Blog

Rhenium to the rescue? Week 26 (25 June 2008)

Rhenium was one of the last naturally occurring elements to be found, discovered in 1925. It is a rare silvery heavy metal that occurs in some molybdenum ores at low concentrations (0.002% to 0.2%). In 1928, 1 g of Rhenium was produced from processing 660 kg of molybdenite. The extraction was so difficult and expensive that production was discontinued until 1950s when it found an important use is in tungsten-rhenium and molybdenum-rhenium alloys.

One important application of rhenium alloys is making parts for jet engines. These allow the engines to run at much higher temperatures. The military has liked this for many decades because of the improved performance available to fast jets. Higher temperatures also allow greater efficiency. As oil prices climb, and aircraft operators search for fuel savings, the demand for rhenium is on the rise.

The aircraft industry will need every saving it can find, if it is to continue the spectacular growth of recent years, as we enter the era of peak oil. Rhenium might help, but we should not expect rhenium to ride to the rescue.

Rhenium has not been classified as a precious metal, but this is changing. The price of rhenium now exceeds $11,000 a kilogram. This is more expensive than silver ($536) but cheaper than gold ($28,500). The world annual production of gold is over 2,000 tons and the price has continued to climb. World annual production of the metal rhenium is only 40-50 tons.

I wonder how high the price of rhenium will be pushed as we seek more fuel efficiency. I would not be surprised if traders corner this small specialist market. It is already cheaper to silver-plate jet engines than to use the metal in alloys to make them run hotter and therefore more efficiently.

Aviation is due for dramatic change as aviation fuel prices rise from the previous very cheap levels. A scramble for rhenium is not going to make much difference - except to make profits for the traders who spot the link between our concern for the environment (and high oil prices) with demand for specialist alloys.

Back to headlines

Farming Fish Week 25 (17 June 2008)

European fishermen are protesting. Diesel fuel prices are at record highs but fish prices have remained static. “We are working 80 hour weeks without making any money,” said one of the protesters. The fishermen are demanding fuel subsidies to offset their increased costs.

The European Commission believes that Europe has too many boats and wants to see their numbers contract. There will be a long negotiation, with much political manoeuvring, before a compromise is reached.

This might not be an issue that matters beyond the next decade or two, if we continue to pollute the oceans. Already many fish in the Baltic Sea have levels of pollutants that exceed EU guidelines. Eventually all the world’s oceans will suffer a similar fate. We continue to dump chemicals in the oceans. We also have the problem of the waste in land-fill sites. As rain slowly wash these sites clean, the residue flows under the ground and in the rivers until it reaches the oceans. These are so vast that at first we hardly notice but bit by bit we are converting our oceans from a bio diverse reservoir to a cess pit.

It is estimated that 90% or edible marine fish will disappear by 2048. The few that remain will have dangerous levels of toxins. Unless we drop our food safety standards there will be no point in continuing to fish on the open ocean.

At the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute's Center for Marine Biotechnology they are experimenting with raising ocean fish in tanks on land. The experiment uses city-supplied water and a complex microbial filtration system to raise fish completely indoors. Yonathan Zohar, the center's director said, "I'm a strong believer that in 20 years from now, most seafood will be grown on land."

It is a sad thought that the world’s fishermen should plan to sell their boats and set up business on land.

I recommend fishermen look beyond the short-term issue of the cost of diesel fuel and campaign for both sustainable fisheries and vastly improved waste management in our society. If we do not act, we will squander a wonderful natural resource and ocean-going fishermen will cease to exist within our lifetimes.

Back to headlines

More Conventional Nuclear Power – A Big Mistake Week 24 (10 June)

Our politicians are grappling with carbon reduction measures as they prepare the policy options leading up to the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen 2009. It is hard; on one hand we are demanding more power. On the other, we need to emit less carbon from fossil fuels.

These discussions lead, logically, to giving a green light to the expansion of conventional nuclear power. Operating a nuclear power station emits no carbon. We ignore the inconvenient fact that we will use all the benefit of the power and leave future generations with nothing but the legacy of nuclear waste. It does not seem like a fair trade.

I met yesterday morning with an official from the Finnish Environment Ministry. Finland has chosen to expand its nuclear power program. It is hard to think of a safer country for a nuclear reactor. The society is stable and secure. Finnish engineers are some of the best in the world. I do not expect a Finnish reactor to be the site of the next nuclear accident. However Finland is wrong to back conventional nuclear power – and I said so.

The more nuclear power that the world has, the more people will have access to nuclear technology and the greater the likelihood of a malicious nuclear ‘accident’. I trust the nuclear superpowers not to initiate nuclear Armageddon, but here are many other countries that I would not trust. A nuclear disaster does not need an explicit order from a government. All that is needed is lax security and poor procedures for a terrorist to get hold of bomb making material. The bomb does not need to be high tech to be devastating.

If nuclear power is adopted in safe countries like Finland how can we argue that other countries should be denied the same? Where do we draw the line between a country that is competent and can be trusted with nuclear power and one that is not? This is a recipe for divisive discussion at international level.

EU politicians are in a bind. They need to find ways to reduce carbon emissions. Nuclear power is a convenient political escape route.

It is wrong that our selfish demand to maintain energy-hungry lifestyles is forcing our politicians into making a big mistake. The politicians are doing their job and reflecting the demands of the electorate. We must all say, “no” to nuclear power, and accept the pain of adjusting rather sooner to a low-carbon economy.

Back to headlines

Hiking and more efficient flying Week 23 (3 June 2008)

I awoke this morning at 4am to a deafening dawn chorus of bird song. The cuckoo’s song I recognised; many others were new to me. My rude awakening was fair enough. This was their world I was sleeping in. As I listened, I heard the sound of an animal padding around the tent. The noise stopped, and then starting again, before moving off out of earshot. I didn’t find out what had caused it. By the time I got out of my sleeping bag and unzipped the tent it was gone.

The location was Nuuksio National Park only 30 minutes outside Helsinki. It is marvellous to have the natural world living cheek by jowl with civilisation. It matters little that I can venture out to recharge my batteries in peaceful seclusion. But it matters an awful lot that we allow the natural world to retain possession of enough real estate to maintain the integrity of the ecosystem.

Whilst hiking in this beautiful wilderness I came across other people. It is not the Finnish way to pass the time of day with strangers but I tend to break the tradition. I am glad I did. I met a chap who flies 747s for a living. Hiking is how he unwinds from the pressure of the job. Readers of my writing will know that I believe that aviation is due for a major down turn (The Chapter ‘Icarus Air’ in my book Adapt and Thrive). I was expecting this 747 pilot to disagree. Not so. Janne saw the same future as I.

In fact he had taken a strong personal interest in fuel efficiency. He was surprised that the airlines were not making more effort. Whilst aviation fuel was cheap there was little point in bothering. Now that fuel prices had started to climb, management were starting to listen. Janne estimated that by careful flying and changes in operational procedures, up to 20% savings could be made on fuel.

I am pleased that support for the Sustainable Revolution is growing. Fuel prices must rise to force (and support) adaptation by industry. Aviation fuel should be brought into the same tax trap as fuel for other transportation options, such as cars. We will then have the circumstances to build an aviation industry fit for the 21st century. The protection that governments are providing to keep flying affordable is not serving us, the planet or the industry well. Wake up to real action – tax aviation fuel.

© Peter McManners 2008

Back to headlines

Oil Sands – The Wrong Business Week 22 (27 May 2008)

Some people claim that unconventional oil is the future, both for the world’s fuel supplies and for western oil companies. Alberta’s oil sands in Canada have reserves second only to Saudi Arabia. These take money, time and effort to exploit. This is not all. Separating the oil from the sand requires energy. The carbon footprint of this oil is bigger than the free-flowing oil of conventional fields.

If the world moves into full-scale production of oil from oil sands then the life of the oil industry could be extended by decades. Last Monday, Eni, the Italian oil and gas group, announced that it had found a deposit of oil sands in the Republic of Congo that could contain many billions of barrels. We will probably find much more unconventional oil if we start looking in earnest.

Those businesses investing in oil sand production should be very wary. There should be little need to worry about the price of oil staying high enough to cover costs. But the carbon emitted in the production process will incur additional costs. Oil companies should expect to either have to buy carbon credits or pay carbon tax. Oil from oil sands will be more expensive than the oil companies are so far predicting.

It is also feasible that the world wakes up to the danger of ramping up the production from low-grade fossil fuels. If we accept this situation we accept a massive increase in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Mankind is slow to take real action but when the issue of climate change hits us hard, we finally will.

I would not want to make a large investment in oil sand production in the hope that humans remain blind to the consequences. The better industries in which to channel investment are the renewable sources such as solar, wind and second generation bio fuels. These will do well in all future scenarios.

Back to headlines

Second guess the Sustainable Revolution – and profit Week 21 (20 May)

On Thursday I attended a seminar on the security implications of climate change at the British Embassy here in Helsinki. The figures for the predicted climate changes were reviewed to set the scene, many of which are now familiar to most of us.

We were reminded of one often quoted figure. If the Greenland ice sheet were to melt, global sea levels would rise by about 7 metres. This is fact. The size and extent of the ice sheet has been measured and the total area of the world’s oceans is known. The calculation is simple. We can be in no doubt of the result.

The implications of a 7 metre rise in seal levels are colossal. There would be relatively simple outcomes like the need to relocate the cities of New Orleans and London – a wonderful opportunity for the construction industry. The UK may even end up with a better capital city as a result. Finding countries to accept the 300,000 inhabitants of the Maldives Islands will also be feasible. It might not be what they desire but it will be a new beginning for them. Far more difficult would be finding a new home for the residents of Bangladesh. This would be crippling refugee crisis and it is hard to see how the world would cope.

The best solution would of course be not to face such a situation. We need to arrest climate change before it goes this far.

Dr Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change for Government at the Hadley Centre, gave an interesting review of the science from the world’s leading experts. There was one remark that really made me wake up. She explained that the rise in world temperatures that would commit us to melting Greenland may not be far off. It would then take a century or so for the thaw to complete but there would be no doubt that it would. So in the next few decades we may sign up for an irreversible rise in global sea levels of 7 metres.

Melting the Greenland ice cap is not just an unlikely scenario peddled by scaremongers.

The seminar made me even more convinced that I am right in predicting a Sustainable Revolution as the attitudes of society are finally turned. My article in the May edition of Sustainable Business Magazine sums up my hard-edged approach to taking real action:

‘Those that second guess what’s to come will protect themselves – and will profit.’

This is also the message in my book, Adapt and thrive: The Sustainable Revolution.

Back to headlines

Self transportation is good for us Week 20 (13 May 2008)

This week I have been enjoying the pleasures of self transportation. On Sunday it was Helsinki City Run. This week is also national cycling week here in Finland.

The Helsinki City Run is a half marathon that wends its way around the city. It would be hard to think of a more pointless activity. We started at the Olympic stadium – built for the 1952 Helsinki Olympics and a marvellous piece of architecture of its era. We then ran for 21 km back to where we started. Why do we do such things? What has it achieved? My legs were sore and I ended up extremely tired by the end. The answer is I enjoyed it. Lying on the soft green grass of the Olympic stadium, in the sunshine eating an ice-cream, was wonderfully relaxing. I had a sense of achievement. That evening I ate a huge bowl of spaghetti Bolognese and slept like a log.

Our bodies are designed to be used. It is a measured fact that astronauts lose body mass without the knock and exertions of life under gravity. People who have a leg immobilised after breaking it find that the leg is as thin as a chicken’s leg when the plaster comes off. Exercise and exertion is good for us.

We might not all choose active and competitive sport as a past-time but our daily lives require walking, climbing stairs and occasionally running to catch a bus. This is a vital part of healthy living. Without the need to bother to plan to do exercise, we get enough to keep us healthy.

I find it odd when observing people on escalators or moving walk ways. The habit is to stand still. For those with heavy bags or shopping trolleys, I understand. For other people, it is pointless; they are wasting time that could be better spent. I always keep walking provided the way is not blocked by people standing. I save time and get a little exercise without needing to make any special effort.

Cycling is another choice we have available to us. Helsingin Sanomat (Helsinki’s newspaper and the de facto national paper) has carried out a study. It compared travel times between car, public transport and bicycle for three different journeys. On average the car journey was 18 minutes. Public transport was slowest at 22 minutes. Four minutes is a small penalty to pay (and the whole journey could be spent reading a magazine or newspaper). The fastest method was by bicycle at 17 minutes. In Helsinki it is possible, without risking life and limb, with excellent cycle track provision throughout the city.

Not all cities have such good provision for bicycles, or such good public transport, as Helsinki so the results elsewhere will be different. Our response to that should be to change our cities and match or exceed the cycling provision provided by the Finns. Getting around by self transportation is cheap, environmentally friendly and healthy

© Peter McManners 2008

Back to headlines

Signs of Spring Week 19 (6 May 2008)

In the far north the cross-country skiing is still good but down in the south the daffodils are out. Spring has come early by Finnish standards. It still seems strange to me, as an Englishman, that May is the month of spring. Back in England the daffodils have long since died down and been replaced by blossom. Finland might be slow to come out of the gloom of winter but when it does there is an explosion of green shoots. Within just a few weeks it will seem like full summer.

Finland as a country has been a slow developer. It was slow to adopt the industrial ways of Germany and the UK. This has allowed the country to be selective about the policies it adopts watching the experience of other countries. Finland has then implemented policies in a peculiarly Finnish way. Like a Finnish spring, the country then quickly erupted into a successful and dynamic economy. It comes top of world league tables of competitiveness - and of environmental stewardship. This is just the combination we need to build a vibrant and sustainable society.

My children’s school runs an activity to spot the signs of spring. My young son listed ‘bottle tops in the forest’ much to my amusement. The spring is a time when many young people do make their way into the forest armed with beer bottle to celebrate the coming of spring.

The 1st May is a particular excuse to drink heavily. The day is called ‘vapuu’ and a party for everyone in the streets and in the parks. An odd behaviour that can be spotted amongst the revelry is the work of the bottle collectors. These people slide amongst the crowds collecting bottles: beer bottles, wine bottles and Champagne bottles. People place the bottles on steps and kerbs, being careful not to break them. The bottle collectors then gather up the crop earning 10c a time for each bottle returned.

This is a recycling system that works. The bottle collectors are not organised or controlled in any way. Bottles have a reclaimable deposit and this leads to raising this spontaneous army. These people are the young and the old and assume the poor, but many looks well dressed. There is little stigma to being a bottle collector. This is a normal part of a sustainable society.

© Peter McManners 2008

Back to headlines

Boeing and Airbus compete – and cooperate Week 18 (29 April 2008)

This last week, Scott Carson, Boeing Commercial Airplanes president and CEO, and Tom Enders, Airbus president and CEO got together. The venue was the third Aviation and Environmental Summit in Geneva. They signed an agreement to work together to ensure global interoperability in air traffic management. This is one of the efforts being made to reduce the impact of aviation on the environment. The companies will seek the acceleration of improvements to the world's air transportation management system in order to increase efficiency and eliminate traffic congestion.

Aircraft flying around in circles, burning fuel whilst waiting for their turn to land is a huge waste. Better management of the skis is clearly a benefit to the environment and to the aviation business. However the industry had better watch out. If the world gets serious about combating climate change there is a more direct approach available. Aviation fuel is subject to surprisingly low taxation. There is no reason why it should not rise to match its environmental impact, and to match other sectors like road transport fuels. There is a structural stalemate, within the international market for aviation fuel that would have to be broken before this could happen. For example, no country will want to lead with increasing tax as it would hit hardest the airlines operating out of its airports. These are surmountable. If our politicians respond to the growing demand for action on climate change, then aviation fuel becomes a target. I outline a possible scenario of how this could play out in my book, Adapt and Thrive.

I agree with Enders when he says: ‘'I am convinced technology and innovation hold the key to reducing aviation's environmental impact and increasing eco-efficiency’.

Where I disagree is that the changes being discussed within the industry do not go anywhere near far enough. We need to apply technology into radically different designs. Meanwhile we should not be surprised in couple of years that our politicians finally bow down to the pasting they will get for their lack of progress in reducing carbon emissions. They will then push up the tax on aviation fuel. As fuel taxes climb, on the back of the already high cost of oil, the aircraft industry will suffer a bloodbath.

I believe forward looking CEOs in airlines and plane makers should be planning to adopt radically new business models to exploit the coming down turn.

Back to headlines

Ethanol from Waste Week 17 (22 April 2008)

The truth has finally dawned on the world that that there will be an end to fossil fuel. The knee jerk reaction has been to look for a replacement. ‘Bio fuel’ is the conclusion we have jumped to. Both the US and the EU have set targets for bio fuel to replace a proportion of fossil fuel in the transport sector.

It is odd that we did not look at the policy first. It is not the magic solution we seek, or not as we have started out. Crops, such as corn and rapeseed are being processed into ethanol or biodiesel respectively. There is the little matter being ignored that in many cases a similar amount of fossil fuel is consumed in production. The net result is farm land taken out of food production and lower tax receipts to the government without making any impact on overall fossil fuel consumption. This is not just ridiculous; it is irresponsible. World food prices are being driven to record highs by a policy that does no more than allow politicians to say they are doing something.

Bio fuel itself is not a dead duck. It has lots of potential. Where it is made from waste, we use a feedstock that has no other use. Of course we still have to remain vigilant to the fossil fuel used in production. That leads us to also consider the transport fuel used to transport the waste to a processing site. A Finnish company St1 Biofuels Oy has taken this into account in setting up their ethanol from waste business.

St1 is setting up a network of small dispersed waste processes facilities. The first of these is in Lappeenranta. The plant accepts waste from three bakeries and one sweets factory. Similar miniature factories are going up in Närpiö and in Hamina. In addition to ethanol the plants also produce animal feed and fertilizer.

Bio fuel production planned in this way is real progress. The companies thinking like this will have a secure future. Companies building plants to process food crops into bio fuel may be milking a short-term market opportunity but it cannot last. Our politicians may have reacted too fast but they will see the problem and close the loop hole.

Back to headlines

Taxing cars and unfair anomalies Week 16 (15th April 2008)

I enjoy looking around motor museums see the ingenuity that has gone into the last hundred years of car development. The best models are examples of engineering excellence. Even so, the time has come to review the stranglehold that the car now has on modern society. One car standing alone is to be admired, polished and driven with pride. A million cars together becomes a terrible beast, dominating our public spaces, choking our transport system, filling our lungs with fumes and a major cause of climate change.

Choosing not to drive is a choice we all have. It is not an easy choice. The infrastructure of the developed world and the attitudes of its residents is a barrier. We need to make it possible not to need a car and feasible to make most journeys in other ways. This is one of the challenges of building a sustainable society (Chapter 12 of my book Adapt and Thrive).

One way to reduce the negative impact of the car is carefully targeted taxation. Here in Finland, the government has recently brought in differential taxation to encourage the adoption of greener models. The taxes on thirsty models have risen. To avoid accusations that the measure is simply to raise tax, the models with lower emissions have had their tax rates reduced.

If you are looking to buy a new car there is an incentive to select one with lower emissions. This is as intended. For second-hand cars there is a worrying anomaly. Drivers, who cared about the environment and bought a low emission car before the tax change, have seen the second-hand value plummet. Conversely, anyone buying a thirsty SUV before the tax changes can now sell it on at a profit. This seems to be most unfair. I think that the government should have faced down the critics and increased tax on thirsty models without any corresponding reduction on cleaner models. At least then the people who had chosen to act early would not be penalised.

Those people who saved money by buying a big SUV before the deadline should beware. There are self-styled ‘urban cowboys’ who go around letting down the tyres of SUVs (interestingly, it is not clear whether letting down the tyres causing inconvenience without causing other damage is a criminal offence or not). The expense as fuel prices climb will be another hit, but there are people who will take pride in parading their ability to pay. The tipping point will be when fashion shifts. In the same way that the cigarette went from fashion accessory to nasty habit, the SUV will become naff. That is when the market for SUVs will collapse. Those left owning one when the fashion changes will suffer the financial loss.

For now it is the people who bought a low emission car early who have lost out. This is unfair. They can take solace in the thought that the day is not far off when the market for SUVs will collapse. SUV owners should sell now, take their capital gain and leave the losses to be taken by those who fail to spot the coming shift in attitude within society.

Back to headlines

Reducing volatility on world stock markets Week 15 (8th April 2008)

The G7 finance ministers are due to meet in Washington this coming week. After the recent turmoil in the markets, no doubt they will have a very full agenda. I have a proposal for them to consider. Stock markets should support society rather better and a share transfer tax can be part of that improvement.

I have argued strongly over a number of years for a sustainable world society. In terms of building such a society I urge business to become the primary agent for change. Recently I have found that many business people are being won over to my way of thinking but are finding it hard to act. Their hands are tied by institutionalised barriers, which have to be dismantled if we are to exploit this changing attitude.

One of these constraints is the short-term horizon of equity markets. The costs of switching ownership are low, and reducing, as equity markets compete to attract the world’s corporations to list on their market. Capital shifts around the market looking for short-term uplift in value as fund managers seek to maximise returns for their investors.

The case for sustainable business planning is strong but requires thinking for the long-term. Forcing our business managers and leaders to concentrate on the next year, or the next quarter, undermines such planning. A share transfer tax will reduce volatility and make investors look for long-term prospects. Business leaders will then have the support they need to make the tough choices to deliver long-term sustainable shareholder value as we build a sustainable society.

New York, Frankfurt or London is not going to risk the standing of their financial markets by taking unilateral action. I propose that the share transfer tax is implemented across all the main markets at an agreed common floor rate. The G7 finance ministers have the power and influence to make this proposal reality.

My proposal is explained in Adapt and Thrive: the Sustainable Revolution (pages 178/179). I have taken the liberty of sending a copy to the G7 finance ministers and their central bankers. I hope that they find time in their busy schedule this week to give it consideration.

© Peter McManners 2008

Back to headlines

Rabbits, fishermen and retirement Week 14 (1st April 2008)

Helsinki has a limited variety of trees and shrubs. Natural selection weeds out any plant not able to cope with the extreme winter temperatures. We made a mistake when planting a rhododendron at the front of our house two years ago. The label attached to the shrub at the garden centre said that it was safe to -20 degrees C. This was not resilient enough. It shrivelled up and died as we went through a normal cold winter of 2005/6. The replacement shrub has not yet been tested in such cold conditions as we have had two exceptionally mild years back-to-back.

The rabbits too have had an easy time this winter. Rabbits are not native to Finland but Helsinki has a small, and growing, population. Their origins are assumed to be pet rabbits that have escaped or been released. Without freezing condition to cool their ardour, they are breeding apace. Already a line of trees along one of the coastal boulevards has been so badly nibbled that they have had to be felled.

Whilst the rabbit population expands in the warm weather, the human population decreases. A record number of Finnish men have perished by falling through weak ice. Ice hole fishing is a popular past-time and Finnish men are not to be put off by thin ice. This is despite some very clever public-interest advertising highlighting the dangers which shows fishermen leaving their brains hanging on a hook on the shore as they set off across the ice.

The rabbits are merely a pest and the loss of human life confined to a small group, who choose to take the risk. As global warming gathers pace, and the melting of ice in the polar regions speeds up, these Finnish concerns will seem very small indeed. The West Antarctic ice shelf could add 5 metres to global sea levels. The melting of the ice on Greenland could raise sea levels by a similar amount. There will be no escaping these changes. All our oceans interconnect. Sea levels will rise slowly and uniformly for everyone. If you live in a low-lying coastal area, it would be better to sell up and move now before insurance premiums become unaffordable.

For the baby boomers now moving into retirement they should watch the property market closely. Insurance companies will drive up premiums based on their commercial judgment over the risks. As beach-side property prices start to tumble they could find that they can then afford their ideal retirement home. It may be uninsurable, but rising sea levels is a slow process. Provided they do not care to pass their inheritance onto the children, they could enjoy their old age sipping cocktails at sunset looking out over the sea with waves getting closer with each high tide.

This might be a fitting end for the generation who did so well from the economic boom fuelled by fossil fuel - and then turned a blind eye as the evidence of problems became overwhelming. I do not want to destroy my children’s inheritance; I am pushing for change and expect to pay for it now. We are the generation in power over the next decade and we bear a heavy responsibility. It must not be shirked.

© Peter McManners 2008

Back to headlines

Biodegradable Batteries Week 13 (24th March 2008)

The modern world is full of portable electronic devices running on batteries. The market for these batteries is huge, and expanding. Not only do we need batteries for handheld devices such as mobile phones, music players, cameras and torches; but we are also starting to shift our vehicle fleet to run on batteries. Most manufacturers have plans for a hybrid drive power option. There is also the all-electric Tesla car with a range of 220 miles and stunning sports car performance.

The lead acid battery has been the work horse battery for hundreds of years. The decommissioning problem has been with us just as long. We accept without question that batteries contain heavy metals (or not so heavy metals such as Lithium used in some newer batteries). Recycling is much better than that they end up in the garbage; but what if we had biodegradable batteries?

Nature can store energy in bio-degradable sources to use when required. I believe that our engineers and scientists can mimic nature and produce biodegradable batteries. There will be huge problems to overcome to get an affordable solution with enough power density to suit our applications. This should be a challenge we give our engineers, not a barrier that holds us back.

In our household, any dead batteries have been collected for recycling for some years. Last year we went a stage further and purchased a supply of rechargeable AA and AAA batteries. This was a large investment at the time, but we now do not buy new batteries keeping the ones we have in a closed loop of true recycling. I wait to see how long they will survive before they no longer hold charge. Biodegradable batteries would be even better if only they were for sale.

As we become much cleverer with using solar power we will need yet more battery power to hold the power for use when the sun does not shine, at night. One product that caught my attention is a bag that captures light during the day and releases it when it gets dark. The developer (Global Solar Energy) uses cheap flexible solar panels in their design to capture the energy and light-emitting diodes to shine at night. Sewn into the fabric of the bag are small batteries to store the energy. This is a great idea for remote communities with no power. My mind thinks beyond this immediate benefit to what happens when it reaches the end of its useful life and no longer works at storing sunshine. In such remote communities there will be no sophisticated recycling. The bag will be chucked away and the contents of the batteries become another source of long-term pollution. Now, if the bag was fitted with biodegradable batteries then it really would be useful.

© Peter McManners 2008

Back to headlines

Human’s world and nature in the frozen north Week 11 (14th March)

I have just completed skiing across the frozen north of Finland close to the Arctic Circle from Russia to Sweden. The Rajalta Rajalle (border-to-border) ski event included participants from 14 nations, with me as the sole representative from Britain.

The route crossed some of the most extensive wilderness areas in northern Europe, as well as areas of human habitation. The starting point was on high ground overlooking the Russian border with cold-war watch towers still in evidence. With a temperature of -25°C we were keen to get going. The first stretch was a fast swoop down through the trees to either side. The cold air felt like fire against the exposed skin on my face. As the route started to flatten out a moose ambled across the track with no apparent concern for my imminent arrival. Many people are killed each year when their cars hit a moose. I was glad not to find out what the effect might be of hitting a moose whilst on skis!

In those first kilometers I felt that I was a visitor to a world that belonged to the moose. Later that same day we skirted past the ski resort of Rukka. We could see the ski lifts and other trappings of humans on holiday. No sign of moose here. We past day skiers out at a leisurely pace on the well groomed tracks and a couple of cafés. I wondered whether to stop for a cappuccino, but carried on to the quieter trail beyond Ruka to Kuusamo.

These long days of skiing across Lapland reminded me how much I want to have the trappings of the developed world and the natural wilderness. We must find a way to reconcile our continual drive for development with the pressing need to care for the environment.

Each night we would stop to rest, sometimes in comfort, other times in very basic accommodation. We talked about many things. The environment and the need to protect it was one of the issues. There seemed to be agreement on the need to act. The vision I explained was perhaps too radical for some people but the conversations left me with an optimistic view that humankind is willing to make the changes required. I only hope that my fellow outdoor enthusiasts and adventurers are not a minority who will be ignored.

Back to headlines

Profiting from the melting Arctic Week 10 (4th March 2008)

It is now official; according to the Finnish Meteorological Institute, this winter has been the warmest on record. The icebreakers that normally keep the shipping routes open have not been needed. This has been an easy winter for us all, and saved us money, with lower fuel bills. Finnish farmers will also welcome the longer growing season that a warmer climate brings, making their operations easier and more profitable.

There are other commercial opportunities that that open up as the world warms and the Arctic ice retreats. Russia, the United States, Canada and Denmark are all eyeing up the continental shelf that lies under the Arctic Ocean. This could hold a bonanza of new oil and gas fields. As the ice clears, we will be able to use proven technology from the oil and gas fields of the North Sea to explore the potential.

We should welcome the fact that Finnish farmers will find it a little easier to make a living. Opening up the Arctic to exploration for fossil fuel is a different matter. In doing their job, the engineers and designers will be banking on global warming to make their projects viable. Earlier in my career I was an engineer and I admire the ability of such people to design equipment able to operate in incredibly harsh environments. Later I became a map maker and sensitive to the environmental damage humankind is causing, such as this slow destruction of the Arctic eco-system. I can see clearly from both sides, that we have to reconcile our economic aspirations with the growing imperative to conserve the environment. I believe that it can be done, and must be done.

The changes required reach right across society. It will be a revolution, the Sustainable Revolution. The opportunities to profit from the coming disruption are immense. Rather than profiting from the melting Arctic, I urge business to exploit the growing desire to stop climate change. These opportunities will remain profitable into the long future, long after the last oil rig has been closed down.

For my part, I depart tonight on the overnight train to the north of Finland where it is still in the grip of snow and ice. I will be skiing close to the Arctic Circle from Russia to Sweden. I want to see at first-hand the frozen wilderness whilst we still have it. I worry that our short-term economic priorities will ever so slowly destroy it.

Sustainable agriculture - Milk Week 9 (26th February 2008)

The Dairy industry used to be local in nature. I remember well that my uncle, not too many decades back, kept one of the cows on his farm to supply the family. Milking the cow was one of the daily chores. There was no machinery involved, just a bucket and a three-legged stool. This is not what many of us would choose. The modern milk industry has progressed by leaps and bounds.

Our milk products come in plastic containers from the supermarket. The milk they contain could be from anywhere. Yoghurt, in particular, has a long shelf life and come from huge factories across the country and across Europe. There are German brands that come to mind that can be found throughout the EU. This German yoghurt is good and supported by extensive pan-European advertising campaigns. It is product with which we are familiar and we trust.

This pan-European milk market is controlled by quotas. Rather than all production shifting to those parts of Europe that suit dairy production, the quota system holds prices up so that farmers in the far north such as Finland and French mountain farmers in the Alps can also make a living. The system has become quite absurd with the quotas that an EU farmers owns worth up to € 1 million (if they were to sell). Scrapping quotas would cost many people dear. So the EU muddles on. EU politicians do not want to see dairy farming concentrated in the countries best placed geographically such as Denmark, The Netherlands and Poland. I agree but my reasons are not political.

Sometimes, when I eat my morning yogurt I leave a little in the container and refill it with milk. I then cover it and leave in the warm kitchen. By bed time, the milk has become yoghurt. I can then pop it in the fridge and eat it for breakfast the next day. If making milk products is this easy, why do we need centralised production in large factories and then shipped across Europe?

The 20 seconds it takes to make my morning yoghurt is replaced by a complex industrial process powered by fossil fuel and leading to a regular stream of plastic pots into land fill. It does not take much thought to see that local yogurt supply through refilling containers is possible and feasible. If you take the time to pause and think, we should be laughing at how society has industrialised and centralised such a basic food product.

Quotas are not the solution. We should do what we know in our hearts to be right and localise much of our agriculture, taking care that the solution is truly sustainable. As well as saving unnecessary carbon emissions and waste, local agriculture also reconnects the producer and customer. The transparency that comes with the farmer and consumer living in the same locality is naturally compatible with quality safe food.

Huge increases in the cost of transportation as fuel prices climb will force the market to localise in any case. We can speed up the process with carefully targeted taxation. Once we define localising much of our food production as our aim, it becomes much clearer which policies to use, and how. Arguing over quotas to counter the dynamics of the free market is deflecting effort, attention and investment from building a truly sustainable agriculture for Europe.

© Peter McManners 2008

Back to headlines

Climate change is here, now. Week 8 (19th February 2008)

This week is ski holiday week here in southern Finland. The start and end of the skiing season varies from year to year but we can always be sure that in mid February all the tracks will be open. Not only that, but the Baltic Sea around the coast will be covered with ice strong enough to allow ski tracks across the sea and of course we can ski almost at will across the lakes. This year, it is not to be. The sea is free of ice, and the grass in our garden is green. Even the daffodils (perhaps unwisely) have poked shoots above the ground. The only ski track is a man-made loop, 1.3 km long, built of artificial snow. Skiers go around it in procession. If all 235,000 residents of Espoo want to ski this holiday it will get very crowded! Of course, this year may just be an extreme deviation from the norm. And besides, whether we can ski close to home, or not, does not seem important on the scale of problems we could face.

China is suffering far more, with an acutely cold and severe winter. Australia is experiencing unusually extreme heavy rainfall. Across the world storms are becoming more frequent and increasingly violent. Within the global average statistics, these patches of extreme weather may not be significant. The warm weather in Finland and the severe cold of China may, taken together, cancel each other out.

The sober predictions of the IPCC predict a gradual warming of the Earth. This is an average taken across the globe. It is far harder to predict localized weather disruption. Long before the global averages rise to the level we regard as dangerous, we are likely to experience severe localized changes. It may be coincidence that Finland, China and Australia all feature in the news for extreme weather at the same time. Or, it may be that we are experiencing the consequences of climate change far sooner than we thought possible.

We are being brought face-to-face with the reality. But it is worse than this. There are credible scenarios, outlined by our scientists, that the climate could flip to a massively different climate. These scientists have no proof that this will happen. Before we relegate their ideas to the back of the line, consider this. There is one aspect of such studies that I find deeply troubling. If we are pushing against such a tipping point in the Earth’s systems, and we find it, there will be no stopping the runaway climate change that would follow. I am not qualified to enter the debate about how likely this is to occur. It is clear to me that this is not a risk we should be running.

We should therefore take very seriously our actions to counter climate change. But it is worse than this. Climate change is only a symptom of deeper problems. We are failing to understand that our abuse of the planet’s eco-system is a grave danger to us all. Each person, family, business or single community striving to increase their consumption and material wealth is not enough to destroy our world. But taken together, the sum total of all our efforts is certainly capable of inflicting severe damage.

We will finally accept that our behaviour must change. This will be either because we choose to change, or because the change is forced upon us as the eco-system fails to provide the support we have come to expect. Cities submerged by rising sea levels, farm land becoming desert and the oceans strangled by long-life pollutants.

Humankind is selfish and prone to procrastination but we are not stupid. Finally we will accept the need for massive change right across society. This will then set off the Sustainable Revolution.

I hope we do not have to wait too long.

Back to headlines

The Sustainable Revolution Week 7 (12th February 2008)

In my book, Adapt and Thrive: The Sustainable Revolution I explain:

‘The forces that we are failing to address adequately – and which will lead to revolutionary change – arise from the conflict between globalization and sustainability. The policy of globalization is sucking resources from the Earth at an increasing rate, driving activities to places with the lowest environmental and social standards. On the other hand, the policy of sustainability is seeking to persuade people, organizations and corporations to behave responsibly towards social issues and the environment. I am not alone in recognizing that global capitalism is in need of reform. But I go further than many other commentators in my belief that our existing mechanisms of capitalism, as currently implemented, cannot handle these diverging forces.

The established order of how we run society and its institutions is set to be overthrown and the landscape reconfigured. Although we cannot know the results, we can try to predict how the revolution will develop and identify parameters that are likely to nudge its progress towards desirable outcomes. We should aim to hang on to the best of globalization whilst incorporating the principles of sustainability.’

© Peter McManners 2008

Back to headlines

The Coming Revolution Week 6 (5th February 2008)

In my book, Adapt and Thrive: The Sustainable Revolution I explain:

‘Embracing the opportunities of globalization has led to strong growth in many economies, with China as the largest and most recent beneficiary. Joining the club of globalized economies also means accepting that the world market is tough, highly competitive and unforgiving. Multinational companies close facilities in countries with a high cost base and shift production to where they find the least restrictions and cheapest labour. There is nothing improper or underhand about this; it is the correct financial decision to maximize returns for shareholders.’

Recent news backs this up. Nokia has been in the media over its decision to close its factory in Bochum, Germany with the loss of 2,300 jobs and move production to Romania. On 25th January, just two weeks after the announcement, Nokia CEO Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo announced stunning results for the quarter. In addition to high profitability, sales of mobile handsets had exceeded 40-per cent of market share. Sensitive to the bad press he might receive in Germany, he apologised to the people of Bochum for the problems the closure will cause. Nokia is not at fault. It is a very well run business operating in a climate of intense global competition.

The conclusion I draw:

‘As globalization matures and the immediate benefits work through the system, the downsides will become more apparent: the competition will become ever tougher, the fight over resources ever fiercer and the risks to the world environment ever greater. On the one hand, governments will urge on their local industry to be more competitive; on the other, they will attempt to maintain social cohesion and counter threats to the environment.
When governments find that reconciling these conflicting demands is becoming increasingly difficult, many countries will lose their enthusiasm for globalization and find that joining a Sustainable Revolution suits them rather better.’

Adapt and Thrive: The Sustainable Revolution is published 21/2/2008 to order

© Peter McManners 2008

Back to headlines

Good Governance and Environmental Performance Week 5 (29th Jan 08)

At last week’s Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland the 2008 Environmental Performance Index (EPI), was released. The EPI ranks 149 countries on 25 indicators across six policy categories: Environmental Health, Air Pollution, Water Resources, Biodiversity and Habitat, Productive Natural Resources, and Climate Change. Each indicator in the EPI measures how close each country comes to broadly-accepted targets, on a 0–100 scale.

Switzerland is at the top position in front of Sweden, Norway and Finland. Here in Finland there is some disappointment to be back in 4th place. Finland has been top on many occasions and seldom out of the top three places. The disappointment is of course unfounded, the spread of scores was 95.5 for Switzerland with Finland on 91.4; hardly a huge gap. Like Switzerland these are affluent developed countries, but at 5th on the list is Costa Rica (90.5). This would seem to indicate that affluence is not a prerequisite for safeguarding the environment. There must be other reasons.

The more interesting observation is the cluster of Nordic countries at the top. There must be a common factor to explain this. Could it be good governance? Finland took the top spot in the recent world corruption index as the least corrupt country (along with Denmark and New Zealand). Sweden was close behind in 4th place, Switzerland in 7th and Norway 9th. Could it be that that honesty and good government is the key?

It is clear that no population would vote for environmental degradation. So where governance is strong the environment will be protected. That seems like a simple logical deduction. But of course populations also want wealth and material advancement. Perhaps it is the priorities we choose. What do we want more, wealth or a safe environment? We want both of course.

The problem is that there will always be less scrupulous people willing to deliver the wealth we seek and sacrifice the environment to do so. If governance is weak, they will get their way. Even worse is if the country is totally corrupt. In this case it may be impossible to run a business profitably whilst also protecting the environment because so many others flout the regulations. The only way to stay in business might be to turn a blind eye to environmental impacts.

The strong correlation between sound governance and good environmental stewardship indicates that eliminating corruption is a good way to protect the environment. Without effective enforcement, no matter how much a country says it wants to protect natural systems this will not be translated into action.

There is one inconvenient fact in all this. The 5th best country for environmental performance is Costa Rica, but it does not match this result in honest government. Costa Rica came 46th in the corruption index. There is clearly more complexity than my simple observation. Improved governance is just one aspect of our drive for better environmental protection. But it seems to me to be a good place to start.

Back to headlines

City Living Within a Tight Energy Budget Week 4 (22nd January 2008)

Helsinki is a jewel of a city on the Baltic coast. It is small relative to other capital cities, has a wonderful heritage and excellent public transport. But like all cities it is hungry for energy – most of which derives from fossil fuel.

Yesterday I attended a public meeting in Sanomatalo, the headquarters building of the national newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat. The subject under discussion was Helsinki energy policy. Matti Vanhanen, the Prime Minister, was there, fresh from his trip to the US where he had been seeking to persuade the Americans to take climate change more seriously. Out of Europe’s leaders, he is one of the best qualified to argue the case. At the meeting in Helsinki, there were representatives from all the main political parties. There was also unanimous agreement that addressing climate change required substantial carbon reductions. The discussion was over how.

Scandinavia is already more advanced in progress towards green energy solutions than most other developed regions, with Sweden now taking the lead. The politicians explained that Finland’s target was to triple the energy derived from renewable sources to 20% by 2020. Helsinki is already well advanced compared with many other Western cities, utilising energy generated from the bio waste from its forestry industry. It has many combined heat and power stations, which use heat that would otherwise be wasted to heat houses and buildings. The buildings themselves are well insulated, and fitted with triple glazing. If such a building were transported to the UK, the heating would not be needed for all but the coldest days of the mild British winter.

Finland is not the UK. The high standards of insulation are required to stop the residents from freezing when the temperature drops to below -25 degrees centigrade for weeks at a time. However modern Finns have become used to these well insulated buildings. They have adopted behaviours learnt during the recent era of cheap fossil fuel. Almost all buildings are kept between 23 and 25 degrees centigrade. To someone used to draughty and poorly insulted British buildings, Finnish buildings seem almost tropical.

This was brought home to me as I stood and listened at the public meeting. The venue was Mediatori, a large glass atrium, 8 floors high built on one side of the office building. Inside there were 4 fully grown tress and a plaza coffee bar that would not be out of place in a Paris boulevard. Acres of glass were keeping out the wet winter weather. I admired both the architecture and the engineering. If this was kept as a cool area, at a temperature midway between the offices and the cold outside, this would be sensible. But the temperature was balmy warm.

Each of the entry doors to the outside has double automatic doors. In this way they can provide an airlock to stop cold winds blowing through the building. An old traditional Finnish farmhouse would have a similar system of two doors to let people enter of leave whilst losing as little heat as possible. That is not how the Helsingin Sanomat building has been designed. Inside the airlock there are large heaters blowing warm air to ensure not a breath of cold air could intrude. This ridiculous waste of energy is universal across the developed world. Half the heat escapes immediately to the outside. We have forgotten how to live in buildings as if energy is a valuable resource.

If Finland is to make real progress in developing a sustainable energy policy for Helsinki, one place to start would be to tackle its resident’s addiction to toasty warm buildings in the winter. We should allow the seasons to enter our buildings, to be a little cooler in the winter (and in the summer be rather slower to switch on the air conditioning).

Finland can show the UK how to build well insulated buildings; meanwhile the British can teach the Finns how to live in them. Living on the edge of the Arctic, Finland will always have a sizeable need for energy, but it is also a sparsely populated country with large areas of forests. If the demand were to be scaled back then perhaps the Finns can live within the renewable energy budget available to them. Turning down the thermostat would be a good start.

Back to headlines

Green light to nuclear power - Week 3 (15 January 2008)

Have we forgotten Chernobyl?

On Thursday last week, the UK government gave the green light to nuclear power in the UK’s energy policy document. In the policy, nuclear power stations are described as a ‘safe and affordable’ way to secure future energy supplies. From the blinkered perspective of officials trying to balance Kyoto targets with satisfying growing energy demand, this is a logical deduction. The operation of nuclear power stations emits no carbon dioxide and the fail-safe systems that will be installed will no doubt be the best available. If we take off the blinkers, and look at the real underlying issues, we see that the thinking is flawed.

Leaving aside the risks of another Chernobyl, nuclear power generates radioactive waste that will be dangerous for thousands of years. We might not mind storing this safely and carefully whilst our nuclear stations churn out a steady stream of electrical power. But even the strongest supporters of conventional nuclear power accept that uranium will run out sometime this century. Our descendants will then have to care for the stock piles of waste long after the benefits have been expended. They will look back on 2008 as the year when the UK could have drawn a line under further nuclear power, but the politicians were too timid to rise to the challenge.

Continuing to run existing nuclear plants (for as long as it is safe to do so) is clearly the right thing to do. But building new ones diverts investment capital and the efforts of our engineers which could be better applied to expanding renewable power. Some people claim that we need nuclear and renewable sources to satisfy our energy needs. But there is another way: we can address the demand and reduce our craving for energy. This is a huge challenge, but possible, and does not need to reduce the quality of our lives as I explain in my book, Adapt and Thrive: The Sustainable Revolution.

In all this discussion, there is one issue we conveniently ignore: getting rid of the reactors sometime in the future. Building them is expensive and time consuming. We do this is in expectation of the energy that will soon be flowing. When we switch them off, we find that the cost of decommissioning is an expense without a payback. But there is another way: future generations may save the costs of dismantling them by retaining them as grand follies to remind them not to repeat the idiocy of early 21st century humankind.

The real challenge is not designing safe conventional nuclear reactors, but designing a future for society beyond fossil fuels. We will need to do this anyway, whether we build more nuclear power now, or not. Nuclear power simply buys a breathing space, allowing us not to have to try too hard in our efforts to live within the energy budget that renewable power can provide. Courageous politicians should be refusing to authorise more nuclear power, knowing that this will make the energy crunch come sooner and bite harder. This will bring forward the massive changes required. It is true that the transition will be hard (extremely hard) but the outcome will be a much improved society. This is the prize we should be aiming for, not clutching for the easiest policy choice coming out of the number crunching by government officials.

Back to headlines

It’s a Mad Mad World Week 2 (8th January 2008)

It is estimated by the Finnish Association of Travel Agencies (SMAL) that last year 80,000 Finns went on holiday to Thailand. This was 40% more than in 2006, which was in turn nearly 40% more than 2005. If this rate of increase continues then by 2010, 5% of Finland’s population will be flying long haul to Thailand each year.

It is understandable that people want to escape the dark of the Finnish winter. It can cause deep psychological problems and even lead to suicide. I have not visited Thailand but I am told that resorts such as Phuket are beautiful with lots of sun, sea and sand to raise the spirits. If a week in the sun can reduce the suicide rate then that must be a good thing.

But is flying the equivalent of 160 jumbo jets and 370,000 tons of carbon dioxide worth the price? We know we have to kick the fossil fuel habit. We also have to keep our buildings warm to survive, living so close to the Arctic Circle; and we need transport to get around in our daily lives. Flying half-way around the world on holiday is not a necessity. This should be one of the first things we eliminate as we drive fossil carbon out of society. Long haul flights should be taxed almost to extinction.

It is true that the super rich and the most powerful of our political and business leaders will continue to use intercontinental flights when they need to travel but for most of us it will be unaffordable. This is how it should be.

Once the price has been driven into the stratosphere, we ordinary folk will only be able to dream of a once-in-a-lifetime expedition by train across Europe into Asia. But there will also then be a commercial incentive for our engineers and aircraft makers to design and build a ‘green’ plane. I believe that it would be possible to make a plane with massive wings covered in solar cells that could soar like a condor using the air currents. It may take decades to solve the technical challenges and the journey may need to take a more leisurely pace. However I will wait to take my holiday in Phuket until I can travel in such a magnificent machine.

I do not want my personal choice undermined by others who don’t care a damn for the damage. Even worse are those people who purchase carbon offsets and claim that their journey is carbon neutral. No matter how well intentioned, a closer analysis shows this to be hypocrisy. I want measures that apply to everyone without exception. High taxation on aviation fuel and long haul flights is long overdue. I will vote for the politicians willing to bring in such measures; I hope many more people will join with me.

Back to headlines

The Conflict between Fuel and Food Week 1 (1st January 2008)

At this time of year there are always plenty of predictions for the coming year as newspapers struggle to find news to fill their pages during the holiday season. I will join in with one prediction: the conflict between fuel and food will show the world that biofuels are not an easy salvation from the problems we face in weaning the world off fossil fuels. At the moment we are setting biofuel targets, introducing regulations to require cars to run on such fuel and our scientists are developing more efficient production processes. This allows us to continue car driving in the confidence that alternative fuels are just around the corner. This is an attractive prospect, but during 2008 the fallacy that underpins our complacency will be brought home to us.

One problem is the fossil fuel we expend to produce biofuel. In some cases we expend a similar amount of energy in production as the resulting biofuel contains. If this energy comes from fossil fuel the result is clearly ridiculous. It may be possible that business exploit the favourable tax advantages of biofuels without delivering any reduction in fossil carbon release. We need to be vigilant that we do not get caught in this trap.

However, there a more fundamental problem. The world’s agricultural land, which we use to feed the world, is finite. The more of our crops, such as corn and rapeseed, that we divert to biofuel production the less there is for food. In our open world economy this translates to higher prices.

It was reported in The Economist that farmers in America’s Pacific north-west have been shifting from growing hops to more profitable crops such as corn that can be made into ethanol. The resulting shortage of hops is driving up the price of beer with some brewers unable to obtain the supplies they need. Perhaps we have to choose between driving and drinking beer (Certainly the combination is not a good one for the obvious reason of road safety). If we look beyond the trivial issue of pushing up beer prices we can see that a huge underlying problem is looming.

If the world relies on biofuels, to be able to continue driving, then demand will push the price of biofuel higher, but we can afford it. Farmers, in selecting the most profitable crops, will switch to grow crops that can be used for biofuel feed stocks. Food crops will become more expensive. Market forces will adjust until the price we are prepared to pay for our fuel matches what we are willing to pay for food. If this means we are no longer self-sufficient in food then we will turn to the world markets for more. In the developed world we might take the view that our willingness to pay high prices will mean we can always outbid the poorer countries.

In a world in which people are starving can we justify transferring a major proportion of our agricultural capacity to biofuel?

We must cure our addiction to fossil fuel but so far we have underestimated the challenge. In 2008, I predict the dawn will slowly rise on our policy makers that we need to be far more radical than simply setting targets for biofuel consumption.

© Peter McManners 2008

Back to headlines


	Peter McManners Biography Other interests Blog Links Blog archive