Reflection

Catherine

Our blog aimed to focus on sustainability outside of the traditional environmental angle. I think what we achieved through our posts was to see how all angles: social, economic and environmental, as well as many others, are necessary to thoroughly approach a problem. In the last few weeks, I have written about contraception, fast fashion and environmental apocalypses, the sheer diversity of the issues we have covered as a team speak to what a large issue “sustainability” is. Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term “intersectionality” in 1989 to describe the various layers of oppression (through discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality etc.) that were interdependent and created an overlapping system of oppression. I believe we have seen throughout the blog how a similar interconnection of issues can be identified in the problem of sustainability. You cannot address only one issue at a time, or worst, imagine a sustainable future solely based on environmental protection. Overpopulation cannot be solved without female empowerment, amongst other things. Fast fashion is heavily dependent on capitalism, and environmental protection laws are limited because of it. Finally, the idea of a future point of environmental, social, economic collapse is in itself a Western colonialist idea that refuses to take into account the previous apocalypses that it itself is the cause of. This final idea has the potential to change our view of “sustainability” as a whole. Perhaps what we are witnessing is simply a breaking point that even the “imperialist, white supremacist, capitalist, patriarchal” mainstream cannot ignore, in other words, it is a “sharpening of the already present”.

VARSSHA

On the whole, I genuinely believe that we were able to succeed in our aims for this blog. We tackled, bended, prodded the barriers of sustainability, were able to peep a glance into its depths, in addition to critically analysing certain elements within society and test its capabilities for some form of a future that we had each envisioned. Despite my initial (almost outright) reluctance to tackle any topic regarding the environment, I was surprised in the tight relationship where environmental changes cannot be discussed without collaboration with social and economic factors. Through such revelations, I believe we have succeeded in our efforts to unpack what we have created – whether it be in discussion of the news media, democracy, current political systems/mechanisms and sport, we were able to bring a sustainability lens into current issues permeating our society. For me, and I suspect the writers here will agree, I was able to think about the future (despite often in a pessimistic lens as I chose to pick apart institutions too permeated within our daily life). For once, actively seek out solutions, see how we could reframe our society that starts to consider and value the future, rather than glorifying the immediate present. Although my solution often involved pulling out and apart the old, hierarchical and patriarchal power structures, which will take time, I am not alone in this thinking; the myriad of protests and outcrys over the intolerable structures and policies within the barriers within which I live and abroad are demonstrative of this. The minimum that encompasses this include protests against the obstructions to rights to freedom of speech, protests bills, rights to freely grieve, rights to farm and make a living… I repeat, the list goes on. Sustainability must be placed at the forefront of such conversations, as the future is calling, and it certainly will not wait.

CARMEN

Reflecting on my personal research and writing for this blog, I feel above all regretful of all the impacts, connections and effects that I failed to recognise and address for each issue. The interconnectivity of all aspects of sustainability, whether social, cultural, economic or environmental, seems infinite, and thus every problem we sought to understand more about throughout this blog, would only become more complex and deep with every new avenue of research. The issue within each blog post represents a real life example of a minor cycle or feedback system within a much larger framework of extended and related systems. Each writer, and each blog post has an individual perspective, and was able to focus on either economic, financial, cultural, philosophical, social, political or environmental aspects. ‘Sustainability’ encompasses all of these perspectives, because above all, it is a form of theorising, planning and fantasising for a utopian future. The largest issues lie within the strategies, policies and perspectives which dictate how the systems of today can be diverted and twisted to form the systems of the future.It is important to break down existing structures to rebuild humanity, and although the current state of affairs often seems to be worsening, this will only drive populations forward in asserting their rights in all realms of society, nature and economics. With communications and information at their most accessible throughout all time, the ability for people to plan, cooperate and have effective discourse has never been easier. By working across disciplines, crossing new borders and communicating with completely contrasting parties, the negative connecting cycles which exacerbate issues can be more effectively viewed, and replaced with collaborative bridges towards the future.

OLIVER

Throughout this blog we tried to focus our attention on the human side of sustainability. We avoided a holistic approach, instead focusing on issues not addressed in traditional sustainability discourse. Upon reflection on our first blog post ‘What we’re on about,’ I mentioned “Sustainability should be tackling real problems and not utopian goals such that you could be reading off a cereal box.” From here, I have written about the future of currencies, the rise of ESG investment strategies and the shift in sports, specifically Formula 1 conforming to social pressure from governing authorities and the public sphere. These topics are highlighted and published at an increasing rate. When researching about green tech funds, it is impossible to ignore the immense amount of new information and products, only released within a few hours of my inquiries. I believe sustainability is shifting from an optional social science or a subconscious thought to recycle, and becoming a fundamental, compulsory discipline which is no longer addressed as an obstacle, but a key determinant factor for our everyday lives. Throughout the module, each new topic has provided a different challenge, which every group addressed in a different method, highlighting its interdisciplinary nature. This can also be shown by the variation of topics considered in this blog. From sport to politics, fashion and languages, sustainability will continue to rise as a key discipline across every structure, person and business in the world. “Research in marketing has often treated sustainability as a micro-level problem to be addressed through changes in the awareness, attitudes and actions of individual actors” however there is now the widespread belief that sustainability belongs in the dominant social paradigm therefore, driving society and its existing structures (Gollnhofer and Schouten, 2017).

Bibliography

Crenshaw, Kimberle. “Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color.” Stan. L. Rev. 43 (1990): 1241.

hooks, bell. “Eating the Other” in Black Looks: Race and Representation. 1992; repr. New York: Routledge, 2015. https://0-doi-org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.4324/9781315743226.

Gollnhofer and Schouten, 2017. “Complementing the Dominant Social Paradigm with Sustainability” https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0276146717696892

COVID-19: Consumer Confidence, Mental Health and the Environment

https://www.facebook.com/100552248252295/posts/d41d8cd9/125140125793507/

The Coronavirus Pandemic has forced our modern way of life to come to a halt – the busy nature of commuting and travel, office work, shopping and leisure activities has been swapped for online working, shopping and learning, indoor exercising and virtual conversations. The impact on the environment of lockdown has been beneficial on the surface level; restricted travel has reduced related emissions, and subsequently helped move the EU much closer to its 2020 emissions targets. Air and noise pollution have both decreased during lockdowns. However, looking forward, particularly with expectations of looser COVID-19 restrictions, this decline in pollution will require much heavier policy. 

(https://www.eea.europa.eu/post-corona-planet/covid-19-and-europes-environment#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20affecting%20people’s,the%20EU%20as%20a%20whole.)

The International Energy Agency (IEA) had estimated that global energy demand in 2020 could fall by around 6%. The European Environment Agency (EEA) thus suggested that by keeping demand and GDP low, the EU could further reduce emissions and lower energy usage. However, if countries begin to open up restrictions, and encourage shopping, dining out, and supporting the economy, the demand of the population is likely to rise, as confidence regrows towards a more ‘normal’ level. Aggregate demand and GDP will begin to rise, along with energy usage and travel pollution. Therefore, some believe that the ‘new normal’ should involve a continued lockdown lifestyle, working from home and avoiding travel whenever possible, to benefit environmental targets. 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/air-quality-and-covid19/air-quality-and-covid19

See the EEA’s Air Quality Tracker

Whilst many people would happily prefer to work from home, largely those working demanding ‘city’ office jobs, working unknown hours into the night, or workers with children to care for at home. The expositive survey of first year workers at Goldman Sachs demonstrates a highly stressful, physically tiring and abusive working environment, which had caused survey participants to consider therapy and sleep 5 hours a night. This demonstrates a certain lifestyle of some workers who can not escape from the constant high stakes of the workplace, and thus being prevented from entering the tormenting working environment by the Coronavirus would come as a blessing. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/palashghosh/2021/03/18/goldman-sachs-first-year-analysts-face-100-hour-weeks-abusive-behavior-stress-survey-says/?sh=2130a9c87c28).

Despite this escape from the physical environment, technological links to the office surround workers at home, and can prevent people from taking enough time off, and away from digital workplace pressures. Job stress has thus followed many people home, due to this lack of separation. Anxiety and stress over being furloughed and uncertainty of employment, particularly within small businesses, has also become a much more common occurrence. (https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/news/articles/job-security-more-valuable-to-employee-retention-than-pay#gref).

Other workers have no choice but to go to work, particularly lower paid workers, e.g. in supermarkets, and physical labourers, putting lower economic status groups more at risk of COVID-19, particularly those in overcrowded accommodation. (https://www.eea.europa.eu/post-corona-planet/covid-19-and-europes-environment#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20affecting%20people’s,the%20EU%20as%20a%20whole.)

The lockdown isolation has been detrimental to the mental health of the majority of the population, but due to inequalities in access, or feeling unable to speak out, many people are not receiving the care they need. (https://www.which.co.uk/news/2021/03/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-mental-health-inequality-and-how-to-get-help/). Domestic abuse reports have been increasing over the COVID-19 period, (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabuseduringthecoronaviruscovid19pandemicenglandandwales/november2020) and extended time isolated at home can cause tensions with cohabiters, or cause loneliness for people who live alone. These mental health problems, along with general distraction in a home and ‘relaxation’ setting not only prevent ‘productive’ work, but prevention from socialising, doing outdoor activities, exercising effectively, and experiencing new and interesting environments, can cause people to feel that they have little to work for.

For many, working from home, and lacking full freedom to experience different environments and activities, seems like a dystopian future of a ‘virtual’ reality. Particularly for younger people, for whom the internet and social media are used for entertainment and socialising, the lack of separation from the ‘false’ dimension of the internet and online school can be very demotivating. The physical presence and community of being in a school is vital in building real connections and learning, whereas online school can be limiting in its ability to engage and encourage students. It can be all too easy to close the tab on the screen to escape from real life problems and consequences. On top of this, personal tutoring and technology are not accessible to all pupils, and the anxiety and uncertainty of potentially applying to university, and taking exams is heightened under the circumstances of COVID-19.

Though the lockdowns have shown slight and temporary improvement for some environmental aspects, it is clear that the progress is limited to a very small amount. Personal Protection Equipment and health related disposable items, along with general product packaging, have had a significant impact on the amount of consumption of single use plastics. As low demand for oil caused its price to drop, manufactures began to purchase and transform the cheaper oil into plastics rather than recycling used plastics. (https://www.eea.europa.eu/post-corona-planet/covid-19-and-europes-environment#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20affecting%20people’s,the%20EU%20as%20a%20whole.)

By ensuring that people stay at home more often to reduce emissions and noise pollution, further job and businesses losses and lessened productivity will continue, and confidence in the economy will reduce potential purchasing, resulting in a recession. In this instance, it is likely that consumers would switch to poorly produced, environmentally and ethically damaging products. Consumer confidence is one of the most unpredictable aspects of sustaining the economy, environment or social wellbeing. For the world to recover in the most beneficial way, it is vital that populations feel safe, encouraged, and able to freely choose whatever they wish to spend their time doing. 

With the UK COVID-19 vaccination scheme, the country hopes to be back to the ‘new normal’ soon. This hope of soon going back to the pub, to the shops, to the gym and to work/school has given a boost of encouragement to the population. In time, this should reanimate the economy and restore employment to a sustainable level. Restricting the population from travel to work or activities after lockdown, even for the sake of the environment, would likely reduce confidence, happiness and productivity once again. Perhaps the evidence found by the EEA should be read as suggesting that the need for cleaner travel and vehicles is the most important thing to change in society. However, should emissions targets be cast aside temporarily for the sake of sustaining consumer confidence? Should taxes be raised to cover the cost of the Coronavirus, and the environment, or should they be lowered to encourage the population to continue spending to support each other? Is now the best time financially to push for environmental policy reform and focus? The choice must be made, once again, whether to preserve humanity, or the environment in which we live, but what point is there in preserving the world when we are prevented from enjoying it? 

https://www.gqmiddleeast.com/culture/coronavirus-is-helping-the-environment-but-the-aftermath-could-be-worse

Though COVID-19 has shown humanity’s potential to change, the change was not one of choice. Many suffered job losses and worsened mental and physical health problems, endured abuse, and lost loved ones without an opportunity to say goodbye. Humanity can learn to live alongside nature, through government and business policies, but we have not evolved to be locked away from nature for its partial and temporary protection. Without money, we can not pay to recycle, preserve conservations, or develop electric cars. We now have important responsibilities in conservation and global enforcement of ethical and environmental practices. Humanity has developed an appreciation for the earth, and being prevented from experiencing nature freely over lockdown has (hopefully) awakened a shared urgency to preserve the environment, and not take it for granted again.

‘ESG Investments: Fad or Future’

Sustainability encompasses a vast range of problems and challenges. ESG (environmental, social and corporate governance) is arguably the most used (at least increased) phrase in finance. It refers to measuring the sustainability and societal impact of an investment by a company or individual. ESG has become one of the first topics in any business meeting or financial publication. Increasing in demand and supply, ESG strategies has become and will continue to be a fundamental property of every business and investor.

ESG investments is not a newly formed financial bubble bred out of greed for higher returns or simply boredom over the pandemic. In 2000 there was a drastic increase for investors interest in ESG in companies. Figure 1.1 shows the how share price of an exchange traded fund run by investment firm Invesco, the fund comprises of large US listed firms actively engaging in the advancement of cleaner energy and conservation (ESG strategies). Therefore, suitable to show investors demand for ESG products over a 20 year period. Battery technology firms, electric vehicles, solar, wind power, and even industrial firms who have targeted renewable energy sources like rhodium have seen their share price rise over the last year. SPAC (special acquisition company) also known as a blank cheque company have grown endogenously from green energy investment strategies and provides a new form of public funding for ESG initiative companies. There is the argument of an overvaluation for some of these companies, for example Tesla has seen its share price rise 923.25% from $86.86 at the start of the pandemic to its peak on January 24^th 2021 where it was $880.80 per share. Large increases in valuations and share prices is a common theme investors study to determine the fear of another bubble.

Figure 1.1 Invesco ETF

However, the dominant viewpoint determines ESG investments will be the future and not a fad. Increasing social importance on sustainable issues is placing more pressure on firms to act in a sustainable way. Media, political, environmental and social pressure have caused firms to place corporate social responsibility at the fore front of their strategy. DBS Holdings group Ltd.’s raised $1.6 billion last week from new sustainable investment products. The Chief Investment Officer reiterated that demand for ESG and sustainable products will continue to rise due to “structural changes in global demographics and the trend toward digitalization,” Fook (CIO) also claimed this has become the “new normal” and ESG strategies have been outperforming traditional equities over the past year (Chanjaroen, 2021). Furthermore, companies took advantage of lower interest rates from investors if they incorporated ESG instruments as a fundamental aspect of their strategy. Moreover, ESG components have become integrated into senior management compensation and reward structures. Although incentives behind this can be questioned, there is no doubt that it will lead to more ESG mechanisms and sustainable growth. An example from the Royal Bank of Canada stated “Client satisfaction and strategic measures like climate change, employee satisfaction, and diversity and inclusion are part of the risk and strategic performance segment, which accounts for 30% of the short-term incentive program.” Additionally, National Bank claims ESG incorporation is a key “factor used to determine CEO pay” (Orland 2021).

ESG has showed the importance for the social aspect, with many firms focusing on diversity, inclusion and health and safety for workers. Standardisation has also become a key subject for ESG, with organisations such as the IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) proposing new measures and regulations, in particular, enforcing a global sustainability measure for financial corporations. Covid-19 has been a defining moment for this trend, however, the external pressure had been increasing from regulatory organisations pre-covid 19. In Bill Gates recent book ‘How to avoid a climate disaster,’ he argues that it will cost approximately $3.5 trillion annually for multiple to decades to achieve a complete energy transition to renewables which will be essential for perpetual environmental problems. Therefore, the trend for ESG investing provides an effective start point to reach this objective. The arguments for ESG as a ‘fad’ do not apply for this case. Investors and senior management around the world target these key areas to appease media, political, environmental, and social agents. The belief we have entered the ‘Plateau of Productivity’ on Gartner’s Hype curve do not stand, which I believe is an oversimplified viewpoint, ignoring the systemic transition of demand for ESG products

Oliver Custis

Figure 1.1 Invesco ETF https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-16/dbs-private-bank-raises-1-2-billion-for-esg-barbell-products

Chanjaroen, 2021 https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-18/clean-tech-investment-isn-t-just-a-bubble-this-time

Bill Gates – ‘How to avoid a Climate Disaster’ https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My-new-climate-book-is-finally-here

Orland, 2021 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-18/ceo-pay-tied-to-esg-sets-canadian-banks-apart-from-the-crowd

Climate crisis: an ongoing apocalypse

Be it in the post-apocalyptic desert of the Matrix or the utter wasteland that Pixar’s Wall-E attempts to clear up, the collapse of the natural world is a recurring theme in apocalyptic Sci-fi. These representations of what the world will be like after human beings have inhabited it reveals many people’s growing fear that the way we treat our environment will be our undoing. 

We fear the end of the world. It is an area of the unknown that we are both uncomfortable considering and want to avoid ever encountering at all cost. Post-apocalyptic films both the more violent examples like Planet of the Apes or the more mild and family-friendly Wall-E are attempts to shed some possible light on our approaching doom; the endpoint where our world will just give in and everything we know, everything we have created will be destroyed. 

However, what if this apocalyptic tipping point had already taken place? I have been careful to remain vague in the terms I use to define “us”.  I have implied that I am referring to human beings as a whole. Environmental studies often do this as, after all, the end of the world does undeniably concern everyone. However, what we risk by referring to humanity as a whole in this way is relying on ready schemas and stereotypes that more often than not in western culture place the wealthy white man, a successor to an imperialist empire at the centre of the discussion. Climate change, however, affects every human being on different levels and in different ways. This idea is nothing new but I mention it because I believe that this white supremacist patriarchal view with which we approach problems leaves gaps in our understanding of climate change and sustainability. 

To employ a specific example of this I wish to refer to Dr Tallbear’s interpretation of sustainability. She explains that what we fear when trying to preserve the planet and society is not simply the death of those we love but the destruction of our past and any possible future as well. We fear extinction. For this to happen what must be destroyed is not just the people but everything that held meaning to them as well. Our environment, our ideas, our culture completely eradicated so we are unable to pass it on to future generations. This is the bleakest of prospects and as Dr Tallbear identifies it is one that for certain cultures has already happened. 

Dr Tallbear is from the Dakota tribe in North America and in her lecture she refers to the concept of “the sharpening of the already present”. By this, she implies that far from being some unknown future threat the apocalypse has already happened. She explains how for the victims of colonialism the apocalypse has been ongoing since 1492. The apocalypses, plural, that colonialism inflicts are “already present”. Communities victimised by the imperialist west did not simply suffer persecution and lose love ones they lost the space and environment that was central to their culture. Settlers in the Dakota region inflicted, what is finally beginning to be recognised as genocide, on the people who inhabited the regions they wanted to occupy. However, they did not simply destroy the people, they destroyed their culture and their history by taking away their ability to grow food and any space to reestablish community. They took away both possibilities for the future and any connection to the past, they were almost wholly eradicated. 

What Tallbear concludes is that what the colonialist West faces today is the outcome and “a sharpening of moral clarity”, of settler states built through violence and unsustainable colonialism. The approaching “apocalypse” we are now finding hard to ignore is in effect “a sharpening of the already present”. It is a result of the disorder that we ourselves have and are inflicting. This imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy in which many of us live is not simply unfair it is self-destructive. It is through this point that I want to conclude this, admittedly rather bleak, blog post. 

Sustainability as we have studied it this term encourages a multi-faceted approach to the issue of climate change and preserving humankind as a whole. This is essential to realising the root of the issues we face: they are the result of an imbalance in all areas of the societies we live in. Nature thrives on harmony, disrupts that natural balance and though the apocalypse may be slower than in the movies it could be just as ugly. 

Bibliography

hooks, bell. “Eating the Other” in Black Looks: Race and Representation. 1992; repr. New York: Routledge, 2015. https://0-doi-org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.4324/9781315743226.

Swyngedouw, Erik. “Apocalypse Forever?” Theory, Culture & Society 27, no. 2–3 (March 2010): 213–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409358728.

Dr Tallbear, Kim. “A Sharpening of the Already Present: Indigenous Materialist Reading of Settler Apocalypse 2020″. Youtube. Last modified July 2020.

Censorship And Sustainability

A survey published in Conservation Letters in September 2020 found that Australian scientists – especially government and industry scientists – have become concerned with the increasing pressure on them to ‘downplay’ their findings. Particularly within the context of logging and mining, researchers have faced constraints from their managers concerning the publishing of data  which may negatively impact the public opinion of these industries. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02669-8

This practice of censorship restricts the public from knowing the true impacts of corporate actions on the environment, and therefore nobody is aware of, or speaking up against the damage. Environmentally harmful industries and companies can use censorship to prevent criticism of their exploitation of resources and protect their profits, as the population is kept in the dark. 

Firms aim to avoid criticism so they can continue to maximise their profit opportunity without changing their harmful methods. The statistics and facts which present the real extent of the environmental, social and cultural damage caused by corporations are hidden from the public. 

Similarly, product marketing can be misleading in terms of the sustainable origins or ethical nature of resources or production methods. The increasing subtlety in these methods is making it more difficult for consumers to identify how truly ‘ethical’ the products they buy may be. For example, in this Apple iPhone 11 Environmental Report, the emphasised ‘100%’s of better materials actually refer to small elements of the product, despite the inference that 100% of all materials are recycled. Although this is not explicitly misconstruing consumers, this is a common marketing practice by corporations, and the inference at first glance bends the real statistics. Companies can easily obscure their questionable practices from the public, and further, child labour can be employed in production, even without the knowledge of the corporation leaders, due to poor communication of information up the chain. [https://labs.theguardian.com/unicef-child-labour/]

https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPhone_11_PER_sept2019.pdf

Worryingly, governments are beginning to restrict information from being publicised, and not only within the realm of environmental sustainability. During the beginning of the Coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China, medical experts, researchers, organisations and doctors, including the WHO, were prevented from voicing concerns about the ease of transmission and extent of the potential danger to the public of the virus. Dr Li Wenliang warned in the earliest days of a potential pandemic, only to be harassed and threatened by police. After he died of COVID-19, a social media surge of criticism of the Chinese authorities and their attempts to suppress his warnings began, and a subsequent crackdown on internet platforms, media and news outlets followed. [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/19/technology/china-coronavirus-censorship.html]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30382-2/fulltext

These actions of the authorities – outlined in the BBC documentary ’54 Days’ [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000rqy2] – allowed the Coronavirus to spread. After the documentary was aired, and following other stories exposing the darker side of China’s ‘re-education camps’, Chinese authorities banned the BBC from broadcasting to their population in February 2021. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-56030340#:~:text=China%20has%20banned%20BBC%20World,%22disappointed%22%20by%20the%20decision.]

Despite widespread evidence of the blockage of this information, and criticism from other governments/broadcasters, Chinese authorities continue to deny all claims, and have implemented further blocks (e.g. blocking foreign press, violence and incarceration) to prevent ‘harmful’ information from reaching their population. 

The lack of transparency between governments/corporations and the general population leads to an inaccurate conception of the extent of sustainability problems – and therefore makes it virtually impossible to solve or correct any issues. The reason why extreme problems in policy and practices are hidden from the public, is because if they were exposed, the level of public criticism and protest would force these practices to stop. The economic benefit from extreme logging or mining, and from obscuring the sources of products is considered more valuable than conducting ethical methods of production. Instead of changing practices, these governments and corporations will take increasingly extreme measures to prevent the truth from being exposed. 

Although the ease of communication in this era has caused this restriction of information to become increasingly difficult, those who speak up risk losing their jobs, freedom, or even lives, in the most extreme cases. As the stakes of being exposed become higher, more extreme punishments befall those who speak out. The restriction of the power of public knowledge and involvement is one of the only barriers left in the fight against malpractice and unethical methods. Other than the pressuring of suspected harmful corporations or authorities to publish data and research, while the public is kept in the dark, there is little that can be changed.

H&M: the manipulation of your subconscious

It is no secret that the fast fashion industry is detrimental to the environment. It is also widely acknowledged today that the working conditions of those who provide the clothes to meet an ever-increasing demand, are less than ideal. However, there has been a push to meet this growing desire for improvement by the companies at the centre of these accusations. 

In 2010, H&M launched the first of many ‘Conscious’ campaigns as an effort to rebrand itself as the ethical choice perhaps to challenge its most fierce competitor Zara. As described by Heather Farmbrough in a Forbes article written following the release of the 2018 version of the ‘Conscious’ line, this step by H&M followed a rough patch in sales after the brand was accused of mistreating its workers, polluting the environment and even faced accusations of racism after the release of its “Monkey hoodie” modelled by a young black boy. The company had “recorded its first fall in quarterly sales for more than two decades.”

According to the environmental activist Lucy Siegle as she describes in her Guardian article “Is H&M the new home of ethical fashion?”, one of the first things she gets asked is “So which high street stores can I go to?”. It seems unbelievable to be told that no reasonably priced fashion store provides an ethical option when buying clothes. We live in a society where we are constantly scrutinised through social media and this includes our clothes. It is not surprising that we feel the need to change them so often. As stated in Subramanian Senthilkannan Muthu book Fast Fashion, Fashion Brands and Sustainable Consumption in a study of “1500 women aged over 16 years, 33% of respondents said they considered the clothes old after wearing them just over three times”. 

This of course leaves us with a manufactured, constant need to be updating our wardrobe, and this may not be completely superficial. Our self-image is constructed in part through the way we present ourselves to others. In a sense, if society is demanding change and we refuse to comply, instead electing to wear clothes popular last year, we are choosing to convey a message about ourselves that we may not like. The concept of self-presentation as a means for interpersonal communication is discussed in the article Gender Features of Women’s Self-Presentation in Interpersonal Communication and their Relation to the Choice of Clothes, where the author explores the relationship between gender identification and clothing. I merely wanted to highlight this to pre-empt any suggestions that the concern for one’s appearance and therefore the need for an updated wardrobe is a superficial one. If it were that easy we would not be here. 

On the contrary, I believe that the problem is deeper rooted and is exemplified by H&M ‘Conscious’ line. As in the Guardian article Lucy Siegle describes the H&M line does not promote itself as ideal, it does not need to. It in no way needs to prove that everything it does is environmentally friendly. Anyone choosing to keep their eyes open would see that it is not. It merely needs to establish itself as more ‘sustainable’ than its competitor in the minds of its clients. By leaving the house and going shopping, presumably with something you want to buy in mind (if not the advertisements placed along the high streets, on your smartphone, or in the media in general, will establish that need for you) you are already choosing to partake in fast fashion and consumerism. You have already decided on a self-schema that allows you to participate in something you know to be morally dubious. What H&M is providing is the possibility of mildly alleviating that guilt. If just for a little while.

Bibliography 

Muthu, Subramanian Senthilkannan. Fast Fashion, Fashion Brands and Sustainable Consumption. Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019. https://0-doi-org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/10.1007/978-981-13-1268-7. 

Ирина Сергеевна Касабова. “Gender Features of Women’s Self-Presentation in Interpersonal Communication and Their Relation to the Choice of Clothes.” Российский Психологический Журнал 12, no. 4. December 1, 2015. 184–92. doi:10.21702/rpj.2015.4.15.

Siegle, Lucy. “Is H&M the new home of ethical fashion?”. The Guardian. April 7, 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/apr/07/hennes-mauritz-h-and-m. 

Farmbrough, Heather. “H&M Is Pushing Sustainability Hard, But Not Everyone Is Convinced”. Forbes. April 14, 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/heatherfarmbrough/2018/04/14/hm-is-pushing-sustainability-hard-but-not-everyone-is-convinced/?sh=3a146ca97ebd.

‘The End of Motorsport; High Octane. Low Carbon.’

On the 25th January, the United Nations Sports for Climate Action Framework announced its annual results and new sustainability criteria for all Premier League clubs to follow. Following a recent upsurge of environmental targets and standards across all professional sport. Do regulations risk lowering the spectacle and passion for professional sport? Sport differs from businesses, they do not have customers; they have fans who have an emotional connection. Therefore, should sport strive for a more sustainable future even if it hinders the sports fans’ love?

Formula 1 is the most extreme sport to analyse regarding carbon emissions. With the immense amount of travel, logistics, operations, production, and the cars themselves, it has become widely regarded as the least sustainable sport. In 2019 the sport emitted 256,551 tonnes of carbon emissions (Figure 1). To put that into perspective, a passenger car doing 11,500 miles a year in the UK emits 4.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Therefore, the equivalent to 55,771 cars in one year. Does this number suffice an extreme evolution of the sport?

In 2019 the FIA (the governing body of motorsport) proposed a net-zero carbon target by 2030. Formula 1 revealed the exact details of achieving this target and dividing the target into smaller, more achievable aims by 2025 and 2030. Firstly, in 2025, Formula 1 will attempt to reuse all waste and utilise sustainable materials. They will offer fans a greener way to reach the race, and lastly, local people and nature will gain a boost, with races often being held outside cities. As outlined in the 2025 goals, the aim was to leave a positive impact. These goals are fewer emissions orientated but focus more on the broader race print. The goals for 2030 concentrate on net-zero carbon emissions, including zero carbon-powered cars, zero-carbon logistics, travel, and 100% renewable-powered offices and factories.

Looking in more depth, aspects of the goals seem very ambitious. For example, as figure 1 shows, the logistics of Formula 1 account for 45% of the carbon emitted. The logistical operation involved in Formula 1 is extremely complex. There is constant transporting of people, offices, tools, and parts all around the world. To understand the planning needed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLVFa8YRfM), this video explains the challenge each team and the whole sport faces every season. Including transporting a whole team, multiple race cars, and a mobile office in a couple of days from Shanghai to Abu Dhabi. Many documentaries explain the process from each team’s perspective and official partners such as DHL. Thus, these points assume that net-zero carbon emissions will be challenging to achieve without hindering any aspects of the sport.

Formula 1 could decide to reduce travel and condense the location of all the races to Europe, allowing them to reduce emissions drastically. But this does not outweigh the costs for local economies in the countries no longer hosting a race. As the FIA stated, hosting a race in certain countries gives local people the spectacle of the sport and a vast customer base for businesses.

The aim of net carbon zero cars, risks that the sport becomes too similar to its partner organisation, Formula E, all-electric racing. Although Formula E is relatively new, it is increasing in popularity. Nevertheless, it is not a substitute for the intensity and danger of Formula 1. The FIA risk losing the drama, the noise, and the power of the cars. All these factors combine to provide the premier form of motorsport racing, Formula 1. Threatening the substantial fan base as well as other stakeholders, namely sponsors and participating teams. After the announcement of the net-zero carbon targets, Honda announced that they were leaving their Formula 1 partnerships (as an engine maker) to reach their “goal of electrifying two-thirds of our global automobile unit sales in 2030.” This action suggests that Honda does not believe Formula 1 will be carbon neutral by 2030. The car manufacturer also proclaimed they would “strive for the realisation of carbon neutrality by 2050.”

Overall, there is no doubt of the much-needed progression for sustainability across all motorsport. However, Formula 1 poses a special case. Seen as the pinnacle of engineering, productivity, and efficiency, Formula 1 is currently achieving lower emissions than it ever has. The majority of carbon emitted in 2019 (72.7%) was from society’s broader issues, traveling and transport. These issues are not vanishing unless there is a seismic change in the sport, as mentioned earlier, such as reducing races that spread across the globe. Therefore, by targeting net-zero carbon emissions by 2030, the FIA has pressured Formula 1 to lose some aspects of the sport that spectators have fallen in love with. Not many sports have a richer history of great moments. Those moments could be the last. From Senna, Fangio, Moss to Lewis Hamilton versus Rosberg, motorsport inevitably will change, for the better or the worst.

Linguistics Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLVFa8YRfM

Honda Announcement: https://drivetribe.com/p/is-environmental-sustainability-BkdK4f2RRI2vdp6BX4XRww?iid=Q_qV9PkCRDCG3utVxSEu1Q

United Nations Sports for Climate Action Framework: https://www.sportpositivesummit.com/epl-sustainability-table-2020/

CO2 Emission Data: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle#:~:text=typical%20passenger%20vehicle%3F-,A%20typical%20passenger%20vehicle%20emits%20about%204.6%20metric%20tons%20of,8%2C887%20grams%20of%20CO2.

Formula 1 Strive for Sustainability: https://corp.formula1.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Environmental-sustainability-Corp-website-vFINAL.pdf

The Sustainability Report: https://sustainabilityreport.com/2020/07/14/inside-formula-1s-plan-to-become-net-zero-carbon/

FIA: https://www.fia.com/news/fia-introduces-sustainable-fuel-formula-1-and-commits-becoming-carbon-neutral-2021-and-net-zero

The future of climate action under Biden

January 20^th symbolised the first break with Trump as Biden was ushered to the White House. Hope finally glistened collectively in the eyes of America, especially in its fate in restoring as a superpower and in tackling climate action. Biden’s first day saw an incredible rollback of many controversial legislations seen as landmarks of the Trump era; significantly, the reversal of the Keystone XL pipeline permit and re-joining the Paris Agreement. If this push is a projection of the rigor that the president seeks to approach climate change through legislation and executive action during his term, there is hope for restarting the stagnating global response against climate change. (1)

However, we must not take reassurance just yet. The political challenges within the “thin blue” Senate, with the slow and lengthy bureaucratic process, and the impeachment trial of Donald Trump stand in the way of effective and rapid change needed for climate action, in such issues will be explored. This blog post follows on from last week’s Capitol Riot post with the overarching idea that both events are part of a broader picture of a continuing presence of Trumpism within the interactions of the Biden administration domestically and internationally.

To understand the importance of the difficulties within the implementation of Biden’s climate action, the breadth of the legislation has to be discussed. An important observation would be the emphasis upon the necessity for jobs, the economy and climate action to work in conjunction with one another – no longer will climate change be interpreted as taking away essential employment from “the innocent Americans”. This leads directly to the Biden administration’s commitment to clean energy and electricity by 2035, as well as conducting rollbacks of disastrous Trump environment legislation. (1) (2) The former seeks to encourage job creation due to increasing demand of such industries with the move towards a green economy and needing serious review of the future operations of transportation and construction. (4) This promotion is evident of an increasing recognition of the power of regulation to tackle climate change, to enhance standard of life, and to ensure further accountability of domestic high polluters. (1) The pressure of resigning the Paris Agreement seems to also influence how the US is approaching climate action, especially in the setting and reaching ambitious NDC targets for carbon emissions, with recent World Resource Institute proposal suggesting that the target should involve a reduction of 45-50% more from 2005 levels, to be in-line to achieve the goals of Paris. (3) The budget to achieve all the above exceeds $2 trillion, and this represented a small excerpt of the difficulties within the climate proposals.

In no particular order, here are the difficulties that such climate action faces within the damaging political culture in the US.

The problems caused by the “thin-blue senate” – the name itself demonstrates the little power Democrats have despite claiming 2 victorious seats from Georgia. The Senate rule of needing a 60 votes majority to pass crucial legislation stands as a considerable obstacle to Biden’s climate action with sweeping change rooted within carbon taxation and climate legislation likely being out of bounds. (5) Thus, despite the administration needing to set ambitious NDC targets to draw level with other member states, oil and gas corporations may unlikely face pressure in respecting the targets or following the legislation passed. (5) Bipartisan support remains at the heart of Biden’s election manifesto leaving executive orders an unwise option for climate action in fears of alienating the chamber and the GOP.  The world’s future, essentially, is dependent upon the will of conservative members of the Senate and the intricacies of the Budget Reconciliation process. (3)

The lengthy process involved in kickstarting the rollback of environmental legislation weakened by Trump administration – this is where Biden may be forced to slow down the momentum needed to achieve the goals of Paris, thus represents another obstacle to climate change. (6) Trump made over 100 changes to undermine various governmental operations to environmental protection including the reduction of the resources of the EPA and Obama-led legislation, yet this took Trump most of his presidency to conduct. (3) The bureaucratic process requires extensive scientific and economic analysis, in addition to legal reviews of current data to implement such legislation. (6) A pertinent example to demonstrate just how time-consuming this process is dates back to the efforts of Trump’s EPA in curbing the Obama administration’s policy aimed to reduce the fuel economy of passenger vehicles to lower carbon dioxide pollution. The rollback began within the first days of the Trump presidency yet, was not completed till Spring 2020. (6) In addition, the EPA resources are deprived of staff and budget, which further adds to the difficulties. The agency is asked to do a lot more with such little, and without the necessary allocation of resources by the Senate, it is unlikely that the rollback will be conducted with such rigour.

Finally, the impeachment trial of Donald Trump that stands in the way of Biden’s promise to “heal the nation” and instead attempts to fuel further partisan disgruntlement, distracting the Senate in passing the climate action package. Yet its impact extends further than this. The first 100 days are possibly the most pivotal moments of a presidency, where the influence of the president is at its highest. (7) This trial is predicted to cloud much of this, leading to two conclusive points. One, Biden will face added pressure in confirming his appointments to essential institutions and creating engagement for his climate action plan. Two, such trial demonstrates the continuing presence of Trumpism within the Capitol. It is the second point that Biden will have to work against, likely throughout his climate campaign and his presidential career.

Hopefully I have been able to show insights into the substantial obstacles Biden will have to tackle with his climate action plan and illustrate the eye-opening extent to which Trumpism has left its mark within America’s political institutions. Perhaps, there may be a chance where, through continuous bipartisan work, Biden may be able to defeat the ghosts of the past. But this chance, I predict, may be extremely slim.

Varssha Kumaraverl

1) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55732386

2) https://time.com/5931852/joe-biden-100-days/

3) https://www.vox.com/22241348/president-biden-climate-change-paris-agreement-executive-order-keystone-pipeline

4) https://fortune.com/2020/12/10/biden-climate-policy-coal-mining-jobs-labor/

5) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biden-climate-senate-analysis/analysis-thin-democratic-control-of-senate-offers-biden-chance-for-steps-on-climate-idUSKBN29C1J2?edition-redirect=in

6) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/climate/biden-environment.html 7) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-55640439

The growing cracks in Democracy

January 2021 marked two prolific events in America’s history – the crazed riot at the Capitol Hill by equally crazed Trump fanatics on the 6^th and the confirmation of Joe Biden as President on the 20^th. Arguably, I would say that comparing such figures to fanatics is too moderate so please choose a more appropriate term. Examples include criminals, degenerates, extremists etc. Importantly, for America and for our blog, the events touch on significant sustainability discussions, with the riot a representation of the dangers present within the American democracy by the current ‘Trumpism’ environment, and the impending climate action rollout by the Biden administration. One might even make the claim that both events interlink with the bigger picture being the possibility of a continuing presence of Trumpism within the Biden administration, and the disastrous effects that this might have to the global climate action. I’ll be covering the riot in more detail here, with the first actions by the Biden administration analysed in next week’s blog post.

A mere glance into the nuances of the Capitol riot and the result can be pretty overwhelming – discussions look into the true role of the police, how the riot was essentially a perfect portrayal of the actual capabilities of the Trump rhetoric… I could go on. Yet, my interests lie within the apparent revelation of the fragility of democracy in the Western world, and how this riot has smashed the liberal dream of democracy convergence. Thus, the primary question is how can we make democracy more sustainable?

The US prides itself in its image as the pinnacle of Western democracy and has, across its bloodied history, aimed to implement such theory upon many victimised states – a side of their history they fail to acknowledge, I may add. Examples to refresh your memory include Puerto Rico, Philippines and Afghanistan. Yet, the events of 6^th January may in fact be the first time that the American people have had to feel the brunt of an attempted takeover by a powerful force that sought to fulfil their malicious agenda upon the broader population. The force being the various factions of the far right (QAnon, MAGA supporters, Christian dominionists, and neo-Nazis). (2)  An unfortunate ironic image. But this indeed was the reality and thus has restarted the conversation surrounding democracy and the increasing dangers against its future.

The riot could be viewed through two different lenses that touch on democracy; one where the storming of the capital was a representation of the breakdown of the power of electoral legitimacy, a key pillar of democracy, and the second lens that considers the far-right fear in losing their perverse idea of democracy. (1) Through the use of violence to try and undercut the outcome of the fair and legitimate election of November 2020, the influences were revealed. Specifically, the fake news media environment and commanding voice of the very embodiment of American freedom – President Trump, thus questioning the value of the democratic process when it comes to the transfer of power within a constitutional democracy. What occurred on Capitol Hill was not civil disobedience but mob rule in play. There was no specific law or order that contributed to an unjust society, but the act itself was of terrorism, yet it was not dealt in such manner. (3) Strike 1 against democracy.

The polluting support from the GOP during this riot, allowing and encouraging the terrorists, is a mere reflection of the length that they will go to desperately cling to power, and this stands as another crack within the fragile American democracy. The silent condoning of various Trump actions, such as the Charlottesville neo-Nazi attack in 2017 in addition to the denial of the 2020 election result, continued the gradual build up to the Capitol Riot. This was in effort to secure and continue a Republican legacy, no matter what it looked like. (4)  The party here did not choose to protect the sanctity of democracy, of who the process seeks to protect and represent. Strike 2 against democracy.

The condemnation that the riot received from within Congress, broader America and the wider world seemed to be universal in labelling the attack as ‘unprecedented’. Yet asides from the specifics, the act itself was not unprecedented. According to Eric Foner, the riot ‘represents something deeply rooted in the American experience, which is actually hostility to democracy’ (5) Specifically that of multiracial democracy, where the true roots of democracy lie within the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – the law beginning the expansion of the franchise to all Americans. The riot thus tuned into the nation’s great history of racial suppression conveyed through the traditional American language of patriotism. It played upon the complaints aimed at dominant Black cities of Philadelphia and Detroit that led to the Blue flip, continuing historical notions of illegitimacy of black American franchise. (5) Strike 3 against democracy.

3 strikes. Democracy can no longer stand on its two feet with confidence, despite the change in administration and the impending impeachment trial of Donald Trump. What must be done to ensure that democracy remains sustainable? How can it be protected for future generations, especially in the continuous fight against climate change where political institutions remain the dominant voice in steering the global response? One idea would be to change the way news is consumed. The breakdown of local news outlets, a pertinent issue within America, leads to a dangerous dependence upon social media outlets that does not consider assessing credibility/accuracy of sources and articles, and so creating a vicious feedback loop that encourages fake news as the “go-to” outlet for political news. Bring back grassroot local news organisations and the cracks of democracy will start to mend.

Varssha Kumaraverl

1) https://theconversation.com/why-were-the-capitol-rioters-so-angry-because-theyre-scared-of-losing-grip-on-their-perverse-idea-of-democracy-152812

2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqvOcr0uu9o

3) https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2021/0107/1188171-us-capitol-protest-riot-attack-january-2021-trump-terrorism/

4) https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/us-capitol-riot-trump-letters-b1783865.html

5) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2021/01/historians-on-the-unprecedented-chaos-in-congress/

‘Will Money Survive the Test of Time?’

Money can be a sensitive topic when discussed within the breadth of sustainability. Can Financial Services be sustainable? Can money even be sustainable? The small polymer notes in your pocket, which society has learnt to worship may no longer hold the value which institutions and societies have given it. Don’t get ahead yourself, I am not talking about the collapse of our economy or to when money did not exist. Instead, I will be looking at the possible transition from traditional money to new forms of money, specifically digital money. With Covid-19, the demand for a change in the traditional economic system is needed now more than ever.  

Since the 2008 Financial Crisis, or even crisis before such as the 2001 ‘Dot-Com’ bubble, money and banking has been trying to adapt to a complex society and fluctuating economy. However, banks have never stabilized to the point where economies can grow exponentially. Investors are looking towards riskier assets and less liquid securities to return higher yields. But this could lead to drastic problems for the economy. It is estimated that the 2008 financial crisis eliminated $7 trillion dollars, with millions of people losing jobs and homes. Those same people were the ones who had to bail out the banks via tax revenue. But with Covid-19 the estimated fallout has already been $10 trillion dollars, and this will keep rising.  

Figure 1.1 Source The World Bank  

Figure 1.1 Source The Wold Bank

Looking at figure 1.1. According the World Bank 93% of all countries will enter a recession and it is estimated advanced economies are contracted to shrink 7% and developing economies 2.5%. The spillover to these developing economies will be immensely detrimental, putting pressure on healthcare, weak capital flows and reduction in tourism. I am highlighting all this to show why a shift in money and banking is needed, in order to be sustainable and to cope with the tight financial conditions combined with amounting world debt. 

The transition to FinTech is one possible option. FinTech refers to software and other modern technologies used by businesses which provide automated and improved financial services. By digitizing banks and becoming increasingly globalized it is thought that any crisis or shock will be better absorbed, and the exogenous effect diminished. Examples of FinTech are Google Pay, Apple Pay in the West and WePay and Alipay in China. FinTech payments exceeded $1 trillion dollars for the first time in 2018. There are now over 1,000 FinTech companies. With its rapid growth and popularity is FinTech the future for our whole economy and will it be able to compete with the traditional mega banks of the world. From a sustainability standpoint there are pros and cons, the list is expanding as society becomes more acclimated to the technology. However, this solution for the future of money still relies on traditional banks to provide the money to these companies. There is also the issue of regulation. These companies are not under as much pressure from external regulators. Wirecard is the most famous example as a result of lack of regulation. Listed on the German Stock Exchange, Wirecard was envied by many FinTech companies and investors. However, in 2020 Ernst & Young found $1.9 billion in cash was missing. The total effect of this is unknown, but the company’s value has crashed, with arrests and government investigations currently ongoing. Therefore, should we pursue alternative forms of money?  

One other alternative could be branded as even more radical: Cryptocurrency or Cryptoassets. In a broad sense cryptocurrency is a digital asset used as a medium of exchange. As soon as you hear the word cryptocurrency, you would not be mistaken to think of Bitcoin or Ethereum. But I will not be concentrating on these extreme examples. Instead, I will concentrate on developments from the Bank of England, The European Central Bank and Facebook. Facebook have proposed their own currency for a few years now. It’s called Libra, it claims to be “a simple global payment system and financial infrastructure that empowers billions of people” with access to 31% of the world population already. Libra has its own reserve and assets, so it does not rely on traditional money or banks. It is regulated by an external board, created on its own blockchain, with high level of security protection and consumer compliance. Libra is an intriguing prospect, and no doubt will play a part of the future of money, but for now central banks do not want their financial systems developed and controlled by one company and possibly one man. As a result, countries are looking to introduce their own form of Libra/digital currency. The Bank of England will shortly introduce CBDC, Central Bank Digital Currency, instead of physical money, we would have electric money. Similar to Libra but backed by our own Central Bank and Government. The European Central Bank will also introduce a digital Euro, offering the same services as Libra or CBDC.  

Source: Bank of England 

Figure 1.2 Source Bank of England

With the Covid-19 Pandemic and the economic situation of the world, the need for change is urgent.  Whether that be in politics, healthcare, social or working life, money is no exception. There is pressure on central banks to solve this financial crisis. But this time, not just to solve it until the next crisis, but solve it for the foreseeable future. Whether or not digital money is implemented as soon as possible or immediately after the pandemic or even not until the next crisis. Digital money will be the future.  

The World Bank https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2020/06/08/the-global-economic-outlook-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-a-changed-world 

Libra https://libra.org/en-US/  

The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/technology/facebook-cryptocurrency-libra.html  

The Bank of England https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/digital-currencies  

The European Central Bank https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/html/digitaleuro.en.html  

 The Financial Times https://www.ft.com/content/79376464-72b5-41fa-8f14-9f308acaf83b