Newsletter Subscription


Email
First Name
Last Name
Country
Please come back at any time to modify your profile.

Here is the Newsletter from January 2012: subscribe if you want the most current one or scroll down for older editions.

2012 A Seismic Year?

2011 turned out to be quite a year what with the UK riots, the Arab Spring and the Eurozone Crisis. To my mind, the underlying causes of each of these, how we relate to each other as individuals within Society and the conflict between current and future desires, has not really made it into the arena of mass debate: maybe it will in 2012.
 
Certainly 2012 is likely to be another year of seismic change. If the theories around the ancient Mayan calendar are to be believed, December signals the end of the world (although some current Mayans are saying that is a misinterpretation and the prophecy is actually about transformation).  Meanwhile, June will see world leaders meet in Rio for an Earth Summit, 20 years after the one that set in motion pledges and (some) actions to deal with the growing environmental crisis.  I don’t detect a lot of optimism in the media that much will come out of Rio. David Cameron has announced that he does not intend to go (even though the dates were changed to avoid the Diamond Jubilee) and the Guardian this week carried a report on a leaked Agenda, which suggests that governments will simply be asked to set their own targets and promise to work towards a global green economy.
 
The appalling lack of public concern about climate change (it didn’t even register as a concern in an Observer poll for the New Year) and the dismal lack of urgency shown by world governments in figuring out how to resolve the problem may well be evolutionary. A recent book by Tali Sharot suggests that humans are hard-wired for optimism: not just because it helps overcome the despair of knowing that death awaits us but also because a brain that doesn’t expect good results lacks a signal telling it ‘Take notice – wrong answer!’
The key issue about climate change is that the ‘wrong answer’ isn’t yet fully noticeable. There is it still too much ‘wealth’ to be generated by burning fossil fuels. Unfortunately, by the time the impacts are undeniable it will be too late to take meaningful action to reverse it.  By the time the market demands a safe climate, it will be impossible to supply.
 
That is why we need a fundamental rethink on the game rules for our global society. How we derive ‘wealth’  through the way we account for our business practices and the laws we enact to tell people what is considered normal. We need to fundamentally change the rules of accounting so that the Earth-cost of consumption is included in the price of production and we need an Ecocide Law to overcome the assumption that man has ‘dominion’ over the Earth and all the resources in it.
 
Could humans cope with a fundamental change to the rules of life? Yes they could. In addition to optimism, our brains are also hard-wired to put faith into decisions made.  Even a difficult decision between attractive options is post rationalized to conclude that the unchosen option wasn’t so good after all.
 
Helping to create a collective belief that humans are capable of moving on from fossil energy and learning to live with planet rather than on it is what being a Humankind Superhero is all about.  And if we get that into mass debate, 2012 will surely be a seismic one.

December 2011

Glass Half Full or Achingly Empty?

I guess that by now you will have seen some of the media coverage of the latest round a climate talks, which took place in Durban at the start of the month. The outcome, an agreement not actually to do anything but to start talking about a new global, legally binding agreement to be completed by 2015 and come into force by 2020, has caused mixed reactions.  Many environmentalists consider it the worst idea ever and with good reason: the planet’s atmosphere already has a higher concentration of carbon dioxide than is considered compatible with the stable climate known throughout man’s history (present levels are 390 parts per million versus a desirable level of 350 ppm). Other commentators think that the outcome is very positive as it is the first time the world’s politicians have accepted that it is a shared responsibility to cut carbon emissions.  
 
What is still missing, though, is recognition that the environment and the economy are inseparable problems and that the current economic paradigm can lead us only to disaster. (If you have some time over the Christmas period, you might like to watch The Crash Course.) So, it was heartening to read that Caroline Lucas of the Green Party has started to highlight the work that now needs to be done. In a Guardian article this month, she wrote "I want to appeal for a debate about how we transform our economic system away from today's failed economic order - designed to serve the interests of the City of London's 1% - and instead build a new one. One that is socially just and ecologically sustainable. One that provides useful and meaningful employment for all and strengthens our communities. We can and must find a better way of bringing people closer together and building a better society, while operating within the limits of the ecosystem.”

As I have pointed out in the book, overcoming the current order will need to reverse 500 years of thought about how business should account for its activities. It is a heroic quest but one that we must take on for the alternative threatens the very fabric of our civilization.

The Christmas story is one of hope and redemption: the birth of a savior. Redemption, though, is not automatic. It needs action on the part of the individual.

Last Christmas, I wrote a blog which revisited "A Christmas Carol” and posed the question, will we, like Scrooge, aver to change our ways in hope of changing these "shadows of what may be."? Or will climate change continue to elicit "Bah! Humbug" until it is too late?
 
The Durban agreement has, at last, removed the "Bah! Humbug” and it is my sincere hope that it is not too late.
 
Merry Christmas.
 

November 2011

Time To Get Your Skates On

When the Government introduced "Feed in Tariffs” (or FIT’s) to encourage people and businesses to install micro-generation of renewable energy equipment they were fixed for a period of 2 years. The idea behind FIT’s is a sound one: new technologies take time to move through an adoption curve but not all of them make it (who remembers Betamax?). Governments can affect the likelihood of success of desirable technologies by encouraging people to adopt them earlier than "the market” might otherwise deliver. In the case of FIT’s a surcharge on existing electricity users (where most is generated from fossil fuel) is used to give a premium to people who invest their own capital in micro-generating equipment. This premium serves to make the return on investment seem better and so kick-starts the market. Once the new market in renewable technologies gathers pace and size, economies of scale start to become apparent, driving down prices and the government can reduce the size of the incentive.

The difficult task for the government is trying to work out a balance between how big the incentive should be and how long it should run for to attract the "right” amount of investment. Too big an incentive and the market develops too quickly for the infrastructure to serve it properly, run the incentive too long and the opposition accused you of "market distortion” (don’t forget though that the way we account for economic activity is the biggest market distortion of all, which is why ordinary activity is destroying the future).

The trouble with the concept of "right” amounts of investment is that it is a political moving feast and, it appears, one that the government can’t really decide what it wants. The first problem came just a few months into the implementation of the new regime when it became apparent that large investors saw the potential returns on investment as being attractive. A rash of large scale projects were mooted, potentially covering the farmlands of Devon and Cornwall with PV panels.  Ooops! That wasn’t what we intended said the government and promptly cut the size of payment available to large scale schemes. Now, with the review date of April 2012 in sight they have published a "consultation” for future levels of support and, it appears that they think the FIT’s have been too successful as they have prompted 100,000 installations. So, the proposal is to cut the rate for domestic systems by just over half! And, in a nasty move that only a politician would be able to justify, systems that have not been installed by 12th December 2011 will only get the current support level until the 31st March 2012 and then they, too will fall to the new rate. Quite how that squares with the original support rates being guaranteed for 2 years is beyond me.

Any government action that undermines confidence is, in my view, a bad one. Putting in solar panels is not cheap; about on a par with buying a new family car. However, whereas with the car you know what you are getting, with the solar panels there is more uncertainty. Will they really generate the amount of electricity they say they will? Will people object to how my house looks with them on? Will they really last 25 years? What will happen if a move house? These are all the kind of issues that the payment is helping to overcome. Maybe the 100,000 installs are enough and the market now has enough momentum but as that represents less than 0.5% of the available roofs, I am pretty dubious.

If you had been thinking about installing a solar system then you really need to get your skates on if you want to benefit at the original rate. Although the actual installation only needs a few days, the process of finding and selecting an installer plus, possibly, completing site preparation work means that it will be a pinch to get a system installed and registered before December 12th. Have a look at the Solar Trade Association or Good Energy for help in find suppliers. You can also express your views on the changes to the FIT’s by visiting the Department of Energy & Climate Change website.

October 2011

A Step Forward

Many thanks to those of you who took action last month and supported either the Yasuni Rainforest project (the UK now provides the most individual donors) or the Ecocide Trial crowd-funder exercise. The good news is that the Ecocide Trial raised the necessary funds and duly took place last Friday. It gained national coverage in the Financial Times, Guardian and Independent & was streamed live on the Sky News web channel.
 
Being at the trial made a fascinating day. The premise was that the UK had enacted the Ecocide Law and two fictional (-ish) Chief Executives were charged for their companies activities in spilling oil in the Mexican Gulf and the outcomes from their activities in the Alberta tar sands. The legal teams involved took it deadly seriously and the jurors judged the case on the evidence presented against the charges the defendants were indicted on. None of the organisers knew what the outcome was going to be until the end of the day and it was a bit of a relief that the jury posted a "Guilty” verdict on the tar sands even if they went for not "Not Guilty” on the oil spill.
For me, listening to the defence counsel was the most fascinating part of the day. He based the defence around belittling the impact of the specific actions (other people/ animals cause worse damage than the ones in the charge), excused the actions as having been done with the blessing of the relevant governments and pleaded that it would do little for society in total to "scapegoat” his hapless clients.
That all rather entirely missed the point.
 
Polluting the environment is not a new problem: traces of air pollution caused by the Romans have been found in the Arctic, the leather tanning pools of mediaeval England still mark the landscape in places and the "great stink” of the Thames prompted modern plumbing and sewerage management.
What has changed though is the sheer scale of human presence and the efficiency with which we are destroying the natural environment. It is not just the climate we are altering but we are systematically destroying our sources of fresh water, the fertility of the planet’s topsoil and the very bio-diversity of life itself. Successive generations have stored up the ecological debt that now needs to be addressed and the legal, moral and economic models that served those previous generations are simply ill-equipped to deal with our current situation.
 
Put simply we need to shift our shared imagination of what is the "right” way to live so that we live with the planet rather than on it.
Bringing about that shift is the job of individuals. It is not easy (the book title was chosen for a reason) but inaction will achieve nothing.
The laws we enact may not always be obeyed but they are a powerful statement of what we believe to be the right way for people to act in our civilisation. That is why I support the effort to have Ecocide declared an international crime. You can help by expressing your support through any of the following; liking the Facebook page, asking 38 degrees for support, asking Avaaz.org to take up the campaign for next year, writing to your MP and asking them to support the application at next year’s Earth Summit.
Recognising Ecocide as an International Law could be achieved through a simple amendment to the Statute of Rome and would need the backing of only 86 states. Getting it onto the statute book would be a giant help in forcing the changes to the economic system we need to make so that our financial system serves people and planet.

September 2011

A New Hope

September is the start of the new academic year and, for many other people also serves as a time for new beginnings. In my own family, this is a year of big change as my older son leaves home for university and my younger one will be starting sixth form college. As the time for them to enter fully into the adult world gets closer, contemplating the future state of the environment that they are likely to enjoy or suffer as they make their way through life is as keen as ever in my mind.
The climate and sustainability issues we are grappling with now are, undoubtedly, the most difficult challenge the human race has ever faced. While global destruction through all out thermo-nuclear war was, for part of our history, a real possibility that threat was always reliant on "somebody pushing the button” and deep in our hearts it was difficult to imagine any human would actually do that. The climate issue is different as there is no "somebody” who has control over the outcome but rather it is an issue for everybody; a challenge to shift our collective imagination of how we should organise and power our society. It is a big challenge, but it is an achievable one if we act on it.

Education is one of the great pillars of society as is law and the economy. This month, I’d like to encourage you to act to reshape the way that two of these pillars, the law and economy, operate. There is an enormously strong link between the two as the law requires publicly list companies to deliver shareholder profit. However, the calculation of that profit takes no account whatsoever of the environmental cost of the firms operation. Fixing that error is central to securing a sustainable future for humanity.

The London based lawyer, Poly Higgins has proposed that the law has a key role to play and has put a proposal to the United Nations to protect the earth by making it a criminal offence to cause radical environmental destruction such as that caused by oil spills or tar sand extraction. Under a new international and national law on Ecocide business leaders and heads of state would become personally liable for the destruction caused to the environment.

This proposed law will be tested in the UK courts at the Supreme Court in London on 30th September 2011 when a mock trial will take place.

The trial will examine how the crime of Ecocide protects the Earth Right to Life and will be tried as though the proposed crime of Ecocide has been adopted by the UN. What will happen is not pre-scripted; it is ultimately for the jury to determine whether the crime of Ecocide is made out and whether the Earth Right to Life is breached.

The organisers have secured both corporate and individual funding to hold this event but are in need of more support. There is a page on Crowdfunder where you can donate and help push the total toward the target. You can also attend the trial itself or apply to be part of the jury!

The second opportunity is to show that you are prepared to place a monetary value on protecting natural space and biodiversity.

Five years ago the Ecuadorean state oil company found a massive new oil field containing nearly a billion barrels of oil in the Yasuní national park. The find was equivalent to 20% of all the nation's reserves, worth a minimum $7-10bn.
The dilemma is that the oilfield is below one of the most biodiverse areas of the world and to extract it will devastate one of the world’s last great wildernesses.

To cope with the dilemma, the government prepared two plans: plan A was a revolutionary scheme to leave the oil in the ground in perpetuity in return for half of its value from the rich countries of the world; plan B was for business as usual.
Last year the UN development programme declared plan A to be a safe environmental investment, and agreed to administer the fund. If a down payment of $100m is made by December, the oil stays in the ground and the money used for sustainable development. If the money is not found, then a Chinese company is expected to move in within months and the destruction of Yasuní will begin.
So far, four governments have pledged $40m leaving $60 million to be found by December. To put that in context, it less than the daily turnover of McDonalds.

The fund has now been opened up to individual contributions & I have contributed $100: it would be fantastic if you could follow that action. This is a real opportunity to demonstrate that ordinary people really do value the environment and provide a new hope for the future.


July 2011

Where to From Here?


The final chapter of the book speculates as to whether humankind will face up to its tribalism or the mortality of the species. Will greed for today over rule a safe climate for tomorrow? Or will we integrate the economy and the environment so that the former no longer feeds off the latter. A little over a year after writing the book and through keeping up with the Newsletter, the runes are no clearer.

On the positive side there has been a lot of movement: most notably, Australia has announced plans to introduce a carbon tax, the UK government has accepted the carbon budget recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change in full, the European emissions trading scheme (ETS) is set to be extended to aviation on schedule, China has become the world’s leading investor in renewable energies, India has eight "national missions” intended to deliver sustainable development and the State of California democratically voted down a motion that would have destroyed their clean air act, a major player in reducing their carbon impact and a victory for democracy over the fossil fuel industry.

On the other hand, the international negotiations have yet to yield any sign of replacing the Kyoto Agreement that runs out next year, 2010 saw the highest carbon emissions in history, deforestation continues (albeit at a slightly slower rate), the public appetite in the UK for real action remains muted (qualitatively, at least) and President Obama has still to make any major speech on the topic. Oh, and weird weather events are popping up all over the globe.

Having now run a Newsletter for each of the book’s chapters, I now need to decide whether to continue with it. My motivation for writing the book and Newsletters has been to inspire and empower people to take action, so I’d like some feedback on whether that has been achieved. Please reply to this email and let me know what, if anything, you have been inspired to do through reading my work. Better still, forward it your contacts and ask them to sign up for future editions.

Fighting climate change is a challenge that we are