A Just Transition or just a transition?
Using collective imagination and experience to develop Inclusive Low Carbon plans - simultaneously design for inclusion and decarbonisation.
The electric car on the left is connected to a charging point on the right. The charging cable lies tangled and looped across the pavement in between, making it difficult to pass.
The bus in the background - the bus I want to catch - it’s a low emission bus.
Is this a Just Transition? If not, what does that look like and when (and how) will that start to happen?
There are better designs of course, but barriers to travel are many and varied and not always visible. If we feel unsafe at the bus stop or can’t afford the fare, or don’t feel welcome or find planning the trip too complicated, the bus might still not be an option. Even if it is electric.
The charging point and car were designed for decarbonisation, but now there’s an inclusion problem.
If we design for decarbonisation and inclusion at the same time, and in context, we can avoid the need to retrofit. Again.
If we create visions of what we want our journeys to look and feel like in the future, we’ll have something to work towards and we’re more likely to avoid situations like this.
We have to enable people, not just ‘encourage’ them, to use low-carbon transport. We have to reduce our impact on people as well as the planet.
We need to design for decarbonisation and inclusion. At the same time.
The Challenge
If we don’t change our approach and make it possible for everyone to travel using low-carbon transport…
We’ll create cleaner transport that continues to disable, disadvantage and exclude many people.
We'll have to retrofit. Again.
Decarbonisation will cost more and take longer than planned.
It won't be a Just Transition.
The opportunity
By taking a new approach we can:
Design for people and planet simultaneously, in context.
Collectively imagine more inclusive future journeys.
Truly work with people to find the right problems to solve.
Really design end-to-end journeys. Yeh, really.
Design successful systems rather than trying to join up uncooperative elements.
The idea
Inclusive Low Carbon Plans:
Work with people with experience of exclusion to visualise a journey as a system. Discover different travel barriers throughout and define them as Scope 1, 2 and 3 Exclusions.
Create plans to reduce exclusions and align them with plans to reduce emissions - actionable next steps towards a Just Transition.
Use our imagination process to create visions for more inclusive journeys.
Build your Inclusive Low Carbon Plan
Learn about plans for lower carbon travel
It’s already happening - electric vehicles, paperless tickets, low energy lighting, compostable cutlery, sustainable seating, solar powered information boards… all aspects of our journeys are being designed to be climate-positive. But could they be made more inclusive? Learn about future plans and critique them with people with experience of exclusion.
Imagine future journeys…tell stories featuring more inclusive, low-carbon ideas
Tell stories of travelling with your ideas for more inclusive low-carbon solutions - help others to design and work more inclusively …
Make your current journeys - your system - visible
Put your service into context and discover the systems it’s part of. Understand how barriers in different parts of the system affect people’s interaction with it.
Identify your Scope 1, 2 and 3 exclusions and plans to reduce them
As well as Scope 1,2 and 3 emissions, you can identify the exclusions you are directly responsible for along with others that you can influence - your Scope 1,2 and 3 exclusions.
Combine your exclusion reduction plans with your emission reduction plans…
Bring your inclusion and decarbonisation discussions, plans and efforts together. Plan for a Just transition.
‘Good theories aren’t always right: but they can be useful. Utopias tend to be wrong, but they can be useful even in their wrongness. This is why I am particularly interested in ideas which are sufficiently specific that they can at least be interrogated or disagreed with, rather than ones which are very vague.’