[MUSIC] Hello, this is Oksana Mont and today I am going to present to you four common myths about individual consumption and its impacts on the environment. Myth number one. Green consumption is the solution to environmental problems. Green consumption is indeed an important strategy that aims to improve the efficiency of production processes and to design, sell and purchase environmentally and socially sound products. Increasing efficiency is essential and must continue. But it is not sufficient as even 'green' products have environmental impacts, and since the increase in consumption levels often outpace efficiency improvements achieved in production. Green consumption helps us slow down the environmental problems, but it cannot on its own prevent or avoid them. The myth promotes the falsely optimistic view that technological solutions will be sufficient to achieve sustainability. It detracts attention from the need to tackle challenging issues, such as the prevailing culture of consumerism and materialism, that is closely linked to resource use and environmental impacts. Sustainable consumption has to accompany green consumption. Efficiency strategists need to be complemented by sufficiency strategists, such as sharing products instead of owning them, shifting consumption of products to environmentally sound services, and promoting the culture of upcycling and product repair. So while green consumption is one strategy to reducing environmental impacts, it's not the only solution we should rely on. Myth number two. If everyone does a little we will achieve a lot. Yes, small changes are an important starting point. The "If-Everyone-Slogan" underlines that everyone's contribution is significant, and that others are also taking responsibility for their behavior and making changes. Small changes are vital as people need to start somewhere. They need to feel that they are doing something good and that they're part of a group. However, the biggest misconception is that small individual changes for little significant aggregate results. In reality, the sum of small individual changes usually only results in small aggregate improvements. As a result, people often have difficulty seeing how small actions in the household may help solve global environmental problems, and this leads to skepticism. They must also feel that their small token actions like recycling paper, justify inactions in other areas, like driving a car instead of using public transport. People also know that not everyone is doing 'their bit' and they might get discouraged from taking action altogether. Small changes by many do make a difference, but it is essential to communicate that big changes are also needed. Positive encouragement and providing a realistic picture of the scale of change required in the society, are also vital. In conclusion, communication from policy makers and civil society, should emphasize the relative importance of the small changes that individuals can make in their life. But also that in order to shift the entire society to sustainability, big changes are needed. Myth number three. Private ownership of all kinds of products is desirable while sharing is not. Indeed our society is built on the institution of ownership, and the amount of products we all own is continually increasing. However, many people are concerned about the space these products take up in their homes and the time it takes to maintain use or replace them. So although product ownership is increasing, collaborative consumption of all kinds of products is also making a revival. For example, through swapping events, online trading of second hand goods, community libraries for equipments and city rental schemes for cars and bicycles. The Nordic countries have several traditional systems for sharing products such as public libraries and common laundry facilities, which are being enhanced by new innovative forms of collaborative consumption. Many innovative new businesses demonstrate that there is potential to increase sharing and redistribution of existing resources and products. Reusing products and materials helps avoid environmental impacts associated with production of new products and is seen as an important future source of resources. The fourth and last myth that I will talk about, is the commonly held belief that it is consumers who should lead the shift to sustainability. Yes, consumers have some responsibility for the consequences of their consumption and lifestyles. Not least because they cause 40% of overall environmental impacts in society. However, it is the governments that drive mass shifts in culture and consumption and production patterns. There is a false perception that consumers drive markets and the businesses are just responding to demands. But both businesses and policy makers are choice architects, offering unlimited options for consumer action. Dominant societal values, practices, and social norms are shaped by policies through regulations, infrastructure, pricing mechanisms, and education system. Many stakeholders including businesses and consumers, call upon governments and policy makers to show leadership in sustainable consumption issues. Governments are the powerful agents for driving widespread changes in our cultures of consumption. Sustainability needs to be addressed as a fundamental necessity of our life, not offered as a retail option. Since many behaviors are locked in by infrastructural constraints, pricing and social conventions, it is the governments that need to take the leading role in enabling and promoting sustainable lifestyles, by setting policy frameworks within which businesses can innovate for sustainability, and in which individuals can exercise their consumer and citizen's rights for healthy, happy and sustainable life. These four myths demonstrate the importance of understanding the complexity of consumption, and the need for systemic solutions where all actors contribute in order to enable sustainable lifestyles. [MUSIC]
