The Limits of Producers and Individual Consumer behaviour: Evaluating ‘Zero Waste Living’ as a solution to Climate Change.

Introduction 

Research on microplastic pollution has found that resulting particles can accumulate in the organs of organisms (Huang et al., 2020) and affect behaviour (Fackelmann & Sommer, 2019), immunity (Jabeen et al., 2018), growth (Yin et al., 2018), and reproduction (Jinhui et al., 2019). In humans, research has suggested endocrine disruptive effects on male, and couple, reproduction as related to the toxicant BPA found in many plastics (Mínguez-Alarcón et al., 2016). Concerns over health effects of disposable plastic are one of many concerns about the excessive plastic production and ineffective global waste management (OECD, 2022). Only 9% of the world’s plastic is recycled, according to the OECD (Ibid.), with much of it going to landfill (57% on average for OECD countries), incineration (29%), or unmanaged in the environment (6%). Given the prevalence of plastic in the environment (Ibid.), the poor waste management of plastic from an unsustainable linear economic market (Geyer et al., 2017; Lebreton & Andrady, 2019), and the contribution of plastic waste to greenhouse gas emissions (3.4% of global emissions), plastic became a key framing for the emerging ‘zero waste lifestyle’ (ZWL) perspective. Traditionally ‘zero waste’ has referred to a circular economic approach, emphasising a minimisation waste to recover all resources from the waste stream (Zaman & Lehmann, 2013). Changes in design could make it possible to disassemble and recycle previously wasteful products (Ibid.). More holistic perspectives of ‘zero waste’ account for the contributions of the individual, and posits that proper education and awareness on waste, in tandem with sustainable consumer behaviour and changes in product manufacture (Zaman & Lehmann, 2013), can contribute to achieving a circular, zero waste economy, therefore inhibiting further disruptive effects of climate change. In 2013, a minimal ‘zero-waste lifestyle’ (ZWL) was most notably proposed in the book Zero Waste Home: The Ultimate Guide to Simplifying your Life (Johnson, 2013) and multiple public talks given by the author, Bea Johnson (TEDx Talks, 2016). This book posits living via five rules; Refuse (not accepting unnecessary things), reduce (consume less), reuse (upcycling, other reuse), recycle and rot (composting) to live sustainably (Johnson, 2013).  

This essay addresses the ZWL (Singer, 2015) through two main framings, the greening of capitalist market and changes in public attitude and behaviour, through which, one can introduce discussion into the effectiveness of these ideas in ‘solving’ climate change. First, how feasible is it for individual actions to contribute to change in the global market? Secondly, the author addresses problems with facilitating wide-scale behaviour change from a bottom-up perspective, including current generational perspectives on climate change, although, the paper acknowledges the calls for top-down policy change within the ‘zero waste movement’.  The question of this essay is not to address the wider proclivities of the zero-waste concept, but rather to address if individual action, as often targeted as a solution to excess waste, could be an effective solution to the emissions causing climate change. This, of course, is entangled with the interrelated consequences of consumer behaviour on the market, the effect of reduced consumer consumption on the global economy, and changes in product manufacture. 

Green Capitalism and Market Responsiveness

80% of global energy consumption and 60% of greenhouse gas emissions can be accounted for by cities and their corresponding supply chains (Harris et al., 2020), which may increase if the global population continues to engage in more urbanised living. This is predicted to be the case for 70% of the population by 2050 (Ibid.). As a consumer, one way of addressing climate change is through considering production emissions of the products one consumes, however attribution across the supply chain is complex. Considering the production emissions across global supply chain, it is difficult to classify emissions by region, and even more so when establishing consumption-based individual or household. How do we account for the environmental cost of product manufacture in the global south, demanded by, and supplied to the ‘extravagant’ global north (Seabrook, 2016)? In other words, who should address Production-based Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, (a measure of the emissions from all nation activity, including manufacture and exports consumed by other nations (Shwom & Lorenzen, 2012))? Advocates of the ZWL movement address emissions across the supply chain in part through behavioural consumption changes of their target audience in the global north (Müller & Schönbauer, 2020), particularly considering plastic-containing products (Johnson, 2013; Zaman & Lehmann, 2013). Plastic is classed as a hazardous waste product (Rochman et al., 2016), which is poorly managed (OECD, 2022) and produced at twice the rate as 30 years ago (Ibid.). The implications of this mismanagement of an ever-increasing hazardous waste product is an increase of microplastics in the environment affecting the health of wildlife, farm animals, and humans (Fackelmann & Sommer, 2019; Jabeen et al., 2018; Jinhui et al., 2019; Yin et al., 2018). 6% of the plastic waste from OECD countries is uncontrolled, and only 9% is recycled (Ibid.). With the current global value chains and trade in plastics, new approaches to improve the circularity of plastics needs to be adopted to prevent an unmanageable build up in the environment (Ibid.) As an individual, can our consumption behaviour address this issue? Waste management is one of the key ideas behind the zero waste doctrine (Zaman & Lehmann, 2013), which includes avoidance, recycling, repurposing, and redistributing resources (Ibid.). These principles could address the 6% of uncontrolled waste in OECD countries, where the population has the ‘privilege’ for such freedom of choice (Ahmed, 2021). With a growing environmental awareness in the general customer base (Antunes et al., 2015; Kramer & Porter, 2006), there is a demand for environmentally conscious products (Chang & Chen, 2014; Chen et al., 2015) which customers have demonstrated they are willing to pay a higher price for, especially when made by a socially responsible company (de Freitas Netto et al., 2020). Although this suggests a basis for market change to meet these demands, there are limits to the ability of the market to change and limitations that the consumer faces.  

The market itself is slow to adapt to the demands of the public (Bouchaud et al., 2009), it is also reportedly unwilling to deviate from business-as usual scenarios, according to assessments of top-down economic modelling (Horejs, 2020). This reluctance may in part explain the ‘greenwashing’ problem described by academics and activists alike (Antunes et al., 2015; de Freitas Netto et al., 2020), which consists of exaggerative claims of the sustainability of a given product, usually through marketing  (Kim & Lyon, 2015). This allows companies to appeal to the sustainable consumer whilst preventing expenditure through changing manufacturing processes. The current global consumption is unsustainable (Zaman & Lehmann, 2013) which contradicts the assumptions of continued economic expansion in the market, although, economists posit a possible green growth scenario, through decoupling of resources and growth which could address this issue (Herman, 2021; Hickel & Kallis, 2020). Entertaining the optimistic ideas of green growth, individual behaviour would be integral to this approach making zero waste an important long-term solution to the linear economy, which focuses on profit irrespective of the product life cycle (Sariatli, 2017). Currently, however, environmental sanctions have been described as costly to companies (Palmer et al., 1995), as a change from a linear model of production to a circular one would require transformed industrial design (Zaman & Lehmann, 2013). Given that immediate action is needed to address plastic production and waste management in the supply chain (Horejs, 2020), a reliance on the market to restructure production is an inadequate method of addressing ‘cradle to grave’ emissions (emissions concerning the entire life of a product) (Zaman & Lehmann, 2013) and global resource depletion (Magdoff, 2013). The market does not adapt quickly, even with policy change, and limiting global temperature to the requirements in the Paris agreement requires a transformation of the global economic structure on a ‘massive’ scale (Krogstrup & Oman, 2019). Perhaps the demand created in part by the ‘zero waste’ community is not enough to passively influence the market through consumer behaviour, but in tandem with policy change it could be an effective contributor to solving climate change. Policy change could contribute to the structures necessary to support people in delivering on their values (Smith, 2021). Assuming these structures are in place and the global economic system can change imminently, the feasibility of the ZWL as an effective solution can be assessed through examining the likelihood of mass behaviour change. 

Consumer Responses 

Lifestyle behaviour has been indicative of class politics and conflicts between new and old ideas of social activity, it is thus intrinsic to the assessment of attitudes and values within the society it shapes (Wahlen & Laamanen, 2015). With ‘Zero waste living,’ advocates posit a way of life that shifts values away from capitalist overconsumption, engaging in avoidance of unessential goods to maintain a more ‘simple’ lifestyle (Johnson, 2013). One of the strengths of this movement is education and encouragement through engagement, which promotes self-managed information seeking and deep consideration of lifestyle choices and personal values. Education of ‘pro-environmental behaviour’ is often education for individual behaviour change (Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Richardson, 2011) as a method for practically addressing the gap between individual ‘knowledge’ and ‘action’ (Kenis & Mathijs, 2012). This gap is a concern because it suggests that people are unable to act on their values, and thus changes to more environmentally tolerable consumption may not occur. For the ZWL framing, ‘action’ can be considered sustainable individualist lifestyle behaviours such as shopping in bulk from refill stores. Why the gap between action and knowledge exists may be linked to cognitive limitations that individuals experience when decision making in circumstances of uncertainty. In psychology, heuristics describe cognitive biases which affect decision making and problem solving, which generally describe three main biases in intuitive judgement during times of uncertainty: availability (Keller et al., 2006), representativeness (Grether, 1980), and anchoring and adjustment (Epley & Gilovich, 2006). Most notably, this research posits that the way a problem or decision is framed interacts with the relevant heuristic bias (Tesser & Schwarz, 2008), and the individuals own knowledge (Ibid.) such as their understanding of circular economic thinking and specific knowledge about materials and product life course.  In addition, literature on persuasion in sustainability, has argued that persuasiveness is based on sustainability framing and its interrelationship with human behaviour (Brynjarsdottir et al., 2012). A person’s lifestyle decisions may also be dependent on how difficult they appear to achieve (Liberman & Tversky, 1993), which could be a monetary issue or practical problem such as access to outdoor space. Advocates of the ZWL posit addressing these decisions through habit formation to foster long-term behaviour change, based in part on works such as the book ‘Tiny Habits: Small Changes that Change Everything’ (Fogg, 2019). However, literature has expressed the need to make sustainable habits more accessible for the public as the current infrastructure does not allow for such living in the modern globalised structure (Nagle & Ward, 2022), although the existing individual behaviour change could in time influence infrastructural change from institutions with the authority to do so (Wapner & Willoughby, 2005). Misinformation, such as political and economic misinformation in otherwise knowledgeable people (Schaffner & Roche, 2017), and the exaggerated sustainability of products contributes to cognitive overload (Byyny, 2016), making it difficult to comprehend which option is environmentally optimal whilst affording modernised standards of living. Additionally, the ‘zero waste’ community has also presented a paradoxical narrative, of promoting excessive consumption whilst trying to combat this problem in principle. For example, an advocate for zero waste living states that “the things content creators make a living off is selling you things” (Shelbizleee, 2023b, 00:1:20) , indicating that influencers are monetarily inclined to promote green consumption even if that is overconsumption. This highlights another issue linked to the ambiguity of what is truly sustainable and the complications of decision making in our ‘reflexive modernity,’ (Ray, 1999) which involves problem solving as anchored by the current societal structure. The problem of how people in a globalised capitalist, growth-focused world (Hickel & Kallis, 2020) can be convinced to be “grateful for what [they] already have” (a principle outlined here by advocate Immy Lucas ( 2022), 00:5:50), is exacerbated by uncertainty and lack of supportive infrastructure for long-term lifestyle change because it means that personal time, and resources need to attributed to this lifestyle. In the current cost of living crisis (Lokshin et al., 2023), a lifestyle movement that is critiqued as a white, middle class endeavour (Müller & Schönbauer, 2020) may not be appealing to those struggling with financial and time constraints. Poverty itself also negatively affects cognitive ability in decision making (Mani et al., 2013). If lifestyle changes are difficult to address via the market, then realistically expecting this behaviour change to occur wide scale without intervention is unreasonable even if the values align with change. In the vein of cognitive theory, however, nudge theory, guiding decisions by changing the environment, is being applied to promote sustainable behaviour as a soft paternalistic approach (Chappells & Shove, 1999), to make sustainable choices easier.  

Perspectives on Individual Action 

The ZWL offers another defining strength, which is one of community. As with other consumer activist groups, zero waste advocates share knowledge from their research and attack the bottom line of individual ‘misbehaving’ companies through boycotting strategies (Wahlen & Laamanen, 2015). They also address some of their own main issues through narrative communication based on understanding. For example, one advocate critiqued the burden of responsibility that is common in consumer activism (Ibid.), saying “you’re either getting all of your food locally and in bulk or you are not zero waste” (Sedona Christina, 2020) to emphasise the implicit pressure surrounding consumption choice before addressing it with optimism for the future. Research has found that constructive hope can be motivational with regard to environmental issues (Graj, 2020). Further statements such as “do your best and advocate for the rest” (Shelbizleee, 2023a) demonstrate an awareness in the community that individual climate behaviour is multifactorial (Zaharia & Zaharia, 2015) and more than consumer behaviour is needed to address the issue of climate change. Further to this, one can consider current attitudes towards climate change from the politicised Gen Z, who have been both ignored and honoured in their demands for change (Hess, 2021). Young climate activists have utilised social media to rapidly address climate change discourse, for example, one could consider activist Greta Thunberg’s impact (Jung et al., 2020). Graj (2020) surveyed the opinions of this newly politicised generation towards climate change. It was found that the participants felt uncertain about the future because of climate change, were aware that wealth privileges protect certain people more from the effects of climate change and had criticisms of the sustainability movements (Ibid.). One student presented a mistrust for industry and felt that they should show genuine responsibility for their pollution (Ibid.). Another criticised sustainability movements, which can include ‘zero waste’, as a product of capitalism.  

“Are you going to be like a ‘sustainable capitalistic consumer’ and have like 20 things that people told you were good for the earth that you bought from like a huge organisation […] the metal straw thing isn’t going to do anything for us […] the leaders have to make literal changes to the oil companies” (Ibid, pg. 10.) 

Their critique stands that individuals are not only to blame for the excessive pollution that is contributing to climate change (Griffin et al., 2017; Nagle & Ward, 2022), and such individuals should not be held exclusively accountable (Nagle & Ward, 2022 00:21:07-00:22:09). Blame for the effects of climate change can be attributed to both the consumer and the producer, and has been with considerable controversy throughout the climate change debate (Dunaway, 2018; Freese, 2020; Liu, 2015; Park, 2022.). This highlights the ethical implications of addressing climate change as an issue of individual consumption behaviour because of the politization of this scapegoat tactic, as used by corporations to avoid acting on their pollution (Freese, 2020; Nagle & Ward, 2022 00:21:07-00:22:09). Political opposition may then be part of the reason the infrastructures necessary for persuading people to be sustainable, and for making these changes feasible to adopt and maintain, are not yet present (Fisher et al., 2013). In some cases, political leaders neglect to discern whether climate change is a resolvable crisis, or if it is even a concern to prioritise (Popovich, 2020). As such, Generation Z express an awareness that politics is a considerable factor in creating lasting change, and that other forms of activism are essential in tandem with individual behaviour change (Graj, 2020).  

 

Conclusion 

Clearly, the ZWL is ineffective as a solution because a sustainable lifestyle is behaviourally unsustainable. Cognitively, people are limited by copious misinformation, and excessive personal evaluations which only address their own climate impacts, when they can do so, as referenced in Section 2. This evaluation of the ZWL, posits the ability of those willing to make changes to benefit a cause bigger than themselves through addressing their contributions alone. The essay focuses on behavioural limitations and the unlikelihood of a quick and tangible market response (Section 1), rather than calculating the climate benefits of specific lifestyle changes of those in the global north because these hypotheticals are irrelevant if they are not realistic changes that can be made quickly and with great magnitude. This means it is ill-effective as a solution.  Rather, the focus on educating the public on their own choices should be supplementary to the discussion of climate change as it provides the benefit of long term behavioural and attitude change. This focus on individual action is distracting from wider systemic issues around the circularity of supply, as mentioned in Section 1 of this essay, and other wider issues such as wide-scale fossil fuel usage and the approval of new fossil fuel projects. With an awareness of this in generation Z and ZWL advocates, as mentioned in Section 3, the future of climate change discourse will address this issue and focus on wider issues than educating the public.   

 

 

References 

Ahmed, Z. (2021). Intersectionality within Zero-waste: What is it and Why is it a Problem? Minneapolis Climate Action. http://www.mplsclimate.org/2/post/2021/03/intersectionality-within-zero-waste-what-is-it-and-why-is-it-a-problem.html 

Antunes, D., Santos, A., & Hurtado, A. (2015). The communication of the LCA: the need for guidelines to avoid greenwashing. Espacios, 36, 5. 

Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002 

Bouchaud, J.-P., Farmer, J. D., & Lillo, F. (2009). CHAPTER 2—How Markets Slowly Digest Changes in Supply and Demand. In T. Hens & K. R. Schenk-Hoppé (Eds.), Handbook of Financial Markets: Dynamics and Evolution (pp. 57–160). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012374258-2.50006-3 

Brynjarsdottir, H., Håkansson, M., Pierce, J., Baumer, E., DiSalvo, C., & Sengers, P. (2012). Sustainably unpersuaded: How persuasion narrows our vision of sustainability. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 947–956. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208539 

Byyny, R. L. (2016). Information and cognitive overload. 

Chang, C.-H., & Chen, Y.-S. (2014). Managing green brand equity: The perspective of perceived risk theory. Quality & Quantity, 48(3), 1753–1768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-9872-y 

Chappells, H., & Shove, E. (1999). The dustbin: A study of domestic waste, household practices and utility services. International Planning Studies, 4(2), 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563479908721739 

Chen, Y.-S., Chang, C.-H., Yeh, S.-L., & Cheng, H.-I. (2015). Green shared vision and green creativity: The mediation roles of green mindfulness and green self-efficacy. Quality & Quantity, 49(3), 1169–1184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0041-8 

de Freitas Netto, S. V., Sobral, M. F. F., Ribeiro, A. R. B., & Soares, G. R. da L. (2020). Concepts and forms of greenwashing: A systematic review. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-0300-3 

Dunaway, F. (2018). Seeing Green: The Use and Abuse of American Environmental Images. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo13666193.html 

Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic: Why the Adjustments Are Insufficient. Psychological Science, 17(4), 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01704.x 

Fackelmann, G., & Sommer, S. (2019). Microplastics and the gut microbiome: How chronically exposed species may suffer from gut dysbiosis. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 143, 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.04.030 

Fisher, D. R., Leifeld, P., & Iwaki, Y. (2013). Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics. Climatic Change, 116(3), 523–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0512-7 

Fogg, B. J. (2019). Tiny Habits: The Small Changes That Change Everything. HarperCollins. 

Freese, B. (2020). Industrial-Strength Denial: Eight Stories of Corporations Defending the Indefensible, from the Slave Trade to Climate Change. Univ of California Press. 

Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7), e1700782. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782 

Graj, I. (2020). Gen Z Perspectives on Climate Change and the Future: Having the courage to imagine and fight for a better world. Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection. https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/3283 

Grether, D. M. (1980). Bayes Rule as a Descriptive Model: The Representativeness Heuristic*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 95(3), 537–557. https://doi.org/10.2307/1885092 

Griffin, D. P., Heede, R., & Vlugt, I. van D. (2017). The Carbon Majors Database Dataset 1.0 Methodology and Results. 

Harris, S., Weinzettel, J., Bigano, A., & Källmén, A. (2020). Low carbon cities in 2050? GHG emissions of European cities using production-based and consumption-based emission accounting methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 248, 119206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119206 

Herman, K. S. (2021). Green growth and innovation in the Global South: A systematic literature review. Innovation and Development, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2021.1909821 

Hess, T. (2021). “Gen Z Will Save Us:” Applauded and Dismissed as a Gen Z Climate Activist (Perspective from the Field). 

Hickel, J., & Kallis, G. (2020). Is Green Growth Possible? New Political Economy, 25(4), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964 

Horejs, C. (2020). Solutions to plastic pollution. Nature Reviews Materials, 5(9), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-020-00237-0 

Huang, J.-S., Koongolla, J. B., Li, H.-X., Lin, L., Pan, Y.-F., Liu, S., He, W.-H., Maharana, D., & Xu, X.-R. (2020). Microplastic accumulation in fish from Zhanjiang mangrove wetland, South China. Science of The Total Environment, 708, 134839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134839 

Immy Lucas (Director). (2022, April 24). I tried to live the ‘perfect zero waste’ lifestyle for a week. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKuaFlg_Ebw 

Jabeen, K., Li, B., Chen, Q., Su, L., Wu, C., Hollert, H., & Shi, H. (2018). Effects of virgin microplastics on goldfish (Carassius auratus). Chemosphere, 213, 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.09.031 

Jinhui, S., Sudong, X., Yan, N., Xia, P., Jiahao, Q., & Yongjian, X. (2019). Effects of microplastics and attached heavy metals on growth, immunity, and heavy metal accumulation in the yellow seahorse, Hippocampus kuda Bleeker. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 149, 110510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110510 

Johnson, B. (2013). Zero Waste Home: The Ultimate Guide to Simplifying Your Life by Reducing Your Waste. Simon and Schuster. 

Jung, J., Petkanic, P., Nan, D., & Kim, J. H. (2020). When a Girl Awakened the World: A User and Social Message Analysis of Greta Thunberg. Sustainability, 12(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072707 

Keller, C., Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2006). The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication. Risk Analysis, 26(3), 631–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00773.x 

Kenis, A., & Mathijs, E. (2012). Beyond individual behaviour change: The role of power, knowledge and strategy in tackling climate change. Environmental Education Research, 18(1), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.576315 

Kim, E.-H., & Lyon, T. P. (2015). Greenwash vs. Brownwash: Exaggeration and Undue Modesty in Corporate Sustainability Disclosure. Organization Science, 26(3), 705–723. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0949 

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401 

Kramer, M., & Porter, M. (2006). Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Bus Rev, 84. 

Krogstrup, S., & Oman, W. (2019). Macroeconomic and Financial Policies for Climate Change Mitigation: A Review of the Literature. International Monetary Fund. 

Lebreton, L., & Andrady, A. (2019). Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0212-7 

Liberman, V., & Tversky, A. (1993). On the evaluation of probability judgments: Calibration, resolution, and monotonicity. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.162 

Liu, L. (2015). A critical examination of the consumption-based accounting approach: Has the blaming of consumers gone too far? WIREs Climate Change, 6(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.325 

Lokshin, M., Sajaia, Z., & Torre, I. (2023). Who Suffers the Most from the Cost-of-Living Crisis ? https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-10377 

Magdoff, F. (2013). Global Resource Depletion: Is Population the Problem? ProQuest, 64(8), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.14452/MR-064-08-2013-01_2 

Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., & Zhao, J. (2013). Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function. Science, 341(6149), 976–980. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1238041 

Mínguez-Alarcón, L., Hauser, R., & Gaskins, A. J. (2016). Effects of bisphenol A on male and couple reproductive health: A review. Fertility and Sterility, 106(4), 864–870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.1118 

Müller, R., & Schönbauer, S. M. (2020). Zero Waste––Zero Justice? Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 6, 416–420. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2020.649 

Nagle, R., & Ward, A. (2022, November 9). Discard Anthropology (GARBAGE) with Dr. Robin Nagle. Alie Ward. https://www.alieward.com/ologies/discardanthropology 

OECD. (2022). Plastic pollution is growing relentlessly as waste management and recycling fall short, says OECD. https://www.oecd.org/environment/plastic-pollution-is-growing-relentlessly-as-waste-management-and-recycling-fall-short.htm 

Palmer, K., Oates, W. E., & Portney, P. R. (1995). Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.4.119 

Park, W. (2022). How companies blame you for climate change. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220504-why-the-wrong-people-are-blamed-for-climate-change 

Plastic pollution is growing relentlessly as waste management and recycling fall short, says OECD. (2022). https://www.oecd.org/environment/plastic-pollution-is-growing-relentlessly-as-waste-management-and-recycling-fall-short.htm 

Popovich, N. (2020, February 20). Climate Change Rises as a Public Priority. But It’s More Partisan Than Ever. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/20/climate/climate-change-polls.html 

Ray, C. (1999). Endogenous Development in the Era of Reflexive Modernity. Journal of Rural Studies, 15(3), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(98)00072-2 

Richardson, J. T. E. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001 

Rochman, C. M., Browne, M. A., Underwood, A. . J., Van Franeker, J. A., Thompson, R. C., & Amaral-Zettler, L. A. (2016). The ecological impacts of marine debris: Unraveling the demonstrated evidence from what is perceived—Rochman—2016—Ecology—Wiley Online Library. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/14-2070.1?casa_token=0ECYi_b8mWIAAAAA%3AOH5W2iTx_r-GxkgupXAfbuZ4X54n-j-YRnms1zLIL90fzt7lGWeeKBLneuGmc78if7hoAlpkqNPHCQN6 

Sariatli, F. (2017). Linear Economy Versus Circular Economy: A Comparative and Analyzer Study for Optimization of Economy for Sustainability. Visegrad Journal on Bioeconomy and Sustainable Development, 6(1), 31–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/vjbsd-2017-0005 

Schaffner, B. F., & Roche, C. (2017). Misinformation and Motivated Reasoning: Responses to Economic News in a Politicized Environment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81(1), 86–110. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw043 

Seabrook, J. (2016). How the lifestyle of the rich became anthropogenic activity in the climate change debate. Race & Class, 57(4), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396815624867 

Sedona Christina (Director). (2020, October 1). Going zero waste kinda ruined my life (an update). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Ux3doMzMs 

Shelbizleee (Director). (2023a, February 22). Greenwashing, climate lies, and environmental propaganda. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD3JHC1lusg 

Shelbizleee (Director). (2023b, April 5). TOP 5 Tips for Start ZERO WASTE/ sustainable living. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Djo_5rFrx-Y 

Shwom, R., & Lorenzen, J. A. (2012). Changing household consumption to address climate change: Social scientific insights and challenges. WIREs Climate Change, 3(5), 379–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.182 

Singer, L. (2015). Why I live a zero waste life | Lauren Singer | TEDxTeen—Bing video. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+zero+waste&view=detail&mid=7C1F0DAF3DAE77E226EA7C1F0DAF3DAE77E226EA&FORM=VIRE 

Smith, M. E. (2021). Inspiring Green Consumer Choices: Leverage Neuroscience to Reshape Marketplace Behavior. Kogan Page Publishers. 

TEDx Talks (Director). (2016, July 6). Two adults, two kids, zero waste | Bea Johnson | TEDxFoggyBottom. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSUmo-40pqA 

Tesser, A., & Schwarz, N. (2008). Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intraindividual Processes. John Wiley & Sons. 

Wahlen, S., & Laamanen, M. (2015). Consumption, lifestyle and social movements. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(5), 397–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12237 

Wapner, P., & Willoughby, J. (2005). The Irony of Environmentalism: The Ecological Futility but Political Necessity of Lifestyle Change. Ethics & International Affairs, 19(3), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2005.tb00555.x 

Yin, L., Chen, B., Xia, B., Shi, X., & Qu, K. (2018). Polystyrene microplastics alter the behavior, energy reserve and nutritional composition of marine jacopever (Sebastes schlegelii). Journal of Hazardous Materials, 360, 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.07.110 

Zaharia, I., & Zaharia, C. (2015). THE GROWTH OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE CONSUMERISM. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 10(2), 115–120. 

Zaman, A. U., & Lehmann, S. (2013). The zero waste index: A performance measurement tool for waste management systems in a ‘zero waste city’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.041