Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Welcome to the podcast 'Advancing Sustainable Solutions', produced by the IIIEE at Lund University. The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE) is an interdisciplinary research and education institute located in Lund, Sweden with activities focusing on the transition to low-carbon and resource efficient economies.
In this podcast, we will share ongoing research and activities through engaging conversation that is relatable and applicable to our daily lives. In essence, we wish to support listeners in their journey towards sustainability. Look for a new episode at the end of each month!
Audio file Myths_mixdown final.mp3 Transcript
[00:00:04] Philipp:
Welcome to another episode of Advancing Sustainable Solutions from the III EE at Lund University. I'm Philipp Montenegro and very happy to welcome today: Oksana Mont, Matthias Lehner, Mikael Klintman, Josefine Henman, Marianne Ekdahl and Jessika Richter, to talk about their latest project called Dispelled Myth about sustainable consumptions. And maybe we can start with you, Oksana, as you are the project leader. Can you maybe introduce the project, what it's about, who's funding it, and what is the aim also of this and the relevance?
[00:00:40] Oksana:
Thank you, Philipp. So this project is part of a much larger research program, which is called Mistra Sustainable Consumption from Niche to Mainstream, which is the largest sustainable consumption funded program in Sweden. It's also quite long. It's been running for eight years and this year it will be finalizing. So this project is one of the many projects in the programme and it's called Creating Space for Change by Dispelling Myths about Sustainable Consumption Behaviour. So it's funded by Mistra and we are many researchers who are working in this project. And the main Output will be a book about myths, about sustainable consumption, and then a MOOC, the massive open online course as well.
[00:01:35] Philipp:
And why is it so important to talk about myths and to dispel them especially?
[00:01:41] Oksana:
That's a very good question. When we work with sustainable consumption, we see that the idea about it and the need for it, emerged already 30 years ago. And in various ways and policies and businesses, people have been working with sustainable consumption. However, the outcomes are relatively meagre. We don't see big changes in consumer behaviour. We don't see reduction in environmental impacts from consumption. So one of the reasons we identify are these myths. So if they are half beliefs, misconceptions, misunderstandings, or over belief in certain ways how we can reduce consumption levels and change consumption patterns. So this project is aiming at reducing, identifying the myths, but then try to dispel them with scientific evidence.
[00:02:41] Philipp:
And one last question before we go into an individual myth. Is there a geographic scope about this, or are these universal myths, or is this maybe more a focus on Europe or Sweden or Western societies?
[00:02:56] Oksana:
In some ways, these myths are universal. However, the way they are projected in society and integrated in different aspects of life might depend on the type of country. Is it high income or is it industrialized or is it developing? But some traits are, for example, consumer behavior, they're similar, but the way they're spelled out and operationalized in society might differ.
[00:03:27] Philipp:
Okay, very interesting. Thanks, Oksana. And let's start with a roundtable. Maybe on the right of you, Oxana, Matthias, which myth that you focus on and which one are you trying to dispel?
[00:03:42] Matthias:
Sure. So for this book, I looked a little closer at the relationship between income and leisure. So how much people work, basically. And the assumption that increasing economic well-being automatically results in reduced work time. And that is a relationship that over long periods of time very much is true. If you look back centuries, then indeed people have reduced their work hours. If you go back even further, you might want to question that again, then it becomes complicated. But But as a kind of a medium to long-term trend, it is true. What has happened, though, is that in some countries like Sweden or the United States, that relationship has kind of ceased to function since around the 1980s. Wealth in these countries increased comparatively much faster than the time people worked decreased. So, and the, what I was looking into is, or what I was trying to dispel is that this is a natural phenomenon in the sense that people simply express a preference for material well-being rather than leisure time. And I discuss how this is not a natural development and an expression of people's preferences, but rather the result of systematic societal changes to both the labor market and the economy in how it is structured and the incentives that are provided, but also how society expresses an increased preference for the status that you can gain through material wealth, what it expresses. And that if the conditions were different or if the conditions were changed, then you could very much continue to see a decrease in work hours, like in other countries such as Germany or France.
[00:06:08] Philipp:
So there would be maybe a focus on having the 32 hours a week or the four working days or things like that. Are these 10 examples of working towards?
[00:06:19] Matthias:
Exactly. That would be two examples that I mentioned in the book chapter is that this relationship that kind of stopped to function in countries like Sweden or the US still seems more intact in France or Germany, which are two countries that actually did pass labor laws that favored decreasing work hours. So in France, the 35-hour work week, or in Germany, a push to enable more people to work part-time.
[00:06:54] Philipp:
Okay, very interesting. Thanks. Mikael, do you want to continue and introduce your myth and what is there to dispel?
[00:07:04] Mikael:
Yes, that would be my pleasure. So, the myth I've been focused on in this part of the project is what you could call infophilia, or even maybe infomania or something, a belief that the main problem behind unsustainable consumption is that we as consumers, we don't know enough about the gravity of the negative consequences of our consumer choices. So what's needed is more and better information and facts. And that will be more or less sufficient in order for us to change our behavior. So there is some kind of logical order in this myth, which contends that first science needs to produce knowledge, scientific knowledge about the environmental harm we cause. And then science communicators needs to communicate to consumers in a clear and pedagogical way. And this will make us as consumers both more knowledgeable, but also it will make us feel badly and, emotionally, it will be emotionally problematic for us, which leads us to change our behaviors, our demand for products and services. And then once we change our demand, market and industry can change their supply and the government can more, make sure that competition is functioning and maybe put in some green taxes and so on. So this puts a lot of emphasis on the individual consumer, that the information is absolutely key here. And in my view, It's a bit like the Old Testament. You asked if this was a universal phenomenon. I would say maybe it's a Western, from Western culture. One thing is the Greek philosophical tradition of, you know, thinking and ideas and knowledge is important and practices and what's going on, what we do physically and so on is secondary. And the other one is, if we think about the Old Testament with Adam and Eve, we're homo sapiens, we're intelligent and have the ability to gain knowledge, but we should, out of that knowledge, we should freely and make the good, often harder choice based on our knowledge and intelligence and rationality and so on. So it's very, what do you call it? cerebral idea here. Yeah, I don't know if I should go on with this or...
[00:10:19] Philipp:
Yeah, I mean, it's a little bit in the direction of the rational decision, right? Yeah. More information, more rational, even though that is not necessarily true for humans, right? So then within sustainability, this is even more the case where the argument is the more information we have, the more we know of the consequences of our actions, even though we see that there's this disagreement between, or not this discrepancy between the knowledge that we have and the impact it'll have, or actually how as individuals we might argue, well, it's just my behavior, it won't have such big of an impact, even though the information is out there, right?
[00:11:00] Mikael:
Yeah, so that's exactly right. And I guess we talk about what has made this idea where information has such a high status. It actually got a lot of fuel in the 1980s where there was a lot of shift of responsibilities towards the individuals and the voluntary choice of the individual. But you could also see it as governments backing or, abandoning some of the responsibilities that they maybe should have kept.
[00:11:44] Philipp:
Yes, Oksana.
[00:11:47] Oksana:
I would like to also ask you about the mechanisms, specific mechanisms, how people react to, you know, providing more information or the importance of framing the information in a certain way. in that way we can influence people towards sustainable consumption or against. And I know you've been working on these two topics.
[00:12:07] Mikael:
Yes, So one way in which knowledge is not a binary thing, you either know or you don't know, or it's true or false, one thing that research really has shown is that We're actually not very gullible as humans, but we are very susceptible to how things are framed. So if you, for instance, if you have little young teenage boys, if you want them to eat less of fast food, Sure, you can give them more information about their health consequences and environmental consequences, but that has shown not to be very powerful in order for them to reduce their consumption of fast food. But if you reframe the issue into the fast food industry, you tell the boys that, well, the fast food industry, they have the smartest and maybe not smartest, but most well-paid psychologists who try to really lead you or even mislead you into believing that fast food is something good and that it strengthens your position in society and so on. So they are trying to deceive you. The feeling of being deceived is far more powerful than just learning about health consequences and so on. So the framing of issues are really, really powerful. And when we, as we are interested in environmental issues and climate and biodiversity, we as researchers often make the mistake that we think that if we only inform more about how serious the climate change problem is, or so, this will trigger a lot of public frustration and behavioral change. So we have to be conscious as well about this myth. Because we're in academia, I mean, knowledge is our unique selling point and so on, but it's all in a social context that needs to be provided.
[00:14:31] Philipp:
And also I think it highlights one of the struggles that we see with the overburden of information on the individual that nowadays Already if we do the groceries, we see there's so much information, so many labels. So it's not necessarily the information that is the problem, but maybe an overwhelmingness of the information. And then putting it on the individual also. But then on the other hand, I also see the argument with saying, we don't have the, with some climate change deniers, we don't have the certainty of climate change being human caused. So then I think it's interesting to see where they are. They're trying to put it as an overemphasis on the information, but we know also that the information itself is maybe not enough or too much sometimes even.
[00:15:16] Mikael:
Yeah, that's a great point. There is a term called strategic ignorance, actually, that has to do with when we are overwhelmed with information and we also know that nothing is actually 100% certain, scientific knowledge per definition has to be falsifiable. It cannot be 100% certain. So that's then it's tempting to become knowledge resistant and saying, well, we don't exactly know yet. We have to wait a little bit longer until we know what products reduce climate change or if climate change is even taking place and so on. So it can be an argument towards inertia and not doing anything there.
[00:16:08] Oksana:
And if the listeners would like to know more about these two issues.
[00:16:14] Mikael:
Yeah, okay. Thank you, Oksana. You're kind. I've written two books in this program, and one is called knowledge resistance, how we avoid insight from others. And I emphasize we there because I don't think it's productive to think about knowledge resistance or strategic ignorance or over-beliefs in myths as something that only certain groups, ideological or education-based groups, are stuck in, but all of us have, we are all struggling with this. And the other book is called Framing the Social Art of Influence. And that's where I show various mechanisms of how messages need to be framed in order for us to care about them. And there I also make it clear that to frame messages is only one part. You need to facilitate social structures and infrastructures and make it easy and repairable and so on in order for people to change their practices. So it's not just about tweaking information. Yeah, but these two books are written in popular scientific ways. And if you're interested, please take a look.
[00:17:43] Philipp:
Thanks so much. I'll add the links to your books into the show notes so people can also then find them easier. Marianne, could you maybe continue and explain which myth did you focus on and how to dispel it and maybe start with the origin of the myth?
[00:18:03] Marianne:
Well, I've been working on a myth that is called techno-optimism, or you can also call it techno-fix. It's actually the myth that is, I mean, that is really the dominant narrative in today's policy making on sustainable consumption. And that is that green tech and green innovations will kind of solve everything. They will solve the environmental crisis and we don't actually have to change the way we consume. And this myth is wrong because it's science is proving that technology is fundamental. It diminishes the environmental impacts of our consumption. And it's meant a lot to actually reduce the environmental impacts, but it's not enough. And science is very clear on that. And you can prove that in many different ways.
[00:18:56] Philipp:
And talking about if it's not enough, what else is then needed or what is then maybe the complement to it?
[00:19:04] Marianne:
The other part of kind of solving the environmental crisis is that we also need to change our consumption. If we look fundamentally at this myth, it is based on the idea that efficiency is sufficient to solve the environmental problems that we need. It's enough that our products are made more efficient, use less energy, use less materials, et cetera. That is enough. But it's not enough. And there are also other strategies that we really can't forget that are just as important in solving the environmental crisis. And that is, for example, sufficiency. That is a very important strategy for also for sustainable consumption.
[00:19:56] Philipp:
And I know we'll talk about this in a second as well with Josephine. But to still stay with your myth, what is maybe the motive or the origin of this myth? Is it maybe also to maybe evade more complex approaches, as you just said, to think about maybe the structural changes and instead say, well, technology will fix this. Is this where the origin or the idea behind this is, or what did you find out?
[00:20:21] Marianne:
Yes, you're right, that it's for policy makers, it's a very convenient myth. They don't have to ask people to change their consumption. For companies, it's also very convenient. They just produce new green innovations, and that is enough. And for people, for ordinary people like us, it's also very convenient that we can just keep our lifestyle and we don't have to change our consumption in any way. So there are many different mechanisms that kind of perpetuate this myth.
[00:20:58] Philipp:
Even maybe feeling good about it since now we're doing green consumption, therefore it's not as bad as we did before. So then the blame is not on us again. But what is then or... Maybe we can also discuss about what are the strategies to address this and to fix it without maybe only blaming the individuals or only blaming the politicians or the companies, since I think as you tried to explain now, it is a combination actually that is necessary, right?
[00:21:26] Oksana:
Absolutely. If I could step in a bit. So I guess it's first it's important to talk why this is a myth to some extent or why the belief in technology or even green technology is not getting us all the way to ensure sustainable consumption. And one is that with the research that Marianne was referring to and that is in this book chapter, it shows that we cannot reduce the environmental impacts because our consumption levels are increasing. And this we see in our countries in Europe, but also all over the place around the world. Even in developing countries, there is a growing middle class consumption levels of which is increasing. Then also the green technologies, it's nice to see that they are the way to reduce environmental impacts, but they also themselves cause environmental impact. Nothing is dematerial, everything is connected to resource extraction, processing emissions and then waste. So this is another problem. And then also the efficiency itself is kind of a tricky part because when we make something efficient, then in economic kind of landscape, then these things become cheaper. If we replace or make lights more efficient, then in the end, they, for what, it becomes cheaper. So this leads to what's called rebound effects, meaning that we tend to leave the lights on because we think, oh, they consume not so much electricity, it's cheap, then lights are on. Or if it's a heating system, then we start heating premises that we before closed for winter. So it always, the efficiency causes this effect of increased consumption. Or we save money and we pay for stuff that has potentially even higher environmental impact. And then, so what do we do instead? Of course, we Technology does play an important role in reducing consumption levels, but also we need to change infrastructure. We need to have strong policies that help individuals and companies to change their behavior. And then also the consumers need to step in because some research shows that up to 40% depends on consumers in reducing impact. So there is a role for technology, absolutely, but then there is a big part also due to consumers and companies.
[00:24:13] Philipp:
Thanks so much, Oksana. Can we hear now from you, Isofin? What is the myth that you focused on? I know it's about sufficiency, but can you maybe explain it a little bit better? And what is the origin of this? myth, and why should we dispel it? Or why did you try to dispel it?
[00:24:31] Josefine:
Thanks, Philipp. I'll do so. Yeah, it ties very well to what we just talked about, because sufficiency then is basically about living well within limits, say. So it touches upon that we actually also do need absolute reductions in consumption. However, sufficiency then, often, I mean, there is a persistent belief that people always will want more things and that they never would settle for sufficiency then, that they never would choose less.
[00:25:08] Philipp:
If they can have more.
[00:25:09] Josefine:
Exactly. And so there is this strong belief, say, which is understandable, partly because it's the idea of accumulation and to accumulate to, show status, et cetera, bit what Ultimatias touched upon earlier, that is deeply rooted in our dominant social paradigm, in like the growth ideology. And it's also reinforced by consumer culture to a big, to a large extent. This idea of keeping up with the Joneses have what your neighbors have basically, or even more so now when we're exposed to the lifestyles of people all over the world, also super excessive lifestyles, we've been saying too that it's mainly now rather Keeping Up with the Kardashians, which is the reality that we are facing. So it's understandable perhaps that this belief exists out there, but in the end, that is like a fundamental misconception perhaps about what sufficiency is, because efficiency would not be to have too little or to, mean sacrifice and these kind of things necessarily, but rather addressing that we need to think in terms of what is enough to ensure that people have not too much and also not too little. So it's a question of justice to a dark extent. How do we actually stay within the planetary boundaries while also ensuring that everyone's needs are met? So then you can say that sufficiency is about increasing our literacy a bit of what is actually enough and what is excess.
[00:26:48] Philipp:
Can I ask for a reflection? How does this then tie to the information myth? Because if we think about knowing how much our consumption actually impacts and maybe even hinders other people's well-being and other people's lives around the planet, we have this information and I think it is known. But still, maybe it's not enough as a motivator to change our lifestyles, to change our consumption patterns, right? So how does system relate to each other, these two chapters, so myth?
[00:27:18] Mikael:
Yes, so I would say that in my chapter I talked about the myth that we are to our core, knowledge rational or we are eager to get as much and good information as possible and then we translate that into, for instance, reduced consumption and so on. So there is one myth of a rationality. And I think if you agree with me, Josephine, your myth is confronting the idea that we are materially rational, that's what we really care the most. about is to accumulate material goods and so on. And that can be true in certain, in a very, very materialistic culture. And our culture is partly like that. But that culture can be changed. And you can see many cultures throughout society where we're having less and frugality and so on has enjoyed higher status. So my view is that we humans at our core, or at our core, are socially rational. We want to belong to our groups. We want to have a good position and be appreciated. And we want to mark distance to other groups as well. So this means that we can quite Yeah, there is quite some power in reducing your consumption as opposed to others who really mass consume, because you can improve your status that way by being more frugal and more moderate in your consumption. Maybe it's a cynical idea about our cultural distinction, but I think it's quite powerful, this idea of social rationality.
[00:29:24] Philipp:
So in a way also changing then the values and going maybe away from from the material affluence to more social sufficiency. Mariani, you want to add on this?
[00:29:35] Marianne:
So what I think when we talk about information and why, and you asked why we don't act on this information, I don't really agree that we have this information because that is a bit the problem that this dominant narrative about techno-optimism and green consumption, that means that we are kind of We are surrounded by this myth that the green consumption and the green technology is enough. We don't need to reduce our consumption at all. And politicians say that, companies say that, and everyone say that. We are surrounded by this myth that it's enough to buy an electric car, that it's enough to kind of recycle, that it's enough to maybe buy some green ecological food stuff, et cetera. So we don't have that information, I think.
[00:30:23] Philipp:
Okay, interesting. Yes, Matthias, do you want to add something on this as well, I saw.
[00:30:30] Matthias:
Briefly, because we discussed this fixation of material wealth, and that reminded me of something that I briefly touched upon in my chapter about work time, which is the status of work, which has changed fundamentally, where it used to be that the richer you got, the less you worked. You had other people work for you, and a clear sign or signaling from being rich came out of not having to work. And that has changed very dramatically. So, I mean, one detail in the numbers about work time reduction is that one thing that has changed is that in earlier times, wealth was often displayed by not having to work. Having others work for you was a clear sign of status. And that has changed quite dramatically. If we look at recent data on working time, we see that in today's high-income societies, Those who are highly paid or hold high status positions tend to work significantly more hours than people with lower incomes. This difference is not primarily due to a need for more income to sustain their living or so, but rather reflects how work itself has become a marker of social status, being busy, productive, and professionally engaged is now seen as desirable and a sign of status.
[00:31:57] Philipp:
Because we focus so much on status through materialistic means also.
[00:32:02] Matthias:
Yeah, I think materialism is more, it's a symbol of who you are. I mean, that's, anybody who works with consumption will tell you that consumption is more than a simplistic satisfaction of needs, right? A lot of consumption is status related. And so working, I would even go as far as saying not only the material consumption, but the wealth that it creates, the wealth itself is status and the power that it brings and all that comes with it.
[00:32:39] Josefine:
That made me thinking of, and made me think of, and also as Mikael talked about before this, that we're social creatures, so we care a lot about what people around us. or having or how they are consuming. There is, similarly to what Mattias brought up, there is also this belief or misconception that more and more, like accumulating more and more stuff would also make you happier and happier, which is true to a certain point, but not beyond that necessarily. So that's also when we talked about how to then promote other or frame the issue of what is sustainable consumption then differently That's also an argument for sufficiency in thinking of that as, again, not sacrifice, but that can actually give you a richer life or that can lead to well-being. There is a concept, for instance, that's called alternative hedonism, which is the idea that scaling back can actually lead to richer, more fulfilling life. It's the philosopher Kate Soper who talks about this. But she says that holding on to this growth-driven economy, that is undermining our well-being to a large extent, considering the downsides also of consumer culture with stress and overwork, pollution, waste, et cetera. So that's also the other side of taking sustainable consumption seriously, but it also has potential for liberation, say, rather, and then acknowledging what truly matters in life.
[00:34:13] Philipp:
This reminds me a lot of the 1.5 project that you had where one of the findings I think or I remember was that by having, by flying less for example, you had more connections with your close neighbors and you gained there. So always, what is it that we're also gaining? So don't just giving up, but actually what is it that we're also gaining or what is it that we can reevaluate our preferences and priorities? Okay, now going on to Jessica, can we hear which myth you focused on? and aim to dispel.
[00:34:45] Jessika:
So I had not just one, but two myths actually that related quite a lot to each other. So it was the myth of neophilia and with that, the myth of why it's not worth it to repair or it's not worth it to repair as a myth. And these relate to each other and explain a little why. But first, the myth of neophilia, the love of newness, we can say, and consumption of new. And in this, I looked into like why consumers consume new and some stand from an actual need. Products and devices and things run out of their life, their useful life, and there's a need to replace it and to have new, but then there's also new for technological progress or something as a new technology. But I actually found in the literature that there's very few early adopters of new technology in reality. And then there's this third reason for new, which is more related to some of the themes that others have already talked about, this status, this aesthetics, this fashion that is more of a desire for something new. But when I started unpacking it as well, when I look into the actual value of new and preferences for new, in a lot of surveys, people actually don't prefer new. It does come down to what are others doing, but also that there's a system change here to also new products that might be designed to not last as long. So then there's a a need for new, not a preference for new, being driven by that. And that there are a lot of people that would prefer to actually have higher quality products lasting longer and to keep them in place. When we look at then the impacts of this new and not being a preference for new, it leads to also this overconsumption, overproduction, overconsumption, and then the waste. But there's also an impact then on the alternatives. And one of the alternatives, if you want to keep something functional, is to repair. And this is related then to this, do I buy something new or do I repair it? And when we have this devaluing of repair, because we're preferring new, because it is cheaper in many respects, because over time we've been cheapening these new products through lowering the quality. This again is a systemic factor that would make then it hard to repair. At the same time, it has actually become harder to repair lots of products. So while we're making newer products cheaper, we're also making them harder to repair. So that's why these two are related. And in some cases, it's not a preference, but rather a systemic Economic factors pushing for this consumption of new with this then impact on repair that repair has been devalued over time, so I also explore then what is... being lost through this devaluing of repair. And again, when we talk about the practices, repair is a valuable practice, I find, in looking through a lot of the academic literature, that it brings more than just functional products back to life. That there's also a repairing mindset, a different relationship with things, a mindfulness involved in the practice of repair. That is also important to sustainable consumption, that when you're repairing something, you're taking time, you're taking effort. It might be also costing more in the current system as well, but it is also investing in local. Again, it's local skills that you're often using with repair, and that's part of the reason why it can be expensive, because it is labor intensive, and it is re-engaging with this thing that is yours. And there's even, when I was researching for this book chapter, mindsets around repair that I think are quite interesting, like Kintsugi in a Japanese culture of also recognizing that there is not only value to the repair, but beauty in the scars that tell a story of this thing and then make it more valuable to you as the owner, which I think is key when we're talking about a transition and revaluing and changing our values in sustainable consumption.
[00:39:10] Mikael:
Can I ask you, Jessica, how about just changing the taxes on product versus repair and so on? Do you see? Is there any room for quick fixes here or is it very deep?
[00:39:24] Jessika:
That's a good question. I went deep quick and I skipped over some of the policies. So I think many others have mentioned policies as well. We have in the EU several right to repair policies and some of them are around design. So making products designed to be more repairable. Some of them are more economic instruments that then are in some ways subsidizing. Again, I talked about some of that value of repairs. So then you would see that if we're even being economically rational, we would actually be paying for that value that is contributing to the resilience and the functioning of our communities. So there's definitely some subsidies, repair vouchers, taxes on new products as well is something that you can take into account that there are externalities in these new products that are making them cheaper, so beyond the design. And then there's also things like extended warranties and also trying to upskill the repair sector as well and to bring value to that sector that would be a desirable place for people to work in the repair sector and that is a job with not only purpose but also a well-paying job that we also put the economic value to follow the value, other values.
[00:40:40] Philipp:
Thanks, Jessica. But also it seems to me that this is then maybe a myth mostly driven from the production side, right? So it's there's an incentive for them to say that new is better, we make more marketing, and building on this growth business where it is not the light bulb that lasts 100 years that makes them a lot of money, but the one that breaks every three years. So is there then maybe the clash also then of the different interests and who's then dispelling the myth or who is then creating this myth of new is better.
[00:41:17] Jessika:
Yeah, I can answer that. Definitely in the chapter I go into the production side as well and the topic of product obsolescence and how that does actually work in a business sense in our current system. So it is on both sides, but I think we also see that there is a consumer culture that also has this myth over it. I start out the chapter just talking from my own experience at a bike shop, getting a bike repaired and the bike owner telling me it's not worth it to repair. I should just buy new. And it's a bicycle. I mean, it can be restored pretty easily. So it's still there from quite a few different sides.
[00:42:01] Philipp:
So that also shows how widespread myths like this is. And with that also I would like now to finish off by maybe having a round of quick reflections. What have you learned through working on this and through researching for your myth and maybe what has surprised you or what is something you want to highlight for our listeners also?
[00:42:23] Oksana:
Maybe if I can start, actually the work on myths started many years ago where we done a project for an order council of ministers. So identifying myths about sustainable consumption and developing recommendations for policy makers. And in the frame of the MISTRA Sustainable Consumption Programme, we had a workshop in 2022 where we took those old, we thought, myths and run by people if they think these myths persist or we have managed to debunk them and they are not seen in the public domain or in news media or in policy documents. And to our surprise, all those myths were still very much alive and kicking. In this book, we identified other myths, so they overlap slightly. But my point is that 10 years after the first work on myths, we still see myths persist in society and also new myths appear. So I think this work is just the beginning. And in this book, we also try to provide sort of a toolkit how to work with myths by providing structure. All chapters are written in the same way, but also in concluding parts, we talk about other ways, kind of ways forward for how to work with myths in the future. So This is just the beginning, the work is not done yet.
[00:44:00] Philipp:
And at the end, you'll also mention more about the MOOC, which I think is also another fascinating tool of actually diving into the myth. But let's continue with this reflection round first. Maybe Matthias, what have you, do you want to highlight?
[00:44:18] Matthias:
Yeah, it seems like a lot of bad things started in the 80s. I say that because in my book, Chip, I point out that the 80s is a point where this work time, wealth relationship starts to fall apart a little bit. And then next to me sits Mikael. And immediately after me, I notice talks about how in the 80s, this focus on the individual made the whole consumption sphere, go a gangbuster. And I think it's jokes aside, I think it serves as an example for a point that has in different ways come up in this discussion over and over again, which is that these things do not happen by accident. They're not like a law of nature. These are decisions that are made on a high level, on a societal level by politicians and other leaders, and they shape the direction of society for generations, at least decades, maybe not generations, but decades definitely to come. And that is, I think, what has been mentioned over and over again here in terms of whose responsibility and why don't this and that and what the information here and there. But ultimately, it's just like, those are high level decisions that have to happen on a societal level. I alone will not change, maybe I alone will change my values and act differently, but it has to happen on a societal level to have lasting effects, I think.
[00:46:03] Philipp:
And actually, I think there are some examples. of the societal behaviors and the production in recent years that will change for generations. If we think of the microplastics we have everywhere, I think there will be a problem for the next generations to come and climate change as well. So I think while some patterns might be easier to change in a few decades, some of the implications will be lasting for generations.
[00:46:33] Mikael:
Yeah, so in this part of the program where we have worked on myths. It's been quite educational for me as well. So I personally have gone from, first I thought it would be a binary thing of, this is true or false, the myth, and how can we make people realized that the myth is so deeply false and so on. But now when we have discussed this, myths become more interesting, I think. We have all kinds of myths through history that have served various purposes, both benevolent ones, but also bad ones. But so I think this book will simulate the myth awareness and myth reflections. Since I've written about framing and as an art of influence, in that book I argue that we need to frame reflections to ask, well, is this, does this frame about, for instance, the independent consumer who can out of her own will and choice dramatically reduce environmental harm and so on. Can it be widened? Can it be supplemented with other things? How can it be tweaked? Because sometimes there is a little grain of truth in myths that we still should cling on to a little bit. So I think it's a Fascinating work we have in ahead of us, all of us who sit here, and the listeners as well, some kind of myth awareness and myth reflection.
[00:48:25] Philipp:
Thanks so much, and I think there's really the... Maybe the task for every one of us to also reflect and be a little bit more critical maybe, but that's just maybe too many tasks to ask for. But I think this is a really nice example of the different myths and then maybe also reflecting which of these myths did we believe ourselves in and maybe have now through this or also the openness then learn to debunk. Mariana, you wanted to add something to these thoughts?
[00:48:57] Marianne:
Yeah, I just have a final reflection that we haven't talked about, but that I think is very fundamental. For example, if we look at the Swedish public debate right now, I mean, we have a quite low economic growth and we have quite low public consumption. And politicians and economists, they all say that they want the consumption to increase. And they say consumers need to start increase again so we can actually keep the economy growing so that we can keep up economic growth. And this is a kind of fundamental narrative in society right now. So when researchers say that, okay, we need to reduce consumption, that is not an easy challenge from a kind of societal economic point of view. That's a really big challenge. So the question is also, I mean, There are scientists have, of course, certain solutions and ideas to this, but in general, I think it's also very important that we think about how we can shape our economy and our society in the future without this kind of high consumption and high economic growth that we have been used to. How can we shape our society with lower levels of consumption and with lower economic growth? I think that's important.
[00:50:19] Philipp:
So in a way, also reframing what society is about or what makes society work well. It's not just because of the economic growth, but actually for many other values.
[00:50:30] Marianne:
And what makes us happy as people is not really economic growth. I mean, there are other things that make us happy.
[00:50:38] Philipp:
I really see where this really ties to each other, the different myths and also myths with the work and leisure. I think this also goes into it, reflecting on the myth and that overproduction is maybe not the solution to everything, but actually social values are to explore and are maybe more key to a healthy society. Josephine, what are your reflections on working on this and also on hearing the other myths and the other chapters?
[00:51:03] Josefine:
My final thoughts would be... I mean, I felt when I was working on my chapter that I felt really empowered, I guess, by finding so many good arguments to dispel or to nuance perhaps these misconceptions. And I feel the same now listening to this discussion that we have here and what I know is also in the other chapters that we have like a list of really good arguments for actually then addressing this fundamental need of thinking differently or to leave only these weak sustainability approaches or insufficient policy responses to how to address unsustainable consumption. So I guess that's what I want to highlight, that we do have many, many, many good arguments to dispel these misconceptions.
[00:51:50] Philipp:
Perfect. Thanks so much. Jessica, what do you want to add?
[00:51:53] Jessika:
Yeah, final reflection. I guess one surprising thing when researching around this, I was talking also with colleagues from other countries, and they were saying also that the myth of devaluing repair was not so prominent in cultures and countries like India, where it is still a culture of repair. So this was really interesting for me, but they were seeing it starting to change, particularly again in this interplay between the neophilia, which they could see, and then that impact on the repair culture. So I think it's also interesting to also go back and preserve what is of value in your cultures, but also re-look at where you're getting your stories and your inspiration from. I think often we see it as the developed countries teaching the less developed, but there's a lot with sustainable consumption that is going to be learned the other way, I think. So that's also is something that I reflected on.
[00:52:52] Philipp:
Thanks so much, Jessica. Oksana, could you maybe introduce briefly at the end now the MOOC, which is also part of this, which goes into more depth and has all 12 myths, right?
[00:53:06] Oksana:
Yes, thank you, Philippe. I realize that we haven't said that we actually have 12 myths. in the book and all of them will be or are also lessons, individual lessons in the MOOC, the massive online course. And so I think the other myth that we haven't discussed yet deserve at least naming. So the first one was about the little me myth, that there is no point in me sacrificing myself when no one else cares. And here we have a researcher, Maria Walrath-Sutterberg, who is uses the mechanisms of rhetoric to dispel this myth and show that also individuals have, all of us have power to change, at least on our level, individual or household. And then another chapter, co-authored with Ella Bybekova, we look at the shopping as the perfect therapy, that consumption offers lasting happiness. And of course, again, here we see that myth is not 100% false. People, we do get the kick when we buy something new and we are excited. The problem is that it's not a lasting happiness at all. that we get this dopamine kick and then it goes down to the previous level again. So people then many have developed this shopping dependency, which ends up with stress, anxiety and even financial difficulties. And that, so we look at these arguments in this chapter. And then we mentioned before, the more the merrier. We also have myth and lesson, looking at the road to freedom and well-being is paved with endless choices. And we rely on psychology and sociological experiments to bring evidence to the contrary. And this chapter has been written with British colleagues, Patrick Elf and Amy Isham. Then we also have a chapter that or a myth that services will save us because for the last 20, 25 years, there was this belief that if only we can dematerialize our economy and services, as we all know, are immaterial, then this will solve our problems. And here we look at, together with Emma Johnson, we look at services, traditional services, but also access, sharing and also digitalization, showing that they all have environmental impacts, environmental backpack, and what we see as immaterial is only the tip of the iceberg. In the, we also have, Marianne mentioned the economic growth, the big elephant in the room as always, and we do have a chapter on the myth that without economic growth, sustainable consumption is impossible. That myths have been Researched by Marcus Larson, Mikael Malmeus, and Joran Finverden, our colleagues in Mistra Sustainable Consumption Program from Royal Institute of Technology, where they look and show that economic growth as an indicator is only one of many that could show the well-being in society and the economy, and that they draw on economic model research showing that there are other ways to sustain a good society and welfare state without necessarily relying on continuous economic growth. Then together with Osa Svenfeld, we also dispelled the myth that transition to sustainable consumption is driven by consumer demand. And this is to show that we as consumers, of course we can do a lot, but we are also embedded in the infrastructure, in the context and institutions that actually shape our behavior. So we have responsibility to vote with our wallets and on the market and also change behavior, but a lot depends on the infrastructure around us. And finally, the last myth is about strong sustainable consumption governance means sacrificing freedom and well-being. And this myth looks at the policy field, that the way how we distinguish between weak sustainable consumption policies, like providing information, but arguing that we do really need strong sustainable consumption policies. And this Chapter is written by our German colleagues, Leah, Melissa Becker, Paula Behrendt, and Doris Fuchs. And they're all featured with videos and with written material and with exercises and quizzes in the upcoming MOOC, which will be launched in...
[00:58:07] Philipp:
Early November and will be available on Coursera. But I'll add the link to the show notes or at least a placeholder.
[00:58:15] Oksana:
Thank you. The book called Myths About Sustainable Consumption will be published at Rutledge in 2026 and will be open access in a year after that.
[00:58:27] Philipp:
Perfect. Thanks so much. Thanks to all of you for your time and your reflections and the work on the myth. I'm very excited about the book, but also just having this opportunity to talk to you. Thanks so much.
[00:58:41] Oksana:
Thank you.