Not convinced that it would work, but I think there's potential in celebrity culture as a means of promoting SC. Get some big name celebs to endorse a facet of SC and I'm sure it'll encourage some sectors of the population to be more sustainable.
Going even further, what about tapping into the tabloid and celebrity tat magazines, as they seem to have more influence over the general public than anything else. I'm thinking instead of "Disgraced Amy Winehouse Back in Rehab" it should be "Disgraced Winehouse's Eco-Footprint Reaches 11.4 Planets" or "Why I Can't Stop Buying 4x4s: The Exclusive Peter Andre Story"... name and shame! Celeb culture is powerful, and there are not enough of them proactively promoting SC.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Friday, 16 October 2009
Why I'm choosing my book...
The book I have chosen for my review is Affluenza: The All Consuming Epidemic (2001) by John de Graaf, David Wann and Thomas Naylor:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ppGqijWQ-4AC&dq=affluenza:+the+all+consuming+epidemic&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=H0_u0wQ7wI&sig=wmm2aIKRwAX1IL3DrqjX-Bb6-wA&hl=en&ei=HnzYSrmnFpOJ4QbUlpX1Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false
The first thing that drew me to this book was the title - it instantly drew me in and gave the impression that it would be an entertaining read, which it certainly has been so far.
Basically its a dumbed down, exaggerated and very North-American-Centric take on over consumption, much like the Story of Stuff. A highly readable idiot's guide. Hence why I am reading it.
But my main reason for choosing this book stems from my personal interest in the communication of environmental issues to the general public. Therefore, I am particularly fascinated by the use of rhetoric and hyperbole, and how this might influence the actions of the reader. The more I read, the more I notice a trade-off between verifiable and rigorous (boring) science and tangible, exaggerated examples (interesting but highly contestable)...
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ppGqijWQ-4AC&dq=affluenza:+the+all+consuming+epidemic&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=H0_u0wQ7wI&sig=wmm2aIKRwAX1IL3DrqjX-Bb6-wA&hl=en&ei=HnzYSrmnFpOJ4QbUlpX1Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false
The first thing that drew me to this book was the title - it instantly drew me in and gave the impression that it would be an entertaining read, which it certainly has been so far.
Basically its a dumbed down, exaggerated and very North-American-Centric take on over consumption, much like the Story of Stuff. A highly readable idiot's guide. Hence why I am reading it.
But my main reason for choosing this book stems from my personal interest in the communication of environmental issues to the general public. Therefore, I am particularly fascinated by the use of rhetoric and hyperbole, and how this might influence the actions of the reader. The more I read, the more I notice a trade-off between verifiable and rigorous (boring) science and tangible, exaggerated examples (interesting but highly contestable)...
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
GDP or GNH?
Again, I've really enjoyed reading everyone's blogs due to the variety of different angles at which everyone approaches the question. It's certainly helping me to develop a more critical and interdisciplinary stance to SC issues. Onto the question at hand...
Thoroughly enjoyed Kevin's Nepal example, and can support it with my own experience of South America this year. It did not surprise me when I read on the happyplanetindex.org site that South America (and "middle income" countries in general) has the highest HPI score! As a continent, developmentally, I suppose it is at a similar level to 1970s US and europe (the era that our GNH peaked). It has the basic welfare infrastructures that support a decent life expectancy, yet has not got to the "growth for growth's sake" stage that we are at. I felt a much stronger sense of community and cultural integrity in South America that instantly conveys an infectious level of happiness that, to me, has long disappeared in England. (Furthermore, I was discussing the issue with my flatmate, who told me of her time teaching in Tanzania - "the people were by far the happiest I have ever met, even though they have absolutely NOTHING!") .... Arguing along these lines, I would tend to favour GNH over GDP. I do, however, have a couple of points regarding this.
Firstly, in last week's seminar I think we missed an important determinant of happiness: expectations. Happiness is surely determined, to a large extent, by the expectations of an individual e.g. someone living on the poverty line and fighting for survival may feel incredibly happy to just exist one more day. One could possibly argue then, that one of the major limitations of GDP is that it fosters "taken for granted-ness" - the wealthier we become, the more we expect and the more facets of living that we take for granted. Perhaps this can explain why GDP beyond a certain point does not contribute to GNH; our expectations are now so high that it takes something big to make us happy.
Secondly, I cannot ignore my nagging thoughts that South America's happiness is, to an extent, a product of the more developed nations' GDP obsession. By this, I argue that if it weren't for the most advanced countries striving for growth and more growth, certain knowledges and technologies would not have been developed that have enabled less developed countries to achieve the essential welfare infrastructure for demographic transition. Certain medical technologies, for example, would probably not exist/would not be affordable had we relied upon GNH since time began. This ties in with what Dave said in his blog - that GDP is crucial to a certain level (the 1970s level) in order to establish a decent welfare system that allows individuals to (hopefully) escape the trials of mere survival.
Building on these arguments, I would like to propose that GDP beyond a certain level erodes GNH. I remember when I was a child... every evening after school I would head to the playing field nextdoor to my house, where a large number of kids would congregate for games of football or general mischief. 12 years on, there are never any kids playing on the field nextdoor - they are too busy on their playstations, Xboxes and laptops:
Increased GDP = More people who can afford PS3 = less people socialising = decreased GNH
or written another way:
Increased GDP = more advanced technologies = implementation of blogs as part of uni teaching = me writing this blog whilst my flatmates drink and party = decreased HPI
joking...
A final bit on happiness:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16194-happiness-spreads-like-the-plague.html
I don't know about anyone else, but I felt incredibly happy and uplifted during and after last week's seminar - sharing happy experiences really did make me feel good! In conclusion, if something good happens to you, tell everyone and we will all achieve increased HPIs.
Don't brag though.
Thoroughly enjoyed Kevin's Nepal example, and can support it with my own experience of South America this year. It did not surprise me when I read on the happyplanetindex.org site that South America (and "middle income" countries in general) has the highest HPI score! As a continent, developmentally, I suppose it is at a similar level to 1970s US and europe (the era that our GNH peaked). It has the basic welfare infrastructures that support a decent life expectancy, yet has not got to the "growth for growth's sake" stage that we are at. I felt a much stronger sense of community and cultural integrity in South America that instantly conveys an infectious level of happiness that, to me, has long disappeared in England. (Furthermore, I was discussing the issue with my flatmate, who told me of her time teaching in Tanzania - "the people were by far the happiest I have ever met, even though they have absolutely NOTHING!") .... Arguing along these lines, I would tend to favour GNH over GDP. I do, however, have a couple of points regarding this.
Firstly, in last week's seminar I think we missed an important determinant of happiness: expectations. Happiness is surely determined, to a large extent, by the expectations of an individual e.g. someone living on the poverty line and fighting for survival may feel incredibly happy to just exist one more day. One could possibly argue then, that one of the major limitations of GDP is that it fosters "taken for granted-ness" - the wealthier we become, the more we expect and the more facets of living that we take for granted. Perhaps this can explain why GDP beyond a certain point does not contribute to GNH; our expectations are now so high that it takes something big to make us happy.
Secondly, I cannot ignore my nagging thoughts that South America's happiness is, to an extent, a product of the more developed nations' GDP obsession. By this, I argue that if it weren't for the most advanced countries striving for growth and more growth, certain knowledges and technologies would not have been developed that have enabled less developed countries to achieve the essential welfare infrastructure for demographic transition. Certain medical technologies, for example, would probably not exist/would not be affordable had we relied upon GNH since time began. This ties in with what Dave said in his blog - that GDP is crucial to a certain level (the 1970s level) in order to establish a decent welfare system that allows individuals to (hopefully) escape the trials of mere survival.
Building on these arguments, I would like to propose that GDP beyond a certain level erodes GNH. I remember when I was a child... every evening after school I would head to the playing field nextdoor to my house, where a large number of kids would congregate for games of football or general mischief. 12 years on, there are never any kids playing on the field nextdoor - they are too busy on their playstations, Xboxes and laptops:
Increased GDP = More people who can afford PS3 = less people socialising = decreased GNH
or written another way:
Increased GDP = more advanced technologies = implementation of blogs as part of uni teaching = me writing this blog whilst my flatmates drink and party = decreased HPI
joking...
A final bit on happiness:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16194-happiness-spreads-like-the-plague.html
I don't know about anyone else, but I felt incredibly happy and uplifted during and after last week's seminar - sharing happy experiences really did make me feel good! In conclusion, if something good happens to you, tell everyone and we will all achieve increased HPIs.
Don't brag though.
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
Does business have a responsibility to promote sustainability?
Reiterating what many of you have already blogged, I am a firm believer that sustainability is the responsibility of everyone - individuals, businesses and governing bodies all have a part to play, and they all need the support of one another to be able to make a change. To go into the details of this would be repeating the ideas of my fellow classmates (chris, louise, sean, ben, caroline, dave etc) all of whom make equally valid points (in my opinion!).
For me, it is this mutual responsibility that makes sustainability such a complicated issue - a point that becomes more and more pertinent with every SC class we have, as illustrated by the debates that erupt between the pro and anti-business minded class members! Whilst I fully agree with the environmentalist perspective that business is not doing enough for sustainability and could be construed as the major culprit with regards to our environmental problems, I also concord with the economist viewpoint that, logistically, it is not so simple for business to promote sustainability within our market systems. I, too, come to the conclusion that internalising of the externalities is probably the best way forward, as it marries the 3 players of consumer, business and government - a governmental policy to bring about market change that, in turn, brings about consumer behavioural change - to produce an holistic solution to a global problem. But, again, it's easier said than done!
With regards to last week's practical...
the Annie Leonard video sparked a debate over the simplistic conveyor belt system of production, consumption, growth and environmental degradation. Yes, capitalism has yielded enormous improvements in welfare etc, and yes, there would be a staggering amount of poverty and loss of livelihood if we were to stop/slow our consumption (as the video suggests we should). But my main concern with this second argument is the perpetual nature of our system of production and consumption - as consumption increases, more people become a part of the chain of production, such that the level of consumption needs to be maintained to support those employed in production. Something is wrong here. In saying that the livelihood losses that would result from a decline in consumption are a reason for which to maintain consumption, are we not missing the point?
Also, at the end of the presentations, the point was made that there should be a set of uniform minimum standards by which to assess a business' sustainability. My problem with this idea is that if you set minimum standards you get minimum standards and reactive measures rather than proactive measures...
ummm thats about it. A load of waffle and I haven't really answered the question!
For me, it is this mutual responsibility that makes sustainability such a complicated issue - a point that becomes more and more pertinent with every SC class we have, as illustrated by the debates that erupt between the pro and anti-business minded class members! Whilst I fully agree with the environmentalist perspective that business is not doing enough for sustainability and could be construed as the major culprit with regards to our environmental problems, I also concord with the economist viewpoint that, logistically, it is not so simple for business to promote sustainability within our market systems. I, too, come to the conclusion that internalising of the externalities is probably the best way forward, as it marries the 3 players of consumer, business and government - a governmental policy to bring about market change that, in turn, brings about consumer behavioural change - to produce an holistic solution to a global problem. But, again, it's easier said than done!
With regards to last week's practical...
the Annie Leonard video sparked a debate over the simplistic conveyor belt system of production, consumption, growth and environmental degradation. Yes, capitalism has yielded enormous improvements in welfare etc, and yes, there would be a staggering amount of poverty and loss of livelihood if we were to stop/slow our consumption (as the video suggests we should). But my main concern with this second argument is the perpetual nature of our system of production and consumption - as consumption increases, more people become a part of the chain of production, such that the level of consumption needs to be maintained to support those employed in production. Something is wrong here. In saying that the livelihood losses that would result from a decline in consumption are a reason for which to maintain consumption, are we not missing the point?
Also, at the end of the presentations, the point was made that there should be a set of uniform minimum standards by which to assess a business' sustainability. My problem with this idea is that if you set minimum standards you get minimum standards and reactive measures rather than proactive measures...
ummm thats about it. A load of waffle and I haven't really answered the question!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
