State of the World 2004: The Consumer Society -- An Overview

Related Links

• State of the World 2004
• Online Feature: Consumption

Worldwatch Live Online Discussion

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil : State of the World 2004 Project Directors

January 9, 2004 - 3:00pm EDT

From factory-farmed chicken to old growth lumber to gas-guzzling cars, many of the things we buy and use support industries that are destructive to our planet and to people. In State of the World 2004, the Worldwatch Institute examines how we consume, why we consume, and what impact our consumption choices have on our planet and fellow human beings.

Submit your questions now and join State of the World 2004 project directors Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil on January 9 to discuss the findings of this year's report, and its special focus on the consumer society.

Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Welcome to the first event in our series of State of the World 2004 online discussions. Project directors Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil join us today to discuss this year's report. Welcome, Lisa and Brian.

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil : Thanks, Steve, it's great to be here, and we look forward to answering any questions people might have about the findings in this year's report.

Washington, DC: Who poses a greater threat to the environment: Americans that consume huge amounts of enegy and goods or developing nations like India and China who have many more future consumers in their ranks?

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil : This is a controversial question, and one that we have been asked many times since releasing State of the World. Of course, right now, Americans and Europeans constitute the greatest threat, because they consume far more in total and per person than India or China. One example: the 12 percent of the global population living in Europe and North America is responsible for 60 percent of global household consumption expenditures, whereas the 33 percent living in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa is responsible for just 3.2 percent. However, the number of "consumers" in the poorer nations is growing rapidly, and in coming decades, could dwarf the consumption of the wealthy nations. As is already happening in places like the U.S. and Europe, these poorer nations may eventually have to struggle increasingly with obesity, traffic congestions, sprawl, and the other fallout of high levels of consumption. Part of the answer is for consumers in the wealthy nations to greatly reduce their consumption burden to make way for the billions of poor around the world to improve their quality of life. Of course, the wealthy nations need to lead the way in consumption reform, but our message to the developed and developing world was not that they should not consume, but that there are opportunities to consume differently, and that a better quality of life--not just an amassing of goods--should be the goal of consumption.

-- Brian

Chiba, Japan: Save a major catastrophe, or series of catastrophes, what are the chances, in your view, that humans would change their ways in 2004 and take the path of sustainability to restore and preserve the life support systems on Earth?

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil : Unfortunately, catastrophe plays a sometimes important, and always interesting, role in shifting habits. The mad cow disease crisis in Europe, for instance, prompted a rapid rise in vegetarian cuisine and organic meat production, and similar changes may unfold in the United States after the discovery of the first mad cow. But, we're confident that major changes can happen without catastrophes if people begin to realize that reducing consumption doesn't necessarily mean reducing quality of life or happiness, and in fact it might increase happiness. Think about the Slow Food movement, which now has 100,000 members in about 80 countries, and which is using the pleasure of local and seasonal cuisine to conquer the fast food lifestyle. Or, consider that across Europe governments are requiring companies to "take back" electronics, packaging, batteries and a range of other products when their useful life is over, so they do not get landfilled and create toxic waste. As these successes spread, they become contagious, and it's easier for other governments and companies to follow the lead. -- Brian

Chiba, Japan: 2. In your opinion, what is the biggest single threat to humanity and the fabric of life on Earth? Thank you.

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil : Very tough question, and we can't speak for the entire Worldwatch Institute, but we would suggest that excessive consumption and climate change are among the greatest threats to life on Earth. To answer the question another way, we think that excessive consumption is the last environmental taboo, in the sense that no one--environmental groups, governments, consumer groups--wants to discuss it, and that its neglect has allowed it to spiral out of control. But we hope that this edition of State of the World will begin to shed light on the problems associated with the obsessive consumerism and the groups working to reform it.

Tucson AZ: In his new book "Cradle to Cradle", Bill McDouough argues that the right kinds of growth can be good. Even growth in the consumption of stuff can be good, if all aspects of the process and products are redesigned as biological or "technical" nutrients. What are the limits of this idea, and what are the politics of promoting an unlimited prosperity based on re-thinking and re-designing ourselves to become a part of the environment, rather than something separate from it?

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil : This is a great question, and we actually have an essay by McDonough in chapter five of our book. I think the cradle-to-cradle idea is powerful and can lead the way to reducing the waste and toxicity of most human industries. One concern is that consumerism--as a philosophy, as a religion, as a lifestyle-- can be problematic, even when the stuff being consumed doesn't take a toll on the environment. That is, even if everything we consume is eco-friendly, the obsession with consuming can still be socially and psychologically destructive, and that's why we devote so much space in the book to the psychology of consumption and to the relationship between stuff and happiness. One of the possible political problems with the cradle-to-cradle approach is that most companies are not likely to make these changes on their own, without some sort of outside pressure from government, consumers, or environmental groups, even if the companies can save money over the long term. Design is a powerful tool, but government regulations may be needed to jumpstart that redesign process. -- Brian

Torino, Italy: Do you think it is possible to reduce consumes without a blackout of economics as we (the Western world) intend it actually?

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil : Another difficult question. I think it is definitely possible to reduce consumption without sending economies into recession. Of course, there will be an adjustment period. People will gain jobs in new, green sectors (organic farming) as people lose jobs in old, polluting sectors (chemical-intensive factory farming). And there are many examples of companies, like Xerox or Interface, that have been able to maintain if not boost sales and revenue even as they reduce and eliminate all the waste associated with their business. A few of the key changes in business models include designing products for greater durability and selling services instead of products (leasing copy machines that are repaired and refurbished indefinitely, instead of selling throwaway machines). And, from a policy perspective, governments can support this shift and protect the economy with ecological tax reform, product take-back laws, and other incentives to promote nonpolluting industries. More on these policies if we have time. --Brian

Norristown, PA: If all people shared all resources equally, what would be the (average) lifestyle now and in ten or twenty years?

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil : Difficult to say, since our lifestyle includes so many different goods and services and activities. Here are a few ways in which they would be different if all people shared all resources, and I'll make an admittedly very blunt distinction between people in the so-called "First World" and people in the "Third World." The way I envision it, people in the First World would eat less meat and fish, drive less, live in smaller homes with smaller, more efficient appliances, use less paper (get less junkmail), and throw out less waste. People in the Third World would eat more meat and fish, drive more, have larger homes with more appliances, use more paper, and throw out more. A decade or so from now, we'll probably still be adjusting, but there will be one to two billion more people on the planet and they will also be sharing.

-- Brian

Charlotte: What should the top 3 environmental priorities be for the presidency and candidates to get elected?

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil : 1. Tackling climate change by signing onto the Kyoto Protocol, boosting fuel-economy standards, and taxing coal and other fossil fuels.
2. Protecting the nation's remaining wetlands from development.
3. Banning factory animal farms.

Other ideas??? There are so many possibilities...

-- Brian

Denver, Colorado: To what extent is advocating changes in individual consumption, as opposed to advocating legal or social reforms of society as a whole, likely to make a substantial impact on our ecological footprint? I welcome the "simple living" movement but do not see it as making a substantial environmental impact. "Simple living" tends to get interpreted as a matter of style and is usually insufficiently radical -- e. g. people talk about "simplicity" in terms of paring down one's Christmas card list. If we could radicalize the simple living movement so that it means vegetarianism, veganism, getting rid of cars, etc., that might make more of a social and environmental effect. It seems to me that the most significant individual action we can take (and advocate taking) is to become vegetarian or vegan, which drastically reduces the impact of the individual on land, water, and other resources. I do not see solar / wind, or public transportation choices, as being realistically under the control of the individual in their own consumption choices. In theory it is, but it's a hard sell because it often involves financial or time costs. Sure, I could install solar panels on my house, but why shouldn't I wait until the whole society realizes we have a crisis and the price of solar comes down? And once you own a car at all, in most places the incremental cost of driving to the store is not that much compared to taking the bus, waiting for 15 minutes, awkwardness of carrying grocery bags on the bus, and so forth. For those of things we need social reforms, e. g. support for solar / wind and support for mass transit.

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil : I think you hit on a very important point, and one that we try to make clear in the book. As you suggest, changing individual consumer habits will simply not be enough. There simply aren't enough options out there yet for individuals to make the most environmentally sound choices possible. Here's where wider reforms will have to come into play. These incude changes in, for instance, the way products are made, as well as the purpose they ultimately serve. Individuals alone generally have very little influence over what goes into the products they buy, for example the materials used or how much energy these products require. It is up to the manufacturers, therefore, to take the initiative in redesigning products so they are more environmentally sound--and to create these options for consumers. It is also up to government to use its power and authority to influence the production process, by requiring certain product standards, and by adopting regulations and laws that influence producer behavior. So I agree with you wholeheartedly that larger social, economic, and policy reforms are needed if we want to really see changes in the overall impacts our consumption habits have on the planet and society.

--Lisa

San Francisco, CA: There are so many overwhelming environmental, populations and resource problems in the world today. The list is so large. How do you recommend the average person (if thereis such a thing) set priorities in seeing how to do something about it?

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil : Thank you for asking this question, because in many ways this is really where the rubber hits the road---the realm of ACTION. I think it's very difficult to generalize about the average person, since of course we all have unique lifestyles, perspectives, and influence. My advice would be to try to take action that draws on your own sphere of influence, on the unique skills and expertise you have. If you are a member of a local community or church group, then maybe start there, and use your influence to stimulate action, to encourage a more critical look at the kinds of goods and services the organization--and its members--rely on. Or maybe you are--or know--someone that has influence in the policy sphere, and could help introduce legislation that advocates more environmentally sound policies. Even if your only sphere of influence is your home, your main priority may be taking steps there. Sometimes starting with what you know can make addressing some of these challenges less daunting.

--Lisa

Atzmon, Israel: It seems to me that many of the behavioral changes we are talking about can only take place on a time scale of the next generation. How do you place these issues center stage for a youth culture driven by the importance of ever-changing styles and the associated product consumption?

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil : You are touching on one of the greatest challenges we face--educating our youth. Ironically, in many ways today's children are more educated than ever about environmental problems, in part because these problems have become more visible in many places. In the United States, many children are very sophisticated in their awareness because environmental education is taught in the schools. However, there continues to be a disconnect between this awareness and actual youth behavior, particularly once children become teenagers. One of the biggest culprits is of course advertising--and we will need to find ways to tackle the endless consumption-oriented messages our children are hearing today.

--Lisa

San Francisco, CA: "Consumption reform" is a new term for me. It's clear what it is. But how to get people to go for it when it often means less prosperity as most people define it? Do you work with people who put forth viable alternatives that consumers might actually go for?

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil : One of the biggest messages we're hoping to send is that shifting our consumption patterns should not be equated with deprivation. There are ways for people to continue to meet their needs, and enjoy their lives, but in a way that doesn't have such significant consequences for the planet, and for their own health. A classic example is buying green power--electricity from wind or solar energy. People still meet their basic need for light and power, but the impacts on the planet are minimal compared to fossil fuel use.

The exciting news is that there ARE many alternative options out there; the challenge is raising awareness of these choices, and encouraging consumers to demand them.

--Lisa

Remsen, NY: Worldwatch, your research papers, your magazine, your staff and your goals seem to me admirable and vitally important. I use the information as well as I can to help me spread the word. What seems to me missing and essential is finding effective ways to communicate the urgency of the issues to the vast majority of decent Americans who may be vaguely aware that there are environmental problems around, but who are, like most of us, very busy with their own lives. It is easy to assume that any serious issues will be taken care of by others, even when they are not. Consumption is a very difficult issue for Americans, of course. And we are certainly the ones who must lead the way to sustainable consumption patterns. When it comes to consumption, how can the great mass of Americans who want to do the right thing, if they know what that is, be helped to understand what they can do, and why? Here's a perhaps trivial example, to illustrate the small challenges faced in making sensible consumption decisions. When I shop once or twice a week at the supermarket, my only practical choice, when there is a choice, is "plastic or paper?". I say "paper" but I'm not even sure that is the environmentally sound choice. There is the alternate possibility of bringing my own fabric bag, but when I remember to do that, it tends to slow the line and certainly makes me an object of curiosity. Toward the other end of the consumption spectrum, SUV's seem the favorite of rich and poor, as long as the bank account or credit card holds out. What to do? So what seems to me most urgent is the need to reach the great majority of ordinary Americans, including but most definitely not limited to, the convinced ones like me. It's important for all of us to know that, on the one hand, America is leading the world on a disastrous course, and on the other hand, to understand what practical steps we can take to help change that course. I hope this question cum suggestion sounds as positive as I feel about Worldwatch and your efforts. Thanks for all you are doing.

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil : Thanks for your kind words and I'm glad you've enjoyed our work. There are a wide range of organizations in the U.S. that, like Worldwatch, are trying to address the very challenges you've raised. Many are publishing information to help consumers make better environmental decisions. Unfortunately, however, the forces these groups are up against are formidable. It is difficult to send messages about the need for more effective public transport, for instance, when so much money is being pumped into advertisements for SUVs.

Fortunately, the silver lining is that we ARE seeing changes afoot. Many grocery stores and retailers (including chains like Wal-Mart) now carry organic foods, or recycled bath tissue--something we wouldn't have seen a decade ago. I am optimistic that as consumer demand for more environmentally sound products grows, and as these products increasingly show up on store shelves, awareness will continue to rise--even among "ordinary" Americans.

For those who may be interested in learning more about actions they can take, this March Worldwatch will be releasing a web-based consumer guide that takes a "behind the scenes" look at a wide range of everyday products--from cell phones to shrimp--and suggests alternative actions and choices. Keep an eye out for it!

--Lisa

Bratislava, Slovakia: I find the initiative that WW starts on the web very important, but is there also such handbook for governments, which makes up in some countries some 25% of the GDP?

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil : Many governments are beginning to take actions to "green" their own purchasing, and there are a wide range of resources out there with tips and information on how to get started. In Europe, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) has a very good "Eco-procurement" program (http://www.iclei.org/europe/ecoprocura/index.htm) that has many handbooks and suggestions. In the U.S., a good source is the EPA's Environmentally Preferable Purchasing website, http://www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/index.htm.

--Lisa

SF: I think a big systemic problem is that the price of goods usually doesn't include the environmental cost. I don't think business alone can be blamed for this, as it often is. Our system is set up for business to compete on price. we as a society have to accept responsibility for paying the actual costs for things. This apporach is not something a politician is likely to do well with. But I agree with "Colorado" that some things have to have a larger social reform that is consucted through government.

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil : I agree with you entirely. The price of most goods does not reflect the true environmental (or social) cost. And unfortunately, most of the "green" goods that are out there are more expensive than conventional goods. To address these problems, action will be needed on both the production side and the consumption side. Producers (spurred in part by government regulation) will need to take greater responsiblity for the impacts of their products, throughout the lifetime of the product. Consumers, meanwhile, will have to be willing to pay for--and to demand--more environmentally sound options, at least initially. With increased demand and greater economies of scale, prices should eventually drop, making these options more affordable for all.

--Lisa

Solway Minnesota: I've read a couple of analyses that calculate that the carrying capacity of the earth for humans is about 2 billion with a European standard of living. Getting from here to there requires drastic reduction in consumption AND population. Do you have an estimate of the standardard of living required for the earth to be able to sustainably support our current population?

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil : I don't have an estimate, but I would refer you to the work of an organization called Redefining Progress, which has calculated the so-called "environmental footprint" of various countries and its citizens. They make some interesting comparisons between the footprint of the average American and the average Indian, for example, and indicate some of the implications of this for the planet. See http://www.redefiningprogress.org/programs/sustainabilityindicators/ef/

--Lisa

Rochester, NY: On the corporate level, the implementation of EMS and SMS (Environmental Mangement Systems) and (Sustainable Management Systems) have worked to help businesses to reduce their consumption while improving their bottom line. Do see them as being effective? Do you believe they go far enough? Is there a better way? Thanks! This has been a great discussion!

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil : I beleive these systems have been effective in a variety of ways. For one, they are resulting in the kinds of outcomes that we are hoping for--more streamlined (and in many cases "greener") purchasing, more efficient use of resources like water and energy, and a reduction in waste. These measurements alone are a sign of positive impact.

On a large scale, however, these initiatives have been important because they have helped to institutionalize environmental considerations into the corporate psyche. As an earlier chat poster noted, one of the biggest problems we face is raising awareness of the need to make these types of changes. Yet today, in part as a result of EMS's the majority of large corporations have an environmental strategy, even if it is simply in response to regulations or bottom line concerns. The awareness is there.

The challenge, of course, is stepping up this activity. These types of initiatives could always go further, and could have more "teeth."

--Lisa

Vienna, Austria: 1. One of the powerful instruments that can motivate the consumers to change their patterns of consumption is information and advice availability. Making the infrastructure available to permit this change as well as to support other individual & original initiatives. Though, it seems that the issue is a matter of politics in terms of its short-term sight, lobbing and subsidy mashinery. How to bring governments to reduce the influence of these groups and implement appropriate measures? 2. On the other way there is the advertising industry, which manipulates motivation forces to consume (more). Which instruments are at use then? 3. How to ensure enforcement of potential international measures to reduce the overconsumption? (since political implementation in this area not very successful and enforcement at intl level weak)? Thank you

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil : 1. Influencing government IS key to making these changes. Unfiortunately, as you point out, most governments are not simply influenced by the people they represent, but also by powerful special interests. Because of this reality, it is vital that people speak up and push for the changes they want to see, rather than let their voices and demands be drowned out.


2. It is crucial that consumers, particularly younger consumers, are educated about the influence the advertising industry has over their decisionmaking. In North America, groups like the Center for a New American Dream (www.newdream.org) and Adbusters (www.adbusters.org) are trying to do just that. The UN Environment Programme (http://www.uneptie.org/pc/sustain/advertising/advertising.htm) is also working to harness the same powerful marketing forces that advertisers use to sell products--but instead to sell messages about sustainability.

3. International institutions like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization can play an important role in encouraging more sustainable consumption and production. U.N. treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol or the Montreal Protocol, are binding agreements that can hold countries responsible for certain behaviors, such as limiting emissions from energy-intensive fossil fuels. The challenge is strengthening the enforcement mechanisms of these treaties. The WTO also has a long way to go to truly integrate environmental considerations into its work.

--Lisa

San Francisco, CA: I would add to the list reducing the use of wood for building.

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil :

Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Thank you for joining us today, Lisa and Brian. Thank you to all of our participants as well. Make sure to join us on February 27th for our next Worldwatch Live Online Discussion: "State of the World 2004: The State of Consumption Today " with Worldwatch Researchers Gar Gardner and Erik Assadourian.

Lisa Mastny and Brian Halweil : Thanks, Steve, for moderating this dicussion. And thanks to everyone out there for tuning in. You've asked some excellent, challenging questions, and it's been fun to share our thoughts. If you're looking for more information about the consumption issue, please visit our special web portal at www.worldwatch.org/topics/consumption/

--Lisa and Brian