The plastic Bag's New Year's Resolution

Start on the outside and work your way in.

I can sympathise with Sam H's previous post of self-reflection. The CC live project seems to have entailed a self cirque of us all, so I am glad in learning of such renegade resolutions. Refusing a carrier bag is not just a reduction in your quantitative consumption, but also signifies a re-positioning in the ways in which we consume. The simple action of bringing an alternative (reusable) method of packing and carrying your goods with you to the shop, shows a sense of preparative responsibility and innovation.

The larger supermarkets are in on it too. Many now offer reusable textile bags and branded crates at a small cost, but such initiatives appear overshadowed by the constant attention to their general over-packaging of everyday commodities in the daily newspapers. For instance, The Independent recently dedicated its front page (as it does) to the fact that Morrisons sell turnips wrapped in a 'protective plastic film',[1] even though it has its own 'natural wrapper', just like a banana.
With the promise of bio-degradable 'half life' plastic bags to be rapidly introduced into the system, why is the retailer response an attempt to limit the damage, rather than cut the supply? Is this evidence our habits are perceived as too firmly rooted to support such 'radical change'?
In retaliation, The UK Women's Environmental Network deployed the “Wrapping is a Rip Off” campaign, urging its participants to dump their packaging at the checkout and return the responsibility of its disposal back to the producer. It is presumed a large scale participation could incur new costs for the supermarket and an eventual change in it's packaging policies.
This 'de-design' of purchases seems to recognise that we are buying an actual commodity of function and purpose, and that we are perhaps no longer interested in it's external aesthetics. Such 'false values' are usually associated with brand identity. The purchasing of a lifestyle embedded within the product as a sort of 'hyper-reality' is not a new concept, but these values are now all to often appearing in the product's packaging as part of the design. Costas also acknowledged such over-valuations in suggesting human consumer trends are subject to fluctuate between the ideal models of self definition. However, choosing 'not at all', rather than 'something else' could potentially lead to a new direction, away from the usual cycle of social repositioning.

Is the plastic bag not then, the most outer layer of a product's packaging, and thus the first layer to be renounced in the slimming of consumer goods, and a retreat to the primary purposes of acquisition? This in turn may lead to a greater respect and indulgence in the 'truer forms'; that is the commodity purchased under no aesthetic illusion. It is the lack of this consumer/product relationship that creates our “throw away culture”[2] and fuels the production of disposable, singular life objects.

Victor Papanek suggests that the continued expansion of a disposable mentality may soon affect the way we view the integrity of our social relations[3], which in turn may lead to a further disregard for ones neighbour and a failure to recognise the planet as a communal inhabitation.

[1] McSmith, A. (Tuesday 30th January 2007), The Independent - Rules on wasteful packaging 'are unenforceable'. http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2198396.ece
[2] Toffler, A. (1971) Future Shock, Pan Books, London, p50.
[3] Papanek, V. (1972) Design for the Real World, Thames Hudson Ltd. London, p74.

see also: www.wen.org

No Exit

We don’t live sustainable lives and have never done so before. This is because we have always created waste, as it is an unavoidable consequence of life. Now there is over 6 billion of us inhabiting the planet our collective waste is causing changes, and with it some problems. Notions of going back to a “primitive” way of life seem very misplaced in adapting to changes and solving the problems we face.

The idea we have reached the limit of sustainability interest me because of the notion that going beyond this point will change everything. The idea that the environment stays the same is a very constricted view and seems to deify its rich history. In truth, the environment seems to like change a lot more than we do. Nature has never stood still, it is always changing, developing and bringing life out of the challenges it faces.

If we look at the atmosphere billions of years ago oxygen only existed in traces amounts, therefore all organisms respired anaerobically. Through the emergence of photosynthetic organisms the level of oxygen was greatly increased as a waste product of photosynthesis. Oxygen polluted the earth to the point where it changed the diversity of life completely. "Ingenuity triumphed and the danger was overcome, not in the human way by restoring the old order but in the flexible Gaian way by adapting to change and converting a murderous intruder into a powerful friend."(J.E. Lovelock 1979) Through being too concerned with trying to escape the changes that are occurring we are missing out, we should be following nature’s example of adapting to new situations and tacking advantage of the opportunities.

On the issue of “economic wants against ethical beliefs” which has been raised, I don’t see them as apposing choices. In the future large global companies will be forced to take an ethical and responsible stance towards manufacturing. This is not only because of legislation such as the 2003 recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) “requiring producers in member countries to take responsibility for recycling and waste management,”(New Scientist no.2585 p32) but largely because it is more economically profitable to make ethical choices. If we look at Japan they now recycle more than 80% of old TVs and computer manufacturers are obliged to take back old computers. Ethically driven advances like these are providing new jobs and opportunities for commerce. They have begun designing for disassembly and are now profiting from Europe’s lag in taking up sustainable and ethical positions. There is money involved in more ethical design solutions so businesses will change to take advantage, but also just to survive.

J.E. Lovelock, Gaia, 1979, Oxford University Press.
New Scientist no. 2585, 6th January 2007.

Sustainability Nasty

“Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

How about if we take this well worn design axiom and apply it in a new sense: to sustainability. What unnecessary consumptions can be weeded out to leave us with a streamlined, workable, successful society? If all of us, willingly, got rid of our cars, jets, oil, gas, electricity, central heating, TV’s, computers and other luxuries that make up our unsustainable lifestyles. That would be a sort of beauty. A simple, stark kind of beauty. Perhaps more than a little dry for contemporary western tastes, a bit Quaker perhaps, a little too Ray Mears for comfort. Certainly it would be more ethically sound, but very few would find it more desirable, especially such a comprehensive removal of comforts.

So then is it about finding a balance? A yin and yang. Between wants and needs, smug rights and hedonistic wrongs. Pragmatically, is having as much luxury as we can get away with and still be sustainable the closest we can get to ‘perfection’?

“Are ethics and sustainability just about being good?” Just about being good? Isn’t that quite important? Certainly sustainability is important, for our survival and long-term success as a species, but the recent IPCC [1] research has reiterated that climate change is happening now, and it is a problem for everyone. Even the selfish and most unethical can no longer deny the existence of climate change for their own benefit [2], all they can say now is that it won’t matter (to them) [3], which is another opinion that is slowly being eroded away (or if you like, flooded).

With respect to the (acknowledged) accusations of smugness, ego, or “people only do good things to feel good about themselves” being counter-arguments to acting upon ethical conscience, there isn’t a lot of ground to stand on. Of course ivory-tower/ high-horse self-righteousness is annoying, but that doesn’t mean to say the actions are mistaken, or guilty wrong-doing is better. Obviously, its better to be right, and know it, than to be wrong, and know it.

[1].http://www.ipcc.ch/
[2].http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg18524861.400
[3].http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/francis_sedgemore/2006/06/jeremy_clarkson_must_be_destro.html

No Exit

I believe we are a society living on the brink. We push the boundaries of our existence and constantly ask what else could be of the world. I don’t think society is unethical for pushing boundaries. Without having done this in the past, we could all still be living in quant little houses, hand washing all of our clothes while tending to the fields so we can eat. I think the ethics lies in what happens after we push the boundaries. Are we going to be a society that does something about our actions or just rest our fate to the unknown?

The film, An Inconvenient Truth, shows that our actions have consequences such as rising temperatures, melting glaciers, and rising sea levels. Due to our modern-day society, with our cars, and large factories and their smokestacks, the world as we know it has begun to change like never before. Aside from my questions of propaganda and the political agenda surrounding Al Gore, I think An Inconvenient Truth is very informative: it is an eye opening film to those that have never been exposed to what is happening to our planet. Global warming is a fact that is disputed by few anymore. The more recent arguments about global warming surround if we are the cause of it and what should be done about it.

“If we judge our actions innocent and we win, we win nothing, history goes on as before, but if we lose, we lose everything, being unprepared for some possible catastrophe. Suppose that, inversely, we choose to consider ourselves responsible: if we lose, we lose nothing but if we win, we win everything, by remaining the actors of history. Nothing or loss on one side, win or nothing on the other: no doubts as to which is the better choice.” (Serres)

The world, as far as we know, has never been more technologically advanced as it is in today’s society. Technology runs our world as it never has before and the amount in our everyday lives only continues to grow. Each day is another step into uncharted territory which we have never seen before.

Serres, Michel. The Natural Contract (The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, 1992)
JunkScience.com
The Guardien
The Independent

The Plastic Bag New Year's Resolution

In response to both the Sams’ posts, I would like to bring a few other related suggestions to the table.

In both previous articles, the ideas of ‘seductive apathy’, unwillingness for the individual to ‘give up economic gain’ for global benefit, and the significant role that large companies play in issues such as consumerism and waste disposal were discussed. To extend the argument, Sam H. touched on the notion that it is surely in the nature of designers to experiment and push for change, and in this case, the suggestion of rethinking our approaches to excess consumerism should not be so easily dismissed.

The position of the designer as an individual within such a large scheme run by ‘global companies’ and ‘product hungry consumers’ is, I feel, questionable. What is not debatable however, is the power that fields such as advertising employ, and the successful effects that can result through well thought-out exposure.

As with advertising as a whole, the approach utilised must be suitable for the target audience in question. Be it a class in society, a niche market, or a specific gender, there are few successful advertising campaigns that have relied purely on their subject matter to win consumer votes.

Unfortunately, the general approach employed in newspapers and televised news features ignores this to an extent, and so does not entirely hit home with any of the parties in question. Approaches to consumer waste and its effects thus far have been to shock and to persuade with hard-hitting facts, countless graphs, tables and images of the earth at risk. Complete faith is placed in the notion that within every individual there are universal morals and forms of ‘correct judgement’ through which one will be touched enough to make an effort.

Though we understand that the issue in question is significant, one gradually becomes desensitised to topics presented in such an authoritative tone of voice – not dissimilar to a regular announcement heard when travelling the tube. The headline ‘Climate change is a matter of life and death’ (The Independent) is soon replaced by ‘Bird Flu Outbreak’ (The Guardian), which in turn is replaced by another phrase determined to startle readers more than those of its rivals. At times, it seems that ethics and sound moral judgement can become secondary to desires for personal improvement, a particular example being working parents juggling both a career and raising a family. At what point does an individual place aside his own short-term ‘benefits’, including those related to those close to him, in favour of a global cause?

With regards to consumer culture, advertising is unquestionably a language that is understood by all, and yet it is used to a relatively minor extent when attempting to promote serious issues such as human waste and climate change. A possible reason could be that the cost of successful advertising can only be afforded by companies that are certain to earn considerable profits through their use, although I find it difficult to believe that such funding could not be raised by local councils if the need was seen to be urgent.

A final point to emphasise is that though the consumer may at times be ‘hooked’ to a brand, commodity or concept, one is ultimately fallible in that it is only a matter of time until he is won over by another campaign or product. Whether or not the individual consumer makes any kind of conscious decision to change brand is irrelevant somewhat –continual change is purely the nature of consumerism, and through this there is an opportunity to promote rethought of our lifestyles. Look no further than the change in eating habits in the UK over the last decade for proof of this.

And so for the general consumer population, it is the small scale that seems to hold most weight. Touch on facts that affect each individual, and maybe one can remove oneself from past methods of thought in favour of those seen to be more readily accepted by an increasingly globally aware population. While I certainly do not discount the potential for radical change (as history proves - for example, the reinvention of recycling in the 1960’s), I feel that an approach to consumer lifestyles, especially in regards to waste, through clever advertising and exposure could lead to significant results in the meantime.

Hawkins, Gay. Plastic Bags: Living with rubbish (London: Sage, 2001)

Olins, W., On Brand (Thames & Hudson Ltd, 2004)

The Guardian
The Independent

www.trendwatching.com

The Plastic Bag New Year's Resolution

“Every Little Helps!”

According to a piece in the Metro newspaper (9th February 2007), 6 billion carrier bags weighing a massive 40,000 tonnes were wasted by Britons last year – enough to cover London. Researchers have found that the average adult discards 2.39 bags a week, and that 42 per cent fail to recycle carrier bags. They added that one in ten people accept a bag for an item they will consume immediately and then throw it away seconds later.

I admit that as a consumer, I have a tendency to hoard objects, and these include carrier bags as well as numerous other items which are, in all likelihood, useless; but I still collect them and clutter up my house with bits and bobs which may come in handy one day.

I see plastic bags as a convenience of modern life, having been surrounded by plastic ephemera for as long as my humble existence. The main reason that plastic carrier bags from supermarkets are collected is so I can re-use them as bin-liners, which makes rubbish day much easier when it comes round. My household, on average, produces one black bag of rubbish weekly, and each room in my house, from the living room to the kitchen, the bedrooms to the bathrooms has a rubbish bin, each lined with a supermarket plastic bag. Plastic bags are only disposed of when they are no longer practical for use: if they are torn or punctured or if they are dirty so cannot be used to contain clean items and keep them that way. I actually think that my household is quite good with re-using whatever can be re-used; it is against our nature and habits to be wasteful, that principle has been drilled into our heads since youth. Hence the hoarding and the reluctance to part with junk.

We also try to recycle what we can: paper, glass, tins etc. But there is so much packaging that accompanies products bought; these are thrown away because there are no facilities that enable the recycling of these usually plastic items. Plastic is a useful compound as it can be engineered to specialised specifications, such as being strong or flexible, or airtight and watertight and therefore hygienic. However, there are positive steps being taken to reduce waste in packaging. For example, Asda supermarkets are in the process of trialling a move back to the 1950s, where fruit and vegetables are sold loose, without the need for plastic packaging. Many other supermarkets are reviewing their packaging policy, pledging to reduce the amount of packaging used in an attempt to come across as more ‘eco-friendly’ and reduce their environmental impact. This is a start in the right direction, but in the big picture more factors need to be considered and taken into account to make their efforts worthwhile, and to make more of a noticeable difference. It is a big challenge facing us all, to make changes in our ways of living and break the habits of a lifetime.


http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2177993.ece

Artificial Natural Democratizing Climate Science

Artificial Natural
The fourth session of the Ethics and Sustainability course featured another lecture on global climate change but instead of watching Al Gore in a feature film we watched Professor Bob Spicer in person about democratizing climate science. As the director for the Centre for Earth, Planetary, Space and Astronomical Research at the Open University he is a key player in the science of climate modelling and prediction. He is also an ex tutor of Goldsmiths which is perhaps why we were so honoured to benefit from his expertise in person. His message is essentially the same as that of Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth that the global climate is getting warmer due to the activities of humans.
Climate modelling is incredibly important for the future of government policy regarding the causes of global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change base many of its conclusions on the findings of the modelling process. The IPCC had just published its latest findings a matter of days before the lecture saying that global mean temperatures will rise by between 1.8 and 4 degrees Centigrade and that there is a %90 chance that this rise has a human cause, in other words ‘very likely’. A political point was made that the USA were attempting to undermine these findings by offering a reward to scientists that could show flaws in the scientific process of the modelling. In fact climate modelling is much more accurate today than it has ever been due to the climateprediction.net programme in which millions of years worth of scenarios are tested using spare processing power on personal desktop computers via the internet. In 2001 the IPCC highlighted concerns that ever more complex climate models were generating unusual results due to parameterization where climate conditions are approximated. The processing power of individual computers at that time made accurate modelling very expensive and time consuming so this technique of using ‘distributed computing’ developed in the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence in the 1990’s has revolutionised climate modelling to such an extent that they now feel able to take on the climate of Mars.

www.open2.net/sciencetechnologynature/worldaroundus/grassroots.html
www.climateprediction.net/

The Plastic Bag New Year's Resolution

a.k.a. Sam's Inhumanity to Sam

I would agree with Sam Clarke’s opinion in some respects. We have two whole cupboards in the kitchen chock-a-block with compressed Sainsbury’s carrier bags. But it seems strange now, after the lecture, that the flimsy little things can conjure equal measures of guilt or smugness in me in my sub-weekly shop top-up.





I used to be content that I wasn’t as bad as most people, seeing as I use public transport, recycle and usually remember to take the TV off standby. But now, since I’ve began researching for our live project, I’ve reassessed my lifestyle. I didn’t think that perhaps a microwave on standby was as bad as a TV, It didn’t occur to me our chronic over-iced freezer was anything but annoying and I didn’t really have any qualms with leaving my phone to charge overnight, or owning an electric toothbrush. Now I do, it’s left me relatively miserable. This is fine, I guess, so long as it’s for the greater good, it’s just that life‘s a lot simpler when its rooted in ignorance. I’m worrying now about having the light on whilst I’m in the room, whether I should give up meat, which I love, and whether or not I really need to shower (though I am, to reassure people, still having regular showers).

I’m not living a self-sufficient, disposability-free, carbon-neutral, Felicity Kendal kind of a lifestyle. So what if my carrier bags are recycled? - if their contents have been freighted from across the world: Australian wine, American Cola, Chinese packaging, surely carrier bags are the tip of the slushy iceberg. Pushed to the limits, I have experienced the seductive apathy that Sam mentions in his blog.

But I would disagree with Sam’s general anti-rethinking policy, not least because, as Designers, re-thinking is really what we’re all about. Additionally, “Reduce, re-use and recycle” aren’t alternatives to rethinking, they’re components. Consuming is in itself an issue, and it can’t be resolved by ‘positive’ consumption. To use analogy, consuming coffee doesn’t really cancel out consuming beer, it just makes you numb and tense simultaneously (if you don’t want to get drunk, don’t drink the beer in the first place).

Rethinking our lifestyles cannot be dismissed because it is difficult, or demanding. Of course, we don’t really have much choice as to whether or not we will change our lifestyles, as the IPCC has shown, the change is already upon us. We only really get to choose how: sooner for the better, or later for the worse.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

No Exit from An Inconvenient Truth

The film An Inconvenient Truth is a documentary featuring the former United States Vice-president Al Gore giving a lecture about global warming. Released in 2006 it is possibly the most up to date review of current global warming issues, his message is simple, scientists agree that global warming is definitely happening and it is caused by humans activities and not a natural occurrence. The science quoted is from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which was set up in 1988 by two United Nations organizations to assess the risk of human-induced climate change.
Al Gore is a politician who ran for president in 2000 but was defeated by the Republican George W Bush. It is the Republican government that has been most resistant to the scientific evidence of climate change by way of avoiding the pressure of the environmental lobby to legislate against the root causes such as industry, farming and car emissions. Moreover it refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions which was an amendment to an international agreement masterminded by the United Nations. It also offered money to any scientist that could successfully undermine the credibility of research work used by the
IPCC to make its conclusions on climate change.
On the one hand there is scientific evidence showing climate change is happening, on the other a government that is doing its best to avoid the issue in order to protect the commercial interests of its grass roots political support. It is similar to the debate over wether or not smoking was harmful to health when scientific evidence first linked smoking to lung cancer. Science threatened the tobacco business and they attempted to undermine the evidence to protect profits, it now seems ridiculous to say that smoking is not harmful to health.
Al Gore’s film spreads the message of the causes of climate change worldwide quoting evidence derived indirectly from the United Nations via the IPCC. The United Nations is a reformist institution that protects the human rights of one world order. The UN and IPCC has enabled him to continue the environmental lobby against the Republican government in spite of having lost the election.

Fry, Tony 'A New Design Philosophy" (Sydney: University of New South Wales, 1999).
Guggenheim, Davis 'An Inconvenient Truth' (2006)
www.climatecrisis.net
www.wikipedia.org

Plastic Bag New Year's Resolution

How Sad!


Is it just me who thinks how sad we are to make a New Year’s resolution concerning plastic bags? In the 21st century we finally came to the conclusion that it would be a good idea to bring our own carrier bags when out shopping. The value of a plastic bag seems to have re-gained its original status as something worth to carry at all times. We actually do not see how dependant we are on things that are so much in our faces and therefore have become undetected by us for being too self-evident within the everyday?

Judy Attfield argues that when a product ‘termed design is re-contextualized as an aspect of material culture, it loses its visibility to become a part of the everyday’ (Attfield 2000,13-14). In other words, its value changes according to how we measure its importance in our lives. She sees design as ‘things with attitude’ and therefore when perceived as an object placed out of the usual, we can see its new role depending on our understanding of its identity and social change. Similarly, Gay Hawkins expresses her concern when stating that in our everyday the role and movement of the plastic bag ‘from container to rubbish’ creates different readings. Hawkins brings up the term ‘ethics’ in terms of the relationship between the individual and the ‘thing’ (Hawkins, 2001,7).

Let us question this relationship. I propose to take a ‘thing’ such as a plastic bag out of the usual and turn it into a live being. Let us feel like a plastic bag for a while. Its role as a ‘container’ makes it feel proud. It has a responsibility towards the ‘human’ therefore it is valued. It carries the shopping, it is reused to carry a lunch for the same ‘human’, it gives itself to the user. The infinite is to be recognized for its properties and turned into a new object. It is however also seen as an object that can be easily replaced. At this point it has degraded to ‘rubbish’. In most cases, it is never reused and is thrown away by the creature called ‘human’. It ends up on a landfill, it becomes dirty and cold and it feels rejected. Its value was not recognized.

‘Why doesn’t anybody appreciate that I behave normally?’ (Fischli&Weiss, 2006) We as the most intelligent creatures in the world gave the plastic bag its life and at the same time we rejected it as an object that can be easily replaced. Of course the plastic bag does not understand this attitude. After all, it is a ‘thing with its attitude’. Bearing this in mind, everything around us is a design with its attitude. The way we ‘perceive’ or better ‘consume’ depends on our understanding of it. Perhaps now is the time for us to rethink our relationship to objects seen in the everyday. The plastic bag cannot comprehend our attitude. Therefore it ends up thinking: ‘Should I punish the world by ignoring it?’ (Fischli&Weiss, 2006) A plastic bag can. But can we?

Attfield, J. (2000), Wild Things: The Material Culture of Everyday Life, Berg, Oxford
Fischli, P., Weiss, D. (2006), Will Happiness Find Me? (quotes translated by Catherine Schelbert), Koenig Books, London
Hawkins, G. (2001), Plastic bags: Living with rubbish, (article found in INTERATIONAL Journal of Cultural Studies), Sage Publications, London

The Plastic Bag New Year's Resolution

The Plastic Bag New Year's Resolution

‘You have to make up your mind either to make sense or to make money, if you want to be a designer.’ R. Buckminster Fuller

The decision to abandon economic desires and adopt ethical choice is by no means simple. However, it is precisely this message that is continuously being drummed into society at present. We, as ethical citizens, are supposed to be able to give up economic gain and become more primitive in our style of living. I believe this factor to be the cause of our environmental concerns. When a dramatic change is required and demanded from a person, it is natural for the person to take no notice of the demanded change. On the other hand, maybe this is not true. For if the change is to higher ground, the change is most likely to be welcomed. However, in the circumstance of environmental change, the step to be taken is in the wrong direction and therefore it becomes easy to relate to the person that takes no notice of change. I feel it important to state at this point that in no way do I disagree with the idea that climate change is taking place. Climate change is a vast concern for modern day life and steps need to be taken in order to avert the disaster. However, my argument is concerned with the manner in which, as a society, we are being demanded to change in a manner that is incorrect.

‘Chucking away is only one option but it is an option made easier by the logic of seriality: just get another one.’ Gay Hawkins

It is the remark that once one is set in a state of mind it becomes difficult to remove yourself from being that way inclined. It is for this reason I disagree with the idea put forward in The Plastic Bag New Year's Resolution, that we need to encourage people to ‘rethink’ the way they interact with products. Instead encouraging ideas such as reducing, reusing and recycling help people feel they are adding to their lives rather than making one feel more primitive. It certainly appears that to ‘rethink’ leads us to a reduced style of living and a style of living that is more primitive than the one we live today. No carrier bags, no central heating, no jet set travelling. Therefore, I believe it wrong to think we can just simply change the way we exist.
At present there are attempts to persuade large companies such as Nike to re-think the way they manufacture and fundamentally carry out business. In Global companies the attempt is to make them more localised and therefore reduce on fuel as well as transportation.
I find myself back at the start, where the choice of economic want against ethical belief is apparent. It seems hard to fathom why large global companies would be willing to give up cheap labour as well as global resources in order to save a long term cause.
This is not to say ‘give up.’ Because as the white paper document, that is produced by the government shows, it is possible to help reduce waste and help support recycling. Previously I took part in research into The Yellow Pages recycling scheme and their rates of recycling have improved by 75% in the past five years due to government legislation. This proves that even though my main argument has been anti-rethinking and pro reducing, reusing and recycling it is not to say there are not ways of improving the environmental standards of large companies.


Packard, Vance. The Waste Makers (London: Mckay, 1960).

Papanek, Victor J. Design for the Real World: human ecology and social change (London: Thames and Hudson, 1995).

Hawkins, Gay. Plastic Bags: Living with rubbish (London: Sage, 2001)

www.dca.gov.uk (white paper)