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.

How much ‘stuff’ is enough?

Spring has sprung! It is time to get moving again, to plan and get organised. It is the perfect time to clean-up and declutter. For many of us, decluttering – getting rid of the stuff we don’t need – has really positive outcomes. We feel freer and less stressed. Things run more smoothly when we are not surrounded by clutter and chaos. But there is more we can do than clean out our cupboards and cars.

Now is the perfect time to rethink our relationship with ‘stuff’ and our tendency to treat shopping as a leisure activity. Wasteful consumption has serious and damaging consequences, not least the harm to the environment and on our hip-pocket.

I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t buy anything at all. On the contrary, there are many things we need and buying goods and services plays an important economic role in raising standards of living. Localised commerce is an important part of a strong local community. But it is worth asking how much stuff do we really need? When is enough stuff, enough?

Much of the ‘stuff’ that we buy are not necessities. They are discretionary or luxury purchases. To put it another way, it is stuff that we want but don’t exactly need in order to make our lives better. If we base our purchasing decisions on what we want, rather than what we need, we are more likely to over-consume and make wasteful and costly mistakes (for both ourselves and the environment). This is not an argument in favour of austerity. It is, rather, an appeal to make more ethical decisions.

A good way to proceed is to separate our needs from our wants and to base our decisions to buy on the premise ‘do the least possible harm’. In doing so, we may choose to ‘buy local’ to cut down the environmental impacts of transportation or to buy second-hand clothes instead of new so as not to support sweatshop manufacturing. It might be as simple as avoiding plastic bags – saying no to these and other unwanted or single-use items. Other decisions, like electrical appliances and clothes and food, can be more complex.

In order to ‘do the least possible harm’ we need to do our research – and that takes more time than making quick decisions merely based on our unlimited wants or other impulse triggers. But it is important to remember that our decisions have far-reaching (often unwanted) consequences. The payoff is twofold. On the one hand, we minimise environmental damage and other unethical outcomes such as harm to workers and animals. On the other, we win too. In addition to making ethical decisions we save money by avoiding buying what we don’t need or can’t use! By making conscious choices everyone wins.

One of the easiest ways to make more ethical buying decisions is to simply buy less.

It is worth keeping in mind the adage ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ and by adding ‘rethink’ and ‘refuse’ to the list we will be able to make more ethical decisions about the myriad things that we buy. That has to be a good outcome for everyone.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: ‘Coming Out’ Bipolar

I have an ethical dilemma.

I have bipolar disorder. Not much I can do about it; not much of an ethical paradox. It is what it is.

But that is not the whole of my dilemma. I also happen to be a writer that writes about a whole range of subjects including my experience of living with a mental illness. My predicament is whether to use my own name when writing about the personal stuff. Should I tell the world – with all its prejudices – that I have bipolar disorder? Or should I use a pseudonym, effectively protecting me from stigma and prejudice? Will outing myself negatively impact on my professional profile or will it contribute in some small way to helping others?

One of the best ways to overcome stigma and prejudice, of course, is to ‘out’ it. It is becoming increasingly common for celebrities to talk of personal experiences of depression and various mood disorders. It is less common for those with schizophrenia to have access to such advocates. For us mere mortals, personalising mental illness relies on a certain amount of courage and, some might say, madness.

Given that those with mental illnesses, like any minority group, have long been shunned by certain sections of society, more needs to be done than merely talking about the need to break down the barriers faced by sufferers. Action, they say, speaks louder than words. My writing on bipolar disorder aims, amongst other things, to help break down barriers towards mental illness to raise awareness and to de-stigmatise the widely misunderstood illness. Bipolar disorder a mood disorder, previously known as manic depression, is characterised by differing expressions and combinations of high and low moods, from extreme mania and psychosis to suicidal depression.

Admitting that I write about bipolar disorder inevitably leads to being asked whether I have bipolar disorder or a mental illness. When I say that I do, I am bombarded by a whole raft of other personal and confronting questions such as: ‘what makes you bipolar?’; ‘what are the craziest things you have done when you are high?’. Or, my personal favourite, ‘have you ever been suicidal?’.

Some questions are easy to answer; others less so. Such questions seem to challenge the actual diagnosis that took so long to reach and was such a relief to hear. I was diagnosed in 2007 after a decade and a half of extreme ups and downs. Other questions are painful because they make me remember things I did, or feelings I felt, when I was unwell.

Herein lays my dilemma. I obviously want my writing to raise awareness and help to remove the stigma of mental illness, but at what personal cost? I am left wondering: do I, in an effort to break down mental illness’ stigma, actually have an ethical obligation to “come out” and declare my hand? But how far should I go in disclosing my illness? Should I tell the world or protect myself from any uncomfortable questioning?

If I do declare my hand, my writing will probably have greater authenticity than if I merely write as an interested observer. But, the flow-on effect might be too close for comfort.

The successful treatment of a mental illness requires personal acceptance that one actually has a mental illness. Reaching this point is, for many people, easier said than done. However, doing so empowers one to take control over treatment plans and, perhaps most importantly, to take responsibility for taking the medication that is such an important part of the management regime. Accepting that you have a mental illness, or in my case bipolar disorder, is an enormous and vital step in achieving balance. Coming out publically is a whole other ball game.

My family obviously know that I am crazy! I have also been quite candid with some of my friends, colleagues and acquaintances. But whether to tell everyone who asks me is another matter entirely.

There are some downsides to such a declaration, not including the personal questions that inevitably follow. There is a tendency for well-meaning people to interpret all behaviour as fitting the ‘mentally ill’ profile and to dismiss emotions as less important than those of ‘sane’ people.

Then there are the issues associated with attitudes and assumptions that affect my family and friends. Do I want parents and guardians of my son’s friends knowing my personal medical history before we know each other’s last names? No, I probably don’t.

Do I want to put myself in the firing line and subject myself to the very prejudices that I am trying to extinguish? I’m not sure if it is the best thing to do, but telling the world and everyone else that will listen certainly does feel like the right thing to do. For me, I have chosen to put myself out there and to use my illness in order to raise the profile of mental illness and, hopefully, to be of some help to my fellow travellers. It is also helping me to make sense of negotiating the ups and downs of the highs and lows.

This is why I have chosen not to use a pseudonym.

Six Great Books About Writing!

1. Julia Cameron, The Right to Write – An Invitation and Initiation into the Writing Life

2. Robert Masello, Writer Tells All – Insider Secrets to Getting Your Book Published

3. Queensland Writers Centre, The Australian Writer’s Marketplace – Every Contact you will ever need to Succeed in the Writing Business

4. Strunk and White, The Elements of Style – a timeless daily companion

5. Robert Masello, Robert’s Rules of Writing – 101 Unconventional Lessons Every Writer Needs to Know

6. Julia Cameron, The Sound of Paper – Inspiration and Practical Guidance for Starting the Creating Process

The Ultimate Consumer Choice – Just Say No

 

Consumer policymakers and commentators have been all too willing pay lip-service to the four basic consumer rights as proposed by President John F. Kennedy in 1962. The right to safety, to be informed, to choose and to be heard are the central tenets of the consumer movement. Yet, few have sought to clarify or question what the rights mean and how they might be extended. When the United Nations added an additional four guidelines in 1985: the right to the satisfaction of basic needs, to redress, to education, and to a healthy environment, there was little, if any, debate about how competing consumer rights were to be balanced against each other.

The final right – the right to a healthy environment – was aimed at improving the environmental impact of production; to protect local communities, particularly in the developing world, from factory emissions and other pollutants. More recently advocates have promoted the idea of ‘sustainable consumption’: switching to ‘green power’, recycling and reducing packaging in an effort to reduce harm to the environment. However, there has not been a sustained effort to question the overall ideology of consumption and to reign in the excesses of unlimited choice. How is the ‘right to the satisfaction of basic needs’, for example, to be balanced with the ‘right to a healthy environment’? The pursuit of prosperity dependent on mass consumption is not based on ‘the satisfaction of basic needs’. Mass consumption has delivered benefits to a privileged few but has left much of the world’s population in poverty. The environmental costs of mass production and consumption have been horrendous. The ‘race to the bottom’ in an effort to serve consumer choice benefits very few – and it certainly does not serve the long-term interests of consumers regardless of where they live.

Whose interests does the pursuit of unlimited consumer choice serve (whose liberty is curbed by restricting the number of toothbrushes available in the local supermarket)? The consumer policy framework that predicates access and choice has proved to be ineffective at dealing with problems even when there has been willingness to do so. It is not so much that the framework is out dated but that policymakers have forgotten the historical foundations on which it was built. A system that is only interested in access and individual choice has little hope of spreading benefits widely and strengthening democracy.

It is not enough to offer consumers more choices in the form of alternative or sustainable consumption – these are too easily co-opted by marketers all too willing sell the alternatives. Policymakers must encourage consumers to also exercise the ultimate choice – the right to say no. Alongside self-sufficiency (intentional poverty) ‘Not Buying’ is a serious alternative to the culture of consumption.

Taking Stock

Thanks to Pip for the impetus to make this quick list:

Making : a mess
Cooking : Peter Singer’s Dahl – totes vegan and totes delish
Drinking : red wine
Reading: The Right to Write by Julia Cameron
Wanting: the rain to stop
Looking: forward to the final episodes of 'Breaking Bad'
Playing: Lego
Wasting: time worrying
Sewing: nothing but planning a new project
Wishing: for a positive electoral outcome
Enjoying: 'The Americans'
Waiting: to make my vote count
Liking: making plans for new writing
Wondering: what it is like to live by the sea
Loving: Jack Dee
Hoping: my optimism will last
Marvelling: at how fast baby goats grow
Needing: another coffee
Smelling: the scents of an early spring
Wearing: the same old stuff
Following: the election campaign
Noticing: the signs of spring everywhere
Knowing: that it can’t rain forever
Thinking: about creativity
Feeling: groovy
Bookmarking: endless lists of books I want
Opening: a new chapter in my writing life
Giggling: at Blake’s 7
Feeling: optimistic!

Yay! Grass Roots Celebration Issue!

I've got an article in the latest issue of Grass Roots magazine! GR 218 Aug-Sept 2013 - 40 year celebration issue.