Environment

[Trump is running for 2024](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/15/donald-trump-announces-presidential-run-2024-midterms-ron-desantis). That should be enough to quicken the heart and shiver the spine of many in the Western world. Yet, [regardless of whether he is running his campaign from a jail cell or not](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-2024-withdraw-jail-b2318474.html#:~:text=Former%20president%20Donald%20Trump%20vowed%20to%20stay%20in%20the%20race%20for%20the%202024%20Republican%20presidential%20nomination%20and%20the%202024%20general%20election%20despite%20his%20mounting%20legal%20troubles%2C%20even%20if%20it%20means%20he%E2%80%99ll%20be%20locked%20up%20in%20a%20jail%20cell%20by%20the%20time%20his%20name%20appears%20on%20a%20ballot.), which apparently has not deterred him, a vote for Red America in 2024 spells out a climate disaster, and a catastrophe for anyone who wants to see a greener world.

At the beginning of his administration, [Joe Biden announced his plans for the US to become carbon-neutral by 2050, a policy apparently supported by nearly seven-in-ten Americans](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/18/for-earth-day-key-facts-about-americans-views-of-climate-change-and-renewable-energy/#:~:text=Nearly%20seven%2Din%2Dten%20Americans%20(69%25)%20favor%20the%20U.S.%20taking%20steps%20to%20become%20carbon%20neutral%20by%202050%2C%20a%20goal%20outlined%20by%20President%20Joe%20Biden%20at%20the%20outset%20of%20his%20administration.). They are joined by nine out of every ten Democrats and maybe-Democrats (that is, Democratic-leaning independents). On the other hand, [53% of Republicans oppose Biden's green plans, and at the top of this pile is the twice-impeached, recently arraigned Trump](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/18/for-earth-day-key-facts-about-americans-views-of-climate-change-and-renewable-energy/#:~:text=Among%20Republicans%20and%20Republican%20leaners%2C%2044%25%20support%20this%20goal%20and%2053%25%20oppose%20it.).

![Seven-in-ten Americans prioritise alternative energy development and carbon neutrality|2142x1450](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1684314852/post/us_survey_carbon_comp_vmc8ra.jpg "Almost seven-in-ten Americans support the U.S. become carbon neutral by 2050. Source: [Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/18/for-earth-day-key-facts-about-americans-views-of-climate-change-and-renewable-energy/).")

The former president has a catastrophic environmental record, if you can call it a record at all. In fact, rather than taking progressive action, [the Trump administration repealed over 100 environmental regulations from planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions to protections for the US' wetlands](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html). This shouldn't come as a surprise from a president [whose first response to a global pandemic was to advise people to drink bleach](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52407177). But the worry goes further. Trump deliberately ignored the science that was presented to him, [science calling for tougher air pollution rules](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2020/oct/20/trump-us-dirtier-planet-warmer-75-ways). The very reason the executive has scientific advisers is so policy can be informed, yet Trump seems to not have grasped this crucial element of 21st-century government.

Yet, Trump's environmental legacy has frustrated the efforts of the Biden administration to carry out life-saving environmental policies. This has [been mainly because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has suffered a haemorrhage in its staff, again, thanks to Trump's budget cuts in 2018 and his disregard for climate action](https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/epa-biden-climate-deadline-trump-rcna67225#:~:text=Donald%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20hostility%20to%20scientific%20research%2C%20and%20to%20the%20environment%2C%20led%20to%20the%20agency%20hemorrhaging%20huge%20numbers%20of%20staffers). Furthermore, [Trump appointed a renowned sceptic of climate science and environmental policy to lead the Agency in 2016](https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-picks-prominent-climate-skeptic-epa-chief), as you do when you think the whole thing is a hoax.

> An unbeliever, a closeted activist, and an undecided. That's the environmental policy platforms of the three major contenders for the Republican presidential nomination.

This shouldn't just be disturbing for climate activists and those blocking roads. It should be on the mind of anyone who doesn't want their life to be eclipsed by a burning inferno - for that is our fate if we vote for Red America. [Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions rose astronomically in 2022, due, in no small part, to the US' continued financing of projects which seem to defy international discourse around 'net zero' and charting a path to a greener world](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/06/greenhouse-gas-emissions-noaa-report-us-data). This is the country that was responsible for 11% of GHG emissions, seconded only by the emerging China and India as they find their footing on the destructive industrial stage. So much for a greener world. 

But don't get me wrong. I am a Liberal through and through, and part of my liberalism is the belief that the government should take a step back when it either encroaches on our freedoms, or when things can be done more efficiently/effectively without its involvement. But climate change and the threat to our world is another matter. The threats that humanity faces today - frequent and intense natural disasters which hurt crop and freshwater supplies, changes to plant and animal behaviour that can disrupt entire ecosystems, flooding and erosion due to rising sea levels and ocean pollution as a result of the unfettered oil industry - can only be challenged by gargantuan international efforts and, for that, we need consciousness. A consciousness that business needs to be conducted, action needs to be taken and bipartisan, cooperative measures need to be enacted. The Republican Party has not yet woken up to this reality.

The only one who has - unfortunately that is - is Florida Governor and White House hopeful, Ron DeSantis. I say unfortunately because whilst he has [channelled billions of dollars into helping Florida reduce its carbon footprint, and potentially mitigate some of the effects of climate change](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2023-04-10/ron-desantis-is-a-little-bit-woke-on-climate-change-podcast#:~:text=Florida%E2%80%99s%20governor%E2%80%93and%20likely%20presidential%20candidate%E2%80%93Ron%20DeSantis%20has%20pledged%20billions%20to%20restore%20Florida%E2%80%99s%20Everglades.%20Among%20other%20good%20things%2C%20that%20will%20help%20lower%20Florida%E2%80%99s%20carbon%20footprint%20and%20potentially%20combat%20some%20of%20the%20effects%20of%20climate%20change.), Ron is [unlikely to admit the green benefits of some of his policies](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2023-04-10/ron-desantis-is-a-little-bit-woke-on-climate-change-podcast#:~:text=But%20you%20won%E2%80%99t,his%20own%20policies.). As if an embarrassing secret that he is keen to hide from the rest of the Republican Party, out of sheer fear of being lambasted as woke, god forbid, DeSantis is unlikely to come all Greta Thunberg as he gears up to take on Trump for the Republican nomination. Instead, he is focusing on what Republicans generally tend to do best: [suppressing the right to vote](https://www.npr.org/2023/03/06/1160724251/florida-governor-ron-desantis-president#:~:text=He%27s%20signed%20a%20law%20banning%20abortions%20after%2015%20weeks.%20And%20he%20pushed%20through%20new%20congressional%20maps%20that%20eliminated%20two%20African%20American%20voting%20districts.), [quashing attempts to make workplaces and schools more diverse places](https://www.npr.org/2023/03/06/1160724251/florida-governor-ron-desantis-president#:~:text=He%27s%20taken%20aim%20at%20programs%20promoting%20diversity%2C%20equity%20and%20inclusion%20in%20the%20schools.), and [working with his Republican-dominated state legislature to restrict womens' right to choose](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/13/florida-six-week-abortion-ban-republicans#:~:text=The%20Republican%2Ddominated%20Florida%20legislature%20on%20Thursday%20approved%20a%20ban%20on%20abortions%20after%20six%20weeks%20of%20pregnancy%2C%20a%20proposal%20supported%20by%20the%20state%E2%80%99s%20governor%2C%20Ron%20DeSantis%2C%20as%20he%20prepares%20for%20an%20expected%20presidential%20run.).

::post{#the-us-is-slipping-towards-authoritarianism-starting-with-your-reproductive-rights}

So, we have Trump - who really needs no explanation as to why he is a big NO, and a climate activist yet to come out of the closet; who else? Well, whilst we are still in the fuzzy stage of what is to become the 2024 presidential election, [Nikki Haley, once the youngest governor in the US at the age of 39 for South Carolina, is also running for the GOP nomination](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64643005). The only redeeming feature of the young trailblazer besides her youth is that [she is seeking a rather hopeful goal of a 'national consensus' on abortion](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/27/nikki-haley-abortion-speech-republican-presidential-primary/) - which is about as ambitious as one can get in politics, I mean come on, really? But despite her ambitions for consensus-building on one of the most divisive issues in American social policy, I am afraid two great looming shadows are cast over Haley's run. The first is that she is unequivocally pro-life, which in other words essentially means anti-choice (IMO). The second? [Her mixed environmental record](https://www.eenews.net/articles/haley-to-enter-presidential-race-with-mixed-climate-record/).

While this is better than having no record at all, Haley hasn't yet made her mind up on climate change. Like DeSantis, [she accepts the central tenets of climate science, however, her time as governor of South Carolina was marked by cutting regulations](https://www.eenews.net/articles/haley-to-enter-presidential-race-with-mixed-climate-record/) - much like her former boss Donald Trump, who appointed her U.N. Ambassador in 2017.

![The three major contenders for the Republican presidential nomination: Donald Trump (left), Ron DeSantis (centre), and Nikki Haley (right)|1350x751](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1684318200/post/red_contenders_comp_v4y9wj.jpg "An unbeliever, a closeted activist, and an undecided. These are the environmental policy platforms presented by the three leading candidates vying for the Republican presidential nomination.")

An unbeliever, a closeted activist, and an undecided. That's the environmental policy platforms of the three major contenders for the Republican presidential nomination. In the UK, we benefit from a multiparty system and are very fortunate to have greater voter choice than our friends across the Atlantic. We must be grateful that we even have a party labelled 'Green', never mind how small or incoherent its platform may be. But to our Yankee friends who aren't afforded such luxury, I offer one small piece of advice.

Don't vote Red if you want to see Green.

Trump is running for 2024. Yet, regardless of whether he is running his campaign from a jail cell or not, a vote for Red America spells out a climate disaster.

Why a Vote for Red America is a Disaster for a Greener World

With the war in Ukraine showing no signs of an immediate end, I have heard mutterings in the media of a modern-day Winter of Discontent.

The worst-case scenario, I hear, will look like this: a General Strike will take place towards the end of November, as inflation fails to fall as planned and workers across the public sector feel the pinch of high energy prices.

We have already seen action taken by Mick Lynch’s RMT Union, resulting in havoc on the railways during busy holiday periods. A General Strike might see nurses, teachers, warehouse workers, lorry drivers, and construction workers striking, bringing the industries on which our modern economy is built to an extended standstill.

Much has been made of the price of energy, and there is a danger that not just households but schools, pubs, offices, and businesses will not see out the winter unscathed. There is even the possibility of [winter blackouts around January, when the temperature plummets and depleted imports take their toll on capacity.](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-09/uk-braces-for-blackouts-gas-cuts-in-january-in-emergency-plan?leadSource=uverify%20wall)

So I am increasingly worried that a large proportion of my Christmas will consist of seeking increasingly creative ways of keeping warm. Yet because I am young and there is excitement to be had in the face of adversity, there is no existential element to my energy crisis.

I imagine the emotion among pensioners on this matter will be of an entirely different kind however.

So the Government must step in, as it often gets the call to do.

It finds itself with three options: firstly to do nothing at all; secondly to engage in some kind of market reform; and thirdly to pay for everyone’s gas and electricity themselves, much as they recently did with the nation’s wages.

Liz Truss has, in effect, settled on a combination of the latter two. [In a speech on September 8th, she set out her Government’s plans to see the country through the crisis](https://www.ft.com/content/984129f9-a133-468b-bc38-e8c4ec7386d6). Her headline policy for households was a two year “energy price guarantee” that trumps the price cap and will limit annual energy bills to £2,500.

Considering [the threat of Ofgem rising the energy price cap to £5,500 by the beginning of next year](https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/bills/should-energy-price-cap-scrapped-experts-explain-debate-ofgem-director-quits-1802183) this will come as a welcome announcement. Without some kind of limiting mechanism on energy bills, renters, and especially younger renters who tend not to find themselves with any kind of large savings set aside, would undoubtedly struggle to pay the bills.

While the short term may seem more pressing to the average household, clearly subsidising the population’s bills is not going to work for the rest of time. [As one economist notes](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-an-energy-price-freeze-is-still-a-bad-idea), price controls tend to backfire, and in any case with the total cost of intervention standing at potentially £150 billion this is not a long-term strategy.

Though left-leaning economists underplay the effect government borrowing and debt accumulation have on investor confidence, it is a simple statement of fact that the Government cannot account for £150 billion of further spending [after Covid spending of £310 billion.](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9309/#:~:text=All%20public%20spending%20is%20eventually,323%20billion%20in%202020%2F21.) Such a move would leave young people picking up the tab for generations, on top of the student debt with which most have chosen to burden themselves.

![A woman holds up sign outside the palace of Westminster, with the message "Cheaper, Cleaner, Greener. Fair energy now."](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1663795070/post/energy_reform_protest_wzzqah.webp "Short-term energy policies unfairly burden younger generations with yet another bill. Image from [The New Statesman](https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/energy/2022/08/energy-crisis-price-cap-structure-uk).")

No, complete subsidisation is not the best route to cheaper bills in the long term.

The answer will lie in intelligent reform of the energy market, specifically altering the way wholesale electricity is priced. Renewable energy in particular must play an important role.

Never mind fracking, which has always been highly contentious for its effects on the water supply and will require the approval of local communities before drill sites are given the green light.

Currently due to the high price of gas - the result of the global gas market’s high dependence on Russian gas - wholesale electricity is incredibly expensive. This is because electricity is pooled in the national electricity grid, where its source (coal, nuclear, renewable, CCGT) becomes indistinguishable.

Those on a renewable tariff therefore find themselves paying a rate heavily influenced by the price of gas, despite guarantees that the source of that energy is completely renewable. Whilst a supplier might be able to prove their energy is renewable through à la mode [credit systems](https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-and-social-schemes/renewable-energy-guarantees-origin-rego), the grid will nevertheless charge them for the pooled electricity that it has stored, which of course includes that generated by gas.

A reform that sees the separation of the cost of renewable and non-renewable wholesale energy seems a no-brainer. It will come as no surprise then that the Government is [currently reviewing such a decision](https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-electricity-market-arrangements). However there is one clear sticking point: capacity.

A supplier can only claim their renewable energy is renewable *if it actually is*. Should the Government create a two-class tariff system where consumers have a choice between one tariff and another much cheaper, only a fool would pay more. Currently there isn’t enough capacity for everyone to be on a renewable tariff.

Not only is the issue of changing weather conditions affecting output, but for a whole range of reasons there simply isn’t enough renewable infrastructure to supply the whole country. [The greenest day on record in the UK only saw 60% of its total consumption generated from renewable sources.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/06/uk-electricity-system-has-greenest-day-ever-over-easter)

If the Government wanted to push renewable infrastructure development and safeguard the country’s future electricity bills, the best thing they could do is announce an intention to switch their electricity pricing mechanism to one which favours a renewable tariff. It could be done in a similar way to the commitment to ending diesel car production.

Such a change would create real competition in the market, and, most importantly, provide incentives against NIMBYism in the form of cheaper bills and for energy suppliers in the form of cheaper wholesale rates.

The alternative, of course, would be to continue with an ineffective price cap that disadvantages consumers and hampers competition between suppliers. Worse yet, a failure of action of this kind does not address the issue of our reliance on energy imports from the mainland.

Short-termism is a common disease among parliaments. Now especially, however, is not the time [to repeat the early Noughties’](https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1566350237039562754) failure to invest in nuclear.

Forcing the market with an even firmer hand by making renewable energy the most attractive option for consumers would not only safeguard against the need for quick fixes whose purpose is to penalise in the future, but may also win the Tories votes among younger people, [for whom climate change tends to be a more pressing concern.](https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39251/bsa35_climate_change.pdf)

Truss’ government holds a real chance to kill two enormous birds with one small stone. To do so might win many plaudits among bill-payers across the generational spectrum; to shy away would represent a real ignorance of the concerns of generations of young people.

No, complete subsidisation is not the best route to cheaper bills in the long term.

Only a reform of the energy market can spark cheaper bills

Towards the end of 2021, the release of the Netflix film *Don't Look Up* was highly anticipated by many. While it received mixed reviews, it was a standout film for plenty of people. Brilliantly made, with an all-star cast and the perfect balance between humour and the grave issue faced by Planet Earth: an asteroid on its way to kill everyone and destroy the planet. Our governments' response to the asteroid was almost too reminiscent of how other issues, such as COVID-19 and climate change, have been dealt with by some world leaders in recent years. Ignoring the science at hand? Tick. Making decisions swayed by money? Tick. While this may have been an amusing allegory for some, it did leave me with a sense of dread once the film had finished. Climate change anxiety affects many people, particularly the younger generations. According to a [2021 survey](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-58549373), nearly 60% of young people are very or extremely worried about climate change. It is a concern that can be all-consuming at times and yet leaves many people feeling completely helpless.

Growing up, climate change was an issue we were always made aware of at school. Simple science lessons taught us the importance of small acts, such as not leaving the taps on while brushing your teeth or putting on an extra jumper instead of turning the heating on. At the time, these tiny changes in behaviour felt like they could have a genuinely significant impact on helping to prevent global warming. However, as time passed and I grew older, I began to better understand what was actually happening with climate change. Suddenly, I was reading some terrifying stories in the news: forest fires, record temperatures being reached in summer, heat waves each year, and animals like orangutans being pushed out of their natural habitats. David Attenborough's nature documentaries were laced with warnings about global warming and video footage of the damning evidence. All at once, I was beginning to realise that I needed to do more than turn the taps off and wrap up warmer in the house. More behaviours needed to change.

![A scene from Netflix's "Don't Look Up"](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1643913815/post/dontlookup_o6wc2y.png "Our own efforts are simply a drop in the ocean in comparison to the actions of our governments, large corporations, and the wealthy. Despite scientists' repeated warnings since the late 1950s about the effects of climate change, their ignorance has caused many young people to feel helpless about a lack of control over their futures. Image sourced from [variety.com](https://variety.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Streep.Rylance.Sitroomgroupshot.jpg?w=681&h=383&crop=1).")

With a small amount of online research, it is quite easy to identify what we can do to help the environment. While recycling is a crucial habit to maintain, we can also make significant changes by reducing the amount of single-use plastic that we use: from taking a reusable bag to the supermarket; buying fruits and vegetables without plastic wrapping; using reusable water bottles and coffee cups; and cutting the use of plastic straws. While these may feel like insignificant changes, if you consider the reduction in one person's single-use plastic waste within a year, the impact of millions of people doing the same would be remarkable.

Another crucial change that we can make is reducing consumption of animal products, with a particular focus on meat. This is one of the most significant issues in climate change discussions. Not only do cows produce a substantial amount of methane, a greenhouse gas that traps [30 times more heat within the atmosphere than carbon dioxide](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140327111724.htm), but the deforestation of land to expand farmland for livestock is also creating a severe problem. Forests are deliberately being set on fire to clear land for grazing, which is releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and reducing the number of trees that we have to absorb Earth's carbon dioxide naturally. Furthermore, animals' natural habitats are being destroyed, contributing to the decrease of populations of certain species, such as the beloved orangutans. It is estimated that [over 25% of the land on Earth is used to raise livestock](https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land-Use-01.png). The process of eating meat has become highly inefficient, with livestock eating a greater mass of plant-based food during their lifetime than the mass of meat produced after their death. If plant-based diets were to become more common, less produce and farmland would be wasted if the food grown for the animals was instead intended for human consumption. Eating less meat can, therefore, significantly reduce your carbon footprint.

Despite these changes, how much impact do we as individuals really have? It can feel incredibly overwhelming to know that our own efforts are simply a drop in the ocean in comparison to the actions of our governments, large corporations, and the wealthy. Despite scientists' repeated warnings since the late 1950s about the effects of climate change, their ignorance has caused many young people to feel helpless about a lack of control over their futures. As we see increasingly drastic changes in weather and natural disasters across the globe, there is undoubtedly a feeling of underlying doom for young people when considering where humanity could be in 50 years' time. While many of us are trying our best to change our behaviours to make the future of this planet seem brighter, it feels as though governments across the world are failing to respond appropriately to global warming issues. Even a [paper signed by over 11,000 scientists worldwide stating that we are in a climate emergency](https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/70/1/8/5610806) has not been enough to encourage governments to act swiftly to try and save the planet while it is still possible.

![COP26](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1643913815/post/cop26_tcgowm.png "Image sourced from [carbonbrief.org](https://www.carbonbrief.org/).")

Last year's COP26 event in Glasgow provided people with a small amount of hope that governments would work together to make positive decisions that would have a genuine and long-lasting impact, especially following a year of extreme weather and natural disasters across the world, such as wildfires, heatwaves, and floods. During the summit, over 100 countries' leaders pledged to cut CO2 emissions in the following year, to reduce their coal usage, and stop deforestation by 2030. However, pledges made at the summit are generally made to be self-policed, so this is not a complete guarantee that governments will implement these changes.

Within the UK, we have cut down on our non-renewable energy sources. We have increased the use of renewable energy sources considerably (such as wind and solar power), with almost half of our electricity produced by renewable sources in 2020. On the broader picture, however, the [UK's finance industry creates 1.8 times more emissions than the whole of the UK](https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/resources/big-smoke-uk-finance-report/) through the provision of loans and investments to polluting companies. This is not just an issue within the UK: it has been found that the [wealthiest 1% of the global population have produced over double the amount of carbon pollution produced by 3.1 billion of the world's poorest people between 1990 and 2015](https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/confronting-carbon-inequality). Financial gain appears to be a more enticing future for the wealthy than protecting our planet. Although governments are likely aware of how these investments contribute to global warming, there seems to be no effort from them to stop the finance industry's errors. With statistics like this, the acts of recycling, reducing meat consumption, and turning the lights off in your house, suddenly seem to pale in comparison. How are we meant to feel like we are making positive changes to our environment when governments and wealthy people appear to be cancelling out our behaviour?

Does it make us feel helpless? Yes. Does that mean we should stop our positive behavioural changes? Absolutely not. The habits we have developed to help the environment could become even more significant if more people around us also begin to follow suit. For example, if fewer animal products are consumed by a growing number of people, supermarkets and food production companies may reach a point where they realise that they need to reduce the amount of meat, eggs, milk, etc. that is produced. Furthermore, by encouraging more people to read scientific literature about climate change, sign petitions, and protest for genuine change from our governments, perhaps the future of our planet will not look as dire as it does now. COP26 was one of the most significant summits held so far. Some of the changes proposed and agreed upon by countries, such as reducing coal usage had never been brought up before. While not all countries did agree on everything, governments across the world may be beginning to understand the anxieties many of us are feeling about global warming and will start making the right decisions.

So, how do we avoid an ending like that in *Don't Look Up*? We can drink our oat milk, eat a vegetarian dinner, turn the heating down by a few degrees, recycle our rubbish, and hope with all our hearts that the people who have genuine influence over the future of our planet will finally open their eyes and see that our time, and the future of our youngest generations, is running out. Our planet is beautiful, and it's high time people in power started acting like it.

Ignoring the science at hand? Tick. Making decisions swayed by money? Tick.

Are we wasting our time with climate activism?

As we enter cold and wintery months and prepare for the festive season, money will start to flow out of our purses, wallets, and bank accounts. Food, alcohol, clothes, gifts for loved ones – you name it, we're buying it. Yet, while we’re spending our money, there’s something important that we must remember – small businesses. In order to support our local high street and those who run it, as well as attempt to shop more sustainably by doing so, we need to shop small. But just how easy is it to do this?

Independent shops, cafés, and restaurants have always had unique charms to them that help to make our local high streets special in their own way. Whether it’s a cosy little tea room on the seafront in Somerset, or a beautifully whimsical bookshop tucked away on a quiet street in London, it is small businesses like these that provide our lives with multifariousness.

Despite this, small businesses have been presented with a number of challenges in recent years. One of these challenges has been the growth of large online markets and fast-fashion retailers, such as Amazon and Boohoo. These massive online businesses have not only decreased demand for high-street shops due to the ease with which orders can be made, but also have a substantial carbon footprint as a result of shipping and waste production.

Another difficulty faced by small businesses was the COVID-19 pandemic that swept across the globe in 2020. With lockdown forcing high-street hotspots such as shops, restaurants, and pubs to close – with no timeframe on when things would begin to open again – small businesses faced a lot of uncertainty. When would they be able to open again? Would they be able to open at full capacity? Would they be able to continue employing all of their staff once lockdown ended, or would cuts need to be made?

For those who were able to re-open their doors once lockdown restrictions were loosened, [they needed the support of their local customers](https://www.simplybusiness.co.uk/downloads/simply-business-report-covid-19-impact-on-small-business.pdf). Posters popped up in the windows and informative posts were shared online, all with the same message: ‘Shop small! Shop sustainably! Support local businesses!’. If we want to not only retain the individuality of our local high streets, but also help those struggling business owners and try to slow down climate change where we can by making sustainable choices, we as consumers must step up and do our bit.

And yet, here’s the issue: how easy is it for young people to support these businesses? For students, who either have part-time jobs or are making it through their studies with loans, and for those doing apprenticeships or training for entry-level jobs, spending money is something that needs to be carefully considered. Even for those who have since graduated from university and are on starting salaries: once payments have gone towards tax, rent, bills, loans, and living costs, the remaining disposable income is minimal.

![Amazon delivery](https://res.cloudinary.com/fledger/image/upload/v1639435654/post/amazon_hz3ctm.jpg "\"It is time to consider how urgently you need the item you were going to order on Amazon, when you could walk down the high street and find it in one of those shops instead.\"")

Despite this, the winter months approach and the social media posts are uploaded about the importance of supporting local businesses, and how the positive effects include not only helping the business owners but also can be better for the environment. This sounds ideal – who wouldn’t want to support this? The problem: is it always affordable, or is it a luxury for the more privileged among us? Your local cosy bookshop may sell a copy of a hardback book you have been wanting to buy, but Waterstones might be including it in a "buy one get one half price" deal, or, even better, Amazon might have made it available as a free download on Kindle. With those options presented to you, and knowing you need to save money where you can, the cheaper decision is likely to be the one that is chosen. Once again, the local café may make a charming twist on a cheese and ham toastie with a delicious latte to accompany it, but knowing you have some points to spend in Costa to get yourself a free drink, the choice feels obvious. The large chain coffee shop gets your money, you get a free drink, and the local café loses another customer. Should we be made to feel guilty for pouring our money into already large businesses? Perhaps. Yet, it is not always our fault for doing so. When the easier, cheaper, option is presented to us, it is hard to ignore.

This begs the question: how can we still try to support small businesses when it is not the most convenient option for us at this stage in our lives? In order to begin to support them, we need to make a conscious effort to change our routines and habits when it comes to spending money. It is time to consider how urgently you need the item you were going to order on Amazon when you could walk down the high street and find it in one of those shops instead. Furthermore, if there’s an item of clothing you want to buy cheaply, and could easily buy from an online fast-fashion retailer, it might be worth having a look at local charity shops and seeing if they have a similar item in stock. This is still a cheap option, but is also more sustainable and does not contribute to the ever-growing fast-fashion industry. Also, local shops and cafés might offer loyalty cards for a certain amount of money spent or the number of coffees drunk, which provide similar perks to the points systems larger businesses provide. The difference is, becoming a regular customer at a small business could make a much more significant change than if it were for a larger business. Local shops may also have a website, with delivery or click-and-collect services that provide the same ease that larger online businesses have given us over the years, or social media pages that could easily be followed and shared to increase their reach! Acts like this, while only small, are ways in which those with low or no income can still make conscious decisions in order to spend their money more locally and in some cases more sustainably.

The option to shop small and sustainably should not be one that is only available to the wealthier and more privileged among us, and should not exist in order to make those who do not fit into those categories feel guilty. As we grow older and perhaps begin to earn more money or reach a more stable point in our careers, it may become easier for us to simply spend our money in those local shops and cafés without concerning ourselves over how to save every penny. Until then, we can hope to support them in other small ways, and there is no need to feel a sense of guilt for being unable to choose the ‘shop small and sustainably’ option every time. After all, the contribution of multiple small actions can still have a positive impact.

Your local bookshop may sell a copy of a book you have been wanting to buy, but Waterstones might be including it in a "buy one get one half price" deal.