Positive Environmentalism "A Convenient Truth"
Al Gore’s 'An Inconvenient Truth' may now be ranked as 'old hat' news; but in further review, is it the right vehicle to result in environmental salvation ?
The traditional approach to raising environmental awareness is through a bombardment of views on melting icecaps, rising sea levels, droughts, crop failures, extremes of weather, and depicting this with such images of parched landscapes, skeletal remains, and small children carrying imposing jugs having walked miles for a small drop of water to revive their starving and dehydrated bodies. Adopting this approach is all very well and good but does this negative imagery produce a desire to change the world or does it merely implant a sense of defeatism in that the problem may just be that little bit too big to solve?
A recent report by the Globalisation Institute challenges the validity of ‘doom and gloom’ propaganda for environmental improvement advocating that ‘Positive Environmentalism’ is a more convenient truth in the search for environmental deliverance
Put simply we need to turn our attention to more constructive actions to generate positive outcomes and, on a more controversial point, rather than describing wealth as the enemy of the environment; the report advocates economic growth, becoming wealthier and more prosperous as the route to environmental progress
For a moment though let's look at negative environmentalism which demands that improving the environment has to be done through personal restraint, restricting foreign holidays, curtailing car travel, limiting trade, only buying locally, or curbing GDP through increased taxes and so on. It also regards the rise of developing economies with dread.
But will these sacrifices secure commitment and 'buy-in' to solving environmental degradation? I think we all know the answer to that. Putting a few coppers on the price of a litre of petrol will not stop people using their car or even reduce the amount of air travel by introducing an Emissions Trading Scheme. Is buying local really that environmentally friendly when tomatoes can be imported from Spain at less cost to the environment than those grown locally due to the use of natural resources (gas) in heating which also produces CO2 emissions too! Then there is the questionable benefit of the landfill tax. A great idea in filling the government coffers, but as detraction from landfill it has only created an abundance of fly-tipping - which is another environmental eyesore.
All too often in discussions about the environment, a very negative, pessimistic approach is adopted. This publication from the Globalisation Institute offers a different perspective: positive environmentalism. All the evidence shows that after the early stages of development, environmental trends improve because people are wealthy enough to pay for the improvements.
So let's now look at the Developing World - China, India and so on - are they not entitled to enjoy the same advantages as the Western World? But the West looks to these countries as the future destroyers of the environment. So why not turn this threat into an opportunity. If the wealthy Western World were to invest in innovation through its supply base, this could then be exported to the Developing World to mitigate much of the potential environmental damage - effectively creating a win-win-win situation.
The Developing World will benefit, as will the Western World - and the environment will benefit too
Everyone's a winner!
Or are they? Could innovation be an excuse to put off until tomorrow what could (should) be done today!
Posted by Brian Millsom DipEM, MIEMA, CEnv, Environmental Impact Manager from OGCbuying.solutions on 05/04/2007 - 11:29:46
Comments
The conventional wisdom is that reducing the environmental impact of our economic activity requires that we pay a price. This attitude is reinforced by those who promote so-called ‘fair trade’ goods at premium pricing. It’s a popular view because it is simple to understand and even easier to describe and implement. Just pay enough money and we will make the problem go away.
I suggest that a more enlightened and meaningful approach is one of true sustainability where the impact on the society and environment is reduced at the same time as reducing the cost of what we are doing. This requires a paradigm shift in thinking and a measure of creative thinking. Both of these are naturally difficult for us mortals, as we live in a comfort zone created by our paradigms and creative flair is something that some are naturally more blessed with than others.
One needs to go back to the fundamentals of what we are doing or buying. The first question to ask oneself is “do we need to buy this at all?” The instinctive answer is “of course we do!” but that is where the paradigm shift is required. By thinking about things differently, one may find other ways of achieving the desired outcome. A simplistic example might be; rather than trying to source printing paper from sustainable sources, why not set the challenge of not using the paper at all and use electronic documents.
The other option is to find creative solutions to old problems that deliver better results with reduced environmental impacts and lower cost. My company recently led a street lighting replacement programme in a local council where we created a solution to deliver better lighting with reduced energy consumption and lower maintenance requirements, all at reduced cost. In another instance, by taking a strategic approach to energy in an energy-hungry organisation, we were able to reduce total energy consumption by building an optimum balance of sources and the conversion to heat whilst at same time as reducing the total heat requirement. This reduced both the carbon footprint and the total cost.
Let’s go for the ultimate in addressing sustainability. It is possible to deliver sustainability and lower cost.
Robert Sullivan B.Sc. CDir.
Head of Public Sector Operations, buyingTeam Ltd.
24/04/2007 - 16:15:21
I am now in second heaven – there are people out there who actually read these blogs. I am even more delighted that there are people who have the same thought patterns as well.
For many years I have been an advocate of the concept ‘going green is more costly’ is nothing other than a myth.
For example: how can following the sustainable procurement trail be more expensive when the first signpost asks the question ‘is the purchase necessary?’ If this question was answered honestly, how much would be saved in both financial and environmental terms. Then by following the environmental route further, if one considers that the environmentally sound product uses less raw material, uses less energy, uses less water, can be recycled and has end-of-life management built-in at the design stage – then surely this must cost less and be more environmentally friendly.
Or is it that ‘sustainability’ is seen by some as an opportunity to push up the price.
We shouldn’t be bamboozled into believing that being sustainable is more expensive. But unfortunately, ‘sustainable procurement’ is seen as a new idea; it is something to be taken in awe, it requires new knowledge – so the natural instinct seems to be it will cost more. Rubbish!
Good procurement practices have always taken into account such things as; the need to challenge the purchase requisition; consideration of whole life costing; developing supplier partnerships to improve design and transportation logistics, and so on. All of this is not just ‘sustainable procurement’, it is simply good procurement – sustainability should be part of the normal process and not seen as something new to be added on.
A few years ago the then new technology ‘A’ rated white goods were a little more expensive, up front, than those lesser rated older models. Now ‘A’ rated products are much cheaper, but isn’t that just the natural cycle of innovation – it is just unfortunate that it fell under the umbrella of sustainability. Nevertheless, undertaking a whole life costing exercise a few years ago would have proved even then that the ‘A’ rated product was still less expensive in the long run.
This is exacerbated in some organisations because the capital and revenue budget holders are rarely one and the same person, or indeed in the same part of the organisation. And without the ability to constructively work together on this subject there is little likelihood that things will change. (Although this may be addressed for some through the Government’s recently published Sustainable Procurement Action Plan).
Procuring ‘sustainably’ will save money – isn’t that of interest to anybody?
By procuring sustainably we can save on energy and water bills, we can save on procurement costs by using less (paper for example), we can save on pollution and global warming by traveling less; this will also save on the use of natural resources and provide a less stressed work force; we can save on landfill, landfill tax and pollution and associated health problems by discarding less through sensible procurement; we can save on a whole host of impacts on the natural world of which many of us never see (biodiversity). But by simply buying a product we can have a significant adverse effect on this scenario.
Brian Millsom
DipEM, MIEMA, CEnv
Environmental Impact Manager
OGCbuying.solutions
27/04/2007 - 17:06:32
I'm in favour of promoting positive environmentalism when it is supported by facts. It will then be credible and is more likely to win support.
Trying to motivate people into action and to change their behaviour seems to either use the pain or pleasure principles.
At the moment we tend to see a bias towards motivating people by making life painful when it comes to discussions about sustainability and the environment. For example, increasing the taxes on vehicles, fuel or on cigarettes can gradually encourage people to use their cars less, change to a more economical car or cleaner fuels or indeed to give up smoking.
This can bring about short term positive changes in buying and lifestyle behaviour but not necessary encourage people to have a positive regard for the cause of sustainability and caring for the environment. Attitudes may even harden against sustainability and environmentalism.
Threats and penalties can change how people behave in the short term until an alternative way can be found to revert back to what they used to do. In the UK we have seen the more enterprising smokers finding ways to get around the tax increases, for example buying cigarettes from Europe.
The language used often switches people off from the important messages. We talk about “cutting”, “reducing”, “taxes”, “penalties”, “waste” and “polluters”. Not very inspiring and makes you think that you are losing out and making sacrifices.
Why not emphasise the good behaviours and speak a more positive language?
Some schemes that are being developed could run the risk of leaning heavily on the penalties and negative side, for example, cutting carbon emissions and the use of carbon reduction labelling.
Carbon labelling can be used as some sort of “guilt-trip” scheme or it can be promoted as a positive and helpful tool to help you make purchasing decisions.
I look forward to seeing the carbon labelling ideas become a reality when we buy things so long as a product that produces less carbon dioxide in its lifecycle (from manufacture to its disposal) costs me no more, or even better, costs less than the market leader.
If companies save money, as they should by managing the carbon produced in the lifecycle of their products, then consumers should be rewarded by more reasonable pricing.
If you provide people with a choice of equivalent products in terms of performance and quality, with one causing less harm to the environment at either the same cost or less, I think most people will choose to do the right thing and buy in a sustainable way and choose more environmentally-friendly products.
Consumer and supplier are then both benefiting which is much more satisfying and pleasurable than only one side seeing a benefit.
As demand for the more sustainable products increases, I would guess that manufacturers would invest more in developing sustainable products, and costs can come down.
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe we have seen this with the recycled paper market in the UK?
11/05/2007 - 15:13:08
Here at Age Concern we are trying to reduce the TCO of our computer systems and as a by-product our carbon footprint.
We are about to implement Server based computing using thin clients. This promised a 91% reduction in our Carbon footprint but when I did the number crunching and added the four servers to the network the net result was an increase in Co2.
The servers are power hungry beasts and demand far more than the thin clients put together.
12/06/2007 - 12:04:52
Post Comment
Customers wishing to post comments must first register via the online registration form.
