I was driving into Nottingham this week and I stopped at the lights behind a park and ride bus. I was struck by the big advertisement on the bus that I was forced to read while waiting for the lights to turn green. It showed a group of happy business people with the caption “We like to Park and Ride to reduce our carbon footprint!”
It left me somewhat bemused and wondering whether the city’s transport marketing folks were insulting the intelligence of the natives of my home town, or whether they were just hopelessly misguided in their thinking (a third option of course is that it is me who is completely wrong and I will be happy to receive comments from those who believe this is the case).
I’m all for being environmentally aware. I re-use my old carrier bags (when I remember) and say no when shops offer a big bag for something I can put in my pocket; I walk wherever it’s feasible to do so; and I have replaced all the lights in the house with those annoying ones that take an age to reach a mediocre level of intensity.
I also use the Park and Ride if we go into nearby Oxford or Cambridge for the day. But I would never say that I use it with more than a fleeting thought for our carbon footprint. In both cities the parking can be horrendous. You can crawl through traffic jams for a long time looking for a space in a very expensive car park. The bus on the other hand leaves regularly from the park and ride, which in turn is situated conveniently on the main road into the city. In fact, when visiting Cambridge we often don’t even bother with the bus and walk the 3 miles on the pleasant cycle route from the park and ride to the city centre.
The fact that I’m not polluting the city centre is of course a good thing (it would be better if I didn’t even drive as far as the park and ride and got the train instead). But the real motives for me and I suspect for others are time and money, rather than a belief in changing the world or enhancing my environmental superstar status.
If the park and ride was £10 for example, I don’t believe it would be used at all. Nor if the bus had to negotiate its way through the rush hour traffic without the help of a dedicated bus lane. On the flip side, if an alternative supplier provided a cheaper and faster service with an older, gas-guzzling vehicle, I strongly suspect those happy smiling business people would switch sides quickly.
The same principle applies to other areas, most notably in travel. Yes, the green alternatives can work and be an attractive choice. But surely they will work not purely because they are green but also because they are better in terms of time, money and/or quality of experience. It is not realistic to attach a green label to a product or service and expect people to choose it over otherwise superior alternatives.
Have to say I agree Andy. Rail travel is often marketed in this way but most will only opt for it over flying if it’s as convenient and affordable, or at least if there’s not much in it, and that’s sadly rarely the case.
Andy, I agree with all you have written, but I’m not going to just leave it at that, otherwise I’m wasting my time and yours. In an age when most of us know the price of everything, but not the cost, by this I mean the environmental and social costs, most consumers buy on price. Staying with costs and prices, the earth provides us with food, energy, fresh air and water. These have a value and very rarely are they considered in economic terms. A cheaper gas guzzling, polluting bus service would not be cheaper when all of the costs of illnesses from pollution, increases in the cost of oil as it runs out faster, not to mention the costs of keeping a planet affected by climate change, habitable.
I’m with you John – there are many costs to the gas guzzling bus beyond the ticket price. It’s a question of getting us, the public, to include those factors in our ‘value calculation.’ While so few of us do and people continue to buy on price alone (eg: train v plane as Jools points out) these glib attempts at green spin continue to be strong on irony and little else. It’s only when people are able to choose the green choice according to their value calculation that they might then think “and it’s green too”. A complex area of course – and a topic to debate for many years to come. Thanks gents for your valued thoughts.