I receive another letter from Iain Duncan Smith MP on vellum yellow with sickly pale green type. “Dear Mrs [sic] Abbess”, the letter reads, “Further to our previous correspondence regarding Stop Climate Chaos Big [sic] campaign, please find enclosed a reply from Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary.” I asked Iain Duncan Smith in person for his own and personal support for a strong Energy Bill. What did he do ? Pass my letter on to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). I would have prefered a personal commitment to the issue, but, sadly, it was not to be.
The Rt Hon continued, “I hope you find his letter reassuring…” Reassuring ? What ? Am I some kind of emotionally incontinent complainant ? “…and helpful. However, please don’t hesitate to contact me again if I can be of further assistance.”
Despite Adam Curtis’ curious views about ecology and democracy, and his enduring confusions between science and technology, (and between technology and industry), I must remind my readers that in one area he has been a keenly perceptive and accurate observer – in his 1992 “Pandora’s Box” research into the history of nuclear power “A is for Atom” :-
Curtis correctly identifies mismanagement as being the root cause of problems in the nuclear power industry – a mismanagement of information, dismissiveness of whistleblowing, and a dangerous overreach of technological ambition.
I’m looking quizzical, rubbing my chin. Adam Curtis appears to have lost control of his mind, or at the very least, is showing signs of unhealthy self contradiction. Where are the checks and balances ?
At the start of Part 2 of “All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace”, he unpicks, and, I would suggest, stamps on, the idea that ecosystems are networks of feedback loops, tending to re-balance. And then at the end of the same presentation, he asserts that human revolutions fail, and society folds in on itself and returns to the state of power and control it was in before. Now which is it to be, Adam Curtis ? Self-correcting stability or non-correcting ebbs, flows and shifting sands ?
I was encouraged to take in the audiovisual presentation of “All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace”, wherein Adam Curtis demonstrates what appears to be a lack of understanding regarding failure in the financial markets. Most foundational year ecologists can tell you that systems are self-correcting, that virtual bubbles get popped, that hubris gets torn down, that over-population gets underfed. Rabbits and foxes. Owls and mice. George Monbiot’s “War On Slugs” because of missing hedgehogs and thrushes. It all depends on the natural resources available to feed the participants in the game. The global economy can only accelerate growth so much before it implodes. There are Limits to Growth. Curtis could be said to be expressing his suspicions that the fake “Knowledge Economy”, the Asian “Shock Doctrine” and the Property Crash were an artefact of a secret evil cabal formed from the vaguely impressed followers of Ayn Rand – but the rest of us all know that’s silly. She was a lovely, sensitive, principled woman, although she could have done with a little more kindness in her life to inspire altruism in her worldview.
“Fires rage through much of Texas; more than 1 million acres burned : April 20, 2011 : Several massive wildfires in North and West Texas continued to rage Tuesday, racing through parched fields and woods and adding to a sweeping acreage toll that has reached almost 1.2 million in less than two weeks. A wildfire spanning four counties west of Fort Worth near Possum Kingdom Lake has consumed nearly 150,000 acres, destroyed 150 homes and a church, and forced hundreds to flee since it began Friday, Texas Forest Service spokesman Marq Webb said. The fire, which nearly doubled in size in a day, is one of more than 20 active fires that the Forest Service is fighting statewide in an April that has been plagued by a fierce drought, high temperatures and gusting winds – conditions that have allowed wildfires to ignite and spread quickly in several parts of the state, including Austin…”
The situation is so bad, that the God Squad has been moved to participate, some in practical ways and some in the spiritual department. People are dying, but meanwhile, some in the Heavenward crowd are in denial about Climate Change. Seems that some tombstone-headed American Christians would rather crucify their country than admit that Global Warming Science is right.
State policy on fighting fire seems rather contrary to the trends – and that’s probably because “big government” social budgets needs to be cleansed of too much “red tape”.
Will Texas become uninhabitable, with terrain where nothing can grow; the domain of wind farms, solar fields and duststorms ?
They’ve never had it so cold. The British have just shivered through another long, centrally heated winter, and people are receiving enormous gas bills. Social campaigners and parliamentarians are rightly concerned that a clutch of harsher winters and risingenergy costs could reverse gains made in tackling fuel poverty. The UK Government’s recent Budget announcement to reduce fuel poverty assistance payments is another blow to maintaining decent and warm homes for the vulnerable, the elderly and children. Proposals to cap the amount that energy companies can charge people in their bills is welcomed by some, but feared by others – as it could jeopardise energy company funding for the Green Deal – a free-to-the-consumer loan scheme for insulation and renewable energy installation. And there’s another problem waiting in the wings. Unlike the United States and Australia, the average British home doesn’t have air conditioning, and it costs real money to install it. If outsized summer heatwaves continue to pop up more frequently in Europe, UK households will face “cool poverty” in summer – a lack of cooling.
So, I’m sitting in my local cafe at lunchtime talking to my local property developer-landlord. So, I ask him, do you think there will be worsening economic conditions this year ? And will there be more unemployment ?
He takes a pretty dismal line – things are becoming more and more squeezed – landlords are finding that their properties are unoccupied, or the rents are being forced downwards, and there is no spare finance capacity to do renovations, the banks won’t lend, and there’s no certainty of being able to sell properties if the business becomes uneconomic. He’s had to sack people he was formerly able to employ.
Let’s see now…how’s the price of a gallon of fuel today ?
Well, the fuel duty escalator has been scrapped for the rest of this UK Parliament.
Plus, fuel duty has been decreased by 1 pence per litre.
This will gladden the hearts of many who have campaigned against the scorching taxes on fuel costs to motorists.
But Value Added Tax for fuel hasn’t been brought down – because the UK Government said it would be illegal under EU law to cut VAT specifically for fuel.
None of these measures announced in today’s UK Budget will stop the price of vehicle fuel from rising further with the markets, unfortunately, so nobody who depends on their personal vehicle should be rejoicing.
The £10 billion or so that will be extracted from the North Sea oil industry via a raise in production tax (apparently to pay for cancelling the fuel duty increase) will no doubt be charged back out to vehicle fuel customers one way or another…the price of ICE Brent Crude for forwards contracts dipped a little today, but the average has shot up over the last 3 months.
Minor adjustments to the price of vehicle fuel will not resolve the fundamentals driving crude oil price changes – and hence the price of diesel and petrol and the pump.
The major shake-up in the price of crude oil shows that suggestions to tinker with taxes or levies to try to adjust consumption for environmental reasons will be a totally failed strategy even before it begins.
So why oh why has George Osborne instituted a Carbon Price Floor for electricity emissions in the power generation sector ? The “price signal” this is supposed to give, an “incentive” to reduce high carbon generation and invest in low carbon generation, will be totally lost amongst the increasing operating costs for electricity production – not least because nuclear power is about to get much, much more expensive because of the response to safety concerns raised by the Fukushima Daiichi Japan Nuclear Accident.
It is time to admit that green taxation doesn’t change behaviour because it is always small compared to other price effects.
It is also time to recognise that proactive investment in such things as low carbon fuels, vehicle fuel efficiency and small electric vehicles, small fuel cell vehicles, more public transport, lower driving speeds, fully inflated tyres, de-centralisation of employment and re-localisation of public services are key to tackling Climate Change for the transport sector.
So…how’s the Green Investment Bank shaping up, then, George Osborne ?
“Draft of national climate change policy finalised : Noor Aftab : Monday, February 21, 2011 : Islamabad : The draft of National Climate Change Policy has been finalised after two years of deliberations and now the Environment Ministry would present it to the federal cabinet for final approval, the sources told The News here on Sunday. The sources said the recommendations in the draft would certainly test the government’s commitment as it has been proposed to go for alternative energy resources instead of using fossil fuel, considered one of the major reasons for environmental degradation. The sources said the draft recommendations prepared by a core group of the Environment Ministry mainly focuses on two areas including adaptation and mitigation with an aim to enable the country to cope with fast increasing environmental challenges. One of the top officials of the Environment Ministry told this correspondent that continuity of casual approach towards environmental sector has now made economic managers and policy makers feel the heat as environmental degradation has started costing five per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) in Pakistan…”
“Sunday, February 20, 2011 : UK to keep helping Pakistan’s flood victims: Sayeeda Warsi : LAHORE: Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, a British cabinet minister of Pakistani-origin, said on Saturday that the United Kingdom would continue supporting Pakistan in the post-flood operations. “Today I have been heartened to see and hear how the UK is helping millions of people in Pakistan rebuild their lives, but there is much more to do, with widespread malnutrition and the risk of disease outbreaks,” Warsi said while talking to reporters in Islamabad. The primary purpose of Warsi’s visit to Pakistan is to learn how the country is recovering, what more needs to be done, and to see how more than Rs 27.7 billion from British people is supporting the flood victims. “When I was here exactly six months ago in August at the peak of the floods with the UK International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell I saw scenes of devastation,” the British lawmaker recalled. She said that some areas of Sindh were still under water, adding that reconstruction of millions of houses, bridges and schools that were destroyed would take years…”
PRESS RELEASE : TV ECO CHAPLAIN TUMBLES HOUSE OF CREDIT CARDS
The Revd Peter Owen-Jones, the whole nation’s media chaplain, will be sharing from the heart at a Green Christian London conference ‘End of the Age of Thorns’ on 5th March 2011.
He will be opening up about a new relationship with money, and how we can survive the credit, jobs and services crunch by digging for our spiritual roots.
In his BBC TV odyssey, Britain’s favourite vicar tried living without his cheque book in the series ‘How to live a simple life’, and travelled the world to peer into the human soul in the fascinating ‘Around the World in 80 Faiths’.
Now he comes back down to Earth in central London, bringing his unique, accessible style of presentation, to share the good news of life after moneymaking, in an all-day conference organised by Christian Ecology Link.
The programme for the ‘End of the Age of Thorns’ features a wide range of talks and workshops asking questions about the ecology of money and life after mass marketing. What are the green shoots nurturing a new economics? Is there prosperity without growth? And can society grow up and leave consumerism behind?
“Christians ought to be distinctive as consumers. Our shopping bags should reflect our values.” (Professor Tim Cooper)
Sustainability expert Professor Tim Cooper will lead a group learning the fundamentals of Green Economics; Ashley Ralston will guide a process looking at shopping as if the planet mattered; and Ruth Jarman will host a workshop on greening up the day-to-day life of church communities.
“The church needs to consider why its members so readily succumb to high street temptations despite clear Biblical warnings about materialism. We cannot expect Christians to be immune from the psychological and socio-cultural pressures that lead to excessive consumption.” (Professor Tim Cooper)
___________________________________________________________
END OF THE AGE OF THORNS : SURVIVING CONSUMERISM
Christian Ecology Link Conference: Saturday 5 March 2011, 11am to 5pm, St John’s Church, Waterloo Road, London SE1 8TY (opposite the entrance to Waterloo station)
Come and explore spiritual roots for a new economics, for our own humanity and all life on Earth. Engage with Peter Owen-Jones on a new relationship with money and how we can challenge the consumerist age we live in.
“Christians are not prepared to tolerate economic injustice, and work hard to make the system better. But there is an elephant in the room. We take endless economic growth of the system for granted. And we wonder why we are failing to stem the extinction of fifty species every day, greenhouse gas emissions are out of control, and our children have becomes pawns of the market. Economic growth has become a cancer on the earth, and an abuse of the image of God in us.” (CEL Chairman, Paul Bodenham)
“God did not create a world with infinite resources for humankind to plunder. He created a world with finite resources for us to nurture. Some people argue that technological advance will enable consumerism to persist. We would do well to note that God also created people with finite minds. Perhaps people will not work out solutions in time. What then? We must address people’s values, not just their minds.” (Professor Tim Cooper)
Peter Owen-Jones is a long-time supporter of CEL and a popular speaker. You will probably have seen at least one of his fascinating BBC TV series: ‘How to live a simple life’, ‘Around the World in 80 Faiths’, and ‘Extreme Pilgrim’.
He is a Church of England vicar in a parish near Lewes in East Sussex; writer of several books including Letters from an Extreme Pilgrim (2010) and Psalm: The World’s Finest Soul Poetry in a Contemporary Idiom (2009); and founder of the Arbory Trust, the first Christian woodland burial site.
Tim Cooper is Professor of Sustainable Design and Consumption at Nottingham Trent University, a founder member of CEL and former CEL Chairman. He is author of “Longer lasting products; alternatives to the throwaway society” (2010) and “Green Christianity” (1990).
Workshop details
“Green Economics” : Tim Cooper will run two different sessions combining input and discussion. Both sessions will be self-contained so you can go to both, or just one.
“Shopping as if the planet mattered” : Bring your own ideas to share, led by Ashley Ralston, CEL trustee and a director of Better Tomorrows.
“Greening the church in daily life” : Eco-congregations are not just for Sundays. They should give every member the chance to change their life. Come and discuss ideas and experiences that can help people start on a journey of a lifetime, including CEL’s ecocell programme, led by Ruth Jarman, CEL trustee and climate change campaigner.
“We should be no less distinctive in our consumption ethics as in our sexual ethics. Christianity is as much about showing distinctive love to third world suppliers by insisting on ‘fair trade’ goods as it is about showing distinctive love to our husbands and wives by being faithful.” (Professor Tim Cooper)
“Jesus was forthright about the ‘deceit of wealth’, and yet we’ve fallen for this one big time. There is an alternative, but like any therapy, the treatment will be painful. A lot of people want to be the place where that healing makes a start, but don’t know how. That is why we have launched ‘ecocell’, to bring people together to make a journey in discipleship to find freedom, for themselves, for society and, we hope, for the earth.” (CEL Chairman, Paul Bodenham)
Well, Mubarak’s made an exit – and real Egyptian democracy can begin – as long as the army don’t get crowd control ideas above their station and the old elites don’t interfere with the process of free and fair elections.
But democracy is not going to solve the problem of the price of bread.
“Food Speculation : What is the problem? : Banks, hedge funds and pension funds are betting on food prices in the financial markets, causing drastic price swings in staple foods such as wheat, maize and soy…”
“By now, you probably think your opinion of Goldman Sachs and its swarm of Wall Street allies has rock-bottomed at raw loathing. You’re wrong. There’s more. It turns out that the most destructive of all their recent acts has barely been discussed at all. Here’s the rest. This is the story of how some of the richest people in the world – Goldman, Deutsche Bank, the traders at Merrill Lynch, and more – have caused the starvation of some of the poorest people in the world. It starts with an apparent mystery. At the end of 2006, food prices across the world started to rise, suddenly and stratospherically. Within a year, the price of wheat had shot up by 80 per cent, maize by 90 per cent, rice by 320 per cent. In a global jolt of hunger, 200 million people – mostly children – couldn’t afford to get food any more, and sank into malnutrition or starvation. There were riots in more than 30 countries, and at least one government was violently overthrown. Then, in spring 2008, prices just as mysteriously fell back to their previous level…”
“The hedge fund guy sitting beside me was asked about his next plan for global domination. He’d done houses and gold – what was the new new thing? “Food,” he said between mouthfuls of lobster. “We’re piling into food. Weather’s getting weird, so there’ll be crop failures. There won’t be enough to go around.”…”
Many blessings for your newly-born democracy, Egypt, and we hope you can win the fight to secure affordable food, too.
[ UPDATE : Hot on the heels of the e-mail from Biteback Publishing (now, there’s a coincidence, not) I got an e-mail from the Daily Mail, explaining why they will not make further corrections to the excerpt they published from Peter Sissons’ book, apart from the goodwill gesture they first made to remove my name… They appear to have failed to understand the irony. Roger Harrabin insists that my complaint didn’t influence him to change his 2008 article. And now the Daily Mail are insisting that my complaint will not influence them to change their article. This shows quite conclusively that journalists are resistant to complaints; evidence which completely undermines the “contrived” claim by Peter Sissons that my complaint influenced Roger Harrabin… ]
Peter Sissons wrote a book, but since I don’t watch TV, I didn’t see him popping up on various programmes to talk about his new publication.
First I knew, excerpts from the book were serialised in a couple of newspapers – including the Daily Mail. It was only when I questioned the account in the Daily Mail, that I found out that I’d been written about by Peter Sissons in a printed book.
Yet Peter Sissons never contacted me to confirm details in researching his narrative, and he didn’t acknowledge that the version of the story he used had been contested publicly by Roger Harrabin, the BBC journalist.
I have attempted to get a correction from Biteback Publishing, but it appears that so far I have been unsuccessful, and it seems unlikely that my complaint will get recognition. Here is the e-mail trail :-
From: jo abbess
To: info, Biteback Publishing
Subject: Request for clarification regarding Peter Sissons’ publication
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:26:41 +0000
Dear Biteback,
According to an e-mail from the Daily Mail’s Assistant Editor that I received yesterday, I have been mentioned by Peter Sissons in one of your publications.
The Daily Mail published an article by Peter Sissons online on 25th January, and I have been told that this was an excerpt from his recent book.
I’m wondering if you could do me the highest favour and clarify for me what exactly may or may not have been put into print by Peter Sissons about me.
I questioned the accuracy of the piece by the Daily Mail, and asked them to consider amendments, but unfortunately, before they could respond, the article was cut and pasted across the Internet, along with my name.
This means that even if my name has been removed from any published version, it would still be easy to find out who the unconfirmed story refers to.
Peter Sissons did not approach me regarding the story he recounted in the Daily Mail to verify details, and does not seem to have taken account of BBC journalist Roger Harrabin’s version of events. The story was therefore incompletely researched, and should not in my view be put into print.
It would be unhelpful if the same incorrect story were to have been printed in Peter Sissons’s book, and I would welcome feedback from you on measures that could be taken to remove the unsound narrative from the public domain if it has appeared in one of your publications.
I am not interested in pursuing legal redress if a false account has been published, but I would like you to provide a remedy to clear my name, actions and character if they have been inaccurately described.
From: jo abbess
Sent: 04 February 2011 09:41
To: James Stephens, Biteback Publishing
Subject: FW: Request for clarification regarding Peter Sissons’ publication
Dear James,
It was very reassuring to talk to you just now.
As you requested, I’m forwarding the e-mail that I sent this morning to the general info address.
Subject: FW: Request for clarification regarding Peter Sissons’ publication
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:00:53 +0000
From: James Stephens, Biteback Publishing
To: jo abbess
Dear Jo,
Many thanks for contacting me on Friday with reference When One Door Closes, the recently published autobiography of Peter Sissons. The book does indeed make mention of you in three paragraphs on page 299, which I have attached here for your convenience.
For clarification, I should make clear that we can see absolutely no reason to withdraw the book – nor to include an erratum notice, nor to issue some manner of correctional statement.
With reference to the e-mail exchange between Roger Harrabin and yourself referred to in the text where Peter uses your words he repeats verbatim what has already appeared elsewhere in the public domain. In terms of events it seems to me that he is factually correct. In terms of Peter’s own interpretation of those facts, we feel that it is the writer’s prerogative – especially in a memoir – to put down his own reflections on and personal interpretation of events.
Again, I thank you for bringing your concern to my attention. However, I hope that once you have had a chance to look at the text you will not feel you have been inaccurately described.
I agree that Peter Sissons should be free to have his own opinions about what took place, but it appears to me that he has not given an accurate description of the factual events, and so I would question the validity of his summary.
I am unhappy that Peter Sissons published this account without verifying the factual details with me. I am also not happy to have a negative judgement of my character and behaviour appearing in print when this opinion is based on an incomplete account of the factual events.
In addition, it appears that Peter Sissons has ignored the account of the factual events as given by Roger Harrabin back in 2008, which has been repeated several times in several arenas since. In my view, Peter Sissons has come to an inaccurate conclusion based on faulty information.
The account by Peter Sissons seems to me to be lacking in a good deal of context. Were he to have fully researched what happened, and understood what actually took place, I am sure that he could see why I think that his position on this incident is uninformed and faulty.
Roger Harrabin and I made several attempts to get the Climate Change sceptic account of what took place corrected at the time, but it appears that these corrections were not heeded, and it seems possible that the inaccurate narrative will come back again and again to haunt us, if the usual pattern of Climate Change sceptic muck-raking behaviour is to continue.
It would be a really helpful thing if you could send me a letter confirming that you recognise my complaint and that I have challenged the accuracy of Peter Sissons’ account. This I could then use to wave in front of people who seem to be adamant in bringing this long-dead non-scandal back to life.
There is no dirt in what took place, and it should not be dug up repeatedly in my opinion, and I would appreciate your help in deflecting false accusations from third parties in future.
I need to have my voice heard and my position acknowledged on this matter.
Ambient, sustainable energy is all around us, and sooner or
later we will find the ways to make use of it for the good of all.
The following is an appropriately edited transcript of a
conversation on the Claverton Energy Research Group
forum online, and was written by Nick Balmer, a consultant
in renewable energy.
__________________________________________________________
…The huge scale of the possible changes for all concerned is
causing all of the current Titans in the [energy] industry to deploy
the full force of the media [and their] PR [public relations] in an
attempt to manipulate the public and policy towards their own way
of thinking, or in such a way as to protect their own vested interests.
The great thing is that these issues are being aired out in the open,
and groups like [Claverton Energy Research Group forum] allow
people with knowledge of these affairs to debate these issues openly.
The big problem is that each of us has only a very detailed
understanding of some small fraction of the total issue.
Most of the public and government only has a very slight knowledge
of the total issue, and has had only limited access to ways to find out
in detail what is going on.
As Egypt is demonstrating today, everybody now has a voice and as
Wikileaks shows, sooner or later everything will come out into the
open.
All of us are struggling to come to terms with this explosion of
access to knowledge.
It is quite clear that lots of bubbles are being burst as a result of
the Global Financial implosion and the huge expansion in available
knowledge.
Just as banking and property has been shown to be an unaffordable
Ponzi scheme and to be vastly over-inflated, UK energy policy is now
coming under huge scrutiny.
We can now compare our energy systems with other countries.
Due to the huge geological accident of fate, since the 1700’s in coal,
and 1970’s in oil and gas, we have been extremely fortunate in being
able to live way beyond the lifestyle standards of most of the World.
We have not had to adapt.
Other countries that didn’t have this advantage had to change over
recent decades.
Places like Denmark, Austria, Germany [and so on] have made huge
changes because they had less energy from fossil resources.
Now we have reached the peak or crunch point, we find ourselves well
behind those countries that had to adapt earlier.
Everybody is concentrating on the Capital cost of deploying per
MW [megawatt] and overlooks the cost of fuels.
The cost of fuels over time is massively more important than the
CAPEX [capital expenditure on investment].
So even if windfarms cost 20 times per MW or GW [gigawatt] more to
build than nuclear or coal or gas, in the scheme of things,
[wind power] is always going to win, because the fuel is free and
unlimited for centuries to come.
Similarly [solar power technologies], or even more effective,
household insulation and cutting energy use.
And yet the media and government are blinded by the barrage of PR
and media from the energy vested interests who are working with
every muscle to stop this coming out into the open.
I often meet financiers in my work trying to promote and support AD
[anaerobic digestion of biological waste for the production of
renewable methane], biomass, solar and wind projects.
I am always struggling to prove to them that I have an offtake [return
on investment] and the fuel supply. This is often really hard to do
[but] I only have to do this for seven to 12 years to make my business
cases stack up.
I was really depressed at the end of one such presentation and
discussion, when one broadly sympathetic banker who had turned me
down said that he was having even worse problems with largescale
energy projects.
How do you predict the price and supply of coal forward for 25 years
or more ?
It has jumped 17% in recent months.
How do you prove that you are going to have offtake for huge power
stations in future years ?
Demand dropped 8% in 2009.
How do you raise the equity or debt for a billion [pound] project when
banks don’t want to lend more than £30 million each ? Imagine how
many banks that would take ?
We have reached a tipping point in our economy, sustainability and
future outlook.
Yes, the existing mega-power companies are fighting as hard as
Mubarak today to hold onto power, but they represent the past just
as surely as he does.
Those companies can rejuvenate themselves, unlike the Egyptian
President.
If they don’t, there are an increasingly large number of smaller and
more active players coming into the market.
The average household pays somewhere around £1,300 a year for
its heating and lighting.
The companies that come forward with a way to do that for £1,000 is
going to capture the market very quickly.
I have friends in Austria who only pay 65 Euros for services that I
pay £1,400 for.
They do this through insulation, triple glazing, solar and biomass energy.
Most [UK] households have less than £400 per year discretionary
disposable income. This prevents them making changes to their houses
they desperately want and know they need to make. This can
drop their energy demands hugely.
If somebody can unlock that Gordian Knot the benefits would be
enormous as there are something like 27 million households.
At a time when household debt is at an all-time high, incomes are
shrinking, and 40% live on ether government salaries, state
pensions or benefits.
Energy is a very high part of these households’ outgoings – if you
pay £1,300 a year and your house only brings in £11,000 to £20,000
per year.
A 50% increase in the £1,300 could bring great distress, and
possibly even civil unrest here.
The increases fossil power [companies] need to make their systems
bankable will increase energy bills. This will feed straight through into
government liabilities because 40% of us live on government payouts.
If government can drop the cost of heating and lighting quite easily
by £100 to £500 per household per year while at the same time
provide employment for hundreds of thousands of White Van men
cutting energy uses, doesn’t this make far more sense than building
unsustainable power stations that will have to be [bankrolled] by the
government, who will then have to buy back electricity at a price our
communities cannot stand ?
Project a similar calculation onto transport fuels and you get even
greater problems.
At $80 a barrel [of oil] industry is shrinking and relatively few
renewable fuel business cases work. At $100 a barrel most renewable
fuels can compete.
At $120 a barrel almost any alternative beats oil, and that is before
you start to look at issues like fuel security and the environment.
Although the battle is one of David and Goliath, or the Dinosaur and
those early mammals, between the new energy industries and the
existing vested energy industries, [it] has only one outcome.
It is only a matter of the co-lateral damage along the way.
Like Mubarak, it is clear they must go. Are they going to go
gracefully, or are they going to smash the place up first ?
London Rising Tide presents…The Beehive Design Collective’s – ‘The True Cost of Coal’
DATE – Thursday 10th Feb, 2011
TIME – 7.30pm – late – with refreshments after the presentation
LOCATION – London Action Resource Centre : 62 Fieldgate Street, Whitechapel, London, E1 1ES
‘The True Cost of Coal’ will take you on an interactive visual tour of the connections between coal mining, climate change, the ever-expanding capitalist economy, and the struggle for justice in local communities affected by the coal industry around the world.
‘The True Cost of Coal’ is a recently completed project by the Beehive Collective (part of the Rising Tide North America Collective), who create portable murals of collaboratively produced illustrations that tell an engaging and disturbing story.
Learn how the artwork is created by the collective and how they use their posters to run community workshop and for storytelling. The True Cost of Coal poster they have produced is quite staggering – check it out at :-
Their visually stunning, large scale Black + White graphics depict social justice and raising ecological consciousness in an unusual and highly creative way.
Come along to find out more at LARC, 7.30pm, Thurs 10th Feb.
“We are honoring the very bad weather, this 1800 mile wide storm descending now on New York, and the typhoon named Yasi in Australia. And we pronounce the natural disasters to be statements from a Fabulous Unknown who will instruct us what to do, now that we are standing on this painted wood stage together in a state of readiness. We have a lot of fabulous bad weather in our bodies. The deeply coded agreements between living things on this planet – how evolution presents new life – may not protect homo sapiens anymore. If it does, we are grateful. We’ll try to learn what the Earth is up to and help…”
“The fires and mudslides, blizzards and extinctions, tsunamis and quakes – are sweeping toward the chosen people. We can’t live by that expansionist, violent god of nations anymore. That is our promise by sharing this stage. The wilderness pulsing out there – has big plans.”
The documentary evidence shows that America’s business interests often outweigh its political progress. Yet it’s perhaps more concerning that, increasingly, corporate America is at risk of damaging good environmental governance.
With all the talk of free markets in international trade, the Coalition Government in the United Kingdom has felt the pressure to open up the back door to American energy businesses, whose highly-paid sales representatives in slick suits want us to buy their dirty energy projects – just take a look at the upcoming UK Energy Bill and its proposals for Electricity Market Reform.
American companies seem poised to sweep in and take all our public non-subsidy “support” for building new nuclear power plants. Viewers of a sensitive political disposition should look away now as this is a Wikileak :-
The country that brought you the engineering industry that brought you the giant Gulf of Mexico giant oil spill now wants to bring you unsafe deepwater drilling in Britain’s Continental Shelf – and the UK’s new Energy Bill would let them do that without demonstrating any learning from the BP April 2010 fiasco :-
There’s lots of talk in the energy sector and the financial markets about the American shale gas miracle “gamechanger” and how it can be replicated in Europe and across the world, and not enough discussion about the environmental dangers :-
It’s good to talk about local environmental damage from “unconventional” gas, but what’s not being discussed so widely is that these “new” resources of Natural Gas aren’t really very green, and neither are the “traditional” resources – in some cases they’re not much better than coal :-
We know that the Americans always seek to protect the interests of American-owned businesses – and we know they do that for the best of intentions – to keep America wealthy (except it’s really only a few people in America that have any wealth, but anyway…)
Yet I think there should be a limit to how far we have to bend over backwards to accommodate their needs for economic recovery.
To export all their dirty energy technology to Europe is just not helpful, and I think we should say no, no, no.
An unidentified group has taken advantage of all the turmoil in Egypt, gone undercover, and attacked a gas pipeline, which means that supplies to politically moderate Jordan (and the more hardline Syria) will be cut off.
Who planned this ? It’s probably too early to say, but I can think of several possible answers to the question, and none of them are pretty.
“Gas pipeline to Jordan, Syria set ablaze in Egypt…Unless the pipe is repaired quickly, it could become a big problem for Jordan, a country already spending heavily in fuel subsidies, a Jordanian senior official said….”
As an experiment with the notion of “common values”, I recently sat in a cinema with a bunch of my fellow citizens and inhaled the film “The King’s Speech”.
They laughed with the jokes (as in fact I did, right on cue), mourned with the pain (which gave me cause for reflection, too); and gave a huge round of applause at the end.
And you know what, I could have been swept along and joined them, apart from one observation.
The triumph of the central character over his physical disability, the applause he received, both at the time and in the cinema, this was all whilst giving a message that the country was about to commence widescale violence towards another country – the declaration of war.
Everybody was cheering for war. I couldn’t join in.
It is to the good memory of David Fleming that I recommend you read his last published work, co-written with Transition Towns’ Shaun Chamberlin, “Tradable Energy Quotas : A Policy Framework for Peak Oil and Climate Change” :-
Amidst all the psycho-sociological arguments being waged by political theorists and campaigny people about changing peoples’ values, and whether that’s right/useful or not, one plain fact should emerge like a tree to clutch in a flash flood – people respond to rules.
If the rules of the game are that we should reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050, and everybody, including the energy production companies, are required to play a significant role, this fact alone establishes “common cause” and creates a framework for action.
Although the Climate Change Act is the law – a piece of legislation – it has yet to be fleshed out. Until it becomes clear what the exact policies, measures and instruments will be, agreed and implemented, there will continue to be massive amounts of flailing and flapping about, scepticism, recalcitrance, dogma and complaining.
When it becomes clear what the framework for the energy industry, big business and social provision will be, then people will knuckle down and accept the inevitable.
I’m not arguing for eco-fascism – far from it. Mistakes in policy are all too possible, and so strong engagement is required, far beyond the token democracy we are currently permitted to take part in. Taking part in a government consultation on energy and carbon emissions is about as effective as waving a placard in the direction of Downing Street, except you don’t run the risk of getting arrested for it.
The only thing the public are currently permitted to do is cut their own domestic emissions. They’re not allowed to have a say about what business or government do about emissions.
Yet despite this complete absence of public involvement, there are signs of progress. Once we have managed to fight our way through the windstorm of nonsensical technological “fixes” that are worse than useless; once we have some educated people in the Government and the Civil Service – education on matters of engineering rather than humanities; then we can start to see sense from the top.
Urgent request from the floor : please can the Government and industry please stop alienating people with calls for consumers to change their behaviour. It’s producing resistance, and that is a threat to progress on reducing emissions.
What do I think about changing values ? I don’t believe “we” should try to change values or behaviour. That amounts to manipulation in my view.
“Singing in the Rain : 26 January 2011 : In the past 2 – 3 weels I received a deluge of nasty-language messages saying that I should be fired, deported, run over, etc. Such a sudden burst of malice seems unlikely to be spontaneous.”
“Perhaps recent articles and internet stories provided stimulation, e.g., an article by Pat Michaels in the Washington Times and a statement by Richard S. Courtney on a blog. Michaels distorts the facts and uses quotes out of context. The Courtney statement […] mischaracterizes my testimony.”
“…The essence of my testimony, in both trials, was that the evidence for human-caused climate change is clear. I emphasized that the UK government, the fossil fuel industry, and the utility EON were aware of the effect of continued coal-burning on the future of young people. But instead of addressing the problem effectively, they engaged in greenwash…”
Over at MediaLens, the two (three) Davids are blanking the “every little bit helps” approach :-
Asking the general public to kindly remember to switch off their lights has had about as much impact as a light dusting of sugar. Looks pretty, but causes coughing fits when eating the cake.
I can’t wait for their comments on Climate Week :-
Like RT, on my smaller canvas, I have found it valuable to link with contacts in many fields, some of which don’t usually come together.
I have found fruitful connexions between Rotary and renewables; Friends of the Earth and the church; The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts. Manufactures and Commerce and Fairtrade; and Starbucks and Nestle with Fairtade.
Whatever circles we move in, they need, like the symbol of the Olympics, to be interlinked for the strenthening of all.
Like RT I will talk to anyone and build on the best I find. Jesus surely showed us that. Joy and justice.
What you say resonates with my experience, also : ” I have found it valuable to link with contacts in many fields, some of which don’t usually come together.”
I, too, agree with RT’s central line of argument, that we should talk to everyone, in whichever circumstances we find them : “Like RT I will talk to anyone and build on the best I find.”
In addition, I think it is important that we are clear that we do not want compromise in terms of the ultimate aims and objectives that we believe in.
For example, 99.99% (rough guess) of people want a peaceful, stable society. There should be no compromise on that goal.
And the Climate Change Act is a serious affirmation that we should be cutting carbon dioxide emissions in this country by 80% by 2050 – or more, according to advice from the Climate Change Committee.
How will that 80% (90%) cut be achieved ? By not compromising. We need to have the building insulation, and we need to have the lights switched off. That is the responsibility of the consumers. However, we also need the energy supply companies to drop the use of fossil fuels.
Currently there is less happening in this realm than some observers think there should be. If you are invited to take part in a branded event sponsored by a coal-burning energy company, I would suggest you ask the question if the event will be asking you to change or asking the energy company to change.
If a fossil fuel burning energy company asks you as a consumer-citizen to change your energy consumption habits, then surely we should be asking them to change their fossil fuel burning habits ?
I’m quite sick of hearing ordinary people being asked to change their ways by large energy supply companies who are not changing theirs. I’ll talk to anyone, but I won’t restrict myself to their frame of reference.
I, too, have had problems accepting that I would have to deal with organisations and even individuals whose apparent raison d’etre seemed entirely opposed to mine. Back in ’79 I was peripherally involved in the early Viet Namese refugee reception, working for a peace organisation. The Home Secretary’s policy was to spread resettlement and to use voluntary groups to support. I soon found that this didn’t work – only by directly working with members of that new community, so I spoke, first, to the refugee charities and to the voluntary groups aiding the new refugees. I was politely told to go away. This was Thatcher’s Government and talking to them was anathema to very many. I had recently joined the voluntary sector, as a paid employee, and I really didn’t know what to do, so I pestered my employers and was told to write a reasoned report stating why the Government resettlement wasn’t and couldn’t work. That I did, I got my report to the then Home Secretary and was then summoned to the Home Office where I was polite and friendly, though it hurt, and, as a result, the Viet Namese were resettled in clusters, that were the foundations of community, and the Government increased the resettlement budget in order to pay full time field workers. My job was funded by a Home Office grant which, a few months later, was withdrawn. It was still very much worth it.
A few years later a similar problem arose in vocational training; in this case there was no budget for what was then termed ESL or English as a Second Language teaching so many young people and adults from refugee and immigrant communities could not get training. I certainly didn’t invent linked skills training, this had been done by, among others, the Manpower Services Commission in the North East, but the concept appeared to be unknown elsewhere in Britain. This time I took on Lord Young, then Secretary of State for Employment, but I did so with courtesy and with sound evidence.
This took several months of letters and the use of Telecom Gold; eventually I received a phonecall from the MSC’s head of vocational training who came to London, from Sheffield, to see Prince Charles in the morning and the Director General of the CBI in the afternoon. I fitted in during lunch. Again, a budget was dramatically increased and linked skills courses started across the UK. I then spent a few years attending MSC conferences as their ‘expert’ on ESL.
I do not mention this out of pride, I was in the right place at the right time doing, I believe, what God wanted me to do. I was entirely opposed to that Government: I had chosen to live and work among the poor and in minority communities, and that Government’s rationale was yet another attack on the ‘shiftless’ unemployed. Later I initiated and ran other campaigns in vocational training provision but, by then I had learnt the benefits of networking.
All of this was conducted without marches or protests and what was achieved was done by straightforward communication, often with people that none of us wanted to talk to. In the event I discovered that organisations are people and that God speaks to them as much as he did to me, though many would not recognise the process. And I found nice people, too, among my ‘enemies’.
I would probably draw [the] line somewhere before British American Tobacco or the arms trade but I trust that there are other Christians establishing dialogue there, too. In my experience, protest changes little but dialogue can help to establish change.
Many companies have investigated climate change and now species loss and resource depletion. Not surprisingly they have found major threats to their future operations. Of course there are some that are deaf but we have to help them to hear.
It is an unfortunate human characteristic that when we feel attacked we are likely to strike back. That can translate into strengthened resistance to change. So, I have no time for the brutality of police but I have not a great deal of respect for the Climate Camps, either. I recall the reporting of the refusal of protesters to meet with RBS in Scotland last summer.
Of course, greenwash hasn’t gone away but I believe that we need to encourage positive efforts rather than simply confront and it’s not easy, up front, to discern what is truly positive. It is always possible to condemn later and negative media coverage often reduces profitability whilst unnecessarily condemning an activity before it starts is more likely to delay or prevent future action.
The Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility does, indeed, have a grown up approach to asking for responsible behaviour but Climate Week is likely to reach out to far more ordinary people than the former. When I was working with the Viet Namese community, some of the most useful help that I received was from Business in the Community. I wrote to the then Archbishop of Canterbury and mentioned the newly emerging percent club concept, also referring to two leading companies that were headed by Anglicans.
The letter bounced all the way to the desk of the Director of BitC, then Stephen O’Brien, a deacon in the C of E, and we struck up a very useful relationship that came in useful again when I was working in vocational training.
I have very big concerns with EDF but, last week at an Aldersgate reception at the House of Commons, Chris Huhne was challenged on the Coalition’s support for renewables. The complaint was that continuing support for fossil fuels makes a mockery of the limited support being given to wind and wave. He was lost for a response to a serious question raised by a major companies executive. That may give him some cause to reflect but, again, it’s about communication. If we don’t talk to them how can we change them?
Finally, I have never spoken to an institution but to people working within them. I try to find a point of common interest and then to talk about what they are doing and how they could, perhaps, improve on that. That seems to me to be a very minor and modest reflection on what Jesus did: condemn the sin and not the sinner.
I think what you have done is simply amazing and proves that if somebody is in a difficult situation at the right time with the right information and the right attitude, then things can change for the better. Naturally, divine intervention is crucial !
In my 21 years of working in the Information Technology industry, I worked in a very wide range of companies and organisations, and I met and worked with a very diverse group of people of all ranks and status. I understand how to manage complex project situations, and the kind of patience and commitment needed to see the job done properly.
In the last ten years I have been attempting to learn about how to facilitate open discussions and debates using techniques of non-violent communication, and I have met and worked with a wider variety of people than ever before.
Some people ask me if I’m scared by some of the people in the environmental movement and I have to laugh ! Most of the greenies have a strong sense of autonomy – of doing what they want to. But true freedom carries obligation – of responsibility to others. Most eco-activists I have met are strongly self-censoring in their behaviour, and work hard to be at peace with others, and are highly cooperative and willing to learn and tolerate.
Some climate activists do not want to talk with any of the authorities – this month’s revelations about police infiltration and personal betrayal show that sometimes the authorities cannot be trusted. I am not concerned by this issue – I am entirely free to engage with anybody from any organisation, and hope to have constructive dialogue. I take care not to do anything that may break the law so that I can have a platform of integrity. I’m not perfect, but I try to be a good citizen.
I don’t believe that there are any enemies. I know there are many people in many corporations and companies that know what the Climate Change problem is and are trying in their roles to do something about it. I know and respect people at different levels of authority and jurisdiction who are pushing environmental change up the agenda.
The “enemy” is poor thinking, in my view. Poor thinking can come from any quarter, so I’m not singling anybody out. The problem of democracy is that there is too little, and too much, all at the same time. Protests, marches, demonstrations, rallies – they have limited political impact, I agree with you, but it’s necessary to try to engage the people in doing something with their political drive. The reason that protest happens is because the democratic channels are rather poor – so the energy has to channel its way somehow into something, and that something is protest.
I do entirely agree with you when you say, “If we don’t talk to them how can we change them? …I have never spoken to an institution but to people working within them. I try to find a point of common interest and then to talk about what they are doing and how they could, perhaps, improve on that. That seems to me to be a very minor and modest reflection on what Jesus did: condemn the sin and not the sinner.”
What often happens is that the communication is poorly conducted, with ultimatums and restrictions, as happened between RBS and the Climate Campers last year (and between the police and the Climate Campers all the time). The people from the activist movement do want to talk, but on equal terms, without pre-conditions, and I think that demand should be honoured.
You say, “Many companies have investigated climate change and now species loss and resource depletion. Not surprisingly they have found major threats to their future operations. Of course there are some that are deaf but we have to help them to hear.”
I would like to know how you would consider helping BP (for example) hear that their business model is dead in the water because of peak oil, and the likely introduction of carbon pricing in the next five years ?
The continued extraction and burning of fossil fuels is a major problem that is the responsibility of everyone and every company – it’s not just a consumption issue, it’s a production issue too.
I hold strong views about what needs to happen – but that doesn’t prevent me from dialogue. I talk with everybody I meet on the subjects of Energy and Climate Change, if they are willing to discuss them, because I know they are very important, and that there are many pitfalls in the public dialogue.
Thanks, Jo, I think that we largely agree and I’m sure that the rest of […] do, too. But I would suggest that the larger part of the problem lies with governments and with carbon pricing.
The founding purpose of the Aldersgate Group was to lobby for more effective environmental legislation such that those companies who act in an environmentally responsible manner are not disadvantaged by those who refuse to do so.
Electricity generation and distribution is a special case as a major generator which decided to change completely to renewables could find themselves at a strong economic disadvantage. We need our Government and those of our European neighbours to make the path of transition easy.
One of the very basic findings of Tim Jackson’s Resolve unit at Surrey University is that externalities usually have a greater effect than good intentions; make it easy and people will follow.
That is not to say that I let EDF off the hook, I don’t but not, primarily as fossil fuel burners. They operate Europe wide and in 2003 74.5% of their generating capacity was reported to be nuclear with only 10.2% derived from fossil fuels.
The Polish Government has today said that it will have nuclear generation by 2020; another country that will produce more fissile waste in a far from stable world and high grade uranium ore is depleting rapidly.
Our commitment to implementing renewable energy has been lacklustre and there has now been voiced a fear that the Government intends to allow Green Investment Bank money to be invested in nuclear – so, subsidies after all.
Of course this means less to be invested in wind, wave and the necessary high voltage pan European distribution grids that we need.
And that is another good reason for Aldersgate and for bodies like it.
It took me many many months to get biodiversity on the agenda and I’ve taken even longer to try to get membership for the Claverton Energy Group – a discussion group on energy issues, primarily made up of scientists and engineers to which both Jo and I belong.
Last year I pressed Chris Huhne to get his civil servants to listen to this body of considerable expertise but Clavertonians expressed a desire to not talk to politicians! Perhaps you can understand my frustration?
On a somewhat different but linked front, some media attention has been given to Boris’ latest folly, a floating walkway that follows the north bank of the Thames from Tower Pier to the vicinity of St Paul’s Cathedral. That could effectively block riverside access to the Thames and it could prevent the operation of Walbrook Wharf, a safeguarded wharf that is used for transporting City of London refuse. It would also prevent the River from being used for construction waste and building materials delivery.
Apparently, Boris has presented an award to the architects, Gensler’s who came up with the bright idea. I made a few, I thought, helpful comments on the appropriate page on GenslerOn website and received an invitation to talk to the lead architect. Now, I did this as a director of a new Thames environmental protection and access trust and it’s the trust that the architect wants to talk to. So I alerted the other directors and the first response I received was along the lines of ‘we can’t talk to them, they don’t understand the river and they are only out to exploit it’. I managed to persuade him otherwise, eventually! It probably won’t happen but I still want to take the opportunity to talk to them and, hopefully, to help them understand the nature and uses of this great River. One small point: close down the wharf and the City’s waste all gets moved by lorry thus adding to the City’s air pollution.
Talk first, try to persuade and then confront only when the conversation has failed.
Intimate and life-changing revelations are anticipated with baited breath at the Green Christian London conference “End of the Age of Thorns” on 5th March 2011.
The Revd Peter Owen-Jones, the whole nation’s media chaplain, will be sharing from the heart, opening up about a new relationship with money, and how we can survive the credit, jobs and services crunch by digging for our spiritual roots.
In his BBC TV odyssey, Britain’s favourite vicar tried living without his cheque book in the series “How to live a simple life”, and travelled the world to peer into the human soul in the fascinating “Around the World in 80 Faiths”.
Now he comes back down to Earth in central London, bringing his unique, accessible style of presentation, to share the good news of life after moneymaking, in an all-day conference organised by Christian Ecology Link.
The programme for the “End of the Age of Thorns” features a wide range of talks and workshops asking questions about the ecology of money and life after mass marketing. What are the green shoots nurturing a new economics ? Is there prosperity without growth ? And can society grow up and leave consumerism behind ?
Sustainability expert Professor Tim Cooper will lead a group learning the fundamentals of Green Economics; Ashley Ralston will guide a process looking at shopping as if the planet mattered; and Ruth Jarman will host a workshop on greening up the day-to-day life of church communities.
Christian Ecology Link Conference: Saturday 5 March 2011, 11am to 5pm, St John’s Church, Waterloo Road, London SE1 8TY (opposite the entrance to Waterloo station)
Come and explore spiritual roots for a new economics, for our own humanity and all life on Earth. Engage with Peter Owen-Jones on a new relationship with money and how we can challenge the consumerist age we live in.
Ticket prices vary
Non-CEL members £20
CEL members £15
£5 for the first 20 students aged under 25
Peter Owen-Jones is a long-time supporter of CEL and a popular speaker. You will probably have seen at least one of his fascinating BBC series: ‘How to live a simple life’, ‘Around the World in 80 Faiths’, and ‘Extreme Pilgrim’.
He is a Church of England vicar in a parish near Lewes in East Sussex; writer of several books including Letters from an Extreme Pilgrim (2010) and Psalm: The World’s Finest Soul Poetry in a Contemporary Idiom (2009); and founder of the Arbory Trust, the first Christian woodland burial site.
Tim Cooper is Professor of Sustainable Design and Consumption at Nottingham Trent University, a founder member of CEL and former CEL Chair. He is author of “Longer lasting products; alternative to the throwaway society” (2010) and “Green Christianity” (1990).
Workshop details
“Green Economics” : Tim Cooper will run two different sessions combining input and discussion. Both sessions will be self-contained so you can go to both, or just one.
“Shopping as if the planet mattered” : Bring your own ideas to share, led by Ashley Ralston, CEL trustee and a director of Better Tomorrows.
“Greening the church in daily life” : Eco-congregations are not just for Sundays. They should give every member the chance to change their life. Come and discuss ideas and experiences that can help people start on a journey of a lifetime, including CEL’s ecocell programme, led by Ruth Jarman, CEL trustee and climate change campaigner.
A few words of insider insight from you could really help me decide how much energy I can personally justify putting in to the Stop Climate Chaos activities this year. In addition, it would colour the replies I give to my colleagues […] who are asking about how much we try to get behind and support and promote Stop Climate Chaos.
The [SCC] coalition meeting audience on Wednesday was assured that if we mobilised and made demands that we, by our efforts, could make the Green Deal strong/effective, that we could “win”. But this could seem a ridiculous waste of time, as the Energy Bill is already very clear about what the Government wants in the Green Deal. What is it that we are fighting for in that case ? Nobody introducing the campaigning plan outline had produced a layman’s guide to the components of the Energy Bill for us to try to digest – no points that we were encouraged to contest.
I discussed this situation with a co-worker of mine and his expression was to call Stop Climate Chaos a “Government chihuahua”. From his analysis, Stop Climate Chaos members are not being asked to “fight” a “campaign” – we are being asked to support what the Government is already intending to do. The top political negotiators are trying to sell us the narrative of “effective campaigning”, but just as in all […] campaigns, there’s nothing to struggle for, only things to assent to. This is just the same as back in the days of Gordon Brown when a fix had already been done at the political level for Make Poverty History, and the masses were invited to come out and wave flags for it. It’s so obviously saccharine, what’s the point of being involved ? And how do I get the energy together to sell engagement to other people ?
I and my colleagues are pleased to offer polite support, and we will even come and wave flags, but where’s the chewy centre ?
As for the summer “challenge” to the energy industries, Greenpeace, as usual, will probably soak up a lot of creative and hormonal energy from those who believe they need to be assertive and proactive, and who feel angry, but again as usual, Greenpeace will be pretty much dismissed by the general public (and given a very long leash by the Government). Is it all about keeping potential troublemakers busy (like the NASA Space Program) ? Quite a number of people I come into contact with prefer to take action outside of the recognised organisations for this very reason.
The basic problem of energy has to be approached in terms of systems – holistic strategies for future low carbon energy provision. This is not going to be addressed by going after individual energy technologies as Greenpeace seem to feel they have to. Where is the generic critique of “technofixes” and the analysis of the likely failings of a number of the components of the current UK energy “plan” ? Where, for example, is Carbon Capture just now ? Is it ever likely to succeed (without the EU and national subsidies proposed) ? I don’t know if I can ask my colleagues to support a technology crucifiction without offering a positive alternative.
I guess I’m ready to stop playing the “campaigning” game. I never believed in it, as a matter of fact. It’s completely artificial, and the drawing together of large, broad consensus, such as Stop Climate Chaos, shows up the failings in the “campaign” language and the theories of social engagement in democracy. I don’t believe that people can be “mobilised” around issues, except maybe at the grassroots, local level. Oh yes, I’ve filled in my fair share of campaign postcards, signed petitions, written e-mails, joined marches, but I can no longer sell this model of political interaction since I am discovering how it’s treated with such patronising attitudes by those who actually make decisions. As long as I am considered a “campaigner” or “environmentalist”, I shall continue to be ignored. I am really neither. I am a systems engineer with a background in electronics engineering and IT.
I don’t think my “democratic” representative gives any consideration to things that truly concern me and that I try to communicate. I don’t think any of the “campaigns” have a clue about what is really needed to solve the Climate Change or Energy emergencies, and they are often dismissive about engineering and systems work that can point the way. Those in the campaign groups that have dialogue with the political system don’t have the bandwidth to really listen to those working on the ground on local issues. There’s an awful lot of listening not going on.
Really, is there any point putting any energy into Stop Climate Chaos ?
I enjoyed working with you over the weekend – thanks for your useful and enthusiastic contributions. And your observations in your email about the effectiveness or otherwise of campaigning are highly relevant to our next session(s).
I should say that my (heavy) involvement with SCC came to an end c. 2 years ago so I am not that au fait with it now. Let’s discuss this next time we meet in more detail but I would argue that it is worth maintaining membership of SCC (I can’t see that adding your organisation’s name to it can cause any harm […]) whilst carrying out some kind of ‘cost-benefit analysis’ with colleagues (as you have begun to do) so as to decide how much time and money [they want] to devote to supporting its campaigns. I do think the nature of a Coalition Government (with a leader of the opposition who genuinely cares about this stuff) does potentially provide some political leverage which well focussed and run campaigns might capitalise on – and to a large degree the Climate Change Act did come about as a result of a FoE/SCC campaign.
And is it worth [your organisation] considering [signing] up in some way with 38 Degrees and Avaaz?
It was a fun weekend, was it not ? Our group is a great crowd, and the members have these amazing social roles and incredible in-depth experience, so there’s a wide variety of skill sets and personalities. We could go far.
I do appreciate the time and energy you devoted to the block conference days, and I hope I showed you that I enjoyed the learning and exercises and and your out-there honesty and clearly genuine passion for this work.
I’ve decided that what I really don’t like in campaigning is the promise of political engagement but the complete absence of any real influence.
The way all campaigns seem to be run is that the leaders try and shake everyone’s trees to “come on down, get involved, you can take part, we can win”, but the net result is mere flag waving. We are the sheeple.
It is a lie at the core of the machine, and people back away from that cognitive dissonance even if they don’t recognise it. If it’s numbers you want, you won’t get that by selling the myth of political engagement. Only the lead political negotiators in a campaign organisation stand a chance of real dialogue with those who make the decisions. Everybody else only has the kind of access that allows flag waving.
So campaigning shouldn’t be sold as a dialogue but a tick-the-box petition, maybe. Maybe it should be made more clear that there are skilled elites, and the rest of us are just nay-sayers or yay-nodders. 38 degrees and Avaaz are great examples of just that. That’s fine as long as there’s no sales pitch that suggests otherwise.
Of course [we] are going to stay signed-up to SCC – it’s a very Japanese politeness that insists that we all publicly support each other in the campaigns movement. Solidarity can be highly important – especially over complex issues – as long as they are well-defined.
The question is : is it worth us trying to use the SCC machine to try to launch our own messaging within the channels that exist there ? Is it possible ? The [SCC] coalition “planning” meetings always feel like we are allowed to speak, but not permitted to influence what SCC come up with. It is this entirely contrived “consultation” process that really gets my mountain-roaming bearded farm animal.
Since the ConDems do have some people who care about these issues, and the Civil Service does have some people that actually care about these issues, then why does SCC need to exist ? Does the Government really need flag-waving for its plans ? I doubt it. No “mandate from the people” required. Why do we need to march and protest and demonstrate ? And more importantly, why do we waste everyone’s time asking them to march, protest and demonstrate ?
It’s so much more efficient for me to sell the simple and quick ePetitions to [our] Members. […] They don’t want to be asked to march/protest etc, although some of us do.
Come on – let’s be honest – exactly how much of the work leading up to the Climate Change Act was guided by public pressure ? The NGO political elites handled most of the conversation, and key individuals were involved in promoting public and media debates, and more importantly, there was a lot of synergy because government types had begun to read the EU briefings and could see the way the land lay.
Is it efficient to ask for public input on strategy ? If a government has good advice from real experts, why does the public need to be consulted ? The public often get things wrong technically – the classic example being the completely irrational fear over mobile phone masts, and the fabled cancer dangers of mobile phones, which Caroline Lucas erroneously attached her name to. So, if the public are wrong, why are they told they need to take part in a token form of ra-ra cheerleading democracy ?
[ IRONY ALERT : WARNING ! THIS POST CONTAINS AN ATTEMPT AT HUMOUR. IF YOU TAKE IT SERIOUSLY, YOU ARE IN A BAD PLACE AND NEED TO HAVE A LITTLE LIE DOWN. I THINK THAT JAMES DELINGPOLE IS REPEATING INACCURACIES IN HIS WRITING ON CLIMATE CHANGE, AND HE APPEARS TO BE UNAWARE OF WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON. HE SEEMS TO CRASH FROM BLUNDER TO BLUNDER, BUT NOBODY APPEARS TO BE ALLOWED TO TELL HIM TO STOP, OR GUIDE HIM GENTLY INTO THE LIGHT. NOTHING IN THIS POST IS INTENDED TO BESMIRCH JAMES DELINGPOLE’S CHARACTER, AND I’M SURE HE HAS LOTS OF FRIENDS AND I TRUST HIS WIFE STILL LIKES HIM. WHAT I AM ATTEMPTING TO COMMENT ON IS THE FACT THAT HE HAS MISSED THE FINDINGS FROM SCIENCE, AND APPEARS TO BE SIMPLY REPEATING WHAT HE’S FOUND OUT FROM BIASED SOURCES. I HOPE HIS TEETH ARE NOT AS CROOKED AS THE IMAGE DEPICTS. I’M SURE HE HAS THE WEALTH TO ACCESS A QUALITY, PRIVATE DENTIST, EVEN AS THE REST OF THE NATION’S FANGS GO TO POT THROUGH LACK OF SOCIAL FACILITIES. SMILE. ]
I understand that James Delingpole has not been exposed to the lexicon of science, and so I would hazard to suggest that he is, perhaps, entirely unconscious of the depth, extent, range and expertise of the scientific community, and the strong consensus on matters global warming.
So I must assume that it is not him, but his teeth, that are lying when his web log on the otherwise commendable Daily Telegraph website utters things like this :-
“…Nurse’s analogy is shabby, dishonest and patently false. The “consensus” on Climate Change; and the “consensus” on medical care bear no similarity whatsoever…The “consensus” on ‘Climate Change’, by contrast, is a figment of Al Gore’s – and, I’m sorry to say, Sir Paul Nurse’s – imagination. It exaggerates the number of scientists who believe in Man Made Global Warming and it grotesquely underestimates the number who have many good reasons for suspecting that there is far, far more to “Climate Change” than anthropogenic CO2. What’s more such “consensus” as there is is an artificial construct. It has not been subjected to the rigour of an open or even semi-open market. It is the creation, almost entirely, of politically-driven funding from US government, from various UN bodies, from the EU, from left-leaning charitable foundations on a scale unprecedented in the history of science…”
James Delingpole’s teeth believe they can pronounce what they like without any validity whatsoever, with no comeback or rebuttal. He has not been orthodontically corrected because people with science degrees tend to ignore James Delingpole – his teeth have the wrong evidential, educational and technical roots, so their enamel is rotten.
Most people with any knowledge, reason, sense, decorum and evidence refuse to waste their good time in contradicting James Delingpole’s artful gnashers, and I must say I too am tempted to laugh and turn the page. What nonsense his teeth are masticating ! They don’t even have the ring of toothiness…sorry “truthiness”.
But just because very few people come back and contest James Delingpole’s teeth’s outrageous and completely unsubstantiated fabrications doesn’t mean his teeth are right. In fact, it means his dental organs are inconsequential uneducated thorns in the flesh.
James Delingpole should take control of his toothy dissemblers, and send them to college, where they can learn the truth about global climate chaos, and stop chattering inanity and falsehood.
Oh, the shame ! To have teeth so polished, yet so unlearned !
