state of the world 2010...evaluation • collaborations among government, industry, and consumer...

THEWORLDWATCHINSTITUTE

STATE OF TH E WOR LDTransforming Cultures

2 0 1 0

From Consumerism to Sustainability

www.worldwatch.orgB

SCIENCE/ENVIRONMENT

W. W. NORTONNEW YORK • LONDON

STATE OF THE WORLD

Advance Praise for State of the World 2010:

“If we continue to think of ourselves mostly asconsumers, it’s going to be very hard to bring ourenvironmental troubles under control. But it’s alsogoing to be very hard to live the rounded and joyfullives that could be ours. This is a subversive volumein all the best ways!”

—Bill McKibben, author of Deep Economy andThe End of Nature

“Worldwatch has taken on an ambitious agenda inthis volume. No generation in history has achieved acultural transformation as sweeping as the one calledfor here…it is hard not to be impressed with thebook’s boldness.”

—Muhammad Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank

“This year’s State of the World report is a culturalmindbomb exploding with devastating force. I hopeit wakes a few people up.”

—Kalle Lasn, Editor of Adbusters magazine

Like a tsunami, consumerism has engulfed humancultures and Earth’s ecosystems. Left unaddressed, werisk global disaster. But if we channel this wave, intention-ally transforming our cultures to center on sustainability,we will not only prevent catastrophe but may usher in anera of sustainability—one that allows all people to thrivewhile protecting, even restoring, Earth.

In this year’s State of the World report, 50+ renownedresearchers and practitioners describe how we canharness the world’s leading institutions—education, themedia, business, governments, traditions, and socialmovements—to reorient cultures toward sustainability.

Transforming Cultures

2 0 1 0

Transforming CulturesFrom Consumerism to SustainabilityFrom Consumerism to Sustainability

2 0 1 0

Several million pounds of plasticenter the world’s oceans every hour,portrayed on the cover by the 2.4million bits of plastic that make upGyre, Chris Jordan’s 8- by 11-footreincarnation of the famous 1820swoodblock print, The Great WaveOff Kanagawa, by the Japanese artistKatsushika Hokusai.

For discussion questions,additional essays,

video presentations,and event calendar, visitblogs.worldwatch.org/transformingcultures.

full image

extreme close-up

Cover image: Gyre by Chris JordanCover design: Lyle Rosbotham

http://blogs.worldwatch.org/transformingcultures

http://www.worldwatch.org/

http://blogs.worldwatch.org/transformingcultures

BLOGS.WORLDWATCH.ORG/TRANSFORMINGCULTURES 119

By late 2010, Australians are going to have ahard time finding an incandescent bulb fortheir nightstand lamps or desk lights. The Aus-tralian government, troubled by potential elec-tricity shortages and global climate change, isthe first to “ban the bulb” in favor of energy-sipping compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) andLEDs. The impact will be significant: 4 millionfewer tons of greenhouse gas emissions eachyear by 2012, together with sizable economicsavings. And Australia is not alone. The Euro-pean Union is slowly phasing out incandescentsby 2012. Canada, Indonesia, and even theUnited States are next in line.1

Environmental analysts like Lester Brown ofthe Earth Policy Institute are delighted. Brownsays that if everyone followed Australia’s lead“the worldwide drop in electricity use wouldpermit the closing of more than 270 coal-fired (500 megawatt) power plants. For theUnited States, this bulb switch would facilitateshutting down 80 coal-fired plants.” But oth-ers are not so sure. Reports abound of peoplehoarding incandescent bulbs in Australia andGermany, among other countries, and someexperts wonder if incandescents are beingforced out too quickly. And then there is the

prickly philosophical question at the heart ofit all: Should products be removed from themenu of consumer choice because of theirenvironmental or other socially objectionablequalities? Who decides what stays on the shelvesand what goes? Shouldn’t the consumer beallowed to choose freely? Is “lightbulb fas-cism” intruding into the marketplace?2

Choice Editing Is Nothing New

Welcome to the world of “choice editing,”where the tussle over lightbulbs is but theopening salvo in a larger struggle to crowd outenvironmentally negative products in favor ofmore benign choices. Choice editing for sus-tainability is more than simply deleting whatdoes not work. In the words of the U.K. Sus-tainable Development Council, it “is aboutshifting the field of choice for mainstreamconsumers: cutting out unnecessarily damag-ing products and getting real sustainablechoices on the shelves.” (See Box 16 for someinitiatives on sustainable consumption at theinternational level.)3

Choice editors remove environmentallyoffensive products from commercial consid-

Editing Out Unsustainable Behavior

Michael Maniates

Michael Maniates is Professor of Political Science and Environmental Science at Allegheny College inPennsylvania.

eration, like smog-producing charcoal lighterfluid in Los Angeles or leaded gasoline inEurope and North America. Or they makesuch products expensive to use, like Ireland’slevy on plastic shopping bags, which hasreduced plastic bag use by 90 percent. Butlike any good editor, choice editors cannotjust chop. They must offer options or, at thevery least—in the words of environmentalreporter Leo Hickman—a sufficiently com-pelling illusion of choice. In Los Angeles,backyard cooks denied their lighter fluid hadthe choice of chimney or electric briquettefire starters. In Ireland, shoppers can purchaseany number of cloth bags, some trendy orstylish. And in Australia and the growing num-ber of other countries looking to edit outincandescents, consumers will see more choice

among CFLs, LEDs, and other innovativelighting technologies.4

If the idea of governmental choice editingrankles, perhaps because it sounds manipula-tive or too “Big Brother,” remember thatchoice editing is neither new nor novel. Gov-ernment has long been at it, in ways bothobvious and obscure. (See Table 8.) Safetyand performance standards for everything fromthe food people eat to the cars they drive con-strain and shape choice. The same holds truefor tax, tariff, and subsidy policies that heightenthe desirability of some products while makingothers unattractive or unavailable. More sub-tly, government decisions about where to buildroads and rail lines, what schools and hospitalsare constructed or closed, and which researchand development initiatives are supported or

120 WWW.WORLDWATCH.ORG

Editing Out Unsustainable Behavior STATE OF THE WORLD 2010

In recognition of their disproportionate shareof global consumption and the resultingimpact on sustainability and equality, industrialcountries agreed in 2002 to take the lead inaccelerating the shift toward sustainable pat-terns of consumption and production.

To achieve this, a global informal multi-stakeholder expert process was launched in2003 in Marrakech, Morocco, to supportregional and national initiatives to acceleratethe shift to sustainable consumption and pro-duction (SCP) and to elaborate a 10-yearframework of programs on SCP, which willbegin after its structure and content are nego-tiated at the U.N. Commission on SustainableDevelopment meeting in May 2011.

A key element of the Marrakech Process isits seven Task Forces, which are voluntary ini-tiatives led by governments in cooperationwith various partners:• Sustainable Lifestyles (Sweden). Identifiesand compares grassroots social innovationsfor sustainability from around the world,finds promising examples, and diffuses

them. Develops train-the-trainer tools forsustainable consumption in youth, CD-romson sustainability in marketing, and on-linegalleries of sustainability communication.Projects implemented in more than 30 coun-tries with materials in over 10 languages.

• Cooperation with Africa (Germany). AffirmsAfrica’s own 10-year framework on SCP (thefirst region to have developed and launchedsuch a program) by supporting an All AfricaEco-Labeling scheme, the establishment of anetwork of Life-Cycle Assessment experts inAfrica, and initiatives to “leapfrog” straightinto clean energy sources.

• Sustainable Public Procurement (Switzer-land). Develops analysis and Web-basedStatus Assessment tools to support public-sector organizations’ attempts to justify,develop, and gauge the success of sustain-able procurement programs.

• Sustainable Products (United Kingdom).Catalyzes networks of experts in key productareas to upwardly revise standards, developlabels, work together on policy roadmaps,

Box 16. The U.N. Marrakech Process on Sustainable Consumption and Production

starved converge to write the menu for hous-ing, education, and jobs from which everyonemust choose.

The real worry is not that governmentengages in choice editing. Rather, it is that fordecades such editing has aided and abetted anespecially narrow view of progress, one thatimagines mass consumption as the foundationof human happiness, egalitarianism, and evendemocracy itself. As prize-winning historianLizabeth Cohen writes in Consumers’ Repub-lic, “A strategy…emerged after the SecondWorld War for reconstructing the [U.S.] econ-omy and reaffirming its democratic valuesthrough promoting the expansion of mass con-sumption.” A central plank of this strategy wasto make energy-intensive, resource-depleting,

mass-consuming choices appear natural andinevitable: witness the single-family, detachedhome to be filled with products, a family car toget to it, and dispersed and abundant shoppingoutlets. Other, more environmentally sustain-able consumption options and patterns—effi-cient streetcar and intercity rails systems, forinstance, or a returnable-bottle network formilk, soda, and other products—were cast asbackward, were made more difficult to find orrely upon, and subsequently disappeared.5

Cohen’s incisive gaze rests on the UnitedStates, but similar stories hold true for muchof the industrial world, and parallel tales arenow being told in developing countries, mostnotably India and China. They all point to aprovocative question: if the rise of fundamen-


STATE OF THE WORLD 2010 Editing Out Unsustainable Behavior

and collaborate on compliance. Three prod-uct areas identified so far: lighting, homeentertainment products, and electric motors.

• Sustainable Tourism (France). Createsdemand for greener travel offerings withthe Green Passport Program for citizens,fosters industry supply with the revisedEnvironmental and Sustainable TourismTeaching Pack for the Hospitality Industry,and encourages investment by conveninga Sustainable Investment and Finance inTourism Network.

• Sustainable Buildings and Construction(Finland). Works to move green buildingstandards beyond the realm of the voluntaryby developing policy recommendations andworking in partnership with national govern-ments and private firms participating inthe U.N. Sustainable Buildings and ClimateInitiative.

• Education for Sustainable Consumption(Italy). Focuses on integrating sustainableconsumption into core curriculum in theMediterranean region, while working with theUNESCO Associate Schools Network Project

(a global network of 8,500 educational insti-tutions in 179 countries founded in 1953) todisseminate best practices in sustainabilityeducation to teachers around the world.

By bringing consumption into the globaldialogue on sustainability, the MarrakechProcess raises questions of lifestyle, values,and progress, creating a unique space withinnational governments and regional forums forreforming the cultures and institutions at thebasis of all socioeconomic systems, whilebringing a suite of tools to the table for policy-makers who are serious about greening theeconomy and improving human well-being.

Clearly more could be done with greaterleverage and resources. Unfortunately, the lowprofile of the Marrakech Process means theeffort suffers from a lack of serious attentionby senior decisionmakers. In the run-up to thenegotiations in May 2011, this fledgling buttransformative U.N. process could be helpedby the greater involvement of governments,the private sector, and the public.

—Stefanie BowlesSource: See endnote 3.

Box 16. continued



Types ofChoice Editing Examples Important Features

Eliminateoffendingchoices

Slowly trimaway the worstproducts andpractices

Make offendingchoices lessattractive orincreasinglydifficult

Change contextfor choices;alter “choicearchitecture”

Table 8. Examples and Features of Choice Editing

• Montreal Protocol and CFCs

• Shift away from leaded petrol in the NorthAmerica and Europe

• Ban on incandescent bulbs in Australia

• Compressed natural gas for public trans-portation in India

• Walmart’s decision to carry only MSC-certified wild-caught fresh and frozen fish

• Japan’s “top runner” program for energyefficiency

• LEED building requirements in the UnitedStates, which gradually increase the stand-ards for certifying a new building as “green”or “sustainable”

• Ireland’s levy on plastic shopping bags

• Shifting fatty and processed foods from eyelevel to higher or lower shelves

• Creative use of defaults (for instance, con-sumers are subscribed to renewable formsof electricity and must intentionally refusethis option)

• Focused changes to material flows; for uni-versity and corporate composting programs,for example, shift to all compostable diningware (plates and utensils) in cafeterias toeliminate mixing of compostable and non-compostable waste by consumers

• Embedded cues and drivers that encouragereduced consumption (for example, whentrays in university cafeterias are removed, stu-dents take only what they need, reducing foodwaste, water use, and energy consumption)

• Create real choice for trading leisure forincome: four fifths work for four fifths pay asa viable work option

• Strong legislation, often sup-ported by business interests

• Requires new choices to offsetthe loss of previous choices

• Demands a “phase-in” periodthat allows for adjustment

• The use of labeling to identify,over time, the most offendingpractices and products

• Clear standards and methods ofevaluation

• Collaborations among government,industry, and consumer groups

• Two primary instruments: taxa-tion and product placement andpositioning

• Wide range of choice is retained,but incentives and positioningprivilege sustainable choicesover unsustainable ones

• Enduring question: How can con-sumer experience be structuredso that doing the right thing isnatural and requires little or nothought while doing the wrongthing is difficult and requires con-scious thought and focused intent

• Building a choice architectureto oppose consumerism ofteninvolves reintroducing meaning-ful choice: choices among variedtransportation options, forexample, or about work timeand leisure

tally unsustainable consumer cultures was facil-itated by choice editing—by an elite whointently shifted the field of choice for main-stream consumers—will transforming con-sumerism into something more sustainablerequire a similar degree of determination andsophistication by government and business?

The answer appears to be yes. In 2006, forexample, the Sustainable Development Round-table (SDR)—a project of the SustainableDevelopment Commission and the NationalConsumer Council in the United Kingdom—released an analysis of 19 promising transfor-mations in consumer cultures, ranging fromsustainable forestry products to fair-trade andorganic food product lines. SDR concludedthat “historically, the green consumer has notbeen the tipping point in driving green inno-vation. Instead, choice editing for quality andsustainability by government and business hasbeen the critical driver in the majority of cases.Manufacturers, retailers and regulators havemade decisions to edit out less sustainableproducts on behalf of consumers, raising thestandard for all.”6

A classic example of this is the Montreal Pro-tocol’s phaseout of ozone-destroying chloro-fluorocarbons (CFCs). “Powerful economic,political, and technical factors combined tofacilitate the phase-out of CFCs,” write JamesMaxwell and Sanford Weiner of the Massa-chusetts Institute of Technology. They notethat a critical factor was DuPont’s desire to cre-ate new consumer demand for its CFC sub-stitute while establishing a competitiveadvantage over its major global competitor,which had no such substitutes. The ozonelayer is healthier today because consumersshifted to more ozone-friendly substitutes, butthis shift came about largely because ofmethodical choice editing that pushed con-sumers in that direction.7

Of course, consumers still have an impor-tant role to play as they vote for sustainabilitywith their purchases. But Tim Lang of City

University London, who coined the idea of“food miles,” speaks for many analysts of sus-tainable consumption when he asks “whyshould the consumer be the one left in thesupermarket aisle to agonize over complexissues such as animal welfare, carbon foot-prints, workers’ rights and excessive packaging,often without any meaningful data on the labelto inform their decision-making?” Why, inother words, don’t producers and govern-ments shift their current choice-editing prac-tices so that consumers choose only among arange of environmentally “good” products?That way, making the right choice is—as busi-nessman and environmental writer PaulHawken puts it—as “easy as falling off a log.”8

One answer is that the favored alternative—labeling products as environmentally “good”or “bad” and letting consumers decide—issometimes thought to be less controversial.Product labeling is an important componentin the transformation of consumer societiesto sustainable ones. Yet experience suggeststhat when product information is made avail-able, perhaps as part of ecolabeling schemes,it influences no more than a minority of shop-pers—and not nearly enough, not fast enough,and not consistently enough to drive the trans-formation of consumer life required by a planetunder stress.9

At least three factors limit the effectivenessof labeling: the varying degree of environ-mental commitment among the general pop-ulation; the complexity of consumer-choicedecisions, which are structured by intricatesets of social processes and cultural influ-ences; and a corrosive “choice architecture”—the potent context within which people makedecisions. Nutrition labeling, for example,does not stand much of a chance in mostsupermarkets, given that products are posi-tioned (or hidden) on shelves and at end-of-aisle displays to foster impulse purchases offatty, sweet, and processed foods and thatsugary products are shelved at a child’s eye



level. It is no surprise, then, that the Sus-tainable Development Commission foundthat information about the environmentaland economic benefits of less environmentallydestructive products “failed to get more thana minority of people buying” the best prod-ucts. But the Commission also found thatwhen labeling and other information effortswere part of choice-editing efforts by gov-ernment, producers, and retailers, consumerpractices changed across the board.10

Editing for SustainabilityIf the goal is to move consumers toward lessenvironmentally damaging patterns of con-sumption, contemporary experience says thatchoice editing delivers. At a growing numberof colleges and universities across the UnitedStates, for instance, fair-trade coffee andrenewably generated electricity are increas-ingly on the menu—and are often the onlychoice available on campus.11

In California, consumers can choose froma variety of electricity generation options, andthe most environmentally dedicated customerscan opt for rooftop solar arrays where site con-

ditions and the ability to pay permit. Regard-less of their preferences, 20 percent of theirelectricity will flow from renewable sourcesby 2010 due to Renewable Portfolio Stan-dards imposed on electric utilities by the stategovernment. These are driving the develop-ment of renewables faster than uncoordinatedconsumer demand ever could. California’sproportion of renewable electricity will slowlygrow, and 38 other states are following suit.12

In 2003, London implemented Europe’sfirst “congestion pricing” programfor its city core: drivers pay a fee tooperate their car in central city areasduring peak periods, with the rev-enue going to boost bus service andfund subway renovations. Initiallytreated with skepticism, the programnow enjoys growing public supportand is a model for major cities world-wide. And in India, in response to aSupreme Court public health order,the government has required allbuses, taxis, and auto-rickshaws inmajor cities to switch from dirty fuelsto cleaner burning compressed nat-ural gas. Despite some initial protests,New Delhi has led the way, and com-muters are now part of an ambitiouseffort to curb air pollution. Theseexamples, and others like them,

demonstrate the effectiveness and political via-bility of choice editing.13

Business offers its own set of examples,though whether these practices will endureand expand absent government regulation orpersistent pressure by citizens’ groups remainsto be seen. Reacting to pressure from envi-ronmental groups, since 1999 Home Depot—the largest home improvement retailer in theUnited States—has sold lumber certified andlabeled by the Forest Stewardship Council.But it also has quietly altered significant aspectsof its wood-product supply chain; it is conse-quently harder today than 10 years ago for any-



New Delhi traffic jam: less pollution may be only half the battle.

N-O

-M-A

-D

one to purchase environmentally “bad” lum-ber at Home Depot.14

B&Q, Home Depot’s counterpart in theUnited Kingdom, pursued a similar strategyand has perhaps the most robust commercialsystem in place for certifying the sources of itstimber supply, easily outpacing U.S. retailers.Interviewed in the late 1990s, Allen Knight,then Environmental Policy Coordinator forthe company, explained that B&Q embarkedon sustainable wood “even though there wasno indication of consumer demand for certi-fied products.” He observed that “customersdo not ask for certified products because theyare unaware of them: Raising awareness andcreating markets are the retailer’s role.”15

Not to be outdone, in early 2006 Walmartpledged to source all its wild-caught fresh andfrozen fish from suppliers certified as sustain-ably harvested by the Marine StewardshipCouncil (MSC). Moreover, it required its sup-pliers to expand renewable fisheries rather thanjockey for access to or ownership of existingsuppliers. The blue MSC ecolabel figuresprominently on Walmart wild-caught fish, butunlike other labeling schemes the certificationis not meant to persuade buyers to choosesustainable wild-caught fish over less sustain-able options, as the company has edited thoseout completely.16

Also in early 2006 Hannaford Supermarketsin the United States implemented its “guidingstar” program in 270 stores, in which productsidentified as especially healthy or nutritiousare given one to three stars. Some 28 percentof items in the stores receive the rating, withthe remainder not being good enough to geta star at all. Dan Goleman, author of Ecolog-ical Intelligence, reports that “poorly ratedbrands dropped as much as 5 percent in sales,”while sales of some three-star brands went upby 7 percent. “Brand managers started con-tacting Hannaford to ask what they needed todo to get higher ratings,” Goleman noted.17

Hannaford’s apparent success comes

because they understood their program asmore than a simple labeling exercise. It wasabout changing critical components of the“choice architecture” at its stores. “It includessigns, shelf tags, an advertising campaign, col-lateral materials, training materials, a web site,and community outreach, among other ele-ments,” explains Hannaford spokespersonMichael Norton. And it meant changing prod-uct placement and shelving strategies to rein-force healthier shopping habits.18

Obstacles to Change

There remains immense potential for choiceediting to drive fundamental changes in con-sumption. But at least two obstacles stand inthe way. One is the persistent belief that prod-uct labeling alone can drive necessary change.Even when logical and clear, labeling places theburden on consumers to drive needed socialchange with their purchasing decisions. It alsoreinforces what Thomas Princen at the Uni-versity of Michigan calls one of the most dis-abling myths about political life: the notion ofconsumer sovereignty, which says that thedecisions that producers and marketers makeabout what to produce and what to sell is dri-ven solely by independent, uninfluenced con-sumer choices. The consumer decides, in otherwords, and the producer responds. This ideadenies the power that government and businesshave over the menu and architecture of con-sumer choice. In doing so, it undermines thevery rationale for choice editing.19

Japan has pioneered a better use of labeling,one that could move consumer cultures towardan ethos of sustainability. Since 1998 the gov-ernment has divided products up into similarcategories and classes, and then graded andlabeled them on a 1–5 scale for energy effi-ciency. Tiers one and two are the standard setby the best-performing products—and it isthe standard that the entire industry mustmeet within five years. As these “top runners”



improve, the overall standard shifts upward,placing ongoing pressure on manufacturersto improve their product lines or face a ban ontheir products. In the short run, energy-con-scious consumers are empowered: the top-runner label offers important informationabout the overall energy costs of a consumerchoice. In the longer run, the field of choicechanges: the label provides a regulatory plat-form for driving constant product innovation,increasing the range of choice among thehigher-performing categories and editing outthe worst products. Germany is considering asimilar program. Advocates of choice editinghope that Walmart’s recent commitment toenvironmental labeling will incorporate this“top runner policy.”20

A second impediment to the power ofchoice editing is its prevailing focus on “con-sumption shifting” rather than “consumptionreducing.” Most choice editing has been aboutmoving consumers to less environmentallydamaging products. But genuinely sustain-able patterns of consumption must also involvereductions in overall consumption. How canthe context within which everyday peoplemake consumption decisions be edited toencourage that? John de Graaf suggests oneanswer: make it attractive for people to tradework for leisure in ways that would lead to avoluntary reduction in income (but not healthand other important benefits) for more freetime, which in turn has known environmen-tal benefits.21

Cornell economist Robert Frank offersanother solution: shift taxes toward luxury con-sumption, reduce or eliminate taxes on incomediverted to savings, and invest more governmentresources in public uses—parks, inviting pedes-

trian walkways, mass transit—that would reduceindividual pressures to consume (thus sup-porting de Graaf’s agenda for less work, lessincome, but more life satisfaction).22

In Nudge, economist Richard Thaler andlegal scholar Cass Sunstein provide a suite ofadditional ideas for altering the “choice archi-tecture” in service of sustainable consump-tion. These include the pervasive use ofdefaults to “nudge” consumers in environ-mentally appropriate directions. A personcould opt out of these defaults, but the bur-den rests on the individual to choose thewrong behavior over the right one. Examplesinclude automatic and certified carbon-offsetsfor all travel bookings, default savings plans,and pricier renewable energy automaticallyincluded in residential energy bills (so a cus-tomer would have to say explicitly “I want touse dirty, polluting coal to save a small amountof money”).23

Choice editing has been with us a greatlong while, and it is here to stay. If that seemsfar-fetched, just bring an especially critical eyeto the layout of products and displays in asupermarket. Which products draw customers’eyes? Which are easily reached? The questionnow is this: Will a primary focus on the promiseof product labeling alone (and underlyingnotions of consumer sovereignty) continue toshape policy for sustainable consumption? Orwill more-realistic assessments emerge abouthow and why people make consumer choices?Government and business, operating from aview that mass consumption means mass pros-perity, have tightly held the reins of choiceediting for too long. Now is the time for amore nuanced, more sustainable vision ofchoice and choice architecture to prevail.



opment” subsidies for chain and other nonlocalstores; Leigh McIlvaine, “State and Local Ballot Ini-tiative Round-Up, 7 November 2007, atwww.clawback.org/2008/11/07/state-and-local-ballot-initiative-round-up.

Government’s Role in Design

1. Rwanda Environment Management Author-ity, “FAQs,” at www.rema.gov.rw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93&Itemid=41&lang=en; Karen Ann Gajewski, “Nations Set Goalsto Phase Out the Use and Sale of IncandescentLight Bulbs,” The Humanist, July-August 2007, p.48; Gwladys Fouché, “Sweden’s Carbon-Tax Solu-tion to Climate Change Puts It Top of the GreenList,” Guardian (London), 29 April 2008; Jim Baiand Leonora Walet, “China Offers Big Solar Sub-sidy, Shares Up,” Reuters, 21 July 2009.

2. Sam Perlo-Freeman, “Military Expenditure,”in Stockholm International Peace Research Institute,SIPRI Yearbook 2009. Armaments, Disarmamentand International Security (Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 2009), p. 179.

Editing Out Unsustainable Behavior

1. Karen Ann Gajewski, “Nations Set Goals toPhase Out the Use and Sale of Incandescent LightBulbs,” The Humanist, July-August 2007, p. 48;Alexander Jung, “Getting Around the EU Ban:Germans Hoarding Traditional Light Bulbs,”Seigel Online International, 27 July 2009.

2. Lester R. Brown, “Ban the Bulb: WorldwideShift from Incandescents to Compact FluorescentsCould Close 270 Coal-Fired Power Plants,” EarthPolicy Update (Washington, DC: Earth Policy Insti-tute, 9 May 2007); Jung, op. cit. note 1; WarnaOosterbaan, “Good Light Bulbs are Hard on theEyes,” NRC Handelsblad, 19 January 2009; “TheRise of the Light Bulb Fascist,” 27 July 2009, atfreestudents.blogspot.com/2009/07/rise-of-light-bulb-fascist.html; “Liberal Fascism,” TheAmeri-canScene.com, 6 February 2008.

3. Sustainable Consumption Roundtable, Look-ing Back, Looking Forward: Lessons in Choice Edit-ing for Sustainability (London: SustainableDevelopment Commission, May 2006). Box 16

from the following: signatory countries committedto the 10-year framework at www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/WSSD_PlanImpl.pdf; U.N. Department of Eco-nomic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) and U.N.Environment Programme (UNEP), Proposed Inputto CSD 18 and 19 on a 10 Year Framework of Pro-grammes on Sustainable Consumption and Produc-tion (10YFP on SCP): Third Public Draft (2September 2009), at esa.un.org/marrakechprocess/pdf/Draft3_10yfpniputtoCSD2Sep09.pdf;overview of the work of the Marrakech Task Forceon Sustainable Lifestyles, at www.unep.fr/scp/marrakech/taskforces/lifestyles.htm; UNDESA/UNEP,Marrakech Task Force on Cooperation with Africa,at esa.un.org/marrakechprocess/tfcooperationafrica.shtml; UNDESA/UNEP, Marrakech Task Forceon Sustainable Public Procurement, at esa.un.org/marrakechprocess/tfsuspubproc.shtml; Interna-tional Task Force on Sustainable Products, atwww.itfsp.org; Marrakech Task Force on SustainableTourism, Green Passport Program, at www.unep.fr/greenpassport; UNEP, Sowing the Seeds ofChange: An Environmental and Sustainable TourismTeaching Pack for the Hospitality Industry (Nairobi:2008); Task Force on Sustainable Tourism Devel-opment, at www.veilleinfotourisme.fr/taskforce,Marrakech Task Force on Sustainable Buildingsand Construction, at www.environment.fi/default.asp?contentid=328751&lan=EN, Marrakech TaskForce on Education for Sustainable Consumption,at esa.un.org/marrakechprocess/tfedususconsump.shtml; UNESCO Associated Schools Network, atportal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=7366&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.

4. Marla Cone, “Barbecue Ruling Adopted toTake a Bite Out of Smog,” Los Angeles Times, 6October 1990; Bob Pool, “Fanning the Flames,” LosAngeles Times, 10 March 1991; shift from leaded tounleaded petrol from Sustainable ConsumptionRoundtable, op. cit. note 3, and from U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency, “EPA Takes FinalStep in Phaseout of Leaded Gasoline,” press release(Washington, DC: 29 January 1996); Frank Con-very, SimonMcDonnell, and Susana Ferreira, “TheMost Popular Tax in Europe? Lessons from theIrish Plastic Bags Levy,” Environmental andResource Economics, September 2007, pp. 1–12;Leo Hickman, “Should You Have the Choice to


STATE OF THE WORLD 2010 Notes

Choose?” Guardian (London), 7 September 2007.

5. Lizabeth Cohen, A Consumers’ Republic: ThePolitics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America(New York: Vintage Books, 2004), p. 7; David St.Clair, The Motorization of American Cities (NewYork: Praeger, 1986); Jim Klein and Martha Olson,Taken for a Ride (videorecording) (Hohokus, NJ:New Day Films, 1996).

6. Sustainable Consumption Roundtable, op.cit. note 3, p. 2.

7. James Maxwell and Sanford Weiner, “GreenConsciousness or Dollar Diplomacy?” Interna-tional Environmental Affairs, winter 1993, p. 36.

8. Lang quote from Leo Hickman, “Does theConsumer Really Know Best?” Guardian (Lon-don), 25 October 2007; Paul Hawken, The Ecologyof Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability (NewYork: HarperBusiness, 1994).

9. Ralph Horne, “Limits to Labels: The Role ofEco-Labels in the Assessment of Product Sustain-ability and Routes to Sustainable Consumption,”International Journal of Consumer Studies, March2009; Isabelle Szmigin, Marylyn Carrigan, andMorven G. McEachern, “The Conscious Con-sumer: Taking a Flexible Approach to Ethical Behav-iour,” International Journal of Consumer Studies,March 2009.

10. Marion Nestle,What to Eat: An Aisle-by-AisleGuide to Savvy Food Choices and Good Eating (NewYork: North Point Press, 2007); Sustainable Con-sumption Roundtable, op. cit. note 3, p. 3.

11. For sustainability initiatives in higher educationin the United States, see Association for theAdvancement of Sustainability in Higher Education,at www.aashe.org.

12. “Renewable & Alternative Energy PortfolioStandards,” Pew Center on Global Climate Change,at www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/rps.cfm.

13. Todd Litman, London Congestion Pricing:Implications for Other Cities (Victoria, BC: Victo-ria Transport Policy Institute, 2004); Santosh A. Jal-

ihal and T. S. Reddy, “Assessment of the Impact ofImprovement Measures on Air Quality: Case Studyof Delhi,” Journal of Transportation Engineering,June 2006.

14. Home Depot “Wood Purchasing Policy,” atcorporate.homedepot.com/wps/portal/Wood_Purchasing.

15. Knight quote fromMichael Jenkins and EmilySmith, The Business of Sustainable Forestry (Wash-ington DC: Island Press, 1999), p. 75.

16. “Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Introduces New Labelto Distinguish Sustainable Seafood,” press release(Bentonville, AK: 31 August 2006).

17. “Hannaford Supermarkets to License GuidingStars,” press release (Portland, ME: 29 November2007); Dan Goleman, “Look to the Future, Not thePast,” Greenbiz.com, 17 June 2009; Andrew Mar-tin, “Store Chain’s Test Concludes That NutritionSells,” New York Times, 6 September 2007.

18. “Hannaford Supermarkets,” op. cit. note 17.

19. Thomas Princen, “Consumer Sovereignty,Heroic Sacrifice: Two Insidious Concepts in anEndlessly Expansionist Economy,” in Michael Mani-ates and John M. Meyer, eds., The EnvironmentalPolitics of Sacrifice (Cambridge, Mass: The MITPress, forthcoming).

20. Maike Bunse et al., Top Runner Approach(Wuppertal, Germany: UNEP–Wuppertal InstituteCollaborating Center on Sustainable Consumptionand Production, September 2007); JoakimNordqvist, “The Top Runner Policy Concept: Passit Down?” Proceedings of the European Council foran Energy Efficient Economy (ECEEE) 2007 Sum-mer Study (Stockholm: 2007), pp. 1209–14; BenBlock, “Wal-Mart Scrutinizes Supply-Chain Sus-tainability,” Eye on Earth (Worldwatch Institute), 20July 2009.

21. See John de Graaf, “Reducing Work Time asa Path to Sustainability” in this volume; see alsoAnders Hayden, Sharing the Work, Sparing thePlanet (Ontario, Canada: Zed Books, 1999).

22. Robert H. Frank, “Just What This Downturn


Notes STATE OF THE WORLD 2010

Demands: A Consumption Tax,” New York Times,8 November 2008; Robert H. Frank, Luxury Fever(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999).

23. Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, Nudge:Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, andHappiness (New York: Penguin, 2008).

Broadening the Understanding of Security

1. Daniel Deudney, “ForgingMissiles into Space-ships,” World Policy Journal, spring 1985, p. 273.

2. Michael Klare, Rising Powers, ShrinkingPlanet: The New Geopolitics of Energy (New York:Macmillan, 2008).

3. Water scarcity from Wissenschaftlicher BeiratGlobale Umweltveränderungen der Bun-desregierung (WBGU, German Advisory Councilfor Global Change), Climate Change as a SecurityRisk (London: Earthscan, 2008), pp. 64–65; foodsecurity study from Ian Sample, “Billions Face FoodShortages, Study Warns,” Guardian (London), 9January 2009.

4. Disaster trends from Centre for Research onthe Epidemiology of Disasters, UniversitéCatholique de Louvain, Belgium, “EM-DAT Emer-gency Events Database,” at www.emdat.be/Database/AdvanceSearch/advsearch.php, viewed7 August 2009; cases of unrest and conflict fromWBGU, op. cit. note 3, pp. 31–33, and fromMichael Renner and Zoë Chafe, Beyond Disasters:Creating Opportunities for Peace (Washington, DC:Worldwatch Institute, 2007).

5. International Labour Organization, GlobalEmployment Trends Update, May 2009, atwww.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/P/09332/09332(2009-May).pdf.

6. Refugees and internally displaced from U.N.High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 2008Global Trends: Refugees, Asylum-seekers, Returnees,Internally-Displaced and Stateless Persons (Geneva:June 2009), p. 3; disaster-uprooted people fromUNHCR, 2007 Global Trends: Refugees, Asylum-seekers, Returnees, Internally-Displaced and StatelessPersons (Geneva: June 2009), p. 2; number dis-placed by development projects from Christian Aid,

Human Tide: The Real Migration Crisis (London:May 2007), p. 5; 2050 projections from Interna-tional Organization for Migration, “Migration, Cli-mate Change, and the Environment,” IOM PolicyBrief (Geneva: May 2009), p. 1; unrest in hostareas from Deutsche Gesellschaft für TechnischeZusammenarbeit, Climate Change and Security.Challenges for German Development Cooperation(Eschborn, Germany: April 2008), p. 23, and fromWBGU, op. cit. note 3, pp. 124–25.

7. Human Security Network, at www.humansecuritynetwork.org/network-e.php; Institute forEnvironmental Security, Inventory of Environmentand Security Policies and Practices (The Hague,October 2006); United Nations Security Council,“Security Council Holds First-ever Debate onImpact of Climate Change on Peace, Security, Hear-ing over 50 Speakers,” press release (New York:17 April 2007).

8. See, for instance, CNA Corporation,NationalSecurity and the Threat of Climate Change (Alexan-dria, VA: 2007); JohnM. Broder, “Climate ChangeSeen as Threat to U.S. Security,” New York Times,9 August 2009.

9. Sam Perlo-Freeman, “Military Expenditure,”in Stockholm International Peace Research Institute,SIPRI Yearbook 2009. Armaments, Disarmamentand International Security (Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 2009), p. 179; Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development, “Inter-national Development Statistics,” online database,at www.oecd.org/dac/stats/idsonline, viewed 14August 2009.

10. U.S. military and climate budget ratio fromMiriam Pemberton, Military vs. Climate Security.Mapping the Shift from the Bush Years to the ObamaEra (Washington, DC: Institute for Policy Studies,July 2009); nuclear weapons and renewableenergy/energy efficiency budget from U.S. Depart-ment of Energy, FY 2010 Congressional BudgetRequest. Budget Highlights (Washington, DC: May2009), pp. 24, 63; Germany from Presse- undInformationsamt der Bundesregierung (Press andInformation Office of the German Federal Gov-ernment), “Bundesregierung beschließt Energie-und Klimaprogramm,” press release (Berlin: 5December 2007), and from Bundesfinanzminis-


STATE OF THE WORLD 2010 Notes

state of the world 2010...evaluation • collaborations among government, industry, and consumer...

Documents