wild places | wild happenings | wild news
make a difference for our wild places

home | links | search the site
  all articles latest | past | articles by topics | search wildnews
wild news on wildsingapore
  The Observer 5 Mar 06
 Can our way of living really save the planet?
Lucy Siegle

After a week in which Amex launched its red card, David Cameron said he was going for wind power and the Lonely Planet pleaded for less air travel, Robin McKie, Amelia Hill, Juliette Jowit and Nick Mathiason ask if the shopper in the street can make more difference than politicians

The Observer: On the surface, Kendal Murray's life looks utterly average. Each morning, she showers, makes toast and drops her children off at nursery before going to work.

Only on closer inspection do the details of her routine reveal some remarkable features: her shower is heated by solar panels on her roof; the electricity for her toaster comes from a local wood-burning generator; and when she takes her children to nursery, she walks - naturally.

Murray lives in BedZED, the Beddington Zero Energy Development in Sutton, south London, the first large-scale 'carbon neutral' community which, by using energy only from renewable sources generated on site, does not add significant amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

'People have a hair-shirt image about green living but it can be easy, affordable and attractive,' said Murray. 'I live with a clear conscience and haven't had to give up a single thing to live this life.'

Welcome to the world of ethical living which, if recent trends are maintained, will see most of us adopting lifestyles like that of the the Murrays, not only taking care to save energy and to cut back on our carbon output - thus joining Tory leader David Cameron who yesterday announced he is to install a wind turbine on his west London home - but ensuring that we wear clothes which do not exploit workers in the developing world, go on holidays that do not damage precious habitats, and keep our children fastidiously eco-friendly.

A few days ago, Marks & Spencer became the first high-street store to launch its own fair trade cotton T-shirts and socks. Then the supermarket giant Sainsbury's confirmed it had placed the largest order ever for fair trade cotton. Last week Top Shop announced that it was bringing fair trade clothing into its stores.

At the same time, the market for organic food has mushroomed to more than £1.1bn, with the result that ethically produced food - organic, fair trade, vegetarian and free range - now accounts for 5 per cent of Britain's £80bn food bill.

And now luxury brands are getting in on the act. Last week saw the launch of Product Red: Bono's idea to use branded sunglasses, trainers and T-shirts bought on American Express credit cards to raise money to fight Aids in Africa. Endorsed by actresses and supermodels such as Elle MacPherson and Claudia Schiffer, the Amex Red card contributes 1p of every pound you spend to the cause.

Ethical living is on the march, in other words. Statistics published by the Co-operative Bank show that Britons spent £25.8bn on ethical goods and services last year, up 15 per cent on 2004. More than 40 per cent of that went on ethical banking and investments, though sales of fair trade goods - items which pay a premium over the market rate to the producer - are also rising dramatically.

Ten years ago, there were no fair trade products. Last year shoppers spent almost £200m on them and the market is rising 40 per cent a year, with coffee at the head of the list of favourite products. Cafedirect is now the sixth-biggest selling coffee brand in the country.

In addition, the government is considering moves to strengthen its Code for Sustainable Homes so that it is likely to become mandatory for new homes to have ambitious targets for reducing energy use.

Such a move is important because 50 per cent of UK carbon emissions come from the built environment and because of massive house building that is planned in the south of England. It all seems highly encouraging.

But are those billions being wisely spent? Are they really helping the environment? And can consumers control the destiny of the planet through their spending, thus by-passing the best international efforts of politicians?

These questions take us to the heart of one of the most compelling issues of the day: to what extent can consumer power save the world?

Not surprisingly, answers reveal a wide gulf between proponents, and opponents, of ethical living. Consider the issue of eco-tourism. There are obvious attractions in having holidays that do not lead to widespread degradation of precious habitats, such as the concreting over of coral islands or the building of huge hotels that soak up vast quantities of water for showers and swimming pools.

However, the issue is not that straightforward. For example, most eco-tourist resorts are in South America, Asia and Africa. Getting there involves burning a great deal of fuel and adding vast amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. It is a point that even professional travellers now acknowledge.

Yesterday the world's two main gurus of globetrotting - Mark Ellingham, founder of the Rough Guides, and Tony Wheeler, who created Lonely Planet - both admitted their publications have helped to spread a casual attitude to flying, one that is boosting rises in carbon dioxide levels and aiding global warming. So make fewer flights and stay longer, they advised.

It is still not that simple, as Paolo Guglielmi, a project manager for the United Nations Environment Programme in the Mediterranean, pointed out. 'If the only environmental concern was the flying, we'd be on the right track; the problem is it's not the only problem.'

This point has been demonstrated in a recent study by academics which suggests the environmental impact of eco-tourism is often significantly greater than that of staying at home.

John Hunter and Jon Shaw, of Aberdeen University, estimated the 'ecological footprint' of 252 eco-tourist holidays in terms of the number of global hectares of the planet needed to provide the resources used there. The results, to be published in the journal Environmental Conservation, show that in all but one case the net effect was to increase pressure on natural resources.

'There's probably a difference here between the hard and soft cores of tourism,' added Hunter. '[You could] go on a trek through Mongolia where you sit on the back of a camel and eat like locals; if you go to the Philippines or Thailand and visit an eco-park once and the rest of the time live in a luxury hotel, your impact is going to be huge.'

This point is backed by Guglielmi. 'The problem is coming from the word eco-tourism, which is interpreted in any country in a different way,' he said. 'We range from places where eco-tourism is interpreted as tents, to other countries, particularly along the south Mediterranean shores, where the word is simply greening five-star hotels along the coastline for kilometres.'

Then there is the issue of food. On one level, fair trade products give small producers in developing countries access to lucrative markets. On the other hand, importing of the stuff from thousands of miles away increasingly contributes to food-mile pollution.

Similarly, moves to keep our children 'eco-friendly' are criticised for their impracticality. Disposable nappies are rated a godsend by most parents, while a 2005 Environment Agency study concluded there was little difference between washable and disposable nappies in terms of their ecological impact.

In any case, retail analyst Richard Hyman, a consultant at Verdict Research, said he was far from convinced that British consumers are prepared to sacrifice rock bottom prices for peace of mind. 'We live in a world where most people are keen to support their local shops but don't do anything about it,' he said. 'People are happy to talk about ethical awareness but when it comes to consumer patterns the talk is not reflected.'

The road to achieving a true, ethical, sustainable lifestyle is going to be a rocky one, in other words. However, that does not mean the goal is not worth pursuing, say supporters.

They point out to the often horrific impact that westerners can have on the developing world, both in terms of the cost to the environment and in human lives. Last week, three separate incidents in Bangladesh garment factories resulted in the deaths of several hundred people. Fires broke out at two factories in Bangladesh's port city of Chittagong and a third factory collapsed in the capital, Dhaka. Inside the factories were clothes bound for Europe and America. Not one of the incidents was reported in UK newspapers. Yet they demonstrate the terrible price that is sometimes paid to produce items we take for granted.

Such incidents give the ethical movement its impetus and are likely to continue to keep pressure on businesses so that they ensure products and services are provided in a way that is morally acceptable to most individuals.

It may prove tricky to work out the details of ethical living programmes but there is always going to be a desire to achieve them. And in the end, we will all benefit, according to Kendal Murray.

'I have never lived anywhere remotely as friendly as this,' she said of BedZED. 'There is a sense of community here that is a direct result of the fact we all feel linked by the common cause of environmental living. When I tend to my vegetables in my allotment or walk to the recycling tip, I meet my neighbours and we talk. Everywhere else I have lived, people go from their doors to their cars and disappear in a gust of petrol fumes.'
links
Related articles on Singapore: reduce, reuse, recycle
about the site | email ria
  News articles are reproduced for non-profit educational purposes.
 

website©ria tan 2003 www.wildsingapore.com