A common argument made by environmentalists is that in order to decrease environmental degradation, we must decrease consumption. While this statement is accurate, it is not specific enough. Advocating for a general decrease in consumption does not suggest who exactly should be responsible; it may be interpreted as implying that all people must limit their spending equally. To more successfully combat environmental degradation, I argue that this statement must be modified: Wealthy individuals must decrease their consumption.
I argue this because, on average, wealthy individuals spend more money to consume more goods, and therefore, contribute more to pollution, deforestation and depletion of resources. Resource consumption and environmental degradation are directly related. For example, the more fossil fuels we burn, the more emissions we put into the atmosphere. The world’s richest 10 percent have emitted half of the Earth’s greenhouse gas emissions, while the world’s poorest half have only emitted 10 percent. This statistic shows how the wealthy are more at fault for the degradation of the environment. Thus, they should be the ones most responsible for combating it.
Wealthier individuals are also more able to adapt to the phenomena of environmental degradation, such as rising sea levels, deforestation and reduced productivity of farmland. They can afford to rebuild after a destructive event. They can buy a new house in a different area where the effects of climate change are not as severe. Poorer individuals, on the other hand, are less able to adapt. They simply don’t have as much money to relocate, rebuild or redesign their homes and communities. Thus, they are at a serious disadvantage as climate change continues to worsen.
I also argue that wealthy nations must decrease their consumption as a whole. The United States is one of the largest environmentally degrading countries in the world. Studies vary depending on what type of environmental impact is examined, but the United States never fails to exist among the top polluters. The U.S. Department of Energy found that the United States was the second-largest emitting country of carbon dioxide emissions, with China taking the lead. This study was performed six years ago and newer studies do show improvements in the reduction of the United States’ pollution. However, these improvements are too minuscule to offset the damage still being done to the environment. Coupled with the direction President Donald Trump seems to be taking the country, these improvements may very well be reversed.
Thus, if Trump will not encourage the United States’ fight against environmental degradation, then we as individuals must take initiative. We must make more conscious day-to-day efforts to limit our consumption. We can each do our small part by decreasing our consumption of things such as gasoline (don’t drive your car as much), plastic water bottles (use a reusable one) and clothes (do you really need that $90 sweater from Urban Outfitters?) to name just a few.
The point of this article is not to assign blame — I aim to inspire the people who are able to make a difference to do so. The United States, as a wealthy nation, is morally obligated to take responsibility for the environmental degradation it has caused. Individuals are also morally obligated to do the same. If not for the sake of saving the environment, consumption by wealthy individuals must be decreased to ensure that environmental justice ensues.
Georgia Kerkezis is a sophomore majoring in environmental studies.