Jan 16 2015

My experience as a Green Impact Project Assistant at the Peacock Theatre

Leave a comment

Diana Martinez-TorresDiana Martínez, LSE MSc student in City Design and Social Science, gives the lowdown on her work as a Green Impact Project Assistant, helping to make the Peacock Theatre at LSE more sustainable.  She has discovered a building that is energy-efficient, and which is cutting its water consumption with some unusual toilets… 

I am interested in issues related to sustainability. For this reason, last term I decided to explore the different projects related to sustainability at LSE and to support one of them.

One of the projects that caught my attention was Green Impact. Green Impact is an environmental accreditation and award scheme run by the National Union of Students in more than 60 universities and colleges and 100 student unions across the UK, as well as a growing range of other public sector organisations including local authorities and NHS trusts. The aim is that staff and students are working to embed sustainable behaviour in their departments.

How does it work?

Green Impact focusing on supporting people to take simple actions to make small environmental changes in their workplace, and rewarding them for their efforts. Teams from departments across the organisation compete against each other.  It follows an annual cycle, and at the end of each year, they are audited to receive awards for their efforts and their performance and might achieve a Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum standard.  At LSE, each team has a student Green Impact Project Assistant (‘GIPA’)to provide support with coordinating and completing the tasks.  I am supporting this project and was assigned as a GIPA to the Peacock Theatre team.

Some tasks of the Green Impact Project Assistant

My tasks as a project assistant include:

  • Motivating Green Impact team members.
  • Helping write a departmental ‘green newsletter’.
  • Putting up posters.
  • Conducting online research on issues and initiatives that arose from team meetings.
  • Uploading evidence to the online workbook.

At the beginning of December 2014 I was visiting and talking with the Green Impact team leader at the Peacock Theatre about the activities of the project.  I must say that I was pleasantly surprised by the job that the team had already done to make the theatre more sustainable. Looking at some information about the building, one can see its capacity is enormous, with a hall that can host nearly 1000 people.  Despite being a rather old building (built in 1960), the theatre scores well on energy use, and is fairly energy-efficient when compared with other buildings of a similar age in London.  Its energy efficiency certificate gives it a ‘B’ rating, which is above average for buildings of this type. The theatre achieved this level after some tremendous improvements over the last couple of years.

Reducing water use at the Peacock Theatre

One of the questions that I asked the project leader was about the measures to save water.  The theatre is in daily use for plays and other performances, lectures, conferences, LSE open days and more.  This constant use implies very high water consumption, especially in toilets.

The Peacock Theatre refurbished its toilets in 2013 in order to be more sustainable.

Toilet at Peacock Theatre

Toilet at Peacock Theatre

LSE worked together with Propelair.  This is a British company that has revolutionised the toilet with a 1.5 litre flush, using 84% less water than a standard toilet.  Moreover, it uses 80% less carbon. The main benefit of the new toilet according to the company is its water saving capacity.

An average household with a nine-litre toilet flushes around 110 litres of water down the pan every day. Toilets in offices, schools and public conveniences account for an ever-greater proportion of total water use. Despite these water usage levels there has been little innovation in toilet functionality for many years.

In addition to superior performance and significant environmental benefits, replacing an old toilet by an air-flushed toilet makes economic sense as water bills can be reduced by several hundred pounds per year, depending on usage. Moreover, as the air-flushed toilet is recharged faster than a classical toilet, it can be used more frequently, which implies a saving in toilet space in commercial buildings.  This is particularly significant in buildings that are used by large crowds in short intense periods, such as the Peacock Theatre .

The table below shows the annual savings which could be achieved based on the type of property, the number of flushes per day and the region of the country:

  Commercial Residential
Litres per flush saved 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Flushes per day 50 95 10 20
Days 260 260 330 330
Litres of water saved per annum 97,500 185,250 24,750 49,500
Cost savings
Thames Water area £194 £368 £49 £98
South West Water area £511 £971 £130 £259


How does an air-flushed toilet work?

The diagram below shows how Propelair toilets work. Propelair patented a new method using displaced air, called POWA™ technology, Propelair®, that produces a powerful, high-performance flush. The mechanism uses a small amount of flush water, which is forced out of the bowl using air pressure.  This is similar to the kind of toilets one encounters on aeroplanes.

toilet mechanism


This term at the Peacock Theatre

I am very excited and motivated to continue supporting the Green Impact Team at the Peacock Theatre, to help them achieve their goals in the coming term.  I am sure I will learn a lot from the innovative approaches they have taken so far.  And I hope we can further reduce the impact of the LSE infrastructure on our environment.


About the author

Diana Martínez Torres is an LSE Masters student in City Design and Social Science. She is convinced that sustainable mobility influences the quality of life of people, and transforms cities into more human, equitable and liveable places.  Diana’s website is http://citiesforus.com, and she can be found on twitter:  @CitiesForUs.

Posted by: Posted on by Jon Emmett Tagged with: , , ,

Dec 12 2014

LSE’s sustainability journey

Leave a comment

It’s not enough to have a general idea.  You must also know how to put it into practice.

These were the words of William Beveridge (LSE Director, 1919-1937) in a speech to LSE students in 1931, where he argued that rigorous study of the social sciences should be brought to bear upon the key challenges of our society.

Dr Victoria Hands, 2009

Dr Victoria Hands, 2009

Fast forward to 2004, and LSE’s ongoing mission to ‘walk the talk’ of its research and teaching led the School to employ its first Environmental Coordinator to improve its environmental footprint. Dr Victoria Hands, who had recently completed a PhD at LSE on sustainability in urban planning, took on the challenge. She demonstrated that major environmental and financial benefits could be achieved through better management of the School’s energy and waste.

Laying the foundations

In 2005, LSE Director Howard Davies (himself a keen cyclist), launched LSE’s Environmental Sustainability Policy.  This was the first time LSE formally recognised the environmental impacts on its own doorstep, and committed to creating positive change – not just by continuing to produce excellent environmental research, but through reducing its carbon footprint, producing less waste and communicating about these issues. The LSE Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment was founded in 2008, as was the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy – both chaired by Professor Lord Nicolas Stern, just two years after the publication of the famous Stern Review of the economics of climate change, which continues to have global resonance.

LSE's Sustainability team in 2009

LSE’s Sustainability team in 2009

By this time, Dr Hands had already established LSE as a sustainability leader among universities, spearheading groundbreaking projects that have by now become standard practice in the Higher Education sector. Projects like our halls re-use scheme ‘Relove’ – where students moving out halls at the end of each year donate items that they would otherwise discard, saving them from waste and offering them to new students. Dr Hands also built up the Sustainability Team, taking on two dedicated Sustainability Officers. The existing Waste Officer role was also brought in and likewise all utilities were now dealt with by a dedicated Carbon Reduction Manager, ensuring that energy-saving opportunities would be embedded.

Enhancing the campus

LSE emits 19% less CO2 per area of campus floorspace in 2014 compared with 2005. Initiatives like 2011′s new recycling system increased recycling rates from 37% to 58% and resulted in the School sending zero waste to landfill.

LSE waste sent to landfill

LSE waste sent to landfill

Julian Robinson oversaw the major renovation of the New Academic Building in 2008, which achieved BREEAM ‘Excellent’, a high standard of sustainable design. He became Director of Estates in 2009 and sustainability became a key element of the continual improvement of LSE’s campus and residences.

The Saw Swee Hock Student Centre, 2014

The Saw Swee Hock Student Centre, 2014

Five years on, when the Saw Swee Hock Student Centre opened its doors in 2014, it was only the 17thbuilding in the world to achieve BREEAM ‘Outstanding’ – the highest available mark of sustainable design. The building is only one of a growing number of LSE buildings to be kitted out with energy saving (and energy-generating) measures including solar PV panels, LED lighting (automated with motion sensors), CHP boilers, and improved building management controls. Water-saving fittings are being rolled out across the LSE estate, such as dual-flush toilets, waterless urinals, taps activated by infrared sensors – and most recently a vacuum-powered toilet that uses 85% less water per flush than standard toilets. LSE’s teaching also features a strong sustainability streak, popping up in all manner of courses and climate change has been part of LSE 100 since it launched in 2009. It situates climate change as one of the key challenges of our times, and includes a lecture from Nicholas Stern on how to manage the economic and policy dilemmas it has brought.

LSE sustainability awards cabinet

LSE sustainability awards cabinet

2009 also saw LSE recognised as the second most sustainable university in the UK by the annual People and Planet Green League. LSE has now received a ‘first class’ degree for the last five years in a row, and we’re looking forward to the results of this year’s League. Our environmental work has also won a raft of other awards – as seen in this photo! One award LSE is particularly proud is ISO 14001 certification – an international standard demonstrating that we have robust systems to continually improve our environmental impacts – which we have held since 2012.


Working together

LSE is a complex place, and a big part of School’s sustainability story has been our ongoing work to make better connections between departments. A big part of this has been ‘Green Impact’ – a competition for LSE departments to take the most actions to ‘green’ their offices, which has enjoyed several hundred participants since it started in 2010.

LSE rooftop gardening harvest

LSE rooftop gardening harvest

The LSE bees have also captured people’s imaginations. Since beehives were first welcomed to Passfield Hall in 2010, the LSESU Beekeeping Society has established more hives there and on the roof of Connaught House; 200 jars of honey were harvested in autumn 2014. (Yum!) The bees are well nourished by various greenery that has been introduced on campus over the last few years, including five roof gardens as well as a green wall, brown and green sedum roofs, and window boxes. LSE installed bike maintenance stands on campus in 2013, with tools for cyclists fix their own bikes. This was made possible by the LSE Sustainable Projects Fund, which was begun in 2011 to support student and staff projects to improve sustainability on campus each year, and is funded by a 10p ‘tax’ on bottled water sold at catering outlets. From the micro-level to the global – LSE’s unique public lecture programme has hosted some of the world’s leading voices on sustainability issues, including Mary Robinson, Dr James Hansen, and many more.

The future…

Returning to William Beveridge, he said in 1930 that “The life of the School has always been a life of adventure, the breaking into new fields of study and the attacking of old problems by new methods.”  Perhaps in the case of sustainability and climate change, we’re dealing with some new problems as well as old ones. But we’ll have a go at dealing with them just the same. Back in the present day (2014), we’re proud to be able to look back at a decade of sustainability at LSE and see how far we’ve come.  We look forward to seeing what the next 10 years will bring.

By Jon Emmett, LSE Sustainability Projects Officer

This post originally appeared on the LSE History Blog on 10th December 2014.

Posted by: Posted on by Jon Emmett Tagged with: , ,

Nov 24 2014

From Crisis to Creation: building a sustainable financial system

1 Comment

Nick RobinsNick Robins, Co-director of the UNEP Inquiry into the Design of a Sustainable Financial System, makes the case for a set of policy measures that he argues would make the global finance system more efficient, more environmentally and socially sustainable, and better at managing risks and instability.  

Hesitantly at first, but now gathering momentum, governments across the world have started to add a new suite of policy instruments to the sustainable development toolbox.  Whether it’s banking, insurance or investment, the message is clear:  reforming the financial system is a necessary part of the transition to a green and inclusive economy.

Six years on from the first tremors of the 2008 crisis, we are entering a new phase in financial reform.  Collapse has been averted and stability strengthened.  Now the task is to rethink the rules that govern the financial system so that it’s ‘fit for purpose’.  And what is that purpose?  For Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, the answer is clear:  “We can identify the true purpose of finance.  Its goal is to put resources to productive use, to transform maturity, thereby contributing to the good of economic stability and full employment – and ultimately, to the well-being of people, in other words to enrich society”.

In our century defined by mounting resource stress, hazardous levels of local air and water pollution along with global climate disruption, these aspirational goals cannot be realised without factoring in the environmental and social dimensions.  Hitherto, the twin agendas of financial reform and sustainable development have been kept largely separate.

This year a new initiative was established to bridge the gap.  Launched by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in January at Davos, the Inquiry into the Design of a Sustainable Financial System aims to “advance policy options that would deliver a step change in the financial system’s effectiveness in mobilising capital towards a green and inclusive economy”.  The Inquiry will present its final report at the end of 2015, and its work programme involves research and engagement across the world including in Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Colombia, the European Union, India, Indonesia, Kenya, South Africa, Uganda, the USA and the UK.

Highlights of what we have found so far include new measures to strengthen environmental risk management.  China’s Banking Regulatory Commission introduced its ‘green credit guidelines’ in 2012 with the goal of encouraging banks to “increase the support to a green, low-carbon and recycling economy, fend off environmental and social risks, and improve their own environmental and social performance”.

The latest addition to this ‘green banking’ trend came in April 2014, when the Central Bank of Brazil introduced a new resolution requiring the banks it regulates to implement environmental and social risk policies.  South Africa has also been in the vanguard of updating its pension policy to make it clear to institutional investors that prudence now means incorporating critical environmental, social and governance factors.

And in the UK, the Prudential Regulatory Authority, part of the Bank of England, is exploring the implications of climate change for its core regulatory duty of ensuring the safety and soundness of insurance companies.

Beyond the question of de-risking the financial system lies the critical challenge of re-balancing capital allocation towards investments in clean energy, efficient housing, sustainable agriculture, smart urban transportation as well as water and waste infrastructure.  A potential pillar of this is the fast-growing ‘green bond’ market which raises ring-fenced financing for investments in clean energy and resource efficiency continues to grow by leaps and bounds.  This has reached issuance of USD34bn so far in 2014, compared with USD11bn for the whole of 2013.  To take this market further, critical policy issues include common standards to ensure market integrity, providing tax incentives to encourage inflows and offering credit enhancement to enable institutional allocations.

Heading into 2015, a series of international policy processes will place the spotlight on what financial architecture is needed to respond to strategic environmental and social challenges: the Hyogo framework for disaster risk reduction, the Financing for Development summit, the new Sustainable Development Goals, and the finalisation of a new climate change agreement.

What is striking is that banking and investment leaders are recognising that reforms are needed within the financial system to complement traditional environmental and sustainability policies.  For example, Mark Wilson, CEO of Aviva, global insurance company with investment assets of over USD350bn has written in the first of the Inquiry’s Financial Leadership Series:

 “We see the primary failure of the capital markets in relation to sustainable development as one of a misallocation of capital.  One of the main sources of market inefficiency is the misaligned incentives that produce an excessively short-term view.  I believe that the financial sector as a whole has a generational opportunity to build sustainable capital markets.”

The prize is a framework of rules that shift real incentives and change actual behaviour so that markets are more resilient in the face of sustainability risks, and capital is more efficiently allocated to the clean industries of the future.

For more information:  www.unep.org/inquiry

Nick Robins spoke at an LSE panel debate on ‘How finance is tackling sustainability:  a roadmap to the future’, on 17th November 2014.  A podcast of the talk is now available online.  

Posted by: Posted on by Jon Emmett Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

Nov 5 2014

Dirty Old London


leemjackson - smallRecycling in London isn’t new – we’ve been doing it for around two hundred years.  But it hasn’t always been for environmental reasons;  and it hasn’t always been pretty…  Lee Jackson, Web Development Officer for LSE Law and author of Dirty Old London: The Victorian Fight Against Filth, explains.


The modern enthusiasm for recycling household waste dates back to the environmental movement of the 1970s.  The capital, however, has a long history of recycling its domestic rubbish – although not necessarily for the good of the plaDirty Old London book cover - smallnet.

At the start of the nineteenth century, rubbish collection was the responsibility of London’s local authorities – parish vestries.  They, in turn, contracted with businessmen, who employed teams of labourers to clean the streets and empty bins.  There was money in accumulating muck.  Rotten food, offal and bones could be sold for manure; linen rags used in the manufacture of paper; ‘hard-ware’ or ‘hard-core’, consisting of broken pots, crockery and oyster shells, could be crushed and used as a foundation for roads. Even dead cats were a valuable commodity, sold to furriers “Sixpence for a white cat, fourpence for a coloured cat, and for a black one according to her quality” 1.

All the above, however, played second fiddle to ashes and cinders – the great bulk of household refuse (hence dustman etc.) – which could make the recycling of rubbish a potential goldmine.  Ashes had always had some value to farmers as fertilizer, and could be profitably mixed with the dung of road sweepings, but the great market in the early nineteenth century was amongst the brickmakers, whose works ringed the ever-expanding capital.

Fine ash was mixed with clay in the manufacture of bricks, and the larger cinders or ‘breeze’ – coal that was incompletely burnt in household fires – was used as slow-burning fuel.  As London grew at an unprecedented rate, the construction industry’s demand for bricks became insatiable.  The profits for the dust contractor, in turn, were commensurate. Wags joked that London was a phoenix, rising again from its own ashes.  In fact, this was doubly true. It was common to use hard-core not only as a foundation for roads, but new houses.

The demand for ashes amongst brickmakers was so great that dust contractors paid local authorities for the privilege of collecting waste (as well as cleaning the streets for free, or at a discount).  ‘Flying dustmen’ stole ashes from domestic bins, before contractors could reach it.  In 1822, two men were arrested in Downing Street, described as “in the constant habit of creeping down into the area, and removing by stealth ashes from the dirt-hole”. They confessed that they “sold the cinders for 4d. or 5d. a bushel, and disposed of the small dust to the brick-makers”.

dustheap1 - small

Workers in a dust yard.

The vast wealth of certain contractors would become notorious. Mr. Boffin of Dickens’s Our Mutual Friend (1865) is Victorian literature’s famous dust contractor (the ‘Golden Dustman’) having inherited Mr. Harmon’s King Cross dust-heap, together with a hundred thousand pounds (earned from the dust business).  Boffin was most likely based on Henry Dodd, a successful contractor from Islington, whom the great author met whilst both were involved in an attempt to set up a charity for retired actors.  Dodd reputedly began his working life as a farmhand.  When he died in 1881, he left a thriving business in London and a renovated Jacobean manor house in Essex, with his personal estate worth an astonishing £111,000 (in comparison, Dickens’s estate, in 1870, was worth £93,000 – both men would have been millionaires by modern standards).

The business did entail some financial risk.  In particular, contractors were extremely vulnerable to changes in the demand for ashes and cinders.  The price paid by brickmakers for ashes was volatile, mirroring fluctuations in the building trade.  Contractors’ finances, in turn, could swiftly become very precarious.  Records from the ‘Day Book’ of a contractor in the early 1800s shows prices dropping from 16s. per chaldron (waggon-load) to 9s. within the space of two months, and down to 6s. within a year.  The annual accounts of individual parishes, likewise, show how prices rose and fell.  In St. Clement Danes, Westminster, the dust contractor paid £1,100 for the privilege of collecting dust in 1824/25; but only £900 guineas in the following year.

In 1826/27, when it was clear the metropolitan economy had fallen into a spectacular slump, after a stock market bubble collapsed, ‘he would give nothing, nor would he have it at all’.  All this had predictable consequences for the general public – dustmen and street cleaners disappeared; complaints about unemptied bins were legion (“Bribes offered to the dustmen, complaints lodged at the Court-house, and appeal to Hobbs, the dust contractor, have all alike been utterly futile”2).

The use of contractors, nonetheless, continued. In part, this was because many contractors were closely connected to local authorities – rumours of bribery were rife.  But there was also an assumption that contractors would ultimately return to paying handsomely for the privilege of collecting refuse – perhaps not this year, but the next year, or the one after that – and the parish would reap the rewards.

dustheap2 - small

This actually held true until the 1860s.  But London began to grow too big.  The supply of cinders and ashes from the burgeoning metropolis began to exceed any possible demand.  Likewise, the transport costs involved in shipping breeze to ever more distant brickfields increased proportionately.  The price paid for dust by brick-makers dropped and – unlike in the past – did not recover.  The railways also brought more and more factory-made bricks from the provinces, not cut from London clay.

Local authorities looked for new ways to make rubbish pay.  Some dismissed their contractors and attempted to replace them with their own municipal endeavours.  In the 1870s, for example, St. Mary Newington developed an extensive business selling ‘Newington Mixture’, an artificial manure conjured up from street sweepings and dust,shipped by rail from its dust depot to purpose built storage facilities at Meopham and Longfield in Kent, whence it was sold to farmers.  In the 1890s, Shoreditch experimented with new incinerators – ‘dust destructors’ – which could power steam engines to produce electricity for local businesses.

But the halcyon days when rubbish collection generated great profits were over.  Without the profit from ashes and cinders, recycling in general became less economically attractive, and local authorities increasingly switched to landfill as the principal method of disposing of metropolitan refuse – setting the pattern for the following century.  Indeed to this day, landfill still accounts for almost fifty percent of London’s rubbish.

However, the latest strategy document from the Mayor of London notes that the relevant local authorities in the home counties “are increasingly reluctant to accept London’s waste”.  Meanwhile, “Many waste authorities have not yet capitalised on the growing markets for recycled materials or on the demand for the energy that can be produced from waste”.  The report blames “long-term, inflexible contracts” with private firms and a “preference to outsource risk”, and concludes that “waste authorities have not actively pursued the opportunity to generate income from their waste management activities”.

The nineteenth century’s alchemical dream of extracting gold from dust is alive and well, and living in City Hall.


1.  Horne, Richard H:  ‘Dust; or Ugliness Redeemed’ Household Words, (July 1850), p.380

2.  Letter to The Times, 27th May 1885

Lee Jackson works part-time as Web Development Officer for LSE Law. A novelist and historian, he is fascinated by the social history of Victorian London, runs the website www.victorianlondon.org, and can be found on twitter @victorianlondon. His latest book Dirty Old London: The Victorian Fight Against Filth has just been published by Yale University Press.  A public talk to launch Dirty Old London is being held on Wednesday 19 November at 6.30pm in the Wolfson Theatre – all welcome.





Posted by: Posted on by Jon Emmett Tagged with: , , , , , ,

Sep 26 2014

Urban greening in the City of London

1 Comment

MW - profile photoMichelle Warbis, LSE Environment and Development student, proposes an amendment to the  City of London’s  ‘Community Infrastructure Levy’ that could promote the growth of urban green space in the Capital – despite a policy landscape that has previously hampered greening by prioritising revenue-generating building developments. 

‘Greening’ is considered a policy priority both locally and nationally.  Though outlined in England’s National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF) and the London Plan, it has become increasingly difficult as an era of high growth, spurred by increasing urban land exchange values at the cost of use values takes hold.  London perhaps epitomises this transition, as new developments for business, entertainment, retail, housing and public services pop up more rapidly, and at higher cost – economically and otherwise – than ever before.

At present the London Plan and the NPPF have placed increased emphasis on both quantity and quality of green space, though the provision of such space is still not a statutory requirement in the country.  The City of London – one of the capital’s 32 boroughs – provides an interesting case study in the problems and possibilities of urban greening as a result of its truly unique governance structure, its position as a global leading financial centre, and of course its unusually small size.

Currently at less than 5% green space, the area falls well below London average, problematic for both environmental and social ills.  A major issue for the City of London is the requirement for floor space for business.  Adverse to the recommendations in the NPPF and the London Plan, the City’s Core Strategy highlights the need to increase floor space stock for business by 1,150,000m2 by 2026.  As such, the likelihood of increasing the borough’s green space above 5% under current plans is unlikely – to say the most.

City land-use

Figure 1: Charts showing current land-use in the City of London. Statistics taken from City of London Core Strategy.


Problematizing the City’s greening further is its governance structure:  it’s highly complex and fragmented, decision making is littered with private-public partnerships, and the interdependence of international global businesses and finance allows the City to operate outside of common regulation.  Additionally, the City’s Lord Mayor, removing the borough from wider London mayoral activities, grants the City the right to run its own affairs.  This is arguably best demonstrated by allocation of ballot papers to City workers and businesses, in numbers of which dwarf the tiny 8,000-person residency.

City green map

Figure 2: Map showing location of green spaces in the City of London (not to scale).    Source: City of London Core Strategy


Clearly, a full circle is in action:  businesses operating in the City of London exert disproportionate control over floor space stock decisions, in a context where there is a lack of statutory requirement for green space, and where the City has a high degree of autonomy.  These conditions point towards a continued decline in green space and urban greening as the built environment of the City of London continues to grow outwards and – increasingly – upwards.

It is this upwards growth, however, that may provide a feasible solution to the City’s urban greening dilemma.  In July 2014, The City of London Corporation introduced a Community Infrastructure Levy on all development within the borough.  Under this policy, housing developments and business, retail or leisure developments must each pay a levy, or tax, per square metre of net additional floorspace.  This rate varies depending on the type and location of development.  The Corporation then uses this money for community benefits, which may range from public leisure facilities to care for the elderly.

So why may this enable an increasing upwards flurry of green space?  Research undertaken in April and May 2014 indicated the potential to include voluntary urban greening in new developments through this levy.  It is proposed that the levy’s baseline per square metre should be increased and then proportionally reduced where plans include urban greening in the form of green roofs and walls.  This reduction of per square metre levy would be proportional per square metre of urban greening provided.

The higher quality and more equitable (e.g. accessible) the proposed greening, the higher the rate of increase, eventually taking the levy back to its original per square metre rate.  Where developments still choose to opt out of greening, the finance derived from the increased levy should be ring-fenced by the Corporation for their own green projects which may include road-widening for tree planting, altering existing buildings with greening or expanding or improving existing open green space.

A win-win seems to appear:  urban greening takes place privately, at the hands of developers by way of avoiding an unnecessary tax, or alternatively, ring-fenced revenue from an enforced tax will enable publicly funded greening.  Of course tax levels must be set efficiently to avoid moral hazard and ensure cost-of-greening to cost-of-tax equity, but following this, the simplicity of an existing levy alteration has the power to be incredibly effective:  earlier research pointed towards upwards urban greening has the potential to grow the City’s green space to 8% (up from 5%  – ie a conservative estimate of a 67% increase) by 2031.

Community levy outcomes

Figure 3:   System diagram showing likely outcomes of an altered Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Implementing alteration leads to growth and urban greening.


Indeed, new urban life presents challenges to sustainability, and the ‘sustainable city’, though currently in vogue, may seem little more than a buzzword. However the potential for the tiny, densely packed City of London, as discussed here should give us hope for simple yet pioneering, low-cost yet effective, win-win solutions to problems of the increasing demise in urban green space, metropolitan open land or ‘natural’ environment in an urban setting. However, for such policy alterations to truly take effect there will need to be a proactive and innovative attitude exhibited by businesses and development agencies concerned.

Though the City of London can lead by example through the levy, at the core of such contemporary urban challenges is the need for cohesion between local authorities, businesses, residents – and indeed all those with a stake in the future of urban space.  Without shared goals and a wide understanding of the benefits of urban greening, a voluntary mechanism, though desirable, may not cut it.


This article was corrected on 29 September 2014:  It originally stated that the CIL applies per m2 of land – in fact it applies per m2 of net additional floorspace. 

Posted by: Posted on by Jon Emmett Tagged with: , , , ,

Aug 29 2014

Sustainability Careers: A New “Traditional” Path?

Leave a comment

Meaghan Krohn - smallBy Meaghan Krohn, who graduated from LSE with an MSc in Environmental Policy and Regulation in 2013.

One of the biggest hurdles I face in my transition from graduate school into my career is that my chosen career path – corporate sustainability – is not a traditional profession. I went to The London School of Economics and Political Science, which is a fantastic institution with a supportive and enthusiastic Careers Centre. However, most of the job postings and career fairs on campus were geared towards more classic trajectories like finance, accounting and consulting. I found myself wondering where corporate sustainability fits in, and how I can find a job when everyone seems to be looking for Wall Street traders and business analysts.

The more I thought about what sustainability means to me and how I want to make my mark on the world, I realized that separating “traditional” careers from what I wanted to do was part of the problem. Corporate responsibility is only going to be effective if it breaks down the misconception that “traditional” businesses and sustainability are mutually exclusive.  Sustainability isn’t separate from business strategy, it is an integral part of it.
This summer, as an Environmental Defense Fund Climate Corps fellow at Syniverse, I have had the opportunity to do just that: integrate responsibility and the triple-bottom-line into a company’s business strategy.

I was thrilled to be matched with Syniverse for my fellowship precisely because of how the project fits into my goal of integrating sustainability into the business world by breaking down barriers and working on a paradigm shift. In order for sustainability ideals to gain traction in traditional business settings, practitioners need to speak to executives in their own language and highlight how it fits into existing structures. Materiality assessments do just that. Materiality is a concept
borrowed from accounting, and refers to issues that may impact the way a reasonable investor would make an economic decision about a company.

A materiality assessment asks stakeholders – anyone affected by the businesses’ operations – how important they think certain issues are to that business. I surveyed internal stakeholders and compared executives’ opinions against those of employees and managers. I asked how strongly certain topics could impact Syniverse’s business operations. The results of the assessment show which issues are more or less critical to both parties. Some of the results were predictable. For example, executive managers rated global operations as a more critical issue than directors and lower-level employees. This makes sense since it is the executives’ job to think about global business strategies, whereas directors and managers tend to work more regionally. Both groups of stakeholders also recognized that extreme weather events – increasingly more common due to climate change and especially relevant given Tampa’s location on the Gulf Coast – have a strong impact on Syniverse’s business operations.

With the information from the materiality assessment, Syniverse can design programs that focus on those issues that both groups of stakeholders see as highly impactful to the business. It doesn’t make sense to invest resources on something that does not provide value to the business.

As a sustainability practitioner, I aim to improve a company’s social and environmental impact, and that means looking at the organization’s DNA and infusing sustainability principles in every action. Every company – even “conventional” ones – benefits from this shift, and I’m happy to have spent the summer helping Syniverse on its journey.

Sustainability may not be a conventional career path yet, but as Jeff Selingo, author of College (Un)bound says, “The jobs of tomorrow just don’t exist today.” To bridge the gap between today and tomorrow, practitioners must show how traditional fields and sustainability interact to yield success along all three bottom lines: people, planet and profit. When they come together, the result is an almost limitless realm of cost-saving, revenue-generating, energy-reducing possibilities!

This article originally appeared on the EDF Climate Corps blog on 18 August 2014. 

About EDF Climate Corps

EDF Climate Corps (edfclimatecorps.org) taps the talents of tomorrow’s leaders to save energy, money and the environment by placing specially trained EDF fellows in companies, cities and universities as dedicated energy problem solvers. Working with hundreds of leading organizations, EDF Climate Corps has uncovered nearly $1.3 billion in energy savings.  For more information, visit edfclimatecorps.org.  Read our blog at edfclimatecorps.org/blog. Follow us on Twitter at twitter.com/edfbiz and on Facebook at facebook.com/EDFClimateCorps.


Posted by: Posted on by Jon Emmett Tagged with: ,

Aug 20 2014

A rubbish exhibition at the Science Museum

Leave a comment

Jon EmmettThe Science Museum is currently exhibiting a whole month’s worth of its own waste.  Jon Emmett, LSE Sustainability Projects Officer, went along to take a peek at what they put in their bins, and what it says about the institution, its visitors, and our society’s approach to resource consumption. 


In June and July this year, curators at the Science Museum spent a month trawling through their bins to see what was inside.  They extensively categorised and archived every item in this gargantuan mountain of waste, and invited visitors to get their hands dirty and participate too.  Finding everything from old banana peel, to love letters, to giant fake bombs, the waste was then brought back out and put on display later in July.

1 day's waste at LSE, on display in May 2014

1 day’s waste at LSE, on display in May 2014

Having organised similar events at LSE in the past – albeit on a smaller scale, and without the artistic and analytic features of this exhibition – I was intrigued to see this for myself.





Re-processed materials

The more generic waste streams (glass bottles, paper, etc) were sent off via their normal recycling contractors, and followed through their transformation processes into new raw materials – re-emerging into the gallery in the form of huge sacks of glass pellets, giant rolls of paper ready for sale to goods manufacturers.


Rolls of paper reaching up to the ceiling


Ground glass

Space oddities

Meanwhile, more unique items of waste – e.g. this bomb prop from an old display about the science of explosions – were kept intact, and saved to appear ‘in person’ in the exhibition.  The bomb was one of the highlights of the show – LSE doesn’t get to throw away many props of mass destruction.  Similarly, these unassuming bits of wire were once frames to make giant bubbles in the children’s ‘Launch Pad’ section.


Not a bomb.



Frames for making giant bubbles.









These games made by children were really sweet.  I wonder what they were made for?  (“Pretend to eat pork pies.”  “Slap each other when you see a yellow car.”…?)  Especially poignant is the piece of paper stuck to a lightbulb box, sternly instructing its finder “Do not throw away”.

Kids writing


But not as poignant as this tragic letter of unrequited love. Love letter


Waste reconsidered

The exhibition was curated by artist Joshua Sofaer, who has produced a number of other similar exhibitions on waste including ‘Scavengers’ at the Tate Modern, and creating a ‘rubbish library’ in Japan.  In his words, the exhibition “inverts the idea of the museum preserving what is sacred or unique, asking us to consider what we choose to keep, what we discard, and why”.

This theme is picked up in a blog post by Mark Champkins, the Science Museum’s Inventor-in-Residence (best job ever?), who describes the “disheartening pattern” he encountered, whereby much of the waste comprised perfectly good-quality items.  Numerous pairs of shoes, enough clothes to fill a suitcase, and three wheelchairs were all retrieved.

The curators clearly had an eye for how spotting the beauty in apparently mundane objects.  This beautiful tree-like pattern is formed on a piece of sandpaper used to buff the floor, while the coloured deposits on the cotton swabs below could almost be tiny segments of a painting by Seurat.

Floor sander - Copy Swabs - Copy


But while the more unique and personal items tell intriguing stories on a human level, the sheer scale of the quantity – and the quality – of goods disposed of asks broader questions about how our culture and economy assigns value to products, and when it considers them waste.

I was particularly tickled by Mark Champkins’s project to find creative ways to re-imagine and refurbish some of the items into new objects, giving them a second lease of life.  Like turning this copper funnel into a light fitting.  On a mass scale it’s difficult to see this working as a ‘solution’ to our waste and resource crisis, but it’s certainly an elegant approach to starting a conversation about how we address the underlying issues.

The Rubbish Collection demands that we rethink what we classify as ‘rubbish’, and take a more holistic view of the cycle of production, consumption, disposal, and back to production again.  Without reassessing how to achieve this in a more sustainable way, we will find ourselves running out of stuff to consume in the very near future.

The Science Museum’s ‘Rubbish Collection’ runs until 14 Sept 2014. 

Posted by: Posted on by Jon Emmett Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

Aug 13 2014

Reducing footprints and increasing brainprints: the role of UK universities in carbon reduction

Leave a comment

Tim Pryce - Carbon TrustTim Pryce, Head of Public Sector at the Carbon Trust, looks at the exciting opportunity for universities to lead the way to a prosperous low carbon economy and be a key part of the solution to climate change.

Given the contents of the last year’s assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change it generated surprisingly little media coverage. When you consider the potential impacts in its conclusions, it makes for some uncomfortable reading.

Backed by universities and meteorological offices the world over, the report uses the latest and best science to evaluate where we’re heading without deep and sustained cuts to carbon emissions, looking at the likely impacts over the coming decades and centuries. It explains that sea level rises could occur, flooding the homes of hundreds of millions of people – many of them in the UK. And the potential for temperature rises of over four degrees would greatly reduce global agricultural output.

However, the IPCC report is also clear that we still have time to avoid the worst effects by making a rapid transition to a global low carbon economy. And universities, in the UK and globally, are crucial to effecting that transition – so much so that the Committee on Climate Change is currently considering a report into the role of the higher education sector in combating climate change.

A sustainable development framework for the Higher Education sector, linked to the Climate Change Act

Universities have been central to driving forward our understanding of the science and the impacts of climate change. They are also where the solutions are being developed around the world to help address the environmental challenges that we are facing.

This means that a review of the role of the HE sector in driving sustainable development is timely. And the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) is currently doing just that, consulting on a framework and carbon reduction target for English universities to 2020. This is directly linked to the UK’s own legally-binding targets from the 2008 Climate Change Act, which involves making a 34 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020, compared to 1990 levels, leading to a 50 per cent reduction by 2025 and an 80 per cent reduction by 2050.

In the first instance, Universities need to lead by example, reducing carbon by cutting their energy demand and using energy more efficiently in their estates and operations. Huge potential still exists from energy efficiency savings, primarily from buildings and transport. And these efficiency savings also help universities to meet two other pressing challenges – making cost savings in a rapidly changing funding environment, and differentiating themselves from other institutions in order to attract paying students. This can be seen in the hotly contested Green Gown Awards, and the vying for rankings in the People and Planet Green League.

The financial opportunity from energy demand reduction is particularly compelling – rising energy prices mean that the potential savings get larger every year. These savings alone should make finance directors sit up and listen. Since 2001 the Carbon Trust has worked with over 3,000 public sector bodies providing them with advice and carbon management services. These organisations have reported actual savings to date of £640 million, with potential future savings of £2.6 billion. As a result money is freed up for frontline teaching and research – the core purpose of the Higher Education sector.

The Carbon Trust is working with universities to help them do just this. We have worked with over 100 UK universities to help them to develop low carbon investment strategies, covering projects ranging from building retrofit to decentralised energy. And we are now taking the UK’s expertise in carbon reduction and exporting it to emerging economies such as Mexico, China, South Africa and Malaysia.

Cardiff Metropolitan University is just one example of our work to help cut carbon in the HE sector. Since working with us in 2008, the university has implemented a range of projects, including automatic monitoring and targeting of energy use, and has cut electricity use by 12% and gas use by 5%. This not only equates to total savings of around £1m over five years, it also means a significant reduction in the university’s carbon footprint.

The Carbon Brainprint of the university sector

However, thinking only about university estates and operations misses the real power of the HE sector to drive change. The wider influence of the sector is massive – examples include education for sustainable development (ESD), research, international collaboration, incubating or spinning out startups, skills development, and collaboration with local government and business.

In a joint project with HEFCE, Santander and the Carbon Trust, Cranfield University attempted to quantify the wider carbon reduction impact and potential of this wider influence – and find ways to grow this impact, as well as increasing the scale of low carbon research and teaching at the university. The term used for this wider impact is Carbon Brainprint – a way to look at the wider carbon reduction potential of the sector.

Through their education and research, universities have a hugely exciting opportunity to lead the way to a prosperous low carbon economy in the UK – and to export technology and expertise overseas. They can develop the skills and knowledge that will be crucial to mitigating, and adapting to, climate change in the future. And through their own action, they can demonstrate the reality of a low carbon economy, as well as tangible cost savings, to students and stakeholders.

By reducing their carbon footprints, and increasing their carbon brainprints, UK universities can be a key part of the solution to climate change.

This article originally appeared on the Carbon Trust website on 18 June 2014.

Posted by: Posted on by Jon Emmett Tagged with: , , , , ,

Jul 30 2014

Environmental Management Systems: past, present and future

Leave a comment

Jon EmmettLast week, LSE achieved re-certification for ISO 14001 – an international standard that recognises we have robust systems in place to continually improve our environmental impacts, in the form of our ‘Environmental Management System’ (EMS). 

This was the third year running that LSE have retained ISO 14001 status, and it gave Jon Emmett, LSE Sustainability Projects Officer,  cause to reflect on developments in environmental management over the last three years, and ponder what the future has in store. 

The ghost of EMS past

When I first started working at LSE way back in June 2011, the School was just gearing up for an external audit under the ‘Ecocampus’ system – an environmental management standard tailored to universities.  My first two weeks in the team were spent frantically gathering assorted documents from all the far-flung corners of the institutions, and ensuring that various and students staff members were fully briefed in time for the big day.

We passed the audit, albeit with some ‘corrective actions’ – meaning that we had fill in a few gaps in our written procedures in order to tip us over the bar to certification.  In July 2012, we achieved the full ISO 14001 standard.

Since then (in fact since our first Environmental Policy was adopted in 2005), the incremental improvements we’ve made have often gone unnoticed at the time of their implementation.  But looking back at their cumulative effects, it’s incredible to see how far we’ve come.  For one thing, I can’t imagine these days scrambling around in the days before an audit, checking that we’ve got the right documents in place.  I just take it for granted that all that stuff is just… there.  (Albeit I help this along with a rolling programme of internal audits and legal compliance checks, assisted by a fantastic team of volunteers from across the School.)  I still always have to deal with amendments to various papers, and occasionally hunt down a stray Waste Transfer Note [a legally required ‘receipt’ for waste disposal] – but nothing like as much as I used to.

Continual improvement

We’ve been really helped by having the same auditor (Dr Margaret Rooney) for all four of our annual audits since 2011.  This has meant that Dr Rooney has been able to take a consistent approach over that time.  By remembering the people she’s met, and the processes and initiatives she’s seen, she’s been able to take a ‘big picture’ view of how the School has steadily developed.  Rather than asking the same blanket questions each year, she’s been able to recommend ways we could improve our practice that are always appropriate and proportionate to where we are along our sustainability journey.

We’ve found that successive audits have addressed increasingly fine levels of detail.  As a colleague from another university once expressed it:  first sift out the rocks (the really big errors);  then the stones (the smaller problems);  and finally the sand (the little issues where there’s always room for further improvement).  You can’t expect to resolve every minor detail in an Environmental Management System at the first attempt, and immediately end up with something perfect:  it takes time to bed in, and smooth down the rough edges.

Yet simultaneously, as the system has bedded in, discussions with the auditor have moved away from highly specific comments on the technicalities of how we document our processes, and towards a broader overview of the big things we do that have tangible benefits to our environmental impacts.

For example, the ‘corrective action’ we got in 2011 was to prepare written procedures for specific environmental emergencies – spills, etc – rather than rely on individuals who know what they’re doing but don’t have clear processes in place.  The next step was to get them embedded, by inserting them into the standard manuals of the relevant maintenance technicians and contractors, and communicating them to everyone to needs to know about them.  By 2014, the conversation had moved on, and the auditor met with LSE’s senior Business Continuity Manager to discuss how we address different  levels of emergency at different  levels of seniority, from operational level training, to Divisional-level desktop scenario exercises, to drills undertaken by high-level Gold and Silver command teams testing their responses to major potential environmental incidents.

Is it worth it? 

At times I’ve questioned whether the level of resource required to maintain the EMS is worth the hassle, and whether we shouldn’t simply move to a more projects-focused approach instead.  I also occasionally recall my Masters lecturer’s rather scathing view of Environmental Management Systems:  although they’re intended to drive continual improvement, they’re flexible in terms of scope and implementation methods, and don’t prescribe specific targets, hence don’t hold major polluters to account.

Despite these issues, I still find the overall benefits of having an EMS far outweigh any shortcomings.

The more the EMS becomes embedded in the fabric of our work, the less it becomes a standalone piece of bureaucracy, and the more it simply becomes ‘the way we do things’:  joining the dots between governance, reporting, target-setting, prioritisation of projects, performance monitoring, training and engagement, compliance checks and more.

Plus however well we think our environmental management processes are ticking along neatly by themselves, the ability to invoke the figure of the phantom auditor, and the system they symbolically uphold, remains an important part of keeping us on track.

The future

There are big changes planned, both inside LSE and externally.  Our next major challenge at the School will be implementing an ‘Energy Management System’ (EnMS), ISO 50001 – the cousin of ISO 14001.  We’ll then integrate this with our existing ISO 14001 system, to make sure all our work is pulling in the same direction, and avoids unnecessary repetition.

Meanwhile, the international environmental community is currently re-drafting the ISO 14001 standard.  The present version of the standard has been around since 2004, and has a bit of catching up to do with global changes in environmental discourse that have taken place since then – particularly a move away from focusing heavily on basic environmental compliance, and placing greater emphasis on embedding broader sustainability and reporting practices.  A new version is due to be released in summer 2015, and is expected to be stronger on strategic governance and supply chain monitoring – though we’ll have to wait and see when the details of this emerge.

Roll on our July 2015 re-certification…

Posted by: Posted on by Jon Emmett Tagged with: , ,

Jun 23 2014

Book Review: The Nine Elements of a Sustainable Campus by Mitchell Thomashow

Leave a comment

In The Nine Elements of a Sustainable CampusMitchell Thomashow proposes a blueprint for making universities more sustainable. As the former President of Unity College in Maine, USA, he argues that the campus is the perfect crucible for developing ideas and action, engaging diverse communities and teaching the next generation of citizens.  Jon Emmett finds a book that may not contain simple, ready-made answers to this complex question, but which is hugely engaging and accessible, and full of inspiration for approaches that could be adopted elsewhere.

Find this book: amazon-logokindle-edition

The Nine Elements of a Sustainable Campus. Mitchell Thomashow. MIT Press. April 2014.

The strange case of the Whitehouse solar panels

In 1979, US President Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the roof of the Whitehouse, symbolising a government drive for energy independence and efficiency following the recent Middle East oil crisis.  But only two years later President Reagan ordered the solar panels to be removed, as they clashed with his vision of an optimistic, highly-consuming America.  The panels found their way onto the roof of Unity College, Maine, in the 1990s, before one of them was eventually re-installed on the Whitehouse in 2013 – where Barack Obama wanted to demonstrate renewed presidential support for solar energy.

This flavour of symbolism and storytelling is a theme that runs pleasingly throughout a new book by Mitchell Thomashow, former President of Unity College and erstwhile owner of the nomadic solar panels.  In The Nine Elements of a Sustainable Campus Thomashow examines possible approaches to create more sustainable universities, and how this might in turn contribute to a more sustainable society.

Teaching and the curriculum

Thomashow was a long-standing environment lecturer before becoming President of Unity College, which itself is a university that specialises in environmental subjects.  Drawing on this expertise, he developed a distinct structure to provide a diverse but streamlined range of taught sustainability courses.

But more importantly than the specific solution adopted at Unity College, Thomashow describes how he sensitively managed the process of change; transforming the curriculum over a two year period by slowly engaging with and gaining the support of faculty staff until everyone was satisfied with the outcome.  He addresses many thorny challenges: managing competing strategic priorities; aligning with institutional strengths, weaknesses, and philosophies; bringing the whole campus community into decision-making processes to ensure widespread support; and linking policy with grassroots action.  It seems that, just like in the UK, unilateral sustainability diktats don’t work in universities – even if you’re college President!

Beyond collaborating with the faculty, he also espouses the benefits of the whole campus working together to develop sustainability teaching – leaders, academics, professional services staff, grassroots networks and students.  While there has been a great deal of similar work in UK universities (e.g. the HEA Green Academy), this debate is often muffled by a lack of interaction and coordination between sustainability professionals and academics.  It is therefore particularly interesting to hear this view articulated by someone with Thomashow’s academic and leadership backgrounds.

The campus sustainability experience

Given the author’s background as a lecturer, I was surprised that his view of what constitutes ‘university learning’ extends well beyond the classroom, and gives equal weight to the experiential learning of inhabiting the campus itself.  This seems to derive from his framing of university sustainability as not merely an end in itself, but a vehicle to engage with people, and shape society’s approach to sustainability as a whole.  Just as with the Whitehouse solar panels, the ability of energy efficiency projects to affect people’s environmental awareness is awarded just as much emphasis as their ability to reduce actual energy consumption.  This reflects Thomashow’s apparent aspiration to live a holistic life that transcends boundaries (work, leisure, etc), echoing of the ideals of William Morris.

He perceives students’ experiences of sustainability at university to be particularly critical, because at such ‘turning points’ in their personal development, they are likely to form new habits which then stick throughout life – including behaviours that relate to the environment (recycling, etc).  This view is also supported by research in the UK, including by Defra, though Thomashow is cautious of jumping to conclusions, and suggests the need for further long-term study.

In the same spirit, Thomashow advocates the importance of the examples set by college leaders: the values of transparency and accountability; sign-posting and explaining sustainability initiatives, not just ‘doing’ them; environmentally-themed art installations that produce a ‘sustainability aesthetic’; and buildings designed to foster an appreciation of their relationship with the materials and energy they use (as LSE attempted with the recent Saw Swee Hock Student Centre).

However, despite Thomashow’s skill in drawing together these diverse strands of university life into a unified vision of progress, readers may be surprised that environmental research is not addressed as part of a sustainable campus, except in the context of conducting research on the university itself in its mode as a ‘living lab’ for sustainability.  Many academics would certainly testify to the importance of robust research in furthering our understanding of environmental issues and informing public policy.

Broad appeal  

Thomashow’s style throughout the book is to provide broad reflections on the issues at play, rather than focusing on technical details of implementing individual projects.  This makes the book highly accessible to a wide audience – also helped by its easy-to-follow structure and the excellent clarity of the prose.  It also makes the author’s insights flexible enough to translate to universities in a variety of settings across the globe.  Indeed, I was frequently struck by the familiarity of many of the scenarios, challenges, and even specific conversations encountered by the author in a small specialist college in rural America, compared with my experiences of sustainability across the UK university sector.

The potential drawback to this approach is that seasoned environmental managers probably won’t pick up new tips on how to reduce their energy bills.  It also left me wanting more – particularly because of Thomashow’s highly personal account of his tenure at Unity College.  After his struggles with obtaining campus-wide backing for his plans, what happened next? What tangible examples are there to demonstrate the successes of his initiatives?


Overall I found Nine Elements an inspiring read. For those already familiar with the field it may not offer startling new solutions to achieving sustainability overnight, but it does provide nuanced insight into how we might undertake the journey in an accessible and engaging way.  At a time when we still need many more university leaders who vocally champion sustainability, it is particularly significant that someone in Thomashow’s position has added his weight to the growing body of voices calling for profound sustainability transformation, in universities and beyond.

This book review originally appeared on the LSE Review of Books, on 3 May 2014.

Posted by: Posted on by Jon Emmett