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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.....





.