Global Footprint

A plastic bag for life or Not a plastic bag?

2007-04-29T11:45:00.000Z

Plastic bags are the green talking point of the moment, what with Anya Hindmarch's designer bag 'I am not a plastic bag' hitting the headlines, courtesy of Kate Moss and other celebrities.

The bags and publicity campaign were developed with the group We Are What We Do, who arranged a high profile launch with Sainsburys supermarket: last Friday, Sainburys offered limited supplies of the bags for sale at £5 in 450 of its stores, resulting in the predictable queues, headlines and discussion of trends.

Sainsburys also used that day to give away free its reusable Bags for Life, available to all for those not prepared to get up and queue from dawn.

I certainly wasn't one of the dawn shoppers for the Anya Hindmarch bag but I did go along to claim my Bag for Life. They wouldn't let me take photos in my local store, so you'll have to take my word for it that shoppers were going out with trolley loads of bags for life, treating them in much the same way as the normal plastic bags. How many will be used more than the once remains to be seen.

Both campaigns were good for raising awareness, but neither the designer bag nor the Bag for Life addresses people's underlying behaviour or the roots of the problem of plastic carrier bags. I can think of a few factors:

- people now mainly travel to the shops by car, so they don't think about how they are going to carry their shopping home when they set out (as they used to do when they were carrying everything home by hand - what happened to the string bag, by the way?)

- shops which use bags as advertising are not geared up to encourage a reduction in the amount of bags issued (a cynic would say it's no coincidence that Sainsburys changed the colour of their bags to orange now that there's a mainstream discussion around reducing the use of plastic bags....)

Even charging for bags is not completely proven as the answer (in Ireland it is suggested that the sale of black bin bags has gone up since the introduction of a tax on plastic bags - see an article from 2004 on Food Production Daily). I feel that rewards are better - generally, people respond more positively to rewards than they do to restrictions and penalties. Sainsburys could reintroduce their penny back idea, or introduce green Reward card points, like Tesco does.

The free 'Bag for Life' day last Friday would have been a good time to introduce some of these tips and ideas:
- checkout staff could be encouraged to use the approach which Boots the chemist has had for years, which is to ask all customers 'Do you need a bag?' instead of automatically giving them out.

- stores could also introduce high-profile publicity to encourage people to fold and pack a bag to carry in their pocket, wallet or handbag - plus regular 'bring a bag' days with rewards.

There was a debate in the House of Lords in July 2006 which ranges widely across the issues: see the report on They Work For You, or directly from Hansard if you prefer. Here's a sample: "My Lords, was not the noble Lord's mother absolutely right in her reuse of these bags? I certainly reuse them to bin kitchen rubbish before putting it into the black liner. What is wrong with that?" (follow the links above for the response...)

Finally, it's important not to make so much noise about plastic carrier bags that the issue of waste plastic in food packaging gets sidelined. Many people are as concerned about this as about bags - probably more, because everyone says it's someone else's problem (supermarkets blaming suppliers etc), with the consumer being blamed for wanting produce in a particular way - which is very frustrating.

The Peak Energy "Wakey Wakey" Tour, Spring 2007

2007-04-10T10:30:00.000Z

Peak Energy is coming! For the UK, it has already peaked: oil production in the UK sector of the North Sea peaked in 1999 and natural gas production in 2003. (see here)

Concerned at the lack of public dialogue on these issues in the UK, a network of people interested in Peak Energy are organising a national programme of events "to say, 'Wakey! Wakey!' - peak Energy is coming and we all have to address the problems it will create today".

This is the Peak Energy "Wakey Wakey" Tour From March to June 2007, it takes in almost 30 towns and centres across Britain, including Findhorn in Scotland, Lampeter, Leeds, London and many more.

For more details, venues and dates please visit the website.

Climate change, emissions and our ecological footprint

2007-01-14T12:04:00.000Z

The debate on climate change does not yet focus strongly enough (at least in the public consciousness) on the link between climate change and global warming on the one hand and overuse of resources and large ecological footprints on the other.

There is a hierarchy of topics and 'labels', which follows a descending order in the public mind:
~ top are climate change and global warming - 'the planet's getting hotter' + 'we must do something or we're doomed'
~ next is carbon emissions - 'we must cut them back to stop global warming, climate change etc'
~ then come a range of concrete things we feel we should be cutting down on (flying) or doing more more of (recycling) or changing to doing (buying local produce)
~ and right at the bottom, debated mainly among better educated sections of the population, comes reducing our own use of resources altogether in line with Ghandhi's belief that 'the earth has enough for all our needs but not for some people's greed'

The focus of the debate therefore needs to be inverted, so that overuse of resources becomes the top priority and central plank, if that's not too mixed a metaphor.

A good analogy would be the fight against AIDS and the stages involved in the debate and public awareness over the past 25 years.
~ For AIDS read climate change - dramatic, scary, huge and unknown.
~ For HIV read carbon emissions, the cause - initially debated and now overwhelmingly accepted.
~ The recycling and other small cutbacks (with which most lay people are currently attempting to combat climate change) are analogous with practising safe sex to combat AIDS.
~ But, just as the root cause of the escalation of AIDS lies with the situation of a particular section of the population, so too with climate change, although with one major difference: with AIDS, the section of the population involved is those living in poverty and thus poor health, whereas with climate change it is the reverse - the people escalating the problem are those living in the wealthy industrialised countries, with their overuse of resources.

Tragically, as with AIDS, it is still the poor who will suffer the worst.

Cathy Aitchison, London

How green is your local authority?

2007-01-10T21:41:00.000Z

Interesting article in The Guardian recently discussing the top ranking councils on action to cut carbon emissions and prepare for climate change. See "Leading by example", Wednesday, 3rd January.

One dimension is still not at the forefront of thinking, however, namely a measure of resources use. Below is my letter of response (or read the published version here: Society Guardian letters).

Dear Sir
I welcome Terry Slavin's report highlighting the actions and initiatives of some local authorities to combat climate change. ('Leading by Example', Wed 3 Jan)

However, we also need to start ranking local authorities by their Ecological Footprint, ie. measuring their use of resources in global hectares per person (as calculated by the REAP project from the Stockholm Environment Institute at York University).

There is a strong link between wealth and size of footprint: the richest areas, such as Kensington & Chelsea, Woking, Guildford and Epsom & Ewell, have a footprint of 6.5 and above, whilst the lowest consuming local authorities are also among the poorest: residents of Merthyr Tydfil, Rhondda Cynon Taff, Torfaen and Blaenau Gwent each use less than 5 global hectares per person for their needs.

So whilst Woking should of course be praised for slashing CO2 emissions, it is starting from a very different point from Blaenau Gwent (4.8) or indeed many others, eg. Easington in County Durham (5.07) or Barking & Dagenham in London (5.02).

What is needed now is more recognition, incentives and support for areas with smaller ecological footprints and the people living there - people who have less and so consume less, thereby producing fewer emissions per person. If this led to new ways of measuring the health and success of the country, instead of in purely economic terms, so much the better.

Yours faithfully
Cathy Aitchison

----
(see my website for a list of some of the local authorities with their ecological footprints)

Climate change, terrorism and social injustice

2006-11-19T23:20:00.000Z

What is the link between preventing terrorism, combatting climate change and tackling social injustice?

One link is that they all depend on the good will and consent of the public in implementing solutions; another is that each is being handled badly by the authorities who currently run the world.

Perhaps most important, however, is how they fit together: social injustice, with its extremes of wealth and poverty, power and powerlessness, is at the centre. Social injustice is the key factor, contributing on the one hand to natural instability in the form of ecological deficit (overuse of resources) and emissions leading to climate change, and on the other hand to the human response to such instability - terrorism (aggression born of impotence) and the witch-hunting, intolerant fear of 'the other'.

If you accept this analysis, then combatting both climate change and terrorism can be achieved only by tackling social injustice.

This is actually not such a tall order, given the enormous power of the electronic media, but it involves major changes in attitude - changes which are eagerly awaited by much of the population of the world. It may sound simplistic, but here goes.

Three new attitudes
1. Respect the poor and those who use few resources: this is not to say that we should glorify poverty, but we must start respecting and rewarding moderation - constant growth is not the best way of measuring success, as we are finding out to our cost.

2. Listen to the poor and allow 'ordinary' people to act: we assume that the world has to be run centrally, all of a piece, but is this natural? only mankind tries to control any more than a small section of territory. Listening is not the same as having a Big Conversation. Solutions must be implemented quickly by those who are most closely involved, not necessarily expert, sometimes whose only qualifications are that they belong to a particular area.

3. Be honest about failures, limitations and imperfections: in our consumer-driven society we try to achieve perfection and total safety, forgetting that we do so at someone else's expense and at the expense of the planet. We have no absolute right to total safety, because we are human, fallible, mortal and part of the fabric of the planet. If we are encouraged to demand it ('How can we make sure this never happens again?'), we lose sight of the fact that we are demanding for ourselves something that at least four fifths of the world will never be able to have.

Community media have a role to play
Media literacy (as in participating, ie. questioning, reporting and disseminating a message) and community media have a central role to play in making such changes happen. Whilst we still have the luxury of the internet and electronic communications (dependent as they are on the luxury of reliable electricity) we must make the widest use of them to spread this message and achieve such changes.

Let's move the focus away from hunting out extremism and instead focus on providing media access for all, so that people can share their own concerns and offer their own suggestions, no matter how small.

To paraphrase a Biblical saying: he who stops worrying about his own safety, and starts listening, will be safe.

My Climate Challenge

2006-11-12T09:38:00.000Z

We welcome the Climate Challenge website and campaign from Defra (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). In the Get Involved section, you can comment or add your own Bright Ideas.

You are also welcome to comment and add your own Climate Challenge ideas here. Look for Comments at the bottom of this post, then click on this link and a new screen will open. Read any comments already there and add your own in the box (moderated).

Here are some of my Climate Challenge ideas:

First, some challenges for individuals:

One Warm Room - heating a whole house or building is a luxury we can't afford. Instead of central heating, when it's cold try heating one central room in your home.

Do It In Daylight - our modern 24 hour lifestyles are unsustainable, especially during the winter months with their longer hours of darkness. Rethink and reorganise your time. If you can't (eg. because of outside constraints such as night working etc), think about how you would manage if 24 hour resources were not available to you.

Stickers For Stick-In-The-Muds - attach stickers to (or place information leaflets near) items which still use excessive and unsustainable resources (high food miles, unnecessary plastic packaging etc).

Put That Light Out! If you live near an office or public building which leaves lights and computers on all night, call and leave messages, or give out leaflets outside the building, asking them to switch off and save energy.

Lower Income, Lower Emissions - the richer you are, the more emissions you create and the more resources you use up - check your local authority's ecological footprint* against the highest and lowest in the country (Highest = St Albans, Kensington & Chelsea, Guildford, Epsom & Ewell at 6.5+ global hectares perperson; Lowest = Merthyr Tydfil, Blaenau Gwent* at less than 5 gha per person). A good reason to be proud if you're not among the country's 'top' people. Whatever your rating, lobby your council to reduce its footprint even more.
*source: Stockholm Environment Institute York, REAP website (free but requires registration)

Don't Borrow Tomorrow's Resources for Today - reduce your debt, don't borrow for today's pleasures from the resources your children will need tomorrow.

And an important challenge for the Government:

Economic Growth Is For Dummies - we urgently need to rethink how we judge economic success: to be sustainable and to combat climate change we need to measure success and progress on sustainability, stability and social cohesion instead of on financial growth alone.

Thoughts on the day the planet tips into Ecological Overdraft, 2006

2006-10-09T15:48:00.000Z

9th October 2006: We've already used up the year's supply of the Earth's resources - now we're in ecological overdraft until the end of 2006, with almost 12 weeks still to go. See articles in The Independent and The Guardian today, Monday 9 October.

Why not use the remaining 83 days of the year to make yourself aware of your contribution to the planet's ecological overdraft and to work out how well you'd get on if you had to improvise and live on reduced resources. There are some ideas below.

NB: Many of the ideas may sound extreme, perhaps leading to a boring life, if you read them one after the other as shown below. However, there is no way of escaping it: we must find simpler ways of living, even if it means giving up our current sophisticated, fast-paced lifestyles, because modern life in industrialised countries uses too many of the planet's resources.

1. Make an inventory of everything you own. Can't do it? List the contents of the room where you keep your financial information, plus a bedroom and a shed, garage or storeroom. Include any vehicles which you have.

2. Split the list of things you own into two parts:
a) things which need input from someone or somewhere else (eg. electricity, internet access, petrol/diesel, spare parts from the manufacturer etc) before they will work and
b) things which are useful without external input (eg. spades and hoes, blankets and bedding, paper and pencils, candles and matches, cash and jewellery, clothes and shoes, bicycles and pushcarts etc)

3. Spend one day each week using only things which require no external input (eg. putting more clothes on instead of turning on the central heating, going to bed when it gets too dark and cold, cycling or walking everywhere, not using the microwave, freezer, internet or TV etc).

4. Encourage your neighbours or friends to do the same - swap or share things you need which you don't have in your own home.

5. Hold a Makeover and Mend Day, dealing with items in your home which are no longer useful but which could be used if mended or adapted in some way. Make a list of items which are too complex to mend but for which more straightforward versions are (or used to be) available.

6. Hold a Plastic Awareness Day - put a coloured sticker on every piece of plastic which you touch or use during the course of the day. Analyse the results: what? how many? which could be avoided?

7. Hold a Food Miles Day, working out how far your food has travelled to reach you. Repeat the exercise a couple of times to see if you can reduce the total each time.

8. Make a note of all the meat you eat during a week. Try and reduce the amount of meat each week, eating no meat at all during one or more of the weeks before Christmas.

9. If you celebrate Christmas, have a One Planet Christmas using as few external resources as possible for your food, presents, travelling arrangements and entertainment.

10. If you have a car, sell it and don't buy a new one till the planet can afford it....

Cathy Aitchison

Climate change is the symptom - unfair resource use is the cause

2006-09-16T11:27:00.000Z

Almost half the world is being kept poor by a fifth of the world who live like kings. In the middle, a third of the world's people are working to bring their lifestyle up to the level of the kings.

The kings enjoy a safe, comfortable, complex life, full of choices and convenience. They live in places like the United Arab Emirates, the US, Australia, Canada, the UK, New Zealand, Finland and other parts of western Europe.

They say things like 'Make Poverty History' and 'Stop Climate Change' but they go on using their cars, changing their kitchen appliances, insisting on street lighting to keep themselves safe and intoning 'how can we make sure this never happens again?' whenever something bad happens to them.

Meanwhile, the poor experience wars, conflicts, drought, flooding and the destruction of their original sustainable lifestyles, whilst visions of the kings' wealth are beamed into their homes through global media.

When the young men from the poor try and get to the kings' lands to find a better life and work for their families back home, the kings pull up the drawbridge and panic about 'uncontrolled immigration'.

Kings: unless your use of resources is fair (around the average of 1.6-3 global hectares per person), then You Are The Problem. To say that climate change is the problem is like saying that the spots are the problem when you have measles, or that diarrhea is the problem when you have food poisoning.

Look at your lifestyle and your country's systems, then compare them with your neighbours from the middle third of the world:
- if you live in the US (footprint 9.7 global hectares per person), compare yourself with Mexico (2.4), Venezuela (2.3), Argentina (2.2), Chile (2.2), Brazil (2.1), Uruguay (2.1), Bolivia (2.0), Costa Rica (2.0), Paraguay (1.9), Cuba (1.7), Jamaica (1.7), Panama (1.7) and Dominican Republic (1.6).
- if you live in the UK (footprint 5.6 gha per person), compare yourself with Ukraine (2.9), Serbia and Montenegro (2.5), Bosnia Herzegovina (2.2), Macedonia (2.2), Romania (2.1) and Turkey (2.0).

Then start making some dramatic changes. Perhaps start by respecting the poor, the small and the frugal instead of trying to 'develop' them out of existence - instead, get some ideas from them about how to live more sustainably.

Total safety, comfort, convenience and choice are not sustainable - not for everyone, not even for the current 20% who are kings (witness what is already happening). So for the kings to carry on expecting them as their right is to steal someone else's resources and put the planet into overload.

Future London

2006-09-14T12:24:00.000Z

Yesterday I visited the Future London exhibition in Brick Lane:

It's interesting and has some inspiring points, but I don't think it goes far enough. I know the current approach to environment issues is to draw people in gradually and not scare them, but I think that underestimates the intelligence of the public, especially the young.

The main thing it needs is an interactive method of making comparisons - between parts of London, London and the rest of the UK, UK and the world:

- push button charts in which people can check the footprint of their borough and see how much each component accounts for (see the Stockholm Environment Institute's REAP website for all the local authorities in the UK - free but registration required).

- maps with push buttons in which the footprints of London can be compared with footprints around the country and across the world

This will help people realise how high up our lifestyle is on the scale of use of resources (and therefore of privilege). In general, footprints are higher among wealthier boroughs than among poorer ones:

- Kensington & Chelsea's footprint is the highest at 6.58 hectares per person, of which 1.4 is for food and drink (eaten in and outside the home). So the average person in Kensington & Chelsea uses as much land for food and drink alone as a person living in Albania, Ecuador, Egypt or Thailand does for ALL their needs.

Some more comparisons:
- six boroughs have footprints of 6 global hectares (gha) per person or above (Wandsworth, City of London, Camden, Westminster, Hammersmith & Fulham and Kensington & Chelsea)

- 11 boroughs have fooprints of less than 5.4 gha/per person. They are: Barking & Dagenham, Newham, Bexley, Hillingdon, Waltham Forest, Hounslow, Havering, Enfield, Tower Hamlets, Sutton and Greenwich.

How London compares with the rest of the country:
- local authorities with footprints above 6 gha/per person include Epsom & Ewell and Guildford (6.5 and 6.51 respectively).
- local authorities with footprints lower than any in London include Merthyr Tydfil (4.91) and Easington, County Durham (5.01).

The exhibition closes in Brick Lane on the 16th, then reopens at the Science Museum on the 25th. I asked an attendant there whether it would be the same exhibition and he thought it probably would - but perhaps the above points could be included in a future exhibition? It's a good idea, and if some of the items (like the zero energy house) could be available as portable exhibits that would be brilliant (eg. in libraries, shopping centres etc).

Best wishes
Cathy
Aitchison Media & Development

Marketing madness: do we really need plastic incentives?

2006-08-24T21:02:00.000Z

There are so many marketing gimmicks which involve unnecessary use of plastic. Here are just two:

1. The drink measuring cup:
Today if you buy a bottle of Schweppes tonic water you get a cute little measuring cup with it - made of plastic. And when you buy another bottle of tonic water you get another cute little measure, and then another and another ... It doesn't say what kind of plastic the cute little measure is made of. But even if it is easily recyclable, what are we supposed to do with more than one? The marketing people think it's such a good idea that it's their TV ad campaign as well.

2. The cream pot lid:
If you buy a pot of cream from Tesco it comes with not one but two plastic lids - double the environmental pollution on a pot of single cream. Sure, it's very convenient to be able to close the half-used pot securely, but then what do you do when it's empty? It doesn't say what kind of plastic either of the lids is made from. And what do you do with the next one - and the one after that?

Send us your examples as comments below.

The middle third of the world

2006-08-03T07:23:00.000Z

A third of the world has a national global footprint around the average (between 3.0 global hectares down to 1.6). 33 countries have this footprint, ranging across the globe and accounting for around 33% of the world's population (among the 150 countries reporting for the footprint statistics).

They are as follows (footrint in global hectares per person):
Bulgaria 3.0
Croatia 3.0
Ukraine 2.9
Belize 2.8
Lebanon 2.8
Mongolia 2.7
Serbia and Montenegro 2.5
Malaysia 2.4
Mexico 2.4
South Africa 2.4
Iran 2.3
Venezuela 2.3
Argentina 2.2
Bosnia Herzegovina 2.2
Chile 2.2
Macedonia 2.2
Brazil 2.1
Romania 2.1
Uruguay 2.1
Bolivia 2.0
Costa Rica 2.0
Turkey 2.0
Paraguay 1.9
Mauritius 1.8
Uzbekistan 1.8
Cuba 1.7
Jamaica 1.7
Panama 1.7
Syria 1.7
China 1.6
Dominican Republic 1.6
Jordan 1.6
Mauritania 1.6

What can we learn from them - are there skills and ways of life which we should respect?

Incidently, the other two thirds are not evenly spread: one in five of the world's population is in the top 'third', with a footprint above 3 global hectares per person, whilst almost half (47%) of the world's population has a footprint of 1.5 global hectares per person or less.

(Data from WWF/reported in 2005, collected in 2002)

Complexity, convenience and safety are killing the planet

2006-07-31T08:19:00.000Z

People in the UK are now very aware of global warming, climate change and the need for us all to change our way of life to help save the planet. By now I think most of us must be switching off lights when we leave the room and turning off the tap when we brush our teeth. Some of us are even not flushing the loo every time we pee.

So is that all? I'm doing all that - problem sorted? Surely not. In which case, what next?

Try the way the industrialised world is structured and run.

Many of the systems in place and the things that we use are designed and programmed to be wasteful of resources. For example:
- the system which forces some law firms to print out a copy of every email sent and received, in order to satisfy their insurers.
- the compex home entertainment system which has to be re-programmed whenever it's switched off overnight.
- the computer network which takes 11 minutes to boot up, so office workers have no incentive to shut it down.
- the health and safety rules that don't allow people set up small initiatives of their own without licences, permits, inspections and experts.

To really save resources and slow down emissions we need to make radical changes at the top level systems of the industrialised world, and to tackle three core concepts at source:
- the COMPLEXITY of the way things (systems and items of equipment) are organised
- the CONVENIENCE AND CHOICE to which we have become accustomed and
- the level of SAFETY AND SECURITY to which we feel entitled.

I am looking for examples of problems in these three core areas, which may have become so much a part of the culture that we don't even see them as being possible to change, especially if people have grown up with them. I'm also looking for examples of solutions already in place.

Send your examples of the following:
- COMPLEXITY: complex systems and equipment, especially where they use a lot of resources and where individuals no longer have any ownership of them - and ways in which communities are enabling people to establish less complex systems for themselves.

- CONVENIENCE AND CHOICE: unnecessary convenience measures and choices which we have now got used to, despite being able to exist without them in the not so distant past - plus tips which we may have forgotten or never known.

- SAFETY AND SECURITY: measures designed to make us more safe and secure but which in reality are sucking us into a fantasy world of total safety which, even if it were possible, would need unlimited resources to maintain it - and ways in which people are bucking the risk averse trend to make changes for themselves.

Send your responses as a comment below or email them to me at ca_globalfootprint@twiza.demon.co.uk

Thank you
Cathy

World Environment Day

2006-06-06T06:11:00.000Z

5th June is World Environment Day. This year the theme of this
official UN
Day is Deserts and desertification - see
http://www.unep.org/wed/2006/english/.

Some time today (or this week), why not take part in World Environment Day
by
recording a short audio item for Refugee Week Radio!

It can be a scripted talk, an improvised drama, vox pops, an interview, a
diary - the choice is yours. It can be on any environment topic - there are
some suggestions below to get you started. Send your audio to us (details
below) and we will broadcast the best on Refugee Week Radio - broadcasting
online from 19th to 25th June.

~ A Bucket of Water ~
(how many litres of drinking quality water go down the sewers on your behalf
every day? today try filling a bucket of water with a scoop then using it
for everything you need.....)

~ 'Perfection Creep' is Killing the Planet ~
(remember the days when we Tippexed out a mistake in a document instead of
printing out the whole thing again? what else have you got accustomed to in
the way of perfect living? in what ways are you using resources which
someone else probably has to do without?)

~ Fridge miles and foods in season ~
(how far have the contents of your fridge travelled? do we need an exotic
range of ingredients to make us proper people? what happened to the idea of
eating things when they are in season?)

~ Walk and carry ~
(for one day go everywhere on foot and carry everything yourself - how does
doing so alter the way you spend your day?)

Details for sending:
Send a copy* of your audio on data CD (WAV or MP3 format) to Refugee Week
Radio, 60E Honor Oak Road, Forest Hill, London SE23 3RZ to arrive no later
than Thursday 15th June. Please include your name, address, contact phone
number, email address (if applicable), plus an introduction as to when and
where the audio was recorded.
*Please don't send originals as we will not be able to return items.

We look forward to hearing from you.
With best wishes
Cathy Aitchison
020 8699 8787
Refugee Week Radio

Thoughts for International Women's Day

2006-03-08T10:19:00.000Z

Women are more environmentally friendly than men!
Thoughts for International Women's Day - 8 March 2006

Do women tread more lightly across the world than men? You bet they do. I have no surveys or statistics to back up my theory, but if you put together findings from published studies on gender inequality (from pay levels to private school fees to wealth following divorce), it does appear to ring true.

Here is the logic:
- The poor use fewer of the earth's resources than the rich
- It is more environmentally friendly to use fewer resources
- Women are paid less than men, less is spent on them and they are more likely to be poor
- Therefore women are more environmentally friendly than men!

Of course that's all a bit generalised and simplistic. But the point should be taken seriously: in working out how to save the environment and live more sustainably, we need to take a more 'female' approach to judging progress and generally running the world.

We need to:
- value quiet solutions over high profile contests and debates
- value sharing, compromise and consensus over outright winners and losers
- place a higher value on caring skills and community benefit - and place less value on individual wealth and power.

We in the rich industrialised countries demand wide consumer choice, total safety, total hygiene, total comfort, unrestricted travel across the globe etc. But, as all these perks are bought at a price to others elsewhere in the world (and it's generally the women who pay the most heavily), our own indulgence should make us feel distinctly uneasy. There's no way we can Make Poverty History without also striving to Make Profligacy History.

Community media has a central role to play in this - women and girls around the world need to use it to speak out and make their voices heard. New technology and media literacy are helping to bring the voices of the powerless to the world's attention as never before. Now we must ensure that these voices are listened to - that the opinions, achievements, solutions and ideas of those who survive on very little are taken seriously.

Cathy Aitchison
Refugee Week Radio

Refugee Week Radio, a series of online broadcasts taking place during Refugee Week in June, will include programmes and items on environment and sustainable living, education and international development, especially as relates to women. Please get in touch via the website if you want more information or to get involved.
www.refugeeweekradio.net
Refugee Week Radio - broadcasting online from 19-25 June 2006

Clare Short on Start the Week, 6th February

2006-02-08T08:33:00.000Z

Interesting debate on Start the Week on Radio 4 this week: former Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, arguing passionately about how we in the West must change our lifestyle in order to be sustainable. Listen from around 23 minutes in to the programme.

What is your global footprint?

2005-12-10T09:35:00.000Z

How many planets do you need to sustain your current lifestyle?
I just did the quiz at ecofoot.org and discovered I have a footprint of 4 hectares and need 2.2 planets to keep it going. Scary.

What is a Global or Ecological Footprint? This is the definition from WWF and Bioregional's One Planet Living brochure :
"The Ecological Footprint is one way of measuring how our lifestyles impact not only on the planet, but also on other people. It calculates how much productive land, freshwater and sea is needed to feed us and provide all the energy, water and materials we use in our everyday lives. It also calculates the emissions generated from the oil, coal and gas we burn at ever-increasing rates, and it determines how much land is required to absorb our waste. Reducing our ecological footprint is a key aim of One Planet Living. A one planet lifestyle means having a footprint of less than 1.8 global hectares per person."

Now look at which countries achieve an average 1.8 hectares per person - 85 of them: see the Global Footprint Network or download a spreadsheet of footprints by country from the 2005 Edition of the National Footprint Accounts (data from 2002).

I've also listed them below. Their footprints range from 1.8 (Mauritius) down to 0.1 (Afghanistan):
Mauritius
Uzbekistan
Cuba
Jamaica
Panama
Syria
China
Dominican Republic
Jordan
Mauritania
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Botswana
Korea DPRP
Namibia
Papua New Guinea
Tunisia
Albania
Ecuador
Egypt
Thailand
Honduras
Kyrgyzstan
Moldova Republic
Niger
Colombia
El Salvador
Gambia
Guatemala
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Senegal
Burkina Faso
Chad
Gabon
Swaziland
Uganda
Armenia
Benin
Ghana
Indonesia
Iraq
Philippines
Sudan
Angola
Central African Republic
Guinea
Lesotho
Morocco
Myanmar
Peru
Togo
Zimbabwe
Cameroon
Ethiopia
Kenya
Laos
Mali
Sierra Leone
Sri Lanka
Vietnam
Burundi
Cote Divoire
Eritrea
Georgia
Guinea-Bissau
India
Rwanda
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Yemen
Congo
Congo Democratic Republic
Haiti
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mozambique
Nepal
Pakistan
Zambia
Bangladesh
Cambodia
Somalia
Afghanistan

The most industrialised, developed countries also have the largest footprint per person. The equivalent footprints for the top twenty, all 4.7 global hectares per person (ha/person) and above, are as follows:
United Arab Emirates - 10.5 ha/person
United States of America - 9.7 ha/person
Canada, Kuwait, Australia - 7.0-7.5 ha/person
Finland, New Zealand - 6.0-6.8 ha/person
Estonia, Norway, France, United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium & Luxembourg - 5.0-5.9 ha/person
Czech Republic, Spain, Israel, Austria, Greece, Switzerland - 4.7-4.9 ha/person.

So, people sitting in your warm homes, here's the stark truth: our easy comfortable lifestyles are not sustainable. For real sustainability we all have to change our lifestyle until the global footprints for all countries are more in line with the countries in the first list above. And that will take more than switching off lights, recycling the rubbish or walking to work.