Japan’s population has been declining since 2008. By 2050, not only Japan but populations in over 55 – mostly high-income – countries are expected to fall. As shrinking populations are commonly linked to a smaller labour force and a slowing economy, many governments, such as the Japanese one, see this trend as a dire problem that needs to be addressed. But does it really have to be? Or could this be an opportunity to create a more sustainable and stable economy?

—

In an emotional speech on December 4, 2023, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un urged women in the country to produce more babies as he expressed concerns about the declining birth-rate, which would impact the country’s national power. Similarly, in July, the Japanese government disclosed “alarming” statistics related to the country’s birth rates, indicating that up to 42% of Japanese women born in 2005 could remain childless. In 2022, only 770,747 babies were born in the country.

This trend of falling birth-rates and declining populations is not unique to North-Korea or Japan: projections by the UN indicate that many high-income nations will face population decline in the near future. Two-thirds of the global population is living in a country where the fertility rate is below the 2.1 threshold necessary to maintain population stability. And around 2100, fertility rates are expected to dip below 2.1 in all countries around the world, except twelve. 

Japan and many other countries facing population decline see these demographic projections as concerning trends that require urgent action. But why exactly are they so afraid of population decline, what are they doing about it, and is population decline really a cause worth fighting for?  

Japan’s Demographic Situation

The primary driver behind Japan’s population decline is urbanisation, which commonly suppresses birth rates. Urban areas in Japan, but also in many parts of Europe and America, are characterised by a range of factors that discourage child-rearing, including demanding work hours, high living costs, and limited childcare options. Women living in cities often perceive a strong trade-off between building a career and raising a family. Especially in Japan, which ranks as the world’s third-most expensive nation in the world to raise children (after China and South Korea), couples tend to opt for their careers, rather than building a family. 

As a result, Japan’s population has been steadily decreasing and ageing since 2008. Here are some statistics  :

• The UN forecasts that Japan’s total population could plummet to 104.9 million by 2050, possibly even as low as 87 million by 2060; 
• Japan’s fertility rate is plummeting and currently stands at 1.37;
• The elderly population is large and growing:
  • Japan holds the world’s second-highest median age (after Monaco) at 49 years;
  • Japan has the world’s highest life expectancy – 87 years for women and 81 years for men;
  • Nearly one-third of the population (29.8%) is aged 65 or older, accounting for 36.5 million people;
  • 15% are over 75 years old (19.37 million people);
  • 10% is over 80;
  • 92,139 people – more than 1 in 1,500 individuals – is over 100 years old; 
  • By 2060, 39.9% of the population is projected to be aged 65 and older, signifying an increase of 10 million elderly citizens;
• The working-age population (15-64 years old) diminished by 296,000 to 74.2 million in 2022, constituting 59.4% of the total population, with a projection to decrease further to 47.95 million by 2060 (see figure 1);
• The old-age dependency ratio – the number of retired people relative to the working-age population – is the highest in the world: 48.6 seniors for every 100 working adults, which is projected to surge to 79/100 in 2050 (see figure 1).

Various economists link a dwindling population to a shrinking economy and slowing economic growth, pointing to the imbalanced old-age dependency ratio visible in many countries around the world. Indeed, a shrinking population with more elderly and a smaller labour force can put pressure on a country’s social security system: a smaller workforce means less income tax revenue, while public expenditure for health care, elderly care and pensions rises, alongside the need for health care workers. 

The root cause of the imbalanced old-age dependency ratio is the global baby boom of the 1950s. The many babies that were born during that time are now leaving the workforce and retiring. Yet, in 2060, when the majority of the baby boom generation has passed on, the imbalance is expected to even out, as shown in Figure 1 in the case of Japan. 

Hence, the issue is not itself the small size of the population: small countries with small populations such as the Netherlands and Switzerland are both in the top 20 wealthiest economies in the world. 

The key concern lies in the transition itself. 

You might also like: How Strict Waste Management in Japan Alleviated Its Environmental Impact

Japan’s Population Policies

To address its demographic challenges, the Japanese government has unveiled a slew of natalist policies under the Children’s Future Strategy Policy, which aims to stabilize the population at around 100 million by 2060. For this, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has earmarked 3.5 trillion yen (US$23.7 billion) annually over the next three to five years, which would double childcare spending by early 2030.  

The plan consists of three pillars: 

• Monetary assistance: Offering higher, broader, and longer child allowances without income cap, childbirth grants of up to 500,000 yen (around US$3,300) and extra subsidies for larger families. Since April 2023, financial support is also offered for higher education, postnatal necessities (such as strollers, diapers, and formula), and medical care for children with disabilities.  
• Childcare services: Establishing more (after-school) childcare centres, such as day-care, prenatal centres and preschool education, providing temporary childcare, student care, post-partum care and services for sick children.
• Cultural reforms: Urging companies to reform the workplace and improve the work-life balance by promoting shorter workweeks and higher wages, limiting overtime working possibilities, changing gendered parenting roles, and providing more generous parental leave policies. 

So far, Japan’s initiatives to curb the population decline have largely failed, mainly due to the absence of a much-needed cultural change. For instance, despite parental leave policies being in place, unwritten social rules press employees – particularly fathers – not to take leave for fears of losing their job. Likewise, despite the offered financial support, many young women find the heavy burden placed on mothers to look after the children and be in charge of the household less appealing, now that more women in Japan are enjoying higher education and have more job opportunities at their disposal. 

Moreover, despite both the number of day-care centres and children enrolled having increased since 2000, there is still an acute shortage of childcare services in urban areas and the number of children on waiting lists has increased.

It is predicted that in just eight years’ time, the number of women of childbearing age will fall to a point where Japan’s population decline becomes irreversible, and it seems unlikely that the Japanese government will be able to create the required complex cultural change within that time span. In addition, with one of the highest public debts in the world (226% of GDP), the Japanese government is struggling to secure sufficient funds for its plans. Therefore, additional solutions are needed to address the imbalanced old-age dependency ratio. 

Alternative Solutions

There are five other strategies that could be applied in countries facing a shrinking workforce and growing elderly population such as Japan:

1. Raising the retirement age

A practical strategy entails raising the retirement age to 67 (or above), an effective measure already adopted by countries like Greece, Denmark, the Netherlands, Iceland, Israel, and Italy. In Japan, companies can individually set retirement ages between 60 and 70, one in four companies have opted for a retirement age of 65. Since April 2023, the public pension age for Japanese civil servants has been raised from 60 to 61 and will be further raised by one year on a bi-annual basis until it reaches 65 in 2031. The private sector is expected to take similar measures to address labour shortages. 

2. Including elderly in the workforce 

Allowing elderly to (voluntarily) re-enter the labour force, for instance on a part-time basis, could help boost the workforce numbers. Japan currently has the highest number of seniors working past the retirement age in the world after South Korea: more than half (50.4%) of individuals aged 65-69 are still employed, while nearly 40% of Japanese companies hire people over 70. Including elderly in the workforce could not only alleviate the financial burden of social security but it can also foster seniors’ well-being by combating loneliness and enhancing vitality, ultimately reducing healthcare and elderly care expenses. 

3. Enhancing female participation in the workforce and improving gender equality

Presently, 54% of Japanese women are economically active, slightly surpassing the global average of 50.8%. However, a significant portion of these women (over 50%) hold non-regular, part-time positions due to reasons such as post-childbirth career hiatuses or the need to balance work with household responsibilities. Implementing binding policies for companies to hire a minimum percentage of women and offer them full-time contracts could not only bolster tax revenue but could also boost the average GDP.

4. Health and elderly care innovation and robotisation

Innovation and robotisation in health- and elderly care could reduce costs and present a solution to the shortage of healthcare workers. With 62 commercially available types of humanoid robots already in use, the Japanese government has allocated approximately US$440 million from 2020-2025 for further development of the robotics industry. New digital technologies such as AI, could also increase the productivity per worker, particularly in a country like Japan, which lags in labour productivity. This, in turn, could help mitigate labour shortages in vital sectors like healthcare and elderly care.

5. Expanding immigration

While Japan’s strict immigration policies have historically deterred this approach – only 2.4% of the nation’s population is non-Japanese (2.99 million people) – recent efforts to ease immigration procedures to address chronic labour shortages show promise. However, Japan’s attractiveness to skilled foreign workers remains a question due to factors such as low and stagnant wages, a burdensome tax regime, and a rigorous work culture

Embracing Population Decline: Quality Above Quantity

If socio-economic challenges caused by population decline can be solved, could population decline and economic prosperity coexist? 

Economic growth is not solely dependent on population growth but on a combination of factors including technological advancement, education, innovation, and efficient resource utilisation meaning that, as long as governments and businesses are considerably investing in the other factors, there can still be economic growth. 

In fact, scarcity of human resources naturally incentivises companies to innovate and automate to increase productivity and efficiency. Countries like Finland and Sweden, both of which are experiencing declining populations, have managed to maintain strong economies by prioritising education, research & development (R&S), and innovation. What’s more, the economy of the world’s second-most populated country – China – is projected to grow by 5.2% in 2023 and 4.5% in 2024 despite experiencing a population decline in 2022. And even Japan’s economy is still expected to slightly grow in the coming years despite the rapidly declining and ageing population. 

While economic growth might be smaller with a declining population, it is considered to be more stable and sustainable compared to economic growth caused by rapid population growth. While this is good news, it still requires redefining the concept of economic growth: one that takes into account happiness, health, and sustainability, not only prosperity expressed in terms of money. 

Hence, a shrinking population does not necessarily spell doom for economic growth. It is not the size of the population but the quality of its contributions that truly drive sustained economic advancement. Investing in education, R&D, and innovation, and allowing more elderly, women, migrants, and even robots in the workforce are viable and sustainable solutions that can mitigate the adverse effects commonly associated with an imbalanced old-age dependency ratio. 

It is important to see declining populations in developed countries for what they are: inevitable, temporary demographic transitions that incentives countries to update their traditional socio-economic systems to a modern model that was long overdue. As such, it should be seen as an opportunity, rather than an economic crisis. In any case, pushing women to make more babies does not seem like the way to go.

You might also like: Demographic Shifts and Carbon Emissions: Can Population Decline Solve Global Environmental Challenges?

The post Understanding Japan’s Demographic ‘Crisis’: An Alternative Perspective on Population Decline appeared first on Earth.Org.

The UN expects that by 2050, populations in over 55 countries (mostly developed ones) will fall. Some environmentalists suggest that population decline could be the solution to pressing global environmental problems. This article explores how population growth is linked to carbon emissions and why population decline in high-income countries might be a welcome trend but not an efficient solution to reverse global warming. 

—

Projections by the United Nations (UN) indicate that dozens of countries around the world will face population decline in the near future. Europe is already experiencing this phenomenon, while Latin America and Asia are expected to follow suit in the 2050s. 

Among the top-20 countries currently undergoing rapid population decline, all except two – Japan and Cuba – are located in Europe and most are high-income countries. Even China, which held the title of the world’s most populous nation until last year, when India surpassed it, experienced its first population decline in 2022. Predictions indicate that around the end of the current century, nearly all countries in the world except twelve will witness fertility rates dipping below the threshold of 2.1 needed to maintain population stability. 

Governments of countries with low fertility rates are worried and see the population decline as an economic crisis. Some environmentalists, however, suggest that declining populations in high-income countries is a positive trend, since it likely leads to lower carbon emissions. Yet, when taking a closer look at the correlation between demographic shifts and carbon emissions, one can conclude that population decline in high-income countries is not a sufficient solution to stop global warming.

The Interplay Between Population Decline and Carbon Emissions

Historically, overpopulation has been linked to global warming, with the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) affirming that population growth exacerbates greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Correspondingly, other studies established a proportional relationship between population size changes and carbon dioxide (CO2₎.

A Swedish study published in 2017 unveiled that having one fewer child per family could spare approximately 58.6 metric tons of carbon emissions annually in high-income countries. As such, not having children is in theory the most effective measure an individual in a high-income country can take to reduce their carbon footprint, more than 50 times more effective than eating a plant-based diet, recycling, or not using a dryer.

Fundamentally, a reduced global population translates to lower demand for resources such as water, wood, and energy, ultimately alleviating pressures on ecosystems. When considering this, one could argue that global population decline is a positive trend. 

However, emissions are intrinsically linked to income levels, outweighing the influence of population size. Individuals in wealthy countries emit 50 times more than people living in the poorest countries, with a staggering 10% of people globally generating nearly half of global consumption-related emissions. 

Hence, assessing emission contributions by country warrants a focus on emissions per capita, not solely on aggregate figures. 

For instance, China, the world’s second-most populous nation, ranks as the world’s largest emitter of CO2, responsible for a third of global GHG emissions. However, its emissions per capita (8.05 tonnes) are substantially lower than those of the world’s second-largest emitter, the US (14.86 tonnes) and the fifth-largest emitter Japan (8.57 tonnes). Bulgaria and Lithuania – the two countries with the strongest population decline – emit 7.54 tonnes and 8.85 tonnes per capita, respectively. In stark contrast, Syria and South Sudan, the two countries with the highest population growth, emit merely 1.27 tonnes and 0.15 tonnes per capita, respectively. 

The picture that emerges is clear: while low-income countries experience swift population growth alongside low emissions, high-income nations remain substantial emitters despite consistently declining population rates. Hence, instead of shifting blame to developing nations, high-income countries should be the ones to be held accountable for their contribution to global warming. Instead of focussing on baby-making campaigns, like Japan is doing, high-income nations need to find out how they can stop the endless cycle of consumption growth and reinvent their economies to become more circular and sustainable.

You might also like: World Population Hits 8 Billion: What Now?

Navigating Population Growth and Environmental Challenges 

When it comes to the issue of global warming, the demographic trajectory of low-income countries – which are by far the most vulnerable to climate-related disasters, including floods, fires, droughts, and rising sea levels – should not be completely disregarded. Indeed, in order to avert grave global warming consequences, data shows that carbon emissions of every nation must fall below two tonnes per capita by 2050. 

Sub-Saharan Africa, where half of the global population growth is concentrated, bears the brunt of climate change. The region is already grappling with frequent droughts, intense floods, extreme heatwaves, and soil erosion. Rapid population growth in those areas is believed to magnify these vulnerabilities. For instance, in Pakistan, a surge in population  triggered extensive deforestation to clear land for urban expansion. Without any vegetation to bind the soil together, these densely populated areas become prone to erosion and sedimentation. These conditions increased the impacts of the 2022 devastating landslide and floods that claimed more than 1,500 lives and destroyed nearly two million homes.

All this is not to say that low-emitting developing nations with rapidly growing populations will never see their emissions rise. Historically, more wealth and elevated living standards have led to overconsumption, resource depletion, and, as a result, higher carbon emissions. To stop this trend, it is imperative to facilitate climate neutral, sustainable growth in developing countries, forestalling the mistakes that industrialised countries have made. 

Research shows that sustainable population growth requires investments to ensure access to proper education, full access to contraception and reproductive healthcare, and more career opportunities for women. Estimates suggest that these measures can reduce climate vulnerabilities in poorer countries and could save 85 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions in the coming 30 years – equal to closing 22,000 coal-fired power plants. Moreover, researchers have found that lower fertility rates will not only result in lower global emissions by 2055 but they can also lead to a 10% increase in per capita income.

You might also like: Ecofeminism: Where Gender and Climate Change Intersect

Global Population Decline Is No Quick Fix

Most projections expect the global population to start declining around 2100. However, the urgency of global warming requires bold action well before then. Carbon emissions need to be cut in half this decade to prevent serious and possibly irreversible consequences of global warming. Even in scenarios where a series of catastrophic mortality events occured or forceful one-child policies were universally imposed (like China had until 2015), the world’s population would not decline sufficiently to stop global warming. This sobering projection underscores the futility of implementing population decline measures, besides the obvious ethical concerns. 

The projected population decline of around 10% in high-income countries between now and 2050 could result in a quarter of the emissions reductions needed by 2050, a substantial contribution that should not be completely discarded by governments in high-income countries grappling to meet their climate objectives. However, recognising that a maximum of a quarter of emission reductions can be attributed to population decline, it becomes evident that other avenues must be pursued in the following decades to effectively and timely curtail global warming. 

Is Population Decline the Solution We Are Looking For?

Global warming has a strong link with population growth. Every additional person increases consumption, resource depletion, further decline of our ecosystems and increased carbon emissions. Yet, that alone is not as nearly as decisive for global carbon emission levels.. 

Data speaks for itself. Wealthier countries emit far more per capita than poor countries, while nations with some of the highest fertility rates in the world and the most rapidly growing populations remain the least responsible for global warming. In this sense, overconsumption – rather than overpopulation – stands out as the central issue. 

A change in the capitalistic view that dominates Western societies is what can truly help us significantly reduce future GHG emissions. But it is also important that low-income, low-emitting countries foster sustainable population growth through strategic investments and rights-based policies that empower their people via improved access to education, contraception, reproductive healthcare, and enhanced career prospects. 

Implementing holistic population policies could ensure there are less people on this planet in 2100 than there are today: it is one of the cheapest and most effective emission reduction solutions available today. But this alone will not be sufficient to save our societies from the crisis we find ourselves in. 

You might also like: How Does Overpopulation Affect Sustainability? Challenges and Solutions

The post Demographic Shifts and Carbon Emissions: Can Population Decline Solve Global Environmental Challenges? appeared first on Earth.Org.

High-emitting companies and countries commonly use narratives and frames that downplay global warming. The psychological effects of the language that they use significantly influences public opinions and behaviour in their favour. As the climate crisis intensifies, reframing these deceptive narratives, using different words and storylines, is critical. Earth.Org takes a look at the evolution of climate communication in the past 50 years and current best practices.

—

During the recent 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28) held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, the summit’s president Sultan Al Jaber proudly presented the Oil and Gas Decarbonisation Charter, signed by fifty oil and gas giants that together contribute to 40% of global production. By signing the Charter, the industry pledged to achieve net zero emissions in their operations by 2050, though none pledged to cut production, which accounts for 80-95% of the industry’s total emissions. The commitment from the signatory companies diverts attention from what other countries are pushing for, which is phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable energy. 

This is an example of a positive narrative – or frame – being introduced by high-emitters to portray themselves as heroes for pledging to do something good. While the deceptiveness of this particular frame might seem obvious, there are numerous seemingly innocent anti-climate frames introduced into the public discourse by high-emitters that even concerned environmentalists have unwittingly fallen for. 

If we want to effectively combat global warming, we need to be vigilant and discerning about the language we use in the climate discourse, understand the underlying cognitive effects of these frames, and tear down misleading frames commonly used in climate communication.

Reframing the Climate Change Narrative

While the term “climate change” is used frequently, “global warming” has become less popular. The shift, however, was not accidental but rather a strategic choice. 

In 2003, Frank Luntz, a communication expert working for the US Republican Party, introduced the term “climate change” into the public discourse. Upon his advice, Conservatives started using “climate change” instead of “global warming”, a more neutral term that does not necessarily have a negative meaning and urgent connotation to it. 

High-emitting companies such as fossil fuel company ExxonMobil copied this strategy and started adopting terms such as “climate risk” and words expressing uncertainty like “may”, “might”, and “potential”. These all suggest that global warming is neither a reality nor a certainty. Although in the 1970s, fossil fuel companies were among the first to learn about the reality of global warming, in the 1980s, they employed a group of influential, high-level scientists to use the strategy adopted by the tobacco industry a few decades prior to dismiss the harms of smoking.

Even though these ‘scientific experts’ did almost no original scientific work themselves, they were frequently seeking publicity to attack science that proved global warming and propose alternative explanations that were not scientifically proven. As they were often consulted by politicians and the media, they were successfully spreading misinformation for decades. 

Slowly, the terms “climate change” and “climate risk” became the norm, not just among conservatives but among the wider population, leading to a disproportionate focus on discussing and proving whether climate change was actually a serious threat, as opposed to focusing on efforts and solutions that could effectively stop global warming. 

Fortunately, with the climate crisis intensifying, new, more accurate terms started gaining popularity. Some of them are “global heating”, “climate crisis”, and “climate emergency”, all of which convey a sense of immediacy and alarm, and underlining the gravity, urgency and reality of the issue. Moreover, instead of talking about “saving the planet”, environmentalists began reframing the discourse to “saving humanity” or “saving society”, making the issue more personal and adding urgency to the matter.  

Reframing the Plastic Recycling Narrative

A booming global trend and growing market is plastic recycling. Oil and gas companies, including ExxonMobil – a top producer of single-use plastic – have been actively promoting the idea that plastics can be recycled, despite being made out of petroleum or ethane (a by-product of oil-fracking). However, research indicates that approximately 91% of plastics cannot be recycled and the process of advanced recycling is not economically viable – issues the oil and gas industries are well aware of. 

Plastic degrades each time it is reused. Most types of plastics can only be recycled once or twice until it becomes unusable. Moreover, pyrolysis, a common method used by advanced recycling firms that breaks down plastic under high temperatures, requires significant energy and generates toxic waste. 
Sorting various types of plastic for recycling has become a challenge mainly due to the plastic industry’s successful lobbying efforts since the 1980s to place resin identification codes – recycling symbols with a number in the middle indicating the type of plastic – on all types of plastics. Initially, these codes were only used on plastics deemed suitable and easy to recycle, such as hard plastics (code one) and bottles (code two). Nowadays, the codes are seven, though most consumers are unaware about their real meaning, meaning most plastics still end up in the same bin, hindering any recycling attempts.

As a consequence, no more than 10% of all plastics have been successfully recycled in the past 40 years. Experts estimate that plastic production will triple by 2050, while most advanced recycling projects have failed, either scaling down or ceasing activity due to financial or logistical problems.  

By introducing this plastic recycling frame, oil and gas companies convinced consumers that plastics are not harmful since they are recycled. As a result, they were able to hide the real impact of the plastic they produced while scaling up production. 

Reframing the discussion on the repercussions that plastic has on society leads individuals to become more aware of the use of plastics and their recyclability. Recent research has focused on the dangers of microplastics and how these are being found in human food, bottled water, and even blood, though the impacts on human health are still being researched. Focusing  attention on the health impacts of plastic provides a better narrative to the recycling discussion as it generates personal relevance to consumers. This frame creates more urgency to limit plastic production and has the potential to fuel more sustainable actions like pushing for a ban on single-use plastics. 

You might also like: One Liter of Bottled Water Contains About 240,000 Plastic Particles, New Research Finds

Reframing the Greenwashing Narrative

As the public interest in climate action grows, high-emitting corporations have increasingly engaged in campaigns that promote sustainability for the sake of improving their brand and reputation. While these corporations market themselves or advertise their products as “green”, none of them are truly addressing global warming. This unethical practice is commonly referred to as greenwashing. 

In greenwashing campaigns, words such as “green”, “eco-friendly”, “bio”, “natural”, and “sustainable” are often used misleadingly. The vague and unverifiable nature of these catchy terms make it impossible to determine how accurate (or inaccurate) these claims truly are. Greenwashing campaigns exploit this uncertainty, creating an illusion of environmental responsibility without real commitments. 

The best way to counter these campaigns is to learn to recognise vague and unmeasurable catch-all terms. Consumers should only trust campaigns that back their narratives with certifications, statistics, measurable data, and verifiable examples. Any company that is unable to provide such details or is fabricating false narratives by wielding greenwashing, should be held accountable. 

You might also like: 10 Companies Called Out for Greenwashing

Reframing the Carbon Footprint Narrative

The concept of a carbon footprint has gained popularity in the global warming discourse. While it might come as a surprise, the term was popularised by oil and gas company British Petroleum (BP), one of world’s biggest emitters. In 2004, their public relations consultant, Ogilvy & Mather, had advised BP to introduce this concept in infographics and advertisements, along with a carbon footprint calculator. Other high-emitting oil companies, including ExxonMobil, and Shell, copied BP’s strategy and started sponsoring researches that assessed and compared the effectiveness of individuals’ sustainable actions, also frequently sharing tips on social media for citizens on how to be greener.

Using the term footprint – which literally refers to a trace left behind by a human being –  subconsciously reinforces the idea that limiting carbon emissions can and should be done on an individual level, rather than by companies. The accompanying slogans from BP such as “it is time to go on a low-carbon diet” also reinforce this idea. The metaphorical word “diet”  literally refers to a person or animal eating habits, which again implies carbon footprint is an individual concern, not of companies. 

Reframing this narrative to focus on corporations rather than consumers is essential to let the public understand how emissions are generated. Individuals can become high-emitters simply because they buy high-emitting products or services. If high-emitting corporations are pushed to produce low-emitting products, consumers’ emissions will go down automatically. Hence, practices of corporations should have priority in the climate debate. 

Linguistic Awareness Fuels Effective Climate Activism 

High-emitting industries make use of seemingly innocent frames by underlying narratives that subconsciously downplay the gravity of the environmental impacts of their activities, often shifting the responsibility to consumers. 

To avoid falling into rhetorical traps of deceptive climate frames, consumers should critically and consciously assess sustainability campaigns, projects, and products, such as carbon footprint calculators and plastic recycling initiatives, before supporting or promoting them. This requires investigating the institutions behind these initiatives, their operations, their true environmental impact, and the effect of the language and frames used. 

Climate communication rules worth considering include avoiding to blame, criticise, or judge other people’s behaviours as this can cause individuals to end up in a state of numbness, resistance, opposition, or even anger. It is also important to realise that presenting a pessimistic scenario might consequently result in others ignoring the issue altogether. Rather than only focusing on how much money or lives will be lost, emphasise how much money or lives could be saved by investing in (rather than “spending money on”) climate mitigation and adaptation. Both the problem and the solution need to be framed in an attainable and manageable way.

This way, individuals can use language in their favour, calling out companies for their deceiving and polluting practices and ensuring that the situation our planet finds itself in is described in a manner that prompts much needed action instead of one that scares people away.

Featured image: Fossilfree London

You might also like: Bridging The Gap in Climate Change: Addressing Barriers in Communication to Save the Planet

The post Framing a Crisis: The Evolution of Climate Communication and Storytelling appeared first on Earth.Org.

Environmentalists emphasise that consumers have the power to make a change by boycotting high-emitting corporations, based on the economic theory that demand creates supply. This article explains how suppliers have become more in control of their demand, looking at three tactics corporations use to secure demand, not depending on consumer’s behaviour but rather by directly influencing consumers’ decision-making. It also offers suggestions for more effective individual actions to hold big polluters accountable for their environmental impact. 

—

Environmentalists and concerned citizens involved in the fight against climate change often emphasise that consumers can have control over polluting corporations. The idea is based on the economic demand theory that suggests that consumers determine demand, which then creates supply. 

From this perspective, consumers can boycott polluters by simply choosing not to buy their products. However, in our modern societies, powerful corporations have come up with strategies to secure demand for their products by influencing or even controlling consumer’s behaviour, which makes them less susceptible to consumer boycotts. 

Here are three ways in which they do it.

1. Clever Marketing Tactics

Individuals tend to overestimate their decision-making power. The reality is that humans do not have enough cognitive power to always act rationally. In fact, about 95% of the daily decisions we make are instinctive, emotionally-driven, and automatic. 

To target consumers, companies hire marketing consultants, which use nudging, framing, priming, and other persuasive tactics to influence consumers’ unconscious decision-making. They sell a story or even a complete lifestyle around the product so that consumers positively associate their product with that narrative. For instance, in 1974, American fast food restaurant chain Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) successfully introduced the narrative in Japan that fried chicken buckets are to be eaten by families to celebrate Christmas. This quickly turned into a nationwide tradition that sees an estimated 3 to 4 million families eating KFC every year. 

2. No Urgency for Companies to Make Short-Term Profits

Many multinational companies can operate for extended periods without turning a profit due to substantial investments from wealthy backers, including banks, pension funds, and governments. 

The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on air traffic is a prime example: when individuals were not allowed to fly during the pandemic, tens of thousands of empty planes continued to fly to secure take-off and landing rights. Moreover, some governments mobilised public funds to rescue airlines that were on the brink of bankruptcy. Other notable examples of large companies that were able to continue operations during the pandemic despite little demand nor profit included Uber, Amazon, WeWork, and Airbnb. 

3. Excessive Consumer Dependency 

Many powerful high-emitting corporations work to ensure that consumers are completely dependent on their products. Here are five ways in which they do that. 

• Dominating the market, excluding alternatives

Some players in today’s market may sell their products to consumers for extremely low prices for years in order to destroy competition – leaving consumers without alternatives, and increase them only once they dominate the market. This strategy has been used by CocaCola and Nestle, both of which have been accused of buying or draining natural water wells, forcing local residents dependent on them to buy their bottled products instead. 

• Product Diversification

Big polluters such as the oil industry have ensured that their products are deeply ingrained in our society. By diversifying their products, oil is now used to manufacture thousands of products, from plastic, clothing, cosmetics, and machines to asphalt, electronics, medicines, and even truffle oil. This makes it near-impossible for the average consumer to live without using any oil-based products. 

• Planned obsolescence 

Many tech-companies, such as Apple, purposefully create products with a short lifespan so that consumers have to buy more of them, a practice known as planned obsolescence. 

• Lobbying

High-emitting companies spend millions annually to lobby governmental institutions to secure subsidies, avoid stricter regulations, and enjoy tax benefits. At the recent UN climate summit in Dubai, COP28, a record number of lobbyists from the meat- and dairy industry was granted access. 

• Low Pricing Strategy

Tax benefits and subsidies allow big polluters to offer their products to consumers for incredibly low prices. In contrast, sustainable, low-emission alternatives are often too expensive for the majority of people, even in high-income countries. As a result, making sustainable, ethical decisions is often not 5 Ways to Spot Sustainable Suppliers and Manufacturerssomething everyone can afford.

Holding Polluters Accountable

These modern-day economic strategies show the futility of consumer’s power and how the idea that consumers are in control of demand is no longer applicable in today’s economy. 

By using one, or a combination of these tactics to limit consumers’ decision-making freedom, high-emitting companies have been able to secure demand and increase their profits. This means that it will cost consumers considerable cognitive willpower, financial freedom, and time to be able to boycott their products and find more sustainable alternatives. In some countries, alternatives are simply not available.

If concerned individuals want to make a significant change in light of global warming, they might be more effective if they focus on supporting judicial, political, or media efforts that investigate, protest, or campaign against high-emitting corporations, since such institutions have more power to push for systemic, large-scale changes, such as imposing binding environmental laws or stopping subsidies for high-emitters. 

Examples of successful individual environmental actions include the 2019 Urgenda court case against the Dutch government for the lack of action to stop global warming, a 2021 court case in the Netherlands against oil company Shell for their contribution to global warming, and the 2020 investigation by NPR and Frontline that sparked an ongoing lawsuit in the US against fossil fuel giants ExxonMobil, Chevron, Dow, and Dupont for their plastic recycling misinformation campaign. Or the six adolescents in the EU who recently took legal action against 32 countries at the European court of human rights for their failure to adequately address climate change. 

While consumer boycotts might be less effective in today’s economy, these court cases and investigations demonstrate the potential for holding powerful high-emitters accountable and compel governments to take binding measures to mitigate emissions. It just takes one determined individual to start such powerful initiatives. 

You might also like: 5 Ways to Spot Sustainable Suppliers and Manufacturers

The post Shifting Power Dynamics: How Corporations Secure Demand in the Age of Environmental Responsibility appeared first on Earth.Org.

In December 2023, the European Union (EU) announced new rules to crack down on the fashion industry, the third most polluting industry in the world. The 27-nation bloc has been a frontrunner in efforts to transition from fast fashion to a circular model. In 2022, the bloc introduced a Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles, which is now gradually incorporated into new (and existing) regulations that should enter into force by 2030. This article looks at five main takeaways from this new textile strategy. 

—

On  December 5, 2023, the European Union (EU) announced new rules to tackle environmental challenges caused by the fashion industry – the world’s third most polluting industry after fossil fuels and agriculture. The industry emits 10% of the world’s total annual carbon emissions and is expected to emit a quarter of global emissions by 2050. 

The main culprit behind this is overconsumption. Due to the increasing popularity of cheap, yet low-quality fashion products from large fast fashion chains such as Shein, Primark, Forever21, Uniqlo, Zara, and H&M, global consumption of apparel almost doubled between 2000 and 2015 and is expected to reach a staggering 102 million tons in 2030. 

The Environmental Impact of Fast Fashion

Fast fashion has a detrimental impact on the environment in various ways. The fashion industry is the second-largest consumer of water. Indeed, current textile dyeing and treatment procedures require approximately 93 billion cubic meters of water annually – enough water for five million people. These processes also account for  20% of global wastewater. 

What’s more, the industry generates huge amounts of waste. The number of times people wear a piece of clothing decreased by more than a third to an average of seven in the past 15 years, a factor that contributes to the staggering 92 million tonnes of textile waste generated worldwide every year. Less than 1% of used garments is recycled into new clothing, while 87% of clothing fibres are incinerated or end up in a landfill – the equivalent of a garbage truck full of clothes being burned or dumped every second. Common clothing landfills are in Accra (Ghana), Panipat (India) and the Atacama desert (Chile), where textiles can take up to 200 years to decompose. 

Furthermore, synthetic fabrics (made of plastic) shed plastic fibres every time they are washed, with the majority ending up in the ocean. Around 60% of clothing and 70% of household textiles are believed to contain plastic. As a result, an estimated half a million tonnes of plastic fibres are released into the ocean annually, the equivalent of 50 billion plastic bottles. These microfibers are spreading through the food chain, threatening animals’ and humans’ health. 

You might also like: Are Microplastics Harmful And How Can We Avoid Them?

The entire fashion supply chain is not only dispersed, but also lacks transparency. Large fast fashion chains have completely outsourced the manufacturing process to textile factories in China and Bangladesh, where labour and production costs are very cheap. As there has been little oversight from apparel companies on the production processes and the working conditions of the primarily female textile workers in these far-away factories, environmental and human rights issues in the manufacturing industry of textiles have long been overlooked.  

You might also like: The Danger of Sweatshops

The EU Strategy For Sustainable and Circular Textiles

The EU has been at the forefront of addressing these challenges and advocating for a shift from fast fashion to circular fashion through a series of comprehensive policies. 

The 2022 EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles forms the cornerstone of these endeavours. It is part of a larger effort from the 27-nation bloc to establish a circular economy within all industries, reach climate neutrality by 2050, and implement the commitments made under the 2019 European Green Deal, the 2020 new Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) and the Industrial Strategy for the fashion industry. 

The new strategy unveils new, binding regulations – or updates to existing regulations – for its member states and companies doing business in or with the bloc that will be enforced within a few years. But what exactly does this mean for EU consumers? 

1. Consumers will have more opportunities to buy sustainable clothing

Under the Eco-design for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), new, binding eco-design requirements for textiles are set out. These requirements aim to extend the lifetime of clothing, by stimulating companies to become more circular, making materials more durable or recyclable, using waterless dyeing methods, using waste as a raw material for fabrics, bringing less collections to the market, and offering consumers repair services or second-hand collections. 

The EU will also offer companies economic incentives to make products more sustainable, primarily through eco-modulation: lowering fees for brands that offer eco-friendly products, while raising fees for brands with less eco-friendly products. Sustainable companies will be able to opt for subsidies or tax reductions, while research, innovation, and investments in circular fashion are supported through tenders, loans, and grants by the EU and its member states. As a result, consumers will have more opportunities to buy affordable sustainable clothing. 

You might also like: How Repairing Clothes Slows Down Climate Change

2. Consumers’ returned or disposed clothing will not end up in a general landfill in a far-way country anymore

To boost reuse and recycling of textile waste, the EU introduced the Extended producer responsibility (EPR) for textiles, which will be enforced on its member states by 1 January 2025. Fashion brands and retailers will become fully responsible for the entire lifecycle of textiles. The EPR will include a ban on the destruction of unsold or returned textiles and the obligation to separate the collection of textile waste from other types of waste.

The EU’s Waste Framework Directive will be updated to halt the export of textile waste. Textile waste to non-OECD countries will only be allowed under certain strict conditions. To prevent textile waste from being falsely labelled as second-hand products when exported, the EU will also set out more specific disposal criteria.

3. Consumer’s clothes will shed less microplastics

Rules on manufacturing processes were introduced to prevent the unintentional shedding of microplastics from textiles, which may include regulations for product design, pre-washing, and innovative products such as built-in washing machine filters or new wastewater treatment procedures.

4. Consumer will have more information about the origin and sustainability of their textile products

A new, mandatory digital product passport that includes circular and environmental requirements was introduced to ensure transparency, fairness, and credibility across the entire textile supply chain. Apparel companies need to provide accessible information about the durability, reparability, recycled content, and materials used to allow consumers to make smart purchases. This information will need to be included either in the physical or in the digital label. 

Transparency and fairness is now also ensured by the upcoming Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, a separate EU initiative that affects more than just the fashion industry and aims to foster sustainable, responsible, and transparent corporate behaviour across global supply chains. Companies will be required to meet due diligence obligations to identify, prevent, mitigate, or end the negative impact of their activities and their supply chain on human rights and the environment. This directive is likely to come into force in 2025 and will not apply to large EU-companies as well as non-EU companies active in the bloc. In case of non-compliance, member states may impose fines and victims can take legal action.

5. Consumers will be less likely to be fooled by deceptive greenwashing campaigns from fast fashion chains

Stricter rules against greenwashing are imposed under the Green Claims Initiative, which prohibits the use of general claims such as ‘green’, ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘good for the environment’ unless backed by a recognised EU eco-label or official authority.

As the world grapples with the implications of overconsumption and excessive waste, the EU stands out as a trailblazer, proactively presenting its new textile strategy as a beacon of hope. With clear policies and regulations to realise circularity in the entire textile supply chain, the EU is addressing the environmental challenges arising on both the demand and the supply side of the industry. 

With a supply chain scattered across the world and the EU being an important market for many international companies, it is likely that the effect of these pioneering regulations will have positive effects on the global fashion industry. While the journey is far from over, the EU’s initiatives give hope that a future where fast fashion is out of fashion is possible.

You might also like: Fast Fashion and Its Environmental Impact

The post 5 Takeaways From the New EU Circular Fashion Strategy appeared first on Earth.Org.