28 Nov 2011

The New Story of Stuff: Can We Consume Less?

A new study finds that Britons are consuming less than they did a decade ago, with similar patterns being seen across Europe. Could this be the beginning of a trend in developed countries? Might we be reaching “peak stuff”?
By fred pearce

Will rich societies start consuming less? Could wealth go green? Might parsimony become the new luxury? Heresy, surely, you would say. But it might just be possible.

Take Britain. A new study finds that the country that invented the industrial revolution two centuries ago reached “peak stuff” between 2001 and 2003. In the past decade, Britain has been consuming less water, building materials, paper, food (especially meat), cars, textiles, fertilizers and much else. Travel is down; so is energy production. The country produces less waste, too.

This analysis is not the product of data juggling by a free-market think tank. The author of the study is Chris Goodall, a fully-paid-up environmental activist and parliamentary candidate for Britain’s Green Party, but also a stat guzzler who once worked for McKinsey & Company. His books include How to Live a Low-Carbon Life.

The stats hold true even when you allow for the ecological footprint from the manufacture of imported goods. And, while the decline in resource use in Britain has accelerated since the economic crisis in 2008, the trend started long before the banking crisis. There was a decline in overall materials use of 4 percent between 2000 and 2007. So it cannot be attributed entirely to recession, and can be expected to survive economic recovery.

Brits still get through about 30 tons of stuff each per year. But the total is now back to the level in 1989. Goodall says economic growth in the UK over the past generation has not resulted in any increase in pollution. “The environment movement’s belief that growth makes all ecological problems worse may need to be re-examined,” he says.

What is so impressive is the wide sweep of resources that show very similar trends. Paper and board consumption is down 18 percent from a decade ago. In the same period fertilizer application to British fields has
In Europe, household energy consumption in 2009 was below the 2000 level.
fallen 30 percent. Primary energy production fell 3 percent between the peak year of 2001 and 2007. Energy-guzzling cement manufacturing flat-lined for almost two decades, before crashing by a third since 2007. The calorie intake of Britons from food has been falling since the 1970s, though obesity is on the rise because people exercise less and do not burn off those calories.

Goodall says he believes he has glimpsed “fairly robust changes in long-term trends.” And this is not just about Britain. Similar trends are starting to emerge fitfully across Europe, where household energy consumption in 2009 was 9 percent below the 2000 level. France, Sweden, and The Netherlands were all down 15 percent.

Car purchases have been in long-term decline in the rich world for a couple of decades now, because cars last longer these days. But, more surprisingly, car use has also been declining since around 2004 in Germany, France, Australia, Sweden and Japan, as well as Britain.

Even in the United States, the capital of consumption, there are signs that something similar could be afoot. American truck mileage has been on a plateau for a decade now. The number of cars on American highways is also flat. And per-capita mileage is falling. As a result, gasoline consumption is expected to be at a 10-year low this year, according to the Department of Energy.

That’s only part of the story, of course. Unlike in Europe, Americans both eat more than their parents did AND take less exercise. You can see the results on almost every sidewalk. The only counter-trends are for saturated fats and red meat, which even Americans are laying off.

These big materials consumption numbers don’t include the water needed to run our households and grow our food. Each day, we consume in this way about a hundred times our own body weight in water. But domestic water use too has been on the decline in most advanced nations. In the U.S., it is down about 5 percent from the peak in the 1980s, in large part because of low-flush toilets.

What’s going on? Where has this megatrend come from? Is it real at all?

Optimists such as Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at The Rockefeller University in New York, see a long-term and
The study's author says that the pace of 'dematerialization' may be speeding up.
unstoppable trend that is the logical outcome of what economists call the environmental Kuznets curve, after its inventor Simon Kuznets. This suggests that as countries industrialize, they pass through an early “cheap and dirty” phase when they waste resources and generate massive pollution, but they pass a tipping point beyond which they begin to invest in using resources more efficiently.

Those advancing countries don’t initially use less. But there is a gradual decline in the amount of materials and energy it takes them to generate every dollar of gross domestic product (GDP). Ausubel calls this process “dematerialization.”

In the past, rising GDP has almost always camouflaged this dematerialization. For instance, since 1973, the U.S. economy has each year gotten an average of 2.8 percent more dollar value from each unit of energy consumed. But energy use has still been rising.

However, Goodall says that the pace of dematerialization may be speeding up. Some countries are now reaching the point where GDP and resource use decouple so much that they see actual reductions in materials and energy use. Ausubel inclines to that view. It’s still in the early days, he says, “but Goodall’s paper is potentially very significant, and jibes with our work and expectations on dematerialization.”

Maybe it is no surprise that the country that invented the industrial revolution got there first.

Some contest all this angrily. Tim Jackson, author of Prosperity Without Growth, says that while Goodall’s analysis provides an “essential starting point” to address the prospects for green growth, “the idea that the transition to a sustainable economy will emerge spontaneously by giving
One theorist sees a new 'culture of urbanism' in which the young are less reliant on cars.
free reign to the market is patently false.”

According to Jackson, much of the wealth created in countries like Britain in recent years has come from exploiting global commodity markets, and thus was “directly responsible for the [ecological] crisis itself.” Goodall chides Jackson with “getting environmentalism mixed up with anti-capitalism.”

And what if the drivers are not just economic? British environmental author George Monbiot says that a coincidence between declining resource use and rising wealth may be just that — a coincidence. “A good deal of further research is needed before we can conclude that causation as correlation is at work here.”

So what else might be going on? Some see deep-seated cultural trends at work. The decline in car use in the United States is greatest among the young. The proportion of 17-year-old Americans with a driver’s licence has fallen from about three-quarters to a half since 1998. Richard Florida, an urban studies theorist at the University of Toronto, sees a new “culture of urbanism” in which online shopping, telecommuting, social media and walkable urban areas are reducing the reliance of the young on cars.

My own theory is that it could be partly the fallout from an aging society. The old tend to replace their household goods less frequently. And they don’t commute (though they may take more vacations). So it could be no coincidence that “peak car” happened first, in the 1990s, in the oldest society on Earth, Japan.

A pressing question is whether the apparent decoupling of economic growth and resource use is a result of something rather nastier — growing income inequalities. After all, if you give the rich more money they can invest it; if you give the poor more money they will be more likely to spend it. So if, as plenty of data suggests, the growing GDP is mostly going to the rich, then the chances of decoupling are far greater.

Whatever its origins, some are bound to see the decoupling as disproof of environmental nostrums. If it continues to take hold, we can be sure that plenty of cornucopians will claim victory in their battle with gloomy greens. “See,” they will jeer, “growth is both good and green.” But surely the more rational interpretation would be that it is at least as much a victory for the ceaseless campaigning of environmentalists to get us to change our lifestyles and develop resource-efficient technologies.

The one certainty, however, is that it doesn’t mean our planet’s problems are over. The majority of the world is still living on the wrong side of the Kuznets curve. Last year, according to the International Energy Agency, global carbon dioxide emissions rose by 5.8 percent, compared to a growth in global GDP of just 5.1 percent.

And China’s assault on the world’s resources continues apace. It consumes around 40 percent of the world’s cement and steel, some 30 percent of its rubber and coal.


Off the Pedestal: Creating a
New Vision of Economic Growth

Off the Pedestal: Creating a
New Vision of Economic Growth
The idea of economic growth as an unquestioned force for good is ingrained in the American psyche. But a James Gustave Speth argues that it is time for the U.S. to reinvent its economy into one that focuses on sustaining communities, family life, and the natural world.
Equally important, a lot of environmental impacts are cumulative. Even if we are destroying less rainforest each year, we are still reducing the amount of rainforest left for future generations.

Similarly, those carbon dioxide emissions accumulate in the atmosphere. We cannot escape our polluting past. China’s emissions of CO2 today may be the world’s largest (and 15 times those of Britain). But if you tagged every molecule of the gas in the atmosphere according to its origin, there would still be more up there from Britain than from China.

I am a Brit. For sure, we still have an outsize legacy of planetary destruction. Even so, as Goodall put it to me, “This country is probably the most ‘virtual’ and ‘dematerialized’ in the world... a possible exemplar.” Next year’s hosts of the Olympic Games may — just may — be leading the field in downsizing our ecological footprint.


Fred Pearce is a freelance author and journalist based in the UK. He serves as environmental consultant for New Scientist magazine and is the author of numerous books, including When The Rivers Run Dry and With Speed and Violence. In previous articles for Yale Environment 360, Pearce has written about the depletion of global phosphate resources and the possible role that airborne microbes play in our world, from spreading disease to possibly changing the climate.

SHARE: Tweet | Digg | | Reddit | Mixx | Facebook | Stumble Upon


Thanks for this - really thought provoking stuff!

Posted by Jim Jepps on 28 Nov 2011

Great article! Now, if we could just figure out how to control the population along with our need for stuff, we might just have a fighting chance.

Posted by John Dyer on 29 Nov 2011

From John Dyer

"Great article! Now, if we could just figure out how to control the population along with our need for stuff, we might just have a fighting chance."

Population increase is, like so much that is unsustainable, based on the use of fossil fuels. The Industrial Revolution, and the advent of coal fuel, saw a precipitous rise in population. As we have used more fossil fuels, population has increased commensurately. So, population has risen threefold since 1950. To decrease population, we must decrease our use of fossil fuels and the way of life, and values, that it entails.

Another sad case is the industrial agri-business and logging that is wiping out global forestry (the lungs of the planet) and displacing aborigines and other sustainable groups to places and lifestyles of higher birth rate. We must put an end to industrial logging and to ever increasing loss of standing forests.

If Western nations are concerned about the expected increase of GHGes as developing nations come on board with fossil fuel use and high consumption, they must invent an appealing while sustainable way of life that the developing world will be willing to adopt. The West has the technical sophistication to do this. It also will bring back small manufacture and jobs to the West.

Posted by Trevor Burrowes on 29 Nov 2011

I have a strong suspicion that peak stuff is closely related to peak money. If the middle class hasn't advanced its' earnings in nearly a decade, there is little chance their consumption has grown much either. If we ever solve the income distribution dilemma in favor of the great majority of the population, expect resource use to climb once again.

Posted by Dan DuPre on 30 Nov 2011

I think Mr DuPre is exactly right and sadly so for many reasons. Thus it seems to me that "coincidence, urbanization, the aging population and income inequality" are primarily responsible for resource use declines. While Mr Kuznet's curve and technological advances deserve some credit, each will fail because of the Jevons Paradox--simply, that efficiency gains are always reinvested into more consumption, not "saved".

And this is endemic to capitalism--the surplus must necessarily be reinvested for continuing gains. As long as the control of that surplus remains in the hands of the few, resource use and consumption will rise. So here I depart a bit with Mr DuPre and argue that the 99%, if you will, would benefit much more from investments in transportation, schools, health care and the like, investments that are less consumptive themselves and lead to a more sustainable world. I think if you called for a vote, people would choose the above, not more flat screen TV's.

Posted by Jeff Tangel on 01 Dec 2011

Jeff Tangel says:

"And this is endemic to capitalism--the surplus must necessarily be reinvested for continuing gains. As long as the control of that surplus remains in the hands of the few, resource use and consumption will rise."

Great clarification. But my guess is that the fossil fuel explosion since the Industrial Revolution created a new kind of capitalism. Did the exponential increase in productive capacity produce institutions of control and monopolization by the few?

Did the exploitation of fossil fuels relate to the culture of exploitation in general?

Posted by Trevor Burrowes on 03 Dec 2011


You state "Population increase is, like so much that is unsustainable, based on the use of fossil fuels." So how do you explain the fact that the population growth seen over the last 50 years was in the countries using the least energy?

The developed and fossil fuel using countries all had birth rates below replacement (2.33 births per women). Examples are Germany (1.4), Japan (1.4), Norway (1.8) and the US (2.06).

The highest current birth rates per woman in the world are Niger (7.7), Uganda (6.7), Mali (6.5), Burundi (6.3) and Angola at 6.1. Hardly energy hogs.

China has only recently controlled population but allowed it to explode before the controls resulting from Mao's failed agriculture policies and a government edict.

It seems population naturally declines as we increase wealth and improve agriculture efficiency. Children are no longer seen as labor. (And when you have to pay $250,000 to put each child through college- you just can't afford that many. ) Now if I needed children to plow the field and tend the harvest-- then there is a different set of incentives
at work.

Fertility rates when compared to energy usage seems to tell us that the way to reduce population- without force- is to increase energy usage. (I'm assuming force is not a good thing.)

Posted by Patrick Moffitt on 14 Dec 2011

I have a strong suspicion that peak stuff is closely related to peak money. If the middle class hasn't advanced its' earnings in nearly a decade, there is little chance their consumption has grown much either. If we ever solve the income distribution dilemma in favor of the great majority of the population, expect resource use to climb once again.

Posted by jimmianka on 19 Dec 2011


Thanks for the response. I wish there could be more interactivity on this site. It's possible that jimmianka is touching on the answer to your question. Western, high-energy nations seem to have reached some sort of saturation point, and it is those who are getting into the energy game anew that present the population explosion. The fact could be that the high-energy way of life, especially at its earliest stage, sets off the explosion. Just take the instance of the Industrial Revolution. Aborigines don't and never have had (to my knowledge) population explosions.

Posted by Trevor Burrowes on 21 Dec 2011


Nature has historically kept human numbers in check by brutal means. Humans have always resented the brutality and resisted Nature’s efforts to the limits that our technology allowed. For the first time in human history however we now see in the West technology and wealth self-limiting population.

Many of the world's poor IMHO are trapped in a no man's land- having enough vaccines, and other very modest tech improvements to allow for an increase in life expectancy and improved fertility rates which in turn fuel population growth- but not the needed next step of infrastructure, advanced agriculture and political stability to break the cycle and become population self-limiting (the incentives do not align as discussed earlier) I see no way denying the developing world energy or locking them into subsistence agriculture can lead to anything but continued population growth and consequences far more dire than those envisioned for climate change..

Posted by Patrick Moffitt on 22 Dec 2011


I don't know what you mean by advanced agriculture, but the following links might interest you. Feeding people does not require big energy schemes or much, if any, use of fossil fuels.

Posted by Trevor Burrowes on 02 Jan 2012

Great article, except there is no mention of conscious minimalist values permeating Europe. Much of this decline in consumption is due to the minimalist lifestyle and values system which can be found throughout Europe in art, the architecture of smaller spaces, and the designs of furnishings (including chain stores like Ikea). The colonialist clutter and chunky aged furnishings of the past do not appeal to the young Europe. The outrageous cost of living also plays a huge part in the desire to own less. When they have to pay $3 for a tomato, $40 to park their car for the day, and $1200 a month in rent for a 150 square foot apartment, they rethink what they need. My Swiss friend refuses to buy a bed choosing to sleep on an East Indian roll out rug, insisting it’s better for her health, wallet, and piece of mind. As the cost of living increases, and cities continue to grow, I believe this trend will become global, including here in the materialistic USA.

Posted by Lena Hakim on 15 Jan 2012

Here is a fascinating story from NPR's All Things Considered, examining the consequences of the encroaching "virtualized lifestyle." It focuses on E.M. Forster's brilliant 1909 short story The Machine Stops, which chronicles the end days of a totally virtual world, and compares that dystopian society to our own increasingly dystopian world. The psychosocial effects of world without artifacts, without meaningful things, may be a far greater danger to human existence even than global warming. We are becoming increasingly isolated and fragmented, largely because of that virtualization. In the end, we risk losing all that makes us human, becoming content to live an entirely artificial life. When nothing means anything, then we become nothing. Scary stuff.

Posted by Scott McCullough on 21 Feb 2012

“You can't consume much if you sit still and read books.”—Aldous Huxley

Posted by Mary Alpern on 08 May 2012



On Safe Drinking Water, Skepticism Over UN Claims
With great fanfare, the United Nations announced in March that the world had reduced by half the proportion of people drinking unsafe water, meeting a critical development goal five years ahead of schedule. But a closer look reveals that the facts simply do not support this claim.

Global Scarcity: Scramble for Dwindling Natural Resources
National security expert Michael Klare believes the struggle for the world’s resources will be one of the defining political and environmental realities of the 21st century. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, he discusses the threat this scramble poses to the natural world and what can be done to sustainably meet the resource challenge.

Revisiting Population Growth: The Impact of Ecological Limits
Demographers are predicting that world population will climb to 10 billion later this century. But with the planet heating up and growing numbers of people putting increasing pressure on water and food supplies and on life-sustaining ecosystems, will this projected population boom turn into a bust?

What If Experts Are Wrong On World Population Growth?
A central tenet of demography is that global population will peak at 9 to 10 billion this century and then gradually decline as poorer countries develop. But that assumption may be overly optimistic — and if it is, population will continue to rise, placing enormous strains on the environment.

A Planetary Crisis Is A Terrible Thing to Waste
There are striking similarities between the current economic and ecological crises — both involve indulgent over-consumption and a failure to consider the impacts on future generations. But it’s not too late to look to new economic and environmental models and to dramatically change course.


Donate to Yale Environment 360