It’s a basic requirement for self-reliance that everyone should be able to sustain themselves. A community will rely on its own people to pool their resources and trade among themselves to ensure their survival. They will scrape every little resource they have so they can use it for their basic needs; of course, they would replenish them for future requirement. Managing wastes by recycling or re-using some of them will leave minimal real waste and be less harmful to the community’s own environment. The innovation of every individual would be a great resource for the community so they can continually support themselves and future generations.

Only when you don’t have the necessary resources to sustain your needs, that you’d start looking for trade partners outside your local area. This is where macro economics will come in: every community (state, nation, region) will compliment each other by sharing resources abundant to other communities. Trading fairly among communities and not exploiting other’s ignorance.

If we rely only from multinational companies to supply us with cheaper products (with poor quality) coming from other countries, then we’d be killing our own self-reliance. Surely, local suppliers would have already priced their products fairly to sustain their own survival and be competitive (with better quality you can scrutinise). We’re not even sure if cheaper products from other countries were traded fairly, though multinational companies claim them to be. One such sample is the world’s reliance to oil: supply is controlled only by few countries belonging to a cartel; we’re all at their mercy. It would be beneficial if supply of money is retained within the community, paid/circulated among its own people; a big disadvantage if paid to multinational companies belonging outside the community.

For this reason we have to consume local products when possible. Reducing our reliance on foreign products by transporting only the minimum necessities will also minimise carbon emission that affect all communities as a whole, wherever we are.

There’s always a need to trade outside our own community, we can’t be totally independent, as each land has its own limited resources. (The truth be said.)

A.G.
(What is life?)

Whilst experts and politicians are debating whether humans contribute to global warming, let’s look at other aspects affected by this issue. Necessity is the parent of all inventions.

This issue has triggered many researches in all aspects of our life. Because of this we have become conscious and forced us to re-evaluate our attitude towards how we use our resources and manage our wastes, which affect our world and has consequences to our children. We finally realised that no resources are really infinite, not even oil, land or potable water. Awareness of this issue caused an increase in research investments that resulted in more energy-efficient homes, more sources of renewable energy, more compostable/biodegradable materials for mostly everything we use (i.e. packagings), more modern energy-efficient equipment, more fuel-efficient vehicles, etc. True, all these things come at higher costs. I’d rather pay the premium today while it’s much cheaper as it will be more costly to our children in the future. As research and technology improve, premiums will be lesser in the long term.

If we have not become aware of this issue, whether true in the long term or not, we wouldn’t invest much in research. Development of more energy-efficient products/technologies would be at much slower pace; consumers wouldn’t be bothered to demand such things.

I’ll leave to the scientists (and politicians) to continue with the debate. It’s always natural for us humans to always disagree with anything. The results of this awareness are all positive from what I can see. In our time when the population of the world is growing (and we consume ever more as people become more progressive, i.e. China) and available resources are shrinking, it’s just right that we strive for higher efficiency.

A.G.
(What is life?)

we ran across this figure from a comment in twitter…

35%? Why this figure? Where did it come from?

In our household I’m sure we already cut off our carbon footprint by at least 5% without affecting our lifestyle, by getting rid of our cars (we use only public transport now since we live near the city), making our home more energy-efficient, using less electricity where/when we can, buying only high quality and more energy-efficient appliances if we have to, and much more.

From what I can see different households have different situations. Some can cut off their carbon footprint more than others. And to some, their situations may change and their footprint may become greater or less.

My point is – I prefer to see 100 households trying to reduce their own footprints by 5% than to see only one household try to reduce it by 35% which may not be sustainable long term, while others are still consuming more. The issue of global warming is a concern for every one, so we must involve everyone and inform/educate them so they can make contributions. I think this is more effective long term than just only one person knowing all the issues and make all the sacrifices for humanity.

Now that the credit crunch have hit us so hard that we minimised most things to basic essentials, is it possible that when we start going back to our old habits of luxury that we start thinking of the negative effects of these luxuries to the environment of our children? What I’m trying to say is, if we can afford to buy luxuries, can we choose products which have least negative effect with our environment. Or at least demand from manufacturers that they should make their products more environment-friendly.

Luxuries are not at all bad if they make our life a bit more comfortable.

However, if these things pollute the air we breathe, harm the environment when they were manufactured or disposed of, then we’re not really gaining anything and we’re not contributing to our children’s future.

With the daily luxuries that we use everyday, or used to have, or we’ll be having, can we ask ourselves some questions: Are there alternative more environment-friendly products than the one I’m considering now? Are there parts which can be sourced from organic/recycled materials that I can suggest to manufacturers? Did they come from ethically-traded sources? When I don’t want it anymore and want to dispose of it, are there environment-friendly ways to do it? From my perspective these are the basic things I need to consider when buying luxuries.

We sacrifice a lot for our children’s future – we spend so much time working hard so we can give them the best we can afford, we save money to fund their education, and we help them as much as we can when they start a new stage in their life.

How much of their future do we really think about? Do we only think about the economics of their future life? Can we include in our worries their future environment?

We don’t know what problems the future will bring. From previous generation to today’s generation we experienced wars, poverty, political and economic instabilities (which includes dot.com bubble and today’s credit crunch). I think the future will uncover a much worse problem than what we face now. How will you solve environmental problems caused by generations of neglect – climate change, pollution, food shortage? Money we’re trying to save will not save our children from these problems.

It’s worrying that majority of people and businesses don’t realise the urgency of this issue. Each individual has a contribution to make and they can also bring that contribution to their workplace. Businesses should take this seriously and not only use it for publicity or marketing strategy. They should actively implement their policies concerning the environment and energy efficiency. I would put this above the issue of health and safety as breathing polluted air and destroying the environment is a broad part of health and safety issue.

Our blog from previous weeks discussed many things how we can contribute to solutions on environmental issues affecting our children’s future. My sacrifice will not stop just providing them economic security.

How much are we willing to pay for our children’s future?

Read more: Companies need green directors article from the BBC.

We’ve done our part!

We’ve given away Guui bags on different parts of London. Now, it’s up to those people to use it to contribute to a cleaner environment for their children. By giving it away we’re trying to make people aware of the current environment issues we now face (and could be worse when our children inherit it).

The Guui bag is not only organic, ethical or reusable, as already printed on the bag, but it’s also certified fairly traded. So this bag is not only dealing with one or two issues that we now face but also the issues of child labour or unfair trade practices happening in other countries. By including these issues with this end product we can be sure that we have clear conscience when we use it and we’re not compromising on other issues while trying to deal with what directly affect us.

The more people use bags like this the better for our environment. Others who are currently unaware will be conscious once they see more people using it. From my point this is one way of passing information.

This is not a change in lifestyle – just a different perspective. I hope to see more organic and reusable bags being used around the street.

It’s up to the people of London to decide what kind of environment they want to leave their children with – do they want to leave them with better or worse than what we have now. If we want to help the future generations about the climate/environmental problems they are going to face, we have to start now. Whatever problems they will have in the future is the cumulative effects of what we, our current generations, are badly doing now. Do we want to leave our children with untidy surroundings, where thousands of plastic bags are scattered anywhere and blown by wind everywhere? Warmer climate because of disappearing ozone layer?

There are solutions to these issues, but today’s generation has to decide if we want to contribute to the solution or keep on messing. The longer we mess the worse will be the problems in the future. One simple solution we can do is planting more trees in our area, or maximising planting whereever we can. Trees, or any other plants, are one of the basic sources we need, yet we’re taking it for granted – cutting more and more of it without replacing and even destroying the land areas to develop to something more residential or industrial. Even here in London we can do something. We can re-asses our community development plans and include more plants in the landscapes. London can be creative and can show other metropolitan areas that it can be done. We need to be planting more to make it a sustainable source for future generations.

Another solution is being more responsible consumers when possible. Consuming products made from sustainable products and fairly traded. We’re not only responsible for the environment, for future generations, but we’re also responsible for other people. How can we wear our clothing, eat our food and use our accessories produced/made by people working in inhumane conditions? Or made by underpaid child labors? There are many manufacturers who still provide the same products we use today who are responsible in their tradings, we just have to know them. We don’t need to sacrifice our lifestyle.

The choice is with us on which direction we want to go. Sometimes, the right decision is the more difficult choice, but we have to see the big picture.

I’ll buy ethically produced, organic and fairtrade products…

I’ll reuse and recycle…

I’ll reduce my carbon footprint as much as I can by patronising local products…