BACK in the 1970s, few people listened to scientists' warnings about global warming. Even fewer heeded calls to curb economic growth so we could protect the environment. Today, these ideas are starting to be appreciated. We are hearing ever more about the contradiction between hanging on to a habitable planet and the expansionary demands of the global market.

Yet as Tim Jackson outlines (see "What politicians are afraid to say"), people and their governments - which continue to urge the growth agenda in Canute-like defiance of the rising waters and raging heats they have been told will ensue - are still largely in denial about this conflict. A key factor in this is the widespread presumption that becoming more sustainable will inevitably make our lives worse, which leads to green campaigners being dismissed as regressive killjoys bent on returning us to a primitive existence. Perhaps to counter this idea, those who take global warming seriously tend to focus on technical fixes that might allow us to continue with our current ways.

It doesn't help that virtually all representations of pleasure and the life we should aspire to come from advertising, with its incessant message that our happiness is dependent on consuming ever more "stuff". We hear little about the joys of escaping the stress, congestion, ill-health, noise and waste that come with our "high" standard of living.

In fact, there is plenty of evidence that the work-dominated and materially encumbered affluence of today is not giving us enjoyable lives, and that switching to a more sustainable society in which we work and produce less would actually make us happier. For example, rates of occupational ill-health and depression have been shown to be linked to the number of hours we work, and once a certain level of income is reached further wealth does not correlate with increased happiness.

The absurdity of our situation is illustrated by the way our economy profits from selling back to us the pleasures that we have lost through overwork: the leisure and tourist companies that sell us "quality time"; the catering services that provide "home cooking"; the dating and care agencies that see to personal relations; the gyms where people pay to walk on treadmills because the car culture has made it unsafe or unpleasant to walk outside. As the economy continues to expand, consumer culture becomes ever more reliant on our willingness to accept this.

A growing number of people are starting to realise that there may be more to life than working to spend. Troubled by the negative impacts of a high-stress lifestyle, they are simplifying their lives and rethinking their values and desires. If we were to shift en masse to a less work-intensive economy, it would reduce the rate at which people, goods and information had to be delivered, cutting both resource use and carbon emissions.

Rather than entailing any sacrifice to our lifestyles, this would bring huge benefits. People would reclaim time for personal and family life. They would commute less and enjoy healthier modes of travelling such as walking, cycling and boating. Supermarket shopping would cede to a resurgence in local stores, making town centres more individual and boosting local communities. All this would transform urban and rural living, and provide more tranquil space for reflection, as well as opportunities for sensual experience now denied by harried travel and work routines. These revised ideas of the "good life" might also inspire less-developed countries to reconsider the conventions and goals of development, enabling them to avoid some of the less desirable consequences of the current model.

Of course, we would have to sacrifice some conveniences and pleasures: creature comforts such as regular steaks, hot tubs, luxury cosmetics and easy foreign travel. But constant comfort can dull as well as gratify appetites, and human ingenuity will surely contrive a range of more eco-friendly excitements.

Shifting to a steady-state economy is a daunting prospect. Yet as Herman Daly outlines on The world bank's blind spot, it is unrealistic to suppose that we can continue with current rates of expansion in production, work and material consumption over the next few decades, let alone into the next century.

In a climate of financial turmoil and extensive cynicism about government commitments on global warming, more honesty about this might win cooperation and respect from the electorate - especially if politicians start to focus on the fulfilments of living in a sustainable society.

Read more about sustainable growth in our special report