The Debates

Our current debate looks at at SUSTAINABILITY AND EVERYDAY LIFE. For a set of four perfectly ordinary everyday activities: being at home; eating lunch; going shopping; and meeting friends - we've asked our contributors to consider three questions:

• What are things like now?

• What would be better if it was more sustainable?

• What would an ordinary person notice about that sustainability?

The first essay is by Annie Austin and you can read it by clicking on the link to the right.

Our first debate - or provocation - showed that London's waste management system is built on 19th & 20th century needs and assumptions. It is out of date and does not meet the economic, social and environmental objectives of the 21st century. For the solution, our essayists and commentators opted to follow the money as a solution. Read the essays and the concise synthesis of the debate by clicking on the link to the right.

In our second debate, on the Governance of London‘s resources, three themes emerged. First - capacity - whether a corporation can handle waste, or a community can run services, or a borough can develop and enforce contracts, or institutions can care for valuable public asset in the long run. Can they do it well - because a more sustainable London needs to be well run? Services and resources managed poorly create ’waste'. Can communities and companies do more where is no agreed mechanism for ensuring there is capacity to participate. Second - accountability - a sustainable city implies millions of people changing their behaviours, becoming reconnected with their resource use and with the consequences of their choices. The more disconnected citizens are - the less pressure there is for institutions to account for their management of resources. It implies a re-distribution of accountability. The lack of accountability of large businesses, of the church, of entities such as the Corporation of London, seems at odds with the notion of a more engaged citizenry. Third - justice - refers to the allocation of resources. The distribution of resources in London is highly skewed. Dominant economic models suggest that only where there are continuous encouragements to the consumption of resources is progress made. Is this is sustainable in a world of finite resources and chronic injustice - and where climate change poses a system-level threat?

Our third debate we considered what a more sustainable London economy might actually look like by considering financial services, London‘s biggest economic activity. Our banking system is criticised for its short-term horizons and that to be sustainable it needs longer-term intentions so that it can invest in innovation. It was suggested that this probably means ending banking oligopoly. As our economy is dependent for 2/3 of GDP on consumer spending, rampant consumerism is essential for our way of life even though it is unsustainable. We looked at how we might reduce negative impacts without reducing prosperity. There were suggested health benefits from a more efficient management of London’s resources designed to meet fundamental human needs, in a fair and just fashion, and within sensible environmental limits. London faces a multiple crunch driven by energy shock, credit crunch, climate change and an emerging global food crisis. London needs to re-balance its economy making the financial system sub-ordinate to the wider needs of society.

In the fourth debate we considered what a sustainable future might look like, from the perspective of young people. They are markedly more likely to be unemployed, were predominantly involved in the riots in August, and cannot afford homes. The debate revealed that despite an education which includes more information about the planet than ever before, young people behave less sustainably than their parents. Now that our years of plenty have drawn to a close we confront many years when we must sort out a mess - a gap between rich and poor, a degraded environment, unemployment, declining living standards, lower pensions, smaller state benefits, expensive homes, energy and food and climate change. Our young people face these challenges now and into the future. Shortly they may choose a Mayor from four main party candidates recycled from the last time 4 years ago who so far offer little leadership. We have to hope that our young people turn not to surly insularity or recreational violence, but propose solutions that integrate the economic, social and the personal and demonstrate that things can be done differently.

Read the essays by clicking on the links to the right.

You can comment below.