Quietly Quitting Consuming
In reality, the only hope we have to mitigate the risks associated with environmental collapse is degrowth. This cannot be government policy, as it is not compatible with our current monetary system. But it can be ‘private’ policy, especially for those who can afford to scale down. If you are reading this article, you likely already fall into this group.
The COVID19 pandemic, while not driving what’s necessary to reduce future pandemic risks, has nevertheless triggered behaviour change. And it seems like some of that change is sticking. A significant number of people seem to have decided, consciously or unconsciously, that they will not let their employer sap all their energy. This may mean that they have changed jobs, are working from home or simply that they have chosen to not put in the unpaid extra hours for their current employer. Key is that these changes mean they have more energy for their family and friends.
While this is not a luxury that all people have in all countries, what is significant is that the group that can do this is the same group of people who have the disposable incomes and lifestyles that are driving biodiversity loss. Their financial security has enabled them a level of freedom to opt out of the system to a greater or lesser degree.
For most this gives them more time and energy to be with family and friends. But, given the state of the world around them, they welcome distractions of music, sport, celebrity dramas, travel, hobbies or socialising. For a smaller percentage they invest their growing freedom in activism because they can remember how much more stable the weather was when they were younger, and they also have the time and resilience to reflect on the greater extremes that lie ahead.
Undoubtedly, such activism has made governments around the world anxious. Governments wouldn’t have responded in the way they have, enacting new laws, if they too weren’t reflecting on how citizens will respond as the consequences of global warming and ecosystem collapse become obvious to the many.
Will peaceful protest become violent resistance? History has shown that extreme environmental activism, such as those outlined in Burn Wild, undertaken by an underground cell known as The Family, may hamper progress rather than trigger the transformation needed. The podcast is an interesting listen given similar questions of, “How far is too far when it comes to saving the planet from catastrophic environmental collapse?” are being posed in the mainstream media, such as C4s Chris Packham: Is It Time to Break the Law?
What do you do when you know signing petitions will not achieve anything? Or, when you have written to your local MP about your concerns that not enough is being done to deal with climate change and environmental collapse and this has got nowhere?
The thing that governments (and industries) are most worried about is that we collectively quit consuming. Could quietly quitting consuming non-essential goods be the best way to send a message to governments, markets, investors and companies that we want to mitigate the risk for future generations? After all, as the saying goes, “we don’t inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”. Given how much some people consume to maintain their personal lifestyles, they haven’t got this fact at all!
As I write this, I am happy to read that the French luxury group Kering has issued a profit warning. Their shares tumbled as much as 14% on Wednesday—the largest drop in more than three decades. The warning triggered because expecting sales at Gucci, Kering’s biggest brand, may be down 20% year-on-year in the first quarter.
This downturn in non-essential goods isn’t only because of the cost-of-living crisis. There is still plenty of money in the world for a significant percentage of people. Similarly, the downturn isn’t only a reflection that more people are realising that such spending is no longer seen as a positive quality, giving them status and prestige they desire. But why is this?
Possibly, a simple and pragmatic reason is that some people are finally realising that the transition to renewables alone won’t be enough to mitigate the collapse we collectively face. One aspect of this was best described by Prof Simon Michaux in 2022, in the first comprehensive analysis of the total amount of metals required to create a full, first generation of the ‘renewables economy’, assuming we are going to keep all the cars, trucks, trains, ships and so on.
Prof Michaux’s analysis and report outlined what was needed to replace the current fossil fuel based economic system with a mix of electric cars/vans, hydrogen powered trucks and ships and electricity produced from a mix of solar, wind, hydro and nuclear. The scale of the task is massive, as we would need:
- 280 million tonnes of lithium batteries for 700 million cars, 600 million vans and 60 million motorbikes
- 200 million tonnes of hydrogen per year for heavy trucks, trains and ships
- 16,000 TWh of electricity to charge the EV batteries and produce the hydrogen
- Another 20,000 TWh of electricity to replace direct fossil fuel use by industry (steel, chemicals, fertilizer etc.)
He went on to estimate of the metals required to build the batteries and wind/solar generation for the renewables transition. In his report he makes clear that his estimate is for the first generation only, given that batteries and wind/solar have relatively short lifetimes, ranging from 8-25 years.
Based on current technologies for batteries, solar PV and wind turbines, he calculates that we would need enormous quantities of copper, nickel, lithium, cobalt and vanadium. He acknowledges that there have been incremental improvements in battery technology, solar PV and wind turbines, but these improvements do not significantly change the total amount of metals required. Using 2019 production rates of these metals from mining, he shows that it would take:
- 190 years to mine the copper,
- 400 years to mine the nickel,
- 1,700 years to mine the cobalt, and
- 7,100 and 9,900 years for the vanadium and lithium respectively
And that’s just for the first generation!
The counterargument would be that we could ramp up the rate of production, but that would require even more energy and water than we are already using. The open pit mining used for such extraction is completely dependent on diesel for the massive dump trucks and excavators that make extraction of low-grade ores viable. A sobering Catch-22!
So, given this situation, why would you waste energy producing non-essential goods, be it apartments that no one will ever live in or handbags that sit in a wardrobe?
As governments clamp down on peaceful protests, and whistleblowers are more like to be prosecuted than company executives who ignore environmental regulations to drive profit growth, is it time for more people to acknowledge the best type of activism available to us all may be quietly quitting the consumption of non-essential goods and service?
So spending time in nature, with your kids, is better than consuming it, because the wellbeing of future generations is dependent on our ability to stop shopping.
Lynn Johnson is a physicist by education and has worked as an executive coach and a strategy consultant for over 20 years. In her work she pushes for systemic change, not piecemeal solutions, this includes campaigning for modernising the legal trade in endangered species, to help tackle the illegal wildlife trade.