The Story of Stuff: How Our Obsession with Stuff is Trashing the Planet, Our Communities, and Our Health—and a Vision for Change

In Chapter 1, the benefits of natural materials and ecosystems, the costs of extractions, and the case against extraction are introduced. Globally, consumption consumes the bio-capacity of 1.4 planets annually. The United States has the highest consumption levels. If global consumption patterns matched American consumption, five planets would be required. Some countries need to increase consumption to meet their basic needs, while other parts of the world need to reduce consumption, which must happen within the ecological limits of the planet.

Leonard quickly introduces systems thinking as a framework. For example, she writes that the process of extraction requires other ingredients. To make paper:

We need metals to make the chainsaws and logging machines; trucks, trains, and even ships to cart the logs to processing plants; and oil to run all those machines and the plants themselves. We need water (a lot of it) for making the paper pulp. We usually need a chemical like bleach (no!) or hydrogen peroxide (better) to get a desirably light shade of paper (1).

Producing one ton of paper uses 98 tons of other resources (1). This is an example of systems thinking. Leonard opens her analysis of water by connecting the health of water to the preservation of forests. Rivers below clear-cuts are murky and full of debris. Clear-cuts remove roots and shrubs, so soil erodes during rain and enters rivers. Organic matter that builds up faster than it can be decomposed creates oxygen-deprived rivers. In this analysis, Leonard reaffirms that environmental actions cannot be studied in isolation.

One of the themes in The Story of Stuff is that man-made solutions to environmental problems are insufficient. There is extensive research into man-made systems of carbon sequestering. However, trees do this service well, for free, and produce oxygen at the same time. Given the immense benefits provided by forests, it is smarter to protect them. Industrial timber plantations are not a substitute either. Monoculture fields of imported species are “green deserts” (5) that lower biodiversity, resistance to disease, and do not provide adequate resources for the humans and animals that live in them. Plantation forests are not an adequate substitute for biodiverse forests. Another example is the limitations of market-based strategies to lower water consumption during production; corporations should reduce the amount of water they use, not simply pass along the higher cost of water to consumers. This does not address the root causes of waste, and increased prices hurt people with low-incomes.

The unequal benefits of extraction are identified. Forests, especially rainforests, provide one quarter of prescription drugs. Plants from Madagascar’s tropical forests make the medicines vincristine and vinblastine, used to treat Hodgkin’s disease and childhood leukemia. The sales of these two drugs are in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. However, none of the profit is returned to the people of Madagascar. Bio-diverse rainforests teem with plant and animal life. Scientists estimate that only 1% of species in the rainforest have been identified and studied. Leonard points to the future losses in innovation and medicine due to the destruction of forests for large scale extraction.

Leonard uses analogy to illuminate her points. For example, when describing the rate of deforestation, she writes that we lose forests “twice the size of Paris each day, or about thirty-three football fields’ worth every minute” (5). Throughout the chapter, Leonard highlights who wins and who loses in extraction. Local communities do not see the benefits (which go to corporations) but are exposed to the environmental and economic costs of short-term thinking.

Leonard promotes what the Pacific Institute calls a “soft path” solution to the water crisis. This approach seeks to use water more productively and in the public interest rather than finding new supply sources. The cost of water is one of industry’s externalized costs: The prices of consumer goods don’t account for the real cost of water and the damage industry causes to water supplies. Scientists, nongovernment organizations (NGOs), and governments are working to assign a value to water as a strategy to better understand the long-term costs of water consumption. People are working towards achieving “the recognition of water as a human right, improved access to water for poor people, the decommodification of water, taxes for excessive water use, and the defense of elected municipal governments as the key institution in water delivery, rather than private businesses” (19).

Companies are adopting new technologies that reduce water waste. The carpet company Interface has reduced water intake by 75%, for example. Leonard restates that a cultural shift in how we approach water is essential. Technological and market-based solutions help, but without prioritizing long-term sustainability and equal access to clean water, they are insufficient.

Changing paradigms is a key part of Leonard’s analysis. For instance, Leonard cites the scientist Pat Costner who argues that people are trained to associate water with waste removal due to our water-based sewage systems. There are alternatives to using water in sewage systems. Composting toilets use no water and transform waste into a social additive that enhances topsoil. In Bangladesh, heavy rains and flooding reduce access to uncontaminated water. Soil erosion and rising sea levels are making this problem worse. Because of this, individuals are more careful about water consumption. In America, water is accessible in most homes and used wastefully. For example, lawns require astronomical amounts of water. Lawn, or “turfgrass,” is the single largest irrigated crop in America. Native plants allow more rainwater to enter the soil and need less water. While water is essential to human life, we use water for nonessential purposes.

In another example, Leonard outlines three sites where we have to change the system to use less resources: the front end, the back end, and in our hearts and minds. First, products and systems must be designed to use less resources. Resource productivity—the amount of use out of each pound of material or unit of energy consumed—must be increased. Stuff has to be more durable, repairable, recyclable, and adaptable. Secondly, the trees, water, and rocks we extract need to be recycled and reused. Finally, we need to shift our relationship to consumer goods and reduce our individual consumption habits. While people have emotional attachments to forests and water, an attachment to rocks is rarer. However, people deeply value the Stuff produced by rocks, including cell phones, cars, and jewelry. Despite the emotional value of wedding rings, “an average gold wedding ring creates about 20 tons of hazardous mining waste” (24). Listening, respect, service, tenderness, and intimacy show love. However, we have culturally decided that buying an engagement ring is a demonstration of love and commitment; this is a paradigm we need to shift.