Consuming at the expense of others – Growth at any cost?

Dialogue forum “World in flux – The forgotten billions” on 18 March 2010

The current economic policy mantra is that increased consumption is the patent recipe for solving the economic crisis and securing jobs. However, it must be clear to all of us that the growth avenue taken by the rich nations of the northern hemisphere is often not sustainable. How can we drastically cut the true costs of consumption without throwing the economy and society off kilter? This was an issue discussed by three leading experts at “World in flux – The forgotten billions?,” the fourth in the series of dialogue forums, in Munich on 18 February.

Professor Franz-Theo Gottwald, theologian, philosopher and Director of the Schweisfurth Foundation: “We live in a system where the few prosper at the expense of the many.” If we applied the industrialised nations’ economic model to the whole world, by 2020 we would need two planets to satisfy our hunger for resources. Gottwald cited an example to illustrate the interdependencies and challenges encountered in food production alone. One hectare of rainforest comprises 800,000 kg of plant mass and animals. If that hectare is burnt and converted to pastureland, it produces about 200 kg of beef per year, which is equivalent to around 1,600 hamburgers. Gottwald calculated: “That works out at 6 m² of rainforest for each meatball”. When you see the disparities you can appreciate how hard it is to tackle them. It requires a lot of effort and education and the right legislative framework.
 
What ethical consequence can be drawn from the fact that the ecological footprint of our consumer behaviour cannot be emulated worldwide? “The answer provided by Kant’s categorical imperative is clear: we have to change our behaviour so that it can be applied worldwide,” explained Prof. Johannes Wallacher, who teaches at the Institute for Social and Development Studies at the Munich School of Philosophy. However, Kant only helps up to a point because the rhetoric concerning absolute moral duties often has few supporters, is not motivating and may even be counter-productive. Moreover, the consequences of individual consumer decisions are not clear. One solution to the problem: “We need a broad social debate on the guiding principles of a consumption style and lifestyle that are socially and environmentally acceptable, without brandishing the moral cudgel of having to go without,” Wallacher stated.
 
Because we always judge ourselves in relation to others, a broad, social consensus is needed on what constitutes fair consumption, which leaves our perceived well-being and happiness undiminished. “However, it’s hard to apply in practice,” Wallacher acknowledged. It is a long and arduous process. As long as the guiding principles pay homage to indiscriminate consumerism, there is little point in asking individuals to make sacrifices. “My vote would definitely go to a broad social debate on the different growth indicators.”
 
For Prof. Edda Müller of the German University of Administrative Sciences in Speyer, sustainable consumption starts when you make a purchase. She therefore argues for strict labelling of products. This is the only way consumers can consciously decide what goes into their shopping basket. Even if major inroads have been made in terms of sustainability, ecological over-exploitation is still the norm. The prosperity we enjoy is based on cheap everyday products to the detriment of development opportunities in the world’s poorest countries”, she criticised. It is possible to generate growth for a certain time with technical advances and more efficient use of resources. “However, the question is whether this compensates for the environmental degradation that is taking place elsewhere”.
 
Because only what is bought is produced, the consumer is a key player. Müller cited South Africa as an example of the market power of consumers. “The apartheid system eventually collapsed, among other things due to an economic boycott by industrial countries over many years.” Of this the former Executive Director of the Federation of German Consumer Organisations is convinced. It is therefore important to eliminate the problem of asymmetrical information between producers and consumers. Consumers have to be able to judge under what conditions and with what ecological consequences goods are produced. “Change can only happen if the different means of communication are used to show people what’s really happening,” Müller believes. Politicians need to ask themselves what they can do to support this trend. However, in Müller’s view, changes have to start not with some form of world government but at grass-roots level.
 
“Consumers are more powerful than you think”, Gottwald argued. Every purchase means cooperation with the manufacturer; refusal to cooperate can happen anywhere. “Why should one buy salmon from non-sustainable sources of production when there are certified producers available?” By withdrawing your approval, you are already venturing down a path that leads you step by step to another future. “I believe in taking small steps and actively supporting stronger governance structures. I certainly do not believe in the self-regulating forces of the market”, said Gottwald.
 
Those attending the forum will no doubt have realised that it is far from easy to leave behind much loved consumer habits. However, it is only by practising restraint that we can realise the vision of Dennis Meadows, the Club of Rome pioneer. He believes that even if the population of the earth rises to eight billion by 2030, people can continue to live fairly well provided they are prepared to do without a certain degree of luxury.
 
The next forum, the last in the series “World in flux – The forgotten billions”, will take place on 29 April 2010. The theme is “Development 2.0 – The crisis as an opportunity”.