What 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!

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!

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!

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?

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!

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!
If you've got your hand up, you may be excused, you probably don 't need the money or you are already a politician!

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?

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.

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!!

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?

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.

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)!

Is 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Quick fire rant!

Today is really cold here!

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!!

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!!

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!!

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!!!

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!!

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!

Where'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.

People are starting to question how it might be properly implemented and enforced, quite reasonable questions, I would say!

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.

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!

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.

Briefly these area:

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Similar (or better) incentives need to be put in place to encourage re-use.
• Waste reduction, and avoidance needs clear policy leads and should sit with one department and have a much higher profile than it has currently

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!

Questioning 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?

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.

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!

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?

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Dumping cash into a silo!

Back onto the nuclear tip with this blog!

Sellarfield is centre stage for this diatribe, as it exemplifies the problems that persist for nuclear energy, in the perceptual, economic and technical context.

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.

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!

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.

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!!

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

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!

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).

Link to Guardian article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/16/nuclear-waste-sellafield?intcmp=122

Link to NAO site:
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1213/sellafield_risk_reduction.aspx

Sandy, 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.

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.

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!

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
people and ecosystems and the clean up could prove prohibitively expensive, due to the range and distribution of toxins.

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!

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.

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!