CONSUMPTIONISM
Big Houses. Big Cars. Big Macs.
Over the past thirty years a host of factors have enabled Americans to consume at an alarming rate. Neither stagnant wage growth or economic calamities have limited American ability to continue purchasing iPhones, TVs, and the latest fashion. The suburban flight that started in the 1950s and 1960s remains America’s most indelible feature. The image of a home, a lawn, and a driveway with two cars has etched itself on the landscape with as much force as the Colorado River flowing through the Grand Canyon.
Over the past thirty years a host of factors have enabled Americans to consume at an alarming rate. Neither stagnant wage growth or economic calamities have limited American ability to continue purchasing iPhones, TVs, and the latest fashion. The suburban flight that started in the 1950s and 1960s remains America’s most indelible feature. The image of a home, a lawn, and a driveway with two cars has etched itself on the landscape with as much force as the Colorado River flowing through the Grand Canyon.
American households per capita consumption expenditure (good, services, and durable products) is $31,227 - the third highest behind Switzerland and Norway. Switzerland and Norway also rank first and second in cost of living; America ranks twenty-fourth. The lower cost of living helps in building the biggest homes in the world. A BBC review of 2006 construction showed that new homes in the U.S. averaged 2,303 square feet. In the U.K. new homes averaged 818 square feet.
Inside the home America leads in consuming 3,770 calories per day, barely edging out the Austrians and the Greeks. The recommended intake (which varies by age, weight, and height of individuals) is 2,600 for men and 1,800 for women. While calorie intake, food composition, and other factors may vary, at the end of the meal the American obesity rate of 35.5% is the highest in the world and nearly double the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) average of 18.4%. The food that can’t be finished, approximately thirty-five million tons (a 20% increase from 2000), is thrown in the trash. |
Energy consumption receives the most attention, although it’s always framed in terms of global warming and climate change perspective, not from the over consumption angle. For some, global warming and climate change may be an abstract concept. It’s difficult to show the impact a century long two degree rise in ocean temperatures has on polar bears.
Who cares about global warming?
Climate change shouldn’t matter. Over consumption of a natural resource via burning, regardless of what the emissions do in the atmosphere, should, one its own, be a significant enough concern to change purchasing and lifestyle behaviors.
The U.S. with approximately 5% of the world’s population, consumes over 20% of the world’s oil. Over consumption paints a much more clearer impact of consequences than yet to fully occur global warming effects. In 2013, BP estimated total proven oil reserves to be 1.7 trillion barrels. Based upon consumption levels BP calculated the reserves would last 53 years.
How significant is America's consumption of 20% of the world's oil? What if the rest of the world consumed resources like Americans? What if everyone lived in 2,303 square foot homes and ate 260 pounds of meat a year? What if everyone consumed energy at the same rate as Americans? Instead of having 53 years of oil reserves remaining, the world would have 11 years.
Who cares about global warming?
Climate change shouldn’t matter. Over consumption of a natural resource via burning, regardless of what the emissions do in the atmosphere, should, one its own, be a significant enough concern to change purchasing and lifestyle behaviors.
The U.S. with approximately 5% of the world’s population, consumes over 20% of the world’s oil. Over consumption paints a much more clearer impact of consequences than yet to fully occur global warming effects. In 2013, BP estimated total proven oil reserves to be 1.7 trillion barrels. Based upon consumption levels BP calculated the reserves would last 53 years.
How significant is America's consumption of 20% of the world's oil? What if the rest of the world consumed resources like Americans? What if everyone lived in 2,303 square foot homes and ate 260 pounds of meat a year? What if everyone consumed energy at the same rate as Americans? Instead of having 53 years of oil reserves remaining, the world would have 11 years.
The calculation is for shock purposes to illustrate America's disproportional energy consumption levels. The remaining oil reserves shows the PROVEN amount of oil that remains, not the ACTUAL amount of oil that remains. For example, in 1980 BP's calculations indicated there was 35 years of proven oil reserves. Improved extraction and reserve location techniques increased the proven reserves to 53 years in 2013 (driven primarily by new reserve discoveries in South America). It's possible that in 2020 the years of PROVEN oil will increase, thus I frame consumption as a disproportionate consumption argument than a short-term future supply dilemma. The analysis also does not take into consideration other forms of natural resource consumption, such as coal and natural gas, which have much longer years of remaining reserves on hand.
Nor is the U.S. alone in over consumption. Canadians consume at a higher rate. The Netherlands and Belgium are close behind. The broader analysis of natural resource consumption shows a first world vs. developing world divide. America may consume oil at twice the rate of Japan, Germany, France, and the U.K., however these countries all consume at twice to five times the rate as most developing countries. Chinese consumption is a 1/5th of Japan and Germany. India consumption is 1/10th. The concerns do not seem to be from "morality" of first world consumption; rather the concern focuses on what will happen to resources once the developing world starts to consume at first world levels. India has 18 cars per 1,000 people. China 101. What happens when these countries reach the 500 - 600 cars per people threshold of first world nations? What happens when they reach the US level of 893?
Nor is the U.S. alone in over consumption. Canadians consume at a higher rate. The Netherlands and Belgium are close behind. The broader analysis of natural resource consumption shows a first world vs. developing world divide. America may consume oil at twice the rate of Japan, Germany, France, and the U.K., however these countries all consume at twice to five times the rate as most developing countries. Chinese consumption is a 1/5th of Japan and Germany. India consumption is 1/10th. The concerns do not seem to be from "morality" of first world consumption; rather the concern focuses on what will happen to resources once the developing world starts to consume at first world levels. India has 18 cars per 1,000 people. China 101. What happens when these countries reach the 500 - 600 cars per people threshold of first world nations? What happens when they reach the US level of 893?
Will the world be able to sustain a growing population that consumes more resources?
The concept that economic and population growth will exceed and overtake the amount of available resources is an old concept, originally postulated by Thomas Malthus in 1798. Without having any insight into a rising Chinese middle class or the resource consumption impact of India, Malthus concluded that populations increased geometrically while food production increased only arithmetically - over several generations populations would exceed food supply. Malthus failed to conceive a second industrial revolution which brought a new wave of technological innovation and knowledge. Crop yields grew. Machines harvested and distributed food.
Malthus's theories were dormant but have gained new traction in recent years. Medical advances, such as improved childbirth facilities, Scientific development, such as clean water analysis, and Infrastructure investment, such as sewage lines have helped to increase life expectancy. People are living longer and have more years to reproduce. A world population that was "only" three billion in 1960 is over seven billion today. While the gross population numbers have increased significantly the year over year percentage increase has been on a gradual decline since the 1970s. The decrease in the growth percentage leads some analysts to believe world population will peak at nine billion by 2050; others believe the population will continue to grow to over twelve billion by 2100.
Perception is that innovation will continue to maximize available resources. Both car MPG and proven oil reserves have increased since the 1970s when these issues were initially raised. That does not unconditionally support present day over consumption. Future innovations are not a savior for past transgressions nor a harbinger for future behavioral adjustments.
In 1862, William Stanley Jevons observed that new technologies, which made energy, such as coal more efficient, lead to an increase in consumption, not a decrease as would be expected. The Jevon's Paradox contends that future energy efficiency innovations will not lead to a reduction in the gross amount of resources consumed.
Energy innovations do not happen in a vacuum. New uses and applications for energy occur separately from any efficiency improvements. Shifts to renewable energy sources does not match society's ability to create new things to use that energy. In 2015, this means that any increases in fuel efficiency or a switch to solar power will likely not lead to less consumption because we will be taking rides in Elon Musk and Richard Branson's spaceships - society develops commercial spaceship rides before we've secured the energy to ensure the project's long-term feasibility. Elon Musk hopes to reduce the cost of space rides by developing reusable rockets...not by developing a reusable fuel source.
I would also extend Jevon's Paradox beyond energy. Innovations do not occur in a single field or industry. Any advances in energy efficiency will likely occur along side medical advances that will increase the world population. At a minimum life expectancy in developing third world countries will increase - the longer people live the more they will consume. Every time society has moved forward it's consumed more gross resources. There's little to suggest that a more efficient use of those resources would lead to less gross consumption. There are too many other factors for a single adjustment to have an impact.
The only way to truly reduce the amount of resources consumed...is to consume less.
(I am a proponent of reusable energy and other "natural" sources like solar, wind, and water, however, I think relying on these forms of energy as a safety net fails to consider the paradox above. Even if these new sources of energy take up a greater percentage in the energy consumption "pie", the pie will still grow so that natural resources are still consumed at an unsustainable gross amount.)
The concept that economic and population growth will exceed and overtake the amount of available resources is an old concept, originally postulated by Thomas Malthus in 1798. Without having any insight into a rising Chinese middle class or the resource consumption impact of India, Malthus concluded that populations increased geometrically while food production increased only arithmetically - over several generations populations would exceed food supply. Malthus failed to conceive a second industrial revolution which brought a new wave of technological innovation and knowledge. Crop yields grew. Machines harvested and distributed food.
Malthus's theories were dormant but have gained new traction in recent years. Medical advances, such as improved childbirth facilities, Scientific development, such as clean water analysis, and Infrastructure investment, such as sewage lines have helped to increase life expectancy. People are living longer and have more years to reproduce. A world population that was "only" three billion in 1960 is over seven billion today. While the gross population numbers have increased significantly the year over year percentage increase has been on a gradual decline since the 1970s. The decrease in the growth percentage leads some analysts to believe world population will peak at nine billion by 2050; others believe the population will continue to grow to over twelve billion by 2100.
Perception is that innovation will continue to maximize available resources. Both car MPG and proven oil reserves have increased since the 1970s when these issues were initially raised. That does not unconditionally support present day over consumption. Future innovations are not a savior for past transgressions nor a harbinger for future behavioral adjustments.
In 1862, William Stanley Jevons observed that new technologies, which made energy, such as coal more efficient, lead to an increase in consumption, not a decrease as would be expected. The Jevon's Paradox contends that future energy efficiency innovations will not lead to a reduction in the gross amount of resources consumed.
Energy innovations do not happen in a vacuum. New uses and applications for energy occur separately from any efficiency improvements. Shifts to renewable energy sources does not match society's ability to create new things to use that energy. In 2015, this means that any increases in fuel efficiency or a switch to solar power will likely not lead to less consumption because we will be taking rides in Elon Musk and Richard Branson's spaceships - society develops commercial spaceship rides before we've secured the energy to ensure the project's long-term feasibility. Elon Musk hopes to reduce the cost of space rides by developing reusable rockets...not by developing a reusable fuel source.
I would also extend Jevon's Paradox beyond energy. Innovations do not occur in a single field or industry. Any advances in energy efficiency will likely occur along side medical advances that will increase the world population. At a minimum life expectancy in developing third world countries will increase - the longer people live the more they will consume. Every time society has moved forward it's consumed more gross resources. There's little to suggest that a more efficient use of those resources would lead to less gross consumption. There are too many other factors for a single adjustment to have an impact.
The only way to truly reduce the amount of resources consumed...is to consume less.
(I am a proponent of reusable energy and other "natural" sources like solar, wind, and water, however, I think relying on these forms of energy as a safety net fails to consider the paradox above. Even if these new sources of energy take up a greater percentage in the energy consumption "pie", the pie will still grow so that natural resources are still consumed at an unsustainable gross amount.)
LESSON OF EASTER ISLAND
It's possibly to conclude what would happen if the world ran out of resources to support a burgeoning population. Individual details may vary although the general picture would look the same. A visit to Easter Island shows the results of population exceeding an areas resource supply.
It's possibly to conclude what would happen if the world ran out of resources to support a burgeoning population. Individual details may vary although the general picture would look the same. A visit to Easter Island shows the results of population exceeding an areas resource supply.
Consumption issues have occurred before and the actions taken to resolve involved the deadly use of force. Easter Island, famous for it's mystical Moai, a stone carved ancestral statue, was also the site of continuous clan skirmishes due to limited island resources.
The sixty square mile island is one of the most remote places on Earth. When Polynesians reached the island they had little choice but to settle down and start a new civilization. Archaeological studies reveal that the island contained multiple species of trees growing up to fifty feet high - beyond that the island did not offer much to sustain a large population. Even the water around the island contained very few fish. |
Estimates place Easter Island's population peak between 7,000 and 15,000 (my guide stated 20,000). Archaeologists believe tribal wars occurred which reduced the population to approximately 3,000 when the first European explorers arrived in 1722. It's also believed the outbreak of the tribal wars were caused by limited island resources. When Europeans arrived they noted the tallest trees were less than ten feet. The islanders had no means to construct canoes and fish. With no materials to construct homes, they moved into caves.
The self-inflicting cause of the deforestation is linked to the widely held assumption that the trees were used as rollers to transport the Moai from a quarry in the center of the island to clan burial grounds along the coast. The islanders literally destroyed their future by creating monuments to worship their past. Realizing their error the islanders started to topple the Moai until none remained standing.
The Moai with its head flat on the ground symbolizes how today's society addresses consumption issues. No one seems to want to address the root cause.
The self-inflicting cause of the deforestation is linked to the widely held assumption that the trees were used as rollers to transport the Moai from a quarry in the center of the island to clan burial grounds along the coast. The islanders literally destroyed their future by creating monuments to worship their past. Realizing their error the islanders started to topple the Moai until none remained standing.
The Moai with its head flat on the ground symbolizes how today's society addresses consumption issues. No one seems to want to address the root cause.
Fortunately avoiding a repeat of Easter Island is an easily prescribed solution - live closer together in a smaller space. Unfortunately that's an impossible sell. It's why some argue in favor of a carbon tax instead. A carbon tax may reduce consumption rates and extend supplies although it may not directly lead to behavioral changes which is the root of the issue. America may not be the "best" per world rankings, however, citizens of few countries in the world would pass up on America's quality of life. The US's wealth and space (a major factor for comparative analysis) allows it's citizens to spread across the country. Given similar space, would UK, Swiss, and other Europeans take advantage?
Decreasing consumption has a wide range of side effects. The Chinese middle class has risen thanks to worldwide consumption. A consumption decrease would likely lead to an economic slowdown until local economies adjusted. Once they adjust there's no guarantee consumers in these countries would consume resources at a "sustainable" rate. Consumption may be a first world vs. developing world issue now, however, once the developing world starts consuming at Japan and Germany rates what's to stop them from consuming at U.S. and Canada rates? Had these countries developed faster would they be considering the sustainable energy proposals of the West?
The root of consumptionism seems to reside within individual competition. People ask themselves why they should live in a smaller space and consume less if their neighbors do not follow a similar change. Consumption levels are relatively diplomatic now with most countries, companies, and individuals operating within the framework of free market enterprises. This may not be a long term framework as countries may view the accumulation of natural resources as a national economic and defense issue. The Chinese are circling the globe and extracting resources from countries throughout Africa and South America - they spent $50 billion on a Peruvian mountain, 15,000 feet high, because the mountain contains high volumes of copper. The Chinese need to continuously obtain new resources to maintain economic growth and improve citizen welfare. As of now, corrupt regimes in Africa are will to comply and allow the Chinese to withdraw these resources in exchange for financial consideration and infrastructure improvements.
What if China wasn't able to peacefully obtain these resources? What happens when the citizens of these countries attempt to rise economically and realize their resources have been diminished? I'm unsure if China should even be condemned for its action. Compared to the European colonization from the 1600s through the 1900s China's approach actually appears a bit enlightened.
Decreasing consumption has a wide range of side effects. The Chinese middle class has risen thanks to worldwide consumption. A consumption decrease would likely lead to an economic slowdown until local economies adjusted. Once they adjust there's no guarantee consumers in these countries would consume resources at a "sustainable" rate. Consumption may be a first world vs. developing world issue now, however, once the developing world starts consuming at Japan and Germany rates what's to stop them from consuming at U.S. and Canada rates? Had these countries developed faster would they be considering the sustainable energy proposals of the West?
The root of consumptionism seems to reside within individual competition. People ask themselves why they should live in a smaller space and consume less if their neighbors do not follow a similar change. Consumption levels are relatively diplomatic now with most countries, companies, and individuals operating within the framework of free market enterprises. This may not be a long term framework as countries may view the accumulation of natural resources as a national economic and defense issue. The Chinese are circling the globe and extracting resources from countries throughout Africa and South America - they spent $50 billion on a Peruvian mountain, 15,000 feet high, because the mountain contains high volumes of copper. The Chinese need to continuously obtain new resources to maintain economic growth and improve citizen welfare. As of now, corrupt regimes in Africa are will to comply and allow the Chinese to withdraw these resources in exchange for financial consideration and infrastructure improvements.
What if China wasn't able to peacefully obtain these resources? What happens when the citizens of these countries attempt to rise economically and realize their resources have been diminished? I'm unsure if China should even be condemned for its action. Compared to the European colonization from the 1600s through the 1900s China's approach actually appears a bit enlightened.