Sustainability In Action

"Let's do it!" said 50,000 Estonians as they collected and removed 10,000 tons of garbage from their country's forests in less than six hours on 3 May 2008.

This exceptional feat was accomplished through the efforts of roughly 4 percent of the Estonian population - an excellent illustration of the well-known statement by Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

In fact, it often does take only a small part of the population---the frontrunners or the 'cultural creatives'---to start a big campaign and bring about positive change.

It was this very powerful message that our speaker Else Boutkan, a self-employed sustainability consultant, brought to us at our final Sustainability and Growth seminar on the topic of Campaigning for While many of the campaigns cited in our reading assignment involved government-sponsored initiatives in the field of sustainability, Boutkan's presentation and her own work showed us the power of individuals and grassroots movements in challenging the 'old way' of doing things and introducing new modes of living and working that are at once more environmentally sustainable and socially responsible in their nature.

"Start with people who do want to change their behavior," Boutkan said, alerting us against the temptation to try to engage people who are already set in their ways and do not want to change their habits.

According to her, the best strategy for building a movement is to seek out the so-called 'cultural creatives'---people who are open to new ideas and are already active in social and environmental affairs---and let them know that they are not alone and that they should join the efforts of other likeminded activists.

Similar, somewhat counterintuitive, tactics were introduced in our readings for the seminar - for instance, the idea of inducing people to action through positive messages rather than through doomsday scenarios that only give rise to negative feelings of guilt, fear and hopelessness, leading people to apathy and inaction.

So as to prompt people to act, problems need to be presented along with small practical steps that people can take in order to address them.

At the same time, "[w]e need to make solutions sound more heroic, use grander terms, and make the scale of the solution sound equal to the scale of the problem." ^[1]

Moreover, in order to create a willingness to tackle big global problems such as climate change, these problems must be conveyed to people in such a way that they can see and feel how they and their loved ones are personally affected by these issues. In other words, big, vague concepts need to be brought closer to home.

Another counterintuitive campaign strategy is to  "make good sound normal and bad sound rare" because "[b]eing good is important, but being normal is even more so."^[2]

Thus, "[e]very time we say that 'most people' aren't climate friendly, we've tipped the balance towards the wrong behaviours."^[3]

The final part of our seminar focused on putting these lessons into practice. Equipped with powerful communication tools and inspirational real-world examples, we were divided into teams and challenged to come up with a strategies to induce people to save energy, conserve water, stop littering, etc.

The ensuing presentation and evaluation of ideas created ample space for more discussions regarding environmental issues and the most effective ways to tackle them. The sustainability campaigns that we came up with ranged from creating a shower radio which would limit people's shower times (through playing enjoyable music for a given time followed by ear-piercing sounds once the shower time was up) to using fairy tale games to encourage children (and their parents) to switch off the heaters and the lights in their house and installing garbage bags in cars to prevent people from littering.

Overall, it was one of the most thought-provoking and lively seminars of the semester. If there is one lesson we learned, it is that saving the planet does not require gigantic efforts, but simple steps that can be easily incorporated into anyone's daily routine. Furthermore, inspiring others to do the same may be only a matter of locating and linking likeminded activists and telling them "Let's do it!"

Tatevik Manucharyan

---

[1] Futerra "New Rules: New Game" report

[2] ibid

[3] ibid

Consumers: Trapped By Human Nature Or The Key To The Solution?

A lot has been written about sustainability and sustainable consumption. But what is ‘sustainable living’ exactly? This question is rather hard to answer. The popular definition is the following: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” However, this definition raises two questions. One, what exactly are the ‘needs’ of the future, and second, ‘for whom’ in the future are those needs relevant?

According to the team that organized the third seminar on Sustainability and Growth, consumers have a great stake in sustainable improvements, next to the roles of the government and corporations. But what exactly can consumers do? Isn’t it just a thing of not doing most of the things we usually do? Is it continuing the life we live but with a little less of everything or do we have to drastically change our behaviour?

In this report we examine these questions that have been raised by the seminar-team and during the seminar itself by the audience. Did the information provided by the team bring the answers any closer and to what extent did the speaker shed some light on the topic? The seminar did not end with an unanimous decision on what sustainable living is; it did give us all some food for thought and the tools to think about it in a more academic way. How did we get to that point? That will be covered in this report.

The Struggle Of Values

Singer (2011) talks about the choice between different sets of values (Singer, 2011: 238). He uses the metaphor of a beautiful river and the choice to build a dam for “energy-intensive Industry” and “economic growth” (Singer, 2011: 389). “In general terms, we can say that those who favour building the dam are valuing employment and a higher per capita income for the state above the preservation of wilderness, of plants and animals (both common ones and members of endangered species) and of opportunities for outdoor recreational activities.” (Singer, 2011: 389). So, this metaphor raises the question whether it is better to pursue a great carrier, to earn as much money as we can to buy as much stuff as we can, or to live on an equivalent bases with nature. Philosopher and guest-speaker Floris van der Berg suggest, to stay in terms of the metaphor, to climb on the side of the river and reflect on a meta-level on the way you live your life. What do you truly desire? And what are the true values in life you want to pursue?

The audience reacted on this question with the observation that ‘what we want’ is for the biggest part determined by what others have, and what is available. If the only world we know is that of a tiny village consisting of tipi’s, it would be desirable to have the biggest, most beautiful decorated tipi of all the villagers – or at least to have one like the others. In our Western world there is so much to desire, that even though we have much more than the people in the tipi-village, we –in general– do not feel we have enough, let alone more than we need. That is human nature. So is it realistic to expect the majority of the people to voluntarily give up the luxury of a Western lifestyle? Or will there never change anything if we ask ourselves questions like that and use them as an excuse to do nothing?

The Limits Of Growth

According to van der Berg, our style of living and the problem with sustainability, can be compared with a ball in a box. The edges of the box are the carrying capacity of the earth, and determine how big the ball can become. The ball is the impact of humanity on earth. When you would close the box and start inflating the ball, the box will burst in the end. This is exactly what is going to happen to the earth if we continue our current way of living: if we do not start deflating the ball ourselves, the earth will force us to change by irreversible pollution and exhaustion of natural recourses.

The ball is growing bigger and bigger since the Industrial Revolution. Since the 19th century humans are using more and more energy to produce and to consume more. However, there are some very serious limits to growth and we are already far beyond this limit. Van der Berg sets out a few factors that can explain this growing use of production. First, the population size is growing. Second, the footprint per person is growing. And last, we don’t invest enough to compensate this growth. By now, we still don’t know the exact number of the carrying capacity of the box, but we do know the ball is growing fast. The Club of Rome made us aware of the problem in 1972 with the report The Limits to Growth. But since 1972 our consumption did not decreased, nor did we stop the ever growing use of natural resources. Instead, we consume more and in the meantime put more pressure on natural resources in a continuously faster pace.

Later during the seminar, in the discussion group about the statement ‘I won’t have kids because there are already too many people living on this planet and each new child will have a new (huge) impact due to the underlying ecological footprint!’, the other side of the problem was discussed. At the moment, even if we slow down our consumption and manage to shrink it a little, the pressure on the natural resources will still grow. Why? Because we still have not managed to slow down or decrease our population growth either. This causes our ‘piece of the pie’ to become smaller every year.

So one can ask: what is really the problem? The growing use of resources or the growing population? Is having kids blameworthy like eating meat or traveling by plane? This is one of those issues where ethics are coming in. Unfortunately, there was no plenary discussion about this topic, because it would have been very interesting to hear how we ‘young leaders’ would have thought about this subject, and whether or not we would have identified it as a problem. Can one expect from other families to have less children? According to the Chinese government: yes, by a one-child policy. However, policies like that are not acceptable in our society. Is that a good thing, or should it change, for the sake of humanity? This topic is, like many other subjects that were touched during this evening, one that could be the theme of a seminar on its own.

Van der Berg did not focus on the population aspect. According to him, if we want to survive we should drastically change our way of living. To start, with understanding how our way of living is harmful.

Ecological Footprint

The ecological footprint is a way of measuring how much a person demands of the world’s ecosystem. In other words, how big your piece of the pie is. This footprint grows when people produce or consume food, when they travel, when they produce or buy stuff, etc. Interesting about this footprint is that it is often expressed in terms of ‘the amount of earths’ that is needed, if everyone on this planet would live the same way as you do. This makes it confronting and visible in a clear way.

The average footprint of a Dutch citizen is 3.5 planets: if every person on earth had the same lifestyle, we would need 3.5 planets to sustain them. This is mainly a problem of the society, since the Dutch living standards are high. Think of the huge amount of trains and airplanes that depart every minute and think of all the plastic packages you throw away every time you buy food. But how can we change our way of living within the Dutch society? Is it the responsibilities of consumers alone?

Big companies exploit natural resources and other big companies make products out of these natural resources. They are in control from the digging and mining, to the shelves in the stores where the products are presented to us. Why does the consumer have to take responsibility if obviously companies are the ones in charge? The answer to this question is quite harsh: because companies are no charity organizations, and they only produce what brings them profit. And these profits are made when the consumer buys their products. So in the end, the consumer does decide what companies do.

But as the short movie we had to watch before the seminar (The Story of Stuff) already asked: should the government not take care of us? Can’t the politicians take all these hard decisions for us? Unfortunately, many people are not concerned or even conscious of the problem of our footprint, and politicians are elected by this majority of the people. If a politician dares to ban all cars from cities or prohibit air-conditioning devices, he probably will not get much support for his plans and not be re-elected.  

So every path leads back to us: whether we have the role of a consumer or a voter, we decide. According to van der Berg, the only way to reduce our ecological footprint is drastically and in an individual way, by starting to live our lives in a fundamental different way.

What Can We Do?

Several authors hold a different view about the topic than van der Berg. Hofstetter, Madjar and Ozawa (2005) introduce the concept of the ‘rebound effect’ in consumer behaviour: “A program or technology that reduces consumers' costs tends to increase consumption (Hofstetter, Madjar and Ozawa, 2005: 106). Because of the lower price, consumers will buy or use more and the saving is negated.”

In addition, they recognize the importance to take into account human nature, as also mentioned in this report: “(…)we suggest in this paper that at least two drivers need to be captured in modelling for more sustainable consumption: (i) the degree to which needs are satisfied considering social and cultural dimensions as well as (ii) the degree to which quality of life and subjective well-being are improved.” (Hofstetter: 107). They suggest that goods and services aimed at sustainable consumption have to satisfy different needs, and in the end make people happier. To put it in one sentence: happier people will be easier satisfied and consume less than average consumption (Hofstetter: 108).

So, when the knowledge about the ‘rebound effect’ and happiness are combined, we can use it to make people consume more sustainable without the rebound effect, making them happier in the end. A cynical person might expect unicorns to fly in at this point, but Hofstetter, Madjar and Ozawa do give some useful starting points to tackle the misconception that living sustainable is living miserable.

Tim Jackson treats exactly this misunderstanding in his article ‘Live better by consuming less’ (2005). He also argues that such a apparently utopian ‘win-win solution’ is possible, although it ‘will require a concerted societal effort to realize’ (Jackson: 19). First of all, he claims that the notion that humans are insatiable (and therefore their consumption is insatiable, depleting natural resources sooner or later) might be true, but is more a product of recent developments in our market economy than human nature. This makes all the difference, because human nature is hard to change, but if something developed in a couple of decades or centuries to the point we are at now, it can change again.

Like Hofstetter, Madjar and Ozawa, Jackson cites the nine fundamental needs as described by Max Neef (1991): subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, idleness, creation, identity, and freedom (Jackson: 24). According to all the mentioned authors, material consumption does not satisfy any of these needs. Jackson even argues that material consumption might damage them. Therefore, we can question if material consumption and satisfaction (in the end: happiness) are related at all. Of course, people will always need to address the needs of subsistence and protection. But often we try to satisfy non-material needs with material consumption. Jackson therefore concludes that our current consumption behaviour not only violates our ecosystem, but also our personal needs (Jackson 25).

Unfortunately, there is – as always - a big gap between theory and practice. Many actors profit from consumers who are insatiable, and do everything to stimulate this. So often consumers are ‘locked-in’ in their unsustainable behaviour (Jackson: 29). Jackson’s concluding message is a positive one nonetheless: ‘the insight that a certain amount of consumer behavior is dedicated to an (ultimately flawed) pursuit of meaning opens up the tantalizing possibility of devising some other, more successful and less ecological damaging strategy for pursing personal and cultural meaning’ (Jackson: 32).

Living More Sustainable---Tips From The Audience

1. Do not leave the window open when it is to warm inside, just put down the heater
2. Put the lid on the pan during cooking
3. Do not buy plastic bottles of water, buy one bottle and re-use it
4. Separate your garbage
5. Stop using the electric heater in the kitchen
6. Turn of devices that are on stand-buy and are not used
7. Short showers, like five minutes
8. Buy less clothes
9. Eat less meat
10. If something is broken, let it repair although it might be as expensive as buying a new one
11. Use less washing liquid
12. Do not use the washing machine for three t-shirts, only wash with full drum
13. Do not cook too much so you will have to throw a part away, or eat in a group. And it is also nice to eat together!
14. Go to second-hand shops
15. Turn down the heater at night, for example at ten. You also sleep better less heated!
16. Smile, as much as possible! The response is very positive
17. When there is an elevator, use the stairs anyway
18. Take the bike, not the bus
19. Do not eat too often in a cafeteria, bring your own lunch
20. Eat less cheese

Conclusion

The end of the seminar was very activating. Everyone got a poster on which they could write down their top-5 ‘living more sustainable’ tips, with the goal to put this poster on a visible place at home and in the end activate other people as well. The message of the organizing team was clear: do not just talk about it during seminars like this, also act and try to do something in the real world.

That was the strength of this seminar. We all know the basics about sustainable living, but our busy lives do not leave much room to actively implement this. However, if everyone thinks about it like that there will not happen anything. If we, ‘the leaders of the future’, do not put any effort in a more sustainable world, why would anybody do it? Therefore, the organizing team is applauded for trying to extend our interest and involvement in the subject outside the classroom to our own lives.

The evening also demonstrated that the subject of sustainable consumption is very broad and many-sided. Every topic that was brought on to the table could have been a seminar on its own, thereby showing the complexity of the problem. Therefore, it is not surprising we did not find the ultimate solution to the question on how to live sustainable. On the other hand, we also learned that although we do not have this perfect solution, we should always try.

Sarah Simmelink & Leonie Kuhlmann

What's For Dinner: Gm And Megafarms To Fulfill Our Daily Needs?

Taken from shiftfrequency.com

For the richest nations access to food is almost as obvious as the air we breathe.  We wake up day in and day out without having to worry as to whether we will be able to have a meal. As long we have access to employment in an economically strong society, we have access to food. As we are not worried about our access to food, for the most of the time we seem not to be much bothered about the ways our food is produced. However, as the current debate on sustainability shows, we cannot afford to be unaffected anymore. We should be very concerned, and even disgruntled maybe, as to the conditions our food is currently produced, as this has eventually the impact on the question whether we will be fed at all. And this does not only concern the quantity of what we eat, but also the quality of what we are eating, i.e. how nutritious is our food.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), is an UN body who is very much concerned with the question of the way the world is going to feed itself beyond tomorrow. According to a research conducted by them, the world population will reach 9.1 billion people worldwide by 2050. This means that the world is facing a huge challenge when it concerns access to the most basic need of our existence. Without a solution and change the way we deal with our access to resources, a simple steak for dinner is a luxury we just cannot afford.

Technology has often been seen as the solution to most of our daily problems. As with any solutions, no solution alone is perfect for an indefinite time. Yet, many of us continue to turn our hope to technology to come and save the day. In the case of food production, this has turned out to be quite an illusion. Worse yet, some stories show that technology has endangered, rather than improved the sustainability of farming activities.

The most fervent opponent of GM (genetically modified) food production so far has been Green Peace.  In several and ongoing campaigns they have tried to create awareness as to the dangers of GM Food production. According to the website of Green Peace, GM crops are created in the lab by inserting genes into the plants and into the foods that we eat. They distinguish between 2 types of GM crops, one is the engineering of crops in absorbing herbicides without dying and the other is the engineering to produce pesticides within the plant itself. Both aims at the production of a more resistant and stable crops. Several problems have been identified with GM crops^[1]; among others this concerns health impact on animals fed by GM crops, environmental impact due to the increased use of pesticide and also unexpected toxins or allergens in food that can affect the nutritional value. In addition, farmers have due to the use of GM crops increasingly become dependent on the use of GM for the continuance of their businesses. Despite these critics, most big corporations producing the GM technology still holds that GM is the solution for the future! One glance at the website of the world leading GM seed provider Monsanto, we are hailed in with the many benefits of GM. The benefits of GM is according to them numerous. Not only will it allow farmers to produce more, to conserve more, it eventually will improve the lives of all of us, it is the answer to our future needs!

The debate as to what should secure our future access to food is thus made difficult, due to the different perceptions on GM that can be discerned. Perhaps, the most important view is the view of the consumer, who actually is going to consume the food. How does the consumer perceive the use of GM as solution to our daily diet? Unfortunately, the consumer of which much of their knowledge is dependent on correct information given by the government as to the dangers of their purchase is itself also much at a loss. In a report conducted by the Food Standard Agency (FSA)^[2], consumers are very afraid of health risks, but at the same time they also realize that many billions mouth needs to be fed. The research of FSA has shown that consumer’s sentiment towards GM is much dependent on their trust in the Authority and technology in general. People who are in general more averse towards Authority and the ‘miracle’ of technology tend to have a more skeptical view on what GM eventually can do for mankind.

When it concern the production of meat, increasingly we see more and more farmers concentrating their activities in what has been termed as  Mega-farms’. The phenomenon of Mega-farms is characterized by a decrease number of farms, while increasing the numbers of animals on the farms and the area of the farm. This trend has been debatable, although the solution may be economically sound, from an environmental, health and ethical perspective this has been quite problematic.  From an economic perspective, various studies have shown that producers of Mega-farms have been more successfully able to capture technology advances. This has resulted in lower production costs and has also improved the quality of the final product for the consumer^[3].  The negative impacts of Mega-farms cannot be underestimated however. Mention can be made on the spread of animal diseases, health risks for citizens, nasty odour pressure on urban areas and environmental pressure on nature areas, consequently lowering the quality of life in rural areas^[4].

What this two cases show is that the future of food security is getting more and more complex in a world where the population is ever more increasing. Technological solutions and economic efficiency that has been offered so far as a solution to the increasing food demand, has proven not to be unproblematic. The way forward is not clear-cut as the different debate has shown. One thing is however clear, solutions for future problems should entail a more systematic approach, as Senge would argue. Offering a solution from one angle is not sufficient, as it only gives us the solution for that particular hitch. We need a broader systemic view. This means that different stakeholders need to come together to collaborate on a solution, only then will a solution be approached incorporating different angles. Understanding each other needs is indispensable for reaching a sustainable solution. Because, the future of food security is not only to strike a balance for the sake of animal welfare and the environment, although undoubtedly important, it also concerns the economic survival of producers and answering the ongoing need of unconcerned access to a nutritious plate of food!

Shuyi Wu

---

[1] Why genetically engineered food is dangerous: New report by genetic engineers.
[2] R. Sheldon, N. Cleghorn e.a., ‘Exploring attitudes to GM food’, Report of National Centre for Social research in preparation for Food Standard Agency 2009.
[3] G.L. Benjamin. ‘Industrialization in hog production: implications for Midwest agriculture’, Economic perspectives, 1997-21.
[4] For more on this topic, see http://edepot.wur.nl/239734