Policy Approach for Sustainable Lifestyle
Published in parallel on the Agents of Change 2009 Blog
Today, Humanity uses over a third more resources than what nature can regenerate; the ecological deficit is widening. Levels of per capita consumption of developed world are considered unsustainable and inequitable. On the other hand million of people are dying due to hunger. And pressures on global resources are increasing from the emerging middle classes in developing countries, who aspire for consumer lifestyles of the west. In developing countries like India people are blindly following the life-style of west. They aspire to attain various lifestyles which are more or less consumer centric. People in rural area aspire to live the life of town and people of town aspire for Metro lifestyle.
Shifting behaviours in Developed and Emerging world to more sustainable lifestyles is proving difficult. Today a consumer’s choices are not isolated actions of rational decision-making Rather they are embedded in individual ideas about status and identity, influenced by contextual social forces, such as the media and advertising, and subject to larger structural features of the economy, environment, and policy. Policies, whether economic, environmental, or social, affect consumer choices. Moral suasion is most commonly used to motivate social change.
Moral suasion or social policy instruments currently used to support a shift in attitudes and behaviours fall into three groups:
1. Information- To fill a perceived public information deficit on causes and consequences of environmental change and actions that individuals can take. Information instruments provide an “information wrap” around products (e.g., labels, environmental product profiles, standards) to influence consumer choice.
2. social marketing/mass communications- encourage positive behaviour change by applying marketing principles to target audience interventions, usually involving mass media (e.g., energy conservation programs, recycling programs, and so forth)
3. Education- support the inclusion of relevant content in teaching curricula at all levels of the formal education system. They also support non-formal processes to increase knowledge and understanding.
Economic signals usually equate a better quality of life with economic growth. But, is this an only criterion for better life? How about the social and moral quality? Better quality of life with ecosystems destroyed! Today people are starting to realise “Better Happy than Rich”.So there is an urgent need to take into consideration the changing lifestyles following different development trajectories of people belonging to the various classified settlement.This is time that we should think about the changing present development indicator (which are mainly based on consumption) to better suit the humanity and whole eco-system. Providing the livelihood security should not be at the cost of environment so there is need for Superimposition of livelihood security with the environment friendly methods and approaches.
By setting people on the course of making decisions that are right for sustainable development, many problems can be solved or avoided. The social instruments currently in place related to sustainable development are scattered, vary widely in terms of their intended audience, and often lack integration and long-term commitment.
Mechanisms to stimulate cleaner production, the polluter pays principle, are matters tried by policy maker but nobody had yet tries the Life-style issue in public policy making (Influencing consumer demand).Combination of tools are needed and must work in concert. Information access, new technologies and supportive regulatory measures are required to make this planet sustainable. Rather than projecting environment as moral obligation or value system we should project this as a way to innovate. Citizens are less willing to take voluntary action unless they see positive examples set by government and, in particular, by business. Social instruments should lead to mutual change in preference to individual change; responses to instruments should be collective not just individual.
September 21st, 2009 at 6:10 am
Are you willing to bet that history will view the CO2 theory being valid and that threatening our children with climate death was worth it, as responsible parents, not to mention progressive civilized human beings?
I’m sorry but I can’t do this “end of the world” bit anymore without feeling like history is already laughing and cursing at me. Look your kids in the eyes please and you may rethink this environmental emergency and see this state of urgency and fear in true focus. I don’t think that supporting this CO2 theory is responsible anymore because I think don’t think that promising our kids a sick planet from CO2, for another quarter of a century is sustainable or morally accountable for another two and a half decades of predictions. And we all grapple with the confusing reality of colder temperatures yet more pictures of Polar Bears drowning and scientists saying that what we see is not what we really see.
Since precaution is the influencing force behind this 23 year old CO2 theory, I’m going to side with precaution and not let myself look anymore foolish than I feel right now as I’m telling our kids that we must save the planet for them. Simply put, I’ve waited long enough and a force strong enough to end “life as we know it-IPCC”, on the planet should have happened by now. Waiting any longer is as self fulfilling prophecy and I’m willing to bet against this theory officially as AL Gore and the political scientists and hysterical media fight it out in this media feeding frenzy. And who isn’t embarrassed by these silly headlines of global warming scientists saying CO2 will or may not be causing everything from racism to earthquakes.
Look at it this way, denying this CO2 business does not mean that you are now anti environment, it just means that we should do everything to preserve, protect and respect nature instead of trying to rescue planet Earth with needless fear from a CO2 mistake. Our air is in fact cleaner than the smoggy 70’s, a fact that all of the enviro groups admit. We just have to remove this failed CO2 threat. And at the same time we are being the NEW GREENS of environmentalism, we can still see the need for directing our energies to real issues like the carnage on our highways, poverty, recycling, energy alternatives and better health care, housing and financial opportunities for more people to achieve a higher living standard.
The NEW GREENS are not just deniers; we are the new leaders of Rachel Carson’s environmental movement who don’t want to be remembered for perpetrating this climate WMD scam concerning the obviously failed CO2 theory.
Resulting cooling disproves predicted warming. Preserve, protect and respect our worldly surroundings.
September 24th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Wow… what interesting comments Meme. it almost reminds me of the debate of how climate has overtaken other equally if not “more important” environmental issues like biodiversity loss, or water conservation. Drawing too much attention away from these issues makes policy makers and finances not go towards more pressing needs of meeting already stressed water requirements across the planet. similarly, we’re probably not doing enough to stop species extinction or deforestation as stand-alone issues. all is being overshadowed by climate change.
the only thing is, climate seems to be a super-ceding issue b/c it will only make these challenges more difficult to surpass. I see the climate/CO2 debate to really restructure society and to genuinely work towards sustainable development. This challenge is so great that it forces us to imagine a world MUCH different, a society, a city, a country, MUCH different than what we have today. it forces us to come up with a new development paradigm–which is what I think Carson would have wanted as well.