All, I wanted your views on a subject which has been giving me food for thought recently. Is the green movement being effective in acting on the big issues of our time, or is it a rather unfocused, uncoordinated leviathan giving inconsistent and contradictory advice through trying to be 100% on every issue? This is why, as a person with business training, I get frustrated with the politics of green issues.
Let me give an example. We don't say you should recycle the most important 90% of your waste, or that you should prioritise key areas like disposable nappies (HUGE proportion of household waste). We say you have to recycle 100% of your waste otherwise you are a bad person. Now, I'm not sure this is a constructive way to treat the public, and many react by saying "a plague on all your houses" and rejecting any kind of recycling.
So, should we perhaps have our thought leaders helping pursue a doctrine of prioritisation to be more effective? After all, if businesses didn't prioritise, nothing would ever get done.
Rob - I agree that NGOs and QUANGOs without strong leadership and good management can be at risk of becoming nothing more than talking shops, and ultimately change is only going to happen on a large scale when all sectors get on board - business needs to be a front-runner here. But, if it weren't for the tireless efforts of many lobby groups to continually remind us of social priorities and proivde independent analysis, global issues such as climate change would never even make it onto the business agenda in the first place. And in my opinion, politicians don't really start paying anything more than lip-service to such issues until business begins to take it seriously.
Bonnie, I think perhaps I haven't explained my point well enough - I'm not arguing against the efforts of the lobbyists, it's clear that we need them and thank heaven they exist or else, as you rightly say, the whole green debate would never get arrested. My argument is more a criticism of the WAY that green lobbyists in particular present their case to the public about how they should act (as opposed to, say, lobbyists for Amnesty who are ruthlessly clear, focused and effective). Question: would you say that their message, their "call to action" to the general public is clear and consistent?
My view - I think DO EVERYTHING is what they say, which people see as on the "too-difficult path". The alternative - give clear, specific instructions in well-defined areas that are hard to argue with ("why don't you put solar panels on your roof, and by the way here's a scheme to help finance that at no cost to you" - would in my opinion be far superior. People like clear instructions, not vague obligations, and tend to respond better to them.
Finally I'm not sure I agree about business coming before politics in the chain of influence. In my experience it's quite the other way around - you have to bag the politicians, media and public opinion first, then business comes trotting dutifully along after once they know they are obliged do something.
Not sure I agree with you Rob: I think the green/eco movement was a bit "holier than thou" in the past and it just gave people an excuse to dismiss them as a load of hippies who want to turn back the clock.
But I think the green lobbying movement has completely changed in the last few years. I guess they have to strike a balance advocacy that's mainstream enough to hold people's imagination; political recommendations that are simple enough for politicians to promote, and effectiveness....
Recycling's a good point though because it's started with the green movement but has caught on. But i'm not even sure how effective it is - as you point out. (incidentally, In my street we've been told to recycle food waste. Why can't people just finish what's on their plates!)
Compost is good - it helps re-mineralise soil and is the most natural way in the world to recycle food waste. Why do we need a collection fof this, when we could all be putting it into soil around our homes and streets?
Yes I do agree with the sentiment that there is a lot of emotive and unclear messaging that comes from some lobby groups - but as you say there is enormous difference between different organisations. Many of the green lobbyists have stuck wtih a richeous moral high ground model, and it either alienates people or overwhelmes them. Many others use clear research and analysis.
I also agree with Kathryn that many lobby groups have become a lot more savvy in recent years - they have had to adapt with the changing consciousness of the public in order to be effective - and in large part this is due to hiring management with experience in the private sector, who apply business strategy to the not-for-profit world. It's proved very effective in many cases.
- would in my opinion be far superior. People like clear instructions, not vague obligations, and tend to respond better to them.
