We’re recovering from Black Friday and Cyber Monday, the big annual gathering of pre-Christmas consumerism. Between inflation and climate change, which has the most influence on consumption habits? We have a little idea, don’t we?
It is difficult to see a conclusion if not a clear direction in the results of the study by the firm EY on the consumption habits of Canadians published on November 14. From the outset, the EY Index of Changing Consumer Habits shows that “increasing concerns about inflation (96%) and climate change (84%) are pushing Canadians to change the way they live and their purchasing habits.
Over the years, from survey to survey, the gap between intentions and actions has become persistent, both in the responses of companies and those of consumers. But this time, it appears that “the real effects of environmental change on people’s lives are narrowing this gap and sparking a new wave of change,” the firm continues.
First measure observed: consumers buy less. In fact, more than half of respondents plan to reduce their purchases, the gesture being part of an effort to protect the environment for 38% of them. Buying fewer fashion accessories tops the list of spending reduction intentions. They are followed by toys and gadgets, then clothing, shoes, beauty products and cosmetics. We mainly mention the effect on prices and affordability of extreme weather phenomena, the increase in energy costs or even that of the climate on harvests rather than a change in consciousness encouraging commitment.
Another observation: consumers are changing their diet. Here, we note that climate change has increased prices or limited access to products, which has forced nearly a third of respondents to change their eating behavior. More precisely, we are talking about 32% of respondents who “are starting to consider purchasing products that can mitigate the effects of climate change”.
This reading obviously does not fail to highlight the existence of a certain intergenerational gap. Thus, the majority of boomers are more sensitive to the use of plastic, recycling or saving water, while this is the case for much less than half of the youngest. In contrast, “a quarter of Gen Zers indicate they are willing to pay for more sustainable goods and services, compared to 6% of baby boomers.” Or, “32% of Gen Zers will check a given organization’s sustainability policies online, compared to 7% of Baby Boomers.” We are playing here in the minority percentages. But when every little gesture counts…
Earth on credit
This is reminiscent of the date of August 2 which marked, this year, the day the Earth’s biocapacity was exceeded. According to the latest national footprint accounts from the Global Footprint Network (GFN), humans consume ecological resources as if they lived on 1.7 planet Earth.
Small consolation, this date has remained in August since 2005. Having reached its trough, the trend of this ecological footprint has also stabilized over the last five years. However, it is difficult to determine to what extent this is due to the economic slowdown or deliberate decarbonization efforts, underlines the international organization dedicated to sustainable development.
GFN’s calculations show that if everyone consumed like Canadians, this day would arrive on March 13. Canada is joined here by the United States and the United Arab Emirates. On the other hand, if everyone consumed like Jamaicans, this excess day would move to December 20. Canada is in fifth position at the bottom of the ladder with Qatar (February 10), which brings up the rear of the 2023 rankings.
Pure utopia
In Quebec, the Institute for Socioeconomic Research and Information (IRIS) published a study in May on the material footprint with the aim of demonstrating that reducing individual consumption is insufficient to counter the ecological crisis. Worse, “that the simple coverage of basic needs is not environmentally viable”. IRIS estimates that between 16 and 19 tonnes of natural resources per year are needed to cover basic needs in Quebec, i.e. double the maximum threshold suggested by scientific literature for sustainable individual consumption. The note concludes that, even if Quebec households considerably reduced their consumption and, pure utopia, limited themselves to meeting their basic needs, their lifestyle would still have harmful consequences on the environment.
“If we cannot ask individuals to live modestly to reduce their environmental impact, then it is the way in which we produce the goods and services necessary for our lives that must change drastically,” write the authors of the study. Which should not prevent a combination of the two approaches.