Oil and Suffering : Nigeria

What does ‘sustainable’ mean?

Many words change their meaning over time. For example, ‘methodology’ used to mean the study of method, but now it just means ‘method’. Old pedants like me (rapidly becoming an old peasant) might regret this. I also regret the process of ‘semantic bleaching’, in which the meanings of words become broadened, weak and over-generalized. This is how it is with ‘sustainable’ – only in this case the linguistic change is also driven by political expediency.

Let me give two examples. The New Homes Bonus proposal – whereby local authorities will receive from central government income matching council tax revenue from new houses built, over the next six years. (Note the spin in talking about cuddly-wuddly ‘homes’, not hard gritty ‘houses’). This is derived from the coalition agreement “to provide incentives for local authorities to deliver sustainable development, including for new homes and businesses.” Sounds good – but in what sense is building houses sustainable? Well it could be – but the proposals say that “We will not tell local authorities what type of development or homes they should build..” So this was an opportunity to insist on, say, passiv-haus design – but it has not been taken, and the adjective ‘sustainable’ has been used with no actual meaning.

A second example – the Sustainable Communities Act 2008.  This always was a strange piece of legislation, but it says “The goal of sustainable development is to enable all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without compromising the quality of life of future generations (Securing the Future – UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy 2005).” To be precise this was the aim of that Strategy, not a definition of ‘sustainable’, but it’s close enough.

So what is wrong with that definition anyway? Because it lets you off the hook. You can use coal for fuel, because future generations can discover new energy source. You can use petrol, because future generations can use hydrogen to power cars (yes, I know hydrogen is not an energy source). We can use artificial fertilizers to feed current populations because – well, something will turn up.

Let’s keep with the direct meaning of sustainable – something you can maintain. Something is sustainable if you can do it forever. All fossil fuels are finite, so you cannot use them forever. The land and the sea is finite, so you cannot dispose waste in it forever. The planet is finite, so population growth cannot go on forever. The planet is finite, so no kind of growth can go on forever.

What does ‘sustainable’ mean?

Two-faced charlatans

The imminent Localism Bill promises local community control over development. Have a look at this. It is entitled “Planning power from Town Hall and Whitehall to local people”. Sounds great doesn’t it. At last! Real democracy.

That nice Mr. Pickles

What do you mean, there must be a catch? Well, of course. I suspect they’ve put this at the end, where you might have got bored and stopped reading. But here it is -

“Neighbourhood plans must work inside some limits. It will not be a means for saying no to important growth. If major infrastructure is needed at a national level, such as a high-speed rail line, or if the strategic local plan calls for a certain number of homes to be built. They would still be required to be consistent with national planning policy and to conform to the strategic elements of local authority plans. The Localism Bill will have safeguards to ensure neighbourhood plans do not override these wider ranging plans. The National Planning Policy Framework will be vital in this respect.”

So someone has said ‘but, suppose one of the awkward squad decides to draw up a Neighbourhood Plan which said no to HS2? It would sail through the referendum, and we’d by foiled by our own legislation. We need a few more clauses..’

In other words you can plan whatever you like, so long as it is so insignificant that no-one cares about it. But if it has any impact upon ‘important growth’ we will over-ride you. Just like at present. Two-faced charlatans.

Caroline Spelman on HS2

Caroline Spelman, UK Environment Secretary at DEFRA, has been interviewed in ‘Natural World’, the magazine of the Wildlife Trusts. Here are a few extracts:

“How does restoring England’s environment stack up against giant projects like HS2?”

“We have to look at the impact of HS2 in the round. The Government is reviewing the route and and we will not proceed with the third runway at Heathrow…”

That’s a remarkable sentence. They are talking about HS2 – so why is Heathrow relevant? Why did she mention it? She goes on:

“There is a problem around Heathrow with air quality – not just air travel, but stationary traffic on the M4/M25″

So, the plan is obviously to extend air travel to/from London, but not through Heathrow – apparently because of air pollution, but in reality due to opposition from people living in west London. So instead Birmingham Airport is developed, and needs to have a fast transport link into central London – which is why HS2 is planned.

Of course air and road transport will pollute the air no matter where it is – the hope is that there will be less local opposition in the Midlands than in London.

“If we want to persuade people to take fewer short-haul flights, we’ve got to lay on a good alternative because they are taking the short-haul flights for speed’”

Basic physics tells you that moving people at high speed uses a lot of energy, whether it be by plane or train, so HS2 will not help. It also keeps the economic focus in London.  But there are other options. Lead people to work locally, keeping wealth in the local community, and  communicate by electronic means like email and video-conferencing. Invest in rail transport – but make this on a scale less than 30 miles – that is the routes that Beeching cut. More short-range cheap rail reduces pollution and energy use and promotes the local economy.

Say no to HS2!

Don’t have a baby in Waltham Forest

In the London Borough of Waltham Forest, only 3.4% of babies had a one-year health check, as a consequence of staff shortages.

In Bromley, and Kensington and Chelsea, around 95% of babies received the check-up.

Here’s the link

Hyenas in the cemetery

Global warming is melting the Arctic ice. It might be thought, naively, that the appropriate response would be to reduce CO2 emissions. But in fact there is a pack of countries fighting over exploiting the disappearing ice to extract further oil, gas and mineral deposits – a monstrous horror story.

The Moscow conference takes place on the 22nd and 23rd of September. It is organised by the Russian Geographical Society, whose President,  Sergey Shoigu, is also the Russian Emergencies Minister. He has warned that 800 million people are threatened by rising sea levels.

“Russia has no plans to deploy troops in the Arctic.” a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman has said. Well, Russia has no plans to deploy troops in New York either, but it is not thought necessary to say that. So this actually means “We have plans to deploy troops in the Arctic”, as Norway has already done

It has been suggested that the Arctic holds around 25% of remaining fossil fuel and mineral reserves, so everyone with an Arctic coast is staking a claim. And even those who do not. ‘China must play an indispensable role in Arctic exploration as we have one-fifth of the world’s population,’ says Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo. This is an argument which China could, and has, applied anywhere.

To quote Einstein, “You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it. You must learn to see the world anew.”

What good is HS2?

In an ironic sense..

I haven’t seen a argument for HS2 which made any sense. Now I have. It enables the third runway at Heathrow. It just places it at Birmingham Airport.

How much energy in a tank-full of petrol?

Petrol contains around 35 MJoules per litre, so a 40 litre tank contains 1.4 BJoules.

A human being can sustain power output of around 100 watts. If you kept that up for 8 hours a day, that would produce 2.8MJoules.

So a tankful is as much energy as 500 days of manual labour.

The End of Suburbia

Watch this movie:

Which parts are historical facts? Which are likely extrapolations? Which are unfounded opinions? You decide.

Cost to business of ‘going green’

If you run a business, you are probably most concerned about the costs involved in switching to a green position. Take a look at the following facts about fuel costs, all published by the UK government’s Department for Energy and Climate Change. First the retail price of unleaded petrol since 1989:

Retail price of unleaded petrol, pence per litre

So there has been a rise since 1989, with surges in 2000 and 2008. But VAT and fuel duty are a significant part of the retail price – what do we get if we exclude them:

Unleaded

So this was fairly flat until 1999, and has risen unsteadily since then, by a factor of around 500%.

So maybe the oil companies have been making more money since 1999. Let’s look at the price of crude oil at refineries:

Crude oil acquired by refineries (2005=100)

This closely mirrors the price at the pumps, excluding VAT and duty, with surges in 2000 and 2008, and around a four-fold increase since 1999.

We’ve excluded tax and oil company profit-taking. What is the cause? Simply increasing demand and reducing supply.

Can your business tolerate this trend if it continues? In another ten years, you will be paying around £5 per litre. The cost of going green is a lot less than the cost of not doing so.