Conservation and standard of living

[Ludi]

How much resource use can we cut out of our lives without suffering a loss of our standard of living? Are you willing to decrease your standard of living to conserve? How much are you willing to do without?

I'm trying to deal with this in my own life, and discussing it with others, some of whom seem to think it is easy and painless to cut out huge amounts of resource use. But what they fail to address is that this excess resource use translates to someone else's job.

[Ludi]

Would you vote for candidates who advocate extreme conservation measures?

[organica]

I support extreme conservation- but I suppose it is unrealistic to think most people will ever support or live such a lifestyle.
The #1 way to protect the planet in my mind is to stop breeding, which people want to continue doing, even though they simultaneusly pollute the world for the future generations.... ??

[meatless]

That's hard to answer Ludi, because people have such vastly different ideas of what "need" is. Plus, wealthier people would experience a much greater cut in their standard of living, since their standard is so much higher than most others. They'd be much less likely on the whole to accept that, and also tend to hold the power.

For example, these days it seems (middle income and higher) people think if they have kids they "need" a 4 wheel drive sports ute with 300 horsepower. I think that's absolutely ridiculous. A small, 4-cylinder car will take care of their needs just fine. They just *want* a sports ute, and of course along with that want comes environmental degradation, clogged up roads, etc. I think a first step would be for people to learn the difference between need and want. And even then, there's hugely varying degrees of need.

In my husband and I's case, we accept a much lower standard of living than our income could afford us, because we reject the rabid consumer culture is taking over society. Also, we are trying to practise living on one income, should anything happen to either of us. The extra money for now goes towards paying down our mortgage (on a house that's worth much less than the average home in our area), charity etc.

Now relating to conservation, even though we can afford it, we do not turn on our central airconditioning in the summer aside from maybe the 2-3 hottest days. We can afford two cars, but we have one which we share. The one car we have is a very basic, 4-cylinder compact car. I don't consider it lowering my "standard of living" though, it's just common sense. I suppose I could get rid of our car and I could bus to work, but I am unwilling to spend three hours a day commuting instead of one. My husband takes transit to work, but that's because when we bought the house I was working from home, and he had the same job, and he bought the house because it is one of the only areas in town that he could get to work this easily from (10 minute commute by train). I wasn't willing to stay in my last job to avoid commuting... having to commute to work (thus causing environmental harm) was the lesser evil between that, and working in a job that damaged me physically and mentally (thus creating a lower standard of living for me). Are these the sort of things you mean Ludi?

[Tesseract]

It is a hard question because I think we could conserve a lot here in the US by simply living within our means instead far above them (see the specatcular debt thread). But I do think there is a big difference between simplifying our lives and lowering our standards of living. I do a lot of the same things Meatless does-- we have one compact, fuel-efficient car between the two of us instead of the two gas-guzzlers many young professional couples have, and we live in an apartment that's well within our means instead of going into debt like so many Americans to live a large house. Do I feel deprived or like I've lowered my standard of living? Not really, because I don't want those things.

So I guess the short answer is, there's a lot you can do to simplify your life without "lowering your standard of living" in your own mind, as long as the resources you're conserving aren't the ones on which your standard of living depends.

Frankly, I would love to grow a lot of my own produce using sustainable methods the way you do, Ludi, and while I think that would be a conservation measure, I think it would also be an improvement in my standard of living. You can't get fresher from the farm than your own back yard! But that means I have to own some land first.

[organica]

I live a very environmentally-friendly existence & people tend to say "oh I could never do that" or disparage it.
I wear secondhand clothes, ride a bike (no car), use v. little electricity, no kids, buy organic & vegan, recycle, etc.
It is so upsetting when the majority seem to want to undo the efforts of those like everyone in this thread. :(

[meatless]

oh we do all kinds of composting, recycling, energy savings stuff etc. but I don't really feel like they create a lower standard of living for us so I didn't mention them. :p

I am also vegan partly for environmental reasons, but by no means do I feel like I eat at a lower standard than most people, since my food tastes infinitely better, and is overwhelmingly more nutritional. :)

[Ludi]

I agree with you - much of what we do to reduce energy and resource use doesn't result in a lower standard of living at all. But many people don't feel this way - they would practically rather die than go without airconditioning or wear used clothing, or have to "dig in the dirt" for their food. But we probably should realise if everyone were, for instance, as frugal as organica, the economy would virtually come to a halt! And that's a problem. We somehow need to find a way to transition to a less resource intensive way of life that doesn't result in economic collapse. Not to mention the huge challenge of making such a life attractive to the typical consumeristic First Worlder (and to those who aspire to the First World way of life).

(Had to change the word "American")

[meatless]

we grow vegetables too when we can. :) We had a bounty of tomatoes, raspberries, green beans, jalapeno peppers, and various spices this past year. We also managed to grow a few leeks, bell peppers, and a small stalk of broccoli.

Limited space, and we're novices. :D

[organica]

But we probably should realise if everyone were, for instance, as frugal as organica, the economy would virtually come to a halt! And that's a problem.

Ha ha!! Ludi, you should see me in a health food store on payday!!:pibo: :pibo: :pibo:
If everybody shopped like me, the economy would defintely shift focus, but not collapse.
Ludi, if I were not so frugal, I would pay you to send me an armadillo to live in my apartment. THe non-leprosy kind of armadillo of course!!:p

[karenM]

Every summer for 5 years now, I've taken a bunch of kids to a family camp on Catalina Island (www.catalinaislandcamps.com (http://www.catalinaislandcamps.com)) where they are actively conserving resources: Campers sort all of their meal waste to be composted, along with paper & plant waste, for use in the organic garden. Campers are encouraged to save water and energy - reuse cups, towels, take fewer showers, etc. We bundle up at night, as there is no heating, and only one fluorescent light and a single electrical outlet in each cabin. We hang up our wet/washed items to dry on clotheslines outside each cabin. The camp's hands-on marine science center runs on solar power. We live without television, radios and computers for the week. Cell phone reception is spotty, so we turn them off. I take solar-powered battery chargers to re-charge my camera batteries.

The kids (who have ranged in age from 7 to 19) have never complained about missing any of their usual luxuries. Why? Because they can instead participate in activities that they normally can't/won't at home: swimming, snorkeling, kayaking, hiking, tennis, soccer, tetherball, sailing, high ropes course, climbing wall, archery, arts and crafts, cards and games, campfire skits and songs, etc, etc, etc. If the modern conveniences and luxuries are unavailable, one can live without them, and happily too. I don't know what to say about the lost jobs though. Considering the fact that very few people will ever seriously decrease their use of resources, I'd like to think that those relatively few lost jobs could be replaced with other types of work that are helpful or innocuous to the environment.

Myself, I'd love to give up my current lifestyle and move to a place like Dancing Rabbit (www.dancingrabbit.org (http://www.dancingrabbit.org)). It's not a possibility right now, but hopefully one day not too far away.

[das_nut]

I think I maintain a decent standard of living while cutting down on resources, but that is mostly due to reuse.

I believe that with current and new technology, we can reduce our environmental footprint while maintaining a high standard of living.

I won't vote for a candidate that advocates extreme conservation measures since I believe that such measures, while kind hearted, will probably be misguided. Sorry.

[Ludi]

Considering the fact that very few people will ever seriously decrease their use of resources, I'd like to think that those relatively few lost jobs could be replaced with other types of work that are helpful or innocuous to the environment.




I don't know what will become of the world if very few people ever seriously decrease their use of resources. Our First World standard of living would require 4 - 5 extra planets if everyone lived like us, and certainly most people think they want to live like us. China is working very hard at it indeed right now.

Das nut, I believe it will be very difficult to reduce our footprint without significantly changing our way of life. We've never reduced our footprint in the history of our civilization.

[Tesseract]

I think the economy can shift focus without collapsing if the change happens gradually. And the change will happen gradually-- even if people will change their habits, they won't change them overnight. For example, right now the recycling business isn't that lucrative because for so many materials, it's easier/cheaper to continue using virgin sources. That will gradually change as those sources become more difficult/expensive to exploit, and recycling will take off. I strongly suspect that for nearly every product/service we stop using, a new more resource-friendly product or service will take its place. Kind of like automated parking cashier machines put parking attendants out of business, but they created jobs for people to build, program, and service the machines. Yes, there will almost certainly be some market contraction, because we'll all be using less overall, but there's no reason for economic collapse.

[Ludi]

I agree, Tess, if we admit a sustainable economy may be very different from what we're used to. For instance, if we change from buying cheap new things all the time to buying very few very well made things, we'll pay more for those things (though our total expenses may be the same). The people who make them will have fewer repeat customers. They'll get paid better for their work, but the volume will be less. There won't be as much "economic activity." A sustainable economy might look a lot like a pre-industrial economy, except with some high-tech gadgets. But certainly, as you point out, a gradual, incremental change would be the least disruptive.

Your example of the parking machines putting parking attendants out of business but creating jobs for people to build and service the parking machines is an interesting one. It's almost exactly opposite to what we'll probably need to do to move toward a sustainable economy. From an energy and resource use standpoint, the parking attendant was much more sustainable than the machines, even though the machines created more economic activity. By creating that economic activity, the machines required much more energy and resources to be used. It's difficult, maybe even impossible, to create more economic activity while using less energy and resources, because the activity has to come from somewhere, it has to be powered somehow. Our current economy (consumerism) depends on constant growth. If growth, which depends on using more energy and resources, slows, we have a recession or a depression. If growth stops, we have an economic collapse.

[dessertbox]

I don't know if its a lower standard of living - or just being content with what you have.

We have one car, live on one income, recycle, buy second-hand and conserve our resources. We make less money than my sister-in-law, but seem to have more spendable money when it comes time to go on our family field trips.

I doubt the US, as a whole, will ever be happy with what we as a country are so blessed with. It's always about newer, bigger and better. For some reason its integrated into the minds of our citizens that they DESERVE new and expensive pieces of junk that they will either throw away or trade in for something even newer and more expensive.

It's all a matter of the heart and being happy where you are in your life. Most people aren't happy with themselves, their lives, or their situation - so they have this need to buy things to make themselves happy.

*sigh*

[Tesseract]

Your example of the parking machines...

I realized after I posted that the parking example was a terrible example of a shift towards a more sustainable economy... it was just the first example of market shift that popped into my head. I hope you didn't think I was trying to say that parking machines is where we should be heading. :eek:

[das_nut]

If you want to argue that the current implimentation is not sustainable, you are probably right.

That doesn't prevent present and future technology from creating a high standard of living that can be maintained for a long period of time.

[veggiefriend]

Does a sustainable economy mean less technology, or rather more technology? A hydrogen-based transportation system will require significant technological and monetary investments. Converting fossil-fuel based energy generating stations to renewable energy sources will be a technological challenge. Will these changes come? Absolutely, but not while oil is so cheap.
And don't forget the contribution of the service economy; most new jobs are not in manufacturing or energy sector. As the "rich" become more concerned with their health, the organic "niche" market, which is much more labour-intensive, will continue to show phenomenal growth and agri-business will have to adapt (that's the plan, right?)
Will the transition be painful? Yup, just ask anyone who works for General Motors.

Personally, in an effort to save resources and reduce clutter, my philosophy is simple: don't buy anything unless you a) absolutely really need it and b) are prepared to part with something you already own, which the new purchase will replace! Oh, and the thing replaced must be disposed of ethically (i.e. given away, recycled, whatever)
GREAT way to get kids to think about their purchases!! ( You like that new t-shirt! Great, what other t-shirt are you prepared to give away, and to whom....)

If everyone shopped that way, would unemployment soar, causing the North American economy to grind to a halt? Probably not, because most consumer goods are produced off-shore, (see the staggering US trade deficit). The Chinese economy would take a beating though. But don't hold your breath.....

[Ludi]

Does a sustainable economy mean less technology, or rather more technology? A hydrogen-based transportation system will require significant technological and monetary investments. Converting fossil-fuel based energy generating stations to renewable energy sources will be a technological challenge. Will these changes come? Absolutely, but not while oil is so cheap.

Every single alternative energy technology requires a great deal of oil to develop. The new infrastructure for alternatives will require a greal deal of oil use. More expensive oil will not make the alternatives more feasible, but rather, less. Though people will become more interested in alternatives if oil becomes expensive, it will be much more difficult to find investment for those alternatives without sacrificing in some other area (in other words, hardship, or decrease of standard of living). We need to ramp up the transition to alternatives while oil is cheap. But very few people are interested in doing that.

[Ludi]

That doesn't prevent present and future technology from creating a high standard of living that can be maintained for a long period of time.

I agree in theory, but I don't know what you consider "a high standard of living." If you mean a First World standard of living, I'd have to say, no, present technology (I won't admit "future technology" because at this point it is fictional) can not create a First World standard of living which can be maintained for a long time, at least not for more than a very few people. Our standard of living depends on using resources which are currently diminishing. Soil, water, species, oil, various metals, etc. These are all finite resources, many of which of currently being depleted.

[Ludi]

"The human race is living beyond its means. A report backed by 1,360 scientists from 95 countries - some of them world leaders in their fields - today warns that the almost two-thirds of the natural machinery that supports life on Earth is being degraded by human pressure."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1447863,00.html#article_continue

Link to the report: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/products.aspx

[Coney]

We don't purchase a whole heck of a lot. We garbage pick most of the furniture we own. I'm now trying to buy my clothes used, instead of new, with the exception of socks and underwear.

We don't have much, really, so cutting out things isn't that hard, since there's not much to cut.

I've been doing crafty things, and re-using lots of stuff around the house. We're doing better than a lot of people, like my sister for example--she lives in a McMansion, with 2 massive gas guzzling vehicles, they eat a lot of meat and live on a golf course. Now *they* could cut down on some things...

Everyone should go here, it's fun (and surprising)
http://myfootprint.org/

[Ludi]

Coney, do you feel like your quality of life is better, or worse, than the McMansion family?

Do you feel like your life is easier, or harder, than theirs?

[eggplant]

Yeah, I agree with a lot of what's been said. I don't feel like I am lowering my standard of living by making the sorts of decisions Ludi, Meatless, organica and Tess have, but a lot of people I encounter would feel like they're lowering their standard of living by making such choices. I like simple living, but it's obvious that a lot of people don't. As a result, I think the only way we're going to get people to make wiser choices is with some sort of reward/punishment system linked to resource consumption.