Annabel Lundy

English:

Research Paper II: Consumption

Professor Portuges

12/2/13

Changing the Way We Consume

The primary way that we demonstrate our value is by how much we contribute to

consumption. You may not even realize it, but our country is centered around
consumption and it was not a happy accident. After World War II there was a need to
improve the economy and our country leaders solution was to increase consumption. The
man commonly credited for this solution is Victor Lebow, a 20th century economist, who
famously wrote,

Our enormously productive economy demands that we make consumption our
way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we
seek our spiritual satisfactions, our ego satisfactions, in consumption. (Lebow,
1955).

These words have had a major influence on shaping American culture today. The amount
the average American consumes has more then doubled in the past fifty years. (Leonard,
2007). Consumption drives nearly every aspect of our lives and has created a nation
where money is the ultimate power.

With the expansion of capitalism many countries are following the consumerist

trend. This is where the issue arises because if everyone in the world consumes how

"

Americans do we would need three too five more planets worth of resources to sustain us
(Leonard, video). We have become a nation of people obsessed with over consuming.
These ideals have fueled our economic and social lives for the past 50 years, yet very few
are even aware of the larger system that surrounds consumption and its many
consequences. In order to deal with the ramifications of over consumption which spread
throughout political, social, economical, and environment aspects of our society we must
be a nation of conscientious consumers.

Consumerism has made people a lot of money, therefore there are many arguments

against updating consumerism. The most prominent of these, is that the average american
cannot afford to be a conscientious consumer. There are many products that are
guaranteed environmentally and socially responsible that are more expensive than the big
brands. Another argument made by critics of change, is that making these changes does
not make a difference because no one else is doing them. No one wants to be the only one
wearing last years styles because that would make them less valuable as a person. It is
impossible for one person to make a difference.

The idea that if we change the way we consume most people will not be able to

afford it, has kept the heat off big business production for years, but they are lying to you.
In the long run you always pay for that product ten fold, but you may not realize it. The
definition of consumption is the use of goods and services by household (Britannica Inc,
2013). All of those goods and services are bought by households therefore how could

"

reducing consumption be increasing peoples expenditures. In 2011 the average american

household wasted around $75 a month on disposable items and almost $60 on food, by
throwing out an average of one meal a day (Worldwatch Inst.,1). This means most
American families could be saving over $1,500 a year without having to give up anything
besides dealing with rotten and moldy food. Another way to decrease the hazardous
effects your personal consumption has on the world as well as your wallet, is shopping at
used clothing stores as well as giving your old clothes to stores for someone else to call
new. During spring cleaning, instead of sending a dumpster of perfectly usable clothing
that you've out grown in size or style to a landfill, you could make some money if you
bring it to a consignment store, or donate it to a local Goodwill or shelter, they would be
happy to get rid of it for you. Consignment stores will sell your clothing and pay you a
percentage of the sale so the more stuff you bring in the more money you can make!
There are multiple other ways being conscientious can increase your personal income.

The old saying nothing is free holds more truth now than when it was coined.

The low prices that you are seeing in these big stores are not reflecting the social and
environmental costs of the product life cycle. The true cost of a good produced is
externalized, which means that someone else is paying for it and it is definitely not the
producers. Product life-cycle is the larger system that consumption is a part of. It refers to
the process of extraction to production to distribution to consumption to disposal that
every product you consume goes through (Leonard, video). Each of these steps come

"

with a myriad of negative environmental and social impacts that are hidden from the
consumer. The products you are buying from these super stores have high-impact and
short life cycles. They trick you into thinking you are getting a deal, while continuing to
make you and others pay for it indirectly.

Marketing tricks corporations use to get you to think your paying less when your

actually paying more are planned and perceived obsolescence. Planned obsolescence is
when products are made to break, or become un- useful quickly so you have incentive to
buy more. The most obvious example of this is disposable items. One of the most
commonly used disposable items is paper towels. Americans dispose of over 3,000 tons
of paper towels per year. The average household could be saving at least $110 a year by
using rags and reusable cloths (Giacoppo, 1). Now, you can get a disposable version of
almost anything, from cameras to clothing. Disposable items give a clear message that
the producer expects you to buy that item over and over, therefore increasing their own
profits. Even products that are not disposable seem to be lasting less and less time. The
big companies are focused on quantity not quality and they actually design the products
to break as quick as possible without the consumer losing faith in the product. This makes
it so you are actually spending more of your own hard earned money on replacements,
than if you had just bought one quality product. Within the last decade or so there has
been a noticeable decrease in the durability and an increase in the speed at which new
styles are being released. The growth of speed in which new products are being

"

introduced into the market is called perceived obsolescence. This is another method
distributors use to make the consumer think they need more. They make changes in style
and usually appearance of products in order to make it obvious if a consumer has on old
or new model. Since the amount of personal consumption is a indicator of value in our
society, this puts pressure on consumers to be make sure they have the newest version of
everything. An easy way to picture the increasing pertinence of planned and perceived
obsolescence is thinking of your very first cell-phone, it was probably a brick. I still have
my very first one from ten years ago and it still works as well as the day I got it, while my
current phone is actually number three of the exact same phone within the last year and
they've already come out with four newer versions. Product distributors have successfully
used these marketing tools by deluding the american people to unreasonably accelerate
our rate of spending.

As I said before there are people who have made a unimaginable amount of money

off of this system and these people have the best lawyers, publicists and governmental
policy protecting their own profits. The people who should be making the changes are the
corporations distributing the products because they people responsible for creating the
problems in the first place. This is the basis for the theory of producer responsibility.
Producer responsibility is when producers are held accountable for all the negative effects
associated with the product-life cycle, including extraction, production and most
importantly disposal (Hawken). If producers had to deal with the massive amounts of

"

environmental and social clean-up related to their current entire product life cycles, they
would be forced to rethink their methods or loose a lot of money. Another way to create
incentive for producing quality goods is to remove all the tax breaks given to
corporations using old highly intensive methods. Our policies today subsidize costs of
farmers using the highly-intensive and conventional methods, while it costs a small
fortune to get certified as organic. This encourages farmers to over-produce in
unsustainable and ultimately unhealthy ways (Food Inc, Movie). The only problem is that
as long as the corporations have the money and power, we cannot count on the
government to put our interests first (Worldwatch, Pg 1). The corporations will not
change because they do not need to, they are making huge profits. The most powerful
tool a citizen has is their dollar vote. A dollar vote refers to the purchasing choices of
consumers affecting which products will continue to be produced and supplied to the
market. (Britannica Inc, 2013). The idea that your contribution doesn't matter, is related
to the commonly used environmental metaphor, The Tragedy of the Commons. This
looks at the issue that arises when their is a shared resource. A common incentive of
people when there is a shared resource is to over consume because they think if I don't
some one else will and just me using extra wont make a difference. It is the problem
of passing the responsibility to someone else and the problem arises because in or culture
the majority is thinking in the same way, and a abundant resource can be completely
depleted in a very short amount of time. Every time people consume more goods then

"

they actually need, whether be getting every new apple upgrade or taking that extra long
shower every morning, they are contributing to this destruction. In the worlds case, these
resources that support our extravagant lifestyles, like water, are already at dangerously
low levels and are still being depleted at exponentially growing rates. If the average
person felt the personal and ethical responsibility to pay attention to the amount they
waste, it would be a good start to stretching the life-span of the valuable resources.
According to Paul Hawken, historical it has only takes 5%-10% of population of a
community to bring about a major social change (Hawken, 33).There are forty-six
thousand consumers in San Luis Obispo and just three-thousand of those people have to
decide to be conscientious to create major social change (World Clock). This is evidence
that every ones contribution makes a difference, and your personal efforts can have a
larger lasting effect.

The citizens of the United States depend on their elected officials in government to

protect their interests. Throughout our nations short history money has been a source of
power, but when the founding fathers drafted their new government in the Constitution,
they implemented numerous checks and balances in order to keep one party, interest
group or person from gaining too much power. While James Madison felt that
government should be treated like a business contract between the citizens and their
elected officials (Madison, 4). The citizens hire governmental officials to do a specific job
and if they do not do their job the people have the right to fire or remove them from

"

office. Today, it seems that big corporations are in charge of the hiring and firing, and if
Madison was around he would expect a revolution. The priorities of corporate agendas
are becoming more and more important to politics and the people who are benefiting the
most from policies that affect corporations are holding a majority of the positions in
government (Huff, 2). The power of corporations in government undermines many of the
checks and balances that protect our democracy. Corporations pay for campaigns,
therefore those being elected loyalties are to them and not the citizens. The lack of
governmental policy that discourages methods that are harmful to society, is because the
government doesnt want to piss off the people paying their salary, and more commonly
people related to them. The most significant thing we can do to change the way we
produce and consume products, and reduce their consequences is to separate corporate
interests from government (Leonard, Clip). Until they divide, there will be no change in
policy or priorities, which makes it impossible for any of our efforts to last. The first step
to changing governmental policy is to educate the people. Advertising has not only
benefited manufacturers, but also governmental candidates during elections as well as
gaining support for their issues. The problem with getting so much information directly
from advertising, is that they are allowed to lie (Leonard, 5). Most people are unaware
that they are permitted lie in advertisements and they have trusted their government to
make sure important information is received by the people. A recent example of this is
from last years poll. Advertisements for No on Prop 37 for labeling food, had man on a

"

tractor who stated that prop 37 was targeting small farms, making it harder and more
expensive for them, while it had many loopholes for corporate farms. The truth is that
prop 37 was targeting corporate food distribution, it would have cost companies like
Monsanto billions because they would not be able mislead people with the way they
labelled theyre products. Prop 37 would have helped people become conscientious
consumers as well as force corporations to take some responsibility for their harmful
products (Finz, 2). But corporations used their money to basically trick people into voting
against their best interest. When their is one corporation, and basically one person
controlling all forms of the media in this country, the diversity of information we are
receiving is compromised. In under 40 years the control of media has gone from 50
sources to just six corporations controlling 90% of the media (Lutz, 1). The information
we receive from the media, drives how we vote in this country and it is important to make
sure citizens get all the information. That is the job of the government, the nation elects
officials to make sure no one is extorting the people. The government and corporations
have taken advantage of our trust in them and now people need to take back government,
it is not an easy goal but it will be the most rewarding.

We are conditioned to believe that consumption is the way to happiness. Whether

we are aware of it we are constantly being reminded of our inadequacies and told the
solution is to shop. These prompts to self-depreciation are called advertisements. Today
we see more ads in one day than the average american saw in their entire lives 50 years

"

ago and consumption has doubled yet national happiness has decreased exponentially.
Every day we are targeted with over 3,000 ads a day, ad free space is a rare commodity
today (Leonard, Video). Successful advertisements make you feel like you need their
product. Usually by using insecurity. According to Dr. Speth, in 2012 America was
reported with the highest consumption of antidepressants per capita and the highest
prevalence of mental health problems (Speth, 3). This not an indication of happiness. If
Americans are being targeted with over 3,000 ads a day that means we are being
reminded that we suck every 30 seconds. America is also slacking in many of the other
social aspects. This is especially surprising because of level access to technology and and
capability, and education in this country. Consumption is increasing, but in order to afford
the consumption people are working harder and longer than ever before. This makes it so
that the consumers have less and less time for leisure activities and enjoying the goods
and services that they are exponentially consuming.

Over-consumption has taken a major toll not only on the social aspects of life iin

the United States, but also on the social damages being done in other countries are the
most common externalized costs of Americans obsession. In order to save money big
corporations have outsourced production usually to impoverished countries. The reason
for this is an abundance of labor for very low wages. Today these places that have
become our waste sites are considered the third world, but the reason we originally
colonized there was because of their abundance of wealth. For example, Latin America

"

10

had an abundance of gold, yet today they are called the poorer part of the world because
their natural wealth has been completely depleted (Shiva, 1). The abundance of workers
willing to work for low wages makes it so the corporations have all the power and
combined with cooperation of these countries corrupt governments create an social
environment where workers have no rights (Maquilas, Video). This is why it is important
to remember to look for goods made and produced in America and even better to buy
local goods.

Although, the recent economic crisis has caught everyones attention, there is an

idea that America is still better off than a majority of the world. According to Gus Speth,
author of America the Possible, as of 2012 America has the highest poverty rate, greatest
inequality of income, lowest percentage of GDP spent on social programs and the highest
number of people living with out insurance because of the price (Speth, 36). These facts
are an indication that we are doing something wrong. As I pointed out earlier,
consumerism is damaging to the consumers wallet in multiple ways but the way in which
we are taught to measure our economic welfare is flawed. The large role that Gross
Domestic Product(GDP) has played in the interpretation of our nations economic welfare
is inaccurate and therefore problematic. GDP was never suppose to be an indicator of a
countries overall wellbeing, yet politicians have turned it into the main goal. In our world
that emphasizes more, more, more it is no surprise that economist and politicians
consider increasing GDP success. Gross domestic product can only be used to measure

"

11

one thing accurately, and that is marketed economic activity; which includes every
expense and interprets it as a positive with no differentiation between activity that
improves or reduces welfare (Kubiszewski & others, Pg. 1). The problem with this
massive misinterpretation is that our governmental policy is actually built around
increasing GDP. GDP is increased by things like oil spills, increase in prisoners, and
when we spend money. This creates a large incentive for government to expand these
programs which are not necessarily in the peoples best interest, or to use unnecessary
spending to increase the GDP. This also explains why we have the largest prison
population in the world, because someone is benefiting from it, and it is not the citizens.
The Gross Progress Indicator (GPI) is an alternative indicator that measures Personal
Consumption Expenditures just like GDP, but it uses 24 components to distinguish
positive and negative activity (Daly & Cobb, Pg 4). The study Beyond GDP: Measuring
and achieving global genuine progress, studied the GDPs and GPIs of 17 countries
including the U.S., and while the GDP continues to increase the GPI has been in a slight
decline since 1980 (Kubiszewski & others, Pg. 1). In increase in GPI is a more efficient
indicator of increase in the quality of activities, but it is important to always compare this
with other indicators to make any broad inferences about the data.

The common product life-cycle of a majority of the goods consumed in this

country have heavy environmental costs. The two main cataclysms of over-consumption
are the depletion of natural resources and pollution. A high impact life cycle denotes a

"

12

large amount negative affects caused by the materials economy of a product (Leonard, pg
2). This means that over the course of the products life-cycle it had a large impact on the
social and environmental health. Most of the products that we consume are high-impact
because the system of product life-cycle does not account for the many natural limits of
our planet. Problems are faced at every step of the product life-cycle, but instead of
changing the process to incorporate the restrictions faced by our planet, they have hidden
it from the consumers. The process starts with the extraction of natural resources. Natural
resources are materials and energy in nature that are essential or useful to humans,
including water and carbon, and we are currently running out of them (Britannica Inc.,
2013). In the last 30 years one third of the planets natural resources have been depleted. If
we continue to use the resources at this rate we will be finishing of the last of our fresh
water in 60 years (Hawken, 81). Not only are we running out of natural resources, but
also common practices of extraction are extremely harmful to the environment and
societies that these resources are being extracted from (Leonard, 3). The main source of
environmental disruption during the production step of the process is pollution created by
the waste products. There are over 80,000 chemicals in commerce and less then 20% of
them have been tested for any harmful environmental and health effects, like cancer
(Coming Clean Campaign). This means consumers in America have the possibility to
come in contact with at least 80,000 chemicals, with unknown number of possible
negative health effects, every day. The third step is distribution, this is when the finished

"

13

materials are transported to the shelf where it will sit and wait for you to consume.
Transportation compromises the environments health because it is highly resource
intensive. The most common form of of the transportation of goods is by freight ships
which use extensive amounts of coal. Coal is one of our very limited natural resources
that we have depleted at a rate much faster than nature can create more. Paul Hawken,
Author of Natural capitalism wrote,

There is no longer any serious scientific dispute that the decline in every living
system in the world is reaching such levels that an increasing number of them
are starting to lose, often at a pace accelerated by the interactions of their
decline, their assured ability to sustain the continuity of the life process. We have
reached an extraordinary threshold. (Hawken, 4)

This means that a large majority of scientists are in agreement that the decline in the
ecosystems on this planet have gotten so crucial they are going extinct. There are many
different ecosystems on our planet and every one of them is connected and interacts with
one another. This makes each ecosystem hyper-sensitive to the repercussions of the the
harm done to other ecosystems and the destruction is moving at a faster rate than we can
control (Hawken, 81). Humans ability for innovation is one of the main reasons we are at
the top of the food chain, but we are still apart of the ecosystem and our life is dependent
on all those interactions. Therefore if our human exploits eliminate those connections
humans will experience those reverberations as well. There is already evidence of human

"

14

disruption of the ecosystems like the severe decrease in air quality due to deforestation.
The next step is consumption, which I have previously spoken extensively on the
environmental harms of. The final step in the process is disposal. It is reported that only
1% of products consumed in the US are still in use 6 months after there date of sale
(Leonard, Video). The average American throws away 4 1/2 pounds of garbage per day,
and for each one of those grey cans you put out on the curb to disappear every week,
there were 70 cans of waste created to make your the products your disposing (Leonard,
Video). For example, there is almost two-million tons of mining waste for every one ton
of gold produced which equals about twenty tons of mine waste created to make one gold
wedding ring. There were over 200,000 weddings in 2011, which means California
creates over four-million tons of mine waste each year. (Hawken, 81). That is single
product in a single state. That is a pile taller than most buildings (Leonard, 2). In 2011 the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report from Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW) that encouraged practices of waste reduction, most importantly source reduction.
Source reduction is reducing waste at the source, by designing products that will produce
less waste and also making the resulting waste less toxic.

It has come to a point in the history of the human race where we need to make

changes or the planet is going to for us. Changing our system of consumption is
detrimental to create a nation that will be able to sustain itself in the long-run, but it is
important to understand that without controlling population growth now, we will miss our

"

15

chance to see any of the changes be effective. The result of over consumption have had
lasting repercussions in politics, social relations, economics, and the environment and if
we commit to creating a holistic nation for our children and grandchildren. As an
environmental management major I have struggled to completely diminish the idea that
capitalism and the environment are incompatible, but through my research I have come to
the conclusion that there are possible concessions to be made that are beneficial in all
aspects. Reducing personal consumption is the way to take the power away from the
corporations and could be enough for policy change so that manufacturers bear the full
cost of their own production.

"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"

16

"
"
Work Cited:

"consumption." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online.

Encyclopdia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 03 Dec. 2013. <http://www.britannica.com/
EBchecked/topic/134578/consumption>.

"natural resource." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online.

Encyclopdia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 15 Dec. 2013. <http://www.britannica.com/
EBchecked/topic/406337/natural-resource>.

Daly, H. E., and J. B. Cobb, Jr. "For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy
TowardCommunity, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future." Beacon 1989: n.
page. Print.

dollor vote. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online.

Encyclopdia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 03 Dec. 2013. <http://www.britannica.com/
EBchecked/topic/134578/consumption>.

Finz, Stacy. "Prop. 37: Genetic Food Labels Defeated." Sfgate [San Francisco] 7 Nov.
2012: 1-2. Print.

Food, Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Perf. Michael Pollan. Movie One, 2008.

Hawken, Paul, Amory B. Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins. Natural Capitalism: Creating
the next Industrial Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and, 1999. Print.

"

17

 Korten, David. "Economies for Life." Yes! Magazine Oct. 2002: 15+. Ebscohost. Web.
19 Nov. 2013.

Kubiszewski, Ida, Robert Costanza, Carol Franco, Philip Lawn, John Talberth, Tim
Jackson, and Camille Aylmer. "Beyond GDP: Measuring and Achieving Global
Genuine Progress." Academia (2013): 1-7. Ebscohost. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. <http://
www.academia.edu/3636103/
Beyond_GDP_Measuring_and_Achieving_Global_Genuine_Progress>.

Lebow, Victor. "Price Competition in 1955." Journal of Retailing (1955): 1-7.

Ablemesh. spring. Web. 1 Dec. 2013. <http://ablemesh.co.uk/PDFs/journal-ofretailing1955.pdf>.

Leonard, Annie. "Story of Stuff." Interview. YES! Magazine. Yes!, 4 Feb. 2008. Web.
20 Nov. 2013. <http://www.yesmagazine.org/multimedia/yes-film/the-story-of-stuffby-annie-leonard?gclid=CP2ng6Ogl7sCFZRffgod7xwAUQ>.

The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard. Dir. Annie Leonard. Perf. Annie Leonard. Free
Range Studios, 2007. Online.

Munang, Richard, Ibrahim Thiaw, Jessica Thompson, David Ganz, Evan Girvetz, and
Mike Rivington. "Sustaining Forests: Investing in Our Common Future." UNEP Policy
Series ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT.5 (2011): 3-16. UNEP. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.unep.org/ecosystemmanagement/Portals/7/Documents/
unep_policy_series/5thUNEPPolicySeries.pdf>.

"

18

 USA. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA. Municipal Solid Waste. By EPA. N.p.:
n.p., 2007. Global Environmental Outlook. Web. Nov.-Dec. 2013. <http://
www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/index.htmMunicipal Solid Waste>.

USA. RAND California. Number of Marriage Licenses Issued. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Web. 1
Dec. 2013.

USA. Worldwatch Institute. 1400 16th St. NW, Ste. 430, Washington, DC 20036.
World Watch Institute. N.p.: n.p., n.d. EBSCOHOST. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. <http://
www.worldwatch.org/node/810>.

Wasinger, Rainer. "The Anthropomorphized Product Shelf: Symmetric Multimodal

Human-Environment Interaction." (n.d.): n. pag. Rpt. in Aarts, E., Encarnaao, J. By
Wolfgang Wahlster. Eds ed. Heidelberg: True Visions, n.d. Web. <http://www.dfki.de/
~wahlster/Publications/The_Anthropormophized_Product_Shelf.pdf>.

"
"
"

"

19