Was the planet going to be saved by an international convention between states? Certainly, it is always a good “thing” for heads of state and government to meet and discuss…, especially in the Danish capital in an attempt to reach a new climate agreement. After the limited results of the previous Summit (Kyoto Protocol 1997), the goals of limiting the temperature rise to 2° for the planet and assisting the most vulnerable countries to adapt to the consequences of climate change were worthy objectives in themselves.
But how can we claim to solve these issues solely from the top, through inter-state conventions? The problem of climate change, like all environmental issues, primarily involves a change in behaviors. This can either be direct through daily actions – eco-actions – or more importantly, through indirect demands by seeking alternative economic processes. However, in Copenhagen, there was no foundational plan to change our daily habits. Nothing was considered, particularly in terms of education, to facilitate this change, not even the slightest recommendation…
Certainly, the media, as well as NGOs have done significant work in raising awareness. Can we say that it is sufficient for the desired behavioral changes? The usual media events or the sensationalism of a demonstration, while they may increase awareness, in no way provoke a profound change in attitudes. There is always a gap between knowing and doing. And to stay positive, fears aren’t very good advisors. This is confirmed by Anglo-Saxon research in psychology or those in Geneva’s didactics. All have shown that catastrophe scenarios and apocalyptic rhetoric are only effective if individuals feel involved. Yet, most humans do not yet feel sufficiently concerned by climate change.
This concept seems rather vague, abstract, and difficult to grasp in their daily lives. It needs to be made accessible through aspects that directly concern them. To change individual behavior, one must be able to grasp it; something not encouraged by esoteric discussions between experts or international conferences. Worse, they demobilize since they do not engage the individual. And media stunts contribute to creating a strong sense of helplessness (“it’s beyond me”, “it’s too complex”). On a daily basis, they lead to a lack of responsibility (“there’s nothing I can do at my level”, “it’s a big money issue”). At best, they provide a clean conscience (“I know about it, but what can I do?”).
### What about eco-actions?
But isn’t it the same with eco-actions? Are they really meeting the challenges? Take the most common one: waste sorting. It appears to be a very civic gesture. However, if we don’t oversee what comes next, we may face major disappointments. The recycling or recovery industries do not always keep up. One of the first recycling initiatives was aluminum. In hindsight, the frequent and observed failures are revealing and instructive. The aluminum recycling industry took some time to establish in Europe, which led to wild dumps and even waste exports to Africa! Recycling itself is not without consequences; it produces saline waste dumped directly into rivers. Due to the coatings on these packages, dioxin and heavy metal emissions are released into the atmosphere.
Questioning the fate of our waste and acting accordingly would be a more pertinent approach. In theory, almost all packaging is recyclable, but in practice, not all will be. A recycling stream needs to be established and must be profitable. For recycling to be as ecological as possible, it is desirable that the recovery streams are close enough to reduce waste transportation and the resulting pollution. Ideally, there should be well-distributed recycling plants across different territories, which is far from the case.
Upstream, wouldn’t it be better to change our consumption habits? As consumers, it would be easy to avoid products with overly bulky or polluting packaging, which is the case for many gifts. Similarly, consumers could avoid goods that are neither recyclable nor compostable, such as aerosols and soap pumps containing lead balls, packs with multiple layers, or products wrapped in aluminum foil (chocolates, cheeses…), etc.
Rather than just recovery, demanding a new packaging policy – different packaging (glass, pottery,…), less composite packaging, less harmful colors…) would also be a more sensible measure. Thus, it would be possible to prefer larger volume packaging: the large tub of yogurt isn’t recycled but uses less raw material. And why always buy? Why not make it yourself? It’s easy to make fresh cheese; the same goes for yogurts!
“Zero waste” practices are certainly to be implemented, particularly for automobiles or appliances. They aim to avoid the use of non-renewable resources on one hand and harmful emissions on the other. In this concept, all “waste” is considered a resource, and from production, the subsequent recycling of various materials is considered. This would oblige manufacturers to design their products and packaging with recycling in mind.
### A different consumption?
Another question, no less significant… With the ongoing economic crisis, are we going to further stimulate consumption even more frenziedly? Is it compatible with reducing climate warming? Shouldn’t we rather invest in less polluting, less energy-consuming production? In this direction, each of us has a predominant role to play. As consumer-buyers, each of us has a real individual power in our hands that we could exercise to influence production.
Two non-contradictory paths are open to us. The first is under-consumption for those who believe in the possible and necessary decline. The second is “thoughtful consumption;” the consumer opts for “sustainable consumption.” The path of under-consumption doesn’t mean buying less, but buying better! It might be only purchasing absolutely necessary products. It would be enough to ask: “Do I really need this new product? What will it bring me? Do I really need to change my mobile phone or my computer? Can’t I wait?” However, many other practices are possible: buying goods in common (cars, building washing machines), renting an object (bike, camcorder), exchanging more or buying second hand (especially clothes).
The sustainable consumer only buys durable goods. Many products today are designed from the onset for a limited period. The consumer informs themselves before their purchase to favor products with a sufficient lifespan. Secondarily, they might only buy products whose materials are known to reintegrate directly into other production processes. Moreover, they prioritize products that can be reused or resold after use. This is already evident with the success of flea markets.
It’s no longer possible to let the market – the hypermarket! – decide for us. Especially since this mode of production/consumption is leading us straight into a problematic future. The consumer is a key player in this system and needs to be conscious of it. While the “powers of this world” continue to deliberate, he can influence the economic process if he takes some of his time to think about his consumption. Let’s not forget that the consumer holds two very subversive weapons: boycott and sponsorship! They can choose to prefer brands making efforts to think differently about the world.
