I’m enjoying this idea for saving the planet while still burning tons of coal:
By capturing the CO2 before it is released into the atmosphere and piping it through natural spring water from Kent’s Kingsnorth hills, we are able to create carbonated drinking water.
More of this sort of thing on the ev-eon website.
[photopress:daylight.jpg,full,centered]
This is a street light in Embankment Gardens, at 3.45pm on Saturday. It is fully switched on and drawing electricity, despite the clear blue skies and impeccable visibility that one might associate with a mid-summer mid-afternoon.
There must be a cheap piece of technology that solves this inefficiency. The logo on the public bins says City of Westminster Council, so I assume they’re responsible. I wonder who I should write to?
Some people may argue that excess streetlighting is barely an issue when London has so many other problems, such as gun crime and poverty. To be clear, I’m not whining from a climate change point-of-view, so much as the general administration of the thing. How can we have confidence in local authorities to tackle the more complex social problems, if they cannot tell the difference between day and night?
A further problem with Live Earth is the much publicised waste of energy used to power the event. The Arctic Monkeys recently spoke out against the ‘hypocrisy’:
“It’s a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world,” said Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helders … “Especially when we’re using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It’d be a bit hypocritical,” he told AFP in an interview before a concert in Paris.
…
Large parts of the band’s hometown of Sheffield were flooded at the end of last month after a deluge of mid-summer rain that some blamed on global warming. Two people were killed.But the band wonder why anyone would be interested in the opinion of rock stars on a complex scientific issue like climate change.
“Someone asked us to give a quote about what was happening in Sheffield and it’s like ‘who cares what we think about what’s happening’?” added Helders. “There’s more important people who can have an opinion. Why does it make us have an opinion because we’re in a band?”
Much of the Live Earth message is about changing our lifestyles, to cut down on planet spoling emissions. As well as reducing power consumption, we should reduce our carbon footprint by travelling by car and plane less, on foot and bicycle more, and through the purchase of locally produced goods with fewer ‘food miles’. Why, then, was the Live Earth event not concieved with these ideas in mind? Instead of highly centralised concerts, with artistes imported from all over the world, the Live Earth brand should have been used to promote dozens, if not hundreds, of more parochial concerts. Big Name bands could curate a gig in their home town, discovering the latest talent via MySpace and the recommendations from the local scene - an easy ask for the Arctic Monkeys, say. These big name bands would, of course, headline the gig, and the crowds that they attract would be able to walk to and from the venue. Beer would be supplied from the local pubs - and it would be the local economy that recieved a financial boost.
Instead of a distant and mythological Al Gore, local politicians could re-engage with their electorate by explaining what the council is doing to recycle, and on what day the blue bins are being collected. Instead of a Jonathan Ross and Kate Silverton overload, local radio journalists could host the concert, and perhaps inspire some of the community cohesion that many towns lack.
The Live Earth website, instead of being a promotional tool for Madonna and Bon Jovi, could instead carry YouTube clips from thousands of concerts from all over the world. The most popular, as voted for by the Internet viewing audience, would be broadcast on network TV. Sure, these would probably be mostly the big acts (the Sheffield gig for the Arctic Monkeys, the St Andrews gig for KT Tunstall), but this method would undoubtedly throw up some interesting, idiosyncratic acts with a little local flavour, which nevertheless prove popular with Internet users. Some exposure for these artists would be welcome change from the smooth-edges required of any musician who wants to go ‘mainstream’.
Such an approach would also mean than millions more people could actively participate in the event, rather than passively via the TV as some of us have done this weekend. This would still inspire a collective memory, even though individual recollections would depend on which concert you went to see. The question “Where were you for Live Earth?” would not be about which pub you chose to sit in to watch the TV, but about what bands you saw and which friends you went with - an altogether more interesting question, and one that could travel the world.
Valentine’s Day is behind us for another year. I wonder how many hits Be My Anti-Valentine received this time?
The good news for reluctant romantics, is that there may be valid excuses for failing to buy that romantic gift. Flowers have a huge carbon-footprint, since they have usually been cultivated in European ‘hot-houses’ or flown in from Africa. Diamonds fuel civil wars… and the chocolate industry abuses workers on its cocoa-plantations.
Despite all this, the absence of a present on Valentine’s Day will probably not impress your lover. If you refrain from purchasing some over-wrapped gift on ethical grounds, then they will expect something home-made instead.
There may be no other alternative but to write your own sonnet.
Over at Samizdata, James Waterton highlights this quote from ExxonMobil, apparently rubbishing the recieved wisdom that our oil reserves will run out soon:
According to the US Geological Survey, the earth currently has more than three trillion barrels of conventional recoverable oil resources. So far, we have produced one trillion of that.
According to James, oil companies tend to under-estimate the amount of crude-oil resources, because they have “natural interest in maintaining a perception of scarcity”. I think that is half the argument: They also have an interest in maintaining a perception of having a viable business model, and that surely depends on there being plenty of oil to extract, no?
A hat-tip to Devil’s Kitchen, who thinks our worries over Peak Oil are a red herring:
We need to wean ourselves off the oil as fast as possible in order to negate the stranglehold that the dictators in the Middle East have over us.
True, but I think even this still misses the point.
Forget global warming, forget the mathematical fact of finite resources, forget middle-eastern politics. Burning fossil fuels is, well, like… minging. Any cyclist who has stopped at traffic-lights behind a bus will attest to this objective fact. The buildings in our cities - all human cities - are stained black with the residue of this continuous combustion.
I read a lot of indignant prose from both environmental campaigners who complain about the lack of urgency at combatting global warming; and from climate change deniers who resist these apparently fascist demands on their freedom and their lifestyle. Let me remind everyone of the facts: We set fire to chemicals and make everything just a little bit smellier, dirtier, and more carcinogenic to every living thing than it was the day before (we don’t even have the decency to add any nicotine to the mixture). I maintain that no-one, whether they are part of this species or another, thinks this is pleasant. The picture is already preposterous enough, without adding global climate change into the mix.
Since industry uses so much fuel to power the economy, an instant change is unlikely. Nevertheless, vast chunks of our daily lives that could be powered by renewable sources. The ’standby’ indicator light on my DVD player could be kept glowing by a hamster and a wheel, so I feel sure that A Drop Of Golden Sun could do it too. Why not leave the argument about whether solar and wind can actually power our entire lifestyles, for the day when we have a wind-mill and solar-panel in everyone’s back yard? Purely in terms of smell I would rather have a spoilt view, than a cloud of carbon monoxide haze, and I say that before I count the extra change in my pocket, and before my government realises it no longer has to be nice to Wahhabists.
Finally: Let us remember that having only a couple of trillion barrels of oil in reserve is still a crisis for humanity. Some of us are still holding out hope for the colonisation of other planets in the solar system (and beyond), and we need all the resources we can find.
Stop using our precious fossil fuels for your Land Rover! I need it for my space-ship.
Since The Devil’s Kitchen seems to revel in people being rude to him, I have a notion I should be positively delighted by his pointer to an earlier post of mine:
Robert Sharp agrees with The Euston Manifesto, except that it has no clause about wearing sandals and saving the planet.
I’ll admit, I did spill some muslei into my beard when I first read it. Thank goodness my khaftan can be machine-washed.
DK’s point is that scientists do not all agree on climate change, and that it is wrong of me to announce Judgement Day so quickly. I might point out that “nothing is proven yet” was a staple of the apologists for Stalinism and Nazism… but that is a point of little interest, especially as I’ve used the “nothing is proven” stance myself in other debates. The question of whether climate change is indeed happening remains. Whether it is detrimental to the planet as a whole, and humanity in particular, must therefore be a point of substance.
I cannot resist the temptation to say: If I am wrong, what will be the harm? But this is also a difficult argument. To begin with, it sits on the same slippery slope as the Bush/Blair “God will judge me” mantra. Hypotheticals can be dangerous things. If actions to combat climate change do not involve military interventions in the middle-east, they will certainly involve massive economic restructuring. Someone will be harmed, and we cannot take such decisions lightly, based upon the environmentalists’ equivalent of Pascal’s Wager. Those of us who believe that climate change is happening, and is bad, need to convince others through the presentation of convincing facts.
This is not to say that DK is not being (I think) beligerent and wrong in his assessment of the issue, and his representation of mine.
One of the many problems with climate change is that the concensus [sic] that we are told exists simply does not.
Crucially, our taking actions to prevent climate change need not rest on a complete scientific consensus. Is there ever a scientific consensus on anything? True, “no consensus over climate change” is indeed an argument against lumping climate-change-deniers in with Holocaust-deniers. It is not, however, an argument for inaction, or for abandoning one’s own critical eye! There is still a great deal of evidence to suggest that the observed increase in average global temperature is the result of human industrial activitiy. There are also thousands of scientifically observed examples of temperature change causing habitat change. I am hardly behaving in an irresponsible manner when I infer that this habitat change is undesirable, and we should at all costs avoid it. Pointing at my sandals is an irresponsible smoke-screen. Far better to compare the arguments and evidence of those on both sides of climate change debate, and see who is most convincing. Every time I’ve done this myself, those who claim that global warming is real and bad have been more persuasive. I am not a reactionary… and there is enough of a consensus for me, at least.
But where my fellow Edinburgher makes his biggest mistake, is in his implication that I did not think of him when I typed my late night response to the Euston Manifesto. That he should assume I could be so thoughtless and disrespectful, hurts me deep.
The group makes statements on particular issues … so one on global warming, or rather, “a shared responsibility for the earth’s resources”, needs to be in there too.
The emphasis was present in the earlier post. For all my rhetoric, my actual suggestion was pretty secular, I thought.
DK responds from his Kitchen.
The Independent’s Saturday front page is shockingly, embarrasingly hypocritical.
Chief Scientist warns bigger rise in world’s temperature will put 400 million at risk.
And an advert above:
WIN Return Flights to New York
More at Chicken Yoghurt, from where the illustration was pilfered.
The Euston Manifesto proposes a fresh political alignment. Their suggestion that their viewpoints are bing under-represented in the mainstream media doesn’t ring true for me: Everyone, of every political persuasion is saying that! Nevertheless, it is an interesting document with sentiments I support.
From Clause 11:
Drawing the lesson of the disastrous history of left apologetics over the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism, as well as more recent exercises in the same vein (some of the reaction to the crimes of 9/11, the excuse-making for suicide-terrorism, the disgraceful alliances lately set up inside the “anti-war” movement with illiberal theocrats)…
After Mark Lynas’ lecture last week, I am convinced that climate change will be just as disatrous for humanity as Stalinism, Maoism, and Nazism. I am also convinced that in a generation, the shame of our inaction on this issue will be comparable to the Left’s shame over communist ‘apologetics’, and European soul-searching over our inaction during the Holocaust.
Global warming is a ‘meta’ issue. It is likely to be a catalyst for many future conflicts, as different countries, groups and ideologies fight for control over scarce resources. Climate Change will emphasise the political divides we see delineated by the Euston Manifesto group. The group makes statements on particular issues (such as Iraq, and Israel/Palestine) so one on global warming, or rather, “a shared responsibility for the earth’s resources”, needs to be in there too. It is the elephant in the room, one that must be ejected before I will sign the manifesto.
Updates: Mike Marqusee has posted an interesting critique of the Euston Manifesto at Comment Is Free; Devil’s Kitchen calls me a hippy… plus further interrogation of the climate change/global warming premise at PooterGeek.
I’ve just been at an interesting lecture by Mark Lynas, run by the WWF as part of Edinburgh’s International Science Festival. The talk was titled ‘The End of the World by Degrees’, and charted how the global climate and ecosystems would change - and get progressively less hospitable for life - as the average global temperature rose, one degree at a time.
What was interesting was how the human disaster unfolded, not so much through a single catastrophe that wipes out millions of people in a single event, but how much the systems upon which our economies are based are slowly undermined. Rivers will dry up along with any industry based upon them, for example. The insurance market will slowly decline as flooding destroys property. The rest of the financial system crumbles soon after.
Although the subject of the talk was what happens if temperatures continue to rise, the commentary from the audience was of course all about politics, and forcing a downward trend in CO2 emmissions. Mark’s suggestion was that we should treat the ecological crisis as something akin to war, where people have to remain stoical despite (carbon) rationing, and the nature of the economy is drastically altered in order to mobilise the change. How much more positive than our current ‘War on Terror’.
Also telling is how much of the problem comes from what I can only describe as human stupidity, the inability to see past the end of one’s own nose. The fact that people still need to be told to conserve energy, for example by buying energy saving lightbulbs, is a case in point. The bulbs save you money even in the short term: How come everyone doesn’t have them? That we depend so much on oil (expensive, under the ground, in foreign countries) when we could generate a vast amount of energey from the sun, wind and water, is quite ridiculous. If it is impractical to create the infrastructure via the market alone, then surely the government needs to change the market - if only temporarily - to ensure this stupidity comes to an end.
Mark’s ’state of emergency’ idea holds a certain fascination for me in this case (although I know that is a classic tactic of a proto-totalitarian state: everyone believes they would make a wonderful benevolent dictator). He made the point that carbon-rationing (Domestic Tradable Quotas) would actually have the effect of making many people, especially the poor, better off. Co-operation within the community to produce food (rather than buying it from Tesco) and travelling on foot and bicycle means heathier people living in a friendlier community. Strangely, a more local outlook could help on a global scale.
A bleaker point came from a member of the audience, who outed the elephant in the room: Humans are the problem. Although the current unprecedented rise in average temperatures would eventually destroy the human race, the earth as a life-bearing planet would persist and survive. Ice-ages and the melting of the ice-caps is nothing new, geologically speaking.
I’m delighted to announce that Tetley have responded fully and promptly to last week’s letter, where I asked some questions regarding Tetley’s environmental and ethical policy. A two page letter from Customer Services Advisor Mary Reid (printed on recycled paper I may add), fully outlined Tetley’s activities in this area.
It is our firm belief that estates who supply our tea treat their workers fairly… However, we recognise that ‘believing it’ is simply not enough. The issue is of unversal interest and it is to everyone’s benefit - both the estates overseas and packers like ourselves in the UK - to make sure that practices in the producing countries are more visible to the consumer, who may be many thousands of miles away.
In order to do this, in 1997 Tetley became one of the founder members of the Tea Sourcing Partnership
The Tea Sourcing Partnership became the Ethical Tea Partnership (ETP) in 2004. According to Ms Reid, it is “the biggest ‘ethical sourcing’ scheme of its kind” and has a network in place to monitor:
The ETP website may be found at www.ethicalteapartnership.org. I notice PG Tips are members too.
The site gives a fairly comprehensive run-down of the groups activities, with PricewaterhouseCoopers monitoring the work that they do. My main criticism is that no actual facts or figures are given. For example, agreements are in place regarding working hours
is pretty meaningless if the union and the employers have ‘agreed’ that 126 hour working weeks are acceptable! The site needs to provide full reports on exactly what the agreements and regulations actually are, and how they relate to the laws of the country in question. Only then will consumers be able to make a meaningful judgement on the ETP’s activities.
My correspondent at Tetley provided a double-whammy. By way of an explanation of their energy policy, Ms Reid provided an article from their in-house magazine. Apparently, the excess waste from cutting round tea-bags is burnt in an on-site furnace, heating the boiler at their Eaglescliff factory. Land-fill is reduced and energy is saved. My question regarding excess packaging was left unanswered, so they don’t get ten out of ten… but nevertheless I am pleased my letter was taken seriously and addressed fully.
A key criticism of the campaigns for ethically produced foodstuffs is that stricter controls lead to a rise in prices. Poorer people can no longer buy the goods, while the chattering classes consume their organic, fair-trade Java from their chrome cafitiere. It is good to find cases where a more ethical approach seems to be working accross the industry, without consumers being priced out of the market here in Britain.
Either way, it looks like I can drink my tea with a clear conscience. Kellogs Cornflakes are next.