Why money is not always the solution it seems to be – Part II

I’ve been uncomfortable for a while with the way the Western world is using consumption as a means to combat global poverty. Whether it’s the glitzy Red Campaign or our own People Clothing line, buying more stuff, while potentially doing good, is probably not all it’s cracked up to be. This feeling has only grown as I’ve been reading Radical Simplicity by Jim Merkel. Merkel maintains that our finite earth cannot sustain the levels of consumption we’re comfortable with here in this country.

Without getting into statistics too much, basically it’s estimated that there’s about 4.7 acres of earth available to each of the world’s 6+ billion people, if we are to live sustainably. Unfortunately, while countries like India (1.7 acres/person) and China (4.0 acres/person) fall well within the allotment, the US of A doesn’t fare as well (24.0 acres/person). The global average is 5.4 acres/person, which means that we’d actually need 1.4 earths to sustain current rates of consumption over time.

Take this quiz to see how much you consume.

So here’s what I’m saying: In general, more money = more consumption. Now hypothetically, let’s say we were to each decide to buy a red ipod, a red dress, a red t-shirt, a People clothing t-shirt (that’s us), and 1 pound of fair trade coffee. Each purchase is better for the people of the world than it’s conventional counterpart, and through these purchases more of the world’s poor would have money available to them. Good right? Yes….and no.

Yes, it’s good that the poor would have more money available to them. However, that money would also probably equal consumption, which remember, is already a problem as far as global sustainability is concerned. So, leave the world poor? No, not at all. Instead, in order to truly make poverty history, we must also give serious thought to making affluence history. As the world’s poor have more access to capital, to property, to income and possessions, the balance must shift in order to sustain healthy communities, climates and a just world. As Gandhi said, “There is enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.”

Lasting, sustainable solutions to poverty will be costly to the “haves” -  buying less stuff, reducing our energy usage, simplifying our lives. However, such lifestyle changes will have the potential to greatly benefit the “have nots” so that we all have what we need and use it for the greater good.  As I type this, it seems like an impossibility, but so do most ideals, and most dreams.