New Economics Foundation are putting on an event in October called The Bigger Picture, loads of great speakers, some excellent fringe events and hopefully really positive, you can register for it at this website:
http://thebiggerpicture2009.org/
Showing posts with label NEF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NEF. Show all posts
Tuesday, 21 July 2009
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
A response......
This is a first. It is a response to 2 comments I have had. One came from eco-boudoir on 'eco-bling' and the other was from 'anonymous' on Pig Business. My response is mostly about eco-boudoir and their contribution to the type of comment made by 'anonymous'.
Re: Eco Boudoir: This sort of 'environmentalism' capitalizes on and creates a desire to be a certain type of 'green' - 'conspicuously green'. It embodies consumer culture rather than challenging it. Given the premium prices of these ‘green’ products, being conspicuously green communicates the message: I buy green because I can afford to.
Being green is therefore often portrayed as a middle/upper class endeavour pursued by those who can afford the ethical lifestyle that reaffirms their social status.
The effect of 'eco-bling' is that the majority of the world's people see being green as a luxury decision, one they can't afford to take - see the comment made by 'Anonymous' to my Pig Business article. The truth is that being green is not an expensive thing to do, it is in fact cheaper than being materialistic, it shouldn't cost you more money to be green! NEF have identified 'Five ways to Wellbeing' that are summarised by these headings: Connect... Be Active... Take Notice... Keep Learning...and...Give. Sustainability is about doing all these things in environmentally and socially responsible ways - Enjoying life without compromising the ability of others to enjoy theirs. The possibilities are endless!
Supposedly ethically 'wise' wealthy westerners should not, in my view, still be painting the consumption of luxury, expensive, materially dependent goods and services as the definition of success, happiness and the good life. It is irrelevant whether the good is produced ethically or not, the message is still: 'You need to be indulgent and extravagant to be a sophisticated woman.' The ethical messaging just adds 'green' to that sentence, you can place it before indulgent or after sophisticated. Most people can't afford luxury goods at all let alone pay an added green premium, they therefore opt for the cheaper unsustainable option, whether that be pants, pork, paint or pull overs even if they want to be green. They also get frustrated with the smug, rich and conspicuously green.
It all comes down to how people define what it is to be 'green', we can't go on defining being green as being a consumerist. As convenient as it would be, consumerism and environmentalism can't exist hand in hand. Einstein said: “You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it. You must learn to see the world anew.” As environmentalists we need to help people let go of consumerist values (consciousness) and crucially show the way to more fulfilling lives that are less dependent on material goods and services that promise but never really deliver happiness and wellbeing. This is what people like NEF and Tom Hodgkinson are trying to do, maybe the people at Eco-Boudoir could get involved and stop winding up people like 'anonymous' and me!
Still unclear? Read Stewart Barr on the myth of green living
Re: Eco Boudoir: This sort of 'environmentalism' capitalizes on and creates a desire to be a certain type of 'green' - 'conspicuously green'. It embodies consumer culture rather than challenging it. Given the premium prices of these ‘green’ products, being conspicuously green communicates the message: I buy green because I can afford to.
Being green is therefore often portrayed as a middle/upper class endeavour pursued by those who can afford the ethical lifestyle that reaffirms their social status.
The effect of 'eco-bling' is that the majority of the world's people see being green as a luxury decision, one they can't afford to take - see the comment made by 'Anonymous' to my Pig Business article. The truth is that being green is not an expensive thing to do, it is in fact cheaper than being materialistic, it shouldn't cost you more money to be green! NEF have identified 'Five ways to Wellbeing' that are summarised by these headings: Connect... Be Active... Take Notice... Keep Learning...and...Give. Sustainability is about doing all these things in environmentally and socially responsible ways - Enjoying life without compromising the ability of others to enjoy theirs. The possibilities are endless!
Supposedly ethically 'wise' wealthy westerners should not, in my view, still be painting the consumption of luxury, expensive, materially dependent goods and services as the definition of success, happiness and the good life. It is irrelevant whether the good is produced ethically or not, the message is still: 'You need to be indulgent and extravagant to be a sophisticated woman.' The ethical messaging just adds 'green' to that sentence, you can place it before indulgent or after sophisticated. Most people can't afford luxury goods at all let alone pay an added green premium, they therefore opt for the cheaper unsustainable option, whether that be pants, pork, paint or pull overs even if they want to be green. They also get frustrated with the smug, rich and conspicuously green.
It all comes down to how people define what it is to be 'green', we can't go on defining being green as being a consumerist. As convenient as it would be, consumerism and environmentalism can't exist hand in hand. Einstein said: “You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it. You must learn to see the world anew.” As environmentalists we need to help people let go of consumerist values (consciousness) and crucially show the way to more fulfilling lives that are less dependent on material goods and services that promise but never really deliver happiness and wellbeing. This is what people like NEF and Tom Hodgkinson are trying to do, maybe the people at Eco-Boudoir could get involved and stop winding up people like 'anonymous' and me!
Still unclear? Read Stewart Barr on the myth of green living
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
The Language of Sustainability
Sustainability is communicated through many different channels in many different ways for many different reasons. It is received by many different people in many different contexts and is interpreted according to the hat that that person is wearing.
Yesterday I attended a conference run by the Institute for Environmental science, it was well attended, the speakers were excellent and the topic very important. The first speaker, Arran Stibbe (a linguistics expert) asked 'where is the place that people are motivated from?' He answered his own question by pointing out that we can't answer it because people are different. When it comes to stimulating action and communicating sustainability it is very important to remember that one size does not fit all - that was the core message from the conference.
The discourse, or discourses that we choose, the language we use and the medium we communicate through are all very important. Five excellent speakers followed Arran, Erik Bichard, Joe Ravetz, David Fell, Will Ashley-Cantello and Mark Everard. Aswell as Arran, the two that stood out for me were Ravetz and Fell. Ravetz discussed the public reaction to sustainability. Using the case study of his family home he asked 'does anyone believe scientists anymore?' (a question that Everard later argued self-aware scientists were now wary of). The complexity of the science and the, often sensationalist, way in which findings and predictions are communicated created sceptism in his kitchen and I suspect a few others. The NEF 100 months to stop Climate change got a rightful bashing from Ravetz! We were then taken through a few excellent 'Polyp' cartoons, it is well worth a look at the consumerism ones. Fun, arts based communication is very valuable.
David Fell discussed Daniel Dennett's observation of 'The Self as a narrative gravity' and Elias Cannetti's idea of 'society as a coalition of shared myths.' Dennett's observation describes how we are the person that we tell ourselves that we are. Fell pointed out that we tell ourselves a lot of stories. The shared myths of society help us to define ourselves, often we are defined by them. Fell displayed a 'wordle' explaining how we need to move from a self narrative that is consumerist, individualist and so on to one which is enoughist, caring, mature and so on. I'll post them asap!
Much else was discussed as the day progressed through two excellent workshops we analysed different discourses to think about which styles are best for communicated these issues. My little group of four thought it was important to be realistic, positive and empathetic when we are communicating sustainability. We also discussed who controls the language of sustainability, whether the terms sustainable development and sustainability should be scrapped and which words and phrases we should be using to try and create action around sustainability issues.
On the surface sustainability seems a simple thing to communicate - tell people about the problems and they will change their behaviour - the reality is that, when the goal is behaviour change, the appropriate form of communication is very difficult to pin down. Human behaviour is an extremely complex thing, changing it, even our own, is very challenging. I'll end with a quote from Arran Stibbe's excellent workshop on Sustainability discourses:
'The most highly motivating discourses allow people to align their deepest personal goals with creating a more sustainable society.'
Yesterday I attended a conference run by the Institute for Environmental science, it was well attended, the speakers were excellent and the topic very important. The first speaker, Arran Stibbe (a linguistics expert) asked 'where is the place that people are motivated from?' He answered his own question by pointing out that we can't answer it because people are different. When it comes to stimulating action and communicating sustainability it is very important to remember that one size does not fit all - that was the core message from the conference.
The discourse, or discourses that we choose, the language we use and the medium we communicate through are all very important. Five excellent speakers followed Arran, Erik Bichard, Joe Ravetz, David Fell, Will Ashley-Cantello and Mark Everard. Aswell as Arran, the two that stood out for me were Ravetz and Fell. Ravetz discussed the public reaction to sustainability. Using the case study of his family home he asked 'does anyone believe scientists anymore?' (a question that Everard later argued self-aware scientists were now wary of). The complexity of the science and the, often sensationalist, way in which findings and predictions are communicated created sceptism in his kitchen and I suspect a few others. The NEF 100 months to stop Climate change got a rightful bashing from Ravetz! We were then taken through a few excellent 'Polyp' cartoons, it is well worth a look at the consumerism ones. Fun, arts based communication is very valuable.
David Fell discussed Daniel Dennett's observation of 'The Self as a narrative gravity' and Elias Cannetti's idea of 'society as a coalition of shared myths.' Dennett's observation describes how we are the person that we tell ourselves that we are. Fell pointed out that we tell ourselves a lot of stories. The shared myths of society help us to define ourselves, often we are defined by them. Fell displayed a 'wordle' explaining how we need to move from a self narrative that is consumerist, individualist and so on to one which is enoughist, caring, mature and so on. I'll post them asap!
Much else was discussed as the day progressed through two excellent workshops we analysed different discourses to think about which styles are best for communicated these issues. My little group of four thought it was important to be realistic, positive and empathetic when we are communicating sustainability. We also discussed who controls the language of sustainability, whether the terms sustainable development and sustainability should be scrapped and which words and phrases we should be using to try and create action around sustainability issues.
On the surface sustainability seems a simple thing to communicate - tell people about the problems and they will change their behaviour - the reality is that, when the goal is behaviour change, the appropriate form of communication is very difficult to pin down. Human behaviour is an extremely complex thing, changing it, even our own, is very challenging. I'll end with a quote from Arran Stibbe's excellent workshop on Sustainability discourses:
'The most highly motivating discourses allow people to align their deepest personal goals with creating a more sustainable society.'
Sunday, 25 January 2009
Spending our way out of trouble
Heavy borrowing to allow us to 'spend our way out of trouble' has been widely slammed, click here, here and here for example. And I agree it is short-sighted, short term and quite possibly panicked thinking onthe part of the government to cut taxes and borrow more to encourage the public to go on doing the very thing that got us into a mess inthe first place.
If we do not spend money we cause the closure of businesses and job losses, which triggers unemployment and all the anxieties that go with it. In the long run therefore we do need to spend our way out of trouble, it is just what we spend it on that we should be thinking about. If I'm an educator and you spend money to learn something from me, I will (assuming other people want my services too) have an income which I can spend on my rent, my food, my family and my own hobbies. I would, for example, like to spend some money French lessons. For a sustainable economy to exist and thrive we will need people to spend money on each other's ecologically sustainable goods and services. An economic downturn is useful in that it puts outdated and inefficient companies out of business, do we really need Woolworths? When the penny pinches people stop spending money on things they don't really need, people can live without plastic toys (for children and adults), penny sweets, chart CDs and bargain bin DVDs.
Talk of spending our way out of trouble is fine when we are sensible about what we spend our money (and time) on. NEF have a report titled 'Five ways to wellbeing'. Can we build an economy that is not too environmentally demanding and wasteful from these five ways to wellbeing? Here they are:
'Connect... with the people around you. With family, friends, colleagues and neighbours.'
'Be active.... Go for a walk or run. Step outside. Cycle. Play a game. Garden. Dance.'
'Take notice... Be curious. Catch sight of the beautiful. Remark on the unusual...savour the moment.'
'Keep Learning... Try something new. Rediscover an old interest. Sign up for that course.'
'Give... Do something nice for a friend or stranger. Thanks someone. Smile. Volunteer your time.''
My answer: With a bit of planning - Yes. But, we do need to be wary that companies have been selling people highly energy dependent, highly wasteful goods and services that are either paraphernalia for these activities or pseudo-satisfiers. Mobile phones have constantly been sold as ways to connect with friends and family, when in reality they provide a weak and expensive substitute and/or excuse for real connection and contact.
Providing opportunities and genuine, authentic ways for people to experience these five ways to wellbeing while also experiencing them oneself would be (and for many already is) a full time occupation. We have machines now to meet our basic material needs very easily, the robotic element of a utopian dream is in place, we do not need to employ millions of people in food production, manufacturing and construction, we need to employ people as facilitators and generators of wellbeing. If we are to spend our way out of trouble perhaps we should be spending it on the things that genuinely bring us emotional and physical wellbeing, using our talents to help others and ourselves to make a living.
If we do not spend money we cause the closure of businesses and job losses, which triggers unemployment and all the anxieties that go with it. In the long run therefore we do need to spend our way out of trouble, it is just what we spend it on that we should be thinking about. If I'm an educator and you spend money to learn something from me, I will (assuming other people want my services too) have an income which I can spend on my rent, my food, my family and my own hobbies. I would, for example, like to spend some money French lessons. For a sustainable economy to exist and thrive we will need people to spend money on each other's ecologically sustainable goods and services. An economic downturn is useful in that it puts outdated and inefficient companies out of business, do we really need Woolworths? When the penny pinches people stop spending money on things they don't really need, people can live without plastic toys (for children and adults), penny sweets, chart CDs and bargain bin DVDs.
Talk of spending our way out of trouble is fine when we are sensible about what we spend our money (and time) on. NEF have a report titled 'Five ways to wellbeing'. Can we build an economy that is not too environmentally demanding and wasteful from these five ways to wellbeing? Here they are:
'Connect... with the people around you. With family, friends, colleagues and neighbours.'
'Be active.... Go for a walk or run. Step outside. Cycle. Play a game. Garden. Dance.'
'Take notice... Be curious. Catch sight of the beautiful. Remark on the unusual...savour the moment.'
'Keep Learning... Try something new. Rediscover an old interest. Sign up for that course.'
'Give... Do something nice for a friend or stranger. Thanks someone. Smile. Volunteer your time.''
My answer: With a bit of planning - Yes. But, we do need to be wary that companies have been selling people highly energy dependent, highly wasteful goods and services that are either paraphernalia for these activities or pseudo-satisfiers. Mobile phones have constantly been sold as ways to connect with friends and family, when in reality they provide a weak and expensive substitute and/or excuse for real connection and contact.
Providing opportunities and genuine, authentic ways for people to experience these five ways to wellbeing while also experiencing them oneself would be (and for many already is) a full time occupation. We have machines now to meet our basic material needs very easily, the robotic element of a utopian dream is in place, we do not need to employ millions of people in food production, manufacturing and construction, we need to employ people as facilitators and generators of wellbeing. If we are to spend our way out of trouble perhaps we should be spending it on the things that genuinely bring us emotional and physical wellbeing, using our talents to help others and ourselves to make a living.
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
A Green New Deal
Last Friday (19th Sept) I attended a debate at The Guardian titled: 'Triple Crunch: Can we solve the credit crunch, climate change and energy shocks with a Green New Deal?' The New Economics Foundation (NEF) have just launched the first report of The Green New Deal Group, you can find out more about it here:
It is a radical policy proposal that takes F.D. Roosevelt’s response to the great crash of 1929 as its inspiration. That ‘New Deal’ responded to the great depression through a wave of economic, fiscal and financial reforms that sought to re-build the economy and provide employment for the masses who had been forced into unemployment by the crash. Larry Elliot, the Guardian’s economics editor and member of the Green New Deal group, was first to speak at the debate and was adamant in saying that the week that had just passed would go down in history as the week when the failings of Neo-liberalism were most dramatically exposed. Last week saw huge financial catastrophe’s that signified that last summer’s Northern Rock disaster and the credit crunch were not a fluke or one off. We are on the brink of recession. The timing of this debate, which was already timely, was now suddenly too timely! All the talk was of the future of the economy and the events of the last week. I can’t pretend to be an expert on financial matters, so have desperately been swotting up over the weekend to try and understand the financial sector. I have to admit I am still as confused as ever about how it all works, short-selling, hedge funds, credit crunches…. I have also been reading the Green New Deal, its details were hardly touched upon during the debate. The debate focused on the problems, the document offers some solutions.
The Green New Deal is something that I have been hoping for, for a while; it is a discussion of the big question. The question is one that John Naish brings up in his book ‘Enough.’ It is a question that environmentalists and economists need to ask, together. Naish (2008) is optimistic that the present consumerist, hedonist culture can shift towards one that is emotionally and environmentally sustainable. He is, however, troubled by one big question; he puts it like this:
What would happen to our exclusively growth-based economy if we suddenly did all start to embrace enoughism? Would the world’s finances collapse? This question turns out to be the fiscal elephant in the eco-living room.
I’m troubled by this question too, but it is in my opinion the only question worth asking and I am very greatful to the Green New Deal group for their efforts to answer it.
So, what does the Green New Deal propose? It basically says we, in the UK, need to prepare ourselves for the energy crisis that is sure to evolve from the imminence of Peak Oil. Climate scientists have long been telling us that climate change is happening and is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, which gives us another reason to change the way we produce energy. Investment in a widespread renewable energy infrastructure is according to the Green New Deal the answer. Not only will it make the UK less dependent on the imports of fossil fuels, it will provide an alternative to re-opening the coal mines, it will provide jobs during a time of recession and it will, importantly, provide an example to the rest of the developed and developing world. All sorts of clever financial regulations, including tightening up on tax havens, accountancy and the availability of credit would need to happen. A second huge step would be to decrease interest rates to 2% to encourage investment in long-term renewable energy projects. The third requirement is the will of the Government to invest heavily in renewable energy. I really do hope the Government sit up and take notice of this report and other policy recommendations made by NEF. To an environmentalist it goes without saying that radical reforms in the way our economy and society works are needed. Hopefully, we in the UK can be brave enough to take a real stand on climate change, the credit crunch and the energy crisis. We don’t really have a choice.
(Please email me for references).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)