| |
|
Saturday 15 May 2004
University of London Union, Malet St, WC1 [Map]
Government likes to present sustainable development in terms of improving the ‘resource productivity’ or ‘eco-efficiency’ of the economy through technological innovation. But improvements are being cancelled out by economic growth. Cleaner production is not enough: we also need to consume less.
Two insights make this possible. First, in prosperous economies like the UK, further economic growth does not seem to make us happier. Second, individual choice does not always give us what we want. 'Parental choice' actually means good schools entrenching their advantage by picking bright, unproblematic children. Transport choice leads to more traffic and congestion, and longer and more frustrating and unpredictable journeys for drivers let alone non-drivers. Each choice is constrained by choices already made, and in turn influences future choices.
Sustainable development actually requires decoupling environmental damage from quality of life rather than from economic growth, more emphasis on behaviour change, and rediscovery that government exists not to maximise individual choice, but almost the opposite: to constrain individual choices where necessary to achieve collective goals.
Roger Levett is a partner in Levett-Therivel sustainability consultants. He is the lead author of the Fabian Society policy report A Better Choice of Choice (2003) and of detailed assessments of the Government's sustainable development achievements, policies and indicators for the Sustainable Development Commission, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and others. He has played a leading role in developing sustainability policy, management and monitoring tools in the public sector.
A common objection to taxes and charges on the use of environmental resources is that they will be regressive - i.e. cost poorer households a larger proportion of their incomes than richer households. Research by the Policy Studies Institute funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation examined the prospects for designing environmental taxes and charges that would not do this and preferably would avoid any negative financial impacts on most low-income households. Household use of energy, household use of water, private transport and household production of waste were the four areas considered. The problems and solutions for each topic were rather different. On average it is possible to solve the regressivity problem through either tariff/charging design, or a targeted compensation scheme. The consumption of key environmental resources tends to be widely distributed about the mean within a given income group. This means that under any practicable compensation system (and assuming no change in household behaviour), some low-income households will end up as net losers, even when most low-income households end up as significant gainers. Further special arrangements could be made for households that would experience hardship for an identifiable reason (e.g. medical conditions). Where the hardship affects larger number of households which are more difficult to identify it may be necessary to tackle the underlying cause of the hardship (e.g. energy-inefficient buildings) before pricing is used as an instrument of policy.
Dr Dresner is a Research Fellow in the Environment Group at the Policy Studies Institute. His expertise is in the social and economic aspects of sustainability. His book, "The Principles of Sustainability", was published by Earthscan in 2002. His particular research interest in recent years has been environmental taxation. Working at Surrey University, he coordinated an EC research project on social responses to environmental tax reform policies. Since moving to PSI, he has worked on a project about ways to remove regressivity from environmental taxes and charges.
This workshop will explore some of the complex connections between types of development and conflicts in the world. This is a big topic and one which has a very real currency at this time. How much was the war in Iraq an effect of unsustainable consumption and how much will it influence security and poverty? How may it influence future conflict and consumption? Is climate change a bigger threat than terrorism?
Both consumption and conflict come in many forms. The workshop will look at two forms of unsustainable consumption and how they can fuel conflict: (i) over-consumption of household goods, e.g. fuel, food, materials for consumer products; (ii) over-consumption of resources by the military, e.g. massive military arsenals, new hi-tech systems (e.g. missile defence). How easy is it to relate causes to effects?
The intention of the workshop is to relate our thinking to areas where SGR may be able to have the biggest effect and recommend priorities amongst areas of work. SGR has started putting together a radical reformist agenda for how technology and natural resources should be exploited and applied. An obvious example of this is to encourage a shift in resources from military technology to renewable energy - but is this agenda possible in a world where terrorism is perceived to be the dominant threat? We will look at how defining security more broadly, in terms of access for all to basic resources (clean water, food etc.), implies that much military spending should really be diverted to addressing pressing social and environmental roots of global problems.
Dr Webber's scientific background is in the physics and chemistry of surfaces. In relation to security issues, he has published widely on topics such as security in the nuclear age, the Cold War, and alternative concepts of defence. For the last 12 years he has headed up an environment unit working on renewables, energy conservation and environmental management in the West of Yorkshire, and is Chair of SGR.
This workshop will examine how barriers to a transition to a more sustainable system of energy production and use can be overcome. Among the alternatives to be considered are radical improvements to the efficiency with which end-use energy services (lighting, heating, motive power) are provided, moves to more local co-generation of electricity and heat, and large scale development of renewable energy sources. The barriers to these developments include vested interests of current energy providers, and market based systems emphasising "choice" rather than safe and secure delivery of energy services.
Dr Foxon is a Research Lecturer in Energy and Environmental Policy at Imperial College London, and Secretary of SGR. He has researched and published on UK energy policy, renewables innovation, sustainable technologies and policy, and ecological foot-printing, including reports for the Department of Trade and Industry and the Carbon Trust.
This workshop will look at how technological innovation can either be a help or a hindrance in the move to more sustainable levels of consumption. For example, nanotechnology is leading to the production of lighter stronger and more durable materials, which could help significantly reduce material consumption and associated pollution. On the other hand, these new materials may themselves be significantly more environmentally damaging, offsetting the benefits. Meanwhile more straightforward (and cheaper) technologies, such as solar heating systems, wind turbines etc., could offer many benefits without such risks. The workshop will look at what sort of balance we should strike between high technology and "intermediate" technology, as well as highlighting the limits of a technological solution more generally. The risks of "technology lock-in", where society becomes too dependent on certain potentially damaging technologies, will also be covered.
Dr Parkinson is the Director of SGR. He has a background in environmental science and engineering, and has published a wide range of academic papers and popular science articles on issues including climate change science and policy; energy policy; cleaner technology transfer to developing countries; and corporate and military influence on science and technology. His current duties include coordinating SGR's activities on science and technology policy. He has worked in academia, industry and for environmental organisations.
The current agricultural system that is widespread in the West is, in itself, unsustainable. World trade laws and monetary policies contribute much to the hunger of the Third World . Problems are caused by the fact that, in many cases, ownership of the "costs" and the "benefits" lie with different groups.
On the farm, conventional (chemical) agriculture has harmful effects on soil and on the health of plants and animals - and ultimately of human beings. Oil, a diminishing resource, is needed to make the chemicals and to operate heavy farm machinery used on large farms practising monoculture. Not only are small farmers being driven off the land, but the associated communities suffer, as well.
Supermarkets have achieved a stranglehold on farmers who supply them. The food they sell is transported over hundreds or thousands of miles, again with the consumption of dwindling oil reserves and with significant contribution to global warming, especially when air transport is used. Food must be stored, with loss of nutrients. Wasteful packaging abounds and clutters our landfills.
Organic agriculture and more direct, more local selling of food are best suited to overcoming the problems and must be encouraged by governments. Reforms are needed in national and international laws that govern production and distribution of food.
Dr Novotny has been SGR's Coordinator for GM Issues for several years. In this role, she presented five reports to the Chardon LL Hearing, which took evidence concerning the genetically modified maize the government has recently approved for cultivation in this country (but which the developer has since withdrawn). In connection with the GM controversy, she has done research on pollen transport by wind, some of which is described in one of the Chardon LL Reports. Also on behalf of SGR, she submitted a reply to the GM Science Review First Report, including an Annexe presenting a method for predicting levels of cross-contamination between crops at given separation distances and demonstrating the unreliability of any such predictions.
John Turner runs a mixed organic farm in the south of Lincolnshire, together with his brother. The farm produces milk from a herd of 80 pure Friesians and also grows crops including milling wheat, malting barley, sugar beet and some medicinal herbs. He is Chair of the Science Review Committee at the organisation FARM, which was formed a little over a year ago to support family farmers and to promote a better understanding between farmers and the public about food and farming issues. Last year FARM wrote to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to suggest a new strategy for funding of research and development in food and farming policy with some early indications that they are now acknowledging some failures of the present model.
Robin Maynard is National Coordinator of FARM. He has previously worked as Senior Countryside and Agriculture Campaigner at Friends of the Earth and Campaigns Director at the Soil Association, as well as spending a brief spell as producer and presenter on BBC Radio 4's Farming Today.
 |
To Conferences Send correspondence about the web-site to This page last modified: 16th May 2004 |
||
 |
 |
