Taxes and public education campaigns do a pretty good job at that. Case study cigarettes usage http://cancergrace.org/lung/files/2008/11/us-smoking-trends-1900-2002.jpg

Simply create an authoritarian system and then impose requirements to decrease consumption.

Of course, Galapagos islands is an example.

Tax, we do it all the time. Cigarette tax, gas tax, other sin "type" taxes. The less you want society to indulge the more you tax the vice. On the flip side, you use economic incentives to drive a society to do things they may not want to do otherwise. This is the main business model or "policy model" solar and other environmental stuff gets adopted because those technologies are more expensive than the legacy stuff. These consumer and industry incentives try to even the playing field from a cost perspective.

In my opinion, within the framework of a specific public policy, it is possible to direct economic development in a specific direction. Through a specific interventionist socio-economic policy, it is possible to direct the development of the economic system to obtain the character of a more sustainable economic development, taking into account more pro-environmental goals of sustainable development. The issue of changes in the level and structure of consumption, this is the issue of influencing the change in the purchasing habits of consumers and the lifestyle of citizens, etc. Among other things, it is, for example, influencing citizens through social campaigns to purchase pro-ecological products, food products produced from organically produced agricultural products products packed in biodegradable plastic substitutes so that they use electricity generated from renewable energy sources, so that they choose electromobile vehicles instead of those powered by internal combustion engines, etc. specific pro-ecological socio-economic policies. Thanks to the pro-environmental state intervention conducted in this way, in the future there will be changes in lifestyle and changes in the purchasing behavior of citizens. However, the scale of these pro-ecological economic reform processes and the scale of the pro-environmental intervention implemented by the state, including those allocated for the development of pro-ecological policies from the state finances, is still too small. Due to the still growing scale of environmental pollution, the still high level of greenhouse gas emissions, declining green areas, including forests, unfavorable changes in natural ecosystems, unfavorable climate changes and their effects, etc., it is necessary in the next few years to significantly increase the scale of the pro-environmental state intervention. However, for this to happen, it is necessary to increase the pro-environmental, general social awareness of citizens.

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

The truth is unfortunately that the only real way to reduce consumption levels significantly would be to address the root cause of the issue, rather than applying band-aids to its many symptoms.

But this root cause is absolutely not politically hoffähig ('presentable in good company'), and therefore is never mentioned, not by the Greta Thunbergs of the world, not by politicians nor public figures of any stripe. It is nevertheless the stinking, bloated elephant in the room.

Lowering people's standards of living, making their life experience less rich so as to lessen their individual claims on limited resources, all this would work a little bit but fundamentally hardly address the root cause - and at a hefty and likely unacceptable price too (i.e., limited experience of life, or alternatively limited freedom for all in the more egalitarian societies, where everyone would be entitled to broadly the same standards of living and of enjoyment of life.)

The root cause is the selfsame that ultimately leads to climate change, to wide-scale depletion of resources, to the ghastly exploitation of animal life, to the horrible conditions made to animals in much of the meat industry, to the sixth extinction and the disappearance of fauna and flora worldwide, even to the curbing of individual freedoms worldwide, etc.

It is hinted at here : https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

The ultimate cause of our ills is our runaway, unstoppable overpopulation, far too much of a hot potato to be mentioned publicly, as it however ought to be. How to address that is anybody's guess, and perhaps the stark but realistic answer to your question of whether consumption can be meaningfully reduced is : not really, because most governments will never implement compulsory curbs on birth numbers.

Yes, it is possible, however, very difficult to implement such a policy.

Check https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/10-areas-for-national-action-on-alcohol

Also check https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/143/4/e20190282

And https://www.recoveryanswers.org/research-post/how-effective-are-state-public-policies-on-reducing-binge-drinking/

Governments sometimes impose rules on common people only. They could not act on high profile corporate due to several reasons. For example, if you wish to minimize use of plastics, then it is not enough to ban plastic grocery bags only. You have to ban packaging of items in plastics bags also. Governments have to impose such rules for all and everyone.

Secondly, governments have to aware common public also for better support.

Implementing polluter-pay policy is also essential.

At present we are talking about reducing consumption. After some years (or decades), there may be situation of do or die.

I would like to add a few more words to my earlier comment. It is unlikely that within the current socio-economic systems, public institutions as part of interventionist measures will actually limit consumption. Currently, there is a dominant formula of state interventionism, under which entrepreneurship is activated, economic activity is supported, etc. Currently, the dominant formulas of state intervention work anti-crisis, pro-development in order to counteract the decline in economic activity, reduce the scale of unemployment, etc. The key goal of this type of interventionist socio-economic policy is growth employment, creation of new jobs, increase in income, increase in consumption, investment and tax revenues to the state budget. Sometimes it happens that during social media campaigns commissioned and financed from the state finance system, specific, selected pro-environmental measures are promoted, suggesting the need to implement the sustainable development goals. For example, during this type of social media campaigns, water saving, waste sorting, setting up home electricity and / or heat power plants based on renewable energy sources, activities related to nature protection and reducing the consumption of natural resources, etc. are promoted. However, large-scale and implemented real activities public institutions that would cause a significant decrease in consumption in order to limit the consumption of natural resources, reduce the "production" of waste, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce emissions of environmental pollutants are not carried out. In order for the pro-environmental state intervention, consisting in a significant reduction in consumption, to be possible and real, the socio-economic system would have to change significantly. At present, it is more likely and possible to influence manufacturing enterprises to refrain from deliberately shortening the life of products, i.e. deliberately aging products, shortening product life cycles. In a situation where the products did not break down immediately after the warranty period, i.e. after 2-3 years, but would only function and be useful for at least 10, 20, 30 or more years, then the level of consumption could drop significantly.

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

My eldest son developed a diet system of 1/10th amount of everage people.

And he further modelling to his brother, who eat 1/4 of everage people.

I eat on and off, (to do with my mentruation cycle), almost up to 3/4 of everage people at times.

I am afraid, Asia the south east demographic statistically, in bad dietary according to survey, the same, very groups are also malnourished one of category while the food intake size is large.

The proportion and types, knowledge is must and the methods of cooking and preperation is must be taught.

Dear, Antonio Franco-Crespo

I will limit my response to energy consumption. Here is a list of very successful and up-to-date scientific contributions on this matter. I hope they are useful to you.

• Do public-private partnerships in energy and renewable energy consumption matter for consumption-based carbon dioxide emissions in India?
• How to Prioritize Energy Efficiency Intervention in Municipal Public Buildings to Decrease CO2 Emissions? A Case Study from Italy
• Impact of the Electric Vehicle Policies on Environment and Health in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Region

Excellent answer from Dr. Dariusz Prokopowicz . I recommend it.

I was thinking about this question and the answers seriously. I could give you a number of proposals what might be possible and should be done. But the main issue is that where ever you are looking around where are the leaders that can realize this however there are a lot that tell us that they can. Unfortunately I don't know any politician in history who was successful by promising "to be able to save the world". Think about the last 100 years who told this to the people. And don't forget environmental policy is unfortunately already weaponized. If you know another world we could probably try. So I think we have a big lack on experienced people learned in industry how to realize projects and working now independently in academia and are not depending on funding of people with their own agenda and are able to tell the truth. Again our problem is the lack of quality in all areas.