Blog 2009

The American Ponzi Scheme 28 December 2009

The Economist double Christmas edition was full of interesting articles to read over the holiday ranging from an analysis of modern politeness to climate change and forests. Looking backwards, the Economist provides an excellent commentary on the developments that have brought society to where it is. Inevitably a conventional economic view prevails. A focus on economic methods and economic outcomes has been a successful recipe - if rising GDP is the measure of success. Some of us have started to see that a globalized world of ever rising GDP and ever rising consumption is a Ponzi scheme that must eventually collapse. Conventional economics is weak on the tools and concepts to break out of the problems that the word will encounter in the coming decades.

The Economist wrote about America under the title ‘A Ponzi scheme that works’. In the article, The Economist explained that ‘immigrations keeps America young, strong and growing’. It quoted the view of an American think-tank (the New America Foundation) that the US population could grow to 1 billion by 2100. For a country that is already over consuming resources at a rate that is 100% greater than its ecological capacity, this seems impossible. Now, America could reduce consumption to the average European level to live within the capacity of the resources within its own borders. A population of 1 billion will need to walk on the planet with very small ecological boots. The Economist has chosen its words well – Ponzi schemes always appear to be sound until they collapse and the underlying logic is exposed as a scam.

I am not accusing the US of knowingly running a scam, but the US needs to learn that it is in the midst of a Ponzi scheme of huge proportions. It would be better to spear it now, than to await the reckoning that must follow later this century. I admire America, and many Americans, but the American way is not the direction for the world to follow.
© Peter McManners 2009

Back to headlines

Copenhagen Hard Truths 21 December 2009

I did not expect very much from the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. In making my assessment of the future path of civilization I factored in the assumption that there would be a weak deal in Copenhagen. I did not expect that it would quite as weak as the toothless declaration ‘noted’ in the concluding session of the conference. This was political face saving at its most extreme. An observer ignoring the political spin could only conclude that nothing of substance had been achieved.

It is very sad to see that humanity remains very firmly on the path to destruction. This is the logical outcome I describe in the opening pages of my book Victim of Success; Civilization at Risk. I am not in the depths of despair – yet– because I am certain that we have the capability to change direction. The problem is a lack of political will and a lack of popular support for tough measures.

I hope that we acknowledge the outcome from Copenhagen for what it is – failure. From abject failure only a fool would stand up and try to repeat the same process. An intelligent reaction to such total failure is to pause, reassess the situation, rethink the approach and then push for a solution based on different parameters. My book, Green Outcomes in a Real World, to be published in 2010 builds on the ideas in my book Adapt and Thrive presents new thinking, new methods, new ideas and a new approach. This is what we need; not more of the same.

Back to headlines

Salute the Engineers 14 December 2009

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is due to fly on Tuesday. If it lives up to expectations, it will use 20% less fuel than other comparable aircraft. The design has pushed the boundaries of commercial aircraft design using lightweight materials such as carbon fibre.

On a much smaller scale, the McManners family has taken possession of a prototype E-Mini at a ceremony at the BMW car plant in Oxford. My fellow drivers (E-Pioneers as we are called) will be testing a fleet of 40 cars on the roads of Southern England over the next six months. These are not electric milk floats with racing stripes down the side. These perform like a good car should, handle as you would expect from BMW and are quality cars. The E-Mini has the feel of the 21st century about it.

Both the Boeing 787 and the BMW E-Mini are bold moves that have required engineers to work outside their comfort zone. The business leaders in these traditionally conservative industries should be praised for pushing ahead. A car built today could be on the road for well over a decade; an aircraft could still be flying 30 years or more from now. A weakness in the design could be a time bomb waiting to sink the company. It takes courage to bet the future on novel design. This is the sort of courage the world needs more of.

Meanwhile, the Copenhagen climate conference has reached the half-way stage. The tiny Pacific ocean archipelago of Tuvalu has been speaking up, calling for a binding agreement that will limit climate change to 1.5 degrees Celsius, much more ambitious than the big nations are contemplating. We have another week to wait before we know the nature of the deal our leaders will hatch. I suspect that Tuvalu will be ignored. It will be politically easier to resettle the 11,000 islanders than find a way to reduce carbon emissions enough to save their homes from being swamped by rising sea levels.

The 787 Dreamliner and the E-Mini are small first steps in the transformation of society. If we think that Tuvalu should be rescued, we will have to give our engineers the brief to start taking giant leaps. I believe it can be done. Where there is a will, there is an engineer who can deliver.

Back to headlines

Admire my Carbon Boots 7 December 2009

I write this on the eve of the Copenhagen climate conference. Carbon footprints are all the rage. Many people now understand the case for low-energy light-bulbs and choose to buy less thirsty cars. People want to be seen to be reducing the size of their carbon footprint. For big business in Europe it has become a requirement. Carbon footprints are now important for facilities managers and are coming onto the radar screens of financial directors and chief executives. For many, this is in response to the carbon reduction legislation, changes in car tax and the threat of higher energy costs in the future.

There are also businesses and individual people that want to go further. They want to reduce their carbon emissions because they believe that it is the right thing to do. It is becoming ‘cool’ to show off smaller carbon boots, even if they are more expensive.

For some other people, the fashion remains to arrive in the largest, butchest SUV on the market. These cost more than other cars of course, but that may be part of the attraction, to display the ability to pay. To these people, big carbon boots are still the fashion accessory of choice.

It is not just the rich who like to show off. In a street on the less affluent side of my town there is a competition running. One house has Christmas lights that include Father Christmas and his reindeers in full neon glory. There are lights around every part of the house where a cable could be strung. The owner must be very proud of his (or her) creation and not too worried by the numbers ticking rapidly on the electricity meter. This house is not the ‘winner’. Further along the street another house has surpassed even this, with a similar Christmas light display but also the ground of the front yard is covered in a carpet of lights.

The fashion needs to shift to smaller carbon boots so that those who currently take pride in big clodhopping carbon boots are made to feel old fashioned and out-of-date. This fashion shift could be far more powerful than legislation. Over time, smoking has made the transition from ‘cool’ to ‘offensive’. Big carbon footprints will also go out of fashion in a similar way. Big SUVs and conspicuous energy consumption will be seen as naff. This shift in society will come whether there is an agreement at Copenhagen or not.

© Peter McManners 2009

Back to headlines

Climategate – Who is being Stupid? 30 November 2009

I have been watching the debate over the so-called “climategate” with close interest. Scientists have been caught cooking the climate data. The exchanges that have followed have been highly emotional and often vitriolic. Youtube has a range of videos produced by people taking great delight in presenting climate change as an elaborate hoax.

The same people delighting in the mistakes made by the scientists were active recently opposing wind turbines. They now see their position of opposition vindicated, but who is being stupid?

I listened to a wind protester at a public meeting recently and the argument was based on the health hazards of wind turbines. The protester spoke about wind turbine syndrome. He pointed out that there was no proof that the condition existed but, on the precautionary principle, wind turbines should not be erected anywhere near human habitation. These same people are now gleefully jumping onto the mistakes made by a few scientists, citing this as a reason not to make efforts to make the changes in society required to reduce carbon emissions. Where is the precautionary principle now?

Human society is putting the ecosystem at risk of major damage. The only solid incontrovertible evidence will be when we are living in the consequences. Climategate has exposed the human instinct to live for today, despite evidence (some of which is now tainted) that there is a need for fundamental change to protect our future.

The scientists at fault should resign and play no further part in the IPCC, but it is the people who claim that climate change is a hoax who are being stupid.

© Peter McManners 2009

Back to headlines

‘Eco’ Selling – Beware the Climate Con 16 November 2009

We are being inflicted with a con so insidious that even the perpetrators believe their own sales pitch. The con is based on a number of true statements and a few apparently logical deductions. Beware, because this con is sweeping through the shopping malls, mail order catalogues and internet sales sites.

The traditional con involves fooling people into thinking they have stumbled across some easy money. Con artists often play on a person’s weakness such as loneliness, insecurity, poor health or simple ignorance. This con is based on people’s growing awareness that climate change is a potentially serious problem. It is widely known that reducing our carbon footprint is one action we should take and this is starting to influence purchase decisions. It is scandalous that this change of attitude is being exploited by unscrupulous traders.

First, we need to understand the mechanism of the con so we do not get trapped by it. The scam relies on ignorance that that climate change is part of a greater challenge. The prime challenge is to make society sustainable. Reducing carbon emissions is only part of the change required. Focus too hard on carbon and we will miss spotting the greater issue. This is like the con artist that grabs our attention to persuade us to part with our cash whilst hiding the true nature of the transaction.

The example I came across this week was a throw-away consumer product that was presented as ‘eco’ because of the carbon reductions associated with its use. Buy this product and you will drive less and consume less on other throw-away products. The product itself was a classic example of buy it for Christmas, use it for a while and then chuck it when the novelty has worn off. Watch out for this green spin marketing ploy. It will trap a lot of people until we start to see ‘sustainable’ and ‘eco’ as more than a carbon counting exercise.

Back to headlines

Pumping Money into the Economy 16 November 2009

Should the Bank of England be pumping money into ‘banks’, ‘bubbles’ or the ‘real economy’? The only choice we can rule out for sure is ‘bubble’. The choice that Alistair Darling has taken on behalf of the government is to pump money into the banks in the hope that it will be channelled into the real economy. That is not what is happening. The money is going into the financial system and appearing as a surge on the stock market. This is exactly where we do not want tax-payers money to end up.

There is a lot of talk about persuading banks to take action to support the real economy. They are being urged to be more prudent and to lend more to small businesses (not easily compatible aims). There are also proposals to cap banker’s bonuses but this may be more political posturing than trying to fix the financial system. When money flows into banks it enters a system which is the same as it was prior to the crisis but with some of the more extreme elements neutered (for now). It is not banks that need the money, it is the real economy.

The central bank can make new money at the flick of a switch. Quantitative easing is a very easy option. It is hoped that this then helps the economy. This is lazy policy making; like the government’s action to reduce VAT early in the crisis. The real challenge is boosting the real economy and getting people back to work. It will not be easy.

One way would be channel government money to the insulation of all the housing stock in the UK, starting with that in public ownership. The money will go direct to employing people from the hard-hit construction industry and deliver long-term reductions in carbon emissions as well as improve security of energy supply for the country. This would pump stimulus directly into the real economy. The effects would ripple out, allowing people to get off the dole, back to work and pay off their mortgage arrears. This is not an easy option, to implement quickly, but governments should not be in power looking for easy options. This could be up and running now if our leaders had more vision and more drive.

Back to headlines

Time for World Leaders to Act 9 November 2009

We like to listen to optimists, and I am an optimist, but I am also a realist. My new book, Victim of Success: Civilization at Risk contains a blueprint to save the world but it is not a small change to business as usual. Decades of denial that a problem is brewing means that now it is not possible to avoid difficult and painful decisions. This is the uncomfortable and worrying reality that we don’t like to hear.

I remain optimistic because I know that when people really understand the risks we are taking on behalf of the next generation, they will be willing to enter crisis mode. The current set of proposals, being worked on for the climate talks in Copenhagen in December 2009, is not enough. A deal will be agreed, but it will then stifle the debate for the next decade whilst we invest in more nuclear power, ramp up carbon trading and then miss the ambitious targets that were agreed.

By then, climate change will be hitting many countries hard, the world population will still be expanding and natural habitats will have been destroyed. We will stop, think, and try again to come up with another blueprint for the planet, but by then the problems will be much more intractable.

My book is not the blueprint to save the world. It is a call to action, a plea to open our eyes to reality and an indication of the nature of a new direction for society. The time for complacency and reassuring optimism is long past. Civilization is at risk and it is up to this generation of world leaders to take steps to protect it.
© Peter McManners 2009

Back to headlines

De-Carbonising Europe 2 November 2009

Gerry Wolf, of Desertec-UK claims that, using proven technology, Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) could deliver the entire world’s current electricity demand using less than 5% of the world’s desert area. This could mean that the deserts of North Africa could power Europe.

These ideas have been around for a while. I wrote in my book Adapt and Thrive that the deserts could provide ‘liquid sunshine’ as a viable transport fuel. I used the term ‘liquid sunshine’ in order not to be prescriptive over which technology would win out. Some people argue for hydrogen; my personal favourite is a bio fuel produced by photosynthesis perhaps from algae grown in tanks. Of course this needs water and the sunniest places are deserts where, by definition, water is in short supply.

This is where CSP can work along-side liquid sunshine plants. CSP uses mirrors to concentrate the sun’s heat which is then used to generate steam to power conventional turbines. The engineers have developed clever design concepts to store the heat so that the turbines can continue to run when the sun goes down. This means that solar electricity from the desert can provide the steady reliable power that our grids demand.

There is another fortunate development that engineers are working on. The CSP has ‘waste’ heat that can be used to operate desalination plants to extract fresh water from sea water. It is technically feasible to combine a CSP plant sending electricity to our cities over low-loss power lines with a plant to produce a bio fuel (my liquid sunshine) to be shipped and used in transport.

The engineers have the solution to de-carbonising Europe; all that is needed is the business case. That business case hinges on the price of fuel and energy. It is simple; we must accept much higher energy costs to give companies like Desertec the business case to deliver the engineer’s designs. ‘All’ we have to do is to overcome the political difficulty of much higher energy prices.

© Peter McManners 2009

Back to headlines

21st Century Mobile Power 26 October 2009

The mobile phone has become a standard accessory for all people throughout the world. In affluent Finland, the home of Nokia Corporation, the mobile phone has been ubiquitous for decades. At the other extreme, in the poorest regions of the world there may be one mobile phone per village, hired out one call at a time. In the developed world, this flood of mobile technology allows us to text, twitter and surf the net. In the developing world, people can avoid the expense of a long trip into the nearest town by transacting their affairs over the phone for the first time. There is no need to install a fixed-line infrastructure; poorer countries can jump straight to a network of base stations to serve the mobile phones.

Through this explosion of mobile phone sales we have been blind to the consequential impact of the manufacture and then disposal of the phones. We must move beyond the out-dated concepts of the 20th century throw-away society to true 21st century cradle-to-cradle design. Products should be designed for a full lifecycle of manufacture, use and recycling at end-of life that is sustainable indefinitely.

It is heartening to see the first small step. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has given its stamp of approval to an energy-efficient one-charger-fits-all for new mobile phones. There will no longer need to be a new charger for every new phone sold. This may be a small step but it shows that corporations can cooperate to deliver sustainable solutions. The next challenge in this industry would be to make the phones themselves entirely recyclable. There are some examples of covers made from recycled plastics but these are superficial attempts. The 21st century mobile phone must have all components designed to be fully recyclable, particularly the batteries.

Back to headlines

Punishment for Past Behaviour 19 October 2009

Britain’s MPs are reaping the consequences of claiming as much as they can from an imperfect expenses system. Sir Thomas Legg has been called in to conduct an audit of members’ claims. He has sent letters to MPs requiring them to repay amount that he judges to be unreasonable. Some MPs are complaining that their claims were within the rules that then applied, and to reassess the claims according to new rules, applied retrospectively, is unfair. Natural justice would be on their side; applying new rules to old claims is unfair. However these are the people who run the country and set regulations. They should be above manipulating a weak system for personal advantage. When the claims are for pornographic movies and ornamental islands for ducks, it should be obvious that these are not expenses to be claimed from the public purse.

We are dealing with the environment in much the same cavalier manner. There are no binding rules to prevent excessive emissions of carbon dioxide. Within the current rules, you could purchase 100 tons of coal and set it alight for the sheer amusement of annoying climate protesters. It should be obvious to business leaders and politicians that burning coal in large power stations, where the ‘waste’ heat is released into the atmosphere through large cooling towers, is outdated technology and should be closed down as soon as practical. This is irresponsible behaviour. It may not have the comic value of an ornamental duck island but it should attract our anger. I hope that in the future an eminent person like Sir Thomas Legg is invited to assess who is responsible for the current blockages that are preventing real action to reduce damaging carbon dioxide emissions.

There are solutions. They are not simple, or easy, but are feasible. All we have to do is decide that we must act and invite the people with the knowledge to take the decisions and then face down resistance.
© Peter McManners 2009

Back to headlines

Justifying Oil Sand Exploitation 12 October 2009

The world’s biggest known heavy oil reserves are Canada’s oil sands and Venezuela’s Orinoco belt. The largest known deposit in Africa is in the Republic of Congo being exploited by the Italian oil group Eni. These sources require energy to extract the oil and refine it into saleable fuel. Such sources of oil therefore emit more carbon dioxide than more accessible conventional oil. As the world’s demand for oil outstrips supplies, these reserves will become commercially viable.

If we are worried about oil supplies running low, and continue to be hooked on oil, then oil sands is where we will turn for our next fix. If we are serious about preventing climate change, and want to take effective action, the world will learn how to live without fossil fuel before embarking upon major exploitation of such low grade reserves. The former direction is looking like favourite to win based on the current status of negotiations leading into the Copenhagen climate conference.

One particularly deluded proposal caught my eye. Processing heavy oil produces a lot of sulphur. The proposal is to use this to make sulphur dioxide to be pumped high into the atmosphere with the hope that this will cool the planet and reduce the effects of climate change. A low narrow, flexible pipe suspended under a series of Helium balloons would carry the sulphur dioxide skywards into the stratosphere where the high winds would blow it around the planet.

It is hard to understand that such crackpot thinking is being used to justify continuation of the fossil fuel habit. It is possible to wean ourselves off fossil fuel - the time has come to start the transformation in society required.

© Peter McManners 2009

Back to headlines

We can all be Arctic Explorers 5 October 2009

“The time when the North Pole becomes ice-free each summer is not far off. The reason why this change is so rapid is that whilst there is ice, the white surface reflects the sun’s energy back into space. Where the ice has melted, open water is dark and absorbs this energy. The more open water, the more energy is absorbed, the more the Arctic Ocean warms, so the more ice melts, and so on. This positive feedback loop is accelerating the changes. The 120 polar explorers who are in the record books as having walked unaided to the North Pole will become a very exclusive group as it will no longer be possible to repeat their exploits.”

From the chapter ‘Climate Change Hits Home’ in Victim of Success

Of course it matters little that this particular record book will be closed. We just have to wait a decade or so and we can visit by luxury cruise ship in the summer season. There will not be much to see but a flat expanse of water dotted with floating ice. It will seem odd that Arctic explorers made all that effort to make it across the ice. Soon all of us can be Arctic explorers. From our cabin we can put on a warm coat and venture out onto the deck for a photo. If we are lucky to make our expedition in the first season of open water we might spot one of the last wild polar bears, disorientated and swimming north looking for solid ice and finding none.

This is not a cruise that I want to be on.

Back to headlines

Securing a Future for Civilization 22 September 2009

It is my hope that we can divert civilization onto a path that is both prosperous and ensures sound environmental stewardship. Over the last 5 years, my research has uncovered a number of things. The first is that unless humans find another track civilization will collapse. We have all the evidence we need to be sure that this is a correct deduction.

This insight was behind writing Victim of Success. In the book, (due for release in October) I write about the pending collapse of human civilization brought on by the pursuit of economic success at any cost. I also write about how to prevent it. This will mean introducing dramatic changes into society, including constraints on our behaviour and adopting measures that may hold back economic growth. The challenge, as an author, is to write about the changes required in such a way that the reader understands the necessity to act. This means tackling the unpleasant truth about the risks to civilization in order to set the context within which to counter them.

Advance orders are being taken here.

Back to headlines

CAT Comes of Age 31 August 2009

I returned last night from the annual member’s conference of the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) in Machynlleth in Wales. It is situated in a remote disused slate quarry. The members of staff there are passionate about developing the technology and behaviours required to live sustainably. It was established in the 1970s on the back of a surge of interest in protecting the world for the future. That surge of interest in the environment, in which CAT was established, was sidelined as the world went through the economic expansion of the next three decades.

CAT continued to operate, developing practical solution to renewable energy and sustainable living on a shoe-string budget, and relying on volunteer support. I joined about ten years ago and went to my first member’s conference about 6 years ago. The facilities are built with an uncompromising aim of total sustainability. However, the facilities are largely self-built by volunteers and are experimental. Some of the buildings look very tired. This courage to experiment, and determination not to compromise, is bound to lead to failures. But that is how CAT has developed world-leading expertise.

The world has again become interested in sustainable living and CAT has returned to centre stage. Its report on Zero-Carbon Britain is a powerful draft of a solution for the UK. They are also building an astounding building - The Wales Institute for Sustainable Education (WISE). It will provide a state-of-the-art environmental education centre, drawing on CAT's 30 years' experience to educate a wide range of participants in the principles of sustainable development.

The WISE building has incorporated all the experimental experience of 30 years. For a building of this size and budget a commercial contractor has been used, but the contractor has struggled to learn the techniques and the building is delayed. Even so it is an architectural master piece and shows that sustainable living need not be camping out in cramped experimental cabins. The challenge will be to persuade the government that radically improved building regulations are possible and then to educate the building industry to build to the CAT-type specifications.

Back to headlines

The Soaring Price of Sugar 25 August 2009

The price of sugar on the world market is soaring. One reason is the demand for ethanol. According to the International Sugar Organisation, 9% of Brazil’s sugar cane harvest goes to the production of ethanol. World fuel ethanol trade is expected to rise by 25% annually from about 4 billion litres in 2007 to 22 – 25 billion litres in 2015. Brazil will remain the world’s main exporter, and the US and Europe the largest importers. Politicians in Europe have belatedly realised that setting high targets for biofuel in transport has effects on world food markets and have backed off. The EU will not increase its share of the world market further. Biofuel is not the alternative energy solution that some people were hoping - unless we also accept that the poorest countries go hungry in order to fill the gas tanks of the rich countries. When a country diverts its own surpluses into biofuel it can be justified; when a country buys bio fuel feed stock off the world market and thus displaces food growing capacity and drives prices beyond the reach of the poor, this is much harder to justify.

The current surge in sugar prices has another cause. India is a big consumer of sugar using 15% of the world market (24m tonnes in 2008). The Indian government had banned exports. The result has been perverse. With exports banned, the price of sugar in India fell, so farmers then planted less sugarcane. Whereas India’s sugar output in 2007/8 season was 29m tonnes, it is estimated that this year’s production will fall to below 20m tonnes and could be as low as 16m tonnes. A weak monsoon also threatens this year's production.

The example of sugar is an indicator that we are at the start of a difficult period for world food prices as the markets respond to a number of forces. The central conflict is between food and fuel. Brazil will be caught in a trap where it comes under commercial pressure to grow more crops for both food and fuel. At the same time Brazil will be urged to protect the rain forest. Which policy will Brazil embrace?

These problems seem insoluble. The reason is that we think about world markets through a narrow lens of policies that have driven the world economy for the last three decades

Back to headline

Rudd's Defeat 17 August 2009

On August 13th the Australian Senate rejected the bill to establish the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). This would have reduced Australia's greenhouse-gas emissions by 5% by 2020 (compared with 2000 levels), or 25% if other major developed countries agreed to similar cuts. The fight may not be over. The bill can be resubmitted in three month’s time. That means that there is a chance that the bill could be approved before the Climate talks in Copenhagen in December.

In Australia, climate change is a central political issue. The Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, campaigned heavily on promises to reduce Australia's contribution to global warming. He is now trying to deliver on his election promises. He made a quick and decisive start, ratifying the Kyoto Protocol shortly after taking office – and before officials had a chance to dissuade him.

The CPRS is not supported by the Australian Greens party, which believes that the CPRS is too timid. The opposition Liberal-National coalition opposes the bill because of the impacts on trade-exposed industries and the agricultural and mining sectors.

Australia is one of the biggest per-capita emitters in the world, largely because of the country's heavy reliance on coal-generated electricity. Australia’s action will set the scene for what is agreed in Copenhagen. If the Australian government can resubmit the bill, without watering down the content and it passes, then other countries may be willing to make a deal. If Australia rejects the bill for a second time it is hard to see how the world can agree a deal in Copenhagen.

The discussion leading up to Copenhagen talks is like watching a group of politicians trying to walk through treacle. Yvo de Boer, head of the UN climate secretariat, warned recently that ‘If we continue at this rate we're not going to make it.’
© Peter McManners 2009

Back to headlines

Civilization at Risk 10 August 2009

Last week I was at the Institute of Green Economics Annual Conference held at Oxford University. Preparing and delivery my presentation distracted me from my blog so I have missed a week.

Each week that goes by, civilization is closer to collapse. My next book, Victim of Success, Civilization at Risk outlines the sequence of the collapse of human society if we do not change direction. My preface begins:

In this book, I write about the pending collapse of human civilization brought on by the pursuit of economic success at any cost. I also write about how to prevent it. This will mean introducing dramatic changes into society, including constraints on our behaviour and adopting measures that may hold back economic growth. The challenge, as an author, is to write about the changes required in such a way that the reader understands the necessity to act. This means tackling the unpleasant truth about the risks to civilization in order to set the context within which to counter them.

Advances sales already being taken on Amazon. I have written this book to wake up our leaders to the need to act, and act soon. If we can get a surge of pre-orders then it will rise up the Amazon rankings when the publication date arrives and the delegate at the climate talks in Copenhagen in December will have to take note.

Click here to pre-order and support my call for action.

Back to headlines

Time to Build Better Houses 27 July 2009

The UK has set the target of all new houses to be carbon-neutral by 2016. I wonder why we have to wait so long. We have the technology; the UK has a benign maritime climate; all we need is the will.

The existing houses are far more difficult to deal with. Short of knocking them down and rebuilding it will be hard. It may take until 2016 before we work out how to make them better using affordable methods. The existing housing stock in some other countries with much more severe weather is already up to the job. The old house (dating from 1980) we used to own just outside Helsinki was up to the task. It was triple glazed, insulated like a Thermos flask and heated by the waste heat from the local power station. Building workers in Finland already know how to build the houses we need in the UK.

I listened to an interview with a representative of the UK building industry who was complaining that the government’s plans were too tough. He said that it would cost £20,000 more onto the construction costs of an average house to meet the standards (that seemed cheap at the price). His comment was that buyers would not pay the premium and the builders would have to take the costs out of their profit margin.

Buying a house is a big purchase and a long-term commitment. Would people really be put off by paying £20,000 more for a much better property? I am sure with a bit of marketing effort the value can be sold to purchasers. If not, then the government should simply drive the requirements tighter sooner. If you want a new house this is what it will cost.

Instead of a knee-jerk reaction to oppose the government, house builders should push ahead with learning how to build better houses and teach the foremen and building workers the new techniques. There is plenty of slack in the industry to take the time to learn. The industry should then campaign for green stimulus funds and support for green mortgages to fund the purchase of green homes. Get on board to build better houses, make a decent profit and kick the old British construction industry into touch.
© Peter McManners 2009

Back to headlines

Bottled Water gets its comeuppance 20 July 2009

Some parts of the world are finally waking up to the ridiculous situation where plain water is sold in plastic bottles that are then discarded. The Premier of New South Wales, Australia, Nathan Rees has ordered all State Government departments and agencies to stop buying bottled water. This will save taxpayer money and help reduce the impact on the environment. I wrote in my book Adapt and Thrive:

‘The strangest behaviour of all is society’s demand for bottled water.’
I went on to argue for taxes and restrictions. This has now come to pass led by the residents of a small Australian town called Bundanoon. It was not famous before, but it is famous now, for taking action which all towns and cities should consider. Bundanoon decided to ban the sale of bottled water except in reusable bottles that can be refilled from water fountains to be installed on the main street. With a population of just 2,500, Bundanoon is not, on its own, going to rescue the world environment. But if Bundanoon leads the way and starts a movement that spreads across the world then one of the developed world’s oddest and most unsustainable habits may be broken.

It was the request of a commercial company to extract water from the local aquifer that set off the complaints. When the local water is considered good enough to bottle and sell then there is no need for bottled supplies. We should all get concerned that our local water is clean and safe and that there is no need for the huge waste of throwaway plastic bottles.

Back to headlines

World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment 13 July 2009

The World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment was an excellent discussion forum. Climate change was the prime focus. Through a series of presentations and discussion sessions we shared our views. There was agreement that action was needed but disagreement what this should comprise. There was a rich and fruitful dialogue. Here are three short snap-shots as examples of the diverse range of discussion.

An American professor from a business school in the United States explained his interest in religion and climate change. We had a very fruitful discussion; much more so than I would have expected. You normally associate religion with worthy causes but a lack of real power.
He explained that the evangelical religious movement in the US has enormous influence over policy and policy makers. This professor was hoping to win over key religious leaders and religious communities to support more sustainable living. If he could succeed then he will have recruited a very influential lobby in the United States to force the pace of the acceptance of the need for change.

Carbon trading was another area that generated considerable comment. I was concerned that one economist, who had been advising the UK government, was concentrating on the opportunities to profit from trading carbon. There are city financiers and business leaders who, quite rightly, are looking for such opportunities. This is capitalism directed towards achieving public good. However this economist had lost sight of the underlying purpose of the market to reduce fossil carbon release over the long-term. He had not taken the time to examine the long-term effects and so his advice to government was well intentioned no doubt but, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed.

My final observation must go to Al Gore, former US Vice President, who closed the conference. He told a story about winning converts to support the US carbon trading bill as it went through congress. One US congressman was not sure he was going to support the bill. Al Gore hoped to win his support and asked him why. The congressman replied:
“I am not sure I want to support this bill, because I am not convinced that carbon causes cancer.”
I trust Al Gore was relating a true story. There is still a mountain to climb in persuading some people of the nature of the problem.

Back to headlines

Listen to President Nasheed – and Act 6 July 2009

I find myself this Sunday evening staying in Keble College, Oxford. I am here for the first World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, organised by the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment. It is a real pleasure to be with so many like-minded people. As a group, we are passionate about transforming society but with a huge range of opinions of how to move forward.

The strongest message of the day’s deliberations came from His Excellency President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives. He explained the need to move to a low-carbon society and explained his negotiating position leading into the Climate talks in Copenhagen in December. His opening point was dramatic. If the world does not succeed in agreeing an agreement that brings climate change under control then his country will cease to exist. He went on the say that he cannot, and will not, lie down and do nothing. He spoke politely and eloquently giving his words the power to touch your soul. When he stands up and addresses the Copenhagen Climate Summit, he will be listened to intently.

He also went on to explain that although his country has not been the cause of climate change, he has set policy that the Maldives will be carbon neutral within 10 years. He wants to set an example to show that it is possible. He is not banging the table (although he would have every right to do so) he has realised that the only real power he has is in shaming other countries to follow his lead. This is statesmanship at its best.

At question time he was asked what he thought about Gordon Brown’s idea for a $100 billion dollar fund to help poorer countries deal with climate change. His reply was a marvellous insight:

“It is best not to talk about money. What are needed are home-grown solutions.” I took this to be a swipe against the interventionist policies of the World Bank as well as statement of the confidence and ability of the Maldivians. He went on to add, “The money seldom reaches us anyway, or if it does, it gets siphoned off by dictators.” He is finding ways that the Maldives can be carbon neutral and wants the world follow with their own local solutions, taking action at home where there is the power to act and the responsibility to do so.

We should listen to President Nasheed and follow his example. Instead of huge funds to assuage our guilt, the develop world should commit to being carbon neutral within 10 years. A huge challenge of course but the barriers are not engineering solutions – of which there are many – the barriers are attitudes and politics. It is impossible to listen to President Nasheed and not to feel ashamed at our lack of progress.
© Peter McManners 2009

Back to headlines

Action, not Words 29 June 2009

‘You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do.’
Henry Ford

These words are just as true in the 21st century as they were at the beginning of the 20th century. Our leaders in business and in government tend to forget.

Setting targets and objectives are a normal aspect of good management. Management that understands the process, think very carefully about which objective(s) matter most and what is feasible and sensible. This is then translated into targets rather than a prescriptive plan. Lower levels of management then have the flexibility to deliver the target in the most efficient manner. A problem arises when targets are also used for publicity purposes with the aim of enhancing reputation.

Advertising a target with much fanfare can earn good headlines. Modern media-savvy government often set off down this route. Particularly now, as an election looms in the UK, targets can be set without taking on the associated responsibility to deliver. It will be the next government that has to ensure delivery. A confident government would, of course, plan to stay in power, and have the task of delivery, and therefore ensure that the targets are achievable. However a government that looks likely to lose may clutch at whatever target is likely to give the best headline today without worrying too much about tomorrow.

Business can also fall into the trap of chasing reputation. In a recent independent report by the University of Edinburgh and a research firm, ENDS Carbon, UK supermarket chains were compared (reported in the Sunday Times 28 June). Tesco was reported to have ‘the most ambitious carbon reduction objectives’. This was certainly good PR for Tesco presenting Tesco as the leading green supermarket chain. Other supermarket chains have been claiming that their targets are superior, with for example Mike Barry, Marks and Spencer’s head of sustainable business, claiming that M&S will be carbon neutral by 2012. This will not be possible unless carbon offsetting is used. M&S will have to be very careful - the public is becoming more knowledgeable about the limitations of carbon offsetting.

The reputations of governments and business is based on what you do, not what you say. The current government will be judged at the ballot box on what they have achieved. The supermarket chains will be judged by shoppers on the evidence of the environmental improvements in products and stores. Targets should be kept where they belong as a management tool, not a PR exercise.
© Peter McManners 2009

Back to headlines

UK Lags in Recycling Aluminium Cans 22 June 2009
According to the European Aluminium Association (EAA), 70% of aluminium used in Europe is for the manufacture of aluminium cans, a total of 37 billion cans. This is approaching one can every week, for every man, woman and child. The EAA is delighted that demand remains high:

‘The aluminium beverage can market grew in particular in Northern and Eastern-Europe, while several Western-European countries such as France, Spain, Greece and Germany demonstrated solid growth rates. The total market including Central & Eastern Europe grew by 14% to more than 37 billion aluminium cans produced. This includes also exports to non-European countries.’ EAA Press Release 16 June Brussels.’

The EAA also reported recycling rates across Europe. The best country was Norway with 92%, closely followed by Sweden and Germany both on 91%. At the bottom were Greece and Portugal with recycling rates of 36% and 31% respectively. The UK is towards the bottom with a recycling rate of 52% of all aluminium cans.

The EAA press release added some fanfare to the fact that overall recycling rates across Europe had increased 10% and that this ‘represents an impressive saving of 300,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas equivalents’. This is an odd celebration to make. The truth behind the figures is that overall European recycling rates are atrocious and we should be ashamed – particularly in the UK.

I have lived for the last 4 years in Finland (aluminium can recycling rate 89%). The system is simple; aluminium cans are sold under a deposit system. There is a universal and efficient system of automatic machines in all large sales outlets that takes back the cans and prints out a bar-code slip to scan and have the total deducted from your shopping bill. It is easy to comply and people save money if they do. This is a not a recent innovation; the system is long established.

The UK lags badly behind other Northern European countries at a shade over 50% recycling. It is sheer laziness by policy makers that this situation is allowed to continue when the solution is there for all to see. UK retailers will resist, not wanting to make the capital expenditure, but policy makers should press ahead, and press ahead quickly, to move from 50% to 90% recycling of aluminium drink cans.
© Peter McManners 2009

Back to headlines

World Trade Week UK 15 June 2009

We come to the end of World Trade Week. It was opened by Lord Mandelson on Monday with a speech that, not surprisingly, defended the policy of free and open trade. He announced that the UK had helped to fund a new independent global watchdog called Global Trade Alert. Lord Mandelson explained that the purpose of Global Trade Alert is to find evidence of the damage of protectionist policies and prevent countries adopting policies that restrict trade. Not exactly a neutral analysis of the role of trade in a changing world.

Lord Mandelson’s speech was an interesting insight into the blinkered world of those who continue to support free-trade without questioning whether all aspects of the policy still fit the world and the problems of today. He explained that in the current crisis, protectionism ‘takes on a veneer of respectability’. These words seem intended to push aside any views that do not support unequivocal support for free-trade. I understand the economic argument in favour of free-trade and the economic benefits to many countries. I also understand that free trade is not a panacea. The world needs an intelligent dialogue over the future for trade. Entrenched positions on either side of the debate are not helpful.

My attention was drawn to one event in World Trade Week organised by Business Link Northwest at the Crowne Plaza in Liverpool. The title chosen was ‘Survive and Thrive’. Having written a book with that same title I took a close look to see what was on offer. Had Business Link adopted my route to a sustainable future for society? Alas it was not to be. The event was aimed at helping business to make it through the current economic climate: ‘to manage your business in the credit crunch and make money at the same time!’

The world is slow to realise that the Sustainable Revolution is coming and there are business opportunities to exploit but not with a business-as-usual approach. The world is changing; to adapt and thrive requires understanding a different set of parameters.
© Peter McManners 2009

Back to headlines

GM Exhaust Tones 8 June 2009

“Now that GM has become Government Motors it will start making electric cars suitable for tree huggers to drive. I want a car with grunt that makes a lot of noise.”

These are the words of an American car driver speaking in an interview on BBC Radio last week as GM slid into majority government ownership. I may not have remembered the exact words correctly but the sentiment was clear. The US government’s plans to reform the US car fleet will meet with strong resistance from some people.

As the GM design team get down to designing a new range of cars, efficient and fully recyclable will be prime requirements. Some electric models will be required, although whether this is good for the environment will depend on the source of the electricity. The United States uses a lot of coal in generating electricity, and electric cars that perpetuate this would not be a useful step towards sustainable transport. GM should be designing electric cars in parallel with US government support for electricity from renewable sources.

GM will then have to think about the sound of their electric cars for the US market. A near-silent hum is the only sound an electric car needs to make – this seems not to be what some customers want.

My proposal is that electric cars come with an exhaust tone. This could be similar to the ring-tones of mobile phones. There are ever so many ring tones and internet sites from which to download them. We should do the same for exhaust tones. If you want the sound of a Chevrolet, Hummer or Pontiac, this should be an option. There is no need to stop with one of GM’s own marques; why not the sound of a Ferrari or a Lotus. My suggestion for exhaust tone would be the sound of a 1969 Z28 Camaro, tuned for drag racing, and blasting out of a Bang & Olufsen sound system to ensure high fidelity. That might be enough to give the required impression of grunt and wake up the neighbours.

When the trade in exhaust tones gets going there will be no limit to the sounds available. Petrol heads can have the throaty roar they so like and others can have the almost imperceptible sound of a Rolls Royce Silver Shadow. There is no need to confine the exhaust tones to car noises – anything could be used from music to animal noises. The only exhaust tone I would want to ban would be use of the Microsoft Windows start-up tune. Switching on the car in the morning to be greeted by that would be an exhaust tone too far.
© Peter McManners 2009

Back to headlines

‘What is good for GM is good for America’ 1 June 2009

Today, General Motors (GM) is expected to file for bankruptcy. GM has been in a rut for years denying the need to make massive change in order to start building cars fit for the 21st century. Evolving the old monolith by gradual change through persuasion of a diverse range of stakeholders was never going to work. Bankruptcy is the best of a set of bad options. Does the old adage apply, that what is good for GM is good for America?

Looking across the Atlantic from Europe we see a new US president seeking to persuade a range of interest groups to make changes. A carbon trading bill is progressing and is likely to come into law, but resistance has been intense and the result likely to be much watered-down compared with the version proposed by Barack Obama. America is struggling to cope with the transition to a sustainable society fit for the 21st century. If it were possible to close-down the US and start again, that might be the best option, but countries are not like commercial companies. Countries usually avoid revolutions, but sometimes that is the only way. The US revolution of the 18th century was the right course for this great country to break away from British rule. In the 21st century, the time is right to embrace the Sustainable Revolution, not fight against the tide of scientific advice and deny the need for radical change.

Back to headlines

NIMBYs Scupper UK Wind Turbine Industry 23 May 2009

After the negative experience with the NIMBYs (not-in-my-back-yard) campaigning against wind turbines, at the Sustainable Newbury Public Meeting last week I have been carrying out some research – the results are worrying for the UK.

World-wide, the installation of wind energy generation grew from just 2,000 MW in 1990 to 17,000 MW in 2000. Over the last 6 years it has grown at 25% annually to reach 122,000 MW in 2008. Concerns over climate change and the associated push into renewable power are driving investment. The wind turbine industry is booming – but not in the UK.

The world leader is a Danish company, Vestas. This is not just because the geography of Denmark suits wind power, but because the Danish government took a long-term view back in the 1990s to grow the wind turbine industry and have provided considerable support.
The UK government wants to be at the forefront and is committed to expand wind power generation. From 1 April 2009, the Government’s Renewable Obligation (RO) scheme was amended to give offshore wind 50% extra financial support. The RO has been banded so that emerging technologies that are further from commercial deployment will receive greater levels of support to encourage their development. Speaking at a Department of Energy and Climate Change seminar in March 2009, Energy and Climate Change minister Mike O’Brien announced that up to £10M is to be made available to develop the next generation of offshore wind technology. This is good, but off-shore wind is much more expensive that land-based turbines.

We can celebrate that in May 2009, Scottish Power opened the largest land-based wind farm in Europe at Whitelee Farm near Glasgow. This had taken a decade to get through the UK’s tortuous planning process, indicating that amongst the good news there are problems. The time to get from concept to firm orders is so long in the UK that one of the UK’s last wind turbine manufacturers announced it would be closing down as reported in the Guardian on 28 April 2009 – just as world demand is rocketing.

Wind turbine manufacturers are not opening turbine factories here because the not-in-my-back-yard protesters are making the approval process so long and difficult. If the government really want to support wind power, they need to bring in a fast-track planning approval process. Everyone should be free to express their legitimate concerns, of course, but there also needs to be a strategic commitment to erect wind turbines in the windy sites except where there are well-argued objections based on something more substantive than a NIMBY reaction.

Back to headlines

Sustainable Newbury Public Meeting on Renewable Energy 16 May 2009

I was delighted to attend the Sustainable Newbury Public Meeting at Newbury Rugby Club today. The meeting had been initiated by local councillors, in particular Martha Vickers. The intention was to seek ideas to expand the use of renewable energy in and around Newbury. Adrian Fletcher of Friends of the Earth chaired the meeting and Richard Benyon MP, the Member of Parliament for Newbury spoke first.

Richard Benyon explained his passion for the protection of the local countryside and the beautiful scenery and hills around the town but despite this he supported the building of wind turbines into the scenery. The reasons he cited for more renewable energy, were in terms that were directly relevant to residents. He wants to be less dependent on Russian gas and have more local control over energy systems. He explained that there is a real danger of power black-outs in the years ahead unless we act. This was astute politics; climate change was hardly mentioned.

On my arrival I had not assessed the audience as well as the local MP had. I sat down at my allocated table and introduced myself. I made the assumption that we were all there to contribute ideas to enhance the generation of renewable energy harvesting in the local area. As a passionate advocate for sustainable solutions, such as renewable energy, I was looking forward to sharing my ideas. After a brief introduction I was asked what I did not like about wind energy. I had to pause and think. It is hard to come up with negatives for wind energy, but something came to mind. I replied, “The one thing I don’t like about wind energy is the people who present themselves as protectors of the local environment but then oppose wind turbines on principle because of the visual impact.”

From the looks on the faces of many at the table this was not the answer they wanted or expected.
“How would you like to have a wind turbine in your back yard?” I was asked.
“That would be great”, I replied, “I could tell people I live at the base of a wind turbine and be proud of it. If the planners would allow it I would have one on top of my house and as big as the structure could withstand.”

That’s when I found out why the other people were there. They were local residents of Monks Lane and the council had identified Monks Lane as a potential site for wind turbines. It is a high and windy part of town with an open area that would make a great site. They were vociferously opposed to the idea and I heard all about it. The arguments against ranged from the reasonable, that they disliked the visual impact, to the obscure reason that living close by a wind turbine is a hazard to heath. I had to admit I had not heard of ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’ before. The speaker explained that there was no proof that such a condition existed but that on safety grounds turbines should not be placed close to human habitation, just in case.

The resistance against the wind turbines was absolute in these people’s minds. Such entrenched NIMBYism is ridiculous. The final comment from the protesters that stuck in my mind was, “if the council has money for wind turbines, spend it on building them in a windy place on the coast well away from Newbury and feed it into the power grid to then be used by Newbury residents.” Wind, OK, but not in my back yard.

After the negative experience with the NIMBYs, the afternoon ended on a high note meeting the people who had organised the event and were doing their best to make Newbury sustainable. They should be supported, not resisted.

Back to headlines

Chinese Pollution will affect us all 11 May 2009

China is the world’s worst polluter using almost any measure you like to mention. For example, Chinese carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions overtook those of the United States in 2006. Another example is mercury pollution from the production of products like low energy light bulbs. Each light has a small amount of mercury vapour inside. This is highly toxic. If a low-energy light is broken at home it is advisable to leave the room and open the windows to let the traces of mercury dissipate. These are not made around the corner or in a factory across town. If they were, we would be very concerned to ensure the highest possible standards to keep our local environment clean and to keep our children healthy and safe from such dangerous pollution.

We don’t have to worry; the bulk of low-energy light bulbs are imported from China. Our companies, subject to tight environmental restrictions, are not competitive so no corporation is seeking to set up a factory within our local area. This is as far as our concern goes. We believe that the pollution on the other side of the world is a Chinese problem, not ours. This is disingenuous. We have allowed the circumstances to arise where we tighten regulations in the EU and other western nations and squeeze dirty industries away from our shores to places less capable of building and operating clean plants.

We need to understand that pollution into the shared global biosphere belongs to us all. We should all be concerned and be pressing for action. When the pollution is thousands of miles away, we are not in any immediate danger, but the slow ratcheting up of global pollution will be hard to reverse.

The actions required are not difficult to identify, but the changes to world governance to allow it are considerable. For example, the rules of the WTO can count against a country restricting imports on the basis of dirty production processes.

When it comes to CO2, a rough estimate is that about 1/3 of CO2 emitted by China is due to manufacturing goods for exports to the West.

Chinese pollution is a world problem and we all need to engage in how to tackle it. Buying Chinese goods, whilst turning a blind eye to the methods of production, is a disgraceful abrogation of our responsibilities to the planet.

© Peter McManners 2009

Back to headlines

Our Ecological Boots are too Big 4 May 2009

The world is running 130% over its ecological capacity according to figures published by the Global Footprint Network last year. This is a huge deficit. Ignoring such imbalances is dangerous. The world financial system was running huge imbalances and this took us into the current financial crisis. The ecological crisis will be far worse.

Ecological footprints are a more general measure than the better known carbon footprints. The ecological footprint includes agriculture, forestry, fishing, urban development and carbon. The impact of all of these is calculated using a measure called global hectares (gha). The gha is a standardized measure to allow comparisons between countries. The ecological footprint is then compared with the biocapacity of the country. Most developed countries are ecological debtors with notable exceptions such as Sweden and Finland which do manage to live within their capacity. Their ecological boots are big, but there are few people in comparison to the area of the country, so there is space for big footprints. Other countries run an ecological surplus, such as Brazil and Russia but their surpluses are not big enough to offset the debtor nations.

The biggest ecological debtor nations are China, the United States, Japan and India in that order. If the world is to move back into ecological surplus, action must take place that includes these countries.

Collating the figures and calculating world ecological footprint is a time-consuming process. The figures published in 2008 were calculated from data from the year 2005. The previous set of footprints published in 2006 was based upon 2003 data. These showed that the world was running at 120% over capacity. I believe that the increase between 2003 and 2005 is likely to be indicative of the increase between 2005 and 2007, and 2007 and 2009. If I am right, that we have increased our over consumption by 10% over both 2-year periods, then we are currently running something like 150% over capacity. Scientist would berate me for such an opinion – two sets of figures is not enough the show a trend. We will have to wait for the results. But it is only the calculation we are awaiting, there is no way to alter the damage we have inflicted in the recent past.

We are choosing to remain blind to the problems we are causing with our big ecological boots – and our leaders are the blind leading the blind, avoiding the biggest issue of our time.

Back to headlines

Shifting Borders 27 April 2009

Italy and Switzerland are preparing to recognise alterations to the border that runs through the Monte Rosa massif of the Alps. Some local people say that the name derives from the soft red glow that the mountains acquire at sunset on a clear day. The name actually comes from a word in the local dialect meaning glacier. The massif has a number of glaciers which, like almost all glaciers world-wide, are in retreat. If CO₂ levels in the atmosphere continue to increase, these glaciers will disappear. This will not be immediate, but it may not be many years before we pass the point at which their disappearance becomes inevitable. Perhaps the massif has already passed that point; there is no way of knowing. The effects of global warming are slow to work through the ecosystem – and CO₂ levels are slow to reduce even if we did make massive reductions in emissions. It would be 50 years or so before the Earth’s climate settles into a new equilibrium. That will mean that there is no avoiding shifting some borders.

In this case, the reason for the border alteration is that in several places the line between Italy and Switzerland is set at the watershed. Because of global warming, the glaciers have shrunk, so the watershed has shifted, in some places by as much as ten metres. After years of work by Italy’s Military Geographic Institute Silvio Berlusconi’s cabinet has approved a change in the frontier.

Italy has already concluded a deal with Austria and plans to make another with France. The understanding with Austria has for the first time introduced the concept of a movable border. The reason is that global warming will make any line based on the watershed of a glacier hard to define.
Experts from both sides will now be empowered to alter the border at regular intervals until, presumably, the glaciers disappear altogether.

Changing borders is not a recent phenomenon. I was reminded of an incident whilst working in Africa in the 1980s. I was leading a survey team doing mapping work with satellite tracking equipment. I was asked if I would check the location of the border between Cameroon and Nigeria around Lake Chad. The lake was receding, perhaps due to human water extraction, perhaps due to climate change. The fishermen living in the area were following the lake shore and a dispute had erupted. The idea of driving my Land rover along a disputed border telling people they were in the wrong country did not appeal to me, or my team. I asked that the request be agreed by both countries before I would start. In the end my services were not called upon; presumably the fishermen resolved their differences without my input.

The biggest border changes may be the receding coastlines as low lying river deltas are submerged by rising sea levels. The world is changing and even something apparently static, and permanent, as national borders are not exempt.

Back to headlines

Letter from the Arctic 21 April 2009

67° 36’ North, Ylläs, Lapland, Finland

The Pallas- Yllästunturi National Park was established in 2005 consisting of 1,020 sq Km of fell, forest and peatland. It has been two months since the daffodils bloomed in our garden in England. Here the ground is still iced in a thick layer of snow. This is a delightful time to visit. The days are now longer than in the UK and the skiing conditions could not be better. Skiing through the forest you will come across the odd reindeer foraging for food. With their big antlers they can be a formidable sight but are not aggressive and amble away at the sight of a skier. At regular intervals there are log cabins (Kahvila) serving pulla (a Finnish bread), coffee and, if you wish, a dash of brandy.

For the residents, life is not so easy. The period of perpetual night in mid winter leads to depression and heavy drinking. People have lived here sustainably for many thousands of years; we do not know if the depression that modern humankind suffers is a new phenomena or whether it has always been so. The people here had plenty to live on. The fishing is good – even in the winter through holes in the ice. There is plenty of fuel from the forest to keep well insulated houses warm. The reindeer provides nutritious and delicious meat. The local winter diet would have been monotonous until the rapid bloom of the brief summer when summer fruits and forest berries are in such abundance that only a tiny proportion are ever picked and eaten by humans.

I noticed in the local paper that building plots are available from the local municipality for 1€. So living here is not expensive. The only stipulation is that the site is not for a holiday home. You have to be coming to live throughout the year. There are not many takers.

As I ski through the forest tracks on my cross-country skis I can feel in tune with the sustainable communities that have lived here for thousands of years. This is an illusion. Modern civilization is destroying the Arctic wilderness. One of the most popular leisure pursuits is skidoo riding, filling the forest with fumes and noise. All the buildings are heated uncomfortably warm. Good insulation such as triple-glazing means that the fuel bills are affordable. Such buildings would consume less energy if 5 degrees cooler at 19°C instead of 24°C. Our hotel room was so hot we had to open the windows to get to sleep (even though we had turned off the radiator in our room). Visitors arrive by car or plane. We are all participants in the illusion.

The impression I came away with is that modern residents of the Arctic have lost the connection with their sustainable heritage. I am a hypocrite of course, having travelled to the far north for a brief holiday to enjoy the wilderness and live comfortably whilst doing so. We must find a way to have it all; to conserve our natural heritage and enjoy the fruits of civilization.

Back to headlines

Location-Efficient Mortgages 14 April 2009

The US sub-prime mortgage market was the source of the current recession, so the accusation runs. It certainly seems to have been the trigger that set off the collapse. I believe that the huge imbalances that had been building in the international financial system would have to unwind one way or another. Any one, of a number of markets, could have been the first to crack. As the first market dived, in our interconnected world, other markets and other asset classes would be dragged down too.

Globalization of financial markets had appeared to provide stability for individual countries but we failed to see that this was an illusion. We were constructing a market in which we would all either stand or fall together. We can see in hindsight that the price of short-term localized stability is an occasional global collapse. Some of us had been warning of such a possibility for some time but it had to happen before people would believe it.

I now campaign for a green sustainable economic stimulus to lift us out of recession. My attention was drawn to one hopeful sign, and it is in the US mortgage market. In some US cities, Location-Efficient Mortgages (LEM) are being offered. These have preferential terms for loans on properties located where walking is easy and there is good access to public transport.

The US sub-prime mortgage market saddled the poorest people in US society with debts they could never repay, which were then sold on to other investors. The poor lose their houses and the investors lose money. The US LEM market is a much more positive development. The same desire for people to own their own home can be channelled into reversing urban sprawl. A family can choose to live in a location where they do not need to own a car and be offered a bigger loan on better terms. This makes sense as less income will be siphoned off into the car’s fuel tank. The LEM seems to be a very useful financial product that could rescue the tarnished reputation of the financial services industry.
© Peter McManners 2009

Back to headlines

Economy and Climate – G20 and Stern 6 April 2009

The G20 met, talked and then attended press conferences. The headline figure of a $1 trillion stimulus package was bandied around. Subsequent analysis has shown that only a small proportion of this was additional new money. Let us not quibble over detail. The G20 have held a meeting and presented a show of unanimity. This is what we expected. When the primary aim of the meeting was to restore confidence in global finance then the one thing they had to do was issue confident statements.

Difficult subjects like the reasons for the crisis and fundamental weaknesses and imbalances in global finance were avoided. If such issues were discussed, they were not given publicity. For now it was better not to discuss anything controversial in open session in case disagreement resulted and this became public, undermining the primary aim.

Whilst the G20 were gathering I was in London attending a lecture at the Royal Geographical Society. The speaker was Lord Nicholas Stern, famous for the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, published in 2006. This was a hugely influential report that concluded it would be cheaper to act early to address climate change compared with the long-term economic costs of delay. This was a simple and powerful message, expressed in the language of economics and numbers.

Three years on, little substantive change has taken place as a result of the Stern Review. Nicholas Stern has now written a book, A Blueprint for a Safer Planet. In it, he puts forward a persuasive case for a new global deal to address both climate change and world poverty. He makes the assumption that the world can learn to cooperate in an altruistic manner, and he puts his trust in a global carbon market. The Stern blueprint has a feel-good message: we can solve this problem and it will cost just 2% of world GDP to do so.

I get the impression that the G20 had no idea that the Stern book was launched in London concurrent with their meeting. This is one of the problems we face. The world’s finances are considered separately from the world environment. In a sustainable world society, the two would be inextricably linked. The question now should be how to reinvigorate the world economy and address climate change. If we try to answer this question, we find that there is a lot of work to do and a lot of stimulus from getting going. The ‘green shoots’ of recovery is exactly what we need – not further defence of old industries and old practices.

Back to headlines

G20 to Save the World 30 March 2009

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been flying around the world behaving like superman. He has dropped in to see heads of state right around the globe. He has a plan, and he wants the G20 meeting to be held in London next week to sign up to it. He wants a massive $2 trillion coordinated stimulus for the world economy.

The superman-man comparison is of Gordon Brown’s own making. At Prime Ministers’ Question Time, earlier in the crisis, he said that [his] action had ‘saved the world’ when he meant to say ‘saved the banking system’. This was an unfortunate slip up and seized upon by his opponents. He has been ridiculed mercilessly. I worry that it may have been a Freudian slip. Gordon Brown may really believe that his manic shuttle diplomacy will save the world economic system.

Gordon Brown is very slow to realise that the world economy has changed. The era of globalization driven by laissez-faire capitalism is drawing to a close. It is right that our leaders look for ways to address the immediate crisis. If this is part of an agenda that is trying to return to where we were before the crisis hit, then it is the wrong agenda.

I agree with Angela Merkel in her opposition to Brown’s grand plan but perhaps for different reasons. I will summarise her reaction as: if you are broke then stop spending. This seems like very good advice, but my reaction goes further than this. I believe that the current crisis is a flip-point in the world economy. It is like the early aviators who first broke the speed of sound. They found that the controls behaved differently. They had to learn a different way to fly and learn quickly or they crashed to the ground.

Gordon Brown is beginning to look less like superman and more like a politician from a past age wearing his underpants on top of his trousers. This does not bode well for solving the global recession.

Back to headlines

Vote Earth 23 March 2009

Join the WWF for Earth Hour 2009, by turning out your lights for one hour on Saturday, March 28 from 8:30-9:30pm. Earth Hour is a global lights-out phenomenon that will bring together millions of people from around the world to show support for action on climate change. This symbolic event will demonstrate to governments around the world that we want action on climate change now.

Already nearly 400 cities, and double the number of countries that participated in 2008, are committed. With hundreds more cities expected to sign up to switch off in the coming months, Earth Hour 2009 is setting the stage for an unprecedented global mandate for action on climate change. Sign up to help reach the goal of one billion participants in at least 1000 cities worldwide.

On March 28 you can VOTE EARTH by switching off your lights for one hour.

Or you can vote global warming by leaving your lights on.

The results of the election are being presented at the Global Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen 2009. We want one billion votes for Earth, to tell world leaders that we have to take action against global warming.

© Peter McManners 2009

Back to headlines

Lack of ambition over sewage 16 Mar 2009

The one-o’clock news this afternoon on BBC1 included a piece on sewage. Not perhaps the ideal subject for lunch-time viewing, but I am ambitious for the future of sewage so I listened carefully.

My vision for sewage handling is to incorporate large methane generating tanks at all sewage processing plants, with the residue used in agriculture. The methane produced is a high grade renewable energy source, easily stored and easily transported. In the short-term we might feed it into the extensive gas supply network we already have (although the quantities will not match what we use now).

The report went on to describe, and show, a German system that takes semi-dried sewage and burns it in a low oxygen atmosphere. Enough flammable gas (carbon monoxide and methane) is produced to power the system and the residue is almost pure carbon, termed biochar. The sewage is disposed of without using external energy and the biochar can be buried in soil where it improves fertility and locks away carbon.

This seems to be a useful process, but not ambitious enough. I am sure that we can generate net energy out. If we invest in the biochar system it will operate for 20 years or more in an energy neutral mode. We will be reluctant to replace it until it reaches the end of its design life. If we are more ambitious we can generate energy to replace some of the energy we currently get from fossil fuel. There is a role for biochar, and in terms of using the residue in agriculture the safety and health concerns may force us to incinerate, but we should be more ambitious. I want energy back from my sewage.

The final interview in the report made me hopping mad. Professor David Manning of Newcastle University said that biochar could perhaps lock up as much carbon as the amount generated by aviation. This will be latched onto by some people as an excuse not to force change upon world aviation. To claim that a marginal reduction in energy demand is somehow justification for not curbing the burning of aviation fuel, is indefensible. Perhaps he did not mean his words to carry this implication, but this is how his words will be used. I am not sure if I should blame the scientist or the reporter. For a scientist to allow himself to be tricked into statements like this, in my opinion, undermines the credibility of the scientific community. We need scientists to speak out and tell us the truth, as independent experts – not provide erroneous excuses to delay transforming society.

© Peter McManners 2009

Back to headlines

Environmentally friendly planes 9 Mar 2009

I have to be careful when I explain my views over the current aviation industry. People do not like my predictions. I believe that a collapse is coming. It will be initiated when we finally accept that flying is far too cheap. There are a whole range of direct and indirect subsidies that we allow to protect the industry. We believe we are doing this to maintain a vital part of our transport infrastructure. Cheap flights means we can afford to go on holiday further afield. We can go to southern Spain instead of Brighton, or fly long-haul to destinations such Bali and Vietnam. The only question is whether we can tolerate the long flight. With air freight costs low, supermarkets can sell fresh strawberries throughout the year. Roses for sale in Europe’s capitals might have been picked in Africa the same morning.

Our protection of aviation is misguided. Keeping aviation fuel cheap is stifling innovation. We are still flying aircraft designed for the era of plentiful and cheap fossil fuel. Make fuel much more expensive, through taxation, and the business case for new aircraft becomes robust. This is possible, as I explain in my book, Adapt and Thrive but will only come about when the pressure for change becomes intense.

The designs for new generation aircraft are being worked on. This week is the first anniversary of the Federal Aviation Authority’s acceptance of type certification for the Aeroscraft model Aeros ML866. This aircraft generates lift through a combination of aerodynamics, thrust vectoring and gas buoyancy. These relative large slow aircraft will be able to transport people to new destinations without the need for a long runway. They will also be able to carry freight point-to-point. I believe an ‘aircraft’ like this could be the forerunner of green flying. Engineers have a huge area to fit solar panels to allow carbon-free cruising above the clouds. The airline schedule would require that flights take place during daytime. A slow, green cruise from Birmingham to Ibiza may be just what the package holiday industry needs.

Aeros is the company behind the type certification application. For now, the hands of their CEO Igor Pasternak are tied. He has to deliver new capabilities in terms of flying to unusual places. There is no incentive to build a green version. However this new airframe design could be the innovation we need. All we have to do is make airlines pay the full price for the fuel they burn. Venture capitalists will then be rushing to fund a green version of the Aeros design.

Back to headlines

Growing ground swell of opinion 3 Mar 2009

I attended a ‘Green Monday’ networking event in London yesterday evening. It was inspiring that so many people had turned out. Here were over 100 business people interested in delivering the agenda of sustainability. Our discussions could be described as, how to make a commercial success out of doing the right thing. My mind wandered back to 1999 when I first began to test out my ideas on fellow MBA students. I would soon run up against blank stares. Young business managers could not understand why I was talking about issues other than bottom-line financial performance. When they found out - that I had a strong background in geography and environmental monitoring - they then understood, politely listened and then ignored me.

The group last night were different. They were very interested. This is perhaps not surprising, the group was self-selecting; only the people who had an interest in green issues had chosen to come. Of course I came across like-minded people and found agreement for my views.

Most of the audiences that I meet when I teach on the MBA course are not self-selecting in the same way. The audience is a typical snapshot of ambitious managers with only one thing in common – they want an MBA. Sustainability does not have its own module so when I include a discussion about the environment and threats to the ecosystem it falls outside the main syllabus. In 2004, I remember a workshop at which I had to back off very quickly as the students complained, expressing their wish that I stop wasting their time and return to the syllabus. In 2009, when I start a dialogue about the environment, amongst a random group of business people, we enter a fruitful dialogue. Agreement can be hard to find, but at least we are talking.

The discussion last night showed that we have a long way to go to work out how to make sustainability a reality. But there is a growing ground swell of opinion within society that we must find a way. Some of us have been saying this for years, but now, finally, the conversation is moving on from a few loan voices to becoming a rich dialogue.

Back to headlines

When will electric vehicles come of age? 23 Feb 2009

Electric cars make some dramatic savings. Zero road tax, zero congestion charge (to enter central London), tiny fuel bills, and zero emissions. This last point is not true, of course. The emissions that electric cars cause depend on how the electricity is generated. If the car is charged from photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on the roof of the garage or car park then an electric car is zero-emission. If the electricity used to charge the battery comes from a coal-fired power station, the emissions caused can be greater than a car running on petrol or diesel.

Emissions are not the biggest problem with electric cars. The main problem is that they are not very good. The G-Wiz for example is liked by some drivers, wanting to flaunt their green credentials, but it looks like a little box that provides little comfort and even less protection. Fortunately better electric cars are coming through development to reach the market. THINK City has already arrived. This is small too, but is a proper car. This is not surprising, Ford pumped $150m into its development in the early 1990s before deciding that consumers were not yet ready for such a car. The company is now Norwegian owned and doing a great job in design and marketing. It is not just people who are ultra green who are interested. All sorts of people who value the contents of their wallets above the environment are tempted to own one of these for hopping around the city.

When you buy a THINK City, you don’t buy the battery. This is still the weak link in the design. Cleverly, you have to rent it. When it fails after four or five years, the company replaces it free of charge.

I look forward to even better electric cars. The BMW mini looks like a proper car that would be good to own and drive without looking like an idiot. The Tesla electric car looks even better, but is out of my league – it has a level of performance to match Ferrari (and a price tag to march). I would like Jaguar to have a go at making an all-electric car. High quality, sturdy, good looking, reasonable price – these are what the market wants.

Instead of governments bailing out the dinosaurs of the old car industry, hoping that we return to our addiction to the roar of the petrol engine, funds should flow to support the small new companies putting the hum of the electric motor onto our city streets.

Back to headlines

The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning 23 Feb 2009

James Lovelock will be 90 years old this coming summer. His most recent book is aptly named: The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning. This publication should round off an illustrious career. He brought us the Gaia hypothesis, first published in 1979. His idea, that the complex systems of planet Earth behaved like a self-regulating super organism was ground-breaking in its day. It was, and still is, a profound insight.

This warning is one we should listen to. When James Lovelock writes that the Earth is changing due to humankind’s actions, and that the human species may not survive, we should read, digest, question and listen to the answers. The answers are not definitive; we cannot say that the human species is finished. But we can be sure that the Earth is suffering and so in turn will we.

James Lovelock has spent a career campaigning to save Gaia. This book should be his crowning achievement. It will be to our shame if we ignore it. The key message is simple: our home, planet Earth is changing, it may no longer provide the ideal conditions for human life, and we are the cause. Where James Lovelock fails, is in his attempts to write what we should do. His intentions are good but his analysis of energy systems is flawed. I am not an expert on Gaia and I accept James Lovelock’s advice. I am an expert when it comes to engineering and I reject his analysis of energy options. When he claims that renewable energy is a con and that nuclear will be our salvation energy, he is wrong.

We are the younger generation with our careers ahead. We must take this warning and follow James Lovelock’s call for action, trusting in his scientific expertise. We must respond by finding, testing and implementing the solutions. We must also ignore his advice; it is a sad end to a great career that he has chosen to pontificate on matters for which he has no expertise.

James Lovelock provides the warning, other people must find the solutions.

Back to headlines

Reflections on Davos and Sustainability 9 Feb 2009

It is now a full week since the world’s movers and shakers returned home from the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos. The general mood in Davos was one of gloom. Global economic growth is now projected to fall to its lowest rate since the Second World War. Output in high-income countries is expected to fall by 2 per cent, the first annual contraction since 1945. Industrial production and merchandise exports are in free fall, as consumers decide they do not need new cars or fancy gizmos.

Now is a good time to reflect on what was said.

Some snippets demonstrate the range of views: UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned that financial protectionism is a greater danger than trade protectionism in the current global economic crisis. Pascal Lamy, Director-General, World Trade Organization (WTO), spoke out to urge completion of the Doha round of the World Trade Talks. Kamal Nath, the Indian trade minister highlighted the difficulties he faced in sensitive areas such as rice. For India, he said lives were at stake, while for the US the only issue was commerce. Mr Amorim, Brazil’s Foreign Minister, is reported to have said angrily “If the US wanted to do something positive for the environment, eliminate tariffs on ethanol.”

The summary of the closing session sums up the discussion:

‘Business and governmental leaders face a destructive social backlash that could foment political instability, revive protectionism and reverse the trend towards globalization if they fail to develop effective solutions to the current economic crisis, participants at this year’s closing plenary session warned. Leaders of the G20 countries, who will meet in London in April, must quickly deliver on their commitment to develop a coordinated policy response to the most serious global recession since the 1930s.’

All the talk that came out of Davos has been little more than hot air rising over Switzerland and then blown around the world. Our leaders find it hard to see that the problems we face are complex, interconnected and demonstrate that we have built an unsustainable world system. We should not be applying the bandages in order to repeat the mistakes of the last two decades. We should have the courage to make substantive changes to world society. Global organizations, such as the WTO, IMF and World Bank, should be reformed, or if this proves too difficult, replaced. This will bring huge disruption of course, but each month we delay the imperative to act grows stronger.

Back to headlines

Old Pipes, New Gas 2 Feb 2009

The fossil fuel infrastructure is huge and extensive. As we take climate change seriously we will have to break our addiction to fossil fuel and implement different energy systems. This entire infrastructure could become redundant.

It would be perfectly possible to run our society of renewable power but it would be radically different to how we run it now. It is one of those situations where we would not want to start from here. Gas is one example.

When natural gas was discovered in the North Sea we built the pipes to exploit it. The UK now has a huge gas pipe network connecting most houses, buildings and factories to the national grid. Now that the North Sea gas reserves are running low we need to look for other sources of gas. Russia is one source. There are huge reserves and the pipelines that cross Europe have the capacity required. But do we want to rely on Russia? The recent spat with the Ukraine, in which gas pipelines were shut down, shows that this supply route is exposed to political interference. Another source is Qatar. This gas reaches our shores as liquefied gas carried in huge tankers. Is this source any more secure? That depends on the political situation – is it wise to rely on stability in the Middle East?

There is another way. We have a huge amount of bio waste from which we could generate biogas. Farmers are already latching onto the opportunities of generating methane from slurry. We have sewage, food scraps, garden waste and all sorts of bio waste. There are plenty of companies with the technology to capture the bio gas. During the transition to renewable power we could feed biogas into the existing gas grid. It is not the ideal design but it exists and we can use it with little additional investment.

There are two problems. First, we will not be able to produce gas in the quantities we now burn. We will need to reduce consumption with better insulated buildings and combined heat and power units in place of conventional heating boilers. Second, there is not a sound business case to support the massive investment required. These two problems are easily solved. A quick calculation shows that gas at triple the current price make much of the investment required viable.

It is simple - we need to accept much more expensive energy. That is the price of energy security and conserving the environment.

Back to headlines

Building cars the world wants 26 Jan 2009

I have been reading through some detailed analysis of the ills of the world car industry. It is a fascinating situation – that is if you are not employed by, or own shares in, one of the ailing beasts of the industry. I can look in from the outside and coolly examine what is going on. If you are a retired ex-General Motors employee with a pension that depends GM’s survival then you will not be cool. In fact you will be very worried.

I believe that major restructuring of the car industry is long overdue. When I say words such as, “the shakeout and has been too long time coming” people give a side-ways look. How could I be so insensitive to the problems of an industry that is a major employer? In my defence, I am not insensitive. I would like to see the great marques of the UK car industry continue. Jaguar and Landover are famous names; they have built some fabulous vehicles. They might now be owned by an Indian company but the heritage is pure British. British engineers are also building some incredible new cars such as the Zolfe Orange, designed and built in the West Midlands. This sports car accelerates faster than a Ferrari F430 but costs ‘only’ £40,000. The 2261cc engine is powerful but there are plans to fit a 7-lite V8 monster engine produced by GM. I don’t think retired GM employees should bank on many sales of this engine to rescue the company. The dinosaurs of the car industry have not anticipated the shift in demand to smaller fuel efficient vehicles. Consumer demand has shifted in just a few months; the design of new models takes years.

The wonderful Zolfe Orange is not transportation, it is a toy. I fancy the idea of taking one for a spin. But it would not be to get from A to B; it would be to enjoy the exhilaration of driving some seriously fast engineering. Besides I do not expect to be offered a test drive. Unlike Jeremy Clarkson, who will be wined and dined by the company in the hope of a thumbs-up verdict, I will be ignored. I am known as a vocal critic of the way we have allowed cars to take over our lives and dominate the physical infrastructure of our communities. I admire the excellence of the engineering, and imagination of the designers, but I also want to put the car in its proper place.

The Zolfe Orange will sell well in small numbers to a few people with dull lives but pots of money. The rest of us should ensure that driving one is hugely more expensive than it has been; and that access to the places we live, in our towns and cities, is much more restricted.

The world car industry should not be supported to limp on building the cars we used to like, but pushed to deliver the cars we want. There is a place in the market for a few cars like the Zolfe Orange but bulk sales will be of small efficient cars running on fuel from renewable sources.

Back to headlines

The Environment AND the Economy (19 January 2009)

I would like to have been a fly on the wall at the cabinet meetings at which a third runway for Heathrow Airport has been discussed. The battle seems to have been between supporters of the environment on one hand and those who put the economy first on the other. The decision then becomes a choice. Either we decide the environment matters or we put the economy back on track. Presented in this way – at a time when we face the deepest recession in decades – the choice is perhaps clear. Geoff Hoon would then have been right to have announced to Parliament last week that the government intends to authorise a third runway.

But wait; the cabinet is being given the wrong choice. We do not have to choose between the economy OR the environment. We have to move into a 21st century mind-set, in which we want to ensure the integrity of the environment AND a sound economy. This change is very slow coming. I can see that a sustainable (green) economy is the source of jobs and prosperity. Other people find it hard to accept that this is possible.

Heathrow in 2009 does not need increased capacity. Airlines are struggling to fill seats at profitable prices as we go through the downturn. Increased capacity is not what we need now. The government is quite correct to be looking beyond the recession to the recovery to follow and an increase in demand. What they are failing to appreciate is that the Sustainable Revolution is coming and with it the dynamics of the aviation business will change.

The government has a key role in encouraging and supporting the Sustainable Revolution. Rather than bet against the future that I and others campaign for, they should be making sure it happens; and that the UK is at the forefront. Improved fast rail access to Heathrow is in the package and is a vital piece of infrastructure that fits my vision of the future. Do we need a third runway for Heathrow? I think not. Not because I put the environment before the economy but because I want a vibrant and sustainable economy fit for the 21st century. I want a pleasant environment AND a solid economy. It can be done; let’s do it.

Back to headlines

Green Jobs (12 January 2009)

As the recession bites the economy is shedding jobs. Business leaders are looking to cut staff. Even companies under no direct or immediate threat are taking prudent job reduction measures to conserve cash and survive the coming year. Individuals, worried about job security, are reining in expenditure. This is the psychology of the recession. The economy will not pick up until confidence returns.

For companies with ambition and confidence, now is a good time to recruit. The quality of applicants is high and employment packages do not need to be expensive. A job is better than no job. Companies in the green technologies - such as renewable power - are in a particularly strong position. Not only are there incentives and subsidies that benefit their core business, but in recruiting ready for the upturn they can take advantage of government job creation programmes.

Today Gordon Brown will unveil a £500m, two-year plan to stop the recession creating an army of long-term unemployed. Employers will be paid up to £2,500 to recruit and train people, as part of a package of ‘intensive support’ for those unemployed for more than six months. Soon the ranks of those people who have been unemployed for over 6 months will include skilled tradesmen with a strong work ethic. These are the people companies will want – and £2,500 is a useful cash incentive. This cash will help forward looking companies through the lean times before exploiting the profitable opportunities as the economy picks up.

In the US, President-elect Barack Obama said on Saturday that of the four million jobs saved or created by his American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, nearly half million of these jobs would be created by investing in sustainable energy. He plans to double the production of alternative energy in the next three years and improve the energy efficiency of two million American homes. "These made-in-America jobs building solar panels and wind turbines, developing fuel-efficient cars and new energy technologies pay well, and they can't be outsourced," Obama said on his weekly radio and Internet address, according to Reuters.

I hope that Mr Brown’s ‘jobs summit’ and President-elect Obama’s plans succeed. This recession does not have to be long and deep. There is plenty of work to be done shifting to a sustainable society - all we need is the will to get on with it.

Meanwhile I could not help smiling at the news of young economics student Tim DeChristopher reported in the Sunday Times as putting his concern for the environment before sense. He attended an auction of land leases being put up for sale for oil exploration by the Bush administration. He intended only to bid prices higher but he got carried away and ended up with leases over 22,500 acres of the Red Rock Desert in Utah. He would like the desert kept in its pristine natural state. The problem is he does not have the $1.8m to pay for it. Donations can be made at www.bidder70.org

© Peter McManners 2009

Back to headlines

Build Green - Fly Like a Phoenix (5 January 2009)

During this recent patch of cold weather I have noticed the plumes of steam coming out of the sides and roofs of our houses. These are the exhaust fumes from our heating systems. This morning the temperature outside is around zero degrees and we burn fuel to keep the inside temperature a comfortable 20 degrees. The difference between inside and outside is 20 degrees. This is not a severe temperature gradient compared with other places on the planet.

Last winter, living in Finland, temperatures would routinely drop to -20 degrees making a total temperature gradient between inside and outside of 40 degrees. Our house was not a special green house. It was a bog standard Finnish house built in the 1980s and typical of the housing stock of the Nordic countries. It had triple glazing, double doors to the outside, insulation of Thermos flask standards and completely draft free except for the ventilation system extracting potentially damp air from the bathrooms and kitchen.

The radiators in our Finnish house did not seem to come on until the temperature dropped below zero. The heat for the radiators was provided by an underground pipe network of low-grade heat from the local power station. We did not have plumes of exhaust gas. Our house did not burn fossil fuel and had no means to do so.

The technology is simple and well established (but not in the UK) to build houses that do not need to consume fossil fuel. The UK is surrounded by sea and protects our little Island from extreme weather. The temperature seldom drops below zero and or higher than 30 degrees in the summer. Of all the places in the world the task of building energy neutral houses is relatively simple for our engineers. All that is required is that we specify the requirement. Now the costs of green houses are higher, but if the government insists on tighter building regulations (without delay) then costs will tumble. Building a green house now requires special orders and imports from countries such as Sweden and Germany. The whole UK house building industry needs to be transformed.

I also watch a building site near here where there has been no work for over a month. The normal English standards of construction can be seen. Perhaps the company building it has run out of cash and gone into administration – so it should. We need to realise that most of the UK building industry is bankrupt –in techniques and methods, if not financially. It is the responsibility of all of us – house buyers, builders and estate agents (those that survive the recession) to completely change the rules. Those of us who think this way will fly like a phoenix from the ashes of the recession bonfire.

Now is the right time to be insisting on building green houses to take one step closer to a sustainable society.

Back to headlines

Building Greenhouses (29 December 2008)

‘Greenhouses’ conjure up thoughts of acres of glass covering cheap simple buildings in which to grow flowers whilst all around is the dead of winter. At one side there would be a power house belching out smoke and steam to keep the inside toasty warm - fuelled by burning wood, coal, oil or gas. Last summer, on holiday in France, we came across a lot of greenhouses, each with an LPG tank to power the heating system. Presumably the premium prices that out-of-season or early season vegetables can command at the market covers the cost of the heating.

When fuel prices climb high once again (after the current lull) the costs to farmers with such greenhouses will also rise. With luck, transportation costs will rise in tandem, so locally grown vegetables will remain competitive despite the high price of gas. Farmers juggling fuel costs against the market price of vegetables will have a tense time trying to balance the books and stay in business.

Forward looking farmers (who are not already mortgaged up to the hilt and can raise cash from the bank) should invest in green greenhouses. Construction methods using special heat retaining glass can build green houses worthy of the 21st century. When heat from the sun is not enough, heat can come from heat pumps powered by renewable power such as wind or biogas from farm waste. The capital investment will be greater - and take time to pay off - but with negligible fuel bills the returns will climb rapidly when fuel prices climb steeply as they surely will when the current recession is past.

Now - with contractors struggling to find work - is the right time to be building green greenhouses.

Back to headlines