By Mike Joy and Phoebe Barnard*
As the world grapples with multiple ecological crises, it’s clear the various responses over the past half century have largely failed. Our new research argues the priority now should be addressing the real driver of these crises – our own maladaptive behaviours.
For at least five decades, scientists have worked to understand and document how human demands exceed Earth’s regenerative capacity, causing “ecological overshoot”.
Those warnings of the threats posed by the overshoot’s many symptoms, including climate change, were perhaps naive. They assumed people and governments would respond logically to existential threats by drastically changing behaviours.
The young researchers in the 1970s who published the Limits to Growth computer models showed graphically what would happen over the next century if business-as-usual economic growth continued. Their models predicted the ecological and social disasters we are witnessing now.
Once people saw the results of the research, the authors believed, they would understand the trajectory the world was on and reduce consumption accordingly. Instead, they saw their work dismissed and business-as-usual play out.
The behavioural crisis
During these past five decades, there have been innumerable reports, speeches and data, ever more strident in their predictions. Yet there has been no change in the economic growth trajectory.
The first world scientists’ warning to humanity was published in 1992 as an open letter, signed by hundreds of scientists and detailing how human activities damage the environment. A second notice in 2017, which thousands of scientists signed, included this stark statement:
If the world doesn’t act soon, there will be catastrophic biodiversity loss and untold amounts of human misery.
Many of those working in the natural sciences felt they were doing what they could to prevent this “ghastly future” unfolding. Researchers even laid out a framework of actions for the world to take, including human population planning and diminishing per-capita consumption of fossil fuels, meat and other resources. But few meaningful changes have been achieved.
By taking a different perspective, our research explores intervention points and demonstrates the behavioural roots of ecological overshoot. It is a collaboration with behaviour-change strategists in the marketing industry, and grew partly from their disaffection with the outcomes of their work on human and planetary health.
Behind the research sits a stark statistic: the wealthiest 16% of humanity is responsible for 74% of excess energy and material use. This reflects a crisis of human behaviour. It is the outcome of many individual choices involving resource acquisition, wastefulness and accumulation of wealth and status.
Some of these choices may have served humans well in the evolutionary past. In a modern global economy, however, they become maladaptive behaviours that threaten all complex life on Earth.
The ‘growth delusion’
Current interventions to restrain climate change – just one symptom of ecological overshoot – are failing to curb emissions. Last year, global emissions of carbon dioxide reached a new high, partly as a result of air travel rebounding after the COVID pandemic.
We argue that trying to fix an accelerating problem with slow solutions is itself the problem. Instead, we need to treat the root causes of ecological overshoot and its behavioural drivers, rather than be distracted by patching up its many symptoms.
A prime example is the current “solution” to climate change through a full transition to renewable energy systems. This simply replaces one form of energy with another, but doesn’t address the rising demand for energy that enabled overshoot in the first place.
Such interventions are incremental, resource intensive, slow moving and flawed: they aim to maintain rather than manage current levels of consumption. This “growth delusion” offers a false hope that technology will allow human society to avoid the need for change.
An emergency response
To overcome the critical disconnect between science, the economy and public understanding of these issues, an interdisciplinary response will be needed.
Paradoxically, the marketing, media and entertainment industries – central to the manipulation of human behaviours towards resource acquisition and waste – may offer the best way to reorient that behaviour and help avoid ecological collapse.
Logically, the same behavioural strategies that fuelled consumerism can do the reverse and create the necessary desire for a stable state.
Understanding the many dimensions of the behavioural crisis, including the influence of power structures and vested interests in a market economy, is crucial. Defusing and even co-opting those forces to reform the economy and reverse the damage is the challenge.
It will require a concerted multi-disciplinary effort to identify the best ways to produce a rapid global adoption of new norms for consumption, reproduction and waste. The survival of complex life on Earth is the goal.
This research was led by Joseph Merz of the New Zealand-based Merz Institute and its Overshoot Behaviour Lab. Other authors include energy researcher Chris Rhodes; economist and ecologist Bill Rees; and behavioural science practitioner and vice chair of advertising company Ogilvy, Rory Sutherland.
Mike Joy, Senior Researcher; Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington and Phoebe Barnard, Affiliate Full Professor, University of Washington; Research Associate, African Climate & Development Initiative and FitzPatrick Institute, University of Cape Town; Founding CEO, Stable Planet Alliance, University of Washington
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
86 Comments
I agree that trying to replace the worlds car fleet with EVs that produce the same or more pollution overall is a really dumb idea. But there are governments and vested interests everywhere pushing this. If people are really worried about these predicted consequences of our behaviour they should really quit it with the dumb ideas that don’t solve any problems and simply make a few people richer without achieving anything whatsoever.
More pollution. Pretty obvious that dumping perfectly good ICE cars to go and buy a new EV is worse for the environment. Worse still is the dumping of perfectly good EV's has already started in some countries like China due to early variants not having the range. The solution was much smaller and lighter cars for people to travel to work in, be it Turbo ICE or EV or even single seaters but nobody is interested in the "Downgrade".
Yep. The solution was and still is investing in the existing technology and retooling the existing fleet to use alternative fuels. We have gone for the dumb option of creating an equally polluting technology with worse after effects (the battery) as well as the damage caused by effectively dumping the existing fleet. You are correct, dumping of new EVs is already occurring as a result of companies manufacturing them as a result of virtue signalling governments subsidising their production of cars no one seems to want.
Wow! Thousands? In the worlds largest car market of over 20 million units a year? I wonder how many ICEs were dumped? Or is that outside the narrative?
Bit of background.
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2023-china-ev-graveyards/#:~:text=On….
Wow, complete nonsense, there is no alternative fuel for the existing fleet that is feasible on scale. 40% at best efficiency of small combustion engines, plus the energy costs in making synthetic fuels is just nonsense. Never going to work.
EVs are not equally polluting, there are a ton of studies that show even if coal fuelled generation is used an EV is far less polluting over it's lifespan.
...and some studies say the opposite
https://www.drive.com.au/news/audi-study-evs-questionable-in-australia-…
Wow, dredging up propaganda from back in the dark ages.
Note for anyone that is not already drinking the same Kool-aid as kiwikidsnz. That article is from back in 2010ish, even though the date says 2016. Check the references at the bottom of the article about cars going on sale in 2012.. (and they didn't, Audi didn't launch a production EV until 2019, because they couldn't build a decent EV to save themselves; and some say they still can't).
So strange how these inconvenient facts keep appearing and completely debunking the moronic press and “experts” we have here. Next problem with EVs is that insurers are increasingly refusing to insure them. So soon it will be more expensive to drive them that petrol cars. Just look at the UK. Who will be 10k per year to insure a rubbish car that doesn’t go very far and has a high risk of catching on fire at any time I wonder….
That is total BS. I drove an EV for a week and loved it, but charging away from the main home in NZ is practically impossible. The gateway to to the Coromandel (Thames) has 1 fast charger, one car at a time for the 10's of thousands of cars descending for the long weekend.
Any decent EV will make it from Auckland to Coromandel township on a charge, charge overnight at your Bach, then head home without stopping for a charge. Plenty of charging coming to the towns that you'll pass thru on your way to Coromandel, Ngatea, Paeroa, and Tairua and Hikowai.
Yes, we don't know how lucky we are.
Agreed, but there is no guarantee it will stay that way regardless of what we do.
So why is everyone moaning???
I am moaning because I realise that more people sharing the same space/resources means less per person. Even David Seymour referred to sharing 1/5,000,000th of NZ on election night and 1/5,000,001th sounds like less available per head to me.
Yes, but maybe that's a good thing. The amount of property we think we need would probably blow someones mind in Europe or Asia. Its one of the benefits of living in a low population country , that we feel entitled to own a house , maybe a bach , and a investment property , maybe a 10 acre block . and we seperate that from our business premises , which would be bigger than the said countries.
I cannot talk , i leased a large yard for my business, have a 10 acre block which i pretend to farm , and live in a seperate (small ) house , with 5 acres of Whanau land to share(kinda).Now i' ve ditched the yard ( albeit with a large downturn in business ) , and will start to use the block more intensively, but really we need to sell one of the properities . just got to agree on which one . But i am seeing the benefits of having less land to look after , definetly of having multiple locations to spread the time avaliable over.
The tiny home movemnt is not just about cost ( which is good because they are definetly not cheap ), but also downsizing to a more manageable size.
It's the breathlessness of the current paradigm. Don't think, just get "back on track", only the track is a lot like a hamster wheel. A hamster wheel attached to a generator, feeding the energy of your exertions and the minutes of your life to the super organism and the chosen few. Just focus on the first couple of metres, ignoring the steepening curve ahead.
The "chaos coalition" already spent the last 3 years "making them worse for the real average NZdr".
Sadly no, all the politicians were turkey's, some more turkey than others. And no turkey votes for christmas dinner, nope it is pay rises, dedicated private healthcare, private pension plans, free post work travel, large housing subsidies, food paid for and infinite investor wealth for all of them, with no exceptions. Even Kiri Allen is selling her reckon's as if they are worth any weight without a single shred of analyst, leadership or key business experience. Why do we keep treating these turkeys as if they have any skills when it is proven that anyone off the street has the same skills and ability to keep a drama mill going.
How can you be so clever yet so stupid? You won't win the de-growth argument, it is absolutely futile because it it Mathusian in nature.
You might however be able to accelerate population decline and stop immigration to OECD countries thereby reducing environmental pressure. The limits to growth was written at a very different time for a very different population trajectory. Embrace and accelerate the positive changes already underway.
It will require a concerted multi-disciplinary effort to identify the best ways to produce a rapid global adoption of new norms for consumption, reproduction and waste
Academia calling for a more cooperative academia as the means to solve the world's problems.
I dunno. I don't think so. I think we need better politicians/leaders. From my perspective the solution more likely lies with better regulation, better/fairer taxation/more efficient redistribution of wealth and better incentives.
It all comes down to understanding moral philosophy and living a life for good, as opposed to a good life. Academia cannot change consumptive attitudes, as it, in itself, has become a competitive, capitalist institution. No solutions in that - just more of the same.
Funny, eh? I've been in academia and would argue differently :-).
The entire tertiary market model here in NZ was in need of radical restructure due to over-supply (has been for years); i.e., the number of universities per capita population and the competition by all of them to be all things to all students was/is simply unsustainable. But, there has been no recognition from academics themselves that the model was/is unsustainable. It's a fight tooth and nail to save their own jobs - when there are so many other positive things academics can do in society more generally.
I don't see that type of resistance to reality as being a progressive view of the future.
They'd be better to fight for a more equitable form of wealth distribution in order to make way for a UBI. It's going to be needed in the not-too-distant future. AI has the potential to change everything we think we know and everything about how we live going forward.
AI?
This is worth every minute (AI comes near the end):
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/94-chuck-watson
He's with me on that one; I think the net goes down as soon as grid-workers don't get paid (and the server farms, over 40% coal-fired anyway, falter). He thinks it will be the end of AI too - can't see him being wrong. The same energy-blindness that equates emotions with technology with real stuff, will make the same mistake about AI. That interview is worth listening to twice.
Don't our institutions also serve a substantial proportion of international students?
How is number of institutions per head of population a useful indicator?
The public does a poor job obtaining information from our academics. Our society does not value education highly.
No, international student population declined rapidly when the incentives regarding ability to work/earn while studying and a pathway to residency were removed. Additionally, many of the bogus private sector businesses offering dummy qualifications were closed as their offerings were a simple ponzi to take advantage of those incentives.
We need to look at targeting tertiary education/course offerings based on need and need is dependent on the size of our local market (population) and the subsequent local demand in the workforce with the related qualification. This has not been the incentive structure in the tertiary education market for quite some time (many decades) and competition over cooperation has been a hallmark of our current institutions.
I don't know that I would agree with your last statement at all. Academia itself is quite 'precious' about what it's academics can/can't say publicly. And I do think society values education, if such value is measured in employment prospects, that is.
What was so different and unusual over the last five years? I am sure you'll find the rapid decline was because Covid started closing borders at the end of 2019 and the global economy still hasn't recovered to recover New Zealand’s international student population. There were 106,000 international students in 2017, 115,000 in 2019 (after the policy you refer to was introduced in 2018), and ~20,000 during covid.
Agreed, but you've failed to explain why it matters whether we have n or m universities for x prospective students. The problems in the university sector are long-standing and because successive governments do not fund adequately. The funding per student has decreased in real terms over the years.
No, New Zealand society does not value academics or education. Look at salary performance relative to other countries in the OECD, or capital investment, or investment in R&D. Look at the lack of informed discussion across a wide range of issues in the media. We do a very poor job seeking out and updating our knowledge.
I don't think employment prospects are a useful measure to be honest - NZ has a high mismatch between field of study and field of employment. Over the years, colleagues have described university as finishing school and been really derogatory. This is different companies in different cities, too.
Just started Arnold Schwarzenegger's latest book - some people, just like some politicians, stand out in the crowd. His final chapter, "Break your mirrors" is a good bit of advice :-).
We're only capable voters, when we are trained to think. Change the messaging and attitudes will change. Not universally of course, but maybe a majority. Humans respond to the dominant message.
There is currently close to zero voter exposure of anything other than consume. Media is an absolute road block to change.
AI will ensure the media generated extinction track we are on accelerates.
One thing is for sure, and that is small is beautiful. The larger society becomes the more the instability and less the tolerance. This should be apparent to anyone taking notice and not blinded by ideology.
As a farmer it’s quite clear we are overstocked or becoming overstocked, just look at the pollution around the biggest feedlot in NZ (akl), Increased disease transmission etc etc,
Why don’t we set an ideal population in NZ, eg 10mil and work towards that.
I for one would rather have 2 kids growing up in a first world country than a 3 in a third.
Ethical to let population numbers recede? Why yes, that's the ideal scenario, however we have a political elite obsessed with increasing population.
The right are absolutely clueless over this issue. A window into their warped vision surfaced when Bridges expressed his "10 million goal". At 8 million, the same clueless drones will be crowing 20 million.
The left are easily bullied into the "big New Zealand" BS by the same movers and shakers backing the right. The NZ public will not get a choice in this, unless we demand it. Population was deliberately kept from being an election issue by our "betters" because a massive increase is a certainty.
Will turning our back on population growth mean major economic consequences? Yes it will. There is only one way out of this ideologue created mess, scale down. We know scale down works, because we have been there. The option we will/are pursuing, techno utopia, requires fairydust, hopium, can kicking and the pseudo mystical belief science fiction movies are documentaries about our journey to starfleet command and a galactic empire.
Labour brings in 110,000 in a year to spruik the books you blame the right?! If low population density is such a great thing why does no one want to move to Southland, Otago and the West Coast - which share similar population densities to Lapland.
That said, I think our immigration rates are insane and have zero mandate.
To be fair, the Southland climate is a bit sh!t. Not everyones vision of paradise. Otago? Kind of is experiencing massive growth, as the eyes are picked out of it. West coast? Nice, although property prices seem to indicate it's been discovered.
Growthist fundamentalists wrote the book. I would say they are the tunnel visioned right. The left can't step away from the text. I have no particular political affiliations, although I would call myself a libertarian, just not the corporate theist sort of our current freedom hating "libertarian" mob.
The left are definitely more intellectually dexterous than the right. Change definitely isn't coming from the right. They'll still be stacking humans in when there's no room to move.
Over a few decades it's possible and ethical to take it down to a better 2 Million.
Unfortunately human nature in light if the behavioural theme of the article, would suggest that depopulation couldn't be allowed due to NZ’s reliance on, and obsession with, the housing market and neverending capital gains.
More doom porn from the doom porn industry. Activist Mike cites a 1992 prediction of 14 billion population. They couldn't even get that right - now projected to be 10.4 billion by 2086 with peak child back in 2017. A 40% prediction overshoot. If these witchdoctors can't get population right then take their baseless prophesy with a grain of salt. Since 2017 global absolute births have plummeted by 6% and deaths increased by 22% so even 10.4 billion is looking shaky if this keeps up.
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth-past-future
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/births-and-deaths-projected-to-2100
The world is ill-prepared for the global crash in children being born which is set to have a "jaw-dropping" impact on societies
And 23 nations - including Spain and Japan - are expected to see their populations halve by 2100.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521
*this comment was paid for by Big Oil and Big Salt
profile,
Sticking with climate change, as a seeker of the truth, this will interest you.
September 2023: a new record for the largest excess heat anomaly ever recorded
September 2023 was not only the warmest September on record by a staggering 0.5°C margin, but at 1.82°C (3.28°F) above the 1850-1900 preindustrial average, it also set the record for the largest monthly temperature anomaly ever recorded.
This is the 14th time in the Berkeley Earth analysis that any individual month has reached at least 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) over the preindustrial benchmark. This also previously occurred in March, July, and August of 2023.
September's remarkable result follows a northern-hemisphere summer of record-setting extremes, including the warmest monthly average of any month on record (July 2023) and the warmest northern hemisphere summer (June-July-August) on record.
Berkeley Earth is a good source of information. When BEST was set up, it was to disprove global warming and had the financial backing of the Koch brothers. Somewhat inconveniently, the research found that GW was all too real.
Didn't really seem much substance in that? There's a bottle neck coming and her idea of keeping geriatrics in the work force isn't remotely relevant. A large proportion of the planets human population lives in dire poverty now, in areas where the local environment has collapsed. How many times would the global economy have to double in size, along with energy and resource consumption and waste dumping, to give these people a seat at 1% feast, along with the predicted 20% growth in population?
Very arrogant for Man to assume his abilities are greater than that of very Life itself that has survived and thrived on Planet Earth for more than 3 thousand seven hundred million years, through numerous ice ages, 5 post-oxidation Great Extinction events, and the Great Oxidation event.
Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
Scientists think that 200 million years after the formation of the Earth conditions had become suitable to support life.
The oldest known fossils are 3.7 billion years old (800 million years after the original formation of the Earth).
the oldest known human ancestor is Ardipithecus, likely ancestor of Australopithecus. Ardipithecus lived between 5.8m and 4.4m years ago.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.