I’ll start this week’s blog by stating that, by nature, I’m a glass half full sort of bloke (preferably pinot noir…organic of course and from France!). Which means, in terms of the question above, I want to believe that we can find a route to life beyond oil that avoids the extremes of anarchy and apocalypse on the one hand and a state-dominated society on the other. This is probably a version of transition towns where ‘local’ becomes more important .
However, if I sit down and analyse the position I become more despondent. Why? Firstly, most individuals are ‘short- termists’ in view and by nature. This doesn’t mean they are not interested or don’t care about climate change (although according to a weekend poll a significant proportion in the UK are still in denial) as they want their kids to have a future. However, they are focused on the today – a job, feeding the family, getting their kids a good education and having a bit of fun along the way. This means that getting them to start thinking about the steps they as individuals need to take in the next decade to reduce oil dependency is difficult and will only happen as a result of a combination of incentives, taxes, education and changes to infrastructure. Even then it is a challenge – witness the problems governments have faced in getting people to face up to the need to save for retirement
Secondly, governments usually only have a 5 year time horizon which restricts their ability to think outside the standard Whitehall box and act creatively unless there is a crisis. There is a crying need to start to moving the tax system to one based on carbon usage, yet little appears to be happening in this area. Instead, they are looking for more of the same to try and raise revenue. I was hugely disappointed to hear this morning that the Chancellor is considering increasing the rate of National Insurance, an employment tax, to raise revenue – rather short-sighted at a time when there is a need to encourage employment. So, while I admire Gordon Brown’s stance on Climate Change on the world stage I’m hugely disappointed with what the government has(n’t) done. Why are we still contemplating a third run-way at Heathrow
Thirdly, whatever comes out of Copenhagen, demand for oil and other raw materials will continue to rise as China, India and the rest of the developed world continue to grow their economies. The need to satisfy demands at home will increase the risk of conflict over raw materials, water and food.
To finish on a more cheery note, I do think that technology offers hope. Developments in electric cars, renewables and the introduction of more efficient heating, lighting and other equipment will help us cope with life after. But will it be enough to avoid Mad Max?
Wednesday 9 December 2009
Tuesday 1 December 2009
Vegetarianism to reduce carbon emissions
I first came across this concept in the Geographical magazine a couple of years ago in an article on cattle and green house gases.
It is undoubtedly true that meat production, and particularly beef, is resource hungry,and that the growth in demand for beef has contributed to deforestation in Central and South America. There are also health issues associated with excess red meat consumption. And there are big issues regarding the standard of husbandry associated with meat production (industrial farming of pigs and chickens in particular), and big sustainability issues around fish stocks.
However, it's important to remember that much of the pasture used to rear livestock is not particularly well suited for crop production, either because of the soil or climate and therefore they would be limitations on increasing in arable farming. In addition there are a whole set of issues around freedom and culture that need to be considered.
On a personal level I've been vegetarian for short periods of time,a month or two when travelling in India and Nepal, but I very much enjoy meat and fish and would find it difficult to make the switch permanently. However, I can see the logic of reducing in meat consumption and could buy accept the idea of "Meat-free Mondays" or similar.
But before heading down this route there's alot of stuff we can do in areas such as reducing food waste that could have a significant impact in this area.
It is undoubtedly true that meat production, and particularly beef, is resource hungry,and that the growth in demand for beef has contributed to deforestation in Central and South America. There are also health issues associated with excess red meat consumption. And there are big issues regarding the standard of husbandry associated with meat production (industrial farming of pigs and chickens in particular), and big sustainability issues around fish stocks.
However, it's important to remember that much of the pasture used to rear livestock is not particularly well suited for crop production, either because of the soil or climate and therefore they would be limitations on increasing in arable farming. In addition there are a whole set of issues around freedom and culture that need to be considered.
On a personal level I've been vegetarian for short periods of time,a month or two when travelling in India and Nepal, but I very much enjoy meat and fish and would find it difficult to make the switch permanently. However, I can see the logic of reducing in meat consumption and could buy accept the idea of "Meat-free Mondays" or similar.
But before heading down this route there's alot of stuff we can do in areas such as reducing food waste that could have a significant impact in this area.
Thursday 19 November 2009
EcoTeam or Eco Dream?
I must say the idea of the Ecoteam sounded a good one and as Tom demonstrated on Wednesday there are a number of benefits associated with the concept, for example it provides a framework, offers mutual support, helps information to be shared, sets targets and measures against these. However, as Tom also pointed out, there are challenges with the concept.
As I mentioned on Wednesday there are parallels between the EcoTeam idea and various change management projects I have worked on. Typically these involve setting up and training teams of employees from across the organisation and tasking them with identifying issues and problems, nmainly with business processes, and putting forward potential solutions. In my experience they are are very good at motivating individuals and do deliver real benefits. But they are usually unable to deal with the really big issues that will deliver the really big benefits be that a different organisation structure or a new IT system. These issues only get dealt with if they have a champion at the Board Room Table. My guess is that EcoTeams will have similar challenges - they'll get individuals to recycle, maybe insulate the house but are unlikely to be able (in the short term at least) to change local transport infrastructure to reduce car use.
Is there anything to be learnt from history on how revolutionary groups spread the gospel, and their success or otherwise in doing this? My history is a bit rusty but I seem to recall that in Czarist Russia revolutionary groups invested alot of effort trying to politicise the serfs but with little success. What led to change was the effect of war and food shortage. Going back further in time, Christianity was an underground movement for many years and only became the official religion of the Roman Empire because the soon to be Emperor had dream/vision on the eve of a victorious battle, not because the early Christians convinced the majority of the popualtion that their religion was a good thing. I would be would be interested to hear whether anyone is aware of where movements have succeeded in creating change from within and how they went about doing it.
So in conclusion, I think that EcoTeams could have a role to play in accelerating changes in individual behaviours and lifestyles but are unlikely to change the systems and structures that need to be changed at the rate required.
As I mentioned on Wednesday there are parallels between the EcoTeam idea and various change management projects I have worked on. Typically these involve setting up and training teams of employees from across the organisation and tasking them with identifying issues and problems, nmainly with business processes, and putting forward potential solutions. In my experience they are are very good at motivating individuals and do deliver real benefits. But they are usually unable to deal with the really big issues that will deliver the really big benefits be that a different organisation structure or a new IT system. These issues only get dealt with if they have a champion at the Board Room Table. My guess is that EcoTeams will have similar challenges - they'll get individuals to recycle, maybe insulate the house but are unlikely to be able (in the short term at least) to change local transport infrastructure to reduce car use.
Is there anything to be learnt from history on how revolutionary groups spread the gospel, and their success or otherwise in doing this? My history is a bit rusty but I seem to recall that in Czarist Russia revolutionary groups invested alot of effort trying to politicise the serfs but with little success. What led to change was the effect of war and food shortage. Going back further in time, Christianity was an underground movement for many years and only became the official religion of the Roman Empire because the soon to be Emperor had dream/vision on the eve of a victorious battle, not because the early Christians convinced the majority of the popualtion that their religion was a good thing. I would be would be interested to hear whether anyone is aware of where movements have succeeded in creating change from within and how they went about doing it.
So in conclusion, I think that EcoTeams could have a role to play in accelerating changes in individual behaviours and lifestyles but are unlikely to change the systems and structures that need to be changed at the rate required.
Promoting sustainable consumption through a high profile organisation
Unfortunately I missed last weeks lecture. When I saw the question I did toy with the idea of picking the Cabinet or Royal Family.! However, I finally decided to plump for the BBC on the basis that any successful revolution gets control of the main media channel to control information flow!) In all seriousness there are a few reasons why:
1. It's trusted by most people
2. It's in every home
3. It would be very easy to report on progress
4. It would be good at getting the value add messages across
5. It would be easy to involve celebs who, like it or not, are opinion formers for a proportion of the population.
6.It would be easy to involve local communities in sustainable consumption initiatives
In terms of activity.... First establish the BBC's carbon footprint and identify areas that need to be tackled. Next how these are going to be dealt with. Then track progress through programmes, news bulletins. You could have competitions between regions, showcase viewers initiatives etc
1. It's trusted by most people
2. It's in every home
3. It would be very easy to report on progress
4. It would be good at getting the value add messages across
5. It would be easy to involve celebs who, like it or not, are opinion formers for a proportion of the population.
6.It would be easy to involve local communities in sustainable consumption initiatives
In terms of activity.... First establish the BBC's carbon footprint and identify areas that need to be tackled. Next how these are going to be dealt with. Then track progress through programmes, news bulletins. You could have competitions between regions, showcase viewers initiatives etc
Thursday 12 November 2009
Tim Jackson in London
Hi guys,
Somwhere between finishing my book review, starting the science of climate change assignment, entertaining my brother and attending a Granta Housing Society Board Awayday I found time to whizz down to London on Tuesday and hear Tim Jackson speak.
I have to say he was an inspiring speaker - do go and see him if you get the chance. Not surprisingly he talked about Prosperity Without Growth, a document that in his words merely starts the debate and shows there are no easy answers. During his 45 minute presentation he went through the problems that exist with our current economic model before talking about ecological economics and the steps we need to take to move to a sustainable economy- establish the limits,fix the economics and change the social logic (which requires a shift from individual to collective leadership). I think the first two are (relatively) easy and at least in part are progressing. Changing individuals' mindsets and behaviours is undoubtedly the greater challenge.
The Board meeting the following day was a dose of the real world, exploring how a not-for-profit organisation can deal with the credit crunch. Interestingly Granta have invested in a number of low energy housing developments so I'm going to visit one or two of these in the coming months.
Finally, there's an interesting debate starting on electric cars and whether they will have a significant impact on reducing greenhouse gas (the argument being no if all we do is build more coal and oil fired power stations to generate the electricty to power the cars. There's also some loophole in EU legislation allowing car companies to buildmore SUVs as they build more electric cars ) - see today's Independent or listen to Radio 5 Live for further info.
'Bye for now
Kev
Somwhere between finishing my book review, starting the science of climate change assignment, entertaining my brother and attending a Granta Housing Society Board Awayday I found time to whizz down to London on Tuesday and hear Tim Jackson speak.
I have to say he was an inspiring speaker - do go and see him if you get the chance. Not surprisingly he talked about Prosperity Without Growth, a document that in his words merely starts the debate and shows there are no easy answers. During his 45 minute presentation he went through the problems that exist with our current economic model before talking about ecological economics and the steps we need to take to move to a sustainable economy- establish the limits,fix the economics and change the social logic (which requires a shift from individual to collective leadership). I think the first two are (relatively) easy and at least in part are progressing. Changing individuals' mindsets and behaviours is undoubtedly the greater challenge.
The Board meeting the following day was a dose of the real world, exploring how a not-for-profit organisation can deal with the credit crunch. Interestingly Granta have invested in a number of low energy housing developments so I'm going to visit one or two of these in the coming months.
Finally, there's an interesting debate starting on electric cars and whether they will have a significant impact on reducing greenhouse gas (the argument being no if all we do is build more coal and oil fired power stations to generate the electricty to power the cars. There's also some loophole in EU legislation allowing car companies to buildmore SUVs as they build more electric cars ) - see today's Independent or listen to Radio 5 Live for further info.
'Bye for now
Kev
Sunday 8 November 2009
Woolly Thinking (x2)
Hi guys,
I've had my brother staying with me this weekend. He and his wife have recently launched a wool shop that sources all it's products from suatainable sources. So, if you are thinking of taking up knitting but don't want to buy that nasty Aussie wool that gets shipped halfway around the world, or you're searching for Xmas presents, or are just interested in their proposition have a look their website (unfortunately you can't yet order on-line)
http://www.woolly-thinking.co.uk/
A different type of woolly thinking.... I just had a leaflet through from Breckland Council telling me the only plastic they want in the recycle bin are plastic bottles (minus the tops!). So, all those yoghurt cups and food trays with a recycle symbol on them have to go in the landfill bag? This contrasts with Woking Council who wanted all plastic plus glass in the recycle bin. In South Norfolk I'm told what's allowed in the recycle bin is different again....Why can't we have a nationwide set of standards for recycling rather than this confusing patchwork? And is Breckland the only council in the country where the green wheelie bin is for landfill and the 'green' recyling bin is black?!
I've had my brother staying with me this weekend. He and his wife have recently launched a wool shop that sources all it's products from suatainable sources. So, if you are thinking of taking up knitting but don't want to buy that nasty Aussie wool that gets shipped halfway around the world, or you're searching for Xmas presents, or are just interested in their proposition have a look their website (unfortunately you can't yet order on-line)
http://www.woolly-thinking.co.uk/
A different type of woolly thinking.... I just had a leaflet through from Breckland Council telling me the only plastic they want in the recycle bin are plastic bottles (minus the tops!). So, all those yoghurt cups and food trays with a recycle symbol on them have to go in the landfill bag? This contrasts with Woking Council who wanted all plastic plus glass in the recycle bin. In South Norfolk I'm told what's allowed in the recycle bin is different again....Why can't we have a nationwide set of standards for recycling rather than this confusing patchwork? And is Breckland the only council in the country where the green wheelie bin is for landfill and the 'green' recyling bin is black?!
Monday 2 November 2009
Case Study: On-Line Farmers' Market
I'm going to have a look at the development of the Farmers' Market focusing on , an on-line farmers' market, Norfolk and Suffolk Local Food Direct, that has recently been set up in south Norfolk.
If you are interested, have a look at www.welovelocalfood.co.uk
If you are interested, have a look at www.welovelocalfood.co.uk
Thursday 29 October 2009
Infrastructure issues that prevent me consuming sustainably
A couple of weeks back I decided to investigate whether I could reduce my carbon footprint by using a combination of bike and train to get to UEA once or twice a week (4 mile cycle to East Harling Station, train to Norwich, bike to UEA). I then had a look at the train timetable and found the service was very limited with gaps between services of 1.5 hours or more! There is a very limited bus service from the village which, I was told, takes over an hour to get to Norwich and runs infrequently (I had a look for a timetable in the village but couldn't find one!) and, I was told, takes over an hour to get to Norwich....
Which explains why, at present the biggest infrastructure issue getting in the way of me consuming in a more sustainable manner is the poor public transport infrastructure in south Norfolk - I need to use my car to do anything apart from a basic shop at the local store or go to the pub!
The second big thing, which I guess is in part created by infrastructure issues, is pressures on time, bad enough now but much worse when working. This results in behaviours such as shopping at the supermarket rather than going to a number of local shops in Diss or Attleborough
Many of the other issues that get in the way of me consuming more sustainably are either things I can tackle given a bit of time and money (ie switching to renewables to heat the barn) or are the result of history. By which I mean that my network of friends, and hence social life, is scattered from London to Glasgow which adds to my travel footprint (although I do use the train!).
Which explains why, at present the biggest infrastructure issue getting in the way of me consuming in a more sustainable manner is the poor public transport infrastructure in south Norfolk - I need to use my car to do anything apart from a basic shop at the local store or go to the pub!
The second big thing, which I guess is in part created by infrastructure issues, is pressures on time, bad enough now but much worse when working. This results in behaviours such as shopping at the supermarket rather than going to a number of local shops in Diss or Attleborough
Many of the other issues that get in the way of me consuming more sustainably are either things I can tackle given a bit of time and money (ie switching to renewables to heat the barn) or are the result of history. By which I mean that my network of friends, and hence social life, is scattered from London to Glasgow which adds to my travel footprint (although I do use the train!).
Sunday 25 October 2009
Targets on climate are 'delusional' - energy companies squirm
I was going to do a short blog on a couple of articles that I read whilst flicking through a few back copies of the Economist (may cover those in a future blog) but my attention was grabbed this morning by an article in the business section of this weeks Sunday Telegraph under the headline "Targets on climate are 'delusional'".
The tenor of the article is that the major (fossil fuel) energy companies are suffering big falls in profits as a result of the recession. Consequently, they are getting very concerned about the increasingly stringent targets governments are looking to impose on fossil fuel useage, the impacts these will have on demand and the costs these may add to their business models. The article quotes a senoior executive in the energy industry as saying "If you look at Copenhagen targets they are basically illusory....There's no way to hit those targets and it would be very silly to think we can". There's lots of other quotes from BP's Chief Economist and feedback from last week's Oil and Money conference and a suggestion that they are becoming bolder in their opposition to international efforts to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% over the next four decades.
Now I have questions about how effective Copenhagen will be, but as the ad says, there's no Plan B and we've got to start changing behaviours and developing new technologies to avert rapid climate change.
There a couple of positive elements in the article... a Tory energy Green Paper in the New Year with a strong focus on renewables and Greg Barker, the shadow climate change secretary, saying Britain had to become a centre of excellence for renewables expertise and manufacture, particularly in the offshore sphere.
Have a read (should be on www.telegraph.co.uk/finance)
Kev
The tenor of the article is that the major (fossil fuel) energy companies are suffering big falls in profits as a result of the recession. Consequently, they are getting very concerned about the increasingly stringent targets governments are looking to impose on fossil fuel useage, the impacts these will have on demand and the costs these may add to their business models. The article quotes a senoior executive in the energy industry as saying "If you look at Copenhagen targets they are basically illusory....There's no way to hit those targets and it would be very silly to think we can". There's lots of other quotes from BP's Chief Economist and feedback from last week's Oil and Money conference and a suggestion that they are becoming bolder in their opposition to international efforts to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% over the next four decades.
Now I have questions about how effective Copenhagen will be, but as the ad says, there's no Plan B and we've got to start changing behaviours and developing new technologies to avert rapid climate change.
There a couple of positive elements in the article... a Tory energy Green Paper in the New Year with a strong focus on renewables and Greg Barker, the shadow climate change secretary, saying Britain had to become a centre of excellence for renewables expertise and manufacture, particularly in the offshore sphere.
Have a read (should be on www.telegraph.co.uk/finance)
Kev
The impact of advertisements on consumption behaviour and sustainable consumption
Greetings fellow bloggers,
"What effects do adverts have on your consumption behaviour?"
The short answer to the first part of this weeks question is "Very little".
I watch little or no TV (don't have the time these days!!) so don't get exposed to ads through this media. I notice ads in the papers and posters when I'm walking down the street. I find the majority of internet ads that invade my homepage annoying. Nearly all direct mail goes straight in the bin unless it's about a product area I'm already interested in. What ads do for me is raise awareness of a new product or service but they will not prompt me to rush out to look at it and (maybe) buy unless I already have a need.
The other angle on this is that I'm pretty loyal to a number of brands that I 've bought over the years and will tend to browse these either in the high street or on-line before purchasing. Why did I select these brands? There was probably some ad influence but the biggest factor was personal recommendation from friends and family or 'expert' reviews in magazines and papers... and these are still the biggest external influences on purchase decisions for most product categories - outdoor gear, wine, books, holidays, cds.
Do you think advertising will be enough to bring about sustainable consumption?
The short answer is "No".
Advertising certainly has a role to play, for example in raising awareness or, if targeted on a particular segment, selling the benefits of a particular behaviour, initiative, product or service. However, it needs to be part of a much broader set of joined-up initiatives that include financial penalties and incentives and changes to infrastructure. If they are not alrady doing so the government (or whoever it is leading the chagre on the sustainable consumption agenda) also has to think beyond the traditional ad campaigns (posters, TV ads etc) and look at other approaches that have become mainstream such as a well crafted PR campaign with press article endorsement and viral marketing.
'Bye for now
Kev
P.S. as an aside, has anyone else noticed the steep drop in direct mail from the banks in the past 18 months for loans and credit cards I don't want to buy things I don't need . A very good by-product of the credit crunch... the trees think so as well!
"What effects do adverts have on your consumption behaviour?"
The short answer to the first part of this weeks question is "Very little".
I watch little or no TV (don't have the time these days!!) so don't get exposed to ads through this media. I notice ads in the papers and posters when I'm walking down the street. I find the majority of internet ads that invade my homepage annoying. Nearly all direct mail goes straight in the bin unless it's about a product area I'm already interested in. What ads do for me is raise awareness of a new product or service but they will not prompt me to rush out to look at it and (maybe) buy unless I already have a need.
The other angle on this is that I'm pretty loyal to a number of brands that I 've bought over the years and will tend to browse these either in the high street or on-line before purchasing. Why did I select these brands? There was probably some ad influence but the biggest factor was personal recommendation from friends and family or 'expert' reviews in magazines and papers... and these are still the biggest external influences on purchase decisions for most product categories - outdoor gear, wine, books, holidays, cds.
Do you think advertising will be enough to bring about sustainable consumption?
The short answer is "No".
Advertising certainly has a role to play, for example in raising awareness or, if targeted on a particular segment, selling the benefits of a particular behaviour, initiative, product or service. However, it needs to be part of a much broader set of joined-up initiatives that include financial penalties and incentives and changes to infrastructure. If they are not alrady doing so the government (or whoever it is leading the chagre on the sustainable consumption agenda) also has to think beyond the traditional ad campaigns (posters, TV ads etc) and look at other approaches that have become mainstream such as a well crafted PR campaign with press article endorsement and viral marketing.
'Bye for now
Kev
P.S. as an aside, has anyone else noticed the steep drop in direct mail from the banks in the past 18 months for loans and credit cards I don't want to buy things I don't need . A very good by-product of the credit crunch... the trees think so as well!
Wednesday 21 October 2009
Green technology in China
Caught an interesting item on yesterday's Today programme (if that's not a contradiction!) at about how China is striving to establish a lead in green energy technologies.
Take aways for me:
1. It already is one of (or it might be the) dominant player in solar panel manufacture
2. The local council in Guellin (city in south west China) banned petrol-driven motor bikes and scooters. This resulted in people buying bikes with electric motors which led to a drop pollution levels and the rapid growth of a new industry, where China has or could easily develop a market leading position
3. The money and effort the are investing in electric cars
We've had a lot of rhetoric in this country about green jobs but little progress. Undoubetedly hina has a number of advantages - heavy state investment, lower maunfacturing costs, a huge potential home market - plus a political system that let's it drive through initiatives like the one in Guellin. It is also resource poor in terms of oil and gas (which it's political leaders see as a big weakness) so is keen to develop new sources. However, I was hoping we'd see the UK government encouraging investment in wind and wave technology, two resources we have in abundance and where we'd had a chance of securing a leading position
Take aways for me:
1. It already is one of (or it might be the) dominant player in solar panel manufacture
2. The local council in Guellin (city in south west China) banned petrol-driven motor bikes and scooters. This resulted in people buying bikes with electric motors which led to a drop pollution levels and the rapid growth of a new industry, where China has or could easily develop a market leading position
3. The money and effort the are investing in electric cars
We've had a lot of rhetoric in this country about green jobs but little progress. Undoubetedly hina has a number of advantages - heavy state investment, lower maunfacturing costs, a huge potential home market - plus a political system that let's it drive through initiatives like the one in Guellin. It is also resource poor in terms of oil and gas (which it's political leaders see as a big weakness) so is keen to develop new sources. However, I was hoping we'd see the UK government encouraging investment in wind and wave technology, two resources we have in abundance and where we'd had a chance of securing a leading position
Friday 16 October 2009
My book for review
I'm going to review "The Constant Economy - how to create a stable society" by Zac Goldsmith.
The reason for choosing this is simple. Goldsmith, who was editor of The Ecologist magazine, has been advising the Conservative Party on environmental issues. And given it looks like it'll be a Conservative Government in power, I thought it would be interesting and valuable to understand the views of their key adviser in this area as there is a chance that some of this will make it into their manifesto.
The reason for choosing this is simple. Goldsmith, who was editor of The Ecologist magazine, has been advising the Conservative Party on environmental issues. And given it looks like it'll be a Conservative Government in power, I thought it would be interesting and valuable to understand the views of their key adviser in this area as there is a chance that some of this will make it into their manifesto.
Moving people towards sustainable consumption
I’ve been down in London for a couple of days this week. As the train whizzed through villages, towns and suburbs it struck me what a huge challenge we have moving to a sustainable economy. Every station car park was overflowing with metal boxes. Over the past 30 years the lifestyles and settlement patterns that have grown up have been driven by the availability of cheap personal transport – the car. Housing estates, business parks and retail parks have grown up away from rail links. Many have little or no bus service. Individuals have grown used to the convenience of personal transport available when they want it going to where they want to go....
And that’s only one dimension of the challenge….But big challenges are there to be tacked so here goes...
There are a couple of points, statement of the obvious may be, that need to be made at the start:
1. Let’s recognise that there is no ‘silver bullet’. We’re going to have to find and use a broad range of tools and approaches to move towards a sustainable world
2. This is not a one year change programme. There needs to be a vision of where we want to be (sustainable consumption) and some milestones en route
3. Let’s also recognise that we’re all different and that we’ll respond to different stimuli and incentives
And, whilst much can be achieved at an individual and local level, there’s also a need to make changes at in areas such as incentives, taxation and measurement. This needs to be driven by government.
I think that there is also a need to get opinion-formers, by which I mean mainstream press (beyond the Independent and Guardian) and possibly (given the society we live in) a few celebrities, actively supporting the sustainable consumption agenda otherwise laudable initiatives will be in danger of failing - sitting here now I can just imagine the Daily Mail’s or Sun’s response to the idea of a Citizen’s Income!
So, recognising we’re all different, and putting my marketing hat on, I’m keen that we identify and research the different segments of the population to understand:
1. The environmental issues and concerns that are their particular hot button
2. The size of the different segments
3. Whether they are early adopters of a new thing, followers, late adopters or luddites.
Given that we’re not going to change everything at once there’s a need for a bit of prioritisation so we can focus resources and effort on early adopters, the biggest consumer segments and those issues that are going to make the biggest impact.
There’s a range of practical measures and steps that can be piloted and, if successful implemented in full. Some of these I would see as mandatory that need to be adopted by the whole population (eg carbon credits), other would be discretionary. The research programme should help on how best to message the former and which segments to focus discretionary initiatives.
Measure that could help us move towards sustainable consumption could include the following:
1. Personal Carbon Trading
2. Loans and incentives to encourage the installation of energy efficient heating equipment – why not build repayment of the loan into the tariff paid for the energy?
3. VAT linked to carbon footprint of the product rather than value (Practical issues here I know) but it would be great to have different prices reflecting the carbon footprint for asparagus from the UK versus Peru.
4. Tax credits on income tax if you personal carbon usage falls below a certain threshold (linked to 1)
5. Removing subsidies from non-environmentally friendly activities and re-divert
6. Introducing a balanced scorecard of measures to track wealth (ie GDP plus other indicators)
7. Making it easier for individuals to change their work-life balance, and making it easier (and cheaper) for companies to hire individuals so there are more bodies to share the work around – look at scrapping NIC and replace with a series of taxes that green behaviour
8. Invest in transport infrastructure that means people have a viable alternative to the car
9. Actively promote alternatives to ‘shopping therapy’
10. Seek to reinvigorate local communities. The millennium lottery programme was really successful in getting local communities together to focus on a local project (be that a playing field, new village hall or new footpath). Why not have one in which lottery grants are given for sustainable consumption/energy saving initiatives?
11. More education on environmental issues in schools
12. Change building and planning regulations so that
a. Out-of –town developments are the exception rather tahn the norm
b. Public transport is an integral part of any new development rather than the afterthought it often appears to be today
c. All new offices, shops, factories and houses must incorporate energy-saving technology (eg PV cells, heat exchangers)
Not a bad manifesto that – we just need someone to adopt it! And that’s without the international dimension....
And that’s only one dimension of the challenge….But big challenges are there to be tacked so here goes...
There are a couple of points, statement of the obvious may be, that need to be made at the start:
1. Let’s recognise that there is no ‘silver bullet’. We’re going to have to find and use a broad range of tools and approaches to move towards a sustainable world
2. This is not a one year change programme. There needs to be a vision of where we want to be (sustainable consumption) and some milestones en route
3. Let’s also recognise that we’re all different and that we’ll respond to different stimuli and incentives
And, whilst much can be achieved at an individual and local level, there’s also a need to make changes at in areas such as incentives, taxation and measurement. This needs to be driven by government.
I think that there is also a need to get opinion-formers, by which I mean mainstream press (beyond the Independent and Guardian) and possibly (given the society we live in) a few celebrities, actively supporting the sustainable consumption agenda otherwise laudable initiatives will be in danger of failing - sitting here now I can just imagine the Daily Mail’s or Sun’s response to the idea of a Citizen’s Income!
So, recognising we’re all different, and putting my marketing hat on, I’m keen that we identify and research the different segments of the population to understand:
1. The environmental issues and concerns that are their particular hot button
2. The size of the different segments
3. Whether they are early adopters of a new thing, followers, late adopters or luddites.
Given that we’re not going to change everything at once there’s a need for a bit of prioritisation so we can focus resources and effort on early adopters, the biggest consumer segments and those issues that are going to make the biggest impact.
There’s a range of practical measures and steps that can be piloted and, if successful implemented in full. Some of these I would see as mandatory that need to be adopted by the whole population (eg carbon credits), other would be discretionary. The research programme should help on how best to message the former and which segments to focus discretionary initiatives.
Measure that could help us move towards sustainable consumption could include the following:
1. Personal Carbon Trading
2. Loans and incentives to encourage the installation of energy efficient heating equipment – why not build repayment of the loan into the tariff paid for the energy?
3. VAT linked to carbon footprint of the product rather than value (Practical issues here I know) but it would be great to have different prices reflecting the carbon footprint for asparagus from the UK versus Peru.
4. Tax credits on income tax if you personal carbon usage falls below a certain threshold (linked to 1)
5. Removing subsidies from non-environmentally friendly activities and re-divert
6. Introducing a balanced scorecard of measures to track wealth (ie GDP plus other indicators)
7. Making it easier for individuals to change their work-life balance, and making it easier (and cheaper) for companies to hire individuals so there are more bodies to share the work around – look at scrapping NIC and replace with a series of taxes that green behaviour
8. Invest in transport infrastructure that means people have a viable alternative to the car
9. Actively promote alternatives to ‘shopping therapy’
10. Seek to reinvigorate local communities. The millennium lottery programme was really successful in getting local communities together to focus on a local project (be that a playing field, new village hall or new footpath). Why not have one in which lottery grants are given for sustainable consumption/energy saving initiatives?
11. More education on environmental issues in schools
12. Change building and planning regulations so that
a. Out-of –town developments are the exception rather tahn the norm
b. Public transport is an integral part of any new development rather than the afterthought it often appears to be today
c. All new offices, shops, factories and houses must incorporate energy-saving technology (eg PV cells, heat exchangers)
Not a bad manifesto that – we just need someone to adopt it! And that’s without the international dimension....
Sunday 11 October 2009
Gross National Product or Gross National Happiness? What should governments be striving for and how?
Sunday greetings from a very happy Pear Tree….
Twenty years ago I was travelling through Nepal and whilst it was very apparent that poverty existed, the country did not look like and feel like one of the poorest nations in the world. However, if you measured ‘wealth’ purely by GNP, Nepal was very close to the bottom of the league table. As I travelled through the country it was clear that a huge non-monetary, informal economy existed, in which a lot of business within and between villages did not hit the statistics. I guess this was the first time I started to question GNP.
Today, I view GNP as a valuable, but not the only measure of ‘progress’ we should be looking at. At the end of the day, you tend to get what you measure, so governments need to find indicators that take into account the “non-monetised” parts of the economy along with other aspects of wellbeing as part of a ‘balanced scorecard’ of progress.
This week’s class work and reading have shown me that a significant amount of thinking and work has taken place in this area and that progress is being made. However, we’re not there yet. There remain a number of challenges, in particular:
1. Agreeing a core set of measures to be adopted at both a national and international level. There seem to be a number of measures around but none has yet been adopted globally a la GNP
2. Agreeing what units to use in measurement.
3. Getting the new metrics top of mind so that they are quoted as a matter of course on programmes such as Today or News at Ten
We need advocates in the mainstream press and political parties to start to push the debate. It would be great if one of the major political parties took this issue into the mainstream in the run up to the election, but don’t hold your breath!
Sunday greetings from a very happy Pear Tree….
Twenty years ago I was travelling through Nepal and whilst it was very apparent that poverty existed, the country did not look like and feel like one of the poorest nations in the world. However, if you measured ‘wealth’ purely by GNP, Nepal was very close to the bottom of the league table. As I travelled through the country it was clear that a huge non-monetary, informal economy existed, in which a lot of business within and between villages did not hit the statistics. I guess this was the first time I started to question GNP.
Today, I view GNP as a valuable, but not the only measure of ‘progress’ we should be looking at. At the end of the day, you tend to get what you measure, so governments need to find indicators that take into account the “non-monetised” parts of the economy along with other aspects of wellbeing as part of a ‘balanced scorecard’ of progress.
This week’s class work and reading have shown me that a significant amount of thinking and work has taken place in this area and that progress is being made. However, we’re not there yet. There remain a number of challenges, in particular:
1. Agreeing a core set of measures to be adopted at both a national and international level. There seem to be a number of measures around but none has yet been adopted globally a la GNP
2. Agreeing what units to use in measurement.
3. Getting the new metrics top of mind so that they are quoted as a matter of course on programmes such as Today or News at Ten
We need advocates in the mainstream press and political parties to start to push the debate. It would be great if one of the major political parties took this issue into the mainstream in the run up to the election, but don’t hold your breath!
Thursday 1 October 2009
Do businesses have a duty to promote sustainable consumption?
Greetings fromPear Tree Barn. A few thoughts on this weeks topic...
Let’s start with some definitions…
My Little Oxford English Dictionary defines duty as “meeting legal or moral obligations”…
I’ll view sustainable consumption as enabling “development that meets the needs of future generations without compromising the ability of the present generation to meet their needs”…
And for the purposes of this blog I’m taking a business to be a joint stock limited liability company (which accounts for the majority of businesses in terms of turnover and employment in most developed countries) rather than, say, a partnership or mutual.
So, first up let’s consider businesses and their legal obligations…
In most instances businesses do not have a legal obligation to promote sustainable consumption…
The fundamental purpose of today’s joint stock company and the reason it exists is to maximise the financial return it generates for shareholders (through a combination of dividend payments and appreciation in the value of the stock or equity).
It has no legal obligation to promote sustainable consumption unless there is a clause in the company’s Memorandum of Association (a document which, among other things, sets out what businesses the company may operate in) which defines promoting sustainable consumption as one of its activities.
…but it may make business sense to have sustainable consumption as part of your strategy
Businesses only generate long-term shareholder value by satisfying the needs and demands of other stakeholder groups such as customers, management and staff, suppliers, governments and regulators, and the communities in which they operate. Hence companies will include elements of the sustainable consumption agenda if one or more of these groups put pressure on it to do so, and if doing so helps improve the company’s competitive position (and hence it’s ability to generate shareholder value). So, we see businesses ‘green’ the products and services they sell, stress their ‘green’ credentials in their brand positioning, highlight their CSR activities and take actions that are environmentally friendly that also reduce operating costs.
Equally, if a ‘green’ action no longer makes financial sense there is a strong possibility that the company will stop it. I recently heard about a major plc that as part of it’s CSR/green agenda had been buying it’s energy from and eco-friendly supplier. However, it has recently stopped doing so because the government has removed or reduced subsidies in this area meaning it no longer makes financial sense to buy green energy!!
Do businesses have a moral obligation to promote sustainable consumption?
This is a really interesting question!
Businesses are no more than legal entity that has been created to allow individuals to conduct commerce.
Therefore, I’d argue that what a business does in terms of promoting sustainable consumption is a function of a) the values of the people managing and working within the business and b) their interpretation of what the owners of the business want.
So do the owners of the business and those managing it on their behalf have a moral duty to promote sustainable consumption?
I’d argue very strongly that they do as, like the rest of society, they have a moral duty to manage the resources of the planet in a way that allows future generations to be able to meet their needs. However, this needs to be set against the other demands on shareholders and managers. For example, many shareholders are pension funds who need to ensure that there investments are generating an adequate financial return so that yours and my pension obligations can be met.
Some closing thoughts…
As discussed above, businesses have already started down the road in terms of greening their products, services and processes and initiatives in these areas will generate real environmental benefits.
Further progress is very dependent upon whether shareholders, managers and employees believe they have a moral duty to promote sustainable consumption and how they set this against the other (often financial) goals and objectives they have.
‘Bye for now
Kev
Let’s start with some definitions…
My Little Oxford English Dictionary defines duty as “meeting legal or moral obligations”…
I’ll view sustainable consumption as enabling “development that meets the needs of future generations without compromising the ability of the present generation to meet their needs”…
And for the purposes of this blog I’m taking a business to be a joint stock limited liability company (which accounts for the majority of businesses in terms of turnover and employment in most developed countries) rather than, say, a partnership or mutual.
So, first up let’s consider businesses and their legal obligations…
In most instances businesses do not have a legal obligation to promote sustainable consumption…
The fundamental purpose of today’s joint stock company and the reason it exists is to maximise the financial return it generates for shareholders (through a combination of dividend payments and appreciation in the value of the stock or equity).
It has no legal obligation to promote sustainable consumption unless there is a clause in the company’s Memorandum of Association (a document which, among other things, sets out what businesses the company may operate in) which defines promoting sustainable consumption as one of its activities.
…but it may make business sense to have sustainable consumption as part of your strategy
Businesses only generate long-term shareholder value by satisfying the needs and demands of other stakeholder groups such as customers, management and staff, suppliers, governments and regulators, and the communities in which they operate. Hence companies will include elements of the sustainable consumption agenda if one or more of these groups put pressure on it to do so, and if doing so helps improve the company’s competitive position (and hence it’s ability to generate shareholder value). So, we see businesses ‘green’ the products and services they sell, stress their ‘green’ credentials in their brand positioning, highlight their CSR activities and take actions that are environmentally friendly that also reduce operating costs.
Equally, if a ‘green’ action no longer makes financial sense there is a strong possibility that the company will stop it. I recently heard about a major plc that as part of it’s CSR/green agenda had been buying it’s energy from and eco-friendly supplier. However, it has recently stopped doing so because the government has removed or reduced subsidies in this area meaning it no longer makes financial sense to buy green energy!!
Do businesses have a moral obligation to promote sustainable consumption?
This is a really interesting question!
Businesses are no more than legal entity that has been created to allow individuals to conduct commerce.
Therefore, I’d argue that what a business does in terms of promoting sustainable consumption is a function of a) the values of the people managing and working within the business and b) their interpretation of what the owners of the business want.
So do the owners of the business and those managing it on their behalf have a moral duty to promote sustainable consumption?
I’d argue very strongly that they do as, like the rest of society, they have a moral duty to manage the resources of the planet in a way that allows future generations to be able to meet their needs. However, this needs to be set against the other demands on shareholders and managers. For example, many shareholders are pension funds who need to ensure that there investments are generating an adequate financial return so that yours and my pension obligations can be met.
Some closing thoughts…
As discussed above, businesses have already started down the road in terms of greening their products, services and processes and initiatives in these areas will generate real environmental benefits.
Further progress is very dependent upon whether shareholders, managers and employees believe they have a moral duty to promote sustainable consumption and how they set this against the other (often financial) goals and objectives they have.
‘Bye for now
Kev
CO2 is green!
If you haven't seen it already, have a look at this US ad. I found the link on the Guardian website but I'm sure there are other ways of accessing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/sep/28/co2-is-green-tv-advert
If it was April 1 rather than October 1 I'd say I'd been fooled!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/sep/28/co2-is-green-tv-advert
If it was April 1 rather than October 1 I'd say I'd been fooled!
Thursday 24 September 2009
Why Sustainable Consumption at UEA?
Hi guys and girls and welcome to my first ever blog....
There are a number of aspects of the sustainable consumption agenda that interest me and a number of different things I'd like to take away from the course:
There are a number of aspects of the sustainable consumption agenda that interest me and a number of different things I'd like to take away from the course:
- I want to understand what intiatives have been undertaken to try and encourage sustainable consumption, and get an insight into what has worked well, what has worked less well and why this is the case
- I'd love to know what new approaches are being considered by policy-makers to a) try and reduce consumption in the developed world and b) try and encourage the developing world to take a more sustainable approach
- I'm also studying Environmental Economics and want to understand whether or how the approach taken in sustainable consumption initiatives fits with/complements more traditional economic approaches such as taxing and permits
- Prior to starting the MSc I worked in strategy and marketing for a number of years and want to start to understand how concepts on sustainable consumption can be built into business and marketing strategies
- I'm interested in consumerism and it's growth - I still find it hard to accept that shopping is seen as a leisure activity!
- At a personal level I expect it will make me question my own consumption patterns. The carbon footprint exercise has confirmed that I need to replace th oil-fired boiler and Aga. Plans are already in place to do the latter in '09 and I'm currently investigating ground source heat pumps for the latter
That's all for now - off looking at wood-burning stoves tomorrow. Have a great weekend and see you next week
Kev
P.S. If you haven't done so already, worth looking at the IPPR website which has a number of interesting reports and articles, many free
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
