Our Sixth Debate........
In our third debate in early 2011 we looked at the City, and our essayists explored what a more sustainable finance system might mean for London. We now return to the London economy for our new debate, and - mindful of the importance of everyday life that our recent debate highlighted and which elicited so many responses from readers - we ask:
“Given the manifest injustices of the distribution of wealth and income in London, as well as the unsustainable environmental consequences of London‘s economic and shopping habits, what should the new Mayor be doing over the next four years to make London’s economy more sustainable?”
Although the major party candidates in London's Mayoral elections have pushed sustainability, including the sustainability of our economy, to the margins, we sustain the optimistic tenor of our debate on everyday life.
Our first essay, written by Professor Michael Edwards of the Bartlett School, University College London, begins, “There are two major economic issues causing severe pain and suffering to London communities: the exclusion of more and more people from the opportunity to earn a living; and the huge and widening gap between what many people can afford to pay for housing and what it would cost them to house themselves decently. Unless we can crack (at least) these two problems we should stop waffling about being an ‘exemplary global city’ or a ‘sustainable’ city: we are neither.”
Our fifth debate considered sustainability & everyday life. Our authors looked at a set of four perfectly ordinary everyday activities: being at home; eating lunch; going shopping; and meeting friends. One writer summed it up: “You don‘t have to wait until tomorrow to do the sustainability thing; you don’t have to be an eco-weirdo; and you don‘t have to sacrifice your standard of living. Rather it’s a case of being mindful of the things that matter, and adjusting your lifestyle incrementally.”
Our fourth debate looked at young people and a sustainable future London. The young are consumerist yet surveys show that young Londoners have a high ‘concern for the environment’. From the perspective of the young it is hard to feel encouraged. In this year's fourth election for Mayor the candidates for the major parties are the same as 4 years ago. No radical new diagnoses or insights - just the same faces. Why?
Our third debate looked at London's key sector - the City - to consider what a sustainable future might look like. Our authors, along with many commentators, saw much that needs changing if the financial sector is to be empowered to contribute successfully to a future for London.
In our second debate, on the Governance of London's resources, three themes emerged: a) capacity - of businesses, governments & communities; b) accountability - for changing life-styles; and c) justice - in allocation of resources at a time of austerity.
Our first debate concluded that waste could be a strong part of a sustainable economy. However the disparate risks of land, technology, feedstock, exit markets and funding were difficult to overcome and London does not have governance capable of enabling this.
You can read the essays and syntheses by going to The Debates page.
David Fell - outlines the economic challenges facing the Mayoral candidates.
A Budget that missed the point? Read Commentary on the News & Media Page.
Our April Newsletter is on the news & media page along with important media stories.
London Remade is independent and non-sectarian and underpinned by experienced resource management practitioners with in-depth knowledge of London. We promote no sectoral or political interests and are independently funded. We aim to enable those who are concerned about London to use our debate space to express how the city can improve its use of resources.
