The Good Life Is Killing The Planet, But Your Best Life Could Save It

Shutterstock

New research out this week from the University of Leeds confirms what most of us probably already knew (and all Americans have been hearing for years) - If everyone lived like we do, we would use up the earth's resources and poison the planet.

But the research published in Nature Sustainability and also on a fascinating interactive website quantifies the relationship between quality of life and environmental impacts in detail, producing a report card of sorts for 151 countries.

Turns out, no country with a population of over a million people provides its citizens with the good life without going past multiple environmental limits.

"In general, the more social thresholds a country achieves, the more planetary boundaries it exceeds, and vice versa," said co-author Dr. William Lamb from the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change. "Although wealthy nations like the US and UK satisfy the basic needs of their citizens, they do so at a level of resource use that is far beyond what is globally sustainable. In contrast, countries that are using resources at a sustainable level, such as Sri Lanka, fail to meet the basic needs of their people."

There are a few potential role models on the global stage: Vietnam seems a bit of an anomaly, as it is a relatively good steward of the environment (although it does still go beyond the sustainable limit for climate change emissions) while providing a better life than most other nations with a smaller footprint. Among wealthy nations, Germany provides a high quality of life while polluting a little less than other rich countries.

How to save the world?

No countries come close to the sweet spot of giving citizens the highest quality of life and being sustainable. So what are the possible solutions?

The researchers invite the public to play around on their website by manipulating sliders to "explore what your choices would mean for sustainability if they were extended to all people."

This quickly becomes an exercise in madness as increasing sustainability requires draconian choices like reducing life expectancy, access to sanitation and equality.

So tough choices have to be made; I get the point.

"Radical changes are needed if all people are to live well within the limits of the planet. These include moving beyond the pursuit of economic growth in wealthy nations, shifting rapidly from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and significantly reducing inequality," explained Co-author Dr Julia Steinberger from Leeds.

Yes, yes, yes, but how, damn it! How? I'll grant that switching to renewable energy is straight-forward enough and feasible, but moving beyond the pursuit of growth and reducing inequality are think pieces, not items on a planetary to-do list.

Lead author Dr. Daniel O'Neill does provide one nugget in a column published by The Conversation:

Interestingly, the relationship between resource use and social performance is almost always a curve with diminishing returns. This curve has a “turning point”, after which using even more resources adds almost nothing to human well-being. Wealthy nations, including the US and UK, are well past the turning point, which means they could substantially reduce the amount of carbon emitted or materials consumed with no loss of well-being. This would in turn free up ecological space for many poorer countries, where an increase in resource use would contribute much more to a good life.

There it is again. We are living in a culture of excess. We have too much.

This would also seem to be in line with the studies we've seen in recent years that say making more money buys you more happiness, but only up to about $75,000 per year. Beyond that, making more money produces diminishing returns in terms of adding happiness to life.

Sending the wrong message

One thing the sustainability movement has been getting wrong for decades now is how the issue is framed. Time and again we hear that we simply want too much, that we're taking more than our share, that saving the world will mean doing without.

Now, all the above may be true, and I think it certainly is in the case of Americans, but it's also true that nobody wants to be told that they want too much.

It is in our nature to want love and happiness, and to deny those desires is thought to be inhuman. Sometimes we confuse wanting material things with wanting happiness because sometimes material things actually do provide happiness and sometimes because we're just confused.

To take more than we need is also instinctive because our species survived for eons by stockpiling and storing necessities for lean seasons. Refrigeration and Blue Apron have only made it possible to survive without hording in the last few generations.

So to say that we must simply "move beyond the pursuit of economic growth" is not particularly instructive because such a move would likely be incredibly destructive to the social fabric and the very same well being indicators the researchers looked into.

Telling humans to reduce or do without simply is not a reliable method for motivation, particularly in a massive, long-term way.

Living the real "best life"

Fortunately, people do want for more than just comfort and material things. We also long for purpose - something that several other indicators, not the least of which is an epidemic of reality-numbing opioid addiction, seem to demonstrate we are struggling to achieve en masse in a rapidly-changing world that is leaving many in the dust in the process.

I don't have a step-by-step instruction manual for creating a sustainable world full of happy people, but I do think that one of the steps, perhaps the next step, is to spread the word that we can get there not by doing without, but simply by shifting our sense of purpose. In other words, the key to giving the good life to all, could be to pursue our best life.

Yes, we should reduce consumption to save the planet, but to get the massive buy-in required, this must be framed at all times as a new and important pursuit itself, rather than a required and painful diet prescribed by Dr. Science.

It is okay to pursue wealth and happiness, but we can also pursue purpose simultaneously by working within the existing system to develop technologies, policies and systems that lead to a higher level of sustainability and efficiency.  This concept has actually been out there for a long time now: it's called social entrepreneurship.

This is what we need more of, because more is a plan most people's programming will allow them to get behind; the dogma of living with less... less so.

Shutterstock

Turns out, no country with a population of over a million people provides its citizens with the good life without going past multiple environmental limits.

"In general, the more social thresholds a country achieves, the more planetary boundaries it exceeds, and vice versa," said co-author Dr. William Lamb from the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change. "Although wealthy nations like the US and UK satisfy the basic needs of their citizens, they do so at a level of resource use that is far beyond what is globally sustainable. In contrast, countries that are using resources at a sustainable level, such as Sri Lanka, fail to meet the basic needs of their people."

How to save the world?

No countries come close to the sweet spot of giving citizens the highest quality of life and being sustainable. So what are the possible solutions?

The researchers invite the public to play around on their website by manipulating sliders to "explore what your choices would mean for sustainability if they were extended to all people."

This quickly becomes an exercise in madness as increasing sustainability requires draconian choices like reducing life expectancy, access to sanitation and equality.

So tough choices have to be made; I get the point.

Lead author Dr. Daniel O'Neill does provide one nugget in a column published by The Conversation:

Interestingly, the relationship between resource use and social performance is almost always a curve with diminishing returns. This curve has a “turning point”, after which using even more resources adds almost nothing to human well-being. Wealthy nations, including the US and UK, are well past the turning point, which means they could substantially reduce the amount of carbon emitted or materials consumed with no loss of well-being. This would in turn free up ecological space for many poorer countries, where an increase in resource use would contribute much more to a good life.

There it is again. We are living in a culture of excess. We have too much.

Sending the wrong message

Now, all the above may be true, and I think it certainly is in the case of Americans, but it's also true that nobody wants to be told that they want too much.

Telling humans to reduce or do without simply is not a reliable method for motivation, particularly in a massive, long-term way.

Living the real "best life"

It is okay to pursue wealth and happiness, but we can also pursue purpose simultaneously by working within the existing system to develop technologies, policies and systems that lead to a higher level of sustainability and efficiency. This concept has actually been out there for a long time now: it's called social entrepreneurship.

This is what we need more of, because more is a plan most people's programming will allow them to get behind; the dogma of living with less... less so.

Let's block ads! (Why?)