Do we really consume too much?

    We are all guilty of it. What, you may ask, what could we as a species possibly be guilty of? There are so many answers to this question that many volumes of books could be printed solely on the kinds of detrimental acts humans are responsible for. But the largest guilt trip we ‘should’ be suffering from is our consumption habits. Human society has been “over”-consuming at amounts previously never experienced in planet Earth’s history -- all 4 BILLION YEARS. Currently the established system for determining Earth’s official overshoot day -- the day when one full fiscal year’s worth of Earth’s resources are used up -- is currently August 22, 2012. This means that in eight months and twenty-two days humans use up enough resources that require one FULL year for the Earth to replenish them, and the time span is only getting shorter. So what does all of this relate to? Well, since it has been proven that humans are unwilling to decrease their consumption habits, unless put under immediate pressure -- either financially or politically -- there are solutions that would require human society to change their habits through policy and regulation, and these changes would have immediate effect on society and on planet Earth’s resources. But, before we can continue we must first define some key terms that will assist in determining these solutions that will decrease human societies' consumption habits, either voluntary or involuntary.

Policy: A definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions.

Property Rights: Are rights beholden on an individual who can present proof of ownership towards distinguished property.

Pareto Optimality: Occurs when no other allocation could make at least one person better off without making anyone else worse off. This is also known as a Pareto Optimum.

Distributive Justice: The economic framework that each society has — its laws, institutions, policies, etc. — results in different distributions of economic benefits and burdens across members of the society. These economic frameworks are the result of human political processes and they constantly change both across societies and within societies over time.

Ecological Sustainability: The capacity of ecosystems to maintain their essential functions and processes, and retain their biodiversity in full measure over the long-term.

     Now that we have established the key terms that will assist in distinguishing the possible solutions towards decreasing our consumption rates, we may begin discussing them. When we consider consumption rates, we are assuming that all resources can reach all individuals over any span of time. An example is eating fruit in the area you live in where that fruit is not grown. Another example is water, unless you source from a well, most buildings access water through systems that source the water from treatment plants. This water is technically free, less the utility cost, but consider the current water scarcity claims proposed by most -- if not all environmental scientists -- that potable water may become a scarce resource. This is where limiting scale may play a part in reducing consumption rates by supplying less with current demand rates. If regulations were to be put in place, which established limited scales on water sourcing, that would mean that the originally “free” water most people received would become a scarce economic good. Now this doesn’t seem logical, but if it were to be implemented correctly, developments around the world that have previously sourced their water from reservoirs and rivers sometimes hundreds of miles away would have a limited scale of accessibility, even rendering the developments from existing at all. This may seem too extreme by the sounds of it, deeming Las Vegas, Nevada; Phoenix, Arizona; and other cities of the like as unsustainable in their current water sourcing and consuming practices requiring them to comply to regulated scaling proximities, but is it necessary?

     When considering over consumption human society has two clear options currently, limiting demand through increases in prices (taxes), or limiting availability (quotas). Both options have been used throughout history in numerous situations. The question is, which would be more beneficial in the long-term decrease of current consumption rates? I believe that to develop a society that exploits less and in turn consumes less, it is only possible by limiting the availability to resources, as to continue to conserve the resources necessary for survival, while developing more beneficial systems to take the place. By limiting availability of resources it will create an involuntary compliance society through policy, that will create a more beneficial society, because humans are animals, and animals naturally adapt to changing environments. This idea is very primitive in its development, but is one option of many that are possible to begin the decrease of our current consumption rates, all leading to a more sustainable human society.

     The topic of reducing consumption rates is very complex, seeing that a majority of the world’s population currently lack the basic consumption practices that are necessary for a prosperous standard of living, which should be every inhabitant’s right. But at the same time countries like the U.S., China, Europe, India, and several more countries are consuming at rates that are considerably unsustainable. So what is right? Should we instead concentrate on equitable resource allocation before limiting scales of resources, that way consumption rates may balance themselves out as basic resources are distributed equally among the more than 7 billion humans, and further tens of billions of species that inhabit the Earth.

Thank you for your interest, please comment and subscribe.

Onward,

Hayden van Andel