Degrowth, American Style:<i>No Impact Man</i>and Bourgeois Primitivism

Abstract

participants from nearly 30 countries concluded that the ‘‘decoupling between ecological degradation and economic growth appears insufficient after years of important eco-efficiency improvements.’’ Collectively they issued a declaration that called for ‘‘a paradigm shift from the general and unlimited pursuit of economic growth to a concept of ‘right-sizing’ the global and national economies.’’ This ‘‘rightsizing,’’ according to the declaration, was not a one-size-fits-all prescription. ‘‘In countries where [the] per capita footprint is greater than the sustainable global level, right-sizing implies a reduction to this level within a reasonable timeframe.’’ But, continued the declaration, ‘‘In countries where severe poverty remains, right-sizing implies increasing consumption by those in poverty as quickly as possible, in a sustainable way, to a level adequate for [a] decent life, following locally determined poverty-reduction paths rather than externally imposed development policies.’’ At the same time that conference attendees were working out the principles enshrined in the Degrowth declaration, author Colin Beavan was in the middle of filming No Impact Man: The Documentary, 2 a companion to his book No Impact Man: The Adventures of a Guilty Liberal Who Attempts to Save the Planet, and the Discoveries He Makes About Himself and Our Way of Life in the Process (Beavan 2009). Both book and movie were based on Beavan’s ‘‘No Impact Man Project,’’ a blog he started in November 2006. The blog, as with the book and movie, chronicled the exploits of one upscale, Manhattan family’s efforts to transform their consumption patterns, and thus their social and natural relations, in order to ‘‘save the planet.’’ Beavan sought a way out of their current lives he described in an early blog entry as ‘‘typical convenience-addicted, New York City take-out slaves.’’ Through reduced consumption he hoped to find ‘‘a middle path that is neither unconsciously consumerist nor self-consciously anti-materialist.’’ Beavan, unlike the conference attendees in Paris, put his faith in a version of environmentalism he