No Shop Day 1997:
United Kingdom, November 29

---

Sticky Questions

Friends of the Earth has come up with a sheet of awkward questions that people may ask you on the street during an action. This sheet below might be of some use, especially if this is the first No Shop Day you may be doing. Adapt the answers, role play, copy them out.

No Shop Day, 29th November 1997

Basics

Why don't you want people to shop?

We are not saying we don't want people to shop. We are saying we want people to think about what they buy, and whether consuming ever-more actually does increase quality of life. This is because of the effects of overconsumption on the environment (such as toxic pollution and climate change). These mean we need to reduce consumption, especially in countries like the UK that are consuming much more than their fair share of resources.

What's shopping got to do with the environment?

Every product we buy has an effect on the environment - extraction and processing of raw materials, manufacture of products and dumping products at the end of their lives causes pollution, creates toxic waste, wastes energy and destroys precious wildlife habitats. New research by Friends of the Earth suggests that, to stay within environmental limits, and if the UK consumes only its fair share of resources and pumps out only its fair share of pollution, we eventually need to reduce our overall consumption of new materials and energy by around 80%.

Look at all these people shopping - its not working is it!

We're not expecting everyone to turn round and head for home, and it's not about whether you pop out for a tin of beans, or some Christmas presents, or not. We're not trying to have an economic effect. But we do want people to think about whether the frenzy of consumption actually improves their life. Why am I doing this? Which ad am I responding to? What do I value?

What can I do?

1. Before you buy a product, think 'is it really needed??'
2. If you are buying something, always ask the retailer how long it will last and whether it can be repaired, reused and recycled
3. Join FOE's campaigns to change Government policy - the more people make their voices heard, the sooner Government will realise they have to act

What do you want the Government to do?

1. Set ambitious targets to reduce resource consumption.
2. Measure our progress as a nation in terms of people's well-being, not purely in terms of economic activity. That means having a measure of national progress which measures people's well-being, rather than just the amount of money changing hands, as we have at the moment by using Gross Domestic Product. If we have new goals (improving quality of life rather than monetary standards of living) and ways of measuring progress towards them, we could see how our actions shape up against them.
3. Less tax on jobs, more tax on waste and virgin material use. This would encourage growth in repair industries, for example, which need skilled workers but not so many materials
4. Manufacturers to be responsible for taking products back at the end of their lives for repair, reuse or recycling - would provide an incentive to make things to last and design them for repair, reuse and recycling

Why today - end of November?

It's actually International No-Shop Day, taking place in the USA, Canada and many European countries. The day has taken place for six or seven years now. It's timed to coincide with American Thanksgiving and also to be in the frenzied run-up to Christmas.

You're completely bonkers and unrealistic

No, what's unrealistic is to think we can go on as we are doing at the moment. We'll trash the planet, and doubly so if you consider that Southern countries need to consume more - as they develop the UK needs to reconsider what its fair share of resources is.

Yes I agree with you but do you have any idea how many people come into the centre of this town on a Saturday to shop - will it really make a difference if one or two of us try to cut down on what we consume?

What we're trying to do is spread the idea the more isn't always better - at the moment you turn on the TV and are told that the feelgood factor means everyone's been out shopping more, and we are bombarded with advertising telling us we need this, that and the other new shiny thing. We need to change the culture in which we live, and on No-Shop Day we are trying to get people to think about what really matters to them. It'll be a long campaign, but we have to start somewhere.

Quality of life

What are children supposed to have for Christmas? Are you saying they can't have any presents?

Of course not - but then if they're getting piles of stuff that they're going to be bored with by the day after boxing day or that is going to fall apart by the end of January, maybe its worth thinking about what we buy them - quality rather than quantity. We also need to challenge the advertisers who are convincing our kids to want more and more (and you to have to spend more and more), and specific brands, and a new craze each year...

What about progress? You're asking us all to live in caves and wear hairshirts - or at least go back to the war when the shelves were bare and we all had ration books

No, we're talking about quality of life, and working out what makes us better off. So we'd have warm, comfortable homes - but not which leak heat from the roof. We'd have efficient transport - but not gridlock and fumes. And we'd have well-made, repairable products, not things which fall apart and have to be dumped.

I don't have time to think about all this - too much work

Precisely! One of the ways our well-being might increase is that we could get out of work-buy-work harder-buy more trap. Some people work ever harder, to earn more money to buy more things and don't have time for the rest of life; others have no paid work at all.

Consuming does make me happy/Shopping is the main social event of my week/its fun and you're boring killjoys

OK, but you're being ripped off - did you know your household pays over 500 pound each year for advertising to convince you to love shopping? It's obviously pretty effective... But it's not going to work, ultimately we're going to have to shop less if there's going to be any sort of future for our kids.

This is all very well for you middle class types who don't know what its like - I have to save every penny to get a new pair of shoes for the kids. What do you mean, consume less?

The UK as a whole needs to reduce consumption; that doesn't mean the less well off have to. However, the reality is that if you are on a low income you probably can't afford quality products which are made to last. The Government needs to act to sort this out. Also, people with low incomes tend to be worst affected by environmental problems - for example, you can't afford to move out of the industrial area to the leafy suburbs.

You hypocrite - I've seen you shopping!

We all shop, and we all need to consume. Reducing consumption is a challenge to everyone. Equally everyone needs to think what really matters, do what we can and force the Government to do what they can.

I thought that FOE was also campaigning for less cars on the roads and for the centre of towns to be pedestrianised, surely this will encourage more people to come into the town centre and shop

We're not opposing shopping - we're opposing mass frenzied overconsumption. One of the ways we might improve our quality of life whilst also improving the environment is by making town centres into live places where people could buy what they need, chat and meet up, and go to cafes, cinemas, libraries and so on...without choking on fumes, sitting in traffic jams for hours on end and having to shout above the noise to be heard.

Its human nature you're talking about here - people just want more

No, people want to have an enjoyable, satisfying, secure, comfortable life. That doesn't equate with consuming ever-more - but in our current culture you might think it did. We are bombarded with advertising messages telling us that nothing is ever enough, and often even if we do want to buy something that is made to last, or is made efficiently, or is in reusable packaging, those options aren't available. We need political and cultural change. According to opinion surveys people want this kind of change, but Government policies make it difficult.

Are you against Christmas?

No, people enjoy different things about Christmas - some people get spiritual satisfaction, others enjoy friends and family, others simply have a good holiday. We are saying that Christmas is more than simply consuming more and more goods.

What about local shops? They're good aren't they?

We're not opposing any particular shops. But on the whole small local businesses mean wealth is kept in the local area, and they may mean more local jobs and more of a sense of local community.

Environment

When are resources going to run out?

Resources running out isn't the pressing problem, at least not for things like aluminium and iron - the problem is the side-effects of the rate at which we use them. The urgent environmental problem is the pollution, energy use and habitat destruction caused by the extraction of resources and manufacturing of products, with impacts such as climate change, acid rain and toxic pollution.

You're unrealistic - it isn't possible for everyone to be comfortable yet reduce resource consumption by 80%

Yes it is - by designing things better, repairing reusing and recycling, and by asking how much is enough. If you keep the same number of products, and make things last twice as long using half as much virgin material, you're almost there. The barriers are not technical, they are political and cultural.

If technology is so great why can't the whole problem be sorted out by efficiency - why do you also need to say 'consume less'?

Because its no good making, say, TVs twice as efficiently if four times as many of them are sold - the efficiency gains will be eaten up by increased numbers of products consumed. At the moment, our economy and culture is set up so that this is precisely what will happen.

What's wrong with 75 varieties of toothbrush [refers to leaflet] - more types of toothbrush doesn't hurt the environment does it?

No, not literally. It's a symbol - it's so ridiculous suggesting that having 75 types of toothbrush makes anyone better off (and that more and more choice is always good). Yet the advertisers will seriously try to convince us that the one type needs replacing with another, using a variety of spurious excuses...which is what happens for all the products we buy, whether we get convinced that they need replacing for a different colour, more power or because they work 30 metres under water...

Fair share

Fair share sounds communist to me.

What do you mean? - we're talking about fairness and equality of opportunity - basic values. In a world without environmental limits, you could consume what you want. As soon as you accept that there are limits, you have to tackle how the limited resources are distributed. This is political reality. We are not saying that every individual should have exactly the same, but that every country will demand, and has a right to, its share. It is up to individual countries to decide how they share resources out amongst people - it is up to us in Britain to ensure that everyone's needs are met.

Clearly there will be less political tension in countries that share resources out better than others, and studies show that high levels of inequality are bad for societies - in terms of crime, people's health, and breakdown of community, for example.

There's always been inequality - 'the poor will always be with us'.

You're being naive in the extreme with this fair shares suggestion But you can't argue with the principle that each nation should have right of access to its share of resources, and countries which have previously had to go without are starting to demand their share - they wouldn't call it naive. Indeed, some Southern countries are not only asking for access to an equal share, they are saying that they should have their 100-year bonanza just as we have in the North. Anyway, the developing countries are getting politically stronger - in reality, we need their co-operation if we are to tackle the big global issues like climate change.

If the UK consumes less where are Southern countries going to find markets? People would be even poorer wouldn't they?

We need to tend more towards local self-reliance. This does not mean an end to world trade, but it means more local production for local consumption around the world. Also, currently the net flow of resources is from South to North, not vice versa. We need to cut consumption in rich countries to allow poor countries access to the resources they need, in order to cut poverty. However, there are huge political problems which need to be sorted out in tandem with changing Northern consumption patterns - such as Third World debt and unfair trade. At the moment, Southern countries cannot get full value from their production because of unfair regulations and taxes, effectively set by the richer, more powerful countries.

Isn't it Southern countries that are damaging the environment anyway, setting fire to the forests and that sort of thing?

Poor people may damage environments because they have little other option to survive. If they had access to resources this would not happen. However, 20% of the world's people consume 80% of its resources and emit the majority of the pollution - they are the ones causing the majority of environmental damage. Much Southern environmental degradation - such as forest destruction - is driven by Northern consumption - for example, of wood. The South provides resources to the North.

But people in Southern countries want all this shopping too - why shouldn't they have it, how can you say they can't?

We are saying that poorer countries can consume more. The planet won't stand for everyone living as we do in the North. And you're right, we will not be able to say 'we will continue to consume whilst you stay poor.' If we share resources more freely that gives room for developing countries to grow and consume more, whilst we change our consumption habits and become more efficient.

Why don't you tackle population growth instead?

The world's population is set to nearly double in the next 50 years, mostly in poor countries. However, it is the rich countries, with a small percentage of the world's population, that cause the majority of the world's environmental damage. FOE believes that we need to cut rich countries consumption in order to allow poor countries access to the resources they need, as a key component of tackling poverty. Overcoming poverty is a necessary requirement for these countries to gain control of the size of their population. Population is part of the problem, but not the cause of it.

Economy

Everyone will be out of a job if we don't buy things won't they?

On the contrary, an increase in local business, and in repair and reuse, will create more jobs. A couple of examples from Friends of the Earth's report Working Future - Jobs and the Environment (1994):

1. Reconditioning a car with a ten-year lifespan to make it last another ten years requires 56% more labour than making a new car ( and takes 42% less energy)
2. A shift in the UK to a completely returnable system of beverage containers would create 3000 to 4000 new jobs over three years According to a recent US report, if half the 25.5 million tonnes of durable goods now discarded were reused, more than 110,000 new jobs could be created.

Economic growth has created progress - most people in this country are massively better off than they were 50 or 100 years ago. Do you want to take that away?

According to John Major during the 1997 general election campaign, Britain is on course to 'double our living standards in the next 25 years'. If Ted Heath had made the same promise in 1972, he wouldn't have been far wrong - our gross domestic product, which is essentially a measure of how much money changes hands, is over one and a half times higher than it was in 1972. But during the same period, violent crime has quadrupled, the incidence of asthma has tripled, car traffic has almost doubled, and concentrations of climate changing gases have grown enormously. Is this progress?

If you use a measure of progress which takers into account factors such as people's health, the state of the environment, and equality, as well as economic growth, you find a steady, persistent decline in national well-being since 1970. Economic growth is good up to a point. After a certain point the environmental and social damage it causes is more than the benefit it gives. Much of our economic growth is fixing the problems caused by our economic activity (eg cleaning up after oil spills, treating asthma...)