Replacing simpler products with lower emissions and the same quality of life factors can be a key approach to help tackle climate change.
About 7 years ago, my husband and I got a long-handled cordless vacuum cleaner for $350 to help clean our 80 square meter apartment. At that time, they were considered quite innovative, but now there are many similar products on the market. With a battery life of 20 minutes, it is enough to vacuum the whole place.
A broom has also finished the job, as the apartment has a hard-tiled floor, although it will not pick up dust and debris well enough. Brooms also have advantages – they are cheaper and do not require charging.
7 years since we got a vacuum cleaner, we can hardly pick up dust, but our broom is still strong and has not lost its function. A broom does not suffer from obsolescence. Brooms from 100 years ago were used the same way as today’s brooms.
This example of a vacuum cleaner/broom illustrates a fundamental point about innovation, economy and climate change – it could be replaced by a simpler product with a lower carbon footprint, but it could also reduce functionality.
Changing to new products can improve the quality of life, but innovation can come at an environmental cost
Substitution in economics refers to how consumers switch between products or services with similar goals. When making a purchase, consumers can often choose from a variety of potential products or services. Do I want jeans or chinos? Juice or Soda?
Substitution can be a key concept to help tackle climate change until consumers can switch to products or services with a lower carbon footprint that offer the same (or close) quality of life.
The “same quality of life” bit is the most important because consumers are not inclined to switch. For the purposes of this blog post, it is not defined as a product that can satisfy the same need/desire (e.g. thirst/hunger), but it can be dived into in a bigger way.
New innovations can replace old products, improve the quality of life for consumers, and make innovations preferable to old substitutes. For example, switching from bikes to cars allows for easier transportation, longer distances and the ability to carry more items. This is good.
However, many consumers and companies have historically (and currently) not considered the trade-off between improved quality of life from innovation and carbon emissions when switching to alternative products and services. Innovation adoption may not be environmentally friendly.
Climate-aware innovation is not possible with limited resources
Innovation comes at an environmental cost of acquiring scarce resources or increasing emissions. So, while increasing consumer entertainment options at a time when video is killing radio stars, the addition of VCRs to home media is probably not always sustainable. Continuity using new innovations is the best thinking.
Of course, innovation itself is not the problem. Innovation can help tackle climate change, like green energy, and there is value in innovation that provides material functional improvements.
The problem is the marginal innovation it offers limited additional functional improvement and increase emissions. many modern innovation hailed as a pretty marginal success story. In a finite world, marginal innovation is infinite to make life better which rely on scarcer resources unwise or incapable.
To illustrate this point – BMW recently develop cars that can change color. This will be considered quite good by some consumers, but it does not fundamentally change the ability to get from A to B which any vehicle will provide (ie alternative vehicle). Nothing changes if the product doesn’t exist. Should scarce resources be spent on small aesthetic innovations? In a low-carbon future, will these innovations be missed?
You can replace simpler products with limited quality of life to help tackle climate change
Choosing simpler, low-carbon products and services can be a means to tackle climate change, without harming the quality of life. For example, choosing to drink water instead of beer also quenches thirst, knowing that you need it 168L of water for one liter of beer. Or take a local vacation instead of abroad to avoid plane emissions, which is also cheaper.
Without a doubt, the substitution to deal with climate change can lead to a significant loss of quality of life. For example, moving to a smaller home compromises living space. Using a bike or public transportation instead of a car can compromise convenience. It is not easy to do.
But, because it requires three to five planet Earth However, in order to maintain consumption at the level of an advanced economy, the substitution must be acceptable for the reduction of emissions, compared to the loss of quality of life involved. Of course, measuring such trade-offs is very difficult requiring a detailed willingness to pay the assessment.
Choosing to live easier now will come at a cost – but the reduction in living standards due to climate change is still happening, which will increase over time.
Life is easier at a cost. Not necessarily for individual consumers, but economy-wide for GDP and jobs. The development of more products and services creates jobs in the entire supply chain from production to retail. Not to mention that continuous consumption is what sustains the economy and counts towards GDP.
Choosing an easier life defies traditional economic logic. That being said, some simplifications about consumption in advanced economies are inevitable, just as consumption cannot be controlled, World Economic Forum Forecast shows that climate change could cost up to 18% of GDP in 2050. In this context, climate action to simplify consumption to lower emission products and services may be cost-effective.
For individual consumers or organizations making self-selected substitutions will be challenging. After all, what is an immediate incentive? However, it can play into government policy decisions.
▼▼ Thanks for reading. Please share using the link below. ▼▼