Results: Three Schools of Thought on Reducing Consumption for Climate Change
(I ignore the deniers)
Sharing is loving! If you appreciate this piece, please share it freely.
My recent article How Far Can We Reduce Consumption? It’s a Serious Question presented an informal survey to readers to better understand the basic ideas circulating about consumption reduction as a strategy to reduce climate change. I've had twenty-five substantive responses, and many sub-comments. There seem to be three distinct schools of thought in the climate change community about reducing consumption—not counting the climate deniers—which I will outline shortly. First, let me remind you of the questions I posed.
The Main Questions Asked
In the article, I asked readers three key 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?
What ratio of GHG emissions reductions should come from consumption reduction vs. other sources?
I offered the UN IPCC number for an answer to question 1) but was interested in whether or not there were other answers. None materialized. IPCC says the number we need to hit is a 76% reduction in emissions to get to net zero, so I assumed a 1-1 correspondence between consumption and emissions—i.e., if emissions must go down by 76%, consumption would have to do the same to meet that goal if nothing else changes. Since no one but a denier challenged 76% as the goal, which I expected, I formulated possible answers to question 3) this way:
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
Distilling all the 25 comments received so far, here are a few findings I can see that can inform the discussion going forward.
Three Schools of Thought (Not Counting the Deniers)
There seem to be three distinct schools of thought in the climate change writers' community. Roughly speaking, they are A) the group that wants to overhaul how people live and advocate the reduction of consumption by 50-70% mostly at the personal level; B) the group that sees the “consumption” in the system and advocates reducing it there; and C) the group that puts more faith in technological fixes like renewable energy and electrification. All of them showed up in these comments, and many have commented elsewhere on Medium, including my other posts. To get an idea of them, I can paint these portraits.
Advocates of Personal Consumption Reduction
Primary to these folks is the contention that consumption reduction is essential to solving climate change. One guy went on and on about people idling their cars at fast food drive-ups. Another was incensed that people drive their cars at all. Yet another visualizes eliminating all private transport, developing regenerative agriculture, and eliminating meat as a dietary option. Another says: “Stop growth and go into low level maintenance. No new anything. Everything has to last. Reduce population, demographic decline. Dismantle old stuff when no longer needed in order to obtain new resources. Manual labor to replace much machinery. Work slowdown. Stop all make work…” You get the picture. Most folks in this category believe that people in the West, especially, can “reduce their consumption by easily 50% with minimal lifestyle impact…” Some say 70%.
I asked one such commenter how one would get home with six bags of groceries for the family if he didn’t have a car. He sent me a photo of a backpack. I didn’t follow up with a question about getting lumber for a home remodeling project.
What I notice in many of these comments is an animus toward modern life, as well as capitalism. “That means degrowth must be the economic model. Capitalism drives consumption so we must abandon that system…” And later in response to someone else’s comment: “But the top 10% must end their excessive lifestyles, committing billions to death.”
A second thing I notice is a total lack of a plan. Most people's essential carbon footprint comes from commuting, eating, and heating or cooling homes. The second ring of consumption lies in entertainment, travel, socializing, home décor, and home improvements. A third ring derives from their work—the heating and cooling of that building, the expenditure of emissions to produce goods or services, etc. The advocates of personal consumption reduction offer little in the way of what and how to reduce here, except for “drive less, fly less, eat less steak, outlaw advertising, and otherwise voluntarily spin down their lifestyles…” "Spinning down lifestyles" is not a plan. There are no objectives, no goals, and no milestones. There is no indicator as to how the individual has done given their initial baseline.
Although I have many thoughts as to why this is the case, suffice it to say that a position advocated without a plan on something as important as climate change is, at best, a red herring. I would challenge these advocates to articulate their real plan and consider the impacts. For example, when someone says we should just do away with cars, a million questions come up. What happens to the employees of car companies, auto repair shops, gas stations, and car rental companies just to get started? What happens to the millions of families whose most valuable asset—their home—is wiped out because of the collapse in suburban real estate prices? How will it be better that parents, who used to be home before their kids, now are stuck on trains and arrive home hours after their children get home from school instead of being there for them? I'm not saying there aren't answers, nor that they might even be very good answers. It’s just that advocates of this position need to deal with the answers to be taken seriously.
I should also note that other commenters indicate that they have serious reservations about the consumption reduction programs and mandates as well. One said, with perhaps more attitude than was necessary, “Reorganize all of humanity in eight years to make you feel better. Got it. Stop growing enough food for everyone. Got it. Stop travel, and prevent people from earning a living. Got it. You really should check out North Korea.” And another said, “I can see how those suggestions add up to move all the needles in the right direction… but those are BIG societal, psychological changes. I think we’d see fascism blow sky high in rebellion and burn it all down rather than have any of this “forced” on their choice to consume… People might want the results, but can they make the changes? Probably not.”
In many ways, this little microcosm captures the essential problem with the consumption reduction position—it evokes such resistance that it is simply not practical as a solution, and in my mind at least, any solution needs everyone on board. It cannot be that there are do-gooders who sacrifice so that others can play. I get that this is already how things are, in a way, but as a solution to advocate, this will get us nowhere near the participation that is needed.
Advocates of Consumption Reduction at a Systemic Level
There was a group of more interesting comments about consumption reduction at the systemic level. One effort to define such consumption was made by a commenter thus: “What climate scientists are talking about when they talk about consumption is a nation’s material footprint: the total mass of material extraction within its borders, plus the mass of its imports, minus the mass of its exports.” The discussion of consumption reduction as a strategy would help if this definition were widely used. It would require a systemic look at things. For example, I don't know how much oil, gas, and coal production adds to the equation for "total mass of extraction" and "mass of imports" but I imagine it is significant enough to radically change the calculation for most industrialized nations. Ostensibly, those numbers could change without the lifestyle changes the first group insists are needed anyway. Convert the entire automobile fleet to EVs, use electricity from non-fossil fuel sources, and the driving can remain while nation-level consumption decreases.
Several commenters saw that the notion of reducing consumption as a straight-line impact on emissions reduction was implausible. One primary reason cited was the growth in population in the developing world, which will easily outstrip any gains from conservation in the industrialized world. As one said, “movements like minimalism or such are not going to achieve the changes we are seeking.” Another figured that 10% of the reduction in emissions we need may come from consumption reduction, but the other 66% would need to come from technology replacement. These folks were interested in seeing through to the causes, as well. By restricting choices upstream, you can change things downstream without much notice. “…if you go to the supermarket and you find cheap products wrapped in plastic, you are likely to buy them. But if you don’t find any plastic, you won’t even think about it.”
Advocates for Technological Change
These folks are putting their confidence and hopes in technological advancement creating the change we need. A good example of this attitude is in this comment: “As the developing world modernizes, overall consumption will likely increase, not decrease - so “other” solutions like clean cement and clean steel will become more important. R&D to make those technologies affordable is key, as well as smart grids and other infrastructure to make renewables workable.” Another said, “So, according to this one policy adviser, the answer to your question seems to be the fourth option, 0% from consumption reduction, 76% from renewable sources.”
Most of my readers know that I am skeptical that we can reduce our way out of climate change. Humanity aspires to live what they see as a better life, and most of the time, that perception results in more consumption, not less. Hence, any consumption-only strategy is doomed to failure. It means emitting less carbon only until the population develops and catches up, and then we will be right back where we started. Rather, we need to get the energy and power we need in a different way, and technology is critical for that. Electrification and renewable energy are leading the conversion, but deep in the roots of our industrial society, we have other processes—like cement and steel production, how we obtain minerals and materials, how we produce food, etc.—that will also make huge differences that are unseen to most of us, but critical for our world.
But, One Person Articulated a Bigger Picture
For my reading, one of the more compelling comments came from T. J. Brearton, and it argues for a more holistic picture than any of these groups of advocates contains by itself. He said: “If you consider that every fraction of a degree counts at this point, in terms of lives lost to climate disasters, climate-related suffering -- as well as GDP / economic growth -- then a reduction in consumption seems an absolute must as well. A no brainer. We should all be consuming less to slow the pace of emissions, habitat loss, species extinction, etc., for sake of these things and their knock-on effects. If we can stave off major tipping points for a few more years, it may buy us time to put more decarbonization measures in effect, cool the poles, etc. So my personal view is that consumption reduction is one part of an "all hands on deck" approach.”
Consider me converted. T.J. is right that every little thing we can do right now is important. Our house is on fire, and we need to do everything we can as a global human population. Yes, reduce consumption as much as you can right now. It's not a long-term strategy or solution, but since every fraction of a degree does count, as T.J. says, let's all do our part to keep it from getting worse.
But let's also recognize that this isn't nearly enough. We are going to have to build an economy that does not burn fossil fuels—or anything for that matter—as a primary source of energy. The less energy we use as we convert, the sooner the conversion will happen. Net zero emissions doesn't mean that we are not burning fossil fuels at all. It means that we are generating atmospheric carbon at a rate that the natural biosphere can process and handle appropriately without tipping over the ecological systems that balance the earth. IPCC says that we need to reduce emissions by 76% to get there. If we continue to use energy at the same level we are today, that means 76% of our energy has to come from emission-free sources. However, if 10% of our energy use goes away through a reduction of consumption, only 68% of the benchmark needs to come from emission-free sources to get to net zero. Even moreso if we reduce usage further. In other words, the strategies go hand in hand. They are not competitive—they are complementary.
Summary
I hope this overview is helpful, and I want to thank everyone who participated. It is a unique opportunity to hold a meaningful discussion online on Medium. I intend to pose more questions on this in the future, and look forward to hearing the input of all who participate.
Anthony Signorelli
As always, you provide a thoughtful analysis of various options in a realistic way. Thank you