How Far Can We Reduce Consumption? It's a Serious Question.
A request for your specific input
Many of my readers know that I have been suspicious of a consumption reduction strategy for solving climate change in my writings, but I have to admit, most of that suspicion has been based on intuition. It has just never seemed reasonable to me that we could reduce our way out of climate change. Rather, we would need to change the way we produce as the primary strategy. But people keep challenging that notion, so I thought it would be good to consider it further, look for data, and see what you all have to say about the one burning question I can’t get an answer to — how much consumption reduction will solve the problem?
Your input requested
To pursue this, I am pursuing two angles. First, I found some data published by the UN, which I will share and discuss in a minute. But second, and more importantly, I would like to hear from readers about what you mean by “reducing consumption.” It occurs to me that I may completely misunderstand what you have meant. It is easy to criticize something you don’t fully understand, and I fear I may have made that mistake. I also want to understand because I am about to undertake a research study about people’s attitudes toward climate change and the various solutions using in-depth qualitative interviews (something I used to do as a consultant) and hopefully come to a better understanding of what is viable. I don’t want to approach that study with a faulty set of assumptions. Hence, if readers will provide comments below on what reducing consumption means, especially at the individual level, I would appreciate it.
To be clear, I am very interested to know your answers to these questions:
How much must total consumption be reduced to meet the primary climate goal of net zero emissions by 2050?
How much should each individual reduce consumption from their current level as a contribution?
I look forward to seeing your answers in the comments.
Now for the UN’s data
I assume that the first primary objective every climate activist shares is to get to a net zero state of emissions. Certainly, that is the main goal articulated in the Paris accords. A UN page says this: “To keep global warming to no more than 1.5°C — as called for in the Paris Agreement — emissions need to be reduced by 45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050.” The same report goes on to say: “More than 70 countries, including the biggest polluters — China, the United States, and the European Union — have set a net-zero target, covering about 76% of global emissions.” This suggests that a 76% reduction in emissions will get us to net zero.
Another question…
So, here is the third question: Does that number, a 76% reduction in emissions, equate to a 76% reduction in consumption if consumption reduction is the primary strategy? If not, how much of that emissions reduction will come from consumption reduction, and where will the other reduction come from? As I see it, the primary alternative to consumption reduction is the shift to renewable energy production, but if there are other strategies, what are those? The final answer, in other words, is in the form of these four examples:
76% from consumption reduction, 0% from other sources
52% from consumption reduction, 24% from other sources
33% from consumption reduction, 43% from other sources
0% from consumption reduction, 76% from other sources
What’s your ratio? Mathematically speaking, all of these add up to the necessary 76% reduction articulated by the UN, so if they can be reached, the solution will work — according to the science.
In answering, I would invite you to avoid platitudes like, “If we don’t reduce consumption, we’re doomed.” I get it. I’ve read that a hundred times. I am asking for specifics so that I can see if my assumptions have been incorrect, and then assess the viability of people adopting the strategies we are recommending. That’s where my research is going, but first, we need to know what numbers we are shooting for, and I would prefer that to reflect the general notions of the climate writer’s community.
Thank you in advance for your input.