Benet Northcote: How poor do you have to be to talk about global consumption?

Benet Northcote, one of the authors of the Quality of Life report and now Chief Policy Adviser for Greenpeace UK, argues that the pivotal challenge of maintaining both consumption and wellbeing can't be ignored.

Let’s tackle this head on: how poor do you have to be to talk about global consumption? It seems a strange question, but it’s been mulling in my mind since reading Tim’s post about the Quality of Life Report from a few weeks ago.

First some background. The simple truth is the world is consuming too much of our natural resources. Every year WWF publish their One Planet Living Index. Simply put, if everyone in the world consumed the same as we do, and we wish to live in a sustainable way, then we would need three planets not one. 

If you factor in the effects of climate change, then this ratio will rapidly deteriorate. India and China are developing fast, and citizens are demanding ever more consumption. The pressure on arable land and water supplies will become real issues for global stability as people want more. Resource conflicts are already a reality and this is likely to get worse.

We must also consider how we measure happiness. The Economist Intelligence Unit – not a natural ally of the deep-green movement – is clear that money is not the only way to measure happiness. David Cameron has often repeated Robert Kennedy’s famous comments on GDP as a measure for wellbeing.

For me the pivotal challenge of 21st Century is how to deal with the twin questions of consumption and well-being.

We cannot go on as we are. It isn’t making us happy. Nor is it sustainable. Yet we need to develop. Halving hunger will not come about without energy for more productive growing, harvesting, processing and marketing of food. Improving health and reducing death rates will not happen without energy for the refrigeration needed for clinics, hospitals and vaccination campaigns. The world’s greatest child killer, acute respiratory infection, will not be tackled without dealing with smoke from cooking fires in the home. Children will not study at night without light in their homes. Clean water will not be pumped or treated without energy. I have written elsewhere that the Quality of Life Report is the first serious attempt to address this question in the UK (and it is a question for us, just as much as it is for the poor in China or India).

But I want to respond to Tim’s specific comments. Firstly, he asserts the green movement believe growth, acquisition and even humanity itself are the enemy of the planet. Well, yes, to a point. Unsustainable growth and acquisition is certainly the enemy of the planet and global security. Humans do not naturally act sustainably. The trick we need to pull off is changing that, without condemning the world to poverty: to decouple economic growth from increasing consumption. Clean energy rather than dirty energy; using food more efficiently; and stopping needless waste. For example, my daughter’s recent birthday party resulted in over 30 plastic toys from friends at her state-school. Within days they were mostly broken and ignored. Is this sustainable? Or is it symptomatic of over-consumption?

Secondly, Tim says that rich shadow cabinet members shouldn’t lecture low-income families on too much materialism. I agree about lecturing, but over-consumption is an issue for everyone. It is not about stopping the poor getting more, but stopping society as a whole destroying the planet. Decoupling economic growth from consumption should not punish the worst off; everyone needs to adjust their behaviour. It follows that everyone, whatever their personal circumstances, can talk about it. And if not, because they are too rich, then who can? How poor do you need to be to talk about the major issues confronting our planet?

Comments

[Jennifer Wells]

Thank you for this piece Benet.

My problem with Gummer and Cameron and Goldsmith and Gore lecturing us on our carbon footprint is that there is no evidence that they are reducing their consumption in a sacrificial way.

They talk of carbon offsetting as if that permits anything.

There are too many examples of fraudulent offsetting schemes.

Also much offsetting is about future benefit whereas current consumption causes immediate harm; if you believe in the green arguments.

[Iain]

No, the big issue is over population, everything else in the terms of problems stems from that.

The choice being offered us, well its not a choice actually because its the only option being put forward by 'green' groups, the British establishment and unfortunately the Conservative party is to ration resources, whilst not limiting population growth.

I wonder what choice people would make if they were offered the other choice, of limiting population, perhaps lowering our population levels, whilst not having to ration resources?

[Ian Parker]

Is there really any genuine point here, other than the desire to endlessly self-flagellate?

[Derek]

Anyone can write a piece like that above. The fact is that, like communism, it's ok in theory, but in practice "sustainability" is not going to happen. The author cannot even do anything about his daughter's birthday gifts!

In reality we all want to maintain and enhance our lifestyle. If and when certain materials become scarce the market will limit their use by price. Until then we will consume what we can afford. That is what has always happened and it will go on happening.

That is not to say that governments cannot intervene to protect widlife habitats and bring in laws to protect species under threat.

We live in a free society and the Green Party need to accept it.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Benet, Surely its the do as I say not as I do attitude that makes people cynical. If a certain Nobel prize winner decides to fly all over the world to spread his message then why on earth should a family take him seriously when they are told their familiy holiday to Ibizia may damage the enviornment?

If someone with lots of money can offset what they do - which in actual fact changes their behaviour not one bit but allows them to feel less guilty about how they act - again how does that help win the argument?

For politicians and commentators to win these arguments they need to lead by example.

[Ken Stevens]

I'm a climate-sceptic but, stripping out the touchy-feely stuff, there is certainly a case for reducing use of resources. The plastic toy analogy is a practical example that can be transposed to more weighty examples of unthinking over-consumption.

Regretfully I have less sympathy with some of the 3rd World aspects. Too much of the problem arises from the corruption and extravagance of their regimes. Either the despots have to begin caring about their own countryfolk or the West's assistance must be tough love: we only help those who help themselves. Only other alternative is neo-colonialism, i.e. enforced regime change, sort 'em out then hand back again. Some charity consists of the less well-off of the civilised world donating to fund the lifestyle of a few in darker regions --- bit like the Barnett Formula [no, no, only joking!]

[ubermoderniser]

Benet, should we all be vegetarians?

[Iain]

Ian Parker, yes you have a point, that much of the Green lobby is about self flagellation, self loathing, and a means to attack free enterprise economies. As they used to say about the environmentalist groups, green on the outside, red on the inside.

But there is a point beyond the narrow political agenda of the left supporting environmentalists, and that's the choice they aren't prepared to offer us, that of limiting population (immigration) and so not having to ration our resources. A choice they wouldn't like us to have as there would be no jobs in it for them giving them the right to interfere in our homes, lives, and how we choose to live out lives.

[Moral minority]

The ubermoderniser strikes again - Hitler was an environmentalist and vegetarian!

Benet Northcote's piece is typical green fascism. How does he know what makes me happy? His agenda is centralised control of what is grown and manufactured and how it is used.

The leading ecxonomist Julian Simon, whom Bjorn Lomborg tried to disprove and failed, debunked similar gloomy forecasts of resource shortages, population alarmism and the dangers of economic growth many years ago. The famous environmentalists Paul Ehrlich lost a famous bet with Dr Simon on resource shortages and market prices.

The green lobby's successful lobbying for DDT to be banned and killed tens of millions worldwide. The biggest killers are the socialists and environmentalists who want to destroy global prosperity and take us back to the Dark Ages.

The fact that Mr Northcote was a member of a key Party policy group (but presumably not a Party member) should alarm activists. If we want to help the poor and improve the environment, we must smash Greenpeace and their enviro-fascist allies.

[Ian Parker]

The essential problem with all of this is that the whole ‘green agenda’ has become a political movement with those ends. Most clearly, and damagingly, in the area of so-called climate change (properly termed natural, cyclical fluctuations in average temperatures), dogma has replaced science. As such, it is rightly scorned.

Of course there is a case for protecting the environment from pollution. That’s nothing more than saying it’s better to breathe clean, rather than toxic, air.

But, let’s look at what governments actually do. Invest exclusively in less polluting sources or power? No. Fund proper, industrial scale research into alternative methods of generating energy? No. Provide widespread tax breaks or subsidies to encourage more efficient uses of energy? No. Raise taxes to fund burgeoning budget deficits? Yes.

Unfortunately, green issues have become little more than a political and fiscal scam. The original message has been hijacked.

[Graham Checker]

Sorry, but this is the usual over-emotional left-wing claptrap advocated by the green lobby. Most of it is rubbish, frankly.

With all due respect, I despair if Benet is a Conservative, I really do.

The author is confusing two problems: One, the lack of development and poverty in the 3rd world and, two, the pressure on the environment caused by rapid economic growth. Note: some environmental change is inevitable.

As Derek says; "If and when certain materials become scarce the market will limit their use by price. Until then we will consume what we can afford. That is what has always happened and it will go on happening."

Exactly.

We are not "over-consuming", we are "consuming" because we can, prices are cheap. They are cheap for a reason. Plastic goods are abundant. Therefore, they are cheap. Noone has unlimited income, same as there are no unlimited resources, they must ration their limited incomes, as they do, therefore there is no "over-consumption" - we consume what we can afford.

Why not cite an example of the opposite?

Gold and tin prices are at record highs - an example of the market rationing their use by price - there isn't enough of these metals. In a global market, this will soon damp down demand and greatly stimulate metal recycling schemes. When oil starts to run down, the same thing will happen. Resources won't "run out"; prices will gradually increase instead and substitute resources/technology will be found over the interim.

Important point: DON'T GET OVER-EMOTIONAL!

This idea of needing "3 planets" to supply our resources is also total rubbish. It's very similar to the left saying "80% of the worlds wealth is held by the West, therefore the West is 'stealing' all the wealth of the 3rd world" and redistribution is needed. This assumes the wealth in the world is finite and that the West is just hogging it.

That is wrong. Economically illiterate and factually inaccurate.

The west have 80% of the worlds wealth because they produce ~80%+ of the worlds GDP. If Africa ever managed to develop itself properly, they would soon find their GDP and % share of world wealth rise sharply, just as in India and China.

There is no finite "level" of wealth - wealth is a product of an efficient economy. Economic growth largely arises out of increased efficiencies and new technologies. "3 planets" will never be needed because efficient production and the price mechanism will always reduce it to "1 planet" which is what we have. As growth occurs in the 3rd world (yes, it will) it will also reduce income inequalities.

Yet another reason not to stifle it with leftist greeno-economic policies.

The main thing the "international community" can do is to; (a) encourage the development of new technologies with tax BREAKS and, (b), establish a price value of forests/wild spaces globally and incorporate it into the free-market economy to stop exploitation of habitats.

How about an annual £1 million UN prize for developing green technologies??

The solution is ALWAYS to set a sensible, POSITIVE economic framework - that people buy in to - and allow people total freedom to operate and innovate within it.

Anything else is doomed to fail. And the prospects of the worlds poor along with it.

[James Mawdsley]

It is a tragedy to believe the world is over-populated (comment above). Life is good! The world has bountiful resources, and humanity has unfathomed intelligence in how to exploit those resources for the common good.

The problem is NOT over-population but greed and carelessness (which lead to what Benet is writing about--unsustainable lifestyles which do not make us happy).

So long as we are greedy and careless then it would not matter if the world's population were 1 billion or 20 billion, there will be poverty, conflict & misery.

The solution begins in our souls. Following that the political establishment can draw on that spiritual capital to frame workable policies.

The alternative is doomed KKK-inspired population programs which involve the powerful sterilizing the weak (overwhelmingly women), killing babies and undermining marriage through misinformation campaigns on contraception.

If couples around the world believe it is worth it to bring new life into that world then what totalitarian statistician has a better informed view than they? It is up to these people, at the level of the family, to decide whether or not they forsee having the means available to bring up another child. If there is a shortage of resources then they may prudently decide to delay (even indefinitely). But this is nobody else's call.

If someone wants to make a global analysis, then what leads them to judge there are too many people, rather than realising there is too much greed? And what kind of vision for happiness rests on sterilizing the weak, whether physically or through propaganda?

The focus of this debate works just as Benet raised it: "How do we live sustainably?"; not "If we cannot learn to share, how do we eliminate the competition?" Because if we take the second approach, then we will never find happiness; it is too late.

[Iain]

"The problem is NOT over-population but greed and carelessness (which lead to what Benet is writing about--unsustainable lifestyles which do not make us happy)."

James Mawdsley so its to be Soylent green all-round is it?

The fact is we are being told we have to ration resources, which seem to be cropping up daily, one day we are told meat is to be a luxury, next milk, soon we are going to be told genetically modified crops is no longer a matter of choice but a necessity.

Personally I would rather have a choice than being forced by necessity and the abysmal policies of the British establishment into rationing and driven into having to grow genetically modified crops.

We are told Global warming is the greatest threat to us.

Well if the global warming theory is correct, then its going to be a fact what ever we do, Kyoto etc isn't going to do diddly to stop it.

And if Global warming is a fact, then agriculture is going to become marginal.

That makes population sustainability critical.

Unfortunately the British establishment have plans to add , through immigration, another 10 million people to our already over crowded island.

So please lets have none of this KKK rubbish, the birth rates here are sufficiently low to ensure a stable/ falling population level, the population growth is through immigration, all we need is a half decent immigration policy.

[Gabriel]

Ummm, Darfur is not a "Resource War", it is a campaign of racial extermination justified by a toxic ideology taking Arab Nationalism and combining it with - purporting to find its fullest expression in - Qutbist Islamic fundamentalism.
Who exactly cares what the professional liars at the UN have to say on the matter?

How despicable that ConservativeHome is being used as a platform to whitewash a geniuine threat to the whole civilized world in order to make us focus on the chimeras of the Watermelon movement's fevered imagination.