So, I can feel a theme developing here...
It seems that 'green' is the new 'black', as the environment becomes an increasingly fashionable topic. Environmentally-friendly and ethical living was once the preserve of eco-warrior Swampy and some trendy rock stars. Now the politicians have muscled in, and these issues are fast loosing their street cred, but they are also - more importantly - becoming more prolific among ordinary people like you and I.
I've been vegetarian most of my life, done my best (mostly) to recycle and to buy products that aren't tested on animals. For years I thought that made me an ethical consumer. Over time, I started buying organic fruit and veg, fairtrade tea and sugar, and using energy-saving light bulbs. I walk to work, I read my newspapers online, and do my best to conserve energy at home. But I know all this is not nearly enough.
What has struck me with most of these steps is how much more they have cost me. Now, this is a cost I choose to absorb. I'm prepared to pay more in order to limit my impact on the environment, and support 'ethical products'.
Unfortunately, not everyone is in such a privileged position. Not everyone can afford to pay more for their weekly shop. A fifth of all people in Scotland are living in poverty, and they don't have the 'luxury' of paying more for environmentally-friendly products.
Of course, there are some things we can all do to reduce our impact on the environment that cost nothing or actually save us money - such as walking rather than driving, and not leaving your TV on standby. However, most 'green choices' are more expensive.
The point to this particular ramble of mine, is that we should not forget that there are many people who simply cannot afford to live in a more environmentally-friendly way. Taxing behaviour that is bad for the environment is fine in principle, but it is a form of indirect taxation - which we all know impacts disproportionately on the poorest in society.
The solution to this is simple of course - rid Scotland of poverty! But until we are empowered to do so with independence, we must be balanced in our calls for polluter pays taxation.
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Friday, 16 March 2007
Monday, 12 March 2007
Green Skies or True Blue Lies?
So the Tories are pulling out all the stops to convince us that they want to save the planet. Like many politicians attempting to portray themselves as environmentalists, they have picked on the most obvious target - air travel.
Now, of course increased air travel is contributing to our growing carbon emissions - but it's only part of the problem. Yet taxing air travel is presented as some kind of panacea to our environmental problems. Politicians like David Cameron need to stop misleading people and inject a bit of honesty and imagination.
Realistically, in order for society to function we will have to engage in some activity that is bad for the environment. For example, doctors have to travel from their homes to actually perform operations in hospitals, we need to use power to heat our homes, and we need some packaging in order to transfer goods from shops to our homes.
So, if we accept that we have to allow for a certain level (as low as possible of course) of carbon emissions, then the questions are what level is acceptable and how do we use this self-imposed allowance?
My friend Mhairi and I call this the 'Weightwatchers' approach to carbon emissions.
We can use our carbon 'points' for a certain level of air travel, road travel, construction, and so on. And because we have allocated all our points, we must ensure that we are otherwise squeaky 'green'.
If we take this approach, then we become much more focused on reducing the carbon emissions (and other environmental damage) that results from our EVERYDAY LIVES. We broaden our focus to waste minimisation, recycling, renewable energy, green fuels, energy efficiency, public transport. The list goes on. It's all about making our everyday lives more environmentally friendly - not just our holiday or business air travel.
Only with a more honest and realistic approach to our shared environmental challenge will we have any chance of meeting it.
Now, of course increased air travel is contributing to our growing carbon emissions - but it's only part of the problem. Yet taxing air travel is presented as some kind of panacea to our environmental problems. Politicians like David Cameron need to stop misleading people and inject a bit of honesty and imagination.
Realistically, in order for society to function we will have to engage in some activity that is bad for the environment. For example, doctors have to travel from their homes to actually perform operations in hospitals, we need to use power to heat our homes, and we need some packaging in order to transfer goods from shops to our homes.
So, if we accept that we have to allow for a certain level (as low as possible of course) of carbon emissions, then the questions are what level is acceptable and how do we use this self-imposed allowance?
My friend Mhairi and I call this the 'Weightwatchers' approach to carbon emissions.
We can use our carbon 'points' for a certain level of air travel, road travel, construction, and so on. And because we have allocated all our points, we must ensure that we are otherwise squeaky 'green'.
If we take this approach, then we become much more focused on reducing the carbon emissions (and other environmental damage) that results from our EVERYDAY LIVES. We broaden our focus to waste minimisation, recycling, renewable energy, green fuels, energy efficiency, public transport. The list goes on. It's all about making our everyday lives more environmentally friendly - not just our holiday or business air travel.
Only with a more honest and realistic approach to our shared environmental challenge will we have any chance of meeting it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)