status consumption in many countries, and so does red meat, but there are no inherent reasons why new learned wants or status consumption could not be directed toward ecological goods and services (Griskevicius, Cantü, & van Vugt, 2012)."[Con-2]

AFFLUENCE - A 2020 article entitled Scientists’ warning on affluence relates affluence, consumption and environmental degradation. The abstract for this article states, "For over half a century, worldwide growth in affluence has continuously increased resource use and pollutant emissions far more rapidly than these have been reduced through better technology. The affluent citizens of the world are responsible for most environmental impacts and are central to any future prospect of retreating to safer environmental conditions... However, existing societies, economies and cultures incite consumption expansion and the structural imperative for growth in competitive market economies inhibits necessary societal change."

"The [scientist's] warnings aptly describe the problems, identify population, economic growth and affluence as drivers of unsustainable trends and acknowledge that humanity needs to reassess the role of growth-oriented economies and the pursuit of affluence[Con-4,Con-5]. However, they fall short of clearly identifying the underlying forces of overconsumption and of spelling out the measures that are needed to tackle the overwhelming power of consumption and the economic growth paradigm[Con-6]." [Con-3]

  There's no question that global consumption must be reduced. To help change consumption habits, Sandra Goldmark, director of Campus Sustainability and Climate Action at Barnard College and theater professor, has adapted Michael Pollan’s advice about food (“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”) to things: “Have good stuff (not too much), mostly reclaimed. Care for it. Pass it on.” [Con-2]

   Part of buying good stuff includes energy efficiency and minimal GHG emissions over the life of the item. This should consider the energy used in its production and consider the life cycle carbon implications of goods. A study by Meinrenken found that 45 percent of a product’s total carbon emissions occurs upstream in the supply chain — in other words, from the sourcing of and type of raw materials that go into the product. The Carbon Catalogue, which Meinrenken helped create, provides a side-by-side comparison of the carbon footprints of 866 products made in 28 countries. This type of catalogue could lead to the ability to compare carbon emissions between items while shopping. For example, a pair of Levi Strauss Rigid Tank jeans produces 7.7kg of carbon emissions equivalent over its life cycle, whereas Levi Strauss Tumble Rigid jeans produce 16 kg.

   Our 6 R's of recycling on Living Green 102 should be kept in mind when shopping. Rethinking or Refusing certain purchases may be a viable option. This could reduce some wasteful purchases, for example, of plastics in electronics, toys and clothing. Broken plastic is difficult to fix and plastic waste, often destined to oceans, can be reduced -- thus avoid  harmful consumption, including microplastics, by marine creatures. Overindulgence in electronics purchases can also lead to excessive consumption of precious metals used in their manufacture. 

​

See Economics for more ...