Those are words from the header of this site but I worry about that last bit. If we save money in reducing our impact, wouldn't that negate the reduction? Assuming that saved money is not thrown away (after all, why mention it unless it is meant to be a benefit?), it will be spent (immediately or eventually) on more stuff, more holidays, more services. That spending will increase one's impact on the environment and on the sustainability of our society.
Submitted by TonyW on 8 May 2008 20:15:39
Comments
Hi Tony - I think that's a pretty negative view. Yep, I like the fact that I'm saving money, but I like to think I'm making informed choices about what I'm spending my saved money on - at the moment I'm saving for thermal insulated curtains - pretty exciting!
I like to think that if people are making an effort to reduce their impact on the environment and save money (as the heading suggests) they will think about the consequences of what they're spending the saved money on.
Submitted by Sarah on 9 May 2008 10:48:27
Hmmm... interesting point, Tony. Personally I like the idea that I save money by minimising waste. Then when I spend the saved money, I can spend it on something that is not going to be wasted - something that I will use for many, many years (like good quality furniture instead of cheap disposable stuff).
If I save enough money, I might even be able to work fewer hours. That way I can increase my quality of life without increasing my consumption.
Also, some of the money I save is reinvested in activities that I like to think are beneficial to the planet. For example if I make a donation to a non-profit environmental organisation, I trust them to use it wisely - to campaign for clean watewr and clean power sources for example.
Thanks for making me use a few extra brain cells to think about your argument! Now I must go out and buy some bottled water to keep my brain functioning...
Submitted by Lindis on 14 May 2008 16:29:59
Thanks for replying, Sarah and Lindis. I don't think it's a negative view, Sarah, more a realistic view. However, I would not criticize, in any way, those who use those savings to become more self-sufficient or less energy intensive. The problem is that I'm not sure that most people would think in that way. The effect of increasing consumption of a resource by becoming more efficient with it, is referred to as Jevons Paradox and has been observed many times.
It's difficult to see a way round this but holding up the carrot of monetary savings perhaps sends the wrong message, in order to change minds. This was the main problem I saw with the Wasted TV programme, which did a good job of highlighting waste but rewarded families with cash, which would most likely be spent on holidays or more stuff.
It's a conundrum, for sure.
Submitted by TonyW on 20 May 2008 22:32:05
It all depends on what the saved money is spent on. One of my goals is independence - which includes being beholden to energy suppliers as little as possible. For example, today I can't afford to put in solar water heating. But I can afford (obviously) to turn off unnecessary lights and appliances. Then with that saving I can put in low wattage flourescent lights ... then with the savings from those two I can instal a hot water cylinder wrap ... then three lots of savings will pay for insulation ... and so on.
Once all worthwhile improvements have been made then the savings could well be used for other purposes. But that doesn't have to mean extra resource demand - it could well be choosing to work fewer hours or in work chosen for its interest value rather than financial necessity.
Submitted by Neville on 21 May 2008 21:25:35
The point about where the saved money is spent is moot. Simply promoting environmentally friendly ways to live one's life will not yield many results. However, when one argues and proves environmentally friendly lifestyle changes will also save money, then results will start to occur. Only by tying changes to impending doom (by impending I mean there are scientific facts proving within the next week humanity will go extinct) or to saving money will long-lasting changes take place. To argue the money saved might be spent on pollution-producing activities is a logical argument, but that is an outlying variable that cannot be controlled. People cannot be forced to act one way but they can be placed under significant influence to change their habits.
Submitted by Thomas275 on 19 August 2008 17:12:55
Saving money right now is impossible because there is a very big economical crisis in all over the world and the prices of everything is rising day by day. Therefore, people are using cash advance and other related services to fulfill their needs.
Submitted by emmas on 5 September 2009 05:36:29