There is increasing concern that the rapid growth in human activities is placing further pressure on the planet.

This could destabilize critical biophysical systems and lead to abrupt or irreversible environmental changes that would be damaging or even catastrophic for the welfare of human society.

Determining the extent to which human society has exceeded the planets natural limits is nothing new. In 1972 The Limits to Growth predicted the consequences of rapidly growing world population and finite resources for the future of humanity.

A recent review of the accuracy of the Limits to Growth’s predictions over the last 30 years discovered that changes in industrial production, food production and pollution are all in line with the prediction of economic and societal collapse in the 21st Century.

Other studies have shown that we are currently in ecological overshoot. In 2009 we used approximately 40 per cent more than nature can regenerate. We are currenlty living beyond our ecological means.

It is only recently that human activities have begun to affect the functioning of the Earths system. Since the industrial revolution human activities has progressively been pushing the planet outside the range of variability for many key processes which sustain life on Earth.

A 2009 study on planetary boundaries has attempted to quantify the safe biophysical boundaries outside which the Earth System cannot function in a stable state. Human pressure on the Earths ecosystem has reached a point where rapid global environmental change is possible. There are critical climatic, geophysical and ecological thresholds we must respect if we are to have a sustainable future.

In total nine planetary boundaries have been identified. These are climate change, stratospheric ozone, land use change, freshwater use, biological diversity, ocean acidification, nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to the biosphere and oceans, aerosol loading and chemical pollution.

Three of these planetary boundaries have already been transgressed: climate change, biological diversity and nitrogen input to the biosphere. Since the boundaries are strongly connected crossing one boundary may seriously threaten the ability to stay within safe levels of the others.

The extent to which human societies will be affected by transgressing these planetary boundaries will be dependent on their ability to cope with rapid environmental change. It is often poor communities with weak infrastructures and social support services which are most at risk.

The notion of planetary boundaries provides a first attempt at defining the limits for humanity. However, there are a number of uncertainties and gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed to improve this concept.

If we are to minimize the negative effects of human activities and ensure a safe space for sustainable human development, we need to take action to prevent crossing these planetary boundaries and avoid major human-induced global environmental change.

Planetary boundaries are further evidence that human society cannot continue business-as-usual. There is a need for a fundamental change to the structure of our society and way of life.

A transformation to a new “ecological age” where we live within planetary limits will require a change of the scale achieved in the industrial revolution. However, this time it will be drive by clean, efficient and renweable energy technologies and will be sustainable.

Assessments of the current state of the global environment and scientific predictions of future human and societal collapse provide the evidence-base on which to base policy.

We know the ecological consequences if we do not fundatmentally change our way of life. The big question is does anyone really care?

Gary Haq 2010

IMAGINE for a moment a city free from the noise, air pollution, congestion and danger associated with cars and lorries.

Imagine a safer and cleaner urban environment where more people walk, cycle, and use public transport and interact on the streets. Imagine a city where children can enjoy the independence and freedom of travelling to school and visiting friends. Imagine every major city in the country being car free..

For many the idea of a car free city may seem like an impossible dream. Yet this week academics, city planners and campaigners from all over the world will descend on the city of York (UK) to participate in the ninth World Car Free City Conference. This global gathering aims to develop practical alternatives to car-dependent lifestyles and car-dominated cities. In York participants will discuss cutting-edge and radical thinking in transport policy that show that the development of car free cities is a possible reality which offers numerous social and health benefits.

There is no doubt we are a car dependent nation. We have developed and adapted our cities to cater for increased car use rather than for the freedom and safety of pedestrians and children. Today about 70 per cent of households in Britain own a car compared to just 50 per cent in 1970. The car has become an essential feature of our modern urban way of life. We use it to get to work, to go shopping, to transport our kids to school, to visit friends and have day trips out. It offers freedom, mobility, independence, status, and for some, sexual expression. It is often cheaper and more convenient than public transport.

It has even been suggested that the type and colour of the car says more about someone’s personality than the clothes they wear or the house they live in. A RAC survey found that owners of pastel-colour cars are eight times more likely to suffer from depression than people with bright coloured cars, while drivers of white cars are distant and aloof. Owners of silver or metallic blue cars are the happiest drivers on the road, while owners of cars in the pastel colours of lilac and lime are twice as likely to be the victims of road rage.

A recent government survey of public attitudes to the car and the environment found that three-quarters of adults said that they were likely to undertake some form of activity to reduce car trips due to concerns about climate change. These activities included walking short journeys or reducing the number of non-essential trips. Yet while we may be open to the idea of curbing our car use we do not always put this into action.

Back in 2004 the City of York participated in a Government pilot project which aimed to change travel behaviour, increase regular exercise and cut congestion by designing individual travel plans for participants and offering them a range of incentives. The York Intelligent Travel project contacted nearly 6,000 households of which over 240 took part in the project from different areas of the city. Results of the twelve month trial were successful in reducing the distance travelled by car and increasing the distance and number of trips by bicycle and public transport. Although the project was initially successful in reducing car use, a follow-up study a year later discovered that this behaviour was not sustained. Participants had reverted back to their old travel behaviour demonstrating the challenge in persuading people to make long-term lifestyles changes.

Despite this challenge, Venice (Italy), Fes (Morocco) and Slateford Green in Edinburgh have managed to gain car free status. The largest car free development in Europe is in Freiburg (Germany). Residents in the suburb of Vauban have to sign an annual declaration stating whether they own a car or not. Car owners must purchase a place in one of the multi-storey car parks on the periphery, run by a council-owned company and pay a monthly fee to cover ongoing costs. Vauban has become a traffic-free residential area where the streets are often full of unsupervised young children, playing and cycling.

In the UK many cities continue to struggle to cope with the social and environmental burden of increasing traffic. If we want to enjoy the better quality of life that car free cities offer, we need to reclaim the public pedestrian space that has been slowly given up to the car. Equally, if we need make public transport cheaper, efficient and reliable and walking and cycling safer and pleasurable.

A car free city is not an impossible dream; the challenge is not technical but political. We need our civic leaders to have the vision and passion to create cities for people, where road infrastructure is limited, and where car use is restricted, and where getting around is easy, cheap and enjoyable for everyone.

Gary Haq 2010

THE new UK coalition government has scrapped plans for a pay as you throw bin tax and instead wants to reward families who recycle rubbish. But are such incentives the best way of encouraging greener behaviour?

As a child growing up in the 1970s I remember returning empty soft drink bottles to our local shop and receiving tuppence for doing so. The financial reward was an incentive to recycle and ensured that empty glass bottles were never thrown away. Britain abandoned such simple bottle deposit scheme a long time ago. Yet in Germany, the Netherlands and some other European countries deposit systems are still used for beer bottles and drink containers. People who recycle bottles are rewarded with a deposit via automated machines at supermarkets.

It seems that rewarding people for greener behaviour via financial incentives is an approach that has been tried and tested but one which needs to be exploited further in the UK. Tax incentives for buying greener cars and installing renewable energy technologies currently exist. However, many of UK government campaigns (e.g. Act on CO2) have encouraged people to voluntarily change their behaviour by raising awareness of their environmental impact. This has been done by assisting individuals to calculate their carbon footprint and show aspects of their lifestyle where reductions can be achieved.

Of course saving energy in the home not only reduces carbon emissions but also reducing energy bills. Indirectly this argument has been used to encourage people to take action to lower their carbon footprint. However, unlike returning recycled bottles, the financial reward is gained over time rather than immediately.

A report by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) suggests that an approach based on saving public money, and giving the public greater control over energy bills and independence from suppliers would be more effective to engage people in adopting a low carbon lifestyle.

The report suggests that a reduction in carbons emission requires convincing consumers that in adopting lower-carbon lifestyles they can save money and have control in a chaotic world, and they can do the right thing and look good without being an environmentalist.

Households who have installed micro-generation technologies such wind turbines, solar panels and geothermal pumps only receive a return on their investment over years rather than months. The idea of a feed-in tariff (FIT) is designed to encourage the adoption of renewable energy sources.

In April 2010 the UK introduced the FIT programme which pays homeowners and businesses who generate their own electricity through the use of accredited low-carbon technologies. For example, Individuals who generate their own electricity using solar technology can receive 41.3p for every unit of electricity generated. They have the option to use the electricity they produce or feed it back into the national grid.

It is estimated that an average household could generate an income of up to 960 a year through the use of solar panels. However, some critics have argued that FITs are a “scam” because they are an expensive, grossly inefficient way to reduce emissions.

Green Sticks such as the London congestion charge has been used to successfully reduced car use in inner London. The air passenger duty is another example of a green stick which has been used to increase the cost of air travel and discourage passengers to fly.

While rewarding people for recycling can play a key role in reducing amount of household waste going to landfill, charging households for generating waste in the first place is equally as important if we are to tackle our throw-away culture. A report by Green Alliance on measures to discourage environmentally damaging behaviour suggests adding an “inefficiency charge”s on products such as disposable batteries and cameras, garden sprinklers and incandescent light bulbs. Prominent messages about the reason for the charge would be displayed on the products targeted.

A common complaint of many people who wish to lead a greener lifestyle is that many greener options are either more expensive (e.g. public transport) or the infrastructure is not available to support the action (e.g. recycling collections, bicycle lanes, public transport connections). Equally, information on green actions (e.g. installation of renewable technologies) is not always clear or the return on the investment is too long (e.g. investment in solar panels) in the absence of installation grants. Due to many people leading busy lives they do not have the time or inclination to explore the options or benefits of greener living.

If we are to encourage greener lifestyles a combination of green carrots and sticks need to be used. It is clear for the majority of people the biggest incentive to changing their behaviour is the impact it will have on the money in their pocket.

A greener lifestyle has to be an easier, convenient and cheaper option for everyone if we are to encourage more people to think about their impact on the planet.

Gary Haq 2010

Home