I’ve been thinking about stuff a lot lately. It started back in December, when America was gripped by the frenzy of consumption that Christmas brings and I saw Annie Leonard’s “The Story of Stuff” and religiously avoided all stores.
A few days after Christmas, when the country was recovering from its collective post consumption hangover I flew out of Miami to spend the month in Guyana, a small and impoverished country in South America. While I was there, I continued my musings about stuff.
As a climate justice activist, my work centers around the injustice inherent in climate change as the rich, developed nations of the world’s unsustainable lifestyles imperil the survival of billions. I’ve researched climate injustice, attended and facilitated workshops, discussed the issues passionately and thought about it a great deal.
But it took actually leaving the country to deepen my understanding of climate injustice. I could have, of course, stayed in the U.S, where from New Orleans to the mountains of Appalachia examples of poor, marginalized peoples suffering being accepted as a by product of our excessive lifestyles abound. 
However, visiting a country in the Global South that will truly face the impacts of climate injustice was an eye opening experience. 800,000 people live in Guyana, the majority of these people crowded in the narrow coastal strip that is buffered by a centuries old sea wall which was built by the Dutch and abandoned by them. Their capital of Georgetown and most of the development that exists is all under sea level, and they lack the money or engineering capacity to repair the sea wall. If we don’t avert the climate crisis, the majority of the countries population will be in a similar situation to the people of New Orleans.
I spent most of my time in the interior, including two weeks where I lived in a small Amerindian community that, like many similar villages in the world, had no electricity. As I spent time with my Macushi friends, the simplicity of their lifestyles struck me. They lived off the land, hunting and farming provided the majority of their diet and their homes were constructed from sustainable, naturally occurring materials. And from my perspective, they just had so little stuff.
No pavement, no lights, no TV’s, no fast food, no mall. No SUV’s and no smell of exhaust. And people were happy. Everyone had enough to eat, a good place to live and stable, well functioning community. Of course, as Amerindian people in an incredibly marginalized country, they lacked access to education and economic opportunity and faced many challenges of their own, but overall the standard of living was quite good.
I thought a lot about the lifestyle of people in my country, my lifestyle. I try to consume as little as possible, and live simply. I still have so much more stuff than any Macushi person. I have more stuff than an entire family. I thought more about stuff on the plane on the way back. Looking through a sky mall magazine, I was absolutely amazed and disgusted by the amount of stuff we feel we need.
Mechanized cat water fountains, hand lotion warmers, ice cream dispensers, containers of every shape and size whose sole purpose is holding useless stuff, 4 foot yeti statues, massaging arm chairs, the sheer amount of stuff was incredible. All of it made with plastic, toxic metals, almost all of it requiring electricity. The majority of it manufactured in ineffiencient coal powered factories in China and the developing world. All of it completely unneeded.
Our lifestyles require 32 times more natural resources than the lifestyle of most people on this planet. Our lifestyles are driving global climate change and destroying the biosphere. Our lifestyles are pumping thousands of toxic chemicals into the water and air that we breathe and the bodies of animals, plants and ourselves.
And yet people seem to think that it will be impossible to change this insane way of living. I’ve heard a lot of arguments against taking action on climate change that revolve around the “Americans wont change their lifestyles.” That is why we need nuclear power and “clean coal” to provide power for hand lotion warmers and mechanical cat water fountains. We need to drill for oil in the Ecuadorian rain forest so that we can drive SUV’s around on land we have smothered in concrete.
All of it is untrue. To believe that is to cop out, to turn away from the possibility of a just, sane sustainable future and accept the status quo, accept that this insane, destructive way of living is the only possible way. Accept that people in the Global South and the poor in developed nations will continue to have to bear the burden of our overconsumption, that children in Ghana and China and so many other countries will have to breathe in toxic fumes and absorb chemicals through their skins as they process our cast off electronics.

I personally will never accept that this kind of insanity is the only world that is possible. As I flew back in to Miami at night, my face pressed to the airplane window, I felt a tear roll down my cheek as I stared at the devasted, paved, destroyed landscape. Stepping out of the airport into the underground parking lot, I felt nausea as the suffocating fumes of exhaust filled the air around me, contaminating every breath. And I felt rage and sadness as I saw a well dressed, overweight couple step into their Hummer and drive off into the night, just one more American couple living the American dream.
So I will continue to fight, joining thousands of people around the globe who are fighting against this kind of all consuming insanity. I will be strengthened by those who have come before me, and all the incredible people, many in the youth climate movement, who also have a vision of the world where there are no communities, ecosystems or species that are disposable. Let us continue the fight knowing that “another world is possible” and that right now, we are the ones creating it.




Subscribe by Email!


What is the average lifespan in Guyana? Infant mortality? My guess is that they are less than in the OECD countries. Even if you get rid of the “excess stuff” you still need quite a lot of energy to purify water, preserve food (refrigeration), and run vital services such as hospitals.
Certainly we should be more efficient and do better job cleaning up our pollution. However, I do not think that most of the globe wants to live like Guyana.
Robert, you are talking about improving the service (environmental services, health services) economy in Guyana - Amy is talking about getting rid of the “stuff” economy in the US, to simplify our lifestyles so that we can get rid of all the useless possessions that people feel they “need” that trap them in soul-crushing, earth-destroying jobs and destroy the sense of community that many places in the global south still have. Guyana does not need to develop a huge “material/ stuff” economy in order to develop its service economy. I think you’re creating a false dichotomy here.
Amy - Thanks for this post. I have felt similar feelings after living in Morocco, where of course there are many social problems (many stemming from lack of education and healthcare) but the sense of community was so much stronger than what I’ve experienced in Australia and people genuinely do seem happier in terms of their day-to-day lives.
Travelling around north america these last 7 months, living out of a backpack (and sometimes just a really small bag) I have realised how little material possessions I actually need to survive, and how much happier I am without a lot of stuff around. Especially clothes - when I only have a choice of 1 pair of jeans, a thermal top, 2 t-shirts and one jumper (”sweater” in US lingo), it means I don’t have to think about what to wear and I can just focus on what I’m doing and who I’m with.
I really dislike cities because it makes me feel depressed seeing concrete everywhere - we have distorted the world so much, scarred its face with pavement and skyscrapers. I agree that we should never accept the world as it currently is - and I’m glad we’re changing it, together.
Anna -
I was trying to say that even if you get rid of the “stuff” and remember many folks will disagree on what is wasteful and what is beneficial, you will likely be looking at a world that needs 25% - 40% of the US per capita electric capacity. Even if the US disappears, there will be a net electric demand (although a one time increase if population is brought under control). How to supply these thousands of megawatts without carbon will be quite a challenge.
Guyana does not need to become the US, but even they and the rest of the world become half a Switzerland, you have a BIG electric demand. It is simple arithmetic.
To answer your last point Robert, I fail to see why supplying carbon free energy will be such a huge challenge. At least in the area where I was there was abundant wind and sun, and I have no doubt that employing those renewable energy technologies, and maybe some small scale hydro could provide more than enough power. Why must we assume that all new energy development needs to be carbon based?
Amy -
Maybe my numbers are wrong, but here goes:
US population is about 300 million
US electric capacity is about 1 TW (around 1200 St. Lucie sized reactors)
If we use Amory Lovins claim that one can get along fine with 25% of US per capita electric capacity (total becomes 0.25 TW), then for a global electric capacity would be:
Capacity = 6.5 billion (world population) * 025 TW / 300 million = ~5.4 TW
Current world capacity is approximately 4 TW, so the world is still short of electricity even if everyone (including the 75% reduction in the US) used the lower value. Since most of the current electric capacity is fossil fired, we are talking about putting in several terawatts worth of power across the globe. Solar and wind require either energy storage to stand alone or they have to be connected to baseload generation. The challenge as I see it is to either develop a cheap means of energy storage or accept a baseload technology until such energy storage is perfected. Geothermal can provide a chunk and maybe OTEC and small-head hydro, but you will likely come up short. The less savory sources (e.g., fission, carbon sequestration, etc.) will probably be needed to fill the gap at least temporarily.
I agree with you that we need to do a better job generating energy (including fairness of impact) as well as finding more efficient ways to use it, however we do need substantial amounts of electricity for our society and we should think about the hard choices.