By Kim Won-sang (Media Communications, Solutions for Our Climate) · September 29, 2025
I am an early adopter. I have great interest in new tech and often buy electronic devices. It is a hobby of resolving the curiosity a new product brings and filling a craving for new experiences. But sometimes the thought suddenly comes to me that this hobby and consumption habit could be criticized. It is because electronic products inevitably emit greenhouse gases in the process of production, transport, and sale. The awareness comes to me that consumption chosen not because it is truly necessary but at the level of curiosity or hobby is not climate-friendly.
[ⓒESG.ONL]
This worry was not mine alone. One of my colleagues was an ardent fan of F1, but after starting work on climate change, he said that out of guilt he was even hesitant to watch "F1: The Movie," which recorded millions of viewers. F1 machines that run around the world with huge teams, burning fuel lavishly and circling the track countless times — and a sport in which, while some people barely change their car's tires a few times over its life, the tires must be changed several times after circling only a few laps. On one hand it is a reasonable worry, but on the other hand the thought "is there really any need to go that far?" also came, and I once laughed it off heartily. The moment when consuming the culture one likes and empathizing with and responding to the climate crisis collide is a dilemma anyone faces at least once.
If I keep following the thoughts that bite one another's tails, I reach a larger problem awareness — that all the activities of eating well and living well ultimately contribute to warming. That is, the act of consumption itself is connected to the climate crisis. Come to think of it, there are times I am seized by a contradictory sense that the activity of solving the climate problem and my consumption stand at exact opposites. And the fundamental question thrown out is this: Are the prosperity of human civilization and the response to the climate crisis really compatible problems? Like the joke often seen in the comments of internet articles, can humanity approach carbon neutrality only if Thanos comes to Earth and wipes out half of humanity?
This question spreads beyond personal reflection into structural skepticism. Until now, economic development has revolved around consumption. Making a lot, selling a lot, and thus individual income increases and again leads to larger consumption than before. A belief formed that this is a virtuous-cycle structure in which the whole collective prospers and the economy grows. But where is the end of this model? Can that process be said to be sustainable? In the era of the climate crisis, might this feedback structure rather drive us to catastrophe? If so, instead of an economic model like the present one, in what way should we live? I still have not found a clear answer to such questions.
Yet amid such worries, there is also an interesting case. I once tried to give a modest souvenir to an influencer I got to know through work. But he declined the gift, saying he would accept only the intention. It was an unremarkable item, fine to receive or not, but he viewed the very culture of exchanging gifts differently. What was more interesting was his story about birthday gifts. He said he asks the people around him not to send gifts or gift vouchers, but to donate to an institution or organization he recommends. Instead of goods easily thrown away or wasted in the process of ritual exchange, he expanded the meaning of a gift into social value and sharing. I thought that such small cultural practices could be the starting point that cracks the paradigm built around consumption.
There is another hint too. In 2023, Apple released the Apple Watch as its first carbon-neutral product. Of course, there is room for debate over the method of carbon-neutral certification. But the mere fact that the world's most famous brand planned and released a carbon-neutral product line created a small hope. This shows the possibility that even when I engage in consumption activity, I might not contribute to greenhouse-gas emissions. What if the majority of the products and goods I consume were certified carbon-neutral and came onto the market? Then might a future in which consumption and carbon neutrality coexist be realized? If so, there would be no need for Thanos to appear and wipe out half the population.
Of course, this is not a simple problem. We cannot overturn the consumption-centered capitalism that made humanity prosper in one stroke and open a new system. But nor can we turn away from the fact that greenhouse gases, a byproduct of the current system, threaten humanity's survival. We have now entered a phase in which we must create a human civilization where the whole world can eat well and live well, while at the same time creating a sustainable Earth environment good for humans to live in. It is not for nothing that people say a greater transformation than the effort humanity poured into the Industrial Revolution is needed.
[ⓒESG.ONL]
This is by no means a problem that can be solved by individual practice or the efforts of a few. But one thing is clear: that participation and solidarity are the fundamental driving force in drawing such a picture and moving forward. Not me alone, but everyone must look in the same direction together. It begins from pondering for a moment before pulling out a card at a fashion store, before bringing up a simple-payment QR code at an electronics store.
In the end, whether it is essential consumption needed to make a living, or the hobbies and leisure activities that make one feel like oneself, and even the social task of responding to climate change — they in fact start from the same root. It is the question of what and how we will consume. The answer does not lie in reducing consumption. It begins from redefining consumption. What kind of consumption we do — that is precisely what tells us what kind of future we will choose.
By Kim Won-sang (Media Communications, Solutions for Our Climate)