There is no standard or universal code or covenant for the International Buy Nothing movement. But there are a lot of values and beliefs that are shared, albeit with a wide variety of interpretations and variations. On the occasion of the first No Shop Day in the United Kingdom, November 29 1997, Friends of the Earth came up with a sheet of awkward questions that people may ask you on the street during an action. This sheet, which has been relayed to us by the Netherlands Niet-Winkeldag site, is proposed as a tool and test drive which is intended to help anyone who is actively involved with IBND demonstrations and events. The perspective is perhaps (a) FOE, (b) certainly British, and (c) 1997... but the content has much that is universal and, as the guy said: "it's a big house". Have a look!
Shopping Basics
What can I do?
What do you want the Government to do?
Why today - end of November?
Quality of life
Environment.
Fair Share
Economy, Jobs and Growth"
Shopping Basics
Why don't you want people to shop?
We are not saying we don't want people to shop. We are saying we want people to think about what they buy, and whether consuming ever-more actually does increase quality of life. This is because of the effects of overconsumption on the environment (such as toxic pollution and climate change). These mean we need to reduce consumption, especially in countries like the UK that are consuming much more than their fair share of resources.What's shopping got to do with the environment?
Every product we buy has an effect on the environment - extraction and processing of raw materials, manufacture of products and dumping products at the end of their lives causes pollution, creates toxic waste, wastes energy and destroys precious wildlife habitats. New research by Friends of the Earth suggests that, to stay within environmental limits, and if the UK consumes only its fair share of resources and pumps out only its fair share of pollution, we eventually need to reduce our overall consumption of new materials and energy by around 80%.Look at all these people shopping - its not working is it!
We're not expecting everyone to turn round and head for home, and it's not about whether you pop out for a tin of beans, or some Christmas presents, or not. We're not trying to have an economic effect. But we do want people to think about whether the frenzy of consumption actually improves their life. Why am I doing this? Which ad am I responding to? What do I value?
Back to top
It's actually International No-Shop Day, taking place in the USA,
Canada and many European countries. The day has taken place for six or
seven years now. It's timed to coincide with American Thanksgiving and
also to be in the frenzied run-up to Christmas.
Yes I agree with you but do you have any idea how many people come
into the centre of this town on a Saturday to shop - will it really
make a difference if one or two of us try to cut down on what we
consume?
What we're trying to do is spread the idea the more isn't always
better - at the moment you turn on the TV and are told that the
feelgood factor means everyone's been out shopping more, and we are
bombarded with advertising telling us we need this, that and the other
new shiny thing. We need to change the culture in which we live, and
on No-Shop Day we are trying to get people to think about what really
matters to them. It'll be a long campaign, but we have to start
somewhere.
Clearly there will be less political tension in countries that share
resources out better than others, and studies show that high levels of
inequality are bad for societies - in terms of crime, people's health,
and breakdown of community, for example.
If you use a measure of progress which takers into account factors such
as people's health, the state of the environment, and equality, as well
as economic growth, you find a steady, persistent decline in national
well-being since 1970. Economic growth is good up to a point. After a
certain point the environmental and social damage it causes is more than
the benefit it gives. Much of our economic growth is fixing the problems
caused by our economic activity (eg cleaning up after oil spills,
treating asthma...)
What can I do?
What do you want the Government to do?
Why today - end of November?
You're completely bonkers and unrealistic
No, what's unrealistic is to think we can go on as we are doing at the
moment. We'll trash the planet, and doubly so if you consider that
Southern countries need to consume more - as they develop the UK needs
to reconsider what its fair share of resources is.
Quality of life
What are children supposed to have for Christmas? Are you saying
they can't have any presents?
Of course not - but then if they're getting piles of stuff that
they're going to be bored with by the day after boxing day or that is
going to fall apart by the end of January, maybe its worth thinking
about what we buy them - quality rather than quantity. We also need to
challenge the advertisers who are convincing our kids to want more and
more (and you to have to spend more and more), and specific brands,
and a new craze each year...
What about progress? You're asking us all to live in caves and wear
hairshirts - or at least go back to the war when the shelves were bare
and we all had ration books
No, we're talking about quality of life, and working out what makes us
better off. So we'd have warm, comfortable homes - but not which leak
heat from the roof. We'd have efficient transport - but not gridlock
and fumes. And we'd have well-made, repairable products, not things
which fall apart and have to be dumped.
I don't have time to think about all this - too much work
Precisely! One of the ways our well-being might increase is that we
could get out of work-buy-work harder-buy more trap. Some people work
ever harder, to earn more money to buy more things and don't have time
for the rest of life; others have no paid work at all.
Consuming does make me happy/Shopping is the main social event of my
week/its fun and you're boring killjoys
OK, but you're being ripped off - did you know your household pays
over 500 pound each year for advertising to convince you to love
shopping? It's obviously pretty effective... But it's not going to
work, ultimately we're going to have to shop less if there's going to
be any sort of future for our kids.
This is all very well for you middle class types who don't know what its
like - I have to save every penny to get a new pair of shoes for the
kids. What do you mean, consume less?
The UK as a whole needs to reduce consumption; that doesn't mean the
less well off have to. However, the reality is that if you are on a
low income you probably can't afford quality products which are made
to last. The Government needs to act to sort this out. Also, people
with low incomes tend to be worst affected by environmental problems -
for example, you can't afford to move out of the industrial area to
the leafy suburbs.
You hypocrite - I've seen you shopping!
We all shop, and we all need to consume. Reducing consumption is a
challenge to everyone. Equally everyone needs to think what really
matters, do what we can and force the Government to do what they can.
I thought that FOE was also campaigning for less cars on the roads
and for the centre of towns to be pedestrianised, surely this will
encourage more people to come into the town centre and shop
We're not opposing shopping - we're opposing mass frenzied
overconsumption. One of the ways we might improve our quality of life
whilst also improving the environment is by making town centres into
live places where people could buy what they need, chat and meet up,
and go to cafes, cinemas, libraries and so on...without choking on
fumes, sitting in traffic jams for hours on end and having to shout
above the noise to be heard.
Its human nature you're talking about here - people just want more
No, people want to have an enjoyable, satisfying, secure, comfortable
life. That doesn't equate with consuming ever-more - but in our
current culture you might think it did. We are bombarded with
advertising messages telling us that nothing is ever enough, and often
even if we do want to buy something that is made to last, or is made
efficiently, or is in reusable packaging, those options aren't
available. We need political and cultural change. According to opinion
surveys people want this kind of change, but Government policies make
it difficult.
Are you against Christmas?
No, people enjoy different things about Christmas - some people get
spiritual satisfaction, others enjoy friends and family, others simply
have a good holiday. We are saying that Christmas is more than simply
consuming more and more goods.
What about local shops? They're good aren't they?
We're not opposing any particular shops. But on the whole small local
businesses mean wealth is kept in the local area, and they may mean
more local jobs and more of a sense of local community.
Environment
When are resources going to run out?
Resources running out isn't the pressing problem, at least not for
things like aluminium and iron - the problem is the side-effects of
the rate at which we use them. The urgent environmental problem is the
pollution, energy use and habitat destruction caused by the extraction
of resources and manufacturing of products, with impacts such as
climate change, acid rain and toxic pollution.
You're unrealistic - it isn't possible for everyone to be comfortable
yet reduce resource consumption by 80%
Yes it is - by designing things better, repairing reusing and
recycling, and by asking how much is enough. If you keep the same
number of products, and make things last twice as long using half as
much virgin material, you're almost there. The barriers are not
technical, they are political and cultural.
If technology is so great why can't the whole problem be sorted out by
efficiency - why do you also need to say 'consume less'?
Because its no good making, say, TVs twice as efficiently if four
times as many of them are sold - the efficiency gains will be eaten up
by increased numbers of products consumed. At the moment, our economy
and culture is set up so that this is precisely what will happen.
What's wrong with 75 varieties of toothbrush [refers to leaflet] - more
types of toothbrush doesn't hurt the environment does it?
No, not literally. It's a symbol - it's so ridiculous suggesting that
having 75 types of toothbrush makes anyone better off (and that more
and more choice is always good). Yet the advertisers will seriously
try to convince us that the one type needs replacing with another,
using a variety of spurious excuses...which is what happens for all
the products we buy, whether we get convinced that they need replacing
for a different colour, more power or because they work 30 metres
under water...
Fair share
Fair share sounds communist to me.
What do you mean? - we're talking about fairness and equality of
opportunity - basic values. In a world without environmental limits,
you could consume what you want. As soon as you accept that there are
limits, you have to tackle how the limited resources are distributed.
This is political reality. We are not saying that every individual
should have exactly the same, but that every country will demand, and
has a right to, its share. It is up to individual countries to decide
how they share resources out amongst people - it is up to us in
Britain to ensure that everyone's needs are met.
There's always been inequality - 'the poor will always be with us'.
You're being naive in the extreme with this fair shares suggestion But
you can't argue with the principle that each nation should have right
of access to its share of resources, and countries which have
previously had to go without are starting to demand their share - they
wouldn't call it naive. Indeed, some Southern countries are not only
asking for access to an equal share, they are saying that they should
have their 100-year bonanza just as we have in the North. Anyway, the
developing countries are getting politically stronger - in reality, we
need their co-operation if we are to tackle the big global issues like
climate change.
If the UK consumes less where are Southern countries going to find
markets? People would be even poorer wouldn't they?
We need to tend more towards local self-reliance. This does not mean
an end to world trade, but it means more local production for local
consumption around the world. Also, currently the net flow of
resources is from South to North, not vice versa. We need to cut
consumption in rich countries to allow poor countries access to the
resources they need, in order to cut poverty. However, there are huge
political problems which need to be sorted out in tandem with changing
Northern consumption patterns - such as Third World debt and unfair
trade. At the moment, Southern countries cannot get full value from
their production because of unfair regulations and taxes, effectively
set by the richer, more powerful countries.
Isn't it Southern countries that are damaging the environment
anyway, setting fire to the forests and that sort of thing?
Poor people may damage environments because they have little other
option to survive. If they had access to resources this would not
happen. However, 20% of the world's people consume 80% of its
resources and emit the majority of the pollution - they are the ones
causing the majority of environmental damage. Much Southern
environmental degradation - such as forest destruction - is driven by
Northern consumption - for example, of wood. The South provides
resources to the North.
But people in Southern countries want all this shopping too - why
shouldn't they have it, how can you say they can't?
We are saying that poorer countries can consume more. The planet won't
stand for everyone living as we do in the North. And you're right, we
will not be able to say 'we will continue to consume whilst you stay
poor.' If we share resources more freely that gives room for
developing countries to grow and consume more, whilst we change our
consumption habits and become more efficient.
Why don't you tackle population growth instead?
The world's population is set to nearly double in the next 50 years,
mostly in poor countries. However, it is the rich countries, with a
small percentage of the world's population, that cause the majority of
the world's environmental damage. FOE believes that we need to cut
rich countries consumption in order to allow poor countries access to
the resources they need, as a key component of tackling poverty.
Overcoming poverty is a necessary requirement for these countries to
gain control of the size of their population. Population is part of
the problem, but not the cause of it.
Economy, Jobs and Growth
Everyone will be out of a job if we don't buy things won't they?
On the contrary, an increase in local business, and in repair and
reuse, will create more jobs. A couple of examples from Friends of the
Earth's report Working Future - Jobs and the Environment (1994):
Economic growth has created progress - most people in this country
are massively better off than they were 50 or 100 years ago. Do you
want to take that away?
According to John Major during the 1997 general election campaign,
Britain is on course to 'double our living standards in the next 25
years'. If Ted Heath had made the same promise in 1972, he wouldn't
have been far wrong - our gross domestic product, which is essentially
a measure of how much money changes hands, is over one and a half
times higher than it was in 1972. But during the same period, violent
crime has quadrupled, the incidence of asthma has tripled, car traffic
has almost doubled, and concentrations of climate changing gases have
grown enormously. Is this progress?
Home
@Forum
Post Office
Last updated 11 December 2000
Site Map
What's New
Search