Video Found At : Energy Bulletin

The Earth keeps turning, the Sun keeps burning, and the future will look a lot different than today as we drag down Carbon Dioxide emissions “by hook or by crook”.

We have to be wary of possible “crooks”. There are still technology “snake oil salesmen” out there, trying to impose Genetically Modified crops on us, or Nuclear Power, or Carbon Capture and Storage (to justify the continued use of Coal), and using the vehicle of science to push their wares :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/8048917/Climate-change-threatens-UK-harvest.html

“Climate change threatens UK harvest : Climate change could push up food prices by causing large-scale crop failures in Britain, the Met Office has warned. : By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent : Published: 08 Oct 2010 : Rising temperatures could mean events such as the drought in Russia this summer, which pushed up grain prices, hit countries like the UK. But they said the worst effects of climate change could be limited by investment in better farming and the development of new drought resistant or heat tolerant crops. This could be done by aid money, breeding and new technologies like genetic modification (GM)…”

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/908/crop_failures_set_to_increase_under_climate_change

Look out for terms like “new crops”, “crop development” or “modified crops” :-

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101007092817.htm
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034012/

See the use of the word “biotechnology” in the actual research paper :-

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034012/pdf/1748-9326_5_3_034012.pdf

But, as everybody can probably guess, most farmers in the world will not be able to afford Genetically Modified crops, and anyway, nobody really yet knows if GM crops confer the benefits claimed – there is some evidence that “life scientists” don’t know the full range of effects on organisms from gene splicing.

Nuclear Power ? The promotion of new Nuclear Power has, to my mind, been a massive propaganda exercise on behalf of the world’s mining companies that want to stay in business digging up Uranium, even as wind turbines will be built from scrap steel, not new iron ore; and new cars will be built from recycled aluminium. Interestingly, the belief in the “bright future” offered by an undoubtedly costly, unreliable new fleet of Nuclear plant is waning, according to a “Crooks” who is actually quite reliable (note : search the headline in Go Ogle to read the article in full) :-

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ad15fcfe-bc71-11df-a42b-00144feab49a,dwp_uuid=8992c4a2-bc70-11df-a42b-00144feab49a.html

“Nuclear: New dawn now seems limited to the east : By Ed Crooks : Published: September 12 2010 : The renaissance of nuclear power is a much fabled beast that is often talked about but rarely seen. A new wave of construction of nuclear power stations, bringing to an end the lull in the industry since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986, has been widely predicted for much of the past decade. Growing concerns about energy security and dependence on fossil fuels, combined with the fight against climate change, have prompted a resurgence of interest in nuclear power. In terms of intentions, at least, there is plenty of evidence of a revival. Worldwide, there are plans to build 149 reactors, and proposals for 344 more, according to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), the industry group. If all those projects went ahead, they would more than double the number of reactors in operation, which is about 440. However, many of the hopes and claims made for the nuclear renaissance have been excessive. Industry executives and analysts suggest most of those new reactors are unlikely to be built on their proposed schedules, if at all. The pace of development of reactor projects is slow in Europe, and even slower in the US. Any upturn in construction is happening in emerging economies, above all in China…”

http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/10/07/nuclear-again/

“(1) Nuclear power isn’t going away any time soon. Nuclear plants generate a lot of power and most of them seem likely to outlive their originally planned operational lifetime. So, there doesn’t seem to be much point in being “anti-nuclear” in the sense of hoping for a world without nuclear energy – that horse bolted decades ago.”

“(2) Except in China (and maybe India) nuclear power isn’t getting bigger any time soon. Following the failure of Obama’s energy bill and the GFC, the US “nuclear renaissance” is dead in the water, and the same is true in Europe. While residual anti-nuclear sentiment plays a role here, the big problem is economics.”

But it is in the field of mobility that we are most prone to being duped. The Tesla has just been subject to a product recall – can we rely on the promise of electricity-powered racing cars for everyone ?

Considering the real difficulties in replacing the vehicle fleet, either with lightweight, super-fuel-efficient one-person buggies, or with new electric roadsters, we should all consider our private transport of the future to be an (electricity-assisted) bicycle or moped.

For public transport, for long journeys, we could be reduced to expensive trains, or BioGas-driven coaches, operating in a huge new network. And for local hops in urban settings ? Biogas-powered tuk-tuks – powered by the fermented output from public toilets ?

Image Credit : Gilbert & George, “Nettle Dance”, White Cube

I’m in the Climate Union. Are You ?

Soon we could all be, if the expansionist plans of a group of social campaigners come to fruition.

Taking in the unions, faith communities and the usual rag-tag bunch of issues activists, the Climate Union aims to establish itself as a political force for Low Carbon.

First of all, however, it has to tackle the uneasy and prickly problem of the exact name of the movement, and the principles under which it will operate.

The flag has been flown : a set of principles has been circulated for discussion amongst the “Climate Forum”. I cannot show you the finalised document yet, but I can offer you my comments (see below).

If you want to comment on the development of this emerging entity, please contact : Peter Robinson, Campaign against Climate Change, mobile/cell telephone in the UK : 07876595993.

Comments on the Climate Forum Principles
Jo Abbess
28 June 2010

I am aware that my comments are going to be a little challenging. I made similar comments during the review of the ClimateSafety briefing, which were highly criticised.

I expect you to be negative in response to what I say, but I think it is necessary to make sure the Climate Forum does not become watered-down, sectorally imprisoned and politically neutered, like so many other campaigns.

Comments on paragraph :-
“While there is an increasing awareness of the climate science, many governments are in practice opposed to implementing radical measure[s] to combat climate change [largely] because…such measures would appear to be in conflict with the interests of business, but also because they are uncertain if they would carry the majority of the public with them. The problem is that those in power do not necessarily have the will to bring about the legislation and the required actions.”

I would contest the assumption that “governments are in practice opposed to implementing radical measure[s]“.

My reasons are that I think that the reality of the situation is that governments are a little bit like mushrooms – kept in the dark and fed rotten sewage.

Although the governments do have access to the best Scientific information about Climate Change, they don’t always absorb it. On the other hand, they often do not have access to the best Economic information.

Governments often listen to some of the best Scientific information, and invest trust in the Scientific institutions. However, they have both a demon and an angel on their shoulder when it comes to Economic information.

The European Union is a classic example, of attempting to mesh together the best of Socialism and the worst of Neoliberalism. There are agents of Capitalism whispering into the ears of the inner circle policymakers the whole time, as evidenced by the work of such organisations as the Corporate Europe Observatory.

In the United Kingdom, when the “Recession”, sorry “Downturn” hit, Keynes and his pluralism was resurrected, but he has now been slain once more by the “Emergency Cuts Budget”.

The fight in Government is not over the Science. The anti-science crowd have picked off a few Members of Parliament with their vulture media tactics, but most MPs are on the ball as regards the Science of Climate Change, as are most of the Government Civil Services and Departments.

The synaptic gap is in translating that knowledge into effective Economic Policy, in my view. Pricing Carbon is not the solution, and even if it has an impact, it will not be a very large part of the solution. Public Finance for such things as Carbon Capture and Storage and New Nuclear will not achieve much – they are classic money pits schemes (or “boondoggle”, another American expression).

I think that the emphasis should be on educating the Government about the need to totally reform the Energy systems, the sourcing of Energy, and the use of Energy.

The reason why I think this is important can be seen in the approach taken to tobacco control. Since there was an enormous amount of money, both public and private, invested in the tobacco industry, it was not politically possible to close down the corporations that produced cigarettes.

Yet a total ban on cigarette smoking was indicated as necessary to the maintenance of public health.

Instead of shutting down the industry, the European governments began a two-pronged campaign, to outlaw smoking in various environments, and also to educate people.

After about 10 years, the tobacco industry saw the way things were going and went off to kill teenagers in China instead, in pursuit of the profit they continue to owe their shareholders.

I don’t think we have 10 years to effect a proper Climate Policy, and we certainly cannot continue to outsource Carbon Dioxide emissions to China through globalisation.

We need something more radical. For example, I suggest that we should call for a ban on the use of Coal to generate Electricity.

The other strand of the current situation is what the public appear to think when they answer opinion polls. Firstly, and importantly, their views don’t actually count towards setting Policy, as the Government is responsible to enact the Climate Change Act, not follow the whims of anti-wind farm lobby groups, pro-Carbon and anti-tax groups (for example).

Climate Change is not an issue about which people are entitled to vote. The cross-party imperative for Policy action is there, regardless of what Nigel Lawson, Christopher Booker, Steve McIntyre and James Delingpole think.

The Government has a mandate from the Climate Change Science, not from the people. However, it would be helpful if the people were more educated about the Science, and I would urge that the Climate Forum addresses directly the anti-science problems in the Media, where most people get their beliefs from.

Also, if would be helpful if the public could be asked to rally behind a basket of sensible, inclusive Policy measures – not taxation – but targeted spending and selective subsidies.

This is where the “One Million Green Jobs” initiative from the Campaign against Climate Change and the unions is so pertinent. A common, progressive agenda would help public debates to have better cohesion and less acrimony.

As for the phrase, “uncertain if they would carry the majority of the public with them”, I don’t believe that the public need to be encouraged to give the Government a “mandate”.

I believe it is naive, foolish and a waste of time and personal energy to suggest that the public need to be rallied to give the Government “a message”.

The Government already have the necessary information to act. What is needed is a general education of both Government and public about what is likely to work in terms of Social and Economic “engineering”.

It’s not about “voluntary behaviour change”. The Act on CO2 campaign asked everyone to drive 5 miles less a week. But over 50% of the population of driving age don’t have access to a car.

Public guilt-tripping is not only irrelevant, it’s unproductive. People who care are already doing the 10:10 initiative, or gave up flying and most home heating years ago.

People who know the problems and have decided to take personal action have already started their journey. The travel that needs to happen is in the field of those who provide us with our energy and fuel.

There has to be a new understanding that the Energy corporates must change – that BP, for example, must turn its production to Renewables or face corporate extinction.

There has to be massive disinvestment away from Carbon Energy and investment into Renewable Energy.

That can start with each one of us expressing a consumer “preference” in the way that we use our money, but it has to be carried higher and wider, with such activities of those of FairPensions.

In the end, it’s not the way we are taxed, but the way the whole Society uses money that determines our survival.

The Church of England, for example, has recently reported that their Commissioners have made a handsome profit on their investments. Which companies are in the top 20 shares held ? BP is one of those companies.

Yet the Church of England, in their Fifth Mark of Mission, say they want “To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth”. They can’t do that if they continue to invest in BP.

It is this kind of dilemma that needs to be addressed, not the debate about whether it is more energy efficient to use paper towels or hand dryers in public toilets.

If all the energy supplied to our homes and all the energy used in our transport systems were green, then it would not matter if we left the porch light on overnight by mistake.

There has to be a major shift in campaigning perception in my view. The energy system itself needs to be overhauled, not public opinion.

And anyway, what counts in Government is not public opinion, but the usual tendency of political views to be compromised by whichever business lobby is in the ascendance.

If the Government could be encouraged to make a clear statement about complete energy transition, a step far, far beyond the work of the Low Carbon Transition plan set out last year, then the tipping point might be near at hand.

It’s true that tackling the belief system of the Government would be helped by seeding the right ideas into the “Twittering classes”, who are strongly networked to the Government, but the major thrust of the Climate Forum surely has to be Government-facing, not public-facing.

I don’t want the Climate Forum to be a Government stooge. I don’t want the Climate Forum to end up as an outsourced public relations exercise – the Government have been using the NGOs to propagandise their plans for years. Gordon Brown and his Office were famously behind the Make Poverty History campaign from its inception.

I’m not against the whole concept of Government. In fact, I think organised government is the only way forward out of the Carbon mess. However, I think the Climate Forum needs to pitch itself as being opposed to lax regulation and weak thinking in Government, more than simply being a Social tool for change.

Reply from Ruth :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

“Jo, really interesting stuff – thank you. I can’t quite see how the Climate Forum could be “government-facing”, with any clout without a huge supporter base, demonstrated by ralleys, lobbying post cards etc?”

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Reply to Ruth :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Hi Ruth,

The current “campaign” mechanism has its focus on what individuals should be doing. The central theory is about how to change the behaviour of citizens and consumers. Even the 10:10 campaign is a glorified “Are you doing your bit ?”, “Lights Off” or “Save It” campaign.

When campaigns want people to act politically, the message is all about how the people have to mobilise, the people have to carry placards, write postcards, write to their MP, lobby Parliament, e-mail the media. The people have to take all this action. And for what ? To get our million man marches ignored by the political elite, or our petitions fobbed off by the Secretary of State.

Taking the message to Government doesn’t need to be backed up by getting 2 million people on the streets. In fact, in 2003 we managed to get 2 million people on the streets against the scheduled assault on Iraq. Did it make any difference ? No. Because the Government are not obliged to listen to “campaigners” and “protesters”, or act on what they demand.

The Government has to be analysed and critiqued within its own walls, using its own language, deploying its own policies. What level of authority do we need to accumulate to make a real difference ? Do we need maximum “bums on seats” in a campaign, or maximum political crowbars ?

Christian Aid and Oxfam love postcard campaigns. It means the paid staff need to do little work to respond to peoples’ concerns. Worried about Climate Change ? Fill in one of our postcards, then. I have heard an Oxfam campaigns worker recently say that much of their campaigns activity is “outsourced” to local activists, implying that it gave people something to do, even though it was ineffective.

Not cynical, just observant.

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Reply from Tony :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Dear Jo

Could you suggest a specific rewording of that paragraph that you referred to (and any others) based on your considered arguments? That is what Peter and Ann are looking for.

…

Regards

Tony

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Reply to Tony :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Dear Tony,

Thanks for asking for my wording.

What I was trying to explain in my comments is that I disagree pretty fundamentally with some of the theories the principles document is based on.

My comments are therefore in relation to the whole document.

My re-wording would take in an entire re-write of the document to place emphasis on effective political engagement with all those who have genuine decision-making authority, particularly and especially in regard to the energy companies.

Those mostly private organisations that provide us with energy and fuel need to be changing their behaviour, not our neighbours in our streets.

Those citizens who care are already committed. We don’t need another “campaign”. We need a networked research and response unit, continuously analysing the state of play in policy and corporate activities and feeding this back to everyone involved in a common, plain language.

I think that the focus of the Climate Forum should be holding the government and corporations genuinely and concretely accountable. And that is not going to be done by the normal “campaign” methods.

I have no idea whether other people feel the same way, so I don’t know if it’s worth trying to put in the energy to do another re-write of the document now, myself.

All I know is, if views like mine are not taken into consideration, then the membership of the movement risks being confined to “the usual suspects”.

Peter and Ann are looking for a re-wording of some of the paragraphs. Unfortunately, I question the whole of the document and the theories on which is is based.

If we want the same-old same-old piecemeal campaigning, then by all means, go ahead on the basis of the social theory that you need to “mobilise” people in order to have political change.

If you want a really different kind of organisation, with urgency and scope, you need a really different kind of movement tool.

Regards,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Centre for Alternative Technology

Burning things wastes a lot of energy – even burning waste.

1. Plain Old Inefficiency

The systems and infrastructure for the generation and distribution of electricity in the United Kingdom is extremely poor, nigh on immorally wasteful. See the diagram above from the Zero Carbon Britain 2030 report :-

http://www.zcb2030.org/

There are so many things that could be done to improve on that enormous loss of energy, and save on Carbon Dioxide Emissions at the same time.

One of the best ways is to de-centralise “thermal” generation to town-local Combined Heat and Power, rather than burning Fossil Fuels in the wilds of Yorkshire and losing all that heat to the sky.

2. Old Technology

Not a lot of people know this, but most of your electricity is generated by a machine not too dissimilar to Isaac Watts’ steam engine – “not very 21st Century”, as Mark Maslin of University College London said the other evening at a Climate Change debate, held at the Frontline Club :-

http://frontlineclub.com/blogs/theforum/2010/06/climate-change-is-the-coalition-up-to-the-challenge-of-the-next-five-years-watch-our-debate-in-full.html

http://frontline.podbean.com/2010/06/16/climate-change-is-the-coalition-up-to-the-challenge-of-the-next-five-years/

Mark Maslin (of the UCL Environment Institute) and Fiona Harvey (of the Financial Times) agreed with each other that incineration of municipal and hospital waste doesn’t kill anyone, but they didn’t discuss how inefficient it is to burn biological material, compared to harvesting the gas produced by anaerobic digestion (also known as “rotting it down”) and then burning that instead :-

http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=316

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/anaerobic_digestion.pdf

http://biotech.sujanani.com/news/?p=22002339

Biogas is even more efficient than Biodiesel :-

http://www.claverton-energy.com/bio-methane-fuelled-vehicles-john-baldwin-cng-services.html

Thames Water both burns customer output, and anaerobically digests some for “poo power”, by way of just one example of how things are changing on this front :-

http://www.thameswater.co.uk/cps/rde/xchg/corp/hs.xsl/9849.htm

China and India have major Biogas production. Why can’t we ?

3. Deadly Fumes

Although incineration may be relatively safe in Europe, it is not universally so.

Burning Fossil Fuels in coal-fired power plants all over the world adds a huge environmental pollution burden, for example, mercury toxins in river water :-

http://www.squidoo.com/impatct-coal-burning-power-plant

Burning Fossil Fuels in internal combustion engines is a major health risk to the increasingly urbanised human race :-

Image Credit : Dr Mark Delucchi, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California

http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-index.php?page_ref_id=2662

So, digging up dirty old decaying fish causes massive coastland and marine pollution. Would bioethanol from corn be better ?

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2010/06/14/is-bps-oil-spill-an-opportunity-for-the-ethanol-lobby/

Not really. First there’s the amount of land required to grow all that corn to burn in all those tanks (see diagram at top of page).

Then, there’s the competition between food and fuel that that will generate.

Then there’s the continued hazard from airborne particulates that you get from burning anything in infernal, I mean, internal combustion engines :-

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100609/new-questions-about-toxic-products-biofuel-combustion

And last, and by no means least, Corn Ethanol production would keep Archer Daniels Midland in business, and that would mean they would own not only a large proportion of all American intensively-farmed food production, but also a significant proportion of all American vehicle transportation fuel creation. Bit too big a company, I think, and still grasping for handouts :-

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iPuoQ0AcLTzsgFmOaTLDi6O1VvQgD9G94QGO0

No, the only future for cars is zero combustion : renewable electricity-powered transportation is definitely the best future :-

http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/03/04/super-cute-electric-zero-emissions-think-car/

Zero emissions, boys. Zero emissions.

This is a simple Excel spreadsheet chart based on data from these sources :-

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file50354.pdf

“Energy trends : March 2009 : URN 09/79a ISSN number: 0308-1222″

In the section starting on Page 19 “Carbon dioxide emissions and
energy consumption in the UK”, another document was linked :-

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file50484.xls

The last points on the right-hand side of the chart are 34% less than the 1990 figure on the left-hand side. I have assumed that 34% cuts will be required in each sector, evenhandedly.

This is what is recommended by the Climate Change Committee in their December 2008 report :-

http://hmccc.s3.amazonaws.com/pdfs/LaunchPressRelease01.12.08.pdf

“The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) today urged the Government to commit unilaterally to reducing emissions of all greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the UK by at least 34% in 2020 relative to 1990 levels (21% relative to 2005). This should be increased to 42% relative to 1990 (31% relative to 2005) once a global deal to reduce emissions is achieved. The CCC says meeting these targets is necessary to contain the threat of climate change.”

Some thoughts on the meaning of this chart :-

1. In the Power Generation sector, the reduction by 34% looks doable, since between 1996 and 2000, the figure nearly dipped to what the 2020 target shows. I have asked the Department of Energy and Climate Change for reasons for the changes in the Carbon Dioxide emissions over several periods covered by this chart for the power sector. I already know part of the answer : the “dash to gas”, where power generation moved to Natural Gas thermal plant. Also, the Nuclear Power contribution to electricity supply was higher during the period 1996 to 2000 than now. New Nuclear won’t be able to contribute in 2020 (if it ever gets built) because it won’t be ready.

2. The Transport sector cuts look hard : this probably necessitates a real drop in the amount of private and retail road miles. Of note : aviation and shipping emissions are not included in the figures. This means that transport as a whole is very problematic. Don’t expect massive roll out of electric vehicles by 2020 : particularly since there probably won’t be the extra electricity supplies to power them. And if there were extra electricity supplies provided by then, they would need to be Zero Carbon, or the Power sector Carbon Budget will be blown.

3. The Domestic energy sector looks problematic, as home emissions have not really changed much since 1990, and people have not changed their attitudes much about Energy Conservation since then.

4. It is probably not possible to ask other sectors to take up the slack for the Transport and Domestic sectors – in other words, real cuts will be necessary in Transport and Domest (home) energy – of the order of 35% for home energy (since it hasn’t altered much) but closer to 40% for Transport.

5. There is no way by 2020 that Carbon Capture and Storage facilities could be available in sufficient quantity to contribute to emissions cuts from the Power sector. The Carbon Cuts in the Power sector probably have to be done through demand destruction.

6. The emissions cuts in Transport and the Domestic arena imply problems with the “economic growth paradigm”, and imply a much lower Carbon life than imagined so far.

That’s the astonishing and very welcome news from Team Obama in the United States :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/19/obama-carbon-emissions-auto-industry

Strict requirements for automobile efficiency have been set out today, a move that could cut America’s Global Warming Pollution by a third.

Yes, it’s taken extensive fudgy bailouts to keep the country’s car manufacturers afloat – but the financial crisis has proved an opportunity for regulation – changes that might have taken years otherwise.

The two sectors of the American Economy where Carbon Dioxide emissions are still rising are transportation and electrical power generation.

Since road transportation has been rising inexorably until very recently, the imposition of fuel efficiency is going to be a major force in the short-term to get American emissions downward trending :-

http://bioage.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/19/dotapril2.png

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/06/us-vehicle-mile.html

And that’s quite a drive !

Notes :-

American Department of Energy chart of changes in Carbon Dioxide emissions :-

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/images/fig_6.jpg

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html

Transport accounts worldwide for nearly 20% of Carbon Dioxide emissions :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png

But like the “smoking dilemma”, where cigarettes are still on sale despite the atrocious health implications, car manufacturers still carry on vending motor vehicles with the minimum emissions control they can lobby for; advertising that they’re “going green” while at the same time resisting change : a kind of “windscreen wiper greenwash”.

Yes, it’s a Climate Change issue. Increased road transport Carbon Dioxide emissions are causing Global Warming which degrades the environment for everyone, measured in decadal alterations, and will play a part in affecting the health of citizens in the future. But road transport is also an immediate, direct health risk, and recent research points towards serious implications from the build-up of private car ownership.

All the data points to the severe restriction on the use of the internal combustion engine for transportation use. The future is most certainly quiet, zero emissions vehicles. This will have a dramatic impact on urban air quality. It may be that going electric could save your child’s wellbeing, maybe even their life.

It is very unlikely that we shall come up with a technological way to suck traffic pollutants out of the atmosphere. If however, all transport became electric, all the emissions associated with transport would be located in places where they could be capture and stored, or eliminated if Renewable Energy technologies were used.

TRAFFIC AIR POLLUTION LINKED TO PRE-TERM AND LOW WEIGHT BIRTH

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5125184/Traffic-pollution-can-harm-babies-in-the-womb-claim-researchers.html

“Traffic pollution can harm babies in the womb, claim researchers : Exposure to traffic pollution during pregnancy could harm babies in the womb, a study shows. 08 Apr 2009 : The risk of a delivering a baby of small weight rose significantly with each increase in pollution levels during the first three months and final three months of pregnancy. Researchers believe restricted fetal growth may be linked to traffic pollution or living close to a major road.”

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/hscout/2009/04/08/hscout625897.html

“Air Pollution Exposure May Slow Fetal Growth : 04.07.09 : Study suggests that toxins alter cell activity and cut oxygen to baby : The study found that the risk of a small birth-weight baby increased significantly with each increase in particulate matter of 4 micrograms per cubic meter during the first and third trimesters of pregnancy. Each 10 parts per billion increase in nitrogen oxide exposure was also associated with a large increase in the risk of a small birth-weight baby.”

DIESEL EXHAUST LINKED TO PRE-TERM AND LOW WEIGHT BIRTH AND AUTISM

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1570060

“Autism Spectrum Disorders in Relation to Distribution of Hazardous Air Pollutants in the San Francisco Bay Area : Received February 23, 2006; Accepted June 21, 2006 : Conclusions : The moderate association we found with higher diesel particulate matter levels may in part be due to some correlation with metals…Results of a study of diesel exhaust exposure in neonatal rats suggested permanent alterations in both learning ability and activity, indicating that the significance to humans should be pursued further (U.S. EPA 2002b). Other animal studies have indicated potential endocrine-disrupting effects of prenatal exposure to diesel exhaust (Watanabe and Kurita 2001) and increased indices of inflammation in brains of mice exposed to airborne particulate matter (Campbell et al. 2005). Results of this semiecologic study suggest that living in areas with higher ambient levels of HAPs [hazardous air pollutant], particularly metals and chlorinated solvents, during pregnancy or early childhood, may be associated with a moderately increased risk of autism.”

TRAFFIC POLLUTION LINKED TO AUTISM

http://autismblog.us/what-is-causing-the-high-growth-in-autism-diagnosis

“What Is Causing The High Growth In Autism Diagnosis? : Environmental factors that have been claimed to contribute to or exacerbate autism, or may be important in future research, include certain foods, infectious disease, heavy metals, solvents, diesel exhaust, PCBs, phthalates and phenols used in plastic products, pesticides, brominated flame retardants, alcohol, smoking, illicit drugs, vaccines and prenatal stress.”

http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science_news/caddre_study.php

“After examining the datasets, Dr. Windham and colleagues found that children with an autism diagnosis were 1.5 times or 50% more likely to have a birth residence in an area with higher levels of some HAPs [hazardous air pollutant]. Metals like mercury, cadmium and nickel were among the HAPs most associated with autism. However, because of the methods used by the EPA to obtain its HAPs estimates, the researchers were not able to separate the effects of each metal associated with autism. The researchers also found weaker associations between autism and the aromatic solvents trichloroethylene and vinyl chloride and diesel exhaust particulates.”

http://www.autism.com/medical/research/advances/autism-airpollu.htm

“Advances in Autism Research compiled by Teresa Binstock for ARI :
April 2008 : Air particulates, diesel exhaust, human brain and Oxidative stress : Results: Our data demonstrate a significant increase in MPF [median power frequency] in response to DE [diesel exhaust] in the frontal cortex within 30 min into exposure. The increase in MPF is primarily caused by an increase in fast wave activity (Beta2) and continues to rise during the 1 hour post-exposure interval. Conclusion: This study is the first to show a functional effect of DE exposure in the human brain, indicating a general cortical stress response. Further studies are required to determine whether this effect is mediated by the nanoparticles in DE and to define the precise pathways involved.”

http://jhs.pharm.or.jp/52(4)/52_486.pdf

http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200617/000020061706A0601574.php

“(2006) : Maternal Exposure to Diesel Exhaust Leads to Pathological Similarity to Autism in Newborns : In this study, we examined pathological effects on newborn brain by DE [diesel exhaust]-exposure to pregnant mice, especially focused on autism. These findings indicate that DE-exposure to pregnant mice has a severe impact on fetal brain development and, especially, numerous apoptotic Purkinje cells cause the innate deficiency of them and would involve the pathogenic backing of autism. Our results would give a grave warning that the maternal inhalation of DE is hazardous to fetuses’ health and it is possible that these fetal damages carries a great risk of various disorders of nervous system afterward, such as autism.”

http://www.autism-society.org/site/DocServer/EH_epidemiologic_approaches.pdf?docID=4751

“Autism Society of America, 7910 Woodmont Avenue Suite 300, Bethesda, MD 20814-3067 : To date, there have been few epidemiologic studies completed that have directly linked environmental exposures and autism. Some studies have suggested that during pregnancy, both viral infection and the use of certain medications known to cause birth defects elevate autism risk. More recent research has reported associations of certain air pollutant exposures, most notably airborne mercury, cadmium, nickel, and chlorinated and diesel particulates with autism. Childhood vaccine-related thimerosal exposure now has been investigated in several epidemiologic studies, and the findings have been quite consistent in indicating that thimerosal exposure is not responsible for the dramatic increases in autism cases witnessed over the past few decades.”

TRAFFIC POLLUTION LINKED TO HEART DISEASE

http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/60/10/890

“STUDY OBJECTIVE: Many studies have shown that ambient particulate air pollution (PM) is associated with increased risk of hospital admissions and deaths for cardiovascular or respiratory causes around the world…”

TRAFFIC POLLUTION LINKED TO CANCER

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09055/951112-110.stm

“The Feb. 17 article “Districts Uninterested in Funds for Retrofitting Buses” overlooks the role of diesel emissions in causing human illnesses and premature death. The cancer risks associated with diesel exhaust particles are about 10 times higher than the cancer risks from all other hazardous air pollutants combined. The average cancer risk associated with diesel emissions is 580 per million — 80 percent of the total estimated cancer risk from all hazardous air pollutants. Particulate matter, a major component of diesel exhaust, has been linked to a wide variety of serious health problems including upper and lower respiratory diseases such as asthma attacks and possible asthma onset, heart attacks and premature death. These problems affect the general population, not just children and drivers who occupy the buses. However, children may have particular risks because their lungs are still maturing and because their high activity levels cause more rapid breathing with greater inspiration of diesel exhaust particles. In addition to retrofitting engines, other actions can be taken to reduce diesel emissions, including the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel and adoption of anti-idling laws. The reduction in exposure to ambient fine-particulate air pollution results in significant improvements in life expectancy in the United States. STANLEY J. GEYER, M.D.”

TRAFFIC POLLUTION LINKED TO ASTHMA

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Asthma-Symptoms-Linked-to-Soot-from-Diesel-Trucks-in-So–Bronx-15125-1

“Soot particles spewing from the exhaust of diesel trucks constitute a major contributor to the alarmingly high rates of asthma symptoms among school-aged children// in the South Bronx, according to the results of a five-year study by researchers at New York University’s School of Medicine and Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. Over the course of the study, asthma symptoms, particularly wheezing, doubled among elementary school children on high traffic days, as large numbers attend schools in close proximity to busy truck routes because of past land-use decisions.”

ROAD TRANSPORT BLACK CARBON LINKED TO ARCTIC MELTDOWN

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/04/08/tackling-soot-could-help-reduce-arctic-ice-melt

“One factor that could help to slow the melting of the Arctic, but which has not yet received serious consideration at an international level, would be to cut the amount of “black carbon” – soot – that we spew into the air. Black carbon darkens ice when it falls, causing it to absorb more heat, and may be responsible for half of the warming effect in the Arctic, according to recent research published in Nature Geoscience. Cutting down on soot would not only remove large amounts of air pollution, but, according to some scientists, could be much quicker and easier than cutting carbon dioxide emissions. On current form, the chances of this being agreed also look small, however.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbon

“[Mark. Z.] Jacobson calculates that reducing fossil fuel and biofuel soot particles would eliminate about 40% of the net observed global warming. When the aerosols and particulate matter are accounted for, fossil fuel and biofuel soot are increasing temperatures by about 0.35°C. Dr. Tami Bond of the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, estimates the sources of black carbon emissions as follows: 14% Diesel engines for transportation; 10% Diesel engines for industrial use…”

BORIS JOHNSON, MAYOR OF LONDON, PROMISES ELECTRIC DREAMS

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/08/electric-cars-boris-johnson-london

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenertransport/5126611/Motorists-offered-money-to-buy-electric-cars.html

“Motorists could be offered a £2,000 Government subsidy to buy an electric car under plans being drawn up before the Budget.”

ELECTRIC VEHICLES ESSENTIAL IN FIGHT AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE

http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/content/view/67/1

“Brown’s electric vehicles won’t go the distance : Transport for a Zero Carbon Britain : 10 June 2008 : Last week, Gordon Brown urged more research into electric cars and called for a commitment from European leaders to explore the potential of new “commercially viable” electric vehicle technologies. As part of a serious measure to tackle climate change however, electric vehicles need to be tapping into a grid of clean, renewable energy. Electric vehicles and vehicle-to-grid (V2G) power are a vital element of the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT)’s Zero Carbon Britain report. Electric vehicles would look much like normal cars. But instead of filling them up with petrol they would be plugged in and charged up, or drivers could swap spent batteries of charged ones while out and about. Electric cars mean less carbon emissions – but only if the electricity they run on has been generated from renewable sources like wind, solar and hydro-power. At present most of Britain’s electricity comes from burning non-renewable fossil fuels so electric vehicles would help make carbon emissions. If Britain did make the switch to clean renewable energy, electric vehicles could also be used to store energy. When the cars aren’t running and are plugged in, their batteries can be used to store electricity and smooth out peaks in electricity demand. This technology is called ‘vehicle-to-grid’ or V2G. When consumers demand lots of electricity, the spare electricity in the plugged in cars could be supplied back to the national grid. When plenty of electricity is being generated, but there is little demand for it, then the power can be used to charge car batteries. Consumers would benefit, as they would be paid for the spare electricity they supplied. The average British car spends 23 hours a day sitting in the drive way. If this trend continues there is potential to use electric cars as energy stores and iron out fluctuations in electricity supply and demand. Almost 2 days worth of Britain’s electricity supply could be stored in our stationary vehicles. Similarly a single electric car would store about 2 days worth of power for the average family home. Having this big storage would make the national grid more secure and balancing the power from different renewable sources easier. “Britain already has some of what we need to make vehicle to grid work. The national grid already supplies electricity to and from people’s homes. However, Britain would need to make massive investments in renewable energy if electric cars and vehicle to grid technology are going to help us tackle climate change,” said co-author of Zero Carbon Britain, Tim Helweg-Larsen.”

Commission for Integrated Transport : Climate Change & Air Quality :-
http://www.cfit.gov.uk/plenaries/0501mfp3.htm

Chart on California’s Traffic Pollution Burden for Greenhouse Gases :-
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/graph/graph.htm

Air Quality Challenge in California :-
http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=legislative&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=30256

I nearly walked out of the room when a wide-eyed suit who appeared to be barely out of his teens used the word “investment” in two different ways in two consecutive sentences, and didn’t realise the cognitive dissonance.

You know, “investment” as in “Tesco building a big store to capitalise on the spending power of the local economy” contrasting with “Tesco building retail and other facilities to enrich the local community”.

Yes, the scale model in the transparent plastic box looked clean and tidy with lots of toy trees. No, the model didn’t show any cars anywhere, neither on the roads nor travelling about the store. The computer animation showed a few cars, but they looked like healthy, non-lethal machines. So child-friendly !

Yes, people in this South Chingford area often travel out of the local centre to shop, but that’s because there are so many supermarkets and other large stores, and Walthamstow’s “Europe’s Longest Street Market”, already within striking distance by bus, rail, foot, bike and road, and really local retail outfits have lost a lot of business.

We used to have greengrocers, butchers, bakers, a shoe mender, even a photographic studio in the area. All gone. Coincidentally, much of that loss around the same time that Tesco bought the light industrial land they now want to build upon .

People moan about the quality and choice of what remains. All we have left are all-day breakfast cafes (1 excellent, 2 reasonable, 1 poor, 1 greasy spoon which the Police like to frequent on a Sunday morning), sandwich shops, 4 Indian restaurants (3 sit-down, 1 takeway), a gentleman’s hairdresser, a betting shop, 2 chemists, a Budgens, a Costcutter, 1 Spar, 4 newsagents-cum-convenience stores, a dry cleaners, a tanning salon, two florists, one funeral parlour, one alternative health therapist, one Chinese takeway, 3 fast food chicken, burgers and chip type joints, a card shop, a Post Office, a petrol station, an icecream parlour, a pseudo-Italian cafe, two charity shops, a fish-and-chip-and-kebab shop, a sit-down English restaurant, an Italian restaurant, 2 pubs, 1 contested thumping nightclub, a bicycle shop, the offices of the local newspaper…in fact, there’s quite a lot going on here, really.

I don’t get the argument that we need something like 6000 extra square metres of A1 retail floorspace. How do people get enough to eat at the moment ?

The big problem for me is that Tesco will compete with everyone else and could take away a large part of their business. I don’t mean “competition”, really, in the European Union Neoliberal sense, I mean acting as if they are parasites on the local economy.

Tesco wants to put in a very large store, with capacity that would virtually double the amount of retail floorspace in the neighbourhood. Clearly, they think they can employ strategies to attract sufficient business to justify their development plans. And a lot of it will come from the local area. And a lot more will come from several miles outside the area from other “catchments”. They admit that. That’s a clear admission that we don’t need a store this size.

My view is that what Tesco are planning will undermine local business, in order to attract market share to justify their “investment”.

This is not the first time they have tried to develop in E4. Their last plan was strongly contested, and with good reason. They’ve come back with a pretty similar plan in many ways, just with a few more affordable homes to be built on the side, seemingly as a sweetener for the Local Authority.

With each articulation of basically the same plan, there is an evolution of fancy “design elements” which is better than a TV comedy show.

Let’s pass over the decoration : for example the “Highams Green” public space at the very centre of the development, likely to be overrun by the local ASBO holders, as the store will probably be a 24 hour operation; and the treelined walkways, narrow, with nothing overlooking them, enough to scare people wanting to get around on foot at night; and the underground, or, God forbid, street-level parking for 350 cars, and the 130 projected new cars in the estate development with “shared use” walkways and car lanes that are long enough for a driver to speed up and cause collisions with pedestrians.

Let’s not contemplate the extra traffic admitted by the planners, and the fact that this will conflict with the operation of the level crossing, especially since there are plans to increase the frequency of the train service; especially let’s not consider the complete road gridlock from similar scale new development in South Woodford; let’s not address the promised “preferential rate” of the office space and small retail units that Tesco plan to build under their store at street level; let’s not go too far into the quality and scale of “community” facilities that the mega-corporation have dangled tantalisingly in front of punters.

Let us consider simply the basic “investment” here. The Tesco giant looks like it is planning to extract a large income from the wider local area. The net effect of this could amount to sucking the remaining vitality out of Highams Park.

If Tesco calculate that they can run the store at a profit, this means that inevitably they will starve other local businesses of revenue.

Despite the fact that there will be 300 “jobs” created at the store, the majority of the revenue from the retail operation will not stay in the area, and jobs in other local businesses will be seriously threatened.

This is what Tesco does, as a successful business. They do what other local businesses are doing and beat them at their own game. Since there are good florists here, what will Tesco probably do ? It will be likely to compete. Bargain bucket bouquets in Tesco foyers could take a lot of business from the florists. Because there is a petrol station opposite the newly planned store, Tesco could well sell fuel, and out-compete. Because there are cafes in the area, Tesco might think of running a cafe. Because there are chemists in the area, Tesco will likely expand their pharmacy range in-store. Because there are restaurants in the area, Tesco will probably provide a wide range of ready-packed microwave deli meals.

Tesco has an unfair advantage. Wherever they go they take the weight of their business capital with them, and totally dominate any market they enter. Shareholders will like this. I do not.

The Economic myth that Competition Creates Productivity And Innovation And Cost Effectiveness will not work here. Competition only works between players of similar sizes. Competition only works when new market entrants are permitted – and if a mega-Tesco gets planted here, there will most likely be no further opportunities for new retail players.

My opinion is that the planned store is too large for the area, and the store owners too well-versed at not only parting customers from their money, but parting other businesses from their former customers. Most of that money will leave the area (deduct the wages for 300 “trolley dolly” jobs from the total profits of the store). And all the new Tesco customers for cheap chicken, milk and bread will mean less customers for the local businesses.

If Tesco get the go-ahead to build in Highams Park, I would like Tesco to guarantee Fair Trade in the local area : explicitly avoiding product lines and costing strategies that would undermine local businesses. But I know that despite assurances, the evidence from other Tesco developments seems to show they are very unlikely to Trade Fair. The larger they are, the more they will need to compete with local businesses to survive.

I’m sure they’re too large for this town, and as they want to maximise their profits, pretty add-ons like nice brickwork and sympathetic landscaping and Renewable Energy will vanish.

The whole supermarket model is entirely dependent on the continuing availability of cheap Energy. That Energy is Fossil Fuel Energy. Despite assurance in their last plan that they’re going to have a “Renewable Energy Centre”, I’m sure this is one of the first things that will get dropped. Their plan showed a preference for Biomass Boiler plant – which would mean extra road traffic into the site : which would not be acceptable.

Hello, and welome to Tesco Town. In a few years time, all this will be yours, Tesco, as there will probably be very few other businesses left standing.

[ NOTE WELL : Nothing in this article is intended as factual statement about the Tesco corporation. The entire article is mere opinion about the effects of large supermarket development. This article does not claim to understand or know the intentions of the Tesco corporation. The personal opinions expressed in this article do not attempt to bring Tesco into disrepute. The writer of this article has no personal, stock or business interest in any supermarkets, including Tesco. ]