The easiest way to get people to buy less is to raise prices.<p>If we had a carbon tax that correctly priced the environmental impact of goods, it would decrease consumption. Without having to shame people into removing themselves from the economy.
We've been advocating "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" for over 40 years, and yet emissions and consumption have gone up every year. You will never be able to convince enough people to voluntarily reduce their lifestyle. To cut waste & emissions we need legislation, not shaming of consumers.
I was not sure about posting this. The world is weird in that you are a single person in a sea of 7+ billion people, it is very hard to get your message across and even harder to make a change that will actually make a dent. Hope you think twice before buying and save some money too - have a nice extended weekend :)
I would, I use it all the time, but it's open source[1].<p>:-)<p>[1] <a href="http://www.greenwoodsoftware.com/less/" rel="nofollow">http://www.greenwoodsoftware.com/less/</a>
I like the message, but it seems to complain more than it actually provides solutions.<p>The term 'retail therapy' is a very real thing.<p>I think a lot of our consumerism is connected to our disconnection and lifestyle, and this is related to how we set up our cities and communities. From population density, to walk-ability of cities, etc.<p>When I lived in the third world, in an area with pretty high population density, mixed use zoning, and high walk-ability I would consume less 'stuff' and more experiences. For instance, instead of driving to TJ max to buy some new clothes as I would here, I might take a walk and buy some pastry... which I'd be hungry for from walking. It was from a small producer, who used less materials for packaging than a large one would. I'd also get to know people who I'd regularly see, and that also reduced consumption of good I think as I would stop and connect with other people. We are pleasure seekers, and if consumerism is the easiest way to satiate that desire, it will be done in a consumerist way.<p>I'm not saying our consumerism is ONLY about lifestyle, but I think going into what causes consumption is more effective at reducing it than simply saying 'hey you, don't do that'. I think it's why in some parts of Europe people seem to buy less junk and more quality, artisanal made items.
"have one fewer child" is the most efficient way to decrease your carbon footprint (see <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/best-way-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-one-government-isn-t-telling-you-about" rel="nofollow">https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/best-way-reduce-your...</a> )<p>Easy, right? However, I am not sure it is correct. For instance, if you produce less than 2 kids (e.g., 0) AND it was your decision, would not it mean that all the carbon footprint went to adapt/improve your genetic material (including your grand-grand-parents) is a waste in some sense? You are the last one of your branch. Wasn't you fooled to believe you should have no kids? Makes a lot of sense for other branches to fool you and gain a greater ratio of the entire genetic material (this is basically the definition of fitness function in evolutionary biology - to have more offspring / a greater ratio of genetic material). Evolutionary processes at play.
We must enable and provide technology to countries that are on there way to western worlds living standard to get there with low co2 emission. Because they want it with or without co2 emission.
I think this is some serious Marxist agitprop. It is absolutely appalling that people think we <i>ought to buy less</i> as if that's what the problem is. The problem is not unethical consumption! The difficulty is not in alienating labor from capital! These posadist fools think we will be saved by aliens.<p>Look fellas, buy your girl that Gucci bag if she wants it. The gal may as well looks fashionable while we descent into collapse.