Can Economic Growth Deliver the Future We Want?

With Britain’s economy slipping into a double dip recession there is an urgent need to stimulate economic growth. This is widely seen as a panacea that will save us from austerity but can the pursuit of economic growth deliver the future we want?

The post-war period saw many nations equating economic growth with progress driven by technological innovation. While capitalism and the quest for economic growth have produced many benefits, this has come at a cost to the natural environment which is often not reflected in the balance sheet. The expansion of the production of good and services has required large amounts of labour, materials, energy and capital. Economic production has produced pollution and waste, degraded natural habitats and depleted natural resources to an extent that our future survival is now under threat.

In 2008 the world experienced multiple crises with regard to finance, fuel and food that contributed to the worst international economic recession since the 1930s Great Depression. The global financial crisis led to global per capita income contracting and the volume of world trade declining. It demonstrated serious flaws in our current western economic model of development and highlighted the need to reconsider the principles that have guided our economic policy making.

It is now time to think again about economic growth and how we actually measure it. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has been used as a key indicator to measure the sum of all goods and services produced in a country over time. However, this national indicator of economic progress does not consider inequality, pollution or damage to people’s health and the environment. Critics have called for GDP to be replaced with new indicators that better measure how our national policies can truly deliver a better quality of life for all.

Economic debate has tended to imply a choice has to be made between going green or going for growth. Yet we have no choice if we are to address simultaneously the current crises in global economic and environmental systems. The traditional pursuit for growth has expanded the economy to such a size that it now must conform to global environmental constraints.

Further growth will be uneconomic because it will produce more social and environmental costs than it does benefits. The only option is for ‘green’ growth that meets the dual objectives of economic growth and environmental protection with a focus on better outcomes not more outputs – a shift from quantity to quality.

In Prosperity Without Growth Tim Jackson argues that this will require a different kind of economy for a different kind of prosperity – one where human beings can flourish within the ecological limits of a finite planet. Our growth economy is driven by the consumption and production of novelty which locks society into an iron cage of consumerism. Change at the personal and societal level is necessary to make the transition to a new form of prosperity that does not depend on unrelenting growth.

In June world leaders were called upon to commit to a revolutionary paradigm shift from traditional quantity-oriented fossil fuel dependent growth towards green growth. More than 100 heads of State and government attended the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero to shape new policies to promote prosperity, reduce poverty and advance social equity and environmental protection. The Summit marked twenty years since the original 1992 Rio Earth Summit that set out the framework to address climate change and implement sustainable development into practice.

A transition towards a greener economy requires long-term sustainable growth and the efficient use of natural resources, reduction of carbon emissions, and eradication of poverty. This will require developing a green economy in the UK and working at an international level to tackle long term challenges.

In the short-term the transition to a green economy will involve additional costs and difficult choices. We will need to transform what we produce and how we produce it and take advantage of resource efficiencies. This will be achieved by using new technologies and adopting different ways of living and working, and investing in infrastructure. All economic sectors will need to grow without undermining the capacity of the environment to support our future quality of life. They will need to develop greater resilience to future environmental challenges such as climate change, material, energy and food insecurity and natural disasters.

The transition to a green economy will allow businesses to benefit from resources efficiencies and market opportunities and contribute to creating new green jobs. UK business could save as much as £23 billion a year through efficiency savings by improving the way they use energy and water, and by reducing waste. In addition, they could take advantage of the global market for environmental goods and services which has been estimated to be worth about £2.27 trillion, with forecasts predicting 4 per cent growth on an annual basis.

However, a recent report by the Institute Public Policy Research (IPPR) examined the views of over one hundred British industries on the transition to a green economy, particularly in the energy, transport and manufacturing sectors. Despite David Cameron’s Coalition government claiming to be the greenest government ever, IPPR found that industry was critical of the Coalition due to a perceived disconnect between the rhetoric of ministers and the policies they were pursuing.

Recent policy changes such as the feed-in tariffs for solar photovoltaic installations were seen as shifting the goal posts and doing little to maintain business and investor confidence in the green growth agenda. The report highlighted the need for policymakers to taken on a more active role in addressing the barriers to green growth faced by many manufacturing and energy-intensive industries.

Greening the economy will undoubtedly be good for business, people and the planet. The Earth Summit resulted in the International community simply affirming the need to achieve a green economy. However, the rhetoric contained in the final report of the conference needs to be matched by action. Clear financial incentives are need to encourage greener investment and behaviour in government, businesses and consumers.

If we are to create the future we want we need to need to develop a new form of prosperity that is not dependent on continual growth. Fundamental change to the structure of society and the market economy is needed if real environmental gains are to be achieved. Change on the scale achieved in the industrial revolution is required driven by clean, efficient and sustainable renewable energy technologies. The only solution to austerity is to ensure the UK is firmly placed at the forefront of this new global green revolution.

© Gary Haq 2012

Time for Greens to Return to the Grassroots

The past five decades have seen groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) successfully campaign to raise awareness of environmental issues.

The green movement has promoted a way of speaking and thinking about the environment that was not possible or imaginable decades ago.

Today green issues are a feature of the modern world that that everyone now recognises. As the green movement reaches middle age, it is coming under increasing criticism for being bureaucratic, ineffective, out of touch and set in its ways.

THE past five decades have seen groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) successfully campaign to raise awareness of environmental issues.

The green movement has promoted a way of speaking and thinking about the environment that was not possible or imaginable decades ago.

Today green issues are a feature of the modern world that that everyone now recognises. As the green movement reaches middle age, it is coming under increasing criticism for being bureaucratic, ineffective, out of touch and set in its ways.

Environmental concern initially focused on the protection of selected species and habitats, reducing polluting emissions to air, water and soil and improving the control and management of waste and hazardous substances.

As society became increasingly globalised, industrialised and interconnected, environmental issues changed in their complexity and geographical scope.

With the recognition of acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer and climate change as environmental problems, the focus moved from the local to the regional and global scale.

Efforts are now being made to control greenhouse gases and specific pollutants from sectors such as energy and transport. This has involved improving the efficiency of resource use and adopting cleaner technology.

While progress has been made in improving the state of the environment, human activity continues to drive environmental problems such as climate change, deforestation, depletion of natural resources and loss of biodiversity.

Despite many achievements the green movement has failed to win the hearts and minds of a large part of the electorate. The urgency of reducing greenhouse gases, the slow progress made in achieving a binding international climate change agreement, the style of campaigning and the rise in climate scepticism have caused fractions within the green movement.

Jonathon Porritt, a former director of Friends of the Earth, accused the movement of betraying the public by not supporting the grassroots campaign to stop the sell-off of England’s forests.

Porritt claimed the green movement was either too concerned about its relationship with the Department of the Environment to criticise the sell-off or that they hoped to gain from it.

More recently, the movement has been criticised for its opposition to the role of technology in addressing environmental issues such as nuclear power and genetically modified (GM) crops.

US environmentalist Stewart Brand believes the failure to embrace technologies has hindered environmental and social progress. He suggests we will be saved from global warming by densely populated cities, nuclear energy, GM food and planet-wide geo-engineering to manipulate the Earth’s climate to counteract climate change.

Mark Lynas accuses the green movement of having helped cause climate change through their opposition to nuclear power.

In contrast, Porritt warns of the dangers of being seduced by nuclear and argues that a 100 per cent renewable supply strategy for the UK is feasible by 2050, assuming that total UK energy consumption can be reduced by at least 40 per cent by 2030. This could be achieved by massive investment in energy efficiency.

As the world enters a new age of natural resource scarcity and climate change, food and energy insecurity will the affect the way of life of many communities. Therefore a renewed green movement will be required for a new age of global challenges. This will require agreement on the different technologies it supports.

There has been a tendency for green groups to scare people into change. There is now recognition of the need to provide a positive agenda.

A greater focus on “green localism” could re-engage an often suspicious and uninterested public by taking action within their immediate sphere of influence. Working in partnership with local authorities and businesses, local groups could contribute to build stronger communities able to fight climate change, improve health and wellbeing and secure a healthy natural environment.

The green movement has the potential to evolve through a network of grassroots groups that contribute to national and international campaigns using social media. It remains to be seen how the environmental idea can be captured and shaped by new generations in an age of new challenges. What is certain we will have to develop ways to respond to the effects future environmental change will have on our current way of life.

This article is based on the book Environmentalism Since 1945 by Gary Haq and Alistair Paul, published by Routledge in September 2011.

© Gary Haq 2011

Our Green History

oday environmentalism influences the language and decisions of government, corporations and individuals to an extent that was not possible a century ago.

The belief that the environment should be protected has become widely held throughout society as the global speed and scale of resource use and environmental destruction has been recognised and understood.

As western standards of living have increased, basic material needs have been met, and people have demanded higher standards of environmental quality. But beyond the basic belief that the environment should be protected, there is no agreement on why this is important or how this should be done. There is no unifying set of environmental ideas that society subscribes to nor a single environmental movement united behind a shared cause.

Environmentalism has evolved in complex and sometimes contradictory ways to span conservative, reformist and radical ideas about what the world should look like, as well as how change should be brought about. Each strand of modern environmental thinking brings its own set of ideas about how humanity should organise itself and interact with its environment.

Today environmentalism influences the language and decisions of government, corporations and individuals to an extent that was not possible a century ago.

The belief that the environment should be protected has become widely held throughout society as the global speed and scale of resource use and environmental destruction has been recognised and understood.

As western standards of living have increased, basic material needs have been met, and people have demanded higher standards of environmental quality. But beyond the basic belief that the environment should be protected, there is no agreement on why this is important or how this should be done. There is no unifying set of environmental ideas that society subscribes to nor a single environmental movement united behind a shared cause.

Environmentalism has evolved in complex and sometimes contradictory ways to span conservative, reformist and radical ideas about what the world should look like, as well as how change should be brought about. Each strand of modern environmental thinking brings its own set of ideas about how humanity should organise itself and interact with its environment.

Over the last 60 years these have evolved with each new environmental cause from nuclear power and pesticide use in the 1960s, to acid rain and the depletion of the ozone layer in the 1970s and 1980s and biodiversity loss and climate change in the 1990s and 2000s. Often these causes have taken hold in different countries at different times, each prompted by particular historical circumstances. For this reason environmentalism has been taken up in many forms across generations and the continents of the world.

The explosion of environmental activity in the 1960s did not represent the creation of an entirely new set of ideas. In 1885 German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) wrote: “It would never occur to me to regard the enjoyment of nature as the invention of the modern age.” The same can be said for modern day interest in the environment.

The fact that modern environmental concern spread following atomic bomb tests and to the backdrop of the Vietnam War is a point much referred to by historians and environmentalists. Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring (1962) was amongst the first to link the dangers of the atomic bomb to the misuse of pesticides, emphasising humanity’s capacity to destroy nature and itself.

Over the next ten years a number of publications followed suit, Tragedy of the Commons (1968), and Limits to Growth (1972), raised wider anxieties about the future of the planet, whilst Blueprint for Survival (1972), and Small is Beautiful (1973) sketched out green alternatives. Almost half a century later the anxieties expressed in each of these books are still at the centre of many environmental concerns today.

Media coverage of dramatic pollution events has been instrumental in raising environmental concerns over the last half century.The first major oil spill in Britain occurred when the super tanker Torrey Canyon struck a reef between the UK mainland and the Isles of Scilly in March 1967.

The resulting oil slick covered 120 miles of Cornish coast, killing tens of thousands of birds. Two years later an explosion on the Union Oil Company oil platform, six miles off the coast of Santa Barbara in California, resulted in the release of hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil.

These highly visible examples of humanity’s impact on the environment occurred as the age of colour television began and broadcasters discovered that major pollution events made visually dramatic news stories. Each decade since has witnessed at least one massive oil spill from a super tanker or oil platform, these serve as timely reminders that environmental issues have not gone away.

The history of contemporary environmentalism has been marked by the establishment of new institutions. Campaigns on issues such as pesticide use and nuclear testing led to the development of a new breed of professional campaign groups which have become the public face of environmentalism.

At the same time governments have responded to public concerns about the environment by establishing environmental institutions of their own. Agencies, scientific programmes, international agreements, laws and regulations have been established to support environmental goals.

All this has helped give environmentalism a permanence that has transcended the decades.

This article is based on the book Environmentalism Since 1945 by Gary Haq and Alistair Paul, published by Routledge in September 2011.

© Gary Haq 2011

Is Speed Reduction a Solution to the Oil Crisis?

The Middle East crisis forces up prices at the pumps, Spain has lowered its national speed limit to achieve a 15 per cent saving in fuel use. This has been seen as an exceptional measure for an exceptional situation. But will it work, and should Britain do the same?

AS the Middle East crisis forces up prices at the pumps, Spain has lowered its national speed limit to achieve a 15 per cent saving in fuel use.

This has been seen as an exceptional measure for an exceptional situation. But will it work, and should other countries do the same?

The Spanish government has reduced the speed limit on main roads from 75mph (120 km/h) to 68mph (110 km/h) in an attempt to reduce fuel use. This has been in response to the unrest in Libya and concern that it will spread elsewhere in the Arab world. Spain is dependent on imported oil, with about 13 per cent coming from Libya.

The reduction in the speed limit is part of a wider package of measures to reduce energy use. As people spend more money on foreign fuel, they have less to spend on buying products made in Spain which could slow the recovery of the Spanish economy.

However, critics see lowering the speed limit as a desperate measure and are sceptical it will achieve the savings the Spanish government claims.

US President Richard Nixon took similar action in 1973 in response to the oil crisis then. He introduced a speed limit of 55mph (90 km/h) in 1974 in a bid to reduce fuel consumption by 2.2 per cent.

The measure only achieved a fuel saving of about 0.5 per cent but had the additional benefit of reducing road deaths. In contrast, France tested the strict enforcement of speed limits on main motorways in 2004 and achieved a 19 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

In the UK, petrol now costs on average about £6 a gallon. However, rather than reducing the speed limit, the Conservative-led coalition has actually talked about increasing it. Recently, the UK Transport Secretary Philip Hammond was reported to have suggested increasing motorway speeds to 80mph in an attempt to shorten journey times and help the economy.

This is despite the UK Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety claiming that raising the speed limit to 80mph would increase motorway casualties by between five and 10 per cent.

Lowering the speed limit will be a challenge, as many petrolheads will perceive it as an infringement of their human rights and another attack in the “war on the motorist”. According to a 2008 UK Department for Transport study on speed, drivers can be divided into three groups: speed limit compliant, moderate or excessive speeders. Excessive speeders tend to be young, male, risky drivers who are often involved in accidents.

The UK study also found that a substantial number of drivers report that they regularly break speed limits of 30, 60 and 70 mph.

At speeds of 50mph and above, drivers tend to over-estimate the time gained by going faster and the time lost by going slower. In order to encourage people to drive at lower speeds, this “speed-time fallacy” will need to be addressed.

Reducing speed is seen as a quick hit as it relatively easy to implement. It requires little legislative and capital investment and can achieve rapid savings in fuel consumption as well as cutting carbon dioxide emissions.

A lower speed limit will, of course, increase travel time, which will further depend on road conditions, weather, traffic congestion and roadworks. Despite this, limiting the speed at which we drive offers a number of social and environmental benefits.

The exact fuel and carbon dioxide savings of reducing the speed limit are influenced by vehicle weight, engine and fuel type, driving style and traffic flow conditions. Increasingly, optional extras such as air conditioning have increased the average fuel use of a car.

According to the UK Energy Research Centre, introducing and enforcing a 60mph speed limit could reduce carbon dioxide emission on average by about two million tonnes each year.

In addition, becoming a “smarter driver” and being conscious of how to drive efficiently has the additional benefits of reducing annual fuel bills, wear and tear on the vehicle and can result in safer and less stressful journeys.

By 2030, global oil production is expected to decline as demand increases. The exact timing of the tipping point when oil availability begins to decline, and the ensuing rate of that decline is debateable.

However, there is increasing recognition that the “peak oil” phenomenon is real. National and local governments have all already begun designing policies to cope with the lack of cheap oil – with Sweden committing to be oil free by 2020.

Reducing the speed limit will be the least of our problems as we will be forced to make more fundamental changes to our energy intensive lifestyles in order to adapt to a world of increasing energy insecurity.

© Gary Haq 2011

Selling Off Our Green Heritage

WHEN UK Premier Margaret Thatcher’s government privatised various public utilities in the 1980s she was criticised for ‘selling off the family silver’.
Now the ‘children of Thatcher’ want to sell off the family’s ‘green heritage’.

WHEN UK Premier Margaret Thatcher privatised various public utilities in the 1980s she was criticised for ‘selling off the family silver’.

Now the ‘children of Thatcher’ want to sell off the family’s ‘green heritage’.

As the UK Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition government proposes to ‘flog off the forests’ and dispose of 85 per cent of England’s public forest estate, they are receiving increasing opposition from cyclists, horse riders, ramblers to dog walkers and Oscar winning celebrities.

But will a government that wants to empower local people and communities, listen to what they have got to say?

The Forestry Commission currently manages 18 per cent of England’s woodlands. This includes a number of the most sensitive and protected wildlife habitats that form some of our greenest and most pleasant landscapes. The rest are privately owned and cover 931,000 hectares.

The Coalition government believes that other sectors of society might be better placed to own and manage the estate than the Forestry Commission, which has been in operation since 1919.

The public estate currently produces 70 per cent of England’s home grown softwood timber from its holding of 40 per cent of England’s conifer forests.

However, the Environment Minister, Caroline Spelman, argues that the Forestry Commission must be reformed to avoid conflict of interest as it is both a regulator and participant in the market.

By selling off its holdings the Forestry Commission can focus on its regulatory role by providing expertise on a range of tree-related matters.

On 27 January 2011 the Coalition government published a consultation document on the future of the forest estate in England.

In which it proposes a mix-model approach where charitable organisations, community groups and commercial operators buy or lease forests they would like to manage.

The government has divided English woodland into four categories based on their economic value and their social and environmental benefits. These range from ‘large’ and ‘small’ commercially viable forests and woodlands to ‘multi-purpose’ and ‘heritage’ forests.

The heritage forests such as the Forest of Dean and the New Forest will only be sold to charitable trusts.

The Head of the National Trust, Dame Fiona Reynolds, has described the government’s proposal to withdraw from the management and of England’s forests and ancient woodlands as a ‘watershed moment in the history of the nation’.

Another ‘watershed moment’ occurred with the enclosure of common land that took place in the eighteenth and nineteenth century.

This involved enclosing a field with a fence or hedge to prevent others from using it. The process allowed the supply of natural raw materials that was essential for the industrial revolution. Peasants were dislodged from their lands and forced to migrate to cities and work in factories.

This resulted in a fundamental shift in the economic relationship between people and their natural environment that dispossessed many while enriching a few, replacing collective rights with private property.

Forests are a large publicly owned asset. And some critics see the Coalition government’s decision to sell them off as being ideologically driven. Those who put their faith in the role of markets to bring social and environmental benefits endorse the selling off of nature.

They see that nature needs to be privately owned and turned into a commodity if its potential is to be realised and the common good is to be served. Yet this brings with it potential risks.

Campaigners against the Coalition government’s plans fear that those woodlands that are sold will not have the same guarantees of access as they have today.

They are concerned that the privatised forests will follow the fate of Rigg Wood – a 16 hectare wood in the Lake District which was sold in October last year. To the local residents dismay the new owner reduced access for visitors by shutting down the car park and dismantling the picnic area.

The forest sell off is part of David Cameron’s Big Society initiative to shift the balance of power from government to society. This will mean that financially strapped charities and communities groups will have to compete with commercial companies and wealthy inheritance tax dodgers, if they want to buy particular woodlands and forests to protect.

There is also no guarantee that a community-owned forest will have sufficient resources to maintain ownership over the long-term.

A Big Society requires politicians big enough to listen and respond when people tell them they have got it wrong. In the International Year of the Forests that celebrates ‘forests for people’ the Coalition government is in danger of preventing many from enjoying England’s most precious natural assets.

Nearly 500,000 people have signed the 38 Degree Save Our Forests petition. However, leading UK Environmentalist, Jonathon Porritt, has criticised Britain’s ten most powerful green groups for betraying the public and making themselves look irrelvant by not supporting the campaign to halt the sale of the England’s forests.

More recently, the Government has announced it would postpone the sell off of 15 per cent of forestland because of concerns over access rights.

However, the government claims that this will not affect its broader proposal to sell nationally owned woods, which is still the subject of public consultation.

Forests offer a vital connection with nature in an increasingly urbanised world. Even those who rarely venture into the woods take comfort in the fact that they exist and are accessible to all.

To sell of our green heritage is to deny future generations the freedom to roam in our woodlands and discover the wonders of nature.

UPDATE

In a statement to the Commons on 17 February 2011, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman, who oversaw the controversial proposals, announced the u-turn, saying: “I am sorry, we got this one wrong.”

She said she took “full responsibility” for the climb-down, which was required after it became clear “the public and many MPs are not happy with the proposals”.

“If there is one clear message it is that people cherish their forests and woodlands and the benefits that they bring,” she told the House.

Lets see what happens next …

© Gary Haq 2011

Photo credits: Shutterstock

Putting the SIZZLE into Going Green

GOING Green is a bit like making love – nearly everyone likes the idea of it. Some people do it on a daily basis, some every week, others less frequently, while some individuals just do not get around to doing it at all.

GOING Green is a bit like making love – nearly everyone likes the idea of it. Some people do it on a daily basis, some every week, others less frequently, while some individuals just do not get around to doing it at all.

Back in 2007, at the peak of our eco-awareness, climate change and the carbon footprint seemed new and interesting. There was unprecedented media coverage of green issues and the public, politicians and business leaders were all developing a passion for the planet.

Prince Charles’s recently undertook a green tour of Britain on a bio-fuelled royal train. Despite green living receiving royal approval, there are signs of “green fatigue” setting in as political, public and media interest in environmental issues begins to wane. The UK’s new coalition Government’s decision to get rid of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the independent watchdog, the Sustainable Development Commission, clearly signalled the downgrading of environmental issues.

This is despite David Cameron’s promise to put the environment at the heart of government. Former chair of the Sustainable Development Commission, Jonathan Porritt, described the decision as “crass, unfounded, self-defeating and ideologically-motivated”.

The climategate and glaciergate fiasco has increased public scepticism over climate change science. A recent Ipsos Mori survey of UK public attitudes to climate change found that although the majority of respondents believe that climate change is happening, levels of concern have fallen since 2005, and less than one-third of the population currently consider it to be a purely man-made phenomenon. However, most people consider that it is their responsibility to take action and feel that they personally can make a difference.

The waxing and waning of public interest in environmental issues is nothing new. In 1967, Britain experienced its first major oil disaster when the oil tanker, Torrey Canyon, struck a rock, causing the oil pollution of 120 miles of the Cornish coastline.

Dramatic environmental disasters such as this, together with key publications on the ecological limits to economic growth, increased public concern.

By 1972, environmental issues were placed on the international political agenda when nations gathered together for the first UN Earth Summit in Stockholm. It resulted in governments establishing ministries of the environment and introducing environmental legislation.

Although the 1970s’ oil price rises dampened public interest in green issues, a decade later interest was renewed by the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, a rise in green consumerism, ethical investment and increased activity of Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. In 1992, the Rio Earth Summit ensured that world leaders embraced the idea of sustainable development and initiated action for a global convention on climate change.

When we are doing well, we are motivated to go green but during an economic downturn we tend to lose interest. It is therefore not surprising that in this new age of austerity we are starting to suffer from green fatigue.

In an economic recession consumers tighten their belts, sales figures fall and companies close down and stop producing polluting emissions. For example, in 2009, EU greenhouse gas emissions fell by seven per cent. A lower demand for energy has been linked to the economic recession as well as cheaper natural gas and increased renewable energy use.

Nowadays most people are familiar with the concept of the carbon footprint. Unfortunately, being aware of the environmental impact of our individual lifestyle choices does not necessarily mean we will change our behaviour. After all, we know that smoking can cause lung cancer, eating junk food can lead to heart disease and obesity and binge drinking is bad for the liver, but we still carry on regardless.

For too long, green campaigns have sold the threat of what would happen if we do not mend our ways. The danger of a “climate hell” has caused some people to switch off.

Back in the 1940s, US salesman, Elmer Wheeler, advised businesses on his “Don’t sell the sausage, sell the sizzle!” marketing approach. Wheeler’s big secret to successful selling was that you do not advertise the sausage itself as it is the desirable sounds and smells of the “sizzle” that make people hungry and want to buy it. There is increasing recognition that the “selling the sausage” approach to green issues is not delivering the fundamental changes required for us to stay within ecological limits.

A report by Futerra, a green communications consultancy, on “Selling the Sizzle: the new climate message” argues that in order to reinvigorate public and media interest, campaigns need to focus on a vision of a greener life that is positive and appealing to all.

Gary Haq discusses green issues with Ed Milliband
The recent election of Ed Milliband as the new leader of Labour Party, now the official opposition to the British government provides hope for many environmentalists.

Mr Milliband was the former Secretary of State for the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change and is a passionate advocate of action on climate change.

He recently reiterated his belief that “climate change is the greatest global threat facing our generation “, adding that “it should be at the very heart of our plan for a successful economy, at the centre of our foreign policy and integral to our mission to change Britain”.

Many environmentalists are hoping that Mr Milliband will now put climate change back on the political agenda after he has criticised the Coalition Government’s claim to be the ‘greenest ever’ as an empty gesture.

So far, environmentalists have failed to effectively communicate a compelling vision of a greener future. It is therefore time to stop selling the notion of a climate hell and start selling a “green heaven”. Let’s put the sizzle back in to going green and demonstrate that a transition to a low carbon society ultimately means a better quality of life for everyone.

© Gary Haq 2010

Photo credits: Shutterstock