If everyone lived sustainably, what would their lives be like?

Guest post from Andrew Fanning, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Research Fellow in the Sustainability Research Fanning_photoInstitute at the University of Leeds. His research finding that no country currently meets the basic needs of its citizens at a globally sustainable level of resource was recently published in the journal Nature Sustainability (author summary here and there’s an interactive website). Here he reflects on a further insight from that research.

What level of resource use is associated with achieving a “good life”, and how does this compare to what is environmentally sustainable? In our paper, we looked at the current relationships between 7 indicators of national environmental pressure (relative to environmental limits) and 11 indicators of social performance (relative to the requirements of a good life) for over 150 countries. Based on the social thresholds that we chose, we concluded that resource use would need to decline by a factor of two to six times for all the world’s people to live well within planetary boundaries.

After we published the analysis, I was interested in flipping our research question around.  Instead of estimating the level of resource use associated with a good life, I wanted to know what kind of life 7 billion people could expect to live at a sustainable level of resource use.  Maybe some social indicators would be more sensitive to resource use than others.  Maybe this knowledge would allow us to identify social goals where large gains could be made with little effect on resource use.

But how to do it? With 7 environmental indicators and 11 social indicators, I needed to understand 77 different relationships all at once! I quickly realised that such a large amount of numerical information was far too much for my mind to grasp. Since humans are visual creatures, I started thinking about how to visualise our data to see the changes in resource use associated with changes in social performance.

During coffee with Dan O’Neill (the lead author on our study) one day, I scribbled down an idea for how to visualise all of the data simultaneously. A screenshot of the interactive tool that eventually followed is shown below.  The default setting for the tool is the values for a “good life” that we used in our study.  The tool shows the median resource use of the 20 countries closest to each social threshold.  Resource use is expressed so that a value less than one is globally sustainable (green), while a value greater than one transgresses the biophysical boundary in question (red).

Fanning fig 1The chart underscores one of our key findings: some dimensions of a good life are associated with much lower levels of resource use than others. The achievement of basic subsistence seems almost within reach at a sustainable level of resource use. Basic subsistence includes the provision of 2700 kcal of food per day, the elimination of extreme poverty below US $1.90 per day, and 95% access to sanitation and electricity.

But the achievement of other, more aspirational social goals has a level of resource use that is two to six times higher than globally sustainable levels. These goals include life satisfaction of 6.5 out of 10, healthy life expectancy of 65 years, and 95% enrolment in secondary education, among others.

But what about the original question that motivated me?  What level of social performance would the tool show at a sustainable level of resource use, when I made all of the blocks turn green?

Fanning fig 2The good news is that it looks like we could meet the need for adequate nourishment of 2600 kcal per day for all people at a sustainable level of resource use (though this aggregate value says nothing about inequality within countries).

The bad news is that the levels of social performance associated with sustainability for the other ten social indicators are all below – far below, in some cases – reasonable definitions of a good life. I was surprised and dismayed to find that the basic need of improved sanitation (basic toilet facilities) has the largest gap between the thresholds we chose (95% with access) and the level consistent with sustainable resource use (60% with access). The level of secondary education is similarly unacceptable (66% enrolment).

So how do we get to a world where all people live well within the limits of the planet? The changes needed are things that Oxfam has been advocating for many years, in particular since Kate Raworth proposed her doughnut-shaped framework in 2012. The changes include dramatically reducing inequality, improving social cohesion, revitalising democracy, and rapidly switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy. But most of all, there is an urgent need to shift the goal of our economies away from the blind pursuit of growth, which is no longer improving people’s lives in wealthy nations like the US and UK, and towards the meaningful pursuit of a good life for all within planetary boundaries.



Subscribe to our Newsletter

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please see our .

We use MailChimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.


5 Responses to “If everyone lived sustainably, what would their lives be like?”
  1. Sam

    Segregated data by technology and testing the utility of each one is what we need.

    I smell too many averages. It are the positive deviants we are looking for. Average calculation leeds to broad strokes panic. The gains and losses are the accumulation of marginal changes after all.
    It must be possible to wash cleanly and with fun with a fraction of the water (misting or so?) If plants can be happy on drip irrigation or on recirculating hydroponics, we should be able to do it too? There is wide gap in water use between different toilets, without any real difference in the “luxury” for the user.

  2. Sam

    This is very much in line with Daeton his view in “The Big Escapoe” where it are technological breaktroughs reaching the poor leading to a better life.

    It looks like a scientific manhatten project : A massive guided research agenda.
    Inventorise each detail of what causes the impact. Look for positive deviants, look at each of the aspects and find the technologies that square the good life with sustainability. Try a combined approach with technologists, sociologists and political scientists.

    Instead of pushing innovation further and further into better Tinder apps, looking at the real down to earth aspects of luxury hygiene and sustainability.


    PSA is this because the blog is mainly read by social scientists there is little discussion on this vital aspect of climate adaptation?

  3. Important study. I wonder if population size is factored in, and what might be the thresholds (for either question) if population size changes. Another variable is inequality – if resources are more evenly distributed, will social indicators be better as well (because the averages will be pulled up when the worse off are made better off)?

  4. antvren

    Two help our quality of life, we can think beyond the Western closet:
    Composting toilets save water and recycle nutrients. Free.
    Assisting nutrition, for free.
    Energy: much of this is used to bash nature. Work in harmony with nature, let it be: free.
    Education: secondary and primary education can be worked alongside useful activity. I’d love to see school janitors give lessons in school maintenance. Home educators merge schooling in with general life. Again, no charge.
    Social support: why a house for each family or couple? Larger properties can house a number of such units. They have the advantages of reduced resource use (shared car/kitchen/toolbox/laundry/social rooms, whatever is agreed) and social gains like inbuilt babysitter/grannysitter/pet minder/and expert at…. Free.
    Equality: Economics is like a body of water. Small pond, no big fish. Ocean, huge fish, as well as tiddlers. So globalisation leads to inequality. Oceans are also subject to massive storms, unlike ponds; so financial turmoil. Not that ponds have it all, they can dry up – isolated famines. Rule those out by maintaining some connection. Like channels linking puddles to stop them drying up. Do we need world trade, or should everything be home produced as far as we can? In the UK, I gather leaves and flowers for making tea; the effort’s my own, I pay my fair price.
    Income: what’s that for? If I’ve got all the food, shelter, recreation, education etc I want without spending money, I don’t need income. Some people may be in situations where they need to buy or sell services or goods. But nature doesn’t ask for it.

  5. antvren

    Correction, re Income: there are some facilities that only society can provide. Health services and other experts; community facilities that can’t be done without outside help. I don’t want to mention warfare/defence.