We might think that most of the carbon emission come from the industrial sector and livestock, but a new study suggests that the real environmental problem is represented by the things we buy. [...]
“We all like to put the blame on someone else, the government, or businesses ... But between 60–80 per cent of the impacts on the planet come from household consumption. If we change our consumption habits, this would have a drastic effect on our environmental footprint as well”.
— nextnature.net
You can read the full report, "Environmental Impact Assessment of Household Consumption", published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology by researchers at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, here.
Related on Archinect:
6 Comments
True, but when you are not a yuppy who can shop at whole foods what do you do? choice is a luxury.
Victim blaming is taboo in every other circumstance, so what gives?
i don't get this. so the lady simply wants to say it's not the producer's fault but the consumer's fault. what good does that do?
so i buy a cheap plastic toy from china, i'm responsible for purchasing and disposing of that toy. surely i'm not responsible for their industrial methods, or the raw materials they chose to use for that toy, or their sourcing of those materials, or their labor practices, or any other decision i have no control over?
shouldn't responsibility ultimately lie with the people who can make decisions that effect the outcome? so if the CEO of that company said he wants to use some method of forming plastic that causes significant pollution, then the CEO is responsible for that decisions. if the government decides to regulate or to not regulate the industrial process that CEO chose to use, then the government is responsible for that decision.
i understand that by me choosing to purchase a cheap plastic toy from china, i am enabling the people, the corporation, and the governments that might make decisions i disagree with. however, i really don't have access to all information regarding what decisions all those people make, i don't have the time to do much research when buying a cheap plastic toy, and i certainly have no opportunity to influence the decisions they make.
is there a point at which we might want to hold decision makers responsible for the decisions they make, rather than someone who, without adequate information, enables those decisions makers to make bad decisions?
I agree with curt. I didn't read the whole study, but right off the bat, there's reason be dubious of the title Taylor-Hochberg gave her post:
The foreign production of products consumed by Norwegian households accounted for 13 million tonnes carbon dioxide (CO2), whereas using domestic production as a proxy would give only 5 million tonnes.
That's a huge amount of pollution that can be directly attributed to producers outsourcing production - making cheap shit in countries where labor has no recourse means big profits. We simply don't have the option of buying locally made, long lasting and easily repairable goods. And, we are constantly being told by advertisers (producers) that not having a lot of crap makes you a loser.
Of course consumers need to make good choices, but more importantly, we need policymakers who aren't beholden to the global oligarchy to seriously address the way the world economy works: prioritizing short term profits for a few over the health of the planet and everyone on it, before we will really have the option of doing so.
I think it is a misreading of the study to focus on cheap toys made in foreign countries. Here is what the report actually concludes:
"We confirm earlier conclusions about mobility, shelter, and food being the most important consumption categories ... the three categories consistently make up between 55% and 65% of the total impacts."
So, eat less, drive less, and live in a smaller house (or warmer climate!) to keep your impact down.
But really it's an academic study more oriented towards economic analysis than issuing guidance to consumers. Consider for example this entirely ridiculous hypothetical impact:
...switching a EUR of expenditure from food to clothing in the EU, for example, results in a reduction of 5.1 m2 of land resources...
This isn't really a solution to any problems, except maybe obesity and nakedness.
It's like blaming the addict rather than the dealer.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.