1. Had you heard of CAT before you came on this module? If 'yes' then please give an idea where you'd heard about them.

No.

2. Please respond to the points below. All aspects were raised/discussed in the lecture and workshop on site:

• Power: Decarbonizing our power generation infrastructure via renewables - can it be done, is it feasible? What will it take before changes on the scale suggested by Zero Carbon Britain could happen - government intervention or market forces? Or maybe you picked up on the the nuclear power options available - pros and cons/politics involved. How do you feel about this? Please explain your answer either way and any proactive suggestions..

Decarbonisation has finally started with the gov’t announcing that they’re going to be decommissioning all coal-powered power stations by 2023 as they’re unsustainable. (Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34851718). This indicates that the government is listening to the ZCB plan and using their heads. Personally, I think that renewables will be a big thing in the next parliament (2020-2025) – or whenever the infrastructure commission is set up as they’ll recommend spending for infrastructure no matter which party is in power.

Cost effective methods of power generation will always be the front runner. At the moment it’s decided that it’s gas that will be better than coal. Some may disagree, but it’s surely better than coal? I do hope that things like the tidal lagoon in Swansea Bay happen but at the moment that’s not the priority of the gov’t, which is to drag Britain out of debt (we can hope).

So yes, while I’d love for all energy generated to be renewable – I’m not sure that we’re going to get there for a long while yet!

• Transport: Decarbonizing our transport infrastructure - electric vehicles, hydrogen-powered - are they feasible/have you heard of them? Air travel - is it feasible to lower it to the levels suggested in Zero Carbon Britain (?) - please explain your answer either way and any proactive suggestions..

I think that electric vehicles and hydrogen powered vehicles are a very positive step forwards, I can’t see that they’re going to be feasible just yet to mass produce for everybody. Obviously the gov’t has new incentives in terms of car tax/VED for low emission vehicles. Car charging points are being rolled out rapidly across the country, so we’re getting the infrastructure to be able to entertain electric cars – but not on a scale where it’s feasible in my opinion.

Air travel is a tricky one. It’s one of those things where if you hike the prices then there’ll be massive resentment from the population. It’s seen as a ‘right’ to be able to go on holiday and I don’t think that’ll change at all in the foreseeable. I found Ann’s point about ‘why should we be able to take a flight somewhere, but a child in Africa not?’ quite thought provoking. My response being – why can’t they have access to all of Western life? Because they’re economically screwed and their governments are corrupt as anything (see post about oil companies CSR in Africa). It’s by chance that we were born into the circumstances in which we were, and I don’t think that we can do anything about that.

In terms of transport generally, we need to prioritise building infrastructure cleaner modes of transport – for example electric rail and tramways. If you give people a reason to not use their car, or use it considerably less, then they’ll move to these ways. Most short distance commuting is because there is little, or where there is – it’s horrendous, infrastructure. For instance, in Worcester the only ways to get to the city centre, from West Worcester is by foot, car or bus. The buses aren’t reliable or comfortable and are diesel anyway. There’s no P&R service or a train stop. I think that if there was more of a metro system to get around Worcester then more people would use that than cars. (I’m talking about 4 or 5 more cheap to build stations in Worcester that run every 15 or so minutes). A congestion charge and/or a red route would also be great for Worcester.

• Food: Decarbonizing our food infrastructure (according to Zero Carbon Britain) means lessening our reliance on meat and it's various production methods. When grazing land is freed up, it can be 'better used' to grow crops (which ZCB says is a much more efficient use of it). What do you feel about this? Is it feasible? Would you personally want to lessen your meat intake in the week (unless already a vegetarian)? Does the very thought of this annoy you? Please explain your answers and any proactive suggestions in as much detail as possible.

Like I said in the lecture, I can’t see it being adopted with the current generations still alive. I think that it’ll take for those 30+, the generations less receptive to change – especially when they’re in a poor economic area, to grow older or die. Currently people don’t like being told how to eat. Younger generations will be more receptive to change as they’ve got a habit of looking at the wider picture.

Food laws restricting consumption of x meat would not pass through parliament, of that I am certain. Hiking prices of meat would mean poorer families turning to ready meals, something that is slowly being improved currently. Sometimes I could argue that some poorer families need to reprioritize their spending (off topic: Australia looked at having a welfare credit card so that they could make sure that claimants are spending wisely – offering coaching to those who don’t).

Personally I don’t eat a lot of beef. I’m more of a chicken man and I’d think that chicken takes up a lot less resources (sans the associated animal welfare issues). If I was asked to eat less red meat then I’d happily oblige.

3. Please tell us your thoughts, concerns and/or proactive suggests on the 3x most notable things seen on site at CAT (i.e. it could be one of the specific exhibits seen, or maybe the clever use of materials with specific buildings to help reduce CO2 emissions, or maybe their Cob Oven setup/Covered social area or maybe the food on site etc).

• I loved the materials used in the lecture theatre and the way that it’s minimum energy consumption. The walls compacted with local materials and the air flow was very clever. More and more buildings are designed to be minimum energy – especially in new buildings and office blocks. It reminded me of the office block that we saw in learning teams earlier in the semester. I really look forward to more spaces like this as they’re really cool to work in as well as having the sustainability bonus.

• I would have loved to have seen the water lift in action, unfortunately it was out of service for maintenance during our visit. It’s a great idea and makes use of the resources in the quarry. It shows how powerful hydropower can be.

• The vegetarian restaurant wasn’t quite as hardcore as you’d have imagined. I think that most people thought about a more vegan approach to food where there’d be minimal animal produce and perhaps mostly raw plant based food. This was not the case as Liam showed when he was over the moon about there being pizza. It shows that there can be a lot of food for a veggie diet, but I do think that our diet is very meat orientated so wouldn’t be able to be a widespread affair.

4. Now you've had time to reflect, what 3x things gained from the CAT visit might you bring forward into your own ideas and developments for the sustainable packaging brief? Please explain your answers and any proactive suggestions in as much detail as possible.

THE DISCIPLINE for the video that I’ve researched is sustainable/natual food and drink packaging.

1. Design to satisfy real needs as opposed to transient, fashionable or market driven needs.

1.7 billion servings of Coke products are consumed every day. If you assume that they all use either glass, paper or plastic - that’s one hell of an amount of resources being used every day to transport these servings. Therefore there is a ‘real need’ to reduce the amount of oil used in plastic bottles.

2. Design to minimise the ecological footprint of the product/material/service product, i.e. reduce resource consumption, including energy and water.

Reducing the amount of oil means that the footprint of the product is quite reduced. Making the bottle entirely plant based means that a lot of oil goes unused by Coca-Cola.

3. Design to harness solar income (sun, wind, water or sea power) rather than use non renewable nature capital such as fossil fuels.

New bottle material will use 100% plant based materials, therefore harnesses solar income.

8. Design to exclude innovation lethargy by re-examining original assumptions behind existing concepts and products/materials/service products.

Coca-Cola have re-examined the existing glass bottle to update it to plastic and now is continuing to make the retail bottle entirely green.

12. Design to foster debate and challenge the status quo surrounding existing  products/materials/service products;

Coca-Cola has a massive family of products which this will effect - it owns a lot of the UK drinks industry. Competitors will take note and look at alternative ways to package their products too.

14. Design to create more sustainable products materials service products for a more sustainable future.

I BECAME particularly interested in the thought of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) when it comes to big businesses in energy industries. There’s wide belief that these companies have no morals and are out to make profit. Therefore it’s difficult to process that these companies might look towards doing something for other people.

One of the main things that was striking in the film The Age of Stupid (2009) was that Royal Dutch Shell left a medical centre unbuilt due to ‘risk of kidnapping’. That might be quite true as there isn’t law enforecement in Africa as there in the Western world. However, to leave a community without a facility that was previously agreed as part of their development. That’s just not ethical.

Frynas (2005) looks at, and questions CSR and false developmental promises made by multinational oil companies. He found that in terms of international development, CSR is advocated as a route for funding public delivery of development. Essentially, companies pay for new public infrastructure as part of their contract to develop in the area. Especially prevalent in more remote areas of African countries.

Frynas also identifies four motives for CSR engagement: obtaining competitive advantage; maintaining a stable working environment; managing external perceptions; keeping employees happy. Each as interesting a motive as the next.

Obtaining competitive advantage essentially dwells on corruption within African local government. Frynas suggests that by promising funding for local developments when planning oil exploration or new oil pipes, government is likely to favour that developer as it plugs funding gaps and means that they’re doing ‘something’.

Maintaining a stable working environment also relates to the local funding. In order for construction and oil sites to remain operational and unobstructed by local communities, companies invest in local infrastructure so that they appear to care. The same applies for keeping employees happy.

Managing public perception means that CSR is also marketing hype. It’s a tool for the bottom of press releases when the press office is responding to a negative situation. It makes them seem like they care and makes people less likely to cause as big of a ruckus.

All of this leads back to a wider issue of whether CSR is a valid method of making a company friendly and caring? Or is just a way to make more money? There are some companies who have a green ethos and believe that they should be putting profits back into the community without overtly advertising themselves. There are a mass of companies who will do some amazing things but will make sure that the public never forget it. For instance McDonald’s supports local young football teams from franchisees. However, the golden arches are then on a ton of sports kits, played every Saturday which will make people think of food and more than likely stop off at their local McDonald’s on the way home.

It’s similar with supermarkets who have funds for local communities. Yes, they undoubtedly help, but there’s a big song and dance about it which makes people think - ‘ooh! Asda helped out a cause that I care for, I might shop there this weekend’ - and then Asda makes money back and potentially pockets a customer from the rivals.

All CSR alludes to additional revenue from new customers. CSR is a new cog in the wheel of business.

In terms of the oil industry - they’re only doing these things to make more money. They’re building that medical centre so that they can drill down into the core of Earth and bleed it dry and sell it at astronomical prices. They’re not doing it to be nice.