The Question of Consumption

I'm liberal, but some of my friends are farther to the left on the political spectrum. A few years ago, some of them were sharing a meme on Facebook that asserted that normal people have no responsibility for climate change and that most of the harm was done by 100 major corporations. Exactly 100 sounds like a bullshit made-up number, so I applied critical thinking to the meme. I asked my friends if these major corporations had a lot of customers. Silence. I asked if Amazon was one of the 100, given that they spend a lot energy delivering to homes, and a couple of my friends agreed to that. I asked them if any of them had ever purchased anything on Amazon. Silence.

We are all responsible, collectively and individually for climate change. As individuals, we are clearly not doing as much harm as major corporations, but we are customers and therefor responsible for our consumption. Realistically, it will take cooperation from governments and corporations to make meaningful changes, like investing in infrastructure, changing products to green alternatives, and implementing alternative power sources. But consumers can also drive change by controlling and shifting their spending.

The problem is that the enduser is powerless. 100 corporations aren’t responsible for it, but they could fix it. All of Amazon’s customers would have to act in unison to do the same. That will never happen, and even if it started to Amazon would actively put changes in place to stop it. They get paid to make sales, not save the planet.

Solar and wind are coming online because they’re a viable alternative, not because people care.

When you buy a product, what alternative to shrink wrap exists? Where can I shop for products that use ecologically responsible or biodegradable wrap, or don’t use shrinkwrap at all, when I want to purchase any kind of product?

This is an example, because the question of consumer choice is next to zero in nearly every case. It’s an illusion that’s created to shift the conversation of responsibility to consumers and away from the producers, and we’ve all largely accepted it.

I’m not saying individuals cannot or should not do what they can, but the power of significant and lasting change doesn’t lay with us as individuals. It’s in corporate and government.

Corporations generally don't make changes for the sake of doing the right thing. They are highly motivated to seek profits. Without changes in consumer demand, the corporations won't risk profitability to make changes their operations. Governments might be able to do a lot, but not in the U.S., where a highly-polarized political environment has made everything political and therefore objectionable to half the voters.

Here’s another example. After the BP spill in the gulf I decided I wanted to buy gasoline from companies that had the best environmental record, so I researched all the brands of the local gas stations and chose those with the lowest impact.

Joke is on me, though, since every brand uses the same supply.

Don’t buy gasoline.

Change happens when you think at a grander scale.

Or at least don't get a big ass truck unless you need it for work. As of 2021, the Ford Motor Company only makes one sedan: the Ford Mustang. I don't know what their profit margin is on the Mustang. But when they first discussed this strategy with stockholders a few years ago, Ford was making an average profit of $10,000 on pickup trucks and SUVs, but only $1,500 on sedans. To me, that suggests that a Ford sedan was a better value than a Ford truck. But too many American drivers value expressing their masculinity or protecting their families or both by driving a big vehicle, and the result is worse for the environment than when most people drove sedans.

Until gas costs as much here as it does in Europe, Americans will continue to buy Canyoneero type cars.




When I’ve visited Europe its striking how much smaller cars are over there. They have very few SUVs but loads of station wagons, which I am envious of since they have all but disappeared in the US.

LOL
Not everyone has access to public transportation. We don’t all live in cities.
Nor do we all drive trucks.
Nor is everyone capable of getting an electric vehicle that still uses oil products, including plastic, with proprietary parts that the manufacturer prevents from being reused or recycled to ensure a constant revenue stream.

It’s a strange set of assumptions to make to dismiss the wider point that consumer choice is largely an illusion when it comes to environmental issues.

If I recall the original article correctly, the problem he focused on was the “more more more” nature of our culture. All of this applies directly to the points I was making. Granted, your neighbors will continue polluting. But maybe buying more isn’t making you happy.

You can always find an excuse to not change. Being helpless is easy. But change is generally in your favor.

American culture has also modified the meaning of "value" as in "more for your money". It should mean that if I have $10, and one candy bar is $2 and another is $1 and they're otherwise the same, I should get the $1 one. But we've redefined it to mean, when you're buying candy, *GET THE MOST POSSIBLE*, ie, buy TEN of the $1 bars.

Ok, it's a bad analogy. But what I mean is, when Americans buy a house, they want the biggest house possible. When buying a car, the biggest possible. Not what best suits their needs, just what's the most they can get. So you see a single person driving a Dodge Behemoth to the grocery store.

The sad fact of the modern Western economy is that any time you spend money you are contributing to ecological destruction and oppression of disadvantaged groups. Think you want to help the farmers in Africa by buying fair trade chocolate at Whole Foods? Well, you just gave those farmers enough money to increase their pollution as well as gave Bezos another ride in his vanity rocket. Want to put solar panels on your roof and drive an electric car? You just condemned more Uighars in China to cultural death and slavery as well as polluted the earth with the mining of the lithium needed for the batteries.

The only thing you can do is to consume less. In that sense a board game can be one of the best things you can do, so long as you don't overbuy board games and play the hell out of the few you have. Even better is that you are reducing consumption by your friends (who don't need to buy their own copy and are mainly there enjoying companionship).

Even that is a grain of salt in the ocean. No amount of collective action will stop this train short of governmental action. Climate change has a terrible free rider problem. When you consume less you are simply making it easier and more cost effective for your neighbor to consume more. Even governments are powerless to this problem unless they all act in unison since the free rider problem is overwhelming at both a macro and micro level. Consumers are powerless to force companies to shift production. I remember when I was a kid we had the dixie cups that were made with paper lined with wax. Worked just fine. Now the ones at my gym are now basically a plastic cup with a paper scaffolding. But they were 5% cheaper so that is what my residential complex buys since they are only being prudent looking out for the bottom line. Only governmental mandates can make a dent.

Good article.

The specter of overconsumption looms large with board games. They're (broadly speaking and increasingly less-so) affordable luxuries, satisfying to have delivered, to open, to touch. But most people who chain-purchase them are buying them to collect and collection is generally a resource intensive hobby, even if it's not necessarily financially so.

Most board game consumers are simply looking to tap the vein. Playability barely enters the mental calculus, and sustainability be damned. Doing anywhere close to this amount of introspection just shifts them to denial, or in some cases aggression and some mealy mouthed "let people enjoy things" drivel. Shit sucks.