The Problem with Consumerism

Summary

In 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

• 🌿 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.
• 🎄 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.
• 📈 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.
• 💰 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.
• 🏢 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.
• 🌍 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.
• 🚀 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.
• 🏡 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.
• 🌱 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.
• ♻️ 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

00:00

🌿 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.

05:07

🌱 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.

Keywords

💡Green Jobs

Green jobs refer to employment opportunities in industries that are directly involved in preserving or restoring the environment. In the video, South Korea's initiative to invest in environmental projects aimed to create one million green jobs as part of their strategy to stimulate economic growth and reduce carbon emissions.

💡Low Carbon Society

A low carbon society is one that minimizes the amount of greenhouse gases produced and promotes sustainable practices to mitigate climate change. The video discusses South Korea's goal to create such a society through significant investments in environmental projects.

💡Emissions

Emissions refer to the release of pollutants or greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The video highlights the paradox where, despite investments in clean energy, South Korea's emissions rose by 11.8% from 2009 to 2014, indicating a failure in their green growth strategy.

💡Consumption

Consumption in this context refers to the use of goods and services, often leading to increased carbon emissions. The video emphasizes that consumption, particularly in rich countries, is a significant driver of climate change and a challenge for the green energy revolution.

💡Overconsumption

Overconsumption is the act of using resources beyond what is necessary or sustainable. The video script points out that overconsumption, especially during events like Christmas in the United States, leads to a significant increase in emissions and waste.

💡Carbon Footprint

A carbon footprint represents the total amount of greenhouse gases produced by an individual, organization, or event. The video discusses how the concept of personal carbon footprint has been used as a tool to shift the blame for climate change from corporations to individuals.

💡GDP Growth

GDP growth refers to the increase in a country's Gross Domestic Product, often associated with economic prosperity. However, the video argues that the pursuit of GDP growth can counteract efforts to reduce emissions, as it can lead to increased energy consumption and carbon emissions.

💡Decoupling Emissions from Growth

Decoupling emissions from growth means reducing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per unit of economic output. The video suggests that while this is a goal, it is not sufficient to prevent the worst impacts of climate change without also addressing overconsumption.

💡Degrowth

Degrowth is an economic concept that advocates for the intentional reduction of consumption and production levels to achieve environmental sustainability. The video concludes that degrowth should be seriously considered as a strategy to tackle the climate emergency.

💡Corporate Responsibility

Corporate responsibility refers to the idea that companies should be accountable for their impact on society and the environment. The video script criticizes the role of corporations in promoting overconsumption and suggests that they should play a more active role in addressing climate change.

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,  

into environmental projects, hoping to  create one million green jobs over the next  

five years. The goal was to spur growth  in a slumping economy while simultaneously  

creating a low carbon society. In one sense,  the plan worked. South Korea’s economic system  

did eventually recover, but in a more important  sense, the plan failed. From 2009 to 2014,  

Korea’s emissions rose 11.8%. So, despite massive  investments in clean energy, railway expansion,  

and energy efficiency, South Korea’s emissions  still climbed. So what happened? Why didn’t South  

Korea’s green growth strategy work? Today,  we’ll answer that question and more in order  

to understand one of the insidious spectres that  haunts the green energy revolution: consumption.

How consumption is causing Climate Change:

It’s December and the streets of New  York City are filled with Christmas.  

Stores, trees, lights, bags, packages, and  trash. Christmas in America is a sacred  

capitalist holiday wherein the average American  explodes their average yearly emissions footprint  

by roughly 650kg of CO2e, while spending a  cumulative $2.6 billion on wrapping paper.  

Up until around 150 years ago, however, the  holiday rarely saw a wrapped present in sight.  

But then unofficial holidays like Black Friday and  department stores like Macy’s started to encourage  

shoppers to fill their carts with tech and  trinkets as a means of expressing care and love.  

Now, Christmas shopping epitomizes the consumer  experience in the United States. It's driven by a  

complex mix of personal desire, social pressures,  status signaling, stress, and propaganda  

that work, in many instances, not to increase  personal well-being, but to pad the pocketbooks  

of corporations. Advertisements on Instagram and  billboards in Times Square bombard us with visions  

of what we could be if only we had that watch or  that phone, which locks us into a world where,  

in order to find happiness or comfort or  political change, we need to buy...stuff.  

But a range of studies consistently found that  once a person’s needs are met, extra consumption  

does not increase their well-being. And buying  new phones, clothes, and gadgets all have an  

environmental price tag. Despite the fact that 100  companies were found to be the root cause of 70%  

of global emissions, the reality is that the  people using those companies’ products and burning  

their fuel are us. Or rather, I should say,  primarily rich communities and countries. Because  

consumption levels are not equal across the world,  the average American uses over 100 times the  

energy as someone from India. And if everyone  in the world were to live in the same way the  

average German does right now, global emissions  would double. So as those in rich countries  

gorge on luxury items and the newest tech, they  use energy and emit at much higher rates than  

countries in the majority world, which often are  the ones feeling the brunt of climate disasters

Why we can’t buy our way out of climate change:

The blame for overconsumption should not and can  not be placed solely on individuals. Companies  

and corporations have a vested interest in  making you buy more stuff because if they don’t  

they go bankrupt. Which is why they slap  green labels onto their products and advertise  

everywhere. Indeed, the whole idea of a personal  carbon footprint is a propaganda campaign created  

by the fossil fuel giant BP. The move allowed  them to lock-in decades of fossil fuel use  

by turning the attention away from their  complicity in climate change, and instead  

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  

to buy more then, is that your dollar is your  vote. An idea which stands in stark contrast  

to the democratic ideal of one person, one vote.  We are led to believe that growing the economy,  

which for the individual means buying more,  whether it be supporting new green tech,  

or wearing sustainably-made clothing, is how  we stop climate change. But the reality is that  

this capitalist growth model counteracts the work  being done to decrease emissions. Over the last 40  

years, global emissions have skyrocketed despite  dramatic expansions of renewable and energy  

efficiency technologies. Yes, growth does lead  to an expansion of new sustainable innovations,  

but it also leads to the expansion of fossil  fuel-intensive industries. Just one percent  

growth in GDP leads to a 0.5 to 0.8% increase in  carbon emissions. And if we continue to grow at 3  

percent per year, by 2043, the global economy will  be two times larger than it is now, which means  

energy consumption will be larger and the task  of transitioning towards a zero-carbon world will  

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  

energy demands, or what’s known as  decoupling emissions from growth,  

will be an extremely difficult task. A  task that South Korea attempted back 2009  

and ran headfirst into the consequences of a  growth-centered economy. The reason why South  

Korea’s emissions still rose 11.8% over five  years is that their total energy consumption  

outpaced renewable installation and energy  efficiency projects. So the emissions they  

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  

equivalent of three times the current global  population if global consumption levels drop  

60% back down to 1960 levels. Most notably  though, the paper claims that this is possible  

while still maintaining or even improving a  decent lifestyle for all. And within their  

definition of a decent living. the researchers  include laptops, comfortable climate control,  

access to robust transportation networks and  universal healthcare. In order to achieve this  

world wherein everyone is able to enjoy  a decent lifestyle while also avoiding  

a climate emergency, the researchers suggest  a dual-pronged approach. On the demand-side,  

consumption levels must drop by as much as 95%  in countries with today’s highest per-capita  

consumers. That means no more second houses  or eating red meat every single day of the  

week. This then must be simultaneously coupled  with massive rollouts of advanced technology  

in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and  other sectors. Together, the model predicts,  

these scenarios could allow the global population  to live well in a zero carbon world. And if all  

this sounds scary, Hope Jahren, author of The  Story of More, compares this future lifestyle  

to that of someone living in Switzerland in the  1960s, which, to me, doesn't sound that bad,  

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  what’s known as decoupling emissions from growth  

is not enough to quickly prevent the worst-case  climate change scenario. Reducing consumption  

has to be integrated into our solutions toolkit if  we are to quickly tackle the climate crisis before  

2050. But the burden of this task should not  be laid upon the individual, it’s the job of  

governments and the very corporations who created  the mess in the first place to facilitate this  

drop in consumption. Imagine for a moment,  if instead of lobbying for fuel subsidies  

and spending millions telling us to decrease our  carbon footprint, BP was required to address its  

complicity in climate change by leaving fossil  fuels in the ground and developing renewable  

energy, rapid public transportation, and energy  efficiency technologies. I’d imagine the task  

of reducing our own consumption and emissions  would probably be a lot easier. Ultimately,  

degrowth is a path we need to take seriously  if we are to tackle the climate emergency.  

While I can’t pretend to predict the far reaching  consequences reducing growth would create,  

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  

or just stumbled across this video and are  wondering how you can help me make more videos,  

then consider supporting the show on Patreon. As  an OCC patron, you’ll gain early access to videos,  

special behind the scenes updates, as well  as a members-only group chat. In addition,  

each month my supporters vote on an environmental  group that I then donate a portion of my monthly  

revenue to. So if you want to support the  channel or are feeling generous, head over  

to patreon.com/ourchangingclimate and become an  OCC patron. If you’re not interested or aren’t  

financially able, then no worries! I hope you  enjoyed the video, and I’ll see you in two weeks!