Shopping Cart
RSS FeedState of the World 2004: Moving Toward a Less Consumptive Economy
Worldwatch Live Online Discussion
Michael Renner: Senior Researcher
June 11, 2004 - 2:00pm EDT
Technological advances and endless economic growth, driven by unbridled consumption, have brought humanity to the edge of an abyss—depleting resources, spreading harmful pollutants, undermining ecosystems, and threatening to unhinge the planet's climatic balance.
Submit your questions now and join Worldwatch researcher Michael Renner on May 28 to discuss how the world can lessen the impacts of its consumption habit and ensure a more equitable distribution of goods and resources for all.
Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Welcome to this week's Worldwatch Live Online Discussion. Today's guest is Senior Researcher Michael Renner. Michael will be answering your questions on "Moving Towards a Less Consumptive Economy." Welcome, Michael!
Michael Renner: Thanks, Steve, and hello to everybody. I see there are already quite a few questions lined up, so looks like there's considerable interest in this topic!
New York, NY: I have written a book on one aspect of this subject -- design alternatives to urban sprawl (The Urban Oasis, McGraw-Hill, 1997)-- how guided transit systems could be incorporated within landscaped pedestrian zones to make higher density development a more attractive option for living. I'm currently working on a propoposal to convert Manhattan's 42nd Street into a landscaped, auto-free light rail boulevard. Would you be interested in having a dialogue about this issue?
Michael Renner: Transportation options definitely need to be looked at in the context of the type of development and the density of human settlements. Turning 42nd Street into an auto-free boulevard would be marvelous, but this sounds like an extremely ambitious effort. IÃm at this point not directly working on transportation issues, but you could certainly send me some more information via e-mail.
san diego ca: How can we approach the problem of enlightening the consciousness of global techno/industrial consumers while under the very sophisticated and effective influence of advertising and media manipulation for the purposes of the corporate agenda. In other words, what is the best strategy for enlightenment all things considered?
Michael Renner: I agree with you that advertising is an extremely influential force (and to the extent that there is growing concentration among the corporate media, advertisement is becoming ever more pervasive). The only way to counter its impact is probably by increasing consumer awareness and knowledge, and that in turn implies focusing on very specific issues. To some extent, of course, this is happening with eco-labeling programs and similar types of efforts, but we need much, much more. In at least some countries, limits to advertisement are regarded as acceptable, but in the United States, the center of consumerism, any such restrictions are much harder to accomplish.
Belfast, UK: What are key indicators of suustainable earth and how much of it may be contributed per person to keep sustainability and avoid earth devastation?
Michael Renner: Worldwatch has for many years been compiling an annual book, ìVital Signs,î that tracks key trends and indicators. This is also available in CD-ROM format, which we publish under the name ìSignposts.î But you should also have a look at the Ecological Footprint concept, which compares human claim on natural resources with what is available sustainably. You can find more information at the Web site of Redefining Progress, www.rprogress.org.
Ashland, Oregon: How can a city encourage sustainable building practices through the use of material choices? Incentives to build with straw, cob, recycled materials etc..
Michael Renner: I would be dishonest if I claimed that I have expertise in the building sector. This is not an area I have studied. But let me say that the choice of materials is certainly important, though no more critical than the fundamental design of the building, and how it is situated in its surroundings (allowing for natural cooling and heating instead of requiring massive amounts of energy for these purposes.) Another issue concerns how (in-)efficient windows are, as that influences energy usage to a fairly significant degree.
Sydney, Australia: With energy prices (based on oil) moving ever upwards, due in part to the "liberation" of Iraq, terror worries and possibly hints at Peak Oil (http://www.peakoil.net), and given that food production is based on oil (diesel for fuel, fertiliser made from oil), how do you see the world's growing population being fed in the future? Can we move to a sustainable, non-growth economy in time?
Michael Renner: US and Western agriculture is far more industrialized and energy-intensive than its counterparts in many developing countries, where the great majority of people live. On the whole, I think that issues of land availability and access/distribution, as well as the question of water availability for irrigation, will be more important determinants for how well the majority of the human population on this planet will be fed. ThatÃs not to dismiss the point you are raising. ìModernî agriculture is overly dependent on unsustainable inputs. My colleague Brian Halweil has written extensively about the many challenges to our food system, but also about alternatives. You can find more information about his work, and contact information, on our Web site.
Singapore: Dear Michael, The World economy is purely driven on economic growth, the higher the growth the better, it seems. While corporations need to develop sustainable profit inorder to sustain employment and maintain or improve quality of life, I do not believe that corporation giants should allow to continue to feed the hungry consumers without due consideration to their demand for resources and waste generated. The corporations owe a duty to develop sustainable business empire that take into considerations their demand for natural resources and limit their waste output. They should adopt a "take-back" policy and not leave this for the future generations to take care of their waste. On their hand, consumer's awareness on their consumption habit should be raised. This should be done by every corporations that develop the product. while they advertise to tell the world why their product is superior, they should also inform consumer of the environmental impacts that will result, in simpler layman terms. The manufacturer of a product owe a duty to take back at the end of it's useful life span of the product, either as exchange or they but them back and not to generate more waste for the future generations to take care of. So Michael, are there any data that each nation could benchmark on their own consumption vs take back value? If value could not be determined, it could be tonnes of consumption and tonnes of waste per capita. Regards Eddie Wong
Michael Renner: There are ìtake backî laws in a growing number of nations, particularly in Europe, but also increasingly in Asia (though not yet Singapore, to my knowledge) and Latin America. Except in Eeurope, where the Eeuropean Union is playing a significant role in developing joint approaches, these laaws are all strictly national in approach, meaning they vary widely in terms of their provisions (what they ban or mandate, what baseline and goals they establish, and by what means). Regarding data to use for benchmarking, there are efforts underway in a number of countries (so far, primarily the US, Japan, and some Eeuropean nations) to do a full asessment of total material use, including so-called hidden flows that are never seen by any consumer in a final product. These studies tell us that a large amount of the total material "consumption" is really not at all consumed but rather wasted. So we can go a long way in reducing our impact on the environment by producing and consuming more efficiently, and more wisely.
Mauritius: Do you accept the following argument: 1. The current economic system requires unending economic growth (competition, capital accumulation) 2. The earths resources are finite (even renewables are finite within a certain time frame) 3. Evidence that economic activity is adversely impacting ecology (mass extinction, global warming, ozone hole); non-renewable resources are being used up & renewable resources are being destroyed 4. Is the conclusion change the economic system or destroy the earth? The question is then what economic system? Capitalism cannot be reformed it must continuely accumulate.
Michael Renner: I agree with your points. However, while I'm not a believer in the "magic of the market" I'm also not sure that there's only one way to run a capitalist system. Even a comparison between US capitalism, which tends to be much more laissez-faire and pro-business than, say, the Eeuropean "model", shows significant differences. Much more can (and must) be done through different tax and subsidy policies, for instance, to direct the economy onto more sustainable ground. This will not happen without far better public information, awareness and utlimately, pressure, on companies and governments. What's key is that we understand ourselves not as consumers primarily, but as (active) citizens.
Trivandrum India: How much is the Xian approach to life responsible for the predicament, pre-christian societies were symbiotic, how you rate more and more conversions of native people
Michael Renner: I'm not sure I properly understand your question. Could you explain?
Sherbrooke (QuÈbec): What is the total volume of gasoline and diesel consumed by all the motor vehicles of this planet annually? Also, how big would be the exhaust pipe if all this gasoline and diesel consumption were used by a unique motor vehicle? Please, let me know the source of statistics used. Thanks
Michael Renner: The UN issues an energy statistics yearbook that contains data relevant to your question, but because it is difficult to gather data for all countries worldwide, the numbers tend not to be very up-to-date. Another source to look at is the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, available at:
Macomb, IL: One of the major concerns raised about the viability of sustainable consumption is the impact that reducing consumption will have on the US economy in terms of job creation, etc. Please address the issue of how we can move to a economically/ environmentally/socially sustainable low consumption economy. If such an economy is seen as a major threat by labor and business, it will only come about as a result of catastrophic event.
Michael Renner: The most pronounced impact of producing goods and services with less material input, or of simply consuming less, is on the so-called "primary" sector of the economy, in other words the industries that produce raw materials -- the oil and energy industries, mining, logging, but of course also the industries that process these materials (refineries, smelters, etc.) What's interesting in this regard is that they employ very few people. Jobs in these sectors decline constantly due to ongoing automation, etc. That's particularly true for the US coal industry, for example, where employment has fallen even as production has increased.
But in other parts of the economy, there will be impacts, too. The challenge is in part to faciliate ways in which the material throughput is not the main determinant of how many jobs are generated. In some ways, that's already happening in software and certain "service" industries. But public policy can help that along with the right tax, subsidy, and technology policy. There are also questions of how to smoothen the transition to a more sustainable economy. We can make sure that workers in the most affected industries receive adequate support, in terms of retraining, etc. This is more a question of political will than one of "technical" doability.
Cape Coral, Florida: I have read State of the World 2004 and a lot of it comes down to educating people so they can make better life-long decisions. At Florida Gulf Coast University I have a class that is reading this book and one of our assignments was to present a chapter and how we would try to solve it. My idea was to send out mailers to those that live locally. The mailer would explain various recyclable items and what could be done with those items. How do you think our society as a whole could be educated on things such as recycling, consumption rates, etc?
Michael Renner: I think your idea for the class assignment is a good one. You have to bring these questions down to the local level, to explain how people in their own, day-to-day lives can make a difference, and what their choices are (but also pointing to the lack of choices, where that's appropriate). As I said in respone to another question in this forum, there are some existing "eco-labeling" programs that provide consumers with information they need to make informed, environment-friendly purchasing choices. That's true, for instance, when you buy a refrigerator or other home appliance. Or a computer ("Energy Star" program). But the existing programs are still piecemeal and too low-key. Germany, for instance, has a much more ambitious labeling program that encompasses almost 4,000 different products. Much more can indeed be done.
sydney: How does modern western society function without consuming the current amount of petrol? How do we get to work, visit our relatives, and collect our food supplies?
Michael Renner: First, we need to make automobiles -- clearly the dominent form of transport in Western societies --much more efficient, which technically is certainly doable. We need to switch to alternatives, and there is a growing discussion about "hybrid vehicles" and hydrogen-powered cars. But these measure alone will in the end be insufficient unless we work to create citieis and communities that have greater densities than many North American and Australian cities. Greater density does not have to be equal to lower quality of living, if it's done intelligently, but it will allow a much greater diversity in modes of transport, including walking, biking, public transit, etc.
Cambridge, MA: Could you share a story about how you have seen university students change the minds of those around them and illustrate that "less stuff" does not mean "lower quality of life"?
Michael Renner: Well, I haven't myself been in a university setting since I graduated in the early 1980s. But I suppose the less stuff doesn't equal lower quality of life argument holds in many different settings and communities. Judging by opinion polls and studies, too much "stuff" certainly doesn't make people any happier, but the question is how do people free themselves from the consumption trap? Ultimately, people will realize, at some point in their lives, that the good life is about friendships and happy relations with other people, not about the quantity of posessions.
New Delhi, India: Consuming less would require us to consume what we "need" and much less of what we "want". But, human aspirations are based on satisfying their "wants" and therefore society finds itself in this precarious situation. Isn't changing unsustainable consumption patterns then about changing a paradigm, changing a way of thinking? And if that is the case, then is information about the ill effects of unsustainable consumption sufficient to change human aspirations and desires? Or do we need to do something else?
Michael Renner: Yes, changing the paradigm, the basic assumptions, is certainly very important. But "negative" information -- detailing the consequences of overconsumption -- can only be part of the answer. There is a need to focus also on the positive, that we can live fulfilling, stimulating lives without as much material input. I don't think there's a single approach to that; how we decide what truly motivates us, what makes us happy, is a deeply personal story.
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii: Aloha Michael, Thanks for disussing the subject of consumption with us. It sure seems to me that we are so entrenched in our excessive consumption habits that we won't be changing them soon unless some traumatic event occurs or our political leaders create and implement policies to make us consume less. How can we get our local politicians to introduce policies that will help us curb our excessive consumption habits and what kinds of policies should this be?
Michael Renner: What works in local settings will vary. But the most important ingredient, I think, is a much more active, and well-informed, public. Being a consumer, almost by definition, implies a fairly passive role for an individual. We are expected to purchase a "final" product, and companies more and more strive to present us with "packages" of goods and services designed to take active responsibility out of our hands. But changing the basics requires us not to "consume" a product or service, but rather to initiate, to question, to argue, to be active.
Hilo, HI: On the issue of peak oil production, considering that most of the world's populations have outgrown their respective traditional carrying capacities by several fold, shouldn't the use of oil be increasingly restricted to agricultural production? Combined with agressive family planning programs, we might have a small chance of establishing sustainable societies, eventually independent of oil without having to experience catastrophic population collapse. Have any government anticipated and planned adequately for the end of finite resources on which its society depends?
Michael Renner: We should plan on restricting oil use in virtually all areas, even including agriculture. I don't think any government has adequately planned for the end of the oil era. There are some efforts in places like Iceland, but what we see to date is woefully inadequate, or even plain counter-produtive in the sense of policies that seek to prolong and intensify our oil dependence.
Decatur, GA: As I travel to places like Orlando or Myrtle Beach and I see the level of addictive consumption, I wonder how it will be possible to get Americans to "kick the habit." Our leaders (gov't, big business) are dedicated to increasing our addiction. How are we, as small voices of moderation, going to be able to get Americans to see the cost of our consumption? It is not a popular, nor easy message - almost like a parent with a child - "OK, you've had enough, let other people have some." Most Americans believe they deserve what they have. Any ideas?
Michael Renner: Well, in our increasingly "celebrity"-driven culture, it seems to me that we need to recruit willing and interested celebrities to provide the message that there are alternatives. The UN is making increasing use of actors, etc. as goodwill ambassadors -- mostly for peacemaking purposes. I can imagine similar efforts with regard to consumption.
Hilo, HI: I disagree with your point about making automobiles more efficient. To attain sustainability, we need to eliminate the concept of private automobile ownership. This is especially relevant with 300 million Chinese about to attain levels of affluence that brings automobile ownership within their reach.
Michael Renner: I'm sympathetic to your point. If we only go for more efficient cars, then we'll definitely lose. But totally foregoing this option is a bit like trying to run before one learns to walk.
Hilo, HI: The key questions in addressing the issue of consumptive economies has to be: what drives people to consume so much more than they need? What pushes them to work (to trade time, quality of their lives, and helth) many extra hours per week for goods and srevices far beyond their needs? Are these people incapable of even the most basic cost-benefit analysis or long-range personal planning, the root of real power? Why is the illusion or facade of wealth so important to them? Why should they care how others live? The most ideal form of slavery is one in which the slave doesn't recognize his pitiful status. Are these people simple domesticated livestock unable to comprehend what's being done to them?
Michael Renner: If I understand you right, you are saying we're so stuck running a treadmill that we just can't see beyond the immediate demands (and wants). That is probably the most fundamental problem we are facing, and also the hardest. I hope that some of my answers today will at least be of some help in re-orienting us as individuals and as a society, but it's not an easy challenge!
Apeldoorn (Netherlands): Was it Seattle or Gandhi who spoke: the world has enough for everyones needs but not for anyones greeds? We www.vrijeconsumenten.nl (free consumer union)just started and want to use this title for a seminarfor about quantity. Applause for all your work and the perfect State of the World 2004!!!!
Michael Renner: Thanks, I'll make sure to check out your site!
Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Thanks for joining us today, Michael, and thanks to our audience for all those tough questions!
Michael Renner: Thanks, Steve, for moderating this chat, and thanks to all participants for great questions and arguments. These Web chats are always a good challenge and a great exercise in hearing many different viewpoints!
