Despite the growth in environmental philanthropy in recent years, world-wide consumption of natural resources remains completely unsustainable. Recent academic research suggests that the industrialised world needs to cut its consumption levels by 73% in order to stay within planetary boundaries.
The problem of overconsumption has largely been overlooked by many funders. For example, in Europe, the largest environmental foundations allocated just €1 million to directly tackling over-consumption in 2021, less than 0.1% of the €1.6 billion of environmental grants tracked for that year.
So why are funders hesitant to invest in tackling overconsumption – is it perhaps due to a lack of convincing projects, a reluctance to work on changing how we live, or the difficulty of addressing such deeply embedded systems? We hope to answer this question and “take the pulse” of the environmental philanthropy sector in regards to overconsumption with a survey (link below) of foundation staff, leaders and boards, to gather baseline data on how the sector views the challenge of overconsumption. We will share the findings to help open up space for discussion.
The survey has been developed by Hot or Cool Institute and The Hour is Late in collaboration with Oak Foundation, ClimateWorks Foundation and the Environmental Funders Network, and is supported by many foundations and funder networks.
Key issues for tackling overconsumption: effective measures are controversial
Equitable redistribution of resources is increasingly viewed by leading academics as key to securing international action on climate change and biodiversity loss. A “fair consumption space” – one that enables impoverished populations to achieve basic levels of wellbeing within planetary boundaries – requires a reduction in lifestyle carbon footprints of 70% by 2030 in wealthy industrialised countries.ii For the richest 10% of the global population, limiting global heating to 1.5°C requires consumption emissions to be reduced to about a tenth of their current level by 2030, while the poorest 50% could still increase by two to three times current levels.iii
Choice editing is an effective policy option for governments to reduce consumption emissions while promoting fair access to resources. Choice editing in richer populations would imply restrictions or bans of the most environmentally harmful products and services, including private jets, mega yachts, second homes, excessive meat consumption, frequent flying, and fast fashion.i Although restrictions and bans are known to be effective sustainability policies, build a mandate for such measures is challenging.
Perceived fairness is essential for policy acceptance. There are currently few limits on an individual’s right to emit carbon or use resources. Studies show that rationing was chosen as a policy to reduce consumption during World War Two because its fairness made compulsory change more acceptable than voluntary reductions. Recent research on personal carbon rationing demonstrates how it can encourage sustainable infrastructure while limiting excessive emissions of high-income individuals.iv
The vital role of philanthropy in tackling overconsumption
Funders play a key role in socialising cutting-edge approaches – as has been the case with new economics, climate justice, movement building and more. The work of funders in legitimising emerging approaches and raising ambition levels within the wider movement, is key to moving from incremental to systemic interventions in the field of consumption and sustainable living.
We hear from funders that they understand the need for urgent action to reduce consumption emissions – but there are so many challenges to make it happen. By creating a space for shared innovation and creativity, we hope to work with the positive influence of philanthropy to take overconsumption from “Cinderella issue” to a dynamic and exciting field of action. But first we need to consider the barriers to taking action towards fair and sustainable consumption.
If you work for a foundation or are an individual donor, please do take 20 minutes to participate in the survey and share your opinions about tackling overconsumption. If you are a grantee, please don’t complete the survey yourself, but instead encourage your funders to complete it. All responses will be treated as confidential and we will not attribute quotes to any individual when sharing the findings. This is not restricted to one person per organisation: we are interested in seeing the range of views held by staff, leaders and board members, and so encourage everyone to participate.
The survey can be completed anonymously, or there is an option to leave your contact details: this will allow us to send you the results directly and invite you to a webinar to share and discuss the findings. You can view a PDF with the survey questions here.
This survey is the first project of the Innovation Fund for Sustainable Living – a new funder collaborative that encourages philanthropic action on overconsumption. For more information, please contact f4sl@hotorcool.org.
_____________________________________________________________________
i Rammelt, C.F., Gupta, J., Liverman, D., et al., (2023) Impacts of meeting minimum access on critical earth systems amidst the Great Inequality. Nat Sustain 6, 212–221 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00995- 5
ii Lewis Akenji, et al. Magnus Bengtsson, (2021), 1.5-Degree Lifestyles: Towards A Fair Consumption Space for All, Hot or Cool Institute, Berlin.
iii Oxfam, (2020), “Confronting Carbon Inequality in the Eu-ropean Union” 7th December, 2020. https://www.oxfam. org/en/research/confronting-carbon-inequality-euro-pean-union
iv Nathan Wood, Rob Lawlor & Josie Freear (2023) Rationing and Climate Change Mitigation*, Ethics, Policy & Environment, DOI: 10.1080/21550085.2023.2166342