The Problem with Consumerism
Summary
TLDRIn 2009, South Korea invested heavily in environmental projects to create green jobs and reduce emissions, but emissions still rose due to increased consumption. This video explores the impact of consumption on climate change, highlighting how overconsumption, especially in wealthy nations, contributes to higher emissions. It challenges the notion that economic growth and individual consumer choices can solve climate change, suggesting instead that significant reductions in consumption, particularly in high-consuming countries, coupled with advanced technology, are necessary for a sustainable future.
Takeaways
- đż In 2009, South Korea invested 2% of its GDP into environmental projects aiming to create one million green jobs and reduce emissions, but emissions still rose by 11.8% from 2009 to 2014.
- đ The script uses Christmas in America as an example of how consumption spikes, with an average increase of 650kg of CO2e per person, largely due to shopping and waste.
- đ The script argues that consumption, not just production, is a significant driver of climate change, with rich communities and countries contributing disproportionately more due to higher consumption levels.
- đ° The narrative around personal carbon footprints is critiqued as a distraction from corporate and systemic responsibility, with the concept itself traced back to a campaign by the fossil fuel company BP.
- đą Corporations are incentivized to promote overconsumption, and their strategies, such as greenwashing, are highlighted as tactics to shift blame onto individuals rather than addressing their own contributions to emissions.
- đ The script suggests that global consumption levels need to drop significantly, proposing a model where a 60% reduction could support three times the current global population by 2050.
- đ The video calls for a dual approach: drastic reduction in consumption, especially in high-consuming countries, and a massive rollout of advanced technologies in energy efficiency and renewable energy.
- đĄ The concept of a 'decent lifestyle' is redefined in the context of reduced consumption, suggesting that a 1960s Swiss standard of living could be globally achievable and sustainable.
- đ± The video emphasizes that the burden of reducing consumption should not fall on individuals alone but must be addressed by governments and corporations through policy and innovation.
- â»ïž The script concludes that degrowth and reduced consumption must be seriously considered to tackle the climate crisis effectively, suggesting that smaller global needs will ease the transition to a sustainable future.
Q & A
What significant action did South Korea take in 2009 regarding environmental projects?
-In 2009, South Korea invested 2% of its GDP, which was around $38.1 billion, into environmental projects with the aim of creating one million green jobs over the next five years.
What was the primary goal of South Korea's investment in environmental projects?
-The primary goal was to stimulate economic growth during a period of economic downturn while also working towards the creation of a low carbon society.
Despite investments in clean energy, what was the outcome for South Korea's emissions from 2009 to 2014?
-Despite significant investments, South Korea's emissions rose by 11.8% from 2009 to 2014, indicating that the green growth strategy did not achieve its intended environmental outcomes.
How does the script suggest that consumption is a major factor in climate change?
-The script suggests that consumption is a major factor in climate change by highlighting how holidays like Christmas in the United States lead to increased emissions due to excessive shopping and waste.
What is the average American's increase in CO2 emissions during the Christmas season?
-The average American's CO2 emissions increase by roughly 650kg of CO2e during the Christmas season.
What role do advertisements play in promoting consumption, according to the script?
-Advertisements play a significant role in promoting consumption by creating desires and social pressures that encourage people to buy more, often for the benefit of corporations rather than personal well-being.
How does the script explain the disparity in energy consumption between rich and poor countries?
-The script explains that the average American uses over 100 times the energy of someone from India, highlighting the unequal consumption levels across the world and the higher emissions from rich countries.
What is the script's stance on the effectiveness of buying green products to combat climate change?
-The script suggests that buying green products alone is not enough to combat climate change, as it does not address the root cause of overconsumption and the capitalist growth model that drives it.
What does the script propose as a potential solution to reduce global emissions?
-The script proposes that a significant reduction in consumption levels, especially in high per-capita consuming countries, coupled with the rollout of advanced technology in energy efficiency and renewable energy, could help reduce global emissions.
How does the script suggest that the responsibility for reducing consumption and emissions should be shared?
-The script suggests that the responsibility for reducing consumption and emissions should not fall solely on individuals but should be shared by governments and corporations, which should facilitate a drop in consumption and invest in sustainable technologies.
What is the term used in the script to describe the economic model that focuses on reducing growth to address climate change?
-The term used in the script to describe the economic model that focuses on reducing growth to address climate change is 'degrowth'.
Outlines
đż South Korea's Green Growth Initiatives and Their Impact
In 2009, South Korea invested 2% of its GDP into environmental projects with the aim of creating one million green jobs and fostering a low carbon society. Despite economic recovery, the country's emissions rose by 11.8% from 2009 to 2014. This increase highlights the challenges of balancing economic growth with environmental sustainability. The video explores the role of consumption in climate change, using the example of Christmas in America, where the holiday season significantly increases emissions and consumer spending. The narrative critiques the consumer-driven culture and its environmental consequences, emphasizing that consumption patterns in wealthy countries disproportionately contribute to global emissions.
đ± Addressing Overconsumption and the Path to a Sustainable Future
The video discusses the difficulty of decoupling emissions from economic growth, using South Korea's experience as a case study. It suggests that reducing consumption, particularly in high-consuming countries, is crucial for addressing climate change. A study mentioned in the video proposes that global consumption levels could be reduced to 1960 levels by 2050 while still maintaining a decent lifestyle for all. This would involve a significant drop in consumption in wealthy nations and a massive rollout of advanced technologies in energy efficiency and renewable energy. The video concludes by emphasizing the need for governments and corporations to facilitate this shift towards a more sustainable and equitable global economy.
Mindmap
Keywords
đĄGreen Jobs
đĄLow Carbon Society
đĄEmissions
đĄConsumption
đĄOverconsumption
đĄCarbon Footprint
đĄGDP Growth
đĄDecoupling Emissions from Growth
đĄDegrowth
đĄCorporate Responsibility
Highlights
South Korea invested 2% of its GDP into environmental projects in 2009, aiming to create one million green jobs.
Despite investments, South Korea's emissions rose by 11.8% from 2009 to 2014.
The video explores the relationship between consumption and climate change.
Christmas in America increases the average American's yearly emissions footprint by roughly 650kg of CO2e.
Consumer culture and advertising influence individuals to buy more, contributing to environmental impact.
Extra consumption beyond meeting basic needs does not increase well-being.
Global emissions are disproportionately caused by wealthy communities and countries.
The average American uses over 100 times the energy as someone from India.
The video critiques the idea that economic growth can solve climate change.
South Korea's emissions increased due to total energy consumption outpacing renewable installations.
A study suggests global consumption levels could be reduced to 1960 levels while maintaining a decent lifestyle.
To achieve a zero-carbon world, consumption must drop significantly in high per-capita consuming countries.
The video proposes a dual-pronged approach involving reduced consumption and advanced technology rollouts.
Hope Jahren compares the future lifestyle to that of someone living in Switzerland in the 1960s.
The video argues for the necessity of integrating reduced consumption into climate change solutions.
The burden of reducing consumption should be on governments and corporations, not individuals.
Degrowth is presented as a serious path to tackle the climate emergency.
Transcripts
This video was made possible by the people who support me on Patreon.
In 2009, South Korea did something remarkable. The country poured 2% of its GDP, some $38.1 billion, Â
into environmental projects, hoping to create one million green jobs over the next Â
five years. The goal was to spur growth in a slumping economy while simultaneously Â
creating a low carbon society. In one sense, the plan worked. South Koreaâs economic system Â
did eventually recover, but in a more important sense, the plan failed. From 2009 to 2014, Â
Koreaâs emissions rose 11.8%. So, despite massive investments in clean energy, railway expansion, Â
and energy efficiency, South Koreaâs emissions still climbed. So what happened? Why didnât South Â
Koreaâs green growth strategy work? Today, weâll answer that question and more in order Â
to understand one of the insidious spectres that haunts the green energy revolution: consumption.
How consumption is causing Climate Change:
Itâs December and the streets of New York City are filled with Christmas. Â
Stores, trees, lights, bags, packages, and trash. Christmas in America is a sacred Â
capitalist holiday wherein the average American explodes their average yearly emissions footprint Â
by roughly 650kg of CO2e, while spending a cumulative $2.6 billion on wrapping paper. Â
Up until around 150 years ago, however, the holiday rarely saw a wrapped present in sight. Â
But then unofficial holidays like Black Friday and department stores like Macyâs started to encourage Â
shoppers to fill their carts with tech and trinkets as a means of expressing care and love. Â
Now, Christmas shopping epitomizes the consumer experience in the United States. It's driven by a Â
complex mix of personal desire, social pressures, status signaling, stress, and propaganda Â
that work, in many instances, not to increase personal well-being, but to pad the pocketbooks Â
of corporations. Advertisements on Instagram and billboards in Times Square bombard us with visions Â
of what we could be if only we had that watch or that phone, which locks us into a world where, Â
in order to find happiness or comfort or political change, we need to buy...stuff. Â
But a range of studies consistently found that once a personâs needs are met, extra consumption Â
does not increase their well-being. And buying new phones, clothes, and gadgets all have an Â
environmental price tag. Despite the fact that 100Â companies were found to be the root cause of 70%Â Â
of global emissions, the reality is that the people using those companiesâ products and burning Â
their fuel are us. Or rather, I should say, primarily rich communities and countries. Because Â
consumption levels are not equal across the world, the average American uses over 100 times the Â
energy as someone from India. And if everyone in the world were to live in the same way the Â
average German does right now, global emissions would double. So as those in rich countries Â
gorge on luxury items and the newest tech, they use energy and emit at much higher rates than Â
countries in the majority world, which often are the ones feeling the brunt of climate disasters
Why we canât buy our way out of climate change:
The blame for overconsumption should not and can not be placed solely on individuals. Companies Â
and corporations have a vested interest in making you buy more stuff because if they donât Â
they go bankrupt. Which is why they slap green labels onto their products and advertise Â
everywhere. Indeed, the whole idea of a personal carbon footprint is a propaganda campaign created Â
by the fossil fuel giant BP. The move allowed them to lock-in decades of fossil fuel use Â
by turning the attention away from their complicity in climate change, and instead Â
blaming the individual for not living a low carbon lifestyle or not buying the right thing.
The natural conclusion in a system riddled with ads and cultural norms imploring all your senses Â
to buy more then, is that your dollar is your vote. An idea which stands in stark contrast Â
to the democratic ideal of one person, one vote. We are led to believe that growing the economy, Â
which for the individual means buying more, whether it be supporting new green tech, Â
or wearing sustainably-made clothing, is how we stop climate change. But the reality is that Â
this capitalist growth model counteracts the work being done to decrease emissions. Over the last 40 Â
years, global emissions have skyrocketed despite dramatic expansions of renewable and energy Â
efficiency technologies. Yes, growth does lead to an expansion of new sustainable innovations, Â
but it also leads to the expansion of fossil fuel-intensive industries. Just one percent Â
growth in GDP leads to a 0.5 to 0.8% increase in carbon emissions. And if we continue to grow at 3 Â
percent per year, by 2043, the global economy will be two times larger than it is now, which means Â
energy consumption will be larger and the task of transitioning towards a zero-carbon world will Â
be much harder. So, something's got to give. And that something is consumption in rich countries.
What options do we have?
The unfortunate reality is that expanding zero-carbon technologies to meet global Â
energy demands, or whatâs known as decoupling emissions from growth, Â
will be an extremely difficult task. AÂ task that South Korea attempted back 2009Â Â
and ran headfirst into the consequences of a growth-centered economy. The reason why South Â
Koreaâs emissions still rose 11.8% over five years is that their total energy consumption Â
outpaced renewable installation and energy efficiency projects. So the emissions they Â
saved with green technology were nullified by their overall increase in consumption levels.
So then, what options do we have? A recent study modeled that by 2050 the world could support the Â
equivalent of three times the current global population if global consumption levels drop Â
60% back down to 1960 levels. Most notably though, the paper claims that this is possible Â
while still maintaining or even improving a decent lifestyle for all. And within their Â
definition of a decent living. the researchers include laptops, comfortable climate control, Â
access to robust transportation networks and universal healthcare. In order to achieve this Â
world wherein everyone is able to enjoy a decent lifestyle while also avoiding Â
a climate emergency, the researchers suggest a dual-pronged approach. On the demand-side, Â
consumption levels must drop by as much as 95% in countries with todayâs highest per-capita Â
consumers. That means no more second houses or eating red meat every single day of the Â
week. This then must be simultaneously coupled with massive rollouts of advanced technology Â
in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other sectors. Together, the model predicts, Â
these scenarios could allow the global population to live well in a zero carbon world. And if all Â
this sounds scary, Hope Jahren, author of The Story of More, compares this future lifestyle Â
to that of someone living in Switzerland in the 1960s, which, to me, doesn't sound that bad, Â
especially considering that everyone in the world would be able to live the 1960s Swiss life.
Big questions, with big consequences:
The key point here is that reducing emissions or whatâs known as decoupling emissions from growth Â
is not enough to quickly prevent the worst-case climate change scenario. Reducing consumption Â
has to be integrated into our solutions toolkit if we are to quickly tackle the climate crisis before Â
2050. But the burden of this task should not be laid upon the individual, itâs the job of Â
governments and the very corporations who created the mess in the first place to facilitate this Â
drop in consumption. Imagine for a moment, if instead of lobbying for fuel subsidies Â
and spending millions telling us to decrease our carbon footprint, BP was required to address its Â
complicity in climate change by leaving fossil fuels in the ground and developing renewable Â
energy, rapid public transportation, and energy efficiency technologies. Iâd imagine the task Â
of reducing our own consumption and emissions would probably be a lot easier. Ultimately, Â
degrowth is a path we need to take seriously if we are to tackle the climate emergency. Â
While I canât pretend to predict the far reaching consequences reducing growth would create, Â
I do know one thing: the smaller our global needs, the easier the transition will be.
Hey everyone, Charlie here. If you've been watching Our Changing Climate for a while Â
or just stumbled across this video and are wondering how you can help me make more videos, Â
then consider supporting the show on Patreon. As an OCC patron, youâll gain early access to videos, Â
special behind the scenes updates, as well as a members-only group chat. In addition, Â
each month my supporters vote on an environmental group that I then donate a portion of my monthly Â
revenue to. So if you want to support the channel or are feeling generous, head over Â
to patreon.com/ourchangingclimate and become an OCC patron. If youâre not interested or arenât Â
financially able, then no worries! I hope you enjoyed the video, and Iâll see you in two weeks!
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)