Guest post – Reusable nappies from a Mum’s perspective

Posted on July 12, 2011 by Andrew

Read anything posted by cloth nappy fanatics on the internet, and statements like “truly, they’re easier than sposies” will be impossible to miss. In this day and age, the majority of parents who have access to them use disposable nappies for their babies. When they think of cloth nappies, they think of those cotton squares our grandmothers used, and it becomes hard to imagine cloth nappies can be a joy to use.

When I was pregnant with my first child, disposable nappies were on my obligatory “buy before the baby gets here” list, and we used them for two and a half years without ever giving it a second thought. Then, when we were contemplating how to get pregnant again, I came across modern cloth nappies on an internet forum.

They looked pretty cute. I read many wonderful reviews about all-in-ones, pocket nappies, and even prefolds, which are more like the stuff our grandmothers used. Because I was not sure cloth would really be easy to use, rather than being horrible to wash and requiring a lot of work, I asked a ton of questions to random cloth diapers on the internet. In the end, I decided to order 24 pocket nappies when I was expecting my son. They had snaps so that the nappies could be used from birth to potty training.

We still used sposies in the newborn stage, because the nappies were too big for my tiny son, even when snapped into their smallest setting. At about two months of age, we switched to cloth. Our pocket nappies were easy to clean, and quick to dry because you can take the inserts out. As long as babies are exclusively breastfed, the poo washes out easily.

And by the time my son started solids, I was so used to his beautiful, multi-colored cloth nappies that rinsing poo out of a nappy was an easy task – we’d have one poopy nappy a day, and do nappy laundry once every two days. And you know what? After having used disposable nappies with one child, and cloth with the next, I can actually say that cloth was easier to use.

For me, the biggest advantage of cloth is that you never run out of them, so there are no late-night strips to get nappies. I would change them frequently, which was easy because doing so costs no extra money, and my son never had a diaper rash. He potty trained a month before his second birthday!

And the disadvantages? The biggest one is having to rinse out poo. Having laundry all the time is another, but I only realized that when I was relived not to have nappy loads anymore after potty training. Carrying dirty nappies in plastic bags when you are out and about is slightly annoying, but at least you don’t have to take out trash constantly.

All in all, cloth nappies really were a joy to use for us. And early potty training, which I am sure is at least partially connected to our pocket nappies, was a nice bonus too!

Olivia stays at home with her two children, and blogs about female health, fertility and pregnancy at Trying To Conceive. With her personalized ovulation calendar, pinpointing your most fertile days becomes easy!

Posted in Green living | 3 Comments

Neoliberalism vs the world – Part 3: The People vs. Neoliberalism

Posted on July 1, 2011 by Bilbo

By Rob Plastow

Neoliberalism is a powerful force for organisation, rationality and economic development. It is championed by world elites and has become the ruling ideology of globalisation and 21st Century governance. Throughout it’s implentation it has also caused much distrust, exploitation and environmental degration as discussed in Parts 1 and 2 of this series.

As it is both everywhere and nowhere, a process and a rationality that makes itself felt through an invisible hand that guides and an invisible foot that kicks, fighting it in any traditional sense has proved incredibly problematic.

However, although it may prove ironic for the proponents of neoliberalism, the greatest challenge to their hegemony may be made possible by the very working of neoliberalism itself – as in it’s doctrine of state dismantlement is the decentralisation of political decision making to local government and their communities.

The people vs neoliberalism
For many years politics in Bolivia was ruled by a neoliberal elite, who were favourably viewed by the US government who turned a blind eye to the growing disparity in incomes, the oppression of indigenous Bolivian communities trapped in poverty and instead encouraged the opening up of the Bolivian market to international ends.

However, in Bolivia neoliberalisation eventually met with locally organised resistance and ultimately political change in the form of Evo Morales’ unification of cocaleros, workers and indigenous groups. As Perrault and Geddes have noted, this political change was made possible in many ways by the governmental decentralisation that resulted from the neoliberal policies that preceded it.

The same policies are also part of David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’.

It’s also interesting and important to note that decentralisation was at the heart of the work of E.F Schumacher as well. An environmentalist very much ahead of his time and who championed the agency of change through lots of small actions by lots of people in the context of their locality, over and above a few big moves by those in the political centre. Although neoliberalism may have many detrimental impacts on the environmental movement, it would seem from Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful, that decentralisation does not have to be one of them – if utilised by environmentalists as well as business. The idea of localisation is not new to the environmental movement (think Transition Towns, Local Agenda 21, bioregionalism etc), in fact it is at it’s core, but this has always been in counter to centralised power. Decentralisation therefore potentially hands the political means to such groups to better achieve their aims – as long as they are well organised and ready for the challenge, which many no doubt are.

And if they are are not, growing strain across many other interest groups may lead to more people joining forces in their communities to fight for change. At the present moment, the impact of the credit crunch, global recession and austerity based cuts to social services are causing much anger in the general public to the neoliberal agenda, albeit that their challenge is not couched in such specific terms. So although it appears hegemonic and monolithic, neoliberalism is not without its weaknesses or criticism and it is important to remember that it has faltered many times before, even though within its writing of history it would suggest otherwise.

Since the end of the Cold War, capitalism has been without direct contrast, which has led to its own arrogant proclamation of the end of history. However, the failure of the markets in 2008/09, climate change, peak oil and increasing global inequalities show that the foundation that supports the status quo is changing in a profound manner whether anyone likes it or not. It is in many ways only held together by the confidence and desperation of the grossly affluent whose system it is and the compliance of those of us who don’t even notice it going on.

This merely displays one of the greatest powers behind neoliberalism and capitalism as a whole, or any other powerful hegemonic ideology for that matter, which is to make people think that there is no other way things can be, that the status quo is immutable.

But as history is keen to show us, this happens time and time again, with each purportedly immutable way of the world replacing another.

With this in mind, decentralisation should be seized upon by communities to make change happen for themselves, to lead the way from the bottom-up. What this necessitates though, is empowerment, self-education and the courage to do it for ourselves. In a politics of apathy and low voter turnout, there will need to be those who take up the challenge and encourage those around them to get involved, which is no easy task but no change can result without the support of the people. It is a huge task to take an idea and lead it through to a cultural tipping point.

But as Margaret Mead allegedly once said: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

References for Parts 1, 2 and 3:
Bakker, K. 2007. ‘The “Commons” Versus the “Commodity”: Alter-globalization, Anti-privatization and the Human Right to Water in the Global South’ in Antipode, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp. 430-455.

Benton, T. 1991. ‘The Malthusian challenge’, in Osborne, P. (Ed) Socialism and the Limits to Liberalism, pp 241-269. Verso: London.

Bumpus, A.G, & Liverman, D.M. 2008. ‘Accumulation by Decarbonization and the Governance of Carbon Offsets’ in Economic Geography, Volume 82 (2) pp. 127-155.

Castree, N. 2008. ‘Neoliberalising nature: the logics of deregulation and reregulation’ in Environment and Planning A, Volume 40, pp. 131-152.

Castree, N. 2008b. ‘Neoliberalising nature: processes, effects, and evaluations’ in Environment and Planning A , Volume 40, pp. 153-173.

Castree, N. 2009. ‘Researching neoliberal environmental governance: a reply to Karen Bakker’ Environment and Planning A, Volume 41, pp. 1788-1794.

Daly, H., & Cobb, J. B., Jr. 1989. For the common good: Redirecting the economy toward community, the environment, and a sustainable future. Boston: Beacon.

Daly, H.E., 1996. Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press.

Daly, H.E. 2002. ‘Reconciling the Economics of Social Equity and Environmental Sustainability’ Population and Environment. Vol.24, No.1, pp 47-53.

Foucault, M. 1976. The History of Sexuality Volume 1: The Will to Knowledge. Penguin: London.

Geddes, M. 2010. ‘Building and Contesting Neoliberalism at the Local Level: Reflections on the Symposium and on Recent Experience in Bolivia’ in International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Volume 34.1, pp. 163–173.

Glassman, J. 1999. `State power beyond the `territorial trap’: the internationalization of the state’ in Political Geography 18, 669-696.

Heynen, N. and Robbins, P. 2005. ‘The Neoliberalization of Nature: Governance, Privatization, Enclosure and Valuation’ in Capitalism Nature Socialism, Volume 16 Number 1.

Holifield, R. 2004. ‘Neoliberalism and environmental justice in the United States environmental protection agency: Translating policy into managerial practice in hazardous waste remediation’ in Geoforum 35, pp. 285–297.

Jessop, B., 1994. ‘Post-fordism and the state’ in: Amin, A. (Ed.), Post-Fordism: A Reader. Blackwell, Oxford, Cambridge, MA, pp. 251–279.

Jessop, B., 2002. ‘Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: a state-theoretical perspective’ in Antipode 34 (3), 452–472.

Jordan, A., Wurzel, R.K.W, and Zito, A.R. 2003. ”New’ Instruments of Environmental Governance: Patterns and Pathways to Change’ in Jordan, A., Wurzel, R.K.W, and Zito, A.R. (eds). 2003. ‘New’ Instruments of Environmental Governance? National Experiences and Prospects. Routledge: London.

Klein, N. 2007. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Allen Lane: London.

Lemke, T. 2001. “The birth of bio-politics: Michel Foucault’s lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal governmentality”. Economy and Society Volume 30 Number 2 pp. 190–207.

Mansfield, B. 2007. ‘Articulation between neoliberal and state-oriented environmental regulation: fisheries privatization and endangered species protection’ in Environment and Planning A, Volume 39, pp. 1926-1942.

McCarthy, J. And Prudham, S. 2004. ‘Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism’ in Geoforum 35 pp.275–283.

O’Connor, J., 1998. Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. Guilford Press: New York.

Peck, J. & Tickell, A. 2002. ‘Neoliberalizing Space’ in Antipode, Volume 34, pp. 380-404.

Pepper, D. 1993. Eco-Socialism: From Deep Ecology to Social Justice. London: Routledge.

Perreault, T. 2005. ‘State restructuring and the scale politics of rural water governance in Bolivia’ in Environment and Planning A, Volume 37, pp. 263-284.

Polanyi, K., 1944. The Great Transformation. Rinehart & Company: New York.

Robertson, M. 2004. ‘The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: wetland mitigation banking and problems in environmental governance’ in Geoforum 35, pp. 361–373.

Robertson, M. 2006. ‘The nature that capital can see: science, state, and market in the commodification of ecosystem services’ in Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Volume 24, pp. 367-387.

Robertson, M.M. 2000. ‘No net loss: wetland restoration and the incomplete capitalization of nature’ in Antipode 32:4, pp. 463–493.

Wolford, W. 2005. `Agrarian moral economies and neoliberalism in Brazil: competing worldviews and the state in the struggle for land’ in Environment and Planning A, Volume 37, pp. 241-261.

Posted in Climate Change, Culture, Economics, Neolliberalism vs the World Parts 1-3 | 1 Comment

Neoliberalism vs the World – Part 2

Posted on June 4, 2011 by Bilbo

The strength of the thought behind neoliberalism, is that it makes human behaviour understandable in economic terms through its efficient, reductionist rationality.

Neoliberalism’s rationality is linked to an aspiration to reflect and construct prudent individuals who behave both as responsible and moral people as well as economic-rational actors. The ideal individual in neoliberal society rationally assesses the costs and benefits of certain acts in comparison to alternatives, acting as an expression of their own freewill and consequently bearing all responsibility for their decisions as entrepreneurs of themselves. This cost-benefit analysis and economic rationality is also exported to non-economic areas in neoliberalism’s generalization, functioning to analyse in economic categories throughout, seeing no incongruence in its use of pricing mechanisms on everything. As a result, neoliberalism is simply the latest attempt by capital to colonize and dominate the rationalities of other systems with which it articulates – notably the political and ecological.

There is obvious utility to this reductionist rationality, a formulaic approach that enables calculation and the predominance of economic though. But what a dull and lifeless summation of the human condition. Albeit useful for marketers, advertisers and anyone wanting to sell more and more crap to us, or as a tool in some behavioural structure of biopower, this is a narrow and deluded concept of the individual, which provides an unnatural focus that is used to determine so many hugely important choices that shape all our lives.

Humans have struggled for thousands of years to capture the human condition through art and we are still going. An neoliberal economist, it would seem, is happy to continue with a robust formula and continued economic growth. If only it were so simple.

Within this overly-rational perspective, society is nothing more than an abundance of individuals all guided by their own self-interest within the governing framework of the market. This is the dream of Ayn Rand, Tea Party members and the conservative right. It reflects the generalization of market principles to all of human life resulting from neoliberalism’s near worship of what Karl Polanyi called the “self-regulating market”, which he also deemed a myth.

For proponents of neoliberalism, the market is seen not only as the governing mechanism for allocating all goods and services but also as a way of understanding the organisation and evaluation of institutional performance, necessitating the commodification of everything. Hence the continuing press for more, through phase after phase of neoliberalisation until the state is a distant memory and your vote is made not through ballots but banknotes and if you don’t have enough of them that’s your fault, not the system’s.

Nature vs neoliberalism

But there is a flaw in this scheme and it begins to get noticed at the macro level, only after decades of its development.

It is flawed because it overlooks externalities, the dumping of the economy’s waste and other negative effects onto nature as well as the commodification of nature itself. Nature was not designed as a commodity and therefore will not behave like one. Despite the best efforts of the economy, nature will raise its voice regardless of whether anyone is listening or not. This is because neoliberalism’s flaw is encompassed within the deluded and misguided notion that the environment is a subsystem of the economy rather than the other way round. This concept is key to the shift in thought necessary to transition to a low-carbon economy and sustainable development. A truth long denied or ignored by those of a neoliberal agenda, but a truth nonetheless.

We are therefore faced with a clash between economic and ecological rationalities as a result of our consumptive habits and tolerance of political powers. However, this clash is indicative of a great irony at the heart of neoliberalism. This is due to the fact that although it may make good commercial sense for firms to externalise production costs, such a practice is ecologically irrational and highly destructive. The externalities created by production, pass the environmental costs onto society and the biophysical world, creating an ecological contradiction that sees neoliberal capitalism gnawing away at the resource base that supports it.This is the ecological paradox of neoliberal capitalism: it will destroy that which makes itself possible – nature.

In terms of CO2 as an externality, its proliferation brings climatic changes that could bring about water shortages, resource wars, disease and ultimately loss of life, bringing neoliberal economies crashing down. Hence, it is argued, that without sufficient self-regulation by firms or states, capitalist societies will continue to create ecological crises. It is therefore politically, economically, socially and ecologically of interest to tackle. This is the task at the true heart of sustainable development, not the quest for ‘sustainable growth’ (i.e. business as usual with more efficient lightbulbs) but questioning how we continue to prosper whilst addressing the implications of our current actions.

The key element to acknowledge is that there are too many perforations within our current system that precipitate destructive consequences, which erode our social and ecological foundations and need addressing now, not in some distant, ever-promised future.This can only come about by manipulating another element of the neoliberal agenda, localisation.

With this in mind, I’ll be looking at how people can beat neoliberalism at its own game in Part 3.

(UPDATE: as I am in the middle of doing my dissertation, part 3 is going to have to wait a while. In the meantime go and frolic outside or if it is night-time watch Adam Curtis’ new documentary ‘All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace’.)

Posted in Climate Change, Culture, Ecological economics, Economics, Neolliberalism vs the World Parts 1-3, Sustainability | 1 Comment

Neoliberalism vs The World – Part 1

Posted on June 3, 2011 by Bilbo

By Rob Plastow


Despite their different qualities, forms and direct causes, there is an ideological concept that links the recent cuts in public spending, anthropogenic climate change and the banking crisis.

It is of pressing importance to get to grips with, to understand and to tackle in order to reclaim our shared future.

Its name is neoliberalism.

In my next few posts, I will take a closer look at neoliberalism in order to get a better idea of how it operates, in relation to people and nature and what this means for the future. Along the way I’ll show how there are social and ecological limits to neoliberalism, give examples of how its been previously challenged and describe the attributes that make it what it is.

The rise of neoliberalism

During the 1980s in the US and UK, neoliberalism took hold under the wistful gaze of a former actor, President Reagan, and the society denying gawp of Margaret Thatcher. Both of whom were influenced by economists such as Friedman, Hayek and Epstein, and championed a vision that stood as a counter to what it viewed as the failures of the Keynesian, state-coordinated model of capitalism.

A couple of academics, Peck and Tickell, termed this period in the 1980s as ‘rollback neoliberalism’, determinable by patterns of deregulation and dismantlement; the 1990s then went on to see an emergent phase of active state-building and regulatory reform, which they called ‘roll-out neoliberalism’. This can be seen in the new institutions created by Blair and Clinton in the 1990s following the dismantlement of Keynesian structures, and were designed to embed the neoliberal project more deeply in civil society.

I would like to suggest that we can now add a third phase. ‘Roll-over neoliberalism’ sees the influence of corporate power fully infiltrating every aspect of government in a deceptive, misleading and misguided ideological manuoevre that simply expects the public and the environment to roll over and take the abuse. Fast food chains are asked to come up with food policy, tax-dodgers give their input on tax and bankers smarm their way out of any punishment by holding the government’s balls firmly in their money-grabbing grips. Keynesian influenced ideas such as a Green New Deal in which a coordinated approach to stimulating the economy is taken with a focus on developing a low carbon infrastructure and green jobs, is simply ignored in favour of business as usual.

In the face of such ludicrous proceedings by our democratic representatives it is now of great importance that people seeking to improve this situation come together because although the powers that be may soak up our demonstrations in the short term, ignore our dissent and carry on as before, there are limits in the long-term that business as usual will break, bringing neo-liberalism and the global economy to its knees.

These limits are not just those of public tolerance, but are ecological. The people and the planet both have lines you shouldn’t cross, and neoliberalism is pushing both much too far, whilst simultaneously championing itself as the saviour to each in the eloquent hypocrisy that has become the mainstay of the west’s delusional political discourse. Tackling this situation means tackling social justice, poverty, equality and climate change all at once, for all are intricately interwoven and deserve a concerted effort in order to confront business as usual practices that have destructive effects to society and nature. Rather than ignoring global divisions of labour in national policies on poverty or framing climate change in moral terms, doom and gloom rhetoric or even scare tactics, they must be recognised in their true context. Issues such as social justice, poverty, climate change and equality, are situated in a discourse of power, wherein our shared environment is a critical context for shaping the debate the world over.

This is because the power of neoliberalism is in almost everything we see in the West and is itself made possible by the natural mechanisms of the environment and its ecosystems. Capitalism, of which neoliberalism is a shell, may have provided us in the West with considerable material wealth but it is critically flawed. For everyone on the planet to achieve the same standards of living as those in the US we would need another two planets.

There are two main responses to this problem and one is particularly more nasty than the other. One is to have an economic rethink and push for a more just and equal global society and form of human development where resources are utilised sustainably with an eye to the long-term rather than merely short-term political and financial gain. The other is to carry on as we are, securing and using resources for our own Western purposes, exploiting their increasing demand as supplies dwindle, emitting more and more CO2. Throughout history such competition for resources is played out over a backdrop of wars, droughts and famines and in our current trajectory we are potentially set on a course that sees a peaking in oil supplies, growing water scarcity and a potential food crisis that Lester Brown warns could cause widespread societal collapse.

From a cynical perspective, it would appear that this latter choice is a winner when you think about the timescales involved – decades perhaps – that might allow you to have an almighty blowout and then just pop your clogs before having to tidy up any of the mess. But as the baby-boomers start to retire and fade away, the younger generations might have a few things to say about all of this, as they are the ones who currently seem to be on course to get fewer and fewer benefits of business as usual practices as time moves on. The oldies might be about to shuffle of this mortal coil but the young have a vested interest in tidying this place up.

As well having our future threatened from the old school business as usual practices, our present is equally pushed and shoved. It’s not just the increasing cost of an education that has us buggered but also our relations with each other that are bound within shallow frames of consumption and identity, as well as our relations with nature. These relations have in many ways changed as a result of the ideological power of neoliberal capitalism which drives the politics, economics and culture of the world system, providing the context and direction for how humans affect and interact with non-human nature and with one another. Although we may perceive that we are disconnected from what made us, seeing nature merely as something to be bought, sold, used or overcome, we are in truth completely interconnected with it.

The ideology that has caused this disconnection or alienation has pervaded throughout modern Western living. Its power is evident, paradoxically, in its seeming elusiveness as neoliberal capitalist projects have become the norm, the way we see the world and often each other – they have shaped themselves as a set of objective, natural, and technocratic truisms, so that we can no longer see the wood for the trees.

In Part 2 I’ll be looking at the rationality behind neoliberalism and the effects this has on people and nature.

Posted in Climate Change, Culture, Economics, Fair Trade, Green Business, Neolliberalism vs the World Parts 1-3, Sustainability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Climate change in the USA: Can you sue over global warming?

Posted on May 31, 2011 by Bilbo

Just about every reputable climate scientist in the world will tell you that global warming is a serious problem. And almost all of them will also tell you that human activity almost certainly has a hand in causing it. Among most reputable scientists, the disagreements about global warming do not concern its existence (they all agree it is happening) or the causes (they all agree that humans play a part). I’ll concede that there is some disagreement over just how big of a role humans play, and exactly what kind of harm global warming will cause (though they all agree it will be harmful in some way).

However, human actions, dating back to the industrial revolution (and the explosion in population and carbon dioxide output it spawned), and involving virtually every person on the planet, have contributed to the buildup of excess greenhouse gasses in Earth’s atmosphere, which causes global warming.

With that in mind, can any particular person, or group of people, be sued over the damage that global warming has caused, and is anticipated to cause? That’s a very difficult question, from both a legal and moral standpoint. Is there any one person or entity that bears more blame for global warming than everybody else?

A new flurry of lawsuits has been filed in the hopes of answering that question. There have been lawsuits related (directly or indirectly) to global warming before. These, however, are premised on a somewhat novel theory: the so-called “public trust” theory.

The plaintiffs are a coalition called “Our Children’s Trust” (of course, you’ve got to throw in a “THINK OF THE CHILDREN!” argument in there somewhere. Might as well put it in the name of your organization to get it out of the way.), and are suing various government agencies. Their argument is that these agencies failed to do enough to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and are therefore culpable for the global warming problem, and have ruined an asset of public trust (Earth’s atmosphere and climate) for future generations.

This is an interesting, if somewhat problematic, argument. First of all, the precedent for suing government agencies for allegedly failing to do their job is mixed, at best. Second, because global warming is a global problem (it’s right there in the name), drawing a clear chain of causation is going to be difficult.

All civil lawsuits are about redressing and compensating for harm to the plaintiff caused by the defendant. In addition to proving that they have actually suffered some type of harm, the plaintiff must show that the harm was caused by the defendant. With a problem over 150 years in the making, pinning the harm on a particular group is not going to be easy.

This is somewhat similar to a group of lawsuits that individual states have brought against the largest power companies in the United States, alleging that they are primarily responsible for global warming. However, federal courts have not received these legal arguments warmly. Without denying that global warming is a problem (most, in fact, acknowledge that it’s a serious problem), federal courts have found that they simply lack the legal or constitutional authority to set limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

And Supreme Court justices who have weighed in on the issue have expressed skepticism that anyone other than Congress and regulatory agencies (such as the Environmental Protection Agency) has the authority to issue these rules. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, generally regarded as one of the most liberal justices on the Court, has said that it’s highly unlikely that a court could rule on these issues.

Litigation has often been a tool to change government policy when there is no political will to do so through legislative action. Some of our most basic legal protections were created, or strengthened, through litigation. Every state in the U.S. has laws that prohibit racial segregation in public schools. Just a generation ago, segregation was the norm. The Supreme Court changed everything when it decided Brown v. Board of Education, when it held that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. After some initial resistance from a few state governments, desegregation became the norm.

Abortion is legal across the country, not due to an act of Congress, but the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade. Every criminal defendant is entitled to a public defender, thanks to Gideon v. Wainwright.

Needless to say, when it comes to shaping public policy, the courts play a role. However, very few, if any, of these decisions involved the courts placing a serious burden directly on private actors. They involved government conduct, and most of them required the government to stop doing something, rather than imposing an affirmative obligation on it. A Supreme Court decision that imposes an affirmative obligation on private parties would be nearly unprecedented (with the exception of decisions merely upholding the constitutionality of federal or state laws that impose such obligations).

As much as change may be necessary, this seems like one area where the courts have little power. And given the incredibly difficult policy choices that will have to be made if we decide to seriously confront global warming, that may be for the best. Unfortunately, there are still many people who choose to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is an issue. If our nation’s response to global warming is determined by the courts, it will not have much perceived legitimacy. This is a problem best confronted by the elected branches of government.

John Richards is a writer for LegalMatch.com and the LegalMatch.com Law Blog. The above article is for general informational purposes only, and should not be construed in any way as legal advice relevant to your particular situation. The only person qualified to give you legal advice is an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction, who has been apprised of all the relevant facts of your situation.

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Exporting E-Waste – The UK’s Toxic Overseas Trade

Posted on May 30, 2011 by Bilbo

By Thomas O’Rourke

While no one would dispute the progress that electrical and electronic technology has brought to Western culture, the problem of how to handle the end life of more than 50 million tonnes of e-waste created each year around the planet is staggering.

The UK alone contributes an estimated 1–2 million of those tonnes, shared between private households and commercial businesses. In fact, the average Briton will discard at least four electrical units yearly, 40%–50% of which are still in working condition. E-waste volume is increasing at the rate of 5% each year and becoming the most serious waste disposal problem in the world.

Electronic waste consists of appliances, large and small; mobile phones and other portable devices; TVs, stereo equipment, monitoring equipment, tools, electric gadgets, sports equipment, toys and video games; medical, electrical and lighting machinery and so much more. Unfortunately, these modern marvels are filled with toxic and hazardous substances such as arsenic, lead, mercury and cadmium, to name a few. Disposing of them in the local landfill is no longer a recognised option.

In response, the UK initiated Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) recycling in 2005 with additional directives added in 2007 and an Environmental Agency supervisory task force in 2008. The results? Not much. In fact, it has come to light through campaign groups such as the Environmental Investigation Agency that as much as 77% of the e-waste in the UK is being shipped to developing countries in western Africa, especially Nigeria and Ghana. While records would indicate otherwise, the black market is alive and flourishing and players are involved at all levels of the game.

Legally, no electronic equipment is to leave the UK unless it has been tested and proven workable. Failure to comply with this policy can result in high fines and two years imprisonment. However, the reality is that containers filled with broken TVs, computers and other electronics are arriving in third world countries on a daily basis. To date, only limited fines have ever been issued, and no one has been sentenced to jail for this crime. It would appear that the government is not as determined to halt this practice as it postures.

Meanwhile, in Ghana and Nigeria, primary UK dumping spots, young men and children work at stripping copper and other precious metals and parts from ever-increasing mountains of broken equipment. Piles of plastic parts burn in the open air and release harmful toxic fumes into nearby densely populated areas. Once stripped, the useless equipment parts are then cast aside next to rice fields, rivers and other water sources. Poisons leach into the soil and water supplies. The long term results will be devastating:

• Impaired brain development in the children
• Kidney damage
• Weakened blood, nervous and immune systems
• Reproductive problems

This does not need to happen. Intentionally causing harm to another society is morally reprehensible. With legislation already in place clearly prohibiting the shipping of e-waste outside the UK, the government needs to put teeth into its policies. This means increasing rather than decreasing the task force assigned to monitor WEEE recycling agencies and practices and enforcing severe penalties on those who choose to flout the law.

Since the 2007 Directive has taken a “polluter must pay” attitude, manufacturers must be encouraged, forcefully, if necessary, to take responsibility for the products they create, including their reuse, recycling and safe disposal. Since a carrot has some advantage over a stick, financial incentives for those companies creating more eco-friendly products could be used as an extra stimulus. Removing toxic substances from design is a must. Extending product life and making upgrades easily adaptable could also encourage less frequent discarding by a population that would rather buy new than spend extra expense on costly repairs.

While the manufacturers may be held primarily responsible for excessive e-waste production, educating the consumers of the UK is also an important factor in lowering the massive volume of discarded electronic equipment. Encouraging them to donate to individuals, organisations or even countries that lack such technology will keep more e-waste out of container ships and landfills alike. Awareness of the devastating toxic damage to children, families, animals and environments in faraway places such as Africa, India, China and Pakistan must be brought to the forefront. Taking care of each other and this planet is everyone’s business.

Thomas O’Rourke is a guest blogger who regularly writes on behalf of Sims Recycling – discussing environmental issues such as WEEE recycling.

Posted in Green Business, Recycling, Sustainability | Leave a comment

Mad Men, smoking and ‘selling’ climate change

Posted on May 29, 2011 by Bilbo

By Rob Plastow

Charlie Brooker said that you don’t really watch Mad Men, you just sit there and let it seep into you. I’m not the biggest TV fan, I put the TV on mute during the ad breaks and don’t watch many shows. Yet somehow I’m addicted to letting Mad Men seep into me and fascinated by the world in which the show plays out – advertising.

Recent reviews of the current series explain its popularity is due to its similarity to today – just how far have we really come? The anachronistic voyeurism we are allowed lets us maintain any distance we may need to not see it as a direct mirror of our own consumption habits and materialistic society.

The show is often filled with glitz and glamour, luxury products and decadent services but still populated by discontented, substance abusing middle classes who appear to want for nothing yet are modern men and women constantly in search of a soul.

In the current series, the agency has lost the contract with Lucky Strike and the creative director, Don Draper, openly dismisses tobacco companies in a full page ad in the New York Times. But back before he had even a single strand of moral fibre he was the man that had come up with the “It’s toasted” tag-line just as Lucky Strike were beginning to feel the scorn of medical researchers scrutinising the impacts of smoking.

Draper skimmed passed the health issues that were emerging in his 1960s America and went straight for the sensory cue, threw away the psychological research about death-wishes and clung on to the simple, shallow, highly effective call to indulgence. For Draper there was no point in entering the debate, just enjoy the taste of that smooth carcinogenic tobacco.

The same can be said of sustainability and climate change. We know the score and yet we keep on smoking. How do we make green living just plain living? How can behaviour change be beneficial to the individual and appeal to our self-interest?

These questions, in light of Mad Men, make me ask another: is news of anthropogenic climate change received today in the same way that news of smoking’s harmful affects were in the 1960s?

Back when that came out, some people quit. Many others didn’t. Today some people are trying to live greener and this want for sustainability has changed the political landscape, but many others remain resolutely unchanged.

Green living sometimes rubs people up the wrong way due its perceived want of altruistic behaviour which fuels a sense of self-importance that non-greens find sickening. Like a non-smoker with a smug grin telling a smoker cigarettes will kill them.

But what advocates of green lifestyles try to assert is that living green can improve your own feelings of self-importance through a qualitative change rather than a quantitative one and that altruistic outcomes can be a product of the process to living green – not always, but often.

Climate sceptics hold even firmer to their beliefs in the face of this and reason for their autonomy and independence from any ‘fads’ or unwanted changes.

This possible divide over morality, consumption and sense of self causes a lot of friction – both sides feeling wholly justified by their own beliefs, which more often than not are embedded or at least vitally attached to their own creation of self and what they perceive to be fair, right and important.

With such large implications for behaviour, stances on climate change and sustainability no doubt both inform and are created by identity of the self – how we see ourselves, each other and what we want to become.

Mad Men symbolises these aspirations for an entire ideology and culture based on modernity, consumption and progress; that are full of hope on the outside and despair within.

For all his elegant cool, Don Draper is also a philandering drunk who has no idea who he even is half the time. The story fluctuates between his efforts to change and his ignorance of his wrongs.

Making behavioural changes is different for everybody. Don Draper goes swimming and writes a journal, Transition groups try to live with less dependency on fossil fuels, and most people who want to do something about climate change make adjustments to their lives by shopping locally and reducing, re-using and recycling.

Consumption along with the desire it creates, frame our outlook (at least in the West) without us realising half the time. It is the lens through which we see the world most of the time; observing the world in terms of its potential to benefit ourselves, often through purchasing things.

It then becomes easy to understand how that desire is at the centre of consumer economies. All the credit crunch, recession, and climate change clatterings in the news media around the world all stem from a silent, invisible psychological origin that grows within us all.

Followers of Ayn Rand would even lift it up onto a pedestal and call it ‘enlightened self-interest’. But for many (especially outside of the Western world) there’s nothing enlightening about being deluded and at the whim of a silent, invisible ego that is goaded by people like Don Draper into consuming more and more in the faint hope of sating manipulated desire, or for a moment’s perceived happiness from having bought something.

And yet that is what our whole way of life, our economy and our socialisation rests upon. That psychological trick as it were, whereby PR companies, ad men and marketers have latched onto the mind and even the outskirts of the soul in order to get our money and make us work for more.

Spend, spend, spend to keep the machine working. Governments say they want to tackle climate change and social justice but at the same time they urge us to carry on consuming – the very thing that has caused our societies to be socially and environmentally unsustainable.

We are trapped, as Tim Jackson says, on a hedonic treadmill. Mad Men shows us getting on it to begin the run, and so far we are still on it.

We are encouraged by economies of consumption to take our problems and concerns and to ‘toast’ them with that good old ad man trick which has kept us smoking for so long.

Posted in Climate Change, Culture, Green living, Sustainability, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Communicating climate change – a story of uncertainty

Posted on May 29, 2011 by Bilbo

By Rob Plastow

Pic from Mr. Delingpole's blog http://bit.ly/5D9Izz

The irony of climate change is also one of human knowledge. It is our paradoxical wont, as Douglas Adams reminds us, to demand guaranteed, rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.

Depending on whether that uncertainty is presented as wonder or as doubt, we are then equally compelled or disabled.

The framing of uncertainty is therefore at the heart of communicating climate change, and of determining in the minds of millions what is even real, as one infamous episode also reminds us.

In November of 2009 an unknown hacker infiltrated the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, stole thousands of emails, hacked into the RealClimate website and posted the haul. All done with impeccable timing, right before the COP15 climate talks in Copenhagen.

No one knows who was responsible and the chances are we will never properly find out. However, when reviewing the hack, the UK’s former Chief Scientist, Sir David King suggested an operation on the scale of a national intelligence agency’s capabilities, bankrolled by large American lobby groups.

Continuing on from this hack, now more than a year on, the issue of anthropogenic climate change is still seen as controversial. Despite enquiries finding nothing wrong with the actions of the CRU, and instead shedding light on the deception used in manipulating the emails from some 10 or 15 years ago, the great anti-climate PR coup has arguably been the single most effective piece of climate change communication from either side of the so-called debate.

How has it been so effective? By having a simple target that is itself complex, abstract and extremely disruptive: uncertainty.

This target is not new. Before Climategate, the same approach was taken by the tobacco industry who employed the same PR firms that later went on to represent the oil industry.

In his 2006 book Heat, George Monbiot chronicles this development of misinformation, and the perpetrators behind it whom he calls the ‘Denial Industry’. It is of note that this book precedes Climategate by 3 years. Crucial to the agenda of the Denial Industry is to muddy the waters and promote the promulgation of doubt – and in the case of climate change, its bizarre nature over time and space, its complexity and unpredictability make that all the more easy to do. As does the lack of capability of the science community to get its message across. A message, it must be acknowledged, that not a lot of people want to hear anyway due to the consequences it has for the way we live our lives.

Monbiot gives a thorough account and so I will only pick out what I feel is the key issue he presents. Monbiot highlights the commonality between the tobacco and oil industry in using PR firms to establish and fund think-tanks and institutes with purposefully misleading names such as the Science and Environmental Policy Project, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition and many others whose purpose it has been to attack the science behind climate change (many of which are provided at www.exxonsecrets.org) in order to shift debate away from curbing their business. Their efforts are driven by a simple idea expounded in the following advice:

“Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate”.

This advice is from Frank Luntz, given to Republican Party activists during the first mid-term election of George W. Bush’s presidency, (leaked memo available here).

Climategate then appears to be a continuation of this same rhetoric and a good example of the strength of Luntz’s advice.

Key to the climate sceptics argument then, is that the science behind climate change is in doubt. Yet, Naomi Oreskes showed in her review of 10 years worth of peer-reviewed literature in the journal Science, that the case put forward by today’s climate scientists is in no doubt at all. In a talk at MIT concerning the communication of climate change she also went on to tackle the issue of big oil funding sceptics, denialists and delayers in order to continue with business as usual.

The irony is that the side of the issue that has the least amount of quality science to support its ideas, has the most effective communication campaign through the hypocrisy of labeling climate science as ‘junk science’ and environmentalists as deceptive promoters of a global conspiracy. That coupled with an impressive commitment to their cause, of never backing down.

This in part results from the huge amounts of money that fund it from big oil companies such as Exxon and vested interests of those such as Koch Industries but also from the lack of ability on behalf of the media to discern fact from fiction in a complex topic. In the fast paced world of journalism, with ever increasing media to distribute information, coin shocking headlines and meet tight deadlines, one Phd looks very similar to another, and the innocuously named institutes all appear the same at first glance.

At the same time, the overwhelming evidence widely available – which Oreskes has pointed out – is that the issue is resolved within the scientific community: humans are responsible for global warming.

The reason ‘debate’ continues is a consequence, in many ways, of framing.

The opposition that resulted in the Climategate debacle has shown the power, albeit deceptively, of a well targeted communication campaign that frames the debate with a simple target and goal and relies on emotion to stir support. There story is that the science is uncertain, that people are trying to trick you and are attacking the way you live your life for their own gain. The hypocrisy is of gargantuan proportions and makes for exceptional camouflage.

The delays that have resulted from such tactics and the Climategate mudslinging have set the whole world back, disrupted COP15 and have led to climate change being a decidedly different kind of ‘hot’ topic than it should be. It has dropped from mass media, almost as if it is too controversial to entertain with any certainty.

And it is uncertain, but in a different way. We know that burning fossil fuels, among other things, releases carbon dioxide and that if you have societies and economies that burn them for decades all over the world every day, stores of carbon that had hitherto remained in the earth will then be released into the atmosphere as CO2. The increasing concentration of carbon dioxide will then cause the earth’s atmosphere to increase in temperature.

However, the future is uncertain, the climate models will never be 100%, nature is too complex and our understanding of it too incomplete. That type of uncertainty is unquestioned and something we must acknowledge and live with; we are merely human after all and just as much a part of the often unfathomable nature as the climate. Our existence, let alone our scientific endeavour, is still very new in the time-frame of the planet, to think we know it all would be ridiculous. The question as to our capability to ever understand the way that nature operates on a fundamental and deterministic level is itself highly questionable, but is the course of science to at least better our understanding of it. The climate challenge is a challenge of great uncertainty, which is what makes it all the more pressing for us to do something about and commit to understanding it better.

As the President of the Royal Society, Nobel Laureate Sir Paul Nurse has shown in BBC Horizon’s Science Under Attack, if science is to have the impact it necessitates on the world it studies, we had better get more adept at communicating it.

Climate activists, scientists and environmentalists need to re-claim and re-frame the climate change campaign. And they are*. Recently, WWF have sought to expound on the issue of framing, with much emphasis on transparency they would add, in their Common Cause report.

Common Cause is also a good indicator of the effort that is needed in all camps to put a stop to the quibbling that delays our response to global warming. We need to become more savvy in our deconstruction of the media, of messages and intentions behind them. We also need to acknowledge the importance of emotion, culture and ideology in the framing of campaigns, and in doing so beat the denialists at their own game in a more transparent and less vitriolic way.

If we are to affect real change and respond to global warming we need to accomplish a lot more than merely showing that it is happening. That should have been put to bed a long time ago. There is always room for criticism and debate, that’s how science works, but there is also a point at which a consensus is formed, upon which decisions are made so that we may progress to act.

Without action all the efforts of science are for nothing. 2010 was the joint hottest year on record and in that same year came acknowledgment that stopping temperatures from rising by 2C is virtually impossible.

Because of the delay we have shown to act, temperature rises are much more likely to be greater than 2C and we are looking at a world that will have a much harder time dealing with 3C or 4C changes as a result. The story has changed.

Although it is a great failure for climate activists that Climategate has brought so much enthusiasm and encouraging action within the green movement to a standstill, it is also a great opportunity to learn how to get better at communicating climate change.

If we are to have any impact at all on curbing emissions we must reclaim the narrative of global warming and recognise the importance of tackling the oil industry’s grasp on the media and the climate story as well as the climate itself. Then perhaps, uncertainty can be seen as the refuge of hope.

 

*Excellent work is also happening all the time at at the UK’s Climate Outreach and Information Network, (COIN) and many developments are also often reported at www.desmogblog.com

Some sources: http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/2011/01/18/four-degrees-and-beyond-climate-change-and-irrational-minds

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y4yql

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10538198

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/14/oxburgh-uea-cleared-malpractice

http://www.desmogblog.com/who-hacked-cru

http://www.wwf.org.uk/wwf_articles.cfm?unewsid=4224

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/20/met-office-2010-second-warmest-year

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/13/uk-media-ignore-climate-change

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/site/2011/four_degrees.xhtml

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html

http://www.monbiot.com/

www.exxonsecrets.org

http://www.sindark.com/NonBlog/Articles/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12224948

Posted in Climate Change, Culture | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Guest post: How to Make Your Home More Energy Efficient

Posted on May 28, 2011 by Bilbo

By Bailey Harris


With the hard economic times of today’s world, everyone is trying to do something to help save themselves more money, whilst treading more lightly on the earth in the process. One way that your family can save money and live with less impact on the natural world is by making your home more energy efficient. There are many ways to improve your home’s efficiency, on any budget.

Replace Your Light Bulbs

By simply replacing your old light bulbs with compact fluorescent lights, also known as CFLs, you can save both money and electricity. The average CFL will last about ten times longer than your average light bulb and will waste about 75% less electricity. This is a great first step to improving your home’s energy efficiency. In the UK these bulbs are now the only bulbs available on the market, so if you live in a country where incandescent bulbs are still the norm, write a letter to your democratic representative and ask them why they haven’t followed suit.

Check for Air Leaks

Checking for and fixing air leaks within your home can save you up to 30% in energy costs. When you begin looking for air leaks in your home, go beyond the traditional drafts from the door and check everything. There are many places in your home where air can get in. You should pay special attention to these areas of your home electrical outlets, baseboards, plumbing fixtures, windows, fireplaces, and of course doors. There are many cost efficient ways to fix air leaks in your home.

Insulation for Home Efficiency

When a home is built, insulation is placed between the outer shell of the home and the interior walls. Having the correct amount of insulation will ensure that your home will stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer. There are many different types of insulation available, including spray foam, fiberglass, rigid foam board, and reflective insulation. However, the best practice is to use natural materials such as sheep’s wool or even insulation blocks made from recycled newspaper. Many types of insulation will require a professional to come to your home and install the insulation. You may even be able to get a tax break for adding or replacing insulation within your home. There is currently funding available in the UK to help with retro-fitting your home to make it more energy efficient, so contact your local council to see how they may be able to help.

Update Appliances

In the typical home, appliances and electronics consume about 25% of your home’s energy. Updating your major appliances can not only save you money in the long run, but once again you may receive a tax credit for qualifying appliance upgrades. If buying new appliances is not in your near future, there are many ways that you can help reduce the amount of energy that is wasted. Turning your computer off when it will not be used for more than thirty minutes or turning off lights, televisions, and other electrical items when they are not being used will save you energy and money. Never leave electrical items on standby where they still suck up lots of electricity, instead always ensure that they are fully switched off.

Landscaping for Energy Efficiency

Are you aware that a little landscaping can save you money in energy costs while improving the overall appearance of your home? Planting trees that will protect your home from the wind can greatly reduce the amount of heat that will be needed in the winter and provide a coolness from the shade in the summer. Not only will you be helping to improve the overall look of your home, you will be saving energy and helping to maintain the environment by planting trees.

 

Guest post from Bailey Harris. Bailey writes about insurance quotes for InsuranceQuotes.org.

 

Posted in Green living | Leave a comment

To shop or not to shop? That is the question…

Posted on May 27, 2011 by Bilbo

By Kieron Casey


As consumers there are two ways it is possible to make a difference and vote through purchasing. The first is simple enough – “don’t”. Don’t buy the products that abstain from certain ethical criteria, boycott producers of goods who sidestep moral values and ignore those who do not fulfil decent ideals. By shying away from these products it is possible to show disdain and displeasure at their business malpractices and, as such, an important point has been made.

On the other hand there is the opposite idea – positive shopping. This means embracing items which do good, which keep within certain moral parameters and whose existence is generally more of a benefit to the world than not.

Positive shopping is a great way of voting for ideals you cherish and, in fact, in many ways is easier to see through than boycotting products. Whereas companies whose policies may border on malpractice are unlikely to openly advertise their deeds, companies who promote moral and just practices are; they will wear their actions like a badge of honour. In cartoons harmful products are quite oftentimes labelled with skull and crossbones as a short hand semiotic of their inherent badness; in real life, however, there are no such labels for goods which do not promote Fair Trade or other ethical values. However, for goods which do stick to these measures there are a whole host of labels which can be displayed proudly for a potential consumer to study.

The aforementioned Fair Trade label is probably the most famous and has even inspired its own annual event. The passion that Fair Trade arises in many comes from the values it promotes which ensure that no one is undercut, underpaid or in any way ripped off in the creation of goods and services. To purchase fair trade coffee, for example, means that everyone in the process of bringing those granules to the supermarket, from the farmers who initially cultivated the beans and onwards, will have received a just price for their contributions. When a product bears this label it is boasting that everyone involved in its creation was guaranteed reasonable working standards and practices too. Due to this it is much easier to positively purchase a good which brags Fair Trade principles rather than to boycott products completely which do not include such semiotic guides. Other labels that guarantee ethics in the production of goods include the stamp of approval from associations such as the Fair Labour Association, the Worldwide Responsible Apparel Production or the Ethical Trading Initiative.

Finally there are brands who will not just go out of their way to ensure correct treatment of their workers but also donate in a philanthropic fashion. For example many companies will use consumer incentives to donate money to third world charities, will regularly give aid to those who need it or fund, through donation or sponsorship, local or national charities and organisations who may not otherwise be able to operate without this additional income. In this way positive shopping can not only make a difference by telling brands you dislike their bad practices, it also can provide a direct improvement in people’s standards of living.

Whilst oftentimes Fair Trade and ethical clothing may cost a fraction more than other products, the cost is worth paying. Whilst many prominent organisations currently engage in malpractice perhaps positive shopping should be embraced as an equal, or better, measure to boycotting. It is easy to be jaded, cynical and negative about the world but perhaps occasionally it may be worthwhile embracing products and values that can make a difference. Saying “yes” with your wallet to positive things is far more powerful than saying no to everything else.

Kieron Casey is a BA (Hons) Journalism graduate who regularly blogs on a number of topics including gardening, the environment, parenting and baby bedding. He is writing on behalf of Bed Ted.

Posted in Culture, Fair Trade, Green living | Leave a comment