| Introduction to FOXY Lady Drivers Club
| FOXY Lady Drivers Club is the UK's only "everyday motoring" membership organisation for women drivers.
We exist to bridge a service gap in the retail motor industry, because:
—the industry is more male-oriented;
—an increasing number of women live alone;
—motoring can be highly stressful; and
—few women are as well informed about "everyday motoring" matters as they are about their homes, family and gardens.
As a direct consequence, it's reasonable to suggest that fewer women than men are sufficiently well informed about carbon offsetting within a motoring context.
As a motoring organisation that tries to keep up to date with environmental motoring issues, this debate has certainly foxed us. We are interested in understanding this subject better than we do, so we can inform women on a need-to-know basis and in the face of an increasing number of "ethical" promises made by motoring-related service providers that we know little about.
|
| Voluntary v compulsory scheme | Voluntary vs compulsory scheme
If this remains a voluntary scheme, how does the consumer know if the offsetting practice is approved and/or if the project is carried out afterwards?
Consumers who buy products or services based on price alone (whether hard up or just financially canny) will avoid optional offset payments wherever this means paying more. To attract these consumers, businesses will keep their costs as low as possible.
We believe a more equitable way is to link offsetting responsibility to the individual polluter, to be shared between the "offending" business and the individual consumer.
|
| UK v European | UK versus EU
We favour a UK accreditation scheme rather than European one because we are starting from a more expensive "everyday motoring" cost base and this should be recognised.
However it seems most unfair to expect British motorists to pay when China and India do not, in the face of a predictable and unprecedented rise in their emissions.
|
| Clarity | Is there enough clarity....to allow customers to make informed choices based on robust information?
We don't believe there is enough clarity or information for the consumer to make an informed choice whilst this remains a voluntary option. Certainly there isn't enough to provide us (FOXY) with unambiguous information to advise our members.
|
| If such a scheme became compulsory, we'd need independent, trustworthy, simple and transparent information about:
—offsetting choices;
—our individual CO2 excess;
—a list of approved organisations/projects;
—details of the approval process, transparent details of the cost of projects and how this money will be spent;
—a central offsetting record of participating individuals (perhaps this might be tax deductable behaviour like Gift Aid?); and
—an ongoing monitoring process of all projects.
|
| Evidence of changed behaviour | What evidence is there to show any change of carbon behaviour?
We think it's unlikely that voluntary offsetting, per se, will change consumers' carbon behaviour but are confident that good communications about the need for such practices will influence consumer behaviour. As always, one size does not fit all and we predict the following pockets of consumer behaviour:
—Those who care about their planet will try to change their own and their family's behaviour.
—Wealthy followers of fashion will copy what the celebrities do.
—The financially canny won't pay a penny more than they need to.
—Carbon cynics will see this as a sales ploy and question the ethics.
—Many will question whether the UK alone can make a difference if the USA, China and India don't join in.
|
| FOXY business examples | Examples we have come across in the motoring services sector
1A private limited company selling motor breakdown insurance claims "xxx works like all other motor organisations with one big exception—we are the ethical alternative. By joining xxx you will be supporting our campaign for a sustainable transport system in Britain. By choosing xxx you can start putting something back into the environment—together we can make a difference."
This means that if FOXY introduces our members to xxx and they buy a breakdown policy, xxx will plant a tree for us, our member will get a "significant discount" and FOXY will earn a commission "to fund our good work". Is this a sales trick or an appropriate project, are we paying more than we need to and who monitors whether a new tree is planted or not?
2A FTSE 100 oil conglomerate promises to neutralise our motoring emissions if we pay them c£20 for a typical year's motoring. In view of their extraordinary wealth which the motorist has already contributed to, can we trust them to spend more of our money altruistically and will we feel better as a result?
3A recent Press release stated "xxx magazine will show drivers how they can cancel their carbon emissions by signing up to Climate Care—a company that funds environmentally friendly projects by monies provided by people who wish to offset their carbon emissions. In this way, xxx magazine offsets its emissions every month..."
Will we feel happier buying xxx's heavyweight paper Magazine because we've made an offset payment to Climate Care?
4We then see from Climate Care's website that they have won the "Best Offset Provider" Award in 2006. Is this a recognised benchmark of superior practice? Should FOXY members buy their insurance product from them as a result? How much more will we pay for this performance level?
|
