Jonathan Melhuish

Nowadays, it’s becoming quite rare to see a hitch-hiker. I’m sure there are many reasons for the death of hitch-hiking, but I suggest that these are the top three:

• trust (for both parties): it seems that we are becoming increasingly distrustful of our fellow citizens, and especially of strange-looking people who stand by the roadside. Sharing a car requires a fair amount of trust in your passengers.
• lack of incentive for the driver: a good friend of mine (who is quite active in Christian groups) shocked me somewhat by admitting that when he sees a hitch-hiker, he thinks “get a job and get your own car, you freeloader”. Whilst not everyone is so selfish, many people won’t give up their comfortable solitude without a reason.
• more comfortable alternatives for the passenger: many people in our developed societies are rich in enough to run a car, or at least afford the occasional taxi. Why stand in the rain waiting for some kind soul to take pity on you?

For a regular commute, car-sharing with colleagues doesn’t pose these problems. But for those who work flexi-time, and for all other journeys not covered by good public transport, driving your own car is often the only practical option. The effect is obvious, with UK traffic estimated to grow by 26% on 2000 levels. By that point, congestion is predicted to have grown 65% overall (from 1996) and motorway congestion by a whopping 268%. (source)

But we have the technology to solve these problems and make ad-hoc carsharing a viable alternative to driving solo – especially if you factor in a bit of ecological guilt and fuel price increases.

• trust: as eBay has shown, many people are prepared to make risky financial transactions with complete strangers, so long as they can see the seller’s past history. A similarly simple reputation system could work here, too.
• driver’s incentive: many lone drivers might take trustworthy passengers just for company or to alleviate their eco-guilt, but others could be tempted by a bit of petrol-money. Or if they’re too proud for that, perhaps they could request a donation to their favourite charity instead.
• passenger comfort:no need to wait in the rain, you can be notified by SMS when your ride is approaching.

By integrating transport “offers” from mini-cabs, shared taxis and public transport, a joined-up transport service emerges that could really compete with the car on both price and convenience.

It’s a symbol of America, and it’s a concept that’s spreading across the world – the out of town shopping centre. Built on cheap land on the edge of a city, these retail metropolises offer almost every product under the sun at low, low prices. Ample free parking is provided and there’s enough retail therapy within its confines to keep even the most addicted spendaholic happy.

The disadvantage, of course, is that you really have to drive there. Perhaps it’s technically possible to get there on public transport somehow, but it’s hardly convenient. And then when you got there, you could only buy as much as you can carry, making the journey hardly worth the effort. Most people will drive and then fill up with enough food and supplies to last them several weeks. Of course, if your food has to last for such a long time, frozen or tinned is really the only option. As well as being less tasty and lacking in micronutrients compared to fresh alternatives, a significant amount of energy is invested in keeping food frozen from farm to plate.

The biggest advantage of traveling to a big store or retail park is that you can be fairly confident that they’ll have what you want. In a couple of hours, you’ll have filled your freezer and can merrily tick “shopping” off your to-do list. But present-day technology has the power to change that process, giving you fresher food and reducing your carbon footprint.

Imagine that instead of anticipating your needs weeks in advance, you were instead able to browse through a selection of recipes selected by a combination of your tastes, your culinary experience, the contents of your fridge and what’s currently available in your local shops. On your way home, you stop by a couple of smaller stores (guided by your mobile phone), where you pick up your pre-bagged shopping. By ordering in advance, you help the store manage their stock more efficiently. Easy access to real-time information has allowed you to change the way you shop – in a way that’s better for you and for the environment.

In my next post, I’ll talk about how more efficient and flexible logistics can reduce the cost of deliveries of your more exotic culinary requirements and other items, and how better information can make shared transport an attractive choice.

We live in a society powered by fossil fuel. Almost everything we do consumes large amounts of non-renewable energy, because our cities, our industries and our lives are designed to do so. That’s bad news, because energy is becoming more scarce and therefore more expensive. At the same time, concerns about climate change are likely to cause the introduction of carbon taxes, pushing energy costs even higher.

But there’s good news, too: we can solve it. Not just through alternative energy sources and more efficient devices – they will play a big role, but they aren’t the whole solution. We need to change how we live, and go back to what some call the “urban village” – urban lifestyles that don’t involve travelling large distances. At the same time, we can even use this social upheaval as an opportunity to solve some of the problems that plague our modern cities:

• traffic noise
• social isolation
• ineffective transportation
• declining food quality
• throw-away culture

Over the next few days, I’ll be publishing a series of short posts exploring how communications technologies can change the way we travel, shop, work and socialise. I’ll show that in this process, we’ll not only save our planet, but also make our cities nicer and more exciting places to live.

Sometimes I feel like this guy – a little frustrated. Whilst the non-believers he’s attacking are basically a lunatic fringe, I think there’s a large majority who agree that climate change is a problem but are too concerned with their own lives to find out how they can help solve it. They’re not active non-believers – but people who just don’t believe they need to do anything about it. It will be solved by the technologists, the politicians and the corporations.

To some extent, they might be right – but at the end of the day, it’s every one of us who makes decisions that dictate what these groups do. Even if it might not feel like it sometimes, they’re all servants of the people and their salary comes out of your pocket every time you purchase something or pay your taxes. Happily, green is fast becoming the new black in some parts of the world and politicians and businesses alike have started battling with each other over their eco-credentials.

The trouble is that most people trust neither what politicians nor multinational corporations tell us, and don’t have the time to figure out whether they are making empty promises or are really making a difference. Occasionally, environmental organisations will expose the worst offenders or produce a ranking for a particular product type. But who goes to the bother of seeking out these reports? I know I don’t.

Perhaps the solution lies in giving consumers a trivially-easy way to check the “green-ness” of the products they are considering purchasing and allow them to make an informed, environmentally-aware purchasing decision. These ratings could be produced by a community process, amongst those concerned enough to spend the time to research and compare several competing manufacturers. The resulting eco-friendliness score could even be embedded into online shops, so that every customer can shop with a clear conscience.

The internet gives us such huge power to easily cross-reference information that few of us now make any significant purchase without checking a few product reviews first. Isn’t it time that we started using that same power to encourage companies to stop bullshitting us and really “go green”?