I dont feel qualified to talk of the global situation (yet!) so address the issue with regard to Britain.
What will be the necessary adaptations to create new systems of provision in the future? What has tended to happen historically is that change has happened slowly over decades or even centuries with regard to alterations in the eco system and agricultural practice, and it has taken an act as significant as the Norman conquest to change the infrastructure of society and agriculture profoundly in a short period. The consensus is that the situation with regard to transition from oil is relatively imminent and this means that we have forced upon us a situation where significant changes in the amount of energy we have available to us need to be addressed in the short term.
As Darwin noted, it is not the most intelligent, nor the strongest of species that survive, it is the most adaptable.
Much of the emphasis has been on the local nature of provision as an answer to the shortage of oil for transporting food both by air and by road, which is logical but I think there will continue to be movement of goods by the rail network which is currently being modernised with plans for hugely expensive, (billions £) but probably necessary further high speed rail lines planned in Britain to match those in Japan and France. Food transported in this way should be more expensive, reflecting the actual cost of its movement as well as production but, as Noel pointed out in his lecture, trade will not cease, and there must be a safety net in place for years when in some areas the harvest may fail. The widespread provision of allotments immediately outside cities so that people can grow some of their own food seems likely, and there have been a number of tv programmes devoted entirely to growing food in the past few years which is, I think, no co-incidence.
As discussed recently it seems that a change in our diets to eating less meat and dairy and more in season vegetables will be necessary. Traditionally most people ate bread, cabbages and root vegetables in the winter with meat as a luxury, so the loss of mass production and oil produced herbicides, pesticides and nitrogen based fertilisers on the land and cheap imported food, will return us to a situation that we have survived in the past, albeit with a smaller population. It seems obvious that a far higher percentage of our income (whether that be local or national currency) must be devoted to food in the future. Other countries, such as France, have, in the past, spent 70% of their income on food and that seems a likely figure. Cheap food is not going to be an option unless you grow it yourself.
We will however still need animals such as sheep for the production of warm clothing and textiles in winter as well as manure, which may also be of use as fuel. If we heat our homes less we will need more clothing, and cotton is less efficient than wool and sheepskin for retaining warmth. Cotton has never been grown here so new varieties would have to be developed were this to be considered. Cotton is also a crop which is resource greedy to grow, particularly with regard to water, another factor which makes wool as viable.
I think we will, in the British climate, be able to grow sufficient, if a limited variety of foods on our farmland, even with the continuing increase in average temperature that we have seen in recent decades. With regard to keeping food fresh for short periods 'fridges could be replaced by cool boxes on the north side of homes which work well at current temperatures for 8 months of the year, and keep insects and rodents at bay. Underground ice rooms as used in the US could also be considered to store root vegetable crops such as potatoes and carrots for longer periods during the winter. The ice may have to be initially manufactured but would last many months if stored correctly and would therefore be far more energy efficient than current methods of cooling.
For people who fear change this will be a challenging maybe even miserable time but for those that can adapt it will be time to strengthen community life and trade for mutual support. There is a huge satisfaction in being self sufficient and we have lost that in the last century. It may be actually a cohesive and beneficial influence in returning to that type of society in the future, as mentioned by Nef's well being measures.
I do think there may be initial issues with regard to democracy and equity but only if the transition stage is grossly mishandled by the government. It seems to me they have begun to take the necessary measures to avoid a situation that could lead to civil unrest but that much more needs to be done particularly in terms of real education, so that everyone is aware, not only of the problems facing us but how life will change in real everyday terms and promoting the concept that this can be a positive rather than a threatening change. I also believe there should be some move towards a ruralisation of society, so that most people do have the chance to grow some of their own food.
The education in skills required to live in this new social structure should be swiftly recognised. I suggest that a diploma in sustainable horticulture (14-19) be added to those recently included in the national school curriculum, since it seems this must be useful in the future and could be literally vital.
Friday 4 December 2009
Wednesday 25 November 2009
Week 10 Vegetarian diet and related issues.
There are very good reasons for giving up eating meat in order to reduce carbon emissions, not only is every pound of meat "grown" by the use of seven pounds of vegetarian food such as soya,barley, wheat and maize, so that it is simply not good economics with regard to feeding the population of the world but also unsustainable. Meat production also requires high volumes of water too. Then there is the question of the methane and other greenhouse gases produced by the animals as they grow. Additionally much of the cereals used in the production of meat for human consumption are not grown in the countries producing the meat but shipped in from developing countries, so that there are carbon emission issues in transporting the food to the animals. Also the closing of many local abbatoirs under EEC law has now meant that animals must be transported greater distances in order to be slaughtered, adding to carbon emissions, not to mention the misery of the animals involved.
Other issues are probably more important even than carbon emissions with regard to the eating of fish. It is apparent that humanity has depleted the natural fish stocks of the oceans so greatly that we have probably reached the tipping point for the extinction of many species such as cod and tuna that have been staple foods for millions of people worldwide. However the fuel used in fishing, transporting and in particular refrigerating or freezing fish before sale must also be considered in the carbon emission debate, since they all add to the problem.
Poultry is less damaging than red meat since the birds grow pound for pound more quickly, and are often used to produce eggs beforehand (sometimes in appalling conditions) so that there are two foods with "first class" (containing more than 22 amino acids)proteins coming from one source. However for much of the year artificial lighting and heating is used to encourage higher egg yields which should be factored in.
This brings me to the point vegetarian or vegan? As someone who has not eaten meat for nearly 24 years I am aware of the many health benefits from vegetarianism. There is much evidence to show that avoiding "red" meat is generally a healthy lifestyle choice, not only because even lean meat is 30% fat but because there is evidence to show that there are considerable mental health benefits to not eating meat and particularly offal.
Vegetarians are said to be seven times less likely to show symptoms of mental health deterioration, including senile dementia and Parkinsons disease, though the exact cause of this has not yet been proved. It may be linked to the proteins which are found in animals and particularly organs such as the brain and which have been shown to cause symptoms ranging from loss of memory to CJD when eaten. (There is an ongoing study of natives of Borneo where cannibalism had some interesting effects on some of the population and where a resistant strain of people to the CJD type disease has resulted and this may provide more evidence of what exactly causes the mental health problems).
Personally I still eat eggs and some dairy products and have found when I didnt for a few days that I seemed to lack physical energy. It may be that I have to live at a slower pace of life as a vegan than I do as a vegetarian and this is an adaptation that could certainly be made and logically should be if the issues about growing red meat above are taken into account. My reasons for giving up meat in the 1980s were to do with health and animal welfare issues. For the same reasons I buy free range eggs and organic milk, but should really for the sake of the carbon issues probably give up both.
The main reason for not eating fish is so far as Im concerned less to do with carbon emissions at the moment than the fact that we are in danger of extinguishing for ever a source of protein that feeds many of the worlds poorest people particularly in Asia where there may be insufficient agricultural land to grow them more protein rich foods such as soya.
Other issues such as the destruction of the rain forest in the Amazon basin in order that beef cattle can be raised is one more ecological reason for giving up meat.
Yes I agree that meat should be given up, but I think there would be huge resistance, particularly in the United States where it is a staple, and also in the EEC. It may be that meat should become the kind of luxury food that lobster and caviar are now, so that it is so expensive few can afford it except as a celebration dish. If meat was eaten once a week rather than four or more times a week this would make a significant mainstream difference to all the above mentioned issues. For myself I should be considering giving up dairy to bring myself into the truly alternative camp.
I also believe were we, amongst the developed nations to ever reach the vegan stage basic nutritional advice should be given in schools so that people understand how mixing foods such as pasta with either peas or sesame seeds can provide sufficient levels of protein to stay healthy and active.
It is by no means obvious how to live well entirely on vegan foods, which has not been part of our cultural heritage for thousands of years, and additionally some of the highest protein vegetable foods such as cereals and legumes have issues of their own with regard to carbon emissions and the use of resources such as water (rice).
Food is a very complicated subject, not only with regard to carbon emissions/ sustainability but also health, animal welfare and cultural attitudes.
Other issues are probably more important even than carbon emissions with regard to the eating of fish. It is apparent that humanity has depleted the natural fish stocks of the oceans so greatly that we have probably reached the tipping point for the extinction of many species such as cod and tuna that have been staple foods for millions of people worldwide. However the fuel used in fishing, transporting and in particular refrigerating or freezing fish before sale must also be considered in the carbon emission debate, since they all add to the problem.
Poultry is less damaging than red meat since the birds grow pound for pound more quickly, and are often used to produce eggs beforehand (sometimes in appalling conditions) so that there are two foods with "first class" (containing more than 22 amino acids)proteins coming from one source. However for much of the year artificial lighting and heating is used to encourage higher egg yields which should be factored in.
This brings me to the point vegetarian or vegan? As someone who has not eaten meat for nearly 24 years I am aware of the many health benefits from vegetarianism. There is much evidence to show that avoiding "red" meat is generally a healthy lifestyle choice, not only because even lean meat is 30% fat but because there is evidence to show that there are considerable mental health benefits to not eating meat and particularly offal.
Vegetarians are said to be seven times less likely to show symptoms of mental health deterioration, including senile dementia and Parkinsons disease, though the exact cause of this has not yet been proved. It may be linked to the proteins which are found in animals and particularly organs such as the brain and which have been shown to cause symptoms ranging from loss of memory to CJD when eaten. (There is an ongoing study of natives of Borneo where cannibalism had some interesting effects on some of the population and where a resistant strain of people to the CJD type disease has resulted and this may provide more evidence of what exactly causes the mental health problems).
Personally I still eat eggs and some dairy products and have found when I didnt for a few days that I seemed to lack physical energy. It may be that I have to live at a slower pace of life as a vegan than I do as a vegetarian and this is an adaptation that could certainly be made and logically should be if the issues about growing red meat above are taken into account. My reasons for giving up meat in the 1980s were to do with health and animal welfare issues. For the same reasons I buy free range eggs and organic milk, but should really for the sake of the carbon issues probably give up both.
The main reason for not eating fish is so far as Im concerned less to do with carbon emissions at the moment than the fact that we are in danger of extinguishing for ever a source of protein that feeds many of the worlds poorest people particularly in Asia where there may be insufficient agricultural land to grow them more protein rich foods such as soya.
Other issues such as the destruction of the rain forest in the Amazon basin in order that beef cattle can be raised is one more ecological reason for giving up meat.
Yes I agree that meat should be given up, but I think there would be huge resistance, particularly in the United States where it is a staple, and also in the EEC. It may be that meat should become the kind of luxury food that lobster and caviar are now, so that it is so expensive few can afford it except as a celebration dish. If meat was eaten once a week rather than four or more times a week this would make a significant mainstream difference to all the above mentioned issues. For myself I should be considering giving up dairy to bring myself into the truly alternative camp.
I also believe were we, amongst the developed nations to ever reach the vegan stage basic nutritional advice should be given in schools so that people understand how mixing foods such as pasta with either peas or sesame seeds can provide sufficient levels of protein to stay healthy and active.
It is by no means obvious how to live well entirely on vegan foods, which has not been part of our cultural heritage for thousands of years, and additionally some of the highest protein vegetable foods such as cereals and legumes have issues of their own with regard to carbon emissions and the use of resources such as water (rice).
Food is a very complicated subject, not only with regard to carbon emissions/ sustainability but also health, animal welfare and cultural attitudes.
Friday 20 November 2009
Week 9 Eco dreams....or survival instincts?
It depends entirely on whether the group in question is already motivated to some extent on whether group based approaches to sustainable consumption work in my view. Like the scandinavian eco villages which were studied during week 4, people who already share an ideal can support each other very effectively in groups. I consider that survival was once the motivation for homo sapiens to work together in groups/tribes and it is because this system works we live together in villages or tribes now, and do not live successfully on our own. Trying to manage any kind of existence without the support of others who have a vested interest in the whole group ethos surviving is extremely hard. Society recognises this in the help that is given through benefits to single mothers for example.
Therefore if the group is already pro sustainable consumption practices,(or anything else for that matter),working together will be far more effective than working individually towards that end. "Many hands make light work" and shared beliefs strengthen the community and increase its potential for success.
If however,there is not a shared ideal, the result would be quite different. It would probably become an irritant to members who did not agree with the concept being pursued and they might well become resistant to its process and would either opt out of it or even possibly sabotage it. Imagine living in a community with, for example, some powerfully expressed cult belief, if one did not share it!
There is also the point that groups that are living apart from and differently from other communities may become, like the Amish in the US, a kind of social island where they follow their own system for living but they do not in any way influence others to follow their example.
In conclusion group efforts are better than individual efforts, when there is some consensus, but it does not follow that the group's ideas will spread successfully to a wider community unless there is some clearly perceived benefit to be derived from it.
Therefore if the group is already pro sustainable consumption practices,(or anything else for that matter),working together will be far more effective than working individually towards that end. "Many hands make light work" and shared beliefs strengthen the community and increase its potential for success.
If however,there is not a shared ideal, the result would be quite different. It would probably become an irritant to members who did not agree with the concept being pursued and they might well become resistant to its process and would either opt out of it or even possibly sabotage it. Imagine living in a community with, for example, some powerfully expressed cult belief, if one did not share it!
There is also the point that groups that are living apart from and differently from other communities may become, like the Amish in the US, a kind of social island where they follow their own system for living but they do not in any way influence others to follow their example.
In conclusion group efforts are better than individual efforts, when there is some consensus, but it does not follow that the group's ideas will spread successfully to a wider community unless there is some clearly perceived benefit to be derived from it.
Thursday 12 November 2009
Week 8 An Organisation to promote Sustainable Consumption...Green BBC
I'd pick the BBC because there are so many different channels on both television and radio where the message could be got out in diverse ways.
I'd ask them to include the eco theme in programmes of all sorts, with an emphasis on exemplifying, since my reading of the stats on Richard's graph on Wednesdays lecture gave me the impression that stronger than the community issue in encouraging people to change their behaviours towards saving energy was the desire to a) be like the exemplars (i.e. the players in the football club), b) to accept a message more readily from someone trusted (who in this case, however illogically was once again the members of the team).
So over the course of a licence fee paying year the whole organisation would turn out a programme every week (and a mini happening every day) with a different well known person supporting the eco message in as many different ways as possible, from a nudge in the few seconds of a programme introduction, to a programme taking an ecological view on issues such as green transport, recycling, solar and wind energy, insulation, food waste, permaculture, less packaging, lowering central heating, consuming less, growing your own food (they are doing this already) etc etc. There would be online websites to support with information and links to appropriate organisations. There would be a game show of some kind in which teams of celebrities and families would compete for improving their lifestlyes ecologically. Or a similar concept. The idea being to make the issues part of everyday life through constant exposure and a talking point in the same way it appears the X Factor and Strictly are in certain sections of the population at present and to have well known and trusted figures putting out the message and taking part in the behaviour for all to see.
I would be heavily reliant on "experts" in this field for advice on what the most likely vehicles would be for successful carrying of the message, but there should be no shortage of them at the BBC.
I'd ask them to include the eco theme in programmes of all sorts, with an emphasis on exemplifying, since my reading of the stats on Richard's graph on Wednesdays lecture gave me the impression that stronger than the community issue in encouraging people to change their behaviours towards saving energy was the desire to a) be like the exemplars (i.e. the players in the football club), b) to accept a message more readily from someone trusted (who in this case, however illogically was once again the members of the team).
So over the course of a licence fee paying year the whole organisation would turn out a programme every week (and a mini happening every day) with a different well known person supporting the eco message in as many different ways as possible, from a nudge in the few seconds of a programme introduction, to a programme taking an ecological view on issues such as green transport, recycling, solar and wind energy, insulation, food waste, permaculture, less packaging, lowering central heating, consuming less, growing your own food (they are doing this already) etc etc. There would be online websites to support with information and links to appropriate organisations. There would be a game show of some kind in which teams of celebrities and families would compete for improving their lifestlyes ecologically. Or a similar concept. The idea being to make the issues part of everyday life through constant exposure and a talking point in the same way it appears the X Factor and Strictly are in certain sections of the population at present and to have well known and trusted figures putting out the message and taking part in the behaviour for all to see.
I would be heavily reliant on "experts" in this field for advice on what the most likely vehicles would be for successful carrying of the message, but there should be no shortage of them at the BBC.
Tuesday 3 November 2009
Week 7. (2) Corporate social responsibility (Radio 4)
November 3rd "You and Yours" on Radio 4 discussing issues on corporate social responsibility. This was indirectly linked to sustainable consumption, through issues raised in connection with CSR. Mike Barry of Plan A for M & S discussed how 80% of M & S customers wanted various issues to be addressed and the company felt it was necessary for that reason and also felt that such issues as dealing with waste and recycling were financially profitable. The company has a four point plan for dealing with CSR:-
climate change issues,
waste and recycling,
providing better wages for workers, (there are 2 million in the M & S supply chain,) in developing countries and
looking after the needs and expectations of their 75,000 retail workers.
Said that innovations had brought about real and sustained change and that customer expectations required that M & S be a market leader in this field.
Other small companies also phoned in, a food co-op from Manchester called Unicorn which said that its customer loyalty was dependent on its continuing "green" CSR packages, and another RBS which had a project in place where if workers gave money to charities the company tripled the donation.
Not necessarily all about sustainable consumption, but surely evidence of "Seeds of change" within the business community with regard to New Economic type innovations becoming embedded and changing lives for the better, profit not the only aim.
climate change issues,
waste and recycling,
providing better wages for workers, (there are 2 million in the M & S supply chain,) in developing countries and
looking after the needs and expectations of their 75,000 retail workers.
Said that innovations had brought about real and sustained change and that customer expectations required that M & S be a market leader in this field.
Other small companies also phoned in, a food co-op from Manchester called Unicorn which said that its customer loyalty was dependent on its continuing "green" CSR packages, and another RBS which had a project in place where if workers gave money to charities the company tripled the donation.
Not necessarily all about sustainable consumption, but surely evidence of "Seeds of change" within the business community with regard to New Economic type innovations becoming embedded and changing lives for the better, profit not the only aim.
Week 7 Algae fuel option from San Diego, "the Houston of California"
This week I've heard, (on radio 4), a brief report on the development of algae for producing a bio fuel that is taking place in San Diego,California. After the usual interview with a truck business owner in Texas, who said that if any taxes are put on "gas" unemployment is bound to result, (no mention of the environmental issues long term for everyone!), there was a change of scene to a San Diego laboratory where huge vats of green algae were being stirred. I hope, (but think it unlikely) that this process was solar powered since it was taking place 24/7. An on site scientist, explained that he was convinced that fuel produced from the algae could be in use instead of conventional oil within ten years, with an estimated five years for the production of a prototype vehicle.
My thoughts? Firstly the processing seemed to be very expensive in terms of growing and processing the algae, (water resources, ambient temperatures, and extraction of the oil) and although the algae used carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while growing (so improving the situation re emissions) it seems unlikely that these will not then be returned when the oil is either processed or used, not to mention from the vat stirring if this is carbon fuel driven.
It seemed as if replacing the transport fuel was all that was really being considered here. While clearly short of data on some issues (such as the emissions, if any, and the costs of production on the environment in the processing) there seemed to be no emphasis on ecological issues, only on the fact that once in use the world need not fear the end of carbon fuels. It is probably replacing one problem fuel with another which has different but still significant issues attached to its production and use. I hope the water at least could be re-used time and again in the production process.In other words this seems another mainstream attempt at greening the current situation. At least the fuel was not(yet)using land previously growing food resources for people,(as with some other bio fuel crops).
Ive always hoped the solar cell technology we have could be improved so that solar powered vehicles would run during daylight and in sunshine would store energy for trips in the dark. They might only travel at 30mph but for the many people who use cars predominantly in cities for work, school trips and shopping this could work well. Public transport would be the option for longer trips, and the infrastructure of this does need to be improved and broadened as already mentioned. (Wk 6)
My thoughts? Firstly the processing seemed to be very expensive in terms of growing and processing the algae, (water resources, ambient temperatures, and extraction of the oil) and although the algae used carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while growing (so improving the situation re emissions) it seems unlikely that these will not then be returned when the oil is either processed or used, not to mention from the vat stirring if this is carbon fuel driven.
It seemed as if replacing the transport fuel was all that was really being considered here. While clearly short of data on some issues (such as the emissions, if any, and the costs of production on the environment in the processing) there seemed to be no emphasis on ecological issues, only on the fact that once in use the world need not fear the end of carbon fuels. It is probably replacing one problem fuel with another which has different but still significant issues attached to its production and use. I hope the water at least could be re-used time and again in the production process.In other words this seems another mainstream attempt at greening the current situation. At least the fuel was not(yet)using land previously growing food resources for people,(as with some other bio fuel crops).
Ive always hoped the solar cell technology we have could be improved so that solar powered vehicles would run during daylight and in sunshine would store energy for trips in the dark. They might only travel at 30mph but for the many people who use cars predominantly in cities for work, school trips and shopping this could work well. Public transport would be the option for longer trips, and the infrastructure of this does need to be improved and broadened as already mentioned. (Wk 6)
Tuesday 27 October 2009
Week 6 Green Taxes
The "green fiscal commission" have advised taxing heating bills in order to double their current costs and to continuously increase the tax on new cars each year by £300 until it has reached £3,300 by 2020. Petrol and diesel would also to increase 10% a year so that they will have trebled in price by 2020.
I suspect someone has been reading my week 4 blog on practical measures!
I suspect someone has been reading my week 4 blog on practical measures!
Sunday 25 October 2009
Week 6 - Structural Issues ...Public Transport system failures!
The main structural problem with sustainable consumption has been the public transport system, because of where my family live. Although only a couple of miles outside Norwich there has been no public transport service from this hamlet since the 1960s. Since there are no shops or post office (not even a post box!) and our school, Broadland High was nearly six miles away with no available places on its bus, it has not been possible to manage without a car in the past. Rural dwellers have some challenges not experienced by those living in urban development!
More recently a Park and Ride service has been running from the Sprowston Road, which is between two and three miles from my home, and this has been really useful for my younger daughter's and my own journeys into Norwich, so saving some carbon emissions. My husband rides his bike twelve miles a day to and from City College four days a week, keeping his travel sustainable.
If we had a bus which passed through the hamlet we (and I suspect several other families living here) could probably manage, now the children have left school, our shopping and other local journeys without a car, which would be economically as well as ecologically efficient. However there are no plans to re-institute the bus service which used to run twice a day, in the foreseeable future.
The Northern Distributor Route which is scheduled to begin in 2012 is most likely, (since this is the cheapest route, and there have been surveyors and reptile, bird, plant and archeological groups all assessing the locality for anything which might provide a delay or even, like the newts in the Wensum Valley, a stay of execution, without success), to be within 100ft of our home. This may perhaps mean that we are able to have access eventually to another bus service connected to this new road. That would be one positive outcome from our point of view. Also the new "eco-friendly" town to be built at Rackheath will only be a couple of miles away and I understand there are to be frequent tram-train transport links with Norwich which might also prove useful to us, if we can get across the Northern Distributor Route without having to go miles to find an access point, since it will be between us and the new town.
So the public transport infrastructure is our major difficulty and is unlikely to be improved in the immediate future, although whenever we are asked for feedback on council services I always mention this point. Without instituting the system people will not get rid of their cars, and I think if they have them they will tend to use them when not strictly necessary. It could be argued that building another major road system will only improve the driving experience of those in cars going around the city perimeter (through lowered congestion), and so possibly even increase the numbers of those who are using cars without regard to limiting journeys and emissions.
I think there would have to be a substantial increase in public pressure on the council to bring about any changes in local rural bus services, it has been raised countless times in the past in various areas of Norfolk without success, the reason being the council claims there are insufficient users for it to be economically viable, that being the measure considered, not ecological issues.
To change this attitude would require a strong education programme to show the long term costs on all electors in an effort to change the priorities of the council policies, or perhaps more simply, the election of a majority of green party members.
More recently a Park and Ride service has been running from the Sprowston Road, which is between two and three miles from my home, and this has been really useful for my younger daughter's and my own journeys into Norwich, so saving some carbon emissions. My husband rides his bike twelve miles a day to and from City College four days a week, keeping his travel sustainable.
If we had a bus which passed through the hamlet we (and I suspect several other families living here) could probably manage, now the children have left school, our shopping and other local journeys without a car, which would be economically as well as ecologically efficient. However there are no plans to re-institute the bus service which used to run twice a day, in the foreseeable future.
The Northern Distributor Route which is scheduled to begin in 2012 is most likely, (since this is the cheapest route, and there have been surveyors and reptile, bird, plant and archeological groups all assessing the locality for anything which might provide a delay or even, like the newts in the Wensum Valley, a stay of execution, without success), to be within 100ft of our home. This may perhaps mean that we are able to have access eventually to another bus service connected to this new road. That would be one positive outcome from our point of view. Also the new "eco-friendly" town to be built at Rackheath will only be a couple of miles away and I understand there are to be frequent tram-train transport links with Norwich which might also prove useful to us, if we can get across the Northern Distributor Route without having to go miles to find an access point, since it will be between us and the new town.
So the public transport infrastructure is our major difficulty and is unlikely to be improved in the immediate future, although whenever we are asked for feedback on council services I always mention this point. Without instituting the system people will not get rid of their cars, and I think if they have them they will tend to use them when not strictly necessary. It could be argued that building another major road system will only improve the driving experience of those in cars going around the city perimeter (through lowered congestion), and so possibly even increase the numbers of those who are using cars without regard to limiting journeys and emissions.
I think there would have to be a substantial increase in public pressure on the council to bring about any changes in local rural bus services, it has been raised countless times in the past in various areas of Norfolk without success, the reason being the council claims there are insufficient users for it to be economically viable, that being the measure considered, not ecological issues.
To change this attitude would require a strong education programme to show the long term costs on all electors in an effort to change the priorities of the council policies, or perhaps more simply, the election of a majority of green party members.
Week 6 "Small is beautiful" my case study choice
I have chosen The Schumacher Society as the topic for my case study. It is an organisation which describes itself as "Promoting Human Scale Sustainable Development" and uses lectures, publications and links with like minded organisations to educate towards this goal.
Thursday 22 October 2009
Week 5, Advertising, self conception, the lemming drive.
I think advertising could raise peoples understanding of the issues pertaining to sustainable consumption but overall I think the need to break the entrenched behaviourable patterns of society is the priority, and that, in my view, is more than any advertising campaign could achieve on its own.
Ive thought about advertising more today than ever before... Advertising is a useful marketing tool with regard to my buying habits largely because it is informative.
With regard to most often purchased items such as food, household cleaners, shampoo etc I go for the mainstream eco friendly labels most often, organic food most of the time, Ecover and items known not to be tested on animals, which is an issue I see as linked, ethical treatment of animals and ethical treatment of the planet. If they don't have non tested animal products (their own description of these items differs from more reliable sources of information, such as Peta or BUAV), then I buy them online instead. Why?
In making purchases I am reading labels, so information is what Im seeking(does it contain asparteme for example), with regard to product. In other words I am affected by my own self conception of being a wary wife and mother, protecting her family from potentially harmful ingested substances, (in which I include pesticide and herbicide residues), and also trying to protect the planet and other species. The amount of advertising concerning bacteria destroying cleaners has left me strangely untouched and we live companiably with silver fish, wood lice and the odd spider in our home and without recourse to endless sterility inducing substances. This may be due to my self conception of being someone who likes to live and let live, (which has in turn led to me being vegetarian), or you may alternately infer I am a scruffy old bag who prefers not to endlessly clean! (or both!)
In summary my self conception is the most important influence in purchasing, but advertising plays a part in informing me of what products may best fit the self conception I currently have. I suspect this is a common way in which people choose purchases, and successful marketing is persuading as many people as possible that the given product fits their self conception or perhaps their "ideal " self conception.
Information that our self conception is formed from the people around us is more tricky because we do not all follow our family and societal programming; its possible for some an alternative driver may be rebellion against it, or a search for individual identity. There is an inference that this concept of (societal induced) self conception could be harnessed to take society to a tipping point, where enough people are persuaded of the value of "eco friendly" behaviour, for the society as a whole to become "green" i.e. dedicated to trying to live sustainably, but I dont think advertising is the method of choice to bring about this state of affairs. The example of enough societal leaders/icons perhaps, (people who a very broad sector of society respect) such as Nelson Mandela, might be helpful, but also a general assumption by government, business leaders and media, that we are ALL concerned, naturally, might provide the positive mental feedback necessary to start the conceptual ball rolling. Harder not to be concerned when you've been assumed to be part of a mass movement that is....
Ive thought about advertising more today than ever before... Advertising is a useful marketing tool with regard to my buying habits largely because it is informative.
With regard to most often purchased items such as food, household cleaners, shampoo etc I go for the mainstream eco friendly labels most often, organic food most of the time, Ecover and items known not to be tested on animals, which is an issue I see as linked, ethical treatment of animals and ethical treatment of the planet. If they don't have non tested animal products (their own description of these items differs from more reliable sources of information, such as Peta or BUAV), then I buy them online instead. Why?
In making purchases I am reading labels, so information is what Im seeking(does it contain asparteme for example), with regard to product. In other words I am affected by my own self conception of being a wary wife and mother, protecting her family from potentially harmful ingested substances, (in which I include pesticide and herbicide residues), and also trying to protect the planet and other species. The amount of advertising concerning bacteria destroying cleaners has left me strangely untouched and we live companiably with silver fish, wood lice and the odd spider in our home and without recourse to endless sterility inducing substances. This may be due to my self conception of being someone who likes to live and let live, (which has in turn led to me being vegetarian), or you may alternately infer I am a scruffy old bag who prefers not to endlessly clean! (or both!)
In summary my self conception is the most important influence in purchasing, but advertising plays a part in informing me of what products may best fit the self conception I currently have. I suspect this is a common way in which people choose purchases, and successful marketing is persuading as many people as possible that the given product fits their self conception or perhaps their "ideal " self conception.
So persuading more people that they are in fact green eco-friendly warriors with an over riding concern for the welfare of the planet may be a useful policy. Positively feeding-back that information to them has apparently been a successful way of influencing behaviour "Wow you are so aware of green issues!" etc.
Information that our self conception is formed from the people around us is more tricky because we do not all follow our family and societal programming; its possible for some an alternative driver may be rebellion against it, or a search for individual identity. There is an inference that this concept of (societal induced) self conception could be harnessed to take society to a tipping point, where enough people are persuaded of the value of "eco friendly" behaviour, for the society as a whole to become "green" i.e. dedicated to trying to live sustainably, but I dont think advertising is the method of choice to bring about this state of affairs. The example of enough societal leaders/icons perhaps, (people who a very broad sector of society respect) such as Nelson Mandela, might be helpful, but also a general assumption by government, business leaders and media, that we are ALL concerned, naturally, might provide the positive mental feedback necessary to start the conceptual ball rolling. Harder not to be concerned when you've been assumed to be part of a mass movement that is....
Fun as a means of changing behaviour...
Check out this fun way the Swedes have got people to use stairs rather than an energy hungry escalator in Stockholm. I think this concept has potential for our efforts to change habitual behaviour re sustainable consumption.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lXh2n0aPyw&feature=player_embedded
what do you think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lXh2n0aPyw&feature=player_embedded
what do you think?
Friday 16 October 2009
Book Review Choice
I've chosen "The Ecology of Money" by Richard Douthwaite (1999) for my book review assignment. I chose this topic partly because I don't know alot about economics and thought this would be a good way to start educating myself, and begin fixing my knowledge gap in how money operates in the global system.
I chose this particular book because its written at a level at which I could grasp the concepts addressed, and it addresses two vitally relevant topics with regard to sustainability:-
1. "The need for a new balance between global and local economies" (coming back to that middle way again)
2. The issue of carbon-energy efficiency.
I chose this particular book because its written at a level at which I could grasp the concepts addressed, and it addresses two vitally relevant topics with regard to sustainability:-
1. "The need for a new balance between global and local economies" (coming back to that middle way again)
2. The issue of carbon-energy efficiency.
Tuesday 13 October 2009
Week 4...What I think could be done to encourage people to consume more sustainably, practical policies...
I am working with a concept which seemed relevant in my reading of A. Mol's "Ecological Modernization and the Global Economy" last week, (yes! there was one), which is that the majority of environmental protection measures have started in the E.U. and filtered out through the rest of the world. If systems can be developed to persuade people to consume more sustainably in Britain there is a good chance that these will evolve and spread globally, so by working in a limited framework measures can still take on a global significance in time.
I think most people in Britian are unaware of the real nature of the crisis bearing down on the planet. There has been much green consumerism and much talk of climate change over the past forty years but, due to the ostrich- inspired nature of the government, (regardless of party, politics is one more distraction here), nothing much has been done to bring about the necessary changes; in other words it's all been about Mainstream policies. Its pretty obvious why, the kind of changes in policy that I am about to advocate would not be popular, and would take political courage to implement.
I would like to see a thorough education programme about the nature of the changes we can expect to see in the next thirty to forty years. This will include the changes inherent in the situation of dwindling oil resources for all of us, and the best current predictions about the climate change, and the effects this will have here. I hope never again to see a complacent member of the public interviewed during a heat wave addressing the television camera with a bland smile and such words as "Yes, climate change, lovely isnt it?". I want people to actually understand what it means, not just to the people on drowning islands in the South Pacific, or polar bears in the arctic, but to ALL of us, if the average temperatures climb three or four degrees.
This information could be delivered (as I see it has just begun to be, last week), through public education films on tv , but also through all forms of media and, most importantly, through mainstream education in schools.
I know, (from work done on language skills, social and cultural influences in the immigrant
community in the 19th century U.S.), that there is no better way of educating society than by educating children. They not only carry the information into another generation but rapidly teach their parents what they have learned and import it to every social and working environment they enter.
Important as this is, vital in fact, it would only be the precursor paving the way to an initially small but widening path of taxation on all carbon emissions, in industry, aviation, transport and the general public. This would be unpopular, but given the education which would now be "out there" in the general domain, it would be impossible to give a logical or morally defensible stand to resistance. Only pensioners will, (through the logisitics of time), be unaffected by the situation to come, and the necessary support on winter heating will continue although I hope it becomes increasingly from renewable resources; everyone else is a stakeholder in a future which will be fundamentally altered from the present and for which we must construct new foundations set at a steep trajectory from our current position.
I echo "Diamonds" views on reproductive responsibility and believe that non financial incentives,(dont want to get consumerism climbing again!) for women who choose to have only one child could be offered at either sterilisation, (already offered free on the NHS), or at the menopause for those who have "delivered". This is because limiting the human population limits in every way the difficulties we confront with regard to sustainable consumption. (N.B. The reason why I stress women having the incentives for one child is because it is impossible to as easily identify the male parenthood of babies born, but in the 1980s, in the then "Norfolk and Norwich Hospital" there was evidence that one in 3 babies was not fathered by the purported father.)
Education with regard to the new social values, (discussed in last weeks blog), should take place alongside the education on life post-oil, climate change and sustainable consumption so that there is an understanding that life need not be less enjoyable but must be based on different social premises that are less expensive for the planet and therefore inevitably and intrinsically, for ourselves. The requirement here is to reduce the fear of loss and replace it with stoicism and a motivation to tackle the problems, individually and, more importantly, as a society.
A thought on psyche, which is based on a British situation but may be applicable globally. When Margaret Thatcher told the British public that we, as a nation, had problems and they could not be dealt with rapidly but would have to be worked through, (in 1979), the response of that public was to elect her, at least partly on the grounds she was dealing in truth, albeit unpalatable. It may be that an honest appraisal of the situation and the necessity in facing up to the measures required to deal with it will not be a disaster for a party or a leader. We need one to take the risk.
I think most people in Britian are unaware of the real nature of the crisis bearing down on the planet. There has been much green consumerism and much talk of climate change over the past forty years but, due to the ostrich- inspired nature of the government, (regardless of party, politics is one more distraction here), nothing much has been done to bring about the necessary changes; in other words it's all been about Mainstream policies. Its pretty obvious why, the kind of changes in policy that I am about to advocate would not be popular, and would take political courage to implement.
I would like to see a thorough education programme about the nature of the changes we can expect to see in the next thirty to forty years. This will include the changes inherent in the situation of dwindling oil resources for all of us, and the best current predictions about the climate change, and the effects this will have here. I hope never again to see a complacent member of the public interviewed during a heat wave addressing the television camera with a bland smile and such words as "Yes, climate change, lovely isnt it?". I want people to actually understand what it means, not just to the people on drowning islands in the South Pacific, or polar bears in the arctic, but to ALL of us, if the average temperatures climb three or four degrees.
This information could be delivered (as I see it has just begun to be, last week), through public education films on tv , but also through all forms of media and, most importantly, through mainstream education in schools.
I know, (from work done on language skills, social and cultural influences in the immigrant
community in the 19th century U.S.), that there is no better way of educating society than by educating children. They not only carry the information into another generation but rapidly teach their parents what they have learned and import it to every social and working environment they enter.
Important as this is, vital in fact, it would only be the precursor paving the way to an initially small but widening path of taxation on all carbon emissions, in industry, aviation, transport and the general public. This would be unpopular, but given the education which would now be "out there" in the general domain, it would be impossible to give a logical or morally defensible stand to resistance. Only pensioners will, (through the logisitics of time), be unaffected by the situation to come, and the necessary support on winter heating will continue although I hope it becomes increasingly from renewable resources; everyone else is a stakeholder in a future which will be fundamentally altered from the present and for which we must construct new foundations set at a steep trajectory from our current position.
I echo "Diamonds" views on reproductive responsibility and believe that non financial incentives,(dont want to get consumerism climbing again!) for women who choose to have only one child could be offered at either sterilisation, (already offered free on the NHS), or at the menopause for those who have "delivered". This is because limiting the human population limits in every way the difficulties we confront with regard to sustainable consumption. (N.B. The reason why I stress women having the incentives for one child is because it is impossible to as easily identify the male parenthood of babies born, but in the 1980s, in the then "Norfolk and Norwich Hospital" there was evidence that one in 3 babies was not fathered by the purported father.)
Education with regard to the new social values, (discussed in last weeks blog), should take place alongside the education on life post-oil, climate change and sustainable consumption so that there is an understanding that life need not be less enjoyable but must be based on different social premises that are less expensive for the planet and therefore inevitably and intrinsically, for ourselves. The requirement here is to reduce the fear of loss and replace it with stoicism and a motivation to tackle the problems, individually and, more importantly, as a society.
A thought on psyche, which is based on a British situation but may be applicable globally. When Margaret Thatcher told the British public that we, as a nation, had problems and they could not be dealt with rapidly but would have to be worked through, (in 1979), the response of that public was to elect her, at least partly on the grounds she was dealing in truth, albeit unpalatable. It may be that an honest appraisal of the situation and the necessity in facing up to the measures required to deal with it will not be a disaster for a party or a leader. We need one to take the risk.
Sunday 4 October 2009
Week 3 and the joy of - Alternative approaches to Sustainable Consumption, which I definitely subscribe to!
To me it seems clear that governments should pursue gross national happiness, since I argue that the pursuit of the gross national product without regard to national happiness is pointless and, as we are all only too well aware, the main driver behind the problems our planet faces through climate change and finite resources. The reason behind the pursuit of an ever increasing gnp originally was because it was assumed that achieving it (and by extension an ever increasing standard of living), was tantamount to achieving happiness, and it was not even at that time considered that world resources were finite with relation to human production.
Ideally when governments are aiming to deliver a state of contentment for most if not all people sustainably, they should be concentrating on delivering peaceful conditions in which to enjoy food, shelter, health care, education and a feeling, psychologically, of being connected to and worthwhile to family and community and no more than that. Since it appears that the breakdown of family and local communities typical of the modern era in some affluent Western societies has been instrumental in leaving people feeling discontented and disconnected, and that no amount of material ownership can replace the 'feel good' factor which comes from feeling a useful and an appreciated member of your own society/world, the latter is perhaps as much a challenge for our governments as the provision of clean water, sufficient food, healthcare and education may be for the leaders of non industrialised and war ravaged peoples elsewhere.
I suggest that governments should do the research into what does make people feel happy and content in order to devise successful policies that will encourage and sustain that mindset even as they work towards the limiting of production targets and achieving the necessary drop in what we have called the "standard of living" to bring about sustainability. Working towards achieving the latter without understanding how to deliver the former might well bring about total chaos in society up to and including civil unrest, something that was mentioned byProf. Tim Lenton in his presentation at the UEA Court in May 2009. Conversely, by not working towards increasing the potential for society to rediscover its own, natural sources of contentment, divorced from material goods, it is clear why governments are only attempting mainstream solutions, which, I firmly believe, cannot deliver the scope of necessary adjustment in our unsustainable lifestyles in the short time frame left to us before reality addresses the issue for us with potentially catastrophic consequences.
One issue that stands out for me is the success of feeling part of a wider group in society in fostering feelings of happiness. The stress/unhappiness of continuous competition as an individual is high while the sense of security and self esteem from being with like minded people is very significant (why disaffected teenagers join gangs), and could be fostered by government devising and giving initial support to community projects towards sustainable living,(thus delivering a double whammy!) such as group allotments growing organic food, or applying home insulation systems, (the latter are already being given half fee grants in this area but there is no community element involved). By keeping all schemes local the carbon footprint is automatically cut through distances travelled being kept to the minimum for everyone involved. This means in effect that small local community ventures would be the best to work through and a general move away in policies from either centralisation or individualisation would be most effective in delivering, both psychologically(the contentment factor) and sustainably (the planet factor).
Maybe this was what Buddha meant when he talked about the middle way?......discuss....
Finally, while local projects are the best way to bring about sustainable consumption nationally I dont believe we should turn our backs and fail to offer any support we can to the nations on the other side of the economic scales. We do live in a Global Village, and it would be both unethical and ineffective to ignore this reality in the long term; those scales have to be brought into balance somehow and we can certainly afford to give aid to those nations who need our help. The greatest challenge is how best to do this, not in the short but in the long term when climate change is bringing about conditions such as failed harvests and flooding to add to the challenges these people already face.
Its obvious really since our survival is linked inextricably to the health of the planet that our happiness will be long term what is best for the planet; there is no choice to agonise over, we just have to commit to delivering the alternative plan in time.....
.
To me it seems clear that governments should pursue gross national happiness, since I argue that the pursuit of the gross national product without regard to national happiness is pointless and, as we are all only too well aware, the main driver behind the problems our planet faces through climate change and finite resources. The reason behind the pursuit of an ever increasing gnp originally was because it was assumed that achieving it (and by extension an ever increasing standard of living), was tantamount to achieving happiness, and it was not even at that time considered that world resources were finite with relation to human production.
Research into our feelings of well being and contentment show that our happiness quotient has not altered much in the UK since the 1960s, while our gnp has continued to rise decade by decade. Perhaps our time should be viewed as an era of enlightment in that after centuries of seeing happiness as an inevitable result of all we could want with regard to material goods, (marrying the prince or princess as the triumphant finale in the medieval fairytale), we realise that we are a little more complicated than that, and have mental and emotional needs at least as important to our feelings of well being (and so didnt need to trash the planet in our attempts to be happy after all!)
Ideally when governments are aiming to deliver a state of contentment for most if not all people sustainably, they should be concentrating on delivering peaceful conditions in which to enjoy food, shelter, health care, education and a feeling, psychologically, of being connected to and worthwhile to family and community and no more than that. Since it appears that the breakdown of family and local communities typical of the modern era in some affluent Western societies has been instrumental in leaving people feeling discontented and disconnected, and that no amount of material ownership can replace the 'feel good' factor which comes from feeling a useful and an appreciated member of your own society/world, the latter is perhaps as much a challenge for our governments as the provision of clean water, sufficient food, healthcare and education may be for the leaders of non industrialised and war ravaged peoples elsewhere.
I suggest that governments should do the research into what does make people feel happy and content in order to devise successful policies that will encourage and sustain that mindset even as they work towards the limiting of production targets and achieving the necessary drop in what we have called the "standard of living" to bring about sustainability. Working towards achieving the latter without understanding how to deliver the former might well bring about total chaos in society up to and including civil unrest, something that was mentioned byProf. Tim Lenton in his presentation at the UEA Court in May 2009. Conversely, by not working towards increasing the potential for society to rediscover its own, natural sources of contentment, divorced from material goods, it is clear why governments are only attempting mainstream solutions, which, I firmly believe, cannot deliver the scope of necessary adjustment in our unsustainable lifestyles in the short time frame left to us before reality addresses the issue for us with potentially catastrophic consequences.
One issue that stands out for me is the success of feeling part of a wider group in society in fostering feelings of happiness. The stress/unhappiness of continuous competition as an individual is high while the sense of security and self esteem from being with like minded people is very significant (why disaffected teenagers join gangs), and could be fostered by government devising and giving initial support to community projects towards sustainable living,(thus delivering a double whammy!) such as group allotments growing organic food, or applying home insulation systems, (the latter are already being given half fee grants in this area but there is no community element involved). By keeping all schemes local the carbon footprint is automatically cut through distances travelled being kept to the minimum for everyone involved. This means in effect that small local community ventures would be the best to work through and a general move away in policies from either centralisation or individualisation would be most effective in delivering, both psychologically(the contentment factor) and sustainably (the planet factor).
Maybe this was what Buddha meant when he talked about the middle way?......discuss....
Finally, while local projects are the best way to bring about sustainable consumption nationally I dont believe we should turn our backs and fail to offer any support we can to the nations on the other side of the economic scales. We do live in a Global Village, and it would be both unethical and ineffective to ignore this reality in the long term; those scales have to be brought into balance somehow and we can certainly afford to give aid to those nations who need our help. The greatest challenge is how best to do this, not in the short but in the long term when climate change is bringing about conditions such as failed harvests and flooding to add to the challenges these people already face.
Its obvious really since our survival is linked inextricably to the health of the planet that our happiness will be long term what is best for the planet; there is no choice to agonise over, we just have to commit to delivering the alternative plan in time.....
.
Friday 25 September 2009
First step on a learning journey.
I hope this course on Sustainable Consumption will enable me to understand the true state of the worlds resources and what can be done practically to improve the situation.
In time I would like to be involved in education on this subject since I believe that education is the key to changing our world perspectives, and altering the way people perceive themselves and their relationship to the planet is, I think, the most important factor in bringing about the necessary changes for the good of us all.
I dont think "interesting" really describes my views on the subject matter of this course, "riveting" (hope I've spelt that right!) would probably be more accurate. Delighted to have the opportunity to be here, it feels as if Im in the right place at the right time.
In time I would like to be involved in education on this subject since I believe that education is the key to changing our world perspectives, and altering the way people perceive themselves and their relationship to the planet is, I think, the most important factor in bringing about the necessary changes for the good of us all.
I dont think "interesting" really describes my views on the subject matter of this course, "riveting" (hope I've spelt that right!) would probably be more accurate. Delighted to have the opportunity to be here, it feels as if Im in the right place at the right time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
