Transforming our cities from grey to green

Martin Hunt, March 11th 2010, Built environment

It was great to see the launch of the Integrated Habitats Design Competition last week – a competition that seeks out inspiring and innovative designers who emphasise the value of biodiversity and nature in our built surroundings. A competition that places significant weight on nature contributing to healthy, low-energy, high-quality environments will hopefully help the spread and uptake of best practice in greening our cities.

Integrated design and a greater focus on green infrastructure is not just the domain of planners, the owners of allotments or the managers of our very important inner city parks. Access to high quality green space, the provision of native trees for solar shading, designing building solutions to support threatened species, or the application of sustainable drainage systems do not just help conserve or enhance local ecology - they are also vital to our health and wellbeing (and happiness). They are also vital for the long-term resilience of urban areas in the face of over-heating or flooding associated with climate change. Convinced of this, I’m very happy to support and endorse this new design competition and look forward to evaluating the submissions with my fellow judges during the summer!

The competition was launched at Ecobuild last week (see Jonathon Porritt’s blog), and it was great to see this event really gathering momentum, and size. For me, Ecobuild highlighted the need for our designers and builders to put nature before technological fixes. I was privy to discussions and debates around biomimicry, the provision of food growing space in schools, and planning for more trees in our cities. But I was also impressed by the drive and enthusiasm of the many professionals trying to deliver more sustainable homes, schools, hospitals, offices, and other forms of infrastructure. There were literally hundreds of suppliers showing off their latest green products – from natural paints and SMART meters, to micro-CHP units and recycled benches.

Please visit www.ihdc.org.uk for further information on the Integrated Habitats Design Competition. The competition is supported by CIRIA and organised by Dusty Gedge, the UK’s leading living roofs expert, Gary Grant, one of the UK’s leading ecologists, and RESET, the sustainable design training charity. Judges and endorsers come a wide range of backgrounds, including government agencies, professional institutions and NGOs.

Participants have until 30th June to enter and finalists will exhibit at the Building Centre in central London for five weeks over September, during which time the final awards will be presented at the World Green Roof Congress on the 15th September.

Read more

M&S set a sustainable benchmark for the retail world

Jonathon Porritt, March 11th 2010, Business, Forum founders, Retail

I spoke at the annual M&S Suppliers’ Conference on Tuesday, which took place in Kensington Town Hall. This venue has a particular resonance for me as it was where the votes for the 1979 and 1984 European elections were counted – and every time I’m back there, I can’t help but recall that sense of consternation that so few people seemed to be prepared, at that time, to put their cross in the Green Party box!

Twenty-six years on and it seemed as if the M&S Suppliers were all voting enthusiastically for the updated version of Plan A! And that was not just because Sir Stuart Rose made a very powerful pitch telling them all that this was their reality whether they liked it or not. By the end of the day, they would certainly have had an unnerving sense of bars being raised all around them, in terms of production standards, transparency, reporting, innovation and so on.

Plan A was launched three years ago, and instantly captured people’s imagination. The combination of carbon neutral and zero waste to landfill pledges, the 100 Action Points, the commitment to invest £200 million, and the sense of all this being at the core of the company rather than being grafted on made an immediate impact. It also gave Plan A the kind of brand profile that took it way beyond the usual corporate responsibility strategies.

Three years on, the £200 million cost has been turned into a £50 million contribution to profit. Forty-five of the Action Points have been delivered, and another 80 have been added on. The ambition level has been ratcheted up several notches, with M&S now committing to becoming the world’s most sustainable (major) retailer by 2015.

Forum for the Future has worked closely with M&S throughout this time, so we are not exactly disinterested parties, but Plan A does provide the benchmark for the whole of the retail world. It’s visionary, it’s applied, it’s comprehensive (as in covering all the sustainability bases), and it’s succeeding in getting whole-company buy-in, through the high level  “How We Do Business” Committee, chaired (and driven!) by Sir Stuart Rose.

So it’s well worthwhile checking out the new version of Plan A, available at: http://plana.marksandspencer.com/media/pdf/planA-2010.pdf

Read more

Are we failing to see the wood for the gadgets?

Martin Hunt, March 10th 2010, Built environment, General

I’ve recently found myself questioning whether we are becoming over-reliant on technological fixes to the sustainability challenges we face today. Are we in danger of falling for ‘techno-wash’ as a way of avoiding some more fundamental (and maybe more painful) decisions about the way we live our lives? Does technology sometimes obscure the bigger picture?

Did you see the story about one of the government’s new flagship schools pulling the plug on interactive whiteboards and other wireless components, and reverting to pen and paper? Teachers wanted to avoid wasting time when systems failed to function properly, and losing the attention of pupils.

How about this recent post on our website? It made me laugh. Apparently iPhone users can now download an app to show them whether they should stop using said app, and pocket their iPhone. The so-called ASBO app displays 'anti-social behaviour' statistics for the user's current location. My knee-jerk reaction was to assume the reason for the app was to simply tell users to “get off the thing, be sociable and actually talk to your mates”. And I know I wasn’t alone in that reaction.

Get off your Luddite high horse I hear you cry. Ok, I’ll admit to being a bit of a technophobe. I’m frequently in deep and murky waters when trying to talk about apps or Twitter and feel a killjoy when I question whether the latest fashionable gadget really does makes life a lot easier or much more pleasurable.  Don’t get me wrong, there are fantastic benefits to most of our advances in technology, be that the wheel, windmill or the worldwide web. I just become a bit irrational or disconcerted about our reliance on shiny technology sometimes.

But this is a really important issue as we seek to develop a low carbon economy and society. For example, the Zero Carbon Hub’s report rightly suggests that a lot more needs to be done to market zero carbon homes. It highlights the fact that while consumers are happy to take a risk on the next cool gadget, they won’t take a punt on a zero carbon home because it is perceived to be too futuristic, hi-tech and experimental. When you consider the money involved, that’s not a surprise – the appetite for fashionable, innovative technology will obviously take the consumer only so far.

Of course in years to come, I’ve no doubt that the highly fashionable iPhone or a super duper variation will be integral to remotely managing the heating in your home, rotating your roof top renewables, or altering the tints in your windows! And I acknowledge we will not be able to deliver a truly zero carbon home that is fit for our expectations without the help of technology.

It’s all very well to try and paint a positive vision of a low-carbon future, replete with whizz bang applications (sorry, apps) and smart technology, but there is a danger that we can turn some people off (not literally) by placing too much emphasis on high-tech solutions. Indeed, from my work with building design professionals and their clients, I know that technology can be a distraction from low-tech, passive solutions that can have a bigger overall impact.

The old adage of avoid, reduce, then replace (fossil fuel sources on energy) continues to serve us well. Being clever about building form and orientation, and concentrating on the fabric of our buildings must come before the signing of cheques for ground source heat pumps or micro-wind turbines. And it is certainly time we stop hearing about buildings that have photovoltaic arrays or solar panels on north-facing roofs!

So, here’s a plea – don’t forget the simple, low-tech decisions we can all take which deliver greater benefits than that shiny item that sits on your roof, in your office or in your pocket. Technology has its place in making our world more sustainable, but our collective understanding of what our priorities should be and the changes in behaviour which will flow from that should have much more of a lasting legacy.

Martin Hunt is Head of Built Environment at Forum for the Future

Read more

No more niches – we need sustainable innovation at scale

Jonathon Porritt, March 9th 2010, Built environment, Forum founders

It’s the scale of it all that is sometimes daunting. On energy, for instance, we have to transition from around 90% dependency on fossil fuels to around 90% on renewables – allowing a little bit of residual space for cleaner and super-efficient fossil fuels (aviation, amongst other things, where technological substitution is always going to be limited). If we had two hundred years to make all that happen, it would be fine. But we don’t. Between 2025 and 2050 is seen by most scientists as the outer time limit available to us.

Which will require an unprecedented level of innovation in every sector of the economy. And that means getting scale in all those sectors to get the right drivers in place to make the innovation happen. From niche to mainstream. Easy! But scale means different things in different sectors.

I spent a day last week at Ecobuild  - ‘the biggest event in the world for sustainable design, construction and the built environment’. That absolutely wasn’t a claim that could have been made at the first Ecobuild, five years ago, which attracted no more than 1000 visitors. This year, there were more than 50,000 people there. Earls Court was flush with exhibitors, from some of the biggest companies in the UK to distinctly ‘alternative’ start-ups taking a massive gamble on enough people falling for their particular ‘breakthrough innovation’. There were countless meetings and debates going on the whole time, and the kind of buzz that one doesn’t always associate with events of this kind.

For the politicians who’d dropped in, and wandered around looking a bit bemused, it all said one thing: no more niches. This was about scale. New orders. Expanding markets. Innovation (in the construction industry!). And even, dare one say it, new jobs.

I won’t be churlish by pointing out that this supply-chain journey (from niche to huge, scaled opportunity) could have been stimulated by the political system many years ago – as it was in Germany, Scandinavia and so on.  At least we’ve got there now, and it’s exciting.

The UK Green Building Council has been a central part of that journey, and is now providing the kind of leadership (across this complex industry and beyond) that the politicians need in order to stay in touch with the developments on the ground.  The UK Green Building Council launched its new Green Building Manifesto at Ecobuild  – and it’s well worth a look. 

Read more

The science of uncertainty

Sara Parkin, March 2nd 2010, Climate change, Forum founders

What are we to make of the furore around climate science? There are implications for environmental campaigners, government and businesses currently agonising over the implementation of low carbon strategies, as well as for scientists - climate scientists in particular - and the whole scientific community in general.

To start with thee and me. Most of us won’t have a degree in science, and may not even have a GCSE in one of the natural sciences. So we tend to trust what the scientists say without considering too closely what they mean. Consequently, we are rubbish at understanding the uncertainty that is intrinsic in all scientific inquiry. Climate science is no different. A hypothesis was made: that the most recent warming is mainly due to greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere by human activity. This hypothesis developed from the fact that we’ve known since the 19th century certain gases warm the climate, and that humans now generate a lot more of these gases. Despite a lot of effort over the last 40 years, this hypothesis has not been disproved.

As a consequence, climate scientists consider the likelihood that human emissions of greenhouse gases are contributing to a warming climate to be very likely – i.e. 90% certain. The figures below gives the degrees of certainty the IPCC gives to its conclusions. The big step between labelling something likely or very likely means the latter appellation is not given lightly.

Source: IPCC Report (2007) Summary for Policy Makers p53

Nothing in the ‘climategate’ scandals undermines this conclusion. Where thee and me need to get sharper is in comprehending the various levels of uncertainty attached to the projected consequences. In policy and decision-making terms uncertainty translates into risk management strategies – and something with a 90% chance of being true would surely top the risk register. As David Mackay, DECC Chief Scientific Advisor puts it: “since 1750 we have burnt ½ trillion tonnes of carbon, and are on track to burn the second 1/2 trillion in less than 40 years.  The cumulative consequences of that first 500 billion tonnes suggest the next 500 billion (and the rest) ought to stay underground.” (Mackay, 2009)

It would be astonishing if that scale of intervention in the natural cycles of the earth would be without adverse consequence. 

So, ‘climategate’ does not let any of us off the hook of responsibility for serious action – by governments, organisations and individuals. 

And no more excuses for us becoming anything but much more intelligent consumers of science. Promoting selected conclusions of climate science as irrefutable facts has long been the vice of media, but environmental organisations really ought to know better. Now, bereft of a trusted interlocutor to help them understand the science, the public is unsurprisingly withdrawing ‘belief’ that climate change is actually happening. Both climate scientists and campaigning organisations have a lot to do to rekindle that trust. As do governments. Even though we may (rightly) whinge at their muddled prevarication, governments have not (yet) faltered in their risk analysis that there is enough certainty around climate change to justify action. Businesses that have reached the same conclusion need to ramp up the evidence that they too are of serious intent. Mutuality of benefit in the business-government-public triangle of climate change action depends on the thread of trust not being broken.

So what about the climate scientists? As I suggested in my last blog on climate science there are only very small reasons to question the methodology of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that right now is soliciting evidence for its fifth report.  When IPCC chief, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, he returns from his Communications 101 course, he will be making sure his organisation’s perfectly good methodologies are rigorously implemented. Paradoxically, trust in climate science could be enhanced by the whole sorry tale.  

One positive outcome should be more discipline and aptitude for communication amongst senior climate scientists. The few who became caught up in the excitement of it all and sacrificed dispassionate presentation of evidence to campaigning fervour have risked the reputation of all science. Science funders know it must not happen again.

Bob May, one time government Chief Scientist points out that science progresses through organised scepticism – continual challenging of research outcomes to both extend knowledge and improve certainty. He’s really cross that the word ‘sceptic’ has been recruited, not by genuine challengers of research outcomes (and methodologies) but by what I have dubbed the malicious naysayers. Very different from those who deny something out of fear or misunderstanding, these naysayers are driven by knowingly wrong motives, and are often paid by organistions with the most to lose should low-carbon policies be implementated with any seriousness.

Separating the useful sceptics and contrarians from the malicious naysayers is vital. They need to be challenged head on. And the best way to do that - something all science needs to take on board - is transparency and far more involvement of the public in science – upstream where research projects are designed as well as downstream where the outcomes are debated. 

Read more

Can the public sector lead us to sustainability?

Ben Tuxworth, March 1st 2010, Public Sector

As the recession ends in the private economy, it is just beginning for the 5.8 million public servants in the UK, and the millions more around the world.  Faced with swingeing budget cuts (several percent per year for the foreseeable future) can public sector organisations stay true to their commitments to carbon reduction, sustainable regeneration, ethical procurement, greener healthcare and a wealth of other new practices and initiatives?

In theory, yes.  If sustainable development thinking is no use to you in times of austerity, it is no use at all, and hard times should be when it proves its worth.   Sustainable development was developed as a concept to address the pressing problem of environmental degradation and its impact on human welfare – the mother of all recessions.  But for municipalities, health trusts, police authorities and the many other providers of public services, it’s very tempting to cut spending on expensive-looking ‘green’ activity when you have to slice 5% off the salami –  whether that means abandoning projects or closing down the teams and strategy units set up to run them.

It’s a much braver choice to use sustainability principles to guide where to wield the knife, and, more to the point, to use the same thinking to find efficiency gains, new ways of working, and deliver greater public value.

Doing that means understanding how sustainability relates to the core business of the organisation and its success in the long term.   So it’s a paradox that whilst the business case for sustainable development is regularly articulated and used as a justification for corporate investment – and as a kind of strategic security blanket – the public value case for similar action is seldom expressed. This leaves public bodies with only patchy and partial arguments for their sustainability commitments in tough times. 

Well, not any more.   A new Forum report highlights how sustainability principles hold the key to creating public value in austere times.  In ‘Stepping up: a framework for public sector leadership on sustainable development’ we set out how forward-looking public bodies can go beyond the business case to address market failure, build resilience and reinforce the crumbling social contract when  they use sustainability thinking to create public value. 

What does that mean in practice?  Stepping up sets out a nine-point plan for public sector organisations wanting to take the lead in using sustainability to deliver better services.  It starts with ‘making the case’- setting out that basic argument - examines linking policy and delivery, and goes all the way through to building a learning culture and running demonstration projects.   And there’s a self-assessment tool to check where you are on the journey – from ‘At Risk’ (of failing to comply with legal obligations and suffering financial and reputational hits) to ‘Systemic’ – one of those rare paragons using sustainability principles to maximise efficiency and public value creation over time.

Some are well down this road.  Others have barely begun.  Stepping up picks out some of the best examples of progress from around the world, whether public or private.  Swedish city Vaxjo’s use of bioenergy, innovative food procurement by PCTs in Cornwall, Vodafone’s stakeholder engagement process,  the GLA’s approach to policy integration, and InterfaceFLOR’s investment in staff capacity show how early adopters are pointing the way. 

But we believe any organisation can be a leader on sustainable development, and those that grasp the challenge in difficult times will emerge strongest from the recession, with more efficient services, more productive relationships with their communities and partners, and better prepared for the environmental shocks that lie ahead.  

Read more

Genetically modified fetishism

Jonathon Porritt, March 1st 2010, Forum founders, Farming

The assembled great and the good of the NFU must have been absolutely delighted to hear Chris Smith, Chairman of the Environment Agency, extol the benefits of GM technologies earlier in the week.

He stressed that he was speaking in a ‘personal capacity’, despite the fact that he was invited as Chair of the Environment Agency, and presumably had plenty to talk about in that capacity which might have been of more immediate interest to farmers.

Reflecting on this, it seems to have become a mandatory test of credibility for people like Chris to declare their enthusiasm for GM.  The pro-GM lobby has done a fantastic job in persuading the media and politicians that even the most modest GM-scepticism is tantamount to extreme science-hating emotionalism. 

To express any reservations about the notional sustainability benefits of current GM crops, let alone about the massively hyped potential benefits of future GM products, is to open oneself up to the charge of debilitating technophobia.  Shades here of George Bush beating up his NATO allies over the Iraq war: “If you’re not with us, you’re against us”.

Sorry, Chris, but that’s really not the deal. Interviewed on Radio 4’s Farming Today, he suggested that anti-GM campaigners would really have to ‘move on’ in terms of their opposition on both environmental and health grounds – given that the balance of the available evidence would appear to indicate a relatively clean bill of health for GM on both counts.

If only it were that easy.  One’s judgement about ‘the balance of the evidence’ depends largely on where that evidence comes from, and even pro-GM advocates are very uneasy about the stranglehold that the big biotech companies have over access to data and transparency of the data used by regulators.  I wonder how content Chris is, as Chair of the Environment Agency, about the quality of that evidence, and the credence that should be attached to it? 

Furthermore, I wonder what Chris means by ‘environmental concerns’ in this context? I’d be astonished if he is not worried about the biggest environmental concern of all: the fact that even the next generation of GM ‘solutions’ promise little if anything in terms of reducing the dependence of modern intensive agriculture on fossil fuels and hydro-carbon-based inputs. 

On broad sustainability and governance grounds, GM-scepticism still seems to me to be the most appropriate response to the latest surge of evangelism for all things GM. 

But balance in this debate seems to be entirely lacking.  As the IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, Technology for Development) Report in 2008 so eloquently pointed out, there are so many things that can and should be done right now to address issues of food security and increased yields without casting all our eggs in the GM basket.   (Don’t ask, incidentally, what happened to the IAASTD Report, which has, to all extents and purposes, been ‘disappeared’.  Some would say precisely because it was so sceptical about GM.) 

But for reasons I still can’t fathom, people like Chris get hugely over-excited about GM whilst remaining resolutely underwhelmed by all those other aspects of sustainable food production and distribution that would make a far bigger difference to an infinitely greater number of people in a far shorter period of time.

This is clearly not a rational process, whatever GM advocates may say.  Indeed, I’d go so far as to suggest that Chris is just the latest ‘big name’ to have given into the phenomenon of what I can only describe as ‘GM fetishism’.

President Sarkozy recently accused his fellow world leaders of having given in to ‘GDP fetishism’.   By which he meant (I assume!)  that their obsessive preoccupation with GDP at the expense of every other measure of prosperity, wellbeing and quality of life, was seriously impairing their judgement. 

By the same token, it is clear to me that the elite of today’s farming establishment (plus a few misguided Greenies) have clearly given in to a form of GM fetishism, which overshadows every other measure of innovation, sustainable yield improvement and resource efficiency in farming today.

I am sure Chris doesn’t see himself as a GM fetishist. But then he has also converted to the pro-nuclear cause over the last few years, and I have noticed that this is rich ‘two for one’ territory: go nuclear and throw in GM evangelism for good measure.  Or vice-versa. That, it would seem, is the only way to demonstrate one’s serious scientific credentials these days.

Or so some sad people say.

Read more

Fashion's sustainable future brought to life in new Forum project

Fiona Bennie, February 24th 2010, Futures, Retail

Coco Chanel once said, “Fashion is made to become unfashionable.”
So how can an industry become sustainable when the ‘we loved it, but now we shun it’ cycle is embedded so deeply? Do we have to change everything we love about fashion to make it a sustainable, fair industry? Not necessarily.

Last night, amid the glamour and excitement of London Fashion Week, we held a drinks party with Levi Strauss & Co., to launch our joint report Fashion Futures which explores the world of 2025 and the role of the fashion industry within it. More than a hundred fashion industry folk turned up to hear about our four vivid scenarios and view the animations, which bring them to life.

Follow this link to find out what kind of worlds might see cities inundated by second-hand department stores; high-street brands competing on sustainability credentials; people partying in biodegradable, spray-on outfits; and regions where grow-your-own clothing is popular.

We created the scenarios to help companies around the globe navigate the ever-changing challenge of developing sustainable businesses. They compel us to mull over big questions we wouldn’t usually consider when thinking short-term. Like how the industry will react to shortages of cotton and other raw materials – or how people will care for their clothes in a future of water shortages and high energy prices – which raises deeper questions like whether current business models will survive in a retail market that’s very different from today.

We have deliberately avoided making Fashion Futures a read-it-then-shelve-it report. We want companies of all shapes and sizes, from all corners of the globe, to use the four scenarios. We want them to be inspired, perhaps even a little scared by some of them, but hopefully motivated to think differently about the future and excited by the idea that a sustainable fashion industry is achievable.

To this end, we’ve published some workshop materials on our website with advice on how to use the scenarios to shape strategy, push for sustainable design and innovation and generate the skills needed for a sustainable industry.

And we’ve brought the scenarios to life with four powerful two-minute animations, which show just how different they are, and how much a sustainable future depends on us taking bold action today.

Fashion Futures has already been put to practical use. Our project partner, Levi Strauss & Co. is using the scenarios internally, to inform strategy and innovation. As Michael Kobori (pictured), LS&Co’s Vice President of Social and Environmental Sustainability said at the launch party yesterday, "These scenarios are so stimulating, we will be sharing them with senior management to inform our broad strategies, with designers to spur them to create more sustainable products, and with all employees to unleash the power of our entire company to think about sustainability."

And we’ve used them to help fashion students understand how to design for the future, working with the great team at the Centre for Sustainable Fashion at the London College of Fashion. Four groups of students from the 2009-10 MA Fashion and the Environment – a diverse and enthusiastic bunch from all over the world - spent their autumn term living and breathing one of the Fashion Futures scenarios, creating new ideas and businesses that would thrive in such a world. They not only produced some great, thought-provoking concepts, which are illustrated in our report, but they also helped us shape the scenarios at one of the critical stages of development.

So this is the beginning of an exciting journey. We’re looking forward to helping our partners and others use the scenarios and we’re excited to hear how other organisations will use them in innovative ways.

Read more

The Marmot Review: health and inequality in the spotlight once more

Jonathon Porritt, February 18th 2010, Forum founders, General, Public Sector

I spent last Friday at the launch conference for the Marmot Review – a report on health and equality and what we should be doing about them here in the UK.

It’s a really good report and powerfully reminds all those who see themselves as active in the ‘sustainable development community’ of the overlap with the public health/health and equalities community, and the importance of working much more effectively together than we’ve sometimes been able to in the past.

I won’t bang on about those synergies, two graphics in the Review illustrate these well. (See Fig 4.6 on cycling on page 127 or Fig 4.7 on green spaces on page 130 of the Review)

Some people say that this is all old hat.  The Black Report, the Acheson Report, the Wanless Report. And now the Marmot Report. Same old, same old.

In some instances, that’s true. But there are many completely new insights in this report, building on new evidence.  For instance, the principal recommendation (‘give every child the best start in life’) is based on new research looking at what happens between birth and the third year of any child’s life.

Just looking at the difference between the most advantaged and the least advantaged on indicators like birth weight, post-natal depression for mothers, regular bed times, being read to every day, breastfeeding and so on, you can see why this is the critical point of intervention. After the age of three, a lot of future interventions may well be far less impactful. And by the age of five, brighter, poorer kids have been overtaken by less bright kids from families that are better off.

Intriguingly, the most inspiring talk of the day came from the Deputy Chief Fire Officer from Merseyside. The Fire and Rescue Service on Merseyside has been running a community engagement and advocacy programme for the last 10 years, providing advice in the first instance on fire prevention, but then helping local residents think much more about all those things that exacerbate health inequalities (smoking, alcohol, drugs, poor quality housing, poor diets and so on), whilst simultaneously increasing fire risk – if only indirectly. His officers are now putting out 50% fewer fires than 10 years ago.

The Deputy Chief Fire Officer didn’t bring this out explicitly, but his presentation provided a powerful analogy for the whole day. Shift the effort (and the investment) upstream – into prevention and brilliant public service interventions in people’s lives – and the downstream costs can be progressively reduced. But if you don’t do that, there’ll be no reductions downstream.

The vast majority of health practitioners are well aware of that.  But the truth of it is that after 30 years of talking about prioritising prevention and public health, practically nothing has been done about it. Just 4% of total health spending in the UK goes on prevention and public health.

The Marmot Review doesn’t make a particularly strong case on that score. But the truth of it is that all its recommendations may well make no more progress than the recommendations of its predecessors unless that imbalance is addressed.

Read more

A fair share

Helen Clarkson, February 15th 2010, General, Leadership, Public Sector

Peter Mandelson’s famous statement that Labour is “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich” has come back to haunt the party and will no doubt be wheeled out again in the coming election campaign.  

A new report notes that 13 years of Labour rule have done little to reverse the huge growth in the gap between rich and poor that developed under Margaret Thatcher’s Tory government in the 1980s.

The National Equality Panel (commissioned by Harriet Harman MP) published its report 'An Anatomy of Economic Equality in the UK'  in January.  It contains some worrying facts and figures about the distribution of wealth in the UK, with the panel finding “deep-seated and systematic differences in economic outcomes” between and within social groups. 

The report contains startling statistics about the growing gaps in earning and income inequality and their scale compared with other developed nations.  It also shows a persistent gender gap, with women being on the whole better qualified than men up to the age of 44, but with a median hourly pay of 21% less than men.  It points to continuing ethnic inequalities, finding that Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim men and Black African Christian men are paid 13-21% lower than White British Christian men with the same job and qualifications.  And it reveals that the richest 10% of UK population has more than 100 times the total household wealth of the poorest 10%.

Why does all this matter?  Mandelson qualified his statement by saying Labour was relaxed about the rich “as long as they pay their taxes”. But the figures in the NEP report debunk the myth of ‘trickle-down economics’: the idea that if those at the top of the pile become ‘filthy rich’ those further down will also reap the benefits.  Instead what it shows is that as the rich become richer, the wealth remains largely at the top and the rungs on the social ladder move further apart.

This has important consequences for society.  In their 2009 book The Spirit Level (out this month in paperback) authors Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have made a compelling case that more equal societies fare better than more unequal ones.  Across a wide variety of indicators of social wellbeing including physical and mental health, obesity, violent crime rates and teenage births, they show that, once a country has reached the level of GDP which lifts it out of poverty, what matters is not how much wealth there is in that country but how it is distributed. 

There is a clear parallel with the depletion of our environmental resources.  Just as in the UK we see wealth concentrated in a small section of society, so on a global level the rich use far more than their fair share of available environmental resources such as carbon, water, and food.  We are only beginning to start thinking – largely through the climate debate – what the long-term implications of that unfair distribution might be, and how that will impact on all of us.

At Copenhagen this theme was taken up by the G77 nations.  But once again we saw world leaders seemingly ‘intensely relaxed’ about attaching more importance to protecting their national economies than the global need to reduce carbon emissions dramatically, for the benefit of all.

If we are to start thinking about truly sustainable development, where the needs of the present are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, then we need to start taking these issues of distribution more seriously.  We need to let the idea of trickle-down economics go for good. That requires a level of bravery and leadership that we haven’t seen in our politicians for many decades.  And more importantly support from an enlightened public.  Redistribution has fallen out of favour in recent decades - the question is how we’re going to bring it back?

Read more