|
|||||||||||||
|
|
Thread
started on 24/4/2008 09:29
See here for some sobering reading. We export 10 tonnes CO2 per person just from our imports according to this report. This means “personal” emissions represent less than 25% of our total carbon emissions. http://withouthotair.blogspot.com/2008/02/stuff-dominates.html Do we need a person carbon import allowance too? Brgds Video - The Story of Stuffwritten on 25/4/2008 14:48
This is an excellent 20 min animated video that gives an overview ‘stuff’ in our modern world, well worth a look. Collective responsibility for collective emissions?written on 25/4/2008 15:08
Yes! And, although collective options are often lower-carbon, their footprint is usually much harder to calculate and ascribe to individuals. Your points, Guy, are a powerful argument for not trying to include all public services in personal footprints: a zero carbon rating (eg. for train travel) would incentivise individuals to use collective services; with local governments or business taking on responsibility for the emissions further “upstream”. The personal footprints wouldn’t be an exact measure of the total impact of the individual, but instead include only the emissions for which each person has direct responsibility. (NB I wouldn’t count flying as a collective service, as this is one case which is considerably less efficient than other options) Interesting pointswritten on 28/4/2008 12:33
And I would keep it simple. Tax the stuff as it comes out of the ground and before it enters the economy. This way its already accounted for and needs no complex (and vulnerable and volatile) markets to deal with it. There is a case in addition to this to apply personal emissions on top, thus personal stuff gets to pay twice until there is no longer any carbon in the economy… if it can be dome simple (ie my Mum can do it which is asking a lot!) The problem with doing things collectively (which I wholeheartedly agree with in principle) is that people do not work well collectively in the current society. We are quite selfish and will fight against such measures (present company excluded) The majority are swayed by money and money only. I’m not a socialist at all, this is just how it is. |
How to topple King Stuff
Guy S
Sobering reading indeed. The usual riposte from greens is to ‘consume less’. This, ultimately, may be necessary. But there is still quite some benefits to be reaped from ‘consuming differently’. People are becoming more accustomed to demanding carbon efficiency in homes, transport options and electronica, but what about in other products? Carbon labelling will help with this, but to make a real difference, we’ll probably have to ‘de-materialise’ our economy to some extent. This report suggests we can decarbonise our consumption by shifting away from buying material products (‘stuff’) to purchasing ‘cultural experiences’ – going to gigs, galleries and the cinema.
http://www.cominofoundation.org.uk/cebr_report.pdf
This has made me think about the nature of our entertainment services. It seems to be one of the few parts of our economy that remains ‘public’, in the sense of ‘collective’. Our transport has become almost wholly ‘privatised’ and individualistic (we all go around in our own little boxes on wheels), and housing likewise (we all now aspire to owning detached suburban homes rather than renting communal flats or co-operatively owned lodgings). In both of these cases, the collective option – public transport or shared housing – is the more carbon-efficient one, because of an economy of scale. But in entertainment and enjoyment, there have been some powerful trends towards ‘collectivisation’. Watching a film in a cinema is much lower-carbon than a thousand people watching a thousand TVs. Ever more people now eat out rather than cook at home, and whilst I can’t cite any hard evidence that a restaurant’s kitchen is more efficient than a home kitchen, it does seem intuitive that eating together is lower-carbon than eating separately. And imagine having to buy separately every single book you’ve ever borrowed from a library – a low-carbon shared resource if there ever was one. (I’m surprised that libraries don’t use this yet in their PR!)
Now of course there are trends to the reverse — personal stereos and widescreen TVs and home cinema systems, all of which guzzle power. And the decline of the family meal (and rise of TV dinners), typically a cause of regret to conservative champions of the family, may also have a cost to the planet, as household members increasingly cook separately. We have to resist the total ‘personalisation’ of every service and aspect of our consumption – not least because of the higher carbon costs of not sharing these services.