While Obama has a ready excuse not to make a deal at Copenhagen, the others aren't so lucky. We certainly aren't. The House won't allow heavy cuts in carbon emissions through the US legislature. The EU didn't want to sign up to 30% by 2020, without others signing up to a similar cut in emissions. The Chinese say that 'It's not fair,' like some proverbial spoilt bastard. What is abundantly clear from all of this, is that money is more important than survival. Better to burn out in a frenzy of consumerism than to fade away as puritan environmentalists, knitting their way to salvation.
The left has always owned the environmental arguments. And that is kind of the problem. The right who are forever macho and uncaring, think that job security overrides environmental protection every time. Sensible people, (and I guess now a little more scared than they were), know that environmental security trumps economic security. But we're not dealing with sensible people. We're dealing with the likes of Murdock, who knows that pushing the right wing agenda will earn him more money than the left. It is the left which is losing ground right now. And the public seem to be listening and becoming climate change deniers, much like the windbags in the US who shout at the TV camera's every time a crack appears in the left's argument. George Bonbiot and his fellow lefties then just come across as whingers and panickers. So what do we do? Do what I always believed we would do, sit tight and wait for the really big disasters to start happening. Then it will be too late. Then the public will want blood and cry 'Why didn't you protect us?' Maybe they'll say, 'we were just following orders.' It will be too late for embarrassment, and in a democracy most of the leaders at Copenhagen will have been moved on to the lecture circuit, leaving people of my generation and younger to make good with the apologies and excuses.
Maybe a miracle is what we need, as Polly Toynbee says in her opinion piece in the Guardian? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/18/gutless-planet-future-copenhagen-leaders) Who knows? I think I am right though. We won't change in time and we'll just have to live with all the chaos. That's exactly what's going to happen. I guarantee it. By the way Polly, what does pusillanimous mean?
Saturday, 19 December 2009
Saturday, 12 December 2009
Copenhagen Part II.
It’s been a difficult year for the green movement. Sceptics are in the ascendancy. They are winning the hearts and minds of the people. There are huge question marks over the origins of their opinions, i.e. that they are paid by the oil industry, directly or indirectly to influence the US government, publish counter evidence of climate change, reach out to the public to convince them that the science isn’t certain. But I don’t think that they’re winning because they’re clever or right. I think they’re winning, because people want to believe that they can keep their lifestyles the same or improve their wealth and increase their consumption without worrying about the long term effects. Al Gore (http://www.algore.com) said it was an ‘Inconvenient Truth’ and just now I watched another great environmental film, ‘The Age of Stupid’ (http://www.ageofstupid.net). Both of these films are bang on the money. They reflect the challenges perfectly from all angles. Watch them, because both of them have convinced me just as I was becoming sceptical.
All week I’ve been hearing experts and commentators discussing the significance of 2015 and the temperature increase limit of 2ºC. I have been distracted by personal problems so I have been half listening to it all on the build up to Copenhagen. But watching the Age of Stupid, I finally realised what they mean. Earlier in the year I heard political leaders discussing keeping the increase in global temperatures to 2ºC. At the time I thought what a stupid thing to have a target of increase of temperature. How is that ever going to be possible? But the point of a limit in increase, is the scientific predictions of what will happen beyond that point. If it goes past 2ºC the world is expected to tip into runaway climate change. The second figure, the 2015 limit, is to point out that to limit this increase, we have to peak emissions at 2015 at current projections. In other words if we continue on our current path, a decline in emissions must begin in 6 years. That’s not a long time.
I became an environmentalist when I was twenty-one in 1995. I began this path after a childhood dreaming of becoming a high flying, high consuming businessman. When my best friends at the time were about to have their first baby, it occurred to me that the end of the twentieth century was a bad time to bring a child into the world. I asked myself whether having a child, would condemn that child to a life of turmoil and peril. I then went into a spin over it. I saw saving the environment in a radically different way to other people. I didn’t see it as a left wing, tree hugging issue. I saw it as a right wing issue, because it was about survival. It would take those aggressive right wing business types and war mongers, and evil capitalists to do the job – to save humanity. I didn’t want to hug trees, and espouse love of the world. I was serious about saving the planet. I didn’t want to leave it to a committee. I wanted the best minds, the most motivated, the clever and the devious; the rich, the most convincing people to commit themselves to the task. Only then could we avert the crisis – when those people destroying the world, turned their resources and skills to saving it.
So in Copenhagen do the leaders need to sign up to a target or two? In the entry below (if you want to read it) I said no. I wrote this at about 6pm tonight. But in between writing that and writing this, I saw The Age of Stupid and Hot Planet, by the BBC. I realised just how important new technology is, a long time ago. But tired and angry about politicians not reacting effectively to the challenges we faced, I stepped away from believing that an agreed binding reduction target was possible. I now believe that instead of backing away because of the inadequacies of our leaders, I now believe that more pressure should be put on politicians. Much more. So much that they cannot walk away from their responsibilities any more. Technology and the Manhattan Project of green technology that I wanted, should still happen. But targets are still vital to the process. Also, it has been proposed by climate campaigners that a target of reduction of use of fossil fuels should also be negotiated. In the film the Age of Stupid, it was explained that there should be a cap on fossil fuel use with a slight reduction each year until 2065, when use is ended. While America, the EU and Australia gradually reduce, India and China can continue to increase until they match larger economies on their way up and then they would begin to reduce emissions, equalising their emissions with the larger economies as they go. This is what should happen. And Copenhagen is a chance to do something like this. However, I still do not believe that politicians will achieve a decrease in carbon use by 2015. The political will just isn’t there and it is entirely the fault of the nay-sayers that this is happening. The sceptics that keep the public questioning are ruining the deals that could be made. If the public isn’t convinced then politicians tend to agree with them in similar proportions. For example, Obama can come to the conference and tell the world he wants quick and ample reductions in emissions. However, a large amount of politicians in the US just don’t want that and will vote it down in the Senate and the House. His hands are tied. All he can do is agree a target and then put pressure on his colleagues to pass it, like he did in the case of his Health Bill. There just isn’t enough time though. Six years is a very short period of time in the world of global politics. All we can hope for is that the projections are wrong.
All week I’ve been hearing experts and commentators discussing the significance of 2015 and the temperature increase limit of 2ºC. I have been distracted by personal problems so I have been half listening to it all on the build up to Copenhagen. But watching the Age of Stupid, I finally realised what they mean. Earlier in the year I heard political leaders discussing keeping the increase in global temperatures to 2ºC. At the time I thought what a stupid thing to have a target of increase of temperature. How is that ever going to be possible? But the point of a limit in increase, is the scientific predictions of what will happen beyond that point. If it goes past 2ºC the world is expected to tip into runaway climate change. The second figure, the 2015 limit, is to point out that to limit this increase, we have to peak emissions at 2015 at current projections. In other words if we continue on our current path, a decline in emissions must begin in 6 years. That’s not a long time.
I became an environmentalist when I was twenty-one in 1995. I began this path after a childhood dreaming of becoming a high flying, high consuming businessman. When my best friends at the time were about to have their first baby, it occurred to me that the end of the twentieth century was a bad time to bring a child into the world. I asked myself whether having a child, would condemn that child to a life of turmoil and peril. I then went into a spin over it. I saw saving the environment in a radically different way to other people. I didn’t see it as a left wing, tree hugging issue. I saw it as a right wing issue, because it was about survival. It would take those aggressive right wing business types and war mongers, and evil capitalists to do the job – to save humanity. I didn’t want to hug trees, and espouse love of the world. I was serious about saving the planet. I didn’t want to leave it to a committee. I wanted the best minds, the most motivated, the clever and the devious; the rich, the most convincing people to commit themselves to the task. Only then could we avert the crisis – when those people destroying the world, turned their resources and skills to saving it.
So in Copenhagen do the leaders need to sign up to a target or two? In the entry below (if you want to read it) I said no. I wrote this at about 6pm tonight. But in between writing that and writing this, I saw The Age of Stupid and Hot Planet, by the BBC. I realised just how important new technology is, a long time ago. But tired and angry about politicians not reacting effectively to the challenges we faced, I stepped away from believing that an agreed binding reduction target was possible. I now believe that instead of backing away because of the inadequacies of our leaders, I now believe that more pressure should be put on politicians. Much more. So much that they cannot walk away from their responsibilities any more. Technology and the Manhattan Project of green technology that I wanted, should still happen. But targets are still vital to the process. Also, it has been proposed by climate campaigners that a target of reduction of use of fossil fuels should also be negotiated. In the film the Age of Stupid, it was explained that there should be a cap on fossil fuel use with a slight reduction each year until 2065, when use is ended. While America, the EU and Australia gradually reduce, India and China can continue to increase until they match larger economies on their way up and then they would begin to reduce emissions, equalising their emissions with the larger economies as they go. This is what should happen. And Copenhagen is a chance to do something like this. However, I still do not believe that politicians will achieve a decrease in carbon use by 2015. The political will just isn’t there and it is entirely the fault of the nay-sayers that this is happening. The sceptics that keep the public questioning are ruining the deals that could be made. If the public isn’t convinced then politicians tend to agree with them in similar proportions. For example, Obama can come to the conference and tell the world he wants quick and ample reductions in emissions. However, a large amount of politicians in the US just don’t want that and will vote it down in the Senate and the House. His hands are tied. All he can do is agree a target and then put pressure on his colleagues to pass it, like he did in the case of his Health Bill. There just isn’t enough time though. Six years is a very short period of time in the world of global politics. All we can hope for is that the projections are wrong.
Copenhagen Summit
There is a lot at stake this year at Copenhagen. This is the right time to come up with a deal, as far as the climate change science is concerned. But as for the political climate it still isn't right. In recent years when the politicians come together I am always skeptical about the outcome. They like to make a joint statement at the end and tell the world all the things they've agreed. But often these are pledges with no substance. They know it and any seasoned observer will know it too. Even Obama won't get things moving. This is because the sticking point is linked with economic performance and economic security. A country with a troubled economy, loses its power to do everything and anything. And agreeing targets won't work, ever, because of this. Targets are linked negatively to economic performance, both in theory and in practice. It will cost a lot of money, even though the overall cost of doing nothing will be far greater. It is the short term costs which are the decider however, because that's the nature of money. I've said for a couple of years now, and others agree (most notably Bjorn Lomborg - http://www.lomborg.com) that agreeing to targets won't get us anywhere. Every politician in there could agree to cut emissions by 100% by next year - they don't have to do it. No-one can make them do it. And they often don't. Ed Miliband reckons the UK have already met their carbon targets. I don't know what planet he's on, but as far as I understood the only country to reach their Kyoto target was Poland or Romania, but only because their economy is in free fall and they weren't using much energy. I said it before and I'll say it again, that a massive fund should be set up to fund the technology that will allow a change from carbon to non-carbon economies. And subsidise that technology till the cows come home. That's what should be agreed at the talks. Have targets as well as you like. There's no harm in it. But ultimately targets are unenforceable and don't mean all that much.
Secondly on Channel Four news (http://www.channel4.com) the other day, they were talking about Rare Earth. Rare Earth is the stuff where very rare metals are mined for producing things like magnets for wind turbines and low energy light bulbs. It is at great environmental cost that these metals are recovered, mainly from China, which has all but monopolised the Rare Earth market. This indicates that even if we were to agree targets and push new technologies onto the market, we still haven't solved the raw materials problem, i.e. that eventually they will run out. Almost half of the worlds supply of copper for example, is recovered from recycling plants and landfill and old buildings. There are so many very serious problems with capitalism and although I was enthusiastic about books like Natural Capitalism (see http://www.rmi.org) there are very fundamental reasons why capitalism fails as an answer to environmental problems. In other words capitalism is almost entirely incompatible with environmental sustainability - in other the words the long term surival of the human race. It could provide the answers to climate change given the right conditions. But it will never provide the answers, to population growth, land use growth, biodiversity conservation and resource use, because it is about using resources "like a business in liquidation" (EF Schumaker - Small is Beautiful (1973) - http://www.smallisbeautiful.org).
Many people have argued that in order for the environment to be treated properly and sustainably by a capitalist society, raw materials, air quality, land use, etc, must have a proper value added to it, to reflect scarcity and the cost of removing it from its habitat, or changing the environment itself by polluting it for example. This means that the environmental cost added to the costs to extract or use something, would have a value, which a) inhibits its use and b) money will be paid to help correct the damage afterwards. These issues have not been dealt with at any political level and becomes what the politicians coming together talk about, targets will continue to mean very little, because just switching to a non-carbon economy is not enough. Nowhere near. There are larger issues looming.
Secondly on Channel Four news (http://www.channel4.com) the other day, they were talking about Rare Earth. Rare Earth is the stuff where very rare metals are mined for producing things like magnets for wind turbines and low energy light bulbs. It is at great environmental cost that these metals are recovered, mainly from China, which has all but monopolised the Rare Earth market. This indicates that even if we were to agree targets and push new technologies onto the market, we still haven't solved the raw materials problem, i.e. that eventually they will run out. Almost half of the worlds supply of copper for example, is recovered from recycling plants and landfill and old buildings. There are so many very serious problems with capitalism and although I was enthusiastic about books like Natural Capitalism (see http://www.rmi.org) there are very fundamental reasons why capitalism fails as an answer to environmental problems. In other words capitalism is almost entirely incompatible with environmental sustainability - in other the words the long term surival of the human race. It could provide the answers to climate change given the right conditions. But it will never provide the answers, to population growth, land use growth, biodiversity conservation and resource use, because it is about using resources "like a business in liquidation" (EF Schumaker - Small is Beautiful (1973) - http://www.smallisbeautiful.org).
Many people have argued that in order for the environment to be treated properly and sustainably by a capitalist society, raw materials, air quality, land use, etc, must have a proper value added to it, to reflect scarcity and the cost of removing it from its habitat, or changing the environment itself by polluting it for example. This means that the environmental cost added to the costs to extract or use something, would have a value, which a) inhibits its use and b) money will be paid to help correct the damage afterwards. These issues have not been dealt with at any political level and becomes what the politicians coming together talk about, targets will continue to mean very little, because just switching to a non-carbon economy is not enough. Nowhere near. There are larger issues looming.
Friday, 19 June 2009
UK Gears Up for Disasters
I have been told a couple of times that Future Towns and its philosophy is a little negative, in that it speaks of disaster as being the norm. I have always felt that this opinion is one born of the fact that never in the full history of mankind have we had to deal with a true global catastrophe. But with all the recent one in one hundred and fifty year floods that have hit Britain in the last five years or so, this attitude is changing. There are climate panels run by the government and staffed by some of the finest scientists in the world which are feeding other government institutions like the Environment Agency with alarming predictions. This in turn means that those agencies are better funded and if they are not funded well they have the evidence needed to get that funding in the future. For example the UKCP09 report (http://ukcp09.defra.gov.uk/) was issued this week under the shadow of a major climate funding summit in Europe, which is looking to fund sustainable development in the developing economies of the world, including China and India, to the tune of 150 billion Euro's a year. Also, the Environment Agency is seeking a doubling of funding to £1billion annually for flood proofing work in vulnerable communities and sea fronts, where rising sea levels will put pressure on eroding shore lines. Also, a group of companies, some with government funding are now building or planning to build flood resistant properties. For example http://www.lifeproject.info/. This is a building firm with three current projects with flood mitigation features, such as a flood plain in the front of the building, which is served by a river and the properties are raised up on a large bank. While all this is good, some of the designs look vulnerable to a wide range of other disasters. Future Towns, believe good solid designs can take away risk for many of the potential disasters, like storms and fires. However, in the UKCP09 document released this week, increased ferocity of storms is one of the features of a projected future, taking us to 2080, along with higher temperatures of up to 41 degrees, and wet winters with drought summers. There is a movement afoot to provide safer housing, but just limiting those designs to flooding alone is very short sighted.
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Future By Design
Browsing through an art based website the other day, I saw what looked like a very similar 'future city' to mine. So I clicked through to the Future By Design website, by a chap called Jacques Fresco. He is an artist and designer looking at a 'resource based economy' with a complete redesign of the world to his vision, of sleek interesting architecture and a Utopian society. He thinks seriously about creating a world in which people do not need to live by the sweat of their brow. Where crime and violence are eradicated and where computers build and maintain that world. Although his vision is similar to mine, particularly how he has laid out a city, with bands of functions, and central domes and integrated transportation etc, he doesn't discuss disaster protection and he doesn't really get to grips with the motivation of people to work or the fact that man's natural state is to work for reward - and work hard. But he is essentially joining me in discussing new ways to live, uncoupled from restrictive economic constraints and using architecture to deliver a better way of life. He has started an organisation to actually build this new world beginning with a university.
There is a documentary coming out on DVD called 'Future By Design' by award winning director William Gazecki. In it he describes Fresco as a modern day 'Da Vinci'. He's in his eighties now and has been studying and looking at the future for his whole career. I think anyone interested in how the future could be, if only we could get our act together, should make a visit to his site (link above). He discusses a resource based economy, which is something I have devoted quite some time thinking and writing about. But with diminishing resources I think that limitations on human activity via adequate and perhaps more strict resource allocation is on the way. But first the resources will go to the highest bidder, until people and their elected politicians have had enough and can see that this route will lead to uprisings and popular revolutions, which wouldn't help anyone. Proper resource allocation means abandoning economics as we know it. But as ever in world politics it will take a crisis to bring it about.
In the meantime people like me and Fresco will argue for a change. But both of us are jumping the gun. Only crisis tends to brings about change on a global scale, because human behaviour is very much limited to micro concerns and decisions, rather than the masses changing together. I think that's how things get done, how change occurs on a mass scale. Via crisis only. That's why the Russian Revolution happened the way it did, or the haulocaust, or the birth of the EU project after the end of the Second World War. For good or bad it is crisis, not planning that makes those big changes and pushes mankind to do things differently. 
There is a documentary coming out on DVD called 'Future By Design' by award winning director William Gazecki. In it he describes Fresco as a modern day 'Da Vinci'. He's in his eighties now and has been studying and looking at the future for his whole career. I think anyone interested in how the future could be, if only we could get our act together, should make a visit to his site (link above). He discusses a resource based economy, which is something I have devoted quite some time thinking and writing about. But with diminishing resources I think that limitations on human activity via adequate and perhaps more strict resource allocation is on the way. But first the resources will go to the highest bidder, until people and their elected politicians have had enough and can see that this route will lead to uprisings and popular revolutions, which wouldn't help anyone. Proper resource allocation means abandoning economics as we know it. But as ever in world politics it will take a crisis to bring it about.
In the meantime people like me and Fresco will argue for a change. But both of us are jumping the gun. Only crisis tends to brings about change on a global scale, because human behaviour is very much limited to micro concerns and decisions, rather than the masses changing together. I think that's how things get done, how change occurs on a mass scale. Via crisis only. That's why the Russian Revolution happened the way it did, or the haulocaust, or the birth of the EU project after the end of the Second World War. For good or bad it is crisis, not planning that makes those big changes and pushes mankind to do things differently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)