Global Consumerism and Climate Change

Our planet is on a collision course with disaster. Climate change is causing raising ocean

levels, increased drought and heat waves, more intense weather, the melting of the Artic, and

more across a global scale. Without global level change, our lives and the lives of future

generations will be immeasurably more difficult. However, the free market would rather not see

any regulatory measures to maintain profit levels. The world must place global, strict regulations

on carbon emissions to prevent further damage and mitigate existing damage. The idea of profit

has no place in the climate change regulation debate. In this paper, I will argue that the

industrialized, corporatized modern way of living is environmentally unsustainable and provide

evidence of the need for global-scale regulation, in the form of afforestation, carbon reduction

practices, and energy efficiency programs.

The vast majority of carbon emissions come from private and state-owned corporations.

According to the Carbon Majors Report 2017, fossil fuel producing corporations “accounted for

91% of global industrial GHGs in 2015, and about 70% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions”

(The Carbon Majors Database). The fossil fuel industry has engaged in environmentally

dangerous practices for decades and was warned of the potential climate altering effects as early

as the 1960s. The Stanford Research Institute warned the American Petroleum Institute in 1968

could result in damages to the planet (Milman). After being warned of harmful effects of carbon

emissions, ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil company, spent years and millions of dollars on

climate change denial programs (Milman). Large fossil-fuel producers have large profit motives

to deny climate change and delay climate action.

Large organizations actively foster a consumerist culture in the U.S. to improve

profitability. Consumerism is spoken on heavily by Kenneth Alan Adams, a psychohistorian.

1
American consumerism plays a destructive part in climate change. Products created for

consumption are “responsible for up to 60 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and

between 50 and 80 percent of total land, material and water use” (Adams 10). Industrialized

countries have some of the largest impacts on the environment, “up to 5.5 times … the world

average” (Adams 10). These developed countries are captivated by consumerism, constantly

demanding more. For example, “if U.S. consumption rates were globalized, 4.9 planets would be

necessary to accommodate the demand” (Adams 11). Modern industrial manufacturing processes

require immense resources to function, further damaging the fragile ecosystems of the planet.

The sheer number of resources it takes to manufacture single items is staggering; a t-shirt, for

example, requires “256 gallons of water” (Adams 10). The overstressing of the earth will only

continue and worsen unless climate action is taken. The consumerist culture is environmentally

unsustainable and cannot be continued without major environmental regulations.

Environmental regulations are necessary but are not easy to implement across the entire

world as situations are vastly different amongst different countries. The problem of future

emissions is given three possible paths by Stephen Gardiner, a professor of philosophy from the

University of Washington: equal per capita entitlements, the right to subsistence emissions to

maintain a quality of life, and the equal sharing of carbon costs between nations. Equal per capita

entitlements come with several obstacles. If an equal per capita cap is set across all countries,

then richer countries would have to cut their usage while some less developed countries could

increase their usage. Also, some places require more carbon usage simply because of their

location; “for example, those in northern Canada require fuel for heating whereas those in more

temperate zones do not” (Gardiner 680). The idea of subsistence emissions has challenges

because it raises the question of what are subsistence emissions? Also, this model may not

2
protect the vulnerable any better than the equal per capita model does. Finally, if nations are to

cut their emissions by equal percentages, then some countries who started with higher usage will

have the advantage after cuts are made. “For example, a cut of 20% reduces per capital levels in

the United States to 4.26 and in India to 0.28” (Gardiner 682). These are a few examples of why

global climate change policy is difficult to effectively implement with any fairness.

So, what are the solutions to climate change? This question has been posed by many for

decades. Afforestation and reforestation are key components in actively removing CO2 from the

atmosphere. While some misleading claims say that afforestation can remove 2/3 of the post-

industrial revolution carbon from the atmosphere, afforestation can still play an active role in

removing CO2. The U.N. says that “12-18 percent of the world’s carbon emission, almost equal

to all the CO2 emissions from the global transport sector.” It is important to protect our forests as

they are major stores of carbon that continually remove carbon from the atmosphere. Global anti-

deforestation legislation with strict enforcement is necessary to protect our planet from further

damage.

While afforestation can provide some natural carbon scrubbing, transitioning to

renewable energy and increasing energy efficiency is the most important way to truly reduce

emissions. Ali Shubbar and his team completed a case study on increasing the energy of

efficiency of a building by further insulating it to reduce heating costs and installing 60 square

meters of solar panels to reduce energy usage from fossil fuel plants. This study was conducted

to find ways to achieve the United Kingdom’s plan to be carbon neutral by 2050. The use of

solar panels and increased insulation was able to increase “annual energy savings” by 39%

(Shubbar 7). This combined with carbon offsetting payments was able to significantly decrease

the overall carbon footprint of the building. The use of widespread use of solar panels will

3
transition the world away from relying on fossil fuels for energy. If this technology could be

applied on a large scale, the energy demands of the globe could be reduced greatly and could

lead to an eventual carbon neutral planet.

The use of renewable energies like solar power can help the governments of the world

reduce their emissions. Most countries across the world have joined the Paris Climate Agreement

through the United Nations; the agreements long term goal is to limit global temperature rise to

no more than 2 degrees Celsius and preferably 1.5 degrees Celsius. The agreement also works

“provide financing to developing countries to mitigate climate change, strengthen resilience and

enhance abilities to adapt to climate impacts” (United Nations). The Paris Agreement is a

binding international treaty; therefore, it is an important incentive for countries to push to lower

their carbon footprint. The responsibility to protect our planet cannot rest on the individual alone,

it must fall to the governments who have the resources and power to make real change.

Reducing human’s impact on the planet is vital to our long-term survival. The

corporatized system must be reduced and regulated to prevent overstressing of the planet. The

vast consumerist culture must be reduced to lower demand for goods, thus lowering the output of

corporate factories. Afforestation must be utilized to actively remove carbon from the

atmosphere. Finally, energy efficiency programs should be utilized to lower our energy demands

and take better advantage of the energy we have while requiring less additional fossil fuel

energy. Without this regulation, our planet will come to disaster. Me and my peers are currently

staring down the barrel of catastrophe, and I for one would like to be able to thrive on this planet.

If that means mega-conglomerates must lose profits and we must cut back on our hyper-

indulgent lifestyles, then so be it.

4
Works Cited
Adams, Kenneth Alan. "Climate Change: Your Money or Your Life." The Journal of Psychohistory (2020):
2-22.

Gardiner, Stephen. "Ethics and Global Climate Change: An Introduction"." Pojman, Louis P., Paul Pojman
and Katie McShane. Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application. Cengage
Learning, 2017. 674-687. Textbook.

Milman, Oliver. Oil industry knew of 'serious' climate concerns more than 45 years ago. 13 April 2016.
The Guardian.

Shubbar, Ali, et al. "Towards Net Zero Carbon Economy: Improving the Sustainability of Existing
Industrial Infrastructures in the UK." Energies (19961073) (2021).

The Carbon Majors Database. "CDP Carbon Majors Report ." 2017.

United Nations . "The Paris Agreement." 4 November 2016. United Nations Web Site.

United Nations. "Reforestation: the easiest way to combat climate change." 6 March 2010. United
Nations Web Site.