Elemental

It was a funny old week, last week.

First we have the Clive James kerfuffle, subsequent to his essay “In praise of scepticism“. There was some dissent against James on Twitter (which I am increasingly becoming disillusioned with as a tool for proper discourse and debate – 140 characters is not enough space to make points properly unless you are phenomenally eloquent). Many were equating sceptiscism with denialism, which was overegging James’ views somewhat. But I didn’t make too much of a deal about it and trundled on.

Then we had the Tim Nicholson vs. Grainger case on Tuesday, which I will say no more about, but appears to have been one of the catalysts for what happened next.

On Wednesday night, Amanda Baillieu dared to voice dissent with regards to climate change on Twitter. Her initial tweet was:

I am becoming increasingly irritated by the green lobby and the idea that its to be treated like a religion http://is.gd/4N8sH

Followed by:

Basically believing in man made climate change is a bit like hoping that fairies live at the bottom of the garden.

There followed a fair amount of toing and froing with various parties, as I gawped from the sidelines. I pondered whether Amanda was negating low carbon design and resource efficiency along with this scepticism? Luckily she redefined how she felt in her editorial for BD on Friday. And this is when the “where is the evidence you refer to?” attacks really began to gain traction.

Now, I may disagree with Amanda (I’ve covered my Pascal’s Wager here), but like I said in that post, I tend to keep out of global warming debates – in a way, I don’t really care. In fact, if I had to embark on a global warming debate with a client every time we wanted to build anything, I’d still be staring at a blank sheet of paper. And despite currently coming down on the side of the climate change scientists, I’ve actually read a fair bit of Lomborg and Crichton, to act as a counterfoil to Monbiot and Stern (an important discipline as I outlined in my how to read non-fiction post). I suspect there may be those who have attacked Amanda’s article without reading any literature on the topic at all. Not good enough.

What many of the commenter’s fail to pick up, is that despite Amanda’s agnosticism (after all, she admits to scepticism, which whilst it might be cynical, is certainly not denial-ism) on climate change science, she still supports ‘green’ design:

“…there’s no argument that natural resources such as water need to be conserved and low-energy buildings make sense…”

So did Amanda really deserve the criticism she got in return? One of the most outraged was Justin Bere who managed to write two posts, one outlining the events on Twitter blow by blow (which is handy as now I don’t have to) and another in which he addresses the “evidence” argument. There are many others who exprssed outrage in the comments to the article (although with some showing support). But what really matters here is our actions, not the beliefs that are behind them. To quote John Stuart Mills’ “On Liberty“:

…the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise.

In other words, one should have the freedom to think as one wishes, and to feel as one does. This includes the freedom to opinion, and includes the freedom to publish opinions (aka freedom of speech). Mills also argued that censorship harms society, not only by limiting freedom, but because a banned opinion may be true or contain some truth, or will challenge the accepted one and prevent it becoming a mere dogma.

I shouldn’t have to point out that I’m a fan of freedom of speech – and I do think contrarians have a useful role in society. Even when we have reached a consensus opinion, we should continue to scrutinize and debate. As I’ve said before:

“…perhaps there is an opportunity to use antagonists such as Michael Crichton, Bjorn Lomborg and even Tim Worstall to check our thinking. Without doing so, we run the risk of heading down cul-de-sacs unquestioningly. Question everything.”

An argument often bandied around is that websites and forums are not the proper channel to hold debates such as these. This episode highlights the drawbacks of such technology, especially twitter. But, it’s better to have some debate than to gag anyone whose opinions don’t match our own. I’ll add Amanda to my list of ‘useful contrarians’ and hope a few more people potter off to read up on Mills.

admin Opinion Amanda Baillieu, Climate Change, Clive James, global warming, John Stuart Mill, Liberty, Michael Crichton, twitter

Sometimes it’s good to get to events which don’t have a construction or buildings focus. Thanks to the magic of Twitter, I heard that Nick Stern (aka Professor Lord Stern of Brentwood) was presenting a public lecture about his new book at LSE on 21 April. I couldn’t pass on the opportunity to listen to a celebrated economist talk on 2 of my favourite topics after buildings – climate change and economics!

It’s been 2.5 years since the Stern review catapulted Nick into the public consciousness. Since leaving the government shortly afterwards he’s been keeping busy, proposing green new deal’s and writing “Blueprint for a Safer Planet“.

An mp3 of the event (76 mins) is available from the LSE website or the Guardian if you want to listen to the whole thing. Unfortunately the slides aren’t available. James Randerson has a slightly more coherent take on the event in the Guardian here. The FT also did a review of the book when it came out at the beginning of the month.

The need for addressing carbon was covered with a swift dash through the Hadley/IPCC climate data. I suspect most readers of this blog will know the headline figures, so I’ll not regurgitate here.

Three actions

1. Energy efficiency
2. Develop low carbon technologies and activities
3. Halt deforestation

He illustrated many of the cost issues with McKinsey’s now famous abatement curve (first published in January 2007, revised this year and available here – the full report is 190 pages).

How much will it cost? 1.95% of GDP (unless GDP drops). Stern admitted some flab in this number and cost is likely to drop with technological progress. Think of it as an insurance premium for a few decades. Drivers of growth over the next few years will be technological, towards a low carbon economy. Why not strive for zero growth now? He believes we need a growth story to deal with world poverty. We don’t need growth forever, afterall forever is a long time.

As it turns out, Stern’s views on CCS were fairly prescient, given the post-budget announcement that potentially all new coal power stations will have to have CCS. Stern asserted that CCS was fundamental, as we need to know quickly if can we do it in (i.e. in the next 10 years). 50% of the world’s electricity is currently coal fired. If not we move to plan B, which will be much more expensive. Developed countries have to take the lead on this to ensure China, India and other developing countries do not have any excuse not to follow it.

Some more in the press re:CCS since I went to the event – according to The Week (can’t find a direct link to the article) coal still provides a third of the UK’s electricity. Proportions abroad are much higher: 50% in the US, 70% in India and 80% in China. Ed Milliband’s requirement for CCS on new UK coal stations only covers 25% of their emissions, rising to 100% in 2025.

In the Q&A, we discussed political will. Stern made the very good point that if we want things to change, it is quite within our own remit to lobby politicians and businesses for the change – they are humans after all, and ought to listen to reason.

admin Book Review, Economics, Events CCS, Climate Change, coal, Economics, LSE, Nick Stern

Last Monday I attended Green Monday, a monthly networking event for corporate climate change leaders in London. I was first alerted to Green Monday by Phil back in September, but this month was the first time my calendar had conspired to allow me to attend.

The event kicked off with a panel discussion and then went on to round table discussions. I really enjoyed the panel discussion – some highlights of which I jotted down on the crackberry (I’d been very remiss and forgot pen and paper).

First up was Dr Peter White of Procter & Gamble who was keen to emphasis they exercise no trade-offs. Meaning that it should be possible to have both sustainability AND performance, rather than compromising with a sub-standard product. Coincidently, I am currently reading We-Think
by Charles Leadbetter and P&G are featured heavily in it in the chapter on We-Think business. According to the book P&G have set a goal of getting 50% of their new ideas from external sources and encourages open-innovation. All its patents will be released either 5 years after they are lodged or 3 years after a product is shipped. So the innovative new detergent which washes at 15ºC which Peter referenced, should in theory be in the public domain within 3 years – which can only be a good thing for climate change. This is a vast shift in IP strategy and something all companies should be thinking about, if not yet implementing. The models of business are changing.

Next up was Marie Louise Ter Boek of McDonalds. Colleagues had scoffed at the idea of McD’s having the audacity to sit on such a panel, but times have moved on. The “big bad corporates” are learning and evolving and we are all playing catch-up with each other. Last year’s greenwashers can turn out to be this year’s heroes. Anyway, Marie was heavily referencing DEFRA’s framework which was very timely as I had re-read the summaries that morning. Written by Futerra, there are two strategies  for positively communicating climate change: Rules of the Game (pdf) (relevant to changing attitudes) (long version available from DEFRA here (pdf, 48pages)) and New Rules:New Game (pdf) (relevant to behaviours). Recommended reading and hold an explanation as to why eco-bling such as urban wind turbines might act as a catalyst to further action – big socially visible actions can lead to smaller actions such as energy saving lightbulbs, so whilst we engineers lament the physical energy contribution, we are missing the social knock-on effects – something to ponder).

The third speaker was Alan Knight who was frustrated by our current language of doom and gloom. Do we talk ourselves down? He was keen to emphasis enthusiasm and ambition. What does the future world look like? Imagine a world of 20% of today’s carbon, no poverty, no obesity, diabetes etc. He was also keen to promote the business case for framing solutions in a positive way. As he said, there is no business case for famine (he was referring here to Lovelock‘s prediction of 8 billion dying). There is an opportunity to reengineer today’s lifestyle to be 20% carbon but edit out bad choices. Again, no trade-offs. Requires an air of optimism – don’t talk ourself into defeat. Alan “blogs” here (no RSS and very few posts).

The final speaker was Jeremy Leggett of Solar Century. I had high hopes of fireworks given his voice over at CiS, but he was remarkably calm and calculated. He talked of the triple crunch of climate, financial and energy. Asset assessment is, in his opinion, systemically wrong (gas and oil). He was keen to promote The Oil Crunch Report authored by Arup, FirstGroup, Foster + Partners, Scottish and Southern Energy, Solarcentury, Stagecoach Group, Virgin Group, and Yahoo. I’ve not had a chance to read it yet, but the thrust is that a peak in cheap, easily available oil production is likely to hit by 2013, posing a grave risk to the UK and world economy. Other interesting tidbits from Jeremy included the fact that 18 of 27 european countries now have FIT (feed in tariffs). He was also keen to point out that there is no magic bullet – solar is one of maybe 50 families of alternative technologies.

The roundtable discussion afterwards was broken into different topics and I opted for commercial real estate. The table discussed the zero carbon consultation and experience varied from those who had read it several times to those who hadn’t heard of it at all. The majority of us however agreed that we had consultation fatigue. Then it was time to schmooze. Like any of these events, it takes a couple of attendances to build relationships, so no million pound deals were made, but I was pleased overall.

All in all, it was a good gig. I’ve applied for a space again next month. It’s a much more organised and less rowdy event than London Green Drinks (which is currently overrun in it’s current venue – making it a hot, sweaty and slightly unpleasant experience).

mel starrs Opinion business, Climate Change, London, renewables

Whilst I was away on holiday the US got a new president, and one of it’s most famous authors, Michael Crichton died. Catching up on my feeds over the past week, I was surprised there wasn’t any comment in my inbox on Crichton’s passing, given his brush with the green movement a couple of years ago. As a massive fan of ER, I always had a soft spot for him.

Much of the criticism of Crichton came following publication of 2004′s thriller State of Fear (disclosure – I haven’t actually read the book although I have read the speech I reference below. Grist review the plot here). The controversy arose from the assertions he makes:

“This is a work of fiction. Characters, corporations, institutions, and organizations in this novel are the product of the author’s imagination, or, if real used fictitiously without intent to describe their actual conduct. However, references to real people, institutions and organizations that are documented in the footnotes are accurate. Footnotes are real.”

The main controversy came from the accuracy of the science he uses (misuses?) in the book. The book (remember, a work of fiction) has been used as nay-sayers of anthropogenic climate change. Which is all kinds of barmy, which I won’t get into here.

I’m fairly ambivalent about this and far more interested in his case that the issue is complex and (using James Lovelock‘s terminology) there may be iatrogenic* consequences. My current interest in decision making and cognitive biases led me back to Crichton’s speech made in November 2005. It’s worth a read (at 41 pages longer than a coffee break! there is also a 1.5 hour video). Some key points Crichton makes:

“when I went back to examine old fears, the first thing I found was that newspapers were focused on momentary concerns; the second thing I found was that the language employed was excessively frightening, and the third thing I found was that a lot of advocacy was encouraging what was happening anyway.”

There’s a few areas of overlap with James Lovelock (the Chernobyl data, for instance). A key point being the danger of fear. I’ve touched before several times on scaring people into action. Crichton is also concerned with the effect of dispute on the underlying debate:

“Environmental disputes frequently revolve around conflicts of land use, triggered by a fear. The spotted owl is endangered, and that means that logging in the northwest must stop. People are put out of work, communities suffer. It may be, in ten or thirty years, that we discover logging was not a danger to the spotted owl. Or the issue may remain contentious. My point is that the drama surrounding such disputes—angry marches and press coverage, tree hugging, bulldozers—serves to obscure the deeper problem.We don’t know how to manage wilderness environments, even when there is no conflict at all.”

He then goes on to review the Yellowstone Park case. Again, a James Lovelock quote resonated with me on reading it. From the conclusions of The Revenge of Gaia (pg. 195):

“The more we meddle with the Earth’s composition and try to fix its climate, the more we take on the responsibility for keeping the Earth a fit place or life, until eventually our whole lifes may be spent in drudgery doing the tasks that previously Gaia had freely done for over three billion years. This would be the worst of fates for us and reduce us to a truly miserable state, where we were forever wondering whether anyone, any nation or any international body could be trusted to regulate the climate and the atmospheric composition. The idea that humans are yet intelligent enough to serve as stewards of the Earth is among the most hubristic ever.”

Crichton then goes on to define what he means by a complex system (something I touched on recently):

“We live in a world of complex systems. The environment is a complex system. The government is a complex system. Financial markets are complex systems. The human mind is a complex system—most minds, at least.

By a complex system I mean one in which the elements of the system interact among themselves, such that any modification we make to the system will produce results that we cannot predict in advance.

Furthermore, a complex system demonstrates sensitivity to initial conditions. You can get one result on one day, but the identical interaction the next day may yield a different result. We cannot know with certainty how the system will respond.

Third, when we interact with a complex system, we may provoke downstream consequences that emerge weeks or even years later. We must always be watchful for delayed and untoward consequences.”

He goes on to say:

“If you have a teenager, or if you invest in the stock market, you know very well that a complex system cannot be controlled, it can only be managed. Because responses cannot be predicted, the system can only be observed and responded to. The system may resist attempts to change its state. It may show resiliency. Or fragility. Or both.

An important feature of complex systems is that we don’t know how they work. We don’t understand them except in a general way; we simply interact with them. Whenever we think we understand them, we learn we don’t. Sometimes spectacularly.”

Crichton’s main concern is that ‘we’ have made conclusions in a linear cause and effect fashion that carbon causes climate change. Whether you agree with his assessment or not, Crichton applies critical thinking to the issue. I would counter his assessment and acknowledge that it is a complex issue, but that we have very likely identified a contributing factor and by reducing anthropogenic carbon emissions, we are doing no harm.

I’m not trying to defend Crichton’s views here, but I would like to acknowledge his recognition of the complexity we are facing.

I am also trying to ensure that we (i.e. me) don’t fall into the trap of discrediting other’s views outright when they don’t match our own and conversely we don’t agree with everything labelled ‘green’ without critiquing the argument.

When I originally read Brad Feld’s post on the current lack of critical thinking, I couldn’t confirm or deny it, but increasingly I’m seeing ‘green’ issues all lumped together and the no ‘internal’ criticism of the matters. For example from my post on the 100 months campaign:

“The pro-camp seems big on repeating the NEF press release, quiet on comment. Which is a shame as the anti-camp have come out all guns blazing”

Rather than getting marred in disputes, perhaps there is an opportunity to use antagonists such as Michael Crichton, Bjorn Lomborg and even Tim Worstall to check our thinking. Without doing so, we run the risk of heading down cul-de-sacs unquestioningly. Question everything.

*iatrogenic – arising from treatment that adds damage instead of curing the malady – i.e. the unintended consequences argument

mel starrs Opinion Climate Change, Complex systems, environment, James Lovelock, Michael Crichton, State of Fear

Book cover via Amazon

So on my quest to read all those books we ‘green’ folks are supposed to have read, I mooched a copy of Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered by E. F. Schumacher and (more importantly) actually read it.

I have a couple of fuller formed posts to come out of reading the book (namely how businesses are set up and the thorny question of nuclear energy), but as an aide memoir to myself and a guide to you, the reader of my blog, I have my initial thoughts and comments on the book below.

The book is a collection of essays, but can be read as a book (with some repetition in sections). First, I’ll outline what the book is known for, and then what I thought of it.

So, the amazon blurb says (to give us some context and what we expect the book to be about):

First published in 1973, this controversial study looks at the economic structure of the western world in a revolutionary way. Schumacher maintains that man’s current pursuit of profit and progress, which promotes giant organizations and increased specialization, has in fact resulted in gross economic inefficiency, environmental pollution and inhumane working conditions. He challenges the doctrine of economic, technological and scientific specialization, and proposes a system of intermediate technology, based on smaller working units, communal ownership and regional workplaces, utilizing local labour and resources.

I should point out, I expected the book to be more about ‘how’, but in fact it is more about the ‘why’. I’m still searching for a manual on ‘how’ all this would work in practice (any recommendations out there?). That said, I was definitely ‘engaged’ with this book, veering from complete agreement to total and utter disbelief – always a good sign for a book which will make you think. It also has thrown up more questions than answers. Another good sign. I had also expected more of an explanation of zero-growth economics and how this might look. My expectations were misguided – this book does not answer this question.

Firstly, I’d like to point out how refreshing it is to read a book which does not one use the word sustainability. Worth reading just for some respite from that phrase and all it’s baggage. Instead Schumacher makes use of the term ‘permanence’ (pg: 26):

“From an economic point of view, the central concept of wisdom is permanence. We must study the economics of permanence. Nothing makes economic sense unless its continuance for a long time can be projected without running into absurdities. There can be ‘growth’ towards a limited objective, but there cannot be unlimited generalised growth. It is more likely, as Gandhi said, that ‘Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not for every man’s greed’. Permanence is incompatible with a predatory attitude which rejoices in the fact that ‘what were luxuries for our fathers have become necessities for us’.”

It worth remembering when assessing Schumacher’s views that this book is the same age as me. That makes some of his take on things somewhat quaint, though given it was written in the early seventies and not the fifties, maybe some of his views were already out of date (although he was 62 when he wrote the book). For instance, this one had me nicely seething (from pg. 47):

“Women, on the whole, do not need an ‘outside’ job, and the large-scale employment of women in offices or factories would be considered a sign of serious economic failure.”

Ouch. I don’t think Ernst and I would have agreed on this point.

My second niggle with Schumacher’s beliefs is in that humans need work, rather than leisure, for a good quality of life. Taking his first point, this raises some interesting questions regarding what equality he saw for women (was being chained to the kitchen sink equivalent to male ‘work’ (in his eyes, producing something for use in the local economy) – it’s not clear?). Secondly, this seems rather Calvinist to me, although a quick scan of Wikipedia reveals he had a fascination with Catholicism converting in 1971. At one point he bemoans the fact that no-one knows what the Seven Deadly Sins are anymore nor what the Four Cardinal Virtues are. Needless to say, he doesn’t list them (I had to go look them up: Sins: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy and Pride, and Virtues: Prudence, Justice, Temperance and Courage, in case you were wondering). He also is preoccupied with metaphysics, which I won’t expand on yet as I am still trying to come to grips with what exactly he means by this? Nonetheless, he is wary of humanistic doctrines and especially wary of scientists (pg. 71):

“Science cannot produce ideas by which we could live. Even the greatest ideas of science are nothing more than working hypotheses, useful for purposes of special research but completely inapplicable to the conduct of our lives or the interpretation of the world. If, therefore, a man seeks education because he feels estranged and bewildered, because his life life seems to him empty and meaningless, he cannot get what he is seeking by studying any of the natural sciences, i.e.: by acquiring ‘know-how’. That study has its own value which I am not inclined to belittle; it tells him a great deal about how things work in nature or in engineering, but it tells him nothing about the meaning of life and can in no way cure his estrangement and secret despair.”

For those who have read James Lovelock‘s The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth is Fighting Back – and How We Can Still Save Humanity: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back – and How We Can Still Save Humanity (indeed a book which comes up as a recommendation on amazon given this one), it is interesting to see the polar opposition of opinions on science and it’s role. James has been an independent scientist for many years, an interesting observation given how Ernst then goes on to defend himself (pg. 118):

“To mention these things, no doubt, means laying oneself open to the charge of being against science, technology, and progress. Let me therefore, in conclusion, add a few words about future scientific research. Man cannot live without science and technology anymore than he can live against nature. What needs the most careful consideration, however, is the direction of scientific research. We cannot leave this to the scientists alone. As Einstein himself said, ‘almost all scientists are economically completely dependent’ and ‘the number of scientists who possess a sense of social responsibility is so small’ that they cannot determine the direction of research.”

So presumably Schumacher would have approved of Lovelock’s independence and his sense of social responsibility. An interesting question to ponder – would Lovelock have been able to develop his Gaia theory had he not been independent? How important a point is this?

Schumacher also has dim views of modern city living. Now, I have no problems with him having these views, but I question the basis of them, given that he makes no validation, either quantitative or qualitative. For instance from pg. 55:

“I think it is fairly safe to say that the upper limit of what is desirable for the size of a city is probably something of the order of half a million inhabitants. It is quite clear that above such a size nothing is added to the virtue of the city. In places like London, or Tokyo, or New York, the millions do not add to the city’s real value but merely create enormous problems and produce human degradation.”

Another observation is that, much like George Monbiot, Schumacher disapproves of travel (what he describes as a tendency for people to be ‘footloose’ given improvements in transport and communication), but only after he spent considerable time abroad, in his case Burma. The Burma references in the book are again rather unfortunate as he exalts the country as an example of how we should all be living given his experience of working there (unknowing of course how things would pan out in that country).

So how did E.F. Schumacher get out of bed in the morning, given that the economic reality of profit is so dismal to him? His conclusions (pg. 200):

“I thus come to the cheerful conclusion that life, including economic life, is still worth living because it is sufficiently unpredictable to be interesting.”

Ah, yes. May we all live in interesting times.

So has the book been hijacked and exalted to a position above it’s station by ‘green’ do-gooders? Does it still have relevance today? His primary message of self-sufficiency within local economies stems from his belief that (pg: 49):

“people who live in highly self-sufficient local communities are less likely to get involved in large-scale violence than people whose existence depends on world-wide systems of trade.”

Was that true in in 1973? Again, Scumacher offers no validation of this view. Even if it were true in 1973, is it still true today? I admire his pacifist tendencies, but yet? I would say I’m not convinced by his argument, but sadly he doesn’t argue – he just states it as fact. I’ve been convinced by arguments along the lines of democracy heralding peace? I found a reference from Keynes in the New Green Deal paper which expands on Schumacher’s points regarding full employment and self-sufficiency (Keynes rescued Schumacher from internment during the war):

“If nations can learn to provide themselves with full employment by their domestic policy there need be no important economic forces calculated to set the interest of one country against that of its neighbours. International trade would cease to be what it is, namely, a desperate expedient to maintain employment at home by forcing sales on foreign markets and restricting purchases, which, if successful, will merely shift the problem of unemployment to the neighbour which is worsted in the struggle, but a willing and unimpeded exchange of goods and services in conditions of mutual advantage.”

I obviously have more research to do on this point then…

Schumacher’s prescience regarding fossil fuels is undoubtedly what has kept this on the ‘green’ reading list for 35 years. His predictions of population are also very accurate.

My initial exposure to the book has previously come from bloggers such as Dave Pollard (fairly dark green Canadian) and references from Rob Hopkins’ Transition Towns movement. Both these camps and others seem to have taken Schumacher’s original idea and run further with it. I need to do some more thinking on where I stand on this but I suspect I veer away from their opinions. I’m still a fan of the global view for reasons which I hope to touch on in future post, but I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise.

I would recommend reading Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered, for context if nothing else. It is fascinating looking back 35 years through the lens of hindsight and the book (with some exceptions as I have mentioned) stands up fairly well to the intervening years.

mel starrs Book Review Climate Change, E. F. Schumacher

No Words Necessary - The Hand

Some great images courtesy of The Independent. The full article here, a flavour:

“We set up the competition to give cartoonists around the world a platform on which to express themselves,” says John Renard, one of the Earthworks organisers. “We hoped that the competition would stimulate cartoonists to use their pens and wit to help combat environmental devastation and give new impetus to our desperate fight to stop global warming,” he says. “After all, humour is often a valuable key in the struggle to win hearts and minds.”

mel starrs Diversions cartoon, Climate Change, humour

I’m reading through all the links (some below for your viewing pleasure) and digesting what it all means, but in the meantime, why 100 months?  100 months from now is November 2016.

This ties neatly into some of the government’s deadlines, which naturally makes me slightly suspicious.  However, it’s obviously a handle for folks to grab hold of, rather than a precise date.  Far enough away that we can imagination change happening (transport yourself back 100 months to March 2000, hmm, maybe not so much has changed…) and close enough to feel urgency. And coincidentally (?) ties to Roosevelt’s 100 days New Deal.

Interesting to see NEF are calling for 400ppm – whilst there is a concurrent campaign in the US for 350ppm from Bill McKibben and James Hansen.  Who’s correct?  Well, we don’t know.  And in the end it really doesn’t matter.  We’re on the equivalent of a supertanker trying to change course.  We’re likely to overshoot (today we’re at 377ppm), and it’s going to take a while for things to get back down to where we want them.  Aiming for 400ppm or 350ppm is neither here nor there – both are better than steaming ahead towards 450ppm or 500ppm. It would have been neater to have consensus on a target as no doubt effort will now be wasted in debating who is correct, whereas, I’ve already pointed out, it makes very little difference.

As a side note, Andrew Simms has a particularly rosy view of the war period, and how we can all “pull together” and get through potential climate change in a similar manner.  Whilst I encourage his optimism, I was watching the Dad’s Army documentary over the weekend, and Clive Dunn was pooh-poohing such sentimentality (in this context – that portrayed by Dad’s Army): “I had an ‘orrible war”, he said. Quite so.

So what do we do next?  I’ve yet to finish “The New Green Deal”.  No doubt I’ll have some more thoughts when I finish that.  I expect I’ll be veering towards agreement on some things, and not on others. In the meantime, various links to keep you informed:

• BBC on Green New Deal and another piece by Andrew Simms.
• Treehugger report

The pro-camp seems big on repeating the NEF press release, quiet on comment.  Which is a shame as the anti-camp have come out all guns blazing:

• Tim Worstall over at AdamSmith.org giving a more capitalist, libertarian counter argument
• More counter argument at TigerHawk: “concerns of the rest of us that climate change hysteria is just the latest justification for socialism. Many of us who love economic wealth and the post-industrial consumer economy are big believers in weaning the planet from fossil fuels for both environmental and geopolitical reasons, but we are loath to support a cause that attracts so many people who want to destroy capitalism.”

It’s always hard to write about economics and climate change, as inevitably people end up talking politics and taking sides.  Which is not that useful. Politics and work mix about as well as religion and work.

Can I manage to digest the report and comment in a non-political way?  Probably not (I’m not an economist), but I’m on the look out for someone who has (anyone?).

*warning – the 100hours website is very whizzy and caused my Firefox to go on a complete go slow

mel starrs Opinion Climate Change, Economics, NEF

I know I said I had gone for Xmas, but a quick comment on the supplement to PPS1:

para.  20:

In particular, planning authorities should:
– not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate either the overall need for renewable energy and its distribution, nor question the energy justification for why a proposal for such development must be sited in a particular location;
– ensure any local approach to protecting landscape and townscape is consistent with PPS22 and does not preclude the supply of any type of renewable energy other than in the most exceptional circumstances;
– alongside any criteria-based policy developed in line with PPS22, consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low-carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the development of such sources, but in doing so take care to avoid stifling innovation including by rejecting proposals solely because they are outside areas identified for energy generation; and

- expect a proportion of the energy supply of new development to be secured from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon energy sources.

Now read that again with the mindset that regulation exists to form boundaries.  Is it just me, or is this giving permission to innovate (which surely does not need to be given).  An awkward way of saying things, in my opinion – being specifically told what we don’t have to prove…

mel starrs Opinion Climate Change, energy development, energy generation, energy justification, energy supply, low-carbon energy sources, PPS, renewable energy

This looks intriguing.

ABSTRACTS DUE February 1, 2008

ANNOUNCEMENTS of Accepted Papers March 1, 2008

COMPLETED DRAFTS DUE June 1, 2008

The Topic

Following successful Congresses in Berlin 2005 and Leeds 2006, the Council for European Urbanism will hold its third international congress in Oslo, Norway from the 14th to 16th September 2008.

The congress will discuss the rapidly-evolving topic of “Climate Change and Urban Design”. Papers are invited on the latest implications in science, policy, education and best practice. What is the latest science telling us? What are the consequences for urban development internationally? What are the practical solutions available to reduce climate gas emissions from urban settlements and transportation? What strategies are available to adapt to changing conditions?

The congress will welcome government officials, planners, architects, social scientists, ecologists, developers, local community activists, and all other development stakeholders who feel a responsibility to contribute to more sustainable urban development.

We invite authors engaged in urban development and climate change topics from all parts of the world to submit paper proposals with abstracts by February 1, 2008.

Announcements of accepted proposals will be on March 1, 2008. Completed drafts of papers will be due by June 1, 2008.

Topics look good ,especially:

THEME SIX: Innovative New Strategies

Papers in this category should discuss new theoretical or pragmatic approaches, such as certification schemes (LEED-ND in the USA, BREEAM in the UK, et al.), trading schemes, new coding approaches, and other innovations.

which we’ve been talking about recently and I’ve always fancied a trip to Norway.

mel starrs Uncategorized Berlin, BREEAM, Climate Change, climate gas emissions, conference, Council for European Urbanism, Leeds, Norway, oslo, United Kingdom, United States, urban design

via:: Fred Wilson

Here’s a nice depressing start to the week (having just come back from holiday feeling slightly fragile anyway having devoured Heat, Cradle to Cradle and Collapse – cheery holiday reading – not!). A report from the IPCC available here (pdf, 21 pages):

The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m-2.

If all this doom and gloom is getting you down, I would recommend reading Collapse by Jared Diamond. He argues the case for human adaptation to all that is thrown at us, and whilst he has numerous cases where we got things wrong, in the most we get it right.

I’d love to write more detailed reviews of the books I read, and also catch up with all that is happening out there, but I’m desperately trying to finish my draft chapter one of the dissertation. Until that gets done, blogging ought to be light (but will no doubt seem infinitely more pressing than the chapter at times – procrastinate – moi?)

mel starrs Uncategorized Climate Change, Fred Wilson, Jared Diamond, Sustainability