Does every little help? Mainstreaming consumer behaviour

Last Thursday the University of Manchester's “Sustainable Consumption Institute” (no laughing at the back there!) held the latest of its seminars. It was given by Simon Retallack, of the left-ish leaning Institute of Public Policy Research. They've been doing research about consumer attitudes to climate change. The seminar was based around a report they've just done called “Consumer Power: How can lower-carbon behaviour be mainstreamed.”

He started by pointing out that individual energy use and transport account for 44% of the UK carbon dioxide emissions, and that beyond the “environmentally-inclined”, many people don't take action. He said that mainstream consumers either haven't been taught about the issue and/or haven't responded, but that uptake beyond the converted was vital.

He made the uncontroversial but often neglected point that knowing and segmenting the audience is a precondition of success- you can't just aim at “the public at large”.

But dividing by income/profession will only get you so far, and so he introduced the idea of dividing people by different values.

Based on Albert Maslow's “hierarchy of needs” the Cultural Dynamics Strategy has three broad motivational groups

Pioneers - directed by 'inner needs' These are the 'natural activists' and are roughly 40% of the population.
Prospectors - driven by esteem and are outer-directed (your fashion victims and conspicuous consumers). About 30% of the population
Finally, settlers are driven by 'sustenance', dislike threats and are driven by comfort.

Complicated enough? Not really. Each of these groups can be further divided into four subgroups. But let's not go there, at least, too much.

Retallack laid out the results of some focus groups/guided discussions and interviews with people within the prospector group. (Their psychological rewards come from the esteem of others, status, fashion, success.)

The research looked at their opinions under "on the move"- energy efficient cars, UK holidays and trains and "home"- energy monitors, heating controls and solar panels.

The participants were aware of climate change and its impacts, and partly positive about “doing their bit”. They would go so far as admit to a dislike of “waste” but also said they had “climate fatigue.” they thought it depressing, boring, faddy, gimmicky.
They were sceptical about both government and business motives
Oh, and the obnoxious selfish ignorant little planet-killers really really didn't like being made to feel guilty about their “lifestyle choices”

Retallack made the point, that maybe some of us (author included) need tattooed on the inside of our eyelids- Guilt Is Not Effective.

On a related point, these prospectors did not like the environmental campaigners. The word smug came up rather a lot...

Saving money was not automatically a motivator for all these guys- it could be seen as penny pinching/being an old biddy.

Recommendations from the work came under two headings-

Communications

• Don't focus on climate change “it's one of those things you think about for a few minutes, then get depressed and move on to the next”
• Emphasise saving money (especially at present)
• Be aware of the 'rebound effect' (people use money saved on energy bills to book a flight/buy a car)
• Use the right language- “carbon pollution” or “waste” instead of co2, emissions.
• Satirise high carbon behaviours and leave room for self-expression
• Make low carbon desirable and fun
• Being in control matters (e.g. Solar panels help protect from rising energy bills)
• Avoid guilt and the environmental label
• Use messengers that 'keep it real' (B and C list celebs work better, people can relate to them. Bono and Madonna are not the way to go)

Policy

Strong government policy essential

• Avoid sending mixed signals (like, er, third runways, which were spontaneously mentioned by focus groupies)
• Send the right price signals (taxes as carrots and sticks), but make sure changes are introduced transparently. Hypothecation (ring-fencing money raised to solve a specific problem) is needed, no matter how much HM Treasury doesn't like it.
• Make the right things affordable. Subsidies, discount on stamp duty, on bill repayment etc
• Make low-carbon services visible (demonstration homes in each locality)
• Make it desirable

Retallack handled the Q and A well, giving brief but detailed answers and not droning on endlessly.

All in all, a useful hour was had by all. The next Sustainable Consumption Institute lecture is on Thursday 19^th November from 1pm to 2pm. Humanities Building, Bridgford St (near the Blackwell's in the University Precinct). Dr Sally Randles of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research will be talking, hopefully about her fascinating work around aviation and why we fly.

About these seminars: They're free, they're friendly and I'm not just saying that cos Tesco bunged me a hundred quid (cos sadly, they didn't).

About the huge multinational that sponsors the Sustainable Consumption Institute: They want to build a Tesco in Stretford so big you could see it from Jupiter with the naked eye. These guys want stop it.

Other sources of info:

• Only Planet (esp page 149-50)
  
• Nobody ever is to blame
• Campaign strategy

Disclaimer- this blog was typed up 5 days after the event, and my scribbled notes have become even more illegible with the passing of time. I may have gotten some of it wrong...

Breaking News- Climate Change Action Plan released

The climate change action plan for Manchester, which MCFly has been reporting on all year, is now available for all to see. It has been released ahead of next Wednesday's Executive Meeting, at which it will be formally accepted.

The link above points to a 77 page pdf. The first 11 pages are a summary of the implications for the Council, written in Councilese. They matter, but what matters the most is the Plan itself. It's been named "Manchester- A Certain Future. Our co2llective action on climate change" It is 64 pages long, and contains a foreword by Sir Richard Leese (Council Leader) and five chapter headings, around "Living, Working, Moving, Growing and Adapting."

We quote from page 5

Our plan has two headline objectives:

1: To reduce the city of Manchester’s emissions of CO2 by 41% by 2020, from 2005 levels. This equates to a reduction from current levels of 3.2 million tonnes per annum to less than two million; it also equates to a reduction in per capita emissions from 7.3 tonnes to 4.3 tonnes per head.
Manchester’s emissions of CO2 derive mostly from our use of fossil fuels and are directly related to the use of buildings, products, transport and industrial activities. We can lower these emissions by reducing our demand and use of energy; altering the technologies used for energy generation; and changing the sources of the fuels we use from fossil fuels to renewables. Our plan sets out ways of adopting and applying these three approaches across different sectors and scales.

2: To engage all individuals, neighbourhoods and organisations in Manchester in a process of cultural change that embeds ‘low carbon thinking’ into the lifestyles and operations of the city.

To create a ‘low carbon culture’ we need to build a common understanding of the causes and implications of climate change, and to develop programmes of ‘carbon literacy’ and ‘carbon accounting’ so that new culture can become part of the daily lives of all individuals and organisations. Every one of the actions in our plan will contribute in some way to the development of ‘carbon literacy’ in the city. However, achieving a new low carbon culture – where thinking about counting carbon is embedded and routine – can only be delivered as a
result of all the actions together, in an overall co-ordinated manner. Enabling a low carbon culture in the city will be particularly important if the challenge of meeting even more demanding carbon reduction targets between 2020 and 2050 is to be met.

Actions to meet these targets are set out under five chapter headings – Living, Working, Moving, Growing and Adapting. Each chapter makes it clear what Manchester is going to do to meet the challenges posed by climate change, along with the changes we need to make as individuals, communities and businesses.

The editors of Manchester Climate Fortnightly would urge all Mancunians who care about their future to read the document carefully and actively. We need to come up with better ideas, tough questions and suggestions for improvement. The next two years are crucial for Manchester's future. We would urge Mancunians to get involved in making this Action Plan a reality.

MCFly 36- Fat lot of good

In November 2008, Manchester NHS unveiled a document called "Improving Health in Manchester: Commissioning Strategic Plan 2009-2014" Amongst many concerns, the strategy focusses on reducing the levels of obesity in the Manchester population. It wanted to tackle childhood obesity by promoting healthy lifestyles for families with young children.

The strategy highlights the clear cost benefits from people becoming active and states that the "cost saving for each person becoming active is £370 per annum" and this was "a prudent estimate as it excludes savings generated from other areas such as patients that stop smoking" [Page 68]

Supporting and encouraging children and adults to cycle to school or work is a great way for people to include exercise in their everyday routines. So it is very disappointing to see that this strategic plan for "Improving Health in Manchester" doesn't seem to include the words bicycle, cycling or cyclist and the word "cycle" is only mentioned in relation to the "commissioning cycle" or "disease cycle".

The foreword to the plan ends with a claim that this "plan explains how we intend to address these issues over the next five years. Manchester’s journey to a happier, healthier and wealthier city is well under way and we are proud to be playing our part – we hope you will be too."

It's a shame that Manchester NHS's vision would appear not to see people making this journey by bicycle.

MCFly 36- A Growing Problem

Earlier this year, the Sustainable Development Commission (the independent watchdog on, well, Sustainable Development) released a report called “Prosperity without Growth.” It dared to suggest that endless economic growth might not be good for either humanity or the planet. It made a bit of a splash and here, rushed into print to keep the momentum going, is the full-length book of the same name, authored by Tim Jackson. (Earthscan, 2009, 264 pages)

It's relatively easy reading, if you're familiar with the academic style of writing. If you are not, you may find it a bit dry. Jackson's intended audience is, I think, the policy makers and the people who influence them. That's fair enough, but this is NOT the popular book that is going to have people emailing and facebooking about the perils of economic growth and the need for a rethink. Maybe that book can't be written?

Roughly speaking, the first half lays out the problems and points out that increased efficiency isn't going to mean less impact on the earth. The second half talks of the solutions, e.g. chapters entitled “the transition to a sustainable economy” and “a lasting prosperity.” Therein lies the all-too-typical problem of books of this nature: so much time is spent laying out the problem, that there is little space left for “solutions,” which tend to be a bit of a rushed shopping list. This book is much less guilty than some other recent efforts (e.g. All Consuming), and perhaps Jackson is keeping more specific recommendations in reserve for a sequel. Or perhaps he wanted to avoid the danger of being too prescriptive, of building castles in the air without proper foundations.

This book will NOT give you an overview of current thinking about the dilemmas of economics and environment. With a couple of exceptions (some brief mentions of Mishan and Daly) Jackson, in this book, ignores the existing body of work. He especially ignores the efforts of eco-Marxists/eco-feministslike Ted Benton, Joel Kovel, John Bellamy Foster, and James O'Connor, Ariel Salleh and so forth, presumably because he doesn't want to taint his brand and offer critics an easy excuse to ignore him. That's an understandable tactic, but it means there are a whole host of concepts- commodity fetishism, false needs, the treadmill of production, the metabolic rift, that don't get a look in.

Reading the book, with its complaints of over-consumption, you could be forgiven for thinking this isn't being pushed by a multi-billion pound advertising industry. Popular books like No Logo, Fast Food Nation and the like do not get a look in, which is a pity, since they are the kind of reference point that many readers will be aware of.

I suspect Jackson is hoping to do for 'steady-state economics' what Lord Stern did for climate change economics, but I don't think it will work. I don't think he has quite the same social capital as the former World Bank chief economist and senior Veep, aka Baron Stern of Brentford, and the argument is a harder sell than Stern's- it's a much more difficult thing for people to get their heads around. Jackson surely knows this latter point, but also underplays the vested interests- both psychological and societal between us and the acts needed to save ourselves via his prescriptions.

This book, which should be compulsory reading for the top bods of the City Council and Regional Development Agency, will confirm the already-converted in their views, offer a few ideas to those curious about our species' fate, but do little or nothing for those who simply don't care or those blind pro-growthers out there.

Further reading

My first little guide to Ecological Economics (2000? 2001? So long ago I don't remember)

Environment Commission meeting #5

Public Health Warning: These are not anything approaching official minutes, and aren't pretending to be.

The latest Environment Commission meeting (see here and here and here and here for previous reports) took place today in at Manchester University, in a converted church. (No jokes about “not having a prayer”, please, that would be childish). It was preceeded by a "policy exchange", but we can't report that because MCFly's invite went missing - presumably lost in a pile of undelivered mail.

Attendance was fairly good, with a few notable absences (apologies given)- such as Angie Robinson of the Chamber of Commerce (interviewed by MCFly here) and Andy Cliffe of Manchester Airport Group (ooh, the story we want to tell you about THEM, but it's embargoed). The University is still tussling over who will sit on the Commission, but the Health Commission is keen to send someone.

The chair of the Commission, Cllr Dave Goddard was unavoidably detained elsewhere (not due to congestion, we hope) so Cllr Neil Swannick chaired. Last time MCFly this 6'4” gent in action, he was mildly discombobulated by a heckler. That was Thursday last at the Town Hall, and the heckler was a scurrying mouse, not a rat (that would have been too appropriate).

Mike Reardon gave some verbal reports-
the City Region process continues apace, with High Level meetings About to Take Place.
“Roadshows” about the Environment Commission have taken place in 4 of the 10 AGMA councils. They're not just about flying the EC flag, but teasing out local expertise and figuring out how to “cascade” it (MCFly's word, not theirs- we've been infected by our Bull's Hit Bingo game).
6 more Local Authorities, and the Passenger Transport Executive and the Waste Disposal Agency remain to be visited by the Roadshow Warriors.
The EC's communications bod, Janine Watson, gave a brief overview of what's going on. Principally, using Copenhagen as a “hook” (possibly dangerous- if it goes as badly as some are suggesting). The EC now has a page on the revamped AGMA website
It will have specific images and mugshots of Commissioners and further information shortly. Maybe even some “Big Messages” too.

Then Cllr Mark Alcock and David Hytch gave a quick summary of their fact-finding trip to Milan, which has implemented an “ecopass” system to improve air quality in the city centre. Classic carrot and stick, with 'clean vehicles' getting in for free and a sliding scale for the dirty to dirtiest vehicles.

This was followed by discussion of commissioner's roles, and who was going to take on what, in either a leading or supporting capacity. It was agreed (MCFly thinks) that different commissioners would operate differently, and there was no one size fits all. There was general agreement that taking on too much and then having to drop it was a Very Bad Idea. At the same time, there was concern about whether the Commission had a feel for the specifics of environmental problems in the conurbation (asthma hotspots, water quality, waste etc), and that a specific Business workstream might be in order.

The question of staffing levels came up. At present Sarah Davies and Mike Reardon are full time, with various other bits of staffing too. There were many applications for the Policy and Programme Manager job, with interviews happening in the next few weeks. There are also various offers of funding- some firm, some not - on the table for various projects.
This was followed by a presentation about “A Greater Manchester Environment, Planning and Housing Research Resource” (headline- people being poached from various AGMA places for work on climate resilience, understanding opportunities for carbon reduction etc
Apparently (you read it here first) Greater Manchester is to be used as a 'test-bed' for work on climate adaptation/resilience and the roles and responsibilities and private sector 'buy-in' around this.

Then there was a waste discussion, but MCFly reporters are only human (at best), and frankly, our attention had wandered a bit... One very good point was made though, by a Commissioner, that there seemed to be insufficient focus on waste reduction before we got to re-use, recycling etc.

Finally: Following the release of the government's “low carbon transition plan” over the summer “Low Carbon Economic Areas” seem to be the flavour of the month, though Mike Reardon warned that there was no pot of gold over that particular rainbow. As reported in a previous MCFly (34? Lost count), the Northwest is angling at being the LCEA for the built environment.
High level meetings are taking place and More Information Will be Forthcoming Shortly.

On a related note, it seems that the Climate Change Agency might morph a bit to fit that particular funding framework- time will tell.

In any other business, the major point was the 10:10 campaign. Manchester City Council has signed up (go Team Manchester!!) with Stockport, Oldham and Bury making moves. It was agreed that the Environment Commission would recommend to AGMA exec that all the LAs sign up...

The EC next meets in January, and by then MCFly hopes to have pinned down a lot more about some of the outstanding issues, who is responsible for what, hopes and expectations for 2010 etc.

Searching for Sustainable Urbanism in Manchester

In the spring of this year, my partner and I moved to Manchester from the US and immediately, our carbon footprint decreased by half. No, I haven’t done the calculations to prove this, this is merely an estimate based on the average carbon footprint for each country (American residents emit about 19 metric tons annually versus 9.4 metric tons for British residents).

It’s easy to see how this happened. We ditched our single-family, detached house in the US for a high-rise flat in the Manchester city centre. Our automobile trips to work, the grocery store, and the movies have been replaced with lots of walking and the occasional bus or train ride. And we simply buy less because everything costs more in the UK. In short, we haven’t done anything extraordinary; we just conformed to the built-in systems and customs of our newly-adopted country (and to be honest, resistance would be futile).

This is great news for us as newcomers, a sort of passive environmentalism that allows us to reduce our contribution to climate change without making any drastic changes to our lives (well, except for moving to a new country, of course). If only this approach would apply to everyone. But it seems unlikely that we will all move to another country to reduce our carbon footprints. Anyone up for Somalia? Burundi? Afghanistan?

Beyond the built-in conditions that involuntarily reduce our carbon footprints, I’m interested in the opportunities and challenges that Greater Manchester presents for carbon mitigation and adaptation. Urban areas were once seen as being in opposition to nature, with their high concentrations of people and pollution along with a marked lack of greenery and undisturbed land. But the environmental perspective on cities has changed in the few decades and now, urban living is understood as the key to a greener, zero-carbon future. Cities offer a number of ecological and social benefits: high-density housing, close proximity to work and services, sharing of infrastructure services, and convenient mass transit options.

So what is Manchester doing to work towards this new idea of green urbanism? I’ve done some exploring in the city centre to find inspirational examples and frankly, I haven’t found too much to write home about. Despite its name, the Green Quarter is one of the most disappointing redevelopment projects. Tall residential towers make for an efficient city but one that lacks character and charm.
Spinningfields, Castlefield, and the Salford Quays are all well-known regeneration projects but they are also rather sterile from my perspective. And I’m patiently awaiting the completion of New East Manchester and the Oxford Road Quarter. In all of these developments, the bones are there for a greener, more livable city but the flesh has yet to grow (perhaps this will happen in time).

This leads me to ask a significant question about the future of the city: how does urban development happen in Manchester? How does change come about? From what I gather, the Manchester City Council practices a form of urban development that is largely closed off to public input and participation. Instead, commercial developers hold meetings with municipal officials behind closed doors, some secret criteria are applied by the powers that be and the development request is either granted or denied. There is no master plan for realizing a sustainable, livable, and resilient city, and residents are treated as passive receivers rather than integral participants in new urban futures. Is this the best route for realizing a sustainable city?

Should we trust in our City Council to “do the right thing” when it comes to climate change and sustainable urban development? Is this how great cities come into being?

Perhaps I’m looking in the wrong places and I have yet to find the community of artists, designers, private property owners, and residents who are collaborating with the City Council to make Manchester more livable and green. For me, the Northern Quarter is the only place in the city centre that feels real, that exudes cultural and material qualities that are unique to the city. The rest of Manchester feels like a city-in-the-making, or a city that is gradually shedding its reputation as the first industrial city but is unsure of what it will become.

I’m not arguing that the entire City Centre or Greater Manchester should be like the Northern Quarter. And I’m not arguing that there isn’t a place for High Street commercialism, international business activity, and modernist buildings made of glass and steel. But it seems to me that we desperately need a city centre that has a variety of different places that people can call home, work, and everything in between in order to transform Manchester into a sustainable metropolis. And to make this a reality, we need an active citizenry that is involved in the shaping of the city, both materially and culturally.

I can imagine a very different Manchester fifty years from now. It is diverse, dense, active, alive, and a highly desirable place to live. Many of the historic warehouse buildings have been converted into residential and commercial space while infill activities have taken advantage of the vast amount of undeveloped property through the city. New buildings, parks, and public spaces have brought the city to life. And it is notably quieter and cleaner in Manchester, as the streets are dominated by people rather than single-occupant vehicles and carbon-belching buses.

My vision of Manchester’s future isn’t a utopian dream by any stretch, it’s quickly happening in many cities around the globe. And it is happening through innovative partnerships between public and private individuals and organizations that share the same goal: to create more livable and greener cities. The challenge is to adopt these ideas to the Mancunian context and in the process, create a city that reflects both the local history and people. It is only then that Manchester will have the potential to be considered a world-class city.

MCFly 36- Bury Council statement

A MCFly reader received this email from Bury Council, which we publish un-edited.

Like Harrogate, Bury Council is very serious about reducing carbon emissions and in May 2009 we were accepted onto the Carbon Trust’s Local Authority Carbon Management Plan.
Over a ten months period we will now work closely with the Carbon Trust within their tried and tested framework to produce an Action Plan and to integrate carbon management firmly into the processes and procedures of the council.

We have set ourselves an aspirational target of a 35% reduction in our carbon emissions in the next 5 years and our plan will set out the measures that will be taken towards this target and will progress carbon reduction at the council into the future. The idea of setting such a demanding target is that this will push us to identify as many carbon saving actions as we can and to continue to look for opportunities as we progress.

The Carbon Trust have a wealth of experience and expertise in relation to carbon reduction and under the Carbon Management Programme they will provide technical and change management support and guidance to help us to realise practical carbon emissions savings. The main focus is to reduce emissions under the council’s control such as buildings, street lighting, and business transport.

So far we have established our 2008/09 baseline which basically describes where our carbon emissions come from. We now know that most of our emissions come from our buildings and that just under half of the buildings emissions come from our schools.

We are now in the processs of identifying the actions for our Action Plan. These will include actions that are already being implemented and proposed alongside new projects from a wide area of the council operation including : - energy efficiency of our buildings, energy efficiency of our schools, streetlighting, transport measures, awareness raising campaigns, procurement and wider opportunities for combined heat and power and district heating.

We will have our Action Plan completed by April 2010 and then from then we will continue to implement the measure identified and carefully monitor progress.

The Government have recently introduced National Indicator 185 which requires the council to report on percentage carbon dioxide reductions from its own operations each year. Bury Council have designated this indicator in our Local Area Agreement which means that if we don't reduce our carbon emissions we recieve less money in our performance reward grant

Chris Horth
Unit Manager - Environment