The 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.

Amongst the issues to look at are:

• Safety and overall risk.
• Cost and comparison with renewables.
• Proliferation.
• Perception and political acceptance.

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.

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:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/fukushima_accident_inf129.html

A study, published in the journal Energy and Environmental Science, uses a three-dimensional model 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.

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 from 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 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 25% more moralities than Fukushima despite California having one fourth the local population density due to differing meteorological conditions.

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:
Ch WHO Report into deaths and casualties: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html
5 September 2005 | Geneva -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.
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.

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.

Following the Fukushima Diachi incident 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.

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).
 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 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!
More on this story below:
 http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112699014/nuclear-power-plants-tsunami-risk-092212/

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:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/about-us/economics-social-research/2127-electricity-generation-cost-model-2011.pdf

The table below gives levelised costs for a selection of generation technologies as at 2010.

UK energy costs for different generation technologies in pounds per megawatt hour (2010)

Technology	Cost range (£/MWh)[citation needed]
Biomass	60–120
Coal with CO2 capture	100–155
Natural gas turbine, no CO2 capture	55–110
Natural gas turbines with CO2 capture	60–130
New nuclear	80–105
Offshore wind	150–210
Onshore wind	80–110
Solar farms	125–180
Tidal power	155–390

Divide the above figures by 10 to obtain the price in pence per kilowatt-hour.
More recent UK estimates are the Mott MacDonald study released by DECC in June 2010 ^[14] and the Arup study for DECC published in 2011.^[15]


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.

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.

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!

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.

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:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2efd47ba-27fa-11e0-8abc-00144feab49a.html#axzz27V8ezxHc

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:
http://home.tu-clausthal.de/~mrbl/pdf/AMS_Lehmann_EN_S16-26.pdf
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).

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.

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.

The following points summarise the problem and potential solutions that can be applied.
Commonly identified problems

No technological fix can overcome a country’s resolve to proliferate

Enrichment and reprocessing present the highest risks

Commercial reactors have much lower risk, but can contribute to proliferation

A combination of institutional and technology solutions will be required

Suggested means to address identified problems

 

Provide an institutional framework to avoid new enrichment/reprocessing capabilities (the“Attractive Deal')

Develop more proliferation resistant reprocessing technologies to be used by countries that recycle fuel

Further improve the proliferation resistance of reactors, especially those that are deployed to new nuclear countries

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.

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.

The diagram below maps the current global status of nuclear power generation.

The status of nuclear power globally:

Operating reactors, building new reactors

Operating reactors, planning new build

No reactors, building new reactors

No reactors, planning new build

Operating reactors, stable

Operating reactors, considering phase-out

Civil nuclear power is illegal

No reactors

IAEA 2012.

In summary, it would appear that the paradox is not yet resolved, however there are some patterns emerging.

The oil producing states seem to favour nuclear as a replacement for fossil fuels, although this is tempered by investment also in renewables.

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.

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.

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.

Quantitative 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.

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?

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.

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:

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.

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%.

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. 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.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-11-10/markets/30039943_1_household-wealth-wealth-effect-total-financial-assets#ixzz265cR7N8d

The rich, that’s according to a Bank of England study, out today, on the distributional effects of quantitative easing.
This from the research:

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.

The Bank's strategy has been criticised by groups representing savers and pensioners because of its impact on interest rates, annuity rates and gilt yields, which have all fallen since QE began.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

Part 3 - CSR who owns it and what should it achieve?

On to part 3 blogging about CSR, I have tried to examine who has ownership and why, if this is effective or indeed a tool yet to realise its full potential. I have made some comparisons in the context of different capitalist models (Liberal v State), to see what differences emerge.

On this last leg I want to cover more ground on what CSR means to people, the state and corporations and what it might achieve depending upon where ownership lies. It is also worth exploring an extended version (or future direction) for CSR and where this might take us.

Under the current liberal model it is predominantly the larger corporations that practice CSR, using it as means to promote green credentials outwardly and exercising control over their supply chain inwardly. The whole process can be quite complex and therefore, quite hard to monitor and evaluate. There can be little doubt that some large corporations are taking their obligations seriously and making improvements to their efforts on sustainability. This kicks on down the supply chain, which can multiply the positive  i,pacts, however this system is not without its problems.

Firstly, whilst reporting can be put in one place the systems for monitoring are many and varied, ranging from statutory controls (permits for example) through voluntary accreditation schemes (i.e. sustainable forestry) and also internal management systems (again with varying levels of accreditation).

Statutory compliance is generally good (which says something about effective regulation) and is usually the most active part of any internal management system. It is also true however, that large corporations will use the existence of their own internal systems to lobby against further tightening of regulation and to seek to get dispensation with regulators. This may seem reasonable on the face of it, however there is compelling evidence that many internal management systems are not as robust as they are thought to be and accidents and non-compliance can be similar to sites that don't have such systems. Is this compatible with the objectives of CSR then, or would it be more ethical to continue to be inspected at greater frequency, to help build even greater resilience into internal systems?

Voluntary schemes suffer even greater vulnerabilities and cover various aspects of a number of supply chains. Large corporations are willing to join voluntary schemes (such as sustainably sourced timer, CDM and Fair Trade), however these supply chains span the globe. It has proven very difficult to monitor the performance of these schemes and often the operators of the scheme do not have the capacity to monitor or fully implement. NGO's have investigated some supply chains and found them to be lacking in terms of regulation and auditing leading to, for instance. corruption and fraud within the system (hardwood logging), or unsustainable projects being certified (as has happened with CDM).

Whilst failures of this nature cannot be placed directly at the door of the large corporations, the ethical question around ownership of CSR remains. There is a basic paradox between corporations signed up to CSR making promises (or setting targets) and costs to shareholders of delivering these as obligations within a liberalised market. Many reported 'successes' are genuine triple bottom line gains, however these gains may often be offset by displacement or growth to other product ranges, which may not be measured and reported.

By way of a case study to demonstrate the paradox, take the energy industry. It is becoming more evident that investment in renewable energy technologies is both sustainable and sound, however the scale of the industry creates an impasse in moving towards more sustainable options. The UK estimates that investment of £200bn will be required over the next decade to upgrade energy infrastructure, however this is based on the presumption of a continued heavy reliance upon the National Grid and gas generation. This is not the most sustainable option and therefore, flies in the face of CSR objectives, as a more decentralised supply base with less reliance on the grid and gas would be a much more sustainable option and would encourage greater (and more diverse) renewable generation closer to point of demand, which in turn should significantly reduce transmission losses and create more jobs. This situation is echoed in the US and other countries.

Without the investment we face power cuts and outages, however it seems that investors are only willing to support investment in large energy companies and the grid model. Could this be because tax payers money is still being used to support fossil fuel and nuclear energy companies, something that is surely unacceptable under CSR?

So what about CSR within a state capitalist model? The level of direct intervention is key here! If a government is operating a company on behalf of the state (and therefore the general population) the obligations of that company should reflect very closely the mandate of that government in respect to all issues of sustainability. Nevertheless, this could still be carried out merely as a box ticking exercise, or more positively, the company could be a flagship where policy can actually be formulated, researched and tested. This might be relatively easy on a state owned railway (as they are very efficient in terms of CO2) and are a relatively safe means of transport, however this might become more difficult if you are operating a nationalised oil company!

If policy is correct, then it should be easier within this model to raise investment for the most sustainable option (Chinese solar expansion is a good example), dependent upon the level of private money that might be sought (as most large infrastructure models work this way) and their willingness to participate (a problem UK and France have encountered with nuclear generation ambitions).

This all brings us back very nicely to the central question(s) about CSR and about who should operate it and how. Could CSR actually be a tool for transition to a more socialist model (as predicted by Marx) at one extreme, or will it just be a badge for large corporations to polish that will have little meaning or impact to the man and woman on the street?

For so long as we operate within a liberalised market, it is a given that the shareholder will be king! It is imperative therefore, that CSR becomes a priority with the board and of the shareholders. I believe that this is starting to happen, with a number of ethical investment options emerging and a number of blue chip companies trading on green credentials. It is important to recognise however, that the whole edifice only stands, so long as the foundations are solid, something which is not completely proven as yet. Failures will undermine confidence and devalue CSR, therefore it is important to ensure robust monitoring and regulation to uphold these values.

Central to making CSR a driver for change and investment within the liberal capital context, is the education of shareholders and investors alike, to recognise true sustainability and to have faith in the science and research that underpins it. I think there is a long way to go here yet as  shareholders and CEO's alike, have to be able to differentiate between short term variations  (in markets, economies etc.) and the longer term objectives required by CSR. This has been witnessed recently with the economic downturn and the growth at all costs mentality seen in governments let alone individual companies! If it were sustainable before and added to the triple bottom line, then the same holds true now!

Within the state capitalism model CSR has the potential to be more joined up with national policy and as a result may have more credibility with people. If large state owned companies are seen to be driving the CSR agenda forward, this will impact across the whole supply chain and can be a major component in delivering policy and meeting obligations. In a reverse of the liberal model state owned companies can be used themselves as examples of good practice and can educate at the same time.

It will also offer people a direct means by which people can measure the degree of success of  implementation of green policies through the performance reporting of state industries and allow them to align their thinking with sustainability issues.

As we move forward there is a greater degree than ever before of economic uncertainty, there is also the spectre of looming resource shortages and the impacts of climate change to factor in. Actively seeking to make CSR work can tell us more about how our largest companies perform in these respects, I see it at the very least as a means to communicate with large corporations about their efforts to reduce impacts.  The more people that understand and use CSR as a means to judge ethical performance and link it to buying habits and choices the more effective it will become.

In conclusion I would say that CSR ownership needs to be with all of us and that it can only be effective where there is a wide understanding of the objectives, such that we can ask the right questions. The underpinning mechanisms are very complex, especially for the liberal model, making proper audit and regulation difficult, however this is essential to credibility.

The liberal and state models operate in different ways, however the state model may offer a little more in terms of connectivity with the end user and feedback through to political agenda setting.

It may of course all become quickly irrelevant, if as predicted, the current model succumbs to the pressures of population growth, resource depletion and climate change!

Hope you enjoyed the diatribe, please feel free to add any comments and look out for new topics!

Liberal v state capitalism and how CSR performs.

Continuing on a theme from the last post, I'm trying to explore where CSR sits within the two competing models of capitalism. The first blog looked at the main differences and laid out some of the areas to explore. This blog intends to look at the pros and cons of the two models, to help identify where CSR sits and to see if its impacts or purpose may differ.

In order to tie these together, I have copied  a chart below showing major state and private operations around the World and the share of Nat v state listed companies.


Ref: Economist.

Tabulated below are some thoughts on pros and cons for liberal and state capital enterprises, it is not exhaustive, but is there to provoke thought and provide a basis for some analysis about the perception and function of CSR within these regimes.

Some examples are given to illustrate points, however it must be taken into account that in reality there are a number states that operate varying degrees of state capitalism and some operate constraints to the extend that a market isn't fully liberalised, so there is a total spectrum of possibilities.

Topic area	Liberal capitalism	State capitalism
Business type.	Performs well with start up and innovation, more freedom to find investment. Suited to consumer goods hi tech etc.	More suited to large infrastructure projects, can align investment to seed national priority industries (I.e. utilities, transport etc.). Service industries may also be suited, including elements of finance and banking (especially as you tend toward a more socialist model.
Organisation.	Decision making more streamlined, especially for smaller companies, policy more focused and less external influence/interference. Larger enterprises can become bureaucratic and may face other difficulties where there might be a mismatch with state policy (rail v air).	Generally larger enterprises, more bureaucracy and probability of external influence. This can hinder development and productivity, but could also provide a more direct route for state support.
General economic impact	Exists to provide a return to shareholders, job and wealth creation, pays taxes to state. For as many shades of capitalism as there are, it is quite possible that private companies may receive state aid and conversely avoid full tax obligations in the states in which they are based.	Quite often receive large state aid as a consequence of strategic positioning, however there is often scope to use consultants/specialist to enhance areas of performance. Usually large employers that can provide benefits of employment stability as well as a return to the state when operating efficiently within a market.
General social benefits	Blue chip companies always bring kudos with them and the possibilities of spin off business and partnerships. The flip side of this however, is that they can relocate (maybe for lower corporation tax or workforce skills). Larger enterprises often bring growth or stability to the areas they occupy and will willingly volunteer to fund or participate in community projects, however their allegiance is still to their shareholders and often there are conflicts with communities over planning issues for instance.	State enterprises by contrast can be seen as being a bit moribund and may occupy more run down areas, however this image is changing. New state projects are now seen as flagship enterprises and are used to demonstrate high standards in environment and social practice (although it would be easy to say that this can be engineered through planning to some extent). Nonetheless this is seen as a positive and can also allow for a more diverse (or self contained) enterprise) through, for instance the provision of training academies and health care services.
Knowledge transfer/success rate	Large corporations often have to compromise in terms of selling knowledge in order to gain access to markets or to gain access to large government contracts. This enables a state to play catch up at a fast pace as well as much reduced development costs. Private companies are also vulnerable to buy out by state enterprises, enabling them to access technology and skills that can be quickly replicated and used.	State enterprise has not always been able to benefit from venture capital in the same way as private enterprise, leading to a poor conversion rate from innovation into realty. State links with universities is generally strong, although in the US corporate sponsorship is advanced within their system. The weak link has always been access to analysis and well targeted venture capital. Different methods have been used to overcome this from tweaking how states fund universities (as in the UK) to building complete cities designed to showcase and encourage research and innovation as in China.

I hope that this represents a fair reflection of the status of the two models and their strengths and weaknesses. I would like to take the information so far and analyse this in the context of CSR, leading to some conclusions and, quite likely, some more questions!
For the next blog.

Who should own CSR and how does capitalism serve this?

I suspect that this topic will roll over into a series of posts, as there are a number of topic areas to discuss and related issues that are important in their own right.

I want to explore whether or not the current economic model has reached the end of shelf life and if it is or should still be relevant to humanist and social justice objectives.  Where should ownership of CSR lie and who are the best arbiters?

So first up, it is perhaps good to look at current alternatives, to try to establish if they can deliver better democratic accountability (and hence, social responsibility) from capitalist activity. To this end I want to examine how liberal capitalism performs against state capitalism as a reasonable first step for comparison.

I would readily accept that there is no absolute in this, more a number of shades of grey that relate to the starting point for any given economy (are moving from totalitarian control or looking to re nationalise?). China and Russia would seem to be the most obvious examples, however other Asian countries and Brazil could also lay claim to operating a competitive state capitalism. There are a number of pros and cons to discuss, however for me the bottom line is not shareholder return alone, its more about well being and contribution that is made to sustainable living.

Marx defined capitalism as a step in our history where, capitalism once progressive will stagnate and fail due to increasing inequality and the contradictions that this produces (is this being evidenced now?). Thus it may be reasonable to ask if operators of state capitalism are cutting out that phase of economic evolution and following a progressive agenda, as opposed to the view that they are moving towards a more conventional capitalist model.

Well there's an opening gambit, I will look at pros and cons next and hope you find it of interest and continue to follow (please feel free to comment too!).

People power as a destructive force.

People power is often seen as a positive use of our freedom of choice to demonstrate solidarity and underpin the cause of social justice. In this instance I refer to the power of a vast global population to change the balance of resource and climate to the point where we risk (or reach species extinction.

Serious stuff, but I hear muttering that it wont happen just yet, why should I bother right now? Well perhaps our grisly destiny is peering at out at us from behind the curtains of our collective denial, perhaps it is really only just around the corner!

Thresholds (and supportive capacity), the maths of exponential growth mean that even our best models are always likely to be a reactive scenario rather than a projection. It will place us in jeopardy to only think in straight lines.

Enter a computational research scientist by the name of Stephen Emmott who has created a sublime piece of theatre, based upon the science of overpopulation and backed by his huge capacity for handling research in computational science. He takes the audience through the facts and figures in a precise and informal way, describing himself as a rational pessimist, based upon the probability that we cannot cope with the level of change required to be optimistic in any rational way. The play is called 10 Billion and the run is sold out, but I hope more people do get to see it.

A more comprehensive critique can be found here:
https://twitter.com/marksandspencer/status/232518944769056768/photo/1
I would recommend a read.

As if to prove the point about rational pessimism, I would like to share an example of irrational optimism, that is, that by using fewer plastic bags we shall in some way do so much good. Life cycle figures for various bags are fairly inconclusive, you would have to use a hemp bag a good number of times for it outperform  a plastic carrier. Most people re-use their plastic carriers for various things, thus rendering them more sustainable than some other options.

On the issue of plastic waste fouling the land and oceans, yes it is a problem, but is just one of production and use or our behaviours, handling and duty of care that are more important?

I'm sure you will find this article informative and amusing on the subject:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/03/plastic-bag-conspiracy-deadly-distraction

So, to conclude this chapter, I would ask that everyone should think (deeply if you like) about the true benefits of many campaigns (given that it is possible to carry on only a limited number) in relation to their over distraction from more important issues, you know the ones, the sort politicians are really scared to tackle! That;s where people power truly belongs.

The Ice Man cometh?

It seems that just as fast as researchers and modellers update and upgrade their predictions for climate change models, something happens that sends you back to the drawing board to start all over!

This last week has seen just such an example, where evidence from NASA satellites has uncovered an unusual phenomenon of ice melt in Greenland. Rather than go through and regurgitate all of this, I have linked to some articles from the Guardian that explain well the facts and potential issues, including the graphic ice melt flooding.

I think that this also  links well with news this week, that scientists and meteorologists are closer to identifying some causative effects from global warming to more localised extreme weather events.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/26/arctic-climate-change?intcmp=122

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/26/greenland-ice-sheet-borrowed-time?intcmp=122

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/picture/2012/jul/27/glaciers-flooding?intcmp=122#