“London Calling: Make yourself heard” was a conference for voluntary sector organisations to discuss responses to the updated Mayor’s London Plan, which is currently in consultation (until 12 January 2010).

Among other topics raised from the floor, there was discussion around whether London should be striving to be competitive rather than collaborative and whether growth is still a good measure of success.

In the workshop on the Economic Development Strategy our discussion included concepts of volunteering and how to measure the contribution of volunteers to the economy (as well as that of unpaid carers at all stages of life).

I found the views of one delegate very depressing: he warned us that unless our suggestions were worded in the language of the dominant business-oriented growth model they would simply be marginalised in the final document and policies. This would happen by the addition of weasel words or through a subtle turn of phrase: ‘would aim to’ or ‘will work towards’ rather than ‘must’ or ‘will’.

In that case, how can we ever move towards a more just society? In informal discussion afterwards he also stated that if the growth model is not maintained thousands of Londoners would die. I pointed out that thousands of people around the globe already die to keep our economic model going. He argued that you must either come out completely on the side of an alternative economic model or stick with the current model (growth, competitiveness etc) – attempts at compromise will just be ignored.

There are hints on how to cut your carbon emissions on their website. Not much that we haven’t already heard, howevr, and for individuals, much emphasis on the small savings (such as switching off electrical appliances). I’d like a few more hints on how individuals can persuade business and the authorities to cut big time – and to reduce their overall footprint (not just their carbon footprint).

Am a bit unclear so far – more later.

In her speech she contrasts the need to preserve resources during her ocean voyages with today’s throwaway consumer attitudes. She says:

“It is not that people are lazy, it is just that we have grown up in a time when everything is available and cheap. If we want something, all we have to do is go out to the supermarket. We need to get back to a stage where we value what we have. On a boat you learn to value the resources you have and to make the most of them.”

In her recent (BBC Radio 4) Desert Island Discs interview, she talks about tearing off the corner of a paper towel rather than using a whole sheet – excellent.

Following that approach, rather than just saying ‘plastic bags not good, ban plastic bags’, people could start seeing plastic bags (and other man-made things) as precious resources to be stored and valued.

Ventnor Blog and Eco Island conference speech report

See also Dame Ellen MacArthur on this blog.

Her ambition now is to try to find a way of living the same sustainable existence on land that she lives at sea.

Dame Ellen MacArthur – click to visit the BBC website

Unlike governments, nature doesn’t do bailouts. Yet as of today, humanity will have placed more demand on ecological services – from filtering CO2 to producing food, fiber and timber- than nature can provide in this year, according to Global Footprint Network calculations. From now until the end of the year, we will meet our demand for ecological services by depleting resource stocks and accumulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

“It’s a simple case of income versus expenditures,” said Global Footprint
Network President Mathis Wackernagel. “For years, our demand on nature has exceeded, by an increasingly greater margin, the budget of what nature can produce. The urgent threats we are seeing now – most notably climate change, but also biodiversity loss, shrinking forests, declining fisheries, soil erosion and freshwater stress – are all clear signs: Nature is running out of credit to extend.”

See also the WWF
press centre and spokespeople:
http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/press_centre/press_contacts/
http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/press_centre/spokespeople/

Footprint calculators:
~ personal ecological footprint calculators eg. at
http://www.ecologicalfootprint.com (from Best Foot Forward footprint
analysts/consultants) or http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/ (WWF)

~ footprints of nations – 2008 data tables – follow link to download Excel spreadsheet from
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_for_nations/

~ Bioregional – One Planet Challenge
http://calculator.bioregional.com/

Today we should all be walking, re-using, mending, switching off, growing and sharing like there’s no tomorrow – otherwise one day there won’t be.

The calculation of a footprint takes in a range of components:  built land, CO2 absorption, nuclear, wood fuel, timber, fisheries, pasture and cropland – or to put it another way:  nourishment, shelter, mobility, goods and services.  

The footprints of many countries, especially industrialised and industrialising countries, have increased rapidly and alarmingly over the past few decades.  The world is already in deficit:  overall, on average we use 2.2 global hectares per person, which is 0.4 more than the world’s capacity – so we are already living off our ‘ecological capital’.  

• A quarter of the world’s countries – one in five of the population – has a global footprint of 3 or more global hectares per person
• A third of the world’s population lives in countries with a footprint of around the average.
• But almost half the world – 75 countries, encompassing 47% of the world’s population – has a global footprint of 1.5 global hectares per person or less.
• Not surprisingly, the more developed the country, the larger the footprint!   

More to follow here shortly, including graphs and comparisons …
Meanwhile, explore the information on the Global Footprint Network website

The bags and publicity campaign were developed with the group We Are What We Do, who arranged a high profile launch with Sainsburys supermarket: last Friday, Sainburys offered limited supplies of the bags for sale at £5 in 450 of its stores, resulting in the predictable queues, headlines and discussion of trends.

Sainsburys also used that day to give away free its reusable Bags for Life, available to all for those not prepared to get up and queue from dawn.

I certainly wasn’t one of the dawn shoppers for the Anya Hindmarch bag but I did go along to claim my Bag for Life. They wouldn’t let me take photos in my local store, so you’ll have to take my word for it that shoppers were going out with trolley loads of bags for life, treating them in much the same way as the normal plastic bags. How many will be used more than the once remains to be seen.

Both campaigns were good for raising awareness, but neither the designer bag nor the Bag for Life addresses people’s underlying behaviour or the roots of the problem of plastic carrier bags. I can think of a few factors:

- people now mainly travel to the shops by car, so they don’t think about how they are going to carry their shopping home when they set out (as they used to do when they were carrying everything home by hand – what happened to the string bag, by the way?)

- shops which use bags as advertising are not geared up to encourage a reduction in the amount of bags issued (a cynic would say it’s no coincidence that Sainsburys changed the colour of their bags to orange now that there’s a mainstream discussion around reducing the use of plastic bags….)

Even charging for bags is not completely proven as the answer (in Ireland it is suggested that the sale of black bin bags has gone up since the introduction of a tax on plastic bags – see an article from 2004 on Food Production Daily). I feel that rewards are better – generally, people respond more positively to rewards than they do to restrictions and penalties. Sainsburys could reintroduce their penny back idea, or introduce green Reward card points, like Tesco does.

The free ‘Bag for Life’ day last Friday would have been a good time to introduce some of these tips and ideas:
- checkout staff could be encouraged to use the approach which Boots the chemist has had for years, which is to ask all customers ‘Do you need a bag?’ instead of automatically giving them out.

- stores could also introduce high-profile publicity to encourage people to fold and pack a bag to carry in their pocket, wallet or handbag – plus regular ‘bring a bag’ days with rewards.

There was a debate in the House of Lords in July 2006 which ranges widely across the issues: see the report on They Work For You, or directly from Hansard if you prefer. Here’s a sample: “My Lords, was not the noble Lord’s mother absolutely right in her reuse of these bags? I certainly reuse them to bin kitchen rubbish before putting it into the black liner. What is wrong with that?” (follow the links above for the response…)

Finally, it’s important not to make so much noise about plastic carrier bags that the issue of waste plastic in food packaging gets sidelined. Many people are as concerned about this as about bags – probably more, because everyone says it’s someone else’s problem (supermarkets blaming suppliers etc), with the consumer being blamed for wanting produce in a particular way – which is very frustrating.

Do women tread more lightly across the world than men? You bet they do. I have no surveys or statistics to back up my theory, but if you put together findings from published studies on gender inequality (from pay levels to private school fees to wealth following divorce), it does appear to ring true.

Here is the logic:
- The poor use fewer of the earth’s resources than the rich
- It is more environmentally friendly to use fewer resources
- Women are paid less than men, less is spent on them and they are more likely to be poor
- Therefore women are more environmentally friendly than men!

Of course that’s all a bit generalised and simplistic. But the point should be taken seriously: in working out how to save the environment and live more sustainably, we need to take a more ‘female’ approach to judging progress and generally running the world.

We need to:
- value quiet solutions over high profile contests and debates
- value sharing, compromise and consensus over outright winners and losers
- place a higher value on caring skills and community benefit – and place less value on individual wealth and power.

We in the rich industrialised countries demand wide consumer choice, total safety, total hygiene, total comfort, unrestricted travel across the globe etc. But, as all these perks are bought at a price to others elsewhere in the world (and it’s generally the women who pay the most heavily), our own indulgence should make us feel distinctly uneasy. There’s no way we can Make Poverty History without also striving to Make Profligacy History.

Community media has a central role to play in this – women and girls around the world need to use it to speak out and make their voices heard. New technology and media literacy are helping to bring the voices of the powerless to the world’s attention as never before. Now we must ensure that these voices are listened to – that the opinions, achievements, solutions and ideas of those who survive on very little are taken seriously.

Cathy Aitchison
Refugee Week Radio

Refugee Week Radio, a series of online broadcasts taking place during Refugee Week in June, will include programmes and items on environment and sustainable living, education and international development, especially as relates to women. Please get in touch via the website if you want more information or to get involved.
www.refugeeweekradio.net
Refugee Week Radio – broadcasting online from 19-25 June 2006