But ethical living isn’t just about environmentalconcerns – although they are an extremely significantcomponent of this book’s message. Ethical living alsoattempts to focus on our emotional wellbeing, principallythrough our relationships with others. This can meanfamilial, personal and workplace relationships, but it alsomeans wider, more abstract relationships: for example,how best to nurture community relations, or how to lookat a product in a shop and relate to the person whoproduced it.

Professor Lord Layard, an emeritus professor ofeconomics at the London School of Economics, hasidentified seven key factors that most affect ouremotional wellbeing (or ‘happiness’, as he says). Comingfrom an economist, you might expect these to include

economic indicators long favoured by governmentsaround the world, such as gross domestic product(GDP, the total value of goods and services produced bya nation over a given period, usually one year), butLayard’s factors are of a much more human scale. Theyare: an adequate income, mental health, satisfying andsecure work, a secure and loving private life, a safecommunity, freedom, and ‘moral values’ (by which helargely means good citizenship). These, he says, domore to promote wellbeing than money alone evercould – a point he has urged policy-makers to heed.Research has often shown that once people reach an‘adequate’ income, additional wealth rarely has anyfurther positive effect on happiness. Instead, it seemsthat contentment is, in large part, determined by the

7

There is a paradox that is beginning to make many of usstop and think: why, when we’ve never been healthier orwealthier, are we not feeling better about our lives? Afterall, we should be the happiest generation ever: we workfewer hours than ever before; we have more disposableincome; we are better educated; we have access tocheap and plentiful food supplies; we are spared manymundane chores by technology; we have the cushion ofa vast social welfare system to catch us when we fall; wehave the freedom and means to travel on a whim; we areliving longer and we reside in a mature, stabledemocracy. In theory, we have never had it so good.

So why is it that ‘happiness’ levels, as recorded by anumber of western governments, have not risen in thepast 50 years, despite massive increases in personaland state wealth? Why are more and more of usbeginning to ask what the cost of the perceived‘advances’ in our lives is to our communities, to theenvironment and to people in less ‘developed’ nations?In essence, the larger philosophical question that someof us seem to be asking is whether we’re really surethat, as a society, we’re moving in the right direction.

Ethical living is an attempt to address this paradox. Itis not a movement with a strict manifesto or a set ofrules. Rather, its aim is simply to promote a mindset thatespouses a better awareness and sense of conscienceabout one’s actions. It is about longterm versusshortterm thinking. It is about moving from the ‘me’ tothe ‘we’ culture. Look up the word ‘ethical’ in a dictionaryand you are likely to find ‘following the right course ofaction’ listed as a definition. You will also find a list ofsynonyms: just, honest, fair, decent, principled, right-minded and honourable. But in the context of this book,‘ethical’ means, above all, taking personal responsibility.This, in turn, means considering the ‘sustainability’ ofeverything you do – making sure that your actions donot have a negative influence on you or, moreimportantly, the wider world.

Environmentalists often explain sustainability byreferring to our ‘ecological footprint’ – the amount ofland, water and other natural resources required tosupport our lifestyle. In its Living Planet Report 2004,the environmental campaign group WWF said that in2001 humanity’s ecological footprint exceeded globalbiocapacity by 21 per cent. In other words, we are nowusing natural resources faster than they can bereplenished – something that has been occurring sincethe 1980s. Furthermore, this figure is an average forthe world’s population as a whole; the west isconsuming resources at a far greater rate. In fact, if thewhole world lived as Americans do – per capita, thepeople with the largest impact – we would need sixEarths to meet the demand for natural resources.

This may sound like a theoretical fancy, but much ofthe world is fast catching up with the west in terms ofconsumption habits. In recent years, a significant rise inthe world’s ‘consumer class’ has been detected. Theseare people who earn the equivalent of $7,000 or morea year (roughly the official poverty line in the west) andtherefore can afford the consumer goods we in thewest take for granted, such as televisions, telephones,computers and domestic appliances. More than aquarter of the world’s population – 1.7 billion people –now fall into this category. And about a fifth of theworld’s consumer class live in India and China – thesame number as in the US, UK and Germany combined.

As more and more people around the world, rightlyor wrongly, aspire to and obtain western lifestyles, thepressure on natural resources will become even moreintense. Therefore, a major tenet of ethical living is toattempt, wherever possible, to reduce one’s owndemand for resources – be it driving less, changingwasteful shopping habits, eating more locally andseasonally produced food, or turning the thermostat onthe central heating down. Simply, it is a call to consumea fairer and more proportionate slice of the pie.

6

What is ethical living?

9

success of the relationships we make at home, at workand in the community. The more we work to strengthenbonds with one another, understand and alleviate eachother’s problems and consider everyone’s needs, thehappier we all become. The message is hardly new –the world’s religions have all, in their own ways, urgedsimilar sentiments for centuries – but it is one worthrepeating in the increasingly self-serving and stratifiedsociety found in the UK today.

Others also agree that we need to assess the qualityand success of our lives using indicators that don’tsimply look to financial and material wealth. The NewEconomics Foundation (NEF) – an economic, social,and environmental thinktank – also dismisses theusefulness of traditional indicators such as GDP.Instead it proposes a new indicator, the measure ofdomestic progress (MDP). It aims to reflect progress inquality of life as well as progress towards a sustainableeconomy by factoring in the social and environmentalcosts of economic growth, as well as the benefits ofunpaid work such as household labour, that areexcluded from GDP. Other factors include the cost ofcrime, the breakdown of families and the loss offarmland to urban development. NEF figures suggestthat while GDP per capita in the UK rose by 80 per centover the past 30 years, MDP fell throughout the 1980s,rose in the late 1990s, but has yet to recapture its 1976peak. Another sign, therefore, that all is not well.

In short, ethical living is a call for us to counter thistrend by leading more considerate, thoughtful lives. Asthis book shows, it often begins by taking a step backfrom our everyday actions and reflecting on theirlongterm legacy. But running through the book aresome other recurrent themes:

• Shopping/acting locally• Rethinking the food you eat• Reducing your energy demands• Considering the impact of travel• Donating your time and money• Alleviating social injustice• Encouraging companies to be more

accountable for their actions• Nurturing community spirit• Reducing the impact of toxic chemicals

A daunting list perhaps, but the good news is thatyou will not be alone in attempting to tackle it: there isa growing number of like-minded people in the UK andacross the world. Research consistently shows thatmore and more people are adopting the principles ofethical living. For example, according to the EthicalConsumerism Report 2003, the total value of ethicalconsumption in the UK in 2002 was £19.9 billion, a 13per cent rise on the previous year. This total includedmoney spent on ethical banking products, sales ofethical goods and services such as fair trade andorganic foods and eco-holidays, as well as theeconomic value of ‘ethical invisibles’ such as moneyspent on public transport for environmental reasons andavoiding ‘unethical brands’.

Likewise, in 2004, a Guardian/Toyota survey foundthat two-thirds of respondents saw themselves as‘green’ or ‘ethical’ consumers. Two-fifths said theybought organic or fairly traded food and over half saidethics influenced their choice of purchases rangingfrom pensions to cars. Fewer than a third believed theirpersonal convenience should take priority over thewellbeing of their community.

Of course, there’s often a marked differencebetween people seeing themselves as being ethicallyminded and their actual behaviour – somethingcampaigners refer to as the ‘action gap’. This bookattempts to close this gap by first explaining in detailsome of the problems and injustices our habits andlifestyles are causing and then presenting practicalsolutions to reducing their impact, from eating less meatand lowering car emissions to domestic cleaning adviceand ways to volunteer. (Each chapter concludes with adirectory containing many companies, services andorganisations that can help you make the transition.)But it also aims to instill the belief that rather than beingpassive automatons pushing trolleys mindlessly aroundthe supermarket, we can actually wield incredible poweras shoppers and force positive change. It strives to empower and radicalise readers who still hold firm toapathy’s mantra, ‘but what difference can I make?’

For once, a book that can guarantee it is a ‘good’ read.

8

Best Buys

The ‘Best Buys’ in the directories at the end of eachchapter are compiled by Ethical Consumermagazine. Since 1989 it has published more than300 buyers’ guides and over 100 of the guides’Best Buy conclusions have been updated andreproduced in summary form for this book.

To decide if a company should deserve its BestBuy rating, Ethical Consumer judges theperformance of a company against 16 differentethical criteria. In researching a category, it draws oninformation in the public domain, as well as fromcampaign groups such as Greenpeace and Oxfam.

The ethical criteria used for rating companieshave changed over time but currently they are:environmental reporting; pollution; nuclear power;‘other’ environment (includes involvement inunsustainable forestry practices, habitat destructionand damaging sectors, such as automobile andcement production); oppressive regimes; workers’rights; supplier code of conduct; irresponsiblemarketing; armaments; animal testing; factoryfarming; ‘other’ animal rights (includes ownership ofa slaughterhouse and involvement in supplyingproducts requiring the killing of animals); geneticengineering; boycott call; political activity; and ‘alert’(includes excessive directors’ pay, tax havens andhuman rights abuses). Ethical Consumer ratingsalso usually include an assessment of the individualproduct’s environmental and social impact.

In September 2004, each category was re-checked by Ethical Consumer researchers for

inclusion in this book. Best Buys may occasionallyrecommend some ‘problem’ companies when theyare the least bad in a sector. Best Buys may alsooccasionally omit some very good companies whenthere are too many smaller ethical suppliers to list,or when a company was formed since the reportwas first published.

More information about the rationale behindspecific Best Buy categories in this book will, inmost cases, appear in the corresponding Ethical Consumer buyers’ guide. Each buyers’ guide also has an accompanying researchsupplement that explains in further detail thereasons for each element of a company’s ethicalrating. A range of buyers’ guides, an index of allpublished reports and research supplements, and a detailed explanation of the rating system can befound at www.ethicalconsumer.org.

Ethical Consumer is published by the EthicalConsumer Research Association (ECRA), a not-for-profit workers’ co-operative. It costs £21 per year tosubscribe to the magazine, which helps to supportthe organisation’s work of promoting change by informing and empowering consumers. Tosubscribe contact:

Ethical ConsumerECRA, Unit 21, 41 Old Birley Street, Manchester M15 5RF0161 226 2929www.ethicalconsumer.org

AGOODLIFE

A Good Life Food and Drink

58 59

Drug contaminationSo are eggs safe to eat now? You should certainly avoidbattery-farmed eggs, despite the success of salmonellavaccinations. Finding non-battery produced eggs is nowmuch easier. As part of labelling laws introduced in2004, producers are no longer permitted to use termssuch as ‘fresh’ or ‘farm fresh’, but have to specify ‘eggsfrom caged birds’. These eggs are produced in aninhumane way and the use of drugs through feed andthe risk of contamination is high. The VeterinaryResidues Committee (VRC) has pointed tounacceptably high levels of use of drugs in the poultryindustry, mostly aimed at combating fast-spreadinginfections and parasites. A recent VRC survey foundnearly one in 10 chickens tested breached limits for thedrug nicarbazin. Inspectors believe that a mix-up at afeeding mill could have been partly to blame. In addition,if chicken coops are not cleaned out regularly, birds canend up ingesting more drugs than intended.

Similarly, in 2004 the Soil Association reported thatup to three million eggs eaten each day in the UK werecontaminated with another such drug, lasalocid, one thatis banned in the EU for use with laying hens. Lasalocidhas been linked to Sudden Adult Death Syndrome andcardiac arrhythmia, a disease that affects half a millionpeople in the UK. The FSA responded by saying levelsof lasalocid in eggs did not raise any immediate healthconcerns for consumers. It did add though that it wasurging the industry to address this problem and was‘disappointed by the failure of industry to take effectiveaction against bad practice’.

The end of battery hens?Thankfully, the EU is finally calling time on battery-caged systems. In 2003, the EU Laying Hens Directiveannounced that battery cages would be phased out by2006. This has proved to be something of a pyrrhicvictory for campaigners as standard cages can bereplaced by ‘enriched’ cages (see page 35). But doesthis really represent a better standard of welfare forhens – a bird whose natural habitat is the forest floor?The issue for many groups and consumers is that hensshould not be kept in cages at all. It remains to be seenwhether the UK government will follow Germany’s leadand ban all cages.

Producers say it will cost them around £687 millionto switch to enriched or free-range systems, bringingabout the end of cheap eggs. They also warn of the

threat of cheap, unregulated imports. However, half adozen free-range eggs already cost around 50p morethan eggs from caged hens and still make up a quarterof the egg market. There is also rapidly growing demandfor British organic eggs (demand already outstripssupply) which make up two per cent of the market.

Alternative egg productionWhile free-range systems are preferable, they don’traise standards as much as many of us may imagine:flock sizes are still large – up to 1,000 birds per hectare– and birds are kept in at night. Many birds are still de-beaked in an effort to prevent feather plucking andcannibalism caused by cramped conditions. In theory,the birds must have access to the outdoors for at leasteight hours a day. But when researchers from OxfordUniversity monitored a commercial chicken farm in2003, they found that just 15 per cent of the chickenseven poked their heads outside. The rest were deterredby aggressive birds blocking the exit.

Free-range hens, like their battery cousins, areroutinely fed yolk colourants in feed. These are usuallycitranaxanthin (E161) and beta-apo 8 carotenol(E160), which help egg yolks to score 8/9 on theRoche scale, the official egg yolk colouring chart. Bothcolourants are classified as safe additives, but theirwidespread use begs the question as to why producersfeel the need to include extra additives to give yolks afake colour.

Similarly, hens in ‘barn egg’ systems are also fed yolkcolourants and antibiotics. In this system, birds are keptindoors in ‘barns’ and equipped with perches, nestboxes and facilities for dust bathing, which gives themsome opportunity to display natural behaviours. But theyare still subject to beak trimming and can live in coloniesof up to 4,000 birds.

Ideally, it’s best to buy organic eggs. Organic systemshave lower stocking densities, prohibit beaktrimming and birds are fed a natural vegetariandiet. Alternatively, buy eggs certified by theRSPCA’s Freedom Food scheme(www.freedomfood.org.uk),which offers higherstandards of animalwelfare and has beenparticularly successful –82 million Freedom Food eggsare now sold every month.

In 1957 the BritishLion symbolappeared for the

first time. It wasdeveloped as the

symbol of the BritishEgg Marketing Board,

who bought up most ofthe UK’s eggs, paying a

pool price to producers andthen selling them through

retailers. The symbol is still found on80 per cent of UK eggs. Since 1988 the

symbol also denotes that the laying hen hasbeen vaccinated against salmonella and a best-beforedate has also been added as part of the drive to makeeggs safe for public consumption. It does not, however,suggest that the eggs are free range, which issometimes an area of confusion for consumers.

The egg boomThe British Egg Marketing Board launched their famous‘go to work on an egg’ slogan in the 1960s and sentegg sales soaring. They were marketed as the perfectconvenience food (an idea used again in a 2001advertising campaign): easy to cook yet packed withnutritional goodness. But behind the scenes the firstlarge-scale battery farms were starting to emerge, usingwire cages to house thousands of birds in one place.

Battery hensOver the years, the living conditions of battery hens hascaused considerable debate. Thousands of hens arekept four to a cage, where they are able to display little,if any, natural behaviour such as flapping their wings orscratching the ground. Kept under artificial light for 16hours a day, one hen must lay over 300 eggs in a year.

In 1997, the Farm Animal Welfare Council, anindependent advisory body established by thegovernment in 1979, stated that confinement in acaged system leads to broken bones and extensivefeather and foot damage. At 70 weeks, old ‘spent’ hensare typically sold to processors for as little as 2p andconverted into a range of foods including babyfood, piesand soups. Under normal conditions, these hens wouldgo through a non-laying moulting season then continueto lay during a five- to six-year lifespan.

The salmonella yearsThe plight of battery hens and the problems caused byintensive farming and high stocking densities waspublicly highlighted in 1987. Edwina Currie, thenminister for health, became forever associated witheggs when she claimed that most British eggs wereinfected with salmonella. Egg sales fell by 10 per centand over 5,000 producers went out of business.Edwina Currie was sacked. However, in 1989 herclaims were vindicated when a House of Commonsselect committee announced that there was indeed alink between eggs and salmonella. Two millionchickens were slaughtered as a precaution.

Arguably, this was the first time that consumersbecame aware of the serious potential health costattached to intensively farmed, cheap eggs. Followingthe salmonella scare a programme was set up tovaccinate laying hens against the most common formof the disease, salmonella enteritidis. Throughout the1990s there was a steady decrease in the number ofcases of human illness through the disease. In 2004an FSA survey announced that the risk of salmonellahad been halved through vaccination. Out of 28,518eggs tested (from battery to organic) only one in every290 boxes of six eggs was found to have anysalmonella contamination.

The first ‘egg quality standard’ was introduced during the war in 1941.Egg producers – at that time, small-scale farmers who reared hens onmixed farms – were policed by ‘area egg officers’ supervisingefficient production to help feed the nation through the rationingyears. Egg production in the early post-war years was a much moreserious affair, forming the shape of today’s multi-million-poundindustry, which now ‘lays’ 8,940 million eggs a year.

The story of the egg

119

Home and Garden

118

A Good Life

● Use natural mulches such as barkchippings, leaf mould or grassclippings to suppress weeds withoutthe need for toxic chemicals.

● Cut them back into the soil to addnutrients.

● Pull them out by hand, then add themto the compost heap or feed them topets such as rabbits.

Boundaries● Always consider planting a hedge

rather than erecting a fence. It willencourage wildlife.

● Choose hedges that attract thelargest amount of wildlife, forexample, hawthorn, oak andblackthorn.

● Never use toxic wood preservativessuch as creosote.

Water● Always think

ahead beforewatering yourgarden. Many of us now routinelywater gardenseach night – often with sprinklers.Only water the plants that needspecial attention.

● Install a water butt. Almost 100,000litres of water falls on the averagerooftop annually – collect this foryour garden and avoid using tapwater.

● Instead of light, daily waterings,drench shrubs and trees with abucket of water in dry spells toencourage deeper roots.

● Build a pond to encourage insects,frogs and toads, but avoid controllingalgae with harsh chemicals – applybarley straw to the pond instead. Orwait for snails to do the job for you.

● Water in early morning or earlyevening to minimise evaporation.

● Avoid water features that needelectricity. Use a solar fountain orpump instead.

● Use ‘trickle and drip’ wateringsystems when you’re away on holiday.

Vegetable patch● Always have

something growing inyour garden that youcan eat.

● Where possible, involvechildren in themaintenance andshare any spareproduce.

● Grow native varieties to help promotebiodiversity.

● Put vegetable peelings and otherkitchen waste into a shallow pit.Cover it over with earth then grownext season’s vegetables on top.

● If space is limited, most vegetablescan be grown in containers or pots.

Furniture● Always look out for

the ForestryStewardship Council(FSC) symbol onwooden gardenfurniture to ensure itis sustainably sourced.

● Use linseed oil instead of toxic woodpreservatives to maintain woodenfurniture.

● Avoid plastic furniture unless it ismade from recycled plastic.

Barbecue● Always use

charcoal sourcedfrom nativecoppicedwoodland.

● Never use‘briquettes’. Theyinvariably containsome kind ofpetroleum-based,flammable starter that will polluteyour food and the environment.

Soil● Aim to get as much humus (dark soil

that is developed over time by thedecomposition of organic matter) aspossible into your ground to keep itrich with nutrients.

● Homemade compost, farmyard andpoultry manure, seaweed, leaf-mould,nettles, hay, roadside cuttings, spentmushroom compost, prunings andstraw are all good ‘foods’ for your soil.

● If you feel you still need to add anitrogen fertiliser or alter the pHlevels of the soil, use naturalalternatives, such as bonemeal,organic potash or gypsum.

● Never use peat-based growingmedia.

Seating area● As with garden

furniture, carefullyresearch the originsof any decking,patio stones orlimestone that you may beconsidering. Makesure it has beensustainably sourced. Avoid concreting over an area.

Finally, learn from others then pass onyour knowledge: join a local gardeningclub; sign up for an allotment; help outat the local community garden; shareseeds, cuttings, produce and advice withneighbours; read as many gardeningbooks as you can; and frequentgardening websites and messageboards.The best place to start is the HenryDoubleday Research Association(www.hdra.org.uk, tel: 024 7630 3517),the country’s leading organic gardeningorganisation. Other good starting pointsare www.organicgarden.org.uk andwww.goodgardeners.org.uk.

The good gardenWhether you have only enoughroom for a few pots andcontainers or are lucky enough toown a few acres, there are dozensof things to do to ‘green up’ yourgarden. You will soon see howeach action assists another,ultimately playing to nature’scycles at their best…

Encourage wildlife● Install any or all of the following:

batboxes, bumble-bee nests, nestingboxes for birds…

● Put out food (worms, nuts and feed)and fresh water for birds.

● Plant a patch of native wildflowers,such as Marsh Marigold, PurpleLoosestrife and Creeping Jenny, toencourage insects, butterflies,dragonflies and bees.

● Design your garden so that it isinviting to frogs, hedgehogs, andeven badgers. For advice, contact the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts(www.wildlifetrusts.org, tel: 08700367711).

Pest control● Stop using harsh chemicals to kill

uninvited garden guests.● There are many natural alternatives to

slug pellets, ranging from beer trapsand coffee grounds to egg shells anddecoy plants such as comfrey.

● Ward off aphids with a fine spray ofwater left over from the washing up(as long as you’ve used an eco-friendly washing-up liquid).

● Grow ‘companion’ plants togetherthat naturally deter each other’spests, for example carrots andonions, mint and beans, and garlicand roses.

● Let natural predators do the work.Frogs and toads love slugs, smallbirds savour aphids, bats devourmosquitoes…

Compost

● Build or buy a simple compostingheap.

● Save all your kitchen waste (but notmeat, fish or dairy waste) forcomposting.

● Add grass cuttings, comfrey,newspaper, cardboard, farmyardmanure, seaweed – in fact, anythingthat will rot down.

● Inspect and turn your compost heapevery few weeks to keep it aeratedand to monitor moisture levels.

● Alternatively, if your garden isn’t bigenough to keep a compost heap,start a wormery instead. For moreinformation, contact Wiggly Wigglers(www.wigglywigglers.co.uk, tel: 0800216990).

Recycling● Don’t throw away any household item

without considering whether it couldbe reused in the garden.

● Plastic bottles cut in half makeperfect individual cloches forvulnerable seedlings.

● Plastic food trays are ideal forgrowing seedlings.

● Scraps of wood, glass, plastic

sheeting, carpet and string can all be reused when laying out new vegetable patches, building a compost heap or protectingseedlings.

Lawns

● Rather than turning on the sprinklerat the first sight of a brown patch,allow the grass to grow to at least4cm in the summer months to helplessen the sun’s impact.

● Leave cuttings on the lawn to helpreplenish the soil.

● If your lawn isn’t too large, use ahand mower instead of a petrolmower.

● Use calcified seaweed to feed yourlawn.

● Cut out dandelions and dock leaveswith a knife rather than sprayingthem with weed killer.

● Use native grass seeds. They willproduce lawns better suited to Britishconditions, and require less watering.

● Make a feature of large patches thatgrow ‘wild’. It will encourage wildlifeand mean less maintenance.

Weeds● Firstly, are they all really so bad? And

what is a ‘weed’ anyway? Could it justbe a wild plant? If so, nurture andencourage it. Many wild-planthabitats have been destroyed overthe past 50 years: 98 per cent ofwildflower meadows, 75 per cent ofopen heaths, 96 per cent of openpeat bogs, and 190,000 miles ofhedgerows. For advice about how touse your garden to reverse this trend,contact Plantlife International(www.plantlife.org.uk, tel: 01722 342730).

notoriously inaccurate business, but all predictions forthe influence of climate change suggest the effects willbe universally negative. For example, one study byBelgian and British scientists estimates that a 3C (5F)rise would be enough to see an increase of 80 millionmalaria cases a year and would allow the disease tospread to Australia, the US and southern Europe.

In 2004, researchers at the United NationsUniversity announced that by 2050 two billion people –twice the present number – could be at risk from thetype of devastating flooding that currently occurs onceevery 100 years or so. Also in 2004, a major studypublished in Nature magazine showed that climatechange over the next 50 years is expected to drive aquarter of land animals and plants into extinction. ChrisThomas, a professor of conservation biology at LeedsUniversity, and the lead author of the research from fourcontinents, called the results ‘terrifying’, estimating thatmore than one million species will be lost by 2050.

But the effects are not just something for futuregenerations to deal with; many argue that climatechange is already having a devastating effect. In 2003,for example, 21,000 deaths in Europe – seven times thenumber killed in the September 11 terrorist attacks –were attributed to that summer’s freak heatwave.

Are we really sure it is a man-made process?‘Two per cent of climatologists can’t be wrong’, goes thejoke. Much is made of the fact that there is still doubtand rancour among scientists over whether climatechange is being caused by human habits, or is simply anatural phenomenon. The truth, however – as the jokehighlights – is that only a tiny percentage of scientists,most of whom are accused of having vested interests,doubt that climate change is linked to human activity.The prevailing concern is now over how extreme the

effects of climate change will be in coming decades,and what the best strategies are to counter it.

Much of the public’s uncertainty seems to havestemmed from a high-profile campaign in the late 1990sknown as the ‘Oregon Petition’. Eighteen thousand‘scientists’ signed this, agreeing that they were scepticalof global warming theories linked to anthropogenicemissions. The campaign was later widely discredited asbeing the work of a fringe US institute that allowed arange of people, including Geri Halliwell, to be listed as‘scientists’ on the petition. Even so, it achieved itsintention of planting doubt in the public’s mind.

As if to underline how far opinions have changed inthe past few years, even oil chiefs are now agreeing weare to blame, as John Browne, the chief executive of BP,illustrated in 2004: ‘[Global warming] is undoubtedly duein large part to substantial increases in CO2 emissionsfrom human activity.’

How can it be stopped?Not easily or immediately, and only with the combinedwill and co-operation of everyone on the planet.

To illustrate how acute the problem has become,even if we stabilised CO2 emissions at today’s levels, by2100 the concentration of CO2 in the atmospherewould be at ‘dangerous’ levels, according to the IPCC. Inthe 18th century, the atmosphere contained about 270parts per million (ppm) of CO2. Today the figure standsat 370ppm. Even by sticking at today’s emission levels,concentrations would still rise by 1.5ppm a year,reaching 520ppm by 2100. However, mostclimatologists say levels would need to stabilise at420ppm if we are to witness only what they describe as‘warming light’, where climate change would bedamaging, but sufferable.

In which case, we need to quickly reverse current

153

What is climate change?In case you hadn’t noticed, something is happening toour weather. Be it ever more severe droughts in sub-Saharan Africa, increased flooding in Bangladesh, orsimply earlier springs in Britain, all these signs point toan overall rise in global temperature.

In fact, over the past century, there has been a 2C(3F) rise in the average global temperature – a similarrise to that which ended the last ice age. The knock-oneffect of this rise has been marked: over the sameperiod, there has been a 15 per cent retreat by the polarice caps, a 25-centimetre rise in sea levels, and a recentrun of record hot years – seven of the warmest years inrecorded history globally occurred during the 1990s,with 1998 the hottest of all.

All climatologists accept that global temperatureshave tended to rise and fall across the millennia, butwhat is causing concern is that this latest rise hashappened so fast. The fact that it also coincides with asharp spike in the amount of anthropogenic (man-made) carbon emissions released into the atmosphereis particularly unsettling as it heavily implies one thing:we are, in large part, to blame.

Although the detail is still fiercely debated, there isnow little doubt among the world’s climatologists thatthe planet’s ‘carbon cycle’ – the balanced cyclicalprocess by which carbon is repeatedly emitted (through,for example, forest fires) and then stored (plantphotosynthesis) in our environment – has somehowbeen affected by anthropogenic emissions. Even thoughwe have – in the past, at least – produced a relativelysmall percentage of the total amount of carbon dioxide(CO2) released into the atmosphere (natural causesinclude decay by fungi and bacteria, respiration by otheranimals, forest fires and volcanoes), there is a growingbody of evidence that suggests it has been enough to

‘tip the balance’ and, via the famous ‘greenhouse effect’,increase the average global temperature. But now thatthe tipping point has been passed, future rises could bemuch more rapid.

We have been releasing CO2 into the atmosphere forthousands of years through the burning of wood, but itis only in the past 250 years – since the dawn of the industrial age – that evidence points to the carboncycle being affected by our actions. Since 1750, forexample, the overall atmospheric concentration of CO2,anthropogenic or not, has increased by 31 per cent (andis still increasing at 0.4 per cent per year). It is believedthat this rise is largely attributable to the burning of oil,coal and gas, and the large-scale felling of forests. Thismakes sense when you consider that anthropogenicCO2 emissions have risen from 100 million tonnes peryear in the 1700s to around 6.3 billion tonnes a yeartoday – about twice what the biosphere (the sea andthe atmosphere) can easily handle.

As a result of our ever burgeoning transport,heating, electrical and industrial needs, the atmosphericconcentrations of CO2, one of the principal greenhousegases, are now probably higher than they have beenfor 20 million years. Quite some going for just 250years’ work.

What will be its effects?Put simply, it is going to keep getting hotter.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC), currently the most respectedbody of climate experts in the world, concedes thatunless current emission trends are not just slowed, butreversed, global temperatures could rise by 4C (7F) by2050 and 6C (10F) by 2100.

This won’t simply mean that Britain enjoys a more Mediterranean-type climate. Future-gazing is a

‘Climate change is the most severe problem we are facingtoday, more serious even than the threat of terrorism’Sir David King, the UK government’s chief scientific adviser, January 2004

Climate change

152

emissions trends. In simple terms, it is estimated that ifwe are to avoid reaching levels of 520ppm, each personon the planet would need to emit no more than 1.2tonnes of carbon a year – which is about a third ofaverage current per-capita emissions in industrialisednations, and one sixth of the per-capita emissions in theUS, the world’s largest polluter. A big task indeed. Thereare many ideas about how this could be achieved, butthe overriding message is that our energy-intensivelifestyles must be curtailed, whether it’s through self-discipline, technological advances, legislation orfinancial incentives.

International consensus over national emissiontargets is notoriously hard to achieve, as demonstratedby the diplomatically divisive Kyoto Protocol. (Russiafinally signed up to the target-setting treaty in 2004,joining 29 other industrialised countries in doing so, andnow, of the major industrialised countries, only the USand Australia still refuse to sign up.) Much hope is nowpinned on the establishment of a market-based carbon-trading scheme in which every person on theplanet would be given an annual quota of allowableemissions (the EU, and some states in the US, arecurrently trialling such schemes; for more information,visit www.pointcarbon.com). Richer, more pollutingcountries could then buy ‘carbon credits’ from poorer,less-polluting countries, creating a financial andequitable incentive to reduce emissions.

Others, especially the energy firms, are looking tosequestration as an answer – a way of ‘locking away’carbon emissions by pumping them underground,typically into cavities left by oil and gas extraction.‘Sequestration is difficult, but if we don’t havesequestration I see very little hope for the world…Thetimescale might be impossible. In which case I’m reallyvery worried for the planet.’ Not the alarmist words of an

environmental campaigner,but, again, the view of anoil chief, this time RonOxburgh, the chairman of Shell. Even so, thelogic behind such amove seems to be ‘let’sfind a way to allow usto keep burning fossilfuels at the same rate aswe do now’.

Ultimately, a meaningfulreduction in emissions can’t just be left to governments,multinationals and internationalagencies. Everyone must maketheir own individual effort to reduce the greenhouse gases being emittedas a result of their lifestyle. And with just 15 per cent of Americansassociating global warming with fossil-fuel consumption, tacklingapathy is perhaps the first battle.

154

Further readingwww.guardian.co.uk/climatechangewww.newscientist.com/hottopics/climatewww.bbc.co.uk/climatewww.tyndall.ac.ukwww.eci.ox.ac.ukwww.cru.uea.ac.ukwww.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechangewww.rcep.org.ukwww.changingclimate.orgwww.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentrewww.ukcip.org.ukwww.dtqs.orgwww.climatescience.govwww.ipcc.chwww.risingtide.org.uk

155

You

178

A Good Life

Spotlight

‘Big Pharma’

Business is booming for the multinational drugmanufacturers. In 2002, total global drug salesreached $430 billion – a 20 per cent leap on from theprevious year, a period that saw the stock markettumble after the September 11 terrorist attacks.Also in 2002, each of the top 10 drug firms recordedsales over $11.5 billion. No wonder shares inpharmaceuticals are among the most sought-afterby traders.

But there’s growing concern that the firms aresimply getting too large and powerful for the commongood, particularly that of the world’s sick and needy.Many campaigners are troubled by the fact that,following a wave of mega-mergers over the pastdecade, the combined worth of the world’s top fivedrug companies – known to pressure groups as ‘BigPharma’ or ‘Druggernauts’ – now stands at more thantwice the combined gross national product of all sub-Saharan Africa. This might be acceptable if themedicines being manufactured were principally aimedat curing the world’s most pressing conditions, suchas malaria and Aids, but the reality is that most of thefirms’ focus is on the health problems that generatethe most profit, in short, the ones that trouble patientsin the west.

It’s no coincidence that of the 10 bestselling drugsof 2002, the top two (worth $13.5 billion in sales)were aimed at reducing cholesterol, and of the others,one tackled high blood pressure, one ulcers, and twowere antidepressants. Although all valuable inalleviating conditions that blight us in the west, theseconditions can hardly be claimed to be the world’smost pressing health concerns. Globally, of the 1,393new drugs approved for sale between 1975 and1999, only 16 targeted tropical diseases andtuberculosis, which between them account for 11.4per cent of the global disease burden. Similarly, only10 per cent of the world’s medical research budget isdevoted to 90 per cent of the world’s disease burden.Research funding into malaria, for example, a disease

that kills a child every 30 seconds around the worldand affects up to 500 million people a year, is 20times lower than for asthma.

While it could be argued that there should be anethical imperative to prioritise research budgetstowards the most pressing health concerns, in a fiercemarketplace profits take precedence. Malaria onceagain provides a good example of ‘Big Pharma’priorities. In 2000, Glaxo Wellcome (nowGlaxoSmithKline, or GSK, after a mega-merger)launched the first new anti-malarial developed by adrug company for 40 years. But rather than expresslyaiming it at those living in malaria-stricken areas, thedrug was targeted at the estimated seven milliontourists and visitors who venture into malarial regions,a much more lucrative market.

However, it’s not only the priorities of thepharmaceutical giants that upset many, it’s also theirpractices. These companies spend huge sums andexpend vast amounts of energy making sure theirproducts become market leaders. According toPharmaceutical Executive, over $500 million wasspent globally promoting each of the six top-sellingdrugs in 2002. But it’s the promotional methods usedthat cause most concern. For example, in the pastdecade, the number of ‘Big Pharma’ sales reps hastripled to 90,000 in the US and 110,000 in Europe.The reps work hard to convince doctors and chemiststo either prescribe or sell their drugs to patients. Thereps’ tactics differ around the world depending onlocal marketing and medical regulations. Whether it’sin the form of being flown out to a nice location toattend one of the many sponsored ‘continuingmedical education’ events where new products willbe ‘introduced’ to attendees, or the paying of clientreferral bonuses, the incentives to use a firm’sproducts can certainly be attractive. Sometimes thefirms get punished for such practices – in 2004,Pfizer, the world’s largest drug manufacturer, paid a£240 million fine for promoting a product with no

benefits, and GSK, according to the Guardian in2004, was under investigation in Italy for giving anestimated £150 million worth of gifts to doctors. Butwhen drug manufacturers make many billions a yearsuch punishment must seem small beer. Whennecessary, they just seem to work harder to leverlegislation in their favour. In the US election year of2000, for example, the industry spent $92.3 millionon 625 lobbyists – more than one for every memberof Congress.

But perhaps the most pernicious and infamouspractice of such firms, given how much profit theymake, has been their dogged attempt to prevent thedistribution of cheap generic versions of what theWHO calls ‘essential medicines’ in the poorestnations. The practice is known by campaigners as‘patents before patients’ and even though therehave been recent breakthroughs, with manygovernments pledging support and funding for theproduction of generic drugs, there is still opposition,most notably by the US (a country that, ironically,when faced by an anthrax scare in 2001, threatenedthe pharmaceutical giant Bayer that it would changethe law and override the patent of Bayer’s anthraxantibiotic drug Cipro if the price wasn’t lowered).

If you want to help reduce the power andinfluence of the Big Pharma firms, support the Cut the Cost campaign headed by Oxfam andsupported by other non-governmental organisations(www.oxfam.org/eng/campaigns_camp_cutcost.htm). You could also boycott their products as well as choosing not to invest in Big Pharmashares. For more information about the push to achieve universal, cheap access to ‘essential medicines’, visit www.accessmed-msf. org and www.who.int/health_topics/essential_medicines/en/.Other places to keep up with the actions of BigPharma include www.nofreelunch.org, www.healthyskepticism.org, www.haiweb.org and www.corporatewatch.org.uk.

Of the 1,393 new drugsapproved for sale globallybetween 1975 and 1999,only 16 targetedtuberculosis and tropicaldiseases such as malaria

179