Alternative titles

• A Better World: The Jigsaw Puzzle
• Climate: Let’s start with the solutions.
• Flourishing: A Manifesto for Change.

This is a draft page giving extracts to provide a flavour of the book. It is being updated regularly. It will be structured like a jigsaw with the four corner pieces representing the institutional /constitutional changes needed to set us on the road to a sustainable, flourishing future. I suspect I may end up with more than twenty pieces, but it seemed like a good place to start.

Why a jigsaw?

I like the idea of a jigsaw with the four corners representing the essential institutional elements. I was tempted to have them as concepts, like the four pillars of societies. In the past that may have been the legislature, executive, church, etc. Now it might be democracy, law, business, and I’d want to give information a corner of its own, because that is the issue of the day. Democracy is only as good as the information people are exposed to. Businesses control many of our mental associations and aspirations through adverts, marketing etc. Profit-seeking algorithms affect the social media content we’re exposed to, and this is even without AI.

I resisted this temptation because such concepts are too general – too theoretical. As an academic I love a good theory, but we no longer have time for that. This book focuses on practical solutions. So instead, the corners will represent the actual policies that I believe will be crucial in the transformation towards a sustainable, flourishing society. The criteria for a policy to be a corner piece is that without that, all the other wonderful ideas or policies would not be as effective.

Even though I draw on systems theory in this book, a true systems theorist would have done this as a flow diagram. I didn’t do that because they can be confusing and frankly jigsaws are more fun. Another reason I like the jigsaw metaphor is that we can see what pieces we may be part of in our own lives. It’s not just about building castles in the air for fun. The stakes are too high for that. We must work out how we get to our desired society. No one person or element can do it by themselves. We need every part of society to be working together to create this new picture. Whether we be in education, business, politics, members of our community, artists, journalists, or just as employees or voters with a voice, you can see where you fit in. If you like the picture, then put your shoulder to the wheel in whatever context that you work or live in and help make it happen. At the end of every chapter, if you like what it’s proposing, you will see where you can make a difference.

---

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1446002/advertising-marketing-spending-worldwide/

[2] This was adapted into a play, ‘Murder in the Citizens’ Jury’

---

What is  systems approach?

A system can be seen as an interdependent group of factors that share some common goals and interrelated functions and an identity. In any complex system, the whole is more than a sum of its parts, therefore understanding each component of the system is not as helpful as knowing how it operates within the system. Mapping the inputs, outputs, feedback control mechanisms etc. are crucial in understanding ecosystems, our bodies, weather, organisations, societies, and so on. Applying a systems theory approach can be useful to discern where the issues are, for example, where are the bottlenecks or the leverage points for change? Knowing these means that you don’t waste time and resources on a strategy that is unlikely to work.  For example, imagine a university is anxious because it has fewer students on its MBA programme than expected. What should it do?  A typical response might be to employ a consultancy group to establish what potential applicants are looking for and then change either the programme on offer or the marketing strategy to suit. But this would be pointless if the reason there were fewer students was because they had cut the admin staff, a key member went sick, and there were hundreds of students keen to join the programme but didn’t find out they were accepted until too late, so went elsewhere.

Many of us want change but knowing where the leverage points are in our political economy is not obvious. We’ve also seen politicians agitating for change, and when they get into power, they realise it’s not so easy. They can make policies and pass laws, but they have to get through the system, and then the next President or Prime Minister may come along and reverse them. Business leaders too may get the sustainability bug. Maybe it was an executive awayday in nature to have time to think about what the business stands for and what a transition to a net zero economy means for them. It’s not unusual for business leaders in such circumstances to have an epiphany that the world is in trouble and try to instigate change. But in a public limited company, if what they do doesn’t maximise profit for the shareholders, they risk a hostile takeover. Despite their sincerest wish to be part of the solution to our sustainability challenges, they quickly get sucked back into servicing the system. After all, we live in a society where a fossil fuel corporation’s share price increased after they retrenched on their climate pledges.

Many, many people care. A recent global survey of 130,000 people from 125 nations reported that a staggering 89% of people wanted governments to do more about climate change[1], but unless we know where the leverage points are for change, we’re just shouting into the wind.

Donella Meadows, in her much-cited article, ‘Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System,’[2] adopts the metaphor of the bathtub to illustrate a simple system, with its inflows (taps/faucets) the outflows (the drain), delays in the system (kinks in valves etc.) and desired temperature. She makes the point that having different people turning the taps, for example different politicians adjusting tax and expenditure is seen by many as the key lever for change, but: “putting different hands on the faucets may change the rate at which the faucets turn, but if they’re the same old faucets, plumbed into the same old system, turned according to the same old information and goals and rules, the system isn’t going to change much.”

She provides a list of points to intervene in a system in order of effectiveness. For example, the delays in a bathtub filling or draining are due to the physical pipes and valves. In most complex systems, changing the physical infrastructure takes a lot of time and effort, so it’s not as effective a leverage for change as proper design in the first place. This in turn depends upon the mindset and values of the culture that designs the infrastructure, and the carrots and sticks that incentivise or disincentivise long-term thinking.

Another key factor in the resilience of systems are feedback loops. Most common in nature and human systems are negative feedback loops that regulate a system and keep it within operational limits. A thermostat that switches on when the temperature falls below a desired level, and back off when it reaches the desired temperature is a classic example. In the human body, we sweat to cool down or shiver to warm up. Negative feedback loops also operate in markets to align supply and demand. In classical economic theory, price is seen to operate as an ‘invisible hand’ rising when supply is lower than demand and falling when demand is lower than supply. In perfect conditions, where everyone has perfect information, markets are fully competitive and the price reflects the full cost of the product or service, the theory is that everyone following their own self-interest will lead to the goods being produced that are most in demand, using the most efficient production methods and the resources with the lowest cost resulting in the most efficient distribution possible. A compelling idea that accounts for the high regard economists are held in, and the priority given to the idea of the ‘market’ as the ultimate good.

There are some issues with this. Firstly, the term ‘resources’ sounds neutral, but when one considers that in many cases we’re talking about human resources, i.e. living, breathing, feeling humans – us – then the idea of driving down costs seems less benign. Of course, in a perfectly competitive labour market with full employment, it wouldn’t be a problem – if we didn’t like the terms, we’d work elsewhere. Unfortunately, most don’t have that luxury and must take what they can get.

Another issue is the problem of externalities. These are the impacts of production that are not reflected in the price. For example, in the perfect world of classical economics, I can choose to buy a flight from London to New York. I am free to buy the ticket, and the airline chooses to sell it to me. Both parties have agreed to the transaction at the specified price. However, this flight imposes costs upon those who are not willing parties to the transaction. Noise pollution for those living under the flight path for example. More serious is climate change caused by the carbon footprint of one of the most greenhouse gas emitting activities we engage in – flight. Another example might be feeding antibiotics to cattle as a cheaper means to control disease than providing extra space and cleaner environments. The externality here is antibiotic resistance – a deadly threat that is invisible until it hits. The price of a low price is often not apparent until it’s too late. There are numerous examples to draw upon. Car companies who find it is less costly to pay legal costs for accidents than recall a dangerous design. Manufacturers who find it cheaper to pollute than to design cleaner processes. Electronics companies who design products to need constant replacement, resulting in the build-up of toxic waste in our soil, water supplies and eventually the food chain.

To return to feedback loops, systems theorists emphasise the importance of robust negative feedback loops to allow systems to self-correct in the face of changing circumstances. Key means suggested by Meadows to bolster societal resilience and strengthen negative feedback loops include:  

• Healthy diet and preventative medicine to bolster our bodies own protective mechanisms.
• Integrated pest management to enable predators of pests to keep pace with crop pests.
• Legal mechanisms to ensure transparency such as the Freedom of Information act or protection for whistleblowers. This is essential because our markets and democracy are only as good as the accuracy of information voters and consumers are exposed to.
• Taxes (e.g. carbon taxes), penalties for pollution etc. that fully account for externalities.

Systems theory also predicts that systems with unchecked positive feedback loops will collapse. This is related to the concept of tipping points. Imagine a giant boulder approaching a cliff edge. It would be relatively easy to push the boulder back while the ground is flat. But once it tips over the cliff edge, it would take an inordinate amount of energy to get it back up again.

An alarming current example concerns the two glaciers in the Arctic and Antarctic which have kept the planet’s temperature stable for thousands of years. It is this period of relative stability that has allowed life to flourish. Once temperature increases to a certain point, glaciers begin to melt. And once they begin to melt, their rate of melting will pick up, because white surfaces reflect heat back into the atmosphere. This is known as the albedo effect. As white snow gives way to black rock, less heat is reflected and more heat is absorbed, resulting in the temperature rising even more, melting the snow faster, leaving more black rock, more heat absorption and so on. This is a positive feedback loop and a tipping point. With climate change, glaciers have begun to melt. In particular, the Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica, now known as the ‘Doomsday Glacier,’ is melting faster than initial predictions.[3]  This is why we’re anxious – getting there slowly in our own good time won’t cut it. It’s a matter of chemistry. We must change our ways, fast. We’ve left it so late, that even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions right now, the excess heat in the air will continue to drive climate change and global warming. This isn’t an opinion – it’s chemistry.

To return to the metaphor of the bathtub, we need to remove excess carbon dioxide from the air. Nature has been doing that beautifully for centuries. Trees, seagrass, kelp, peat bogs, mangroves, the ocean – all have acted as carbon sinks. This is why biodiversity and nature are so closely linked to the issue of climate. Plastic and microplastics in the oceans don’t just affect the sea life and ruin our beaches, they also disrupt natural carbon cycles, and worse still contribute to ocean acidification which further reduces the ability of the ocean to absorb carbon. Deforestation, mining, and agriculture have all diminished these natural carbon sinks. Peat in our home compost have turned peat bogs from carbon sinks into carbon emitters. The waste products from our consumer lifestyle have lessened the ocean’s ability to act as a natural buffer.

There are numerous remedies, all with different pros and cons and trade-offs. Trees are great but they take ages to grow, and we need carbon dioxide reduction right now. They also burn, and climate change makes fires both fiercer and more likely. Seagrass and kelp forests won’t catch on fire and there are projects around the world to boost the stock. Unfortunately, there are also continued practices of ocean bottom trawling undermining that good work.

Technologies are coming on board such as carbon capture and storage. These work best when sited right next to the sites of greatest carbon emissions, but they are too expensive to have in every neighbourhood. With innovation, prices will come down, but the costs aren’t just financial. They use a lot of energy to make in the first place. Again, time is the issue. If we’re in a race against the glaciers (and we are), it’s not okay to emit tonnes of carbon dioxide to build structures that will eventually suck it back up. If the entire process is driven by renewable energy, then again first we need the minerals and materials to build the photo voltaic panels, hydrogen plants or wind turbines. Lithium for example is mined, tearing up pristine natural habitats or sourced from ocean floors. It comes at great financial and environmental cost. We’re doing that, but don’t think it comes for free.

The point I’m building up to is that, yes, we must drawdown carbon as fast as we can, whatever the cost. That drains away the heat from the bathtub – our atmosphere. But there is little point of doing that, if the hot tap is still on full blast. The hot tap is production and its mirror, consumption. The easiest and fastest way to address the climate crisis is to consume less.

This is the same conclusion come to by Jay Forrester, one of the most eminent experts in systems dynamics. He was asked by the ‘Club of Rome’ – an organization set up to solve the ‘predicament of mankind’ – how best to address the key global social and environmental issues. His model took into account over a hundred factors, in particular, population, industrial production, pollution, resources, and food. He identified growth as the key leverage point – both population growth and economic growth. Indeed, there was no policy to that could prevent collapse without some constraint on population and capital growth. Donella Meadows agrees, saying, “the world’s leaders are correctly fixated on economic growth as the answer to virtually all problems, but they’re pushing with all their might in the wrong direction!’

Let’s remind ourselves of our dream: we want a flourishing society. We want health, meaningful work, a strong community, access to nature, and the expectation that our children’s lives will be even better. We have everything we need to achieve the dream. We have knowledge, technology, a beautiful planet, an ecosystem that takes energy from the sun, converts it into plants that provide oxygen and food for pollinators and animals and us. An astoundingly dazzling ocean that absorbs carbon dioxide and provides a home to a glorious array of life.

But our system is out of balance and we’re passing tipping points that can’t be easily reversed once negative feedback mechanisms flip over into out-of-control positive feedback loops. Time is of the essence. We need to change our outputs, which means changing the inputs. In everyday language, we need to address the carrots and sticks within our political and economic systems, so we consume less. Luckily once our needs are met, there is no evidence that consuming more increases wellbeing. Indeed, in many cases quite the reverse. Food is an obvious example where over-consumption, or consumption of the wrong things is negatively affecting health and wellbeing on a mass scale.

Let me provide another example drawn from an award-winning project that ran over several decades that engaged hairdressers in promoting low resource haircare to their clients[4].

In the context of businesses and organisations transitioning to net zero, most focus on scope 1 and 2 emissions produced by their operations and supply chain, but it is scope 3 emissions (e.g. how products are used) that account for around 80% of total emissions. One shampoo manufacturer (anon) told me they worked out that 93% of the carbon footprint of the shampoo they produced was in the hot water used to rinse it off.

I obtained funds from the Economic and Social Research Council and worked with the Hair and Beauty Industry Authority and Vocational Training Charitable Trust (VTCT) to set up the ecohair project. We soon discovered some win-wins we could work with. Using less/cooler water, avoiding harsh chemicals, using less product and shampooing less often – all of these practices are better for hair and skin condition, save time, cut energy and water bills and are better for the environment. The necessity to integrate sustainable practices into training was also a key finding. For example, we designed posters which used vignettes to showcase the multiple benefits of low-resource haircare.

• Sam (High resource client): shampoos their hair every day, and with the following pattern – shampoo once, rinse, shampoo twice, rinse, condition, rinse, blow dry, straighten
• Water use = 14,222 litres; energy use = 1252kWh, carbon footprint = 579kg CO₂e
• Sam’s hair suffers from poor condition as over-washing strips the oils from the hair.  Over-exposure to long hot showers and chemicals from shampoo and shower gel are also having an ageing effect on Sam’s skin. Sam takes ages to get ready in the morning. 

• Jo (Lower resource client): uses dry shampoo once a week, shampoos hair twice a week, and shampoos just once, uses leave-in conditioner, lets hair dry to 80% dry before using hairdryer.
• Water use = 613 litres; energy use = 55 kWh, carbon footprint = 25.4kg CO₂e[1]
• Jo finds that leave-in conditioner gives body to hair and makes it easier to style. It also saves lots of time. Dry shampoo is especially good on busy mornings or when Sam is hogging the bathroom!

As you can see, the savings made are not a matter of just a few percent but are in factors of ten and more. For example, Jo’s annual carbon footprint from haircare is 25 kg, compared to Sam’s 579 kg. There are also other numerous benefits in terms of time, money, and hair and skin health from lower resource practices. But there are no trillion-dollar marketing budgets telling us of the benefits of using less, so many of us are unaware how much better a low-resource lifestyle could be.

We need to transform our society into one where there is just as much wellbeing, while using far fewer resources. This requires more than just tinkering around the edges, as most of our economic theories and business models emerged during a time where the only constraint on resource use was money. The planet itself is assumed in traditional models to be ever-giving, and until new concepts such as cradle-to-grave, life-cycle analysis and circular economy came into being, what to do with the waste products of consumption didn’t figure.

In the next section I look at another concept that is both emerging fast and yet as old as the hills – the sharing economy.

---

[1] These figures vary depending on type of boiler, energy supplier, fuel prices, whether using a power shower etc. but stand for purposes of comparison.

[1] https://89percent.org/

[2] https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4ly8vde85o

[4] https://ecohairandbeauty.com/

[5] These figures vary depending on type of boiler, energy supplier, fuel prices, whether using a power shower etc. but stand for purposes of comparison.

Sharing economy

Imagine if you could clear out everything in your attic, sheds and cupboards that you only use now and then, but get access to it anytime you wanted?  You could have what you needed, when you needed it without the burden of ownership. Without having to find space to store it, clean it, maintain it, insure it, then remember where you put it when you need it. There are times when I’ve bought something new because I’d either forgotten I already had one (electric fan during the last heatwave) or just didn’t have the time to go into the loft and search for it and remember where all the bits were (tent).

The other day I needed a drill. It was just for a quick job. I rummaged in the cupboard under the stairs. I couldn’t find it so in the end pulled everything out so I could get to the back. Out came the vacuum cleaner, the ice box, tennis racquets, wellington boots, football, toolbox – but not the one with the drill in, dumbbells, bike helmet, bike panniers, and rucksack. None of these had been used in months. I have a new AI vacuum cleaner now but keep the old one for stairs, but I mostly use a dustpan and brush for that anyway. Then I found it under the breadmaker. Now for the drill bits. I could not find them. Eventually I discovered them in the hidden compartment in the toolbox, but first I had to take everything out of the toolbox. Tools I’d used maybe once in the last decade but kept in case. I was now late for my friend’s birthday meal and so had to rush out. I returned to find my entire cupboard and tools spread out over the floor. Determined to finish the chore I’d earmarked for the day, I decided to use the drill and drill bit while I had it out to drill the tiny hole. The drill had seized up so I couldn’t tighten the nozzle enough to hold the thinnest drill bit I needed in place. I put everything away and went to bed an hour later defeated.

The next day, I checked the hire shops, but it didn’t seem worth paying such a high price to hire a drill for one job. I was tempted to buy another, but it wasn’t worth it for a product I barely used.

A study found that drills are typically used for an average of 18 minutes a year[1], with emissions from its actual use constituting just 2% of the overall lifecycle emissions, such as mining for the metal to make the drill, its manufacture and transportation etc. A study based on an enterprise that facilitate sharing, found that drills were typically shared 30 times. A conservate estimate that five drills would be shared six times would result in emissions savings of 700kg CO2e. It is in fact a vastly inefficient use of resources for every household to have a tool set that they may just a few times a year. In fact, I’d bet that about 80% of what you own you don’t even use on a weekly basis. Yet space must be found for it all. It all needs dusting, maintaining, insuring, storing and then finding.

My local neighbourhood boasts 4 cafes/bistros, a bar, 6 takeaways, 3 convenience shops, a bakery, 4 hairdressers/barbers, a betting shop, 2 tattoo parlours, 3 beauty/nail salons and always a couple of empty premises. Wouldn’t it be lovely if one of these included a Library of Things within walking distance where I could nip in and borrow what I needed just for the job. My house would be blissfully clear of clutter. Life would be simpler and cheaper, and I could finally clear out the back room so friends could stay.

Businesses have become so wedded to the idea that profits come from selling stuff that they have aligned their processes around this simple rule – sell more. Bonuses depend on sales. Transport logistics optimise sales – the route from manufacture to ending up in a customer’s home is as smooth and efficient as it can possibly be. But increasingly as online sales out number in-store sales, and the rate of product returns rises, it is no longer obvious that more sales equate to more profits. The issue is that the returns process is not smooth and efficient – quite the reverse. There are numerous ways returns are managed. Some go to the store, some to an intermediary, some posted to a distribution centre where shadowy people known as ‘jobbers’ do something with returns. This is a bit of a black hole as it is virtually impossible to find out what. Some may be returned into the sales process, some may go to charity, some may just be dumped. We don’t actually know. Returns are costly to companies. There is also evidence that not all returns are legitimate. People may buy a fancy outfit for an occasion then return the next day, or purchase a flat screen TV for the World Cup, then send it back within the 30 days. Often people routinely buy several versions and sizes online to try out knowing that all but one will be returned. It’s a huge problem and getting worse. Businesses are caught in a bind. Sales depend in part upon the leniency of returns policies – if you make it harder to return, then sales go down.

 Perhaps to solve this we need to think outside the box. Rather than consider these customers as ‘fraudsters’, we could instead see this behaviour as reflecting a desire to borrow rather than buy. After all we don’t need our wardrobe cluttered with smart outfits when we go to one smart function every few years. Perhaps what customers want is an Amazon of Borrowing. What if businesses turn a problem into an opportunity and optimise their processes around returns rather than sales.. In the UK Mothercare was a staple of our shopping centres for decades then it folded. Perhaps if it had been MotherShare it may have succeeded.

 Swapping, borrowing, hiring – all these activities are on the rise. In fashion for example, there are a growing number of opportunities to borrow rather than buy. Tools, cars, bikes, etc. all lend themselves well to sharing type apps. Libraries of Things have popped up all over the world, with a number of different models. Some you pay per item, some are subscription, some a mixture of both. Research shows that they have reduced the amount of embedded carbon via promoting of borrowing over buying and are equitable, proving low-cost access to goods that some couldn’t afford to buy.

Often people assume that getting access to products to lend or repairing products that borrowers have damaged would be the biggest challenge. My research into libraries of things in the UK found that this wasn’t the issue one may expect. Our society abounds with stuff. When people get married and pool their stuff or get older and move into a care home there are often whole households of perfectly serviceable goods that just get dumped or shoved in the back of a cupboard somewhere. Often goods are barely used before they’re discarded. Many Libraries of Things have associated repair cafe’s as it works well to have people with skills nearby who can refurbish or repair products as needed.

Libraries of Things are a piece of the puzzle but they’re not a corner piece because we already have them, but the conditions aren’t right for them to flourish. They just about survive, often with help from volunteers, or free premises or support from local councils or grants. It’s fair to say they are not an exception, not the rule. Most people haven’t even heard of them, don’t live near one, or possibly do and don’t even realise it. They don’t have the financial resources to market their services. My research revealed that the key barrier they face is making people aware of their existence.

They’re caught in a catch 22. If everyone used them then they’d have economies of scale.  Word of mouth marketing would rapidly increase their customer base, further increasing efficiencies and lowering costs. This would enable them to provide better service, more goods at a more attractive cost. They could jazz up their offering. Different levels – bronze, silver and gold that allow progressively more attractive options, like being able to reserve in advance or a Gold Card for those who have acquired trust points who can now access luxury goods such as expensive jewellery or art!

Pause dear reader (or listener if this is an audio book) and dream for a little while. Wander round your home, look in cupboards and attics, garages and sheds and under the bed and imagine that everything you only use a few times a year was gone. Maybe you could save yourself some money and move somewhere smaller or just revel in the space. Your insurance premiums would go down. Less to dust. If it’s a nice day, walk to your nearest convenience store. Where would a Library of Things go? How might you work the gold card option and what would you like to borrow? Dare to dream a little. Wouldn’t it be fun to have a ‘staycation’ and just play around. Are your children musical perhaps? Borrow some instruments and see what takes their fancy. Or are you nostalgic for the video games of your youth. Borrow an old console and the games of the period and have a fun weekend of retro gaming. Or now you’ve decluttered your space and can finally see the floor, borrow a carpet cleaner for a few hours and give the place a good clean. Borrow a bread maker, foot massager, rowing machine etc. and use it for a week or two until you’re bored of it then give it back, glad it’s not gathering dust in some cupboard due to an impulse buy you now regret.

But what to give to people for Christmas you may cry? Forget about golfclubs for your uncle or a scarf for your friend that she won’t like or a game for your nephew that he already has. Buy an annual subscription to the sports, fashion or games department.

Do you like the picture you have created? Are you thinking musty, second-hand spaces with worn out tools or gleaming rows of everything you need when you need it, alongside instructions and ability to reserve? What’s possible depends on the institutional environment, and for that we need a corner piece. If you’re in a hurry you take a quick peek at the chapter on Personal Carbon Allowances, but I recommend you read your way up to it.

---

1. [1] Skjelvik, J.M., A.M. Erlandsen, and O. Haavardsholm, Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy. Vol. 2017554. 2017: Nordic Council of Ministers.

Repair

Things used to be built to last as a matter of course. Resources were finite, it took a lot of effort and energy and often destruction of the environment to get materials out of the ground, transported all to one place, and assembled, so obviously you’d want them to last. Then in the 1920s it occurred to some bright spark to ask – what if we didn’t? What if we made things not to last? To fail. This was in the light bulb industry, and I can imagine the men (there wouldn’t have been women on the board back then) stroking their chins doubtfully. All their instincts would have gone against it, because the aim of business was to deliver value to customers.  “Surely that would be wrong,” someone would have said. And back then, possibly it wasn’t considered so naïve to consider the interests of society and nature when reaching a decision. But our bright spark (pun unintended) would point to a few graphs and suggest that it would nonetheless be much more profitable. The idea took off, and henceforth, lightbulbs were designed to fail after a certain number of hours.

We should have listened to our instincts because this practice grew and grew until it had its own label ‘planned obsolescence’. From nylon stockings and tights which are made to run (and there was me thinking it was my clumsiness) to appliances with components designed to fail after a certain amount of time. Fast fashion of course is intended to go out of date. Electronic appliances are some of the worst. Apple for example have faced class action lawsuits on the basis of the accusation that they deliberately sent updates that would slow older iPhones down in order to encourage customers to buy the latest, more expensive model. For years as well, they lobbied against laws that would require them to make spare parts available so customers could repair their phones rather than get a new one. Laws on public disclosure reveal they weren’t the only ones. Car companies, printing, heavy machinery and medical device companies have all spent huge amounts lobbying against the right to repair legislation.[1] But public pressure is prevailing and in 2023 Apple reversed course and finally endorsed right to repair legislation which would allow consumers and independent repair shops to fix their products.

That isn’t to mean that pressure to upgrade is off the table. Consider this advert that played on my local radio, and just so I’m not picking an Apple, this one was by Samsung. It begins with a trustworthy female voice asking: your mobile phone is good, but does it wow you? Then it’s not good enough.  The customer is then enticed to get the latest model. Does it matter if a perfectly good phone lies unused in a drawer or is thrown away (a report estimated only 17% of e waste is properly recycled[2]). Mobile phones are fabricated with heavy metals which cause severe environmental hazards due to their toxicity. Replacing the handsets every year, as new models become available, creates an unnecessary carbon footprint and hazardous waste. Robinson (2009) stated that improper disposal of waste mobile phones caused significant health effects and environmental degradation. Mobile recycled wastes led to contamination of the soil, water, fish, and wildlife. For example, the leakage of cadmium in the battery from a single phone could contaminate 600,000 liters of water. The resulting contamination causes far-reaching consequences to be faced by the environment and all the living forms of the earth (Tóth et al. 2012) affecting all the elements of the environment, i.e. fertility of the land, human health, wildlife, sea and plant life (Bharodiya & Kayasth, 2012).

So yes it matters. These resources are costly in terms of human health, biodiversity loss and environmental impacts to access, and confer further costs when dumped. They are also finite resources. You would think it would be criminal to use and abuse them so casually.

Clearly in any sane world, the goal would be to achieve the maximum of wellbeing with a minimum use of resources. This requires repair. And for most of our history, knowing how to make, maintain and repair things for ourselves was the norm. In the 18^th century, for example, the three Rs stood for reading, reckoning (arithmetic) and wroughting – which meant making. In schools today, crafts are falling off the curriculum. Things like woodwork, needlework, metalwork, design and technology etc. were taught in schools but faced a decline with many schools no longer offering them. But they are making a comeback. [check stats].

It is easier now to repair if we wish. Many communities run monthly repair cafes where you can take stuff to be fixed. Campaigns by right-to-repair activists are beginning to pay off, making it easier to access spare parts and instructions. Culturally too, crafts and repair are on the rise with programmes on sewing and repairing on mainstream channels. YouTube is also the repairer’s dream, with videos on how to fix almost everything. France leads the way with their repair bill requiring companies to provide spare parts and provide instructions on how to repair.

Repair is an important piece of the jigsaw. We should strengthen our laws, include more practical skills in the school curriculum, and so on. However, it’s not a corner piece because it still requires us to do actually take time to fix stuff rather than throw it away, and in a world that is product rich and time-poor, or just bandwidth poor, is it likely repairing will become the norm? No. For that we need the first corner piece.

---

[1] Apple Is Lobbying Against Your Right to Repair iPhones, New York State Records Confirm

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63245150

On-demand buses

Adapt/update info in On-Demand Buses

Personal Carbon Allowances/Personal Carbon Trading

As shown in the previous chapters, there are many ways we can switch to a low-carbon lifestyle with no change to wellbeing. The technologies and low-carbon alternatives already exist. The issue is that there is little incentive to use them. For things like on-demand buses and Libraries of Things this is a problem, as the service they can provide, and their costs and convenience depend almost entirely upon level of uptake. When it comes to repair and re-use, laws are finally being passed that make it harder to manufactures to design obsolescence into their products. Parts must now be made available in many countries and repair café’s and online instruction videos make it possible to repair without having to buy new. Yet even though we are able to repair and re-use, few bother. It takes time and attention, and everywhere we turn, marketeers and advertisers are using every trick in the book to encourage us to buy new.

This brings us on to our first corner piece of the jigsaw: Personal Carbon Allowances. I reserve corners for those aspects of our system that have transformative power.  Personal carbon allowances would transform the decisions that are made by consumers and by businesses by incentivising us to choose low-carbon alternatives.

They were first seriously proposed back in 2007 by David Miliband, DEFRA and the Sustainable Round Table. The idea is that everyone has their own personal carbon allowance which entitles them to consume a certain amount of carbon. If they go over their allowance, then they would have to purchase additional carbon credits on the open market. Hence the idea is often referred to as personal carbon trading. If you go under your allowance you can sell your extra carbon credits and get paid. Thus, it is immediately clear how it incentivises low-carbon consumption as it will always benefit you financially to choose low-carbon options. It acts as a kind of progressive tax on high-carbon consumption.

The idea was initially proposed to apply to transport and household energy only. This would incentivise switching to renewable energy providers, using public transport or electric vehicles, home insultation, purchasing solar panels etc. If the scheme was extended to apply to food, then it would, in turn incentivise consumption of low-carbon foods such as seasonal vegetables and pulses over high-carbon foods such as beef or produce that had been flown in.

It is also obvious how it would incentivise producers to invest in low-carbon options. For example, dairy farmers are able to reduce the carbon footprint of dairy produce by feeding cows kelp supplements that reduce the amount of methane cows burb – a gas that is eighty times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon. Yet there is little incentive for them to do so. Under personal carbon allowances, a lower carbon footprint for their produce would increase their market.

If the scheme were extended further to include embodied carbon, then the sharing economy could take off with all the benefits described previously. There would be pressure to bring back practical skills in schools to educate us in how to repair goods rather than buying new.

There are numerous varieties that have been discussed. A less political palatable but fairer and more transformative option would be to have an absolute ration on carbon consumption. We’ve instigated such schemes in wartime where we have rationed what was scarce. Today carbon is scarce. Either way though, personal carbon allowances would transform the decisions both consumers and producers make and galvanise a rapid shift towards a low-carbon economy.

If this is such a great idea, why haven’t we done it already? The answer is that it was gaining traction in 2008 but got pushed off the agenda by the Global Financial Crisis. It was also deemed costly. But to put it in perspective, the estimated cost of setting it up is less than we wasted on the HS2 rail track that never got completed. Also, perhaps back then we weren’t scared enough of the climate crisis and the carbon footprinting software wasn’t so fully developed. We’re scared now and all familiar with using apps. The barriers now are lack of courage and political will determined enough to stare down the outcries of those high-carbon consumers and vested interests that have such a stranglehold over our media, the information we’re exposed to and our politics. Preview: I’ve reserved the next corner piece of the jigsaw puzzle for a political solution that can address this.

Dismiss carbon offsets- wild west.

Sets up precedent for valuing something other than money.

Adapt/update info on Personal Carbon Allowances.

Problem is consumption/production: Green Growth – myth

Until now there is no evidence that green growth works as greater efficiency has always led to greater use – give examples. Rebound effect.

But an actual constraint on high-carbon consumption such as personal carbon allowances would feedback into production incentivising businesses to invest on low carbon alternatives. Green growth could become a reality.

Power

Future generations minister (Wales example) but need a whole ministry, not just one minister.

Metric of success is Wellbeing Index – issues with GDP

Citizen Assemblies: give them actual power. Campaign to replace House of Lords with a House of Citizens.

Make misinformation in politics illegal: the Spanish government presented a draft law that, if passed, would oblige influencers to correct misinformation that they post online. Under the legislation, social media platforms themselves would be required to have a mechanism in place to handle disinformation complaints. It comes after the UK government announced that children in England will be taught how to spot misinformation as part of a planned overhaul of the school curriculum.

The campaign to outlaw lying in politics – Positive News – Positive News

Law

Legal status to nature.

Change legal framework of corporations (French example)

Economics

Invisible hand

Donut economics

Business

Change rules of business.

Is shareholder value primacy, profit maximising corporate form fit for purpose?

In May 2019, France passed a new law revising the definition of a corporation, and its corporate purpose. This law introduces three elements:

–an obligation to consider the social and environmental implications of the business activity;

–an option for any company to define its raison d’être; and

–a new type of corporate form, the ‘société à mission,’ for companies that adopt social or environmental goals by writing them into the company’s by-laws and by setting up an ad hoc committee to monitor them.

In 2019 US Business Roundtable replaced its principle of shareholder primacy with a more enlightened interpretation of stakeholder capitalism. “Americans deserve an economy that allows each person to succeed through hard work and creativity and to lead a life of meaning and dignity. We believe the free-market system is the best means of generating good jobs, a strong and sustainable economy, innovation, a healthy environment and economic opportunity for all.” The Roundtable Statement was signed by 181 CEOs of Business Roundtable companies, but there were 241 CEOs in membership of the Roundtable in 2019, meaning 60 CEOs chose not to sign a document that would normally receive universal consent.

British Academy: The Future of the Corporation project (2018–2020) engaged in a fundamental re-conceptualizing of business purpose.

–a redefining of corporate purpose that is distinct from shareholder returns,

–an establishment of trustworthiness founded on norms of integrity,

–the embedding of a culture in organisations that enables both .

Does this represent a new concrete commitment, or simply purpose washing – changing the rhetoric of their principles but not the substance? What would happen if got rid of the corporation and all businesses were social enterprises or benefit corporations? How would their goals be assessed?

Make alternative business models: e.g. Social enterprise, Co-operatives, Credit Unions, Benefit Corporations, the norm not the exception.

Government regulation – how can we get round issue of MNCs moving country? Issue of global business, example of EU carbon border adjustment mechanism.

As the largest MNCs have greater resources than some individual countries, should democratic accountability be extended to business leaders?

Education

Is capitalism still a problem?

Politics

Resilience

Too late to rely on climate mitigation. Anything we can do will help, but need to cultivate resilience.

• Community owned renewable energy
• Local currency
• Time banks
• Sharing economy, Libraries of Things

Cuba

Shows it is possible to survive outside of a capitalist framework despite being heavily penalised for it. Cuba is the only country that lives within its planetary means, while also scoring high on the Human Development Index (i.e. education, health etc.) Example of resilience and low-carbon living. Little access to oil and resources due to embargo – made a virtue out of necessity. Lots we can learn.

What can I do?

• Inner work
• Household
• Community
• Workplace
• Campaigning

Write an email a day. Is your local garden centre selling multi purpose compost without drawing attention to the fact it has climate and habitat destroying peat in it? Let them know you disapprove. Does your local radio programme use foreign holidays with flights as a prize? Are they selling 2 for 1 on perishable high-carbon products such as milk? Complain. Also let them know when you approve. Has your supermarket taken the initiative to promote seasonal vegetables? Tell them you approve and share it across your networks. Don’t fall for bullshit. What business likes you to do is to replace one product with another – this solves one problem by creating another: example of ‘sustainable’ palm oil and palm oil alternatives. Only solution is using less. Once a month write to your MP or relevant Minister asking them to vote on any relevant bills coming up, or simply to express what you care about. Or tell the minister of education you want sustainable living as a core subject on par with maths on the school curriculum. You want schools to grow their own vegetables, have seasonal cooking on the curriculum, with a kitchen top food compost bin for peelings which feed into the school compost bin which fertilise the vegetables. They should be learning circular economy principles as a matter of course and taking them home to their parents – let the kids teach the mums and dads.

• Activism at work. Examples.
• Activism in education. Examples of students walking out on economics lectures that are teaching out of date theories.
• What is most effective?
• What you buy?

Link to short story: Climate Gamers

Link to free download of novella: The Assassin

The novella captures many of the ideas discussed in a fun whodunnit set in a citizens’ assembly on climate.