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.....!!'