“Are renewable energy and resource efficiency not enough?”

Solar panels require resources, and producing biomass consumes land. Other products which are produced efficiently are not an improvement if more of them are sold or they are used more often, e.g. fuel-efficient cars; or if they are bought as an additional gadget, like electric cars. These rebound effects nullify all technological advances.

“Do you want to go back to the Stone Age? We need innovative technology, not sermons on renunciation!”

Sufficiency complements efficiency and consistency, but the strategies have the strongest impact together. Sufficiency does not oppose progress or new technology. Social innovations such as car sharing have nothing to do with sermons on renunciation but are a clever way to limit depletion both of the environment and your funds.

“Consumption patterns are not going to change just because I live sufficiently.”

“…which is why I won’t change my lifestyle”. This argument can be an excuse for personal convenience, an expression of insecurity about the impact of one’s actions, or a sign of resignation. Either way, it begs a discussion. Individuals who pursue an alternative lifestyle are living proof that the possibility of change can inspire others to follow their example. It is true, individual measures have a limited impact. This supports your argument for sufficiency politics all the more, since policies are needed to encourage more people to join in and change their lifestyles.Additionally, you can address the impact of individual actions by focussing on some key parameters (e.g., less air travel) instead of wasting energy on less powerful examples (e.g. eating potatoes instead of rice).

“Sufficiency limits my freedoms, and a liberal society only tolerates so much interference and prohibition.”

Counter-question: Whose and which liberties are being limited at the moment? Whose interests weigh the most? Sufficiency aims to create a frame for different lifestyles. That implies that “no-one should be obliged to always want more” (Uta Winterfeld). This is why sufficiency politics should enable more self-determination, e.g. the freedom to choose not to have a car, to work part-time and the liberty to organise one’s schedule differently.

“My liberties are limited by higher air fares.”

Sufficiency policies require good arguments. If they increase the cost of living, they must not lose sight of lower-income households and must find ways to offset the burden. If energy prices rise, measures increasing efficiency must be subsidised. Sufficiency wants life quality to be independent from material wealth – which is why public institutions contributing to the welfare of the less-privileged, such as swimming pools, music schools, or nature discovery trails must be preserved and supported.

“Saying ‘less is more’ is just a new status symbol for the privileged few who can afford to have less.

Sufficiency policies require good arguments. If they increase the cost of living, they must not lose sight of lower-income households and must find ways to offset the burden. If energy prices rise, measures increasing efficiency must be subsidised. Sufficiency wants life quality to be independent from material wealth – which is why public institutions contributing to the welfare of the less-privileged, such as swimming pools, music schools, or nature discovery trails must be preserved and supported.

“It’s cynical to demand sufficiency when people in the global South suffer extreme poverty.”

First and foremost, sufficiency is a strategy for “developed” countries of the global North, because that is where “less” is in order. Particularly with a view to global justice, the North needs to change its ways to improve the opportunities for development in the South. On the other hand, there are many voices in the South that consider the western concept of development as a means to advance imperialist goals and demand the freedom to choose their own approaches. We want to listen and see what we can learn from the South about alternative lifestyles and enrich our discussion.

“Why should anyone be allowed to claim the right to decide what is the right measure for everyone?”

The right measure is determined for us on a daily basis. Families determine a right measure for their children’s pocket money, communities determine which is the right measure by which to allocate space to different road users, the national government determines which is the right measure of speed at which motorists should be allowed to travel; and at its climate conferences, the international community determines what is the right measure of CO2 to be emitted by each state. We have to be democratic and transparent about access to and allocation of limited funds, space and resources to discuss and form informed decisions. Within the given limitations, regulation should always allow for the greatest possible freedom in choosing one’s own right measure. In the end, this depends on the implemented policies, ranging from standardised labelling to taxes, subsidies and prohibition.

“Where is the fun and enjoyment? A little of what you fancy does you good!”

Sufficiency can be beautiful and fun. Pleasure does not require excess, sometimes it lies in a tasty meal with home-grown vegetables, a long walk, sleeping in on a Sunday and having breakfast in bed, going to a concert or reading a book in peace. Enjoyment is often a question of attitude, and the pleasure of consumption only works in moderation.

“Sufficiency is inconvenient and requires too much time!”

Sufficiency may be inconvenient at times and take a little longer, but not always. Additionally, there are positive side-effects. Cycling to work may (sometimes) take longer but it keeps you healthy and frees your head on the way home. Fresh food takes longer to prepare than fast or frozen food but it tastes better and is healthier. Shopping is time-consuming and annoying, doing it less can be liberating. Time on the train can be used for work or to relax. Sufficiency can be very convenient and even save time!

“Sufficiency may be great for individuals but it damages the economy. What about growth?”

If many people decided to consume less, if products were more durable and did not have to be thrown away as often, our economy would be damaged. However, if we consume more and more on a global scale, social inequality and environmental problems will be exacerbated rather than remedied.

We need to change our economic system to also work when there is no growth. We have to free ourselves from our dependence on growth – sufficiency helps us to reach this goal. The transformation into a post-growth society can be shaped by all of us together.

“No entrepreneur can profit from sufficiency, sufficiency is stagnation!”

A sufficient society may need fewer marketed goods, but other products and services will emerge. Already there are examples of such new services in the DIY sector, in education or in consultancy. Even a sharing economy needs products and organisation. Repairs and individual products also generate employment.

The change in values and lifestyles and a framework for sufficiency will bring about a structural change and the emergence of new businesses and revenue streams. Start-ups, social businesses and cooperatives are the heralds of this structural change.

“Why do we even need politics? If there are so many great arguments for sufficiency, it will sort itself out.”

A look at shopping malls and statistics for resource use can be a sobering reminder that in fact, individual approaches to more sufficiency are not enough. There is still excessive consumption and substantial ecological fallout. Swimming upstream as an activist for sufficiency may be invigorating at first but will eventually become tiring. Moreover, it will not attract more people to a sufficient lifestyle. Individual sufficiency strategies, communal sufficiency projects, local initiatives (ranging from local policies to transition towns) are pioneers. Political support can foster and disseminate such advances to engender a broad societal shift towards sufficient lifestyles.

“Sufficiency Politics is too complex!”

Yes, it is. But politics is complex and particularly so when related to sustainability. Sufficiency politics is embedded in networks or political levels and areas, a long-term perspective and a global context. It involves a plethora of actors and of policies.

Sufficiency politics is a part of sustainability politics and has to be implemented in all ministries. There is a need for clear visions and concrete projects, understandable communication and political fervour precisely because sustainability is such a complex field.

“Sufficiency will not be adopted into the political agenda because it lacks traction.”

There are already policies which support sufficiency – there is no reason to be afraid. In Baden – Württemberg (Germany), the government subsidises monthly passes for public transport, thereby reducing the traffic volume in city centres and residential areas. As always in politics, everything depends on discussion, participation, (re-)evaluation and a reconciliation of arguments and interests.