Ever had a digital camera suddenly stop working after several thousand shots for no obvious reason? Again planned obsolescence.

Why is it that every version of Windows seems to take up more disk space than the last version and require a higher spec PC? – possibly because MS have a cosy little deal going with the PC makers to up the spec for windows so that they can sell new PC’s….least you wonder why so many leading PC makers are so resistant to the use of Linux and other open-source software (which comes in a range of different flavours for machines of different operating requirements, one of my decade old laptops at home runs on X-ubuntu quite happily).

Had a DVD or CD in your collection recently fail to play…ever heard of disk rot?

This whole concept dates back to the days of the Phoebus light bulb cartel ( the aforementioned light bulb conspiracy of the title) which conspired to not only fix the price of light bulbs but make them with deliberately shorter working life’s so that the companies involved could sell more of them. This of course explains how a pre-cartel light bulb in Livermore Firehouse, California, is still working after a good century of near continuous use.

Should anyone think I’m some deranged conspiracy theorist (and that next I’m going to start going on about Roswell, the Grassy knoll or Black helicopters), no I’m not – but yes everything they said in this film is more or less true. I once worked in the electronics industry, for indeed a leading manufacturer of printers and I know that they are designed with a limited service life in mind. I would point out thought, that this is in part motivated by H&S and quality control reasons. So not so much a dark machiavellian conspiracy, more “that which we do not speak of”.

When you start considering issues such as fatigue, and age related deterioration (and creep) in plastics you need to come up with a round number of the final end life of your product so that you can be sure that all the critical parts will work safely within said lifetime “envelope”. This inevitably means picking a number; say 30,000 pages of printing and/or 5 years of service, and designing the printer to do just that. Also beyond a certain point there is the risk of the printer failing catastrophically, leaking ink all over your table and carpet (good luck trying to wash that out!), or even catching fire (a rare but potential risk in the event of a serious paper jam and an overheated defective printer head). While such failures are unlikely for an individual printer, when you’re making them by the tens of millions and shipping them worldwide, you have consider such issues. So obviously to get the legal department off our backs the printer is designed to bring itself to an end long before there is any danger of failure.

But equally yes, part of the motivation behind planned obsolescence is to get the public to buy more printers…and inkjet cartridges (most printers are sold at a loss these days, the real money is made selling the cartridges).

In another job, I worked for a leading European steel maker. At one point the Suits upstairs got spooked by all this talk of aluminium cars, particularly in high end vehicles (i.e. luxury car models). At the time car makers were our biggest customers, so any switch by them to aluminium would have been catastrophic. So an extensive R&D program began to redesign our stainless steel products to be better at resisting corrosion, which would give a longer service life (we were prepared to offer a money back guarantee on no significant rust for twenty-five years!). Ways of making cars out of thinner sections of material were also investigated, as this would reduce the vehicle’s weight, producing better power to weight ratio’s, less fuel consumption and of course lower material costs for the manufacturer.

While some of these ideas were indeed taken on board by the car industry, by and large much of it was ignored, especially by the high end car makers. It took awhile but the penny soon dropped, the car companies didn’t want cars that lasted longer, and they certainly didn’t want car bodies that lasted 25 years without a speck of rust! If we built cars to last like that then the public would buy less cars! We also soon learnt (from marketing) that the diversion into aluminium bodied cars for certain high end vehicles were more driven by the “gimmick” factor than any technical reasons. The “…overpaid more-money-than-sense…” types who bought such vehicles (read here about SUV drivers) just liked to be able to brag about how they’re car was made out of aluminium….even though most would probably struggle to tell the difference between the two types of metal even if you wacked them over the head with a aluminium pole!

At around the same time I had a colleague who was working on a academic design project that was looked at using new materials, in particular titanium alloys and ceramics to produce an ultra-durable next generation IC car engines (the petrol heads were apparently getting worried about fuel cells putting them in the poor house in future). Aided by a computerised engine management system (years before the Prius came along, this would come with automatic engine idling reduction as standard), such an engine would have an endurance of the order of several hundred thousand miles (without any serious failures), lower maintenance costs, and best of all much lower fuel consumption. I’ve not heard anything about this project since. I’m assuming it came to an abrupt end after they went and give their presentation to a major car maker and were promptly burnt as witches by the head of marketing and sales.

Now you might say, well so what, this policy is bringing in lots of jobs, and it means people get to upgrade and change their stuff regularly. But you have to consider the environmental costs of such policies. We are seeing literally mountains of E-waste building up in many poorer parts of the world, leaving an awful toxic legacy behind. You also have to consider the embodied energy contained within products, which can often represent half (or more) of the overall lifetime carbon footprint of any product (such as a car). So improving the service life of products would do alot in terms of reducing carbon emissions, as well as reducing the need for new raw material (thus less mining, etc. read about coltan mining here) and less stuff going into landfills. It would also free up factory capacity worldwide to make other stuff, like solar ovens, wind turbines, energy storage systems, etc.

So yes I’m saying it’s possible for us to build cars or electronic goods that last 2 to 4 times longer than the currently do. Thought I would note that such products would also cost more to produce. Certainly not twice as much or four times more, probably more like 30% more or 50% more.  But the cost of such products would inevitably rise and I’m talking here in terms of materials and embodied energy, not just money.

However, this presents a problem, most of us as consumers go for the cheapest product available, and we rarely factor in service life as a deciding issue when buying stuff. Indeed this is the usual excuse you’ll hear from manufacturers when you enquire why they don’t make products with a longer service life. Too many of us buy cheap “crap” like pans and pots or battery’s from cheap discount stores that inevitably break within a few weeks (or hours). So we can hardly blame the corporations for giving us what we want.

For example, you would think the rechargeable battery would be a no-brainer. You buy a pack of them plus a charger for say £15 and it lasts as long as 100 sets of non-rechargeable ones. But unfortunately, the majority of people still plump for the Alkalines – or go and buy the cheapest TV with the widest screen – or the cheap fridge regardless of its energy rating (forgetting how they’ll be paying several times over for one with poorer efficiency once you realise how much electricity a fridge uses over its lifetime). The consumer is often as much at fault here as the manufacturer’s.

One solution to this problem would be legislation. We could mandate a fixed life-time guarantee on all products sold, with this life time limit set by governments, not manufacturers. Or we could fiddle with the VAT rate. Products with a long life time warranty would pay less VAT than items that came with a shorter one (or none!). We could also extend this to include the energy efficiency rating of products, with VAT charged at a rate based on a products energy efficiency rating also.

Of course let’s not kid ourselves, getting such legislation passed would be difficult, especially in our globalised economy. Needless to say, the manufacturing industry would be highly resistant to such polices. They will no doubt argue that less products coming out of factories means less people working in manufacturing, and thus massive layoffs. Those on lower incomes won’t be able to afford such goods anymore. Obviously this would not be to the liking of manufacturing nations such as China or India, who would kick up a right old stink at the WTO if any government tried to implement such a policy. And there’s also the general public. Many of us, like i said earlier, want products which are cheap and have short operating lives. The current resistance to the phase out of incandescent bulbs should show you what you’re up against (see here and here)….although I would note that some of this might be motivated by the fact that some people (see Bachmann here) will oppose anything “environmental” regardless of whether such opposition makes any logically sense or not. The Yes men (see here) once succeeded in getting a load of republicans to sign a petition calling on George Bush to bring about more global warming and more pollution….scary!

I would correct the point made about job losses thought. Obviously products with a longer service life need to be more carefully designed, this means more engineering applied upstream and thus more engineering jobs. Also, the days when thousands of people toiled in the factory and made things with their bare hands are thankfully rare, at least for the sorts of high end products we’re talking about such electronics, electrical goods or cars (its still an issue for products like clothes thought). Even in China, most of these products would be made by robots, not people, so we’re mostly talking about robots being made redundant not people (poor R2-D2). Yes, there would be some layoffs, but it certainly won’t be a case of half the global work force going or anything like that.

And on that point, I would also note a slightly “anti-capitalist” streak you often see in captains of industry when ideas like this come up, or for example suggesting increasing environmental standards or increased regulations on the financial services industry. The “capitalists” will always trot out the argument that business leaders, rather than try and adapt to these changes will be so incensed by such a move that they’ll fire half the work force and then go off in a huff and have a good sulk. That doesn’t sound very “capitalistic” type of behaviour to me. If I were head of, say a TV manufacturer, and I heard that new government reg’s were going to effectively halve TV sales in future, I’d either A) make sure it was my rivals who bore the brunt of such sale reductions (by making sure my product stayed ahead of the curve and outsold everyone else) or  B) I’d decide that if half my factory wasn’t going to be making TV’s any more it might be time to re-tool and commence production of a new product that there was higher demand for, such as solar panels for example.

Another interesting film on a similar theme to the above is the man in the white suit, and 1950’s classic, staring Alex Guinness, it seems to be available on-line here. Worth a watch! The synopsis is that a stereotypical “mad” scientist (Guinness) invents a new type of fiber that never wears out and even repels dirt. Great news….until the textile industry bosses and worker’s Unions both realise the implications of this discovery! An interesting parable that shows the conflict that often occurs when well meaning scientists come up against the realities of politics, economics and vested interests.

This whole issue should also show you how advocating policies such as renewable over fossil fuels (or nuclear) means you coming up against a mass of opposition from vested interest with everything (as they see it) to lose.  This “lightbulb conspiracy” also demonstrates just how wasteful a society we are and how much room for improvement there is.

But I’ll have to leave you now…..I think I hear black helicopters approaching!

But some writers identify a different cause. Bonus-seeking executives, corrupt politicians and oil-hungry generals all played a role, but they were only front men for the real villains – consumers.

“Who’s Really to Blame for the BP Oil Spill? We Are,” by U.S. green activist Dave Chameides, is typical:

“The bottom line is, no matter who did their work poorly, or who shirked their responsibilities, at the end of the day, we are the ones who are responsible for the disaster at hand.

“That’s right, we are the ones responsible.

“BP, like any other oil company, is in the petroleum game for one reason and one reason only: money. And where does that money come from? It comes from us.” [1]

Similarly, a Guardian article by British academic Mark Coeckelbergh was headlined, “We’re all to blame for the oil spill.”

“Moreover, and perhaps most important, we should not only consider responsibility for oil production but also for oil consumption. Business and finance are not isolated from our own choices. Companies such as BP can only do what they do because we want what they sell. We’re all too happy with cheap oil. …

“As consumers, we continue to depend on oil in various ways and therefore maintain the oil-hungry system that makes oil companies drill in deep water and undertake other risky activities. “[2]

These are just two of many such articles. [3] All promote a simple lesson: If only “we” would wean ourselves of our oil addiction, then “they” would stop destroying the environment. If “we” would just use less oil, then “they” wouldn’t have to drill in environmentally sensitive areas like the Gulf of Mexico.

As Al Gore wrote a few years ago: “All of us contribute to climate change through the daily choices we make … you can begin to take action and work toward living a carbon-neutral life.” [4]

Buy green products, drive less and save the world.

Such views rest on the implicit assumption that corporations – indeed the capitalist economy as a whole – are driven by consumers’ desires and choices, as displayed in the market. Economist Mark Perry of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, explains:

“Consumers are the kings and queens of the market economy, and ultimately they reign supreme over corporations and their employees. … In a market economy, it is consumers, not businesses, who ultimately make all of the decisions. When they vote in the marketplace with their dollars, consumers decide which products, businesses, and industries survive — and which ones fail. ”[5]

Perry is echoing the opinions of the influential libertarian economist Ludwig von Mises:

“When we call a capitalist society a consumers’ democracy we mean that the power to dispose of the means of production, which belongs to the entrepreneurs and capitalists, can only be acquired by means of the consumers’ ballot, held daily in the marketplace.” [6]

This view, usually called consumer sovereignty, is widely held, not just by conservative economists but by commentators of many political stripes. It is conventional wisdom in the worst sense of the term, a dominant superstition that is assumed to be obviously true and so is never questioned.

But there are many reasons to believe that the conventional wisdom is wrong. The following are just four of them.

The market is manipulated

Fifty-three of the one hundred largest economies in the world are corporations. Exxon Mobil alone is larger than 180 countries. [7] In 2000, Fortune magazine reported that the 500 largest industrial corporations had revenues equal to two-thirds of all U.S. production. [8]

Those corporate behemoths constantly use their immense economic power to influence consumers’ choices. As a result, the balance of information and persuasion in the consumer goods marketplace is overwhelmingly weighted in favor of sellers and against buyers, for corporations and against consumers.

Michael Löwy writes:

“Contrary to the claim of free-market ideology, supply is not a response to demand. Capitalist firms usually create the demand for their products by various marketing techniques, advertising tricks, and planned obsolescence. Advertising plays an essential role in the production of consumerist demand by inventing false “needs” and by stimulating the formation of compulsive consumption habits.”[9]

Michael Dawson argues convincingly that advertising has to be understood as part of a much larger marketing process that aims “to make commoners’ off-the-job habits better serve corporate bottom lines.”

“Big businesses in the United States now spend well over a trillion dollars a year on marketing. This is double Americans’ combined annual spending on all public and private education, from kindergartens through graduate schools. It also works out to around four thousand dollars a year for each man, woman, and child in the country. …”

Dawson calls this process a form of “class struggle from above.”

“On our side of such struggles, within broad limits – for example, we must eat, drink, and sleep – we have the power to choose what we do with our free time, and we fight to make that time as fulfilling as possible. Meanwhile, big businesses have the power to implant objects, images, messages, and material infrastructures in our off-the-job behaviour settings, and, thereby, to influence the choices we make in our personal lives. …”[10]

As liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith insisted, the immense sums spent on advertising “must be integrated with the theory of consumer demand. They are too big to be ignored.” This, he said, “means recognizing that wants are dependent on production…. [which] actively through advertising and related activities, creates the wants it seeks to satisfy.”[11]

This is not to suggest that consumers are helpless victims of all-powerful marketing monsters. Consumers frequently resist being manipulated, and specific advertising campaigns often fail. But by spending a trillion dollars a year on marketing, corporations don’t just promote individual products: they set the terms under which the market operates, define the range of permissible choices, and promote the constant expansion of needs and purchases that their profits depend on. They wouldn’t spend the money if it wasn’t working.

Consumers aren’t equal

Competition among consumers is also grossly unequal. “Consumer democracy” is rendered meaningless by the fact that a few consumers have most of the votes, because they have most of the money.

It’s sometimes argued that inequality of wealth doesn’t matter, because the rich are vastly outnumbered – our combined wealth lets the rest of us outvote the rich in the market. That sounds good, but it just isn’t true. The rich don’t just have more money than us as individuals, they have more than us collectively.

A recent study of the global distribution of household wealth, published by the prestigious World Institute for Development Economics Research, revealed just how much more the rich own than the rest of us.

“The richest 2 per cent of adult individuals own more than half of all global wealth, with the richest 1 per cent alone accounting for 40 per cent of global assets.

“The corresponding figures for the top 5 per cent and the top 10 per cent are 71 per cent and 85 per cent, respectively.

“In contrast, the bottom half of wealth holders together hold barely 1 per cent of global wealth.

“Members of the top decile are almost 400 times richer, on average, than the bottom 50 per cent, and members of the top percentile are almost 2,000 times richer.”[12]

Study after study leads to similar conclusions.

• In Australia, eleven very rich individuals own more than the country’s 800,000 poorest households combined. [13]
• The richest 5% of Americans own more than everyone else in the U.S. combined. [14]
• The 147 individuals who topped the 2002 Forbes “World’s Richest People” list had total wealth equal to the total annual income of three billion people, half the world’s population. [15]

Such gross inequality exposes the term “consumer democracy” for the fraud that it is. The capitalist market is a plutocracy: we all participate, but a tiny minority of very rich people has decisive influence.

Market choice is restricted

While consumers have some ability to choose among a variety of products, they can’t choose products that capitalists choose not to offer. Buyers face a “proffered world of micro-choices, where Ford versus Chevy is a live issue, but cars versus trains is most certainly not.” [16]

The market is also restricted by political, social and economic decisions – past and present – that few consumers have any ability to influence.

North America’s automobile-intensive culture, for example, is the product of a multi-pronged, multi-year campaign by the oil and automobile industries, beginning in the 1930s, to limit public transit, pour billions of public dollars into building roads, enforce zoning restrictions and building programs that encouraged urban sprawl – and at the same to promote the car as the quintessential symbol of success, freedom and modernity.

“Journalists never tire of pointing to the love of the automobile in the United States. But such ‘love’ is more often than not a kind of desperation in the face of extremely narrow options. The ways in which cars, roads, public transports systems (often notable by their absence), unban centers, suburbs, and malls have been constructed mean that people often have virtually no choice but to drive if they are to work and live.”[17]

There is even less choice when it comes to oil – it is so pervasive in every aspect of production and distribution that one analyst has justly called it “the stuff without which nothing else happens.” [18]

Indeed, it’s nearly impossible to buy a household product that isn’t partially or completely made from oil-derived chemicals. These are just a few examples:

Ammonia, Anesthetics, Antifreeze, Antihistamines, Antiseptics, Artificial limbs, Artificial Turf, Aspirin, Awnings, Balloons, Ballpoint Pens, Bandages, Basketballs, Bearing Grease, Boats, Cameras, Candles, Car Enamel, Cassettes, Caulking, CDs & DVDs, Clothes, Cold cream, Combs, Cortisone, Crayons, Curtains, Dashboards, Denture Adhesive, Dentures, Deodorant, Detergents, Dice, Diesel fuel, Dishes, Dresses, Drinking Cups, Dyes, Electric Blankets, Electrician’s Tape, Enamel, Epoxy, Eyeglasses, Fan Belts, Faucet Washers, Fertilizers, Fishing Boots, Fishing lures, Fishing Rods, Floor Wax, Folding Doors, Food Preservatives, Footballs, Glycerin, Golf Bags, Golf Balls, Guitar Strings, Hair Coloring, Hair Curlers, Hand Lotion, Heart Valves, House Paint, Ice Chests, Ice Cube Trays, Ink, Insect Repellent, Insecticides, Life Jackets, Linings, Linoleum, Lipstick, Luggage, Model Cars, Mops, Motor Oil, Nail Polish, Nylon Rope, Oil Filters, Paint, Paint Brushes, Paint Rollers, Panty Hose, Parachutes, Percolators, Perfumes, Petroleum Jelly, Pillows, Plastic Wood, Purses, Putty, Refrigerant, Roller Skates, Roofing, Rubber Cement, Rubbing Alcohol, Safety Glasses, Shag Rugs, Shampoo, Shaving Cream, Shoe Polish, Shoes, Shower Curtains, Skis, Soap, Solvents, Speakers, Sports Car Bodies, Sun Glasses, Surf Boards, Sweaters, Synthetic Rubber, Telephones, Tennis Rackets, Tents, Tires, Toilet Seats, Tool Boxes, Tool Racks, Toothbrushes, Toothpaste, Transparent Tape, Trash Bags, TV Cabinets, Umbrellas, Upholstery, Vaporizers, Vitamin Capsules, Water Pipes, Wheels, Yarn [19]

That’s not to say that people shouldn’t conserve, shouldn’t try to be as green as possible. Of course we should. But only radical social and economic change can possibly free us from dependence on oil. That choice isn’t available in the market.

Consumers don’t control production

In his article blaming consumers for the BP oil spill, Dave Chameides (who calls himself “Sustainable Dave”) recommends remedial action: “Stop driving your car one day a week … Ride your bike.”

That’s a good idea … but bear in mind that your bicycle’s tires, brake pads, handle grips, cable sheaths, lubricant, paint and other components are all made from oil. The metal was smelted, and the frame was formed and assembled, in factories that depend on oil. The finished bike was delivered to the shop in a diesel-powered truck driving on asphalt (oil again) roads.

The point, as environmental sociologist Alan Schnaiberg and his colleagues point out, is that even though consumers may decide what to buy from among the products that capitalists put on offer, they don’t get to choose how those products are made.

“While individual consumers may be the ultimate purchasers of some of the products of the new technologies, decisions about the allocation of technologies is the realm of production managers and owners. … [I]t is within the production process where the initial interaction of social systems with ecosystems occurs and where the key decisions about the nature of social system-ecosystem relationships are made…..

“The decision of which alternative forms of production will be offered consumers is not in their hands. It remains in the hands of a small minority of powerful individuals … who are empowered by their access to production capital. It is in those decisions where social systems (the producers’ access to capital and labor, and their assessment of potential liability, profitability, and marketability) and ecosystems (the producers’ access to natural resource inputs and ecosystem waste sinks) first interact.” [20]

Michael Dawson makes a similar point:

“Ordinary product users remain shut out of major economic decisions. Corporations plan, design, and sell goods and services according to their own profit requirements, without providing any means of subjecting basic productive priorities to popular debate and vote.” [21]

Even if we accept the farfetched idea that oil companies drill new wells only to please consumers, no one can reasonably suggest that consumers somehow forced BP to cut every possible corner, suborn regulators, violate safety guidelines, and worse. Those decisions were made in BP’s executive offices, and consumers had no say.

“In the end,” writes environmental policy professor Thomas Princen, “the idea of consumer sovereignty doesn’t add up. It is a myth convenient for those who would locate responsibility for social and environmental problems on the backs of consumers, absolving those who truly have market power and who write the rules of the game and who benefit the most.”[22]

Blaming Individuals for Capitalist Destruction

If the idea that consumers are in charge makes little sense for the capitalist economy as a whole, it is completely absurd for the oil industry. As New York Times columnist Bob Herbert points out, working people simply don’t count in this system:

“The fact that 11 human beings were killed in the Deepwater Horizon explosion (their bodies never found) has become, at best, an afterthought. BP counts its profits in the billions, and, therefore, it’s important. The 11 men working on the rig were no more important in the current American scheme of things than the oystermen losing their livelihoods along the gulf, or the wildlife doomed to die in an environment fouled by BP’s oil, or the waters that will be left unfit for ordinary families to swim and boat in.

“This is the bitter reality of the American present, a period in which big business has cemented an unholy alliance with big government against the interests of ordinary Americans, who, of course, are the great majority of Americans. The great majority of Americans no longer matter.”[23]

Nevertheless, as Michael Dawson writes, whenever mainstream thinkers comment on today’s social ills, they always “blame the little folk”

“Ordinary product users, who, because their purchases can be used to accuse them of choosing what they get, usually take all the transferred blame for capitalists’ costly, socially irrational actions.” [24]

t’s true that producers must sell their products, but the idea that consumers therefore control corporate behaviour is ideology, not fact. Immensely wealthy corporations decide what to produce and how to produce it. They spend billions to promote specific products and to protect their power. They allow us to choose – but only among the narrow range of options that they believe will be profitable.

In the Gulf, BP did what every capitalist corporation does – it kept costs down to keep profits up. Its irresponsible actions were bound to cause a disaster eventually – but if the company had lucked out this time, if the explosion hadn’t happened, BP’s executives and shareholders would have been rewarded for producing offshore oil more cheaply than more cautious competitors. That’s the way capitalism works.

The immediate cause of this particular disaster was BP’s greed for short-term profits. The long-term cause, of this and many other disasters, is an irrational grow-or-die economic system that is totally dependent on oil, on “the stuff without which nothing else happens.” A system in which private profit always takes precedence over the environment and human lives.

The journalists, pale greens and others who blame individual consumers are trivializing the problem and distracting attention from the social roots of environmental destruction. No matter how sincere they may be, they are making it harder to achieve real solutions.

E-waste stands for electronic waste. This includes anything from discarded and broken cell phones, computers, iPods, and small appliances.

Developed nations are dealing with a crisis of overconsumption, which produces many harmful consequences. One of these consequences is e-waste, which is created when electronic products are thrown away. Unfortunately, the production, consumption and ultimate disposal of e-waste is sped up with planned obsolescence, when products are intentionally designed to have a short lifespan—they either break quickly and cannot be repaired inexpensively, or new versions are continually being designed to replace older ones. With the technology available to us, products can be designed to last for decades, if not longer. However, things seem to be lasting for less and less time. This is all in the name of profit, benefitting corporations that want consumers to keep buying products. According to Greenpeace USA, the average lifespan of computers in developed countries has dropped from six years in 1997 to just two years in 2005, and mobile phones have a lifecycle of less than two years in developed countries.

But the dangers don’t come solely from the waste itself; even more severe problems occur when the waste is broken apart. When e-waste is disposed of, it is often sent overseas where people in struggling developing nations take apart the products to recycle the e-waste and attempt to salvage parts with any value. Some recycling companies that appear to be reputable engage in this careless practice as well. North America and Europe are known to export a large percentage of their e-waste to countries like India, China, and Ghana.

In the process of taking apart the electronics, these overseas workers are exposed to dangerous toxins, putting themselves, their families and their environment at risk. These toxins include heavy metals such as lead, beryllium and mercury, as well as chlorinated solvents, flame retardants and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). These are all deadly chemicals. Why should people in developing countries have to pay for the greed of our wasteful consumer society? 

What can you do about E-waste?

1. Rethink the amount of electronics you buy: don’t buy a new cell phone just because your contract expires and you can get the newest version that everyone else is getting. Also, look into getting your small appliances repaired before buying new ones. Reduce, re-use and recycle, in that order. Remember that no matter what advertising tells us, things don’t make us happy.
2. When you do have to get rid of electronics, recycle them with reputable companies. You can also contact the company where your product came from in the first place, and ask them if they have a take-back program. Always ask the recycling depot or company if they send the electronics overseas. If they don’t give a clear answer, choose somewhere else. Or, do some research and check with environmental organizations that would be able to direct you to a recycling depot in your area.
3. Support groups that are against e-waste. Recently, students from Simon Fraser University have formed a group to ban e-waste on campus. With plans to make an educational documentary to raise awareness of e-waste, teach people where they can safely recycle their electronics, challenge the amount of electronic waste people produce, and create an “E-waste Day” at SFU, the group is determined to tackle the issue of e-waste. To support them, join the Facebook group “Stop E-waste at SFU”, and follow the blog http://e-waste2011.blogspot.com/, which they update with their weekly progress, and you can find links to educational resources on e-waste and recycling depots around Vancouver.

Photo credit: Greenpeace India

Does the individualization of environmentalism have any merits? Can it successfully co-exist with collective action? Environmental advertising (or “green” advertising) assures consumers that they can evoke positive environmental change by adopting simple habits and by purchasing green goods provided by companies (Maniates, 2001). These include wearing clothing made from sustainable fibres, consuming local and organic food, purchasing hybrid cars or choosing cosmetics made with natural ingredients. However, some environmental scholars such as Michael Maniates have criticized these actions as greenwashing which individualizes environmental problems.

The tension at the heart of consumer culture is that it is a fragile system that cannot sustain itself indefinitely (Varey, 2001). The resources needed to extract, produce, transport, and advertise the products that consumers take for granted are being used up at an alarming rate, with devastating environmental costs. We all know this. Consumer culture has received ever-increasing blame for the environmental crisis, which marketing responds to with “green advertising”.

Michael Maniates’ research (2001) provides an insightful critique of this individualization associated with green marketing. Green advertising, he argues, coyly sidesteps the underlying issues of overconsumption and individualization, in the attempt to preserve familiar, comfortable patterns of consumption. According to Maniates, true environmental action would involve long term solutions such as collective public policy that reduces our consumption patterns and breaks our reliance on fossil fuels. This perspective argues that within green advertising, larger social patterns and powers are ignored and civic action is disregarded as a viable solution. Instead, individualization places all blame (as well as all responsibility for action) on individual consumers. In reality, however, green advertising is sustained through a capitalist system that is innately un-environmental in its need for constant growth and the development of new markets. Goldman and Papson (1996) share these sentiments, claiming that the entire purpose of advertising is to create demand for products, and therefore advertising is inherently un-environmental.

Citizenship vs Consumption

But maybe green advertising has benefits that cannot be disregarded. First, in order to fully grasp the complexities of contemporary culture, it is necessary to broaden the traditional definitions of “consumption” and “citizenship”. Maniates asserts that “the individualization of responsibility, because it characterizes environmental problems as the consequence of destructive consumer choice, asks that individuals imagine themselves as consumers first and citizens second” (2001, p. 34). However, I wish to counter this idea and maintain an alternative view of the coupling of the “citizen-consumer”. Trentmann agrees that this phenomenon leaves social change to the realm of consumption, but argues that this new form cannot be overlooked. Thus, the conventional definitions are no longer satisfactory. Citizenship –too often see as irrelevant and stuffy– is being transformed. As Trentmann asserts, “the political is back” (2007, p. 147). Consumption and citizenship do not have to be viewed as a zero-sum game. In fact, consumers are increasingly concerned about political ideas within their consumption habits—consumer boycotts, Fair Trade Certified alternatives and concerns over sweatshops are all examples of this.

Muldoon’s research draws on the concept of the citizen-consumer in the realm of environmentalism. For instance, as Muldoon argues (2006), people have different ways of being politically active, and the marketplace may be an arena for individuals who shy away from politics to be active in environmentalism. Others argue that it is often easier for voices to be heard within the marketplace than within politics. Since companies are afraid of losing business, they may be more likely to respond to public opinion. Here, green marketing has a useful purpose and can fill the voids in collective public action (Muldoon, 2006).

Although Maniates (2001) argues that environmental change is not possible in the realm of the individual consumer, the fact remains that in several cases, (such as some food and personal hygiene products) consumption may be inevitable—so why not offer environmentally-friendly alternatives? Perhaps, green advertising offers consumers a reminder and an opportunity to engage with their environmental values on an ongoing basis. Seyfang also arrives at the conclusion that individual environmentally-conscious consumption is a “necessary complement” to more radical action—necessary because people require some purchased goods (2005, p. 302).

Empowering the Individual?

A second argument claims that green advertising’s individualization is not detrimental because it acts as an empowering force for individuals. As previously mentioned, there was a high level of concern for the environment among Americans in the 90s. However, citizens’ actions do not reflect this level of concern. This is a situation that is still extremely relevant. The authors believe that environmental advertising can be remarkably effective at empowering individuals to act on their environmental concerns. Cobb-Walgren, Ellen and Wiener’s telephone survey measured perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) and environmental concern. Perceived consumer effectiveness is defined as the “belief that the efforts of an individual can make a difference in the solution to a problem” (1991, p. 103).

However, not all advertising is equally effective in empowering consumers. Interestingly, it appears that the more “lighthearted” advertising (advertising which serious environmentalists may critique) is more effective. The authors suggest that marketing may wish to avoid discussing how dire a situation is (what they call the “sick baby” appeal), or else individuals will be completely overwhelmed and will not feel that there is anything they can do. As they argue, “one can think he or she is guilty of contributing to the problem without thinking he or she has the power to solve the problem” (p. 105).

What is suggested instead of the “sick baby” approach is marketing campaigns that show how individuals are making an impact through their daily decisions. For instance, Encorp (a Canadian recycling company) regularly features advertising that mentions the positive impact of individuals’ decisions. One of their newspaper ads proudly declares: “Just by recycling your beverage containers you help keep the equivalent of 126,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases out of BC’s atmosphere” (Encorp, 2009). This way, people will be inspired to do more. The authors believe that this can be done without minimizing the importance of the issue at hand. In effect, the authors do not dismiss green advertising as a marketing campaign. Instead, they see it as a valuable tactic in warding off sentiments of hopelessness. As they argue, “both public and private policymakers who seek to encourage voluntary behavior on behalf of the environment should try to enhance consumer perceptions that their own actions will improve the environment” (1991, p. 111).

Therefore, these findings suggest that green advertising’s individualization of environmental action is not wholly detrimental. Green advertising may help to raise an individual’s personal sense of control in the problems of environmental destruction, causing more action to be taken. This is a key point that Maniates may have overlooked. Although collective action is perhaps the key element in positive change, individual empowerment may be the important precursor to collective action. In this way, individual action and collective action are not at odds.

Greater Effects: Voluntary Simplicity

Finally, there is some evidence to suggest that individual green consumption can actually lead to more significant action. Voluntary simplicity (VS) refers to the trend of adopting a lifestyle with little consumption and material goods (Kumju et al., 2006). This decision is noteworthy because it is born out of personal choice rather than economic necessity such as poverty or war. Voluntary simplicity is not necessarily new, but the researchers have uncovered a significant new element to add to the theory: beginner voluntary simplicity (BVS). Beginner voluntary simplifiers are not true voluntary simplifiers yet, but are important precursors in the process. They may not reduce their overall consumption, but have taken measures to purchase environmentally-friendly options (Kumju et al., 2006). Because of this, beginner voluntary simplifiers are a crucial target market for green advertising.

Essentially, consumption can be seen as a continuum rather than a binary, with voluntary simplicity on one side, and extreme consumerism on the other. This allows for the possibility of change. The authors decided to study this unique group to decide what steps they were taking, and what motivated them to take part in BVS. The authors determine that although advancement from BVS to VS is certainly not inevitable, there is a group of beginner voluntary simplifiers named “apprentice simplifiers” who will eventually become true voluntary simplifiers (Kumju et al., 2006). The role of green advertising is quite high for this group, the authors suggest, as they may “rely on more accessible and mainstream media, as well as actual product information on packaging” (Kumju et al., 2006, p. 526). Green advertising has educational appeal to this group of BVS.

What do you think?

After weighing the different arguments, Muldoon explains, “the game of sustainable living begins when more people can play. And anything that encourages greater contemplation of, and participation in, green issues is worth examining” (2006, para. 46). Here, I believe Muldoon is correct. Collective environmental groups are made up of individuals—empowered individuals who believe real change can be made. For this reason, it is simply not possible to altogether discount green advertising, and the individual action that stems from it. Green advertising and green consumerism can provide a place for the union of individual and collective action.

Therefore, I believe that individual action, though not sufficient, can be beneficial and may even strengthen areas of collective action. This is not to say that the greenwashing of products is a valuable advertising practice. Rather, I wish to avoid discounting the companies who have invested effort in the hopes of truly supplying a more environmentally-conscious product. I also want to recognize that individuals can be powerful agents of social change.

But I should open this conversation to you, the readers. You’re consumers of environmental media, and most likely buy environmentally-friendly products. What do you think? Is individual action sufficient? Is it important? Or is it just a way to continue destructive consumer culture?

Reference List

Cobb-Walgren, C., Ellen, P. & Wiener, J. (1991). The Role of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness in Motivating Environmentally Conscious Behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10 (2), 102-117. Retrieved July 15, 2010, from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.

Encorp. (2009). Beverage Containers [print ad]. Retrieved August 2, 2010, from http://www.encorp.ca/cfm/index.cfm?It=914&Id=1&Se=38,58

Kumju, H., McDonald, S., Oates, C. & Young, C. W. (2006). Toward Sustainable Consumption: Researching Voluntary Simplifiers. Psychology & Marketing, 23(6), 515–534. Retrieved July 16, 2010, from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.

Goldman & Papson. (1996). Green Marketing and the Commodity Self, Sign Wars, pp. 187-215. NY, New York: Guilford Press.

Maniates, Michael. (2001). Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World? Global Environmental Politics 1(3), 31-52.

Muldoon, Annie. (2006). Where the Green is: Examining the Paradox of Environmentally Conscious Consumption. Electronic Green Journal, 23. Retrieved July 15, 2010, from Academic Search Premier database.

Seyfang, Gill. (2005). Shopping for Sustainability: Can Sustainable Consumption Promote Ecological Citizenship? Environmental Politics 14(2), 290-306. Retrieved August 1, 2010, from Google Scholar database.

Trentmann, F. (2007). Citizenship and Consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 7(2), 147-158.

For over 15 years delegates and politicians from around the world have discussed, debated and negotiated the questions of dealing with manmade climate change in various COP (Conference of the Parties) summits. So why haven’t they made any real progress yet?

That is a big question that covers a whole range of topics and issues that I won’t go into. Instead I will try to focus on the actual politics and tactics used at the COP summits. I will try to see if uneven development and inequality plays any part in how the actual negotiations plays out, how the delegates attending perceive climate justice and fairness, and if all this combined somehow sabotages the efforts to secure a climate deal.

At the major United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992 more than 100 world leaders met to address the question of global climate change. At the end of the conference 187 nations signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) treaty. Without any “tough details” the agreement said nations should “protect the climate system…on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” World leaders managed to get a consensus and reach an agreement but they still had disagreements on what kind of responsibilities nations had under the UNFCCC treaty. The “common but differentiated” phrase seems to have resulted in various different interpretations between the “North” and the “South”. The poor developing nations were, compared to the North, very precise in their interpretation of the phrase and called for the rich developed nations to take the lead in the emission reductions. They also wanted the North to help developing nations in their environmental efforts by transferring large amounts of economic and technologic assistance from the North to the South. The North on the other hand interpreted the phrase a bit differently. According to the UNFCC treaty $625 billion was needed every year for a sustainable development to take place in the developing nations. Around 20% of the money would be paid by below-market loans to the South. But the developed nations never fulfilled their promise of economic and technologic assistance to the South. In the end they paid less than 20% of the $625 billion.

In 1995, three years after the Rio Earth Summit, the first COP conference took place in Berlin, Germany. Here the so called “Berlin Mandate” declared that the developed nations in the North should reduce their emissions first while the developing nations would join in later on. Two years later in 1997 at the COP3 conference in Kyoto, Japan, the US president Bill Clinton actually signed the famous Kyoto Protocol, which called for binding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. But the protocol was never ratified by the USA because of the US senate which voted unanimously in favor for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution. Once passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution successfully blocked any climate treaty that was, in their words, “unfair”. Because the Kyoto protocol did not require the developing nations to do any emissions cuts the US senate felt it was “unfair” and refused to ratify it.

And it is now, with the Kyoto protocol, that you can start to clearly see the different positions and opinions the North and the South, rich and poor, developed and developing nations have on what climate justice actually is. Developing nations didn’t want to accept any scheduled emission reduction targets for the future. Any mention by the North that the developing nations should in some way slow down their development and economic growth by limiting their greenhouse gas emissions was met with an “openly hostile negotiating environment” from the South. The Brazilian ambassador Luis Felipe Lampreia stated during the COP3 conference that: “We cannot accept limitations that interfere with our economic development.” And the lead negotiator from China said: “In the developed world only two people ride in a car, and yet you want us to give up riding on a bus”.

The developed nations are responsible for about 80% of the worlds CO2 emissions. One person in Bangladesh will during a whole year emit as much CO2 emissions as one average person living the UK will in only 11 days. A single power plant in Great Britain will produce more CO2 emissions, every year, than all 139 million people living in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique combined. It is also clear that developing nations are much more vulnerable to the effects a changing climate brings such as droughts, rising tides, floods and tropical storms than rich and developed nations are. And nine Chinese and eighteen Indians release as much greenhouse gas emissions into our atmosphere as one average American does. The USA is alone responsible for over 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but only around 4% of the world’s total population lives in the USA. A whopping 136 developing nations are on the other hand together responsible for 24% of global emissions.

But the former US President George H. W. Bush once notoriously stated that “the American lifestyle is not open to negotiation”. His son, George W. Bush later dismissed the Kyoto protocol completely by claiming that the treaty “would cause serious harm to the US economy” and that it is “an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns”.

Even in light of these clearly uneven numbers the North’s perception of climate justice seems to be to disregard any kinds of historical responsibilities or economical differences, the very same issues that the South thinks are the basis of climate justice. And these rather different perceptions on climate justice between the rich and poor nations help fuel an deteriorating negotiating atmosphere.

When it comes to the negotiations during these summits, like the COP15 this past December, the income differences between developing and developed nations plays a big role in creating a hostile negotiating environment for the delegates. It is also one of the more direct examples on how inequality can dampen cooperation on climate change. Attending these yearly COP summits obviously costs money. Nations need to be able to pay for their delegate’s salaries and accommodations. Other costs involves scientists, lawyers, translators, economists and consultants that can help the nations delegation in the actual negotiations, with their draft proposals, legal argumentation as well as being able to offer counterarguments and proposals to the demands of other nations.

“The reason why many poor small countries are hardly represented in negotiations that concern them directly, writes Robert Wade, is that they cannot afford the cost of hotels, offices, and salaries in places like Washington DC and Geneva, which must be paid not in PPP [purchasing power parity] dollars but in hard currency bought with their own currency at market exchange rates (quoted in J.T. & Parks, 2006: 15).”

Unfortunately many of the less developed nations (LDCs) cannot afford all this and most of the time they will have to go without this much needed help. Just a little side note to show how just bad these things can get: At a seminar in the aftermaths of COP15, at the Lund University in Sweden, a CPS student from Bangladesh told us about how he had, at a visit to the Bella center (where the climate talks were being held), walked into the delegation from Bangladesh. And after a short chat with them he ended up helping the delegation with translations at the big UN summit.

The delegates also need to attend all the formal and informal meetings during the climate summit. And these can be many and scheduled to take place at the same time. If you have several delegates you can easily divide up the work and focus on certain issues, read every single document and draft texts. That’s why the more delegates you can send the better. Studies have shown that there is a great difference between the numbers of delegates developed and developing nations are sending to these COP summits. For example: To COP6, in the Netherlands, the USA sent 99 delegates and the European Commission sent 76 delegates. Many developing nations such as African and small island states were lucky if they could even afford to scramble together a delegation consisting of one to three delegates. Recent studies and experiences at COP10 in 2004 confirm and back this up. During COP6 the chairs decided to split up the negotiations into smaller groups, subgroups and even subsubgroups so that they could easier cover all the climate related issues in an easier manner. Sure, this move can in an equal and perfect world make the debates and meetings flow much smoother. But with the current inequality between developed and developing nations it can make things worse. As you can imagine this decision gave a huge advantage and “agenda-setting power” to the developed nations who had been able to send many more delegates to the COP summit than the poorer nations had.

Another problematic side effect of not being able to send enough people to the climate summits is that the developing nations delegates often gets “buried” in documents and papers. This of course leads to the delegation losing its strength and energy. In the last hours of the summit they could then be presented with a document or proposal to a treaty which is already done and beyond alteration and forced to accept or reject it in an unrealistic short period of time. The developed nations use this to get a tactical advantage of the developing nations. They can offer a document at the last hour and pressure everyone to sign it. If the developing countries don’t accept it they are later labeled by the developing nations as the “bad guy” and the ones responsible for wrecking the climate talks (Huffington Post, 2009). At COP6, for example, “commitments were imposed by muscular chairmanship, or gaveled through without reaction from negotiators exhausted to the point of sleep,” Ashton and Wang claim. But this approach does not always succeed as can be seen by the walkout by G77 delegates in 2003 at the Cancun trade negotiations, or from the failure of the COP6 summit where China and the G77 group felt marginalized by the developed nations. Or from the walkout by African nations at the latest COP15 summit in Copenhagen.

The nasty behind-the-back tactics and behaviors used in the past by developing nations were also present at the latest COP. During the first week of the COP15 summit in Copenhagen a potential final agreement, called the “Danish text”, was leaked to the Guardian. The draft text was apparently worked out by developed nations such as the UK, US and Denmark and planned to be adapted by nations during the final week of the summit. The draft agreement made the developing countries “furious” as it would give even more powers to the rich nations, weakening UN’s future role as well as abandon the Kyoto protocol. Many NGOs, commentators and political leaders have criticized these COP summits and the tactics being used as unfair and even undemocratic. At the end of COP15 the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for example called the summit “undemocratic”. Raman Mehta from Action Aid India said this in a statement, in light of the “Danish text”, that:

“The global community trusted the Danish government to host a fair and transparent process but they have betrayed that trust. Most importantly, they are betraying those who are disproportionately impacted by climate change and whose voices are not being heard. This unfair behaviour strikes a blow to all efforts to achieve justice and equity in the climate change negotiations process (quoted from Friends of the Earth, 2009).”

George Monbiot’s verdict on the COP15 summit wasn’t much better. He called it “stupid” and labeled the organizers and attendees of the summit as incompetent:

“This was the chaotic, disastrous denouement of a chaotic and disastrous summit. The event has been attended by historic levels of incompetence. Delegates arriving from the tropics spent 10 hours queueing in sub-zero temperatures without shelter, food or drink, let alone any explanation or announcement, before being turned away. Some people fainted from exposure; it’s surprising that no one died. The process of negotiation was just as obtuse: there was no evidence here of the innovative methods of dispute resolution developed recently by mediators and coaches, just the same old pig-headed wrestling.”

One also need to keep in mind that local environmental problems such as preventing soil erosion, providing clean drinking water, treating sewage and slowing down the spread of deserts are for most developing nations a much more critical and pressing issue than the more global ones. For developed nations the more global environmental issues such as climate change, ozone depletion and habitat loss are higher up on their priority list. This means that the developing nations need to put more effort into pursuing the South that the global issues should be a higher priority for them.

At the same time many delegates and policy makers from the less developed nations fear that the nations in the core of the world system, which I explained earlier, might just use the climate and environmental concerns to cover up their real agenda: keeping the periphery nations underdeveloped. After being literally forced to accept trade-related, intellectual and property-rights laws and agreements that gives an advantage to the North many South policy makers and even academics hold this opinion of mistrust. And this is a reason to why there is such a big “climate of mistrust” at the COP negotiations. The North has almost constantly failed to keep their promises of financial aid, technological transfer, ignored many of the ecological problems in the South and used tactics to marginalize the South at negotiations. So it’s not really that hard to understand that any suggestions from the North that the South should limit their development, for the good of global environmental issues, are met with a dismissive response from the developing nations.

Final Thoughts

So the lack of power and the extreme poverty and underdevelopment among many of the developing nations leaves them vulnerable in negotiations with the North. It’s more expensive for developing nations to purchase environmental technology and knowledge as they have to be paid with real cash and not credits or loans from the North. This makes it hard for them to perform any kinds of meaningful emission reductions or take part in the COP summits on equal terms.

The wealthy developed nations believe that climate justice is when an agreement involves all parties, both developed and developing nations. Because, they argue, the non-Annex I nations will in a near future increase their emissions with so much that they must be included in a climate treaty. The poorer developing nations on the other hand perceive this in another manner. The climate crisis is a result from the rich North’s excessive consumption. And so they argue they also have the right, just like the North, to build and develop their economy using cheap fossil fuels.

The ozone layer crisis during the 1980’s is a good example of how the world can come together to combat global environmental issues. The negotiations back then was just as hard and complex as the climate talks are today. During the negotiations a Chinese delegate said that: “The call for modernization is so irresistible that China will continue to produce these ozone depleting chemicals,” unless, of course they and other developing nations received financial compensation for their efforts. India was equally tough in their negotiations and their environment minister said in a statement that: “We didn’t destroy the layer. You did. I’m saying that you [the West] have the capability and the money to restore what you have destroyed” (Do you recognize the style of the statements back then to the ones in today’s climate debate?). In the end the North agreed to give financial aid to the developing nations so that they could afford to take proper actions and protect the ozone layer.

But the current climate change negotiations are taking place in an even tougher “climate of mistrust” between the rich and poor. This mistrust is based on decades of Western promises not kept in global environmental and economic matters. To get rid of this suspicion and mistrust that is sabotaging efforts to secure a climate deal the North needs to understand their historical responsibility in this matter. As well as taking social and economic issues into account when negotiating about climate targets. The North could do this by offering a new and fairer global environmental and development treaty that clearly shows their commitments in this issue.

“They could do this by providing greater “environmental space” to late developers, supplying meaningful sums of environmental assistance, funding aid for adaption and dealing with local environmental issues as well as global issues like climate change, and by identifying and investing in win-win technologies and sectors that both address local environmental issues and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (quoted in J.T. & Parks, 2006: 217).”

Basically the North needs to stop treating the weaker nations in the South as “second-class citizens” and work on rebuilding the South’s trust. Until they do we won’t get a fair, ambitious and binding climate deal (Or a planet with a habitable biosphere!).

References

• Roberts, J.T. & Parks, B.C. (2006). “A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy”
• Hornborg, A., J.R. McNeill & J. Martinez-Alier, red. (2007).”Rethinking Environmental History: World-System History and Global Environmental Change”
• Age of Stupid, “UK Priemier: Message from the President of the Maldives” (2009)
• The Guardian, “Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure” (2009)
• United Nations Earth Summit+5
• The Huffington Post, Pablo Erick Solón Romero Oroza, “Climate Headed for Crash Landing” (2009)
• Goodman, Amy, “The Climate Divide: Dispute Between Rich and Poor Nations Widens at UN Copenhagen Summit” (2009)
• Monbiot, George, ”Copenhagen negotiators bicker and filibuster while the biosphere burns” (2009)
• Democracy Now, ”Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on How to Tackle Climate Change” (2009)
• The Guardian, ”Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak” (2009)
• Friends of the Earth International, ”danish government slammed for bias and secrecy in role as president of un climate conference” (2009)

Photo credit: MK Media Productions

Tamara Stark, Communications Director at Greenpeace in the UK, writes this spot on blog post about the environmental “China bashing” in the international media.

“Having spent the last three years living in China, I and all of my Chinese colleagues became somewhat accustomed to what we referred to as “China bashing” by some of the international media. You know the sort of thing: the over-the-top, almost hysterical cry of “China’s eating up all the world’s resources!” Since China is now one of the world’s largest manufacturing centres, the claim was applied to almost anything – timber, coal, or even the cobalt used to make our cell phone batteries. To a certain degree, therefore, there is a kernel – but not much more – of truth to the claim.”

Stark highlights the fact that most of the production that generates the waste and pollution in China comes from factories (many owned by Western corporations) producing products intended for and consumed by the Western markets. We in the West have outsourced our dirty factories to (often) un-democratic countries with shameless low wages and with a political and justice system that lacks even mediocre environmental regulations. So why is the mainstream media blaming these developing countries for the increasing amount of greenhouse gas emissions when it is actually our consumption that is the root of the problem?

Stark continues by adding that China is currently investing more in renewable energy than some Western countries:

“For example, take their investment in renewable energy. Every year, there is more wind power capacity installed in China than the UK has installed in its entire history. The UK is currently near the bottom of the EU in terms of investment, only just managing to top Malta and Luxembourg. Surely a G8 country should be doing better than this?”

It unfortunately seems that the UK will lose its only wind turbine factory (and over 600 people will lose their jobs) due to a lack of much-needed investment in the green energy sector in favour of dirty fossil fuels such as coal and nuclear energy instead. While that happens in Europe the leaders of China are investing $12.6 million every hour to green their economy. China is actually investing twice as much as USA to green the economy, create jobs for the future and stop man-made climate-change. And this despite the fact that the US economy is 1.5 times as large as China’s.

When a single power plant in West Yorkshire in Great Britain will produce more CO2 every year than all the 139 million people combined living in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique. And when the West’s environmental footprint is several times higher than those in China who are we to be the ones pointing fingers?

We should never forget that it is we in the developed world that has created this global environmental problem. We are the ones responsible. Trying to claim otherwise is just disgusting.

As of September 23 we humans have used all the resources our earth can produce this year. That means we are borrowing resources from 2009 and that we are literally consuming our children’s resources.

And as each year passes Earth Overshoot Day happens earlier and earlier. Last year Earth Overshoot Day happened on October 6. Then we consumed 30% more natural resources than what the earth can reproduce under a whole year. Now in 2008 that number has increased with 10% as the Global Footprint Network expects us to use 140% of the Earths resources.

“Globally, we now require the equivalent of 1.4 planets to support our lifestyles. But of course, we only have one Earth. The result is that our supply of natural resources — like trees and fish — continues to shrink, while our waste, primarily carbon dioxide, accumulates.”

Some countries contribute more to these numbers than others do. If everyone lived like a resident of the following countries we would need this many earths:

• United States 5.4 Earths
• Canada 4.2 Earths
• United Kingdom 3.1 Earths
• Germany 2.5 Earths
• Italy 2.2 Earths
• South Africa 1.4 Earths
• Argentina 1.2 Earths
• Costa Rica 1.1 Earths
• India 0.4 Earths

What do you think? How can we manage to overcome our increasing consumption rate and overpopulation? And how can one personally contribute to ending the Overshoot Day?

Here are some interesting topics from the forum worth highlighting this week:

Buying Local in a Recession, How will increasing prices affect our consumption patterns?

10 signs you have gone way to green. “Eco snobbery happens. Don’t let it happen to you!”

And here is one of our most active forum topics (it has received over 15000 views): Why is climate change not in the USA primaries?

As you read this the Olympics in Beijing are in full action, as well as in our forum. The latest Olympic related forum topic created talks about NBC Beijing Olympic set being air conditioned – outdoors.

Create your free forum account now, it only takes a few seconds to register!

Visiting the shops means using means of transport, which burn fossil fuels and produce carbon dioxide,( sometimes monoxide which is worse), and other gases. These gases are the main factors that causes breathing problems, the greenhouse effect, and of course, global warming. Even if you shop online, transportations do take place, as the products come to you. It is an eco way of shopping only when done wisely.

Then it comes to the product itself. All products are sold into packaging, paper and plastic wrap. These materials, useless to the buyer, go straight to the rubbish dumps. The same thing happens with the products themselves. The one-use products, as all products in general, end up at the dumps shortly after their wrap. The more we buy, the more the dumps grow bigger and bigger.

But the worst part is what happens in the industrial world. Mass production during manufacture demands great amounts of energy, which means burning fuels. When we shop non- stop, products are in demand on the market all the time. So even bigger amounts of carbon dioxide and depositions reach the atmosphere and the sea.

And last but not least, many products contain animal by-products, such as fur or fat. Buying those products, which are common in the clothing and cosmetic fields, means that animals are tortured, usually to death, in order to satisfy the market’s demand.

So the point of all this, is that we have to categorise our purchases to really useful and useless, and try to focus only on the first category. Understanding the dramatic effects that over-shopping has on the Earth will help us take measures to reduce them.

Chris Jordan wants to show the “contemporary American culture through the austere lens of statistics.” Each of his artwork portrays a specific amount of something. For example the above image shows 426000 cell phones, equal to the number of cell phones retired in the US every day.

“My hope is that images representing these quantities might have a different effect than the raw numbers alone, such as we find daily in articles and books. Statistics can feel abstract and anesthetizing, making it difficult to connect with and make meaning of 3.6 million SUV sales in one year, for example, or 2.3 million Americans in prison, or 410,000 paper cups used every fifteen minutes.This project visually examines these vast and bizarre measures of our society, in large intricately detailed prints assembled from thousands of smaller photographs. The underlying desire is to emphasize the role of the individual in a society that is increasingly enormous, incomprehensible, and overwhelming.”

The image below shows 24000 logos from the GMC Yukon Denali. It is supposed to be equal to six weeks of sales of that model SUV in 2004. Just simply brilliant.

You can check out more of Jordan’s work over at his website, or if you are lucky, attend one of his exhibitions.