We have to talk about overconsumption (in three different ways)

Bibliographic Data

ID15544659
AuthorsJoel Millward-Hopkins (0000-0003-4189-1658, University of Lausanne, corresponding author), Vivien Fisch-Romito (0000-0002-2419-196X, University of Lausanne)
Year2025
Volume20
Issue3
Pages031007-031007
Publication date2025-02-24
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueEnvironmental Research Letters (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1748-9326 • E-ISSN: 1748-9326
PublisherIOP Publishing (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1088/1748-9326/adb986
OpenAlexW4407873791
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited22

Overconsumption remains a controversial topic in much discourse, and its definition remains hazy. Here we thus develop three definitions relevant to different scales—individual, social, and planetary. These can be used to form overlapping corridors beyond which consumption can be defined as useless, unfair, and/or unsustainable, each of which justifies different political responses. While these definitions emerge from different literatures—not all of which are concerned with environmental sustainability—we describe how all can (and should) be integrated and related to environmental limits. We then discuss the implications for understanding and modelling sustainability transitions

Economics · Keynesian economics · Overconsumption · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access