This blog is dedicated to a young, brilliant student. Back in 1995, she attended one of my lectures in Santiago de Chile about sustainability imperatives and the need “to reduce our Footprint.” I used plenty of chocolate metaphors to emphasize: the importance of careful resource management; how we all want chocolate but there is only so much; how irritating it is for those who do not get a piece of the chocolate bar, etc.
You get the gist.
After my presentation, from the back of the room, this young woman simply asked me: “Why should I reduce my Footprint; so that you can eat more chocolate?”
Reaching our inner voice
She was the first one who dared to tell me what so many were thinking privately. What’s in it for me? If we are heading into a time of multiple crises, why should I give up my advantages? What a brilliant, clear, and transformative question. Thank you so much! Even 27 years later.
This comment is brilliant because it comes from honestly listening to oneself. I have come to realize that people don’t read the lines – they listen between the lines. What does our inner voice truly hear? Are you able to recognize your inner voice? Because that’s the most powerful voice you hear. If your inner voice is not excited about something, you and your fullest self are also not excited.
Her thought-provoking question helped me remove the phrase “reduce your Footprint” from my vocabulary. And still, to this day, most journalists ask me how I am reducing my Footprint. And how should we all reduce our Footprints.
Maybe this seems shocking, but I am becoming ever more emphatic saying “don’t!” Given our massive overshoot, what do I say instead?
Our real goal
The reality is that very few people deeply desire to reduce their Footprint. The same way that few people enjoy being hungry or crave for a restrictive diet. They may take on a tough diet because they want something else that, for them, is much bigger. For example, becoming more healthy and agile, feeling more alive, or living in alignment with their love for animals.
The deeper want is not “to reduce our Footprint.” Rather, we want to be safe. In a world in massive overshoot, being safe requires being resource secure. For instance, we may want to choose housing that can give us comfort without much energy use. We may want to make it even more energy efficient. We may want to choose a place to live where we can do most of our basic trips by walking or bicycling. We may want to learn to cook delicious food using basic, more plant-based, in-season ingredients. There are plenty of possibilities we can adopt to invest in our resource security and become less dependent on dwindling resources.
My efforts to enhance my resource security help me live well and with less anxiety. I am not “sacrificing for the benefit of others.” Instead, I am securing my wellbeing to ensure that I will be able to better maintain my physical wellbeing for years to come (as a side-benefit, the world becomes safer, too). My resource efficient assets will also, most likely, better retain their value. And becoming resource secure will save me some money, too.
On the surface, increasing resource security may sound like the flipside of reducing Footprint. On some level it is. But there is a bonus: by emphasizing what I gain, I highlight my benefits rather than my pain. With more resource security, I feel much safer and materially better off by: having more energy efficient housing; being able to fully rely on bicycling and walking rather than having to depend on a car; knowing how to live off delicious simple food rather than resource intensive food from afar; and being able to fix my things rather than having to buy new stuff.
What about countries and cities?
A country can also benefit from increasing its resource security. Particularly if it is using several times the regenerative capacity than its ecosystems can provide, at a time when the world as a whole faces massive overshoot. For example, the Netherlands’ consumption Footprint is more than 7 times larger than its biocapacity. For Switzerland, the ratio is over four. Therefore a country that makes its energy system less resource intensive by favoring renewables, by upgrading its building stock into one that is far more energy efficient, or by shifting transport modes to leg-powered options, gains in value as it shaves off resource risks. This is even more important for countries with low average income levels as they will not be able to buy themselves out of a resource squeeze.
Cities can do the same. They can become more resource secure and avoid stranded assets by: favoring cycling and walkability rather than investing in parking garages; demanding solar-cell covered roofs and energy-efficient homes that will stay valuable even as energy costs go up; encouraging sustainable businesses; and enhancing high levels of food and water security. As a result, the city will gain in value as it will be able to operate better in the predictable future of climate change and resource constraints. This city will have a huge advantage over cities that choose to ignore the megatrends of ecological overshoot. Even more so because these shifts to resource-secure systems do not take place quickly.
Empathy versus resentment
More importantly, a “reduce-your-Footprint!” mindset produces a culture of resentment. It may be the same for you: for me it feeds into the belief that “I have to sacrifice for the common good” while getting little in return. And every time I witness somebody not participating and wasting resources, I can easily feel resentment towards this person for undermining my gracious and noble efforts. As a result, I have seen many give up and hate their fellow people.
By focusing on “increasing resource security,” I can feel my attitude shifting away from resentment of those who have yet to take action. I may even develop concern for those who are still oblivious to the importance of their own resource security. I reckon: these poor souls are so resource dependent that they have exposed themselves to dangerous risks. Ultimately, my love for people always wins. I want everyone to live well on our one planet. Don’t those resource insecure people need our help?
Resource security gives me a positive vision
I hope it makes sense to you why I no longer advocate for “reducing your Footprint.” Maybe you will also share my obsession with increasing resource security: my own, my city’s, my country’s, and everybody else’s. Also, I continue to admire this young, bright student from Santiago de Chile who helped me listen between my own lines. Muchísimas gracias.
Maybe embracing “resource security” will not be the end-all. I am still learning. I am committed to putting ever more effort into listening more carefully to what’s said between the lines.
What is your inner voice hearing between my lines? At this very moment? Let me know in the form below!
PS: What about our moral duty? I sent the above reflection to a dear friend in Denmark. She responded: “This resource security framing works well when people compare themselves with other people on similar income levels. This is where overcoming the culture of resentment is probably most relevant. For instance, I am more secure than my sister because my level of consumption is lower, and therefore, I am not as hard hit by the current inflation. However, I think we also need the moral argument when we compare ourselves with lowest income people. I should limit my consumption not “for the common good”, but to make space for those people’s material needs.”
I would respond that I see the biggest opportunities for transformation when advocating for physically replicable solutions. This means by implementing my solution, I do not take space or resources away for others to implement that solution for themselves. These are solutions that take pressure out of the system. Massively increasing one’s energy efficiency and shifting energy use to locally produced renewables does not compete with anybody else’s resources. On the contrary, solutions which are physically replicable can be more easily advanced by others. Therefore, they are replicable, not competing.
Increasing your resource security, which then also amplifies the possibilities for others to increase their resource security, is ethics in action. We help accelerate a positive flywheel that improves the situation for all involved. True resource security-enhancing solutions are good for you, and for all others. Also, I find this approach to be a more ethically robust argument than one based on moral duty. It moves us from charity to solidarity, from generously handing something down to others to partnering with others eye-to-eye to create a better situation for all involved. In other words, putting the emphasis on enhancing resource security rather than reducing Footprints enables lasting solidarity. It is not arguing against the ethics of compassion. It is demonstrating love for all people.
If we are truly concerned about equity and wellbeing for all, addressing overshoot and encouraging resource security is a key pillar of transformation. It is more than an ethical imperative. It is practical, replicable, and necessary for all involved, as we have pointed out elsewhere.