Rethinking Consumerism and Climate Change

It doesn’t get simpler than this: when we buy, everyone pays.

Our purchasing decisions have often far-reaching, unwanted and damaging consequences such as environmental destruction and the unethical treatment of people and animals. But it is climate change that is by far the greatest problem facing the global community. Its effects are widespread and respect no political or geographical boundary. Climate change’s major driving force has been the reliance on consumption to generate growth. Over-consumption – the ultimate outcome of a growth agenda – has only negative ramifications for the climate. Human-induced climate change requires a human-driven solution.

There is an urgent need for a politically driven ‘reduction of consumption’ agenda. Yet, there is an overwhelmingly lack of political will from both of Australia’s major political parties to pursue consumption reduction. Australian politicians would be well aware of the political unpopularity of austerity measures adopted by select western democracies as a result of the Global Financial Crisis.

It is worth reminding our policy makers that such austerity programs have not been pursued in an effort to combat the climate emergency. Rather, conventional economic austerity measures are driven by restricting government spending via cutbacks and tax increases. The ‘not buying’ ethic is not formally enforced by governments or commerce. By embracing voluntary austerity measures, by adopting a lifestyle that is not defined by consumption, we, as citizens, are empowered.

For fear of being criticised for interfering in commerce and putting our affluent standard of living at risk, Australia’s major political parties ignore the urgency to reform our relationship with, and our attitudes to, consumerism. Consumed by a short-term obsession with buying votes, politicians encourage us to buy as if the future of the country depends on it. On the whole, we have been very compliant consumer citizens. Thrift and austerity are hardly the stuff of Australian political discourse. As a consequence, governments have inadequately dealt with the climate change emergency.

The political focus on achieving prosperity through conventional consumer economics has played a significant role in silencing the climate change debate. The environmental consequences of industrialisation and materialism were not part of the political discussions during the 2013 federal election campaign. The silence is deafening and alarming. It is hard to find middle ground between the extreme pursuits of combatting climate change and pursuing an economic model based on growth. Yet, with no Minister for Climate Change or even a Minister for Science appointed to the new Abbott Ministry, the climate emergency has been further pushed from the political agenda. This is a blatant attempt to silence the climate debate. It is up to all of us to continue to bring pressure to bear on policy makers, commercial interests and fellow consumers to take human-induced climate change and its relationship to consumption seriously.

The climate emergency needs not the repeal of the Carbon Tax. It instead requires the urgent reform of the consumer market and the economic reliance on it. If we are to have any chance of protecting our high standard of living and improving the lot of those in the developing world – those often most at risk from the negative effects of climate change – we need to act NOW! The time for political inertia is over.

Despite the lack of political will to take action to combat climate change, there is much we can do on a personal level to reduce our reliance on the consumer market. In order to change our own relationship to consumption and consumerism we must also substantially reduce what we buy. Given the elevated status of the consumer – the notion that the ‘consumer is king’ – our power to vote with our wallet can be a particularly strong weapon. Rather than feeling powerless and unintentionally perpetuating harm by consuming conventionally produced goods, collective consumer action is empowering and potentially reformative.

Sustainably produced consumer goods are worthy alternatives when we do have to buy. In buying ethically we become powerful consumer activists. However, while there are increasing numbers of products that claim to be ‘green’ sustainably produced alternatives, overall consumption levels need to be reduced. Green consumerism cannot be a serious alternative if it works within the conventional economic principles of acquisition and growth. It is too easy for marketers to co-opt notions of sustainable consumption and sell their version of it back to consumers. Within the current doctrine of acquisition and growth there is no way to counter the negative effects of over-consumption.

It is worth bearing in mind the broader consequences of our choices to consume or not to consume. Doing so will result in better outcomes for a whole raft of stakeholders – including humans, all living beings and the environment. Until we combat the political reliance on consumption to drive growth we will not adequately attend to the climate emergency. Ultimately, time has come to significantly change the way we consume. It really is that simple.