187
environmental profile. Individuals can then learn which lifestyles have which
environmental consequences and see if they want to shift their own lifestyle into the
direction of one of the less impacting ones.
However, such “model lifestyles” needs variation, not only because of differences in the individual taste and belief, but already because the available household
resources vary (e.g. different times and income bound for commuting distances,
with/without children, different health, other long-term obligations, etc.).
Moreover, when defining one’s lifestyle, people often refer to approaches, rather
than individual products or to concepts that would capture the entirety of the lifestyle. “I am vegetarian”, “I separate waste”, and “I buy local” are a few examples of
such approaches. These approaches help consumers to group specific decisions and
to communicate them, as well as combining a lifestyle. The challenge is that not all
decisions that are taken in line with such approaches are actually environmentally
beneficial (already if not considering secondary consequences). Some approaches
that are perceived as environmentally advantageous can even be more impacting,
see e.g. examples for misconceptions about polymers in Wolf et al. (2010). It will be
important to analyse which of these approaches are actually environmentally beneficial, again including considering the secondary consequences on available household resources.
If any such approaches are fully followed, they can also lead to infrastructural
changes at the consumer. For example, “I prefer public transport” may lead to the
decision to not have a private car anymore.
We would like to add that the above refers implicitly to middle and upper consumers, while families of low and lowest income classes will have less choices to
shift to more sustainable lifestyles, in their struggle to meet at least their most basic
needs. Moreover, given their low income, they typically have a lower per person
environmental impact than better-off families.
4.3 Governments: Facilitating Sustainable
Consumption and Lifestyles
Several past and current policies and initiatives have supported sustainable consumption (and production). Starting on the international level, the Sustainable
Consumption and Production (SCP) program by the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) is based on the achievements of the 1992 United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (the Earth Summit),
and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg
(UNEP 2012). The European Union launched the Beyond GDP initiative, aiming at
developing indicators that are as clear and appealing as GDP, but intend to be more
inclusive of environmental and social aspects of progress, and the Action Plan on
Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) that has life cycle thinking in its
core, to name a few. Similar programs have been started in many other countries
worldwide.
13 From Sustainable Production to Sustainable Consumption
environmental profile. Individuals can then learn which lifestyles have which
environmental consequences and see if they want to shift their own lifestyle into the
direction of one of the less impacting ones.
However, such “model lifestyles” needs variation, not only because of differences in the individual taste and belief, but already because the available household
resources vary (e.g. different times and income bound for commuting distances,
with/without children, different health, other long-term obligations, etc.).
Moreover, when defining one’s lifestyle, people often refer to approaches, rather
than individual products or to concepts that would capture the entirety of the lifestyle. “I am vegetarian”, “I separate waste”, and “I buy local” are a few examples of
such approaches. These approaches help consumers to group specific decisions and
to communicate them, as well as combining a lifestyle. The challenge is that not all
decisions that are taken in line with such approaches are actually environmentally
beneficial (already if not considering secondary consequences). Some approaches
that are perceived as environmentally advantageous can even be more impacting,
see e.g. examples for misconceptions about polymers in Wolf et al. (2010). It will be
important to analyse which of these approaches are actually environmentally beneficial, again including considering the secondary consequences on available household resources.
If any such approaches are fully followed, they can also lead to infrastructural
changes at the consumer. For example, “I prefer public transport” may lead to the
decision to not have a private car anymore.
We would like to add that the above refers implicitly to middle and upper consumers, while families of low and lowest income classes will have less choices to
shift to more sustainable lifestyles, in their struggle to meet at least their most basic
needs. Moreover, given their low income, they typically have a lower per person
environmental impact than better-off families.
4.3 Governments: Facilitating Sustainable
Consumption and Lifestyles
Several past and current policies and initiatives have supported sustainable consumption (and production). Starting on the international level, the Sustainable
Consumption and Production (SCP) program by the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) is based on the achievements of the 1992 United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (the Earth Summit),
and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg
(UNEP 2012). The European Union launched the Beyond GDP initiative, aiming at
developing indicators that are as clear and appealing as GDP, but intend to be more
inclusive of environmental and social aspects of progress, and the Action Plan on
Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) that has life cycle thinking in its
core, to name a few. Similar programs have been started in many other countries
worldwide.
13 From Sustainable Production to Sustainable Consumption