A lot of overlapping issues here around sustainable
consumption and climate (and nukes).
Clearly consumption patterns need to change massively.
Actually they need to reduce. Nothing new here... as the UN Agenda 21
pointed out in 1992 "
the major cause of the continued deterioration of the global environment is the
unsustainable pattern of consumption and production, particularly in
industrialised countries”. Almost nothing had happened on this issue
by the UN WSSD in Johannesburg 2002 which urged every govt. to produce a
national action plan for SC&P.
Which is why we've got a new SD strategy as of last year with a whole
chapter on this issue (which actually makes some good
points but lacks any political momentum)) and with it the great and the
not-so-good on the SC&P round table. And of course they are talkiing
about changes rather than reduction.
Question: if you don't have people who actually sell things
discussing these issues who do you have on such a round table? A group of
green experts or a bunch of academics with no power whatsoever?
Which leads to a more fundamental question: Can large companies ever
operate in a way that might help deliver sustainable development in the long
term? You'd probably be right to say that there is ultimately no such thing as a
sustainable (using a social / environmental justice definition) mega-corp
(discuss: do not write more than 8000 words....)
Which raises the question as to whether we wait for the overthrow of
capitalism and/or the election of a radical / green / socialist government OR we
take the piecemeal approach of smaller changes, efficiency improvements and
innovation, and doing what we can to stop the worst new developments (e.g. the
new nuclear enthusiasm). This latter approach has given us some significant
victories and changes over the last 30 years but has been totally ineffective in
challenging the culture of consumerism. The new media darlings of ethical
consumerism write their weekly advice columns in glossy supplements full of
adverts for things that totally negate their middle-class green consumer
approach.
Perhaps the key problem here is that no government has ever got
elected (to my knowledge) on a platform of cutting consumption and as long as
consumption is seen by a majority as being (almost) the same as quality of life
it's probable that no government ever will be...
This goes back to a previous post in which I suggested that on
consumerism and climate change we've actually hit the limits of policy-making as
a driver for change. This tends to push emphasis back on to behaviour change,
and at the moment we don't have the infrastructure to support low / zero-carbon
living by all, nor do we have anything like the level of public engagement that
would lead to the big differences in consumption that we need nor to
the political will for radical policy-making.
We might get that engagement as places with names like Tyneside,
Clydeside, Thamesmead etc. disappear under water but I suspect that will be a
little late, which is why I seek to spend my time on developing capacity and
engagement now. If that means that I don't confront the moral bankruptcy of the
current system then so be it....
