Thread by @RachelCoxcoon

This article about the #GreenhouseGas emissions of the super-rich touches on something I stress repeatedly in my work with local authorities.

The carbon footprints of the wealthiest households are much bigger than the poorest…
theguardian.com/environment/20…

…and I’m not just talking about the mega-wealthy, I mean even just the moderately rich. But many councils are fearful of being seen to actively help the rich, so they conflate their #climateemergency work with work they are (often already) doing on tackling #FuelPoverty.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying for one minute that councils should abandon efforts to tackle #FuelPoverty. That’s a social ill that should have been dealt with long ago and is a legacy of the UK’s largely crappy housing stock.

energyvoice.com/other-news/916…

But if we are to make progress with bringing emissions down quickly, then demonising the rich is not a tenable position. There’s a lazy tendency to characterise ‘the rich’ as the bad guys, like somehow anyone that’s not on benefits is an awful person, & not worthy of helping.

(When I say rich, I mean just 'doing rather well for themselves'. I'd struggle to find anything nice to say about this guy and his ridiculous rockets, tbh).

Councils need to be actively targeting wealthier households in their #climatechange work, if emissions are to fall quickly.The wealthiest households have the greatest ‘agency’ to change. They are highly likely to own the home they live in, and the vehicles they travel in.

But the reality is, while many middle-to-high income households are very worried about #ClimateChange, they have no meaningful understanding of their main impact areas, being totally fixated on issues like re-usable water bottles and finding a place to recycle their crisp packets

(Side note - in large part, this confusion is down to years of effort by big corporates to pass the buck from their ruthless advertising of high-carbon lifestyles back onto individuals, for more on which, see the excellent #Badvertising campaign here: badverts.org).

& #Localgovernment compounds this with half-baked information campaigns suggesting recycling is the best way to tackle the #climatecrisis. Often this is made worse when political control of the new #climatechange brief sits with the portfolio holder for ‘environment’...

You know, that local councillor who’s been in charge of the waste and recycling brief for years, and suddenly finds they're also responsible for literally everything the council is doing on climate change, and so retreats into the safe space of talking about recycling. Again.

But back to the main point. Any carbon footprinting tool will say largely the same thing. Any reasonably well-off household needs to change travel habits, start saving up to properly retrofit that house you own, and cut out (especially red) meat on quite a few days of the week.

#Localgovernment, right down to Town and Parish Councils, can play a lead role in this by using their own ‘trusted brand’ to get these messages across. But it's simply not good to let your existing comms team just make some stuff up on the fly.

A coherent strategy, based on an in depth understanding of the profile of carbon footprints across the council’s area, & an equally in-depth understanding of how different segments of your population respond to #climate messaging is vital.

Officers need to be given the time and the budget to build this sort of campaign. A good place to start is the excellent ‘Britain Talks Climate’ resource from @ClimateOutreach, to provide nuance to the messaging for different segments. climateoutreach.org/reports/britai…

This could be combined with ward-level carbon footprint and housing stock surveys, such as the work that @BathNES council commissioned to understand their ‘citizens emissions’ profiles, and which can now also be done at parish level via the Impact tool: impact-tool.org.uk

But it could go further. ID your highest emitting wards and parishes, and develop support schemes just for them. Don’t get hung up on the fact that they are the ‘rich people’ & somebody might have a go about you spending taxpayers money helping people who should help themselves.

These are the people who, armed with the right information & provided with a bit of proactive support, will help drive that retrofit market in your area, who might make it 'cool' to own a cargo bike etc etc. And who will probably then demand more cycle lanes to ride them on....

Basically, that's a very long-winded and GIF-laden way of saying 'well off households have more 'fat to cut' in their carbon footprint, more agency to make changes to their own lives, & more buying power to change markets. Ignore them at your peril.

Happy Friday everyone.