Costing the earth....

‘Costing the Earth’ was a recent broadcast on Radio 4 which looked at the issue of plastic contamination in our oceans.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11478261

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00v1qtn

As somebody with a great passion for our oceans it caught my ear. The broadcast essentially was documenting a sail across the South Atlantic in search of the world’s next great garbage patch. Its findings, against the misconception of what these giant patches of waste look like, was in fact that the patch was invisible to the naked eye but there all the same. The plastic particles become broken down but never disappear causing suffocation of organisms or making it highly likely that they will enter the food chain and create major health problems for marine ecosystems and even ourselves.

The solution, in my eyes, lies in product packaging (not even recyclable packaging as this still takes years to biodegrade) just LESS packaging all together- a ‘New Economics’ view of radical change. However although I think a reduction in packaging is viable I think it is inevitable that some plastic will still survive due to its purpose of prolonging shelf life of many products- an obvious plus point for profit making supermarkets and producers.

The future is looking up though! I found this article by company CYNAR who are proposing to use plastic as a fuel – this could address current and future plastic use but could also clean previous landfills of plastic. An idea in the pioneer stage but it may have its place in the future? I think this shows an example of mainstream SC theory- technological advances will save us so we can carry on as we are. The first question that pops to my head is how do they propose to produce the fuel?

http://www.cynarplc.com/

& what about the plastic already in our oceans- send a big boat out to collect it all? Another technological mainstream solution; some groundbreaking research into the formulation of microbes that break down plastics maybe.....

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/coastal_microbes_answer_plastic_ocean_pollution

Also an interesting read; 21^st century challenges- our throwaway society is polluting large areas of the world’s oceans with plastic causing huge garbage patches in our oceans. David de Rothschild’s in March 2010 adventured across the South Pacific in a boat made out of bottles to research and raise awareness of the issue! http://www.theplastiki.com/

Green Economies....

Couple of interesting articles:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11588654- Is 'Stealth' tax a threat to the UK economy going green?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11588020- India & Brazil head move to 'green' economic future

Social Marketing: Seminar 5.....

This might be a useful site for us to have a look over before next weeks seminar on social marketing for behavioural change: http://www.minkbaby.co.uk/

Banana Split....

Bananalink are a small not-for-profit co-operative campaigning for fair and sustainable banana trade. The labour force often experience long hours and poor working conditions worsened by exposure to toxic pesticides and are paid only 1-2% of the cost we pay for our bananas. Almost 40% goes to supermarket retailers.

This is only likely to get worse as supermarkets race to produce ‘cheaper bananas’ on our shelves. Independent trade unions trying to fight for rights are often suppressed by powerful MNC’s and reports even show some trade union leaders being killed (Guatemala).

Large scale banana cultivation on plantations (e.g. West Africa & Latin America) causes pollution of ecosystems through pesticide use and loss of biodiversity through monoculture of agriculture & deforestation- negatively impacting the local communities and environment.

www.bananalink.org.uk

This is obviously highly unsustainable. Bananalink are using an example of the mainstream theoretical framework approach to SC in ‘cleaning production chains’ and encouraging people to buy ‘greener’ bananas- an example of the theory of shopping to sustainability! Bananalink are raising public awareness by providing thought-provoking & easily accessible education packs, films, CDs, booklets etc. This information then encourages ‘ACTION’; campaigning to managers of supermarkets and companies and to government MPs to help increase fair-trade availability in our shops which reduces the externalisation of costs and ensures fair pay to all actors involved in production.

http://www.iufdocuments.org/www/documents/Dole2009Brochure-e.pdf this useful document looks at the success of Bananalink in producing sustainable consumption patterns with ‘Dole’ Banana Company.

Despite some successes of multilateral dialogue and achievement of advance in some cases; progress is still too fragile and on too many occasions the company’s words have not been translated on the ground. Voluntary codes of conduct, audits and various private certification schemes are insufficient to ensure real and sustained progress on the ground as each of the stages have their own agenda (normally increase their own profit!). Further this approach faces many of the limitations of a mainstream theoretical approach; can we rely on consumers voting with their purses? Not everyone will be able to afford to make the change and those outside of markets are completely ignored. The Solution? More recognition of Independent Banana Trade Unions and empowerment of local communities in verifying and managing their own rights?

I have decided to focus my coursework on this unsightly(?) topic- the new Norwich Food Waste Collection initiative... We have just received our brand new house bin so over the next few weeks I will be trying to critically analyse our house usage of these bins and determine there successfulness in achieving SC!

How happy we are & how happy the planet is about us doing it!

This weeks seminar focused on 'The 'Un'Happy Planet Index'
I scored a total 73.3 which seemed pretty average to high when compared to others in my class.

I watched an interesting video by Nic Marcs which got me thinking about the way we relay scientific information on the state of our globe to the public. Constant brain frying numbers and negative headlines will likely scare those into no-action.
The HPI therefore, I believe, is a useful tool in grabbing attention as the public can easily relate to it & lets face it our competitive side means we are keen to know how we score happiness wise or how long we'll live for in comparison to the rest of the world?
This is the starting point that when dug further will lead people into considering there relative quality of life vs. the amount of planets resources they are using to get there.

Governmental policies to encourage sustainable wellbeing, in my opinion, should focus on voluntary regulations, making 'the green stuff' more widely spoken, interesting and easily accessible- ideally working with the media to promote this. I believe is should also focus on local community building and power- the implementation of improved public transport, larger allotment availability (I understand with limited space this would be difficult!) more volunteering opportunities, local food co-ops, better sport & leisure activities etc.

We also looked at how this new idea of well being for sustainability could be measured- I think it's a really tough one actually. I'm still thinking of an idea that would keep estimation and bias to a minimum but that would also be clear and accessible for the public. Maybe we should begin to link in health? I liked on one of my classmates blogs the idea of having wellbeing publicised next to the FTSE etc on the evening news! I'll keep having a think.....!

The first few weeks of the course we have been looking at Theoretical Frameworks for Sustainable Consumption:

Mainstream technocentrism green growth &

Alternative ecocentrism de-growth.

...based upon Theories of Sustainable Consumption:

- rational choice

- social psychological

- infrastructural and practice

Mainstream SC believes the environment is fairly robust and, as long as we invent the technology to increase our resource efficiency, growth with a 'green twist' can carry on- consume differently not less. Through greener production, education to enable greener decision-making (e.g. ecolabelling) and getting the prices right we can shop our way to sustainability....!?!

but the framework fails to recognise not everyone is equal in their opportunity to vote with their purses, not everyone can afford to make the change, not everyone puts their efforts into market based work.

Personally I think Mainstream SC has it's place; a good start to raise awareness of the issues surrounding over-consumption; but alone is not at a big enough scale or at the rapidity needed.

Alternative SC, with more political sensitivity, argues the Earth is a finite and fragile resource & carrying on as we are isn't going to work. Radical new systems are needed- perhaps even new measures of wealth and progress. This includes more grassroots level initiatives, reducing consumerism and internalising costs alongside promoting wellbeing and redefining wealth for sustainability.

As well I think Alternative SC has it's place to, I think it would solve many of our problems but our challenge here is getting people on board- making the theoretical framework of New Economics a social norm.I think the most useful tool for this is education and accessibility of information based on governmental skeleton frameworks of incentives to 'turn green' mixed with media persuasion.
So I guess I currently sit a bit on the fence- over the course of this module I hope to explore each of the frameworks and theories in more depth to conclude at the end as to what I believe the world's best option for moving towards sustainable consumption will be.

Our first seminar was based on consideration of our Carbon Footprints.
I clocked up a total 7,608.614kgCO2 for 2009-10. Which was in the 'Could do Better' category.
I would argue living as a student is actually fairly sustainable- we share houses often in big groups (I live with 4 others) and to cut down on our costs we are frugal with heating, electricity, shopping, the use of cars etc. I think my main pitfall was my flight to Fiji for research last summer- I included this despite having offset my flights when booking them as I wasn't sure- I guess this highlights inconsistencies in the carbon footprint method with assumptions and estimations? Any thoughts on this one?

In terms of CF usefulness does it matter that there are inconsistencies and lack of transparency? The numbers generated from our calculations would vary year on year, so it merely gives us a broad overview and raises public awareness of the value on carbon usage- do the technicalities matter?

Well I would argue yes, the numbers generated do matter as it is these individual figures that we then use to compare against the rest of the world. Without a set of categories or comparison criteria’s the carbon footprint is just a number which, to many, would mean nothing. If I discluded my flight to Fiji for example my total CF was 2,000 odd putting me in the ‘Very Green’ category and this may lead me to believe I need only carry on the way I’m already living….

In light of our discussions I am now cycling to campus on my mum's old (retro?!) bike & am bringing in packed lunch to save on packaging waste I produce. I am also trying to shop locally and choose seasonal produce. As Tesco kindly informs us 'Every little helps.....!!'

Painting the world green.....