 |
 |
Also Ed Mayo, formerly of the New Economics Foundation, who promoted mutualisation of public services (thus leaving them vulnerable to private sector takevoer under such rules as those of the GATS) while he was there, upsetting some people on the Left by doing so Chris marianne wrote: > Hi all... > The roundtable on 'sustainable consumption'.... hmmm, half of the > membership seem to exist to promote growth in consumption.... > A very quick squizz at the membership is revealing, includes... > Rita Clifton, SD commissioner: from Interbrand > http://www.interbrand.com/home.asp > "Brands are an important influence on our lives. They are central to > free markets and democratic societies. They represent free choice" (!!!) > Includes branding for Prozac, BA, BMW and oodles of others.....parent > company Omnicom.... i.e. massive consumption promotion > Chris Pomfret: Unilever (needs no illuminating) > And Alan Knight: Kingfisher http://www.kingfisher.co.uk/ > <http://www.kingfisher.co.uk/index.cfm?section=English&area=About_us> > "Kingfisher is Europe’s leading home improvement retail group and the > third largest in the world, with leading market positions in the UK, > France, Poland, Italy, China and Taiwan. Sales for the 52 weeks ended > 29 January 2005 were £7.7 billion. Sales for the 26 weeks ended 30 > July 2005 were over £4 billion, over 40% of which was generated > outside the UK" > In other words Greenwash...which will no doubt receive some good > branding!! > cheers > marianne > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Aubrey Meyer <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > *To:* [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:34 PM > *Subject:* Re: SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION? > > Michael > This reads like an appeal to rich people to be nice to poor people. > Is that what you meant? > It is imlied and that the Jackson round-table will be making this > argument too. > Is that correct? > If so, it smacks of 're'-distribution. > The challenge is about 'pre'-distribution under limits. > Aubrey > > */"michael@herbscape <mailto:michael@herbscape>" > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>/* > wrote: > > Hi there, > > Excuse me just dropping in on discussions like this: i am > relatively new to the list, and time commitments have not > allowed me to read all postings, but whilst reading some of > the recent discussion re. the nuclear debate and the > implication that Lovelock’s position is to defend ‘business as > usual’ for our little corner of the world (“keeping the lights > on”), i was considering the feasability of persuading the > consumers of the affluent world to alter their behaviour, and > make sacrifices on behalf of the ‘two-thirds world’ (nevermind > the generations to come). > > If we are to have any hope of altering the apparent assumption > of ‘sustainable economic growth’ that seems to underpin all > economists and politicians vision of the future (and if indeed > we are to have any hope of influencing future government > policy re. this), surely all eyes must be on Professor Tim > Jackson and the select few who were invited to form the > SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION ROUNDTABLE ? I understand that they > will report back with conclusions next month... Having > presumably been taking evidence from a wide range of experts > and interest groups, i am certainly curious to know how they > will ‘square the circle’... > > Regards, > > michael herrmann > Senior Lecturer & Researcher > Design (for Sustainability) > The Leeds School of Architecture, Landscape and Design > Leeds Metropolitan University > > ps. In case you wish to know more, i copied this description > below from the National Consumer Council web site... > > http://www.ncc.org.uk/responsibleconsumption/roundtable_faqs.pdf >