherwise tepid chat. (Editor’s note: no punches were thrown, but tears were definitely shed.)

Anyway, here’s the gist of our discussion: The 1990s (as I remember it) was a time when individuals were encouraged to become more aware of their consumption habits. Remember the three “Rs”: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle? Remember the UN Earth Summit of 1992, and the resulting Rio Declaration? Remember Jessie Spano launching her “No Oil at Bayside” campaign? (Please excuse the “Saved by the Bell” reference – it is the work of the author and may not represent the views and opinions of GetSolar.) The point is that, back then, we were encouraged to make small personal sacrifices in the name of the environment, often by agreeing to consume less “stuff.”

Fast forward a dozen years and the opposite seems to be true: we’re not called on to consume less, we’re just encouraged to consume differently. From the “Red Campaign” and carbon offsets to organic food and the Prius, there are an increasing number of ways to “vote with your dollars.” People aren’t consuming any less, which makes this approach economically viable. And, since a cup of organic coffee is still a cup of coffee, individuals don’t have to make any major lifestyle adjustments in order to lead a “greener” existence.

Ultimately, my friend and I disagreed (or at least pretended to disagree) on whether this new paradigm – which requires no personal sacrifice and does little to reduce consumption – was a “good” thing or “bad” thing. This is, admittedly, the debate that lies at the core of sustainable development. And while I’d love to continue on this topic for several more paragraphs, the responsible blogger in me thinks it’s better to stop here and invite others to add to the discussion.

Margaret Collins Said,

January 14th, 2008 @12:45 pm

I get in these discussions frequently with friends and what happens, depending on my sparring partner, is one of three things: (a) we agree our approach to consumption has to change, and considering that our current consuming patterns really only started post-WWII, and intentionally, at that, such a thing shouldn’t be too hard; (b) we agree that trying to convince a public attached to the consumption=economic health=happiness equation to consume less will be pretty much impossible; or (c), we start throwing things at each other because one of us might be inclined towards Socialism and one of us might be inclined towards Objectivism, and never the twain shall meet.
Seriously? I like option (a) best, and here I get around to the good v. bad question. Our current paradigm is at least revving up that 90s RRR discussion again, and getting “green thinking” into the public consciousness. What I hope the next step will be is changing the definition of “green” from the type of products you consume to the way in which you consume. Included in that change will be the elimination of the word “sacrifice”–if our society can readjust so that fulfillment comes from traditional sources like time with family, learning, and richer leisure time instead of from the acquisition of stuff, we won’t be looking at less stuff as a sacrifice. We’ll be looking at it as an opportunity to invest wisely in our own happiness. So yes, I think what’s happening right now is good, but only because it’s a stepping stone on the way to something much, much better.

Matt Said,

January 14th, 2008 @1:26 pm

Adam,
You are right when you say that this is at the core of sustainable development. When I gaze out the window of our office in downtown San Francisco and look at all the concrete and steel skyscrapers, all the Starbucks gripping morning commuters (I was guilty today) all the desks and lights and pc monitors and Diet Cokes, I see a big engine indeed out there. A massive, churning, burning perpetual World of material goods.

I really like Margaret’s definition of choice A) whereby the concept of changing consumption patterns goes beyond mere product types, to include total “quality of life” definitions and contributors (ie, simple pleasures?). In any event, small changes in awareness in people, spread out over large segments of population may eventually filter into consumption choices, and (eventually) public policy choices. (Organic coffee today, demanding less pre-packaged food in the supermarkets tomorrow).

Connie Zheng Said,

January 14th, 2008 @4:26 pm

Great post, Adam! The question that you pose here actually reminds me of an interesting article that appeared in the NYT almost a week ago, titled “FTC Asks if Carbon-Offset Money Is Well Spent.” (a title which, I think, speaks for itself)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/business/09offsets.html?_r=2&ref=science&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
While we’re still discussing consumption in developed nations, I think that the above investigation supports quite neatly the ‘Less Consumption’ view you present here, as well as the ‘Option A’ that Margaret outlines rather nicely. Furthermore, the very existence of the word ‘greenwashing’ suggests that perhaps we should hold our current consumption habits up to some scrutiny. Alas, I too am guilty of being a Starbucks-clutching commuter, and I own neither a composting toilet nor drive a Prius, but I agree with Matt in that we, given the options and the possibility of changing consumption (whether we are consuming more efficiently or simply consuming less), can open our eyes to bigger and better options up ahead. And that’s definitely where the whole deal with sustainable development comes up, like you say, Adam—not only here but also in developing nations, where they pretty much have the obligation to “leapfrog,” as NYT columnist Tom Friedman put it in a November op-ed, (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/opinion/04friedman.html) the energy-guzzling examples set by their industrial predecessors.
…although I guess whether or not that’s fair to them is (like nearly everything else surrounding this whole issue) open to debate. Oy!