However, businesses are understandingly reluctant to make significant changes, particularly if that 'change ' doesn't give them a competitive advantage. Surely if a business culture existed whereby environmental consequences were included in cost evaluations, then market forces would indirectly promote sustainability, thus ridding of such debates. Of course making such a transition, although theortically attractive, is rather more challenging in practical terms.
It has already been reiterated by several other bloggers that decisions businesses make are largely controlled by their shareholders. Since the shareholders are typically profit-driven, promoting sustainability is usually triggered by (and thus limited to) PR benefits and/or adhering to legislation.
This leads me to start questioning the role the government has in tackling this issue - this is where I believe the real 'Duty' lies. It is the government who have the responsibility to take action that will ultimately benefit the population in the long-term and to make those so-called tough decisions. This I know was highlighted by Annie Leonard in 'The Story of Stuff'.
The government are in the unique position whereby they can:
- Legislate - e.g. set legally binding carbon reduction or waste minimisation targets.
- Incentivise - e.g. through carbon taxes. When working for West Norfolk Council, the Climate Change Levy charge that was placed on fossil-fuel derived electricity meant that the total cost difference between a green and brown elec tariff was only a few thousand pounds. Thus the Financial Director chose to use 'green' electricity; without the CCL tax, the cheapest brown electricity would always have been chosen.
- Raise Awareness - campaigning to ultimately convince businesses to make that step change
- 'Lead by example' - this is perhaps the most important issue. The government can not expect businesses (or even individuals) to really tackle climate change if they are not doing so themselves.
I agree with your point about the use of legislation. Annie Leonards film also pointed the finger at government for appeasing business corporations and in doing so not taking care of the population's welfare long term. In non democratic nations the moral weight of this argument may well be lost but the nations with the greatest consumption at present (have to mention the USA!)should not be blind and deaf to this moral responsibility. It is up to the public to apply pressure for sustainability and information needs to be not just available but permeating society about our global crisis in order to bring this about.
ReplyDeleteChris, your example of the CCL is interesting, and it reminds me of the quite different effect that the 'fuel tax escalator' had a few years ago, where the government planned to gradually increase taxes on fossil fuels (to thereby internalise climate change costs and incentivise energy conservation and a shift away from them), but were met with public protests and potential fuel riots. Why do you think the CCL (which essentially does the same thing) has been publically acceptable, and effective, and the Fuel Tax Escalator wasn't?
ReplyDeleteTo be honest Gill, I'm not entirely sure as to why..perhaps it's linked to the fact that the CCL only applies to non-domestic consumers, whereas the fuel tax escalator would affect everyone through increased pump prices. Thus the public consumer groups cried, and the government retreated? I suppose the fact that petrol costs are dealt with on a regular basis and are visually on show may not have helped.
ReplyDeleteI think that people are just fundamentally used to purchasing cheap fuel as and when they require it, which is inherently linked to the existing mentality of the ever-increasing oil-consuming society in which we live.
Do you (or anyone else) have any theories??