tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52439657738421596432024-02-08T10:02:44.446-08:00Treggie TribuneTopical views on all sorts of thing that interest me, or wind me up, enjoy!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-49814805413824045502016-06-21T08:08:00.000-07:002016-06-21T08:08:38.601-07:00Are our institutions and governance structures ready for the close of the Holocene?!<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
I thought I would share <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/institutions-need-to-radically-change-for-the-anthropocene-epoch/?utm_content=buffer4bf4f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer" style="color: #993333;">this article</a> with you, from the LSE blog.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
I must admit that I find it both ironic and deeply frustrating that we are about to destabilise, through our own acts and omissions (should that be emissions?!!), one of the most stable climatic periods of many millennia!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Our actions in burning fossil fuels, built up under our feet over hundreds of thousands of years, allied to profligate use of resources, for nothing more than a tenuous profit, is about to destabilise this harmonious epoch.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The burning of so much fossil fuel in such a short space of time, has released the locked up carbon and set in train dramatic changes that are staring to manifest themselves now in changes to our climate. But temperatures are running behind the curve of CO2 emissions and there will be an acceleration, leading to changes that we probably aren’t prepared for.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The blog realises our shortcomings at a social, institutional and economic level and discusses the profound impacts that they are totally unprepared to face!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Foresight on these issues, would predicate toward some form of global governance and a culture change toward a much less hierarchical and more cooperative structure.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Adaptation may well not be a case of cost benefit, but instead could be blind panic in the face of adversity and necessity. So many of the governance systems and ways of life that we take for granted are but the tiniest dot in geological terms. We would do well to think of these things as being very ephemeral, paper thin veils behind which we live and which, will be exposed by such profound change!</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-1543896163709534072015-11-16T13:50:00.002-08:002015-11-16T13:50:32.293-08:00A trilogy of economic tales!<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Friends,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
There has been a rich vein of material published recently, all of which is worth sharing, I hope that you find this informative.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
I have three articles to share that feel as if they cascade down in scale, so that is how I have introduced them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Firstly at the international level, is a report from a <a href="http://www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-finance/eu-brains-warn-about-end-free-capital-markets-2030-319468" style="color: #993333;">EU think tank</a>, highlighting the challenges to the current capitalist model, but also focusing on social cohesion and the potentially severe impacts from inaction or weak policy around these issues.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
What is really interesting about this, is that it comes to a similar conclusion about ‘Keynesian economics’ as did the MIT model run in the mid seventies on the old IBM mainframe. Whilst they use slightly different criteria (one being based on more quantitative data and the other analysis of evidence), it is remarkable that they both draw a similar conclusion!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
The EU report clearly states that a business as usual approach to capitalism could effectively see it replaced by another model. Obviously the report is taking the view that some form of capitalist growth model could be maintained, I don’t really believe that so much, but the message is the same.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
It also puts a clear focus on social cohesion, which is something that governments and trades unions alike need to consider. In a more individual World, governance will become much more tenuous, it is important that collectivism can still function effectively!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Second up and at the national scale is an article from The Economist, featuring a<a href="http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21678191-british-regulator-financial-crisis-fresh-thoughts?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/Freshthoughts" style="color: #993333;">report from Adair Turner</a> a former banking regulator.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
He sets out in very clear terms why regulation is required and how free markets failed when he came into office and how they are likely to fail again!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
He outlines how the flaky recovery has been founded upon past boom and bust practices and how the current recovery is fuelling the housing asset bubble.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Given that he has headed up the British Retail Consortium, amongst his roles, it is quite a refreshing surprise to find that he aligns with some of the current left wing economic policies proposed by Corbyn and his advisors. He is clearly in favour of regulatory control on debt creation and he is also an advocate for ‘peoples quantitative easing’!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Lastly and by no means least, is great local example of ‘<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crickhowell-welsh-town-moves-offshore-to-avoid-tax-on-local-business-a6728971.html" style="color: #993333;">playing by the rules’</a>, in this instance also with esoteric objective!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Crickhowell a picturesque market town nestling at the foot of the Brecon’s has become the latest player in a game of Avoid the Tax Man!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
Fed up with hearing about large corporations not paying tax in the UK, the towns independent traders got together with the local council to do something about it! They employed the same tax advisors as the likes of Starbucks and Google and went off-shore!!! Yes, they are now also depriving the Treasury/HMRC of income in the same way that large corporations do. They aren’t doing this in a spiteful way, they are doing it to try and get the loophole closed. A number of other authorities have now shown an interest, so there could become an obvious imperative to stem the offs-shore flow!!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
It will be interesting to see how this pans out, but it is great to know that innovation and alternatives are gaining ground, even amongst those you might not suspect, hope lives eternal!!<br />
<br />
Links to published articles provide additional and interesting information published by the journalists as credited.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-88948047345109463762014-12-31T15:57:00.001-08:002014-12-31T15:57:12.740-08:002015 preview.Hello,<br />
<br />
A very warm welcome and best wishes for the New Year!<br />
<br />
In time honoured fashion, I would like to take an early opportunity to look forward into next year.<b> </b>To avoid this becoming a rambling diatribe, I intend to cover a few topic headings of interest to me and see what turns out to be correct, or not!<br />
<br />
<b>Energy</b><br />
The current price war taking place in the oil supply market has been a bonus for big users of oil and has certainly helped to stave off a slow down in a number of developed countries! The flip side of this, is that oil producing states are now seriously starting to feel the squeeze, with many only breaking even or worse on the more difficult oil fields..<br />
<br />
This has numerous impacts, not least the black hole created in tax revenues (UK Exchequer is likely to face a shortfall of around £6bn), which are likely to add to the current woes of austerity. It has also impacted on share prices, a worrying trend for investors and pension funds (is this a sign of the carbon bubble about to burst?).<br />
<br />
One doubled edged consequence could be that investment will dry up for exploration and development of smaller fields and unconventional oil and gas? This could be a great opportunity for a switch to investment in renewables! If this were the case, it might be that new oil will fail to come on line, creating both a shortfall in supply and a gap that can be filled by renewable energy. In reality, this could indicate 'peak oil' as investment declines and carbon pricing could also play a part in an overall decline.<br />
<br />
My predictions are as follows:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Oil prices will remain low into 2015,' but lack of investment could create future shortages, so prices will go back up. This may not be soon enough or high enough however, to return to current levels of supply. In which case, renewables are likely to fill the gap (possible hydrogen economy)!</li>
<li>I think carbon pricing on a global scale will become more likely, Paris could be a turning point for this, if the true cost of adaptation is to be realised.</li>
<li>The divestment movement will gain more traction and place the carbon bubble under greater strain! Expect to see major investors sit up and move towards renewables.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b>Climate change</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
To date science has made great progress in computing and modelling our impacts on our climate. This has not been matched by progress in conveying that message to our leaders, politicians and the skeptical public! Dealing with issues of uncertainty around a more certain trend, has proven a difficult task for scientists, one that needs to be addressed for 2015!<br />
<br />
Globally the evidence is mounting, we seem to be experiencing more extreme weather events, with droughts, floods and stronger winds! The problem is however, that there is always something more important; recession, war, famine, planes going missing (no disrespect to those who have lost their lives) etc. Climate change continues to tick away in the background.<br />
<br />
2014 is going to be the warmest year on record, one of numerous recent record breaking years! It is possible, perhaps even likely, that 2015 will put them all in the shade! With an albeit, weak El Niño, and evidence the Decade Oscillation in the N. Pacific, has switched and is now returning heat to the upper ocean, anything is possible (it's a lot of energy!).<br />
<br />
Maybe some freak events will serve to get proper coverage and focus the minds for Paris! Our ultimate survival may depend upon a really positive outcome. Global carbon pricing and a focus on new economics would be my wish, as this would serve to continue the pressure on fossil fuels and help us move away from a carbon based economy.<br />
<br />
So my predictions for 2015 are:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>It could be a roller coaster year with extreme events and a clear sign that our climate is on the move again!</li>
<li>Science and the more informed society may finally get their act together and start to win the politicians and skeptical public over on the important issues of climate change and the need to act now.</li>
<li>Youth will start to have a greater involvement and influence in our democracies, bringing a more open mind to many issues, including climate change. They will break the mould of traditional politics in 2015', flocking to the newer parties, like the Greens, where they will find a voice.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b>Waste & resource</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Waste and resource are opposite ends of the same sustainability paradigm, the resources that we use to consume and generate growth are finite. Waste is an indicator of how efficiently or not we use them, but with waste comes the potential for pollution and illegal activity.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Whilst much effort and focus has been placed on tackling pollution and crime (maybe with the correct intention), primarily improving resource efficiency should reduce both pollution and opportunity for crime. 2014 saw the emergence of the term 'circular economy', an element of resource efficiency and one that can be grasped by industry and politicians alike. It is however a double edged sword and will require strong picky leads, in order to operate effectively.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I believe that 2015 will be a difficult but crucial year for the circular economy, with prevarication in the EU and obfuscation at home! Only clear policies, smart regulation and a sensible time line will bring all the threads that are needed together in a way that will deliver a working model. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Sitting amidships in the waste hierarchy, recycling is currently the largest section, in terms of growth and turnover. It is however, facing a degree of uncertainty going into the New Year, with new regulations, a stalled English recycling rate and low commodity prices! I believe we need to see the same levels of investment in reuse and Eco-design, if we are to archive higher resource efficiency!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What do I think will happen in 2015?</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>I think recycling (especially in England, but not exclusively), will face a torrid start to the New Year, with oil prices at a low, transport, conversion and processing of raw materials is comparatively cheap right now! This could lead to over supply and a fall (or crash) in commodity prices, which will impact recycling!</li>
<li>If we are to be more resource efficient, then low prices may be a blessing, if it helps to drive out low grade material. Whilst new requirements to separate waste for collection, may add initially to this burden, we need high quality recyclate if we are to be resource efficient!</li>
<li>I also think that 2015 will start to see changes from the traditional industry model of collecting waste mixed and then processing, towards a more bespoke service for producers. Waste will be collected separately and returned for reprocessing and rremanufacture, opening the way for small enterprise and reverse logistics.</li>
</ul>
<div>
This is a small insight into my thinking for the coming year, it will be nothing less than exciting and challenging! I hope that you all find something positive from it and that at the end of the year, we will all be one step closer to a sustainable future!</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Best wishes for a happy and safe New Year!</div>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-40668142469109381692014-11-22T15:18:00.000-08:002014-11-22T15:18:02.179-08:00Video blog - Welcome back!Hi everyone!<br />
<br />
I must apologise that I have not posted much recently, it has not been for lack of enthusiasm of topics, so much has happened!<br />
<br />
It has been a busy period however, I have found it difficult to find time to write much! Hence my new approach, to venture into the world of the video blog (vlog), in the hope that it will make blogging more efficient and flexible.<br />
<br />
To this end, I have created a short welcome video, explaining the subjects that I would like to cover by way of a test. Suggestions are welcome, as I become more confident I hope the quality will improve!<br />
<br />
See the video blog here: <a href="http://youtu.be/O3BYil4Kxuw" target="_blank">http://youtu.be/O3BYi</a><br />
<br />
Mike.<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-85395297237858622702014-05-01T13:39:00.000-07:002014-05-01T13:51:26.399-07:00Is hope preventing us from glimpsing a brave new World?<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">I have been looking at relationships, not the personal kind, but those that can be found between social, economic and environmental theories. This is the stuff of which sustainability is made, in much the same way as sub atomic particles are the building blocks of our universe!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Scanning through my feeds recently, I read two different articles ;one about the failure of capitalism and the other about the perverse nature of hope. I enjoyed both of them, in their own right, it was only later that the connections between them dawned on me and their potential relevance to the raft of issues that face collectively! </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">I will briefly summarise what each article was about, to provide background for my thinking. I will also provide links (for as long as they remain live), so that you can also enjoy them in their own right.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The article about the failure of capitalism is by Thomas Pikety a new left of centre economist, who has a book out entitled <em style="background-color: white; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; line-height: 15.189714431762695px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Capital in the Twenty-First Century.</em><em style="background-color: white; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; line-height: 15.189714431762695px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> </em><span style="background-color: white; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; line-height: 15.189714431762695px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">It </span><span style="background-color: white; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; line-height: 15.189714431762695px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">has found a wide audience at recent gatherings of economists around the World. In essence he is </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 15.189714431762695px;">saying that using data from the last 200 years, he can clearly prove that wealth generation exceeds productive capacity and that this inevitably results in wider and wider inequality of wealth. He posits that this results in an unfair burden to the middle income taxpayers, which in turn leads to </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 15.189715385437012px;">degradation</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 15.189714431762695px;"> of public services, working conditions and </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 15.189715385437012px;">well-being</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 15.189714431762695px;">. Left unchecked this could escalate to protectionism and ultimately conflict. More on this can be read <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/12/capitalism-isnt-working-thomas-piketty" target="_blank">here</a>.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 15.189714431762695px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 15.189714431762695px;">The second topic that I wanted to mention was also published in the Economic Journal, but is more about behavioural trends. Following the sad disappearance of flight MH370, there was an awful lot of uncertainty around what happened and where. These voids were filled with messages of hope, both by the media and by the governments involved in the search. Twenty five years of German research suggest that the link between hope and expectation is one that delivers social pressure and that freedom from this repressive fear factor, brings about a release. Hope, if you like, is a major factor in maintaining the status quo or following a business as usual scenario! More on this can be seen <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/apr/12/change-your-life-case-against-hope?CMP=twt_fd" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">I kept coming back to the same point in my head, whichever problem that you look at, whether it be climate change, resource depletion or wealth disparity, hope appears to be the enemy of radical change!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Each issue taken in isolation, comes with its own profession, media perceptions and political baggage. Problems are analysed, debated and reports written , but the clock ticks on and in effect, nothing changes (the rich get richer, the climate warmer and finite resources, ever more stretched). The problem with this cycle of events is that hope is refreshed with each iteration, which in turn maintains the status quo!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The writing is on the wall for capitalism, the mathematics are suggesting that the sell by date is looming large! The political model is becoming ever more dysfunctional and arcane, bearing disproportionately more relevance to those with a vested interest in maintaining that status quo and accretion of wealth! The environment is becoming increasingly degraded and will serve to ramp up the existing social and economic pressures.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">It is only when you take all of these things together and fire them at each other, do you realise they represent a perfect storm. I find it difficult to imagine that within in the confines of the current socio-political and economic environment, that we have any hope of finding a workable solution, or a means of transition to new more equitable and sustainable model.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The art of giving up hope here, is not to stop breathing, but instead to take a deep breath and to say OK what now? By giving up hope, you are giving up on continued support and trust for our failing systems and leaders. You will need to let go of concepts about the current norm. This can and will be both frightening and cathartic! Without going through this barrier of perception however, I do not believe that any of us can find it within ourselves to innovate and be free enough to make the radical changes needed to design and implement a new model.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The evidence is mounting that the climate is warming and that the economic model is failing the vast majority. Beyond this lies a brave new World of connected localism, can we jump the hurdle of hope and land running on the other side?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-86693620266477932532014-03-30T13:18:00.000-07:002014-03-30T13:18:46.359-07:002014 Are we out of the woods yet?Over recent months we have heard a lot about our economic recovery and everyone seems to be talking up the rude health of our growth rate and future prospects. Now, I'm not someone who just likes to pour cold water on a god story, but I have to admit that I felt a bit sceptical about what I was seeing and hearing. Things don't seem be borne out by what I see around me, or by the words some economists have committed to print.<br />
<br />
So I decided to see what I could find out and what it might tell me about what does or doesn't underpin our economic revolution. I'm no economist so I have borrowed from some friendly sites and used the graphic information available to try and build a coherent picture, allied to what I see and hear around me.<br />
<br />
Rather than come to any clearly defined conclusion, I found that I wanted to know more. So as I travel through the graphs and the story they tell, I have highlighted what I think are some key questions that still need to be answered, if I am to be convinced that we are on the road to a sustainable recovery.<br />
<br />
<img alt="UK debt" src="http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/uk-debt.png" height="257" width="320" /><br />
<br />
For me, this graph is all about the underlying trend (i.e. the blue line),which indicates that public sector debt is increasing steadily. This has continued to rise as a percentage of GDP, despite the fact that numerous cuts in the public sector budget have been made. So whilst it might be reasonable to say that we are paying down some of the debt due to the cost of intervening post 2008, this really only serves to mask the underlying trend.<br />
<br />
<img alt="debt-interest-payments-percent-gdo" src="http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/debt-interest-payments-percent-gdo1.png" height="236" width="320" /><br />
<br />
What interested me here was the fact that our interest repayments on debt as a % of GDP, appear to be creeping back up again. Wouldn't you expect this to be decreasing when we are told that our economy is growing and interest rates (and hence bond yields etc.) remain low. And yet, there appears to be a steady move upwards!<br />
<br />
I may be wrong here, but I would be very concerned if government borrowing rates returned to more normal levels (rates/yields of about 4 to 5%), as the graph above would be telling me, that this percentage would be likely to increase significantly without a proportionate increase in GDP.<br />
<br />
The graph below demonstrates this even more graphically dealing only with the debt interest payments. Did you just say wow?!!! How much tax do we have to generate to pay all of this?<br />
<br />
<img alt="uk-debt-interest-payments-total" src="http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/uk-debt-interest-payments-total.png" height="235" width="320" /><br />
<br />
So, leaving the graphs behind, how do I now feel about the state of the UK economy? I think I can sum up these feelings under three simple headings; taxation, standard of living and personal debt.<br />
<br />
On tax, the current government always wants to reduce levels of both personal and corporate tax, to encourage both individuals and business to grow and spend more as result of keeping more of the money that they earn. The flip side to this however, is that in order to lower taxes, public spending and borrowing have to be reduced. With borrowing still worryingly high, the balance has been at the expense of sizeable cuts to public services.<br />
<br />
This has linked very much to the issue of standard of living and the perception of how wealthy we feel. Many jobs have been lost in the public sector, predominantly they have been well paid jobs that return good tax revenues and also encourage spending in the wider economy. The loss of these jobs must have a detrimental impact on tax receipts and spending. Many of these jobs have been replaced in the private sector, however a significant number of these jobs are much lower paid and do not have such a net positive benefit to the Exchequer! In fact many of them benefit off-shore share holders and pension funds through increased profits, rather than our own interests.<br />
<br />
It does not help to bring taxes down, when welfare has to be paid to help low earners make ends meet, in fact it is likely that this is an intractable element as to why government borrowing continues to rise! These facts probably contribute to an underlying uncertainty about the overall improvement in the economy, allied to rising prices compared to earnings and personal borrowing.<br />
<br />
Personal borrowing in the UK is huge, about £1.4Tr, and represents a significant risk to recovery. When interest rates are low, it is not uncommon to see increased borrowing. Because however, interest rates are low to savers. it is also common for a lot of debt to be paid down. If interest rates were to start moving upwards again, there would be a risk of a lot of bad debt, which could be dangerous to the banking system.<br />
<br />
So whilst on the face of it, there does seem to be a recovery (certainly in terms of growth and jobs), it does not have the hallmarks of being a sustainable recovery. It appears to be based upon debt and potential bubbles forming in the economy, which is a high risk strategy in my eyes.<br />
<br />
Only time will tell, but it will be good to revisit this at a later date.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-53896160669399683102014-01-07T13:41:00.000-08:002014-01-07T13:41:06.789-08:00Preview 2014 - Land use and food production<div>
It is good to make some predictions for the year ahead, and then to track
them and see how you do!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Some of course are frivolous (as they should be)!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Others are more serious however, and whilst I may not wish them to come
true, they are nonetheless well evidenced.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Some of this evidence is captured in the articles linked to below and to save time rewriting what has already been done. I wanted to start by taking a look at food production and land use in the year ahead and the impacts of population growth and climate change.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/10-reasons-why-the-meat-and-dairy-industry-is-unsustainable.html"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">http://www.care2.com/causes/10-reasons-why-the-meat-and-dairy-industry-is-unsustainable.html</span></a></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/chinese-farmland-polluted_n_4517601.html?ir=Green&utm_campaign=123013&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-green&utm_content=Title">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/chinese-farmland-polluted_n_4517601.html?</a></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/chinese-farmland-polluted_n_4517601.html?ir=Green&utm_campaign=123013&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-green&utm_content=Title">ir=Green&utm_campaign=123013&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-green&utm_content=Title</a></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Taking the two articles above as an exemplification, my first prediction for 2014 is that we will
start to see spiralling pressure on land use as nutrient prices become higher,
water shortages start to bite, pollutant load and degradation start to combine.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
These pressures will impact the industry, consumers and the communities in which the produce is grown. They will manifest in higher prices to both producers and to the consumer. It is also likely that as costs rise and prices start to spiral, a squeeze will be placed on supplies, many of whom already receive a very poor and socially unjust price for their produce. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The expanding middle class in India,
China and other BRIC’s will be the major driver of these problems, however the
consequences will be felt in poorer countries, where land and water grabs are
likely to become more common as suppliers try to satisfy growing demand. This could result in a social backlash in
countries with a strong democracy and will result in feuds and conflict, in
those which are less stable (South Sudan being a current and relevant case in
point).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Pollutant load from mineral extraction is also becoming more prevalent as the easiest wins in terms of extraction are mined out and exhausted. From here on in, the winning of raw materials will become more energy intensive, more remote (which multiplies the risk in transport) and more polluting. These pressures will again be reflected in prices for raw materials and will increase public opposition to these operations. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As case in point is the extraction of tar sands in Alberta, Canada, extraction and processing has created a 7 300 mile halo (could I have used a worse term!) of Mercury pollution around the whole area! More information can be found here:</div>
<div>
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/30/3107761/tar-sands-mercury/">http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/30/3107761/tar-sands-mercury/</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Here in the UK, it is important to look at both how we can reduce our
impact and what the threats might be to our own land. One of the stark facts
from the Chinese example is that good regulation is essential and that also, it
is obvious that the clean up costs far outweigh the burden of regulation,, including putting land out of production for some time. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A huge quantity of waste
is sent to land for recovery in almost every country, including here, thus it is
essential to maintain vigilance as pressures (mainly economic in the case of the
UK) , start to mount! PAS standards for compost and AD are in place, it is
important that these are strictly observed to maintain soil quality, to ensure benefit
from the recovery of recovered wastes.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
So in summary, the main predictions are that prices for meat and dairy
products will be driven up steadily and it is also probable that there will be a
number of new food scares and scandals this year! We can reduce our impact by cutting back our consumption of meat and dairy products, we could also buy a lot more seasonal produce, grown locally and organically.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<div>
On a more frivolous note; I'm going to steer well clear of Noodles for a bit!!!</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-68548128454258167432013-10-18T14:54:00.000-07:002013-10-18T14:54:39.559-07:00Fracking, is it really in our interest?This is my most recent blog about fracking, the how's and why's laid out for people to see. I hope that it is a balanced appraisal and that it helps those who read it to better inform their opinions. I have published the version from the final edit from another blog, hence a few format changes.<br />
<br />
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>How the Frack?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Recent events in the UK, Europe and the United States have
propelled hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’) up the public and political agenda.
Amid the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23761664">hullabaloo</a>
down in Balcombe, you could easily miss the arguments advanced by each side. Is
the anti-fracking camp pitched on solid ground? Is the case for drilling full
of holes? In the first of two articles
on this topic I will examine how fracking works and what the risks are, while
the second will assess how much we need it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Unconventional oil and gas exploitation uses what are now quite
conventional drilling methods, developed through the long history of the oil
and gas industry. These techniques use what are known as the ‘best available
technologies’, which are well understood from the perspectives of costs, risks and
safety. Well construction and design can and often does enable the safe
extraction of fossil fuels from deep below the ground.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>No sense of wellbeing<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However, the oil and gas industry does not inspire huge public
confidence, as attention focuses on major incidents like the Deepwater Horizon blowout,
which have cost lives, caused huge environmental damage, and bolstered the
arguments of green campaigners. Concerns about engineering methods and well
integrity are more serious than any number of dubious YouTube clips showing
people setting light to gas from their water taps.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Fracking is often carried out at considerable depth and involves
pumping high pressure water into the rock. Deep wells and high pressures place strain
on the engineered infrastructure and reduce the margins for error. However, at
Balcombe, initial drilling is <a href="http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/living/planning/planning_applications/fracking.aspx">less
than 1,500 metres</a>. The average depth of a fracked well in the US is <a href="http://www.hydraulicfracturing.com/Process/Pages/information.aspx">around
2,500 metres</a>, while the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226874/BGS_DECC_BowlandShaleGasReport_MAIN_REPORT.pdf">Bowland
Shale</a> in Lancashire is at a depth of some 4,750 metres. North Sea reserves
are typically 3-5km below the seabed, but all are shallow compared with Deepwater
Horizon, the deepest oil well in the world, extending more than 10,600 metres down
into the rock.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineers have
produced <a href="http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/shale-gas-extraction/report/">a
report on shale gas extraction</a>, which highlights the need for good
construction and well integrity. However, sustaining these standards may be
challenging in a relatively new industry here in the UK, especially when there
are calls for deregulation and a need for short term returns on investments.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Water mess<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Engineering challenges are not the only risk to account for
in an Environmental Impact Assessment – contamination, water impacts and even
radiation need to be considered. The evidence to quantify them may not yet be
available in all cases, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,
especially in a developing industry.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The fracking process requires a huge amount of water, some 2-5
million gallons per well – although this estimate may be somewhat low due to
the way data is collected and the fact that some wells are fracked multiple
times. An MIT researcher has <a href="http://theenergycollective.com/jessejenkins/205481/friday-energy-facts-how-much-water-does-fracking-shale-gas-consume">calculated</a>
total water use for US wells in 2011 to be around 135 billion gallons, based on
a 5 million gallon average. This represents just 0.3% of US water consumption,
rather less than is used by golf courses.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is a small percentage, but water stress is high on the
US agenda – it may become a focus in the UK, too, judging by most recent stress
maps. Fracking’s additional demands are not trivial: the industry’s impact on
aquifers in some Texan counties is starting to foment concerns amongst
previously pro-fracking populations.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The process of pumping large quantities of high pressure
water, sand and sundry drilling additives produces a lot of waste water, which
also contains toxic material brought up from the shales. Common toxins include
heavy metals (such as barium, strontium and arsenic) along with a number
hydrocarbons and bromides.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Evidence being amassed in the US shows that fracking
operations have polluted groundwater and released fluids and gas into drinking
water aquifers. As early as 1984, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
reported a case in West Virginia, which rendered an aquifer unusable. In 2011, the
EPA also reported extensive contamination of groundwater in Wyoming, and similar
events have been recorded in Canada. In each case, the causes have been
identified as faulty well installation, with seepage back into the ground from inadequately
engineered waste water storage. There are of course also reports of cases where
no contamination has taken place, which may serve as case studies of good
practice, but the evidence suggests a degree of inherent risk.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Ill treatment<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A recent study by the University of Texas at Arlington <a href="http://www.uta.edu/news/releases/2013/07/Schug-water-well-contaminants-study.php">found</a>
elevated levels of arsenic and other heavy metals in groundwater near fracking
sites in Texas’ Barnett Shale. Whilst the study is not conclusive, elevated arsenic
levels have also been detected by the <a href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/1A6E49D193E1007585257A46005B61AD">EPA</a>
in domestic well water near a fracking site at Dimock, PA, necessitating
additional treatment systems to be installed by householders.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In Pennsylvania, state authorities have responded to EPA <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=epa-plans-issue-rules-fracking-wastewater">concerns</a>
by requiring fracking waste water discharges to stop unless properly treated.
Some had been discharged to sewage works
that were incapable of dealing with the pollutants and therefore affecting
river quality. The UK might also struggle to treat substantial amounts of contaminated
wastewater so as to meet discharge standards, and could find itself in breach
of Water Framework Directive obligations. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Some US fracking wastewater is not treated: much is re-used
and then stored, whether temporarily pending treatment, or long-term in deep
wells. Above ground storage in open (and sometimes leaky) lagoons carries the
highest risk of land being contaminated, but underground storage also holds
risks.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Illegal discharges of polluted wastewater and reliance on
storage in the US may be connected with the country’s immense size, and the
distance water must be transported for treatment. In a country on the UK’s scale,
treatment sites will be closer, but some wells will still have significant storage
and transport needs. The lesson from the US appears to be that these will
require strict controls.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Gas radiator?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are two sources of radionuclides from fracking: those deliberately
injected to trace and profile wells, and those occurring naturally in the shale
that are brought to the surface. Around a dozen short half-life isotopes are used
in controlled quantities for injection. Their use is of less concern than the
naturally occurring radionuclides, such as Radium, Radon, Thorium and Uranium, which
have a longer half-life. These materials require careful management to avoid environmental
and health impacts. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The EPA has detected higher than permitted levels of these
radionuclides in the outfall from wastewater treatment plant, and drilling
industry studies have found that dilution in rivers may not be effective,
meaning that radionuclides could enter drinking water inlets. Workers and local
residents at drilling sites and wastewater treatment plants are exposed to
health risks, most obviously cancers of the internal organs and the lungs, where
Radon escaping as a gas, has the opportunity to evaporate from storage or at
the well head. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Fluid situation<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
An <a href="file://eun-dc01/company/Internal%20Processes%20and%20Tools/Marketing/Website/Blog%20workings/Blog%20articles/Mike%20T/Fracturing%20Fluid%20Additives.pdf">extensive</a>
range of additives may be injected with the sand and water during the drilling
and extraction processes in varying dilution and mixtures depending upon the
geology of the fracked well. Most are quite widely used in industry, as
operators are keen to point out, although they may have toxic characteristics: ammonium
persulfate, hydrochloric acid and mineral oil being examples.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These additives constitute around 1% of the fluid, a
significant quantity given the large amounts of water and sand being pumped. In
the US the makeup of fracking fluids can remain unknown under commercial
sensitivity laws, but UK rules include better disclosure on what chemicals are
being used, allowing them to be vetted for toxicity and other hazardous
properties.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Shaking shale<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Fracking is thought to cause seismic activity, and
operations at the Cuadrilla site in the north west of England were suspended
after a minor earthquake <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/13/fracking-cuadrilla-halts-operations-lancashire">hit
the news</a> last year. A DECC <a href="http://earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/research/earthquake_hazard_shale_gas.html">report</a>
co-authored with the British Geological Society concluded that “the risk from
these earthquakes is low” in terms of structural damage, but I would have concerns
about the risk posed to the integrity of the well lining itself.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A recent <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6142/164.abstract">report</a> in
the journal Science concluded that a large earthquake many miles away may trigger
a swarm of smaller earthquakes around a drilling site. The resulting
destabilisation of the fracked area can later lead to a larger earthquake. Fracking
wells might act like seismic lightning rods; but there’s no safe path to earth
for an earthquake and they could pose a more serious threat to habitations and
structures than previously thought.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
None of the issues that I have raised is technically
insurmountable or fatal to the fracking cause if carefully managed, but each
risk needs to be controlled appropriately through regulation. The International
Energy Agency (IEA) has published a set of ‘<a href="http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/goldenrules/">golden rules</a>’ for
fracking that include examples of best practice in policy and regulation, which
would be a good starting point for the UK. If we are to safely extract gas
instil confidence in the regulatory matrix as whole, regulation will need to be
backed by close monitoring. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These controls will be costly to establish and maintain –
the IEA estimates that implementing its rules would increase the costs of a
well by <a href="http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2012/may/name,27266,en.html">around
7%</a> – which may harm the business case for unconventional oil and gas.
However, without such measures it is doubtful whether even residents of the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23505723">desolate north</a> will
be induced to welcome fracking, whatever its economic benefits.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<table bgcolor="#dddddd" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="background: #dddddd; width: 100%;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><span style="display: none !important;">administrator posted: "By Mike
Tregent All else being equal, is fracking something we should welcome?
Advocates of fracking present it as ushering in a new age of cheap energy and
increased self-sufficiency. But is it really going to be economically beneficial
and will" </span>
<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="subscribe-body" style="padding-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 10px; width: 100%;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<div style="margin: 0px auto; max-width: 600px; overflow: hidden;">
<table bgcolor="#ffffff" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="subscribe-wrapper" style="background-color: white; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 1024px; min-width: 320px; width: 100%;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<table background="http://s.wordpress.com/i/emails/stripes.gif" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="subscribe-header-wrap" style="background-color: #43a4d0; background-image: url(http:/s.wordpress.com/i/emails/stripes.gif); background-repeat: repeat-x; height: 8px; width: 100%;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Why the Frack?<br /><table bgcolor="#ffffff" border="0" cellpadding="20" cellspacing="0" style="width: 100%;"><tbody>
<tr><td><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 100%;"><tbody>
<tr><td class="the-post" valign="top"><div class="post-content" style="margin-top: 1em; max-width: 560px;">
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
All
else being equal, is fracking something we should welcome? Advocates of fracking
present it as ushering in a new age of cheap energy and increased
self-sufficiency. But is it really going to be economically beneficial and will
it reduce our bills? Is it ethical and sustainable? In a previous <a href="http://www.isonomia.co.uk/?p=2204" style="color: #2585b2;" target="_blank">article</a> for Isonomia,
I explained the fracking process and examined the risks inherent within it. Now
let’s look at exactly what this means in terms of our energy mix, security of
supply, and why it has been labelled as an extension of the dash for gas.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
<b>Fracking
cheap</b></div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
The
large scale exploitation of shale gas in the US has defined a model that many in
Europe are keen to follow. It has certainly had a profound effect on energy
costs – the International Centre for Climate Governance <a href="http://www.iccgov.org/FilePagineStatiche/Files/Publications/Reflections/06_reflection_april_2012.pdf" style="color: #2585b2;" target="_blank">reported</a> that “in 2010 the average gas spot price at the Henry
Hub in the US was only $4 per Million British Thermal Units (MBtu), while in
2008, the same price was for around $8-9 per MBtu.” Gas prices were also
considerably lower than in other developed countries.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
However,
Robin Miege, director of strategy at the European Commission’s DG Environment,
recently <a href="http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Europe-Must-Forget-Fantasies-about-Repeating-the-US-Shale-Boom.html" style="color: #2585b2;" target="_blank">poured cold water</a> over prospects for unconventional
hydrocarbons in Europe, pointing to important geographic and geological
differences between the US and Europe. These differences mean that shale gas
production costs could twice as much in the EU as in the US, limiting the scope
for unconventional hydrocarbons to transform our gas market to any comparable
extent. Indeed, even if shale gas were to be cheaper, a senior banker at
Norddeutsche Landesbank has <a href="http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/08/12/banker-destroys-argument-for-shale-gas-in-a-short-letter/" style="color: #2585b2;" target="_blank">pointed out</a> that it would be unlikely that the benefit would
be felt by customers.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
A
significant impact on the gas market would also depend on there being a
substantial amount of gas to exploit. Establishing the true level of reserves is
made more difficult by opposition to the grant of exploratory licences.
Estimates of the reserves in the north west of the UK were recently <a href="http://www.planningresource.co.uk/news/1184813/Dramatic-rise-shale-gas-reserve-estimates/" style="color: #2585b2;" target="_blank">revised upwards</a> by a factor of twenty, although doubts remain
regarding the proportion of this gas that can economically be extracted.
Extraction challenges mean that the scale of accessible reserves are unlikely to
be as great as current estimates suggest.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
The
consensus view on unconventional gas seems to be that it will not arrest but
merely slow the decline in UK conventional gas. It might allow the UK to
negotiate better deals for imported gas by making us less heavily dependent on
them, but this assumes that we continue our over-reliance on gas in our energy
mix. Investing heavily in shale gas and in new gas power stations will divert
resources from diversifying energy production, and simply kick the can down the
road, leaving the next generation to address the real need for
decarbonisation.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
<b>Gas
leaks</b></div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
Shale
gas in Europe would do little to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Natural
gas is a cleaner burning fuel with lower combustion emissions than coal.
However, combustion is only part of story. In 2010 the EPA carried out an
assessment on “fugitive” gas emissions at or around shale gas sites; the report
suggested that losses from such emissions were much higher than for conventional
natural gas.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
Based
on this research, Cornell University <a href="http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/web/Marcellus.html" style="color: #2585b2;" target="_blank">examined</a> the total lifecycle CO2 equivalent emissions of
fracking compared with surface and deep coal, diesel oil and conventional gas,
over a 20 year and 100 year time frame. Shale gas performed considerably worse
than conventional gas and even somewhat worse than coal or diesel oil production
over 20 years, although the 100 year picture was rather more complex.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
</div>
<div class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 460px;">
<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gas_cooker_blue_flame.jpg" style="color: #2585b2;"><img alt="blue flame" border="0" src="http://www.isonomia.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/blue-flame-e1381322751792.jpg" style="height: auto; margin-bottom: 12px; max-width: 100%;" /></a>
<div class="wp-caption-text" style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
Ring of fire: should we allow our love for natural gas to
be fuelled by fracking? Photo by James Riden, via Wikimedia Commons.</div>
</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
Caution
is therefore needed over claims that shale gas is an environmentally sustainable
option. However, the EPA data on which the study is based is not
uncontroversial, and a subsequent <a href="http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/fugitive-methane-from-shale-less-than-thought.html" style="color: #2585b2;" target="_blank">study</a> by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found
fracking’s fugitive emissions to be much lower. In this field, all results seem
to be contested.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
If
the Cornell study is to be believed, only in countries such as Poland, which are
heavily dependent on coal-fired power stations and have large reserves of shale
gas, would a new dash for gas have a beneficial effect on GHGs. Given the urgent
need to reduce our overall emissions, the risk that shale gas production could
hinder progress on the installation of new renewable energy sources needs to be
carefully considered.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
<b>Gas
bubble?</b></div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
Whether
it is worth investing in shale gas depends heavily on how long the supply of gas
might last. Independent think tank <a href="http://www.clubofrome.org/" style="color: #2585b2;" target="_blank">The Club of Rome</a> recently
produced a report on increasing scarcity of mineral resources, which highlighted
the challenges of moving from the exploitation of higher grade minerals, which
are recovered relatively easily, towards lower grade exploitation. Fracking is
towards the low grade end of the spectrum, which is characterised by the need to
for greater effort and investment, not to mention increased risk, to win an ever
diminishing quantity of resources in harder conditions. Only if energy prices go
up will fracking repay the investment required.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
Analysis
of data supplied by the International Energy Agency suggests that the boom in
the production of shale gas in the US may be relatively short lived; in fact
production could already be at its peak. The average life of a well is only 3-5
years, and the number of new wells being sunk is in decline. The dash for shale
gas in the US has lowered the price to a point where not all extraction is
profitable. This may mean that some possible wells are being held back, but it
even if prices rise so as to make these worthwhile investments, it is unlikely
that these will result in production increasing.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
The
unconventional gas market seems to be at risk of experiencing a bubble of a
significant scale. Some economists are already suggesting that it could burst in
a relatively short time frame, with serious consequences for economic stability.
Pinning European hopes for lower energy costs and increased energy security to
such an insecure mast seems rather a risk, especially with the US economy
already wedded to unconventional gas.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
The
attraction of shale gas as a means of boosting our struggling economy with cheap
energy is understandable, especially given what we’ve seen happen in the US.
However, the evidence suggests that Europe is a different case, and here shale
gas has much less to contribute. If it proves to be a short-lived bubble, there
also appears to be a real risk of wider damage to the economic system, and my
preference would be to see continued investment in renewable alternative energy,
which would be likely to provide more jobs and greater security. There also
doubt regarding the GHG credentials of shale gas, even compared with other
fossil fuels.</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
Taking
account of all the risks identified and discussed over the course of my two
articles, I don’t think that any of them is individually fatal to the case for
fracking. Most can be managed (at a cost) or mitigated by ensuring we do not
overcommit to unconventional gas. However, taken together they make shale gas
appear distinctly unpromising. If you were to ask me whether I’d back a new dash
for gas, I’d have to say not on your fracking Nelly!</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
<a href="http://treggietribune.blogspot.co.uk/" style="color: #2585b2;" target="_blank" title="Mike Tregent">Mike Tregent</a></div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
</div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
</div>
<div style="clear: both;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="meta" style="border-bottom: #eee 1px solid; border-top: #eee 1px solid; color: #999999; font-size: 0.9em; line-height: 160%; margin-top: 4px; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 15px;">
<br /></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table background="http://s.wordpress.com/i/emails/stripes.gif" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="subscribe-footer-wrap" style="background-color: #43a4d0; background-image: url(http://s.wordpress.com/i/emails/stripes.gif); background-repeat: repeat-x; height: 3px; width: 100%;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=jetpack.wordpress.com&blog=29039726&post=2294&subd=www.isonomia.co.uk&ref=&email=1&email_o=jetpack" width="1" /> </div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-63793599129081409592013-09-09T14:34:00.000-07:002013-09-22T14:57:59.830-07:00Bubbles, dangerous beauty!Everyone is captivated by them, children and adults alike!<br />
<br />
They are used also to describe and be analogous to, complex features of our lives. Bubble formation or nucleation is used to describe the formation of our universe and the period of expansion in the short time after the Big Bang. For most of us, I guess it is comforting to think that we live in a bubble universe......but bubbles burst!<br />
<br />
Much as I love the debate on astro-physics and quantum theory, I'm really more than happy to leave that to the experts! Instead I want to focus this blog on another use of bubble theory, that which deals with economic models relating to inflation and the formation of bubbles that can harm our economies.<br />
<br />
With the globalisation of trade and the advent of World wide corporations, so the management of trade and individual economies has become larger and more complex.Governments are competing in a race to the bottom in attempts to keep the value of their currencies down, to keep export prices competitive. Normalisation of interest rates could unleash strong inflationary pressure.<br />
<br />
Currently the most dangerous bubbles forming, and lurking almost unseen by the vast majority of us, are asset bubbles. These bubbles form when there is over inflation of an asset price (demand pull), as an investment vehicle. The bubble is thus formed by rapid price rises over a short period, but this is not supported by demand (over a longer period) or by an underlying inherent lower value.<br />
<br />
Inflation of the bubble (see this as an aggravation of the situation) serves to make it less stable. In the aftermath of the recent global recession and in major asset classes there have been some serious contributory factors to bubble inflation, that have been deployed to stimulate economic growth.<br />
<br />
These have been prolonged low interest rates and over inflation of the money supply (quantitative easing). Because of these actions there are potentially inflated bubbles in Carbon (oil and fossil fuel industry), property, Gold (rare metals generally), agricultural land and property. The scale of the bubble may vary in priority from country to country, but in effect they are all linked due to the globalisation of the banking system. Most of these economic instruments, as politicians like to call them have been deployed in all of the major economies, I might wonder how capable they are at playing these instruments as opposed to their voters?!!<br />
<br />
Let's take property as a case study, partly because we have already seen a fairly major collapse of just such a bubble in the US, which has led to many of the current problems! A derivative is a loan or financial product that is secured against an asset, in this case a mortgage, which provides the underlying security. Because of a housing shortage in the US (not exclusive to US, UK and Japan are vulnerable too), leading to a spike in property prices. Hedge fund managers saw this as an opportunity with minimal risk and created a huge demand. This had to be underpinned by the creation of more mortgages, which in turn led to riskier lending and created a demand for more housing (over inflation of the price, underlying loss of asset value and increased risk). As house builders caught up with demand, so house prices began to level off and even fall. This created negative equity and exposed the risk of the over inflated asset price. The sub-prime lending (as it came to be known) had started and had too much momentum to be restrained, the bubble collapsed.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately these tell tale signs can be seen in other assets/commodities, it might even be reasonable to expect that hedge funds would look for an alternative support mechanism for the derivatives market (although you might hope with the benefit of property hindsight!). There is great concern that oil, coal and gas investment has formed a bubble whereby the value is over inflated in relation to the amount that can be extracted and used, if we are to meet emission targets for Carbon Dioxide. Given that this bubble is large in comparison to the property bubble and that fossil investments underpin so many pension funds, it is difficult to see how the current economic system could recover were (or should that be when!), the bubble to collapse.<br />
<br />
Other bubbles are also worth consideration: agricultural land values and food commodities have seen huge increases in investment over the last few years. Although the US first saw these increases at such a scale, in the last couple of years, there has been a global land grab going on. Such investments are now threatened by climate change induced (or exacerbated) water scarcity, crop pests and disease. Forecasts have put potential losses on investment as high as 5 trillion pounds (£5trn).<br />
<br />
Thinking of things at a more human level, some recent research has suggested the formation of a productivity bubble! Companies have looked solely at the bottom line, with employees seen merely as another asset to be sweated! The hours worked have got longer and the holidays taken have been less as workers have been made redundant, or not replaced, leaving the rest to pick up the additional workload.<br />
<br />
Productivity increased globally, however this is now starting to flatten off as chronic stress and illness in the workplace manifest themselves. In fact it is likely that productivity could start to fall again, if global temperatures continue to rise and more virulent disease affect the population. It is not sustainable to continue to inflate executive pay and the asset register on the grounds of infinite improvements in productivity!<br />
<br />
The only real way to avoid several catastrophic collapses, is to live within our means and not to print money against future productivity that can't be met because it makes a false assumption of infinite resources and continuous improvements in productivity.<br />
<br />
Addendum.<br />
<br />
I have added the link below to an article in the International Debt Observatory, looking into the potential problems surrounding unconventional fossil fuels. It was recently published (post my blog), but serves to underline the problems emerging.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.oid-ido.org/article.php3?id_article=1396">http://www.oid-ido.org/article.php3?id_article=1396</a><br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-91898918546153380302013-08-13T15:13:00.002-07:002013-08-13T15:13:33.292-07:00Future perfect with good waste planning.Having returned to work after a couple of weeks off, I have been piling through the backlog of e-mails, trying to pick up the threads where I left off and see what is new!<br />
<br />
Amongst the rubble that is my inbox, were a couple of requests for input to consultation responses, always with short turn around periods. I did however, don my thinking cap and provide some words containing the sum of my nuggets of wisdom.<br />
<br />
I found this to be a useful exercise, it got me thinking and helped me to tie together some issues that had been floating around in the backwaters of my consciousness. In writing out my thoughts, it helped to distil some ideas about what the problems facing us are and how we might begin to respond.<br />
<br />
The consultations in question are on waste planning guidance and waste prevention, both closely linked and essential parts of planning and developing our service infrastructure. The problems are many; lack of accurate data, a need to change behaviours and mixed messages to name but a few.<br />
<br />
Amongst these problems, one that I feel hasn't been properly explored, is how planning links to historic data and fails to meet needs for future proofing. In terms of infrastructure and investment in the right technologies, this might in part be due to the lack of investment that is currently available or that the policy incentives that are in place don't offer the correct balance.<br />
<br />
If you plan your infrastructure needs based upon data collected during an economic downturn, can it be a reliable benchmark for future provision. Can it also be sufficient to drive the changes needed to meet targets, social and economic aspirations?<br />
<br />
What I think needs to be addressed, is how will we deal with a rapidly growing population and and an economic recovery (even a weak one). In my estimation, waste prevention and resource efficiency measures will struggle to off-set these drivers for growth in waste generation. If that is the case, then planning for nil growth in waste generation over the next 20 years could leave us with a significant capacity shortfall.<br />
<br />
I hope to deliberate on some of these issues more in future blogs, but at least for now, the seed has been sown!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-13188733328573242512013-08-10T14:21:00.000-07:002013-08-10T14:21:05.524-07:00Happiness is it all it's hyped to be?I have reposted below an extract from the Huff Post Green.<br />
<br />
<div style="color: #2d2d2d; display: inline-block; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 24px; line-height: 28px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 5px;">
<a href="http://link.huffingtonpost.com/4fb97a3b8bec1f0292281b7313sr2.1hnz/UgUPquYQzxZWk-l6B1c8d" style="color: #2d2d2d; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Arianna
Huffington: Why I'm Unhappy With Happiness Surveys</a></div>
<!-- Excerpt added by $email_body from headline_subhead -->
<div style="color: #2d2d2d; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 12px;">
"UK
population's happiness is on the up," trumpeted a headline in The Guardian. What
the headline was referring to are the results of a survey conducted by the
Office for National Statistics meant to measure Britain's national well-being.
The program was announced in 2010 by David Cameron, with the first report coming
in 2012 and the second this past week. While the idea of measuring a country's
well-being by something other than just its GDP is certainly important and can
lead to a really worthwhile conversation, the question is how the alternative
index is compiled and how it correlates with other data on health and
well-being. I'm solidly behind any effort to show that we're more than just our
marginal contribution to our bank account, the bottom line of our employer or
the gross national product of our country. But it's important to look at the
whole picture.</div>
<div style="color: #2d2d2d; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 12px;">
It would be really good if instead of just creating a a set of statistical indicators, that these indicators were used actively and progressively, to decouple our well being from GDP, accretion of wealth (at least the material bit) and reliance on fossil fuels. If these indicators provided the basis for measuring progress against these objectives as part of a cyclical programme for improvement, then this could have real and practical benefits.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-35775765595964371452013-07-08T14:11:00.001-07:002013-07-08T14:11:33.643-07:00Terminology, is it a waste?<br />
<br />
A question has been asked recently, about the relationship between language and activity. The question centres around whether or not the the word describing what we discard (in this case waste) supports the activity (recovery of resource) and does it justice in the modern context.<br />
<br />
This has turned out, not just to be an academic exercise in linguistic evolution and the history of waste, it has opened up the wider issue of how we define a more complex system and draw defining lines that can be clearly understood by all.<br />
<br />
The debate has been stimulated by a need to move waste up the hierarchy, taking it full circle from cradle back to cradle. There are however, a number subtexts too, with the language around co-mingled collections for sorting and waste collected at source having evolved their own terminologies, which is not helpful.<br />
<br />
I see it thus:<br />
If paper be paper, wherever it sits in it's life cycle, then just maybe, it needs to be recovered separately at source. The same would apply to any other rejected material that seeks rehabilitation back into the language of use.<br />
<br />
This is what the revised Waste Framework Directive appears to require, so in regulatory terms, the regulation is on the right track! The only minor fly in the ointment being, that everything that is discarded, is legally classified as waste for the purposes of implementing regulation.<br />
<br />
So for me, I can see that people will still regard their recycling collection (especially mixed dry recyclable material in a wheelie bin), as something more akin to waste, than to its constituent materials.. This is most likely because it is collected co-mingled and sorted away from the eyes of the producer. This loss of connection could be a critical factor in reconciling both the value and responsibility represented by the waste, to the holder (producer) in relation the valuation and effort that is put into pre-cleaning and sorting of that waste.<br />
<br />
Kerbside sorting can offer a better connection, especially if residents can observe their waste being placed into separate compartments as paper,metals, plastics etc.<br />
<br />
There have recently been a spate of name changes, by companies, consultancies and collectives, where the term waste has just been supplanted by the term resource. This probably only serves to confuse people and does not do justice to the processes involved. If material is being collected for onward treatment, then we should at least try to describe that step, as it will help indicate that a process of transformation is being undertaken. If we are happy to to call thermal treatment (in its many guises) Energy from Waste (EfW), why can we not describe Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF's) and Mechanical Biological Treatment plant (MBT), as Waste to Resource facilities (WtR)?<br />
<br />
I'm sure that the public would understand these terms and relate them to a process akin to rehabilitation of their discarded resources. I do not believe that an over simplification of the language helps the cause, in fact it could even lead people to be suspicious that something is being hidden from them.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-41387091774315567822013-06-10T13:53:00.000-07:002013-06-10T13:53:53.394-07:00Is Rome already alight?<br />
<div>
On a climate change theme today!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It seems quite incredible to me that governments appear happy to leave the issue of climate warming and sea level rise on the back burner, whilst continuing to exploit fossil fuels at an increasing rate.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I have highlighted a couple articles that sum up the predicament quite clearly, I can't believe that we have all voted to mandate procrastination on such an important issue!</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
First up from 350.org a US map showing 16 cities at serious risk from sea
level rise and climate enhanced storm surges.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/news/waiting-on-new-climate-deal-will-set-world-on-path-to-5c-warming-16100">http://www.climatecentral.org/news/waiting-on-new-climate-deal-will-set-world-on-path-to-5c-warming-16100</a></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Even the IEA have spoken out about the current impasse on reaching
political agreement for a replacement to Kyoto.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
They say that with current trends in energy production and emissions, this
puts us on a path to a catastrophic 5<sup>o</sup>C rise in global
temperatures.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/news/waiting-on-new-climate-deal-will-set-world-on-path-to-5c-warming-16100">http://www.climatecentral.org/news/waiting-on-new-climate-deal-will-set-world-on-path-to-5c-warming-16100</a></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<br />
<div>
And all this on a day when the Guardian reports that the UK is looking
maximise UK North Sea oil production #greenestgovernmentever</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is absolutely no point in growth at all costs if the cost becomes catastrophic climate change!</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-43813070627990685752013-05-20T14:22:00.001-07:002013-05-20T14:22:49.370-07:00So what if we left the EU?This the second of my 'what if' blogs, where I examine topical events and ask a few what ifs?<br />
<br />
I'll take an alternative view wherever possible to stimulate some debate and possibly actions to counter what might be perceived as injustices or just plain greed and stupidity!<br />
<br />
Of course there are two sides to every story and there may well benefits to leaving the EU, however I do not believe that they would emerge in a short enough time frame to be of any practical benefit. In fact I believe that anti European sentiment is driven by anachronistic dogma and greed. The greed being on the part of the wealthy elite, who would stand to benefit from a reduction in legislative protection for workers and the environment (two of the pillars of sustainability).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the impacts of leaving the EU could be quite severe and impact with almost immediate effect. It's worth taking a little time to look at some of the potential impacts , as most UK citizens stand to be affected in some respect.<br />
<br />
I have outlined some of the main arguments, in the hope that it should become evident that we would be much more vulnerable outside the EU.<br />
<br />
Some politicians have said that if we leave we would not be paying into the EU pot, but that we would still have all the free trade agreements, which would allow us access to our biggest market. This might well be true, for a while at least |(until we are slowly written out of various agreements), however the Americans seemed to make it quite clear during Cameron's visit to the White House, that we would be foolish to leave and that it would direct impact investment into the UK.<br />
<br />
It would also be true that in order to trade within the single market, we would still have to meet all the EU production standards (as do Norway and Switzerland) which would entail cost, but with no representation in the making of those standards. What's more, we would still pay tariffs, which would affect our competitiveness.<br />
<br />
So what about jobs? It has been widely argued that EU regulations have been a brake on our SME's, which make up a large part of our economy and only a fraction of which, trade within the EU. There is an element of truth in this, but surely there is room for negotiation on such issues, the EU has already recognised this and is taking very similar measures to those that we have proposed.<br />
<br />
So by coming out of Europe we could create nearly a million new jobs in the UK, however that is only one side to the story and the fact is that we are likely to lose millions of jobs, as large production sites move in to mainland Europe (Airbus/cars manufacturers, etc.). This would have a very detrimental impact as these are high end earners for the UK and many SME's depend upon them for their orders.<br />
<br />
As well as these issues, we would have fewer rights in the EU than we do now, which would make it much harder to retire to other EU member states or buy property there.We would also lose much of power at the negotiating table by not being in Paris, Berlin and Brussels, this could see us increasingly marginalised by the US, China and Russia for example. None of this would be good for either our trade or status which is an invisible benefit.<br />
<br />
The cost of being in the EU, whilst it is a big number, doesn't look so big when put alongside the trade figures, as our exports are just over 50% into the EU, which is a much bigger figure!<br />
<br />
Don't forget also, that many EU laws benefit the environment, social well being and human rights, we have come to rely on these and changing them would cause an imbalance and could lead to many UK citizens losing out, with fewer protections.<br />
<br />
At the end of the day, the case for leaving the EU just seems to be a charter for large corporations and wealthy industrialist to prey on UK workers by pushing down wages, restricting recourse to the courts and generally lowering everyone's standard of living. It is somewhat ironic that some of these corporations are those that don't pay their share of UK tax, something the EU has been trying to sort out!<br />
<br />
For me there would be no point in having a vote without all of this being discussed openly and with access to information on the expected impacts. In such circumstances, I would not expect the vote to be a foregone conclusion!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-25477587684353146352013-05-11T15:22:00.001-07:002013-05-11T15:22:30.823-07:00What if?I wanted to put some ideas out there about various aspects of our everyday lives, aspects that maybe we take for granted, but which could disintegrate before our eyes, or render us helpless to determine our own destiny. I hope to make this a mini series of questions about currently topical subjects to provoke thought around alternatives and what the World might look like, when you are stood looking back at the box!<br />
<br />
The first 'what if' that occurred to me, has been the eerily quite aftermath of the Cypriot bail out! There are many ways that you could look at this, but in a basic form, didn't the Cypriot Government steal money from savers to leverage more borrowing from the EU banking stability fund (i.e. Germany, Austria, Sweden Finland etc.). When you look at it in this way, it all seems a bit imperialist rather than a cosy democracy!<br />
<br />
Is Cyprus now any better off? Well not really it's limping along with several holes below the waterline, no one really wants to invest, expenditure will continue to creep back up again. either as benefits increase or attempted growth measures. In the meantime, tax revenues continue to stagnate or fall and eventually this beautiful island will find the economic buffers again! I would suggest that when this happens, a second round of account dipping will not be an option!<br />
<br />
The 'what if' comes in two parts, they take the form of; what if it happened to us and what if we weren't prepared to sit idly by and accept it?<br />
<br />
In the case of Cyprus the statements were all well prepared and rehearsed, because the governments and the bankers have the figures in front of them a long time before we do. We were told that the Cypriot economy was small and vulnerable to the global recession, that they had a burgeoning bureaucracy and that they had failed to move with the economic drumbeat, which is all pretty well true, as it is of many established democracies! We were also told lots of those horrible rich Russians were hiding their money in accounts there and that it would serve them right (but not as nasty as Mubarak and some other despotic leaders to whom, we pander for their wedge!). So in essence, they were pretty poor excuses for stealing money from the vast majority of honest, hard working and law abiding citizens!<br />
<br />
As I said, Cyprus in not alone in this particular basket, Ireland is still there, more or less flat lining, as is Spain, Portugal and probably Italy too. We can't be sure about Belgium, because no one seems to have been in charge for some time and Slovenia has just asked if it can try the basket for size as well! In each case, all of these countries have sworn that they will not do the same as happened in Cyprus, but now that it has happened and a precedent has been set, hands up all those who believe them!<br />
If you've got your hand up, you may be excused, you probably don 't need the money or you are already a politician!<br />
<br />
And so, the second part of the question, are you prepared to step outside of the comfort zone? Rather than wait for things to get worse and for politicians to mess up and greedy banks to start snatching money that isn't theirs (as opposed to just inventing it against a future that can't pay), why not be a little pre-emptive?<br />
<br />
There's never been a better time, with interest rates that low that saving is relatively pointless and banks piling on spurious charges to keep up their income! What if everyone started to pull their money out of all the large banks and place it in safes or small local building societies.<br />
<br />
Banks have made it so convenient to spend money, one of the ways they get us to rack up debt in the name of growth, however in doing so we are totally losing control of OUR money! You know, the stuff that you work 40 hours for every week. What happens if they turn off the terminals and the ATM's, it might be your money, but you can't have it!!<br />
<br />
Once you have regained control of your money, you will probably say to yourself, Hmmm, I a bit open to fraud, robbery and this is less convenient (which at this moment is true, but doesn't stop a lot of our population from still dealing in cash). You are somehow made to feel like a Luddite if you use real money, almost as if it is socially unacceptable, I wonder why?<br />
<br />
Once enough of us have control of our money, there's a deal to be done! With the Internet at our disposal, why not set up as your own personal bank and/or form co-operatives with your friends? This is already happening with the likes of Paypal and EBAY, but it could be so much more, if were open, legally founded and operated for the benefit of you, as opposed to greedy fat cat CEO's and shareholders.<br />
<br />
What of the banks? Well would you care, if you didn't need one?!! They only support their rich friends and dodgy politicians, so it might even help clean up our democracy, double bubble, and its mine all mine (although I might put some of it to a socially just use)!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-31812221766795202912013-04-04T15:03:00.001-07:002013-04-04T15:03:37.338-07:00Is capitalism efficient?There has been a lot said recently about growth and the need for it!!! At the same time we have heard a lot about the need for the efficient use of resource in an increasingly resource constrained World, where population and expectation are both growing at an unsustainable pace.<br />
<br />
The current neo-liberal capitalist mantra requires that growth is an essential aspect of wealth creation and in turn provides a return on investment to continue the cycle. Most people would probably assume because it is so globally adopted, that it would be an efficient model, but if you stop to ask some questions, the case is not proven. And this is a very important concern for us all.<br />
<br />
If you were to think of a plant, an animal or even an eco-system, you can see how through evolution, it has developed a great efficiency. In order to function properly a human needs around 1500 calories per day, however we use many times that amount of energy to support our industries, transport and lifestyles.<br />
<br />
This lust for energy, more than any other single commodity is starting to expose the lie of efficiency and highlight the divergence between social well being, environment and economy. This is borne out time and again by protests against extraction of gas, oil and coal, where it causes environmental damage to a locality, but is justified as being for the greater good (i.e. growth), Protesters are becoming more frequent and fractious globally, with examples like the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, coal terminals in Australia and numerous other mines and fracking sites.<br />
<br />
Instead of aiming for unsustainable continuous growth, we should instead look at what natural capital we have and how we could use it to support our growing global population. In this way we should aim for sustainable use of natural capital, not exploitation in pursuit of growth (wealth accretion). In turn there would still be trade, as the current distribution of natural capital is very uneven. But by working together in this way, we build stronger ties between communities by replacing competition with exchange and collaboration.<br />
<br />
Over time we would come to realise the true value of our natural assets and come to the conclusion that their conservation is tied to maintaining sustainable use as opposed to exploitation and degradation. I would suggest that this is a more efficient economy!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-31734438841265444312013-02-23T13:46:00.001-08:002013-02-23T13:46:34.825-08:00Quick fire rant!Today is really cold here!<br />
<br />
So I've had a trip out and got back to a nice tea and warmed up. The TV is dire, so it's a great time time for a rant! No long winded diatribe on a single issue, a quick fire, what's in my head instead!!<br />
<br />
Let's go nuclear for a minute, if you've read any of my other posts, you will know that I'm not keen. Not without goof reason I would say, especially as they are catching tuna off the West Coast of the US with high levels of radiation, two years after the event!!<br />
<br />
And what a bout the power plant in Washington? seems they are losing irradiated cooling fluid from the bottom of the storage tanks!!!! Let's face it, if your car was dropping oil in this day and age, you wouldn't be happy!!<br />
<br />
What about our AAA rating here in the UK? Capt. clueless is sailing our economy up iceberg alley for an ideological laugh, oooh I nearly wet myself!!!! When he gets to the top end, does he expect his doting tax payers to buy him a new paddle? By the end of his term, our debt could be 1.3 trillion, which would be significantly more than he inherited from the last administration!!!<br />
<br />
Last, but by no means least, scientists have announced that we could be on the brink of a tipping point for the melting of the permafrost. They say that a rise in average temperatures of 1.5 degrees could be enough to start a runaway process that could release millions upon millions of tonnes of methane every year. It is unlikely that in such circumstances that we would any longer, be masters of our own destiny!!<br />
<br />
Well I feel better for that, but I haven't worked out quite exactly what I want to can do about it all. Together, we might be able to shout loud enough to get heard, that would be a start!<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-56872413995849372742013-02-08T14:11:00.001-08:002013-02-08T14:11:30.964-08:00Where's my Waste Hierarchy?Recently there has been quite a bit of discussion around the Waste Hierarchy, introduced into UK statute following transposition of the revised Waste Framework Directive.<br />
<br />
People are starting to question how it might be properly implemented and enforced, quite reasonable questions, I would say!<br />
<br />
Currently it seems to be struggling for recognition, for the important element of regulation that it is. The Waste Hierarchy is a mainstay of the prime objectives of the Environmental Action Plan and for sustainability in the waste and resource management sector.<br />
<br />
There are a number of reasons for this, not least that the Waste Hierarchy is seen as being self regulating, however a lesson learnt from a very similar roll out of the Duty of Care over 20 years ago, informs us that this wasn't entirely successful!<br />
<br />
There are also a number of other reasons why it been difficult to implement, I have outlined some of these below. The solutions to these are not particularly simple, but could be tackled with a proper strategy and some resource.<br />
<br />
Briefly these area:<br />
<div>
</div>
<ul>
<li>Current behaviours in C & I waste collection, whereby the contractors take on all the responsibility (or maybe not). This is mainly why the tick box exists on the DoC WTN.</li>
<li>Lack of clear policy on waste planning. In turn this leads to lack of, or inappropriate investment in handling and treatment technologies. Most of the money is currently following EfW because of the potential for ROC's/RHI, this conflicts with the Waste Hierarchy to some extent.</li>
<li>Slow drafting and implementation of End of Waste criteria is hampering the the quality assurance that is needed to underpin recyclate markets. Volatility leads to more waste being exported (often illegally), incinerated or landfilled.</li>
<li>Similar (or better) incentives need to be put in place to encourage re-use.</li>
<li>Waste reduction, and avoidance needs clear policy leads and should sit with one department and have a much higher profile than it has currently</li>
</ul>
<div>
All companies with Environmental Management Systems should now be looking at how they can comply with the requirements of the Waste Hierarchy and it should become a regular feature of CSR reporting, that would be a start!</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-90738871736887125912013-01-18T13:51:00.000-08:002013-01-18T13:51:10.914-08:00Questioning the current model?I wanted to use this latest blog to ask a few questions, rather than just spout off, to ask some very fundamental questions to us all. Questions about are we really happy, does ownership make us feel more satisfied and what are the alternatives?<br />
<br />
Increasingly for the majority of us, life is becoming a blur, dashing from one customer or meeting to the next, trying to be more productive or just trying to stay in the game. Squeezing the kids into a busy schedule between work, shopping and cooking a meal for friends.<br />
<br />
Hang on a moment, rewind that a bit........squeeze the kids in!!!! Surely the children are our most prized asset and should bring us love and joy that mere acquisition alone could never do!<br />
<br />
OK, I know that sound very sloppy and possibly even a little rose tinted, but I believe it highlights one of the fundamental problems with our way of life, capitalist culture and underlying happiness. What could we all do to change this, to live a better, more relaxed and fulfilled life?<br />
<br />
We could all work less hours for a start, its not as crazy as it seems, several studies show that a working week of 21 hours would create full employment and more opportunity for recreation and community interaction. That might seem a little scary in the context of out current lifestyle, but it is a more natural state for a species that is inherently tribal. <br />
<br />
If we work less, surely we earn less? Yes, that would be true, but we don't have to individually own everything that we use. If you live in an average suburban house, you will have some lawn and in all probability own a lawnmower. You then go out on a weekend and use it for half an hour, and that is that! However, if you (and your neighbours) have more more time, then many more of you could share that lawnmower and the garden tools too!<br />
<br />
Bike pools and car pools are becoming more popular, hopefully the idea of sharing over ownership will become the norm. this will have the dual benefits of reducing expenditure and resource intensity, win win!<br />
<br />
But wont that lead more recession and job losses? Probably, but herein lies another thread of our underlying problem, which is the economic model itself. The current model of capitalism is based upon a model that demands year on year growth to support monetary expansion and lending. This model is facing obvious limitations as we reach environmental thresholds and population growth increases demand for energy, food, water and increased wealth and living standards. <br />
<br />
If we just focus on the main principles of well being, then it is possible to support a larger population in a more sustainable way. It is the accretion of wealth and belief that acquisition and ownership relates to well being that needs to be challenged.<br />
<br />
Are there alternatives? Yes, without doubt there are numerous different economic models, we just need to be educated about them and accepting of the rules as to how they work. The current capitalist model is often termed as being neo-liberal, that is to say (in simple terms) it advocates free markets, which should self regulate and through investment and the subsequent return on investment create growth. An important facet of this though, is that the wealth that is created will be distributed, if not evenly, at least fairly across the whole domain.<br />
<br />
This has not been the case however, in recent times with the formation of the super rich and global corporations. Through careful manipulation of money supply, interference in democratic process and endless advertising of an aspirational society, the distribution of the wealth created has become extremely uneven and a huge proportion of the wealth now sits in fewer and fewer hands, this is neither conducive to a stable society, nor a stable economy. <br />
<br />
There is plenty of wealth to go around, but we are not conditioned to see that sufficiently to realise that need to and can change it!<br />
<br />
I hope that as the realisation of the failings of the current model become more stark, that each of us will ask more questions and come up with innovative and individual ideas to change it. This can only lead to greater and more robust democracy, improved well being and satisfaction as well as a more sustainable and livable society.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-56134351192597758532012-11-17T14:44:00.000-08:002012-11-17T14:44:58.188-08:00Dumping cash into a silo!Back onto the nuclear tip with this blog!<br />
<br />
Sellarfield is centre stage for this diatribe, as it exemplifies the problems that persist for nuclear energy, in the perceptual, economic and technical context.<br />
<br />
My comments are based upon the report from the National Audit Office and an article in the guardian on the subject, which provides some great graphics to support the underlying data.<br />
<br />
In essence, Sellarfield is a complex site dealing with a range of complex waste, from spent nuclear fuel to decommissioning and weapons waste. This has an advantage of allowing the UK to develop marketable high tech solutions to radioactive problems, however most of these projects are running over budget and behind schedule!<br />
<br />
The NAO report flags these failings and places a significant amount of emphasis on the spiralling costs. This will have the unfortunate consequence of undermining the credibility of Sellarfield as a World leader in these technologies and will also taint public confidence, both in the site and and the wider industry.<br />
<br />
It does beg the question as to how much costs might run out of control for the whole decommissioning process? The Government appears not to be overly concerned as the overall cost will not have a significant impact on the unit cost of nuclear generation, and anyway, it looks as though the taxpayer will bear much of the cost for legacy plant!!<br />
<br />
Nonetheless, there has to be some concern, because the numbers we are talking about are still quite large, large enough even, to stifle enthusiasm amongst investors and operators. alike<br />
<br />
Another concern that I have are around the decommissioning process itself, as Sellarfield is being prosecuted for not following the rules on proper disposal of low level radioactive waste. This should be met with disbelief, when you consider how long this has been going on and the processes and expertise that are in place!<br />
<br />
Once the wider scheme of decommissioning starts to roll out, it is probable that costs will again start to spiral and work schedules stretch, as has been the case with Sellarfirld. My worry with this, is not so much who will bear this additional cost, but what will happen with the management of the process and handling of the waste. Experience dictates that it is always in these areas where time constraints and cost overruns, lead to poor practice and corner cutting. Not something you would wish to see when dealing radioactive waste (albeit very low level).<br />
<br />
Link to Guardian article:<br />
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/16/nuclear-waste-sellafield?intcmp=122">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/16/nuclear-waste-sellafield?intcmp=122</a><br />
<br />
Link to NAO site:<br />
<a href="http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1213/sellafield_risk_reduction.aspx">http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1213/sellafield_risk_reduction.aspx</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-2490278857086508202012-11-10T14:08:00.000-08:002012-11-10T14:17:00.240-08:00Sandy, legacy, planning and adaptation.After a respectable period its a good time to revisit the aftermath of Sandy and raise a few important questions about living on the front line of coastal plains and tidal waterways. When the storm does come and the defences are rendered ineffective, the inevitable happens to the land and infrastructure that supports us.<br />
<br />
The storm passes quickly enough and the waters subside in time, but the damage that remains is often persistent, unseen and potentially more lethal than the event itself. A storm surge carries huge power, it picks up what it wants and leaves it where it likes, it has no respect for man nor permit! It can strip back the land, move good from shelves and swamps tanks and drainage systems.<br />
<br />
A lot of what we use in our everyday lives, the engine and fuel oils released, the cleansing and disinfection fluids, paints solvents and infection bearing sludges. These are toxic in the wrong environment and when many substances are mixed up and distributed in a diffuse way, they can be difficult to detect and quantify in terms of risk. This is precisely what has happened with Sandy, the water has ingressed the old and ailing infrastructure of New York. Sandy stripped out toxins, leaving them in dense heterogeneous sediments to leach back out in what amounts to a game that has become a cross between hide and seek and Russian roulette!<br />
<br />
In time these sediments will give up their chemicals slowly leaching back into streams and rivers and percolating down into the groundwater, where it can enter water supplies. This will impact upon <br />
people and ecosystems and the clean up could prove prohibitively expensive, due to the range and distribution of toxins.<br />
<br />
There is no point in being smug that it wasn't you this time around either, all low lying populace areas are becoming increasingly vulnerable. Climate change is accelerating and extreme weather events will increase in frequency raising the risk of a growing legacy of toxic sediments being built up in many locations. This will become a growing cost of climate change, as already discussed, clear up will be very expensive and retro-fit to provide greater protection will be costly too!<br />
<br />
As I see it now, however we mitigate (and we will have to), we will have to adopt a lot of new ways to adapt to our changing and increasingly extreme climate. I believe that this require a lot of planning on a large scale and much better integration between aspects of land use in terms of how and where urban populations exist and how they are supported by a hinterland.<br />
<br />
More local resilience will be needed, with major infrastructure designed to offer support at a more strategic level (i.e. more decentralised generation, but connected to a simplified grid that offers options on storage). This is an option for renewal but there is no easy solution for what is already in place, it is likely that many location will quickly change from pleasant seaside real estate to deserted liability!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-14967697333853819032012-10-25T14:26:00.001-07:002012-10-25T14:26:07.553-07:00Evidence of emerging waste trends.In my last blog, I spoke about how I perceive some changes taking place in the waste industry, as we struggle to move waste up the hierarchy and close loops within the existing regulatory framework.<br />
<br />
I'm happy to be able to produce some timely evidence to support those views, gleaned from this weeks news headlines from around the waste sector.<br />
<br />
John Lewis, a company that embraces CSR, is looking to close the loop on waste it produces, by maintaining tighter control downstream of production. They also want to keep as much of the secondary raw material produced in the UK as possible, which is a form of extended producer responsibility. This will of course need to be supported by producing quality materials and having the reprocessing capacity available to do this, but is certainly a step in the right direction.<br />
<br />
As I pointed out, moving towards a circular economy, will create green jobs and low carbon growth, especially within the 3rd sector of charities and social enterprise. The value of this market is estimated to rise to around £600M by 2020 (taken from the recent Creating Social Value report). This has been driven in part by the provisions of the Public Services (social value)Act 2012, which I'm sure will be ceased upon by the 3rd sector to open up the public procurement system.<br />
<br />
The Government in Ireland has recognised the importance of End of Waste criteria this week, warning its waste recycling industry that it is ill prepared to meet the criteria that are likely to be set to determine the point at which, waste can legally be defined as having been recycled. This is an important driver towards the segregated collection, handling and subsequent treatment of waste. It will be an important factor in infrastructure investment, which again, will create opportunities for new players into what is an established market.<br />
<br />
It appears that the more forward thinking companies are taking this on board and we are starting to move down these paths. How the rest of the industry reacts and how this impacts upon our ability to meet targets remains to be seen. More as it happens!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-26764033371716165192012-10-19T14:45:00.001-07:002012-10-19T14:45:57.937-07:00Future values for waste.In this latest blog, I want to explore ways in which we can value waste. This is important because currently we regulate using the term 'waste' very much as the legal entity, and yet, we want to move to a resource oriented low carbon economy. Resource efficient behaviours are harder to embed when speaking about waste, however we need to stick with it for now as this is also how we manage all the associated risks and impacts.<br />
<br />
It is not something that can be quickly or easily resolved, however if we can appreciate all the values that exist within our waste streams, then it will be somewhat easier to make the links to a green/low carbon economy and resource efficiency.<br />
<br />
I have identified below some potential value chains to explore:<br />
<ul>
<li>Resource efficient saving and associated reduction in emissions and impacts from designing out waste and designing in re-use/recyclability. Triple bottom line sustainability.</li>
<li>Improved potential for closed loop use of materials/resources through high quality collection and handling techniques.</li>
<li>Improved resource security for Rare Earth metals and other essential materials.</li>
<li>Potential for 3rd sector involvement through breakdown and segregation of waste streams and fragmentation of large contracts to localise collection and treatment. This will create more jobs through improved collection rates and end quality, as well as improved scope for community buy-in.</li>
<li>High quality recyclate for UK re processors or export that will command best price and maintain confidence in supply chain.</li>
<li>Options for recovery of materials through treatment and use to substitute virgin materials, thus improving amenity and protecting against price increases for raw materials.</li>
</ul>
Some of these points are easily recognisable as already being the norm within the waste industry, however some are not so prevalent. This is due to our history of investment, industry scale and regulatory framework, also a heavy reliance on large scale engineering solutions to treatment and disposal problems. The points above (roughly) follow the order of the Waste Hierarchy, as this makes understanding the potential values easier and directs our thinking on future solutions.<br />
<br />
Recent changes and upheaval in the planning system however, have led to a bit of an impasse with an unwillingness to invest, created by the uncertainty and the recession. The regulatory framework (revised Waste Framework Directive and Industrial Emissions Directive) have sustainability at their core and thus, provide some stability from which to build in terms of new and refurbished infrastructure.<br />
<br />
The Waste Hierarchy being designed to signpost the most sustainable options for waste and resource management delivers on the triple bottom line, hence working to it, should deliver economically sound options. The only question to really be answered is how the issue between longer term investment (which should be more sustainable), plays out against other shorter term market mechanisms (such as RHI and ROC's)?<br />
<br />
The waste industry, both physically and economically, will shortly find itself at a crossroads. The advent of disruptive technologies and markets methods will, sooner or later, focus on the waste industry. I believe that the current model supported by long term contracts and large scale plant will find itself outflanked by smaller, more nimble and flexible logistics companies, who will break down the collection of currently mixed waste streams, into discreet and segregated streams that will get treated and recovered at specialised facilities.<br />
<br />
This will be driven not only by market disruption, but also by regulation and the fact that as values for materials (of good quality) improve, the bulking and value realisation will move downstream towards the re processors. This will be a realisation of Producer Responsibility (in part) and also of CSR driving a wider producer responsibility. The days of large MBT/MRF type plant, handling a huge range of wastes are likely to be numbered as waste streams and value fall away and they become confined to municipal waste streams. It is likely that municipal waste will be treated in the same way for a longer period, as behaviour change in this domain will take longer, although it is still likely that retail will take much of its waste back in-house over time.<br />
<br />
It will however, herald great opportunities better distribute the value of waste and for more of it to benefit the community in which it arises, through the setting up of social enterprises to deal with collection, re-use and stage one sorting (clean up) and bulking. This would require more modest facilities with lower capital and running costs, however this would need to realise higher values as economies of scale would be lost.<br />
<br />
This might overcome many of the conflicts associated with large waste handling and treatment facilities, as the greater number of smaller facilities would be dealt with as local planning issues and would be much lower key in terms of impacts.<br />
<br />
Use of green buildings, green transport and the creation of green/low carbon jobs locally would see a much greater acceptance of facilities. Hopefully there would be something for everyone in return for something that we all contribute to (i.e. community compost for gardens and refurbished bikes)!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-53897856654048717672012-09-29T13:58:00.000-07:002012-09-29T13:58:04.940-07:00The nuclear energy paradox.Recently there has been a lot column space dedicated to the place of nuclear energy as a low carbon alternative capable of displacing fossil generation and thus reducing carbon emissions. The suggestion that more nuclear energy is a solution to climate change problems has triggered quite a lot of debate and raised many issues with the anti-nuclear lobby. Many suggest that the money would be better spent on renewable energy sources and deliver a quicker and (over time ) cheaper response. I wanted to look at some of these arguments and justifications to see how they stack up.<br />
<br />
Amongst the issues to look at are:<br />
<ul>
<li>Safety and overall risk.</li>
<li>Cost and comparison with renewables.</li>
<li>Proliferation.</li>
<li>Perception and political acceptance.</li>
</ul>
These are the headlines, there are numerous issues within each section and linkages between them that I will try to cover with reference to evidence and case studies. Because of the nature of the beast, events resulting in containment failure and subsequent contamination are very emotive and because of human nature we cant eradicate them.<br />
<br />
Some recent reports relating to the Fukushima incident seem to suggest that the death toll has been and will remain quite low (although what is an acceptable mortality rate must be open to debate), however some new reports are emerging that suggest the findings are premature and that the impacts could be more significant. The latest report the World Nuclear Organisation can be found here: <br />
<a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/fukushima_accident_inf129.html">http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/fukushima_accident_inf129.html</a><br />
<br />
A study, published in the <a href="http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2012/ee/c2ee22019a">journal Energy and Environmental Science</a>, uses<a href="http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/fukushima"> a three-dimensional model</a> of the atmosphere to look at how radioactive materials spread after last year's massive earthquake and tsunami damaged the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.<br />
<br />
This study quantifies worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident on 11 March 2011. Effects are quantified with a 3-D global atmospheric model driven by emission estimates and evaluated against daily worldwide Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) measurements and observed deposition rates. Inhalation exposure, ground-level external exposure, and atmospheric external exposure pathways of radioactive iodine-131, caesium-137, and caesium-134 released f<span style="background-color: white;">rom</span> Fukushima are accounted for using a linear no-threshold (LNT) model of human exposure. Exposure due to ingestion of contaminated food and water is estimated by extrapolation. We estimate an additional 130 (15–1100) cancer-related mortality's and 180 (24–1800) cancer-related morbidity's incorporating uncertainties associated with the exposure–dose and dose–response models used in the study. We also discuss the LNT model's uncertainty at low doses. Sensitivities to emission rates, gas to particulate I-131 partitioning, and the mandatory evacuation radius around the plant are also explored, and may increase upper bound mortality's and morbidity's in the ranges above to 1300 and 2500, respectively. Radiation exposure to workers at the plant is projected to result in 2 to 12 morbidity's. An additional <img alt="[similar]" border="0" src="http://www.rsc.org/images/entities/char_223c.gif" />600 moralities have been reported due to non-radiological causes such as mandatory evacuations. Lastly, a hypothetical accident at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in California, USA with identical emissions to Fukushima was studied to analyse the influence of location and seasonality on the impact of a nuclear accident. This hypothetical accident may cause <img alt="[similar]" border="0" src="http://www.rsc.org/images/entities/char_223c.gif" />25% more moralities than Fukushima despite California having one fourth the local population density due to differing meteorological conditions.<br />
<br />
By comparison a lot more is known about the consequences of the incident at Chernobyl and the findings of this WHO report provides some interesting insight:<br />
Ch WHO Report into deaths and casualties: <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html">http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html</a><br />
<em>5 September 2005 | Geneva -</em>A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.<br />
As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.<br />
<br />
A great deal of work has been done in both instances, the science and effort is commendable, but this does not detract from the fact that containment failures at nuclear reactors lead to a significant number of mortality's over time, along with a number of other health and environment related problems. It would be fair to assume that as we learn from such disasters, over time our preparedness and systems should improve (in the case of such incidents to an almost imperceptible level), however recent events suggest that this may well not be the case and that there is cause for some concern.<br />
<br />
Following the Fukushima Diachi <span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">incident</span> there was a requirement to complete stress tests on all existing and proposed reactors. The resultant reports provided some startling evidence about the frailties of many of the initial risk assessments and back up systems put in place. This is going to be both costly in terms of upgrading existing facilities, but also means that the risks of failure may be severely underestimated for many plant. This is clearly exemplified in the examples given below, as is the fact that this both a commercially and politically sensitive area.<br />
<br />
In the US recently, following completion of the stress tests, it came to light that risks in relation to flood damage from collapsed or breached dams, had been clearly underestimated. Employees working for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission tried to raise concerns, but there was inaction, despite the risks having been known about for some time. In the end this information was made public by invoking whistle blower status in order to publish the information (see story below).<br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/flood-threat-nuclear-plants-nrc_n_1885598.html?utm_campaign=091712&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-green&utm_content=FullStory">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/flood-threat-nuclear-plants-nrc_n_1885598.html?utm_campaign=091712&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-green&utm_content=FullStory</a><br />
<br />
A recent study has also highlighted the fact that 23 nuclear sites, including some under construction are vulnerable to tsunami conditions! China and Japan would appear to have the greatest, however Japan is running down its nuclear capacity, in favour of renewable energy, whilst China is building 27 new reactors. Of these, a high proportion are described as being in geologically dangerous positions, it defies belief that UK is considering doing deals with China over nuclear capacity!<br />
More on this story below:<br />
<a href="http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112699014/nuclear-power-plants-tsunami-risk-092212/">http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112699014/nuclear-power-plants-tsunami-risk-092212/</a><br />
<br />
On the issue of costs, one of the main arguments supporting nuclear generation is that it is cheaper than many current fossil fuel technologies and also many renewable options too. The link below is to a recent DECC commissioned report for a generation cost model:<br />
<a href="http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/about-us/economics-social-research/2127-electricity-generation-cost-model-2011.pdf">http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/about-us/economics-social-research/2127-electricity-generation-cost-model-2011.pdf</a><br />
<br />
The table below gives levelised costs for a selection of generation technologies as at 2010.<br />
<br />
<table class="sortable wikitable jquery-tablesorter"><caption><u>UK energy costs for different generation technologies in </u><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_sterling" title="Pound sterling">pounds</a><u> per </u><a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megawatt_hour" title="Megawatt hour">megawatt hour</a><u> (2010)</u></caption><thead>
<tr><th class="headerSort headerSortDown" title="Sort descending">Technology</th><th class="headerSort" title="Sort ascending">Cost range (£/MWh)<sup class="Template-Fact" style="white-space: nowrap;">[<i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed"><span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from February 2012">citation needed</span></a></i>]</sup></th></tr>
</thead><tbody>
<tr><td>Biomass</td><td>60–120</td></tr>
<tr><td>Coal with CO2 capture</td><td>100–155</td></tr>
<tr><td>Natural gas turbine, no CO2 capture</td><td>55–110</td></tr>
<tr><td>Natural gas turbines with CO2 capture</td><td>60–130</td></tr>
<tr><td>New nuclear</td><td>80–105</td></tr>
<tr><td>Offshore wind</td><td>150–210</td></tr>
<tr><td>Onshore wind</td><td>80–110</td></tr>
<tr class="Template-Fact"><td>Solar farms</td><td>125–180</td></tr>
<tr><td>Tidal power</td><td>155–390</td></tr>
<tfoot></tfoot></tbody></table>
Divide the above figures by 10 to obtain the price in pence per kilowatt-hour.<br />
More recent UK estimates are the Mott MacDonald study released by DECC in June 2010 <sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-13"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#cite_note-13">[14]</a></sup> and the Arup study for DECC published in 2011.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-14"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#cite_note-14">[15]</a></sup><br />
<sup></sup><br />
<sup></sup><br />
From the table, it can be seen that some renewable technologies are already competitive with the more traditional generation technologies, however they could become even more efficient with the right policies and infrastructure in place.<br />
<br />
At the moment most governments in developed countries are looking to extend and integrate their distribution grids, in order to ensure security of supply and to enable sale/transfer when there is spare production. This makes sense in the context of strategic supply, however there is a developing case for decentralised generation and greater degree of storage capacity. Current policies tend to support (through large subsidies) fossil or nuclear generation with large plant connected to the grid, which in turn tends to shape investment in grid infrastructure. This can however, become expensive to maintain and is not a very efficient means of distribution in all circumstances, particularly for dispersed communities.<br />
<br />
If the same levels of subsidy were offered to renewable generation, then the shape of the grid infrastructure would probably change to better accommodate renewable technologies and decentralise generation with local grids. All of this would serve to make renewable generation cheaper!<br />
<br />
As with any costing exercise, you have to draw up an envelope for the costing process, which may or may not take into account certain externalised cost (i.e. carbon trading), however depending upon where you draw those lines, may confer a cost advantage in respect of certain fuels and generation technologies.<br />
<br />
For nuclear generation, most of the figures are quoted for 'new nuclear', which may well beg the comparison with old nuclear (whatever that might be?), but it is generally a convenience that allows assumptions about disposal costs to be made. This could be considered a little disingenuous as a huge amount of active waste from operation and decommissioning has yet to be disposed of. Also in the case of disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima, the generating company cannot be held liable for the full cost of reparations and clean up, as this cost is beyond their capability. Because of this insurance will only cover a certain amount, beyond that the cost falls to the taxpayer! More on UK costs can be found in this FT article: <br />
<a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2efd47ba-27fa-11e0-8abc-00144feab49a.html#axzz27V8ezxHc">http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2efd47ba-27fa-11e0-8abc-00144feab49a.html#axzz27V8ezxHc</a><br />
<br />
Although there is a current spate of nuclear generation in development, global Uranium deposits are being depleted and have an uneven geo-political distribution. This means that security of supply is not guaranteed and that ultimately it will need to be replaced or substituted. The link below is to a US document on deposits for further information on the subject:<br />
<a href="http://home.tu-clausthal.de/~mrbl/pdf/AMS_Lehmann_EN_S16-26.pdf">http://home.tu-clausthal.de/~mrbl/pdf/AMS_Lehmann_EN_S16-26.pdf</a><br />
From this it is quite striking that two of the main nuclear economies (US and China) have very limited supplies of their own ore. The most useful quality ore deposits are found in Canada and Australia, both countries have strong lobbyists against developing uranium ore mines (although economically there will certainly be some exploitation).<br />
<br />
Thorium has been suggested as an alternative fuel source, it is more abundant and has some operational advantages in terms of conversion efficiency. It is not without disadvantage however, there are still a number of technical issues to be resolved and the isotope requires treatment with Uranium or plutonium in order to achieve criticality. This will mean that there will be a longer lead in time and it is likely to cost more. There would also be a need for different technologies to be deployed for treatment.<br />
<br />
A nuclear renaissance would also bring with it the risk of weapons and waste (in the sense that it could be accessed) proliferation. There are numerous types of reactor and several configurations within each generation (i.e. R & D power generation etc.). Although the act of building more reactors for power generation does not pose a significant direct risk of proliferation, the fact that more material that can be used for enrichment will be produced, means that there will be an increased risk.<br />
<br />
The following points summarise the problem and potential solutions that can be applied.<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: small;"><strong>Commonly identified problems</strong></span></span></span><br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Times;"></span></strong><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><div align="LEFT">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: small;">No technological fix can overcome a country’s resolve to </span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: small;">proliferate</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: small;">Enrichment and reprocessing present the highest risks<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><div align="LEFT">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: small;">Commercial reactors have much lower risk, but can contribute to </span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: small;">proliferation</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><div align="LEFT">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: small;">A combination of institutional and technology solutions will be </span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: small;">required</span></div>
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><div align="LEFT">
<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: small;"><strong>Suggested means to address identified problems</strong></span></div>
<div align="LEFT">
<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: small;"><strong></strong></span></span></span> </div>
<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><div align="LEFT">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: small;">Provide an institutional framework to avoid new </span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: small;">enrichment/reprocessing capabilities (the“Attractive Deal')</span></div>
</span><div align="LEFT">
<br /></div>
</span><div align="LEFT">
<br /></div>
</span><div align="LEFT">
<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: small;">Develop more proliferation resistant reprocessing technologies to </span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: small;">be used by countries that recycle fuel</span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><div align="LEFT">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: small;">Further improve the proliferation resistance of reactors, especially </span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: small;">those that are deployed to new nuclear countries</span></div>
</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"></span></span><br />
In essence it is careful monitoring of the fuel supplied and used, allied to what comes out, that will determine the overall risk of proliferation. New more efficient reactors can also help, but it must also be borne in mind that specific reactors designed for enrichment exist around the globe and are those that require the most careful monitoring.<br />
<br />
Given the costs and risks that are associated with nuclear energy, are we any closer to resolving the paradox that exists? Current public and political policy/strategy may give some clues as to whether or not a consensus is forming.<br />
<br />
The diagram below maps the current global status of nuclear power generation.<br />
<a class="image" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Nuclear_power_station.svg&page=1"><img alt="" class="thumbimage" height="254" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Nuclear_power_station.svg/500px-Nuclear_power_station.svg.png" width="500" /></a><br />
<div class="thumbcaption">
<div class="magnify">
<a class="internal" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nuclear_power_station.svg" title="Enlarge"><img alt="" height="11" src="http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.20wmf12/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png" width="15" /></a></div>
The status of nuclear power globally:<div class="legend">
<span class="legend-color" style="background-color: #3b74bc; border: 1px solid black; color: black; display: inline-block; font-size: 100%; height: 1.5em; margin: 1px 0px; text-align: center; width: 1.5em;"> </span> Operating reactors, building new reactors</div>
<div class="legend">
<span class="legend-color" style="background-color: #5db6e9; border: 1px solid black; color: black; display: inline-block; font-size: 100%; height: 1.5em; margin: 1px 0px; text-align: center; width: 1.5em;"> </span> Operating reactors, planning new build</div>
<div class="legend">
<span class="legend-color" style="background-color: #4a9e06; border: 1px solid black; color: black; display: inline-block; font-size: 100%; height: 1.5em; margin: 1px 0px; text-align: center; width: 1.5em;"> </span> No reactors, building new reactors</div>
<div class="legend">
<span class="legend-color" style="background-color: #96d167; border: 1px solid black; color: black; display: inline-block; font-size: 100%; height: 1.5em; margin: 1px 0px; text-align: center; width: 1.5em;"> </span> No reactors, planning new build</div>
<div class="legend">
<span class="legend-color" style="background-color: #d4aa00; border: 1px solid black; color: black; display: inline-block; font-size: 100%; height: 1.5em; margin: 1px 0px; text-align: center; width: 1.5em;"> </span> Operating reactors, stable</div>
<div class="legend">
<span class="legend-color" style="background-color: #ef2929; border: 1px solid black; color: black; display: inline-block; font-size: 100%; height: 1.5em; margin: 1px 0px; text-align: center; width: 1.5em;"> </span> Operating reactors, considering phase-out</div>
<div class="legend">
<span class="legend-color" style="background-color: black; border: 1px solid black; color: black; display: inline-block; font-size: 100%; height: 1.5em; margin: 1px 0px; text-align: center; width: 1.5em;"> </span> Civil nuclear power is illegal</div>
<div class="legend">
<span class="legend-color" style="background-color: #b9b9b9; border: 1px solid black; color: black; display: inline-block; font-size: 100%; height: 1.5em; margin: 1px 0px; text-align: center; width: 1.5em;"> </span> No reactors</div>
</div>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">IAEA 2012.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"></span><br />
In summary, it would appear that the paradox is not yet resolved, however there are some patterns emerging. <br />
<br />
The oil producing states seem to favour nuclear as a replacement for fossil fuels, although this is tempered by investment also in renewables. <br />
<br />
The BRIC's also seem to be favouring some development of nuclear generation, this appears to be as a means of maintaining competitive energy supplies as their economies and outputs grow. Most are embarking on nuclear generation for the first time which means that they do not have first hand experience problems associated with generation, ageing plant and waste disposal.<br />
<br />
The communist (and former communist) countries have wide adoption of nuclear power generation and are experienced in operation and building of plant. They have however, experienced the worst examples of the downside of nuclear energy with the meltdown at Chernobyl. Because these states have very limited public participation in planning processes, policy determination and human rights to protest, it is not surprising that it is here where the paradox is most stark and also, the area of most concern going forward.<br />
<br />
Many developed nations are starting to reign back on development of nuclear power generation, Japan not surprisingly, is moving away from nuclear as is Germany. France and the US are both finding that costs associated with upgrading (following stress tests) and maintaining older plant to run for longer are becoming increasingly prohibitive. Europe, the US and Japan seem to be leaning more towards renewables, perhaps this will help to provide a clearer, more balanced evidence base upon which to answer the paradox.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5243965773842159643.post-51962290328594945512012-09-10T12:52:00.000-07:002012-09-10T13:12:17.896-07:00Quantitative Easing, ideologically pleasing?!!!Chancellor George Osborne was roundly booed when he attended the Paralympics recently, and not without good reason! After all he has presided over calamitous economic policies based on austerity that have not brought about growth, as promised. He is also seen as the villain of piece in demolishing totally the credibility of the greenest government ever, by trying to ride roughshod over planning regulations and cutting subsidies for renewable energy, whilst supporting fossil fuels.<br />
<br />
The tendrils of the Treasury extend into every facet of government business, not just in departmental spending budgets, but also policy areas. But what of core economic policy, who is this affecting and how, what lurks in the big red box?<br />
<br />
I want to have a bit of a rant about the ideological impacts, as well as the economic ones, of Quantitative Easing in all of its various guises and ask how this economic instrument might deliver a bigger ideological impact than it does an economic one.<br />
<br />
Quantitative Easing (QE) was sold to us as a means to deliver money into the economy in order to stimulate lending, thus helping those looking to buy a new home or for those wanting to expand their business. The reality however, appears to be quite different, for the following reasons:<br />
<br />
In the US where multiple phase QE was also in use, we had case studies available, which when considered, you may wonder why we went ahead with further rounds of QE. <br />
<br />
<em>The Fed's Quantitative Easing Part 2 has destroyed $4.6 trillion in household wealth, all to boost the stock portfolios of the top 10%.</em><br />
<em></em><strong></strong><br />
<strong>The Federal Reserve's stated goals in launching QE2 were to trigger a "wealth effect" and boost inflation. The net result of their program is a massive destruction of household wealth.</strong> The basic idea is that goosing "risk assets," i.e. stocks, then consumers will feel wealthier and thus motivated to open their wallets and spend, spend, spend. This spending won't be based on any increase in income (household income fell in 2009 despite the massive run-up in stocks) but on the illusion of greater wealth created by a temporarily rising stock market.<br />
<br />
Read more: <a href="http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-11-10/markets/30039943_1_household-wealth-wealth-effect-total-financial-assets#ixzz265cR7N8d" style="color: #003399;">http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-11-10/markets/30039943_1_household-wealth-wealth-effect-total-financial-assets#ixzz265cR7N8d</a><br />
<br />
The rich, that’s according to <a href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/news/2012/nr073.pdf" target="_blank" title="bankofengland.co.uk - The distributional effects of asset purchases">a Bank of England study, out today</a>, on the distributional effects of quantitative easing.<br />
This from the research:<br />
<blockquote>
By pushing up a range of asset prices, asset purchases have boosted the value of households’ financial wealth held outside pension funds, but holdings are heavily skewed with the top 5 per cent of households holding 40 per cent of these assets.</blockquote>
The Bank's strategy has been criticised by groups representing savers and
pensioners because of its impact on <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/interest-rates" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Interest rates">interest rates</a>,
annuity rates and gilt yields, which have all fallen since QE began.<br />
<br />
In terms of the number of rounds of QE that are issued, it would appear that there is a diminishing utility associated with further rounds of QE, but also an increase in the inherent level of risk.<br />
<br />
In effect the top 1% have the most to gain (this is the political, financial and industrial elite) and the 99% are left with the scraps and an enhanced economic risk.<br />
<br />
Those risks are hard to pin down, but as in the report to the BoE (above), a part of this lies in the fact that QE may not deliver any long term benefits in employment, guilt yields or house prices (general asset values). You cannot just go printing money without the risk of impacts and probably the most dangerous of those for most of us, is the risk of an unpredictable and explosive dose of inflation!<br />
<br />
So, coming back to the question of fiscal policy or ideology, it would appear that this is slight of hand, providing opportunity for wealth creation/harvesting by the few through asset enhancement. Meanwhile the vast majority might say that they have detected little or no benefit but are however, now saddled with the devaluation of the domestic economy and the risk of an inflation bubble.<br />
<br />
Some might say that there is a greater degree of certainty over the ideological outcome (in terms of where the wealth ends up, its difficult to call it a distribution), than there are over the economic outcomes!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584394878288653671noreply@blogger.com0