System, not consumers, the big green problem

Cartoon: Winston Tseng

Most environmentalists would agree consumerism and consumer culture put too heavy a burden on the planet. Consumer spending is central to the economy, which is why economists and governments also pay it close attention.

But most mainstream economists say endless economic growth, which implies limitless consumption, is both possible and desirable. This ignores how it helps fuel our ecological problems.

Today, most things sold on the market are made to be thrown out and replaced. A big part of economic activity is made up of selling products “designed for the dump”.

It's not hard to see why this suits the biggest firms with the most market power. They make more money selling new products regularly than they can from products that are long-lasting, repairable and easy to upgrade.

This cycle begins with the extraction of raw materials from the earth. The throwaway economy needs to turn more and more of nature into products for sale: fossil fuels, soil nutrients, fresh water, metals and timber.

The cycle ends with the steady release of waste back into the ecosphere: waste gases into the sky, waste pollutants into water, and waste chemicals and toxics into the soil.

In the rich nations and the upper class enclaves in the South, mass consumer society has also given rise to its own culture, which encourages individuals to define their happiness and social status by the things they consume.


Globally, corporations spend trillions on marketing and advertising each year. Advertising doesn't make people mindless: everyone resists and disregards sales pitches every day. But this huge, continuous sales effort helps reinforce the values of a consumer society.

Advertising fosters compulsive consumer habits and creates new “needs”. And, as Naomi Klein began her classic book No Logo, modern management theory holds that “successful corporations must primarily produce brands, as opposed to products”.

These brands are sold on the promise they can satisfy complex emotional and social needs: happiness and relaxation, belonging and confidence, fun, sex, and respect.

The promise is always an illusion. Having more stuff has not made us happier.

Advertising revenue is the corporate media's main source of income. Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner and Mark Zuckerberg would be nothing without it. Every media corporation is therefore a giant advertising machine.

The media's role in the economy adds to the waste and pollution in the physical environment. But Adbusters' Kalle Lasn and Micah White say the advertising-driven media pollute the “cultural environment” too.

“The commercial media are to the mental environment what factories are to the physical environment. A factory dumps pollution into the water or air because that’s the most efficient way to produce plastic or wood pulp or steel. A TV station or website pollutes the cultural environment because that’s the most efficient way to produce audiences.”

Perhaps the most glaring lie told is that the consumer society brings freedom and choice. John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark and Richard York say in their book The Ecological Rift: “The entire marketing system, in which trillions of dollars are spent persuading individuals to buy commodities for which they have no need, and no initial desire ... is not a system for expanding choice but for controlling it in the interest of promoting ever-greater sales at higher profits.”

But while most environmentalists agree consumerism is a problem, differences emerge about what do about it and how to overcome it.

Many are tempted to blame consumer choices for causing our environmental problems and insist too many consumers are wrecking the planet because they aspire to affluent, wasteful lifestyles.

Mainstream environment groups run campaigns to convince people to limit household consumption, recycle more and cut down on waste. Others talk of “greening” consumer values and want to channel consumer spending toward green products.

Trainer's view

Some radical ecologists also focus most attention on consumer choices. In a recent interview with Green Left Weekly, Ted Trainer said consumer “demand for affluence is a key driver of today's global problems”. He said this meant “the main problem group is not the corporations or the capitalist class … The problem group, the key to transition, is people in general.”

But as monstrous as the consumer economy has become, consumer spending is still not the biggest environmental problem — not by a long shot.

Most waste and pollution is caused by industrial, military and commercial processes, over which consumers have no control. For example, in her 2009 book The Story of Stuff, Annie Leonard said household waste makes up only about 2.5% of the US total — 97.5% of solid waste comes from business and government operations, not consumers.

Limiting personal consumption is a good idea where possible. But it hardly scratches the surface of the ecological problem, which lies in how our stuff is made and distributed.

That statistical fiction, “the average consumer”, does not reveal much either. It’s true that average personal consumption has risen in the West. But the average figure conceals the extent to which the ultra-rich are super-consumers and super-producers.

In 2005, Citigroup analysts decided the wealth gap in Western economies is so large they are best called “plutonomies” — economies powered by, controlled by and reliant for growth on a small, rich elite.

Trainer is a critic of capitalist growth and consumerism. But his focus on “people in general” as the source of environmental problems takes growth and consumption out of this social context. In a 1989 article in The Progressive, US radical ecologist Murray Bookchin said this kind of approach tends to “distort and privatise the problem”.

Bookchin said: “It is inaccurate and unfair to coerce people into believing that they are personally responsible for present-day ecological dangers because they consume too much or proliferate too readily.”

It’s not much help to call on more people to choose simpler lifestyles because, “ironically, many ordinary people and their families cannot afford to live ‘simply’” in the present society.

Bookchin agreed that capitalist growth was “eating away the biosphere at a pace unprecedented in human history”. But he also said: “Public concern for the environment cannot be addressed by placing the blame on growth without spelling out the causes of growth.

“Nor can an explanation be exhausted by citing ‘consumerism’ while ignoring the sinister role played by rival producers in shaping public taste and guiding public purchasing power.”

But if appeals for people to consume less or live simply fall short, it’s also dubious that consumerism can be neatly overcome by a shift to a non-capitalist economy, where the profit motive no longer drives production and investment.

In his 1979 book The Self-Managing Environment, Australian ecologist Alan Roberts said overthrowing capitalism is crucial, but is still not enough to fully tackle consumerism.

The ecological disaster that was the Soviet Union, for example, shows that “the mere existence of planned, nationalised industry cannot prevent the gallop towards a destructive consumerism”.

Roberts’ point was that “consumerism is not just a particular organisation of the economy, but a way of life”. By this he meant that consumer culture — or the values of consumerism — “are reproduced by the life experience of people in almost every social sphere they inhabit, not just on the job, in their neighbourhood or in political life”.

So the problem of consumerism is not just about advertising and corporate power in the marketplace, as important as these things are.

Consumerism endures because it is also a kind of compensation for an alienated existence. Consumerism thrives when most people — the producers, the workers — are powerless in politics and society.

Roberts summed up his argument in this way: “Ecological values are those linked with consumption, but they are in fact substantially derived from the way in which people experience life as producers. It is that exploited, alienated and relatively powerless period, the working day, which reduces them to settling for commodity satisfaction in their ‘free time’.

“The bargain just struck — the deprivation of goods related to human community and creative effort, in exchange for commodities or the promise of them — extends its influence throughout all levels and institutions, marking out the shape of the ‘consumer society’. It is this society which threatens the environment with its unlimited appetite — unlimited precisely because its objects are so unsatisfying.”

Real control

To really tackle the consumer society and to stop it from reemerging, today’s powerless consumers need to win real control over their lives and labour. Roberts said a new system based on grassroots democracy — worker and community self-management — is the best ecological alternative.

This view of consumerism and how to tackle it also raises strategic issues for environmentalists today.

Roberts said it means environmentalists have a stake in “every struggle in an industrial society, whatever the immediate issue”.

How these struggles develop is key. Are they powered by grassroots activists or led by unaccountable functionaries? Do they try to build mass movements for change or do they focus mostly on lobbying politicians?

These are important ecological questions because it is by taking part in such struggles that people can begin to throw off their imposed social role as passive consumers.

After all, asks Roberts: “What sort of self-management, what turn from consumerist values, could be expected of workers who meekly accepted a cut in real wages, or of women who surrendered to others their right to decide on child-bearing?”

This is a very different conclusion to Trainer, who said in his GLW interview that “the essential aim is not to fight against consumer-capitalist society, but to build the alternative to it”.

It is a mistake to separate the fight against present conditions from the building of an alternative way of life. It is through struggle against the injustices of capitalist society that the new values, ideas and institutions of an alternative, ecological society will emerge.

[Simon Butler is an editor of Green Left and author, with Ian Angus of Too Many People? -- which tackles the myth that population growth is a major environmental threat.]


Your argument is very sharp, well done. It's hard to campaign against consumerism without lapsing into moralistic campaigns against consumers, which Trainer tends to do I think. However, it's good to explain the politics of consumerism. As the figures you give show, the greatest problem with individual consumerism is not its environmental impact which isn't that great, but the ideological chains that it represents. When capitalism tells us "you are what you buy", it's important to support alternatives that help people to define themselves rather by what they do and who they do it with - like community sports clubs and community gardens, as well as political activities; more annual leave days not just pay rises in the workplace; and so on. BCC
in regards to articles wight about soviet union, we are completely wrong. The soviet union even under stalinism was heavily regulated with state ownership. they never promoted consumerism or free market system. green left's strong slide in liberalism with this article. with earth can't support the free market capitalism which needs endless raw materials to keep up with demand. This system promoting pillageing of the third world, where most materials coming from Africa and Latin America, they pay the highest price not rich afflueant westerners who are queuing to buy the lastest iPhone. It is the system of capitalism which promotes consumerism, ecological destruction and pillaging of natural resoursces of the third world by sam bullock, brisbane
1. Most consumers are motivated by self interest - they are not altruistic self deniers who strive for what is right: they are not green left weekly supporters or readers. They are motivated by consumerism. 2. So, if there were less consumers there would be less consumption and more sustainability. 3. Capitalism is evil, socialism is good but has no traction, especially in rich developed countries where population policies would reap the biggest benefits in terms of reducing consumption, because as we all know they harbour the most consuming consumers per capita. 4. Of course responsible people push for other reforms too aimed at altering the rapacious behaviour of big multinational companies (and their government lackies, such as Obama, who I like to call "crowd control" ) but ultimately it is individual consumers who consume. Jamie Anderson
At best, it could achieve "less unsustainability" which is not the same thing. Even this is not guaranteed since much of the unsustainable practices that go on are largely unrelated to consumption levels. A better approach would be to change production processes to sustainable production methods. That is, it is no good supplying three "sustainable" brands out of the nine available on the supermarket shelves and then appealing to consumers to choose the right brands or at least reduce their use of the wrong brands. If all the brands available on the shelves were produced sustainably, it would not matter which brands were consumed, nor the quantities in which they were consumed. This requires that we take production decisions out of the hands of profit-maximising corporations and transfer that decision making power to democratic community control. If that sounds like socialism, so be it. I think that you're wrong that socialism has no traction. Or at least that it always must be so. In fact there have been times when socialism has had a lot of traction in the rich west. The experience of Stalinism in the USSR is the major reason that was undermined. Now that experience is passed, there is no reason to think that a genuinely democratic eco-socialism cannot re-win mass support. In any case, it is better to push for "good" measures against "evil" (regardless of whether or not the label of "socialism" is attached) than to push for measures (population reduction?, simpler lifestyles?) that cannot be achieved under capitalism and would be ineffective even if they were. Alex Bainbridge
Corporations consume a lot; they don't always choose to conduct their business in a way that respects the "reduce, re-use, recycle" maxim. The world's militaries also consume a lot, as do other branches of government. In fact a majority of waste produced is not produced post-consumer but well before the individual consumer ever gets their hands on it. So it's a lot more complicated than reducing either the number of consumers, or what they consume. It's about political decisions affecting industry and government, which are not reflected or even visible in decisions made on a shopping trip.
Simon has (inadvertently I'm sure) misinterpreted the basic transition argument I put in The Transition to a Sustainable and Just World. Yes I do say "...the main problem group is not the corporations or the capitalist class … The problem group, the key to transition, is people in general.”...but this is not a statement about the state of the world and its is said in the second last chapter and is to do with transition strategy. The book's first 250 pages details a critique of capitalism which I believe Simon and readers of Green Left Weekly would just about totally agree with. Obviously this system is the direct cause of the problems that are likely to destroy us and obviously a satisfactory alternative has to be some kind of "socialism" (although I detail the case that in view of the coming scarcity the alternative cannot be heavily industrialised, affluent, globalised or centralised and must be mainly about small scale localised economies under participatory control...and frugal values.) The last two chapters go on from this analysis to grapple with the problem of what is the best strategy for us to take as activists, and it argues some themes which most people on the left tend not to like. One is that the coming situation rules out the value of trying to take state power. That made sense when the goal was to take control of an industrialised system aimed at providing affluence for all from the capitalist class...but the goal now has to be (mostly) local communities running local economies with only a very small supportive role for the state (...because the state will not have the resources to run lots of small local economies, and the state can't do that anyway; only local communities can run local communities well). Yes eventually we will have state power and that will facilitate localism, but it is wrong headed to think that the order of events will or can be getting state power then using it to initiate localism. My central strategy argument is that what it is now most important to do is to work with in the Transition Town movement to help local communities start moving towards the day when they are running their local economies. At present the Transition Towns movement is very disappointing, it is mildly reformist and no threat, but it is the best option and our task is to join it and ginger it up...i.e., try to get it to focus on the big radical goals, i.e., especially getting rid of growth and market, and capitalism. That sets the context in which I said "...the main problem group is not the corporations or the capitalist class … The problem group for the discussion of transition strategy, is people in general.”. I am not saying that here the main problem group causing the global situation is not the capitalist class. I am saying here that when it comes to transition strategy the main problem is to develop in ordinary people the awareness that will lead them to abandon capitalism and its values and develop the new small scale, local and self governing communities. That is, the problem group we should focus on in trying to fix the world is not the capitalist class, it is the ordinary people who subscribe to capitalist ideology and values, and the best way to get rid of the capitalist class is to help ordinary people develop local communities that don't operate according to capitalist principles. Many on the left are stuck on trying to defeat capitalism via direct confrontation, and to take state power from it. Of course there are often situations in which we have to fight against immediate threats, but my argument is that the historically unique situation we are entering, i.e., the end of affluence, heavy industrialisation, globalisation, centralism etc., means that this is now the wrong focus. The best option now is to ignore capitalism to death, by starting to build its replacement (in the limited way we can at present). This is classic anarchist "prefiguring". The capitalist system will soon find itself bogged in immense difficulties due to the coming era of scarcity, meaning it will not be in a good position to block us, and that people will be eager to come across to the alternatives we are getting going.