**Celebrating Consumption**

Bruce Nordman

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 90-4000, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA

Phone: 510-486-7089; Fax: 510-486-6996; BNordman@LBL.gov

http://www.LBL.gov/\~bnordman.html

*This paper describes consumption as I have come to see it, presents
some background on why, and what this may suggest for the future. The
underlying assumption is that we can significantly improve well-being
and reduce environmental damage by changing consumption processes in
ways not necessarily apparent from production measures. Drawing
attention to these benefits will require acknowledging the importance of
consumption efficiency and investing resources to increase it.*

The paper first reviews traditional approaches to materials[^1], then
presents the proposed model of consumption and outlines collisions
between it and conventional approaches.

Traditional approaches do not adequately address consumption. Explicitly
or implicitly, conventional economic discussions define consumption as
the point at which a good or service leaves the market. Consumption is
then a relatively simple consequence of production and trading systems.
While consumer choices among products and trends in the *quantity* of
consumption are examined, what people *do* with the products is
generally ignored. Thus, the *process* of consumption is absent from the
discussions---only purchasing is included. This is not a problem with
market or production analysis---problems arise when people believe that
these analyses explain more than they do.

Other views, principally found in discussions of equity or the
environment have similar lapses around consumption. They take the huge
quantity of consumption that occurs in industrialized countries (of
resources, materials, and products) as evidence that we should feel
*guilty* about consumption and consequently reduce our aggregate level
of. While many proponents of this view intuitively believe that quality
of life need not be sacrificed (or at least not much), the argument is
almost never put forward in detail, or in a compelling manner. The great
benefits of current consumption patterns are minimized, so as not to
undermine the \'guilt\' argument.

A major reason that these approaches avoid grappling with consumption is
that at its core is the *destruction of value* (usually economic value).
This is not a problem with consumption---it is its essential nature. It
is necessary to destroy certain kinds of value to attain the services we
want from materials. The idea of "consumption" (or "use") has an
inherently dual nature. As \'good\', objects are *use*ful, we as
*consume*rs are the primary beneficiaries of our economy and we
*consume* food. As \'bad\', a building may be *consume*d by fire, we can
be *consume*d with envy, and to *use* a person is to take unfair
advantage. To aid comprehension, it is typical to pretend that one side
or the other does not exist. However, a full and correct understanding
of consumption requires that both be kept in mind simultaneously.

Figure A outlines a consumption-centered view of reality. Materials and
products are produced by industrial processes then passed on to
consumption through trade and other means. Consumption is where most
items are actually useful to people, where they deliver services that we
want. Eventually, every item becomes more trouble to keep around than it
is worth, and is thrown away. Consumption begins as an item is acquired,
and ends as it is thrown away. We don't ultimately want services---we
want a sense of well-being. This is created by a further transformative
process of [satisfaction]{.underline}---beyond the scope of this paper
but a critically important topic. Materials can be recycled from
disposal back into production, but that does not inform our
understanding of consumption. Other approaches and diagrams are clearly
necessary for other purposes.

![](media/image1.png){width="3.0194444444444444in"
height="1.5756944444444445in"}

**Figure A. Consumption at the Center**

This discussion is based on what holds true for industrial materials
with a "high social content" (distinct from building materials and
infrastructure materials). They are the materials we use in everyday
life, that (for each material) many people interact with and make
decisions about. The presence of many actors and uses is part of why
consumption efficiency is significant. These are largely the same
materials that end up in Municipal Solid Waste[^2], though the fact that
they end up as waste is more distracting than useful.

It is obvious that production is an elaborate, complex process, amenable
to technical and other refinements to improve the results and the
efficiency of attaining them. Consumption is also a process, as
sophisticated as production, and---as with production ---changes can be
made to consumption to increase overall efficiency.

**Some examples**

For background, the following is a quick summary of some lessons from
analysis of two products---diapers and office paper. For each, reference
is made to the popular view of the topic, the science and policy applied
to them, what my own review of the data show, and some conclusions.

***Diapers***

For a variety of reasons, in the late 1980s and early 1990s diapers made
an easy target for concerns over environmental impacts of products. A
popular view that disposable diapers were environmentally worse than
cloth diapers was in large part replaced by a view that both had
considerable impacts so that consumer choice made little difference
(particularly regarding energy consumption). The question grew out of
concern for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), but as MSW analysis lacks tools
to address such questions, product Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) was brought
in to provide "the answer". LCA was never designed for this type of
purpose, but nevertheless, inventories of average emissions were
calculated, and the tabular results reported. Little insight or policy
followed and the matter largely receded from view.

Examination of diaper LCA studies shows wide variation among their
conclusions, and poor correspondence to the author\'s own calculations
for home washing and measured data from one diaper service. Further, for
home washing, individual diapering patterns, washing patterns, and
equipment used all greatly influence energy use. These factors are
absent from the LCA analyses, which report a mythical assumed average
value[^3]. Also absent from the LCA studies is most individual choices
and policy options (the only choice presented is switching from one type
to another). People can use combinations of diaper types to gain the
special advantages each has, and there is probably more for the
environment to be gained by changing *how* people use the types of
diapers they already use than there is in convincing a few of them to
switch from one type to another. Producers also have significant
unmodeled choices, such as in materials sourcing (e.g. cotton) and in
industrial process efficiency (e.g. washing equipment).

Consumption analysis can reveal the quantitative benefits achievable,
the institutions and actors involved, and how to effect the change.

***Office Paper***

Office paper provides another informative case study. Faced with the
burden of excess information and tasks, and with paper as the physical
carrier of much of this information, a common reaction is to propose
banishing the medium from offices---to make them "paperless". This
follows from seeing paper as embodying "paperwork" that compels us to do
what we don\'t want to. A common assertion is that the introduction of
business computers was intended to reduce paper use, and the opposite
having occurred is a sign of failure (in fact, computers were introduced
for other reasons; reducing paper use was never a major priority). The
*naiveté* underlying this follows from a lack of understanding of how
consumption actually works. Solid waste professionals rarely do more
than exhort people to "please don\'t waste paper", and to make more
double-sided copies. Rigorous science and policy *has* been applied to
electricity use in printing and copying, and has had success in reducing
this. However, the more costly energy in the paper has received scant
attention.

When paper use is examined as a system, it becomes clear that there are
numerous costs of *using* paper that are many times that for actually
buying it, including the imaging, shipping, storage, and handling. Thus,
gains from paper efficiency (economic and environmental) are
considerably larger than just avoiding making the paper itself.

Several rationales can be employed, including waste, energy, and
greenhouse gas emissions. However, as with energy use efficiency, it is
most effective to aim for cost-effective efficiency improvements in
resource use, which in this case translates to \'paper end-use
efficiency\', or \'paper use efficiency\'.

***Findings***

Both of these cases show that we lack good policy handles and rationales
to address materials consumption, and also lack the analytical tools to
effectively apply scientific analysis. This raises the question of
whether some existing methods should be adapted and expanded, or whether
consumption is best dealt with separately. I believe the latter is a
better approach, but the question deserves further debate. The following
discussion reviews the topic areas that on the surface seem most
relevant.

**Other Approaches**

My own investigations about materials began with the intention of
applying the ideas and methods of energy efficiency to recycling. Energy
efficiency (in buildings) had clear success---as an idea, as science, as
good policy, and with demonstrable results. The idea of material wastes
seems consistent with the notion of \'wasting\' energy, and recycling is
the dominant approach to improving our waste systems. However, the
material analogy to energy efficiency is [source reduction]{.underline},
not recycling. It is possible to construct a system of "demand-side
management" of solid waste to reduce its rate of production. However,
the potential gains (from disposal only) from source reduction in
reduced costs and environmental impacts are generally too small to be
compelling. Thus, source reduction of MSW *as currently practiced* is
not compelling[^4], and so not a good approach for consumption.

***Recycling***

Recycling is appealing and worthwhile, but essentially apart from
questions of consumption and use. Materials only become of interest for
recycling after they have lost most or all of their value for use, and
recycling feeds the materials to production, not use processes. It is
common for models of recycling to minimize or exclude the fact that
materials are used[^5]. Figure B, from the National Recycling Coalition,
is a good example of this. Materials flow directly from purchase as
goods to collection as waste; *they are never used*. The result of this
is that knowing more about recycling usually impedes, rather than aids,
understanding of consumption.

![](media/image2.pct){width="2.7083333333333335in" height="2.375in"}

**Figure B. A Recycling Model**

*Source:* National Recycling Coalition newsletter, circa 1994.

"Reuse", in theory and practice, spans the entire range between source
reduction and recycling, so is difficult to accurately generalize about.

***Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA)***

LCA began as "Life-Cycle Analysis of Industrial Systems", and was never
designed to model use processes. It is no surprise then that it has been
of limited help for understanding materials use, or how to improve it.
The way that LCA is usually applied is to conduct a Life Cycle Inventory
(part of an LCA), then see what conclusions follow from the results. A
more sensible approach would first outline the problem and possible
solutions, then assess which analytical tools apply. Depending on the
topic, LCA might be dominant tool, a minor one, or completely absent.

***Pollution Prevention (PP)***

PP is usually defined as reducing the amount of pollution per unit
product, so simply reducing the demand for products is not pollution
prevention. It is possible to extend PP to commercial services, and
measure pollution with respect to the trade in such services. It seems
unlikely that PP could be extended to include final consumption and
still be a coherent idea. This would also be at odds with how PP has
been applied to date. The adoption of the prevention metaphor in \'waste
prevention\' is troubling, as it implies preventing the original
production. Pollution prevention only attempts to prevent *unwanted*
byproducts; waste prevention extends this, untenably, to *wanted*
products.

***Industrial Ecology (IE)***

Industrial ecology has an ambiguous relation to consumption. Some
definitions do not acknowledge the fact of consumption, and others
subsume consumption as one of the entities in the industrial system.
Regardless of how useful the idea of industrial ecology is for
understanding production (and to some extent disposal) systems, it is
not clear how it could help clarify consumption. It seems most likely
that IE could be a useful companion to consumption efficiency, with each
addressing largely separate areas. Consumption is rarely an industrial
process, so even an ecologically-centered view of consumption would not
fit in well to IE[^6].

To summarize, none of these approaches is satisfactory for addressing
consumption efficiency, indicating the need for separate areas of policy
and science designed specifically for consumption. The following
discussion delves further into the notion of consumption and consumption
efficiency.

**The Model**

The consumption-centric view is intended to be scientifically correct as
well as practically useful for affecting positive change in consumption
patterns. The following terms form the core of consumption analysis;
Figures A and C help illustrate them.

![](media/image3.pct){width="3.0in" height="2.5833333333333335in"}

**Figure C. The Creation and Destruction of Value**

***Production***

The point of engaging in production is to add [value]{.underline} by
consuming[^7] some resources (land, labor, capital, etc.) to create
useful materials or products[^8]. Production usually involves much trade
and many institutions to conduct, organize, and facilitate it.
Measurement is readily accomplished by counting both mass and dollar
quantities that are traded. The fraction of the process that is
industrial in nature is usually high. Production is costly in both
economic and environmental terms. Efficiency of production is measured
as [productivity]{.underline}, and assesses how effectively resources
are transformed into products (or commercial services).

***Consumption***

In contrast to production, the essence of consumption is that it
destroys the value[^9] of materials and products. It subtracts value, or
rather, transforms it from product to service value. Production of
commercial services still adds economic value, but many such processes
have more in common with consumption than with industrial production
processes. Trade is usually absent from final consumption, or when
present, difficult to measure. Measurement of consumption is difficult
with conventional measures[^10] since the lack of trade makes it unclear
what mass to count, and dollar aggregation (as with production measures)
has limited application. Most activities in consumption have a low level
of industrial content; rather they are dominated by social processes.
Costs of consumption are usually ambiguous. Defining the boundaries of a
consumption activity can be problematic, and a particular product may be
used in multiple activities. Environmental costs that occur in
consumption vary greatly.

Consumption efficiency is measured as [Consumptivity]{.underline}, which
is how effectively materials and products are translated to services
that people value. While in some cases the connection between a material
input and the resulting service is clear, in other cases one must assess
an entire activity with a multitude of inputs and resulting services.
Consumption is also tied to how we \'spend\' time in activities[^11].
Activities organize a \'top-down\' analysis of consumption (e.g.
clothing, health care, information). A 'bottom-up' approach begins with
individual objects.

Consumption is a complex transformative process. It is important to
remember that a separate process of satisfaction occurs after
consumption, to translate services to well-being.

A key to understanding consumption in efficiency terms (as we do energy)
is to treat materials *and products* as a flow, not as discrete objects
(again, just as we do with energy). Reducing industrial materials use
through increased 'materials efficiency' is defined as reducing the
"mass of paper per unit of service delivered".

***Disposal***

Disposal of materials used in final consumption[^12] has a relatively
small cost, by all criteria (except perhaps psychological). Disposal
receives disproportionate attention because it is a convenient
repository for unease with production and consumption. Also, we can
improve waste systems without articulating the true nature of production
and consumption (and question prevailing myths). These are some key
terms, but others will need to be created or adapted as we fully address
consumption.

**Discussion**

The consumption-centered view leads to several conclusions about our
present circumstance including fundamental incompatibilities with common
beliefs.

***Operating Myths***

Conventional views of our economy and society rely on and result in
several myths. Myths are stories that are not true, but are useful to
treat as true to help explain reality. For example, while the earth is
ultimately spherical, for local purposes we treat it as if it were flat.
The burden of calculating and applying the sphericality would not be
worth the trouble for most purposes (such as building design). However,
it is critical to know the limits of such myths, or wrong conclusions
will be drawn. Several myths problematic for consumption are that:

[Well-being follows directly from production (e.g. GDP)]{.underline}

This allows the typical belief that the "standard of living" (presumably
a measure of well-being) is to be measured by production. A corollary is
that "consumption efficiency" (if the term were used) is constant, in
individual circumstances, across space (regions and countries), and
across time. A further corollary is that there is no need to measure
consumption, since production (and trade) measures will capture all that
is important. The only way to increase well-being is to raise
production.

[Consumption occurs at acquisition]{.underline}

This is most often put forth by those who believe that society has
insufficient guilt about consumption. Consumption is equated to
shopping, and it is implied that much of what people buy is irrelevant
to their well-being (this is consistent with the idea that there is
'good consumption' and 'bad consumption'). This myth also avoids needing
to articulate how people use products.

[Consumption occurs in disposal]{.underline}

This is most commonly articulated by those involved with disposal (such
as recyclers), and presumes that minimal value is lost during use, and
so long as materials are recycled, they are not "wasted"[^13]. This
makes it difficult to associate consumption with all but a few costs of
production, undermining most arguments for consumption efficiency.

Note that the "production implies well-being" approach neither requires
nor prohibits the equation of consumption and acquisition, as one can
believe that products are useful for a long period of time without
acknowledging that there is any question of efficiency. A common problem
with all of these myths is that they imply that consumption is
uninteresting and that understanding it better is not a priority.

***Fundamental Truths***

Amongst these myths, several truths emerge from the consumption view

[Production == Consumption]{.underline}

*(always in the long run, often in the short run)*

This is similar to the identity between precipitation and evaporation of
water, or the conservation of energy and mass in the laws of physics.
Two corollaries are that "Everything that gets produced eventually gets
thrown away" (with a few minor exceptions), and that "the interesting
question is not [if]{.underline}, or [how much]{.underline}, is
consumed, but is [how well]{.underline}". Any guilt or pride in
production or consumption must be transferred to the other.

[Production interferes with consumption]{.underline}

*(not always, but more often than not)*

Physically, socially, and economically, the presence of additional
productive capacity and all that it entails makes it more difficult for
people to consume well. This can be due to use of land, resulting
pollution, or disrupted social relations. For much of production, the
benefits of the consumption it allows outweigh the costs, so it is
socially worth doing. However, this doesn\'t alter the fact of
interference with consumption.

[Consumption is a complex transformative process]{.underline}

As noted before, consumption is a process, not a static fact.
Discussions and analysis of consumption that fail to build on this will
generally come to wrong conclusions.

[Consumption analysis must be science-based to succeed]{.underline}

The success of energy efficiency indicates the power of good science to
overturn myths and shed light on topics that previously seemed
unknowable. The application of LCA to some consumption processes
suggests that science will be applied---the challenge is to insure that
the correct methods and good science are used.

[Consumption is inherently linear]{.underline}

For those fond of materials recycling, the fact that consumption obeys
different law is disappointing. Nevertheless, there is no way to map the
linear path of the transformation of value as it moves through
industrial production, consumption, and on to satisfaction.

***Time Trends***

Truths about consumption have evolved considerably over recent decades
and centuries. Figure D expresses this schematically---consumptivity or
well-being can't currently be quantified this way (any more than utility
in conventional economics can be), but the concept is useful. Ever since
production began climbing at the beginning of the industrial revolution,
quantitative gains in production have been tempered by declines in
consumptivity. While this effect was small in comparison to rises in
production, there was little harm in ignoring it. However,
industrialized countries may have reached the point at which
consumptivity declines match or exceed production gains. There is a
danger of a long period of diminishing well-being. However, attention to
consumption could facilitate rising well-being (whether production
continues to rise, or preferably falls).

Rising rates of production are likely for the foreseeable future,
particularly for developing countries. For developing countries to avoid
the high production levels of industrialized countries, their best
option is to aim for high levels of consumptivity. The fact of past
falling consumptivity need not be of concern so long as the rate is low
enough. For industrialized countries, with our consumptivity as low as
it is, we can reasonably expect to be able to raise it considerably (if
we try).

![](media/image4.pct){width="3.0in" height="2.236111111111111in"}

**Figure D. Societal Well-being**

***Serial Transformations***

Figure E shows the successive transformative processes that industrial
materials pass through. Materials are extracted from the earth and
concentrated and manipulated to make bulk commodities. When transformed
into products, materials may not be entirely lost, but their value as
materials diminishes greatly. For example, electronic circuits contain
many high-value elements, such as gold, that are significantly reduced
in material value through dispersion among the other elements in the
circuits, even as product value is gained. Both processes are part of
production.

![](media/image5.pct){width="3.0in" height="2.0in"}

**Figure E. Serial Transformations**

Consumption enters as people begin using products. Over time, with use
and without, products lose economic value and use value (for the
consumer). During consumption, services are rendered to the consumer,
typically over a particular finite time period. The services themselves
are not actually indicative of well-being, but are the inputs to a final
transformative process of [satisfaction]{.underline}. Consumption
efficiency does not address satisfaction; like production before it, it
presumes that "satisfaction efficiency" (if this is even the right
concept) is constant. Satisfaction needs to be addressed by others
before we will have a complete set of methods.

***Outlook***

There are a number of important outstanding questions relating to
consumption. These include:

-   Which disciplines, government policies (agencies) and other
    organizations should be at the core of consumption analysis?

-   How do we confront contradictions between results of consumption
    analysis and \'conventional wisdom\'? / prevailing/dominant views

It seems likely that any near-term success for consumption will involve
building on energy efficiency, with attention to "materials end-use
efficiency"[^14].

**Conclusions**

A consumption-based perspective does not deny the usefulness of others
and should be used in addition to, not instead of, them. It provides an
additional way to understand and improve the world, so is essentially
optimistic (this is part of the motivation to "celebrate" it).
Consumption may be particularly useful for those wanting to reduce
environmental damage, as it can help identify significant changes that
may not change well-being, but that allow significant reductions in
destructive production.

The prospects for consumption analysis are unclear. It calls into
question several widely held assumptions, and takes away some (not all)
of the moral imperative for production, and in particular, rising levels
of production. It also conflicts with many other social and governmental
goals that call for increasing production and increasing the aggregate
work (jobs) that needs to be done. There is increasing recognition of
the disconnect between rising levels of production and most people\'s
sense of individual and social well-being. Many responses to this look
for scapegoats or put blind faith in some system (e.g. religion or the
market). Improving consumption may be one of several mechanisms of
social transformation that have few losers and a wide array of
co-benefits, and so be worthy of further consideration and investment.

A key to understanding the importance of consumption is that it is a
*process*, not a static fact. Consumption is usually ignored or
denounced, both of which obscure its true nature. If we are to improve
consumption, we should *feel good* about it, *pay attention* to it, do
it *well*, have *fun*---"celebrate consumption".

[^1]: Due to the wide range of topics and brevity of the paper, no
    references are included.

[^2]: Non-industrial waste materials, such as yard debris, do not share
    many of these characteristics. For example, they are often free or
    inexpensive to produce as waste and may be more of a burden in
    disposal than in production or use.

[^3]: Most of these studies go so far as to model a household that heats
    47% of its washing water with electricity and 53% with natural gas
    (a scenario either non-existent or nearly so).

[^4]: MSW management (in theory and practice) could be extended to
    include waste production (and the management thereof) as an integral
    component. However, this seems unlikely to happen anytime soon.

[^5]: Recyclers know as well as anyone that materials are actually used,
    but through language and practice implicitly recognize that
    recycling and use have little in common.

[^6]: An apparent problem with IE for both is that production and
    consumption systems are driven by human intention, whereas
    ecological systems do not have such an exogenous intention to
    satisfy; rather, the physical system dictates the ends. Physical
    constraints inform *how* we apply our desires, but that they
    *determine* them is a more tenuous proposition.

[^7]: The destruction of natural and human resources in production is
    quite different from value destruction in consumption.

[^8]: The distinction between materials and products is that materials
    have many uses, are often an intermediate form before incorporation
    into products, and are fairly easily aggregated. Products embody
    much more intention as to their ultimate use, and are usually found
    in discrete units. Products can be reused, but not recycled;
    materials can be reused or recycled, since the recycling process
    destroys product characteristics, but not key materials
    characteristics.

[^9]: This is most obviously seen with economic value, but other types
    of value are also destroyed.

[^10]: However, consumption is readily measurable with methods designed
    specifically for consumption.

[^11]: Time is one of the most non-renewable of resources.

[^12]: Recycling is a form of disposal, as are landfilling,
    incineration, and composting.

[^13]: Visualize a juggler [effortlessly]{.underline} keeping many balls
    in the air, with problems and burdens only occurring when they fall
    out of circulation onto the ground.

[^14]: The term "materials efficiency" is useful, (though some use this
    latter term to include production efficiency.