Time for a bit of lateral thinking

It seems appropriate given that yesterday was budget day to ponder on a missed opportunity or two. There was considerable emphasis in the budget on green taxes. Inefficient cars are to cost more and will cost more to run. Fuel will become more expensive. Once again the government appears to be using a stick to elicit some longer term environmental benefit. Why then is there no consideration of other forms of working? There are many alternatives to daily car journeys and one of those is not to leave home at all.

I've yet to see any statement that directly makes the link between affordable, high-speed broadband, the ability to work from home and the savings available from that - and not just financial but in terms of emissions too.

Plastic bags took a knock. We need to use less. Here's another example of where we get in our cars, load them up with plastic bags and drive them home. Again, no attempt is made to look at a bigger picture of what alternatives exist to physically going to the supermarket. Shopping locally works for some. Personally, I've long been a convert to online shopping. It's convenient but it can also be a way of reducing waste and of optimising car usage (I'd rather one van drove the shopping to five houses than five cars all make the same journey). Online grocer Ocado now gives you a discount for selecting an already booked delivery slot in your area.

There's a clear pattern emerging. When it comes to the environment we lack vision. Yes, our computers have a negative environmental impact too but given that many of us now have them, shouldn't we be looking at more innovative ways to use them?

The same goes for consultation. Good online engagement is certainly more common than it used to be but we are still missing the opportunities to link up government online. Again, one problem is a lack of lateral thinking. I've heard Tom Steinberg ask a couple of times now why, at the end of one online process (let's say, applying for a drivers license), you don't get offered other government-related things to do - such as get involved in a consultation. It's a very good question.

A few years ago I was on an eGovernment panel in Wellington. I listened as the State Services Commission's eGovernment person explained why online wasn't always appropriate. Work and Income (the social security service), for example, couldn't use it as most of their clients weren't online. OK, it's hard to fault that argument so far. After all, we know only too well that digital disenfranchisement is magnified by low socio-economic status. But let's try anyway! Instead of ruling an entire group out of the online world because they are presumed to be too poor and under-educated, why not put some computers in to these offices and create some awareness? Alongside that, work with a community educator to provide some on-site training to people coming in who might want to learn.

Internet adoption is about discovering our personal motivations and without access or information literacy that will never happen. This is a classic example of the limited thinking and lack of vision that still befalls eDemocracy - too linear and risk averse when what's needed is lateral and innovative. Nothing much changes and it's still imperative that those of us with the vision to connect the dots beyond the immediately obvious keep delivering the message that it is possible.