Now it’s difficult to find anything on sale which hasn’t undergone an environmental makeover - whether it’s cars, coffee or coffins; paints, plastic bags or printers.
A lot has happened in 20 years - but there’s one constant: the power of consumers to drive change simply by making informed choices over what they buy. In the ’80s, pocket power helped push governments into action on the ozone layer. Aerosol products not labelled as ‘ozone-friendly’ were boycotted, fridge manufacturers were challenged about the coolants they used and companies like McDonalds felt obliged to specify ‘no CFCs’ in their foam packaging. Legislation followed - faster and more sweeping than anyone would have predicted a few years previously.
Now the focus is on climate change, which has pretty well knocked all other environmental concerns out of the window. Compared to what turned out to be the relatively easy job of banning CFCs, tackling global warming is a massive challenge. So is consumer power up to the job? I think it’s absolutely key. OK, so making changes at an individual level can seem very trivial. For example, switching to energy-efficient light bulbs or turning off your TV rather than leaving it on standby will save a relatively small amount of electricity. But if you work out how much is saved by everyone in the country making these changes, it’s huge.
Even more important is the impact of our consumer actions on business and government. I recently carried out a survey of supermarkets for The New Green Consumer Guide, and found that they were falling over themselves to demonstrate their green credentials. In the last few months alone, we’ve seen both Marks & Spencer and Tesco announce substantial new investments in environmental initiatives. I don’t think they’d be doing this if their customers didn’t give a toss.
I’ve been challenged by other environmentalists, who say that government initiatives are the only way we could possibly make the radical cuts in carbon emissions that we need. I disagree with this approach. Not because I don’t think government has an important role to play, but because I don’t think they’ll do anything unless they believe that the voting public will support them.
Having said that, I do think the government should be doing far more than they are. Perhaps rather cynically, I wonder if they botched up raising airport tax early in 2007 because they wanted to demonstrate how difficult it is to implement ‘green’ taxes. The same could be said with road pricing, which has managed to really infuriate people about privacy issues, while blinding them to the benefits of reducing congestion. Then there’s the chaos of the grant system. When I applied for a grant to insulate my loft, I discovered that I wouldn’t be eligible if I used ‘environmentally friendly’ materials such as sheep’s wool or recycled newspaper. How mad is that?
But the government will only really find the will to sort this all out if they feel pushed by the voters to do so. If we’re not prepared to act at an individual level and make some sacrifices in our lifestyle, why would we vote for a government planning to impose drastic measures to curb consumption? If we don’t demonstrate that we can live with a lighter carbon footprint, what hope would there be for success with initiatives like personal carbon quotas?
A lot of these issues are complicated, but once we understand them there are some very powerful choices we can all make.
| The big issues Consumer concerns | 1988 Ozone hole •Detergents (biodegradability) •Nappies (non-chlorine bleaching) •Aerosols (ozone-friendly) • Petrol (unleaded) | 2007 Climate change • Standby buttons • Light bulbs (energy-efficient) • Microgen (renewable energy at home) • Food miles • Air travel • Hybrid cars • Packaging • Fashion | 2020 Climate refugees • Funerals • Second homes • Bio-methane cars • Hydrogen fuels • Super-insulated houses • LED light bulbs • Intelligent metering • Hemp for a huge range of products • Fish and meat become luxury goods |
| Key challenge | Linking products with environment | Choosing the best from a range of ‘green’ options | Significantly cutting carbon footprint - even at the price of some hardship |
| Leading questions | Are companies just jumping on the bandwagon? | Does it make a difference what we do here, given the scale of impact in China? | How can we reduce population growth? |
| Supermarket stance | Just waking up to green issues | Fierce competition on green initiatives; substantial investments being made | Choice editing: which products and services shops will not sell |
| Green giants | Body Shop, Ecover | Green is a mainstream issue for most companies, as well for as a host of smaller players pushing the boundaries | No company will have a licence to operate without strong environmental policies |
| Food: organics | Small niche market only for the committed | Available in all supermarkets and growing year on year | Backlash against organic triggered by lower yields and greater land-take; but a move towards eco-system agriculture. |
| Food: local | More local shops but less local produce | More supermarkets, but also more farmers’ markets, box schemes and local sourcing | Strong local food network alongside centralised supermarkets |
| On the money | ‘Ethical investment’ limited to screening out companies involved with gambling, alcohol, arms, tobacco... | ‘Socially responsible’ investment increasingly focused on opportunities rather than problems - in green energy, waste management, transport, etc | Environmental concerns on a par with financial ones in all investment decisions |
Julia Hailes (www.juliahailes.com) is an environmental consultant and author of ‘The New Green Consumer Guide’, published in May by Simon & Schuster.
3 May 2007