Overconsumption Discussion Flashcards
(15 cards)
What is the main aim of O’Neill et al. (2018)?
- To determine whether it is possible for all people to live well (achieve basic social needs) without exceeding planetary boundaries.
- They ask: What level of resource use is required to meet basic needs, and can this be done sustainably for everyone on Earth?
What key concepts underpin O’Neill et al. (2018)?
A Good Life for All Within Planetary Boundaries
- Planetary Boundaries(Rockström et al.): Limits for Earth-system stability.
- Social Thresholds: Minimum standards for a good life (e.g., health, education, income).
- Safe and Just Space (SJS): A “doughnut” zone between social foundations and ecological ceilings where both human well-being and sustainability are possible.
What methods were used in O’Neill et al. (2018) to assess sustainability?
- Analyzed data from 150+ countries.
- Assessed 7 biophysical indicators (e.g., CO₂, nitrogen, phosphorus, water use).
- Compared these to 11 social indicators (e.g., nutrition, education, life satisfaction).
- Used a per capita allocation of planetary boundaries.
- Mapped countries in relation to how many social thresholds they meet and how many planetary limits they overshoot.
What are the main findings of O’Neill et al. (2018)?
No country meets all social thresholds while staying within all planetary boundaries.
- Physical needs (e.g., nutrition, sanitation, electricity) could be met sustainably.
- Qualitative goals (e.g., life satisfaction, democracy) typically require 2–6× more resources than sustainable limits allow.
- Wealthier countries tend to achieve social thresholds at the cost of environmental sustainability.
- Poorer countries stay within boundaries but fail to meet social needs.
What are “provisioning systems” in O’Neill et al. (2018) and why are they important?
Provisioning systems are the infrastructures and institutions that mediate between resource use and social outcomes.
They include:
- Physical: transport, energy, water, sanitation infrastructure
- Social: governance, markets, education, health systems
- Better provisioning systems can deliver social outcomes with less resource use, making them crucial for sustainable development.
What are the policy implications of O’Neill et al. (2018)?
- Societies must dramatically improve provisioning efficiency to meet needs within ecological limits.
- Shift from focus on economic growth to sufficiency and equity.
- Global redistribution of resource use is required.
- High-consuming countries must reduce use; low-income countries need access to resources for development.
What is the main aim of Vogel et al. (2021)?
Satisfying Human Needs at Low Energy Use
To identify which socio-economic conditions (“provisioning factors”) allow countries to meet basic human needs at low levels of energy use, thereby reconciling climate goals with social well-being.
What are the key concepts in Vogel et al. (2021)?
- Builds on O’Neill’s “provisioning systems” by introducing provisioning factors (e.g., public services, inequality, democracy).
Separates:
- Means: energy use
- Ends: human need satisfaction
- Intermediaries: provisioning factors
Uses the Ends–Means–Provisioning model to evaluate sustainable well-being.
What are the main findings of Vogel et al. (2021)?
- Only 29 countries meet basic needs - and all use too much energy (> 2–4× sustainable limit).
- Human need satisfaction saturates: more energy doesn’t lead to better outcomes beyond a point (~60 GJ/cap).
- Countries differ widely: some use less energy but achieve similar or better outcomes—due to provisioning quality.
What are “beneficial” and “detrimental” provisioning factors in Vogel et al. (2021)?
Beneficial factors (raise need satisfaction and lower energy use):
- High public service quality
- Income equality
- Access to electricity and clean fuels
- Good infrastructure
- Strong democracy
Detrimental factors (lower outcomes and increase energy use):
- Extractivism (resource-dependent economies)
- Excessive economic growth beyond affluence
What conclusions do Vogel et al. (2021) draw?
- Meeting needs with low energy use is technically possible, but requires major systemic changes.
- Nations must improve equality, public services, and governance while reducing extractivism and overconsumption.
- A broader transformation of the political-economic regime may be necessary to prioritize need-based, low-energy societies.
What are the key barriers to achieving a good life within planetary boundaries?
- Overconsumption in wealthy nations
- Inefficient or inequitable provisioning systems
- Political-economic focus on GDP growth over well-being
- Lack of global cooperation and redistribution
- High resource intensity of qualitative goals (e.g., happiness, democracy)
What strategies are proposed to move toward sustainability?
- Improve provisioning efficiency
- Promote public services and equality
- Embrace sufficiency, not excess
- Shift development models from growth to well-being
- Design global systems that allow just transitions and fair resource use
What are the main critiques or challenges to the recommendations in O’Neill et al. (2018) and Vogel et al. (2021)?
- Political feasibility –> Hard to convince wealthy countries to reduce consumption (e.g. US uses ~18× more CO₂ than global sustainable per capita limit).
- Tech: some argue green tech & innovation are underemphasized (papers focus more on system reform than solutions like renewables)
- Indicator bias: Measures like “life satisfaction” or “democracy” may reflect Western norms.
- Local variation: Need for context-specific solutions; one-size-fits-all frameworks may not respect cultural and economic diversity.
How is colonialism linked to current disparities in provisioning systems?
Colonial extraction model= infrastructure built to extract resources, not meet local needs.
- E.g. railways in India, DRC, and Ghana designed to move minerals/crops to ports, not connect communities.
- = underdevelopment of education, health, and public services in the Global South.
Post-independence reliance on extractivism:
- Nigeria oil extracitivism, ~90% export earnings, corruption, environ damage
- DRC: vast rubber and mineral wealth (e.g colbalt) human rights violations
Wealth accumulation in the Global North funded via colonized labor and land exploitation.
- UK extracted ~$45 trillion from India (Patnaik, 2018).
Countries now face higher energy costs per unit of human need met due to legacy underinvestment.
- In contrast, wealthy nations like Germany or Sweden enjoy efficient provisioning systems built on centuries of surplus and global exploitation.
