The Lazy Environmentalist

Save our Forests

2011-01-23T09:22:00.000Z

"When the governments failed to reach agreement,
I remained silent;
I was not a climate expert.

When they failed to govern our banks,
I remained silent;
I was not wealthy.

When they sold off our forests,
I remained silent;
I had no trees of my own.

When they failed to prevent the destruction of our planet,
I did not speak out;
I was not an environmentalist.

When they failed to help communities,
I remained silent;
I thought only of myself.

When they failed to help me,
there was no one left to speak out."

To remain silent is to remain complicit, to sell our forests is to make profit without thought for the planet.
To speak out is to hold our governments to account, to keep our forests is to be trustees of the trees.

Stop our government selling our trees: Join the Save our Forests
Sign 38 Degrees' Petition

photo by spodzone@flickr

Polly Higgins on criminalising Ecocide

2011-01-16T08:46:00.001Z

Prosecuting the whistleblowers: but how long until the true destroyers are put in the dock?

2011-01-05T15:13:00.018Z

Sophie Scholl, a Munich University student, was executed for whistleblowing the truth about the activities of the Nazi authorities; today 20 brave Ratcliffe whistleblowers have been sentenced at Nottingham Crown Court for plotting to draw attention to the truth of the activities of another German entity. This time replace the tyranny of the Nazis with the tyranny of the energy giant E.ON.

Sophie Scholl and 20 others stood up and took direct non-violent action. Their crime was the dissemination of leaflets highlighting and decrying the tyranny of the Nazi dictatorship. It was a decision to undertake something unlawful – an act that they believed was a necessity – to halt a greater but unnamed crime, a crime that cost many lives. That crime did not at that time have a name. But it soon did: genocide.

The Ratcliffe 20 did the same in April 2009. They too were prepared to stand up and take action. Their crime has been the planning to shut down Ratcliffe-on-Soar, one of Britain’s largest coal power station emitters of emissions. The state was failing to prevent a greater injury from taking place; the loss of life. This time it is not only human life, but all life. Like Sophie Scholl and her fellow activists, the Ratcliffe 20 were motivated to take non-violent direct action. They, along with 124 others, decided to undertake something unlawful: the conspiring to close down the offending emitter. It was an act that they believed was a necessity; to halt a greater but unnamed crime, a crime that is already costing many lives.

Their defence was that they were acting to prevent a greater crime, of death and serious injury caused by climate change. We do not currently have a legal crime in place that fits this description but there is one fast looming over the horizon and that crime is ecocide.

Currently there is no law to prosecute those who are destroying the planet. Instead, climate campaigners do not have the support of the judiciary in preventing the corporate ecocide that is daily occurring under our very noses. Ecocide is permitted (as genocide was in Nazi Germany) by the government and, by dint of the global reach of modern-day transnational business, every government in the world. Corporate ecocide has now reached a point where we stand on brink of collapse of our ecosystems, triggering the death of many millions in the face of human aggravated cataclysmic tragedies.
Over the passage of time, tyranny revisits. Tyranny is the cruel, unacceptable, or arbitrary use of power that is oblivious to consequence. Whilst the use of coal stations may not be deemed an intentional cruelty, it is certainly an unacceptable use of corporate power. Our governments collude by encouraging excess emissions, contrary to their UNFCCC commitment to stabilize “greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
60 years ago the tyranny was Nazism. Today it is pursuit of profit without moral compass or responsibility. Despite the Ratcliffe protests, it is one that the majority of humanity accepts regardless of the known consequences. We look the other way from the daily reports of destruction of our world by those who are in a position of superior responsibility; the master controllers of our fates are those who determine how we live our lives. It is the CEO’s of the top corporations who gamble with the fate of our planet; those who produce and supply our energy are the most culpable of all.

Their tyranny of chasing profit without legal restraint and imposition of duty of care has no restriction. The failure rests with our governments who are unwilling to intervene to make the destruction of our world a crime. Our police are disempowered and our justice system is unable to protect our greater interests when faced with the superior silent right of corporations to cause injury to persons and planet. Those who stand up and speak out are thereby treated as criminals.

Prior to the Ratcliffe trial, the judge ruled: “the defendants must have the opportunity of putting that contention (that the emissions from the power station do pose an immediate threat) before the jury, no doubt backed by expert evidence.” Expert evidence was heard from the ex-head of NASA Goddard Institute on the immediacy of the threat to life caused by escalation of emissions to MP’s confirming government inertia, all of which the jury failed to accept. What will it take for that dense sea-fog of blindness to dissipate and for the truth to be revealed?

Unlike the Ratcliffe 20, Sophie Scholl and her co-conspirators were denied the right to defend themselves in their trial. They too were convicted for resorting to unlawful acts, which they believed to be necessary to whistleblow the truth. At the very end of her trial, Sophie spoke out. It is just matter of time, she said, before the true destroyers are put in the dock. The very same can be said today.
Related links: thisisecocide.com

6 January 2011: Ratcliffe power station activists sentenced

14 Dec 2010: Ratcliffe activists found guilty of coal station plot

9 April 2010: British campaigner urges UN to adopt ‘ecocide’ as international crime

Photo credit: Paul45111 @ Flikr

COP 16: Cancun - Corporate and Complicit.

2010-12-18T16:36:00.001Z

Colonialism by the Sea

It was a surreal setting for the latest episode of the world’s climate negotiations: mega-all-inclusive exclusive hotels stretching the whole way along a 3 kilometre-long promontory, promoting themselves and their private stretches of pristine beach as ‘Colonialism by the Sea.’ UN negotiators and business lobbyists jostled inside alongside all-in-one fly’n’flop package deals for marrying couples (with 300+ friends booked in for a week of sun’n’surf). The jewel in the crown was the Moon Palace golf resort 22 kilometers south of Cancun, which was reserved for the exclusive use of the UN and where the negotiations were held. It housed the negotiators and a sprinkling of Heads of State who came to participate in the last few days. It is the most exclusive of the resorts, open only to those with a pass. The NGO’s (who have only ‘observer status’) were housed either 7 kilometres away at the pass-restricted Cancunmesse conference shed/human storage facility (nearby a token 50 metre high wind turbine had been erected 6 weeks before the event) or back up-town at the government sponsored business and NGO space Villa de Cambio Climatico which was finally opened to the public mid-way through the second week.

Private shuttle buses drove delegates in-between the pristine beachfront hotels and the artificially manicured, heavily fertilized and pesticide treated golfing lawns. This is the well-known and heavily contested local ecocide of the Mayan Riviera. The development of the beach resorts and golf courses have caused untold destruction and pollution of the unprotected Cenotes, the largest underwater cave system in the world, threatening the existence of the already endangered turtles. Just a few metres beneath the surface jungle stretching hundreds of kilometres south of Cancun lies another world, a labyrinthine network of tunnels. For the ancient Mayans, the Cenotes were portals to another realm, another life. Today they are still considered sacred by the local indigenous communities. I was honoured to be taken to explore one of the yet to be mapped caves now at risk of being lost forever by the proposed airport expansion. Temples to an underground world, the one we swam in was so undisturbed that the calcium had formed a layer like ice on the water. Their destruction by aggressive and unmonitored urban development is a hidden ecocide. Just as local planning officials and the Mexican government are complicit in the local eco-colonization of the Cenotes, in pursuit of profit through the levying of property laws over the land to big business, so too on a macro level the planning officials acting on behalf of our planet – the governments and their negotiators – are protecting the interests of big business by the creation of corporate ownership mechanisms and trade deals over the worlds forests.

Abdication of Responsibility

The only deal on the table this year was REDD+; the commercialization of forests into the hands of the corporate sector to make money out of supposedly saving forests. The definition of forests includes previously decimated land; it will be traded for carbon credits, allowing countries to continue with their destruction, pollution and emission creation. In other words, continued abuse comes at a (small) price. The custodians of the land being subjected to trade have been ignored – they are not the ones who benefit. The indigenous rights of the local communities have been refused and earth rights have been dismissed in favour of silent corporate rights to control and trade. Where colonization is defined as plundering of people and planet, REDD+ facilitates the flourishing of eco-colonization of the forests.

Three days before the conclusion of the negotiations I secured a media pass to hear Ban Ki-moon speak at a private audience in the luxurious confines of the beach hotel Marriott. Sharing the platform was the President of Walmart, the largest corporation in the world, who received rapturous applause when he declared himself an environmentalist. “Every second of every minute of every day a football pitch-size of forest is destroyed”, Ban Ki-moon informed us. Yet despite seeking reliance on this sobering fact, such destruction of the lungs of the earth was not acknowledged as a crime. Ban Ki-moon, the head of the UN and the man with ultimate superior responsibility to ensure that a solution is found by the conclusion of the two-week Conference of the Parties to stop the destruction of the planet, headed off to fly out of Cancun on the Wednesday afternoon safe in the knowledge that the negotiations were to prove futile in the face of such enormous mass ecocide. Without the leader of the UN in place to push for a viable solution, the negotiations were officially over. Ban Ki-moon had left the Moon Palace – the symbolism of the empty shell that remained was not lost on those few querying his early departure. The party was to continue without him for another 58 hours.

Spontaneous applause broke out between negotiators on Friday night at the Moon Palace when Patricia Espinosa, the foreign secretary of Mexico and the president of the UN climate conference, announced the deal was sealed. Governments were delighted to accept any compromise, such was the actual desire to be seen to have put something – anything – in place. REDD+ was signed off by all bar one lone but vocal dissenting voice. The President of Bolivia, Evo Morales, was the only leader to denounce the REDD+ deal: he condemned governments failure to act as ecocide. Without strong legally binding safeguards, a 4 – 7 degree increase in temperature is now certain. Grassroots organizations and citizens from all over the world had for two weeks mobilized in Cancun against the false solution. Their voice had not been heard.

We the Peoples

Citizen engagement was far smaller this year, but increasingly vociferous and informed. The world of have and have not’s was echoed within the context of the negotiations as well as outside; on the surface of the negotiations - just like the beach resorts it was housed in - all was gloss with a veneer of respectability. Lightly scratch the surface and you begin to see the truth: the people were carefully hidden from the well-heeled public. Just as Cancun locals are forbidden to use the beach-front and are forced to use separate modes of transport behind the hotels, so too was citizen engagement kept hidden, behind the scenes and isolated. Unlike in Copenhagen where the Danish government has a tradition of paying to support and enable citizen engagement on important public issues, this year the Mexican government gave less than 1/10th the finance towards housing and assisting the Peoples. The Peoples were divided up into different sites spanning a distance of 32 kilometers between them without transport being made available. Klimaforum 10, where I was speaking, and the global eco-village camp was an hour’s travel south and two buses away; La Via Campesina, the caravan of peasants who marched to Cancun in protest, were housed in the inner city stadium where people were given a diet of beans three times a day and sleeping was on the ground under the glare of stadium lights all night. High gates hid what lay behind them; 4,000+ people who came because they cared were held in a place that was more akin to a refugee camp, in stark contrast to the plush 5 star beach hotels. The people marched and protested but heavily armed militia ensured that they stayed at more than arm’s distance, some 7 kilometers away from the Moon Palace. The march happened out-with the sight of those they wanted to communicate with and as one negotiator admitted to me, their protests were unknown of or ignored. Only one leader went to speak with the Peoples – and that was Evo Morales.

The United Nations was set up in 1945 to represent “We the Peoples...”. The disconnect between those we have voted in and the Peoples they represent was blindingly apparent in Cancun. Our leaders, whose role is to be in service to the Peoples, have lost sight of the interests they are supposed to be protecting. Whose interests are truly being protected here? It is certainly not the Peoples nor the planet.

* photo credit: Antonio Rojas

Making Ecocide a Crime in the Mexican papers during the COP negotiations

Eradicating Ecocide

2010-09-14T15:32:00.000+01:00

"Eradicating Ecocide highlights the need for enforceable, legally binding mechanisms in national and international law to hold to account perpetrators of long term severe damage to the environment. At this critical juncture in history it is vital that we set global standards of accountability for corporations, in order to put an end to the culture of impunity and double standards that pervade the international legal system. Polly Higgins illustrates how this can be achieved in her invaluable new book.”

BIANCA JAGGER, Founder and Chair of Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation, advocate for Crimes Against Present and Future Generations

Humanity is at a crossroads. One route is to carry on as before, treating our planet as something to be bought and sold as private property to the highest bidder; the other is to acknowledge that our lives depend on a delicate ecosystem and that we all have responsibilities to each other, our habitat and future generations.

Exposing the truth behind the compromise laws and inadequate voluntary codes favoured by companies to protect their silent right to extinguish life, Higgins advocates a new crime, Ecocide, to prevent the ‘damage, destruction to or loss of ecosystems’, as a 5th Crime Against Peace.

The recent Mexican Gulf oil spill is a compelling reminder of why such a law is urgently needed. Governments, businesses and financial institutions have all bought into turning a blind eye to the destruction of the planet when economic interests are at stake. Peace, Higgins argues, is unachievable whilst the rules of the game continue to protect commercial expropriation of the planet for profit – at a price we cannot afford.

Providing a comprehensive legal overview of the past 200 years, Eradicating Ecocide explains the crime of Ecocide, how it will apply and who can stop the ecocide, for present and for future generations. This is essential reading for anyone who is engaged with current issues; it is also for leaders and policy-makers in all countries.

Laws from other countries – which have been successful in curtailing the power of governments, corporations and banks – are included with analysis of the duty of care required, a duty that is owed to the public and the global earth community. The book is a crash course on what laws work, what doesn’t and what is needed.

Eradicating Ecocide: Laws and Governance to Prevent the Destruction of our Planet

Shepheard-Walwyn, September 2010, £17.95

You can buy it here and read more here

www.thisisecocide.com

www.pollyhiggins.com

Climate 9 say real crime is Ecocide

2010-06-14T14:27:00.002+01:00

Climate 9 outside Aberdeen Crown Court June 14, 2010 on trial for vandalism, say the real crime is ecocide, not peaceful campaigning against airport expansion.

This is Scotland’s first ever major climate change trial, a group of climate change activists facing charges of Beach of the Peace and Vandalism after closing down Aberdeen Airport in March 2009. The two week trial starts in Aberdeen Crown Court today.

At 3am on the morning of March 3, 2009, 9 friends stood up for what they believed in and occupied a taxiway at Aberdeen Airport, building a wire enclosure containing a miniature golf course while two activists occupied the roof of the main terminal building. They wore clothes parodying Donald Trump and displayed a banner reading 'Plane Stupid Golf Open 2009'. Their action was designed to stop carbon emissions from aviation and to highlight the links between Donald Trump’s planned hotel and golf course complex and the expansion of Aberdeen airport.

The Climate 9 are arguing the defence of necessity. They argue that their actions were justified because people should be allowed to peacefully take action on the biggest threat facing humanity in the face of government failure and a huge democratic deficit in taking the action necessary to stop runaway climate change.

The aviation industry uses more fossil fuel than any other industry, which directly contributes to the damage, destruction to and loss of ecosystems. The knock on impact affects the whole global community; not just today’s but tomorrow. To stand up and ask for it to stop is a call for intergenerational justice. It is a call for ecological justice.

What do the aviation industry want?

They want to expand their services and for people who object to be imprisoned.

What do Climate 9 want?

They want the courts to drop all charges against the climate 9 and instead pursue climate criminals such as BAA, who are getting away with ecocide, causing death and destruction in poor countries and misery for local people living near their Airports.

As they rightly point out, most flight destinations can easily be reached by bus, rail and ferry.

They want to stop unnecessary short haul flights and airport expansion, stop aviation advertising, and take steps that ensure a just transition to sustainable jobs and transport.

They want the police and the aviation industry to be as open, honest and accountable as they are, to stop scare tactics, lies and intimidation and start listening to people concerned about climate change.

They want they UK government to stop sponsoring the aviation industry, currently subsidised by the UK taxpayer for £9 Billion a year, subsidies that benefit the wealthiest and that could be used for sustainable transport projects.

Why this is important?

If Climate 9 are aquitted, it will be the first time that the defence of necessity will have been successful in Scotland in a case involving activism. This is a stand for eco-justice. The Climate 9 who stand in the dock represent the millions of people throughout the world affected by climate change. They are Jimmy Kerr, Josie Hanson, Bill Boggia, Dan Glass, Mark Andrews, Tilly Gifford, Mila Karwowska, Kate Mackay and Johnny Agnew.

Climate 9

Launch of thisisecocide.com

2010-04-10T00:11:00.001+01:00

Mass destruction of ecosystems is a crime on a par with genocide, which is why I am calling on the UN with another proposal. This time it is to put in place ecocide as a 5th Crime Against Peace. www.thisisecocide.com launched today with a poll to see which you say is the number 1 ecocide on the planet.

Which is the worst case of ecocide?

Ecocide - help make this word a meme

2010-02-19T14:19:00.001Z

Raphael Lemkin was the guy who came up with the word ‘genocide’ to describe the horrors of the haulocaust in World War 2.

2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity and we need a new word to describe the extensive destruction, damage and loss of ecosystems of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes.

That word is ecocide.

Ecocide is the extensive destruction, damage to or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished.

Help me get this word out into the public consciousness so that we can call for the restoration of ecocide territories and protection of those territories at risk of ecocide. Lets transmit this word as a meme and start using ecocide, posting it out there on your and others blogs, writing about it, calling on those who can help stop the ecocide of the planet...let us know where it is turning up around the world and we will post updates on its progress on the Trees website.

There are 2 types of ecocide; acertainable and non-ascertainable ecocide (read more here)

THE CANADIAN TAR SANDS OIL-YMPICS - action against ecocide

2010-02-16T14:41:00.001Z

The Race To The Tar Sands Has Begun!

Saturday February 13th, was the opening day of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, Canada. Meanwhile here in London, a different kind of sport was taking place.

In the spirit of mischief and fun, Canada House in Trafalgar Square was the centre of focus for the three oily teams: BP, Shell and Total, who took their places to ‘Race to the Tar Sands'.

Curling, one of the olympic sports, is being put to good use to help sweep out BP, Shell, and RBS as they all race headlong into the Tar Sands.

The Canadian Tar Sands in Alberta is one of the biggest examples of ecocide on planet earth. The extraction of unconventional oil from the Tar Sands (called the dirtiest oil on the planet) has caused, and will continue to cause, extensive destruction and loss of widespread ecosystems to an area the size of England. There is currently a global 'race to the tar sands' and the main competitors are Shell, Total and BP who are all in pursuit of the profits to be gained from the extraction of unconventional oil from the Canadian Tar Sands, regardless of the environmental and social costs and opposition from local communities directly affected by the extraction.

Although the oil is being extracted in Canada, there are direct links to the UK. Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC and Barclays have all invested in the tar sands. Britain’s very own BP are about to reverse their decision to stay away from the destructive project, making Beyond Petroleum nothing more than a Broken Promise.

This action is in solidarity with Canadian First Nations groups whose lands and communities are being devastated in the name of corporate profit, and who have called for a moratorium on the tar sands.

For more info about the Canadian Tar Sands, the Oil-ympics and the UK Tar Sands Network check out these links:

* tarsandsinfocus.wordpress.com
* oilsandstruth.org
* olympicresistance.net
* ienearth.org

The Peoples Climate Conference, Klimaforum: on stage with George Monbiot

2009-12-26T23:37:00.004Z

The People of the Planet v's the Politicians: How to turn a bad COP into a good COP

2009-12-21T08:09:00.013Z

So the climate negotiations are over. The end result was a 3 page document, now named the Copenhagen Accord (not a Treaty because it is non-binding, it states a few principles to "take note of") which no country has signed up to in any event. In other words, it has no lawful authority or standing at all, it is a mere statement of vague intent. Arguably this is a crime against the planet (a sin of omission, you might say) and against all those who live within, upon and on it.

Compare this to how an international genocide case would be addressed (the abuse here being the equivalent - let us call it Planet Earth genocide, or for short: terracide). This is a case for the International Criminal Court, which is where genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are heard. For our purposes, the ICC powers have now been extended to address terracide as well (for we accept that damage and death of the planet means damage and death of many species, including humans, who are dependent upon the survival of planet life). The case has been brought on behalf of The People of the Planet against their heads of state who we claim have failed to take action to stop the terracide.

Counsel for the various heads of states (the heads of state are vicariously liable for those who have been perpetrators of terracide on their patch of the planet), present to the court an unsigned piece of paper proposing a suggested outcome - only none have signed it. The judge points out that an unsigned document is not an outcome that a court of law can accept. It is a comprehensive failure to negotiate and moreover the listed terms of (non)agreement are on the face of it unacceptable. And so it is that The Peoples case for Planet Earth shall be immediately listed for trial to be heard on the earliest possible date.

Meanwhile, in the world arena of political posturing, with no judge to take control of the situation, proceedings have been adjourned for the 15th time over 15 years, with no set date put in place. Interim measures have proven to be utterly ineffectual and the terracide of our planet continues unabated....

.....Friday night through to the small hours of Saturday I was holed up in the aptly named Fresh Air Centre.

It is the hub for the alternative reporters - the bloggers, the independents, the green journos, the non-mainstream voices; the ones seeking to report the truth, not just the hot air. I say this informedly after witnessing propaganda news coming out of the likes of CNN (distraction news: continual reporting on how bad China's pollution is) and on local Danish news (false news: how the Danish PM had saved the day).

We sat there digesting the live streaming of Obama's press statement from the airbase before he headed home and the subsequent responses from the Bella Centre from the other Heads of State. Only, the streaming was constantly cut, and in the end we were left with very little from any nation. Our sources in the Bella Centre were faring no better, and although they were there literally outside the negotiation room, they were unable to access any more information. Those out on the streets (this was now 2am) who earlier had gone to march in protest had all been rounded up under the newly imposed preventative powers of the police (paranoia powers: if in doubt, spray pepper gas and arrest anyone acting suspiciously). Hundreds were left seated outside on the cold ground, handcuffed and held there through the night (presumably until the negotiators had gotten safely to their beds). It was minus 7 degrees outside.

All of this is so wrong.

Why has this all gone so horribly wrong?

3 issues come to the fore. Barak Obama in his final statement touched on the same three points that cut to the crux of the problem.
------
As counsel acting on behalf of the people of the planet, I present an emergency application for remedial steps to be imposed in time for the next COP.

The Peoples Reasons:

1. The system as it currently stands does not work. As has been demonstrated with the comprehensive failure of the 187 ratified parties to uphold the binding Kyoto Agreement, it is pointless to sign up to any type of new agreement, especially an even weaker non-binding one.

2. Utter lack of transparency of proceedings. In these climate negotiations, we have evidence that documents were suppressed and meetings held behind closed doors. We call for full and frank disclosure to be implemented so that everybody knows what is happening and we can collectively come to informed decision making. We call for any information which is of potential assistance to be publicly disclosed all to scrutinise. If pertinent and relevant, concealment of evidence and process cannot be an option.

3. There has been a complete disintegration of trust. Accusations of secret meetings, the implementation and use of excessive policing laws, the ousting of NGO's - all this and more bear the hallmark scars of the collapse of trust. It is pertinent to remember that the politicians and heads of state are there to represent us, the people.

The Peoples Proposals:
1. Change the approach from business as usual to rapid transition.
a) Instead of market provision agreements, implement binding international public trust doctrine law. This would ensure a shift from business opportunities being put first to planet protection being foremost, with direct responsibility and protection provisions implemented which identify duties and obligations. Mechanisms for restorative and ecological justice can then be put in place which if ignored are actionable in a court of law;
b) cut the damaging subsidies ($300 billion per annum which props up the fossil fuel industry), replacing them with emergency subsidies for the rapid roll-out of clean energy solutions (with each nation putting in place the required emergency legislation to facilitate this);
c) replace the word sustainability with responsibility in all documents.

2. Change the procedure from hidden to transparent.
Transparency and accountability procedures be implemented at all levels. The onus will be on the UN to give full and frank disclosure of all proceedings. Any information which is of potential assistance shall be disclosed all to scrutinise. In a court of law the onus is on the defendant to ensure that all procedures and all documents in the negotiation process are open to public scrutiny at all times. This must be the norm for the UN. Closed door meetings be banned. Specific application will have to be heard to determine whether there is exceptional reason for public interest immunity to apply, with right to appeal.
a) all negotiators to be under the age of 40 - they are the ones who are going to have to live through the outcome;
b) all negotiations are filmed live for real-time public access;
c) the public who are in attendance at the COP will be given the ability to vote on issues as they arise to give real-time indicators of their views into the process to assist with negotiations;
d) all leaders make themselves available to their people at some point during the COP to account for their progress.

3. Establish trust between our leaders and between the politicians and people.
This will be achieved in part by implementation of the above suggestions, but more steps are required:
a) banish the 3 tier system (negotiators = participants, NGO's = observers, the remainder are excluded) and treat all who attend as participants;
b) de-criminalise the process. Cancel the police powers which alienate the process;
c) ensure gender balance at all levels - 51% of the world is female, but 96% of the negotiators at top level are male. With more female input we would have a better balance of proposed solutions
d) provide for, listen to and act upon the voice of the people - those who come with wisdom, the indigenous voice, the activists, those who have travelled to the negotiations out of the personal agenda that they care for the planet and want to find an equitable solution. All voices be fully acknowleged and embraced, not marginalised;
e) ensure enough time for negotiations and for rest. Leaders allocating just 2 days to the process has proven to be useless. Decisions made on 48 hours worth of concentrated sleep deprived negotiations lead to desperate and misplaced responses (as COP 15 demonstrated);
f) implement and subsidise supportive mechanisms that are required on a basic level: sustenance and nourishment for all, intellectually, physically and spiritually. For example, more events be open to the public online and on ground to demystify the various aspects of the process (the People's Climate Summit to be implemented at each COP with even more accessibility to all, with more voices being heard from all arenas), good affordable fresh organic food (too many activists were starving by the end of the fortnight due to exhorbitant basic living expenses), more host family support (5,000 people stayed with host families in Copenhagen), massages for participants...

4. The next COP be in 6 months.
Such is the urgency of the problem, a year is too long to wait to begin again - six months should be the absolute latest. When all of the above is implemented, then we will hear Barak Obama and all our leaders making a speech worthy of a standing ovation.
----------

With enormous thanks to all the people of the planet who helped with their proposals for a good COP. Together we can make this happen. Sign up to become a Trustee of Planet Earth here

Become a Trustee of Planet Earth

2009-12-18T09:02:00.003Z

Last year I addressed the Untied Nations on the need for a Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights. One year on and Bolivia is now going to run with this idea. This week I am in Copenhagen for the Climate negotiations, but they look set to collapse. So, today I am launching a Planet Earth Trust for us the people to sign up to. Help me, with many millions of others, find the solution for life of all beings.

The planet is our capital asset and we the people have a responsibility to ensure that this asset is protected, not exploited. We can do that by being trustees for the planet. When humanity becomes the trustee of the planet and holds the asset in perpetuity for use of all beings, as guided by the principles, life is assured for us all.

This is a Planet Earth Trust, in which we the people are Trustees and All Beings are the Beneficiaries. Become a Trustee at www.treeshaverightstoo.com

COP 15 a cop-out?

2009-12-18T08:51:00.004Z

I am currently in Copenhagen for the International Climate negotiations, and everything hangs on a balance today, the last day. Here is some information on what I have been saying and doing whilst here. You can also watch much of what I am up to at Positive TV

Yesterday George Monbiot and I called on COP15 to become accountable and transparent to the people. I asked for the next COP to provide real-time video streaming of the negotiations, not that the politicians remain behind closed doors. I also called for a referendum by the people. Bolivia has been brave enough to run with this idea today! You can have your say by answering the following questions on their website

*QUESTIONS FOR THE REFERENDUM ON CLIMATE CHANGE*

h3. 1) Do you agree with reestablishing harmony with nature while recognizing the rights of mother earth? YES or NO

h3. 2) Do you agree with changing this model of over-consumption and waste that represents the capitalist system? YES or NO

h3. 3) Do you agree that developed countries reduce and reabsorb their domestic greenhouse gas emissions for temperature not to rise more than 1 degree Celsius? YES or NO

h3. 4) Do you agree with transferring all that is spent in wars and for allocating a budget bigger than that used for defense to climate change? YES or NO

h3. 5) Do you agree with a Climate Justice Tribunal to judge those who destroy Mother Earth? YES or NO

Click here

Planetary Slavery alive and well in Copenhagen

2009-12-15T21:27:00.023Z

3 days left of this year's COP 15 climate negotiations in Copenhagen, and negotiations are at stalemate. The voice of the people is loud - but the problem is you can only really hear it 1 mile or so down the road from the Bella Centre, where the official negotiations are taking place, in Klimaforum, where the People's Climate Summit resides. It's a bit like the Edinburgh Festival - the more innovate stuff happens on the fringe. So it's become the people v's the politicians: the former is to be found downtown in old warehouses and a public gymnasium in the red light district, the latter is outside the city housed in a sterile conference centre surrounded by maximum security (I know - I failed to get in to hear a side event last week).

There was a small chink of light. This year a climate express train ran from London to Copenhagen with select invited peoples such as various UN Climate Ambassadors (Roz Savage), film makers (Age of Stupid), some UN bods, loads of press (from Treehugger to Die Welt) - and me. So, I had a chance to have a private audience with Achim Steiner of UNEP - an opportunity I would not have so easily stepped into otherwise, but few of the 100,000 who marched on the streets on Saturday will ever have the chance to burn his ear.

COPs are remarkable events. It works like this: inner circle are the negotiators and the country reps - they are the participants. Then you have the NGO's - they have observer status (quite literally as well as metaphorically, the NGO's are on the periphery of the negotiations) - they are both housed out at Bella. Back in town there are a host of others - lobbyists (650 oil lobbyists are reported to be in Copenhagen) of all hues, activists, organisers and particpants of the coinciding conferences, topical shows, exhibitions, speaker events, films, food, reports, workshops and the best ever flamenco.

These are the conclusions I have reached whilst here:

We must stop treating the planet as a business.
Our legal basis for all environmental protection is failing to protect the planet. Instead, it is clear that the environment rarely benefits - rather it is only business that really benefits. The COP negotiations are proving to be little more than a profit making machine, with money to be made by trading and power being vested in privatised and/or governmental entities. If we used the internationally recognised (and simple to implement) Public Trust Doctrines of law to protect the planet we would have a true and effective system of governance. But the problem is too many people at the COP negotiation table believe that the only way forward is to treat the planet as a business. This is despite the fact that we actually have the legal mechanisms we require to protect the planet - but they are not being used.

If the politicians are not going to stop the trading, we the people will have to demand it.
Last week, Bolivia offered to present the People's suggestions into COP15. What was remarkable was the convergence of belief that the group had. The Klimaforum drafting group were 100% adamant that the trading has to stop. We all wanted a) big polluting business to be made illegal, b) fossil fuel subsidies to stop and c) a global fund for restoration by communities to be set up. What we came up with in 9 hours was a far more ambitious proposal than that which the politicians have been drafting for over 15 years. Will Bolivia present the proposals made by the people?

Replace Sustainability with Responsibility.
The REDD negotiations have been stalling due in part because of the inability to define sustainability - it is a word that causes more problems than solutions. Replace sustainability with responsibility and the outcome is vastly different and vastly improved. When we stop perceiving the planet as a business but instead take responsibility, then we step into the role of stewardship. Step into the realm of stewardship/trusteeship of the planet and responsibilities can be identified and acted upon.

Let the people's voice be heard.
Our political process is not reflecting the reality of those who care. For something this important there is no real democracy. The negotiations happen behind closed doors, security is high, emergency laws are created out of fear to tighten crowd control and the politicians do not hear what the people have to say. There is no proper mechanism for the people to be heard, which in a so-called democratic world is nothing short of an infringement of the human freedom of expression and speech. Rioting is not the answer, but what else remains? Desperate times bring desperate measures. Politicians, I ask you all, let us speak, listen to what we have to say and then act on our behalf.

Hopenhagen or Nopenhagen?

2009-12-15T20:47:00.000Z

All,

As I write this, we are down to three days here at the Copenhagen climate talks. And I am afraid to say that there is almost no reason to be encouraged. Everybody has card to put on the table but no one is playing.

Actually, not everybody has cards. The Least Developed Countries, the poorest of the poor, and the Association of Small Island States, also mostly poor, have little to offer beyond their presence. Their emissions are so small they can offer little in the way of mitigation. They come asking for help to adapt as weather patterns change, storms grow and seas rise. They are being offered a tiny fraction of what economists say they will need. The only card they have to play is to pack up and leave, refusing to sign on to a national suicide pact. Their presence here is now on a hair trigger.

To gain some influence in the talks, they are aligned with a large group of developing countries that goes by the name of the G77. Other than the poorest countries, this group includes what have become known as the BASIC countries. Those letters (kind of) stand for the names of the biggest of the emerging economies. Brazil, South Africa, India and China are most prominent. These countries have emissions profiles that are distinctive for a combination of four factors. They are a significant portion of current global emissions and they represent a large portion of future emissions growth, but they do not represent a significant proportion of historic emissions and their per capita emissions levels are far below the developed world. Each of these countries has made significant pledges to slow the growth of their emissions, but refuse to set limits on growth for economies that includes hundreds of millions of people that still live below income levels of two dollars per day.

Distinctive among this group is China, now the world’s largest emitter, right behind the U.S. Largest emitter and greatest source of emissions growth, but relatively small in terms of historic emissions and per capita emissions. Chinese emissions are still one-quarter of the U.S per person. The U.S. has made China the prime target of these talks. China has proposed to reduce its emissions intensity– the amount of carbon emitted per unit of economic activity -- by 40-45% by 2020. That is a significant contribution. If implemented and assuming the U.S. gets one of the bills now before Congress passed and implemented, China will still have emissions less than half per person in the U.S. in 2020. But the U.S. is pushing measurement, reporting and verification of that promise. China is resisting throwing its economy open to outside review. I hope China will move on this issue, but it is certain they will not move before others, especially until the U.S. puts more on the table.

There is one last group of G77 countries. They are largely oil producers led by Saudi Arabia. For the most part they are here to stop anything from happening to the oil industry. They are not afraid to take undisguised action to slow or stop the process. In the end though, they don’t have enough power alone to sink these talks.

First among developed countries is the European Union. The EU is perhaps the most transparent group here. But their pledge of 20% reduction from 1990 levels is not what it seems. The EU moves as a bloc of countries and includes Eastern European countries that had high post-Soviet emissions in 1990. Many of those countries are significantly below those levels now, allowing other EU countries higher emissions while still claiming overall reductions. But the EU is likely to move to a 30% reduction if other developing countries move further.

Of course the meaning of 30% depends on how you count. The biggest factor on counting is international offsets. Those currently come in the form of financing projects in other countries for the benefit of emission reduction credits. A new deal could significantly expand these offsets while also including a bunch of new credits from forestry projects in developing countries. My biggest worry for the last month has been that some kind of weak forest deal will get done here and be sold to the public as saving the forest to save the climate. So far what is on the table on forests is largely a greenwash for covering up general inaction.

After the EU comes a group of developed countries called the Umbrella Group, including Japan, Russia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. These countries are a mixed bag. Canada is horrible and claims it is horrible because the U.S. is horrible. Russia is sitting on a load of hot air. That is the term for the emissions credits based on those higher 1990 levels that I talked about earlier. Russia can claim to reduce emissions about 40% below 1990 levels while nonetheless actually increasing emissions and selling that hot air to polluting countries. Japan under its new government might have a reasonable plan on the table but has been obstructive in negotiations. Australia and New Zealand embrace the general lack of ambition.

So it is clear, given this lack of action on the part of the rich countries that caused the climate problem in the first place, why developing countries say they need to see the rich countries move before they do.

Which brings me to the U.S. We are now proposing to reduce emissions a miserable 3-4% below 1990 levels. We have put no solid numbers on the table to help developing countries mitigate their emissions or adapt to the problem we helped create. We generally advocate for the biggest loopholes in the rules. Sometimes we even block proposals that everyone except OPEC supports. And we seem to be saying that we won’t do anything more, especially without China doing more. It is embarrassing to be an American at talks like these. I am incapable of defending my country’s actions.

What is especially frustrating is that about half of the biggest, richest environmental groups from the U.S. continue to back the U.S. negotiating position. They are like a broken record that argues that we can’t take strong action in Copenhagen because then the Senate will be scared off from passing a climate bill in the U.S. Arrgh! People used to say we needed a strong bill in the Senate to get a strong deal in Copenhagen. Now we are hearing we need a weak agreement in Copenhagen to get any bill in the Senate at all.

So it is easy to see why I say there is almost no reason to be encouraged. Almost no reason. Let me point out the cracks of light. First, other than the elites that run the show here, the world largely supports strong action on an international climate deal. The hundred thousand or so in the streets here on Saturday was just one example. Next the people I work with everyday are tireless, fierce and refuse to take no for an answer. It is almost impossible of believe that this level of dedication can fail. And finally, a solution is in the hands of one man who can change everything.

President Obama could come here and unlock a deal that is fair, ambitious and legally binding. He could instruct negotiators to stop creating loopholes and blocking honest progress. He could commit to go beyond the weak levels proposed in the current bills before Congress. He could pledge to raise funds to help the world’s most vulnerable adapt to a problem that was created by our American lifestyles of consumption. He could sign up to a deal that has real consequences for the failure to meet commitments.

The amount of goodwill that would be unlocked in the world from the result of such action would be like a flood. So many people are waiting for leadership. There is a vast ocean of positive action held back by a dam of fear and self-interest. The kind of deal the world needs is all on paper right now in brackets; it simply needs to be released from those brackets, to be agreed. The leaders of 110 countries are arriving already. Everybody necessary to tackle this greatest of all problems head on will be in the same city on the same day with the same purpose. This can still happen.

When so many people all want the same thing and their leaders fail to deliver, it rocks my faith in democracy to the core. But I am not a quitter. Let me try one more time. Let’s give this guy one more chance to really be different. We effectively have three more days there in the U.S. to ask for what we want. So I am going to ask you to help.

I know, it seems like such a weak response to such a big problem, but let’s at least try. Let’s try everything we can to get the message to Obama that we want real leadership on this issue. Many of you have been asking me if you can share my emails. I am not only giving you permission to share or publish this email anywhere you want. I am asking you to please do so. Please share this email with anyone you think might care.

Then I am asking you to make that one phone call a day until this deal is done – White House switchboard – 1-202-456-1111. “President Obama, please show real leadership on the climate issue, not just a greenwash deal. Deepen our cuts, put long-term funding on the table and stop waiting for other countries to go first. Prove that America is the world leader we always claim.”

Again, I know it is a small effort on such a big problem, a forwarded email and three one-minute phone calls. But don’t let its small nature stop you. The Earth needs people who care more than ever. Rare moments in history arise when the way forward appears as a fork in the road. We’ll never know what might have or failed to have tipped the balance.

Please give a little push with me.

Tim Ream
Copenhagen
15 December, 2009

Bolivia presents Bolivia presents Resolution “Harmony with Mother Earth” at the UN

2009-11-19T11:11:00.009Z

The winds of change, they are a blowing. Values are suddenly the currency of the day. Time magazine believes we have the beginnings of a Responsibility Revolution. But to establish what those responsibilities are, the values that underpin them have to be determined first. Values are the bedrock of the new world that we are creating. So what of these values? Interestingly, it is not just the talk of imposed value (ie.monetary), rather intrinsic values. An intrinsic value is defined as 'the value of something in and for itself, irrespective of its utility for someone else'. What of the intrinsic value of our Planet? That is just what the Bolivians have suggested we address, along with the support of a further 22 nations.
Last week, on the 12th November, the Bolivian Ambassador Mr. Pablo Solon presented to the UN a Draft Resolution Presentation Speech “Harmony with Mother Earth” co-sponsored by Algeria, Benin, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cape Verde, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Eritrea, Georgia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mauritius, Nepal, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Lucia, Seychelles and Venezuela. The resolution seeks recognition of the Earth as a Whole and the interaction of human beings with that system of which we are a part.

Mr Solon stated to the UN: “We acknowledge and share the progress of the environmental agenda of the United Nations at the level of the biodiversity, the ozone layer, desertification, climate change and other sectors, but we are convinced that this needs to be supplemented with a more holistic approach given the serious global impacts we are witnessing.”

Of the approximately 200 items that the United Nations General Assembly Agenda has, about 10 deal with the environment and sustainable development, and none directly addresses the holistic, global and integrated relationship among human beings and the earth system as a whole. This parallels the focus of the forthcoming international climate change negotiations on the imposed value (i.e. the price we place on the planet’s resources; the financing of reduction of carbon emissions by use of carbon trading etc). To include recognition of the intrinsic value of the planet, as a living being with whom we have an interdependent relationship, would be an acknowledgment of Earth as a Whole, a concept Indigenous communities understand well.

Values: imposed v's intrinsic
It is the difference between treating the planet as a commodity and taking responsibility. Both start with very different paradigms. The former, from a position of viewing the planet as an inert being, from which we can take without consequence. The latter, a position of understanding the planet as a living being, where we are all interconnected and interdependent. The outcomes of such divergent views are dramatic - and we can see them being played out in the international climate change arena today.
It is not only the 350+ million indigenous peoples of the world and by a similar number of Buddhists who adhere by the intrinsic values of the planet: "1,360 experts from 95 countries that participated in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ...propose that when analyzing and defining the actions that influence ecosystems it is necessary to consider not only welfare of human beings, but also the intrinsic values of the species and ecosystems."

Mr Solon’s proposal, supported by the 22 nations, for “a possible declaration of ethical principles and values to a life in harmony with Mother Earth” signals a growing momentum for recognition of what the Bolivian indigenous peoples term ‘buen vivir’ or ‘living well’ and in harmony with nature - a vision shared by many others throughout the world. The new paradigm is starting to take shape.

Mother Earth rights and rights of all beings in Copenhagen Treaty

2009-11-09T21:51:00.008Z

One year on from presenting planetary rights to the United Nations, Mother Earth rights and rights of all beings have been included in the forthcoming Copenhagen Treaty currently being drafted for the international climate change negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December.

Paragraph 13 of the Non-Paper No 52 (of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Co-operative Action under the Convention, to give it it's full title) currently states:

"Noting that a shared vision for long-term cooperative action should take account not only of the rights of human beings, but also of the rights of Mother Earth and all its natural beings as the adverse effects of climate change also have a range of direct and indirect implications for the full and effective enjoyment of human rights - including the right to sustainable development, self determination, statehood, life, the right of people not to be deprived of their own means of subsistence, the right to water and the right to live well - and are increasingly posing a risk to security and the survival, sovereignty and territorial integrity of states."

As of yet, the inherent rights of the wider earth community have not been included. The rights listed are are specifically human-centered. Most are not rights identified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the exception being right to life), nor are they enshrined in national or international legislation. The proposed list does not take into account of the wider inherent rights that apply equally to all beings (including humans).

The inherent rights and freedoms that could be included here are:

1. the right not to be polluted;
2. the right to restorative justice; and
3. the freedom of a clean and healthy environment.

The implications of such wording for the future protection of biodiversity and restoration of large degraded eco-systems is of course enormous.

The right not to be polluted
By definition, pollution is the introduction of contaminants - be they synthetic or an excess of natural - into the environment that cause instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to physical systems and living organisms. Thus, the excess of greenhouse gases can be termed a pollutant. Such legislation is necessary to stop the continuance of large scale creation of GHG’s that are damaging to people and planet. Until we actually stop the pollution at source, no amount of offsetting, carbon crediting or carbon capture and storage will solve the problem.

On 17.04.09 the US Environmental Protection Agency ruled that excess greenhouse gas emissions are to be now termed as _"pollutants, which are a danger to public health"._ Greenhouse gases are also a danger to all beings health, as is cogently demonstrated by the loss of numerous species (the polar bear being the most obvious example). Likewise, Europe is now considering implementing a similar directive.
The right to restorative justice
Large scale restoration of degraded eco-systems (wetlands, forests, deserts etc) provides tangible, effective and true remedy on various fronts: the use of physical interventions to change biodiversity and biomass results in raised water tables, perennial agro-forestry practices, soil stability, natural fertility, hydrological regulation and the creation of natural carbon sinks. Correspondingly, such activities dramatically reduce biodiversity loss, fresh water stress, desertification, loss of soil fertility, poverty, disparity, population growth, conflict and climate change.

In China, the principle of restorative justice was applied with enormous success to the restoration of the Loess Plateau (referred to as the Loess Plateau principles) – 35,000 square kilometers of previously desert land (roughly the size of France) was restored to green oasis within 8 years (see: www.earthshope.org). All that was learned from this project that had positive benefit has now become national policy, and all behaviours that were recognised to have negative input were banned.
The freedom of a clean and healthy environment
is the culmination of these two rights being applied. When both pollution and restoration are addressed, a clean and healthy environment for all beings is assured.

By including wider rights, the drafting of the Copenhagen Treaty would be a vitally important first step to integrating the principle of the interconnectedness of all life.

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." Einstein

Pictures: Loess Plateau before and after restoration

The People's Declaration

2009-10-22T16:22:00.007+01:00

What is The Declaration of All Beings?

It is a self and community governance document to help shape our lives. It sets out the principles that can lead to a better world for us all, providing guidance, a way forward. It is a suggested path forward to create a better life for you, your children and the children of all beings, for all times. It is a powerful enabling tool, a matrix, the key to life itself.

Why is it referred to as The Peoples Declaration?

Because it is for the people of this planet to use – if you so wish. It is not a dogma or is it a legal requirement that is imposed by the state. It is for you to decide whether you accept and uphold what is presented here.

How does this compare with the Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights?

the Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights is a set of Rights that have been proposed to the United Nations to adopt, to create ‘hard law’ international legislation. The starting point is the Right Not to be Polluted, The Right to Restorative Justice and the Freedom to a Clean & Healthy Environment. The Universal Declaration of All Beings, however, is ‘soft law’; it expands on those initial rights, encompassing the values that shape our human responsibilities as well as the inherent rights and freedoms for all beings.

Who or what are All Beings?

All Beings = human beings + all that lives.
All that makes up the myriad of species and entities of this world.
The soil, the seas, the trees, the honey bee.
The 20 million plus species that provide support and benefit to Planet Earth.
The atmosphere, the biosphere, the geosphere, the stratosphere that surrounds us – even other planets.
The Declaration applies equally to Beings that we do not yet know of, the countless number of species that will evolve, that we have yet to discover, yet to meet, yet to identify.

Why is the Declaration laid out in a circular fashion?

The Declaration has been designed so that a child can understand it. It has been set out in a circular matrix for ease of use. It can be read from top to bottom, left to right, clockwise or otherwise. The Rights & Freedoms of All are underpinned by the Values, which in turn inform and lead to our Responsibilities. Our Responsibilities fall into two sub-categories, Obligations, and Duties. It is our Human Duties that we must act on now, for self and planet, to smooth our journey to raising our consciousness in preparation for the global shift at the end of 2012.

What can the Declaration be used for?

The Declaration is a proactive mechanism to change the world – yours and the planet’s. It can be applied to any situation any community large or small, at a personal, local, national and international level. It can be used:

for self contemplation, as a meditation or visualisation for self or in a group,
for future mapping, to co-create the future,
as a teaching aide, for children and adults alike,
as guidance for community decision making processes,
for decision making by setting up a Council of All Beings
as a global belief system to self-govern life on this planet

To read more, go to Trees Have Rights Too

Desertec Industrial Initiative

2009-07-17T15:21:00.008+01:00

Monday found me in Munich with my fellow Board Members of the DESERTEC Foundation for the press conference of the ambitious launch of the DESERTEC Industrial Initiative (DII). The 12 founder European companies are HVDC makers ABB, the German insurer Munich Re, the energy groups E.ON and RWE, Deutsche Bank, HSH Nordbank, M+W Zander, MAN Solar Millenium, SCHOTT Solar, SIEMENS, ABENGOA Solar from Spain and the Cevital industrial group from Algeria. All the founder companies of the DII, whose regional focus is on Europe, the Middle East and North Africa (EUMENA), signed a memorandum of understanding on the DESERTEC Industrial Initiative.

Sometimes an idea has it's time. For DESERTEC this seems to be it. Arising out of a decision between Munich Re and the DESERTEC Foundation a month ago to found the DII, these 12 companies eagerly stepped forward to join, with many more queueing behind to participate. In the whole of it's history, Munich Re has never hosted such an enormous press conference (housed in a glorious palace with underground tunnels connecting other buildings - so complex you need guides in pretty red uniforms to take you from one area to the next without getting lost. I'll wager they have to sit exams just to ensure they know where to go). As you can imagine such an auspicious event being organised by Germans, this was run with military efficiency. The line-up was stellar, with the various Chairmen of the founder companies speaking of their strong commitment to back the most ambitious project ever for renewable energy, plus a sprinkling of MENA embassy representatives, and bold support from German governmental ministers, including Matthais Machnig, Secretary of State to the German Federal Ministry of Environment. Other participants included key North African players such as Lalia Georgy, Chair for Technical Affairs NREA, Egypt and Jamia Matar, Head of Energy Department, League of Arab States. All were timetabled in to speak to the minute, and at the end of the session I glanced at my watch to discover that it had indeed concluded at the appointed time - to the minute. This is one of the reasons I so admire Germany; such efficiency gives great confidence that things will indeed come to be done as planned. Quite simply, this country gets things done.

It was exactly one year ago that President Sarkozy launched the Med Solar Plan under his Union for the Mediterranaean. Industry, always capable of moving fast, have now taken up the baton. These companies, and many more who have stepped forward are wanting to be at the forefront of what they perceive to be the building of the new world. The DII itself is based on New World principles of co-operation rather than competitiveness. By 31st October a planning entity in the form of an incorporated company will be in place for the DII. It will not be in istelf a profit-led organisation but rather one to ensure the advancement of the DESERTEC principles, to which all future shareholders will subscribe. All companies involved will of course benefit enormously in pursuing the commonly shared objectives. The vision is now to become reality.

The aim is to ensure by 2050 that solar power from the northern Sahara will meet at least 15 percent of European electricity needs and a significant proportion of local electricity demand in the countries of North Africa. The purpose of the newly founded initiative is to clarify the technological issues and create the neccessary political, socio-political and economic foundations and develop a vaible implementation plan within the next three years. The DII is expected to network closely with the scientific community, non-governmental organisations and governement organisations. The DESERTEC Foundation will play a central role in this respect.

What I witnessed in Munich was a collective endeavour to make things happen. Industry can always move faster than governments in this regard, and today demonstrated much promise. One of the biggest hurdles so far has been political will. That is now shifting as well.

But we are still living in a world of 'should' rather than 'must'. The difference between these two words is legislation, from business as usual with nobs on to a radical and rapid turn-around governed by international law. This industrial initiative is a clear indication that industry is now gearing up and ready for entering into the world of must. International legisation such as a Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights would provide one such mechanism to accellarate DII into ever more rapid transformation. The Right Not To Be Polluted would effect enormous advancement to put in place a clean electricity framework worldwide in as little as 10 years. Such a right would place the burden on the other foot - it would be for energy companies to positively advance clean energy systems and the generation of dirty energy (note that 78% of excess GHG's are generated by fossil fuel) would be rendered illegal. Emergency legislation to ensure this effect could be passed overnight (every country in the world can use emergency legislation - Bush recently did so by pushing through the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act 2008 in his 11th hour to bail out Wall Street to the tune of $700 billion).

It all just depends on whether you now think we have reached a state of emergency. The scientists do, much of the world does, now we have to persuade governments that it is so. What an irony it is that governments are the ones slowest to recognise this.

What we need now in Europe Middle East and North Africa is the equivalent of Al Gore's recent Climate Project - We Can Solve the Climate Crisis - petitioning from the people to push for the aim of repowering America with 100% clean electricity within 10 years. Over 2.3 million have already pledged their support. The same can be done here, so lets do it!

DESERTEC Industrial Initiative

Press: Renewable Energy World, Reuters

See here for excellent summary of international news coverage in English (best heading of the day: 'All the Worlds Saviours are Sitting in Munich Today!')

The Matrix of Life

2009-07-04T16:33:00.008+01:00

The last year has been a remarkable journey for me. This is my story.

It began with a simple thought on the 28th June 2008 after seeing my brother's film on the 10 New Commandments at last year's Edinburgh Film Festival. What would be the top 10 Rights that should be drafted into a Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights? I had been playing around with the idea of how to instigate a Duty of Care for the planet into international legislation, and the UN seemed the inevitable starting point. Three days later whilst up a Scottish hillside searching out the ancient cup and ring rocks of the Kilmartin Glen , I set my intent. Such a Declaration was the necessary starting point to re-establish the relationship we humans have lost with nature. How, I wondered, could I get this to the attention of the UN?

Telephone reception being rarer than sightings of mating osprey, I switched on my mobile; a momentary flicker of activity and it rang. It was the United Nations. The date was fixed, and 5 months later I had presented my proposal.

That was the beginning, and those who have followed my blog, the Trees Have Rights Too website and heard me speak at various conferences know of some of the landmark moments. Last week, my journey culminated with me travelling into the heart of Sweden to present the call for a Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights at the Tallberg Forum.

Tallberg is a remarkable place in Sweden situated on the edge of the Siljan, a lake created by a meteorite over 300 million years ago. Such achingly beautiful countryside, the stillness of the lake stretching out below, it served as a potent reminder of the planet it all it's glory.

We heard from the world's foremost experts on climate change, we held workshops on potential solutions, we plotted and planned. People from the world's foremost institutions came together with the intent of making the planet a better place. These are the people who can take an idea and make it happen. As a counterbalance to all the intense discussions, I camped out beside the lake, I swam, and I thought more. Two messages came across strongly; firstly, it is too late for many of the longer-term plans being debated within the international fora. Secondly, our time-lines are wrong. We need to be looking at the next 3 years, not the next 20 to 50 years.

I realised that a Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights was Plan A, but that a Plan B was needed, and by the 28th June, I had in my hand a Plan B.

So, I arrived at Tallberg with an idea - an idea for international legislation, and departed with an idea for a global social movement - a social declaration for all beings, a declaration that applied to individuals and communities rather than one within the hard law context, one that all could apply to ensure life for all, one based on values and our duty to the planet. This is not to negate the Planetary Rights, it is a part of it, but we need to go further, I realised.

Of course, no-one has ownership of ideas, and so I have now handed over the baton for Planetary Rights to the institutions and organisations that can drive it into the UN. That is the top down approach. My work in this regard is now done - my campaign is in effect over, as I believe that the baton has now been safely handed over.

Now we also need is to address matters from the other end of the spectrum - something that speaks not to institutions but to people.

What I devised was a matrix - a matrix for all life.

I can feel a global social movement coming on...

********

Today is the 4th of July, my birthday, and it's a glorious day. I am beside water again, this time the wide and wild expanse of Holkham beach in Norfolk, with winds caressing the sands over the empty dunes. Time now for a little time out.

Today is also known as Independence day. I look forward to the day it is renamed Interdependence day.

Thankyou all who have helped me in my journey over the past year. May this next one be even more exciting.

Redrawing the Map of the World

2009-05-04T19:29:00.005+01:00

I have just returned from Anchorage, Alaska, from my attendance at the Indigenous Peoples Global Summit on Climate Change. Of the 350 million Indigenous Peoples in the world, their most senior leaders from all corners of the globe coalesced for the purpose of finalizing the Anchorage Declaration. As a Celt, technically I can claim to be an indigenous person, but for the purpose of this conference, I was there in ‘observer’ capacity only - to listen but not to be heard. This is a disempowering state to be in, it has to be conceded, and one that ultimately proved to be most instructive.

What I heard over the first days was truly humbling. Stories from Asia, Africa, the Arctic, Latin America, North America, the Carribean and the Pacific of trauma, death and loss due to being the peoples at the forefront of climate change disasters. The same message came across time and again – these peoples, who tend not to be the ones generating the excess greenhouse gases, are the ones who are suffering the most.

Yet these people have no say in the current international climate change negotiations. At best they are able to have what is called ‘observer ‘ status, which means they do not have an active say in the decision-making. This is despite the fact that these peoples are the ones worst affected by climate change, the ones losing their peoples, their land, their homes, their communities torn asunder. All they can do is observe those who are sitting at the negotiation table in their limited and compromised attempts to solve the problem by market led solutions. As they perceive it (and not such an inaccurate description) all this amounts to is the unsuccessful attempt to trade away the planet. They can see all too clearly that such deals are simply not working.

Despite 7 years of carbon offsetting, questionable Clean Development Mechanism projects, limited roll-out of energy efficiency, much hot air vented over the need to see if we can successfully hide enormous amounts of CO2 back under the earth (CCS), and the attempts to rebrand coal as clean, greenhouse gases have escalated beyond all predictions. Reported to have hit 397ppm just this week, we have overshot greenhouse gas levels now by a long way, especially if you subscribe to climate expert and NASA Head of Goddard Institute for Space Studies James Hanson, who calls for 350ppm if we are to avoid planetary disaster.

So, back to the conference in Alaska. I was lucky. Unlike the 350 million Indigenous Peoples of the world who have no voice at the Kyoto talks, I was exceptionally allowed to contribute to this conference. To do so was an honour I shall never forget. My suggestion was that the Anchorage Declaration was an opportunity for the Indigenous Peoples of the world to embed their values, values that the so-called developed world have lost sight of: values such as our interconnectedness with nature, the need to respect nature’s own laws and the need to work as one in harmony with the planet. Such values had been repeatedly referenced throughout the conference, and these values are intrinsic within their spiritual practices from all corners of the globe – from Amazonian tribal practices, to the Sami convictions and the Zulu way of life. This is a knowledge that must be brought to the so-called developed world international climate change negotiation table.

Remap the World: Ecological Creditors v's Ecological Debtors
I suggested that the time has come to remap the world. It’s a theme I addressed the United Nations on the 6th November 2008, when I addressed them on the need for a Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights. A world drawn on developed v’s developing countries basis is hierarchical and one based on outmoded empire way of thinking. It is restrictive, inaccurate, out of date and out of step with today’s realities. So very last century – infact, I would say it was so very 18th Century. It smacks of a time of the so-called Great Colonial Empire when slaves were simply a commodity to be traded, with no regard for consequence. We, the so called developed world, are doing the precisely the same today – only this time the commodity in question is the ecology of the planet. Time now to shift our approach and recognize that we have a world of ecological debtors and ecological creditors, and that it is time to stop those who are generating ever more outstanding debt and hold these ecological debtors to account.

Ecological creditors are not countries, but communities; those who are living on the planet without despoiling it, those who are living in harmony and who understand the inherent interconnectedness with all eco-systems. The ecological debtors on the other hand are those communities who are razing the planet, seizing it’s resources without concern for the consequence of others. The world of illegal loggers, extractive industries, intensive monoculture, GMO and agrochemical corporations – these are our modern world communities of ecological debtors. If we are to be serious in our attempts to stop the further escalation of greenhouse gases, we must put a stop to these debtor practices. After all, the planet is not a bank – there is no overdrawing facility. Just as we are witnessing an economic crisis due to a system built on the sand of borrowing with no pay-back, so now we are seeing the consequences of taking from the planet without recourse.

The Anchorage Declaration is a hugely important document. It is a positioning of those peoples who are affected most by climate change to demand a role as participants within the international climate change decision-making fora. I for one wholeheartedly support this move and call on them to stand strong with Unity. But it is not just the Elders who spoke at the conference. The youth voice of the Indigenous Peoples is particularly strong. They do not broker with compromise - after all it is the youth that have to live with the evolving world. Their strength is in their ability to ensure that compromise does not happen.

We can learn from the indigenous wisdom and values – indigenous peoples understand the inherent rights of the planet, and I am delighted to hear support for a Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights. On 22nd April Evo Morales, the first indigenous president in Bolivia's history, told the UN General Assembly that people cannot put their interests above those of the Earth. "Not just human beings have rights, but the planet has rights," he said. "What's happening with climate change is that the rights of Mother Earth are not being respected."

The remapping of the planet has now begun.Webcast of Indigenous Peoples Global Summit on Climate Change, Anchorage, Alaska, April 20 - 24 2009.

Happy New Year - from Matt

2009-01-05T16:41:00.002Z

In need of some winter joy? All you need ask is...where the hell is Matt?

60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - lets celebrate and look to the future

2008-12-10T06:24:00.000Z

Today is the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights –and as many of you know I am now campaigning for Planetary Rights. We have chosen today’s auspicious date as the official date of our launch of the campaign’s website Trees Have Rights Too, and it's getting a good bit of coverage too, in particular online - Treehugger et all thankyou - with some national and international news. Help us get the word out and spread the news.

Help us ping it off out into the ether and get the debate rolling - we want to hear what you have to say. Some think it mad, some think it dangerously restrictive - but others understand that we have to put in place useful tools to ensure we can help restore harmony and balance with nature. It is after all but a formal recognition of rights that are inherently there.

Remember how suddenly the Berlin Wall came down? Many thought it impossible, but a culmination of events, a window of opportunity, a shift in understanding - and whoosh, everyone was there knocking it down, celebrating the German reunification. Maybe we need the same dramatic seismic shift in consciousness, a knocking down of our mental boundaries that have become erected between us and our relationship with nature and the planet. One that clears the path for us to reconnect with all of earth's communities, not just human, and to provide for the greater freedom and recognition of the planet's rights.

Come join us knock down the barriers of outmoded beliefs and pave the way for a better world.
Trees Have Rights Too

"At first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"
Mahatma Gandhi

The United Nations, Women and Climate Change

2008-11-22T11:57:00.008Z

Yesterday I went in to talk with Phil Thorhill of Campaign Against Climate Change to discuss the existing gender imbalance witnessed at Campaign Against Climate Change meetings and the forthcoming speaker line-up for the Climate Change March to be held here in London on the 6th December.

It is an issue that numerous Wise Women have brought repeatedly to my attention and want addressed. Time and again I am receiving emails decrying the lack of women at the front face of the environmental movement. Many tell me they only go to hear the women now as they no longer want to hear the same old male bods banging on bleakly about doom and gloom, but that they want to hear women speak, and about solutions and progress as to how we can move forward, as well as addressing the larger implications of gender imbalance and climate change for women in developing nations.

Whether or not it is a valid complaint, it is one that should not be dismissed out of hand. The very fact that we now have three active women organisations, Wise Women, Climate Rush and WeCAN, growing daily here in the UK as well as globally is testimony to the fact that women are wanting to address this perceived discrimination. It is an issue that we here in the UK are now seeking to rectify.

The United Nations recognise this gender imbalance as well. For the last two days they held a conference in New York, organised by the Global Climate Change Gender Alliance to discuss this very issue. One of the issues The Alliance is focused on is capacity-building to ensure integration of gender into climate talks. My Wise Women at the conference have assured me that support is building fast to ensure the integration of gender issues within the national and international climate change negotiations.

We here in the UK are also capacity-building. If you are interested in being part of a growing women's coalition working together to engender great balance within the environmental field here in the UK, come and join us. The next Wise Woman Speaker Event is addressing this very issue: Women and Climate Change, on the 9th December 2008.
.........
UN press conference on Gender Imbalance and Climate Change
Wise Women
Climate Rush
WeCAN
WEN
WEDO
.........

About the GGCA: the IUCN, UNDP, UNEP and the Women's Environment Development Organization (WEDO) have come together to create the Global Gender and Climate Alliance (GGCA). The goal of the GGCA is to ensure that climate change policies, decision-making, initiatives at the global, regional and national levels are gender responsive.

Wise Women victories in the London courts

2008-11-16T08:33:00.008Z

It's been a fantastic week for Wise Women environmental campaigners in the London courts. Georgina Downs, founder of UK Pesticides Campaign, scored gold with her landmark victory against the government in her long-running legal battle over the use of pesticides and Tamsin Ormond, founder of Climate Rush, received a conditional discharge for scaling the roof of Parliament (charge: criminal trespass of a protected site).

Both important rulings and both examples of the tide of change towards recognition of the importance of fighting against pollution. For Georgina it is her fight against the use of pesticides and crop spraying, for Tamsin her fight against airport expansion and escalation of aviation emissions. Whilst Georgina took the government to court, Tamsin was taken to court - but the net result was the same: both had taken direct action to prevent environmental injustice.
--------
The high court ruled on Friday that Georgina Downs had produced "solid evidence" that people exposed to chemicals used to spray crops had suffered harm. Defra's (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs) argument that the use and control of pesticides was "reasonable, logical and lawful" was rejected. The court said the government had failed to comply with a European directive designed to protect rural communities from exposure to the toxins. It said Defra must reassess its policy and investigate the risks to people who are exposed.

For Georgina, who this is the culmination of a 7 year campaign. Living on the edge of farmland near Chichester, West Sussex, Georgina was first exposed to pesticide spraying at the age of 11, as a result suffering extensive and long-term injury to her health. Mr Justice Collins upheld her evidence as compelling.

Georgina successfully argued that the government had failed to address the concerns of people living in the countryside "who are repeatedly exposed to mixtures of pesticides and other chemicals throughout every year, and in many cases, like mine, for decades". People are not given prior notification about what was to be sprayed near their homes and gardens (and yet those who are spraying must wear protective clothes and masks).

In his ruling, Mr Justice Collins highlighted that the 1986 Control of Pesticides Regulations states that beekeepers must be given 48 hours notice if pesticides harmful to bees are to be used. The judge said: "It is difficult to see why residents should be in a worse position."

Georgina called for more recognition of what she rightly terms as "one of the biggest public health scandals of our time". She called on Gordon Brown to block any Defra appeal. "The government "should now just admit that it got it wrong, apologise and actually get on with protecting the health and citizens of this country".

The case centred on the way the government assesses the risk posed by pesticides. The current method is based on occasional, short-term exposure to a "bystander" and assumes that individuals would be exposed to an individual pesticide during a single pass.

Mr Justice Collins agreed with Georgina's long-standing charge that "this bystander model does not and cannot address residents who are repeatedly exposed". The model does not account for rural residents exposed to mixtures of pesticides and other chemicals "throughout every year and, in many cases like my own, for decades".

As Georgina pointed out on the steps of the Royal Courts of Justice, "The fact that there has never been any assessment of the risk to health for the long-term exposure for those who live, work or go to school near pesticide-sprayed fields is an absolute scandal, considering that crop-spraying has been a predominant feature of agriculture for over 50 years."
........

Menawhile, just 24 hours earlier Tamsin had walked away from court with the nominal sentence of a conditional discharge for her part in scaling the rooftops of the Palace of Westminster to fight against the building a third runway. Their defence: they had protested in order to prevent a greater crime.

With nitrogen oxides near the two existing runways already exceeding those permitted under the rules, documentary evidence established BAA's efforts to evade liability by suggesting the receptors measuring pollution be moved away from the source - "which is tantamount to removing the thermometer from the patient and declaring them well". Whilst Tamsin and the others were not acquitted, her sentence (which carried a maximum of 6 months imprisonment) of a conditional discharge is a very clear indication that, where good reason exists, direct action to protect the planet is likely to be well received in the hallowed halls of the judiciary.

Well done girls - a collective cheer has been raised by all Wise Women. Wise law indeed.

UK Pesticides Campaign
Climate Rush

My call for a Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights

2008-11-10T13:25:00.005Z

On the 6th November in Belfast at the United Nations (UK and Northern Ireland) Climate Change Conference, I called upon the United Nations to implement a Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights.

Our planet is in crisis, and the United Nations are uniquely placed to implement the necessary foundations to create a new world where prevention and protection stand hand in hand.

A CRY FROM THE EARTH

This planet we call Earth is no longer a place of honour. For too many years we have abused and despoiled it, taken wilfully without regard to the consequences. We have depleted fossil fuel reserves, we have created escalating emissions, we have polluted, poisoned, damaged, destroyed and caused the extinction of numerous species.

We now know that it is because of human activity that we have a planet out of balance. The evidence is conclusive: Climate Change, with it’s escalating greenhouse gases, is a symptom of our greedy consumption of planet Earth. It threatens the very life of all remaining species, plant forms, oceans and waterways as well as human life. James Hansen of NASA has called for us to reduce our emissions to 350 ppm - that is an amount that is now less than current levels (which stand at 385ppm). It is not merely a matter of reducing our emissions by 50%, 80%, 100% as soon as possible, but to evolve and encourage a benign world where we no longer cause damage, pollution and loss.

Climate Change is a symptom of the damage we, humans, have caused by our excessive consumption of the Earth’s resources. We now know that such actions carry destructive consequences – indeed all actions carry consequences - some far more damaging than others. Equipped with the knowledge that the planet’s imbalance is caused by humankind’s actions, comes the duty to act now.

A CALL TO PROTECT

Our planet is however not beyond rescue. What is required is a seismic shift in our consciousness, not a mere reduction of our emissions. The seismic shift should give full recognition that we now owe a duty of care to our beautiful planet. No other planet in our solar system has such variety of species, species that we are losing at an unprecedented rate. Now it is time to provide protection to our planet.

Just as the humanitarian crisis of the Second World War gave birth to the swift implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 60 years ago in 1948, so now we have a planetary crisis that needs to be addressed with equal urgency. Now is the time to call for a Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights.

This is my call to the United Nations to protect our world. My plea is for co-operation, not confrontation. It is your support that will provide the voice to make this happen. Please help us in our call to protect our one beautiful and fragile planet.

...........................

This is the beginning of a the campaign for global recognition that Trees Have Rights Too.

I shall give my speech again in London on the 18th November 2008 at Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, WC1, 6.30pm - 8.30pm.

The event is free, but RSVP is required: please email events@wisewomen.me.uk
For further details of the event, see: Events

The power for action lies in all our hands. If you support the call to the United Nations to act, please help spread the word and forward this to all you think may want to support it - and even those whom you think may not!

Trees Have Rights Too

5 Green Obama Dreams

2008-11-10T13:19:00.001Z

Is Mr Brown for Turning?

2008-10-19T07:09:00.007+01:00

Yesterday Gordon Brown espoused a new world vision, proposing that society's values of "fairness, stewardship and co-operation" must be upheld in business, markets, public policy and across the whole public arena. These are welcome words, but are they just that? They come from the very man who at the 11th hour kicked out the very mechanism that would have ensured the incorporation of such values into the boardroom just two years ago.

The Operation and Financial Review, if it were still operational, would have mandated the 1,300 or so publicly listed companies in the UK to produce narrative statements assessing their performance for the next financial year, including the reporting of social and environmental risks and opportunities. The OFR was set to be included in companies' annual reports, and the first batch were to be published in April 2006. Yes, the new Companies Act was subsequently rolled out, but the included amendments (the limply termed "expanded business review") had successfully watered down any level of increased corporate accountability.

So I am greatly intrigued to hear Gordon's rhetoric. He is right of course, we do need these three values embodied within business practise. But of course, it all depends on how you define and act on these terms (I hear the chant of the Suffragettes echoing ever louder inside my head: Deeds Not Words). Could this mean a reinstatement of mandatory reporting by boards on environmental and social issues? Could it mean the bottom line not being just one of profit but also people and planet? Businesses built on partnerships, support, co-operation, equality, protection of their communities (not just human communities), gender balanced - and dare I say it, love? A place where communication and creativity thrives, where flexibility and decentralisation become the norm rather than the top-down dominator hierarchy that most corporations adhere to (and are now beginning to fail). This would indeed be the business world of the future.

Mr Brown, I hold you to your words.

If you want to know more about how to restructure corporations for the 21st century, read these two:
Ori Brafman and Rod A Beckstrom The Starfish and the Spider
David C. KortenThe Great Turning: from Empire to Earth Communities

[with thanks to John for nudging me to ping this up]

Sarkozy's Council of Wise Men

2008-10-15T13:52:00.010+01:00

It is with some concern that I found myself reading Sarkozy’s latest proposal – the creation of a Council of Wise Men to ponder the future of Europe. The man who is touted as being in favour of women’s equality, who has half a cabinet of women (his so-called 'babes') and has traded in one intelligent lady for a younger, leggier but dumber model (she is the one who gained extensive column coverage after claiming on her recent state visit as newly married Mrs Sarkozy that she would like to have a bath with Tony Blair).

So, here we have it, 80 years on since women won the right to vote on equal terms with men, and the start of democratic representation as we know it today - 100 years after the suffragettes fought in this country for those equal rights (and a mantle in their honour I was carrying, just the previous night in Parliament Square), one of the highest profile men in the world (the EU presidency is currently vested in France) has determined that his Council for such weighty matters would be manned by well, men! The implication being that there are no women up to the job, that Sarkozy's women are for the pleasure of the eye, but little more. Certainly this is the case when it comes to weighty matters of the EU. But maybe he allows a little lassitude of the non-political persuasion when at home. How very French.

I put this very issue to a panel of women in the House of Commons last night, who were discussing why so few women are in politics (No Politics Please...We're Women!). I asked them to comment on this decision. One response came back that made me sit up, from fellow celt Lee Chalmers of the The Downing Street Project. She suggested that a corresponding Council of Wise Women be appointed - and see what issues they thought important to ponder upon - and then bring the two together.

This make a lot of sense on numerous levels. Firstly, women do approach politics in a different manner. As Helen Goodman MP pointed out last night, we think differently, we have a different agenda, we have a different style. This is not mere observation, but is fact. Investigations have established that from the age of seven, males and females develop differing approaches to the concept of reason. Males, it was discovered, are more linear in their thinking - issues tend to be either right or wrong. Whereas females diverge and become more holistic, and therefore find it difficult to answer a moral question immediately. Look how this plays out in politics, even today, with the cut and thrust and subsequent reportage on politics. One of our broadsheets presents a boxing scoring on politicians on the issue of the day.

But this is not to say that women are not suited to our masculine, male dominated political world. Decisions are at the end of the day taken in multi-lateral institutions. It's about coalition building, and women are very good at doing that. Look at Angela Merkel, she is exceptionally effective in this arena. Women network on multi and numerous levels, cross referencing and supporting.

Secondly, can a man ever properly represent a woman? Is it practical, do they have the drive to represent women's interests? To really understand and be in a woman's shoes - you really have to be a woman.

I agree with Lee, it is not simply a matter of either/or, but a matter of balance - of both male and female - if we are to benefit for all and our future, tackle trans-boundary issues such as global warming, food, poverty. That's why I set up Wise Women, my network of women who care about creating a more sustainable and environmentally benign world - to start to redress that imbalance, and facilitate more women in becoming comfortable with their voice in what is still predominantly a man's world (in this case with regard to the environment). This is not to say we need less men, but rather that we need more women stepping into leadership roles, now more than ever. It has been statistically proven that countries that have higher participation by women in politics do better and correspondingly encourage more balanced decision making.

If Sarkozy was setting up his team within a company context, he would quite rightly be accused of bias and discrimination. I am if nothing but a lawyer with years of experience in the employment courts. Discriminatory behaviour is something I understand well. Yet for some reason, when it comes to the larger stage, such rights which have been hard-fought for are so easily disregarded. Not one country has taken issue with this anomaly. Why is Sarkozy allowed to do this? The EU, that so prides itself in being transparent and accountable after the debacle of the corruption they swept out in the late 90's, has just demonstrated - that when it comes to the crunch - once again it is jobs for the boys.

I have set up my own Council of Wise Women, and I invite Mr Sarkozy to join us. Maybe that way we can find a way forward for us all.

Women's Resource Centre
The Downing Street Project
Women's Environmental Network
Women and the Vote

Climate Rush: The Aftermath

2008-10-15T10:20:00.017+01:00

So, news. What a night! All dressed up in our Edwardian bloomers, piled hair, high collars and red sashes, 2000+ of us took to Climate Rush in Parliament Square. Just as the suffragettes of a century ago had fought for Women's Rights so here we were fighting for the Planet's Rights. The feminine energy was palpable, as was the spirit of our female ancestors.

Two of my Wise Women had made me a wonderful banner, Trees Have Rights Too, appliqued with the clothes of their mother, full of references to times past, present and future, imbued with such spirit - there were even buttons that had been worn at suffragette rallies of the previous century (thank you Tabitha and Lucy). Thus, so the wisdom of our sisters a hundred years back came pouring through - those of the past helping those in the present to move forward into the future. It was a cause they would be fully in accord with, for sure. And so we rushed (ladylike of course) at Parliament's doors.

One rather surly interviewer questioned me at length on whether the potential breach of security was justified. Yes, I replied. If it takes the storming of Parliament to get Gordon Brown to take action on climate change, then yes, the end certainly justifies the means. What of our democratic right to protest? Time now for action - that's why we were chanting the very chant of the Suffragettes - Deeds Not Words. Going by the heightened activity of my inbox and texts the following morning, all and sundry who couldn't make it supported my sentiment after hearing me speak on the 10 o'clock BBC news that night. A collective cheer, I am told, reverberated across the country.

It seems District Judge Michael Snow at City & Westminster Magistrates (an old haunt of mine) also agreed. There had been arrests - five brave ladies in pursuit of direct action were handcuffed and removed. Tamsin, who had organised the event, was up on breach of her bail conditions after having scaled the Houses of Parliament's roof in November of last year in protest against the planned expansion of Heathrow Airport. Sage DJ Snow said he recognised "the need for proportionality and one should hesitate from taking away bail from someone exercising their right to protest."

So it had been a remarkable and joyous event, with some fine cakes, tea and something far stronger to keep off the chill. Be warned Mr Brown, this is but a taster - the beginning of something far bigger. Women are fighting for the Planet (with a little help from the chaps too). We shan't stop until you and your government do so too.

For more wonderful pics, see Amelia's Blog.
video of protestand shots of friends being arrested.
Indymedia pics

Climate Rush

2008-10-12T20:48:00.007+01:00

Monday 13th is the 100th anniversary of the Suffragettes rush on Parliament. Climate Rush (organised by Wise Woman Tamsin Ormond) ask all Wise Women - and men - to a rally and celebration in Parliament Square to call on politicians to take immediate action on climate change. Just as the Suffragettes fought for Women's Rights; now it's time that we fight for our Planet's Rights.

Speakers include wise women Caroline Lucas MEP, Rosie Boycott, and many more.

What to wear: Dress in white or wear period costume (just like our ladies on their bikes!). You will be given a Climate Rush sash. For inspiration & photos see here.
What to bring: flask of tea and cakes
Where: Parliament Square outside the Houses of Parliament, London.
WISE WOMEN rendezvous: under the Churchill statue for WW flyers and stickers. Watch out for the WW banner Trees Have Rights Too (appliqued by WW Tabitha Neal in honour of the Tree Lady and fellow Wise Woman Wangari Maathai) - there you will find a cluster of WW!
When: 5.30 pm, Monday 13th October 2008

WWW.CLIMATERUSH.CO.UK
WISE WOMEN - Women In Sustainability and the Environment

Climate Change & Me

2008-10-09T05:38:00.003+01:00

Lots happening in my neck of the woods these days. This weekend there's a free family festival to empower you to save cash and have fun tackling climate change. It's on Saturday the 11th October 2008 11am - 6pm at Highbury Fields Secondary School.

I shall be time and space travelling with Dr Who in his tardis to look at the effects of climate change and what positive solutions we can put in place. In the afternoon I will be giving workshops on how to be an effective eco-activist (with a few newly learned tricks up my sleeve, thanks to all at Kingsnorth Climate Camp).

Fellow Wise Woman Penney Poyzer will be there too, to answer questions on how to green your home; authors Pete May (of the deliciously funny There's a Hippo in my Cistern) and Wise Woman Nicola Baird (of the fantastically practical Save Cash and Save the Planet) will be joining other writers to sign copies of top eco-must-reads. There will be clothes swaps ('swishing', for those in the know, so my 8 year old neighbour proudly tells me), there will be local grown and home-cooked fayre, there will be workshops on how to make your Victorian home more energy efficient, and how to have fun on your street. This and much more can be found at Climate Change and Me

See you there!

Global Warming - A Fable from the Himalayas

2008-10-01T07:49:00.000+01:00

Ecuador Referendum upholds Rights of Nature

2008-09-30T09:53:00.011+01:00

It's been a life affirming week for me - a week of intense study of Earth Jurisprudence at Shumacher College, followed by a UKELA weekend workshop in Derbyshire. Earth jurisprudence is aimed at ensuring that legal and governance systems support, rather than undermine, the integrity and health of the Earth through the development of an ecocentric approach to law and governance. While most of the world’s legal systems advance the interests and concerns of the human community and provide no real protection to other species, or to the planet itself, Earth jurisprudence proposes a radical overhaul of approaches to law making, to ensure that the planet and all species have rights, by virtue of their existence as members of a single Earth community.

But most life-affirming of all, after a week of concentrated examination of theory and application (and some unforgettable wild moments to boot) came wonderful news from Ecuador. Sunday 28th September brought a historic moment in the evolution of protection of our planet.

By an overwhelming margin, the people of Ecuador voted for a new Constitution that is the first in the world to recognize legally enforceable Rights of Nature, or ecosystem rights. In a country rich with ecological treasures, including the Galapagos Islands and part of the Amazon rain forest, the constitution also calls on government to avoid measures that would destroy ecosystems or drive species to extinction. Ecuador is now the first country in the world to codify a new system of environmental protection based on rights.

With this vote, the people of Ecuador are leading the way for countries around the world to fundamentally change how we protect nature.

Article 1 of the new "Rights for Nature" chapter of the Ecuador constitution reads: "Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution. Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public bodies."

Ecuador's constitution recognizes that ecosystems possess the inalienable and fundamental right to exist and flourish, and that people possess the legal authority to enforce those rights on behalf of ecosystems, and the requirement of the government to remedy the violations of those ecosystem rights.

What is so interesting is that this Constitution has been borne out of crisis and driven at local municipal government level. Because there have been so many abuses, pollution, violence and corruption by foreign mining companies, the people revolted against this so-called development by central government. Thus, this remarkable piece of legislation was borne of the people taking responsibility for their land.

But all is not yet perfect. Whilst the Constitution is a vast bridge in the right direction, it does at the same time incorporate sweeping powers bestowed upon the President. Pressure from US and Canadian governments remains to allow mining in particular in the south of the country where there has been less local opposition. Time will tell whether the weight of US destruction continues or is prevented.

Nevertheless this is cause for huge celebration. The world’s environmental and social crisis will only get worse, unless humans are compelled by law to respect the laws of nature and the rights of other members of the Earth community. Ecuador's Rights of Nature Constitution is Wild Law in the making - and a vitally crucial precedent that other nations must follow.

Wild Law by Cormac Cullinan
Enact International
Centre For Earth Jurisprudence
Earth Jurisprudence
The Legal Defense Fund
The Pachamama Alliance
Cotacachi
UKELA

Transition Towns Comes to London

2008-09-16T15:30:00.004+01:00

Just a reminder of tonights event - a few places remain, so do come along if you have not already replied, we will squeeze you in.
Concerned about escalating oil prices and Peak Oil?
Frustrated at the lack of governmental support?
Wondering what to do to survive the post-petroleum world?

Mike Grenville of Changing Worlds will be discussing Peak Oil and the urgency of action required.

Rob Hopkins, author of The Transition Handbook, will be speaking on how communities can respond effectively to climate chaos and the end of cheap oil - and how to start to build local resilient networks.

Some Transition communities and other like-minded organisations are already in existence in London. Come hear what they have to say, discover what is going on in your area, learn what pitfalls to avoid when starting a group and much more.

Panel Discussion speakers: Suzy Edwards of Camden Climate Action Network, Duncan Law of Transition Town Brixton, Mary Fee of LETSLink, Lucy Neal of Transition Town Tooting and Hilary Gander of Transition Town Kingston.

With music from members of the Brass Volcanoes, a carbon-neutral jazz band

What: Transition Towns Comes to London
Who: Rob Hopkins and Others
Where: Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1
When: Tues 16th Sept, 6.30pm - 8.30pm
Cost: £5 on the door (includes refreshments)
RSVP: events@wisewomen.me.uk

(photo: Rob Hopkins, Mike Grenville, Suzy Edwards, Duncan Law, Mary Fee, Hilary Gander)

* To buy the book, The Transition Handbook, visit the Wise Women Books page

Not Guilty - The Kingsnorth Six

2008-09-16T09:50:00.008+01:00

At a time when banks and mortgage lenders are either going belly-up or being bailed-out, hurricanes are taking their toll over Asia and India, stock markets are crashing and estate agents are going out of fashion at the rate of one a day (just how many are there?), there are indications of the beginning of a shifting consciousness - in the UK at least. People are beginning to demonstrate their concerns in unusual ways, and are beginning to vote with their conscience.

Just last week at Maidstone Crown Court an unusual and important jury verdict was declared which favoured the planet and the natural world. Six Greenpeace activists were cleared of causing criminal damage around £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station. Their defence was that their occupation of the power station prevented property damage (caused by climate change). It is a pioneering case in which preventing such property damage has been used as part of a "lawful excuse" in legal defence.

This is a vitally important step in recognising potential legal 'rights' of the planet. It also gives strength to future actions by environmental activists in advocating for the rights of species and planet. The allegation hurled at the jury after the return of a Not Guilty was that it was a "sympathy vote" for Greenpeace. But sympathy is just what is required - it is a direct manifestation of a jury recognising the need to protect our planet, and they supported Greenpeace's actions in trying to do so, deeming thier actions reasonable and urgent. As Ben Stewart stated outside court: "When 12 normal people say that it legitimate to shut down a coal fire station because of the harm to the planet, then one has to ask where does that leave government energy policy?"

(Five of the 'Kingsnorth Six' at the top of the 200m chimney)

Yurtling Energy at Embercome

2008-09-08T11:01:00.007+01:00

I've never been to an event such as the one I have just experienced this weekend. It wasn't a corporate event, it wasn't a conference, no workshops were advertised, in fact the remit was incredibly loose. Alongside 30 or so others working to tackle climate change, I had been invited to spend the weekend in Devon to share, plan and plot - and to sleep in a yurt.

Didn't take me long to say yes. I love geodesic domes, so yurts with woodfire stoves do it for me too. And the subject matter - well obviously that's my kinda thing too. I had no real understanding of what was to come of it, so I merrily pitched up with no preconceptions, just left myself open to the experience.

And it was inspirational. A bunch of equally committed individuals who are in so many varied ways making a difference; academically, politically, in business, with communities; by shaping, creating, facilitating, inspiring. All in a glorious environment, fuelled by the most delicious organic food from the gardens (all thanks to Andy, Alistair and team). Shaped by the lightest of touches by Mac, we discovered easily enough how to self-select on discussing various topics. This opened up new understanding, new connections, new inspiration. So many discussions bore so much fruit in such a short period of time, be it over wine in the evening, whilst walking in the herb garden, or sheltering together in the poly-tunnel whilst the rain poured off the sides. So much to hear, to say and to do.

It struck me that the core reason why this weekend proved so successful - why such strong bonds were established - was because we were all reciprocating. Giving and receiving experiences, sharing wisdom, offering assistance and skills. It's the stuff of true friendship, not just for us as humans, but for our interaction with the planet. Reciprocity is equally important just as it is for us human to human, but also for our interaction with our planet. It is not for us to merely take it's resources. We need to extend that reciprocity to our world as well. And that was something I learned more about this weekend when discussing how to create a sustainable world. That reciprocity applies both internally and externally if true sustainability is to be understood and created.

I left energised and revitalised, feeling the growth of not only the plants and trees in the woods that surrounded us, but also of us - individually and collectively. What comes out of this, well, that remains to be seen. But I know one thing - it will all be good for the planet.

Thankyou all.
Embercombe

New Leader of the Green Party: Caroline Lucas

2008-09-06T11:00:00.000+01:00

Great news: Caroline Lucas has won the Green Party's first ever leadership election by a remarkable landslide of over 90%.

The UK Green party has never had a leader, leaving it faceless in a world where personality politics steals the lead regardless of values. Now it has - and what a great person to drive the Green Party forward at such a crucial juncture.

Caroline comes with gleaming green credentials: she is an acknowledged expert on climate change, international trade and peace issues and recently co-authored the Green New Deal Report.

She is a Vice President of the RSPCA, the Stop the War Coalition, Campaign Against Climate Change and Environmental Protection UK, as well as a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament National Council and a Director of the International Forum on Globalization. The think-tanks Protect the Local, Globally and Centre for a Social Europe have Caroline as an Advisory Board Member, as does the Radiation Research Trust, the Transitions Towns Network and she is also a matron of the Women’s Environmental Network (WEN).

Wise Women hits the big time in Viz

2008-09-05T12:24:00.001+01:00

Click here to read more....

To book upcoming Wise Women events, see:
Transition Towns Comes to London, September 16th
Cosmetics and Chemicals: What is in your Shampoo, September 9th

www.ev-eon.com

2008-08-22T07:03:00.001+01:00

ev-eon.com

The Environmentalist's Nuclear Debate: (3) My response

2008-08-19T21:16:00.005+01:00

My response to Mark Lynas:

Why is it that you support 4th generation nuclear when Concentrating Solar Power can provide such an enormous slice of the baseload generation required, without any of the political, environmental and social detriment of nuclear?

CSP is mature technology, overnight storage is not a problem, it will be fully commercialised by 2011 - 2012, when (going by current known contracts) 9GW will be online globally, and it is anticipated if expansion continues at a conservative rate of 29% per annum, then 200GW will be online by 2020 (compare with 100GW online for wind as of this year, after 25 years). It's environmentally benign - even positive when you combine it with desalination, fast build (2 - 3 years from granting of licence to grid connection), no high insurance costs, no decommissioning and waste headaches, no trans-border devastation when bombed by an irate terrorist - only 7 years bad luck (and why bother to bomb a bunch of mirrors where each fresnel mirror can now be built and replaced in 3 minutes in any event) ...and even the political will is cranking into action now with the Med Solar Plan (20GW in North Africa by 2020) under the recently endorsed Union for the Mediterranean, the removal of the Feed-in Tariff cap in Spain due later this year (20GW by 2020), another 16GW is expected in other southern sunbelt EU countries, the generous state credits in South West America esp in California (30-50GW by 2020 thanks mainly to Arnie's ambitious targets), the Masdar Project (500MW by 2013), India (generous FIT's for solar put in place earlier this year), China (test plant outside Beijing) etc etc. CSP does not pose an energy security risk; it is not a finite resource that is being threatened (and therefore one that we go to war over). It is dependent on the heat from the sun in the deserts - an abundant resource and, moreover, less than 1% of the world's deserts can give us all our global electricity requirements - so no worries on that front either. We can therefore switch all land-based transport over to clean electricity as well. As for transporting the stuff - easy: High Voltage Direct Current lines (which have been in use since the 1950's), such as the HVDC links that run from the 3 Gorges Dam in China to Guangdong - 2,000 kilometers away - with just 3% losses per 1000 km.

So, why do we not hear more from you guys - the heroes of the environmental world - supporting, lobbying, promoting, fighting, shouting for CSP, rather than announcing your qualified support of nuclear? Shame on you.

If you would like to know more about CSP, check out TREC-UK and for an easy intro: concentratingsolarpower.info.

[table reproduced from CSP v Nuclear, Carbon2Share, Colin Challen's interparliamentary newsletter, July 2008]

The Environmentalist's Nuclear Debate: (2) Mark Lynas

2008-08-19T18:33:00.009+01:00

The nuclear debate continues, with that other environmentalist and climate change author of note - Mark Lynas - proffering his position. Last week in the New Statesman he took, as he himself admitted, a rather stronger position than Monbiot: "that increased use of nuclear (an outright competitor to coal as a deliverer of baseload power) is essential to combat climate change." He too qualified his position, but from the point of view of the need for technological advancement. He gave as an example of potential improvement the Integral Fast Reactor (a design of fast breeder plant).

This is what he had to say about the IFR:
1. "It could generate power by burning up nuclear waste leaving only short lived by-products unfit for nuclear bombs (thus could cancel out concerns about nuclear proliferation);
2. the reactor design, is close to “fail-safe”, automatically shutting down if things begin to go wrong, because the safety mechanisms are inherent, and do not depend on human or mechanical intervention.
3. Lynas admits that such “4th generation” nuclear power stations are still a dream, but believes that they are potentially much more realistic than CCS.
4. Lynas proposes that 4th Gen plus renewable energy could provide complete decarbonisation of the worlds electricity supply and on a timetable that Dr Hansen and fellow climatologists demand."

Although I cannot respond on the technological potential of 4th generation nuclear plants such as the IFR that Lynas proposes, I know a man that can: Paul Brown, the venerable ex-Guardian environment correspondent, expert on all thing nuclear, author of the heavyweight tome Global Warning (a copy of which was sent by the President of the Republic of Maldives - a man uncomfortably close to the effects of global warming - to all 193 Heads of State, so they really have no excuse) and more recently of Voodoo Economics and the Doomed Nuclear Renaissance.
So, I wrote to him asking the following:

1. Is it true, as Lynas asserts, that 4th gen nuclear would prevent nuclear proliferation?
2. Is the design indeed close to fail-safe?
3. Is it accurate to say that 4th Generation nuclear is more realistic than Carbon Capture and Storage?

This is the response I received from Paul Brown:

"There are no grounds for saying that a fourth generation of nuclear power would prevent proliferation. There are three generations at present, the third generation is the one being constructed in Finland and another in France. It is the type the government wants to build in England.

Many "new" designs for new nuclear power stations exist, all of them called fourth generation reactors. What this means is they could be the new form of reactors adopted after this present third generation. For all of them it is claimed they will be cheaper, safer, and better in every way than the present generation. All this is unproved hype. None has been built so it all theory - like so much else about the nuclear industry. The reason they have not been built is essentially because the first one (of every design) would be very expensive to build and might not work. No government is prepared to fund them so far.

The fourth generation that Lynas is talking about is a design that will burn existing stocks of plutonium and uranium thereby reducing stocks of these bomb making materials, therefore reducing proliferation dangers. The UK government was asked by British Nuclear Fuels to sanction research and development into building one of these at Sellafield but was refused on the grounds of cost.

So the answer to your first question is no - Lynas is not correct - and no one knows whether an "integral fast reactor breeder plant" would really work. Fast breeders only worked on small scale dustbin size projects and broke every time France, Japan, and Russia tried to scale them up.

Second question: Note the "close to" fail-safe. Could have said in theory the design is fail safe. In other words it has not been tried, so how can you know? Nuclear fission is a controlled nuclear explosion. It is virtually impossible to make it fail-safe.

CCS? There are lots of problems with it. Carbon capture and storage is an unproven technology unless you count pumping carbon dioxide directly back down under the sea as they do in Norway. Carbon dioxide has no use so everything you do with it has a cost. Transporting it, pumping it etc is all expensive. Even if you worked out how to do it efficiently there are very few places in which it is possible to pump it and expect it to stay there. Old oil and gas wells have to be near the carbon dioxide capture sites and leak proof to have any chance of being viable. In my view it has limited application even if we could make it work, simply because there is nowhere to put the carbon dioxide. If you could convert it into something like else like a fuel by growing algae to make biofuels it might be a runner. It would at least reduce the impact. My view is that CCS is a red herring in the real debate. CCS and fourth generation nuclear are diversions and will never deliver on the scale we need in the timetable we need it by.

My view is that concentrated solar power, tidal turbines, wind power, solar PV, wave power, geothermal and massive improvements in energy efficiency, combined heat and power, insulation and the like, could deliver faster and enough to solve the problem. Anything else is putting off the reality and hoping technology will provide a fix. We have the technology, what we do not have is the political will. Only political will brought about by campaigners like you is going to save the planet".

Paul
Global Warning

The Environmentalist's Nuclear Debate: (1) George Monbiot

2008-08-19T16:57:00.008+01:00

Things seem to stirring up the debate over nuclear and it's making quite a few greenies hot and steamy, to say the least. So, in order to unravel the issue at hand here is a lazy environmentalist's dummies guide to the issue in hand (part 1):

Earlier this month, George Monbiot posited his thoughts on nuclear. What he stated was that “I no longer care whether the answer (to our future electricity supplies) is nuclear or not” providing all new build meets the following stringent conditions:
1. the government sets a maximum level for carbon pollution per MW hr of electricity production, eg 80kg of CO2 – then leave the rest to the market;
2. so, total emission are taken into account;
3. the public are informed as to where and how waste is to be buried;
4. how much this will cost;
5. who will pay;
6. a legal guarantee put in place that no civil nuclear materials will be used by the military.

His qualified support is predicated on the belief that "we can no longer afford any rigid principle but one: that the harm done to people living now and in the future must be minimised by the most effective means, whatever they might be.”

Interestingly Monbiot, no slouch when it comes to reading pertinent reports (including the TRANS-CSP report), suggests that the likely outcome will progress towards the majority of our electricity being generated by a wide range of renewable energy systems interconnected by transnational supergrid networks, and with the use of storage no subsequent loss in the reliability of power supplies. "Unlike Carbon Capture and Storage," he says, "wind, wave, tidal, solar, hydro and geothermal power are proven technologies. Unlike nuclear power, they can be safely decommissioned as soon as they become redundant." So, a powerful argument in support of renewable energy, Mr Monbiot.

Here's my take on this: Monbiot's position on nuclear is one cushioned with conditionality. In essence he qualifies his view on this basis: nuclear is potentially fine to have in the equation providing certain stringent conditions are met. And, if Monbiot’s conditions are followed to their logical conclusion, the market is more than likely to dictate that other renewable technologies will fill the gap in any event.

Monbiot: Coal Scuttled

Climate Camp, Kingsnorth

2008-08-06T23:41:00.014+01:00

It was an early dash through Smithfield, with cheeky Bummarees calling out at me as I ignored the anti-cycling signs (what signs?) and whizzed through the tail-end of the morning's meat market. Down to St Pauls, swooped round and along then over London Bridge to meet my fellow eco-warrior Vicki (Director of the Kingsnorth No New Coal film, and fellow Wise Woman) before hopping on the train down to Strood in Kent. So off we headed to support the protest against the proposed new-build coal station at Kingsnorth.
[Vicki, part of the radical wing of WW in action]

The boys in blue were out in force, (which I can only presume for them is a bit of a holiday from any serious work as this is a peaceful demo), taking inordinate care and time to stop, search and video us all. Very polite, proud and patient in explaining their PACE powers. One gets the impression they've all just passed their Advanced Activist Management Skills course. They had a super new toy parked up that was later put to much use - an all singing and dancing yellow and black helicopter which buzzed like an oversized busy bee away above the camp for most of the day. (Do plod-squabbles break out over whose turn it is to play with the machine? Ooh to be a fly on the wall of their conversations)

Into the camp, eventually, and it's glorious - a haven of peace and commonality of purpose, with hundreds of tents smattered around clustered in geographical areas (Londonium I am told has the best facilities, naturally. They have sofas in their feeding tent), composting loos to rival those at CAT, the odd freestanding turbine and PV panels. Bunting billows in the early morning breeze as the sun starts to warm the early morning haze and the clouds begin to disappear, opening up to a warm blue-skied summer day.

I am speaking on Concentrating Solar Power in the main space - the one with electricity, so I am informed. I am offered a bike to power my presentation, but sadly it seems to only give power to either the laptop or the projector, not both at the same time. How great that would have been to have had it generating clean energy to give my talk on the ultimate clean energy solution, courtesy of a fast pedlar.

By 10.30 the camp has woken up, and tent A fills. There are workshops running throughout the day and all week, which is a marvellous way to tap into some excellent speakers on all matters climate change related. It's a good turnout, and later as I survey the site I reckon there are in around 1500 folk there and some kids. One pretty eight year old tells me he will make me a paper fan for anything(!). So we seal the deal for half a choccie bar, but only once he has been assured on the contents - that it is indeed vegan and is made of raw chocolate and agave syrup. He seems very pleased. I am equally pleased with my fan.

I bump into chums old and new, catch up with more radical WW's - and Oliver Tickell, author of Kyoto 2: How to Manage the Global Greenhouse, which delights me greatly. I've been itching to read it, as my gut instinct had been telling me that it will be an important one. In a nutshell, Tickell is advocating upstream control of greenhouse gases at point of production, not of emission (ie nail the oil companies, not the consumer).

Lunch at Londonium is delicious before scooting off to the site media tent for a bit of an interview, then off to hear a few workshops: Shaun Chamberlain on TEQ's (who argues from the other end of the spectrum - downstream control: carbon rationing of the consumer), David Flemming (the originator of TEQ's) on Anarchy (whom, upon arrival at the site, was reputedly chased by eager journos wanting to know if he was an elderly Tory MP. What anarchy he could have had there!).

It's hard to leave. The evening light is long, the banter fun (Meyer Hillman is stomping around furiously, indignant about some comment made by George Monbiot), fresh garlic wafts across from Wales (no sofas here; they have hay-bales from Machynlleth), and I had promised to pop in to commune with my fellow Scottish countrymen and women (bet they do great porridge first thing). But no time, we have to go (having hitched a lift back - thank you Oliver, much appreciated). We head of into the sunset as more people are pitching up in preparation for the day of mass action and march to Kingsnorth Coal Station on Saturday. I wish I could be there - the preparations sound fantastic. The only blot spied on the landscape is the batallion of 22 police trucks filled to the gills moving in with yet more troops. What kind of world do we live in when the state deems it neccessary to lavish £7 million on policing such a well-organised, peaceful but vitally important (and legal) protest?

Climate Camp
No New Coal
Monbiot: Coal Scuttled
Kyoto 2

100 months

2008-08-01T18:03:00.011+01:00

We have a hundred months to save the planet. When the clock stops ticking we could be beyond the climate's 'tipping point', the point of no return, so says the Green New Deal report just published today by the New Economics Foundation.

onehundredmonths.org has just launched today - I'm supporting it, Wise Women are supporting it, and I hope you will too.

-----------------------------------------

75 years since President Roosevelt launched a New Deal to rescue the US from financial crisis, a new group of experts in finance, energy and the environment have come together to propose a ‘Green New Deal’ for the UK.

And, as the Green New Deal Group launch their proposals, new analysis suggests that from the end of July 2008 there is only 100 months, or less, to stabilise concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere before we hit a potential point of no return.

Proposal’s set out in the Group’s report include:

* Executing a bold new vision for a low-carbon energy system that will include making ‘every building a power station’.
* Creating and training a ‘carbon army’ of workers to provide the human resources for a vast environmental reconstruction programme.
* Establishing an Oil Legacy Fund, paid for by a windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas companies as part of a wide-ranging package of financial innovations and incentives to assemble the tens of billions of pounds that need to be spent. These would also include Local Authority green bonds, green gilts and green family savings bonds. The monies raised would help deal with the effects of climate change and smooth the transition to a low-carbon economy.
* Ensuring more realistic fossil fuel prices that include the cost to the environment, and that are high enough to tackle climate change by creating economic incentives to drive efficiency and bring alternative fuels to market. This will provide funding for the Green New Deal and safety nets to those vulnerable to higher prices via rapidly rising carbon taxes and revenue from carbon trading.
* Minimising corporate tax evasion by clamping down on tax havens and corporate financial reporting. A range of measures including deducting tax at source for all income paid to financial institutions in tax havens would provide much-needed sources of public finance at a time when economic contraction is reducing conventional tax receipts.
* Re-regulating the domestic financial system. Inspired by reforms implemented in the 1930s, this would imply cutting interest rates across the board– including the reduction of the Bank of England’s interest rate - and changes in debt-management policy to enable reductions in interest rates across all government borrowing. This is designed to help those borrowing to build a new energy and transport infrastructure. In parallel, to prevent inflation, we want to see much tighter regulation of the wider financial environment.
* Breaking up the discredited financial institutions that have needed so much public money to prop them up in the latest credit crunch. Large banking and finance groups should be forcibly demerged. Retail banking should be split from both corporate finance (merchant banking) and from securities dealing. The demerged units should then be split into smaller banks. Mega banks make mega mistakes that affect us all. Instead of institutions that are ‘too big to fail’, we need institutions that are small enough to fail without creating problems for depositors and the wider public.

The Green New Deal Group urges the UK Government to take action at the international level to help build the orderly, well-regulated and supportive policy and financial environment that is required to restore economic stability and nurture environmental sustainability, including:

* Allowing all nations far greater autonomy over domestic monetary policy (interest rates and money supply) and fiscal policy (government spending and taxation).
* Setting a formal international target for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations that keeps future temperature rises as far below 2°C as possible.
* Giving poorer countries the opportunity to escape poverty without fuelling global warming by helping to finance massive investment in climate-change adaptation and renewable energy.

For further details and full report: NEF
onehundredmonths.org
The Final Countdown

Wise Women

The Age of Stupid

2008-07-22T06:04:00.015+01:00

It's a humbling thing to see two children surviving the death of their father in the midst of the rubble of Iraq, in the full knowledge that his death was a direct result of the developed world's (read UK & USA) grab for oil. It's deeply moving to see the loss of a french glacier to climate change, and to hear the narrative of an 81 year old mountain guide who has lived there all his life. It's maddeningly frustrating to see the loss of a Devon wind farm application to local aesthetic fears (hey, what are motorways but a scar on our landscape? A scar that is creating part of the problem by carrying the very vehicles that are pumping damaging emissions. What an irony that we accept motorway expansion with so little fight, unlike the wind farm applications). It's challenging to view the contradictions of the oil worker who believed himself to be an environmentalist. These and other stories are the stuff of The Age of Stupid, the new movie from 'McLibel' Director Franny Armstrong and the Producer of the Oscar-winning 'One Day In September', John Battsek. Oscar-nominated Pete Postlethwaite (In The Name of the Father, Brassed Off, Usual Suspects) stars as an old man living in the devastated world of 2055. He watches 'archive' footage from 2008 and asks: Why didn't we stop climate change when we had the chance?

There were few dry eyes at the end of the All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group sceening at Portcullis House yesterday afternoon. Such was the impact on an audience consisting of hardened environmentalists, seasoned campaigners and (a smattering of) concerned MP's. The Q&A session afterwards elicited some insightful responses. Colin Challen MP called for everyone to join the "Militant Green Tendency and go agitate your party of choice at every meeting you can until Climate Change is top of the political agenda". Franny Armstrong, the director, asserted that the only way forward is for there to be strong international laws put in place (a timely reminder just as the crucial Climate Bill, the world-first climate change law, is making its way through parliament). Roger Higman of Friends of the Earth, when asked whether we had enough time to turn things around, stated that he was optimistic it could be done. On a scale of 1 - 10, he put his personal belief at a 9 - 10. And Peter Postlethwaite (who forsook his normal actor's fee and stayed with chums rather than incur additional costs during filming)? Good news there: he's finally got the go-ahead for his own turbine to be installed at his eco-home in Shropshire.

Later in conversation with Mark Lynas over a pint, we nattered on the rapid evolution of knowledge on climate change. Even with a film that flags up best understanding on climate change at the beginning of 2008 (with Mark filmed in his garden shed - clearly the hub of much activity - succinctly explaining why 2 degrees is such an important figure), scientific understanding has already moved forward and the framing of the issues has shifted (see the controversial Kyoto 2 book by Oliver Tickell, due to land in book stores next week). The concept of 60 - 80% reductions of greenhouse gases has now been superceded by the general scientific acceptance that, as Mark put it, to ensure we get within spitting distance of getting no further than a 2% degree increase of temperature (and all the attendant climactic conditions that will bring) will mean that we must bring our emissions to 350 parts per million. Our emissions already stand at about 385 parts per million. Thus, we have in effect already overshot. Quite simply we need to progress to a zero-carbon world as soon as possible. That's not to knock the important message that The Age of Stupid is presenting, as Mark was quick to point out. It's valid, vital and very very good.

We Can Solve It says Al Gore

2008-07-20T08:48:00.003+01:00

Al Gore's challenge to America to produce 100% of its power from carbon-free sources in 10 years.

wecansolveit.org

Mediterranean Solar Plan gets green light

2008-07-15T08:27:00.007+01:00

Sometimes certain decisions are determined in the international political arena that are seismic in their potential for shaping our future yet remain largely under the radar of general public knowledge. Of course CSP being my bag, means I am here to bring you the latest sunny developments - and the future is indeed looking bright.

In Paris on Sunday 13th July at the Heads of State Summit, a formal declaration launching the Union for the Mediterranean was issued, laying out the goals and workings of the 43-member organisation. One initiative in particular holds huge promise - the formal endorsement of the Mediterranean Solar Plan, which was presented by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Even Gordon Brown has backed the Solar Plan, stating at the conference: "in the Mediterranean region, concentrated solar power offers the prospect of an abundant low carbon energy source. Indeed, just as Britain's North Sea could be the Gulf of the future for offshore wind, so those sunnier countries represented here could become a vital source of future global energy by harnessing the power of the sun. So I am delighted that that the EU is committing at this summit to work with its neighbours - including Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and the League of Arab States - to explore the development of a new 'Mediterranean Solar Plan' for the development and deployment of this vital technology from the Sahara northwards.".

According to the International Energy Agency in it's recently published Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 - Scenarios and Strategies to 2050, on top of the investments in the Business-as-usual scenario, total additional investment needs for the period 2010-2050 amount to USD 45 trillion. The average year-by-year investments between 2010 and 2050 needed to achieve a virtual decarbonisation of the power sector include, say the IEA, the build of 215 million square metres of solar. Others technologies proposed to achieve 50% cuts by 2050 include 55 fossil-fuelled power plants with CCS, 32 nuclear plants and 17 500 large wind turbines as well as widespread adoption of near-zero emission buildings and, on one set of assumptions, deployment of nearly a billion electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

The Union for the Mediterranean agreed that the recent activity on energy markets in terms of both supply and demand, confirms the need to focus on alternative energy sources. Market deployment as well as research and development of all alternative sources of energy was declared a major priority in efforts towards assuring sustainable development. The Secretariat is now tasked to explore the feasibility, development and creation of a Mediterranean Solar Plan. It is expected that 20GW of CSP will be constructed by 2020, with electricity exports transmitted into Europe, and exponential growth thereafter.

The political will is now in place for the deployment of CSP plants in the Sahara Desert, with transmission of it's clean electricity into Europe. It's nemesis will of course be nuclear. But CSP has many advantages over nuclear: rapid construction times (3 years versus 10 -20 years), low environmental impact (even positive environmental impact can be achieved where desalination is incorporated in the plant, thereby providing water for both human consumption and agricultural use), unlimited availability of resource (in any given 2 week period, deserts receive the same amount of energy from the sun as is contained in all nuclear fuel reserves), lower security and terrorist risk (compare the bombing of a nuclear plant to the taking out of a bunch of mirrors in the desert - transnational devastation versus 7 years bad luck). Let the race commence.

Wild Law

2008-07-13T11:59:00.008+01:00

I'm back - after 2 weeks in the wilderness. Well, Scotland, to be exact, but in some ways it felt like a dip into the wild. After a weekend in Edinburgh for a bit of film festival celebrations for the premier of my brother’s latest documentary (The New Ten Commandments), we headed off up the west coast to the Highlands. A land I know well and love, in part due to the lesser dominance of human impact. No TV (no problem), no radio (hmm), no phone connection (survivable), no internet connection (hugely frustrating). Just the two of us, millions of midges and a pile of books.

Where some pray under the hallowed edifices of the kirk, I communed with the ancient and sacred standing stones to be found in and around the Kilmartin Glen trying to unravel the mysteries of a civilization who had far greater connection with our planet than we do. A childhood shaped by authoritarian Catholicism and the rigid teachings of Jesuits failed to instill in me a belief in religion (the questioning of which led to much time spent outside the classroom). To this day it remains too ethnocentric and paternal for my taste. Instead, it made me question what our earth’s systems are. In time this has evolved into a recognition that all species and organisms – non-humans – have rights too.

As often happens, an accumulation of thoughts ideas and conversations come full circle. For me…a year in Vienna in 1988, working with an ecologist who taught me about Tree Tenants ... more recently, last year a conversation with a close friend about tree rights… a co-incidental introduction to a few fellow tree rights supporters … an email dialogue … an introduction to some seminal texts…an invite to an inspiring day course on Earth Jurisprudence at the Gaia Institute. Books mounted by my bedside tantalizing me to read, but I needed a little time to digest, rather than hurriedly devouring before turning my thoughts to other more immediate concerns. Thus, with very little distraction, and in the midst of the most beautiful countryside, for the past two weeks I have turned my thoughts to addressing what I now consider to be crucial for the environment - even more significant than saving our rainforests and the implementation of technological renewable energy solutions (this is not to denigrate their importance – for they are of course also vital). Something that requires nothing less than a dramatic shift in our collective consciousness.

To stop and even reverse the plundering and the violation of our world’s resources (and as a consequence that which has triggered climate change), we need a recognition of a Duty of Care for our planet. Nothing less than a mandatory principle – the creation of a legal standing of the inherent rights of the natural world - is required. Such an overriding objective should thus be accorded primary consideration by what Thomas Berry in The Great Work refers to as the the four major spheres of influence – academic, economic, political, religious and their corresponding bodies: universities, corporations, governments and religions.

Our legislative frameworks shape our societies, but somewhere within our development humanity failed to recognise that planet rights must be respected too. We now accept that the exploitation of our eco-systems is human-driven; with this knowledge comes the responsibility to act. Without an overarching recognition of planet rights, all legislation applied to provide energy and environmental protectionism remains piecemeal, incoherent and insufficient for the radical shift in consciousness and understanding that is required.

10th December 2008 will mark the 60th anniversary of our Universal Declaration of Human Rights; 60 years that have also fashioned our planning, energy and business laws and as a consequence our general belief of our dominant role within the planet. But at what detriment: a detriment that needs to be redressed now to ensure future protection. Is it not now time for an International Declaration of Planet Rights?

"The Power of the World always work in circles, and everything tries to be round. In the old days...all our power came from the sacred hoop of the nation and so long as the hoop was unbroken, the people flourished"
Heka Sapa, North American Oglala Sioux 1930 - 1931

...and one I read that made me laugh out loud: There's a Hippo in My Cistern by Pete May.

350

2008-06-23T21:18:00.004+01:00

There's a number -- a new number -- that makes this point most powerfully. It may now be the most important number on Earth: 350. As in parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

A few month's ago, NASA's chief climatologist, James Hansen, submitted a paper to Science magazine with several coauthors. The abstract attached to it argued that "if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."

Hansen cites six irreversible tipping points -- massive sea level rise and huge changes in rainfall patterns, among them -- that we'll pass if we don't get back down to 350 soon; and the first of them, judging by last summer's insane melt of Arctic ice, may already be behind us.

So it's a tough diagnosis. It's like the doctor telling you that your cholesterol is way too high and, if you don't bring it down right away, you're going to have a stroke. So you take the pill, you swear off the cheese, and, if you're lucky, you get back into the safety zone before the coronary.

In this case, though, it's worse than that because we're not taking the pill and we are stomping on the gas -- hard. Instead of slowing down, we're pouring on the coal, quite literally.

We're the ones who kicked the warming off; now the planet is starting to take over the job. Melt all that Arctic ice, for instance, and suddenly the nice white shield that reflected 80% of incoming solar radiation back into space has turned to blue water that absorbs 80% of the sun's heat. Such feedbacks are beyond history, though not in the sense that Francis Fukuyama had in mind.

And we have, at best, a few years to short-circuit them -- to reverse course. Here's the Indian scientist and economist Rajendra Pachauri, who accepted the Nobel Prize on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year (and, by the way, got his job when the Bush administration, at the behest of Exxon Mobil, forced out his predecessor): "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."

Bill McKibben, a scholar in residence at Middlebury College and the author, most recently, of "The Bill McKibben Reader," is the co-founder of Project 350 ( 350.org), devoted to reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million. A longer version of this article appears at Tomdispatch.com.

UK-German Climate Change partnership

2008-06-22T11:44:00.004+01:00

They say a week is a long time in politics, and I seem to have been spending a fair bit of time flitting in and out of the House of Commons this last week. Wednesday brought me to a meeting with Matthias Machnig, State Secretary of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, to mark the launch of the Climate Change Partnership between the German Embassy in the UK and the APPCCG (All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group). The primary aims of the Climate Change Partnership are to strengthen bilateral political engagement between the United Kingdom and Germany on climate change issues, to promote shared learning and to make joint progress on developing policies to combat the threat of climate change. And boy, do we need this! Languishing as we do at the bottom of the EU renewable energy league table, with only Malta producing less renewable energy as a percentage of total energy consumption. Germany meanwhile is light years ahead in it's adoption of renewable energy.

In one particular respect it was a delight to hear this German minister speak - no obfuscation, no fudging, no flummery. Rather, a lot of use of terms such as "it is our strongly held belief (that nuclear is not the answer)", "we do not believe in (renewable energy credits)", "it is our clearly defined policy...", "we will not accept (a system where FIT's are harmed)". All wonderfully exacting, and if he did not like a particular question, he simply did not answer it (of course the omission in itself presented it's own position - bringing to mind Urquhart's delicious line in House of Cards: 'You may very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment'). And all backed up with implemented policies. After having been at the receiving end of a fair bit of frustrating UK politico-speak on energy issues recently, this was all music to my ears. No consultations with the renewable industry (we are onto our 3rd), simply a commitment to addressing energy issues, and a swift implementation of the necessary laws. There is an overriding sense of wir benötigen es, wir tun es - we need it, so we do it.

So, this is what Germany is doing. They are:

goal of 40% reduction of GHG emissions in Germany by 2020;

package of emissions reduction policies representing a commitment of €3.3 billion;

14 new laws and regulations, each designed to encourage businesses to conserve energy or expand Germany's production of renewable energy;

increase of 30% energy from renewables by 2020 (currently 15% - compare with UK 2%);

strong supporters of electricity liberalisation in Europe;

Germany does not believe in nuclear; committed to phasing out old nuclear plants and no new build;

€500 million ($736 million) in subsidies to encourage home- and building-owners to install efficient heating systems;

target of 10% renewable energy to be implemented in all existing housing stock, to be increased next year;

2009: one of their core legislation for next year will be on rebuild standards for inefficient housing stock;

all newbuild must meet Passive Haus standards by 2020;

creation of an International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), to build a coalition of countries and finance, bringing together all knowledge of renewable technologies, facilitate in research and policy advice. Germany is seeking UK government support and hope to implement such an agency at the Copenhagen conference in December 2009.

currently finalising it's proposals for the second Energy and Climate Package Leaders Declaration for the forthcoming G8 Summit to be held in Japan 7 - 9th July, making it clear what sort of responsibility developed and developing countries must have.

On answering questions;

believes Contraction and Convergence per capita approach is best for the long-term, but not before 2050;

supports second generation biomass from EU; will stick to 10% by 2020 as believes it is do-able;

supports demonstrator CCS, with expectation of 10-12 CCS plants throughout the EU (2 German companies, RWE CCS build by 2014, and Vattenfall). New coal stations must only be built with CCS, CHP or via CDM.

views EU supergrid as essential, pushing for strong investment;

believes that Concentrated Solar Power import from MENA into the EU supergrid is compatible for the future once infrastructure has been put in place (but that any CSP importation before 2020 must be additional, not as part of meeting EU Member State targets)

We have much we can learn from the Germans on energy policy. This looks to be a fruitful union. As my fluent-speaking Nanna used to say to me, "ya mein liebschien, es ist sehr gut."

Message from Perth, Australia

2008-06-16T21:51:00.004+01:00

This is an email I received yesterday. It drove home how our energy requirements can be so easily disrupted, and that such a scenario happening in the UK is not so infeasible. This is what Eric had to say:

Hello Polly,

I live in Perth, western Australia, and this Sunday morning on the radio I was listening to the BBC overseas broadcasts, when the topic of Solar power was being highlighted.

I heard your name, and have since gone to various web sites linking you.

I am a "Senior Citizen", and although without any technical schooling or background, I have been wondering for many years why Solar Power has not replaced fossil fuel. I now, understand that it has been too expensive in the past, and that mining companies have been only too pleased to dig up coal, drill for oil, and "uncork" the underground and undersea gas reserves.

Perth has in the last two weeks, been made aware that an off sea gas drilling company..."Apache" rig.... had a recent flame out or explosion, causing the rig to cease operations. This has led to ONE THIRD of Perth's gas supply being closed. Repair to the rig, may take many many months, highlighting the sad reality of what can happen to industry and households.

Today's newspapers, and some politicians comments have told us that, some factories, mining companies, brewing companies, steel companies, may have to temporarily reduce staff and output. Hospitals and hotels have been advised to reduced their laundry as much as possible, in an attempt to preserve what gas is available from other outlets. Home owners have been encouraged to "turn off" lights and electric equipment when not being used, to reduce the demand on electricity from steam turbines heated from gas.

This is the Twenty First century, and it really is quite laughable, when all the technology that has evolved in the minds of mankind in the last one hundred years, leads us to cutting down on laundry, and turning the gas heater down.

This continent is the sunniest continent in the world. Blazing sun and dry open desert, lost in a flat landscape, ideal for solar power; and one off shore gas rig shuts down, leaving us an embarrassment. Even our sea water vaporisation unit, designed to help provide a flow of useable water,(* which due to too many very dry years has cause reservoirs to dry out ) has been told to shut down to lessen the demand on power. ......Thankfully its winter and we are getting rain, and not subject to another drought.

I notice in one of the web sites liked to you, suggested you have stated that CSP plants have been constructed in Spain, Australia and California.

Can you give me more information on where in Australia, and those involved in the construction and planning?

Oh, and as a P.S. one of our smelly black coal fired power stations, previously "mothballed" has been given the green light to start up again. Now is that progress.

Our State Premier Mr. Alan Carpenter, and his Energy Minister Mr. Fran. Logan, could probably....no....most probably, benefit from a communication from you and your foresight.

This is a great state in a great country, but its sad that today we are using nineteenth century resources to drive the machinery of the twenty first.

Hopefully the world will appreciate one day, people who like you, try to open the eyes of those who are not prepared to look.

Thanks
Eric Fry

TREC - AU

Solar Desalination

Acquasol

Climate Forum, London 14th and 15th June

2008-06-12T16:21:00.003+01:00

This year's International Climate Forum has changed venue. No longer LSE, this time the fantastic 2 day event will be held at the South Camden Community School, Charrington Street, NW1 (just 5 mins behind Kings Cross Station).

Covering all the topical Climate Change issues, it is a wonderful opportunity to attend workshops covering the Science of Climate Change, Energy Solutions, Transport, International Policy, Cuba, Community Based Networks, Geoengineering, Contraction and Convergence, Direct Action - and many more. Plenary sessions will include wise words from the likes of of Michael Meacher, Tony Juniper, and Ichin Cheng.

And of course TREC-UK shall be there to raise awareness of Concentrating Solar Power. Dr Gerry Wolff will be talking on Saturday 10.30 - 12.00 on Solutions, and I shall be running a workshop on Sunday 11.30 - 13.00, DESERTEC - Clean Power from the Deserts. I will be demonstrating how half the world's energy requirements can be fulfilled by CSP by 2050, what is required to get us there and what exciting developments are in the pipeline.

Hope to see you there.

International Climate Forum

The petrol pump's running dry

2008-05-28T07:41:00.004+01:00

Whilst Peak Oil is rapidly becoming mainstream with Joe public, amazingly the government seems to still be in denial. Malcolm Wicks, in response to questions put in the House of Commons Debate on Oil Prices, stated that "the huge increase in the price of a barrel of oil has caught the whole world by surprise and we are in, frankly, difficult and uncharted waters."

Whilst it is true we are in unchartered waters, the rise in price has been anticipated ever since Hubbert first came out with his theory on Peak Oil back in the 1950's. Unfortunately, our government has been basing their policies on forecasting of increase of oil prices to $70 - in 2020! So, no suggestion of reduced supplies there then. How is this possible? Oil is a finite resource, we are now in a position that what little remains out there is more difficult to get at and thus extraction will prove ever more expensive, not only in financial terms but also environmental costs. Thing is, Peak Oil is not a difficult concept to grasp. The tank is running dry, and as one clever bod put it, we are now trying to suck out the remaining dregs that have soaked into the pub carpet (a rather disgusting analogy, but oh so graphically pertinent). Market economics dictate that as a finite source dries up, so it's price will escalate. Mr Wicks and Mr Brown seem to be under the impression that "the solution is increased production". But of what? Certainly not oil.

Mr Wicks, have a look at peak oil.com, although you may experience delays. Spotted on their website by my mate Marm, is their new posting:

Welcome new visitors!

The site is responding slowly due to an influx of thousands of new visitors, so expect delays until our upgrades are in place.

Thanks for your patience.

Becoming a low Carbon Society

2008-05-19T22:22:00.005+01:00

Another slightly belated blog - but it's an important one. This time I have been to the All Party Parliamentary working Group on Peak Oil and Gas (appgopo for short - an unusual acronym for sure) meeting on Becoming a Low Carbon Society, with Rob Hopkins speaking on Transition Initiatives, Simon Snowden from Liverpool University on Oil Vulnerability Auditing and Shaun Chamberlin on Tradeable Energy Quotas. Very usefully, you can view all three powerpoints and listen to the sessions online at the appgopo website. They are all worth listening to.

I'm wanting to write about TEQ's - Tradeable Energy Quotas (also known as Personal Carbon Allowances). I've written about them before, and here they are again, because like a lot of successful concepts, in essence it is simplicity itself.

TEQ's are like the toy money we played with when I was a child; there were three of us, and each was given the same allocation. We could spend it as we liked in our pretend market but with certain limitations (no sweets!). Once it was spent it was gone, but if we liked we could trade it in between each other in return for real money. How much it cost to buy in more depended on the generosity of my sister, or the meanness of my brother. An early lesson in the volatility of market conditions.

So, with TEQ's you receive your allocation to spend on energy. The allocation is preset annually, reducing each year in accordance with the requirement to reduce our carbon emissions. When you buy energy, such as petrol for your car or electricity for your household, units corresponding to the amount of energy you have bought are deducted from your TEQs account, in addition to your money payment.

Are you 'energy lean", cycle everywhere and have some whizzy microgeneration at home to cut your energy bills, and so do not use up your allocation? Then you can make some (real) money out of this. Just trade in your TEQ's and sell them to the more energy profligate. Need more than your allocation? You can buy from those who are selling their surplus.

It's a great system. It will reduce our use of fossil fuel; promote understanding of the true cost of our use of fossil fuel and it's creation of CO2 emissions;encourage behavioural change and use of clean energy alternatives. It is an equitable system (everyone treated the same); it guarantees national carbon reduction commitments in line with international targets (an independent committee would set the level allowable for the market each year in accordance with reduction national targets), it allows for a phased energy descent.

TEQs provides an effective and fair response to both climate change and resource depletion and enables a nation to ensure fair access to energy for all. It supplies the incentive for citizens, organisations and Government to work now on achieving the necessary rapid transformation in the way we use fuel into the future, and it provides time to plan ahead. It empowers localities and individuals to be able to make a tangible difference. It is fair, simple and practical, and it gets results by uniting the nation in a common purpose.

So why is this not being implemented? Last week DEFRA undertook a pre-feasibility study on the implementation of TEQ's and confirmed that there were no technical barriers to it's implementation. But that's as far as it got. No movement there - for the time being. But with escalating energy prices ( Goldman Sachs recent report claims oil price could increase to $200 per Barrel within 6 months, others believe it shan't stop there), the increased awarenesss that oil companies are consolidating (have you noticed how fast petrol stations are rapidly disappearing?), and the energy crisis becoming more painful by the day, our government might wake up soon. Indeed, BERR have just welcomed an investigatory report into future oil availablity - but this will take a year before completion. Regardless of exactly how much more (or more to the point - how little remains - even Bush thinks we're running out) exists, we know we need to wean ourselves off our oil dependency as soon as possible.

TEQ's are a simple system, one that would not take much to implement, and I'll wager will be with us sooner rather than later. The Draft Climate Change Bill allows for it's implementation without additional primary legislation, which is good news. A case of watch this space.

teqs.net

When will our Government wake up to the Energy Crisis?

2008-05-13T21:54:00.009+01:00

This is belated blogging. But I suppose that is the beauty of blogging - you can get back to it when you have time. The last month or so I have been pretty much out of the loop of things, but I'm now back on full(ish) form, with news to tell of what I've been getting to here in London that's worth noting.

So, last week I attended the Praseg Annual Conference with my TREC hat on to get all and sundry up to speed on Concentrating Solar Power. The added bonus is of course the chance to sit in on various MP's waxing lyrical on their (sometimes not so) green credentials. One MP did stand out however: Phil Woolas MP.

This is a man who really seems to get it. In fact it is the first time I have heard a mainstream-ish Labour MP (outside the lone voices of climate change reason; Colin Challen and Michael Meacher) voluntarily raise his own views on Peak Oil. It is after all part of his remit as DEFRA Minister for the Environment; he has responsibility for climate change, energy and the environment. Nevertheless, it was interesting to hear his take. 12 months ago, he admitted, he would pay lip service to Climate Change. Now, he says, anyone who does not get it is in denial. "Well, it’s just happening, you can feel it - and see it all around the world." Yes, you do, I thought - you've grasped the urgency of the situation.

"UK economic activity accounts for 15% emissions worldwide", he went on to say (note: this is a rarely alluded to fact by our government, so well done in not sidestepping this unattractive but vitally important fact), "2% of which comes directly from within our shores. Technology transfer and a global carbon market is required – and we must include rainforests. It is wrong to assume it’s all China – my experience is that China gets the point and is addressing it."

On the Kyoto Protocol: "What concerns me is if there is not an international agreement at Copenhagen (Dec. 2009 is the date for the UNFCCC conference in Copenhagen and projected completion of UN post-Kyoto deal). I fear they will say - forget it, we will do what we have to do. But not many people are looking at the big picture. When canvassing last week, not many asked me to increase our Kyoto commitments."

On Peak Oil: "Peak Oil is a symbol of all our other rapidly depleting resources. We are running out, we can’t keep on living as if we have three planets. This is a profound challenge to us."

So, a man who talks the talk - but do we have a government who will walk the walk? The other morning when interviewed about escalating energy prices, our Prime Minister Gordon Brown on radio 4's Today programme claimed the solution was that we just need to get out there and "find more oil". Does he not know that we are, if not yet at Peak Oil pretty much on our way? The problem is, if the current escalation of energy prices to $126 a barrel are not attributable to peak oil, what will it be like when we are on the rapid downhill slalome race of declining output? This time last year oil was $75 per barrel and the lone voices predicting a hit of $100 per barrel by 2010 were viewed as extremists. Recent history demonstrates that even those with a bit of foresight were being too conservative in their estimates. As David Strahan said the other week at our WISE Women Speaker Event - we ain't seen nothing yet.

But there is a further layer of complication to add to the decline in global energy resources. We have our own homegrown decline in energy resources to contend with here in the UK. We have a swathe of opted-out old coal stations that must, as directed under EU legislation, be closed by the end of 2016. Some are already working on limited capacity. Add to this the end-of-life of most of our nuclear stations (some of which are now working at very limited capacity, and when working at full capacity only accounts for at best 3.8% of our energy requirements. A dip in the ocean, you might say, in terms of what is required post 2016), and a picture emerges of a rather rapidly growing energy gap here in the UK which we have not been preparing for. By my simple calculations, if we say energy descent kicks in by 2010 at a conservative 3% per annum (peak oil puts additional strain on other finite resources), that makes an energy deficit of 18% by the end of 2016, before taking into account the UK energy gap dip of roughly 32% of our own capacity. That makes a remarkable 50% energy deficit within 8 years.

So my calculations may be very simplistic (and possibly wrong - I am no expert forecaster). The slide above interestingly demonstrates the UK energy gap as approximately 32% reduction of capacity, with oil being completely factored out by end of 2016. Either way - there is a substantial UK energy gap that does not seem be addressed. Bill McKibben famously said in his book The End of Nature; until we feel the fear in our bellys, we will fail to act. How may more MP's need to feel that fear before they act?

London Aware Sustainability Fair at the Barbican, London

2008-05-10T09:29:00.003+01:00

This weekend (10 & 11 May 2008) at the Barbican you will find the London Aware Fair - Green Ideas for Everyday Living. I shall be there, manning a stand for TREC-UK, and speaking today (Saturday) on Eco-living, then giving a talk on Sunday on my ever favourite subject, Concentrating Solar Power. The guys that run it have given me a 2 for the price of one offer - just go to the UK Aware website and enter the code SP241.

Hope to see you there!

Polly

Munching Watercress with the new Chief Scientific Minister

2008-05-02T13:49:00.006+01:00

Some time ago I had been invited to hear Professor John Beddington, the new Chief Scientific Adviser and Head of the Government Office for Science, speak and then to join him with some select guests for dinner. Of course to meet the man who has now stepped into the shoes of Sir David King - well, that was an invite I could not refuse. So off I headed last night to hear him, 4 months into the job, give his talk on Climate Change. Prof Beddington comes from Imperial College, where his area of expertise lies with his extensive research into fisheries as well as population biology, crop and human diseases. So no wedges here a la King. Instead, a fascinating trot through the issues of population growth(which currently stands at the jaw dropping 6 million per month), poverty analysis, agriculture and food security.

Some more salient facts: 1.1bn survive on less than 50p per day (10% of China, 41% Bangladeshi's - this is big time malnutrition level), 2.7 billion survive on less than £1 per day (80% in India, 92% in Nigeria). The problem with bringing more out of the poverty gap is that more money is then spent on meat and dairy, which in turn creates rapid growth in raw agricultural commodities. As one of my charming dinner guests pointed out to me, even more grain is then required to feed to the animals that are then fed to us (and they use 10 times as much water too), rather than just using the grain direct. And this at a time when grain prices as well as oil prices are escalating (for instance, bread wheat has has boomeranged from £72 to £193 per tonne in just two years. Add onto that additional delivery costs, and that loaf becomes far more expensive). Having just had an energy-giving heart-pounding cancer-preventing lip-smacking shot of watercress juice (the event was sponsored by the Vitacress Conservation Trust), that seemed to me to be a pretty strong argument to become a fully signed-up wheat-free veggie-loving watercress muncher.

Beddington is an extremely affable man getting to grips with all the recent media coverage, who admitted that 4 months into the job he would no longer use the word 'insane' where 'unwise' may be a more moderate turn of phrase for those who doubt the science of climate change. With his soft west country accent, and honesty in answering questions (two received "I do not know the answer to that", before attempting to address the issues presented as best he could), the enormous extent of the remit of his role was apparent. How does a man in his position get his head around not only all of the above, but also Energy and Infrastructure issues as well as Technology and Peak Oil, never mind the Honeybee crisis (could this be the gaia-canary in the coal mine)? It's a strange position to hold. Whilst it's one of independence, most government departments hold their own two scientific advisers who report to him, and he in turn reports to the PM then the cabinet secretary. I wish him well.

WISE Women: Women in Sustainability and the Environment

2008-04-12T06:13:00.009+01:00

Calling all green ladies out there...WISE Women is a new network I have formed to bring together women who are working in, are concerned about and want to do more about sustainability and the environment. Please come join us.

First Speaker Event
Our first Speaker Event tackles one of the most pressing issues of our day: Peak Oil. We know it's running out, we know it's soon, but how do we make sense of it all and why is our government failing to address our pending energy crisis?

David Strahan, award-winning investigative journalist, documentary film-maker and author of The Last Oil Shock will unravel these and other issues surrounding the imminent extinction of Petroleum Man + Woman.

What: Peak Oil
Where: The Hub 5 Torrens Street, London EC1V 1NQ
When: Tuesday 29th April 2008, 6.30pm - 8pm
Cost: £5 on the door

1 male guest allowed per member subject to availability (chaps, you are welcome to attend, but you do have to be a guest of a female member)

RSVP: events@wisewomen.me.uk

Joining WISE Women
If you would like to become a member of WISE Women and subscribe to further events please complete your details on our website: Join WISE Women

www.wisewomen.me.uk

Related Blog links:
Energy Crisis
Richard Heinberg on Peak Oil

Two Warnings from the North Pole

2008-04-07T07:36:00.007+01:00

Ben Saunders from Ben Saunders on Vimeo.

On the day that Ben Saunders has had to abandon his solo expedition to the North Pole, James Hansen, Head of Nasa and one of the world's leading climate change scientists, warns of rapidly melting ice due to feed-back mechanisms from our increase in CO2 emissions. As ice sheets recede, the warming effect is compounded says Hansen. Satellite technology available over the past three years has shown that the ice sheets are melting much faster than expected, with Greenland and west Antarctica both losing mass. It is this very melting ice that has literally stopped Ben in his tracks.

A recent paper co-authored by Hansen and eight other scientists warns that the EU and its international partners must urgently rethink targets for cutting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because of fears they have grossly underestimated the scale of the problem. The EU target of 550 parts per million of C02 - the most stringent in the world - should be slashed to 350ppm. He argues the cut is needed if "humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed. If you leave us at 450ppm for long enough it will probably melt all the ice - that's a sea rise of 75 metres. What we have found is that the target we have all been aiming for is a disaster - a guaranteed disaster,"

Hansen said that he now regards as implausible the view of many climate scientists that the shrinking of the ice sheets would take thousands of years. "If we follow business as usual I can't see how west Antarctica could survive a century. We are talking about a sea-level rise of at least a couple of metres this century."

For the past 8 days Ben has witnessed first-hand the erosion of the ice making his expedition impossible to continue as equipment failed him whilst he battled with the worsening conditions of the rapidly melting ice. Battling against what has been described by many as the worst conditions in recent history, Ben has encountered miles of never ending pressure ridges, some standing as tall as two-storeys high, over which he has dragged his 65kg sledge. This is what he has to say:

"The ice conditions I have encountered have been the worst I have ever seen, and worse than I could have imagined. I am witnessing at first hand the disintegration of the last of the Arctic’s multi-year pack ice. If climate change in the high Arctic continues at its current rate, I may be one of the last to be able to attempt this journey on foot. I feel enormously privileged to have had that chance and the only true failure would have been not to have started this expedition in the first place."

Over a year ago I chatted with Ben about the receding Arctic ice. He told me then that the pace and scale of the change he witnesses is breathtaking. You can read more of what he said here.

But it is not all bad news. Hansen said his findings were not a recipe for despair. The good news, he said, is that reserves of fossil fuels have been exaggerated, so an alternative source of energy will have to be rapidly put in place in any case. Other measure could include a moratorium on coal power stations which would bring the C02 levels to below 400ppm.

As for Ben, his first-hand reports of the climate changing conditions he is experiencing are invaluable and illuminating. If we take the advice of Hansen et all, the ice may well be there for future generations of explorers like Ben to report back from.

James Hansen
Ben Saunders

The Transition Handbook

2008-03-18T15:04:00.004Z

This is for Catherine, whom I hope will be inspired to set up our own Transition Initiative...

Rob Hopkins is the founder of the Transition movement, creating the fertile ground (literally as well as metaphorically) to generate the growth of communities that are resilient and able to embrace peak oil and climate change. He bridges the gap between the individual and the government, and provides an alternative and inclusive approach, one which enables people to work together to explore solutions on a credible scale. Just published, the Transition Handbook, explains the why and how it can be done.

And what a remarkable book it is. So good it kept me up all night until I had finished it, then bought more copies which have already been dished out (the only other book I seem to do this with on a regular basis is David Strahan's The Last Oil Shock. Both are top must-reads). It is a seminal text for our times. I'll wager that this will prove to be one of the most dynamic and important social movements of the 21st Century.

The Transition Handbook is all about the potential to progress and develop resilience within our communities, to adapt to the energy crisis whilst respecting the earth we live on. For me, it has help reshape my vision of our future on a community level and demonstrated the importance of inclusivity and strong support networks. This book is no wishy washy green-love-in. It's about business and life as we want it for a future that is in balance with our planet. One to read, reread and act upon.

transitiontowns.org
Transition Culture
Community Action

Alistair Darling's peely wally pale green budget

2008-03-13T07:18:00.006Z

In Scotland the term 'peely wally' denotes a sickly pale green palor. That's the colour of the new Chancellor's budget. It had been touted to be the much needed great green budget - but it wasn't, it was a sop, a tinkering at the edges, but otherwise pretty much business as usual. In environmental terms there was no sense of seriously addressing 'stability' (he used this word a lot, 23 times, in an attempt to convince us all is well. It didn't work - it's the content that counts) at a time when our emissions continue to rise. My conclusion: it was a 'do nothing' budget.

On the up-side Darling threatened a tax on plastic bags (why threat - just do it. This is an old solution which the UK is still failing to implement), plans to penalise the most polluting cars (£950 for most polluting cars; why not make it thousands, or bolder yet - price them completely off the road or simply ban them) and reward the greenest through changes in car tax, tinkered with taxes on new green homes (retrofitting existing stock is a far larger problem that is not being properly addressed - Home Information Packs are not enough) and said a climate levy on business would continue (of course, why would it not?). "We need to do more and we need to do it now," Darling said presenting his first budget. "There will be catastrophic economic and social consequences if we fail to act." So act.

But didn't - he stood peering over the edge of the yawning abyss that lies ahead and instead stepped back. He delayed his planned rise in duty on road fuel, backed further airport expansion (this really is not joined up thinking. What fuel are planes going to be using in 10 years time? Hot air? Hot coal? No mention of the much needed reinforced public transport system to address peak oil) and simply announced a fresh consultation on boosting renewable energy. We really do not need another (sham) consultation. We need decisive decision making.

Darling did however announce the UK government support for all future allocations of carbon emission permits to power generators to be auctioned. (The current phase of European Union emission permits for the power generators were all allocated free, handing them billions of pounds in profits as they passed on the notional cost of the permits in higher energy costs to consumers) and that aviation be included in the next phase of the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme. But what of this? These are not UK decisions, they are EU decisions - and this is likely outcome at EU level with all EU member states voting to support these proposals in any event.

Is this what is called sending out mixed messages? Yes, the UK government supports taxing of flights because they accept they are a large contributor to climate change (4 - 7% CO2 emissions) but, hey, lets expand our airports and get more in the air while we are at it. Hmmm.

Last night I went to hear the Climate Tzar Lord Adair Turner (Chair of the government's Climate Change Committee) speak on Climate Change. He stayed for just two questions at the end and then scooted off. When asked what he would have put in the budget, he neatly side-stepped the question, but did make a few relevant points. In fact, he did that clever thing of completely rephrasing the question. He asked, does Fuel Duty work? His answer: it makes very little impact on using cars less but it can make a big impact on size of car chosen(i.e, more informed consumerism), so yes it does work. And now that it's in place it can be racked up in future years. Yes, fair enough, but Mr Turner you yourself acknowledged at the outset of your talk that it is because of our use of burning of fossil fuels that we have rapidly increasing greenhouse gas emissions. So, surely you agree with me on this: does this not point to the unavoidable fact that we need to stop using the very fuel that is creating our rapidly escalating emissions, rather than merely using it less fast?

Pollution Solution: Feed-in Tariffs

2008-03-10T18:30:00.012Z

Heard the term Feed-in Tariff (also referred to FIT, or REFIT - renewable energy feed-in tariff)? Bet you have. It's the catchphrase of preference for all true RE geeks (that's Renewable Energy, not Religious Education). FIT's will help solve our failing RE targets and if you do not know this already you are sooo behind the times. Our Labour government are now toying with the term and contemplating stealing the march on Tory and Lib Dem sworn FIT policy. There has even been an EDM (Early Day Motion) proposed by Labour MP Alan Simpson that is proving popular with 180 votes so far. Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Renewable Energy Association are all shouting loudly for FIT's. And so they should.

So, here for you, is the complete low-down on why we so desperately need to support RE, how to do it and what FIT's are...

Why do we need RE?
If you subscribe to the basic principle that we have no option but to replace our current use of polluting fossil fuel with sustainable non-polluting alternatives (whether it be for reducing greenhouse gases and/or because of our pending energy crisis), then energy from renewables is the inevitable solution.

How can we support renewable energy?
For specific RE technologies to succeed, well-conceived government intervention is required. The simple fact is that without appropriate legislative assistance, RE systems are unable to compete. We are afterall dealing with a historical energy system predicated on the use of fossil fuel. New mechanisms are need to be implemented to open the door to RE being included and indeed, in time, fully replacing fossil fuel.

What legislation is required to make this work?
A FIT law. FIT's are a specific market mechanism to facilitate non-commercial RE technology to become commercialised in as fast as time as possible. In other words, it will take RE technology to mass production levels where it can stand alone. They do this by guaranteeing a favourable price (the tariff) for the electricity produced (feeding-in to the grid) over a set period of time (usually 20 years).

It is well established that FIT's are the most effective, cost efficient and transparent system to facilitate not only introduction of RE into the marketplace, but also to promote homegrown industry in the sector. Just look at all countries that have successful FITs, eg Germany, Spain. One aspect of FIT's that is often overlooked but is so vital is that they place a legal obligation on the utility to buy-in the renewable electricity (at a set price); thus no queueing until some ageing dirty coal plant falls off the radar to finally be accepted ongrid. Priority access for RE is a vital mandatory tool.

In a nutshell:
FIT’s
• work on a tariff rate for specific RE technologies that is guaranteed for a set period (usually 20 years). For instance, Germany has FIT's for small hydro, onshore wind, offshore wind, biomass, biogas, PV and geothermal (each RES set at different levels) but not one for CSP because they do not generate CSP on home turf;
• place a legal obligation on the utility companies to purchase electricity at set pricing levels from RES installations which are produced nationally;
• do not apply to buying in of RES from other EU countries or third party countries;
• are not trans-boundary, nor are they ever likely to be. It is the EC's intention that they remain voluntary as a mechanism for each country to implement as they see fit to promote home-grown RE;
• so far 19 out of 27 EU countries have implemented FIT's under their national legislation. Another 12 countries world-wide have adopted this system, and there also exists the use of FIT's at state level in 10 further countries.

[map of EU countries with FIT's]

FIT Benefits:
• proven to be the most successful mechanism to develop RE markets and domestic industries, and achieving the associated social, economic, environmental and security benefits;
• easy to implement and administer, FIT’s are transparent and cost-effective;
• greater flexibility can be designed into the scheme to account for changes in technology and the marketplace;
• encourage steady growth of small- and medium-scale producers;
• low transaction costs;
• ease of financing;
• investor security;
• ease of entry.

Benefit to you
+ You get to buy your own solar panel, wind-turbine etc at good price;
+ You generate your own clean energy (and sell the excess onto the grid, thus helping others too)
+ You get to keep your bills down whilst helping the planet.

There are various books on RE and potential policy, but the best of the lot is: Feed-in Tariffs, Accelerating the Deployment of Renewable Energy,2007, written by one of the foremost experts in this area, Miguel Mendoca. Amazingly, he makes a very dry subject utterly fascinating.

Even better, FIT's are so easy to adopt as national policy that there are now two websites that shows policy makers how to implement the requisite legislation:
Policy Action on Climate Toolkit - everything you need for implementing a FIT (and a nifty 5 min video too)
World Future Council - comprehensive documentation in support.

So, no reason not to get FIT, Mr Brown. Oh and one other thing - that Permitted Development Order that was shelved back on 10th October last year will need dusting off and implementing too, so that we shan't have the whole thing stymied for microgeneration installers by having to apply for planning permission. And while you are at it, could you overhaul the Low Carbon Buildings Programme too? Easy to apply for grants would be much appreciated also. That really would be a pollution solution package to shout about.

Desktop Direct Action: You can email your local MP to ask them to support the FIT EDM. Not sure who your MP is, or what their email address is? Go to TheyWorkForYou.com Easy - and effective.

Pollution Solution - no more mercury in my mouth

2008-03-09T08:11:00.009Z

Ever wondered where the expression 'Mad as a Hatter' came from? I did, and out of such a casual query opened the door to a discovery that I cannot ignore. Mad as a hatter was a reference to the mental disorders that occurred in hat makers caused by the mercury once used to process felt for hats. To be more specific, it is the exposure to mercury vapour that proves to be so hazardous. When inhaled, it is easily absorbed into the bloodstream causing toxic buildup in various organs.

Mercury, thankfully, is no longer used in hat making. But it is still widely used as a major component in silver amalgam fillings. Over 50% of the compound is mercury (which equals approximately one half gram per filing = as much mercury used in a thermometer, which is loads), the other metals being silver, tin and zinc. The thing is, every time you chew or brush your teeth, that amalgam filling starts smoking and releasing it's toxic vapour. It's the mercury that causes the problems, with a substantial body of evidence demonstrating the hazards of mercury poisoning affecting the endocrine, the central nervous system, the kidneys and the brain. High levels in pregnant women are attributed to a three-fold increase in sterility, still-births and miscarriages. When mercury enters the blood after leaking out of an amalgam filling, it remains there only for a few minutes. Henceforth it is locked into the cells of our body as we excrete far less than we absorb. This is called 'Retention Toxicity'. Once in our organs it can stay there for decades. As Dr Lars Freiberg, chief advisor to the World Health Organisation on mercury safety put it, "there is no safe level of mercury" (1)

Still not convinced? You can watch this gory but nevertheless informative Youtube video on smoking mercury fillings from the IAOMT.

Given this state of affairs, how is it that mercury is so prevalent? It transpires it was that old chestnut, market economics, that had won the day. Amalgam was a cheaper compound than gold for a dental fillings, and despite health reservations, in 1819 it was introduced into the UK, and later worldwide, dental repertoire - it was touted as the filling everybody could afford. But as we now know, this has come at great cost to humans and the environment. In business terms, the external costs have not been factored in.

Thus, it looked like mercury fillings are pretty much here to stay. But times they are a- changing. So concerned about the high levels of poisoning, amalgam fillings are now banned in Sweden and Denmark. Austria is phasing out mercury fillings, and in Switzerland and Japan the dental schools no longer teach amalgam use as the primary form of dental care. In 1991, Germany's Ministry of Health recommended that no further amalgam fillings be used for children, pregnant women or those with kidney disease. In 1993 this was extended to include all women, and the Health Ministry is now considering whether to ban it's use entirely. Now recognised as such a dangerous substance, that the EU is currently onto it's second reading of a Directive proposing a Mercury Exports Ban by 2010.

Here in the UK, you can have your mercury fillings removed - not a cheap option, but one that I intend doing. It's a delicate job that requires a qualified dentist. Your dentist can measure your levels of mercuy toxicity, as can a good kinesiologist (although remember, your reading will be higher if you have just been munching beforehand) Society for Mercury Free Dentistry adheres to a strict code of practise to ensure extraction is undertaken as safely as possible (see their list for qualified dentists). In London extraction and replacement of an amalgam filling with a porcelain one costs around £700-£800 per filling (enough to make you choke on your methylmercury tainted tuna filled sarnie). In Scotland, it's roughly half the price. If you have like me a few that need replacing, a short trip over the border may just be what the dentist ordered.

If you want to read more, have a look at the following books:
Stop the 21st Century Killing You, 2005 Dr Paula Baillie-Hamilton, Vermilion and Toxics A to Z, a Guide to Everyday Pollution Hazards, University of California Press.

Mercury Free Dentistry

See also: Summary of the United Nations Environment Programme on Mercury Assesment

EU policy tracker: EU proposed Directive on the Banning of Exports and the Safe Storage of Metallic Mercury

(1) Panorama, Poison in the Mouth, 1994

Post Carbon Living: Beyond Technofix

2008-03-05T11:28:00.008Z

by Richard Heinberg
Published on 4 March 2008 by The Ecologist

On January 12, The Guardian quoted departing chief scientific adviser Sir David King as saying, “any approach that does not focus on technological solutions to climate change—including nuclear power—is one of ‘utter hopelessness’.”

It is useful to have this view so succinctly stated, because it is nearly the reverse of the position I will be exploring in this column, which is that there is an overwhelming need for non-technological responses to our global environmental crisis.

I could debate the point with Dr. King, I would begin with a discussion of our differing understandings of the nature of the crisis itself. In his view, climate change is caused by technology and therefore must have a technical solution. But to me this is a blindingly superficial framing of the situation. It’s not just climate change that threatens us, but depletion of resources including oil, natural gas, coal, fresh water, fish, topsoil, and minerals (ranging from antimony to zinc, and including, significantly, uranium); as well as destruction of habitat and accelerating biodiversity loss—which is exacerbated by climate change, but is also happening for other anthropogenic reasons. In essence, there are just too many of us using too much too fast.

Thus the problem is not merely technological; it is cultural in the deepest sense. Starting a couple of centuries ago, our species embarked on a path of unprecedented growth, founded on a temporary subsidy of cheap hydrocarbon energy. Climate change is a side effect of fossil fuel consumption, and has emerged as the most critical symptom of our growth binge. But unless we address the core of the problem, other symptoms will soon overwhelm us even if we manage technically to resolve the dilemma of carbon emissions.

Addressing the core of the problem means letting go of growth; in fact, it means engaging in a period of controlled societal contraction characterized by a stable or declining population consuming at a per-capita level far lower than is currently taken for granted in the industrialized world.

For anyone who understands the basics of ecology—having to do with relationships between population, resources, and carrying capacity—nothing could be clearer. But for those who insist on seeing only technical problems with technical solutions, the forest remains lost from sight behind a single tree.

To be sure: minimally polluting technologies must be part of our response to climate change and all the other symptoms of global crisis—whether those technologies include wind turbines, better public transit systems, or more efficient electrical storage devices. But just as important are changes in individual attitudes, habits, and expectations; and more essential still is a fundamental reworking of economic institutions and policies, so that endless growth ceases to be seen as good or even possible.

Some (Sir David King among them) would say that climate change is so serious and pressing a crisis that we may have to put off grappling with other environmental problems and use any means at our disposal—including otherwise problematic technologies such as nuclear power—to address it. But there is no way we can substitute alternative sources of energy—including nuclear—for fossil fuels to reduce carbon emissions as much and as quickly as the science says we must, unless we also dramatically reduce overall energy consumption. No matter how you slice it, we’ve got to downsize and re-localize our economies, and so culture change is indispensable to the required response.

King says that wrongheaded environmentalists are keen to take society back to the 18th century or further. Yet there are few indeed who want to ditch the humanitarian and scientific advances of the past decades. This is a straw-man argument. A fairer formulation of many environmentalists’ views is this: unless we use technology within the context of a controlled, planned, sustained period of economic contraction, we will see a chaotic, depletion-led societal collapse that could make the 18th century look like paradise by comparison.

Once one accepts this larger framing of the problem and its solutions, a whole world of possibilities opens up—a world I intend to explore in future columns. Far from being a world of utter hopelessness, it is one that engages human responsibility, creativity, and community. It is one characterized by cultural maturity, rather than the advertising-fueled teenage—even infantile—attitude that assumes that the world exists only to supply an ever-expanding list of human wants. It is the world of post-carbon living toward which tens of thousands, perhaps millions, of citizens worldwide are beginning deliberately to transition.

*Richard Heinberg is a Senior Fellow of Post Carbon Institute and author of The Party’s Over, Powerdown, The Oil Depletion Protocol, and Peak Everything. He also has his own excellent website where you can sign up for his Museletters

* Richard Heinberg is to have a regular column in the The Ecologist. This column apears in the print copy of the March issue.

Current Thinking by Howies

2008-02-21T10:42:00.006Z

Think back. Like before the Ipod, the Iphone, Google, the Breville toaster, even before black and white television, to the 1880s. Back then two men had a fight over the future of electricity and how it would reach us.

In one corner was Thomas Edison. He backed DC (electrons flowing in one direction around a circuit). In the other corner was George Westinghouse who backed AC (in which the electrons shuffle back and forth). Edison lost. The reason he lost was because over short distances spanned by early power grids AC suffered lower losses than DC. Subsequently, it became industry standard.

So what’s the big deal? Well, these days electricity travels much further than it didâ€¨in the 1880s. And DC suffers lower losses than AC. So not only does that make DC better in its own right but it would allow electricity grids to be restructured in ways that would make wind power more attractive. That would reduce the need to build more conventional (and polluting) power stations.

You see, wind power has two problems. You don’t always get wind where you want it. And secondly, you don’t always get wind when you want it.

According to Jürgen Schmid, head of ISET, an alternative-energy institute at the University of Kassel, Germany, the answer to both these problems is a continental-wide power distribution. Then the question of where the wind is blowing would no longer matter as the wind is almost always blowing somewhere. If it were windy in Spain but not in West Wales, current would flow in one direction. Conversely if it were a blustery day over here, then it would flow in the other direction.

The ‘when’ aspect of the equation would be to use a country within the European grid to store the electricity until you need it. So how does that work? Well, for example you could use Norway’s hydroelectric plants. The power is used to pump water up into the reservoirs that feed the hydroelectric turbines. That way the power is on tap when you need it.

Should the wind drop all over Europe, which happens rarely, the hydro plants could fill the gap for up to four weeks. Complicated, but at the same time, simple too.

The reason it has not been built goes back to that fight between Edison and Westinghouse back in the 1880’s. He won because high voltage is the best way to transmit power. The higher the voltage, the smaller the loss. Yet AC with its shifting current runs to earth easier, which is another way of saying it loses its power. Hence the reason why the pylons are so high off the ground.

In short, a DC pylon will beat an AC one over long distance (600 miles). And a DC line will beat an AC line at a distance as short as 20 miles. That’s why Dr Schmid calculates that a DC continental grid would allow wind to supply at least 30% of the power needed in Europe. And do so reliably.

Edison was right. DC was the best way to transmit electricity of any given voltage. He was ahead of his time.

Speed read
1 AC may no longer be the future.
2 DC suffers lower losses over longer distance.
3 This will make wind power more commercial.
4 A European-wide power distribution would mean that it won’t matter where the wind is blowing as it is almost always blowing somewhere.
5 Norway has started building DC power lines between Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Germany.
6 Edison may have been right after all.

TREC say the same - use HVDC to transmit clean electricity from concentrating solar power as well as wind throughout Europe, Middle East and North Africa:

Thanks to Howies for telling the story of electricity so well - they make cool clothes too.

Concentrating Solar Power has bright future

2008-02-08T06:40:00.000Z

The very fact that within just a matter of a few months a second renewable energy conference devoted entirely to CSP was held in Spain is no co-incidence. This is an industry that is evolving by the day and such is the promise of it being on the verge of a tipping point was demonstrated by who attended. This time, attendees did not merely include international as well as national industry players but also investors and the speculators. VC's (who happily just want to throw money at CSP but complain that there aren't enough projects for them to invest in) and banks (who are becoming remarkably CSP friendly in their support) vied for space with oil and power companies who are now considering extending their rapidly depleting energy portfolios into CSP. Suddenly everyone is recognising the potential opportunity. Sign of the times.

Dr Gerhardt Knies, who has shaped the bold vision of the EUMENA - DESERTEC alliance over the past few years, now presents a viable roadmap for rapid CSP commercialisation, comparable to the remarkable achievement of the Apollo mission. To reach the goal of 3,200TWh/y required by 2050 would demand rapid deployment on the scale of 1GW every day from 2020. He calls for a EUMENA solar energy alliance - an alliance between Europe, the Middle East and North Africa to build an HVDC supergrid and share the solar resources. This is now beginning to capture the imagination of politicians and commissioners alike.

Building on the phenomenal success of feed-in tariffs for CSP in southern Europe, an EU commissioned Solar Initiative is due to commence next month. The groundswell of support for a EUMENA solar co-operation at all levels demonstrates that what was once CSP power-point is now becoming CSP power plant.

Such is the success of CSP in Spain, that the feed-in tariff cap has already been reached 3 years early. The industry is waiting to hear how far the cap will be extended to ensure progress of further development projects in the pipeline. Meanwhile in the USA, the future acceleration of CSP remains dependent on the extension of the Investment Tax Credit to ensure crucial investor support continues. They too expect to hear very soon whether a further extension of 8 years has been granted.

It is no longer a matter of 'if' but now a matter of 'when'. One thing is for sure, the next few months for CSP are full of promise.

The Pros and Cons of Solar Power

Even Malcom Wicks MP finds the prospect of CSP rather exciting. To hear the latest on CSP: Costing the Earth podcast: Bring Me Sunshine

DESERTEC
TREC-UK

Oil state backs renewables as vision of the future.

2008-01-22T22:23:00.000Z

There is an irony in this: it takes an oil state to pledge 15 billion dollars for the world’s first zero-carbon and zero-waste city, designed by our own UK architectural team, Fosters + Partners, to make the rest of the world sit up and take note. This is not a developed nation pushing forward with a bit of innovative zero carbon town planning (Gordon Brown, take note - 2016 is fast drawing near and we still have the building industry lobbying over the implementation of the 10% Merton Rule, never mind building future proofed 100% zero-carbon housing by 2016), nor is this a Clean Development Mechanism project pulling in support under the Kyoto Protocol. No, it is one of the wealthiest oil nations making a grand statement of commitment to push forward with a sustainable town proposal that has taken it's remit extremely seriously.

Located near Abu Dhabi International Airport (which will doubtless be a curious relic of an earlier era by the time this has been built), Masdar City will be the world’s first zero-carbon, zero-waste, car-free city, aiming to exceed the 10 sustainability principles of “One Planet Living”– a global initiative launched by the Worldwide Fund for Nature and environmental consultancy BioRegional. The 6 million square meter walled development to be built at Masdar will include a new university devoted to new ideas for energy production.
To remain zero-carbon within its walls, the city will be entirely car free. Carefully planned public transportation will ensure that none of the city’s inhabitants will have to walk more than 200 meters before meeting some part of the transportation link. Included in the transportation system will be a network of shaded walkways and narrow streets, creating a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere for those who prefer to travel by foot. All of the transportation system is offset with the inclusion of personalized rapid transport, ensuring rapid transit within the city limits. Outside of the walls, the development of the city was strategically sited to link to Abu Dhabi’s principal transport infrastructure, the center hub of Abu Dhabi, and the international airport via the existing road infrastructure and new public rail routes.

Along with the carefully planned intersection of transportation is the conscientious incorporation of wind, photovoltaic farms, research fields, and plantations, allowing for the Masdar to be entirely self-sustaining.

Even the development phase of Masdar has been made sustainable through a two-step phasing process, the first of which is dependent on the development of a large $350 million 100 megawatt solar plant, which will later be boosted to 500 megawatts to help ease peak-time pressure on the national grid.

The One Planet Living programme is based on 10 unique principles of sustainability. These targets are to be achieved by the time the Masdar City is completed and fully functioning in 2015.

One Planet Living principle - Masdar Target:

ZERO CARBON: 100 per cent of energy supplied by renewable energy – Photovoltaics, concentrated solar power, wind, waste to energy and other technologies

ZERO WASTE: 99 per cent diversion of waste from landfill (includes waste reduction measures, re-use of waste wherever possible, recycling, composting, waste to energy)

SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT: Zero carbon emissions from transport within the city; implementation of measures to reduce the carbon cost of journeys to the city boundaries (through facilitating and encouraging the use of public transport, vehicle sharing, supporting low emissions vehicle initiatives)

SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS: Specifying high recycled materials content within building products; tracking and encouraging the reduction of embodied energy within materials and throughout the construction process; specifying the use of sustainable materials such as Forest Stewardship Council certified timber, bamboo and other products

SUSTAINABLE FOOD: Retail outlets to meet targets for supplying organic food and sustainable and or fair trade products

SUSTAINABLE WATER: Per capita water consumption to be at least 50 per cent less than the national average; all waste water to be re-used

HABITATS AND WILDLIFE: All valuable species to be conserved or relocated with positive mitigation targets

CULTURE AND HERITAGE: Architecture to integrate local values.

EQUITY AND FAIR TRADE: Fair wages and working conditions for all workers (including construction) as defined by international labour standards

HEALTH AND HAPPINESS: Facilities and events for every demographic group

Whilst the aesthetics may not be to the liking to a Scot brought up on a diet of trees rustling, the fresh air biting and the cold still waters of mountain lochs, one cannot fault the One Planet Principles.

Masdar

Peter Meisen at GENI on DESERTEC

2008-01-19T16:55:00.000Z

Peter Meisen at GENI on DESERTEC

Add to My Profile | More Videos

Peter Meisen at The Global Energy Network Institute talks about the DESERTEC initiative to promote the use of the sun in the Sahara Desert to create clean electricity for Europe, Middle East and North Africa (EUMENA).

Meanwhile, out in Southern California, where the market for renewables is growing rapidly, all utilities are starting to contract with large sun and wind maunfacturers. Peter gives an update on the California Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative, which has been set up to support and enable Southern Californian utilities to meet their Renewable Portfolio Standards and accelerate the ability to bring transmission lines to the areas where the solar plants (and wind farms) are being built.

Why is RETI so important? It has set up a co-operative committee amongst various agencies, regulatory bodies and utilities to figure out how to get through the roadblocks of accessing these wind and solar sites, thereby working with and supporting renewable energy and transmission policy development.

Overdrawing on Earth's Bank

2008-01-15T10:52:00.000Z

I like Hilary Benn, I really do. He's bright, he's got style, humour, and has a slight streak of the renegade. But, at the end of the day, he's a politician, and yesterday infront of an audience in Islington, he did as politicians do so well - he dodged the tricksy questions.

Mr Benn, our Secretary of State for the Environment, had come to tell us about the outcome of the United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Bali on the 3 - 14th December 2007 and to speak on what the UK government are doing on the homefront. (Bali in a nutshell: nothing binding, but US and China agreed at the 11th hour to enter into the ongoing negotiation process providing no emission targets were set, deforestation to be included in future talks, technology transfer between developed and developing nations to be promoted, and pretty much everyone bar Bush accepts the climate change science. He calls it an historic breakthrough, I call it a compromise - I suppose it all depends on how high you set the standards you want to see achieved. Mine happen to be higher). Mr Benn takes a remarkably robust view that the UK is taking great strides in tackling climate change.

But I am a grouchy environmentalist today, and from where I sit, the UK record over the past 12 months does not stack up to much achievement at all (under Labour our emissions have actually risen over the last 10 years), nor do we compare well to Europe (we have a lamentable 2% share of renewable energy in the EU, 1/10th wind power and 1/250th of the solar power that the Germans have produced). Whilst the German renewable industry increased jobs by 25,000 in 2007, we in the UK were laying people off.

Question: Why does the government not have a coherent and effectively co-ordinated policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020? So far it has been a heavy focus on nuclear in the UK, which will, if fully realised, only give us a 4% reduction by 2025 at the latest. This won't solve our (it has to be said - unambitious) 20% reduction by 2020. All we have are piecemeal announcements.

Mr Ben reminds us that we have the Energy Efficiency Commitment (energy suppliers are required to achieve targets for the reduction of carbon emissions in the UK household sector), promotion of energy efficiency (is this making any real difference? Efficiency actually encourages more use - look at increase of energy efficient cars), the introduction of the EST Green Homes Service in April and the Climate Change Bill is moving onwards - due back in for it's third reading in the house of lords at the end of March (aiming for Royal Assent in Spring 2009 - just before the next election).

40% emissions are due to the individual, say Mr Benn. So therefore we must focus on reducing the emissions of the individual. But this seems to be flawed analysis to me. If the source of the emissions, namely use of fossil fuels, is not remedied and replaced with clean alternatives (i.e renewable energy), then those emissions will continue to be released. Energy efficiency certainly delays the inevitable, but in the long term it matters not when those emissions are released - they are still going to be released, and remain out there for hundreds of years. The energy source has to be replaced - it's that simple, even a child understands this. Like many in this country, I want my energy use at home to come from renewable sources, not fossil fuel - but to actually have microgeneration installed is so ridiculously costly and enormously fraught with hurdles (planning permission, grant application etc), that it is just not a viable for the time being.

He concedes that there are exciting technologies and innovation out there, but not much industry take-off on home shores: there are lessons to be learned from Germany, he says quite rightly. This is because they, like a growing number of EU countries, have a successful and ambitious renewable energy policy framework of feed-in tariffs which means thousands of homeowners have now installed microgeneration and their renewables market is flourishing. We do not - and as a consequence we have not.(More on this coming soon)

Mr Benn points out that we are the first country in the world to adopt binding emission targets (60% by 2050 is proposed under the Climate Change Bill - and recent reports say that this is far too low, that we should be aiming for). However, often it's not so much what is said to be done, but rather the sins of omission that are so glaring. Governmental targets are all fine and well, but useless when the market mechanisms are not put in place to foster growth and development. Nor is action taken when targets are not fulfilled. That's part of the reason why we have such a poor uptake of renewable energy so far.

Turning to community and business issues, Geeta Sing, owner of the fabulous organic Duke of Cambridge pub, raised a vital issue: that of the need for business incentives to encourage sustainable businesses like hers. One of the hurdles she faces is the incredible difficulty and expense in sourcing food locally. It's not for shortage of small farms outside London, but that of transporting it in individually. She suggests a practical solution: efficient food hubs which local restaurants and food outlets could share, thereby creating a self-sufficient London. As she pointed out, the organic and environmental movement has grown out of individual responsibility. We need more than ever assistance from the government now, to help support farmers markets and local food suppliers - all too pertinent with the pending oil crisis looming ahead.

The Secretary of State for the Environment calls for us to live within our means. We all know what it is like to be overdrawn at the banks; well now it's time learn to live within the earth's capacity. For the last 200 years we have been overdrawing on the Earth's Bank, and the penalties are beginning to kick in. Time to remedy it before it crashes. Mr Benn, this I am in full agreement with.

Bali outcome

No to Nuclear, Yes to CSP

2008-01-10T09:16:00.000Z

With John Hutton set to announce a new generation of nuclear power stations for the UK today, it raises the issue of what price such a benefit would be.

Whilst it cannot be denied that our current generation would benefit from nuclear energy generation, it will be future generations who will carry the detriment of the legacy that remains.

Future generations will carry the burden of policing it, paying for it as well as suffering the consequences if /when disaster strikes, which would result in substantial additional economic, environmental and social costs.

Whilst we were not fully aware of the potential future consequences back in the 1950's, or were reckless in proceeding without understanding those consequences and detriment to others, we now carry the knowledge of the inherent risks and costs to future generations. With that knowledge comes the responsibility to ensure the highest possible standards of safety and damage limitation strategies are imposed. Likewise, with it comes the duty to implement a programme of cessation of current use of nuclear as soon as possible.

The only conclusion I can draw, is this: to proceed with a new generation of nuclear would be morally wrong, especially where other solutions, including Concentrating Solar Power, are viable, cost competitive, renewable, low carbon and benign.

Greenpeace response:
Greenpeace Nuclear Power Briefing
Energy Bill:
Energy Bill, Bill 53 07-08

Earlier Postings:
Why I say No to Nuclear
Concentrating Solar Power - the DESERTEC vision
Concentrating Solar Power Basks in the Glow of a Sunny Future

Bali: UN Climate Conference outcome

2007-12-15T14:07:00.000Z

It was an 11th hour nail biting, final pulling together after berating the Americans for their attempts to sabotage any agreement, which resulted in .. a compromise.

World governments agreed a negotiating framework to decide a new global climate policy by 2009 on 13th December 2007 for the post-2012 period.

The Bali road-map commits all developed countries to quantified greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and says "deep cuts" will be needed. Developing countries will commit to "appropriate mitigation actions".

Disappointingly, upon the insistence of the US, the road-map suggests no concrete emission reduction targets. But a footnote makes reference to documents from the IPCC which say reductions of up to 40 per cent by 2020 are needed to head off dangerous climate change. Greenpeace lamented the lack of references to "crucial cuts" and the "relegation of science to a footnote".

On the positive, general approval was voiced for consensuses reached on tackling emissions from deforestation, on enhancing technology development and transfer, and on stimulating financial flows to fund all climate change-related action.

However, the next two years of talks promise to be difficult. Somewhat unsurprisingly, US officials saying that they had "serious concerns" about the Bali deal. White House spokesman Dana Perino said climate negotiators "must give sufficient emphasis to the important and appropriate role that the larger emitting developing countries should play" - a clear reference to India and China. This may complicate, and indeed hinder the process - a polite way of saying it is anticipated that the US will continue to be obstructive.

[Participation in the Kyoto Protocol, where dark green indicates countries that have signed and ratified the treaty and yellow indicates states that have signed and hope to ratify the treaty. Australia's new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has promised to sign and ratify it - so should be coloured green also.The United States has signed the treaty but continues to refuse to ratify it.]

Technology transfer deal: a clear mandate
In a separate agreement in Bali, parties to the Kyoto protocol agreed to be fully guided by the IPCC's recommendations in setting a second round of commitments by 2009 (which suggests those 40% GHG reductions by 2020 will be implemented in due course - a matter of watch that space). It is intended for the two tracks - the Bali road-map and Kyoto - eventually to merge. A review of the protocol, which will focus also on how to enhance carbon markets, was also launched.

One deal was reached that can be considered the most significant milestone yet on the road towards a new global climate agreement for the post-2012 period. Agreement was reached on a text setting out how the industrialised world should transfer technology to developing countries. The text must still be rubber-stamped by ministers, but no problems are foreseen since it has been agreed by officials representing all parties.

The deal should create a new entity dedicated to technology transfer under the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a fund that supports environmental projects in developing countries. It is not clear whether funding will come from elsewhere within the GEF or from outside.

An expert group will analyse current and potential funding sources for a wish list of developing country technology transfer-related demands, with a view to filling gaps and developing new financing tools if necessary. It must report back by 2010.
Performance indicators for technology transfer will be developed.

Power Down: London's Carbon Neutral Night of Music

2007-12-12T21:05:00.000Z

Now here's a thing - a carbon neutral music night, and not a carbon offset in sight. Instead, only natural acoustics, candlelight and organic booze (unrefrigerated of course - but that's not a problem as it's so cold outside anyway). Sounds delightful, rather romantic and, well, rather unusual.

But wait - is that a negative factor? I don't think so. Infact, it's all been rather well thought through - and such is it's success that it's now onto it's third outing. There's a serious message behind it all. Power Down strives to make fundamental changes in the way events are organised and run, without using off-setting services. Instead energy conservation and efficiency are the name of the game. When you enter into a space that is lit by candlelight and listen to music without the usual array of stage amplification, whilst supping Buddles organic beer that is thankfully cold due to being stored outside, it does make you stop and pause for thought. It can be done - and Power Down is doing it with the lightest of carbon footprint. No acoustic guitars here, thank you very much (how very last century they are).

Even the candles are made from recycled materials. Second hand vegetable oil from a local fish and chip shop has been mixed with unused wax from redundant candles to make new candles. No worries, the fishy smell has long gone (and anyway Islington chippies tend to be rather pucker affairs).

So, go along and have your preconceptions challenged - Power Down aims to bring a large array of genres to an open minded audience, from Hip-Hop, to Jazz, to Pop, to yes, Folk. There is no reason why all of these different art forms, as dependent on electricity and modern computing as they seem, cannot be stripped bare to their acoustic core. Present a musician with this task, and let's see the result. Who knows what it will sound like. Hopefully it will be intimate, intense and enlightening from the lack of barriers between the audience and the artist, air being the only remaining medium.

When: Saturday, 15th December
Where: the Islington Arts Factory, 2 Parkhurst Rd, Holloway, N7 0SF

Oh, and there will be mistletoe. With lots of dark corners, who knows what the night may bring....

Powerdown

Climate Change March

2007-12-09T07:25:00.000Z

'Tis the season of goodwill and festive cheer - and there was much of that to bouy our hardcore lineup of protestors marching from Millbank outside the Houses of Parliament up to Grosvenor Square. So what that it rained? Ach, but why didn't I think to wear wellies?

Soggy feet aside, rousing speeches were given by Michael Meacher, Phil Thornhill, Caroline Lucas and more. All head nodding stuff - yes, we need to cut emmissions, this government needs to support microgeneration, introduce feed-in-tariffs (and if they don't the Tories will), give teeth to the Climate Change Bill. What is needed is action, not just aspiration. Yes, we cheered.

The best speaker, however, was left to the last. By which time any meaningful connection with my feet had been lost. But suddenly it didn't matter. George Monbiot took to the podium and gave a compelling thought-piece on capitalism and the need for individual action. Politically, little is taking shape, he says. The Bali talks promise little more than a tinkering at the edges - and I tend to agree with him. Where goverments fail, the movement for change must come from below, from grass-roots community and individual action. Monbiot proffers a different vision of how we need to live, in a world where we need to live with less.

Each time I hear him speak is somewhat akin to soaking up a compelling read, and each time I am left hungry for the next chapter. So much has evolved in the past year alone that it is said Monbiot is to revise his book Heat. This is also a man who is not afraid to let his own thoughts evolve as his own knowledge grows. If his spoken word is anything to go by, it promises to be one of the most significant books of our time.

Global Climate Campaign

Campaign Against Climate Change

[top three photos by Andrew Steele, bottom photo from Marmaduke Dando - with thanks]

The Solution is Simple

2007-12-07T22:46:00.000Z

See what they say about Dylan on film.

thesolutionissimple.org
enoughsenough.org

EUMENA-DESERTEC Concept takes root in Brussels

2007-11-30T09:34:00.000Z

On Wednesday, in my capacity as a representative of TREC-UK, I attended the presentation of The White Book "Clean Power from Deserts - The DESERTEC Concept for Energy, Water and Climate Security" to the European Parliament by His Royal Highness Prince Hassan bin Talal of Jordan, former President of The Club of Rome.

The book is based on the studies by the German Aerospace Center on the potential of deserts to supply clean power to Europe, the Middle East and North Africa (EU-MENA).
It proposes a solar co-operation between the technology belt and the sun-belt, between Europe and the MENA region, to fight climate change in an economical and technically feasible way. Key technologies in the DESERTEC Concept are concentrating solar thermal power (CSP) plants with solar heat storage for day/night operation, and low-loss high voltage direct current transmission lines to bring clean power to Europe from the deserts of MENA. A seven year action plan for kicking-off the DESERTEC Concept was announced, setting down the roots for the vision to become reality: CSP plants stretching across the deserts, connecting into a supergrid network bringing clean electricity to Europe, Middle East and North Africa.

The DESERTEC Concept has been developed by the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC) in collaboration with scientists at the German Aerospace Center. The presentation in the European Parliament was staged by four Members of the European Parliament - Matthias Groote, Vittorio Prodi, Rebecca Harms and Anders Wijkman - and by the Club of Rome initiative TREC.

“Every year, each square kilometre of desert receives solar energy equivalent to 1.5 million barrels of oil. Multiplying by the area of deserts world-wide, this is nearly a thousand times the entire current energy consumption of the world.” said Dr Franz Trieb, Project Manager for a set of reports on trans-European renewable energy networks. Not much desert would be required. As the map above demonstrates, the larger red square on the left shows an area of 254 km × 254 km of hot desert that, if covered with concentrating solar power plants, would provide electricity equivalent to the current electricity consumption of the whole world. The smaller square (110 km × 110 km) shows a corresponding area for the European Union (when it included 25 countries). Time now to translate vision into action.

The white book can be found at: DESERTEC

TREC-UK

What will we eat when the oil runs out?

2007-11-26T09:46:00.000Z

What will we eat when the oil runs out? That was the question posed by Richard Heinberg at the Soil Association Lady Eve Balfour Memorial lecture held at Westminster Central Hall on Thursday night. Marm' and I decided to chew it over.

Richard Heinberg set out 4 simultaneous dilemmas that we face:
1. higher oil prices with knock-on effect on input and output transport of foodstuffs;
2. increasing demand for bio-fuels thus replacing food for fuel production;
3. extreme climate change events;
4. degredation of natural resources, of top soil and water.

All the above exacerbated by increasing population.

Calculations demonstrate that more food will need to be produced in the next 50 years than in last 1000 years combined. Post WW2, the introduction of herbicides, petro-chemical pesticides brought better living conditions through chemistry - but at a high environmental cost that was only appparent later. Ironically, this era of food expansion was called the Green Revolution. But it was, as we now know a double edged sword. A tripling of food production increased the human carrying capacity, and so we go forth and multiply ever more.

Now we are facing increasing food prices and urban poor will be impacted the most by our modern day dilemmas. Modern agriculture is highly centralised and therefore more vulnerable to disruption. Quite literally, the seams are fit to burst.

Dramatic economic transformation is needed, so says Heinberg. Transition is needed at forced pace with a dramatic increase in local food sufficiency. The government must support return to agricultural life and land reform - look to Cuba: active lobbying of agronomist was crucial.
The primary solution Heinberg proposes is a planned rapid reduction of fossil fuel used for the production of food and the organic movement to provide the necessary framework to guide and lead.

We need to introduce draft animals, oxen are an ideal choice - they do not compete with humans. Not so far fetched: some french towns are introducing horsepower again for local deliveries

Richard Heinberg puts peak oil supply crunch at 2012, with global coal peaking at 2017 - 2020. David Rutledge of Caltech suggests a similar timescale. These two are the best of the American thinkers on the subject - what they say is worthwhile considering seriously. Heinberg is an optimist: we can do it if we start now and we have to start with the organic movement. Time to start growing our own veg.

Richard Heinberg
Podcast: Lady Eve Lecture
For Dave Rutledge's most recent talk on why energy efficiency is not the answer, but reduction of fossil fuels is see: Hubbert's Peak, The Coal Question and Climate Change