Sustainable Communities
I would like to begin by thanking Steve Shaw and the Campaign for Sustainable Communities for organising this meeting and Rev Dr Philip Thomas, Vicar of Heighington for chairing it and you all for coming to discuss what is really a very important matter.
I think we have all been very shocked in the last two weeks by the reports and the film from New Orleans following the hurricane Katrina. This episode in the Gulf of Mexico illustrates something very important indeed. The scientific experts believe that the devastation caused in New Orleans by this hurricane is very likely to have been the result of climate change and global warming because hurricanes are far more likely when the sea temperature rises. But almost more shocking than the physical terror, first the winds and then the flood; has been the social divide in American society which this has revealed to the world. It has been the poorest people who have suffered the most:- the black community; the elderly; people with disabilities, people in long term care, those who could not make their own escape before the winds came and those who were dependent on others for care.
Although this seems like a very large disaster it is in fact just one example of what is going on in the world as the environment is degraded. It is the behaviour of those of us in the rich north who are consuming more than our fair share of the world’s resources and producing goods in inefficient and unsustainable ways which is impoverishing the environment and consequently the lives of people in the south.
On the news this week there have been two other stories which have illustrated this, first that of the fuel protesters, those people who make their living by transporting goods around for the rest of us, who are concerned that their livelihoods will no longer be viable if oil prices rise and stay at a pound a litre for petrol and secondly, the story of children dying in the famine in Niger. The drought in Niger has pushed some small vulnerable communities over the point from where they just get by to where it is impossible for them to survive. And we need to ask ourselves, why it is that this drought is affecting these people so seriously. And how has our behaviour contributed to this? In his study of famines after the second world war, the great Indian economist Amatyra Sen found that it was not weather conditions alone that caused famines, it was weather conditions combined with unfair distribution of food that combined to create famines. So the first problem faced by the people in Niger is the weather, the second is that they are already under resourced and therefore not resilient when problems arrive and that is in part because of the role that we in the north play in upholding an unfair international economy and international trading system.
But the situation is even more serious now than it has been in the past. It is our economic activity contributing to the change in weather patterns which is causing the drought as well as the unfairness.
According to the government’s document Securing the Future, within twenty five years half the world’s population could have trouble finding enough fresh water for drinking and irrigation. The same document tells us that over 90% of the 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty depend on forests for part of their livelihood. And global forest cover decreased by 4 % between 1990 and 2000. More than 70% sub-Saharan African population depends in large measure of forests and woodlands for livelihood. More than half of global deforestation between 1990 and 2000 took place in Africa.
Well, you might say what has this got to do with us and our way of life? When we go into the supermarket and we see green beans and peas from African countries we need to be aware that these vegetables are now being grown on land owned by large multi-national corporations which was previously worked by local people; that forests have been cut down to make these plantations, but even worse than that in flying those vegetables half way around the world for us for our dinner table what we are really doing is flying water from countries with severe water shortages over to us. This country certainly does not have a water shortage. And this is creating a double whammy. We are extracting water from the driest countries and taking it to the richest countries and we are doing it by burning aviation fuel, which is one of the most serious causes of climate change.
What we do here, the way we live, the systems we set up, the way we inter relate with the rest of the world have a profound impact not just on our own way of life, but on the way of life across the globe. When we are profligate with resources and degrade the environment there are consequences, for the natural environment and the social environment.
I must say that for myself, it has taken me a long time to come to understand this, I used to think that I was concerned about the natural environment as a sort of add on to my concerns about social injustice. I now believe these are inextricably linked.
So what do we mean by sustainability, we mean that all people throughout the world can satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life without compromising the quality of life for future generations.
I cannot really express this any better than by using the words of John Locke, writing in 1690 who said, a man is entitled to the fruits of his labour as long as “as much and as good” are left for the next person.
Sustainability is a justice issue between generations. People here are familiar with the walks in the woods along the banks of the river Tees and how the woods are filled with bluebells. The bluebell is of course one of our native species most threatened by climate change and I am sure that everyone here will be as enthusiastic as I am that their grandchildren and great grandchildren can enjoy the bluebell woods as we have done. Not to curb our own behaviour and thereby to deprive future generations of this pleasure would seem to be an act of greed and in a sense economic vandalism. It is unfair that we should take from them this natural resource.
And secondly, as the episode in New Orleans demonstrates if disaster strikes, it is the poor and the dispossessed who suffer most.
Margaret Beckett our Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, has described climate change as the biggest challenge humanity faces. And I agree with her. The scientific case is now overwhelming that global warming is caused by human activity through our release of green house gases, particularly carbon dioxide and that these are causing a general rise in temperature and more freak weather events.
And even for those who are sceptical, Oliver Letwin the Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment said something which I thought was very sensible namely that if we are not scientists we can’t judge scientific evidence, but there is a risk and the consequences of it are so serious, that we would be foolish not to take action now to avoid it.
So I think there is now a real consensus in this country that we need to put sustainability at the heart of our economic policies. We simply cannot afford to ignore it.
When you are a MP you are in a very privileged position because you get to meet and visit all sorts of different people and find out about lots of different things that are going on. I want to give you a few examples of things that I have seen in the last six months which was demonstrated to me, the commitment and imagination of individuals and organisations in Bishop Auckland to building a sustainable community.
First of all Teesdale District Council has a very positive policy on waste. Everyone living west of Staindrop has to sort their rubbish every week so that the council can collect bottles, plastic, paper and food waste separately so that it can be recycled and reused productively. Then industry is developing new technology to improve the energy efficiency of the economy: Glaxo which is signed up to the government’s carbon trust initiative makes energy for its Barnard Castle plant using windmills and Electrolux is meeting European standards by making cookers which are twice as energy efficient as those they were producing ten years ago; in Gainford Farmway Farmer’s Co-operative which stores and mills grain is investing in plant to manufacture biodiesel that is an alternative to petrol and diesel made from grain which is a renewable resource and consequently a sustainable fuel, but perhaps the most surprising thing of all which I have seen is the recycling project in Deerbolt Young Offenders Institute. There the prison governor has initiated a scheme for recycling the prison’s waste both to use the resources which they have more sustainably and to give the young offenders skills which will make them employable in the outside world on release.
As I have said our biggest problem is that we are emitting carbon dioxide and other green house gases, which are producing serious climate change; but we are also using too much water and destroying the habitat of the other creatures and plants with whom we share the planet, so that we are seen many species becoming increasingly aware and in the ultimate threatening the biodiversity of the planet.
Faced with this impending catastrophe the government has agreed to a target under the protocol to reduce our carbon dioxide emission by 20% below the 1990 levels by 2010 and has set itself 68 targets ranging from reversing the long term decline in the number farmland birds to eliminating fuel poverty among pensioner and disabled people. No one looking at what has happened over the last 8 years could say anything other than the government has been extremely energetic. First of all the government has pushed the issue right to the top of the international agenda this year as we have held the presidencies of the G8 and the EU.
Policy is based on the principles that:-
1. We must live within our environmental limits.
2. We must ensure a strong healthy and just society.
3. We must have a sustainable economy where the polluter pays and there are incentives to efficient use of resources.
4. We must have good governance.
5. Decisions must be based on sound science and we must follow the precautionary principle.
The government has used the tax system energetically:- VED is now graded according to the fuel efficiency of a car; landfill tax has been made more effective; there is an obligation on electricity producers to make a proportion of all electricity from renewables.
In some cases such as the building regulations and standards required on white goods, new regulations have been introduced to encourage energy efficiency, endless amounts of time and energy have been used on encouraging and exalting people to better behaviour. The carbon trust and energy saver trust are well resourced to campaign, persuade and help business to use their resources more effectively.
Despite all this, last year our carbon dioxide emissions did not fall and this indicates that unless a renewed push is made we will not achieve our objectives. So we need to consider honestly what it is that prevents us from doing better and what further steps we can take in order to succeed.
First of all there is a significant “attitude/behaviour gap”. This is illustrated by some significant statistics for example, 30% of people claim to care about companies’ environmental and social records, but only 3% reflect it in their purchases:- 90% of people know that drink cans can be recycled but only 50% say that they have ever actually done it. I am sure this is partly because people are not helped or provided with the information at the point at which they take action which is when they need it. For example, Teesdale Local Authority’s action has enabled people who live in that part of the constituency to behave more responsibly than people living in Wear Valley or Sedgefield and the statistics do indeed bear this out Teesdale has a higher level of recycling than Sedgefield and Wear Valley. People need to be supported in making better choices. The growth in fair trade tea and coffee sales has been because of the voluntary labelling scheme set up by Tradecraft and the Ethical Trading Initiative. But we could do better if such labelling was made mandatory.
And we all know that like St Augustine we pray “Oh God make me good but not yet”. We get caught up in the marketing hype and image promotion of consumerism. I know it is ridiculous and absurd but I still think that with a new handbag or another pair of shoes, I will somehow become that interesting attractive woman I want to be. It will take a great deal of self control not to fall for these messages, which is one of the reasons why I am also supporting the Children’s Food Bill which aims to put limits on the advertising of unhealthy food to children.
A second problem is that we all resent free – riders. It is natural to think that we do not want to make a serious effort to change our own patterns of production, consumption and behaviour, if someone down the road is just going to carry on as if there were no tomorrow. I am sure I am not the only person in the room who felt extremely irritated when I saw that while we are paying over 90 pence per litre for petrol the Americans are still paying 40 pence per litre. This is why I think there is an important place for regulation and why the government has been right to take a multilateral approach.
I am not arguing that economic incentives such as taxes are ineffective. In 1990, after the Velvet Revolution, I was sent to work for the Czechoslovak Government on energy policy. During the 1970’s and 1980’s Western Europe had seen oil prices rise four fold and consequently we had already become far more efficient and careful in our use of energy. Behind the iron curtain, the Eastern European economies had been protected by continuing supplies of cheap Soviet oil and now they were faced with a sudden hike. But the impact of this on their economy and environment had been disastrous, acid rain had destroyed their forests and in the average block of flats in Prague the heating was either on or off for the block as a whole; there was no thermostat in each dwelling and if you were too warm you simply open the window. The air was heavy with smog and the smell of lignite. It was really like Britain 50 years before.
So I believe we can use our tax system more effectively. I personally think we should follow the Irish in putting a tax on plastic bags which has apparently seen a revival in the use of the string shopping bag in Dublin and I certainly think that the government should be working far more energetically to put proper taxes on aviation fuel. Aviation now accounts for 5% of our climate change gas emission and the current trends are not altered, they will account for 30%. It is plainly absurd that the cost of a rail ticket to London is twice that of an air ticket to Rome.
Thirdly, I think we must look to tighter regulation than we currently have. Ultimately, rules of the game are the only way to prevent people from free-loading on others good behaviour. And this is not just true for individuals, it is also an important factor for businesses. Unless there are clear legal obligations; responsible manufacturers by taking an environmental stance can often find themselves at a competitive disadvantage compared to their more cavalier rivals. For example BP faces higher costs than Exon in its oil extraction and unless it can persuade that segment of the population who cares about the environment to pay for this it is incurring extra costs.
We need to change the rules of the game as far as retailing is concerned. I have been persuaded by the Friends of the Earth Campaign that Tesco and some of the other large supermarkets are using their economic muscle to promote a way of life which is unsustainable; short-changing farmers both here and abroad and promoting patterns of consumption which are wasteful of the earth’s resources. I have written to the Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry challenging the Office of Fair Trading review of supermarket behaviour. He has responded that the OFT have behaved quite properly in applying the competition legislation. In that case, I believe that the competition legislation needs to be changed. In some circumstances, competition produces good outcomes, but not in every situation and I do not believe that the virtues of the market can take precedence over every other public consideration. If the OFT have interpreted the law correctly then we need a change in the law.
One of the major barriers we face in achieving our climate control objectives is; the fact that both planning and individual decisions seem to be based on the assumption that everyone has and should have access to car transport. Thus we see the closure of a bank in Barnard Castle; fewer shops here in Bishop than 20 years ago; and the closure of the swimming pool in Shildon. All these decisions are predicated on the assumption that everyone – or at least everyone who matters has a car. I always feel particularly sore about this because as it happens, my husband has a medical condition which means he is not allowed to drive. Consequently, I know from experience just how inconvenient life is becoming for people who can’t drive and yet transport emissions are our biggest climate change problem. We need to get use of the car down: we need to improve public transport, we need to plan our towns and villages so that homes, work, shops and leisure don’t all require car journeys.
It is this connection between the way we organise our local communities and the shift to building a more sustainable economy, which I think is so well captured in the proposal in the Sustainable Communities Bill.
The connection between sustainable local communities promoting local economic activity and protecting the local environment and increasing local democratic control is absolutely fundamental.
Going back to the writings of John Locke in 1690, I am sure it is not a coincidence that he was writing after the Glorious Revolution seeking to justify the bill of rights which had just been passed. Among other things it provided for free speech for MPs and no taxation without parliamentary approval, (although I must admit their final clause that parliament should meet every three years would feel now to be more of a relaxation than encumbrance).
As long as decisions about the location and behaviour of shops and factories are judged entirely on financial criteria, it will not be responsive either to local needs or to environmental concerns.
The flexibility provided in the Bill for communities to set their own targets as well as contributing to national ones is eminently sensible and likely to speed up achievement of the global change we want.
When confronted with a really major challenge it is easy to feel overwhelmed and that the small steps we can take are pointless and inadequate.
Even though the government’s policies may not be as strong as they could be they have come up with a very good slogan for the next phase of work it is “Together We Can”. This seems to me to be absolutely right, together we can make a difference.
Bishop Auckland College, 15 September 2005
