| Popis: |
Current levels of material consumption in the West are incompatible with environmental sustainability. Present strategies for achieving reduction are not sufficient for purpose. In an early critique of inadequate conceptions of consumer demand, Wilhite and Lutzenhiser (Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 281–287, 1999) examined the difference between base and peak loading as a mechanism responsible for immediate inefficiencies and escalating levels of production in energy systems. Their article introduced the term ‘just-in-case’ to identify a common rationalisation for the persistent tendency of individuals and organisations to hold or increase excess capacity. As a source of and justification for excess capacity, the proviso ‘just-in-case’ has wider relevance in debates about unsustainable levels of everyday consumption, regarding the determination of what might be too much, what too little and what just enough. Defining enough is an intellectual and political minefield, but at least we can identify mechanisms which tend to generate unfruitful excess. Just-in-case reasoning is itself one such mechanism. It is one surreptitious way to increase environmental load through the justification for ownership of un(der)utilised material resources. We reveal circumstances in which just-in-case provides a rationalisation for escalating production and overstocking and point to four ways of reducing the environmental impacts of particular goods. We demonstrate the entailment of problematic items within practices. We discuss the merits of alternatives to the private and exclusive ownership of under-utilised resources-intensive products, including sharing ownership and renting services. Finally, we review the opportunities afforded by digital technologies. |
