Environmental Project, 904 – Consumption and the Environment in Europe

Consumption and the Environment in Europe

6 Conclusions

Consumption patterns have received increasing attention in international discussions of sustainable development. But despite government commitments at the Johannesburg Summit to develop a framework of programmes for sustainable consumption and production, the debate over the basic principles of sustainable consumption remains unresolved.

It is clear that, in industrialised countries and especially in Europe, household consumption accounts for a growing share of resource use and environmental burden, as supply chains become cleaner and more efficient. Studies based on input-output modelling, life-cycle analysis and other approaches track the majority of resource use and environmental damage back to three areas of household consumption: food, transport and housing (including home energy). Within these three areas, the largest impacts are associated with the consumption of animal products, car use, and home electricity use. In recent years, consumption in all of these areas has risen, in some cases quite rapidly.

Many Europeans over-consume food (inasmuch as they have become overweight or obese), yet consumption levels are continuing to rise, with a 5% increase in calorie intake during the 1990s. Although consumption of animal products is increasing, the fastest growth is in consumption of vegetable oils, nuts and oilseeds, and fish. Consumption of potatoes and animal fats is declining. There is a trend toward increasing consumption of prepared food and eating out, with a corresponding decline in home cooking.

Overall, environmental impacts of European agriculture such as overall land use, greenhouse gas emissions and fertiliser run-off are fairly steady. Other major impacts in the food supply chain include those of food manufacturing, freight transport, household shopping trips, cooking and waste disposal, as well as the environmental impacts of restaurants and other food service providers. Among these, the main areas of growth are in transport and services, which are using increasing amounts of energy as well as using land for roads and car parking.

Personal travel is continuing to rise and although cars are being made with more efficient technology, the energy use per kilometre driven is fairly steady, because of a trend to larger vehicles, increasing use of energy-using accessories, and more energy-intensive driving styles. Despite the downturn in air travel from 2001, aviation is still the strongest area of transport growth and, with the greenhouse impacts of emissions of NO_x and water vapour at high altitude in addition to CO₂ from fuel use, seems set to become one of the most important sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the future.

The introduction of catalytic converters and lead-free gasoline has helped to reduce urban air pollution by cars. However, land use and habitat destruction for roads are continuing, with most of the emphasis on new motorways, often affecting relatively unspoilt rural areas. The amenity impact of personal travel is also worsening, including traffic noise and the visual dominance of cars in urban and, increasingly, rural areas.

There is growing demand for home furnishings, appliances and home energy per person. Of particular environmental significance is the growing residential demand for electricity. Although kitchen appliances are becoming more efficient, new areas of electricity use keep emerging and growing, with home electronic equipment consuming a growing share of electricity.

Despite rising energy use – and especially electricity consumption – CO₂ emissions from home energy use have fallen in recent years, mainly because of fuel switching. Households are consuming less coal and oil, and more gas and electricity. Meanwhile, electricity generators are shifting away from coal and oil to gas and nuclear power, with rapid growth in renewables from a low level.

The demographic, economic and technological forces behind consumption growth are relatively well-understood. Although the European population is growing very slowly (about 0.3% per year), household numbers are rising quite rapidly as more people live alone, as couples or in smaller families. Immigration and more general mobility are also contributing to the development of more cosmopolitan consumption patterns. The ageing of the European population can also be expected to affect consumption, partly as a result of a shift in the way people save and consume over their lifetime.

Economic forces promoting consumption have included the rising supply and falling cost of goods and services, as producers compete to maintain or increase market share. In some countries workers are experiencing increasing pressure to compete in the job market, by working longer hours and demonstrating a steady salary progression. This means that they have more money but less free time, so that consumption is stimulated by the need for convenience. Another major engine of the consumer boom has been the growth in consumer borrowing. This takes different forms in different countries, but includes consumer credit, mortgages and bank loans.

Technology is the main hope of most policy-makers for moving towards sustainable consumption. But technological change has mostly contributed to increasing levels of consumption and resource use. The factor-of-four to –ten resource productivity improvements advocated by some environmental experts over the next 30-50 years would require a dramatic change in technology trends, with very significant shifts in the economic, social and other forces that shape technological innovation and markets.

The social and cultural aspects of consumption have been extensively researched but are poorly addressed in most environmental policy analysis. Governments tend to follow the assumption of mainstream economics that consumption patterns reveal personal preferences, and so consuming more of the same will increase consumers' personal utility. Hence, economic growth is one of the highest priorities for governments. Social and psychological research shows that happiness or satisfaction is not increased by material consumption above a certain level (corresponding to an income in the region of €8000 per person per year). Consumption then contributes to quality of life mainly through its role in social interaction.

Policy instruments tend to focus on information and incentives for people as individuals, whereas a large part of the determination of consumption occurs in groups, families or communities. Important social forces include the role of consumption in establishing belongingness and status within a group – promoting on the one hand conformity and on the other competitive differentiation. Collective choices also give rise to “lock-in” of consumption patterns – for example it is becoming increasingly difficult to function in some European cities without a car as the infrastructure and services are all designed for car users. Consumption also plays a role in personal identity formation and in symbolic communication. The advertising industry makes particular use of this symbolic function.

It is perhaps discourse and narrative that is of most interest in the context of sustainable consumption. Governments do play a role in shaping collective narratives or stories about values, goals, and the nature of the Good Life. In recent years, they have fallen in with the mainstream narrative, which sees people as autonomous, rational individuals whose highest potential is to be achieved through their work and demonstrated through rising levels of wealth and consumption. Society is understood as nothing more than a collection of individuals, whose collective purpose is to enable individual members to meet their needs. The natural world is mostly understood as a resource base for meeting human needs.

Cultural theory identifies this mainstream narrative as “individualist”. However, there are competing narratives present in European society. In particular, “hierarchists” advocate a strengthening of social responsibility and law and order, reviving traditional values. “Egalitarians” advocate a strengthening of community, direct democracy and shared values, with an emphasis on social and environmental concerns.

The future of consumption in Europe depends, then, on the outcomes for a range of different forces and trends in society. These include demography, technology and innovation, economic development, social structure and cultural values. This report reviews a number of business-as-usual or reference outlooks, focusing on particular areas of consumption and the associated supply chains. These outlooks pay particular attention to assumptions about population, technological efficiency, income growth and commodity prices. They are mostly based on economic models.

The outlooks essentially point to a continuation of past trends, with rising levels of consumption of food, transport and housing. Resource use and greenhouse gas emissions, especially linked to transport and housing, are expected to increase over the next 20-30 years, with only moderate improvements in energy efficiency and very small shifts to renewable energy.

The report also reviews alternative scenarios including three storylines included in the Annex. These scenarios reflect the possible implications of playing out different value systems in Europe. All three of the annexed storylines are potentially consistent with reducing environmental impacts of consumption, with a particular focus on CO₂ emissions.

Individualist Europe sees a rapid increase in consumption, but also a high level of technological innovation. Information and communication technology plays a central role. Energy use and CO₂ emissions increase for the next 20 years, but then high fossil fuel prices force a rapid shift to renewable energy technologies.
Traditional Europe sees an emphasis on security as a result of the “war on terrorism”, with government and a small number of major companies playing a dominant role in Europe. Innovation is slow. The drive for European self-reliance leads to protectionism, limits economic growth, and encourages the development of nuclear power and biofuels. High fuel prices also encourage a reduction in energy use (e.g. through a shift to smaller cars), so that CO₂ follows a declining trend.
Egalitarian Europe sees environmental and economic disaster resulting in a public willingness to adopt a radical change in values and lifestyles, drawing on the social innovation emerging from anti-consumer and anti-globalisation movements. CO₂ emissions are reduced through a combination of cleaner and more efficient technology, and lifestyle change.

In two of the scenarios, Traditional Europe and Pluralistic Europe, the emission reductions are partly the consequence of disastrous circumstances. Nevertheless, all of the scenarios contain elements that would be abhorrent to some people, and aspects that others might find highly attractive. They suggest that the grey clouds in the disaster scenarios might have silver linings.

Fortunately, it is highly unlikely that any of these scenarios will come about, but the future may contain elements of all three. They point to the potential for a range of social and economic actors to play a role in bringing about more sustainable consumption patterns, including government, the business community and civil society. They also suggest that both technological and social innovation will be required.

At present, six years after Kyoto, there seems to be little sign of adequate GHG mitigation policies being introduced. In the transport sector, the most substantial hope for limiting energy use appears to be the car manufacturers' voluntary agreement limiting vehicle CO₂ emissions per km, but the IEA projections cast some doubt on the effectiveness of that measure, especially in the light of rapidly growing car travel.

Even the most stringent conventional policy measures currently under discussion are unlikely to achieve the scale or pace of consumption change needed to move towards a sustainable society. In addition, they tend to underestimate the complexity of underlying motivations, and ignore the diversity of ways in which government can engage in the processes that shape consumption. A new mindset is needed in policy development for sustainable consumption.

The most important aspects of this new mindset are likely to be:

Recognising that material consumption does not equate directly with quality of life; new indicators of well-being are needed, focusing more on the family, community and other social factors that are most important for most people
Acknowledging that it is legitimate for governments to be involved in the shaping of social behaviours. Indeed, governments already do help to shape culture through their own actions, through the narratives they employ in political and media discourse, and through policies that emphasis economic growth at the expense of community and the environment.
Developing policies that enable consumers to escape from the “lock-in” of current consumption patterns. This might include providing better infrastructure for non-motorised transport; providing a fiscal and regulatory framework that enables producers, consumers and entrepreneurs to develop a food supply chain independent of large corporations; and encouraging the development of alternative and more sustainable forms of housing suited to smaller household sizes.
Finding new ways of supporting the initiatives of community and other groups working to develop sustainable lifestyles.
Adopting a learning approach, rather than seeking to manage and control consumption and production. This means government being willing to listen to others and question its own assumptions and practices.
Working on a collaborative basis with stakeholders to develop congruent visions, strategies, practical actions and evaluation processes.

Government has a vital role to play in shaping the institutional, social, cultural and ethical context within which individual consumer behaviour is negotiated. But to play this role it must go beyond the rigidity of “control” and “persuasion”, to view government and public as collaborators and learning partners in the process of change.