State of the World 2004: The State of Consumption Today

Related Links

• State of the World 2004
• Online Feature: Consumption

Worldwatch Live Online Discussion

Gary Gardner and Erik Assadourian : Director of Research(GG) and Staff Researcher(EA)

February 27, 2004 - 3:00pm EDT

The world today produces and consumes more than ever before. One quarter of humanity has now joined the "consumer class"—adopting the diets, transportation systems, and lifestyles once limited to the rich nations of Europe, North America, and Japan. But amongst this wealth, great poverty persists, with nearly three billion people—two out of every five—barely surviving on less than $2 a day.

Submit your questions now and join Worldwatch researchers Gary Gardner and Erik Assadourian on February 27 to discuss global trends in consumption and to examine what is needed to put our planet—and its people—on a more sustainable track.

Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Welcome to this month's State of the World 2004 Online Discussion. Worldwatch Director of Research, Gary Gardner, and Worldwatch Staff Researcher, Erik Assadourian, are joining us today to discuss "The State of Consumption Today." Welcome, Gary and Erik!

Gary Gardner and Erik Assadourian : Thanks Steve. It's a pleasure to be here.

-Gary and Erik

: Your report is clear and something I realized long ago. Now the question is, what is going to be done about it by our governments? When all they seem interested in controlling the horde, and feeding the corporations with more markets, more sales, and using our tax money to do it with.

Gary Gardner and Erik Assadourian : A great question. As we took on this topic--a topic that Worldwatch first addressed in 1992 in "How Much is Enough," we agreed that it was essential that our report focus at least as much on solutions as it does in identifying the
problems with current consumption patterns. While Chapter 1 does not go much into solutions (as it is giving a global overview on current consumption trends) the other 7 chapters address solutions. Chapters 2-4 look at a specific topic (energy, water, and food), highlight the issues and offer solutions. Chapters 5-8 address solutions directly--whether looking at changes in consumption patterns, in economics, in governance or in culture. As for how we'll change, it is clear that a growing part of the world's people are part of a global consumer society, which as it grows stronger creates an entire "infrastructure of consumption" that
supports it--whether in the form of government laws and subsidies or business practices such as advertising. The goal will be to change these supporting infrastructures to focus on a different goal--instead of increasing consumption, directly focusing on increasing well-being. That will mean working to change these laws, to better regulate advertising (and/or use it to encourage sustainable practices), and to better educate individuals on the importance of sustainability.

-Erik

San Diego, CA: How about comparison of standard of living in every countries; they are different ---how can you say, "...But amongst this wealth, great poverty persists, with nearly three billion peopleótwo out of every fiveóbarely surviving on less than $2 a day." Can you explain?

Gary Gardner and Erik Assadourian : These comparisons are based on purchasing power parity (PPP), which adjusts for differences in the price of goods in different countries.

Chiba, Japan: Since 1930 the world population has tripled and some from 2 to 6.3 billion; however, the world industrial production has risen by a factor of nearly 20. To support the existing world population at its current rates of consumption AND growth for another fifty years we would have to find 4-6 additional Earth-sized planets starting 2010 (and one every 7-10 years thereafter!) Needless to say this proposition is highly improbable! Our mathematical model Globe 50 calculates the individualís chances of survival at about 1/45,000 beyond 2050 - if growth, consumption and the global temperature continue to rise at currently predicted rates. Q. How does your research/ assessment (if any) vis-‡-vis social demography of the world over the next few decades compare with our finding?

Gary Gardner and Erik Assadourian : There was a similar question by someone in Vancouver too asking 'what number of persons can the Earth support at a US level of consumption.

To both of these questions I respond with a vague generality as unfortunately, I cannot give a concrete
number on what will happen to the world if we continue to increase consumption not just in the industrial world but the developing world at the current rate. It is clear that this is what is happening. Car production in China is growing at 60% to 80% a year and Chinese car experts expect a fleet of 150 million cars (on par with the US) by 2015 [there are currently about 14 million] Oil companies have no interest in phasing out fossil fuels in the next decades even as the threat of climate change grows larger, and the fixation on economic growth as the key governmental policy remains for the most part utterly unquestioned. Combine that with the UN's predictions that there will be 8.9
billion people by 2050 and I'm nervous about what the world will look like then.

However, it doesn't have to be that way of course. Changes in government regulations, civil society pressures on the corporate and governmental sector, education of communities and individuals, and a reawakening of a global ethic (all
of which are helping to fuel each other) could help us to win these modern challenges, improving the lives of billions in the process. But that will take a willingness
to accept that there are challenges we face, and face them. Ironically, as Gary and I discuss in chapter 8, this will help the consumer class just as much as those needing to consume more. 65% of Americans are overweight or obese--in turn fueling increases in heart disease, diabetes, and mortality. 5 million die each year from tobacco. Changing industrial consumption habits would be beneficial for
not just those needing to consume more and the planet, but for 'consumers' themselves.

-Erik

As a P.S. Chiba, this is a very interesting model that you refer to. Doing a quick google search, I couldn't find it but would be interested in reading more (if you would, please e-mail with details me at eassadourian@worldwatch.org). Thanks.

-Erik

Tucson, Arizona: How would a sudden drop in U.S. consumption affect the world? Would collapse, chaos, wars, etc. follow, or would the effect be essentially positive?

Gary Gardner and Erik Assadourian : The devil is in the details. First, I don't know that any serious analyst advocates a sudden drop in consumption, if by sudden we mean over the coming months. Most see the shift to a less consumptive society being phased in over time, as we learn to favor new technologies and lifestyles over ones oriented to consumption. It's important to note that this process could be quite positive: manufacturing based on virgin materials production could be replaced with manufacturing that uses recycled materials, for example. Labor might be made less expensive than other production inputs (by raising the price of virgin metals and timber, for example) so that labor-intensive (jobcreating) economic activities might become more active. And services might be subsidized over goods (car-sharing becomes more economical than car ownership), so that total fuel and materials consumption drops, but people still get what they are looking for (transportation services).

Uppsala Sweden: I just recently found out about the origins of the public relations industry, with Sigmund Freud's nephew Edward Bernays (1891 - 1995)* - setting up the first PR-firm. Now, I am curious how much of the global, and of the US's GDP is devoted to this industry? * http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/century_of_the_self.shtml

Gary Gardner and Erik Assadourian : Again, we're talking about an unquantifiable number here.
As I note in chapter 1 $446 billion was spent on advertising around the world in 2002 (in 2001 dollars). More than half of this was spent in the US--translating to about 2.2% of the US GDP. But advertising is just one part of the modern marketing industry, which itself is just one aspect of modern Public Relations. If you add up all the marketing expenditures (billions more than just media advertising) and then you add up all the PR expenditures--conferences pushing a product, lobbying, "grassroots" organizations sub-contracted out to PR firms to create local "support" for industry positions, and we're talking billions more. {I'd encourage you to read "Toxic Sludge is Good for You" if you haven't already.} This translates to a massive inertia that slows down changes to a system that could change consumption patterns. That's why work by groups like "Commercial-Alert" that are working for stronger regulations on the marketing industry are so important. A final note, as the advertising numbers show, this is no longer a US phenomenon but is spreading globally--non U.S. advertising has grown 3.5 times in the past 20 years.

-Erik

Maryland: The action plan adopted by the NGO Forum for Food Sovereignty of 2002 acknowledged the need for reduced worldwide consumption of meat as a vital component of any sustainable strategy for ending hunger while preserving the planet. While progressive activists in developing countries are very open to information and ideas about resisting the encroachment of the the western meat-based diet, progressive activists in the States and Europe -- where meat consumption is concentrated -- have tended to shun diet change initiatives and, indeed, become insulted when asked to examine their own patterns of consumption. How can we make them see that shunning factory farms and reducing meat consumption are just as vital as shunning sweatshops and reducing fossil fuel consumption?

Gary Gardner and Erik Assadourian : The Union of Concerned Scientists did a great book a few years back that tried to help consumers understand which lifestyle changes could have the greatest impact. They identified diet as one of the top three (along with transportation and home heating/cooling) areas where changes would have a large impact. There is no doubt that moving down the food chain should be a priority area. In the U.S., this might be a more persuasive position if the health effects of heavy meat consumption, rather than the environmental impact, were stressed.

Ollaberry, Shetland: For those of us living the simple life 'What next?'

Gary Gardner and Erik Assadourian : I'm glad you asked that. In Chapter 8, Gary and I really tried to draw attention to the fact that it will take change at all levels to really make a difference. The individuals' lifestyles will have to change yes, but often the individual cannot even control his/her consumption patterns. Living in an American suburb often prevents choosing to use mass transit. Access to organic foods is often limited. The key is making change happen at the community and societal levels--as well as on the individual level. And that'll mean using the power you have to make changes--not only in your consumption choices, but in your occupation, in your community, in your state, and country. If you're a teacher, you can shape your curriculum to teach your students about the global social and environmental challenges facing us. As a business leader you can work to change business practices. As a citizen you can lobby your elected representative to focus on social and environmental problems in your community. Whatever energy and opportunity you have, you can choose to utilize those in an effective way (in a sustainable way of course--if you take on too many campaigns and run out of steam in the process, that won't be helpful to anyone).

-Erik

Victoria, BC: I believe that consumerism and overconsumption is a result of a 'disconnect', meaning, people are less spiritually aware and thus look to consumer goods to give them a sense of self, or purpose in the world. What are your thoughts on this? cheers, j

Gary Gardner and Erik Assadourian : I basically agree. Approaching this through the back door, psychologists tell us that happy people are connected healthy, free people. To the degree that happiness can be equated with spiritual health, the psychologists agree with you. If you mean that people consume because they have lost a sense of religiosity, that's a different questions. On one hand, some research suggests that religious people tend to be happier than non-religious people. On the other hand, Americans are fairly religious, especially compared to others in industrial nations, yet consumption is rampant. So being religious does not appear to correlate with lowered consumption.

Gary

London: Consuming has become a competition in between people: Who has more? I am just wondering about quality. Our quality of life has improved dramatically since we have, and buy less as we have more time to take care of us and as a result of our environment - instead of taking care of all the things we own. How can we engage people to consume less?

Gary Gardner and Erik Assadourian : I think quality of life is key. The average American is wealthier than ever, yet one could argue that we see many ominous indications that our quality of life has slipped. 65 % of US adults are overweight or obese. We work longer and longer hours and have less time for family. Our credit cards are maxed out, and many of us carry substantial personal debt. On a number of fronts we are arguably worse off than our parents were, despite being richer. Governments, it seems to me, need to design economies not simply to produce more, but to provide more of what people need to make them happy: good health, good relationships, freedom of opportunity, etc. To the extent that a plethora of goods does not lead to these desired end results, the economy, I would argue, is not doing what it ought to.

Gary

Germany, Hannover: Why- in your point of view- the humankind is never satisfied with what they have and always seeks for more, even if it is destructive in the end for themselves?

Gary Gardner and Erik Assadourian : Hello Hannover,

Fortunately, I'm not yet so cynical that I think that humankind is never satisfied with what they have. I know many people that are materially satisfied (many more
that are not of course) but I think a primary shaper of these views of satisfaction are cultural. The vast majority of the individuals reading these words are part of the global consumer class. That's not an indictment of any
sort, it's just a fact--if you have access to a computer and the internet, you're almost surely part of the 1.7 billion individuals earning over $7,000 (PPP) and
having access to cellphones, television, Hollywood, the Internet, and the thousands of advertisements and messages stimulating consumption that slip through these media. This consumer culture centers around the idea that happiness and success is connected to one's material affluence, to one's consumption patterns. It's not the only cultural influence of course--religions often teach very different ideas on consumption, but as the consumer culture grows increasingly dominant, more people become less satisfied with their material goods. The goal, again, will be to stimulate alternative perspectives that encourage people to live a high quality life instead of a high consumption life. Sometimes these will overlap--the more music I consume, the happier I am (and to my knowledge there are no side-effects), but many times it won't--there is a limit to how much meat and sugar people should eat. Too much will most often lead to poor health. Recognizing the link between being satisfied with moderate amounts of consumption and a higher quality of life will be essential in achieving a sustainable world.

-Erik

Ottawa, Canada: How do you suggest developing worlds approach consumption after having seen North America, Britain and other "developed" nations grow to the levels they are presently at and how they continue to consume? Ex. CHAD - has many oil reserves and the country is slowly seeing benefits from the revenue of oil, but here in N.A. we've seen what an oil based economy does for a country pros and cons and it's what (I think) we want to avoid in the future.

Gary Gardner and Erik Assadourian : We believe that consumption needs to INCREASE in many developing countries, because people in these areas often do not have their basic needs met, opportunity to fulfill their potential, etc. But such countries might learn from our mistakes. A car-centered economy, for example, can lead to excessive pollution, sprawl, ugly urban development, etc. So we would not recommend it as a development model. On the other hand, some great alternative ways of meeting people's needs without high levels of consumption are coming out of developing countries. Bogota, Colombia, for example, has a highly effective Bus Rapid Transit system that carries more people more cheaply and effectively than many subways do, all because of a few ingenious design innovations to the bus system. We have a lot to learn from their experience, and from other developing country experiences as well.

Gary

Reside in Princeton, New Jersey USA: As an advocate for children everywhere (I just returned from a medical mission to Thailand and visited Cambodia; I have also worked in Latin America and visit Europe), one of the most alarming trends everywhere, in my view, is the pervasive marketing of products to children. For example, many consumer advocates and pediatricians in the US blame the current rise in childhood obesity on the pervasive advertising of snack foods and sodas during children's TV programming. It is my understanding that several Scandinavian countries have banned all advertising to children. Could you please comment on this topic? Many thanks.

Gary Gardner and Erik Assadourian : Yes, Sweden for example has banned advertising to children. The evidence is growingly clear that children can't discern programming from advertising and are being manipulated by the advertising industry as they now represent a market of $405 billion. However, this is coming at a tragic cost, the health of children. Of course it's not ONLY soda or junkfood that is leading to increasing obesity of children--the consumer culture stimulates a sedentary lifestyle too: spread out suburbs that are hard to walk around, videogames, TV, etc.--but it is clear that at the MOST refined sugar should make up 10% of one's diet (as it has no nutritional value, it could healthily make up 0%). 10% translates to 200-300 calories depending on daily intake. That's basically one soda. But there's so much refined sugar in other foods, and then there's desserts, that Americans are getting closer to 25 to 30% of their calories from sugar. This often means an excess of calories or too few nutrients--leading to health problems. This is even more serious an issue with children who are still growing and depend more on nutrient-rich diets. Center for Science in the Public Interest does a lot of work on this subject--from getting the US to stop weakening the new WHO report on obesity to getting major companies like Coca-Cola from sponsoring children's movies like Harry Potter (if interested you should look there for more information www.cspinet.org).

-Erik

Boston, MA: There is ample evidence to support the claim that capitalism has diminished environmental quality as well as personal physical and mental health by creating artificial needs and wants which are unsustainable economicically and environmentally. Are there any good examples of successful efforts in modern Western societies to reject or at least maintain some skepticism with regard to the urges of capitalism?

Gary Gardner and Erik Assadourian : I wish there were more large-scale examples. We're talking about a major cultural shift that needs to be made, and that is neither quick nor easy.

Still, there are signs of progress. In Europe, the number of people who are voluntarily reducing working hours has grown by about five percent per year over the last five year. Sales of organic produce have surged in Europe and the U.S. And the number of people who embrace vegetarianism is on the rise as well. So there are some positive trends.

Zarzis Tunisia: In only one generation,our society is diving slowly but surely from a "Bio-rural" way of life to a blind consumption manner. (we know and see its bad impact on environment). Is it possible to "capitlize" the old and traditionnal Bio way of life by manufacturing and proposings it's integrated products ? An alternative to the wild strike on local mails, should stay possible.

Gary Gardner and Erik Assadourian : Yes there are definitely ways to protect your traditional culture and in the process help protect against the negative effects of consumerism. One example comes from S. Korea, which as it industrialized, endured growing obesity rates and the health problems that go with this. Recognizing that much of this was coming from a changing diet, the government worked to promote the traditional diet--high in rice and vegetables and low in fat and sugar. The government used a combination of tactics, from media awareness, to education, to support for local farmers (which also helped local economies). Through this they reduced health problems, while also maintaining aspects of their traditional culture and way of life.

-Erik

Apia: What are some of the ways that consumption be changed in order to reduce waste in every day living?

Gary Gardner and Erik Assadourian : Lots of imaginative ideas are bubbling up these days to address your question. Look at Germany's packaging "take back" law of 1992. The law said that companies were responsible for the packaging they create, and that they had to "take it back" after it was tossed out. This had two immediate effects: packaging was reduced (do we really need the box that the toothpaste tube comes in?) and the packaging that remained was made recyclable. Great idea!

On the individual level, you can buy recycled and recyclable products; buy thinks in bulk, using your own container if possible; compost food scraps; and in general, try to reduce the amount of material that comes into the home in the first place.

Gary

Rochester, NY: With rise in consumption on a global basis what effect is this behavior having on personal debt? Moreover, is the rise in access to online services such as secure shopping a direct cause/affect of this rise in consumption?

Gary Gardner and Erik Assadourian : Yes, debt is definitely rising around the world. Bankruptcy rates are increasing, credit card companies are spreading around the world, encouraging people with easy access to credit and new consumers are taking the bait. One statistic that really makes me think: of American credit card users, 61% maintain a monthly balance--a balance which on average is $12,000. $12,000! At the average 16% interest rate, this leads to almost $2000 a year in interest payments. People are paying more just in credit card interest than the average income (in PPP) in over 35 countries. I'm sure most don't want to pay this, but get trapped in a work, spend cycle that they just can't get out of. And credit card companies don't want them to get out--the industry jargon for the 39% that pay off their credit cards each month is "dead beat". That's very telling.

As for online shopping, I'm not sure what it's relation is--it's definitely not simple. I would say it has stimulated consumption for some (what's more convenient than ordering online?) but maybe having to purchase different things from different sites has a moderating effect (which is minimized as one walks around a mall). What is more clear is that it is one more influence on the erosion of local business. Why walk to a local bookstore that has only 5,000 books when you can order the exact one you want for less off a website? Of course that has ramifications on one's local bookstore, but that's harder to see at the individual scale.

--Erik

Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Thanks for joining us today, Gary and Erik. Thank you as well to all of our participants who submitted questions!

Gary Gardner and Erik Assadourian : Sure Steve, it was our pleasure, and there were some great questions!

-Gary and Erik