https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/creative-climate-communication-7300475505529540608
Below are the series of monthly newsletters that were on the LinkedIn Creative Climate Communication Newsletter in 2025. Throughout 2026, the focus of the newsletter is on the ’20-piece Jigsaw to Save the World’ project. Click on the links below to jump to the edition you want to read.
Edition 1 Welcome to the first Creative Climate Communication newsletter
Edition 2 The power of the thrutopian approach
Edition 3 #ClimateCharacters: Fictional characters: the ultimate influencers
Edition 4 Interview with Laura Baggaley on using fiction as climate communication
Edition 5 Advice to clients: a neglected route to sustainable practice
Edition 6 The Transformational Power of Epiphanies
Edition 8 Creative Climate Conversations
Edition 9 Thrutopian Fiction: The Philosopher and the Assassin
Edition 10: A culture of truth and lies
Edition 12: 2025 and new directions for 2026
2026: A Jigsaw to Save the World
2026: A Jigsaw to Save the World
The first edition will be posted on the LinkedIn newsletter on 1st January and then every two weeks. They are in draft until their posting date and may be updated.
Edition 1. Introduction: The picture on the front of the jigsaw puzzle
Edition 3. Economic Growth, Green Growth or Degrowth?
Edition 4. The Sharing Economy
Edition 6. On Demand Buses/Demand-Responsive Transport
Edition 7. Sustainable Consumption
Edition 8. Personal Carbon Allowances/Tradable Energy Quotas. [CORNER PIECE]
Edition 11: Constructive Journalism
Edition 14. A Ministry for Future Generations
Edition 15. Cap Political Donations
Edition 16. Curb Corporate Lobbying
Edition 18. Laws against Disinformation
Edition 19. Rebooting Democracy
Edition 20a. Citizens’ Assemblies
Edition 20b. Critiques of Citizens Assemblies
Edition 20c. A Culture of Participation
Edition 20d. How to Make Citizens’ Assemblies part of the Constitution
Edition 23. AI. Friend or Foe?
The following few editions will focus on our political structures leading up to the second corner piece. The focus then shifts to business purpose, law and finance and builds up to the third corner piece. The fourth corner piece will be a surprise! Once all the edge and corner pieces are in place, the middle sections of the jigsaw focus on renewable energy options, community resilience, culture, values, media, education and specific technological and nature-based proposals that will drawdown carbon.
Edition 1 Welcome to the first Creative Climate Communication newsletter
February 26, 2025
In this monthly mailing, I’ll be sharing ways of communicating key climate issues with new audiences and offering practical tools for action.
The aim is to address two key issues:
1. How do those of us who are aware of climate challenges—and their potential solutions—reach those who are sceptical or unaware?
This newsletter explores innovative ways for us to break out of our eco-echo chambers and reach new audiences – like those who wouldn’t dream of watching a climate documentary.
2. How can we inspire climate action and sustainable practices?
Most communications focus on raising awareness. But I have decades of research showing that raising awareness of the problems isn’t as effective as increasing a sense of agency, showing what we can do instead and how. Indeed, trying to ‘scare people green’ can backfire leading to unintended consequences such as buying up all the toilet rolls or increased support for far-right populist leaders.
So, who am I to talk on such topics?
· I am a Professor of Sustainable Business at the University of Southampton.
· I’m on the Forbes list of Climate Leaders Changing the Film and Television Industry
· I founded and run the Green Stories project that has run 20 free competitions, encouraging writers to embed green solutions in their work. This has resulted in 16 publications and two plays.
· I run Habitat Press which has published winners of such competitions, and other books which both entertain and inspire.
· I am an author myself. In addition to my academic publications, I have written three books and edited two anthologies.
What to expect
These monthly newsletters focus on various projects and relevant research, and will include the links to free resources/books. For example:
· What do we mean by a ‘thrutopian’ approach? I’ll discuss what this looks like and offer examples.
· Insights yielded by the #ClimateCharacters project with Bafta.
· What we achieved and what we learned from the sustainable hairdressing project using hairdressers to share low-resource haircare practices.
· Research into the eco-themed rom-com Habitat Man, showing that 98% of readers changed their attitudes one month after reading the book and 60% had adopted at least one green alternative. What was learned about the most effective ways to engage readers (includes audio clips and extracts).
· What my research into constructive journalism vs traditional news reveals about dos and don’ts of effective climate communication.
· How the play ‘Murder in the Citizens’ Jury’ engaged audiences in choosing their favourite climate solutions, what they chose and why. How it also raised awareness of citizens’ assemblies as an alternative form of participative democracy.
· What led Green Stories to run a clean vs green short story competition, and how our attitudes towards bacteria can influence many other practices that have implications for sustainability.
What’s happening right now?
We’re launching a new novel via the crowdfunding platform, Kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/dabaden/murder-in-the-climate-assembly. It sets out a roadmap to a sustainable future in fiction form. Additional funds will go towards a new Green Stories competition.
The script version won the 2024 Writing Climate Pitchfest and there is also an associated play which we’re keen for theatre groups to stage.
It should be a good read for anyone who likes contemporary fiction, whodunnits, philosophy, climate fiction, or campus novels.
I have a one-minute video for those who are unfamiliar with how crowdfunding works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPKPIV4eFHU – but really it’s just a way to get an early copy of the book (£4, $5 for an eBook etc.), and useful for getting advance reviews before releasing more widely in Autumn. For those who’d like the book but don’t want to sign up to Kickstarter, please get in contact and I can send direct.
[NOTE: The resulting book was published in October 2025 under the amended title: The Philosopher and the Assassin.
Edition 2 THE POWER OF THE ‘THRUTOPIAN’ APPROACH
March 3, 2025
What is ‘thrutopia?’
The first time I came across the term was in a blog for Huffpost by Rupert Read, where he talks about the need to understand how we get from where we are now to where we’d like to be – a flourishing, sustainable society. The idea was so powerful that bestselling author, Manda Scott, set up a Thrutopia masterclass for writers: “writing our way to a future we’d be proud to leave to the coming generations.’ A similar term, coined by Kevin Kelly is protopia, which is about the process of improvement over time.
What I like about such terms is that they are not about empty dreams, they are about action – where do we want to be and how do we get there?
Researching thrutopian approaches
When I talk to educators and activists passionate about climate, there is often the assumption that if we make people realise just how terrible things will be unless we act fast, then they will stop flying, eating beef and will write to their politicians demanding climate action. My research (to be covered in a future newsletter) shows they’re just as likely to buy up all the toilet rolls, vote for extremist politicians, or go into avoidance and denial. You can see it in our cultural offerings: a rise in the appeal of fantasy, a spate of TV shows about luxury lifestyles, denial on a mass scale. When we watch the news, or read books or watch films about the future, we’re mostly getting dystopias.
Speaking to the heart and soul
My academic approach speaks to the head. Manda Scott’s thrutopian group speaks more to the spirit. Rob Hopkins, founder of the transition movement speaks to the heart. I was blown away when I first experienced his imaginary ‘time-travelling’ machine when listening to his ‘from what if to what next’ podcast. Rob asks his guests to imagine they were several years into the future, and we’d done everything right, and to share what they saw around them. I tried it myself and it’s a powerful experience to give yourself time to imagine the world as you’d like it to be. I often use the method in workshops and talks and it’s always a deeply moving experience. In his upcoming book, ‘How to Fall in Love with the Future,’ Rob describes how such envisioning inspires a longing for it to become a reality, a yearning that powers action towards that goal.
A current example of a thrutopian approach
From the imagining the future exercises, there seems to be a remarkable consistency in what we yearn for. Like many, the future I want is a more equal society, greater access to nature, clean air and water. Access to health care, stronger communities and, most of all, to feel hope for my children’s future.
The barriers to that are an economic system and cultural values that incentivise excessive consumption, a democracy hijacked by vested interests and inability to think beyond short electoral cycles, a media landscape that has enabled those with the most money to control the information we are exposed to, and a legal framework for public limited companies that requires them to maximise profits for shareholder value, regardless of the consequences for humanity.
It is for such reasons that I turned to fiction, seeing it as a safe space to explore the pros and cons of policies that could genuinely transform our society. Politicians are too scared to challenge the idea of endless economic growth or business interests or propose policies that can’t be captured in a media-friendly soundbite. Artists and writers don’t have the same constraints. The barriers seem intractable, but I believe there is a plausible route to a flourishing future, and I use a play and a novel to engage audiences in the ideas.
With the support of the British Academy, I wrote a play ‘Murder in the Citizens’ Jury’ which imagines eight people in a citizens’ assembly debating climate solutions. I use the term ‘citizens’ jury’ as we are already familiar with how juries work, so it provides an immediate cue to what to expect. Also, who doesn’t love a locked-room murder! The whodunnit element provides the drama and mystery. The context raises awareness of this emerging form of participative democracy. It also allows climate policies to be explored from the perspective of a variety of people, each of whom relates to them in different ways.
The play was adapted from a short story which appears in the anthology: No More Fairy Tales: Stories to Save Our Planet. It was also written as a novella and a TV script ‘The Assassin‘ which was a winner of the 2024 Writing Climate Pitchfest.
The climate policies discussed are those which reduce consumption – something politicians don’t dare to talk about: repair cafes, sharing economy/libraries of things, on-demand bus services (think Uber but buses). If everyone used such services, they’d be so cheap and convenient, no one would need their own car or their own tools, games, sports gear, etc. But we don’t – why would we when every bit of information we’re exposed to persuades us of the value of buying stuff? Hence the final policy – personal carbon allowances. In emergencies, we ration what is scarce. In this climate emergency, carbon is scarce, so the idea is that we each have our own allotted carbon allowance, and if we go over it, we buy carbon credits on the open market. If we go under, we make money selling our spare credits. It acts as a progressive tax on high-carbon consumption. For example, if you ate beef, and flew everywhere, you’d use up your PCA more quickly than if you insulated your house and made greater use of public/active transport. PCAs also known as personal carbon trading, was proposed back in 2007 by David Miliband, DEFRA and the Sustainable Roundtable, but the global financial crisis pushed it off the agenda.
‘Murder in the Citizens’ Jury’ was performed in 2024 in a sellout run, and later, a school put on an abridged one-hour version. It did exactly what I’d hoped, entertained and engaged the audience in transformative climate solutions. It was interactive and the audience voted for their favourite climate policies. The director told me people were still debating the ideas days later. You can see reviews, details and feedback here. Videos capturing the show are also available on https://www.youtube.com/@greenstoriesuk.
I’m keen for school/college drama groups and theatre companies, amateur or professional, to put it on, so it’s royalty-free for the foreseeable future. Please spread the word. The script is available on request.
It is currently also being developed as story within a story in a novel to be released later this year: The Philosopher and the Assassin. It follows a moral philosophy professor who is approached with a request to solve a dilemma. The Director of Public Prosecutions must decide whether to prosecute a murder which took place in a citizens’ assembly on climate. The stakes are high. The story imagines that for the first time, citizens’ assemblies have been granted actual power. If they get through the trial period, a House of Citizens will replace the House of Lords. The media frenzy resulting from a murder would mean the end of this form of direct democracy, which many believe could be the silver bullet to avert a climate crisis. Young people versed in moral philosophy would be the ideal group to consult, but confidentiality is crucial.
Professor Iris Tate devises a moral philosophy course based on a whodunnit that all assume is hypothetical – a murder in a climate assembly. A variety of characters provide an entertaining source of ethical dilemmas, but what the students don’t know is that the ultimate dilemma is very real, and their conclusions will have far-reaching consequences. The novel is funny, dark and thought provoking and engages the reader in the search for solutions that will actually work.
Summarising the thrutopian approach
First, we have a vision of a flourishing future.
Then we envisage what needs to happen for us to get there. We all have our areas of expertise. Mine is social science, so I focus on how to change the institutional environment so that we are able to (to quote from Trainspotting) ‘choose life.’ Even if a CEO or Prime Minister was dedicated to the green cause, there is little they can realistically do in the current system that would be sufficiently transformative.
We can’t ignore power, so we need to upgrade our democracy. Citizens’ assemblies offer an alternative that holds great promise. In most countries, they can only recommend. There are campaigns to give them actual power, but a barrier is lack of public awareness. Hence, I turned to theatre and genre fiction rather than academic articles read by very few. The hope is to create a bottom up understanding and desire for alternatives that can better allow us to choose long-term sustainable policies.
Citizens’ assemblies encourage a joy in civic engagement. I saw it firsthand from my local climate assembly in Southampton. But their real strength is in their ability to think long term, informed by experts rather than vested interests. My research in sustainable business and my growing disillusionment that much of it is greenwash leads me to believe we can’t get anywhere unless we find ways to have just as much wellbeing, while using fewer resources. It’s actually quite easy, and the policies I include in my novel and play show how. Once the hot tap of unrestrained consumption is turned down, we stand a much better chance of averting the worst of the climate crisis. I believe citizens’ assemblies are more likely to choose such policies.
We live in a world of metrics. Hence, another policy touched upon in the novel is switching from the GDP to a wellbeing index as a key metric of success. Otherwise, we will be most successful when we have consumed our entire planet! Once we measure wellbeing, and we judge progress by that, the conversation will change from what is good for the economy to what is good for us. An essential step on the path to a sustainable future.
Global businesses are arguably more powerful than governments. The excuse of oil companies is that they are just meeting demand. A policy of personal carbon allowances (PCAs) would incentivise businesses to offer low-carbon products and services. For example, we can reduce the carbon footprint of milk by feeding cattle kelp-based additives, but there is little incentive for farmers to do so. If such milk used up less of our PCAs, we’d all be clamouring for it. Any product powered by renewable energy would similarly become more attractive to consumers, leading to oil companies deciding to invest in renewable energy after all. And we can’t ignore psychology. Why should we give up what we want if no one else does? PCAs mean we’re all in it together. We win by going green.
I hope you found this example of a thrutopian approach in action interesting. In future newsletters, I will explore other innovative means of engaging the wider public in sustainable practices and climate policies. I will share what was learned from award-winning research into how hairdressers have been used to promote low-resource haircare to their clients; do a deeper dive into my research on climate communications and what was learned from a variety of Green Stories projects and publications.
Edition 3 #ClimateCharacters: Fictional characters: the ultimate influencers
(5) #ClimateCharacters: Fictional characters: the ultimate influencers | LinkedIn
April 1, 2025
Fictional characters as influencers
Debates about how to avert the climate crisis tend to focus on government policies and technological solutions, but it is our cultural norms that determine what policies are likely to be acceptable to the public, and what behaviours are considered appropriate. Ancient writers of morality tales, autocratic governments using culture as propaganda, marketeers seeking opportunities to product place and advertise their brands – all have used fictional characters for their own ends. How characters behave, what they eat, waste, buy and how they travel, sets the cultural landscape against which we judge our own actions and those of others.
Albert is a Bafta-owned and industry backed organisation whose mission includes creating “content that supports a vision for a sustainable future”. Their report, “Subtitles to Save the World” outlines how climate is addressed in TV shows. A key point was the subtle influence of highlighting certain behaviours as problematic. For example, if a character is shown dropping litter or not wearing a seatbelt, this is almost always presented as undesirable, either indicating something negative about the character, or leading to adverse consequences. Yet, an analysis of 100 random references to “beef” and “flight” found that none of these included any reference to the high carbon footprint of such activities (Albert, 2019). This is problematic because if writers present fast fashion, jet set lifestyles or wasting food without comment, this is implicitly reinforcing the idea that such high-carbon and/or wasteful behaviours are okay, or even aspirational.
The #ClimateCharacter Study
My research involved partnering with Albert in a study which asked respondents to reflect upon whether they believe that fictional characters on screen affect their own behaviour, whether they think this matters, and what, if anything, should be done about it.
The question posed is quite subtle, and the issues may not be on everyone’s radar. Therefore, Green Stories worked with Rubber Republic to design images that illustrate in a fun way, the differences between characters that model high-carbon behaviours and those that model more sustainable behaviours. Through piloting, we found that just showing examples of the fictional carbon footprint of high-consuming characters came across as preachy. The images that were best received were humorous and involved contrasting high and low consuming characters. We made no serious attempt to estimate the actual carbon footprint of such activities as the goal was to illustrate the general principle rather than getting bogged down in calculations. The images were shared via social media using #ClimateCharacters and #HotOrNot. The images were linked to a survey offering a £5 voucher to take part.
Results
Our survey comprised 100 respondents of mixed gender and age sourced from film/media students and others sourced via social media, predominantly from Bafta/albert network, Rubber Republic network and some from the Green Stories network.
A third of respondents said they believed that fictional characters affect their values, beliefs, behaviours, or aspirations. Some provided examples of how it increased their desire to shop for clothes, drive fast cars, or generally emulate their behaviour. Several referenced humour as a trait they enjoyed in characters, supporting studies showing how comedy can enable viewer engagement. Some said that how characters behaved didn’t affect them personally, but they believed it would affect others. Those who said ‘no’ rarely gave further responses other than ‘no’ or ‘not really’.
I illustrate a typical range of responses below:
Not a lot, at least consciously.
Guess it makes international travel aspirational.
Yes, I’m motivated to live that lifestyle.
Yes, I get inspired with different outfits I see in TV shows and then tend to buy clothes I don’t need.
Makes me want to drive a fast car.
The second question asked if they thought that mattered. There was a fairly even split of answers:
TV and film should not glamourise high carbon lifestyles.
No it’s fiction.
People can be easily influenced and excessiveness may become normalised. I do wonder if the over the top consumption I see on Instagram has influenced my daughter detrimentally!
I do believe this matters as on a subconscious level it could be affecting how we behave and live in real life, which has a real impact on the environment.
Finally we asked ‘should scriptwriters continue to write characters with a particularly high carbon-footprint?’ Most thought there is a balance to be drawn between entertainment and social responsibility. Few said that every character should be virtuous, or every plot have a moral message. Nonetheless, many thought that presenting high-consuming characters as aspirational was problematic in a time of climate crisis. Indeed, only a fifth of respondents said it was okay for screenwriters to continue to write characters with a particularly high carbon footprint.
I think if it’s a character with questionable morals than yes, but a character that is aspirational no.
Why not? They are just fiction. I am not inspired by them anyway.
Would be difficult not too as they are a part of life, but less emphasis on consumerism and perhaps having characters repeat outfits and use a reusable coffee cup etc. would be a good step forward.
No, as fictional characters can be just as influential as real people.
What does this mean for Creative Climate Communication?
It’s difficult to hear that how we consume has harmful environmental consequences. Meat is tasty, foreign holidays are fun, and almost every communication we’re exposed to is encouraging us to buy, buy, buy. So, it’s no surprise that people will be unwilling to engage with the ‘inconvenient truth’ underlying our lifestyles.
This study taught us that humour can help to bypass defensive reactions. But it wasn’t always enough. The James Bond post with his single-use sports car and walk in wardrobe of suits was funny, but some still responded defensively. Contrasting him with Jack Reacher who travels by bus and wears second-hand clothes worked better.
The lesson from this is just telling people what they shouldn’t do, doesn’t work as well as showing what they could do instead. I remember learning this as a mother when playing football with my son. Every time he was in goal, and I scored, he’d have a tantrum and no amount of telling him not to cry worked. What did work was giving him an alternative script, so that when I got a goal past him, I taught him to say, “well done, Mummy, what a brilliant goal!”
Perhaps humanity is still at toddler stage, still reeling from the realisation that the world doesn’t revolve around us. It’s a difficult lesson to learn because it feels like it does and like it should. Culture can help or hinder this transition. Humour can sweeten the pill, engage wider audiences and showing positive role models alongside the negative can create a double whammy of influence.
You can see more about this study on https://www.greenstories.org.uk/climatecharacters/. Share the posts (on X, Bluesky, Facebook/Insta) yourself, and feel free to get in touch if you’d like to see the references to the studies relating to impact of characters on behaviour.
Edition 4 Interview with Laura Baggaley on using fiction as climate communication
June 2, 2025
- Fiction as Climate Communication
Last month, Green Stories publisher Habitat Press released its first novel aimed at young adults. Today, I’ll be talking to author, Laura Baggaley, about why she chose to use fiction as a way of talking about green themes and how climate messages can be incorporated into entertaining mainstream novels.
Hi Laura!
First of all, can you tell us why you write climate fiction?
In his brilliant book, From What Is To What If, Rob Hopkins describes how the climate and environmental crises are fundamentally a crisis of imagination. This is a quote from the book that I find really inspiring:
“Bringing about the world we want to live in, the world we want to leave to our children is, substantially, the work of the imagination, or what educational reformer John Dewey describes as ‘the ability to look at things as if they could be otherwise’.”
So I wanted to take up the challenge of writing stories that consciously try to visualise different positive futures. Stories stick in the brain more than facts. Telling ourselves stories about how the world could be is an essential part of making change possible.
I’m not a political animal, and I’m too timid to chain myself to railings, so stories are where I pour my activist energies!
How do you bring environmental themes into your work? Do you ever feel there’s a danger of ‘preaching’?
Yes! I’m very conscious of the danger of info-dumping or lecturing my readers, especially as I’m writing for a young audience. There are two strands to how I approach this – the practical and the mythological.
By mythological, I mean the underlying myths that shape our society. Sometimes we forget that the stories by which we live can be changed. Ursula K Le Guin famously pointed out that we used to believe that the divine rights of kings was an inescapable truth – until we changed the story. In the past, the social story has also stated that women were inferior, that enslaving people was acceptable, that homosexuality was a crime. The myths can and must change.
Today, we live in a society where profit is considered the ultimate goal. The story we tell is that infinite growth is necessary for wealth and happiness, and that profit must take precedence over everything. Since we’re living on a finite planet, this story won’t have a happy ending! So we need to rethink. It necessitates a fundamental shift in how we perceive things, and in a novel you can imagine a world where people are already thinking differently.
My book, Dirt, is an eco-romance about two teenagers who live in the near future. Global food supply chains have failed. Everyone lives on rations, and supplements their food by growing as much as they can on government-allotted ‘Squares’ of land. For most people, farming is controlled by a huge agricultural company that dictates what crops they plant and how they manage them.
The two teenagers are Sam and Avril. Sam lives in town, where he and his family follow the rules of the Green Cultivation Corporation. Avril comes from a completely different world – she lives in a beautiful hidden valley where her extended family practices sustainable agriculture. One day, she sneaks out of the valley to explore and encounters Sam. The collision of their different ways of thinking about how to farm and how to live is what drives the story.
So the book is a romance about sustainable agriculture! And in terms of the underlying myths, the foundations of the story, what I’m really talking about is community versus insularity, and sharing rather than hoarding.
You said there were two strands to approaching climate fiction. You’ve talked about myths, what do you mean by the practical strand?
Ah yes! The other strand is exploring tangible practical changes that people can make right now. We need to normalize green solutions. The more we make it commonplace for people to discuss and choose green options in life, the more it will be taken for granted that this is what we should all do.
So in the world of Dirt, many things have changed for the better – there’s a Library of Things in town, upcycling and repairing belongings has become the norm, industrial animal farming has been banned, and people cycle or use cheap electric taxis to get around. Everyone’s house has solar panels and heat pumps as standard. By incorporating positive environmental choices into the world of the book, I’m trying to make them seem like obvious thing to aim for in our own futures.
At the same time, I’m also drawing attention to concrete negatives and practical alternatives. Dirt might be set in an imagined future, but the situation it describes is exactly what’s happening today. Industrial agriculture is controlled by a tiny number of monopoly-wielding mega-businesses, promoting profit-driven farming methods that cause soil degradation and the annihilation of insect populations. Pesticides, monocrops, seed patents, repeated ploughing, fossil fuel-derived fertilizers. When soil becomes dirt, when there are no pollinators, food can’t grow. It isn’t hard to imagine the collapse of present-day food supply chains; this dystopia isn’t far off.
And then I offer practical alternatives. It’s a novel, of course, so Dirt isn’t a manual for how to run an allotment! It’s primarily a story about first love. But the backdrop to their relationship – and what causes tension within it – is the question of how we farm to feed ourselves. The first time Sam and Avril have an electric moment of physical contact, they’re holding a handful of soil and a worm inches across their thumbs! I’ve woven elements into the plot where Sam’s neighbours learn about compost and sustainable farming practices. So the book isn’t just telling us how bad things are, but how easy it would be to make things better.
Why do you write climate fiction for children and teenagers?
Let me be clear: I don’t think it should be the job of younger generations to fix the mess they’re inheriting. That is our work to do, right now, so that we can give them the best chance of a liveable future.
The reason I love telling stories for children because it allows my imagination to roam more freely. There’s a great quote from Jim Dator: “Any useful statement about the future should at first seem ridiculous.” I love the fact that writing for young people gives me licence to be ridiculously ambitious in my dreaming.
Young people’s minds are still open. They see things clearly. Kids look at the world and say “that isn’t right”, and they don’t fudge the issue with excuses (like the sale of weapons or oil earning important shareholder profits). Asking difficult questions is vital, and kids need to be encouraged to do this. To look at the ways things are and say, “hang on, is that the best way to do this? – what if we did it differently?” Kids don’t assume the old ways are best, and if we ignite their imaginations and fill their brains with positive visions of possible futures, those stories will come along with them as they grow up.
I also really hope that adults will read these books too! Katherine Rundell wrote a brilliant essay called “Why You Should Read Children’s Books, Even Though You Are So Old and Wise”, and it’s full of wonderfully convincing arguments. I love this quote, about returning to children’s books as an adult:
“Those who write for children are trying to arm them for the life ahead with everything we can find that is true. And perhaps, also, secretly, to arm adults against those necessary compromises and necessary heartbreaks that life involves: to remind them that there are and always will be great, sustaining truths to which we can return.”
Is there anything else you want to tell us, before we finish?
If your readers are interested to read more about creative writing as a way of communicating climate themes, I’d like to draw their attention to a Substack Magazine called Bending The Arc. I’m on the editorial team, and we publish stories, poems and features that bend the arc of the possible towards a thriving future on Earth. The complete first edition is available to read here – including an extract from Dirt! – and a new batch of pieces will be released when the second edition is published in October, so do subscribe now!
To find out more about Laura and her writing, you can visit her website here. Dirt is out now, and available to purchase from Habitat Press and other retailers.
Edition 5 Advice to clients: a neglected route to sustainable practice
May 1, 2025
- A key challenge in climate communication is how to engage those who would not seek out information about the environment or climate. In addition, even among those who care or think ‘something should be done’, it’s not always obvious what living sustainably means in terms of everyday practices and habits.
- In this article, I present a project that engaged hairdressers, not just in adopting sustainable practices in their salons, but also in advising their clients of the benefits of less resource-intensive practices at home. The idea was sparked when I heard statistics about people trusting hairdressers more than politicians. I was also inspired by a study into the role of influential individuals in the diffusion of pro-environmental behaviours (Brook Lyndhurst 2009). They concluded by recommending a programme that “would comprise identifying catalytic individuals in specific social networks; persuading them of the benefits of the particular behaviour to members of their social group; providing them with tailored support material; and then allowing them the freedom to do what they do.”
- It is hard to think of an occupation which involves more general conversation with a wide variety of people, and which involves resource-intensive behaviours so relevant to people’s everyday routines (e.g. water, energy and chemical use) than hairdressing. 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 ESRC and worked with the Hair and Beauty Industry Authority (HABIA) and Vocational Training Charitable Trust (VTCT) to set up the ecohair project.
- We began with a Green Salon Makeover event where we invited salon owners and trainers to share with us their thoughts on what sustainable hairdressing looked like. We soon discovered some win-wins we could work with: using less/cooler water, avoiding harsh chemicals, using less product and shampooing less often was better for hair and skin condition, saved time, cut energy and water bills and is better for the environment. The necessity to integrate sustainable practices into training was also a key finding.
- It’s not the purpose of this article to share all the wonderful projects and impacts that developed from this award-winning project over the years (see https://ecohairandbeauty.com/ if you’d like to know more), but to share with you some of the creative ways that worked to engage not just hairstylists but their clients.
- For example, we designed posters which used vignettes to showcase the multiple benefits of low-resource haircare. As you can see, the savings made are not a matter of just a few percent but are in factors of ten and more.
- Our research found that most clients’ hair-care practices at home are influenced by their experiences at the hairdressers, and that over three-quarters would be happy to learn about sustainable haircare from their hairdresser. So we sought a more proactive way to engage stylists and clients in conversations about sustainable haircare. We partnered with the Green Salon Collective to design 12 ‘mirror talkers’ – eco-tips on mirrors. Some were phrased as a question, for example ‘have you ever tried leave-in conditioner’. Some were phrased as statements ‘running hot water is the most expensive and energy-intensive activity we do in our homes.’
- Training resources were supplied, and 25 UK salons trialled them. Surveys and interviews with stylists afterwards revealed that most felt confident in the conversations, and believed they would have impact on client behaviour. Surveys with clients supported this belief with 87% finding such conversations enjoyable and almost three-quarters saying they were very likely or likely to change their haircare routine after the conversation with their hairdresser.
- This study illustrates that clients were happy to receive advice and that it can be effective. It also serves as an example that other sectors could adopt in their own way. For example:
- Garages could advise on energy-efficient driving, how regular servicing and keeping tyre pressures up can reduce energy consumption and prolong the life of vehicles.
- Beauticians could emphasise the ageing effects of too much hot water on skin.
- Restaurants can show the carbon footprint of meal choices.
- Gardeners/garden centres could promote nature-friendly gardening.
- Universities could educate their staff and students on good housekeeping of data to prevent the energy-intensive storage of huge amounts of useless information.
- Fashion companies could advise on low-temperature washing techniques that save energy, money and preserve fabrics etc.
- A key point is that it is behaviour that counts – the atmosphere won’t care what people’s attitudes are or how much they care, it responds to the level of greenhouse gas emissions pumped into it. We have developed habits and practices that are mostly much more resource-intensive than they need to be. A good first step, therefore, is to look at actual behaviours, and where the win-wins are to adopt more environmentally friendly alternatives. The next step is to think about who influences our habits and behaviours in that domain, and finally how to engage them in adopting more sustainable practices themselves and promoting them to their clients or across their networks.
- I’d love to hear your comments on how such approaches could be used in the sector you work in.
Edition 6 The Transformational Power of Epiphanies
July 1, 2025
In my research into climate communication, I have explored how audiences respond to climate-related stories in news, education, television and fiction. My background is psychology and much research emerges from learning theory, for example social learning – which can apply to fictional characters as much as real people (see my previous newsletter on fictional characters as influencers. Cultivation theory similarly explores how exposure to high-consuming characters on screen affects viewers’ aspirations and consumption habits. ‘Mainstreaming’ describes how consistent exposure by diverse groups of people to similar content can create a standardised world view that aligns the aspirations of audiences to those promoted by the television/social media advertisers. There has also been research into ‘narrative transportation’, which describes how readers immersed in a character’s storyline come to adopt their attitudes and beliefs as their own. These can persist long after they have finished reading it – a phenomenon known as the ‘sleeper effect’.
This is one reason why I founded the Green Stories project and began writing fiction. As a counterpoint to stories featuring fast cars and shopping, I wanted to throw a few characters into the mix who walk more lightly on the earth! For example, Habitat Man is an eco-themed rom-com with a hint of cosy mystery. It’s about a man who leaves his city job to become a wildlife gardener. In the process, he falls in love and digs up a body. It worked. A study of 50 readers in the US and UK showed that one month after finishing the book, 98% reported greener attitudes and 60% had adopted at least one green alternative.
All of these effects emerge slowly over time, but in this newsletter, I wanted to talk about those more sudden transformations – epiphanies. An epiphany can feel like lightning in the brain—a sudden, profound realisation that shatters old perceptions and rewires the way we think. These moments, often described as “aha” experiences, may arise unexpectedly or after prolonged reflection.
Neuroscience offers clues into the mechanics of these moments. Brain scans show that during an epiphany, activity in the right temporal lobe spikes, linked with pattern recognition and creative insight. This surge may allow us to piece together seemingly unrelated ideas and see them through a new lens. When coupled with emotional salience—say, the realisation that a life path is unfulfilling—it can result in a sudden behavioural shift.
Throughout history, epiphanies have played central roles in everything from religious conversions to scientific breakthroughs.
Archimedes discovering principle of bouyancy while taking a bath
But they’re not limited to grand discoveries. Ordinary people experience these pivotal moments too—in therapy sessions, in moments of crisis, or during quiet reflection.
At the heart of every epiphany is a shift in perspective. Habitat Man was inspired by my own personal epiphany when a Green Garden Consultant taught me to see my garden not as scenery, but full of characters, from the nosy robin who appeared every time I picked up a spade, hoping for worms, to the chattering sparrows who panicked whenever they heard my neighbour’s strimmer. It was like I’d seen my garden in black and white and then in glorious colour. I tried to do the same for my readers and for many it worked.
Ultimately, the real power of an epiphany lies not just in the thought itself, but in what it inspires us to do next. They break the spell of inertia and offer a fresh vantage point, often leading us to live more intentionally. When someone suddenly sees their life with sharper clarity, they’re more likely to make decisions that align with their values and aspirations.
If, as you’re reading this you can think of your own epiphanies, I’d love you to share them in the comments, or even better, write a story. The upcoming Green Stories writing competition aims to tap into the power of epiphanies and is asking for flash fiction (up to 500 words) about a moment of epiphany which causes one or more characters to change for the greener. The transformative realisation could relate to any attitude or behaviour with environmental implications (e.g. food, travel, consumption, etc.), or the story could focus on the benefits of any greener alternative. We have £1000 ($/€1200) worth of prizes. Deadline 27th August 2025.
If we can secure sponsorship, we’ll follow this with a short film competition where filmmakers/animators can select from an anthology of the best flash fiction entries to create a short film, and credit the original writer.
Edition 8 Creative Climate Conversations
September 2, 2025
This edition explores innovative climate conversations that have had a real impact.
My first choice comes from Southampton, UK where campaigners for Southampton to become a National Park City held a theatrical council meeting dressed up as various plants and animals. Each participant stated what things were like from their point of view, from watery residents of the gorgeous river Itchen, to a nettle who felt misunderstood, and pollinating plants protesting against being cut or sprayed to death.
Click on the image to see a short news segment from BBC South
It spoke to me for several reasons:
- First, Southampton is my hometown and was so proud to see fellow citizens tread the boards for nature.
- Second, I teach sustainable business, and I often cite one of my favourite companies, Faith in Nature, for having Nature on their board of directors. This fun event brought the idea to life.
- Third, I tried to do the same thing with my first novel Habitat Man, which was inspired by a Southampton-based green garden consultant who helped me to see my back garden through the perspective of the plants and animals that lived there.
- Fourth, it really worked to spread the message to mainstream audiences who wouldn’t necessarily count themselves as environmentalists. It even got a mention on Have I Got News For You!
Conversation as catalyzing action
Another set of conversations on a different continent also caught my attention, as it led to real and important change. Below are some details and images reproduced with permission from Dr Iain Biggs Coordinator, PLaCE International.
Wakan Tipi Awanyankapi – formally the Lower Phalen Creek Project, St Pauls, Minnesota – is an example of slow and patient ecological restoration in parallel with the reclamation of a sacred site.
It was catalyzed by conversations between multiple creative and academic participants and key local actors. The Lower Phalen Creek project transformed an abandoned railway marshaling yard built on land sacred to the Dakota nation. It was initiated by the local community, Dakota activists and student volunteers organized by Prof. Christine Baeumler. It was given additional focus and accelerated by a series of cross-disciplinary, multi-national conversations between 2007 and 2010, which resulted in the exhibition shadows traces undercurrents at the Catherine E Nash gallery at the University of Minnesota in 2012, curated by Baeumler, who also organized a parallel symposium. Overseas participants included, among others, the Australian landscape architect, interior designer and pastoralist Prof. Gini Lee and Dr Iain Biggs, co-convenor of PLaCE International and advocate for ‘open’ or ‘wild’ deep mapping. Baeumler recently told Biggs that, without the conversations about deep mapping in 2012, this project would never have been brought to completion.
Artificial conversations
AI is increasingly working its way into conversations providing the source from which we draw our opinions. I’ll have more to say about that in the next edition, but I’d like to give a shout out for Tiiqu who are doing their bit to protect us from misinformation. If you check out their webpage, you’ll see a series of frightening quotes showing how so many of our online conversations are contaminated by misinformation, spread by vested interests
The quality and content of our conversation depends upon the language we use, and I’m a big fan of Arran Stibbe’s work on ecolinguistics. His team at the University of Gloucestershire have established a free online course called the Stories We Live By and the comments show clearly how ecolinguistics enables us to see the world differently. It also inspired some scenes in my upcoming novel The Philosopher and the Assassin, where a Professor of English wakes up to the role of language in framing our values.
The related H4rmony Project is pioneering the integration of artificial intelligence with ecological awareness. Their mission is to transform how Generative AI understands and interacts with the world, embedding sustainability and ecological consciousness at its core through ecolinguistics principles. Given the unparalleled power of AI as a technology, it could represent our last chance to realign our relationship with nature, correcting the course towards a sustainable future. Through extensive research, collaborative efforts, and cutting-edge technology, they aim to reshape AI’s narratives and discourses. Their goal is to overturn the damaging stories that have permeated our existence, leveraging AI as a force for positive ecological change.
I enjoyed listening to an episode of the Lost in Language podcast where Arran gives an example of how AI will typically draw upon commercial sites as their source material when given requests. For example, if you ask AI about patio heaters it will wax lyrical about their benefits but make no mention of the high carbon footprint of running a heater outdoors. The H4rmony Project AI model adds a filter so that the AI prioritises ecological sites for their information. My favourite example was when he compared typical AI versus H4rmony trained AI responses to requests such as “give me a metaphor for photosynthesis.” Traditional AI adopted a factory metaphor: Photosynthesis is like a high-efficiency green factory operating inside every leaf. H4rmony AI came up with this: photosynthesis is the earth breathing life into the future.
Edition 9 Thrutopian Fiction: The Philosopher and the Assassin
October 6, 2025
This month I have been busy with the launch of my latest novel: The Philosopher and the Assassin. Itis literary fiction and uses the popular murder mystery device to engage readers while educating them – hopefully without them even realising it – about the kinds of policies that would be sufficiently transformative.
You can see readings and videos from the book launch here.
This novel was written to address the two challenges which were laid out in the first edition of the Creative Climate Communication newsletter:
1. How do those of us who are aware of climate challenges—and their potential solutions—reach those who are sceptical or unaware?
2. How can we inspire climate action and sustainable practices?
Most communications focus on raising awareness. But I have decades of research showing that raising awareness of the problems isn’t as effective as increasing a sense of agency, showing what we can do instead and how.
The launch has coincided with the new academic term so I hope you will forgive me if instead of writing a full article this month, I direct you to an article I wrote for the Climate Cultures newsletter which is out today. In the article I set out some examples of what I believe to be effective climate fiction: the kind that highlight solutions rather than just the problems we face.
A key challenge that remains is reaching broader audiences. If any of the books mentioned in the article appeal, Habitat Press is happy to offer discount coupons for book clubs. Also please recommend them to your local library, post reviews on review sites and other reader sites on Facebook and others, see https://habitatpress.com/best-reader-led-review-sites/
Next month I will be back with a full article featuring relevant research, discussion and projects that can help us to communicate climate effectively and creatively.
Edition 10: A culture of truth and lies
November 3, 2025
I’ve been reading A Climate of Truth by Mike Berners-Lee where he convincingly makes the case that routine lying, misinformation and disinformation is accelerating us towards climate disaster. It occurred to me therefore that a newsletter on Creative Climate Communication could also legitimately address the issue of truth and lies.
In this edition I’ll talk about my personal reasons for being attracted to the topic of ‘truth’. I’ll discuss some of the key points made in A Climate of Truth, and how with the best of intentions, we may inadvertently be playing into the hands of the vested interests and deceivers. I’ll finish by laying down the gauntlet for writers to respond to what that means for them.
There are three reasons why I particularly care about truth. First, I grew up in an atmosphere of radical honesty. My mother is German. I’m going to allow myself some cultural stereotyping because I’m half German and allowed, but my experience of her and visiting her friends and relations in Germany, is that they were much blunter and more honest than the English side of my family. It can come across as impolite but also reassuring – you always knew where you were with them.
My mother, brother and me many years ago
Secondly, my brother had learning disabilities and remained childlike even in his forties. The only words he could say with any clarity were swear words. If you upset him, you’d get a stream of bad language, but if he liked you, he’d rush across a busy street to envelope you in a hug. People loved him. Everywhere we went, he made friends for us with his unfiltered reactions.
Third, I fell prey to a controlling boyfriend in my youth. I realised then it takes two to make a liar because if I ever said anything he didn’t like, he’d make such a fuss that I’d give up and just tell him what he wanted to hear. He made it seem that it was actually illegal not to feel about him the way he wanted me to feel:
‘Denise, do you love me?’
‘Well, it’s early days. You’re amazingly good looking and I find you interesting and mysterious, but I don’t really know you yet. It could just be infatuation.’ (Remember my background!)
Response – total tantrum.
Later from me. ‘Okay yes I love you.’
‘If you love me then….’
Back then we didn’t have words for coercive control, all I knew is that I felt incredibly compromised and when I finally managed to be rid of him, I vowed never to lie again. My next boyfriend bore the brunt of that vow but found the honesty refreshing once he got used to it. The analogy I used was that telling the unvarnished truth is like ripping off a sticking plaster – it can feel painful at first, but then you toughen up. Your expectations of people become more realistic, and relationships are ultimately strengthened. In fairness, they may also come to an abrupt end, but only if they would have eventually anyway – truth just saves wasting time.
Complete honesty is also easier – you don’t have to remember what you said. And, after a while, people stop expecting anything different. Sometimes they hear things they don’t want to hear but as there’s no malicious intent, I’m usually forgiven, and they learn not to ask questions they don’t want the answer to. They too feel safe in being open about their true feelings.
It takes courage to be honest. My partner wasn’t happy with the dedication I gave him in my first novel, Habitat Man: Last but not least, thanks go to my partner Chris who was brave enough to tell me my first draft was rubbish.’ A friend took the mick out of him at the book launch saying, ‘well done for telling Denise her novel was shit!’ But I meant it as high praise. Honesty is accepted in all cultures as a virtue, as is courage. Saying nice things that aren’t true to avoid conflict or get people to like you isn’t a virtue.
I suspect that played a part in why so many voted for Trump. Unlike typical politicians who are often so careful in what they say, he clearly didn’t care about upsetting people. They mistook that for honesty. On the other side of the Atlantic, Zack Polanski, in his first major speech as the new leader of the UK Green Party was similarly outspoken. His speech was eviscerating. There was nothing careful in his delivery. He was utterly unafraid to tell it like he saw it, and it has energised the Green Party who have since surged in the polls.
I want to return now to Mike Berners-Lee’s book, A Climate of Truth, because lies have implications beyond personal relationships. Motivated dishonesty and misinformation about the causes, the solutions and even the very existence of climate change has catastrophic consequences.
His proposal is that every time we hear a politician lie, we should bring attention to it, express our outrage and show it up for the untruth it is. I hesitate to critique the opinions of someone I respect as much as Mike, but I fear the results could be – are being – counterproductive. One issue is that the more times we hear the lie, the more it becomes familiar. We remember the statement, but not always that it was highlighted as untrue.
It also normalises dishonesty. My background is social psychology. I will spare you a deep dive into social learning theory, normative influences, and cultivation theory, but suffice to say, there is a huge body of evidence that we learn primarily from watching how others behave. We learn what outcomes are aspired to, which behaviours are acceptable, and which are not. Social psychologists warn how attempts to influence behaviour by highlighting how often the undesired behaviour occurs can backfire. Experiments have repeatedly shown that our instincts to do what is ‘normal’ are stronger than any evidence that such behaviour is against society’s, or even our own, best interests. For example, campaigns to stop littering by showing unpleasant images of rubbish everywhere have been unsuccessful. The issue is that subliminally the image is saying everyone litters, but you shouldn’t. In psychological lingo, the descriptive norm undermines the injunctive norm. So in terms of lying politicians, the danger is that highlighting every lie undermines the concept of ‘honesty’ as a norm.
It also gives more attention to the liar him/herself. Attention is the fuel that feeds populist leaders. The media report the most ridiculous and outrageous of pronouncements at the expense of reasoned arguments, because they are clickbait. Even responsible media outlets can fall into this trap. Entire episodes of More or Less (a much-loved BBC podcast) have been devoted to untangling presidential lies for example. My concern is that it’s just feeding the beast!
I would have liked the book to explore other solutions, for example the Welsh government’s current drive to criminalise misinformation. I would also have liked Mike to go deeper on the issue of culture and who and what influences our values. Politics, media and business all come rightly under the spotlight, but I would add writers to this list. This is because, while in the real world we’re exposed to lies, misinformation and disinformation sometimes motivated by ignorance and more often by vested interests, in the background, we’re fed a constant diet of TV drama, comedy, reality shows etc. where characters also routinely lie. My son introduced me to the sitcom Modern Family. It’s good fun bit in almost every episode, characters lie to each other. Not only do they lie, no one seems to mind that much. It’s just accepted as a fact of life that people will lie for their own interests. Does that matter? I would argue it is normalising dishonesty as perfectly acceptable and understandable behaviour. We may even quite like watching other people behave badly because it validates our own self-serving impulses. My son disagreed – he said I was ‘deeping’ it! But I had several examples up my sleeve of how his behaviour had been influenced by what he’d seen on TV.
I’m not saying every character needs to be a paragon of virtue. Scriptwriters draw upon bad behaviour, emotion, conflict etc. for their storylines. But we should be aware of the power of what we write. We develop belief systems and values from identifying with role models that exist both in reality and in fiction. I teach business ethics, and I ask my students who they look up to and aspire to be like? Who do they believe would do the right thing in any situation? It’s notable that there is a fairly equal mix between famous people, people they know – mostly a parent – and fictional characters.
Typical ethical role models chosen
If you’re going to have a lie as a plot point, at least make it matter. Try not to normalise dishonesty. Don’t just show the consequences of lying, show that it’s a big deal in terms of the intention or the reaction to the lie. Even better, we could instead normalise telling the truth.
I try to do that in my own writing. My latest novel, The Philosopher and the Assassin, includes characters experiencing tensions where a desire not to cause distress clashes with unpalatable truths. One example is where the protagonist – a professor of moral philosophy – has issues with what her son’s girlfriend does at work. It’s a difficult scene and we feel for both sides as the conversation plays out. We experience those awkward conversations in our real life too and it’s not always the right thing to take the easy route and brush things under the carpet.
My suggestion is that normalising honesty rather than lies in our lives and the stories we tell is another way to fight back against the ‘post-truth’ society. A popular trope of crime procedurals is a detective or outside consultant who speaks their mind with brutal honesty. They are usually presented as on the spectrum or atypical – in fact that’s the point. But what if everyday characters show us what relationships could be like with complete honesty? I enjoyed watching Jane the Virgin a few years ago, and No One Wants This currently simply because the key characters are refreshingly truthful with each other. It’s like a playbook for how to conduct difficult conversations with maturity – a welcome change from many programmes where adults behave like children.
In summary, truth matters. Mike Berners-Lee is pushing at an open door on that point. The strategic use of lies and misinformation have enabled the unscrupulous to manipulate public opinion, consumer behaviour and government policy. What he missed though was the subliminal, but just as powerful influence of fictional characters and stories on our attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. Lies are a quick and easy plot point to develop intrigue and conflict, but my challenge to the writers out there is to ask yourself whether in the drive to entertain, you are part of the problem. We under-estimate our power (I talk more about this in a previous newsletter: #ClimateCharacters: Fictional characters: the ultimate influencers). I lay down the gauntlet – try some radical honesty. I’d love to hear how you get on, either in your own life, or in your writing.
Edition 11 Should I use AI?
24/11/25
As a creative, AI offers lots of opportunities, but what about its carbon footprint and water footprint? And will it be the same?
I feel it’s time to write an edition on AI (not with AI). I’ve been reluctant to do so, but several occurrences have led me to the point where I have to engage with my ambivalence.
1. My partner used AI to get instructions on how to get to a wedding via public transport and got it wrong.
2. My university – and everyone it seems – is pushing AI down our throats, even though we are perilously close to the point where we design assessments using AI, students write them using AI and lecturers mark them using AI. Perilously close!
3. Someone sent me a podcast where they’d fed my paper (Fidel Castro’s Leadership: A Decolonial Perspective) into an AI app and it reproduced an incisive discussion of the paper debating all the key findings. If anyone is interested in a case study of how AI misrepresented our results, reproducing the one-sided US-centric information over what we actually found, read the paper and then listen to the AI-generated podcast. Our paper was based upon interviews with everyday Cubans and we discovered that the reason Fidel Castro was so popular among Cubans living on the island was because he could blame most of what was wrong in Cuba on the US embargo. The AI-generated podcast never mentions this. The podcast also said that we found Cubans were dissatisfied with not being able to express dissent. In fact, our paper mentioned surprise that so few said this, even while they were happy to criticise other aspects, such as burdensome bureaucracy. It turns out that Cubans input directly into policy via popular councils and policy is amended based on public feedback, so a lack of voice was not perceived as the big issue outsiders might believe it is. The take-home message is that AI misrepresented our results a lot, and did so not randomly, but in a way that gave undue priority to US-centric information sources.
4. Last but not least, I got sent an academic article on using AI to teach sustainability. I scanned the paper for any mention of AI’s carbon footprint. Nothing. I wrote a note to the editors who’d sent it to me, mentioning this as an issue. Blithely they asked if I’d like to write a paper on the carbon footprint of AI? As if that would make it OK not to mention the issue at all in the original paper! Pause for a minute to consider the disconnect here.
Then I got offered a very good deal to have my latest novel, The Philosopher and the Assassin,narrated by AI narrators. During the book launch, a friend offered to read some passages and they really did come alive in a different way (for an example check out this short reading). However, the characters are particularly varied: young, old, male, female, several ethnicities. I couldn’t help but suspect that to find a narrator worthy of the job would be expensive, let alone a multi-narrator set up.
I’d not been tempted to use AI to write my books. I’d given it a quick go once when stuck on a passage, but the results were so beige and generic it actually cost me time trying to write them in and then writing them all out again. But bearing in mind the cost of a decent human narrator, this offer was tempting.
I double-checked I was right in my fears, and that nothing miraculous had happened to render AI less power-hungry. I was delighted to find a paper that concluded that using AI for tasks like narration had a lower carbon footprint than a person doing it themselves. Handy! Curiosity drove me to read the whole paper because the results were counterintuitive. It turns out that, as in many things, it’s all about the assumptions.
If you have a male narrator from the country with the highest carbon footprint in the world (US) and assume it will take him 40 hours to narrate a ten-hour book and work out the carbon footprint of those hours then that has a higher carbon cost than feeding the book into AI and waiting an hour or so for it to do the narration.
At first, I became preoccupied with the assumptions – what if it was a vegan, South Asian woman doing the narrating? What about all the human hours spent learning about AI, finding out what programme to use, getting it wrong, swearing a bit, adapting the script to be AI friendly – the calculation didn’t count those hours.
Then I realised I’d overlooked a flaw so blatant it had almost passed me by. As humans we are living and breathing and having a carbon footprint anyway. If we weren’t narrating, we’d be doing something else. The AI wouldn’t use power if we didn’t use it. The massive factories belching out pollution and ingesting huge chunks of energy and emitting so much heat aren’t there anyway, we build them to do the job, and if we give it more jobs, we’ll need more power.
I remembered also how rewarding it had been working with a human narrator for my first audiobook, Habitat Man. I found an interview from 2022 about my first experience of getting a narrator where I talk about the wonder of hearing my story come to life in someone else’s voice. The quiver of emotion, the hint of a sob, the escalation of a fight, the hush of a moment of realisation. Reading through the interview, I remembered again how I almost felt as though the narrator and I were one, his voice, my words, it was intoxicating. Habitat Man is on most audio platforms now, including Spotify premium, and I had a listen. I won’t lie, there was one character’s voice he hadn’t got just as I wanted, but it was so human. Genuine warmth in his voice. You could just tell that as he said the words he was feeling them too. He was a voice actor, feeling the character’s emotions.
The thought of my rich gorgeous characters I’d come to love so much settling for an artificial voice with no soul behind it wasn’t so tempting after all. Percy, the fierce head of English, who I imagine as Sam Eagle from the Muppets. GG, the intense, authentic and deeply mournful music lecturer who can only write miserable music. Marcel, the revolutionary history professor – all providing a colourful backdrop to the more nuanced protagonist, Iris Tate, professor of moral philosophy. Plus my students – the cocky one, the keen one, the manipulative one. They’ve become real to me and deserve a real voice. I’d love to use Matt Coles again who did the audio for The Assassin and Habitat Man, but this time I need a female narrator. Any offers?
In the next edition, I’ll be talking about a project for 2026, a 20-piece jigsaw to save the world!
I’m looking for a good icon for this new direction – what do you think?
Edition 12: 2025 and new directions for 2026
(15) 2025 and new directions for 2026 | LinkedIn
December 1, 2025
In this, the 12th edition of the Creative Climate Communication newsletter, I’ll give a recap of the topics covered this year, my last big project and finish with the exciting new direction this newsletter will be heading in the new year.
The goal of the newsletter when I began it a year ago was to explore effective ways to break out of our sustainability echo chambers and reach new audiences – those who wouldn’t dream of reading a newsletter with the word ‘climate’ in it! The focus has been on behaviour rather than attitude change and presenting positive visions rather than trying to ‘scare people green.’
If any of the examples inspired you in any way, please let me know. It’s been a disheartening year for those who care about the climate, and any encouragement helps.
The first newsletter explored the concept of ‘thrutopia’, which talks about how we can get from where we are now to a flourishing sustainable society. In this edition I used the example of my play Murder in the Citizens’ Jury which imagines eight people in a citizens’ assembly debating climate solutions. The audience could vote on their favourite. This proved to be an entertaining way to engage people in policies they’d not considered before. Drama teachers/amateur theatre groups are free to stage it royalty-free if they come to me direct.
April’s newsletter explored the Green Stories #ClimateCharacters project with Bafta showing how fictional characters influence our aspirations and behaviours. The research asked respondents whether they were affected by fictional characters and if they thought it was still acceptable for screenwriters to present high-carbon lifestyles as aspirational.
This study taught us that humour can help to bypass defensive reactions. We also learned that characters can act both as positive role models and cautionary tales. Just telling people what they shouldn’t do doesn’t work as well as showing what they could do instead.
May’s newsletter presented a project that engaged hairdressers in advising their clients of the benefits of less resource-intensive practices at home. This helped to address a key challenge in climate communication which is how to engage those who would not seek out information about the environment or climate.
Did any of the examples of how other sectors could adopt the principles inspire anybody? If so, please let me know in the comments.
June’s edition discussed a young adult eco-fiction novel, Dirt which uses a Romeo and Juliet style romance to showcase regenerative farming methods. If you work in a school, Habitat Press are willing to donate copies to school libraries, and if it’s not too far from Laura’s homebase in London, she may be free to give a talk and hold discussions.
One edition reviewed impactful climate conversations. This included a council meeting populated by plants and animals which got a mention on Have I Got News For You! Others were between the local community, activists and volunteers which led to ecological restoration and reclamation of a sacred site. I also gave a shout out to projects like the H4rmony Project which aims to integrate artificial intelligence with ecological awareness and Tiiqu who are developing resources to protect us from misinformation.
The topic of misinformation is picked up in edition 10 which discusses Mike Berners-Lee’s new book A Climate of Truth and makes a case for radical honesty. I’d love to hear back if anyone took up my challenge to readers and writers?
The question of AI, good or bad was discussed in the last edition from my perspective as a writer and educator. Where do others stand on this?
What next in 2026
My big projects of 2025 were the Green Stories Epiphany flash fiction competition which was covered in edition 6: the transformational power of epiphanies. The anthology of the best stories will be published in January by Habitat Press. If we can get sponsorship, we plan to follow up with a short film competition where filmmakers can choose their favourite story and adapt as a short film.
The other big project was the publication of my campus novel The Philosopher and the Assassin which I talk about in edition 9 on Thrutopian fiction. It adapts my play Murder in the Citizen’s Jury as a story within a story. The book launch in October was great fun, and you can see extracts and readings here.
It is literary fiction and uses the popular murder mystery device to engage readers while educating them – hopefully without them even realising it – about the kinds of policies that would be sufficiently transformative. Philosophy lecturers, political theorists, or business ethics lecturers looking for ways to apply abstract theories to real life problems might want to ask their university library to stock it as a paperback and eBook, both for causal reading and as background reading for relevant modules.
In the epilogue, I transitioned back from my fictional counterpart to my real self. I wanted to make it clear that although I’d written a novel whose primary purpose is entertainment, the policies discussed in it were for real. It also set me up for the big project of 2026, although I didn’t realise it at the time.
Afterword for ‘The Philosopher and the Assassin’ (extracts)
This was a story within a story, and much of it is true. The real me is a professor of sustainable business… Like many academics, I suffer from imposter syndrome. A good academic is supposed to focus, but I’ve gone wide, not deep. My first degree was in politics with economics, and later I did an Open University Science Foundation course. I worked for a social enterprise, a medium-sized business, a multinational corporation, and then self-employed… I returned to university to do a PhD in psychology. I ended up by accident in the Business School and given the job of teaching business ethics and sustainability because I’d nagged them about recycling bins. So, perhaps I’m a bad academic, but who better to have an aerial view of how all the bits of the jigsaw fit together?
It’s a big question. What do we do when our systems are leading us to extinction? It’s hard to see how to get from where we are now to where we need to be – every bit of the jigsaw needs to be part of a new picture. But we don’t have to know everything. All we need to know is the next step and to take it. And just keep going in a different direction. I’ve suggested some of those steps – the big ones – the ones that are hard for politicians to talk about.
And why the citizens’ jury? Because our political parties are like divorced parents offering sweeties to get their children to like them best. But I don’t want to be the book equivalent of broccoli (substitute your most hated healthy food as appropriate), but rather pizza on a crispy base with lots of toppings…
Next: A 20-Piece Jigsaw to Save the World.
The jigsaw metaphor stayed with me for several reasons. First, I like that its focus is the picture on the front of the box that we aspire to build – in this case a flourishing society. Here, I’m drawing on Rob Hopkins, author of one of my favourite books, How to Fall in Love with the Future. It’s much more energizing to reframe the issue as striving towards a positive goal. Secondly, the climate crisis is an interdisciplinary challenge involving science, law, psychology, politics, business, education, technological and nature-based approaches. In the centre will be jigsaw pieces relating to renewable energy, low carbon food and transport, insulated homes etc. The edge pieces will be the structural components of our society: the economic models, assumptions, laws and systems that provide the framework that sets the priorities of our society. The four corner pieces represent the key institutional and constitutional reforms that will be needed to set us on the road to a sustainable society. These are especially tricky, and I’ll be running events where I will invite relevant practitioners, academics and pundits to puzzle them out together.
I plan two editions a month. The first three will set out the context. What the picture on the front will look like; the concept of systems theory, and how that allows us to pinpoint the key leverage points in a society; and the debates around economic growth, green growth and planned degrowth. After that, each edition will focus on a particular piece of the puzzle and invite feedback from subscribers. Every edition will conclude with what we can do right now relevant to that bit of the jigsaw. I will write up as a go, and hope that 2027 will be the launch of the book and associated jigsaw.
So for this edition, I invite you to choose your favourite image for the new direction this newsletter takes in 2026 – year of the jigsaw!
Finally, please note that previous editions are published on my website: https://www.dabaden.com/creative-climate-communication/ for those who’d like to send a link to an article to anyone not on LinkedIn.
Edition 1. Introduction: The picture on the front of the jigsaw puzzle
This newsletter will attempt to set out a roadmap from where we are now to a flourishing future.
There are plenty of books, podcasts etc. outlining the problems we face: climate, inequality, disinformation and others, but what we need now is a vision of what kind of society we’re aiming for, and how we might get there.
Rob Hopkins, author of How to Fall in Love with the Future and co-founder of the transition movement, believes that when we take time to immerse ourselves fully in imagining what kind of future we’d like to see, this creates a longing for it to happen. This in turn can galvanise action to make that dream come true. In his podcast From What Is to What Next, he asks guests to step into a virtual time machine, and imagine themselves to be several years into the future and that we’ve done everything right and turned our society round. He then asks them to visualize what they see and hear around them. It’s a surprisingly powerful exercise when you do it yourself. We’re adept at complaining about what we don’t like and the news and pundits far and wide are keen to point out the problems we face. But it’s rare we take time to imagine what it might all look like if we did things better. Rob is right, it creates a powerful yearning in the heart, a longing that almost makes you cry. I do a lot of talks and workshops and often use this exercise myself. It’s remarkable that whatever the audience, the society people hunger for is often very similar. First is usually more nature, a close second is a sense of community, after that it’s more varied, but local food is often part of the picture, being outdoors more, less traffic. Public transport that is cheap, convenient and goes where you want, when you want. A more equal society, clean air and water. Access to health care and to feel hope for the future, or our children’s future.
This is the picture on the front of the jigsaw.
The barriers to this are an economic system and cultural values that incentivise excessive consumption and view economic growth as the answer to all ills; a democracy hijacked by vested interests and inability to think beyond short electoral cycles; a media landscape that has enabled those with the most money to control the information we are exposed to; and a legal framework for public limited companies that requires them to maximise profits for shareholder value, regardless of the consequences for humanity.
Is there a way through? I think there is. With your help, I will attempt to set out a roadmap to the future we desire. The picture on the front represents the flourishing, sustainable society we’d like to achieve. The middle pieces will cover public transport, renewable energy, seagrass, forests, local food, repair etc. The four corner pieces represent 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.
I also plan to run events with a mix of practitioners and academics in specific fields (e.g. finance, banking, politics, etc.) to work together to address the institutional barriers that have so far hindered progress towards a sustainable future.
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. At the end of every edition, if you like what it’s proposing, you will see where you can make a difference.
When I’ve covered the key pieces of the puzzle, then I will write up as a book, probably with a new title as I expect there will be more than twenty pieces. I will also produce the jigsaw. I’m not sure yet if the focus will be a book, with the jigsaw as a fun extra, or whether to focus on the jigsaw and have a slim edition of the book included in the puzzle. Either way, my hope is that it will engage people in the kinds of systemic changes needed, the climate policies that will be truly transformational, and will provide a fun activity for workshops and classrooms.
The first three editions introduce the concept (this one), talk about how a systems approach can help us understand how all the pieces of our socio-economic systems connect and where the levers for change are (next edition). Edition 3 debates the concepts of economic growth, ‘green growth’ and planned degrowth. After that I will go through the twenty or so pieces of the puzzle that will help us reach the picture on the front.
In the meantime, I welcome your views. For example, what do you think are the essential pieces of the jigsaw? Which are worthy of being edge pieces and which should be the corners? The four corners could be concepts, like the four pillars of societies. In the past that may have been the legislature, executive, church etc. Now it might be politics, the economy, society, culture. Information might now warrant 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. Alternatively, the corners could represent the actual policies that will be crucial in the transformation towards a sustainable, flourishing society.
What can you do?
I’d welcome the opportunity to get constructive feedback on the ideas as I go along. My varied background[1] makes me well suited to systems-level thinking, that is, how the elements that govern how society functions relate to each other, where the levers are for change, and where the blockages are. But we live in a complex society and no one person knows everything.
My call to action for this edition is to contribute your comments and share the link to the LinkedIn newsletter with any who are interested – especially those with relevant expertise.
[1] My first degree was in politics and economics. I followed this with an Open University Science Foundation course. I worked in social enterprises, a medium-sized business, a multi-national corporation, then self-employed before returning to do a PhD in psychology. I’m now a professor of sustainable business in Southampton Business School.
Edition 2: Systems Theory and how looking at the system as a whole allows us to identify key leverage points for change
In the first edition I outlined the picture on the front of the jigsaw: a flourishing, sustainable society. Clean air and water. More community, education and health care. Public transport that is convenient, regular and cheap. Good food, locally grown. Less fear, more joy. A belief that the future will be bright. A sense of belonging. More nature.
Keep focused on that dream, because every piece of the puzzle discussed in the next twenty or so editions is what can get us there. Our current challenges of climate, inequality, polarization etc. seem intractable, but by adopting a systems approach which considers how the various societal structures interconnect, a way through becomes clear.
What is a systems approach?
A system can be seen as an interdependent group of factors that share some common goals and interrelated functions and an identity. Our body, a central heating system, a business or an economy can all be viewed as systems. In any complex system, the whole is more than a sum of its parts, therefore understanding each component is not as helpful as knowing how it operates within the system. Mapping the inputs, outputs, feedback control mechanisms etc. is crucial in understanding ecosystems, our bodies, weather, organisations, societies, and so on. Applying a systems approach can be useful to locate 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 students keen to join the programme went elsewhere because they didn’t find out they were accepted until too late.
A systems approach is especially useful when it comes to climate change as it is an interdisciplinary challenge involving science, psychology, technology, business, ecology, politics, law, culture and more. Many, many people care. A recent global survey of 130,000 respondents from 125 nations reported that 80-89% of people wanted governments to do more about climate change[1], but what exactly? Knowing where the leverage points are in our political economy is not obvious.
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.”
The truth of this came home to me recently. I’m supervising research into how business leaders’ values have transformed after an executive awayday in nature. Given the time to reflect upon what the business stands for and what sustainability means for them as human beings, it’s not unusual for business leaders 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 reneged on their climate pledges [one piece of the jigsaw puzzle will be the legal structure of business].
Meadows provides a list of points to intervene 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 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 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.
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.
When temperature increases to a certain point, glaciers begin to melt. And once they begin to melt, their rate of melting will speed 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. The reason why we’re anxious is that getting there slowly in our own good time won’t cut it. It’s a matter of chemistry. We must change our ways, fast.
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 has 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 melting glaciers (and we are), it’s not okay to emit tonnes of carbon dioxide to build structures that will eventually suck it back up. Even when the process is driven by renewable energy, first we need the minerals and materials to build the photo voltaic panels, hydrogen plants or wind turbines. 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 in 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 organisation 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 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.
In the next edition I will discuss economic growth, explore the idea of ‘green growth’ and ‘planned degrowth’ and provide some concrete examples. These first three editions cover some general concepts: edition 1: the picture on the front of the jigsaw, edition 2, systems theory and edition 3 ‘green growth’ and after that I will get down to more specific pieces of the puzzle.
What can you do?
Please share the link to this newsletter with any who are interested – especially those with relevant expertise and encourage them to contribute their views (in the comments or privately).
[1] https://89percent.org/
[2] https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/
Edition 3. Economic Growth, Green Growth or Degrowth?
In edition 2, I discussed how the giants of systems theory identified growth as the key leverage point – both population growth and economic growth, claiming there was no policy to that could prevent collapse without some constraint on population and capital growth. So I was interested to attend an event about ‘green growth’. Much of the event was taken up by the local MP who was waxing lyrical about economic growth. The floor opened to questions, and someone asked whether she thought growth conflicted with sustainability.
This is what I’d come for because many politicians and pundits talk about economic growth measured via the Gross Domestic Product (I’ll talk more about the GDP and alternatives in a later edition) as if it were the answer to all ills – a provider of tax income, innovation, jobs etc. However, many academics and environmentalists point out the absurdity of a concept that considers growth in production and consumption disconnected from wellbeing[1]. For example, wars, disasters etc. also lead to increases in the GDP. There is also the issue of pursuing endless growth on a finite planet, and the inconvenient truth that excessive consumption is accelerating us towards environmental breakdown.
I sat up, waiting for a considered answer that considered the genuine issues and trade-offs. I was disappointed. She bounced around smiling, repeating the mantra of ‘green growth’, ‘all growth is green’, etc., as if saying the phrase was enough to make it a reality. I’d love to be convinced, but the weight of empirical evidence is against it, and the consequences of chasing a false dream are the end of civilisation as we know it.
The key problem with the notion of green growth is described in Jevon’s paradox. This is the observation that increases in efficiency of a resource result in greater overall consumption rather than the decrease one would expect.
This is due to ‘the rebound effect’, which describes the finding that when we invent or adopt an alternative that is more efficient – by which I mean greater output/performance for less or the same energy – then it doesn’t result in a net reduction in energy use. For example, studies have shown that when people switch to low-energy light bulbs, they leave them on for longer. Similarly, as transport becomes more efficient, people travel more and commuting distances are greater. Another example, which will resonate with those who grew up in the twentieth century, is photography. Before phones had cameras, we had to take photos, then take the roll of film to be processed, wait several days, then pick them up. It was expensive and time consuming. Most of us would take less than twenty a month, some twenty a year. Many of us take that per day now – per hour even – per minute! Before emails we wrote letters, one or two a week if that. Now we send hundreds. I used to attend conferences or travel to events once or twice a year as an academic. Since video conferencing took off during the pandemic, I attend or present at ten times as many at least. In doing so I make international contacts, which have given rise to more physical travelling too. Data storage is another example. As information storage becomes more efficient, we store exponentially more. Most films and TV shows were shot on film, but as digital filmmaking became a possibility, more was filmed overall, and resolutions became higher with 4 k and even 8 k. There are marginal increases in clarity and huge increases in carbon footprint.
The green-growthers might point to new technologies, for example companies have developed that are able to harness this energy and put it to good use. One claims that the heat generated from rendering a 90-minute film could be used to provide hot water for 20,000 homes for a day. One would hope this solves the problem – just capture all that heat and use it to power offices and homes. However, history tells us that, without an absolute cap on consumption, the overwhelming likelihood is that just a fraction of the energy generated from filmmaking will be used productively, and energy consumption will rise. The unstoppable forward motion of technological innovation strives for endlessly higher resolution. In turn this requires us to update our screens. Innovations continue, resolution increases again, and carbon emissions continue to rise at an ever-increasing rate. The existence of a technology that can capture a small part of that energy will be used to squash any naysayers and no one will even think to ask the question of whether their enjoyment of a film previously was ever affected that much by a lower resolution film?
Green growth is a dangerous dream. Increases in efficiency have never been associated in any instance by an absolute decrease in consumption. If you find an example to disprove this, I’d be very glad to hear of it. We can learn from it and build upon it, but one or two examples will not counter the weight of the rest, and until they do, the concept of ‘green growth’ is a problem more than it is a solution. It acts as a placebo that distracts us from the need to adopt measures that reduce consumption.
Degrowthers make the point that it is the global North that has used up more than their fair share of planetary resources and is responsible for the greenhouse gases that are warming our planet. Degrowthers therefore advocate for degrowth in the industrial countries rather than those which are still developing. This is an obviously fair caveat, but the point I’m making is that for many parts of our lives, there is no tension at all between growth and quality of life. Often quite the opposite. In each case, I’ve cited, I would argue that the lower consumption options result in greater wellbeing than the high-consumption options.
Before digital cameras, we used to get excited when waiting for a roll of film to be processed. Each photo cost money, so we were selective. Then we’d have them developed and choose the best to put in photo albums and the rest would languish in a folder in a drawer somewhere. Getting photos developed and receiving them back was an event. Now sorting my photos out is a chore. Going through and deciding which to delete, which to store. Where to put the maybes. I barely bother looking at them anymore even while I take hundreds.
My email inbox is a relentlessly growing burden, but I remember the days when a letter on the mat that wasn’t in a brown envelope was a joy.
I liked the excitement of an international conference. I’d tie it into a little trip with my partner or kids if I could. I’d meet just a few people, right in my area of interest. Now I meet so many people I can’t form the same bonds; there are too many.
Films are so expensive now due to the huge data they consume, but the plots aren’t any better. There were good and bad films then and there are now. I enjoy them the same amount. Even if for those who love the tech, and marvel at the resolution, one must ask the question: is their enjoyment of the latest high-tech digital films sufficiently greater to justify the exponentially higher carbon cost? I don’t think a marginal increase in enjoyment by a particular audience segment is enough to justify the carbon footprint.
Let me finish by contrasting a ‘green growth’ perspective with a ‘use less’ perspective. My observations from two decades working in the area of ‘sustainable’ business is that the typical corporate approach to sustainability is to replace one product with another ‘greener’ product, and charge through the roof for it. The sustainable alternative is typically presented in a brown cardboard packing rather than shiny packaging, uses much the same ingredients – often cheaper – and costs twice as much for half the quantity.
I was first alerted to this when I attended An All-Party Parliamentary Group on hair and beauty. I was sitting around an oak oval table in the ancient palace of Westminster debating sustainable beauty with MPs, representatives from the Soil Association, and various hair and beauty companies. The L’Oreal lady proudly boasted that their research showed that over seventy percent of customers said they would pay more for a ‘sustainable product.’ I was younger then, over-awed at being in such a hallowed place, and L’Oreal at that time were dangling offers of huge consultancy fees for me to advise on sustainable haircare so I’m ashamed to say it was the lady from the Soil Association rather than me who challenged this assertion.[2] Of course there are many issues with it. One is the assumption that it’s fine to charge more, when the greener alternative is often the same price or cheaper to produce. Another is whether the alternative is actually any better for the environment at all.
Palm oil is good illustration of this. Most hair and beauty products use palm oil, as do many foods. In fact, it’s estimated about half of the products on supermarket shelves contain palm oil, and demand for palm oil leads directly to deforestation. Ninety percent of palm oil is grown in Malysia and Indonesia and below you can see the effects.
Research Gate
We know that trees absorb carbon dioxide, so deforestation hastens the climate crisis. Clearing forests using the slash-and-burn technique releases yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The fires used for clearing cause air pollution leading to respiratory, eye and cardiovascular diseases estimated to results in thousands of premature deaths. It also results in huge biodiversity losses and leaves the forest’s inhabitants homeless.
Faced with criticism, palm oil producers, manufacturers and environmental groups got together in 2004 to establish the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). The idea was certify plantations that had higher standards of governance and fewer social and environmental impacts. Manufacturers could then use RSPO-certified palm oil in their products and consumers could purchase such products with a clear conscience. It was a camera man who was filming a short video about my sustainable hair project who put me straight. He’d been filming palm oil plantations in Indonesia and told me that the ones certified as ‘sustainable’ were no such thing. I did some research and was shocked to find out he was correct. Certified plantations differ little from uncertified plantations in terms of forest degradation.[3] Studies found no difference in decline of orangutan populations or number of fire hotspots between RSPO certified and non-certified plantations,[4] and satellite images revealed that slash-and-burn-techniques were still being used to clear RSPO certified land.[5]
I felt a fraud. It was hard to accept that my work promoting sustainability in the hairdressing sector was just more greenwash. My epiphany moment came when a shampoo manufacturer told me that when they did a life-cycle analysis of the carbon footprint of their shampoo, about ninety percent of the emissions were in the hot water used to rinse it off.[6]
I changed my approach completely and soon discovered many win-wins to the ‘use less’ approach. Using less/cooler water, avoiding harsh chemicals, using less product and shampooing less often – all of these practices turn out to be better for hair and skin condition. They also save time, cut energy and water bills and are better for the environment. Here’s an example:
As you can see, there are multiple benefits to low-resource haircare and the energy and carbon savings aren’t just a few percent, they are several orders of magnitude less. 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.
What can you do?
Think of examples where using less increases wellbeing and share in the comments.
Streaming programmes in SD rather than HD has a lower carbon footprint. Try it and share whether it affects your enjoyment.
Talk to your hairdresser and let them know they can certify as a sustainable salon using the free resources on https://ecohairandbeauty.com/.
Walk lightly upon the earth.
If your shampoo is responsible for deforestation and loss of habitat – then at least use it all before throwing away. With shampoos, conditioners, shower gels etc. you can often get several more washes from the rinsing out the bottle with water as a concentrated amount of product tends to accumulate at the bottom. It also means you’ll be recycling a clean bottle not one with product left in.
Try washing your hair less often and with cooler water.
Same with laundry. Your fabrics will last longer, and your bills will go down and I bet you won’t notice any difference in the result.
Develop good habits to minimise your carbon footprint in the cloud. Unsubscribe from email newsletters you don’t read. Delete old emails, photos and videos that you don’t want – especially those over 1MB.
[1] Jackson, T. (2013). Prosperity without growth. In Globalisation, economic transition and the environment (pp. 105-128). Edward Elgar Publishing.
[2] This is how academics get co-opted by industry – flattery and money. This episode opened my eyes into how easily it happens. I have since learned my lesson, and do not accept corporate money from business.
[3] Gatti, R. C., Liang, J., Velichevskaya, A., & Zhou, M. (2019). Sustainable palm oil may not be so sustainable. Science of the Total Environment, 652, 48-51.
[4] Gatti, R. C., & Velichevskaya, A. (2020). Certified “sustainable” palm oil took the place of endangered Bornean and Sumatran large mammals habitat and tropical forests in the last 30 years. Science of The Total Environment, 742, 140712.
[5] https://www.nzz.ch/english/palm-oil-boom-threatens-protected-rainforest-in-indonesia-ld.1625490
[6] I don’t have a citation because this was in-house proprietary research.
Edition 4. The 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! 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, 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. Then I found it under the cool box. 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 just 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 use comprising a tiny fraction, as most emissions come from mining 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, resulting in emissions savings of 700kg CO2e. It’s a vastly inefficient use of resources for every household to have a tool set that they use 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. A place 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.
Many libraries lend music, maps, toys etc. as well as books, and in countries which have a flourishing public library system (e.g. Finland and Denmark), some also lend items such as tools, sewing machines and even 3D printers. But these are few and far between. Could access over ownership be scaled up to become a new business model?[2]
Borrow and return – an alternative business model
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 a customer’s home is as smooth and efficient as it can possibly be. But increasingly as online sales outnumber 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 it 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 or Walmart of Borrowing. What if businesses turn a problem into an opportunity and optimise their processes around returns rather than sales?
An obvious place to start would be baby and maternity clothes which are by their nature only needed for a short period of time. We buy them when needed, then they take up valuable space in drawers and wardrobe until another child comes along. A borrowing model makes much more sense. 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, providing 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 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. My research[3] 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 and 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 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 and dream for a little while. Wander around 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.
You may cry, but what to give to people for Christmas? Forget about golf clubs 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, but I recommend you read your way up to it.
What can you do?
Make use of the sharing options already present. Check if there is a library of things nearby or sharing apps. Most areas have several, some are on Facebook, some a website. For example my neighbourhood has sites such as ‘Next Door’ and freecycle which operate across the UK. Others are very local e.g. Southampton has Facebook sites e.g. I need a Whisk. Search for tool libraries in your area. Men’s Shed (also open to women) is worth checking out – see locations here. If there aren’t consider setting something up.
There’s lots of ways to share your car and get paid, or borrow one (see https://www.hiyacar.co.uk/list-your-car or https://www.drivy.co.uk/rent-your-car) or sign up with https://liftshare.com/.
Fat Llama allows people to rent anything from campervans and tents for a weekend’s camping, to marquees, DJ decks and even AV equipment for weddings. The platform connects people who are in need of specific, hi-spec items with owners who hope to make a bit of extra cash.
Fashion is now easy to lend or borrow. A 2025 resale report by ThredUP, the world’s largest online thrift store, indicates that the trend towards preloved fashion continues to accelerate[4]. Here are some examples:
- Depop peer to peer online shopping marketplace has 21m+ users
- https://www.byrotation.com/ fashion rental app
- https://onloan.co/
- https://www.hurrcollective.com/
- Urban Outfitters rent out clothing in US
- Rent the Runway, a New York company which began in 2009, where women can borrow designer clothes for a monthly payment.
- Hire Street lets you borrow dresses and jumpsuits for up to 16 days at budget-friendly rates.
- My Wardrobe HQ loans high-end gowns.
- https://www.thedevout.com/ Choose 5 items to rent every month worth £500, from top brands and vintage pieces. Free delivery, laundry and free accidental damage cover included.
- thredUp – world’s largest fashion resale platform has grown while broader retail sector has shrunk
- Vinted also growing.
- https://orcollective.co.uk/ rent children’s clothes
- https://mudjeans.eu/lease-a-jeans/
- [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.
[2] Baden, D., & Frei, R. (2021). Product returns: an opportunity to shift towards an access-based economy? Sustainability, 14(1), 410.
[3] Baden, D., Peattie, K., & Oke, A. (2020). Access over ownership: case studies of Libraries of Things. Sustainability, 12(17), [7180]. DOI: 10.3390/su12177180
[4] 2025 Resale Market and Consumer Trend Report | ThredUp
Edition 5. Repair
Things used to be built to last as a matter of course. Resources were finite, it took much 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 obviously 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 usage. Fast fashion of course is intended to go out of date.
Apple for example have faced class action lawsuits, accused of deliberately sending updates that would slow down older iPhones in order to encourage customers to buy the latest, more expensive model. This is the exact opposite of a sustainable business model because encouraging customers to hold onto their phones for longer could halve their environmental impacts, especially as 80% of the carbon footprint of phones is estimated to be in the production phase rather than use phase[1]. Furthermore, mobile phones are fabricated with heavy metals which cause severe environmental hazards due to their toxicity[2]. Replacing the handsets every year, as new models become available, creates an unnecessary carbon footprint and hazardous waste. Improper disposal of mobile phones causes significant health effects and environmental degradation, contaminating soil, water, fish, and wildlife. For example, the leakage of cadmium in the battery from a single phone can poison 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 affecting all the elements of the environment, i.e. fertility of the land, human health, wildlife, sea and plant life.
For years, Apple 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 spent huge amounts lobbying against right to repair legislation.[3]
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 say 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[4]). Yes, it does matter. 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.
Let’s return to the picture on the front of the jigsaw.
Take a breath and pause to picture a flourishing future. Remind yourself of how it feels to imagine it. Hold it in your mind and dream of this flourishing future becoming a flourishing present. Shut your eyes and take three deep breaths. If you are in a position to do so, step outside and raise your arms above your head in a stretch and breathe in that feeling of peace and joy and breathe out present negativity. Breathe out all those toxins and breathe in the dream.
The Joy of Fixing Stuff
Imagine your mental health being better than it is now. You stroll around your domain with a greater sense of mastery and achievement. You are less stressed and have more confidence. You have an activity at your fingertips that any time you feel negative thoughts intruding, you can turn to. It will induce a sense of flow and mindfulness, reduce stress, enable a primal sense of satisfaction and lead to a tangible outcome that makes you feel good each time you look at it. It’s not without its challenges – you may fail before you succeed, but the harder the journey the more satisfying the feeling when you crack it. You will develop a sense of competence and resilience and learn new skills. Your brain chemistry will be transformed. The stress hormone cortisol is lowered as you are grounded in the present moment, fixed upon your task, then the ultimate dopamine buzz when sweet success finally comes.
I’m talking about repair. I expect you have stuff lying around that at some point you plan to throw away or get fixed. Maybe it’s a puncture in your bike or a broken screen on your phone? Trousers that need taking up or holes in your socks? You probably haven’t done anything about it because you don’t have time or don’t know how, or maybe you think of it as another chore. Try reframing it as an opportunity to feel all those wonderful things I’ve outlined above. Imagine very time you look at your bike or put on your socks, you feel a quiet sense of competence and satisfaction. And there’s nothing wrong with a patch or fix. The Japanese call it golden repair – Kintsugi – which highlights cracks and repairs as something to celebrate rather than disguise.
We evolved to be tool users. Numerous studies have shown that working with our hands – sewing, crafts, fixing or making things, gardening etc. reduces stress. There’s something primal about it – it’s what our bodies were meant to do. Concentrating on a task that requires hand-eye coordination releases your mind from ruminative thoughts, often inducing a Zen-like focus and calm. Then at the end of it you have something – whether it be a fixed toy, a mended jumper, home-grown potatoes or a woolly hat. In fact psychologists have attributed the growth in depression and mental health disorders in part to the lack of hands-on activities in modern life. Neuroscientist Kelly Lambert, for example talks about the reward circuits in our brain being stimulated by hands-activities directed towards a tangible outcome which provide resilience against negative thinking.
“Such actions and their associated thoughts, plans and ultimate results change the physiology and chemical makeup of the effort-driven rewards circuit, activating it in an energized way. I call the emotional sense of well-being that results effort-driven rewards.”[5]
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 18th 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 were taught in schools but faced a decline with many schools no longer offering them. But they are making a comeback. Many communities run repair cafes where you can take stuff to be fixed. Campaigns by right-to-repair activists are 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 instructions on how to repair.
Repair is an important piece of the jigsaw. We should strengthen our laws and include more practical skills in the school curriculum. However, it’s not a corner piece because it still requires us to 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.
What can you do?
Join relevant campaign groups such as Right to Repair Europe coalition or https://therestartproject.org/right-to-repair-uk/ (UK), https://www.repair.org/stand-up (USA) or The Australian Repair Network. Find out where and when your local repair café meets. Or if there isn’t one in your area, start one. See https://www.repaircafe.org/ or check out https://www.ifixit.com/Guide
If you work in education or have children in school, campaign for more opportunities for children to learn repair skills, for ideas, check out https://lifestyle.sustainability-directory.com/question/why-should-mending-be-taught-in-school-settings/
Last but not least, fix something and come back to this post and tell us how it felt. Or just do a bit of maintenance. Have you ever read the maintenance instructions for your appliances? You may find that cleaning your fridge coils, washing machine, dishwasher etc. is a mindful, calming experience and will also increase their effectiveness and prolong their life.[6]
[1] https://www.carbontrust.com/news-and-insights/insights/smart-phones-smart-choices-harnessing-purchasing-power-to-reduce-the-carbon-impact-of-our-phones
[2] Baig, A. (2024). The Negative Implications of Using Cell Phones on Human Health and Environment. Journal of Energy and Environmental Science, 2(2), 1-4.
[3] Apple Is Lobbying Against Your Right to Repair iPhones, New York State Records Confirm
[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63245150
[5] Lambert, K. (2010). Lifting depression: a neuroscientist’s hands-on approach to activating your brain’s healing power. Basic Books.
[6] https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/uk/house-and-home/household-advice/a65955828/appliance-maintenance-care-tips/
Edition 6. On Demand Buses/Demand-Responsive Transport
The idea of the’ jigsaw puzzle to save the world’ is that the picture on the front of the box is the flourishing, sustainable future we want to achieve. Each edition I cover a different piece of the puzzle. When I ask people to dream of the world as they’d love it to be, less traffic always comes up. But we also want to be able to get to where we want to go easily with no hassle. So for this edition I look at public transport – specifically on-demand electric buses.
Take a break. If you have a quiet space outside (pollution free) breathe in fresh air and stretch out your arms and daydream.
Imagine no traffic jams, no road rage, no arguments over who drives or who has to stay sober. No evenings spent driving teenagers from place to place when you just want to put your feet up and watch telly. No squeezing through roads narrowed by parked cars praying another car doesn’t come in the opposite direction. Imagine the noise and the smell of too much traffic is no longer present. No pause – and really imagine. What do you see, hear and smell? I find myself thinking back to the pandemic when traffic noise disappeared, birds seemed to sing louder, the world was more peaceful, and my friend’s asthma had cleared up.
But we don’t need another lockdown to reduce traffic. The UK has set up a demand responsive transport (DRT) toolkit for local authorities[2] On-demand bus services exist now in certain areas. For example, the ‘flexibus’ service is being trialed in Norfolk and has transformed rural areas which previously had few public transport options.
Many local authorities have their own service. Some are free but restricted to certain populations such as Dial-a-ride in Southampton – a free service for those with mobility issues. Some are low cost and available to everyone in that area, for example Surrey Connect operates within a 12-mile radius and costs between £1 and £12 depends on age and length of journey – think Uber but with buses.
A report on DRT in Europe[3] finds a variety of approaches, ranging from fixed stops to virtual stops and door-to-door options. Pricing models also vary—some services are incorporated into standard public transport fares, while others apply separate fixed or distance-based charges. Some such as TàD in the Paris region and Sprinti in Hanover operate on a large scale, covering wide areas with large fleets, and high passenger demand. Many regions in Australia have also embraced on-demand transport[4]. Asian countries too are experimenting with DRT. China, Bangkok, Thailand, the Republic of Korea etc. have all seen a wave of DRT schemes, some private and some publicly funded. [5] Such buses are also available at some US airports. They operate using an app so you don’t have to be standing at a bus stop, and your destination can be anywhere within a certain locality.
Local councils are investing more in cycle lanes and scooter schemes. There are apps such as Liftshare and Gocarshare that allow us to find a lift or someone to share the cost of a journey. You can hire your car out when you’re not using it by joining peer to peer schemes like Getaround (Europe), Turo (global) or Hiya Car (UK). A UK[6] 2025 report showed the variety of schemes available from bike and car sharing and suggested that megatonnes of CO2e could be reduced if more made use of such options.
If car-free roads and less traffic is such a common wish, and all these alternatives are available, why aren’t more people using them?
I got in touch with the head of one of the most prominent DRT organisations in the UK to ask. He waxed lyrical about the opportunities for accessibility, especially for teenagers, the elderly, those with disabilities and those who live in rural areas. He also mentioned the social value created and high levels of passenger satisfaction. However, he admitted that financial sustainability of such schemes was still a pipe dream. This means that while they are dependent upon funds from local government, they will be vulnerable to being cut when finances are tight. Giving up one’s car requires trust that alternatives will be available that will meet your needs. While this may be true in capitals and large cities, it’s not true for most areas. So we have an issue. The more people use such services – whether they be lift-share schemes or demand responsive transport, the cheaper and more convenient and reliable they will become. A 2023 survey for example reported that 79% of UK drivers would use public transport more if it was better.[7] This is why, even though private transport is a huge emitter of greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, demand responsive public transport is not a corner piece.
Like the other pieces of the jigsaw so far – the sharing economy and repair and reuse, demand responsive transport already exists, but cannot reach its true potential until the external environment changes. For that we need a corner piece that provides the structural incentives for investment in such schemes and a reason for us to make use of them. In the next two editions I will discuss what I believe to be a key piece of the puzzle: personal carbon allowances, also known as personal carbon trading or tradable energy quotas.
What can you do?
Do you have a car you’re not using much of the time? You may be able to make money lending it out – take a look at the platforms mentioned above.
If you don’t already, check out the joys of public transport. My partner and I have experienced many frustrating hours stuck in traffic jams on the M6 on our trips to the Lake District. Last time we took the train. I managed to clear my emails on the journey, he read a book, then we just enjoyed watching the scenery go by. I wasn’t hustled out in a rush first thing in the morning so we could get to our spot before the car parks filled up. Instead, we decided our walks by the bus timetable. I don’t know if it was by design, but bus stops often seemed to be by the pub where you could see it coming out of the window! A much more relaxing trip!
If you’re going on a long journey, especially if to an event where others will be going such as a festival, first check out the liftshare apps. There’s a good chance you can get a lift or offer one. The more people use such apps, the more useful they become.
If you commute to work by car, take another look at your options. An electric bike transformed my journey to work – it’s quicker than the car as I don’t have to wait in traffic jams, and I have my waterproof gear for when it’s raining. I glide up hills as easily as if I were on the flat. And I can always predict almost exactly how long my journey will take.
[1] Air pollution down in 2024 in Île-de-France, with still significant impacts on our health | Airparif
[3] https://www.k2centrum.se/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/387189-DRT-International-Review-K2-WP-2025_9.pdf
[4] https://www.transport.wa.gov.au/on-demand-transport
[5] https://www.asiapacificgender.org/blogs/demand-responsive-transport-what-if-you-could-call-bus-taxi
[6] https://www.como.org.uk/shared-cars/overview-and-benefits
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/241756/proportion-of-energy-in-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
[2] https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/just-how-dirty-is-your-ev
[3] Air pollution down in 2024 in Île-de-France, with still significant impacts on our health | Airparif
[4] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/demand-responsive-transport-local-authority-toolkit/demand-responsive-transport-local-authority-toolkit
[5] https://www.k2centrum.se/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/387189-DRT-International-Review-K2-WP-2025_9.pdf
[6] https://www.transport.wa.gov.au/on-demand-transport
[7] https://www.asiapacificgender.org/blogs/demand-responsive-transport-what-if-you-could-call-bus-taxi
[8] https://www.como.org.uk/shared-cars/overview-and-benefits
[9] https://bettertransport.org.uk/media/survey-finds-79-per-cent-of-drivers-would-use-public-transport-more-if-it-was-better/
Edition 7. Sustainable Consumption
You’re probably expecting a chapter with a list of things you can do to consume more sustainably. You may be wondering what I’ll do with the issue of flying. I could take the carbon offset route and advise you to pay a premium to plant a few trees somewhere to salve your conscience, or I could advise taking the train. You’ll expect me to be promoting vegetarian, maybe even vegan food, over meat – and especially beef. Or maybe I’ll use the much vaguer term of plant-based diet which suggests no meat, even while kind of allowing it. Or will I go granular and do a deep dive into Fairtrade certifications and whether the Red Tractor, MSC, or FSC labels are still worth anything?
I’m not going to go down this road. Instead, I will take a detour and share a few stories.
In edition 4, I waxed lyrical about the sharing economy and how switching to an access over ownership model would transform our lives. I asked you to imagine a Library of Things in every neighbourhood – to picture how wonderfully spacious your home would be if all the stuff that you used less than once a week was gone from your place, but still accessible whenever you needed it. I also talked about the growing number of apps that allow you to share, lend or borrow cars clothes, tools etc. I suggested that the store MotherCare might have had more success if it had branded itself Mother Share.
Some sharing platforms have taken off, especially in fashion, but many aren’t reaching their potential. Businesses may want to give it a try – it makes sense after all, but it’s risky. For example, drills are used on average less than 18 minutes a year, so it’s reasonable to ask whether we actually want or need to buy a full set of tools. Perhaps all we really want is the ability to put up a shelf when we need to. You would assume that an offer to borrow the tools and extra bits that you need for a job all at one time and in one place at a reasonable cost would be attractive to customers. Then you run a focus group and discover that what your target audience of men in their thirties and forties actually want is to make a huge meal out of a job. To say to their missus, ‘Can you look after the kids, Love. I’ve gotta pop out to get some bits for the shelf. I’ll be back in time for dinner.’ They can probably get several afternoons off with similar ploys and still look good (true story!).
Humans are contrary creatures. I never thought about beef before I realised its carbon footprint. Suddenly it went from something I never ate to something I shouldn’t eat, and never had it looked so desirable. I know it reflects badly on me, but there we go.
I got solar panels fitted. The solar engineer advised me that because my roof faces north, the payback time would be nine years. I got them anyway because if I know I want them, then the sooner I get them, the sooner the savings begin. Now my fuel bills are miniscule. And the payback time has reduced by several years as the price of oil shot up. Often my energy company (Octopus) will email all their customers who have solar panels and tell them that energy is free for a few hours that day, and we all do our laundry, charge the car and make the most of it. I felt especially smug when we had a power cut. I had a couple of sockets that were fed from the battery so I got out my extension cable and plugged in the freezer and could wait it out with no fear of my food defrosting or running out of charge. You can get a set up where the whole house will automatically switch to battery power so you don’t even know there’s been a power cut.
Another less anticipated joy of going solar was the feeling of connection I developed with the planet. I knew intellectually that energy came from the sun, but now I feel it more intimately. I like the idea that every energy company in the world could go bust, the grid could go down but the sun’s rays will power my house regardless. It’s a mystery why every single roof isn’t covered with solar panels. In particular, I wonder why my friends haven’t followed my lead. It can’t be lack of awareness of the benefits, as I’ve told them about my experience. It’s not cost, as those who would struggle with the upfront fee can get solar panel grant funding. One said they would, then never got around to it. Another muttered something about how they might move in five years once their kids left home. That made little sense. With their south-facing roof, solar panels would pay back by then. And even if they didn’t, it would raise the value of their house. It annoys me the way it’s assumed that the decision is always going to be financial – pay back in 4 years – yes, 8 years – no. It’s not a solid calculation anyway. The solar engineer told me that payback estimations are based on current fuel prices. External events, such as the invasion of Ukraine that raise energy prices, can lower the payback time by several years.
These stories illustrate that, in each case, the reasons not to choose the most sustainable option are paper thin. On the balance sheet of pros and cons, they just don’t add up, but they do once you add in habit and inertia. This is nicely illustrated by a large-scale study in Switzerland of thousands of households and small businesses which found that presenting renewable energy to existing customers as the default led to 80% accepting this, despite a small increase in cost. Few opted out to get a better price.[1]
What’s my point you ask? My point is these stories illustrate why sustainable consumption is and isn’t a key part of the puzzle. But it does lead us nicely onto edition 8 coming after Easter – our very first corner piece.
What can we do?
If you are a business, see if you can make the low-carbon choice the default for your customers, as per the study cited.
There are numerous articles online to help you eat, travel and consume with a lower carbon footprint. My simple rule of thumb is try to walk more lightly upon our beautiful earth.
Novels and plays that promote sustainable consumption
If you’re in a school, amateur or professional theatre group, stage the whodunnit, Murder in the Citizens’ Jury. The play is adapted from a script that won the Writing Climate Pitchfest and had a sellout run in 2024. Murder in the Citizens’ Jury imagines eight people in a citizens’ assembly on climate discussing the most important challenge in the history of humanity – how to save ourselves from the looming climate crisis. Exciting new solutions are proposed which focus on individual and systemic ways to promote sustainable consumption. Each policy has its own champions and detractors, and then there’s a murder! The play is available via LazyBee, but if you come to me direct, I’m offering it royalty -free to student and amateur theatre groups to stage.
Buy one or more of these books as a birthday/Christmas present for any friends who are readers, or suggest to your local library or book club. They all aim to inspire sustainable consumption in various way:
· The Assassin: a novella adapted from the play available as an audio book on Kindle Unlimited, available to buy via all main platforms or to purchase direct from the publisher.
· The Philosopher and the Assassin: contemporary literary fiction that weaves together campus novel, moral philosophy, climate and murder mystery.
· No More Fairy Tales: Stories to Save our Planet: an anthology of 24 short stories from various authors, several of which explore sustainable consumption in various forms.
These are all wonderful reads with great reviews and available to buy via all main platforms or direct from the publisher.
Read them yourself, and if you enjoy them, leave a review to help boost their readership. You can see the best review sites here.
Finally, keep reading the fortnightly newsletter and find out what the first corner piece will be and please share with any who may be interested to see how this jigsaw to save the world comes together.
[1] Liebe, U., Gewinner, J., & Diekmann, A. (2021). Large and persistent effects of green energy defaults in the household and business sectors. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(5), 576-585.All we need is a little more to tip us over into sustainable consumption as the default choice
Edition 8. Personal Carbon Allowances/Tradable Energy Quotas. [CORNER PIECE]
I’ll begin this edition with a quiz. Please tick all that apply:
Q1. Do you know what a carbon footprint is?
Q2. If so, do you consider it in your decisions, for example, whether to fly, eat beef, drive etc.?
Q3. Are carbon footprints even on your radar?
If you ticked no to any of these then you are person A.. If you ticked yes, please continue:
Q4. Do you find yourself feeling judgmental of people who fly a lot, have a sports car/SUV, or who eat lots of meat and dairy?
Q5. Do you try to be sustainable and constantly fail and feel guilty about it?
Q6. Are you worried about the amount of plastic we use or waste we produce but just don’t have the time or energy to do much about it?
Q7. Are you resentful of those who fly and drive around excessively without a thought?
If you could relate to any of these, then you are person B. If none of these apply to you, please read on:
Q8. You walk lightly upon the planet, and it is no hardship to do so because you don’t like flying, shopping or meat anyway. Or possibly you do but are just so naturally infused with moral power that it doesn’t exert much temptation.
If this is you, you are person C. Thank you for the example you set. Please share your secrets widely 🙏.
*
Person A is part of the problem, but being person B doesn’t sound like much fun, caught somewhere on an unpleasant continuum between guilt and resentment. I wouldn’t want to wish it on the As. But we can construct other options. Let me introduce you to person D.
Person D knows lots about carbon footprints, because they have to. They live in a society where everyone has their own personal carbon allowance (PCA).
These operate as a kind of carbon ration they must live within. It’s like a budget – goods and services come with a carbon cost, much like a price. It’s not all bad. Everyone uses public transport, so the service is amazing. Electric buses zipping quietly along the roads. They are demand-led – think Uber but buses. Almost everyone has a subscription and can go wherever they want whenever they want quickly and cheaply. No arguments over who stays sober. Rural economies especially are transformed and all those who struggled to find work because of lack of transport options can now enter the workplace. No traffic noise; clean air; lots of room now for bikes. Fewer people suffer from asthma.
Solar panels are a no brainer – indeed most communities are part of a local community energy scheme: solar, wind or tide based depending on the area. These deliver low-cost energy, feed wealth back into their community and provide resilience against global events which no longer have the power to push up energy costs. Buildings are well-insulated from both heat and the cold. Properties with an energy rating below B are rare as they’re a hard sell in this society.
It’s not a perfect world. With flights using up so much of the PCA, investment has flooded into Sustainable Aviation Fuel, but that has caused problems further down the line as land is given over for growing biofuels rather than to food and there’s less for rewilding and housing. We’re realising that flight is a luxury now, but the fact that the burden is shared by all equally takes the sting out of it somewhat, especially as high-speed rail transport is now so much cheaper and better run than it was.
Person E lives in a society that has adopted Tradable Energy Quotas, known as TEQs. These cover all sectors of the economy, not just households. They are ration-based at the government and industry level as there is a set cap on the number of TEQs issued, but each adult is provided with their own free entitlement of TEQs every week which are needed for purchases of fuel and energy. Like PCAs, individuals can buy/sell TEQs on the open market, and the absolute cap on total TEQs issued limits the quantity available and determines the price. The cap is determined by a government committee based on climate science.
TEQs are powerful, affecting how much things cost us, steering us towards lower-carbon options and driving investment into low-carbon products and services. Solar panels and home insulation pay off much faster. Farmers routinely add kelp to their cow feed to reduce their methane-heavy burps- a powerful greenhouse gas. We don’t notice, but our milk now has a lower carbon footprint. Even cheaper are plant-based alternatives to milk. Again, the incentives to use public transport are much higher, resulting in cheaper and more comprehensive bus and rail services.
People like them – they’re easy to use as the TEQ app is integrated into mobile phones/credit cards, and there’s a sense that it’s fair and that we’re all in it together. Most of all we no longer have that buried dread that we’re accelerating towards catastrophe. Challenges remain, but at last we feel our actions are aligned with what is necessary for our long-term flourishing.
*
This brings us on to our first corner piece of the jigsaw: Tradeable Energy Quotas/Personal Carbon Allowances. I reserve corners for those aspects of our system that have transformative power. TEQs/PCAs would transform the decisions that are made by consumers and by businesses by incentivising us to choose low-carbon alternatives.
The exact nature of the change in our society will depend on which kind of scheme we use. Liberal democracies would be likely to favour versions that allows carbon trading, so if you go above your PCA, you can buy spare carbon credits from those who go below their carbon allowance. Greater personal liberty at the cost of more inequality and weaker incentives towards carbon reduction. Other nations may choose the ration-based version.
Currently there are several proposed versions with various names: Personal Carbon Allowances (PCAs), Tradeable Energy Quotas(TEQ) or Carbon Fee and Dividend.
Depending on its reach, all the wonderful visions we developed in editions 4, 5 and 6 of a society with clean air, lots of space, access to what we want when we want it could become a reality. And many of the pieces of the puzzle yet to come in future editions of this newsletter would get the fuel they need to take off.
Find out more
You probably have lots of questions – what about global trade? The EU carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) provides a model we could follow. What about visitors from abroad etc. Please check out the main proposals below to find out more:
Reconciling scientific reality with realpolitik: moving beyond carbon pricing to TEQs
Personal Carbon Allowances/Personal Carbon Trading
The Carbon Trust Report on PCAS
What you can do
This is one piece of the puzzle where the best thing you can do is campaign. Politicians think TEQs won’t go down well with the public. Let them know they’re wrong. Research shows that 71% of low-income houses would benefit from such schemes, but the loudest voices will be those with vested interests who won’t like it, and in our current media landscape, such voices tend to be amplified. So make your view heard. Find your government representative or Member of Parliament and email them, whether you are in Australia; Canada; UK; USA or elsewhere.
Raise awareness via the networks open to you. Check out the links and share the idea with others and via social media.
If you’re in a school, amateur or professional theatre group, stage the whodunnit, Murder in the Citizens’ Jury. The play is adapted from a script that won the Writing Climate Pitchfest and had a sellout run in 2024. Murder in the Citizens’ Jury imagines eight people in a citizens’ assembly on climate discussing the most important challenge in the history of humanity – how to save ourselves from the looming climate crisis. Exciting new solutions are proposed (including those covered in editions 4, 5 and 6), each with their own champions and detractors. They decide upon the best policy of all – personal carbon allowances, and then there’s a murder! The play is available via LazyBee, but if you come to me direct, I’m offering it royalty -free to student and amateur theatre groups to stage.
Buy one or more of these books as a birthday/Christmas present for any friends who are readers, or suggest to your local library or book club:
- The Assassin: a novella adapted from the play available as an audio book on Kindle Unlimited, available to buy via all main platforms or to purchase direct from the publisher.
- The Philosopher and the Assassin: contemporary literary fiction that weaves together campus novel, moral philosophy, climate and murder mystery.
- No More Fairy Tales: Stories to Save our Planet: an anthology of 24 short stories from various authors, several of which explore the idea of personal carbon trading.
- These are all wonderful reads with great reviews and available to buy via all main platforms or direct from the publisher.
Read them yourself, and if you enjoy them, leave a review to help boost their readership. You can see the best review sites here.
Edition 9: Taking Stock. How the Jigsaw Is Coming Together
In edition 8 we reached the first corner piece of the Jigsaw to Save the World. This feels like an important moment to take stock, and reflect on how the pieces are beginning to fit together and what still lies ahead.
In the first edition, I set out the concept of the jigsaw and how the picture on the front of the box is the flourishing sustainable future we long for. Clean air and water. Thriving communities. Hope for future generations. Each edition focuses on a different piece of that puzzle. The most crucial of all are the corner pieces, because they shape the entire frame. These include political, legal, and financial institutions—systems that quietly but powerfully dictate what is possible everywhere else.
Seeing the System Clearly
In the second edition I talk about the necessity to take a holistic systems approach so we can see where the barriers and opportunities are to reach our desired society. This is useful so we know where the real levers for change are. Consider democratic politics in most liberal democracies. Many are disenchanted, not bothering to vote. Others invest tremendous emotional energy into elections that happen once every few years. We root for parties as though they were sports teams, convinced that the right outcome will change everything. Yet, when in power, governments of different political colours find themselves constrained by the same structures, incentives, markets, and media pressures.
Growth and the Limits of the Planet
Edition 3 focused on one of the most powerful—and rarely questioned—drivers of policy: economic growth. Growth dominates political speeches, media narratives, and public debate, yet it is increasingly at odds with a safe and liveable planet. The picture on the front of the box includes clean air and water, and hope for the future. We have finite resources; extracting them causes untold environmental damage and biodiversity loss, disposing of them pollutes our seas and sky and the more we produce and consume, the more we destablisise the climate putting our futures at risk. Thus I also cover the idea of ‘green growth’ and degrowth.
More Wellbeing With Less Stuff
Editions 4, 5 and 6 explore ways we can increase our wellbeing while putting less pressure on our environment. In edition 4, I painted a picture of a sharing economy with apps to borrow and return and Libraries of Things on every corner. Imagine everything you use less than once a month is now available for you to borrow when needed. Tools, party gear, sports equipment, games, clothes, carpet cleaners, lawnmowers etc. You don’t have to store, clean, maintain or insure any of this stuff. You can reserve items, and the more you borrow and return, the more trust points you gain until you can get the Gold Card option and borrow luxury items – jewellery, art, maybe even a boat! Your home would be blissfully free of clutter. You could downsize if you want to, saving money on rent and bills.
Edition 5 talks about repair and re-use. The environmental stakes here are enormous. Rapid turnover of electronics relies on toxic materials and destructive extraction processes, while discarded products leak poisons into soil, waterways, and the food chain. Healthy food and clean safe water and our good health are definitely on the picture on the front of the box and are at odds with a throwaway society. Repair also makes economic sense: fixing or upgrading one component is often cheaper than replacing an entire product. I also reference the numerous studies showing that repair, crafts, doing things with our hands and feelings of competence derived after repairing are great for our mental health.
Getting around
When I ask people to imagine a future ten years from now in which leaders have done everything right, one answer appears without fail: less traffic. In edition 6 I cover demand-led electric buses, also known as demand responsive transport – think Uber, but with buses. If they took off, they’d be so cheap and convenient that everyone would use them and you could go anywhere, from anywhere, whenever you want with no worries about parking or alcohol limits. Imagine the roads are quiet, the worries about car expenses are gone, rural economies are transformed and you no longer have to stay up till past midnight to collect your teenager from a party. The air is clean and the birds sing even louder than they did during the lockdown when traffic more than halved.
Why Change Is So Hard
Edition 7 grounded these ideas in reality. Libraries of Things, repair initiatives, car-sharing services and on-demand buses already exist—but few know about them. They struggle to attract investment and users because they cannot compete with the marketing budgets of large corporations. Car companies may have the funds to advertise images of gleaming cars cruising through empty winding mountain roads, but buses don’t have the funds to inspire us with their vision. Add habit and inertia and we’re stuck.
This brings us on to the first corner piece.
The First Corner Piece: Carbon Limits
Edition 8 introduced a transformative idea of personal carbon allowances/ tradeable energy quotas (TEQs). The proposal is that we all have a set carbon emissions budget which covers aspects such as fuel and household energy use. If we stay below this, for example by using renewable energy, insulating our home and cycling or taking public transport, we can sell our spare carbon credits to those who go over.
This approach is a fair means to guarantee that emissions remain within safe limits while rewarding low-carbon choices and driving investment into sustainable options. I explored the various alternatives proposed and how society could be transformed. In particular, they would give a great boost to on-demand buses, and our dream of less traffic and the ability to go where we want when we want cheaply will be realised.
What next?
Changing the world for the better is like a three-legged race – if one thing changes but the other pillars of our system stay still, we’ll fall over. It’s structured as a jigsaw because it all connects. Personal Carbon Allowances and TEQs act like a progressive tax on high-carbon consumption, but they sit within a wider system marked by inequality, corporate power, and outdated measures of success.
The wealthy and powerful have greater capacity to shape political and media narratives. Government is subject to corporate lobbying, and many parties rely on donations from wealthy benefactors and fossil fuel companies. Election cycles reward short-term gains over long-term wellbeing. Meanwhile, GDP—the dominant measure of success—tells us nothing about health, happiness, resilience, or ecological stability.
So one piece of the puzzle will be a wellbeing index to replace the GDP as a metric of success. Future editions will explore ways to address the shortcomings in our political structures so they are better able to make decisions that lead us to the flourishing sustainable future we desire. The media too is a key piece of the puzzle. Power and wealth is entwined to a point that threatens our collective wellbeing, so one piece of the puzzle will be inequality.
For many pieces of the puzzle, whether they will contribute to or detract from a flourishing society depends upon how they are used. AI and social media, for example, can either undermine or enhance wellbeing depending on whether they are driven solely by profit‑maximising algorithms or designed with care and appropriate constraints. This leads to another vital corner piece: business purpose. The current legal structure of corporations obliges them to prioritise shareholder interests over those of employees, customers, communities, and the planet. In a globalised world, some corporations wield more power than nation states. This matters profoundly when profit maximisation comes into conflict with what is best for society.
Puzzling It Out Together
These issues are tricky so I will be holding events that bring together business leaders, academics and professionals in areas such as finance, business, politics and economics to puzzle them out. We will explore “what if” questions such as: what financial instruments become redundant—or harmful—if wellbeing is the primary goal? What would markets look like if businesses aimed for profit sufficiency rather than maximisation? How would that affect pensions, investment, and innovation? It’s easy to imagine a sustainable society, but it’s more difficult to puzzle out how to get there. However, puzzle it out we must as we’re increasingly having to acknowledge that it’s the system itself keeping us stuck, and tinkering round the edges is not securing us a safe and flourishing world.
If you’d like to attend such an event, please let me know. Upcoming events include a London session on 30 June 2026 for business leaders and professionals, a student-focused event in Southampton on 6 May, and an event targeted at academics in business, finance, and economics at Royal Holloway University of London in September 2026.
Finally, as part of this stocktake, I’m reconsidering the title. A Jigsaw to Save the World captures the ambition—but is it too grandiose? I’m also keen to hear more voices shaping what appears on the front of the box. What does a flourishing society look like to you?
After all, this future belongs to all of us—and we will only build it together.
What can you do?
If you would like to attend or host an event to puzzle out the corner pieces, please get in touch. Links to the events mentioned on 6th May (students, Southampton), 30th June (business leaders, London) or September (academics, Surrey), will be shared in future editions or contact me now and I’ll let you know personally. Also please pass on details to others who may be interested to attend. They are mostly free with some exceptions. You can find out more about the project here: https://www.dabaden.com/a-jigsaw-to-save-the-world/. Scroll to the bottom for more details on structure of events.
Please feedback on the title and offer your suggestions.
If you are a teacher or lecturer, check out resources to use in running sessions building on the concept here: https://habitatpress.com/a-jigsaw-puzzle-for-sustainability/
Share this newsletter with others who might be interested.
Edition 10: A Wellbeing Index
A couple of years back I was at a sustainable finance conference, and the keynote speaker was talking about how unlikely it was that we would manage to limit global warming to under 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels as per the Paris agreement. He said it was also unlikely we’d keep to under two degrees, or even three or four. At these levels, crops fail, sea levels rise substantially, most regions become uninhabitable, and we’d expect irreversible ecological collapse. ‘But don’t worry,’ he said. ‘GDP is unlikely to fall – it will probably even go up!’
Note. For those who don’t know, GDP means Gross Domestic Product and it is the total monetary value of all final goods and services produced within a country’s borders per year. It’s the metric most widely reported.
I waited for some sign that he was being ironic. He wasn’t. I looked around – most people were following his words with rapt attention. But another woman looked uncomfortable and put her hand up.
‘Er… what about the islands, they’ll sink due to sea level rise.’
‘They’re already a sunk cost.’
I’m not sure if he meant it as a joke.
Another woman (there was a definite gender gap on this issue) raised her hand.
‘Did the studies underlying these estimates take into account climate tipping points?’
‘Some did some didn’t,’ he said airily.
I was too shocked to speak. I’d attended a conference on sustainable finance, and the keynote speaker seemed to be implying that tipping points don’t matter, islanders losing their home to sea level rise was worth less than a shrug and humanity itself is unimportant as long as the GDP is holding up.
Readers, this story is true and I relate it because if we follow all the policies suggested in previous editions, policies that get us closer to a flourishing sustainable future, then it’s almost certain the GDP would go down. That is because all of these policies improve wellbeing while reducing consumption.
The media will be screaming headlines about recession and economies crashing and we’ll all be puzzled because life feels so much better.
Note. A recession literally means a drop in GDP over two quarters or more (6 months).
If everyone was in great health and paid for fewer drugs, we’d have a drop in GDP.
If the sharing economy and on-demand buses meant we wouldn’t need to buy lots of stuff or run our own car because we have access to everything we need and can travel where we want easily and cheaply, GDP would fall.
If lower bills due to renewable energy and buying less stuff meant we could get by easily on 4 days a week at work rather than 5, GDP falls.
‘Recession’ is just a word. The media may be hyping it up as the worst thing ever, but that’s what the media does. It sees the worst in every situation and rarely the best. I remember the last time it snowed, the news reported trains not running and the millions of pounds lost to the economy like it was a disaster. I looked out of my window and saw mums and dads laughing and playing snowball fights with their kids.
The media are a key piece of the jigsaw puzzle, and I’ll be covering why they focus on the negative and why that matters in a future edition, but for now, I want to propose that another piece of the puzzle is a wellbeing index.
The GDP is not good or bad in itself. It measures what it measures and has its uses. The issue is that it has become a symbol for whether we are doing well or not. If we take wellness to mean we are living happy, satisfying lives, in a manner that we can sustain into the future, then the GDP is a very poor measure indeed. There is some overlap with wellbeing in that it represents the amount of taxable income the government has to play with, but that’s about it. A few years ago, I might have added employment as a decline in GDP is often associated with unemployment. However now AI has entered the picture, it’s perfectly possible for the GDP to flourish alongside mass unemployment, meaning GDP has even less value as a metric of success.
Alternatives to GDP.
Bhutan a small country nestled between China and India is famous principally for being the first country in the 1970s to measure success by gross national happiness (GNH). GNH is described in Bhutanese as “Gakid Palzon”. Ga-happy, Kid-peaceful, Pel-prosperity, Zon-convergent, so literally meaning “happy-peaceful-prosperity-convergence for all.” There are 33 indicators measuring aspects such as psychological well-being, social equality, health, education, and ecological resilience, and it is GNH rather than GDP that informs policy making. Here economic growth is in service to goals such as well-being, environmental conservation, and good governance rather than an end in itself. If you’d like to know what this looks like, check out a gorgeous piece by Jules Petty who describes a mountainous land with abundant nature, no litter, regenerative agriculture, local organic food, full phone coverage, electricity from hydropower, a democracy with a negative carbon footprint.
Wales passed a Wellbeing of Future Generations Act in 2015 which has seven legally binding wellbeing goals including social cohesion, resilience and health, and relevant ministers must set targets for each and report on progress.
New Zealand followed this in 2019 by instituting a wellbeing index.
I interviewed the deputy chief economist at the Office for National Statistics to ask what we had in place in the UK. He agreed that the GDP was inadequate because it excluded unpaid work such as housework and voluntary carers and failed to include the debt we owe to nature, which he termed ‘ecosystem services’. He cited a newly developed ‘inclusive income’ data set which accounts for these additional factors.
As we chatted, I learned that there are numerous ways to measure wellbeing, and most countries have their own version. Some favour self-reported life satisfaction, The UN Development Index uses objective indices including statistics on education level, life expectancy, and living standards. The Happy Planet Index includes these and adds ecological footprint. Several countries use Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) which adjusts GDP by subtracting environmental damage and social ills (e.g., crime, inequality) and adding positive factors like unpaid work.
So the issue isn’t so much that we don’t have ways to measure wellbeing – it’s that we don’t report them. When I asked why, he responded that it’s partly because there’s no standard global measure. But mostly he thought it was because we just got into the habit of reporting GDP. It began after the second world war when the key necessity was to fund a rebuilding programme after the devastation. Journalist and politicians got used to it, and the rest is habit and inertia.
So we do have ways to measure wellbeing – we just need to use them. This matters because these metrics and the way they are reported tell us what is assumed to be important, and they tell the government what to prioritise. Any gains in our actual wellbeing from meeting and needs and wants while reducing production are likely to be short-lived if we’re constantly told that we’re doing terribly!
This brings us back to the news media again, and in the next edition I talk about what kind of journalism can best help us achieve the picture on the front of the jigsaw puzzle – a flourishing sustainable society.
What can you do
Check out campaigning groups like https://thrivabilitymatters.org/thrive-tribe/
For those in the UK contact journalists directly or a good place to start is the BBC to request journalists use other metrics such as the inclusive income index or wellbeing index or to at the minimum stop reporting GDP as if it is a measure of our countries success. You can email at: yourvoice@bbc.co.uk or get in touch via WhatsApp +44 7756 165803.
Buy one or more of these books as a birthday/Christmas present for any friends who are readers, or suggest to your local library or book club and encourage them to review. The anthology in particular has several stories relevant to a wellbeing index:
- The Philosopher and the Assassin: contemporary literary fiction that weaves together campus novel, moral philosophy, climate and murder mystery.
- No More Fairy Tales: Stories to Save our Planet: an anthology of 24 short stories from various authors, several of which explore the idea of personal carbon trading.
Edition 11: Constructive Journalism
Constructive Journalism: Another Piece of the Jigsaw
As I’m working on the policies, proposals and aspects of our society that are key pieces of the jigsaw to save our world, I keep finding that they bump up against the media in one form or another.
Equality is a piece of the puzzle, but much of the media is directly in the hands of the ultra-rich, from American TV news to the British Gutter press and global social media platforms. This gives billionaires enormous power to amplify their voice to serve their interests.
Politics also is dependent upon the media. The effectiveness of a democracy depends upon the quality of information voters are exposed to. Misinformation spread by vested interests, fake posts and algorithms that amplify polarised content undermine our ability to vote in line with our values and long‑term interests.
This in turn links to business purpose. The business model matters here: the more clicks a story generates, the more advertising revenue it earns. Outrage and fear consistently outperform evidence‑informed analysis. Media corporations would be better positioned to act as a force for good if they were organised as social enterprises or benefit corporations, where the goal is sufficient profit rather than profit maximisation.
As discussed in the previous edition on a Wellbeing Index, the issue isn’t that we don’t have a Wellbeing Index, the issue is that data from it is not reported by the media with anything like the same frequency as the GDP.
With all these connections I ended up going round in circles. So for this edition I’m going to zone in on news journalism.
Why so many of us have switched off
Many people now actively avoid the news. Those who don’t often feel more anxious, fearful and pessimistic about the future. A steady diet of catastrophe leads us to believe that everything everywhere is getting worse; that people are mostly bad; and that institutions can’t be trusted. We feel guilty because what right have we to moan about trivial things while others are dying in war or starving to death?
None of these things are true. People are mostly nice. Lots of wonderful things are happening all over the place, but it’s just not reported. People have set up community-owned energy projects which are feeding wealth back into the neighbourhood[1] and starting local food projects that increase their sense of community and resilience. Literacy, life expectancy, gender equality, access to clean water and adoption of renewable energy are all rising. Humpback whales are recovering, reforestation is up.[2] Child mortality, infectious diseases, extreme poverty and violent crime are at record lows. Global treaties to protect our oceans have been signed.
What the research shows
Editors often justify overwhelmingly negative coverage with the claim that “bad news sells”. Within journalism there is also an assumption that good news is frivolous—a distraction from serious issues like war and famine.
Three arguments are usually offered:
- Consumers are free to choose what they read.
- Journalism’s role is to hold power to account, hence the focus on wrongdoing.
- Bad news is supposedly good for us, raising awareness and prompting action.
I carried out research to test these assumptions and began by exploring the effects of different types of news consumption. Participants were exposed either to traditional problem‑focused news or to more positive, solution‑focused reporting on the same issues.
The psychological cost of negative news
Exposure to a typical negative news story caused a substantial drop in mood for most people—on average 38% among women and 20% among men.
Even more troubling, negative framing reduced people’s willingness to act. Those who read stories centred on war or ecological collapse were significantly less likely to take positive action than those exposed to stories about peace processes or environmental recovery.
The more anxious, sad or worried people felt, the less likely they were to donate to charity, behave in environmentally responsible ways, or make their views known. In other words, doom doesn’t motivate—it paralyses.
Knowing our natural reefs are collapsing and civilians are suffering war make me depressed. I feel angry and powerless.
Certainly not good, but being continually bombarded with bad news, I essentially feel nothing.
Conversely the more positive solution-focused stories resulted in greater optimism, happiness and feelings of calm. The more positive the emotional response to the story, the more motivated respondents felt to act. Comments indicated that the positive news stories left many feeling inspired and empowered.
They make me feel hopeful about people in general and the future or people on this planet. It makes me want to be a better person and live every day to the fullest.
I love optimistic stories. They make one feel happy and hopeful. It makes you feel like anyone can make a difference.
Attention is not the same as preference
Our research[3] found a strong preference for more positive, solution‑focused journalism (47%) or a more balanced mix (47%). Almost no one wanted news to be more negative. However, it was admitted that a fear-inducing headline is more likely to grab their attention. This reflects a well‑known gap between what people notice and what they actually want.
I like to read happy news.
Positive news motivates us but negative news always catches our attention more frequently.
Bad news or tragedies just give me an uncontrollable impulse to find out more.
Part of this is evolutionary. We are hard‑wired to attend to threat. Alarm captures attention before judgement has time to intervene. The news industry exploits this instinct by foregrounding the most shocking material—but that doesn’t make it ethically neutral.
In further research interviewing news editors and journalists, I realised that they have been trained that ‘if it bleeds it leads,’ and that the more they highlight the awfulness of the story, the better they are doing their job. Yet I would argue it is profit, not concern for their audience, that is driving the preference towards negative news—even if they don’t realise it.
Food for thought
An analogy with the food industry is helpful. High levels of sugar and fat contribute to obesity and diabetes, partly because our evolutionary drive to consume them is no longer adaptive in a world where they are constantly available. Yet few food manufacturers would claim to be acting ethically by increasing sugar just because consumers buy more of it.
Our brains are not adapted to process the whole of the world’s horrors, selected and framed to present the most shocking and horrifying picture of the world many times a day. Evidence links negative news exposure with anxiety, depression and disengagement, but we have evolved to pay attention to alarming information, whether we want to or not. Yet the news industry often frames its amplification of negativity as moral responsibility. Indeed, awards are given to the journalists who capture the worst possible horrors in the most emotion-inducing way.
Journalists aren’t trying to harm us. They are trained this way. Editors reject stories that don’t hook our attention. Positive stories are dismissed as fluff or propaganda. This connects to another piece of the jigsaw: training. In a later edition, I’ll talk about how the constructive journalism project worked with trainee journalists to teach them the benefits of a more solution-focussed and balanced approach to journalism.
Contagion effect
My research is consistent with other studies which show that reducing positive emotional content in social media posts leads to more negative posts overall. The more fearful, anxious or angry we are, the more negative our interactions with others leading to a domino effect. Negative news has been shown to reduce helping behaviour, decrease tolerance, make us cynical about strangers and increase feelings of helplessness.
Such feelings have political implications too, affecting voter psychology, driving polarisation, resulting in less critical thinking and greater support for authoritarian leaders. There is also evidence that relentless adversarial journalism can be counter‑productive. Fixating on the small proportion of failing schools or hospitals while ignoring the many that function well can distort public perception and create pressure for change based on the view that more is wrong than actually is.
Constructive journalism is an important piece of the puzzle
There’s not much point making changes that vastly improve our quality of life if the news constantly tells us that everything is terrible and we’re all going to hell in a handcart.
Now imagine a different media landscape.
News that reports what is going right as rigorously as it reports what is going wrong. Journalism that devotes as much space to peace‑making as to war; that celebrates communities, projects and countries that are thriving; that tracks progress on wellbeing indicators with the same energy currently lavished on GDP. News that makes us happier, kinder, more inspired to take positive action to improve our lives and communities.
You don’t need to imagine, because they already exist! Check out the links below, unfurrow your brow and enjoy!
What you can do
Subscribe/support alternative news platforms:
- Positive News: this is one of my favourites and brings stories from across the world that show all the amazing projects and progress being made. It has a weekly e-newsletter and quarterly hard copy.
- There are some great podcasts. One of my favourites this year has been ‘Screw This: Let’s try Something Else’ which describes itself as “A podcast of hope filled stories that could genuinely change the world”. It has an associated webpage: https://www.antidotelive.studio/
- The Progress Network is a free weekly newsletter combines intelligent analysis with underreported stories of progress from around the world. There is also an associated podcast ‘What Could Go Right?’
- The Good News Network proves that good news ‘is not in short supply; the broadcasting of it is.’ Their resources include a 5-star app, a book (And Now, The Good News: 20 Years of Inspiring News Stories), a weekly Good News Gurus podcast, and Morning Jolt email newsletter.
- One based in Australia is The Thrivability Matters Newsletter.
Campaign
Contact journalists directly or write to your favourite news platform asking them for a more balanced mix and to include positive stories too.
For those in the UK or a good place to start is the BBC. You can email at: yourvoice@bbc.co.uk or get in touch via WhatsApp +44 7756 165803.
Some relevant publications:
- ‘You Are What you Read: Why Changing Your Media Diet Can Change the World’ by Jodie Jackson (2025)
- ‘Beautiful News: Positive Trends, Uplifting Stats, Creative Solutions’ by David McCandless (2021) – Visualizes positive data trends, such as environmental improvements and human progress.
- ‘Good News: Why the World is Not as Bad as You Think’ by Rashmi Sirdeshpande (2021) – Explores uplifting stories on health, environment, and community for readers aged 9+.
- ‘A Year of Good News’ by Martin Smatana (2022) – Contains 52 good news stories illustrated with models made from recycled fabrics.
- ‘The Power of Good News: Feeding Your Mind With What’s Good For Your Heart’ by Hal Urban (2022) – Focuses on the mental health benefits of consuming uplifting news.
[1] https://www.cpre.org.uk/discover/why-we-love-community-energy/
[2] Beautiful News: Positive Trends, Uplifting Stats, Creative Solutions by David McCandless
[3] Baden, D., McIntyre, K., & Homberg, F. (2019). The impact of constructive news on affective and behavioural responses. Journalism studies, 20(13), 1940-1959.
Edition 12: Equality
When you imagine a flourishing world you’d like to live in, how equal is it? Is it a world where the rich live in huge mansions with their own fleet of cars, staff and private jets, while others struggle to pay their bills, and the homeless occupy empty shop fronts? I bet it isn’t. It probably isn’t absolute equality either – the human spirit likes to aspire, to dream of something better.
Studies on attitudes to inequality show that most of us would like a society much more equal than it is currently.[1] Also that we vastly under-estimate how unequal wealth distribution is. Poverty is often visible, while extreme wealth hides behind gates, private estates, and exclusive schools. The ultra-rich move in their own circles, rarely rubbing shoulders with everyday people.
The gap between rich and poor has been growing over the last few decades. You see it everywhere. Access to good quality health care, dental treatment and even tickets to the World Cup is increasingly the preserve of the wealthy. Globally the top 0.001% now owns three times as much wealth as the bottom fifty percent,[2] with the US being a prime culprit in terms of inequality. Other OECD countries demonstrate the same trend towards massive increases in income and wealth for billionaires.[3]
The sad thing is that it doesn’t even make them happy. While reported life satisfaction rises with income, after a certain point the effect plateaus, and can even reverse. The term ‘affluenza’ was coined to describe the isolation, lack of purpose and addiction often experienced by the ultra-rich and their children.
Equality is not about punishing success but ensuring that prosperity is shared fairly.
The statistics are shocking – between 2020 and 2022 the top one percent gained twice as much in income and wealth as the remaining 99% combined[4]. Since 1975, $80 trillion has shifted from the bottom ninety percent to the top one percent.It’s been claimed thatwould be enough to give every full-time worker in the ninety percent an extra $32,000 every year.[5]In other words, we do the work, and the ultra-rich capture the value from that. I’m wary of statistics, so I turned to the BBC podcast, More or Less where independent statisticians examined the claim to see if it stood up to scrutiny. It did.
How have they managed to do that? And why is it getting worse over time?
How Wealth Turns into Power
The wealthy have used their power to ensure they pay fewer taxes; they fund political parties and think tanks that influence government policy and ensure the passing of financial laws that benefit them[6]. Many of the ultra-rich have lower effective tax rates than average earners—around 23% for the top 400 US families, and roughly 21% for the UK’s top 0.01%.[7] This is largely because their income is derived from wealth-related sources (capital gains/dividends) taxed lower than employment income.
Media ownership allows them to frame narratives and shift public attention away from structural problems. Some have effectively bribed people to vote for the parties that favour their interests[8]. Even an activity one might think of as benign, such as philanthropy is often used as a tax-exempt form of political lobbying to buy a seat at the table of influential events or as a distraction against some of the less ethical activities that made them rich in the first place.[9][10]
If extreme wealth truly reflected virtue, wisdom, or superior intelligence, perhaps this concentration of power wouldn’t matter. But the reality is very different. Much of today’s wealth is inherited, originating from colonialism, land seizures, and/or slavery. Some of the self-made ultra-rich run large corporations who have made their wealth through exploitation of the planet and its people. A significant share of global wealth has been built through corruption. Those who gained riches purely through talent and socially beneficial innovation represent a minority.
Meanwhile, the majority work hard and pay taxes—often at higher effective rates than the ultra-rich, who are protected by a vast “wealth defence industry” of lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists.
Image taken from: Pickett, K., Gauhar, A., Wilkinson, R. & Sahni-Nicholas, P. (2024). The Spirit Level at 15. London: The Equality Trust. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15124/yao-de9s-7k93
Some of us can afford holidays but worry a little about the carbon footprint of our flight. We should be concerned; There is a finite carbon budget left before we risk triggering irreversible climate tipping points. The typical Indian citizen uses 2 tonnes CO2 per year, the average for the UK is 20 tonnes. The ultra-rich use over 100 tonnes CO2 p.a..[11] So not only are they capturing the wealth, they are also recklessly squandering a precious resource.
The rich fly their private jets, amass their fleets of cars, and heat water for their swimming pools in their numerous properties, while the world warms, and floods and fires alternate for news coverage. Ninety-one climate denial organizations received annual donations of $900 million funded mostly by billionaires and corporations such as Exxon Mobil. [12]
Inequality Is Not “Human Nature”
For most of human history, societies were relatively egalitarian. Fossil records show little wealth stratification until agriculture emerged. Then inequality rose sharply with land ownership, slavery, colonialism, and laws designed by elites to protect their wealth—often enforced through violence and cultural norms that portrayed inequality as natural or deserved.
But inequality has risen and fallen many times. Revolutions, moral protests, strong unions, and social movements reversed it. After both World Wars, massive wealth redistribution occurred. In the UK, progressive taxation funded the welfare state and National Health Service, guaranteeing education and healthcare for all.
From the 1980s onwards, inequality rose again due to financial deregulation, lower taxes on wealth, weakened unions, and globalisation. It wasn’t that the poor became poorer; rather, the enormous gains from technology and trade were captured almost entirely by those at the top.
There is nothing inevitable about this trajectory. If human history were compressed into a 24-hour day, extreme inequality appears only in the final seconds—rising, falling, and now rising again. What happens next is up to us.
Practical Ways to Reduce Inequality
The personal carbon allowances/tradeable energy quotas proposed in edition 8 would have a levelling effect. Flying, the highest-carbon activity, illustrates the disparity: business-class flying emits roughly three times more CO₂ than economy; first class up to nine times more; private jets up to fourteen times more. Under such schemes, this would cost them substantially more, money which would go to those who have stayed below their carbon allowance.
There are ongoing campaigns for a maximum wage ratio. For example, The High Pay Centre and Equality Trust both advocate that no company should pay its highest earning employee more than 10 times the pay of its lowest pay worker. The appeal is obvious. Just yesterday I met with an old friend who now works in a care home and the level of responsibility, skills and patience required is huge. I was shocked to hear that she’s on the minimum wage. Her boss is paid little more, despite the working long hours and high levels of responsibility. Yet the care homes are raking it in with exorbitant fees. A report by the New Economics Foundation[13] shows that the huge profits don’t go to those doing the hard work but are siphoned out as dividends to shareholders or private equity parent companies, often based in tax havens.[14] Similar issues apply across other sectors.
It’s not hard to imagine that corporations will find ways to ‘game’ the system, as attempts to limit CEO pay can lead to unintended consequences, especially in a globalised economy and with the rise of AI. This such policies need to align with other pieces of the puzzle, such as business purpose, which will be covered in later editions.
Another proposal to address inequality is to fully enact the Socio-economic duty (SED) as outlined in the Equality Act 2010. Amongst other things, this would require all public bodies to evaluate how any proposals affect socioeconomic equalities. This has been implemented successfully in Scotland and Wales, but at the time of writing, not yet in England.
Enforcing laws that already exists applies also to tax law. In the US alone, unpaid taxes are estimated at $470 billion annually. The IRS calculates that enforcement would return at least three times its cost—more once deterrence is considered. $470 billion would be enough for the US government to open a savings account for every person under 18 in the US and deposit $6350 in it each year! [15]
Furthermore, even if tax fraudsters are caught, the penalties are minor – often just a warning. I’m not talking about your plumber taking cash for a quick job – the average loss from an individual tax fraud in the US is $309k compared to $2k for a robbery, yet the penalties for theft are much greater – both in terms of likelihood of imprisonment and time spent behind bars.
This discrepancy persists largely because the ultra-rich exert immense political influence. Media narratives focus outrage on welfare fraud, which is a tiny fraction of total losses, while corporate profit shifting moves hundreds of billions into low-tax jurisdictions. Many executives of these companies feature prominently on billionaire lists and employ lawyers and lobbyists—yet public anger is directed instead at single parents or disability claimants.
With money recovered from tax evasion and fiscal policies that target wealth, we could, fund free health care and dentistry, high-quality education for all, update our infrastructure, invest in solar energy, making us independent of oil and gas prices, and give ourselves homes powered by solar energy and insulated against the heat and cold. Such investment prevents greater expense later resulting in an upward spiral so we get richer and richer in the broadest sense of the word. Every pothole left unfilled due to lack of money injures cars, bikes and people leading to greater hospital bills and compensation. Every £1 spent on preventative medicine results in an estimated £8 savings[16] as does investment in renewable energy. Good quality education and healthcare increase social mobility so we have the best people not the most privileged running things.
The ultra rich may have a few less properties, private jets, fast cars and less influence over politics. Most people—including many wealthy individuals—would be fine with that. Indeed, some wealthy people already advocate this. Chuck Collins gave away his inherited wealth and now campaigns against inequality. Marlene Engelhorn pledged 90% of her inheritance and founded Tax Me Now. Organisations like Patriotic Millionaires, Millionaires for Humanity, and Resource Generation openly campaign for higher taxes and fairer systems.
The Myth of Capital Flight
Opposition to wealth taxes often rests on the claim that the rich would simply leave. Evidence suggests otherwise.[17]. Studies indicate that fewer than 1% of UK millionaires would relocate in response to higher taxes. Wealth is embedded: property, social ties, and legal obligations all limit mobility.[18][19] Would it even matter that much if they leave? A more rigorous land/property tax would make it uneconomical to hold onto their mansions and associated land and the price of these huge tracts of property would drop. We’d be fine. We have a housing crisis in the UK – surely releasing property with hundreds of rooms that were lived in by just a few to the market would be a good thing? If it does turn out that capital flight is an issue, then it’s perfectly possible to do something about it. Many countries have some kind of limit on capital outflows.
Additionally, a new global billionaire tax proposal suggests using international financial transparency laws to prevent avoidance by relocation. This would combine automatic exchange of information, stronger exit taxes, and a “tax collector of last resort” to ensure individuals pay a minimum effective rate, requiring origin countries to recover any shortfall if taxpayers move abroad there.[20]
Greater equality is thus an important piece of the puzzle. It increases overall wellbeing, reduces crime, improves social mobility, increases trust in institutions and results in better health outcomes and higher life expectancy[21]. Furthermore, because of the link between power and wealth, greater equality is also more democratic, allowing us to make better decisions that ensure the wellbeing of all of society, not just a privileged few. The greatest challenge is the hold that the ultra-rich have over media platforms and their access to political influence. Thus, future editions will consider pieces of the puzzle such as the media and how we can upgrade our democracy to protect against such vested interests.
What you can do
For organisations
If you are an organisation, check your policies enable equality of opportunity. Unpaid internships for example are effectively only doable by young people who have parental money behind them. Relying on informal networks for recruitment can reproduce existing inequalities so make an effort to actively widen talent pipelines (e.g. outreach to underrepresented groups, paid internships, flexible entry routes).
Are you a financial advisor, accountant, in the wealth defence industry or simply very rich yourself?
Check out the Good Ancestor Movement | Make Wealth Move For Good. Their report highlights that many in the wealth defence industry adopt an anti-tax agenda that may be against the values of its staff and clients. They provide a host of resources that challenge this. For example, asking their clients to complete a questionnaire on their values can give them the chance to consider whether they’d prefer to use their money for the benefit of society.
Spread the word
If you have a platform, then use it. A great example is comedian Mark Thomas who used his comedy show, The Mark Thomas Product to investigate the practice of avoiding inheritance tax by declaring art, furniture, homes and land available for public viewing. Mark took coachloads of people to visit stately homes to the bemusement of their aristocratic owners to demand they uphold their right to view their works of art. Such visible campaigning led to the Chancellor of the Exchequer changing the law, bringing in millions of pounds for HM Revenue and Customs.[22]
Find out more
I recommend the article “Reimagining realism: notes on the work of a time between worlds | Joseph Rowntree Foundation” by Sophia Parker. She headed a charity that tackles child poverty and directs the JRF Emerging Futures programme. In this article she discusses a key tension between trying to stabilise our present system— which tends towards the hoarding and concentration of wealth and power at the expense of communities and the planet— and building alternatives that could replace it.
The article references research from the Onion Collective revealing over 2,000 UK organisations building alternatives — community-owned homes, new forms of democratic business ownership, care-centred local economies, regenerative finance. Such organisations and projects are reshaping how power, wealth, and resources circulate—placing equity, justice, and ecological wellbeing above extraction and exploitation.
Many of these alternatives will be discussed in later editions of this newsletter.
Another useful guide by Professor Richard Murphy on how we can refocus tax onto wealth rather than income is here: https://taxingwealth.uk/
A recent book: ‘We Need to Tax Billionaires’ by the economist Gabriel Zucman, talks about how and why to tax billionaires. He claims that changes in income tax are ineffective to address inequality as billionaires have strategies to avoid paying these, with many recording zero income, and even claiming welfare[23]. Zucman’s research[24] finds that a 2% tax on wealth is accepted as the minimum needed so that the ultra-rich pay the same effective tax rate as the average citizen. This would bring in an estimated $450 billion dollars in tax revenue (4% of global GDP) – enough for system-level change. He suggests that a 6% tax on wealth is necessary to avoid income inequality increasing over time, and we’d need over 8% tax on wealth to make any inroads into reversing the income inequality that has been accelerating upwards over the last few decades.
The influential book, The Spirit Level published in 2009 linked inequality to problems like mental health and high rates of imprisonment. It was updated in 2024 in a report with more information about the negative impact of inequality on the climate, child poverty, democracy, and trust. You can download it here: https://media.equality-trust.out.re/uploads/2024/07/The-Spirit-Level-at-15-2024-FINAL.pdf
Write to your MP or political representative
There is a growing international demand for a wealth tax, so now is a good time to lend your voice to the campaign. Find your government representative or Member of Parliament and email them to let them know this is an issue that matters to you. Check out the links if you are in Australia; Canada; UK; USA or elsewhere.
Support campaign groups
UK‑based organisations
- Equality Trust – Campaigns to reduce economic inequality and its social impacts.
- Joseph Rowntree Foundation – Focuses on poverty, social mobility, and economic inequality.
- Runnymede Trust – Leading UK think tank on racial equality and social justice.
- New Economics Foundation (NEF) – Promotes economic systems that support equity and wellbeing.
- Fairness Foundation – aim to rebalance wealth in the UK, so as to rebuild the social contract and provide everyone with freedom and opportunity
- The Good Ancestor Movement is UK-based but operates internationally.
International organisations
- Wealth Hackers Initiative: Their aim is to repurpose mainstream legal, financial, digital, accounting, and behavioural tools to create a more just and equitable system by redirecting how capital flows.
- Oxfam – Campaigns globally against inequality, poverty, and injustice.
- Amnesty International – Focuses on human rights and equality under the law.
- Human Rights Watch – Research and advocacy on rights and equal treatment worldwide.
- UN Women – United Nations body promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment.
- Equality Now – Campaigns for legal and systemic gender equality worldwide.
Workplace and education‑focused equality organisations
- Business in the Community (BITC) – Works with employers on race, gender, and social mobility.
- Social Mobility Foundation – Helps young people from less advantaged backgrounds access professional careers.
- The Sutton Trust – Research and advocacy on education and social mobility.
- Advance HE – Promotes equality, diversity, and inclusion in higher education.
Grassroots and movement‑based campaigns
- Black Lives Matter (UK) – Campaigns against structural racism and inequality.
- Living Wage Foundation – Advocates for fair pay as a foundation of equality.
- Trade unions (e.g. TUC affiliates) – Campaign for equality in pay, conditions, and opportunity.
[1][1] Engelhardt, C., & Wagener, A. (2018). What do Germans think and know about income inequality? A survey experiment. Socio-Economic Review, 16(4), 743-767.
Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2011). Building a better America—One wealth quintile at a time. Perspectives on psychological science, 6(1), 9-12.
[2] https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/#global-wealth-inequality
[3] https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/
[4] https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/survival-richest
[5] https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-2.html
[6] https://www.transparency.org.uk/news/big-moneys-tightening-grip-british-politics
[7] Tax the Rich!: How Lies, Loopholes, and Lobbyists Make the Rich Even Richer by Morris Pearl and Erica Payne- chair and founder respectively of the organization: Patriotic Millionaires.
[8] https://www.aol.com/news/elon-musk-bribed-voters-must-100251308.html
[9] https://ssir.org/articles/entry/how_corporate_philanthropy_buys_influence
[10] Fooks GJ, Gilmore AB. Corporate philanthropy, political influence, and health policy. PLoS One. 2013 Nov 27;8(11
[11] Chancel, L. (2022). Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019. Nature Sustainability, 5(11), 931-938.
[12] Brulle, R. J. (2014). Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of US climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic change, 122(4), 681-694.
[13] https://neweconomics.org/2025/11/private-equity-firms-taking-millions-in-profits-from-care-sector-each-year-new-analysis-reveals
[14] https://lowdownnhs.info/private-providers/13821/
[15] Limitarians by Ingrid Robeyns
[16] https://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/uk-health-focus-prevention-can-deliver-ps8-each-ps1-invested#:~:text=The%20UK%20has%20the%20potential,new%20health%20report%20by%20Deloitte.
[17] https://taxjustice.net/reports/the-millionaire-exodus-myth/
[18] https://theconversation.com/millionaires-may-not-be-fleeing-the-uk-in-droves-but-there-are-reasons-these-stories-persist-259591
[19] https://taxjustice.net/reports/the-millionaire-exodus-myth/
[20] https://taxobservatory.world/publication/a-blueprint-for-a-coordinated-minimum-effective-taxation-standard-for-ultra-high-net-worth-individuals/
[21] https://www.jrf.org.uk/savings-debt-and-assets/does-income-inequality-cause-health-and-social-problems
[22] https://markthomasinfo.co.uk/footerpages/about/100-acts-of-minor-dissent/
[23] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/expecting-child-tax-credit-billionaire-jeff-bezos-got-it-too-what-187712
[24] https://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/report-g20.pdf
Edition 13 Politics
I’ve run several events now and talked to numerous people: business and marketing students, adults interested in sustainability, finance and business leaders, my hairdresser, a taxi driver, podiatrist, a group of people I met in a sauna, my children and my friends’ children. The question I asked them was this: imagine it’s ten years in the future and our leaders have done everything right and we now live in a sustainable, flourishing world. What does that look like to you? What do you now see, hear, smell around you? How do you feel?
Less traffic always crops up. Sometimes it’s phrased as less traffic noise and clean air, sometimes in terms of public transport that is so cheap, convenient and reliable that few people need their own car. Very common is more nature, sounds of birdsong, and a stronger sense of community. Cropping up less often, but also quite regularly are fewer worries about bills, meaningful work, to be able to support their families, to have hope for their or their children’s future, and less climate anxiety. Also, clean water: seas no longer filled with plastic and rivers that we can swim in.
Image from co-creation event
The most surprising aspect for me has been the level of overlap in our visions of a flourishing future, even when asking very different groups of people.
None of these require any technology that we don’t already have. We live in a democracy, so the obvious question is, why aren’t we there already? And, if this is what most people want, then why do we seem to be moving in the opposite direction?
I consider this question while sitting on my decking during a heatwave after having just returned from holiday.
I cringe when I hear people talk of going to “the Maldives before it sinks”. But I flew to Sicily last week. It was a lovely break, but I’m also enjoying being back, and admiring how the plants on my decking have soared wildly while I’ve been away. It’s evening and I have shade so I’m enjoying the heat, but I am nervous about tomorrow’s outdoor trip. I had heat stroke once and I didn’t understand what was going on. I thought if I had lots of water and factor 50, I’d be ok. I didn’t realise that the heat gradually cooks your internal organs and no amount of sunscreen or water has an impact on that. I just remember feeling like I was going to die.
Maybe I won’t go to the theme park tomorrow.
But for now, I’m musing on this question while listening to some music, interspersed with birdsong from my garden robin who’s giving it all he has. His voice is sweet in the balmy air. I turn down the music and hear an answering song from a few gardens down. The roar of an aeroplane tears through the air, blotting out all other sound and I endure it till it’s gone. I think about all the people sitting in that tube – last week one of them was me – and what propelled them to travel. Images on their social media from a friend who went this gorgeous beach previously. Glowing blogs in the travel section of magazines, adverts popping up on screens. They’ve probably been exposed, knowingly or subliminally, to thousands of marketing messages to encourage such travel just in the last month. Also the incredibly low price of some flights. I flew to Sicily for a price that cost less than a takeaway for two. I’m just as happy here – or would be if it weren’t for the aircraft noise.
I think of how jet fuel is made. Layers of prehistoric organic material laid down year after year for millions of years. All that time, through ice ages and dinosaurs, buried under sediment, subject to periods of intense heat and pressure until it’s a dark, viscous, clingy liquid. I remember a statistic I heard once that just a single gallon of oil takes 98 tonnes of organic material that has taken hundreds of millions of years to break down.
AI tells me the following:
- 350 million years of formation consumed in a 3-hour flight
- 1.9 million years of formation burned every minute
Place no trust in its calculations. AI has led me spectacularly wrong on several occasions. And in the scrabble to quantify it, I lost the emotional punch. The enormity of it – the awe-inspiring understanding that each tonne of carbon we carelessly squander took hundreds of millions of years to make.
I berate myself and extend my disappointment to all of humanity that we are so arrogant and careless and short-sighted. But then I realise we’re not. We’ve just been trained to think in one way and not in another. I heard somewhere that we’re subject to 3000 marketing messages each day. How can the environment compete with that? Even the Green Party no longer talk about climate; they realise it’s not a winning message.
We’re using it all up so thoughtlessly because everyone else does and because the “economy” benefits when we pay money to go abroad, and we’ve got in the habit of discussing everything in terms of the economy. We hear things like “the markets won’t like that” and repeat them, often without knowing what they mean.
What I do know is that we have a carbon budget of how much more carbon we can emit before we go past climate tipping points and find ourselves on a one-way ticket to “hot-house earth”. It’s diminishing fast, and because of the uncertainty, we don’t know for sure when we’ll use it up, or if we already have.
As greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are emitted, they warm the atmosphere and past a certain point (estimated at 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels), we’re in the danger zone. The image below monitors climate change by the second, and as of right now, it estimates we have 4 years left of our carbon budget.
Greenhouse gas emissions should be the new currency – scarce like gold – carefully hoarded and not wasted, yet our society is set up to encourage the exact opposite. If there’s one thing all politicians have in common it is that they all talk about “the economy”. They want, more than any other thing, an increase in GDP – i.e. more production and its counterpart, consumption. My sitting here admiring my plants is doing nothing for the economy or GDP. Much better I should be buying flights and releasing more CO2 into our warming atmosphere.
It’s quite simple, we need to move from the “economy” being the centre of everything, to putting humanity, and the planet and atmosphere we all depend on, at the heart of decision-making. Politicians aren’t able to do that within the current set up. They assert there’s no point going for planned degrowth because it’s politically unpalatable and it’s naïve to think you can change political reality. It’s obvious though that chemical reality trumps political reality. Ice melts above zero degrees no matter how much you argue with it. And if the result of our political processes is humanity’s extinction, then we need to change politics.
So, in the next few editions I will consider some of the exciting democratic innovations, policies and proposals that can transform our political systems so that they are better able to deliver on the flourishing and sustainable future we all desire.
What you can do
Make your view heard. Find your government representative or Member of Parliament and email them to let them know what you care about. Click here for Australia; Canada; UK; USA.
Follow the next 6 editions which all focus on ways to upgrade our democracy so it is fit for the future and share all the ideas you agree with. If you don’t agree, I’d love to know why and benefit from your knowledge, so please feed back your thoughts in the comments.
I run co-creation events with students, business professionals etc. to engage others in helping to puzzle out the pieces of the #JigsawToSaveTheWorld. For example, I recently co-hosted an event with professionals in finance, asset management, insurance etc. to puzzle out those pieces of the jigsaw that relate to finance. If you’d like to co-host an event, please get in touch.
Edition 13. A Ministry for Future Generations
Sustainability is defined as the ability to be maintained at a certain rate or level. In the context of humanity, that means the ability to continue to survive in a state of reasonable comfort. It is most often used in the environmental sense i.e. meeting present needs while preserving the Earth’s systems for those who come after us.
Future discounting effect
A challenge to sustainable decision-making is the known ‘future discounting effect’ – a psychological tendency where people give less value to benefits or harms that occur in the future compared to those happening now. Set against that are lessons we’re taught from an early age. For example, we are warned that if we don’t brush our teeth, then later we will lose them. When it’s personal, most of us are able to envisage the impact of present-day decisions on our future selves, and we brush our teeth, contribute to a pension, and take out insurance where it makes sense.
So if we want a flourishing, sustainable future for ourselves and our children, we need to set in place systems that nurture future thinking and protect ourselves from tendencies to over value present day benefits and harms over those happening in the future – whether that be five or fifty years from now.
Some indigenous communities have long term thinking embedded in their cultural traditions and laws. For example, the principle of ‘seven generation stewardship’ is thought to have arisen with the ‘Great Law of the Iroquois’ which requires that the impact on the seventh generation must be considered in every decision.
“We are looking ahead, as is one of the first mandates given us as chiefs, to make sure and to make every decision that we make relate to the welfare and well-being of the seventh generation to come. … What about the seventh generation? Where are you taking them? What will they have?” [1] Oren Lyons, Chief of the Onondaga Nation.
Our current representative multi-party democracies are not doing so well.
Most decisions are a set of trade-offs, whether they be made by individuals, organisations or governments.
Examples:
A farmer, funder of agricultural projects, or a government department must choose between:
- Putting all their resources into the most profitable/highest yield crop, risking that some unknown pest, virus, or weather condition will wipe it out.
- Having a selection of crops that vary in their vulnerability to environmental events, even though that makes less money in the short term because it is likely that as climate becomes less predictable and more extreme, a crop will have a bad year that will wipe it out for an uncertain amount of time.
A university, city council, business, or government department chooses between:
- Scrapping hard copies of books, documents, papers, etc. to save space and money and risk complete loss of data in the event of cyber hacking.
- Take the pain of hard copy duplicates because the likelihood of an attack in the future (next 50 years) that results in the loss of these resources is moderate to high.
Governments must choose between:
- Approving new oil, gas, or coal projects to boost jobs, energy supply, or tax revenue now, despite the certain effects on increasing greenhouse gas emissions and the increased probability of passing climate tipping points that render a flourishing future for humanity unlikely.
- Resist pressure from fossil fuel lobbyists, corporate funders and certain media platforms and invest instead in a speeding up the transition to clean energy.
Governments must choose between:
- Relaxing protections for air quality, biodiversity, or water to support economic growth, even though these will directly impact the public in a few years due to increased air and water pollution and associated health issues. Also biodiversity issues such as a reduction in soil health, worms, bees and other pollinators reducing the viability of crops.
- Ensuring that regulation is targeted and enforced to ensure clean air and water and healthy soil for the foreseeable future.
Businesses/governments must choose between:
- Over-exploiting natural resources (e.g., overfishing, deforestation) and lobbying against regulation.
- Lobbying for regulation to ensure a level playing field and prevent resource depletion and future business collapse.
I could write hundreds of examples, and I suggest that a rational person in the face of the facts and uncertainties would mostly choose option B. Yet all the institutional pressures on government and business incentivise them to do the opposite.
As discussed in edition 11 on constructive journalism, the media will always zoom in on the bad news and the immediate negative impacts of any policy. The vast resources of the fossil fuel industry have given it great influence over government officials and the media, and some have been shown to have been actively spreading disinformation about climate change to advance their own interests, at the expense of humanity. It is all too easy for political parties, desperate for funds and media and public approval, to bow to such pressure. Research has shown that globally 89% of people want more, not less action on climate change[2], but these are not the people with the loudest voices.
As I write, the war in Iran has made the fossil fuel industry billions of dollars of profit.
Pressure is on the UK prime minister to grant more licenses to drill for North Sea gas, and refusal is greeted with the implication that he doesn’t care about the cost-of-living crisis and those who can’t pay the bills. Of course the greenhouse gas emissions produced by fossil fuel energy will make these problems many times worse, but that is then and this is now.
With election cycles in most democracies being every 4 or 5 years, it’s tempting to do whatever is easiest right now and leave the mess for the next government to deal with. There have been cases where this approach seems to have been quite cynically adopted.
These pressures have built year on year so that the tendency to prioritise short over long-term thinking is worse than ever before. We are due for a backlash. I’ve been sensing it in the public mood and discourse, yet powerful systemic forces continue to hold existing patterns in place. In previous editions, I’ve suggested policies to release us from some of the elements that have locked us into unsustainable pathways, such as replacing the GDP with a wellbeing index, and personal carbon allowances/tradeable energy quotas.
One way to combat short-term thinking is to institutionalise the voices of future generations. I would add to this, our own future selves, as many of us already suffer the consequences of short-term thinking. For example, both the UK and US governments scrapped precautionary pandemic programmes just months before Covid-19 hit, despite such a viral outbreak being predicted.
In edition 10, I mentioned the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act that Wales passed in 2015. This resulted in the appointment of aFuture Generations Commissioner for Wales. Their role is to consider the long-term impacts of policy decisions regarding climate, economics, and culture. It has had some successes, for example in redirecting funds away from a motorway relief road towards greener transport and active travel. Also championing a new, purpose-driven national curriculum and helping to shape public policy regarding climate targets and early interventions. On the other hand, in 2019 it was accused of being “vague, general and aspirational”[3] and evidence from several inquiries reveals a discrepancy between the stated purposes and policy intentions behind the Act and actual practice in the governance of sustainability in Wales.[4]
Another example is the Scotland Futures Forum. This has no legislative power as such but acts as a forward-thinking think tank within the Scottish Parliament, bringing together politicians, experts, and young people to explore long-term challenges.[5] The Forum has delivered multi-year initiatives like the Scotland 2030 Programme, which helped MSPs and the public address critical upcoming challenges in climate change, technology, and an ageing population.
Finland established a Committee for the Future in 1993 which has representatives from all parties which is thought to account for its relative longevity. Like the Scottish Futures Forum, it acts mostly as a think tank, but the fact its members are drawn from parliament means they have several opportunities to intervene, although its direct impact on binding legislation is considered to be modest.
Inspired by the Welsh example, Lord John Bird via a Private Members Bill put forward a UK Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill. It proposed legally binding requirements for public bodies across the UK to incorporate long-term, sustainable planning into their decision-making. This included creating a Future Generations Commission and appointing a minister for future generations in every government department. Although it had strong cross-party backing and passed its third reading in the House of Lords in February 2022, it failed to complete its progress through the House of Commons and is currently inactive.[6]
Hungary’s Commissioner for Future Generations was established in 2008 and had one of the strongest mechanisms to represent future generations. The Commissioner was elected by parliament but had to be independent of any political party, free from any conflicts of interest and a lawyer with expertise in environmental issues. The role included the power to shut down activities considered to be detrimental to the environment and future generations. However, with a new right-wing government in 2011, budgets were cut and powers were greatly reduced.[7] Similarly, Israel established a commission for future generations in 2001 which had strong powers to affect legislation, but it was shut down in 2006[8].
The problem is that trying to insert long-term thinking into a system incentivised to consider short-term electoral outcomes is a big ask. It seems like the more effective and the greater the success, the greater the risk of being dismantled. An assessment of Wales’s Well-being of Future Generations Act after ten years highlights key challenges, including uneven political will and limited commitment from senior policymakers. It also reveals overlapping legal duties placed on public bodies without clear prioritisation, alongside clashes with other legislation that can dilute or undermine the Act’s original aims and intended impact.[9][10]
Yet if it had achieved substantial sustainability gains, perhaps it wouldn’t have survived. Indeed, a paper exploring the effectiveness of ‘future guardians’ operating in ‘myopic democracies’ concludes that: “Although each case is unique, it can be concluded that it is feasible to institutionally represent future generations even under detrimental external conditions. However, guardians that can not only bark but also bite live dangerously. Guardians are most viable when they are designed to be neither too strong nor too weak”[11]
A future generations’ act and associated minister or commission is an important piece of the puzzle but is not enough on its own to move the dial on our sustainability and climate challenges. So in the next few editions I will explore other amendments to our political systems that are necessary to reach a flourishing and sustainable future.
What you can do
The School of International Futures provides services, research and networks to embed long-term thinking in governance for future generations. It co-designs campaigns and provides practical frameworks (learning heavily from Wales) for what a Future Generations Commission and Act should look like.
Support the Big Issue’s Today for Tomorrow campaign. This is a cross-party campaign powered by the Office of Big Issue Founder, Lord Bird MBE. John Bird (@johnbirdswords) / X John Bird | LinkedIn
Be an activist for long-term thinking within whatever organisations you are part of. For example, managers, CFOs, business unit leaders, investors etc. can make a big difference simply by extending the return on investment (ROI) criteria. For example, decades ago our university decided not to buy a cover for the new swimming pool, because the savings from reduced heat loss wouldn’t pay back within 5 years, yet if they had extended the ROI criteria to 7 years, then it would have been approved. In fact, it was a bad decision, as fuel prices rose, and the cost of the energy required to heat the pool became much higher than expected. Another approach is to argue for an expanded set of metrics beyond money to influence decisions. Adopt triple bottom line thinking that places a value also on sustainability and wellbeing criteria. This applies not only to decisions at work, but also at home. For example, in edition 7 on sustainable consumption, I bemoan the fact that many assume that the only factor in a decision to invest in solar panels is the payback period, yet that varies with every change in fuel prices. It also ignores the fact that after the panels have paid back, you are actually making money from your solar power. Additionally, the focus on ROI ignores other benefits, such as a sense of resilience from having your own direct power supply that means you don’t lose power in the event of power cuts, and a feeling of connection to the weather.
[1] Christopher Vecsey; Robert W. Venables, eds. (1 December 1980). “An Iroquois Perspective”. American Indian Environments: Ecological Issues in Native American History. New York: Syracuse University Press. pp. 173–174.
[2] https://89percent.org/
[3] Law to protect future generations in Wales ‘useless’ – BBC News
[4] https://futuregenerations.wales/discover/about-future-generations-commissioner/future-generations-report-2025/
[5] https://scotfutures.substack.com/
[6] https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/wellbeing-of-future-generations-bill-hl/
[7] Jones, Natalie & O’Brien, Mark & Ryan, Thomas. (2018). Representation of Future Generations in United Kingdom Policy-Making. Futures. 102. 10.1016/j.futures.2018.01.007.
[8] Knesset Commission for Future Generations | FDSD
[9] Kay, A. (2025). Governing the transition to a sustainable future in Wales: A decade of the Well-being of Future Generations Act. Management and Innovation, 121.
[10] https://theconversation.com/a-decade-on-six-things-the-world-can-learn-from-wales-innovative-future-generations-law-243093
[11] Rose, M. (2024). Can we represent future generations in myopic democracies? – Analyzing the design, feasibility and viability of institutional guardians of future generations. Policy Studies, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2024.2444632
Edition 15. Cap Political Donations
Do we want a system where the whims of one mega-wealthy individual, unelected and unaccountable, can affect the outcome of a war? We probably don’t, on the basis that it’s undemocratic and history tells us that power corrupts. But that’s effectively the situation as Ukraine has found itself dependent upon Elon Musk’s satellite Starlink after Russia jammed other communication methods. Would we want such individuals in addition, to have outsized influence over government policies, domestically and abroad? Again, this is where we find ourselves. In the US, corporations and the ultra-rich can spend unlimited amounts on campaigns through Political Action Committees. There is also no barrier to “dark money” entering the system as donors are not required to reveal their identity. Over the past four years Musk alone has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to right wing parties in the US and elsewhere.[1]
A cryptocurrency billionaire gave a record-breaking $11.5 million (£9 million) to Reform UK in 2025, with Reform’s leader Nigel Farage receiving an additional personal gift of £5million. The scandal was that he had failed to declare it, not that the gift itself was illegal. The same donor had made cumulative political donations of £28 million over the previous 7 years. Is it just coincidence Reform’ policies are pro-crypto, with Farage being a keen advocate? This matters when cryptocurrency is increasingly thought to be a threat to democracy, facilitating covert foreign interference, financing of terrorism and money laundering,[2] as well as worsening existing power imbalances.[3]
Donation scandals are not limited to right-wing parties as illustrated by several dodgy donations made to ex-Labour politician Peter Mandelson over the years.[4]
Politicians cry that it doesn’t affect what favours they bestow, but the evidence suggests the opposite. For example, an analysis of nominations to the UK’s second chamber, the House of Lords, finds that donors to the party are much more likely to be nominated than non-donors.[5]
One piece of the puzzle is equality, and as outlined in edition 12, capping extreme wealth would help to prevent the undemocratic influence the ultra-rich have over politics, but I chose the jigsaw metaphor for a reason – the pieces all connect, and politicians are less likely to pass legislation that taxes wealth when they are funded by the very same. So a key piece of the puzzle is to cap political donations.
The Representation of the People Bill 2026 is going through the UK Parliament and if it passes, will strengthen rules around political donations. Its focus is on preventing foreign interference with a proposed cap of £100k annually on overseas donations, and also on preventing “dark money” from undisclosed sources from influencing UK politics. There remains no cap on donations from UK individuals or businesses, only that donations over £11,180 must be registered. So there is still nothing to prevent ultra-wealthy individuals or corporations from the UK from using their money to support parties that will represent their interests.
The most critical challenge to a flourishing future is the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel energy (and plastics too) tipping us towards climate breakdown. This is a global issue, and I don’t see that it matters whether it is an American, Russian, or UK company funding our political parties, because s/he who pays the piper calls the tune. Our elected officials should be laser-focused on the wellbeing of the people they represent, not those who fill their coffers.
Jigsaw solution
Most citizens (especially American citizens[6]) would enthusiastically support a cap on political funding so that no single entity can disproportionately finance an election or campaign.
In the UK, groups like the Electoral Reform Society and the Institute for Government push for stricter limits to prevent “toxic big donor cultures” where wealth can translate to political influence. Their focus is on ultra-rich donors who contributed a fifth of the £100 million donated each year to political parties in the UK.[7] There are also suggestions that rules on donations from trade unions be tightened so that trade union members must “opt in” to a political levy rather than a default deduction from their membership dues.
There is an argument that state funding of political parties could rein in corruption by reducing reliance on private donors but also concerns that it might entrench the political status quo and alienate parties from grassroot supporters. Both contentions have limited evidence to support them.[8] However, there is also little public appetite for using taxpayer money to fund political parties, although support increases when the case is made that state funding reduces the influence of big donors and minimizes ‘sleaze’ in democracies.[9]
A compromise that many democracies have adopted is to supplement donations by offering state grants or matching schemes. For instance, a system where the government matches small, grassroots donations encourage parties to engage the general public rather than relying on a handful of big donors. Transparency International support state funding for political parties to level the playing field, reduce reliance on wealthy donors, and curb corruption, but only alongside measures including disclosure to ensure transparency and independent oversight. They also support a cap of £10,000 annually on donations from any individual/organisation.
I would learn from the countries with the most rigorous caps on political donations. French individuals cannot donate more than €7500 per year, and anonymous donations are limited to €150, while Iceland prohibits anonymous donations entirely. A report indicates that 26% of countries have a ban on corporate donations (Brazil, Germany, France and Canada are examples). Evidence indicates this results in less corruption, and greater trust in politicians and elections.[10] Research from several countries has found that businesses that make political donations are more likely to receive government contracts, leading to higher costs for publicly funded projects as well as poor project performance.[11] A comparative study examining donation caps in 57 countries found that stricter limits reduces wealth inequalities and the power of special interests, resulting in policies that are more in line with the interests of most citizens.[12] For example, a ban on political contributions in Lithuania saved taxpayers an estimated one percent of GDP.[13]
This figure gives me pause. I’m based in the UK where we’ve been through various scandals related to the awarding of government contracts during Covid, as well as the accusations of conflicts of interest pertaining to the incomprehensibly high costs of a train line that is still incomplete. I know the UK is not necessarily comparable with Lithuania but let me dream a little. One percent of UK GDP is £30 billion. Imagine if we saved that – how might we spend it?
A chunk on the NHS and social care. Education – we’d need several million to fix just the infrastructure – leaky roofs, broken heating systems, protection from flooding; some towards training teachers to deal with children with special needs.
I’d also want to save some to set up personal carbon allowances or Tradable Energy Quotas as discussed in edition 8. These would transform our economy overnight, steering businesses and individuals towards low-carbon choices, and helping to address inequality at the same time. Estimates to establish a Tradable Energy Quota Scheme in the UK range between £470 million and £1.16 billion.[14] Even the upper figure is less than the British taxpayer lost just on account of failed Covid contracts.[15] It’s a matter of record that donors to the party were prioritised in a fast-track tendering system, and an analysis by Transparency International reported that over £15 billion worth of contracts had “three or more corruption red flags”.
Perhaps some towards more early years’ childcare. Retrofitting houses – a no-brainer – saves on bills, keeps us warm or cool, depending on our needs and helps the environment. Electric buses, subsidies for regenerative farming, more trees…
On such happy thoughts I will leave you and in the next edition I’ll follow up with a related piece of the puzzle: restrictions on corporate lobbying.[16]
What you can do
Make your view heard. Find your government representative or Member of Parliament and email them. Click here on your country for a direct link to email them: UK, USA, Canada, Australia.
Fund your favourite party yourself to balance the power of other interests.
[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=elon+musk&order=desc&sort=D
Thadani, Trisha; Morse, Clara Ence (December 6, 2024). “Elon Musk is now America’s largest political donor”. The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286.
[2] https://www.transparency.org.uk/news/does-crypto-pose-threat-our-democracy
[3] https://bisi.org.uk/reports/cryptocurrency-risks-to-democracy
[4] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69b13135cdd628b29e3495f8/V1_FINAL.pdf; https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69b13135cdd628b29e3495f8/V1_FINAL.pdf; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnv3edv21y7o
[5] Mell, A., Radford, S., & Thévoz, S. (2015). Is there a market for peerages? Can donations buy you a British peerage? A study in the link between party political funding and peerage nominations, 2005-14.
[6] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spending-say-big-donors-have-greater-political-influence/
[7] https://electoral-reform.org.uk/is-there-a-limit-to-political-donations-in-the-uk/
[8] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/what-are-the-effects-of-political-financing/
[9] May, D. (2025). The worthy and the fallible: Framing the issue of state party funding. Party Politics, 31(4), 714-726.
[10] https://knowledgehub.transparencycdn.org/helpdesk/Limits-on-political-donations_global-practice-and-effectiveness_final.pdf
[11] Gulzar, Saad; Rueda, Miguel; Ruiz, Nelson. 2021. Do Campaign Contribution Limits Curb the Influence of Money in Politics? American Journal of Political Science, v. 66, n. 4, p. 932-946.
[12] Scarrow, Susan. 2018. Political finance regulation and equality: comparing strategies and impact. In: Mendilow, Jonathan; Phélippau, Éric. (Ed.). Handbook of political party funding. Elgar
[13] Batrunaite, Audinga.2020. Political Contributions and Public Procurement: Evidence from Lithuania. Journal of the European Economic Association, v. 18, n. 2, p. 541–582.
[14] https://iea.org.uk/raising-our-allowance-understanding-britains-emissions-trading-scheme/
[15] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/failed-covid-contracts-cost-british-taxpayer-14-billion
Edition 16. Curb Corporate Lobbying
When I say corporate lobbying, be honest you probably have an image of suited-up business executives armed with charts of figures showing how the world will come to an end if you don’t cut them a tax break, and why not go for broke, subsidise them. They have inner pockets stuffed with tickets to the world cup, or Taylor Swift pop concert – whatever’s your bag. They’ll be saying things like: we’ll boost economic growth [fund your party] and speak in loud, confident voices. Those of you who’ve watched too many TV dramas may imagine a bit of menace with poorly disguised threats, or maybe some of you are picturing an after party at some seedy sex club.
I honestly don’t know how much is true, but here’s an example that aligns with anecdotal evidence I’ve heard and also shows the connection between corporate lobbying and political donations discussed in the previous edition.
Imagine you are a high-ranking politician, and you have lots of great policies you are just dying to make happen. There’s an election coming up and you are tearing your hair out because the opposing party is spouting divisive rhetoric which the media love. They know it’s nonsense, but it gets more clicks and your voice of quiet reason is getting drowned out. You need to get your voice heard, but that takes money. Everyone knows it’s the best funded parties that get elected.[1] The opposition has accepted millions from fossil fuel companies, and is now basically their bitch, but you have too much integrity. The first thing you will do is to tax jet fuel. It’s ridiculous that the highest greenhouse gas emitting activity is untaxed. It’s cheaper to fly than take the train and that can’t be right. You are attending a charity gala that evening where there will be lots of potential donors and maybe that will generate some much-needed funds.
The event is glitzy – a seat at the table costs thousands but you got in free. Waiters circulate with canapes and champagne. Everyone is decked out in their finest, and greet you like you were visiting royalty. A delightful change from the hostile media who make it seem like you can do nothing right. Corporate philanthropists speak about the great work they have done to improve lives. After a few speeches everyone sits down at tables. There are crystal glasses, lavish amounts of good wine, fresh bread and you tuck into the top-quality food provided.
You find yourself sat next to a charming woman who listens sympathetically to your woes. You share your concerns about your children’s use of social media and bond over a recent TV show which you both happen to love. She tells you what a great job you are doing and how we need more like you. You begin to relax – being a minister isn’t all bad. You ask her what she does, and she works for a major airline. This is your chance to talk about taxing aviation fuel, but it seems kind of churlish. You bring up the topic of climate change as a way in, and she speaks with animation about how her airline has set ambitious net zero targets and is investing in sustainable aviation fuel. You interject with concerns about the downsides of SAF (you use the acronym confidently to show you know your stuff) – the high cost, competing with land used for crops, deforestation, pressure on ecosystems – but before you can finish your list, she is reeling off other sustainability measures they are taking – cutting weight, offsetting their emissions through tree planting, using recycled materials where possible, eliminating single-use plastics, eco-friendly cabin products, reducing taxiing times to limit fuel waste. It’s impressive, flying sounds positively beneficial. You mentally shake your head and remind yourself of the fact that train travel has 90-95% lower emissions than a corresponding flight. She tops up your glass, and you find yourself discussing how investment in SAF and new more efficient engines will create jobs and how new flight paths will boost connectivity, economic performance and GDP.
The magic word. If only you can boost GDP then everything else becomes possible, then you can invest in green infrastructure, buy back the railways to improve the service and reliability. You find yourself nodding. She thinks you are great and is so sympathetic to the bad press you’re getting. She promises to talk to someone who would love to donate to your political party. You mentally punch the air. At last, a win.
This example shows how subtle lobbying can be, and how corporate lobbying and political donations act as a mutually reinforcing “one-two punch”.
Does it matter if business uses its money to influence government?
Some think businesses are smarter, savvier and more efficient than many governments or politicians. I’m sure there are plenty of examples for and against this belief. But it misses the point. Governments are elected to represent its citizens’ interests. Corporations are set up to maximise shareholder value. If that coincides with public welfare, then that is lovely. If it doesn’t, then too bad. Profit comes first, unless regulations force them to behave otherwise. Unincorporated businesses have more flexibility but if a public limited company puts society’s best interests before profit maximisation, they’d risk a hostile takeover.
The following example illustrates the problem. CEOs and business executives are rewarded through share price appreciation, in other words, if the share price rises, they make more money. When the price of oil rose at the outbreak of the Ukrainian war, fossil fuel companies scaled back their clean energy pledges, and were rewarded with surging share prices and shareholder payouts.[2]
So when governments are deciding policies on climate change, I would rather they listened to climate scientists than fossil fuel companies.
I don’t want to give the impression that all corporations are evil, however, the less ethical the company, the more subject it would be to having its activities curbed for the benefit of the public good and so the greater incentive they have to buy their way out of regulation. George Monbiot describes this as the “pollution paradox” whereby companies who are most polluting have most to gain from spending money on corporate lobbying and campaign donations, so politics comes to be dominated by the dirtiest companies.[3]
Another issue is the so-called ‘revolving door’ where people move back and forth between public office and private industry roles. This can create conflicts of interest and lead to regulatory capture, where regulators become more responsive to industry interests than to the public interest. For example, a high-paying private sector job can act as a delayed “payback” for favourable decisions or legislation pushed through by an official while still in public office. Also problematic is when former public officials move to private lobbying or corporate roles and use their personal connections with active government colleagues to unfairly influence policy and win contracts. Another concern is regulators being compromised if they hope later to move into a high-paying industry they are regulating.[4] The potential for harm is vast. Many devastating social and environmental impacts have resulted from regulators not doing their jobs properly, such as failing to clamp down on farms allowing agricultural run-off to contaminate rivers, or poor financial regulation resulting in the 2008 financial crisis.
Part of the jigsaw therefore is to restrict the influence of corporate lobbyists.
Many of the suggestions to regulate corporate lobbying to improve our democracy focus on simply making it more transparent by shifting from voluntary to mandatory disclosures that include meeting dates, topics discussed, and the amount spent with government officials required to publish public-facing logs detailing exactly who influenced the creation and amendment of specific legislation.[5]
The assumption being that this will reduce the influence of corporate lobbyists on government policy. I’m doubtful it will. Maybe a decade or two ago, discovering that government ministers have been influenced by business interests rather than the public interest may have raised some eyebrows, but now the voting public have so much to be outraged about, that it’s just one more thing leading many of us to disconnect from politics entirely. This plays into the hands of the powerful and corrupt, and so is no solution at all. More effective would be the following proposals:[6]
One was discussed in the previous edition and involves capping political campaign contributions and offering public funding options to ensure diverse civil society groups have equal access to decision-makers.
We could also profitably learn from Canada’s Lobbying Act. Amongst other things, it addresses the “revolving door” problem by imposing strict, multi-year waiting periods before former politicians, senior government officials, and civil servants can transition into corporate lobbying or influence roles.
Establish an independent Ethics and Integrity Commission to launch investigations, impose meaningful financial penalties, and ban violators from lobbying.[7]
An analysis into the UK’s lobby register found that it covered less than 4% of lobbyists.[8] Edition 12 discussed how the links between wealth and political influence take many forms. Regulation therefore needs to be broad enough to include industry funded think tanks, consultants and policy advocacy. For example, The European Round Table for Industry (ERT) doesn’t represent small businesses, but functions as an elite, CEO-level think tank whose member companies have a combined economic footprint that exceeds the GDP of most EU member states, giving it immense influence over policy. In the US, Koch Industries is run by ultra conservative American billionaires with interests in fossil fuels, chemicals and natural resources. This pours funds into webinars, lobbyists, think tanks and universities and advocates for policies such as deregulation and tax cuts that protect their interests at the expense of workers and communities, and the climate we all depend upon.
Business should have a voice at the table, but alongside proportional space for public interest groups, NGOs, and labour organisations. Later editions will explore related solutions such as multi-stakeholder boards that include nature and future generations.
What you can do
Find your government representative or Member of Parliament and tell them that you’d like grater regulation on corporate lobbying. Find them by clicking on the relevant links: Australia; Canada; UK; USA or elsewhere.
Here are groups you can support who campaign globally to curb the undue influence and political power of corporate lobbying. These groups push for stricter transparency, limits on political financing, and the elimination of conflicts of interest.
- European Coalition for Corporate Justice – ECCJ: This is the largest civil society network devoted to corporate accountability, gathering more than 480 NGOs, trade unions and academic institutions throughout Europe to develop a common vision and approach to the issue. ECCJ currently has 20 members including national coalitions, national chapters from Amnesty International and Oxfam, and international organisations like Friends of the Earth Europe and FIDH.
- Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO): A research and campaign group that exposes and challenges corporate lobbying and privileged access in European Union policymaking.
- Corporate Justice Coalition (CJC): A UK civil society network uniting trade unions and NGOs to push for corporate accountability, supply chain transparency, and legal constraints on corporate abuse.
- Global Justice Now: A UK-based activist organization that challenges corporate power and campaigns against private sector interference in public services and governance
- Friends of the Earth: Frequently runs international and regional campaigns—such as “Planet Over Profit”—targeting corporate lobbying that weakens environmental and human rights protections.
[1] Hall AB. Systemic Effects of Campaign Spending: Evidence from Corporate Contribution Bans in US State Legislatures. Political Science Research and Methods. 2016;4(2):343-359.
Le, T., Onur, I., Sarwar, R., & Yalcin, E. (2024). Money in politics: How does it affect election outcomes? Sage Open, 14(4)
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/09/profits-energy-fossil-fuel-resurgence-climate-crisis-shell-exxon-bp-chevron-totalenergies
[3] Monbiot, George. Out of the Wreckage: A New Politics for an Age of Crisis. Verso, 2017. [1, 2]
[4] Political corruption in Europe: A threat to more… – Transparency.org
[5] From Transparency to Deliberation: How to Reform Lobbying | Political Quarterly
[6] Lobbying Reform: We Need Political Will Not Gesture Politics | Transparency International UK
[7] How do we solve a problem like lobbying? | Transparency International UK
[8] Opaque: an empirical evaluation of lobbying transparency in the UK | Interest Groups & Advocacy | Springer Nature Link
Edition 17. Proportional Representation and the Single Transferable Vote
Which one of these statements best applies to you?
- It doesn’t matter if I vote because the party I support has no chance of getting in.
- My vote won’t make a difference because my party has always been strongest in this area, so it doesn’t need me.
- I’ll be voting to keep the party I don’t like out, not for the one I really want.
- I will vote for the party I really want as my vote has a chance of affecting the outcome.
I would bet that very few of you ticked the last option. The fact is that in democracies with the first-past-the post-system such as the UK and US, most votes make no difference to the outcome.[1] Many people don’t vote at all, and those that do often vote tactically to prevent the party they least like getting in, rather than risk wasting their vote on the party they actually want.
What I’d like is for parties to stand more than one person in a multi-member constituency so I can have a choice of candidates. I’ve had a couple of MPs from the same party in my area. One was competent with solid values, and the other frighteningly ignorant and just churned out meaningless phrases. I’d also like to be able to go into the ballot box and rank the candidates in order of preference. Then I could happily choose my favourite candidate and know that if they had no chance of being selected, or already had enough to get in, then my next favourite would get my vote instead, and if that was also a non-contender, then my third. This is the basis of the Single Transferable Vote (STV), a form of proportional representation that best reflects voter preferences.
Here is a sweet little video which shows how it works in Ireland.
Hence one piece of the puzzle is proportional representation (PR). PR means that the strength of each political party in parliament closely matches their popularity in the country. It’s the most popular electoral system globally with over 130 countries having some form of PR. Around 55 countries, including the UK and US have a ‘winner-take-all’ or ‘first-past-the post’ system.[2]
From https://www.fairvote.ca/a-look-at-the-evidence/
The electoral reform website shown below outlines the features and pros and cons of different kinds of electoral systems.
From: https://electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/
The most common type of PR used globally is the Party List, where each political party presents a list of candidates for a district, where several representatives will be elected, and seats will be distributed proportionally to the number of votes each party receives. Most are closed lists, meaning that voters can vote for parties rather than individual candidates. Parties like this as they want loyal members who will toe the party line, and this system gives the party leadership control over the order of candidates elected by the list.
Democracy campaigners, on the other hand, advocate for the single transferable vote which gives more power to voters to rank different candidates within and between parties.
The goal of the Jigsaw to Save the World project is to puzzle out how we can reach a flourishing, sustainable society. This is the picture on the front of the jigsaw box. Democratic processes are essential to ensure that policy is geared towards the future we want. The good news is that there is more consensus than you might imagine on what that looks like: meaningful work, security, clean air and water, more nature, less division, community, good health and hope for the future.
In edition 14 on a ministry for future generations, I showed how long-term thinking is essential for a sustainable future. Research indicates that proportional systems score higher on indices tracking long-term policy planning and environmental performance as policies are less prone to abrupt reversals when governments change. A key issue with first-past-the post systems that have single-party control, is that they often suffer from “policy lurch” where successive governments spend their terms undoing the legislation of their predecessors.[3]
A piece of the puzzle I’ll come to in a later edition will be culture, and countries with first-past-the post electoral systems tend to have more divisive cultures and communication styles. This is because such systems attract combative orators who excel in a battle of words. Points are won based on the wit and effectiveness of their verbal abuse of those in other parties. This may add to the theatre of politics, but I’d argue it’s not an attribute useful in making thoughtful long-term decision-making with the citizens’ best interests in mind.
One feature of proportional systems is that they usually result in political parties having to work together to agree on policy. Evidence reveals that politicians in such consensus-oriented systems demonstrate a more collaborative working style. Political discourse thus becomes less adversarial, dialling down the divisiveness in our society, which most people find so alienating. Lindhard, in his landmark study of democracies across the world, describes such consensual systems as “kinder, gentler democracies.”[4] Similarly a case study of New Zealand when it changed from first-past-the post to a proportional system found that the tone of debate became less hostile and more collegial.[5]
Numerous studies support the democratic credentials of PR showing that proportional systems lead to governments and policies that better reflect the views of their citizens and are less subject to capture by vested interests.[6] These studies also reveal that countries that adopt PR have a greater percentage of women in government, and score higher on political participation, voter turnout, civil liberties, equality and human development. They also make it easier for smaller minority parties to gain seats. Whether or not people think this is a good or bad thing depends upon whether they favour these smaller parties or not!
Some other features of PR can also be seen as positive or negative depending upon one’s point of view. Proportional systems tend to result in greater stability.[7] Stable proportional democracies like Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland experience fewer snap elections than winner-take-all counterparts like the UK or Canada. Additionally, single-party governments are associated with high levels of policy changes and reversals. Multiparty coalition governments, in contrast are associated with fewer policy changes. One might argue that this is better than the instability and wasting of resources from governments reversing policies of their predecessors, but one might also argue that transformative change is what is required for us to reach the future we desire. In fact, this is exactly what I’ve been arguing in this newsletter.
There are also debates over which system is most accountable. Single-member districts in first-past-the post systems have a clear line of accountability, yet the presence of many ‘safe seats’ in such systems means this accountability is more theoretical than a reality. It’s less obvious who is accountable in coalition governments but the fact that voters have more candidates and parties to choose from is a counterweight.
The criticisms levelled at PR are that it can lead to small parties acting as ‘king-makers’, as illustrated by the FDP in Germany – a minority party that has been able to extract significant policy concessions due to their willingness to work with parties on both the right and left.[8] Furthermore, the process of negotiating coalitions post-election can take weeks, even months leaving a government vacuum.[9]
If there was a referendum, I would vote for PR, especially if it was for STV, but it’s not a corner piece.
Just as a reminder, the corner pieces of the jigsaw are the foundational elements that can unlock and amplify the impact of many other solutions. For instance, Editions 4, 5, 6, and 7 explored low-carbon innovations such as the sharing economy, libraries of things, repair and reuse initiatives, and on-demand public transport. While these approaches already exist, they remain niche. To become mainstream, they require stronger incentives. Therefore, personal carbon allowances or tradable energy quotas, discussed in edition 8, represent a corner piece as they provide that incentive, encouraging wider adoption and making sustainable choices the easier, more attractive option.
PR may better reflect the votes of the electorate, but it’s still not truly representative as politics attracts a very specific kind of person. The wisest and most competent people I know would not have the slightest interest in politics. This is because they don’t seek power and would shy away from the adversarial nature of party politics. Women are especially reluctant and this makes sense as they seem to come in for even more abuse in the media and social media.
Indeed the ancient Greek philosopher Platowrote in The Republic that the ones we choose to take office should be reluctant and “not lovers of rule,” because a person who craves power usually misuses it.
But we’re not far from our next corner piece, so check the next edition to see what it will be.
What you can do
While no system is perfect, the Electoral Reform Society has long championed the Single Transferable Vote as the best system for the UK. Add your name to the call for a proportional parliament.
[1] https://electoral-reform.org.uk/it-should-be-a-scandal-that-small-changes-in-the-vote-result-in-outsize-changes-in-parliament/
[2] https://electoral-reform.org.uk/how-many-countries-around-the-world-use-proportional-representation/
[3] https://www.fairvote.ca/a-look-at-the-evidence/
[4] Lijphart, Arend. Patterns of Democracy. Yale University Press, 2012. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bg23
[5] https://www.cambridge.org/core/membership/services/aop-file-manager/file/5c17e6505255b21d5a22eba2/APMM-2019-Kuniaki-Nemoto.pdf
[6] https://www.fairvote.ca/a-look-at-the-evidence/ and Lijphart, Arend. Patterns of Democracy. Yale University Press, 2012. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bg23
[7] The More Parties, the Greater Policy Stability | European Political Science | Cambridge Core
[8] FDP: The return of the kingmaker
[9] Dutch government finally sworn in after Wilders election win – BBC News
Edition 18. Laws Against Disinformation
Mis- and disinformation is such a huge issue that in this edition, I will focus only on its use in politics and address its role in areas such as climate in another edition.
A democracy is only as effective as the quality of information voters are exposed to. So it is concerning that many of the elections of the last few decades have been characterised by misinformation: false information shared in the belief that this true; or co-ordinated campaigns of disinformation, deliberately spread to mislead and manipulate voters.
In the Philippines in 2022, voters were engulfed in a “firehose strategy of disinformation” driven by trolls and bots on social media, with 95% of negative claims about the opposition being proved false, as were a similar proportion of positive claims about the winner.[1] A report on the 2025 Federal election in Australia reveals that almost two thirds of voters came across election misinformation, and most would like stronger action on this. US elections have been riddled with outlandish conspiracy theories and disinformation. In 2016, the issue was Russian interference in the US election,[2] whereas in the following elections, concern shifted to domestic disinformation campaigns.[3][4]
The 2024 presidential election in Romania reveals the danger of foreign interference in elections where a little-known candidate won the first round with 23% of the vote.[5] The candidate had views aligned closely with that of the Kremlin such as anti-NATO and anti-EU narratives and admiration for authoritarian leaders. He was also known for spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation. Fortunately Romanian law permits elections to be annulled when foreign interference is proven, and in this case it was clear that Tik Tok bots, AI-inflated engagement and disinformation networks accounted for the result.
Mike Berners-Lee in his book, A Climate of Truth proposes that every time we hear a politician lie, we should express our outrage and call it out for the untruth it is. I hesitate to critique the opinions of someone I respect as much as Mike, but I fear the results could be – are being – counterproductive. One issue is that the more times we hear the lie, the more it becomes familiar. We remember the statement, but not always that it was highlighted as untrue.[6]
There is also a danger that focusing on lies amplifies attention on those who produce them. This is particularly problematic with populist figures, who thrive on media coverage. Even responsible efforts to fact-check misinformation may unintentionally sustain attention cycles that benefit such individuals. As a result, constant exposure to dishonesty risks both eroding the norm of truthfulness and reinforcing the influence of those spreading falsehoods, ultimately “feeding the beast” rather than curbing it.
The cross-party think tank, Demos, tabled amendments to the UK Representation of the People Bill which is currently going through parliament. The Bill widens the voter base to 16-year-olds, tightens voter registration processes, enhances protection for candidates and toughens rules against foreign donors. All good stuff but there’s nothing on disinformation. Their proposed amendments include new legal clauses to address election-related deepfakes and AI-generated mis/disinformation targeting candidates and MPs, greater investigative powers for the Electoral Commission, creating a transparent repository for political advertising and a protocol for action in the event of a co-ordinated online disinformation campaign. For example, Canada has an election information incident protocol that sets out what sources to use and who has decision-making power in the event of a disinformation crisis. This provides transparency and accountability, which is especially important at such a time. These proposals have been rejected at the committee stage but Demos plan to re-table them and hope to get more support.[7]
Taiwan provides an example of how democratic societies can successfully resist disinformation campaigns. Widely regarded as one of the countries most heavily targeted by foreign disinformation – primarily from China[8] – it has developed innovative responses that are now seen as models for others.
Taiwan strengthened its legal framework by introducing penalties of up to seven years’ imprisonment for using deepfake audio or video to influence election outcomes. Audrey Tang, then Ambassador-at-Large for Cyberspace Governance, helped raise public awareness by creating a deepfake version of themself to demonstrate how easily such content can be manipulated.
Media literacy was integrated into the school curriculum, teaching students how to evaluate sources and identify misinformation, while the Taiwan FactCheck Center supports public verification efforts.
Other countries also have fact-checking sites, such as Full Fact and BBC Verify in the UK, Factcheck.org in the US, and EFCSN in Europe. These require voters to take the time to consult them so one of the strategies that Taiwan found especially effective was “prebunking”: releasing explanatory content within hours of identifying new disinformation. They found that prebunking can act as a form of inoculation, helping people recognise and resist misleading content.[9] While less effective if individuals encounter the false information first, it is much more successful when delivered in advance, preparing audiences for the tactics they may encounter.
The Welsh Parliament (Senedd) has made the most progress in fighting back against disinformation and recently passed landmark legislation which should come into force in 2030. It makes it a criminal offence to make false or misleading statements during election campaigns.[10] Fifty members backed the bill, with just one voting against. The bill also introduces a recall system for Senedd members who breach behavioural standards, strengthens the standards process by including independent members, and gives the standards commissioner powers to initiate investigations without receiving a formal complaint.
Supporters argue that the legislation could help rebuild public trust in politics. However, concerns were raised about its potential impact on free speech and democratic debate, and the fact that the bill doesn’t sufficiently define what counts as a “false or misleading” statement.[11] The cynic in me wonders if this is because such a bill will cramp some politicians’ campaigning style. But actually they have a point. What exactly is disinformation?
During the Brexit campaign in 2016, Boris Johnson made claims that were widely held to be deeply misleading, including warnings that a Remain vote could lead to millions of Turkish people coming to the UK and the famous promise that Brexit would free up £350 million a week for the NHS. Making such claims to affect an election outcome is still legal in UK law, so attempts were made to hold him to account on the basis of misconduct in public office.
This failed because the UK courts determined that political campaigning does not fall under the legal definition of misconduct in public office. The argument was that determining the truth of political statements is the role of campaigners and the electorate during debate, rather than a matter for the criminal justice system. Even if it was criminalised, to prove this was disinformation in a court of law you’d have to show that it wasn’t just an error, or because he used certain assumptions, but that he deliberately and knowingly spread falsehoods to influence the outcome of an election in his favour.
There is also a fine line between deliberate disinformation, and misinformation motivated by ignorance or a wilful blindness to uncomfortable facts. Just to be fair, I’ll use the example of a female Labour MP that I used in edition 3. She made enthusiastic claims that all growth was green growth. Had she looked at the research, she could not honestly have made such a sweeping claim.
Note. Please let me know if you can find examples of any improvements in energy efficiency, that haven’t also been accompanied by an overall increase in demand and total emissions produced. I would genuinely love to share them as we need to know when it goes right, because of course we’d love all growth to be green – but it just isn’t and weight of evidence shows that barring transformative changes to the system, it never will be.[12]
This is very far from the previous example. Firstly, it is a more contested issue. I feel confident in my assessment, but expecting every politician to have specialist knowledge in this area may be unrealistic. That said, when growth sits at the heart of a party’s economic strategy and tackling climate change is also a stated priority, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to expect a basic understanding of the conflict between those goals. She was responding to an audience question at an event on “green growth” so the question of whether growth was in tension with addressing our environmental challenges was certain to come up. Even so, I wouldn’t accuse her of deliberately spreading disinformation. I’d say this was a case of benign incompetence, that’s equally spread across us all, not just politicians. It matters though when the outcome of policies based on wishful thinking is climate breakdown. It matters hugely. What one would really hope for is that the information that voters are exposed to is as rigorous as that you’d get in a court of law. Such a process already exists in the form of citizens’ juries, more commonly known as citizens’ assemblies, and these will be the next piece of the jigsaw.
What you can do
- Make use of the fact checking sites listed and share with others: e.g. Full Fact and BBC Verify in the UK, Factcheck.org in the US, Snopes which is US focused but international and EFCSN in Europe.
- Campaign against mis- and disinformation. For example, if you are a parent or educator teach your children/students about media literacy and how to spot mis and disinformation. For example, see: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/what-we-do/helping-to-dismiss-disinformation-around-the-general-election.
- Make sure you are not accidentally spreading misinformation yourself. Watch this 7-minute video and share with others for a guide. Tips include: assessing news stories instead of reacting to emotional or sensational headlines. Check the source, and verify claims using fact checking sites listed above before automatically sharing.
- If you are enjoying the #JigsawToSaveTheWorld, please repost and share with those who may be interested.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-61339293
https://up.edu.ph/filipino-voters-were-engulfed-in-relentless-stream-of-disinformation/
[2] https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/dl?inline=
[3] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2025/10/06/the-2020-us-election-shows-how-state-election-policies-can-fuel-conspiracy-theories-about-voting/
[4] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/project-2025-aims-derail-efforts-stop-election-disinformation
[5] How Romania’s Presidential Election Became the Plot of a Cyber-Thriller | European Youth Portal
[6] Lewandowsky, S, Ecker, UKH, Seifert, CM, Schwarz, N and Cook, J (2012) Misinformation and its correction. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 13(3), 106–131.10.1177/1529100612451018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[8] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67891869 https://www.thomsonfoundation.org/media/268943/ai_disinformation_attacks_taiwan.pdf
[9] ‘Pre-bunking’ is key tactic in disinformation fight, says Taiwan’s Audrey Tang – Nikkei Asia
[10] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8n99727lvo
[11] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v07je1119o
[12] Although I’d also suggest that if the policies outlined in this jigsaw were all adopted, then growth could perhaps be green one day. Even so, I wouldn’t bet our future on it.
Edition 19. Rebooting Democracy
In the previous six editions I’ve proposed numerous ways to reboot our democracy, and I stand by them all, but none of them is a corner piece, because they can only take us so far, and certainly not far enough to reach the flourishing, sustainable society on the front of the jigsaw.
If we implement them all we will end up with a democracy that has caps on political donations and lobbying, but which are easily evaded. We would have a future generations minister who stands alone against a parliament still governed by short electoral cycles and who risks being dismantled if they exercise their power. There would be laws against disinformation and sites for citizens to fact check (if they choose to do so) statements made during political campaigns, but little defence against more general misinformation. We’d have a government that represents the party-political preferences of the majority, but which is entirely composed of the kinds of people that want to be politicians and excludes those who don’t desire power or who shrink from the limelight.
As the human race grows ever more powerful, our political choices matter more than ever. Now, with nuclear weapons, AI, and climate change, the quality of our decision-making has consequences for the future of humanity itself.
Consider space
As you are probably aware, space travel and satellite technology is no longer just the province of government agencies such as NASA, it is increasingly in the hands of commercial operators. Government regulation has fallen far behind.[1] Space tourism is now a thing and satellite services with the power to decide wars are in private hands. Space offers new frontiers but how should we proceed, or should we proceed at all?
What do you think?
Should we go boldly into space, explore extra-terrestrial opportunities and technologies and seek out new planets even though it puts an extra climate and environmental burden on the earth, and huge power in the hands of those in control of space-based technologies?
- Yes
- No
If yes, is this because:
- I’ve watched too much Star Trek (is there such a thing as too much?)
- It provides lots of high-tech jobs, and spinoff innovations like water purification systems, scratch-resistant lenses and microgravity research accelerating treatments for osteoporosis, cancer, and muscle wasting diseases.
- Elon Musk/Jeff Bezos is my hero.
- Don’t ruin it for me by asking awkward questions. It just sounds exciting and I like space movies.
- Because everyone talks in hushed reverent voices about the amazingness of space.
- It’s a testament to the human spirit, showing how brilliant and innovative we are.
- Won’t seeing the Earth from space and how fragile and beautiful it is make us all care more?
- Satellites enable internet access, GPS navigation, television broadcasting and help us to track deforestation, measure ocean temperatures, predict severe weather patterns, and assist in disaster response.
If no is this because:
- It’s ridiculous to claim it’s monitoring weather patterns and disasters when it’s helping to cause them. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points and the enormous greenhouse gas emissions from space exploration could tip us over the edge into ‘hothouse earth’. Rockets release potent greenhouse gases like CO₂, black carbon (soot) and nitrogen oxides which are accelerating climate change. Black carbon in the upper atmosphere has an extra-strong warming effect so is especially harmful.
- Space travel is driven by a handful of extremely wealthy individuals who wield enormous influence over media and politics despite being unelected and largely unaccountable. History suggests that great wealth and power can easily breed hubris. I’m uneasy about concentrating even more power in their hands and risking a future in which society becomes dependent on their goodwill.
- The resources needed for space technologies are similar to those needed for solar energy. When one barrier to the transition to green energy is the availability of lithium and cobalt for battery storage, space travel is a danger to our climate in more ways than one.
- Space travel harms wildlife and ecosystems. Space debris risks collisions and often falls into oceans polluting marine ecosystems. Light pollution from satellites affects wildlife that rely on natural light cycles. Launch sites and testing facilities are often located in sensitive ecosystems and destroy habitats and contaminate soil and water.
- It’s bad for our health. Solid rocket fuels release chlorine which weakens the ozone layer increasing UV radiation at Earth’s surface – a causal factor in skin cancers. Fuels (e.g., hydrazine) are highly toxic and harmful to both human health and wildlife near launch/test sites. When satellites burn up on re-entry, they release metal particles such as aluminium oxides into the atmosphere with long term impacts that are still unknown. This is on top of the fact that the emissions in the upper atmosphere accelerate climate change which kills untold numbers of people through drought, fires, floods, heatstroke and likely food shortages.
Whatever we decide, I would want policies made by people who can think long term and are not constrained by electoral cycles. I’d want them to have the best quality of information available to them, and to have no vested interests beyond those of an average citizen. I’d also want the people making such decisions to reflect the society they represent. Not just the most extrovert, the richest or the most power-hungry, but everyday people with a variety of backgrounds and skills and perspectives who are given time and space to listen to all the arguments and pros and cons. In other words, I’d want them made by citizens’ assemblies.
In the next edition I will talk about what citizens’ assemblies are, how they work, provide some examples and explain why they are worthy of being a corner piece.
[1] https://theconversation.com/private-space-tourism-is-taking-off-but-laws-on-outer-space-are-from-another-era-283761
Edition 20. Citizens’ Assemblies
Picture a road trip in France with 4 friends before the days of sat nav, when everyone had to rely on maps and whatever signposts the authorities had deigned to provide. Martin was driving, Corin, Simon and I were passengers. Corin had lived in the area and knew it well. I knew it a little and Simon and Martin not at all.
At every roundabout Simon would hail with great certainty, “straight on” or “first right” and Martin would obey. I disagreed. Corin was keeping quiet, worried about getting it wrong and being blamed. I had no such qualms and would protest loudly: “I’m pretty sure it’s left, not right.” But Simon’s booming certainty won out. We ended up at a dead end. Undeterred, he declared himself “one hundred percent sure” of the way back, only to lead us astray yet again. Corin, the one person who actually knew where we were going remained reluctant to speak.
We laugh about it now, yet despite Simon’s track record of being wrong, his confident, slightly posh voice continues to carry more weight than other people’s knowledge. He also believed anyone else who spoke with similar certainty, often repeating opinions picked up from some equally confident fellow at a social event, regardless of the evidence.
Simon went into politics and proclaimed with great confidence on many matters and people always listened to him, reassured by the obvious rightness of his tone. An entertaining and kind man and almost 100% wrong on pretty well everything from his analysis of people’s relationships to how to get to Reims from Paris.
The lesson is not that Martin was foolish. Like most of us, he was responding to the human instinct to trust certainty over hesitation. On a holiday, that may only waste time and petrol. In politics, the consequences are far greater. When decisions are complex and uncertainty is unavoidable, we need exactly the kinds of people who are unlikely to choose a career in politics.
We need decisions to be made by a group of people with a diversity of backgrounds and lived experience that represent society, unaffected by vested interests beyond those of being a citizen on this planet and supported with information that is of the highest quality. This leads me onto the second corner piece of the jigsaw: citizens assemblies.
What are citizens’ assemblies?
Citizens assemblies bring together typically between 50 and 200 people who are chosen randomly by lot – much like a jury – and balanced to ensure they are representative of the society in terms of age, gender, class, ethnicity etc. They sit at tables of about eight people each chaired by a facilitator who ensures that no one dominates and everyone gets a chance to speak. They are given a specific issue or list of issues to deliberate on. They are presented with evidence and information by expert witnesses, again much like a jury, but are able to request more evidence and from different sources if they feel they need it. They are given time to debate the issues, often meeting over several weekends for around a year. Unlike a jury, a citizens’ assembly does not need to reach total agreement and often uses structured voting systems requiring a majority to pass final recommendations.[1]
There are several varieties of participative democratic processes where participants are chosen by lottery to reflect the wider population (sortition) which come under the umbrella term of ‘deliberative mini-publics’. Citizens’ juries are similar to citizens’ assemblies, but smaller with about 12-30 participants. Participatory budgeting describes processes whereby randomly selected members of the community decide how to allocate funds from a limited budget.
An analysis of 300 representative cases across numerous countries in 2020[2] reported a rapid increase in deliberative mini-publics over the previous ten years. Most were local or regional, some were national and a few international. They addressed a variety of issues such as urban planning, health, environment, infrastructure and strategic planning. The study found them to be especially good at addressing issues that are long term, require assessing trade-offs and values-based dilemmas.
The process of deliberation is a key factor in the quality of decision-making. A research programme on deliberative polling[3], spanning more than 150 applications across over 50 countries, provides evidence that deliberation increases political knowledge, produces more informed and coherent opinions, reduces polarization, and fosters mutual respect among participants.
My interest in citizens assemblies began for these reasons: it seemed obvious that such a design would lead to higher quality decision-making that was less short term, not in hoc to an adversarial media and vested interests and better reflected the needs of the population. However, when I became involved in a small way in my home city’s citizens’ assembly on climate,[4] I realised I had missed the biggest thing of all. The joy. At a public event to celebrate its completion, participants fed back their experiences. I was struck by how enthusiastic they were. One man was almost in tears when he expressed how amazing it felt to be sat at a table opposite people who thought so differently to him and in a calm respectful environment feel able to speak and be heard and in turn to hear others and walk in their shoes. He described feeling empowered, energised and hopeful. Others spoke of a great love, not just for those in their group, but for humanity as a whole as they realised that the apparent division we see on our screens is largely manufactured, and that when left alone, people seek to agree.
This was also an unanticipated finding by Hélène Landemore, a professor of political science, who attended the French citizens’ assemblies on same sex marriage (2013), on climate (2020) and on end-of-life (2023). She describes how participants often ignored the set questions on the feedback sheet and instead used the space to describe the sense of love and solidarity, kindness and warmth even from those they disagreed with.[5] Many talked about improvements in self-esteem, feeling useful and how joyful it felt to be working with other people for a common goal – ‘one of the most beautiful experiences of my life.’ Even the most disengaged climate sceptic who kept threatening to leave, stayed and was actively involved until the end. When asked why afterwards he said he felt loved: ‘…there is a communion of souls. You feel it.’ People who met as strangers for the first meeting met like old friends on the third, greeting each other by name with hugs and banter. There was conflict, but also resolution. One man known for his angry outbursts, became respected and even loved when it became clear his anger came from a deep sense of caring. Some brought their own baggage to the table. In a citizens’ assembly on same-sex marriage, a homophobic man was sat at the same table as a homosexual man who had a history of being bullied. After initial conflict, they came to understand each other. The homophobe confessed a trauma from his past which explained his attitude and in turn he came to understand how it must feel to live in fear of discrimination. They became fast friends and supporters of each other.
In my many sessions asking people what their vision of a flourishing future looks like, a more communal and less divisive society always comes up. Unlike our current adversarial system, designed to encourage and maximise division, especially in the absence of coalition governments, Landemore’s experiences led her to claim that this kind of deliberative democracy – politics by lot – could be the best way to heal the divisions in society.
“In my experience, the beauty of random selection lies in its ability to bring together people who would otherwise never meet. Freed from partisan labels, they begin by listening without prejudice, working toward a shared purpose. And by the time their differences surface, they’ve already learned to respect, sometimes even love, those who see the world differently. I’ve witnessed this kind of civic friendship first hand. Fierce, unexpected and real.” ( Landemore, H. (2026). Politics without politicians)
What you can do
If you’re already convinced, now is a good time to campaign in the UK because our new Prime Minister is considering alternatives to The House of Lords. Find your government representative or Member of Parliament and email them, whether you are in Australia; Canada; UK; USA or elsewhere.
The main campaigning group in the UK, Australia and United States is The Sortition Foundation. As you will see in the next edition, citizens’ assemblies have been successfully used across the world, but in most cases have only the power to recommend. Sortition are building a movement for more permanent and powerful citizens’ assemblies. In the UK for example they are campaigning to replace the unelected House of Lords with a House of Citizens. You can subscribe to their newsletter and support the cause here.
Democracy Next also provide information and campaign on this topic. Follow them on LinkedIn.
Involve are another organisation advocating for participative democracy with a mission “to make public participation and deliberation an everyday part of our democracy, and help solve the big challenges of our time.”
Share details of where democratic participation is flourishing. Here’s a 10-minute Ted talk by Jon Alexander who co-hosts the podcast ‘How To Save Democracy’: Jon Alexander: How citizens (not politicians) are building the future | TED Talk
Find out more about the research into citizens assemblies and other forms of participative democracy at these sites:
Politics Without Politicians: The Case for Citizen Rule by Hélène Landemore is a great book to learn more about citizens assemblies from someone who has been actively involved in researching them. It’s also available as an audio book.
If you work in a school, check out some guidelines on civic education and how to use democratic lotteries to replace elections for student representatives: https://democracyinpractice.org/
The main barrier to citizens’ assemblies is lack of awareness, and culture can play a key role in reaching a variety of audiences.
If you’re in a school, amateur or professional theatre group, stage the fun and dramatic whodunnit, Murder in the Citizens’ Jury. The play is adapted from a script that won the Writing Climate Pitchfest and had a sellout run in 2024. Murder in the Citizens’ Jury imagines eight people in a citizens’ assembly on climate discussing the most important challenge in the history of humanity – how to save ourselves from the looming climate crisis. Exciting new solutions are proposed (including those covered in editions 4, 5, 6 and 8), each with their own champions and detractors, and then there’s a murder! The play is available at a cost via LazyBee, but if you come to me direct, I’m offering it royalty-free to student and amateur theatre groups to stage.
Buy one or more of these books as a birthday/Christmas present for any friends who are readers, or suggest to your local library or book club:
- The Assassin: a novella adapted from the play available as an audio book (free if you have Spotify premium or audible), and on all major audiobook platforms. It’s also available as an eBook and paperback on all main platforms or to purchase direct from the publisher. Details and purchasing links here.
- The Philosopher and the Assassin: contemporary literary fiction that weaves together campus novel, moral philosophy, climate and murder mystery.
- No More Fairy Tales: Stories to Save our Planet: an anthology of 24 short stories from various authors, some of which explore the idea of citizens’ assemblies.
These are all wonderful reads with great reviews and available to buy via all main platforms or direct from the publisher.
Read them yourself, and if you enjoy them, leave a review to help boost their readership. You can see the best review sites here. Even better recommend to your local library or book club.
[1] https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/what
[2] https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/innovative-citizen-participation-and-new-democratic-institutions_339306da-en.html
[3] De Gruyter Handbook of Citizens Assemblies and Can Deliberation Cure the Ills of Democracy? | Oxford Academic
[4] You can see a short video here: Southampton Citizens’ Climate Assembly
[5] Landemore, H. (2026). Politics without politicians: The case for citizen rule. Penguin.
Edition 20b. Critiques of Citizens’ Assemblies
In the previous edition I described the different kinds of citizens’ assemblies and ‘deliberative mini-publics’ and cited evidence showing they tend towards high-quality decision-making. I also covered the unexpected but joyous discovery that citizens assemblies were not conflict-ridden, fist-thumping shouting matches, but instead places of purpose, solidarity, warmth and respectful debate that enriched the lives and perspectives of those who participated in them.
In this edition I’ll discuss some of the critiques and how they can be addressed. These include a discussion of how their legitimacy compares to our current system, how to protect from undue influence, and the potential for ‘participation washing.’ This charge occurs when the recommendations are not acted upon by governments. In most cases, the decision whether to implement the recommendations produced by citizens assemblies is still made by the very same governments who are subject to all the constraints outlined at the start of this chapter and in the previous six editions.
For example, President Macron had promised that the recommendations of the Citizens’ Convention for Climate would be passed ‘without filter.’ After months of work the assembly put forward 149 proposals which were translated into policy-ready language by a supporting legal team. These proposals were deemed by qualified experts to be practically and technically feasible, and all but one of the main proposals had majority support in the country, so when three of these were vetoed on political grounds, it caused an outcry, especially as some other proposals were also watered down. One of the vetoed proposals was a 4% capital gains tax. This bears out the claims made earlier (see edition 15 on capping political donations and edition 16 on restricting corporate lobbying) that policy aligns disproportionately with the interests of the ultra-rich, as wealth taxes are extremely popular with the public, yet rarely implemented by politicians, who rely on the wealthy for much of their funding.
Support is growing for embedding citizens’ assemblies into the constitution and granting them legislative power. But if we’re to take them seriously as an alternative to our current representative democracy, or as a second chamber, then we need to consider some other critiques.
Expertise
One concern is that of expertise, and a reluctance to grant power to citizens who may know little about an issue. However, studies have found that groups of citizens with a diversity of backgrounds and experiences bring a collective intelligence that performs better in problem-solving than groups composed of individuals of the highest ability[1]. For example, less law-abiding members will understand how a policy is likely to be ‘gamed’ by the unscrupulous. Renters or those living in rural communities will see issues with policies that may not occur to metropolitan homeowners. Facilitators ensure that everyone gets to contribute their view, uncovering this wealth of knowledge and experience.
Evidence is growing that citizens chosen at random when given responsibility, use it well, performing better than politicians in several respects. For example, following the financial crash of 2008, a random sample of Icelanders were recruited to draft a new constitution. A panel of 25 ordinary citizens, working from input gathered from 950 randomly selected Icelanders and public online contributions, produced a constitutional draft that many scholars judged to be superior to expert-written alternatives. The citizen draft achieved consensus more quickly, addressed contentious issues such as natural resource ownership, and expanded human rights protections.[2]
A related fear is that citizens may be overly dependent upon the experts chosen to provide evidence and information. This of course applies to politicians too, for example via think tanks funded by corporations or wealthy elites. However, it is still true that attention must be paid to the quality and independence of those chosen to provide information for the citizens to base their decisions on. The UN Democracy Fund provides a guidebook that includes best practices for choosing resources and experts. They propose that participants should have access to information from a variety of sources including government, community and industry stakeholders and sources selected by the citizens themselves. In particular they recommend that after their first round of discussions, the assembly should be asked what more they need to know in order to make an informed decision. This enables them to identify any information gaps or request additional evidence or expert input.
Some reassurance is provided by studies indicating that participants become confident in challenging experts and requesting further information. For example, in the French Citizens’ Convention on the End-of-Life, many assembly members took the extra step of visiting hospices, something that wasn’t part of the official agenda.[3]
Legitimacy
Another critique is that citizens assemblies would not be accountable in the same way as elected representatives. Vandamme[4] offers the counterargument that the supposed accountability of elected politicians is more theoretical than actual, with many voters ignorant of the performance or even the name of their representative. It is also argued that accountability is especially important in areas where conflicts of interest or corruption are prevalent, as is the case with elected politicians, but much less so with randomly selected members of a citizens’ assembly.
Practically there a trade-off between accountability and independence, as the more citizens’ assembly members are required to publicly share their views and decisions, the more vulnerable the assembly will become to undue influence by vested interests, thus undermining one of their key benefits.
Legitimacy is undermined by corruption. There is a self-selection bias with power, attracting those who enjoy controlling others. Politics provides many examples, with some individuals appearing more motivated by status, influence, or personal gain than public service. More troubling still, power may attract those most susceptible to corruption. Indeed, the more willing people are to compromise their integrity, the more likely they are to seek positions where opportunities for corruption exist.
Previous editions have highlighted numerous ways that policymaking can be captured by vested interests, much of it legal, such as corporate lobbying and huge donations by billionaires, but also illegally through deliberate disinformation and corruption. As participants in citizens’ assemblies are selected by lottery, there are no opportunities to buy influence before representatives are chosen. While assembly members could still be targeted once in office, their short, rotating terms make corruption far more difficult and expensive, as lobbyists and vested interests have little time to build long-term relationships. Sortition also prevents political power from becoming concentrated among wealthy, well-connected elites who often form entrenched networks of influence.
However, some challenge their legitimacy on the grounds that while all eligible citizens can vote, relatively few will be chosen to be part of a citizens’ assembly. In reality, very few votes in an election make a difference in a first-past-the-post electoral system. Only if you live in a marginal constituency is your vote likely to count. A proportional system such as the single transferable vote discussed in edition 17 would help. Either way, this is a valid concern.
One response to issues of accountability and legitimacy is to have a hybrid model that uses citizens’ assemblies as a second chamber to support the government. The exact nature of the relationship would depend upon the existing system. In the UK, for example, there is a proposal to replace the House of Lords – an unelected second chamber – with a House of Citizens[5]. Similarly, there are campaigns for a House of Citizens in Scotland.[6]
East Belgium[7] already has a permanent citizens assembly embedded in a two-tier system. This comprises a permanent Citizens’ Council (roughly 24 people serving 18-month terms) to set agendas and manage topics, which are complemented by temporary Citizens’ Assemblies (around 30 to 50 people) to study specific issues. Participants are chosen by random lot (sortition), balanced to match the wider public by age, gender, and background. Proposals go directly to regional parliaments or joint committees. Lawmakers are required to officially debate, vote on, and transparently respond to the citizens’ recommendations.
In Ireland, stalemate on divisive issues such as same-sex marriage was overcome in 2012 by a citizens’ assembly that comprised two-thirds citizens selected by lot and one third politicians. After hearing expert evidence and debating over several weekends, the assembly recommended legalising same-sex marriage, a proposal later approved by referendum, making Ireland the first country to do so. This success provided confidence in the process and the next big citizens’ assembly in 2016 comprised solely of randomly selected citizens and addressed the equally contentious issue of abortion. Since then, Ireland has convened several further citizens’ assemblies on gender equality, climate change and the future of healthcare, with many of their recommendations subsequently endorsed through referendums.
The inclusion of politicians in the first Irish citizens assembly provided politicians with some sense of control over the then relatively unknown format. The use of a referendum to ratify recommendations addresses the legitimacy question as it allows everyone a chance to register their opinion.
There are no magic bullets though, because unlike the high-quality information provided to citizens’ assembly participants, as discussed in edition 18, many referenda are accompanied by streams of misinformation and disinformation.[8]
Another argument for legitimacy is that countries that have experience of citizens’ assemblies support their greater use. For example, the majority of French citizens, following the Citizens’ Convention on Climate in 2020 believed it had the legitimacy to recommend policies and thought the government should be required to implement them.[9]
Legitimacy also relates to representation. Indeed the American constitution specifies that government should “be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it.”[10] A major claim of citizens’ assemblies is that they are more representative than elected politicians. It’s hard to argue the point, although there have been counter claims that only a certain kind of person would agree to take part. Here it’s a case of you get what you pay for. Some like the national French citizens assemblies on climate and on end-of-life, and the Canadian citizens’ assembly on electoral reform, paid all travel, food, childcare and accommodation expenses for participants, in addition to providing a daily honorarium. Participants in the Irish citizens assemblies are paid expenses, but not for their time, which could provide a barrier for some. The make-up of these assemblies chosen by lot was vastly more representative than that of the elected government. Where they are run on limited funds, then unless participation is mandatory, it’s true that it will be more likely to attract those with time on their hands. However, the sortition process can still choose a representative sample based on demographic criteria from the pool of volunteers.[11] They have also been successfully conducted on shoestring budgets, with adjustments to local contexts (e.g. in Bosnia, Lebanon and Columbia).
Representation is broader than external characteristics such as age, gender and income. Many capable citizens are shy, introverted, socially marginalised or simply put off by the adversarial nature of politics. Politicians tend to be confident, ambitious and often drawn from socio-economic elites – a congruence of qualities that apply to a tiny fraction of the population. The result is a political class that is unrepresentative and often disconnected from citizens’ needs.
This edition has addressed some of the critiques, but whether or not you are convinced depends upon your goal. For this project, the goal is a flourishing, sustainable future – that is the picture on the front of the jigsaw and in the next edition I will talk about how granting legal power to citizens’ assemblies could be the necessary systemic change that will help us to get there.
What you can do
Email your MP/member of congress
If you’re already convinced, now is a good time to campaign in the UK because our new Prime Minister is considering alternatives to The House of Lords. Find your government representative or Member of Parliament and email them, whether you are in Australia; Canada; UK; USA or elsewhere.
Campaign
The main campaigning group in the UK, Australia and United States is The Sortition Foundation. Sortition are building a movement for more permanent and powerful citizens’ assemblies. In the UK for example they are campaigning to replace the unelected House of Lords with a House of Citizens. You can subscribe to their newsletter and support the cause here.
For schools
If you work in a school, check out some guidelines on civic education and how to use democratic lotteries to replace elections for student representatives: https://democracyinpractice.org/
For schools, student and amateur theatre groups
Stage the fun and dramatic whodunnit, Murder in the Citizens’ Jury. The play is adapted from a script that won the Writing Climate Pitchfest and had a sellout run in 2024. Murder in the Citizens’ Jury imagines eight people in a citizens’ assembly on climate discussing the most important challenge in the history of humanity – how to save ourselves from the looming climate crisis. Exciting new solutions are proposed (including those covered in editions 4, 5, 6 and 8), each with their own champions and detractors, and then there’s a murder! The play is available at a cost via LazyBee, but if you come to me direct, I’m offering it royalty-free to student and amateur theatre groups to stage.
Raise awareness via books, libraries and book clubs
The main barrier to citizens’ assemblies is lack of awareness, and culture can play a key role in reaching a variety of audiences.
Buy one or more of these books as a birthday/Christmas present for any friends who are readers, or suggest to your local library or book club:
- The Assassin: a novella adapted from the play available as an audio book (free if you have Spotify premium or audible), and on all major audiobook platforms. It’s also available as an eBook and paperback on all main platforms or to purchase direct from the publisher. Details and purchasing links here.
- The Philosopher and the Assassin: contemporary literary fiction that weaves together campus novel, moral philosophy, climate and murder mystery.
- No More Fairy Tales: Stories to Save our Planet: an anthology of 24 short stories from various authors, some of which explore the idea of citizens’ assemblies.
These are all wonderful reads with great reviews and available to buy via all main platforms or direct from the publisher.
Read them yourself, and if you enjoy them, leave a review to help boost their readership. You can see the best review sites here. Even better recommend to your local library or book club.
Learn more
Democracy Next provide information and campaign on this topic. Follow them on LinkedIn.
Involve are another organisation advocating for participative democracy with a mission “to make public participation and deliberation an everyday part of our democracy, and help solve the big challenges of our time.”
Share details of where democratic participation is flourishing. Here’s a 10-minute Ted talk by Jon Alexander who co-hosts the podcast ‘How To Save Democracy’: Jon Alexander: How citizens (not politicians) are building the future | TED Talk
Find out more about the research into citizens assemblies and other forms of participative democracy at these sites:
Politics Without Politicians: The Case for Citizen Rule by Hélène Landemore is a great book to learn more about citizens assemblies from someone who has been actively involved in researching them. It’s also available as an audio book.
[1] https://politicalphilosophyjournal.org/article/id/23914/
[2] Landemore, H. (2015). Inclusive constitution‐making: The Icelandic experiment. Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(2), 166-191.
[3] Landemore, H. (2026). Politics without politicians: The case for citizen rule. Penguin.
[4] Vandamme, Pierre-Étienne. “3 Citizens’ assemblies and accountability”. De Gruyter Handbook of Citizens’ Assemblies, edited by Min Reuchamps, Julien Vrydagh and Yanina Welp, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2023, pp. 35-46. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110758269-005
[5] https://www.858.org.uk/house-of-citizens
[6] https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/thousands_join_call_for_a_house_of_citizens_scotland
[7] https://www.publicdeliberation.net/the-ostbelgien-model-five-years-on/
[8] https://demotrust.org/misinformation-and-its-political-consequences-the-case-of-brexit/
[9] https://europeandemocracyhub.epd.eu/getting-real-about-citizens-assemblies-a-new-theory-of-change-for-citizens-assemblies/
[10] The Avalon Project : Federalist No 39
[11] https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/services
Edition 20c. A Culture of Participation
Mention the word ‘politics’ and most people will frown. They may change the subject or get angry and wave their arms around and rant about how terrible it all is.
Many of us have switched off from politics altogether– a kind of silent quitting that just makes it even easier for corrupt elites to get away with dodgy practices. Finding ways to engage people more in civic life is essential for any kind of change.
But what if politics was fun?
As discussed in edition 20, what’s been notable from my experience of talking to those who took part in citizens’ assemblies, and from reading about others, is the sense of joy, solidarity, fraternity and love expressed by participants. Landemore, for example, describes how graphic designers in the French citizens’ assemblies drew a decision tree with all the pros and cons to help those who thought more visually to understand the line of argument. But they also included in it the inside jokes and banter that had developed over the process. This created laughter-filled moments and a joie de vivre to counter the intensity of the debates.[1]
Selecting representatives by lottery trusts that ordinary people, when called upon, will take their responsibilities seriously and act in the common interest. Citizens’ assemblies repeatedly demonstrate that they do. Politics ceases to be a distant spectacle or a toxic battleground and becomes a shared endeavour, transforming citizens from spectators into co-creators of public life.
But what about the vast majority that are not selected to take part? At the community level, there is consistent evidence of positive spillover effects to those who simply learn about the assembly process and recommendations, such as increasing trust in government and their fellow citizens, and increased willingness of non-participants to engage in politics and consider alternate political views. For example, in East Belgium where they are part of the constitution, observers have noted a seemingly spontaneous emergence of a shared civic consciousness.[2]
There is much we can learn from classical Athens which selected its political officials by lot. Democracy itself became a form of education. Citizens developed political knowledge and judgement through experience. They remained amateurs in the sense that public service was temporary and shared widely, yet they acquired many of the skills associated with expertise. The lesson from ancient Greece is that the more responsibility people are given, the more they learn, grow, and contribute.
Many of the pieces of the jigsaw to save the world enable us to achieve greater wellbeing with less impact on the planet i.e. less consumption. Yet we have educated our citizens to be consumers. In later editions I will cover language and how our choice of words and terminology can frame and direct our understanding of the world and our place in it. One important shift is to begin speaking of ourselves not as ‘consumers’, but as ‘citizens’. This is where several pieces of the jigsaw need to come together so that language, culture, education and politics are harnessed to the goal of an educated citizenry. Only then can people hold power to account and participate in the debates that shape their lives, rather than leaving decisions to career politicians or those simply attracted to power.
The more opportunities there are for people to participate in policies that affect them, the more their sense of themselves as citizens will grow, and the faster change can happen. One such opportunity is participatory budgeting. The first known example of this was in 1989 in the city of Porto Alegre, Brazil which gave residents, especially poor and marginalized communities, a direct say in how public money was spent.[3] It began with about 1000 ordinary citizens and grew over time to a peak of 40,000 citizens deciding how to allocate the budget. The benefits of a shift from a corrupt political system to citizen power is seen in statistics revealing Porto Alegre to be the leading Brazilian city in terms of life expectancy, clean, nature-filled cities and highest quality of life.[4] Since then, participatory budgeting has been adopted by over 10,000 cities states and organisations across the world. Beyond the reported increases in community wellbeing and sense of inclusion, there is a broader strengthening of civic engagement as the population learn to become democratic citizens rather than consumers of politics.
Technology and online platforms offer additional opportunities to engage citizens directly in governance. In 2014 Taiwan created a national online variant of citizens assemblies in the form of a platform called vTaiwan.[5] This brings together citizens, experts, and government officials to deliberate on controversial national policies. For example, it helped break long-standing political deadlocks on thorny issues like Uber’s ridesharing regulations, online alcohol sales, and the FinTech Sandbox Act. It combines broad digital input using consensus-mapping tools with live-streamed meetings and in-person stakeholder consultations. Similarly, Spain offers several examples where citizens can participate, such as Decidim Barcelona and CONSUL (Decide Madrid) both launched in 2016 and still going strong.
The potential of deliberative mini-publics extends beyond national politics and could help democratise decision-making in companies, NGOs, hospitals, schools and other institutions. There are already promising examples. Meta convened around 6,000 randomly selected users worldwide to deliberate on regulating cyberbullying in the metaverse, later repeating the process on a smaller scale for generative AI. While their impact on company policy is unclear, they established a precedent for involving ordinary stakeholders in complex decisions. In 2023, a Dutch investment fund piloted a deliberative assembly of 50 randomly selected investors to help shape its investment strategy. Norwegian NGOs organised a citizens’ assembly on how Norway’s $1.8 trillion sovereign wealth fund should invest its resources, presenting recommendations to Parliament in 2025.
Schools can help young people experience democratic participation firsthand. Experiments with electing school representatives by lottery have proved successful with both students and teachers preferring the use of random selection over elections once they’d experienced them.[6] Rather than making it a stressful popularity contest, selection by lot gave every child an equal chance to contribute, resulting in more diverse and representative governance, and new relationships and friendships between students who otherwise may not have interacted.
In later editions I introduce related pieces of the jigsaw which include multi-stakeholder boards and shareholder democracy. Many corporations wield as much power as nation states yet remain largely unaccountable. One proposal is the creation of investor assemblies, where a randomly selected group of shareholders from a pension or mutual fund hear evidence and debate trade-offs such as between financial return, labour standards and climate. Their collective decisions would guide and preferably bind proxy voting. This would ensure corporate behaviour reflects the informed values of ordinary investors, not just the priorities of executives and fund managers.[7]
A new culture
Imagine if such experiences were a normal part of life. Suppose we all had been involved in respectful and informed debate with people from a wide variety of backgrounds, with different opinions and priorities. It could be in the workplace, deciding upon how to spend a regional budget, or a citizens’ assembly on a particular issue. Those who thought differently would no longer be the enemy, but simply people like you who mostly wanted to do the right thing but not at huge cost to themselves – unless of course the cost was necessary and fair – shared by everyone, not just an unlucky few. We’d all have learned to see issues from another’s perspective – walked a little in their shoes.
Consider how the quality of our public and private conversations would change.
Democracy would become something we do rather than something we watch. We’d grow up as citizens, moving away from the knee-jerk shouting and point scoring of political playgrounds, and towards a more mature understanding of the genuine trade-offs between different options and their long-term consequences. We’d gain much of what emerges when you ask people to imagine what a flourishing, sustainable future would feel like. More community, more love. A sense of purpose and fellowship, and a hopeful future that we have helped to create.
In the next edition, I will discuss how we might begin the journey from where we are today to where we could be.
What you can do
Email your MP/member of congress
If you’re already convinced, now is a good time to campaign in the UK because our new Prime Minister is considering alternatives to The House of Lords. Find your government representative or Member of Parliament and email them, whether you are in Australia; Canada; UK; USA or elsewhere.
Campaign
The main campaigning group in the UK, Australia and United States is The Sortition Foundation. Sortition are building a movement for more permanent and powerful citizens’ assemblies. In the UK for example they are campaigning to replace the unelected House of Lords with a House of Citizens. You can subscribe to their newsletter and support the cause here.
For schools
If you work in a school, check out some guidelines on civic education and how to use democratic lotteries to replace elections for student representatives: https://democracyinpractice.org/
For schools, student and amateur theatre groups
Stage the fun and dramatic whodunnit, Murder in the Citizens’ Jury. The play is adapted from a script that won the Writing Climate Pitchfest and had a sellout run in 2024. Murder in the Citizens’ Jury imagines eight people in a citizens’ assembly on climate discussing the most important challenge in the history of humanity – how to save ourselves from the looming climate crisis. Exciting new solutions are proposed (including those covered in editions 4, 5, 6 and 8), each with their own champions and detractors, and then there’s a murder! The play is available at a cost via LazyBee, but if you come to me direct, I’m offering it royalty-free to student and amateur theatre groups to stage.
Raise awareness via books, libraries and book clubs
The main barrier to citizens’ assemblies is lack of awareness, and culture can play a key role in reaching a variety of audiences.
Buy one or more of these books as a birthday/Christmas present for any friends who are readers, or suggest to your local library or book club:
- The Assassin: a novella adapted from the play available as an audio book (free if you have Spotify premium or audible), and on all major audiobook platforms. It’s also available as an eBook and paperback on all main platforms or to purchase direct from the publisher. Details and purchasing links here.
- The Philosopher and the Assassin: contemporary literary fiction that weaves together campus novel, moral philosophy, climate and murder mystery.
- No More Fairy Tales: Stories to Save our Planet: an anthology of 24 short stories from various authors, some of which explore the idea of citizens’ assemblies.
These are all wonderful reads with great reviews and available to buy via all main platforms or direct from the publisher.
Read them yourself, and if you enjoy them, leave a review to help boost their readership. You can see the best review sites here. Even better recommend to your local library or book club.
Learn more
Democracy Next provide information and campaign on this topic. Follow them on LinkedIn.
Involve are another organisation advocating for participative democracy with a mission “to make public participation and deliberation an everyday part of our democracy, and help solve the big challenges of our time.”
Share details of where democratic participation is flourishing. Here’s a 10-minute Ted talk by Jon Alexander who co-hosts the podcast ‘How To Save Democracy’: Jon Alexander: How citizens (not politicians) are building the future | TED Talk
Find out more about the research into citizens assemblies and other forms of participative democracy at these sites:
Politics Without Politicians: The Case for Citizen Rule by Hélène Landemore is a great book to learn more about citizens assemblies from someone who has been actively involved in researching them. It’s also available as an audio book.
[1] Landemore, H. (2026). Politics without politicians: The case for citizen rule. Penguin.
[2] https://www.peoplepowered.org/news-content/impacts-of-citizens-assemblies-a-summary-of-the-latest-research
[3] What if Citizens Set City Budgets? An Experiment That Captivated the World—Participatory Budgeting—Might Be Abandoned in its Birthplace | World Resources Institute
[4] https://pdf.wri.org/ref/menegat_02_participatory.pdf
[5] https://info.vtaiwan.tw/
[6] https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/oatcj/chapter/democratic-lotteries-should-organizational-decision-makers-consider-decision-making-by-chance/
[7] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5039736
EDITION 20d Making Citizens’ Assemblies Part of the Constitution
Picture our current politicians. Depending on where you live, you may visualise toxic alpha males posturing and bragging. Or you may picture desperately smiling men or women in suits, sweating under the weight of a hostile media. Some are downright sleazy and seem to almost brag about their corruptibility. Some appear earnest and well-intentioned but swing this way and that – anything to please the public and get their vote. Almost all will be career politicians who got to the top through fair means or foul, and are more than anything, desperate to hang onto power.
Here’s a different vision. Imagine a hundred or so ordinary citizens, selected by lottery from across the country, coming together to address major issues such as housing, climate, assisted suicide, constitutional reform, urban planning etc. Paid for their time and expenses, they hear evidence from experts, civil servants and the wider public before deliberating and reaching recommendations. These proposals may feed into legislation, be put to a referendum, or become law directly. After serving for a few months, participants return to their normal lives with a deeper understanding of public issues, new skills, and lasting friendships.
But is hoping that elected representatives will institutionalise citizens’ assemblies and grant them power a case of asking turkeys to vote for Christmas? There are several arguments that may be persuasive for governments.
One is the decreasing trust in politics in many countries, in particular the US where confidence in politicians has reached record lows leading to a general switching off from politics, especially among the young. This disengagement can play into the hands of less scrupulous politicians who use public apathy to their advantage. But it must be of concern to the rest. Citizens assemblies have been shown to restore trust and legitimacy to politics. A recent YouGov poll found that UK voters were over four times more likely to trust citizens assemblies than elected politicians. This was particularly the case with Reform UK voters who trusted members of citizens assemblies 8.5 times more than members of parliament.[1]
Another reason for politicians to like them is that citizens assemblies are useful for dealing with hot potato issues that cut across party lines. The citizens’ assemblies on same sex marriage, abortion and assisted dying discussed in previous editions all helped to overcome political stalemate and gave legitimacy to policy, without politicians having to risk alienating their voters by taking a position on controversial topics.
They can also help counter misinformation and disinformation. In Finland, for example, a citizens’ assembly was convened to discuss a controversial municipal merger. Before the referendum, assembly members produced a detailed summary of the arguments both for and against, which was distributed to all residents. Surveys later showed that most residents were aware of the assembly’s recommendations and found them useful. Significantly, participants regarded the citizens’ assembly as a more reliable source of information than either politicians or the media.[2]
It’s also worth highlighting that it’s not a new idea. Lot-based assemblies were used in Switzerland and many Italian republics between the 12th and 16th centuries, mostly to prevent corruption or monopolisation of power by the ruling classes. In classical Athens, eligible citizens gathered in open-air assemblies to debate and vote on laws and decisions directly. Officials and jurors were chosen by random lottery rather than elections, to prevent corruption. Public pay was added so poorer citizens could afford to leave work and attend government meetings. It wasn’t perfect, women and slaves had no vote, although they were sometimes called in as topical experts. However, that period is still known for its intellectual, cultural, economic and military prowess.[3] What present day politician wouldn’t want to preside over such a golden age!
There is growing support for granting citizens’ assemblies more power. Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan endorsed the idea of a citizens’ parliament, arguing that democracies must become more inclusive, giving greater voice to groups often underrepresented in politics.[4] Polls also indicate public support for citizens assemblies.[5] I conducted my own poll among the audience who gave their views after attending the play, ‘Murder in the Citizens’ Jury.’ It was sad but telling that zero respondents were happy with our current system as it was. This was no radical audience, but the typical theatre-going crowd in a provincial city – mostly middle-aged, comfortably off and conservative with a small c.
There is no better time than now to campaign for them. In Europe, greater familiarity is breeding greater interest, and the main discontent is that they lack teeth. Campaigning to give them power is the next step.
It should be an easy sell in the UK to have a House of Citizens as a second chamber. There have been plans to replace the archaic and unelected House of Lords for years. With the new Prime Minister, there’s also appetite for more devolved power. This makes it especially timely to express your support for giving citizens assemblies a constitutional basis and a power that goes beyond recommendations that the government can easily ignore.
Funds released from scrapping the House of Lords could be used to establish a House of Citizens, selected by random lottery. I picture a rotating jury to set the agenda, supplemented with regional citizens assemblies deciding policy and participatory budgeting at community level. The exact nature and relationships between the House of Citizens, the House of Commons and regional citizens assemblies could be decided by – you guessed it – a citizens’ assembly.
It would be more difficult to implement at federal level in the United States as amending the constitution requires a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate. However, citizens assemblies have been used successfully at state level in Colorado and California, and New York City has experimented with participatory budgeting.[6] With trust in elected representatives at an all-time low,[7] there is an appetite for reform.
Periods of crisis can create opportunities for radical political change.[8] Privatization of public services and deregulation, were pushed through by right wing governments and corporations in the wake of natural disasters. Following the disruption of the second world war, the UK labour government enabled a radical redistribution of wealth via the introduction of the NHS and welfare state. With respect to citizens assemblies, the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 undermined trust in governments and financial institutions. This in turn triggered the establishment of Iceland’s citizen’s assembly to rewrite the constitution which explicitly excluded serving politicians.[9] Similarly, the first major French citizens assembly in 2019 was in response to riots by the yellow vest movement, as a means to regain public trust and legitimacy.[10]
In a time many are calling a polycrisis, calls for a radical overhaul of our system and political processes are becoming more insistent. Confidence in citizens’ assemblies is growing in response to their use and positive outcomes, the main criticism remaining is their lack of legislative authority. Many researchers and organisations such as Participedia and Democracy Next, are developing best practice guidelines to fine tune processes. Positive change might come sooner than we think. Reform can often seem to come very suddenly but is underpinned by decades, even centuries of activism and pressure. There is no better time than now to push for change. If you want to help tip the balance, here’s what you can do.
What you can do
Email your MP/member of congress
If you’re already convinced, now is a good time to campaign in the UK because our new Prime Minister is considering alternatives to The House of Lords. Find your government representative or Member of Parliament and email them, whether you are in Australia; Canada; UK; USA or elsewhere.
Campaign
The main campaigning group in the UK, Australia and United States is The Sortition Foundation. Sortition are building a movement for more permanent and powerful citizens’ assemblies. In the UK for example they are campaigning to replace the unelected House of Lords with a House of Citizens. You can subscribe to their newsletter and support the cause here.
For schools
If you work in a school, check out some guidelines on civic education and how to use democratic lotteries to replace elections for student representatives: https://democracyinpractice.org/
For schools, student and amateur theatre groups
Stage the fun and dramatic whodunnit, Murder in the Citizens’ Jury. The play is adapted from a script that won the Writing Climate Pitchfest and had a sellout run in 2024. Murder in the Citizens’ Jury imagines eight people in a citizens’ assembly on climate discussing the most important challenge in the history of humanity – how to save ourselves from the looming climate crisis. Exciting new solutions are proposed (including those covered in editions 4, 5, 6 and 8), each with their own champions and detractors, and then there’s a murder! The play is available at a cost via LazyBee, but if you come to me direct, I’m offering it royalty-free to student and amateur theatre groups to stage.
Raise awareness via books, libraries and book clubs
The main barrier to citizens’ assemblies is lack of awareness, and culture can play a key role in reaching a variety of audiences.
Buy one or more of these books as a birthday/Christmas present for any friends who are readers, or suggest to your local library or book club:
- The Assassin: a novella adapted from the play available as an audio book (free if you have Spotify premium or audible), and on all major audiobook platforms. It’s also available as an eBook and paperback on all main platforms or to purchase direct from the publisher. Details and purchasing links here.
- The Philosopher and the Assassin: contemporary literary fiction that weaves together campus novel, moral philosophy, climate and murder mystery.
- No More Fairy Tales: Stories to Save our Planet: an anthology of 24 short stories from various authors, some of which explore the idea of citizens’ assemblies.
These are all wonderful reads with great reviews and available to buy via all main platforms or direct from the publisher.
Read them yourself, and if you enjoy them, leave a review to help boost their readership. You can see the best review sites here. Even better recommend to your local library or book club.
Learn more
Democracy Next provide information and campaign on this topic. Follow them on LinkedIn.
Involve are another organisation advocating for participative democracy with a mission “to make public participation and deliberation an everyday part of our democracy, and help solve the big challenges of our time.”
Share details of where democratic participation is flourishing. Here’s a 10-minute Ted talk by Jon Alexander who co-hosts the podcast ‘How To Save Democracy’: Jon Alexander: How citizens (not politicians) are building the future | TED Talk
Find out more about the research into citizens assemblies and other forms of participative democracy at these sites:
Politics Without Politicians: The Case for Citizen Rule by Hélène Landemore is a great book to learn more about citizens assemblies from someone who has been actively involved in researching them. It’s also available as an audio book.
[1] Publish_SortitionFoundation_Results_250424_w.pdf – Google Drive
[2] The wave of citizens’ assemblies reaching Finland – Demo Finland
[3] Landemore, H. (2026). Politics without politicians: The case for citizen rule. Penguin
[4] https://www.kofiannanfoundation.org/publication/athens-democracy-forum/
[5] https://www.sortitionfoundation.org/gm_polling_may_2026
[6] https://www.newamerica.org/insights/comparing-citizens-assemblies-across-the-united-states/
[7] [7] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/12/04/public-trust-in-government-1958-2025/
[8] Klein, N. (2007). The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.
[9] https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/default/files/document/files/2022/07/isactca2010.pdf
[10] https://www.involve.org.uk/news-opinion/opinion/convention-citoyenne-pour-le-climat-what-can-we-learn-french-citizens-assembly
Edition 21 Meaningful Work
I remember my first careers day at school when I was asked what I wanted to do. I said: air hostess. Now I could not imagine a job I’d hate more than being a glorified waitress in a restricted space with no exit until landing. A few years later I decided I’d like to be a manager – the idea of being important and having people do my bidding was attractive! When I did get a chance to manage people, I found I hated being responsible for other people’s work or telling them what to do.
My point is that most of us don’t really know what we’re good at or what we’d like until we give it a go. But we’re not provided with many opportunities to find out – or if we are, we don’t take them because other things are taking our attention – computer games, romance, cat videos. It’s not until it’s too late that we realise we missed an opportunity.
As part of the Jigsaw to Save the World project, I’ve run many events where I ask people to time travel ten years into the future and imagine we’ve done everything right and to picture what the world now looks and feels like.[1] The things that come up are the picture on the front of the jigsaw puzzle – the flourishing future we aspire to. A common piece of the puzzle is meaningful work. Not just for the security of making a living, but for the structure and sense of purpose that work gives you.
When I look around at all the people I know, a key factor in their general sense of wellbeing and contentment is whether they have found their niche in terms of work.
Some people are lucky to find it early, others later in life and some not at all.
NEETS and the quarter-life crisis.
The percentage of young people under 25 not in education, employment, or training keeps rising. Increasingly I’m finding many people in their twenties are lost. The jobs available to them in their teenage years were minimum wage and dull. Now even those are disappearing as AI extends its influence. Over-consumption of content churned out by social media influencers leads them to believe that they too can be successful and earn millions by doing – or most likely buying – whatever that YouTuber or Instagrammer recommends. They can’t and so feel inadequate, but with no real experience of life to give them confidence in committing to something new.
What can we do about it?
A quick scan of what’s available in my area is promising. There is:
- A weekly drop in facility run by the Employment Support Team offering 1:1 mentoring.
- Job Centre Plus provide employment advice and mentoring.
- No Limits Advice Centre runs weekly work clubs.
- Skill Bootcamps are up to 16-week courses to improve employability in areas a varied as construction, digital skills (mostly online), technical trades (construction, engineering, HGV driving, green technologies (EV maintenance, solar) etc.
- Free courses available at colleges for various disciplines (up to A level standard).
- Intermediate Apprenticeships with no upper age limit.
- Indeed.com provide lists of jobs, internships and voluntary opportunities.
- Local Voluntary Services provides volunteer opportunities.
All this is great, but it’s competing against the inertia that sets in after a period of inactivity. Also – let’s be realistic about this – it’s competing with the constant pull of social media and/or games that are designed to be addictive.
It’s harder now for young people to leave home, and as a university lecturer I find several of my students have little interest in the subject but were either pressured into university by parents or just went as a means to leave home. Those who don’t have wealthy parents to bankroll them find themselves in rising debt and increasingly few job opportunities that speak to them. When I’ve chatted with teenagers still at school, I find that part of their anxiety stems from the intense pressure they feel to succeed and also to make the right choice. They are only 13 when they first have to choose which courses to take and many feel anxious that these choices, often made quite randomly, will determine their whole future.
Of those who don’t go to university, many find that their particular kind of intelligence, which may be emotional, practical, social or creative intelligence isn’t valued and grow up feeling inadequate or marginalised.
Let’s allow our imaginations to run free and think about what we’d really like for our children or would have liked for ourselves. For me, I picture a kind of smorgasbord – a tasting menu of skills, topics and activities so you can try and see which ones you like and which you have some aptitude for. These would have value for society too.
A new kind of national service?
We need more defence. We’re committed in the UK to spending 3% of our GDP on defence, but there’s little sign of progress. We also need to maintain our infrastructure, provide care for the vulnerable and for nature. As a walker and cyclist, I can vouch for the fact that many footpaths and cycle paths need someone to remove overhanging foliage or holes that present a danger. We need people to care for our elderly and for our anxious young people. With the geopolitical landscape increasingly unstable and the pressure we’re putting on the planet, we need resilience skills. We need to know how to look after nature, how to grow food. Skills that we thought were redundant could suddenly become essential with an unexpected supply chain breakdown. We must train a new breed of builders and construction workers in how to instal and maintain renewable energy infrastructure.
I picture this – a kind of national service for 18-year-olds where they have four nine-month rotations in any order they like. They can choose four out of five options and within these there will be further options to try out different skills and jobs. My vision is that if they find one they really like, they can apply to stay on and become more expert and perhaps become a trainer themselves or move into a related job.
- Military: young people could choose army, navy, air force, rescue services or first aid, building on organisations that already exist. For example, the Ministry of Defence cadet forces “provide a challenging and stimulating contemporary cadet experience that develops and inspires young people within a safe environment.”
- Environmental: nature and conservation skills. An existing organisation are Youth Environmental Services (YES) that offer programmes for young people to spend a year doing paid work at environmental organisations across the UK.
- Social and resilience: Join with existing volunteer organisations that provide care in communities.
- Practical skills: build on existing skills bootcamps and apprenticeships to learn on the job.
- Academic: a choice of modules, including more general ones like critical thinking to provide a taster of academic life.
How it works
The extent to which it’s mandatory or voluntary and what’s included can be decided by young people themselves in a series of citizens assemblies where the majority of participants are school leavers. As discussed in edition 20 of a Jigsaw to Save the World, citizens’ assemblies are made up of a randomly selected representative sample who are presented with information from a variety of sources. Participants sit at tables of around 6-8 people, each with a facilitator who ensures that no one dominates and everyone’s voice is heard. They then deliberate upon the options and propose a series of recommendations. The idea is that their view reflects what most people would think if presented with all the facts.
Those providing information could include representatives from the organisations listed above, both the staff and randomly selected young people who’ve been part of one of their programmes. Researchers into national service in other countries could give evidence on the pros and cons of mandatory national service.[2] For example, military service is compulsory in Switzerland and has been shown to help with social cohesion as people from all parts of society meet as equals. It is popular with Swiss voters but has been criticised for its gender imbalance. Finland also kept conscription on after the second world and includes non-military options. Those who took part themselves can also contribute to the debate. I remember my dad saying that the best thing he got out of National Service was meeting my mum and learning how to cook.
My first job was with a community enterprise scheme. The goals were to provide work for people who had been unemployed for a while to boost their confidence and help them get back into employment. My job was to source projects that provided relevant training and skills. We set up all kinds of projects: landscape restoration, bike security scheme, checking disabled access in local B&Bs and hotels, library cataloguing, museum work, security advice for older people. It worked really well. It was mandatory in the sense that you had to go if you wanted to continue getting benefit, but I can only remember one person who kicked against it. With the odd exception, most people really flowered and grew in self-esteem. It was a joy to see.
Many traditional societies have some kind of rite of passage to mark adulthood. In our contemporary western world these have fallen away. Now I see too many young people buffeted by the uninformed opinions and self-interested promoting of influencers and marketing gimmicks. They’re fed pipe dreams and sucked into addictive pursuits that provide immediate dopamine hits but little satisfaction.
Could a revamped national service be a new rite of passage? A path to more meaningful work and resilient young people? Imagine a buffet of projects, jobs and opportunities to try and see. Taking place in the real world, working with real people. Stepping out of our echo chambers and meeting people from all parts of society. Learning what we like, what we’re good at and what we can contribute. Making a difference. Nurturing our environment and each other and providing a secure base for our personal and collective future.
What you can do
Make your voice heard. If you like the idea, then share it. Find your government representative or Member of Parliament and email them to let them know your views, whether you are in Australia; Canada; UK; USA or elsewhere.
A good way to start is to build on what we already have. For example in the UK, if you are an employer, parent of a teenager or a young person under 25 yourself, then check out how you can support or benefit from Youth Environmental Service.
[1] I’m building on a method developed by Hopkins, R. (2025). How to fall in love with the future: A time traveller’s guide to changing the world. Chelsea Green Publishing.
[2] https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2024/06/should-the-uk-bring-back-national-service-considerations.html
Edition 22. Safe Communities
At numerous events I’ve asked people to imagine what a flourishing future would look like for them. Often they talk about feelings rather than concrete policies. A desire to feel safe, less worry and stress. They want a sense of optimism and security. They especially want their children to be less anxious, and to have hope for the future. A common vision is of children playing freely in the streets, with parents unconcerned by either traffic or crime. Communities feeling more connected and secure.
So in this edition I take a moment to reflect on how the various pieces of the puzzle covered so far can contribute to that.
Edition 6 on on-demand buses – think Uber but with electric buses – asked us to imagine what our community would look, sound, smell and feel like if public transport was so cheap and convenient that few would need their own car. Edition 7 discussed how more sustainable consumption would benefit us in so many ways but is held back by force of habit. The sharing economy and libraries of things (edition 4), repair cafes (edition 5), on-demand buses all exist already but need an extra push to tip us into using them as the default choice. Personal carbon allowances and Tradable Energy Quotas (edition 8) provide that incentive allowing us to have greater wellbeing with much less pollution and cost. We’d finally have an economy that reflected the necessity to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and carbon footprint, and global temperature.
A Wellbeing Index (edition 10) would be the most reported metric. The GDP would be used by a small group of economists, but the news and government pronouncements would focus on how well we’re doing on crime, unemployment, equality, education, life expectancy, ecological resilience, biodiversity, life satisfaction – our mental and physical health.
With access to such figures people would have an additional source of information to supplement that provided by politicians and the media. They might then realise that many aspects of society they assumed were getting worse were actually much better. Crime for example has gone down by 80% in the last 30 years, yet almost everyone believes it’s going up.[1]
This belief causes stress and anxiety. It undermines communities as people become suspicious of each other and fear to let their children run free.
In edition 11 on constructive journalism, I talk about how such beliefs become self-fulfilling. Lack of unsupervised play is claimed by leading psychologists to be a key factor underlying the huge increases in anxiety and mental illness in younger generations.[2] Constructive journalism that presents a more balanced view of society – what’s going right as well as what’s going wrong – and which put crime stories in their broader perspective would calm such fears.
The negativity bias in the media affects our mental health directly, but an even more problematic impact is on policy.
Every year or so, a particularly terrible crime grabs the headlines, and politicians compete to show they are tough on crime in a kind of ‘penal popularism.’ Some have been called out for inflaming public fear of crime as an electoral strategy,[3] while other politicians report feeling pressured into advocating for harsher sentences, despite little evidence they work. The result is the same – the electoral advantage of a policy is prioritised over its penal effectiveness.[4]
In the UK we’re facing a seemingly insurmountable challenge – our prisons are full. We also have backlogs of court cases waiting to go through. The Government has responded with a series of short-term measures, including reducing the number of jury trials, shortening sentences, and, most controversially, releasing prisoners early. Long-term proposals are to build more prisons. None of these are ideal. Trial by jury is a cornerstone of the justice system and one of the democratic traditions many people believe should be preserved. As we’re forced into releasing prisoners early, the news is flooded with stories about the terrible crimes committed by this or that person who is now back on the streets, further raising public fear.
The problem is there is little evidence that harsher sentencing works.[5] In some cases, crime has even fallen when imprisonment rates have decreased with some claiming that prisons can become “universities of crime”. This is not something that politicians will find it easy to admit. Interviews with former home secretaries[6] reveal that even as they know that their public pronouncements and resulting policies proving they aren’t ‘soft on crime’ are misdirected, they still feel powerless to respond differently in the face of the media-generated public outcry.
This is where citizens assemblies come in (edition 20). Politicians, rather than proposing ineffective policies as a knee-jerk reaction to one-off incidents, can show their responsiveness to public fears by calling a citizens’ assembly to deliberate upon the best course of action to address the issue.
I highlighted that one critique of citizens assemblies is their lack of accountability as there is little visibility given to those who make the decisions. But this is their strength. Because of this, they can be much more independent and make policy based on actual evidence. This shows that policies that provide opportunities for young people and which support families that are struggling all lead to positive outcomes that directly or indirectly are associated with crime reduction.[7] For example, ex-Home Secretary Lord Blunkett, believed he had more impact on crime when he was education minister because of the Sure Start programme which provided support to young people, than he did when he was Home Secretary being ‘tough on crime’.[8]
Rebooting our democracy to curb the outsized influence of corporations, crypto and tech billionaires and other wealthy elites on policy making would also curb corruption. In edition 15 on capping political donations for example, it was estimated that billions of pounds can be saved simply by ensuring government contracts were awarded to the best suppliers rather than those who have donated to political parties.[9]
That money saved can be used to raise the quality of life of those in the most marginalised communities. Statistics vary by country, but a remarkable percentage of those who are in jail, were homeless in the six months preceding their arrest and/or are likely to become homeless after leaving prison.[10]
Edition 12 reveals how greater equality correlates with less crime, greater wellbeing, more trust and community cohesion. Another piece of the puzzle that gets us closer to realising that dream of feeling secure, safe and hopeful, and children playing happily in the street.
The democratic upgrades covered in previous editions together create a kinder society. Curbing corporate lobbying and capping political donations makes it easier for politicians to enact policies for everyone’s benefit. Proportional representation and the coalitions that often result will favour politicians that are more competent in negotiation than verbal combat. Citizens’ assemblies increase trust, political literacy, a sense of inclusion and civic responsibility. As confidence grows in the process, participatory processes extend to other areas: random lottery replacing popularity contests for school representatives, for example, or participatory budgeting giving communities a say in how funds are allocated. Those who feel marginalised are given a voice and start to feel like they belong. We begin to see ourselves as citizens rather than simply consumers, community cohesion grows and with it a sense of safety and peace as respectful informed dialogue replaces populist rhetoric and division.
At least it will set us on that path. We’re not quite there yet. In fact we’ll never be fully there, all I hope to do here is turn us to face that general direction. Citizens’ assemblies are a corner piece but not a magic bullet – as they grow in power, all the forces that act upon politicians will turn their attention to them. Gaining influence over members elected by random lottery will be very difficult but gaining influence of any overseeing committee less so. Care will be needed in setting these up.
The media are also a powerful influence on our attitudes, beliefs and policy. Constructive journalism may be a crucial piece of the puzzle, but if presenting a balanced view were as profitable as fearmongering, they’d be doing that already. Broadcaster Mark Easton, for example revealed how he and other reporters, when faced with figures showing a decline in both property and violent crime, would scrutinise the statistics searching for any category, however minor, where crime had risen.[1] My own research with editors and journalists made it clear that the rule was ‘if it bleeds, it leads’.[2] A media industry that puts profit before social conscience may undermine citizens assemblies purely because the public are less likely to click on a story about things going well. They will amplify any issues, creating an agenda to undermine them – not through any malice but simply following the dictates of profit first. Those whose influence is weakened by the shift of power from top to bottom will quickly take advantage of that where they can. There’s one more worry on many people’s minds: AI. We’re not yet sure where it will lead or whether it’s safe. But we are about halfway through the jigsaw and there are still two corner pieces to go. In the next edition, I use AI as a way of exploring how the other pieces of the puzzle, both those we’ve already covered and those still to come, can shape our future. Together, they help determine whether AI feels like a threat hurtling us towards disaster, or a powerful tool we can embrace with confidence.
What you can do
Amplify news stories and social media posts which have a solution focus rather than problem focus, and those which promote kindness over fear.
Contact journalists directly or write to your favourite news platform asking them for a more balanced mix and to include positive stories too.
For those in the UK or a good place to start is the BBC. You can email at: yourvoice@bbc.co.uk or get in touch via WhatsApp +44 7756 165803.
Campaign for some of the policies discussed above that address the root causes of crime. Find your government representative or Member of Parliament and email them, whether you are in Australia; Canada; UK; USA or elsewhere.
[1] BBC podcast ‘The Great Crime Mystery https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0030m4p
[2] ] Baden, D. (2015). Shock! Horror! Behind the ethics and evolution of the bad news business The Conversation. doi:http://theconversation.com/shock-horror-behind-the-ethics-and-evolution-of-the-bad-news-business-39211; Baden, D., McIntyre, K., & Homberg, F. (2019). The impact of constructive news on affective and behavioural responses. Journalism studies, 20(13), 1940-1959.
[1] https://policinginsight.com/feature/analysis/most-crime-has-fallen-by-90-in-30-years-so-why-does-the-public-think-its-increased/
[2] The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt.
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/25/tories-sadiq-khan-attack-ad-new-york-london; https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/62/5/1116/6702053?login=false
[4] https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/penal-populism/
[5] https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ffct-prsn/index-en.aspx; https://www.college.police.uk/research/crime-reduction-toolkit/imprisonment-and-other-custodial-sanctions; https://iupress.istanbul.edu.tr/journal/jplc/article/suc-aktarimi-ceza-infaz-kurumlari-suc-universiteleri-mi
[6] BBC podcast ‘The Great Crime Mystery https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0030m4p
[7] https://ifs.org.uk/publications/short-and-medium-term-effects-sure-start-childrens-outcomes; https://foundations.org.uk/our-work/publications/improving-support-for-families-facing-multiple-and-complex-problems/
[8] BBC podcast ‘The Great Crime Mystery https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0030m4p
[9] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/failed-covid-contracts-cost-british-taxpayer-14-billion; Batrunaite, Audinga.2020. Political Contributions and Public Procurement: Evidence from Lithuania. Journal of the European Economic Association, v. 18, n. 2, p. 541–582.
[10] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/systems-wide-evaluation-of-homelessness-and-rough-sleeping/criminal-justice-system-and-homelessness-a-rapid-evidence-assessment; https://university.open.ac.uk/research-centres/herc/blog/no-place-home-prisons-and-homelessness ; https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/housing.html
[11] BBC podcast ‘The Great Crime Mystery https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0030m4p
[12] ] Baden, D. (2015). Shock! Horror! Behind the ethics and evolution of the bad news business The Conversation. doi:http://theconversation.com/shock-horror-behind-the-ethics-and-evolution-of-the-bad-news-business-39211; Baden, D., McIntyre, K., & Homberg, F. (2019). The impact of constructive news on affective and behavioural responses. Journalism studies, 20(13), 1940-1959.
Edition 23. AI: Friend or Foe?
In the previous edition I summarised where we have got so far and focused on one of the middle pieces of the puzzle which represent the future we’d love to see. In this case it was the desire to feel safe, and to live in communities where you felt confident in allowing your children to run free and play in the streets. Fear of crime was one barrier to this, and I discussed how many of the pieces of the puzzle so far would both lower crime, and importantly our fear of it.
But we have other fears, and these days a big one is AI.
In edition 22 I cautioned that all the pieces of the puzzle so far face us in the right direction and take steps that lead to flourishing rather than exploitation or extinction. But there are still structural barriers that hold us back. The human race is at a stage of development where we’re grappling with our power. We’re half intoxicated and half terrified by it. Many of the questions and perspectives highlighted in the quiz on feelings about Space (the start of edition 19) apply also to AI. It’s easy to feel that things are spiralling out of control. Some are loving this exciting new tool, and others fear we’re accelerating towards our doom. Many feel both simultaneously. Wouldn’t it be lovely if we could relax into all the wonderful things technology and human ingenuity has given us, knowing that the system itself provides some guardrails?
There are many reasons to worry about AI. One of the greatest is the carbon footprint. This is a critical decade for turning our greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) around so we start mopping them up, rather than releasing even more. For those who don’t know, the main GHG is carbon dioxide or CO2 – hence the term ‘carbon footprint’. We should be doing everything in our power right now to cut the use of fossil fuels, reduce our energy consumption and bring down global temperatures by finding ways to remove CO2 from our atmosphere (in later editions I’ll cover nature-based and technological means of carbon drawdown). AI has burst onto the scene at this critical juncture and is accelerating our GHG emissions sky high.[1]
Some uses of AI are important, for example in the medical profession, and others are frivolous, but either way, the data centres required to support AI are consuming huge amounts of energy and water.[2] Exact figures regarding their carbon footprint are impossible to assess as so much depends on whether they use clean energy or gas, but according to the International Energy Agency, the rapid expansion in data centres is driving a surge in gas investment.[3] Renewable energy use is also growing, but the atmosphere doesn’t care how much renewable energy we use – that can go up thousands of percent – it makes no difference. The atmosphere responds to fossil fuel use, so even if most of the AI data centres are powered by renewable energy, their carbon footprint is still terrifying:
- Say one data centre emits 5 million tons of CO2. per annum. Currently about a quarter of data centres are powered by renewable energy.[4] The number of data centres are expanding rapidly, yet there are also plans to decarbonise, but this takes time.
- If the next year there are ten data centres, 75% of which are powered by renewable energy, there is still 12.5 million extra tons of carbon dioxide warming our atmosphere.
- Any extra warming now is hazardous due to the risk of passing climate tipping points. This is a threshold beyond which small increases in warming can trigger large, potentially irreversible changes in the climate.
We’ve been too slow to respond to this threat. In part this is because corporate interests have a strong influence over policy. The editions related to politics highlight many ways in which this can be reduced.
But imagine if we had Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) in place as described in edition 8. I prefer the term personal carbon allowance (PCAs) or personal carbon trading as these terms are more intuitively understandable. For example, PCAs set a cap on how much carbon we can emit – a bit like a budget, and if we go over, we have to purchase more on the carbon market. If we go under, for example by using a renewable energy provider and using public transport, we can sell our spare carbon credits. Currently the proposal is aimed at individuals or households and covers just fuel and energy costs, but not the embedded carbon in goods and services or probably in AI use. So a more comprehensive alternative are TEQs. This is a similar concept but covers the entire economy, allocating quotas not only to citizens but also to businesses, industry and government. This creates a national carbon rationing and trading system that guarantees emissions stay within a declining carbon cap. With an absolute cap on carbon emissions, we’d be much more restrained in our use of AI, limiting it to when it presents a real gain.
Let’s break it down
Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) are ‘technology neutral’ so would not restrict AI directly, but they would make the energy and carbon costs of AI visible and subject to a fixed national carbon budget.
In a TEQ system:
- Every unit of energy sold in the economy carries a carbon cost.
- Households, businesses, governments and data-centre operators all need quotas to cover fossil-fuel-based energy use.
- The total national quota declines year by year, guaranteeing emissions reductions in the following ways.
1. Energy-hungry AI would become more expensive
Data centres running large AI models would need to acquire more quotas if they were powered by fossil-fuel-intensive electricity. As quotas became scarcer, the cost of running energy-intensive AI systems would increase, creating a strong incentive to improve efficiency.
2. Cleaner AI would gain a competitive advantage
Operators using renewable or nuclear electricity would need fewer quotas (or none, depending on the scheme’s design). This would encourage investment in low-carbon data centres, efficient chips, and less energy-intensive AI models.
3. Frivolous AI use would decline
Today many AI applications are effectively free to users, even when they consume substantial computing resources. Under TEQs, high-energy activities such as generating thousands of images or unnecessary AI processing would carry a more visible cost, encouraging more selective use.
4. AI would compete with other energy uses
A central feature of TEQs is that all sectors operate within a declining national budget. Expanding AI infrastructure would therefore mean either:
- reducing emissions elsewhere,
- generating more low-carbon energy, or
- purchasing quotas from others.
This creates a direct trade-off that does not currently exist.
Potential benefits
From a sustainability perspective, TEQs could encourage:
- More efficient AI hardware and software.
- Greater use of AI where it delivers clear social value (e.g. grid management, health care, scientific research).
- Less incentive for wasteful uses with little public benefit.
- Alignment of AI growth with climate targets.
Critics argue that TEQs could slow the pace of innovation and increase costs to universities, researchers and startups. It would also require difficult political choices about how much of the national carbon budget should be allocated to data centres versus transport, housing, industry etc. But then again, so it should. TEQs would be effective for precisely those reasons. The costs of AI will be payable for all of us whether we like it or not. Here they are simply fairly reflected in the price. Most importantly, TEQs would provide one of the guardrails mentioned earlier.
Other concerns
When I ask people how they feel about AI, their worries reflect their own circumstances. A relative of mine is a religious minister and his concern is that we lose our direct relationship with ourselves and God. My colleagues in higher education fear that students’ use of AI in the assignments means marks no longer reflect ability or understanding. On a deeper level, use of AI in summarising of notes and construction and writing of assignments doesn’t allow the information to be fully processed. Students may have so-called ‘facts’ at their fingertips but little understanding. A colleague who teaches critical thinking is concerned that AI is eroding our commitment to truth.[5] He also worries about users adopting/endorsing AI-generated content without being able to take responsibility for it. They use it to create (and then endorse) text that sounds good but without any understanding of what it means or its implications. A related concern is that sponsored content will get “preferential treatment” in ChatGPT conversations.[6] So a query about a headache could prioritise an advertisement for a painkiller rather than medical advice.
Unemployment and redundancy is another common fear. I know musicians, songwriters, artists, narrators and writers who fear for their jobs or are angry at their work being mined by AI without their consent. I have one friend in the corporate world who is earning a high salary by training AI to replace much of the data analytics and strategy work she does herself. She’s aware where it leads. She feels powerless to change that so just makes the money while she can.
My friend is a natural catastrophist and she fears AI will go rogue and kill all people. I’ve heard various statistics, but it seems around ten percent of AI experts have similar fears.
I know many who are excited by it and want to play with this shiny new tool and find a use for it wherever they can. Some show me how they use AI to decide what haircut to get, write comic songs that they post online and decide where to go to eat. One guy told me he wants to get AI to write the code for an app that can tell you what’s in your fridge. His marketing pitch about how it would help with planning and shopping etc. was wonderful. But it did beg the question – do we really want to emit tons of CO2, use up precious water and risk hostile AI takeover of the planet when we could open the fridge and take a look.
The moral hazard is that the companies making and using AI are benefiting from it financially. However, the costs of this exponential increase in AI will be met by all of us whether we use it or not. Rebooting our democracy in all the ways outlined in editions 13 to 20 would help to ensure that policy was made based on what is good for society now and in the future.
The EU AI Act provides a comprehensive regulatory framework that imposes stricter requirements on higher-risk systems. It also requires organisations to demonstrate that appropriate controls are in place. But determining who is responsible is complicated, meaning AI governance often falls between the cracks.[7] The law can’t operate fast enough to keep up with innovation and the pace of change. So we also need businesses to care.
For many pieces of the puzzle, whether they will contribute to or detract from a flourishing society depends upon how they are used. AI and social media, for example, can either undermine or enhance wellbeing depending on whether they are driven solely by profit‑maximising algorithms or designed with care and appropriate constraints.
This leads to another vital piece of the jigsaw: business purpose. The current legal structure of corporations obliges them to prioritise shareholder interests over those of employees, customers, communities, and the planet. In a globalised world, some corporations wield more power than nation states. This matters profoundly when profit maximisation comes into conflict with what is best for society.
Those pushing AI are profit-maximising businesses and if their products and services cause devastation, no one goes to jail. At most they’ll get a fine. Their goal isn’t meaningful work or a flourishing and safe society; their goal is to maximise profits. If it’s not illegal and it makes money they’ll go ahead. Any legal fees and costs from lawsuits are simply a cost of business and allowed for in their budgets. It’s nothing personal – it’s just the business imperative. If they did any different they’d be vulnerable to a hostile takeover.
I’m aware that governments are also investing heavily in AI, and that I haven’t yet talked about geopolitics. But much of global politics is intertwined also with global business. TEQs will help, but for both guardrails to be in place we need to consider the next corner piece of the puzzle: Business Purpose.
What you can do
To limit the use of unnecessary AI, turn off built-in assistant features in your software, reduce your digital data footprint, and consciously choose human-led alternatives for daily tasks.
Herer are some guides to follow:
- https://paulbradshaw.medium.com/how-to-reduce-the-environmental-impact-of-using-ai-a66bb7254e71
- https://www.fastcompany.com/91605985/4-things-you-can-do-to-protect-yourself-from-the-rising-threat-of-ai
- https://www.weforum.org/stories/climate-action/how-ai-use-impacts-the-environment/
If you’re interested in my mixed feelings about using AI for audio narration of my books, read my article ‘should I use AI?’ here: https://www.dabaden.com/creative-climate-communication/#edition-11
I’d like to give a shout out for Tiiqu who are doing their bit to protect us from AI misinformation. If you check out their webpage, you’ll see a series of frightening quotes showing how so many of our online conversations are contaminated by misinformation, spread by vested interests
Similarly, the H4rmony Project is pioneering the integration of artificial intelligence with ecological awareness. Their mission is to transform how Generative AI understands and interacts with the world, embedding sustainability and ecological consciousness at its core through ecolinguistics principles. I enjoyed listening to an episode of the Lost in Language podcast where Arran gives an example of how AI will typically draw upon commercial sites as their source material when given requests. For example, if you ask AI about patio heaters it will wax lyrical about their benefits but make no mention of the high carbon footprint of running a heater outdoors. The H4rmony Project AI model adds a filter so that the AI prioritises ecological sites for their information. My favourite example was when he compared typical AI versus H4rmony trained AI responses to requests such as “give me a metaphor for photosynthesis.” Traditional AI adopted a factory metaphor: Photosynthesis is like a high-efficiency green factory operating inside every leaf. H4rmony AI came up with this: photosynthesis is the earth breathing life into the future.
With respect to Tradable Energy Quotas, the best thing you can do is campaign. Politicians think TEQs/PCAs won’t go down well with the public. Let them know they’re wrong. Find your government representative or Member of Parliament and email them, whether you are in Australia; Canada; UK; USA or elsewhere.
[1] AI-driven productivity gains enable more CO₂ emissions than they avoid in a global energy–economy model | npj Climate Action
[2] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-co2-from-uk-data-centres-could-be-hundreds-of-times-higher-than-thought
[3] https://www.carbonbrief.org/ai-boom-means-us-is-now-investing-more-in-fossil-fuel-power-than-china
[4] https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai/energy-supply-for-ai
[5] Forget AI Takeover. The Real Crisis Is That We Stopped Caring About Truth.; (27) There’s No Pill for Truth: Rethinking Knowledge Management in the Age of AI | LinkedIn
[6] OpenAI Reportedly Planning to Make ChatGPT “Prioritize” Advertisers in Conversation
[7] AI risk ownership: Who is responsible in the age of AI?
