Urban Grind pays extra money to be carbon neutral by offsetting our emissions. If the money was there I would put Solar panels on the roof (if the landlord said I could). I am not actually a big fan of doing the wrong thing and then just paying some cash to a good thing. Is it not wiser to just do less of the bad thing?
On the weekend I was invited to give a talk with Emma from GWhiz on doing business for reasons other than to make money. Urban Grind for me is a community building exercise and a place where hopefully we can all exchange ideas on making the world a better place for the children. GWhiz car sharing is about changing behaviours. Car sharing services have the impact of taking cars off the road. For every car sharing car between 6-10 cars don’t have to be manufactured. Those using the service use the cars more efficiently than those that own a car that sits idle 95% of the time. And there are more reasons.
For years the message was that we should be recycling, but the message should have been Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Now the message is to Offset, but we still need to address Reduce and Reuse. One of the young people at the symposium that we were talking to asked Emma if GWhiz offsets it’s cars emissions and the answer was, ‘not at the moment, but we are looking into it’. The question was fair given the current thinking, but Emma’s answer could be seen as not quite doing enough given the current thinking, but until we start having the reduce and reuse conversation, GWhiz is not going to be recognised for these efforts. I still have a business model that contributes to the problem and says sorry later. Gwhiz has built a model around reducing negative impact on the planet, and it is not instantly recognised for that, because we are still not considering in our conversation the fact that recycling and offsetting should be coming long after you have made every effort to Reduce and Reuse.
I’m only just getting my head around this “carbon offset” principle. I think it’s a great idea in all areas, if I think the process through:
Some firms, notably the really big ones, will find it difficult in many areas to achieve a reduction in emissions. If they can’t do it in person, they can at least set aside some cash to purchase “carbon credits” which enable others to make the reductions for them by proxy.
It’s not wholly satisfactory, for sure, but it’s still better than a slap in the face with a wet fish.
I totally agree with your point - trading in an alternative to the prevailing discourse (i.e. prevention rather than offset) is SO frustrating! unfortunately the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff is an action which can be seen and therefore advertised, with a nice “feel good factor”. What good would it do not to need an ambulance at all? How many votes can you get from that/where’s the endorphin rush?
Not only is this mentality pervasive it will continue to be so while economic bottom lines are the prominent discourse in society - in both business but also, as in my case, in the research funding environment! I find this particularly worrying as research programmes are being set to find better ways to place the ambulance, with respect to economic bottom lines, rather than looking at (and changing) the structures and processes which are at the root of the problem… Sigh ….
Me thinks it’s time for a monthly/weekly urbangrind podcast
DCF,
Large companies are setting examples. Take google for instance. Link. These things are still a choice. Massive profits mean massive opportunities to make such choices. I could be wrong?
Carla,
That sucks about research funding. I have often suggested that a more organised ‘left’ could be funding it’s own research and development.
Andrew, my friend. Me thinks that you have more time to think with than me
Morgs! Love the new look AND saves power too - black screens look good, don’t they?
Great post and comments by all - it is important to feel those emotions of frustration and anger and disappointment in our leaders/processes. This is what drives us to innovate and ultimately empower ourselves and others to survive. The ‘Reduce’ philosophy/way of life will become increasingly necessary in our society, but it means a massive culture change which won’t happen overnight (despite how urgent the issue is…).
I applaud that young person who asked the hard question of us off-setting, because it opens up debate about the massive changes in ‘world-view’ that we need. Keep on going guys!