Degrowth originated in 1972, but didn't get much traction outside of Europe for decades. Your professors must have been pretty "tuned in!" I was unaware of it myself until a couple of years ago, but it resonated with what should be obvious, the Earth is finite. It also connects wealth disparity all around us, abuse of the global south and the environmental crisis we're in. The word degrowth itself has a negative vibe. Some have suggested "post-growth." I agree with you, it needs to be properly communicated, intellectual, scientific discourse isn't persuasive for most. Now time is a huge problem, indeed, 45 years wasted. I will likely come back to the subject again. I did a bit, at the end of the article below, imagining a bit of a degrowth life. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Geoff: I always learn a lot from your articles. The systemic nature of the economics which give rise to the symptoms, are difficult to wrap one's head around. I tend to believe simplification as a lifestyle will ultimately bring more to everyone, but the dissonance created by technology to solve the problems creates the ultimate dilemma. As always, thank you for your thoughts.
Pam, I appreciate that. That you learn from my articles is perhaps the greatest compliment I can receive. To be honest, I learn much from researching and writing these pieces myself. I just want to understand the truth of things, to share that, and hopefully in some way make a difference for the better. Thank you for being a reader and supporter.
Oh, Geoffrey, I'm on Facebook under my grandmother's name, this one, Betsy Burnam, since I'm going to be moving ll the information about our network of homeless shelters to a new page and I just didn't have time, and I guess I didn't want to let her go yet. You and everyone will know when the info for the Welcome Houses (homeless shelters) is up. My name is Addy Wozniak, but for now the people who knew Betsy know that I am her, or vice versa. I helped her toward the end but I couldn't keep up with her until the very end. (Not seeking sympathy, just clarity)
Betsy, those who deny reality, or simply don't have a clue of the problem we face will find my writing depressing, or dismiss it from fear. People calling out the system for its destructiveness face the challenge of persuading minds. Some may be generally liberal people that aren't getting the truth from mainstream news sources. Some may be hard deniers, who can be enlightened. Occasionally, even a few Nazis and KKK members wake up. The "New Green Deal" falls far short of course, further tearing up the planet and contributing to the 6th mass extinction. Reduction of consumption must be a topic. "Stuff" is a trap, hardly a new thought, but certainly one we have to embrace. It comes down to changing culture and improving education, but we're out of time for those goals, and we have enormous power that wishes to maintain the status quo. You are welcome to share this post or any of my writing if it's helpful. I just want to contribute to the greater good. Thank you.
I had a couple prescient professors preaching climate change and promoting many of these ideas back in the '70s. I was called a kook for practicing degrowth back before it had a name. Not called a kook much anymore, but jeebus, seems like a lot of time wasted the past 45 years. The hill just got a lot steeper and I'm not sure enough people are convinced yet to push through the hard part.
Maybe more articles/videos showing low consumption lifestyles in action could offer some persuasion.
I appreciate much of what you say here, especially your highlighting of how destructive lithium mining is, both environmentally and culturally. Personally I don't see any way of reconciling degrowth and the growth of a renewable energy industry, which is, after all, more growth. For example, there's no doubt we need a lot lot less gasoline-powered vehicles on the road, but rather than replacing them with electric vehicles, we should re-jigger society so there is much much less need for cars period.
Thank you for the comment, and thank you for subscribing. I agree with you, renewables so far are being used more growth, not an effort to wean off of fossil fuels which continue to set records from fracking and tar sand oil, although it appears that may change soon. Cars should indeed be replaced. We need mass transit and wherever possible to shift to a work from home model. It was proven that can happen during the Covid lockdown. My first dive into lithium mining was in the linked article below about Thacker Pass. Mining is always a destructive business and comes with extra profound problems with the overused Colorado River and historic drought in the basin states. https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/showdown-at-thacker-pass
Glad to know you've written about Thacker Pass! I've also called attention to it in my writing and my (now retired) podcast. I've spent some time there too so it was heartbreaking to see the destruction underway, as I did in person last summer. Unfortunately, Thacker Pass was just the beginning of what they want to do in the McDermitt Caldera, which extends into southern Oregon. I'll be posting here about the Jindalee proposal in particular, a site I've visited twice now and hope to return to this year.
Last summer I spent the summer on the West Slope of Colorado, some of it working on small farms, and learned a lot about what a disastrous situation we've made of that whole river system. I had no idea of the scale of it before. It's shocking, frankly. Cotton fields in Arizona and alfalfa in the Imperial Valley are the kind of things we just need to phase out entirely at this point.
I have never met Max, but we know each other through the comments sections of articles. It was a friend of his I met on Twitter (before I left due to new management) that asked me to write an article on Thacker Pass. She is terribly upset by what is happening to Native Americans on reservations near the mining. A mass murder by the army took place there in 1854 I believe, and their ancestors are buried in the land. Of course, we put these people on those reservations, deeming the land worthless. Now that we know they have value (in our misguided way), we are running over these people again. For what? EVs which are just part of the greenwashing game.
Is climate change (heating of earth?) actually a problem?
I agree with you that we do have a human survival crisis- and indeed, that has to do with Billionaire's, psychopathic Lords, the Jesuites and the Vatican...
1. Climate does not change easily, but slowly over thousands of years.
2. The global human footprint is really nothing! We have much less effect on our planet's atmosphere than one volcanic eruption.
3. We might actually currently be in a Cold phase of the sun's cycle, according to the Late world renound engineer, Japie van Zyl, from Namibia, who worked at NASA.
4. The Climate scare is a hoax, with an agenda of the wealthy world powers to sustain their power and wealth, without any regard to others or the planet.
Haven't you heard of governments who are burning forests "to save the planet"!?
5. However, dirty air and poluted water is a real danger and major problem, as well as GMO goods, WHO forced vax'es, wars, and leftists intollerance of free speach against tyranny.
Charlie, the planet is overheated. The oceans are overheated. Groundwater is running out. The 6th Extinction is under way. In the most basic sense, it's from putting too much energy into the system from fossil fuels. Now we're at the beginning of a mining binge. Even if we are successful in transitioning to a so-called renewable energy economy, it won't support the lives we have grown accustomed to. And renewables depend on fossil fuels to extract. Fossil fuels are running out. The U.S. has only become an oil power because of fracking in the Permian Basin which is approaching the end of its economic viability to extract. There were over 20 billion dollar climate disasters here alone last year. Our super heated planet is already driving climate refugees. This situation portends complete societal breakdown, locally and globally. Agriculture is threatened everywhere, the foundation of civilization. Being in California, you must be aware of the over pumping of groundwater in your state, the 5th biggest economy in the world. If agriculture fails there, it's a disaster everywhere, and that's just one place in duress.
If we don't bring wanton consumption under control, I guarantee you the Great Depression will look like good times. I don't have a belief system. I read the science, I subscribe to reality.
I hope you are correct. If thats true, the money I invested in an apocalypse survival compound in an undisclosed location will allow me to thrive while I watch from afar all you poor bastards starve to death.
Pro-tip the science you think you know and read is mostly bullshit, and it's designed to turn you into a basket case, just like the science around COVID-19. The funny thing is I bet in college in the 70s in your VW bus, you didn't trust anything the government told you. Now, you can't live your life without their marching orders. It's pretty pathetic. You helpless fucking sheep.
The sad thing is you're too old to be alive in 60-80 years to see that everything they told you was a giant tucking lie or just completely wrong. And there is no precise science about this. The reality is we probably are warming the planet. But do we know it will lead to the destruction you claim? That answer is likely not.
Geoffrey, this is a very real yet nor depressing assessment of where we are, where we are heading without drastic change in our behavior and action and of course thought, and I think people would be more inclined to read it without being totally depressed, and take some responsibility for the actions. There of course are more dangers beyond lithium but people hear "lithium" and think they're being green. There's actually a modicum of hope here; the accumulation of "stuff" is one of my own pet peeves and we don't think twice abut it. When people give up hope, they give up trying. (One of my favorite songs these days is a song by Glen Phillips called "I Don't Need Anything I Don't Have" Thank you so much for sending this, and I'll try to come up with a little support for you and again for Max. Between the two of you I think we can figure this all out and give Mother Earth the attention she deserves. (I'm not familiar with what restacking and stacking are - is it ok to share this on Facebook? I can't guarantee something that requires thought and attention, but it's worth a shot. :-)
> Polar bears, so popular in advertising, face extinction.
Polar bears are indeed very negatively impacted by global warming, and some sub-populations may disappear. But polar bears as a whole facing extinction? That's not my understanding. This is what the WGII writes in the Polar Regions chapter:
"Recent studies confirm that polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are negatively affected by changing ice and snow conditions with decreases in denning, foraging, reproduction, genetic diversity and survival rates (very high confidence)"
"Loss of multi-year sea ice and the occurrence of a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean by the middle of this century will result in substantial range contraction, if not the disappearance of several Arctic fish, crab, bird and marine mammal species, including possible extinction of seals and polar bears in certain regions (high confidence)."
Yes, it appears I was conservative on the weight of SUVs. It wasn't a detail I wanted to spend extra time on in the greater context of my article. I do appreciate your keen eye for detail, though. I welcome my readers to educate me when I need education. Finding truth is what it's all about.
I sometimes miss the forest for the trees. Let me ask you a clarification question. Does degrowth mean reducing GDP or economic activity? (I understand that using GDP to measure well being might not be the best metric but still I find it a useful metric for some purposes.) Expressions like “reducing our consumption and ever-growing energy demands is key” and “scale down throughput” lead me to think so. You write that billionaires should consume less which most people would agree with. But below billionaires, should others reduce their consumption?
Yes, GDP must be reduced in developed nations. This does not mean a worse life for people, though. By shifting employment to restoration, conservation, improved public services, excellent inexpensive mass transit and greater support for teachers and healthcare, etc., living well on lower incomes would be possible. Superfluous consumption has to go.
As an American who lives simply compared to most, my impact on the planet is still far greater than a person in a poor nation, no matter what I do. It's structural. However, a handful of people drive a shocking amount damage through their lifestyles and investments. A recent report from Oxfam found that, compared to average people, the wealthiest individuals’ investments account for up to 70% of their emissions.
According to the report, billionaires’ investments produce an annual average of 3 million metric tons of CO2 per person, a million times more than the average 2.76 tons of CO2 for those living in the bottom 90%. Stunning, right?
So I do my best to keep my consumption low, because it makes me feel good. If every average American did the same, it would help, but not nearly enough. The richest 1% truly need to be brought back to Earth.
Thank you for clarifying Geoffrey! There's a lot of confusion about what "degrowth" means. I watched this debate a few months ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxJrBR0lg6s. The degrowth proponent was struggling to explain what it meant, so much so that the moderator had to ask him to re-explain his position.
I'm not sold on degrowth to say the least. My uninformed intuition is that what I would label frivolous consumption, someone else might consider important. But the first step to understand something is to define it clearly. You have done that. I'd be very interested if you develop your ideas in future posts, especially if you address criticism. I think Roger Pielke Jr and Noah Smith have written about it on substack.
I appreciate your thoughts, Tian. Degrowth is barely known, and surrounded by confusion. Researching this article was a challenge. The bottom line, IMO, is that if we don't stop drilling now AND excessive consumption as well, development of renewables will fail, which themselves carry a high environmental price tag. Right now, renewables are merely helping meet increasing energy demands. We must bring that under control. You're right, what one person considers frivolous consumption another may consider essential. This is the greatest challenge. Bottom line, the planet has the final say. We had better recognize that to avoid the worst possible outcome.
Degrowth originated in 1972, but didn't get much traction outside of Europe for decades. Your professors must have been pretty "tuned in!" I was unaware of it myself until a couple of years ago, but it resonated with what should be obvious, the Earth is finite. It also connects wealth disparity all around us, abuse of the global south and the environmental crisis we're in. The word degrowth itself has a negative vibe. Some have suggested "post-growth." I agree with you, it needs to be properly communicated, intellectual, scientific discourse isn't persuasive for most. Now time is a huge problem, indeed, 45 years wasted. I will likely come back to the subject again. I did a bit, at the end of the article below, imagining a bit of a degrowth life. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/the-illusions-of-fossil-fuels
Geoff: I always learn a lot from your articles. The systemic nature of the economics which give rise to the symptoms, are difficult to wrap one's head around. I tend to believe simplification as a lifestyle will ultimately bring more to everyone, but the dissonance created by technology to solve the problems creates the ultimate dilemma. As always, thank you for your thoughts.
Pam, I appreciate that. That you learn from my articles is perhaps the greatest compliment I can receive. To be honest, I learn much from researching and writing these pieces myself. I just want to understand the truth of things, to share that, and hopefully in some way make a difference for the better. Thank you for being a reader and supporter.
Oh, Geoffrey, I'm on Facebook under my grandmother's name, this one, Betsy Burnam, since I'm going to be moving ll the information about our network of homeless shelters to a new page and I just didn't have time, and I guess I didn't want to let her go yet. You and everyone will know when the info for the Welcome Houses (homeless shelters) is up. My name is Addy Wozniak, but for now the people who knew Betsy know that I am her, or vice versa. I helped her toward the end but I couldn't keep up with her until the very end. (Not seeking sympathy, just clarity)
Glad to meet you, Addy, and it's good you're honoring your grandmother. Memory is generational and must be carried forward by the next one.
Betsy, those who deny reality, or simply don't have a clue of the problem we face will find my writing depressing, or dismiss it from fear. People calling out the system for its destructiveness face the challenge of persuading minds. Some may be generally liberal people that aren't getting the truth from mainstream news sources. Some may be hard deniers, who can be enlightened. Occasionally, even a few Nazis and KKK members wake up. The "New Green Deal" falls far short of course, further tearing up the planet and contributing to the 6th mass extinction. Reduction of consumption must be a topic. "Stuff" is a trap, hardly a new thought, but certainly one we have to embrace. It comes down to changing culture and improving education, but we're out of time for those goals, and we have enormous power that wishes to maintain the status quo. You are welcome to share this post or any of my writing if it's helpful. I just want to contribute to the greater good. Thank you.
I had a couple prescient professors preaching climate change and promoting many of these ideas back in the '70s. I was called a kook for practicing degrowth back before it had a name. Not called a kook much anymore, but jeebus, seems like a lot of time wasted the past 45 years. The hill just got a lot steeper and I'm not sure enough people are convinced yet to push through the hard part.
Maybe more articles/videos showing low consumption lifestyles in action could offer some persuasion.
I appreciate much of what you say here, especially your highlighting of how destructive lithium mining is, both environmentally and culturally. Personally I don't see any way of reconciling degrowth and the growth of a renewable energy industry, which is, after all, more growth. For example, there's no doubt we need a lot lot less gasoline-powered vehicles on the road, but rather than replacing them with electric vehicles, we should re-jigger society so there is much much less need for cars period.
I look forward to reading future posts.
Thank you for the comment, and thank you for subscribing. I agree with you, renewables so far are being used more growth, not an effort to wean off of fossil fuels which continue to set records from fracking and tar sand oil, although it appears that may change soon. Cars should indeed be replaced. We need mass transit and wherever possible to shift to a work from home model. It was proven that can happen during the Covid lockdown. My first dive into lithium mining was in the linked article below about Thacker Pass. Mining is always a destructive business and comes with extra profound problems with the overused Colorado River and historic drought in the basin states. https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/showdown-at-thacker-pass
Glad to know you've written about Thacker Pass! I've also called attention to it in my writing and my (now retired) podcast. I've spent some time there too so it was heartbreaking to see the destruction underway, as I did in person last summer. Unfortunately, Thacker Pass was just the beginning of what they want to do in the McDermitt Caldera, which extends into southern Oregon. I'll be posting here about the Jindalee proposal in particular, a site I've visited twice now and hope to return to this year.
Last summer I spent the summer on the West Slope of Colorado, some of it working on small farms, and learned a lot about what a disastrous situation we've made of that whole river system. I had no idea of the scale of it before. It's shocking, frankly. Cotton fields in Arizona and alfalfa in the Imperial Valley are the kind of things we just need to phase out entirely at this point.
Yes, I'm aware of the operations to the north as well. If you haven't discovered him, Max Wilbert writes here as well, and continues to battle Lithium Americas. The alfalfa is particularly grievous. It appears Arizona's lease to the Saudi's is ending finally. Somebody should be going to jail for that scam. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/03/climate/arizona-saudi-arabia-alfalfa-groundwater.html?ugrp=m&unlocked_article_code=1.iU0.P7tp.UuEEscCWKd79&smid=url-share
I count Max as a friend and appreciate his work for sure.
I'm glad to hear that deal with the Saudis is ending! That was particularly egregious.
I have never met Max, but we know each other through the comments sections of articles. It was a friend of his I met on Twitter (before I left due to new management) that asked me to write an article on Thacker Pass. She is terribly upset by what is happening to Native Americans on reservations near the mining. A mass murder by the army took place there in 1854 I believe, and their ancestors are buried in the land. Of course, we put these people on those reservations, deeming the land worthless. Now that we know they have value (in our misguided way), we are running over these people again. For what? EVs which are just part of the greenwashing game.
Is climate change (heating of earth?) actually a problem?
I agree with you that we do have a human survival crisis- and indeed, that has to do with Billionaire's, psychopathic Lords, the Jesuites and the Vatican...
1. Climate does not change easily, but slowly over thousands of years.
2. The global human footprint is really nothing! We have much less effect on our planet's atmosphere than one volcanic eruption.
3. We might actually currently be in a Cold phase of the sun's cycle, according to the Late world renound engineer, Japie van Zyl, from Namibia, who worked at NASA.
4. The Climate scare is a hoax, with an agenda of the wealthy world powers to sustain their power and wealth, without any regard to others or the planet.
Haven't you heard of governments who are burning forests "to save the planet"!?
5. However, dirty air and poluted water is a real danger and major problem, as well as GMO goods, WHO forced vax'es, wars, and leftists intollerance of free speach against tyranny.
Your belief system is dangerous. If we moved forward with your policy, you would make the great depression look like the Roaring 20s.
Charlie, the planet is overheated. The oceans are overheated. Groundwater is running out. The 6th Extinction is under way. In the most basic sense, it's from putting too much energy into the system from fossil fuels. Now we're at the beginning of a mining binge. Even if we are successful in transitioning to a so-called renewable energy economy, it won't support the lives we have grown accustomed to. And renewables depend on fossil fuels to extract. Fossil fuels are running out. The U.S. has only become an oil power because of fracking in the Permian Basin which is approaching the end of its economic viability to extract. There were over 20 billion dollar climate disasters here alone last year. Our super heated planet is already driving climate refugees. This situation portends complete societal breakdown, locally and globally. Agriculture is threatened everywhere, the foundation of civilization. Being in California, you must be aware of the over pumping of groundwater in your state, the 5th biggest economy in the world. If agriculture fails there, it's a disaster everywhere, and that's just one place in duress.
If we don't bring wanton consumption under control, I guarantee you the Great Depression will look like good times. I don't have a belief system. I read the science, I subscribe to reality.
I hope you are correct. If thats true, the money I invested in an apocalypse survival compound in an undisclosed location will allow me to thrive while I watch from afar all you poor bastards starve to death.
That's what I expected from you. I had you pegged in your first response. You'll last a little longer, that's about it. Enjoy.
Pro-tip the science you think you know and read is mostly bullshit, and it's designed to turn you into a basket case, just like the science around COVID-19. The funny thing is I bet in college in the 70s in your VW bus, you didn't trust anything the government told you. Now, you can't live your life without their marching orders. It's pretty pathetic. You helpless fucking sheep.
The sad thing is you're too old to be alive in 60-80 years to see that everything they told you was a giant tucking lie or just completely wrong. And there is no precise science about this. The reality is we probably are warming the planet. But do we know it will lead to the destruction you claim? That answer is likely not.
All you've got are insults, because you're terrified, Charlie. Bye, bye.
Did I hurt your feelings.
No, idiots don't hurt my feelings, but thank you for asking.
Geoffrey, this is a very real yet nor depressing assessment of where we are, where we are heading without drastic change in our behavior and action and of course thought, and I think people would be more inclined to read it without being totally depressed, and take some responsibility for the actions. There of course are more dangers beyond lithium but people hear "lithium" and think they're being green. There's actually a modicum of hope here; the accumulation of "stuff" is one of my own pet peeves and we don't think twice abut it. When people give up hope, they give up trying. (One of my favorite songs these days is a song by Glen Phillips called "I Don't Need Anything I Don't Have" Thank you so much for sending this, and I'll try to come up with a little support for you and again for Max. Between the two of you I think we can figure this all out and give Mother Earth the attention she deserves. (I'm not familiar with what restacking and stacking are - is it ok to share this on Facebook? I can't guarantee something that requires thought and attention, but it's worth a shot. :-)
+1 for getting rid of the road monsters! (You're actually conservative, many SUVs weigh about 6,000 pounds: https://suvlifes.com/heaviest-suvs-on-the-market/)
> Polar bears, so popular in advertising, face extinction.
Polar bears are indeed very negatively impacted by global warming, and some sub-populations may disappear. But polar bears as a whole facing extinction? That's not my understanding. This is what the WGII writes in the Polar Regions chapter:
"Recent studies confirm that polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are negatively affected by changing ice and snow conditions with decreases in denning, foraging, reproduction, genetic diversity and survival rates (very high confidence)"
"Loss of multi-year sea ice and the occurrence of a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean by the middle of this century will result in substantial range contraction, if not the disappearance of several Arctic fish, crab, bird and marine mammal species, including possible extinction of seals and polar bears in certain regions (high confidence)."
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_CCP6.pdf
Yes, it appears I was conservative on the weight of SUVs. It wasn't a detail I wanted to spend extra time on in the greater context of my article. I do appreciate your keen eye for detail, though. I welcome my readers to educate me when I need education. Finding truth is what it's all about.
Polar bears, substantial range contraction? Seems to me that puts it mildly. Polar bears are now drowning as a result of ice melt. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/polar-bears-drown-as-ice-shelf-melts-thqv8n5d0bv And that is far from their only problem. I don't think it's exaggeration to say they are facing extinction.
I sometimes miss the forest for the trees. Let me ask you a clarification question. Does degrowth mean reducing GDP or economic activity? (I understand that using GDP to measure well being might not be the best metric but still I find it a useful metric for some purposes.) Expressions like “reducing our consumption and ever-growing energy demands is key” and “scale down throughput” lead me to think so. You write that billionaires should consume less which most people would agree with. But below billionaires, should others reduce their consumption?
Yes, GDP must be reduced in developed nations. This does not mean a worse life for people, though. By shifting employment to restoration, conservation, improved public services, excellent inexpensive mass transit and greater support for teachers and healthcare, etc., living well on lower incomes would be possible. Superfluous consumption has to go.
As an American who lives simply compared to most, my impact on the planet is still far greater than a person in a poor nation, no matter what I do. It's structural. However, a handful of people drive a shocking amount damage through their lifestyles and investments. A recent report from Oxfam found that, compared to average people, the wealthiest individuals’ investments account for up to 70% of their emissions.
According to the report, billionaires’ investments produce an annual average of 3 million metric tons of CO2 per person, a million times more than the average 2.76 tons of CO2 for those living in the bottom 90%. Stunning, right?
So I do my best to keep my consumption low, because it makes me feel good. If every average American did the same, it would help, but not nearly enough. The richest 1% truly need to be brought back to Earth.
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaire-emits-million-times-more-greenhouse-gases-average-person
https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/carbon-billionaires-the-investment-emissions-of-the-worlds-richest-people-621446/
Thank you for clarifying Geoffrey! There's a lot of confusion about what "degrowth" means. I watched this debate a few months ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxJrBR0lg6s. The degrowth proponent was struggling to explain what it meant, so much so that the moderator had to ask him to re-explain his position.
I'm not sold on degrowth to say the least. My uninformed intuition is that what I would label frivolous consumption, someone else might consider important. But the first step to understand something is to define it clearly. You have done that. I'd be very interested if you develop your ideas in future posts, especially if you address criticism. I think Roger Pielke Jr and Noah Smith have written about it on substack.
I appreciate your thoughts, Tian. Degrowth is barely known, and surrounded by confusion. Researching this article was a challenge. The bottom line, IMO, is that if we don't stop drilling now AND excessive consumption as well, development of renewables will fail, which themselves carry a high environmental price tag. Right now, renewables are merely helping meet increasing energy demands. We must bring that under control. You're right, what one person considers frivolous consumption another may consider essential. This is the greatest challenge. Bottom line, the planet has the final say. We had better recognize that to avoid the worst possible outcome.