Beyond Growth.

For a while now i have been wrestling with the idea of economic growth. In general it is said that 'old school' environmentalists are anti-growth. In the US i think most NGO's are reactionary in this regard, they have rejected this stance with some enthusiasm and taken to working with companies.

My thinking on this issue has been influence by Amory Lovins, William McDonugh, Jonathan Porrit, Herman Daly, Donella Meadows and recently by Nordhaus and Schellenburger.

Herman Daly offers the following statement which may allow a reconcilliation;

"To make this case they would have to seperate economic growth (defined as an expansion of GNP) into its qauntitative physical componenet (resource throughput growth) and it's qaulitative , non-physical component (resource efficiency imporvement)."

We can see that growth is not the same as devlopment. Growth is an increase in throughput which can lead to development or collapse due to environmental stress. Development in a zero growth manner is possible by increasing resource efficiency.

So perhaps Monbiot is with Daly in being anti-growth and pro-evelopment. This is where i stand as the laws of nature seem to demand it. It may also be where Nordhaus and Schllenburger are, and Jonathan Porrit. S&N subtitle Break Through 'from the death on environmentalism to the politics of possibility' and argue against the politics of limits. Is this whole debate cooked up, are we all after the same thing? An end to measuring gdp as wealth? Presumably those environmentalists who have thought about it can't be pro-growth in the material throughput sense?

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Limits to Growth.

I`m reading Limits to Growth at the moment. More on that later, for now just a note.

Limits to Growth introduces the idea of global ecological overshoot. This is a simple idea to explain, the suggestion is that there is a danger of economic growth occurring that leads to such a burden on the resources of our planet that they cannot be replenished. If this where to happen we would use up our resources until a point came when they where no longer there. Simple right? Now there are many people who say that we are currently in such a position, that we are overshooting, Jeff Sachs--head of the millennium development goals--is one. But perhaps you don't believe him that we are at 130% of the capacity of the planet and therefore meeting 30% of our needs from finite resources, i have a simpler argument.

The things needed for overshoot are...

1. Rapid change.


2. Limits to that change.


3. Errors or delays in perceiving the limits and controlling that change.

Given these pre-conditions for overshoot i`m worried. I`m not completely confident that a significant portion of our current resource demand is above and beyond what can be replenished. But as GDP is a good measure of physical throughput and as global GDP is currently increasing it is likely that by 2050 due to compound interest the economy will be 4-6 times the size that it is now. So it seems incredibly unlikely that all those doing ecological foot printing are wrong enough for the global economy not to be on a path to overshoot. Furthermore do you believe that we have an institution that could look at the rate of global economic growth and limit that? I don't think that we have a system for limiting change--damaging or otherwise.

Ok, so a long note.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Sustainable Automobile Transport: Book Review

Sustainable Automobile Transport (SAT) is a good title for a recent book by, Lisa Ryan and Hal Turton, on motorised transport. The title is appropriate as it stretches the idea of sustainability beyond its sensible definition, reflecting a major flaw in the book. The aim implied by the subtitle 'Shaping Climate Change Policy' is inevitably damaged by this basic mismatch between more sustainable technology and real sustainability. In it's most elementary form sustainability is the ability to continue without coming up against the physical limits of a system. Being 'more sustainable' in the context of carbon emissions is just taking a more gradual path towards destabilisation of the climate. I was left with the feeling that i hadn't seen a real path towards sustainability, the real conclusion to be drawn is that automobile transportation is an inherently unsustainable sector and that a more holistic approach that includes mass transit, planning and public education is required. SAT therefore fails in it's main objective but actually offers a very good guide to the more humble task of guiding us towards the most effective policies and combinations thereof to reduce the climatic impact of this highly significant sector.

SAT first shows signs of bulking at the scale of the problem we face in the introduction where it states that “Long-term environmental stress is mitigated significantly. In particular, carbon emissions at the end of the are approximately at or bellow today's levels”. Considering that conservative estimates suggest a 60% reduction in GHG emissions globally by 2050 is required a stabilisation of emissions from the transport sector isn't relevant to climate policy. The focus on a horizon going out to 2100 is also insufficiently urgent, climate scientists tell us that the next 20-50 years is the key challenge. It is inconceivable for this reader to contemplate discussion of long term energy scenarios without explicit reference to carbon budgets resultant globa l temperature changes.

I felt that SAT did far better at covering the details of taxes and charges currently levied on drivers. Comparing national policies is often fascinating, in the case of cars the German Eco-Tax was a fascinating instrument which i hadn't heard of before. This tax levied on gas, petrol, diesel, electricity and heating oil, increasing incentives for efficiency, and was given back to society as reduced pension contributions. It has been said before that Detroit is struggling under the weight of health and pansion contributions perhaps a similar deal would work in the US? In fact a whole range of interesting schemes where discussed, from mid-stream emissions trading where car companies are given responsibility for emissions and therefore a motive to reduce emissions, to local congestion charges and raising parking prices.

A good part of this book was devoted to technological development of automobiles but i was personally unconvinced by the projections. I am more concerned by the negative potential of biofuels and more optimistic on the potential of battery powered cars the the authors.

In conclusion, i feel that SAT is a useful book for those working on policies for automobile management, either working for government or for NGO's. For people generally interested in the transport sector and solving it's climate change related issues i would recommend a book taking a inter-modal approach. I also offer words of caution to those who would use this book as a guide to the future of automobile development, this is all rather uncertain at present.

Info:

• Buy on Amazon.
  

Hardcover: 304 pages
Publisher: Edward Elgar Pub (December 7, 2007)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1847204511
ISBN-13: 978-1847204516

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism and the Politics of Possibility

When 'The Death of Environmentalism' was released some time back, it caused a lot of heat in the environmental movement. The argument continues to this day and from this longevity the impression is created that there are substantial arguments made which have yet to be countered. Indeed i believe this to be the case, and the argument has more recently been expanded by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Schellenburger in a new book which i have just finished reading 'Break Through: From the death of environmentalism to the politics of possibility'.

This book is problematic in several ways. Firstly, there is a lot of generalisation about environmentalism: there are many people working on issues that effect the environment that don't see themselves as environmentalists. Secondly, the attacks on existing movements do seem a bit to vicious to be simply constructive criticism. Indeed the references to Nietzsche and and defence of the poorly understood concept of will-to-power, and of hubris, may leave some questioning just how much arrogance they can stomach.

"But a certain hubris is always required of people, be they environmentalists or neoconservatives, who wish to change the world."

Having accepted that the book delivers an unpalatable message from some rather unlikable messengers i ask you to read this book and try to give the critique a fair shot. I must admit that although at times the language of sociology and psychology left me uncertain about the books direction, the argument was in general very tight and for me at least, persuasive. So if you don't see yourself in the one dimensional picture of environmentalists painted, accept that an underlying concept is under attack and that concept is followed as an ideology imperfectly. The important question is weather or not you accept not the criticism but the desirability of the alternatives proffered.

The key arguments as i see them are:

1. Environmentalism has drawn a conceptual box around nature and has mobilised to protect this box. Human/Nature is only one way in which we can conceptually divide up the world. There are better ways , ways that will lead to better outcomes for interests as currently, and as more broadly defined.


2. By including humans in our vision as post-environmentalists we can broaden our sights and increase success politically. This change involves taking on non-environmental ends as part of our mission, this is crucial for making an issue as vast as climate change politically sustainable. A focus along the lines of Hawkens, Lovins and McDonugh should act as a focus for this new politics.


3. A society of economic uncertainty, inequality and poverty is not conducive to action on climate change or other issues that have similar results as climate change. We must build a movement to counter these issues, which are consistently at the top of opinion polls ans strongly relevant to elections. Part of this should be a huge state led programme of investment in energy research.
   

I agree with Nordhaus and Schellenburger on much of this. Point 1. is the nub of the essay. There is a call for, not a claim of, The Death of Environmentalism. The reasons being that the conceptual box 'environmentalism' is no longer the best one for serving our values. Point 2. is in my view an answer to the question of how we approach climate change, either as a technocratic or a systemic issue, the case made seems to be that a technocratic based approach would see the issue as pollution based, but that in order to make the requisite scale of change we need to activate people and businesses behind a positive vision that is more than simply against something bad, it is for something incredibly new and positive. Point 3. gives us some direction on a post-environmental movement. It relies on the case built throughout the early part of the book that environmentalim at its most successful was not counter cultural, but a part of generosity of heart that abounded at times of prosperity and optimism, a time when progressive politics was universally dominant in the US.

“Nothing is more central to this book than our contention that for any politics to succeed , it must swim with, not against the currents of changing social values."

If there is a weakness to Nordhaus and Schellenburger's essay then in my mind there are two candidates. Firstly, the essay tries to disband the idea of limits. In terms of a limit to growth, three tools are used to through this of into the distance. First is the idea of growth defined not as GDP but as well being; we therefore can promote growth through equality, economic justice and security. It would seem to me that this broader definition is what we are being asked to fight for, but GDP is still there at the heart of development.

"The new vision of prosperity will not be the vision of economic growth held by those who worship at the altar of the market. It will define wealth not in terms of gdp but as overall well-being"

Then the ideas that William McDonugh and his cradle to cradle thinking encapsulate well. If goods are created to be reused or there materials reincorporated then production becomes part of a cycle not part of a destructive linear process.

"What is needed, in short, is not so much less as different consumption."

Finally these ideas are paired with reference to Amory Lovins and Paul Hawken; huge advocates, not of different consumptions so much as efficient consumption. But we are left with the quote above and the words i placed in italics. Can we really move to a stage where GDP is absolutely decoupled from net material throughput of our economy?

The second apparent weakness is a pragmatic rather than conceptual one. We are told that in claiming to speak for nature and for things as they stand, we are conservative, even reactionary. Is is claimed that such appeals to nature as a higher authority are authoritarian, in the same way that religions make appeals based on there access to god's word. This took some time for me to understand or accept. I would say that in principal i now do. The environment isn't above politics. This was part of an argument that they needed to wind in order to do away with the conceptual box of environmentalism; however, in practice, we don't understand the ecology that supports us. So in virtually all cased the process of building a vision for a place we value, rather than protecting it on the basis that conservation is always good, would leave much potential value unrecognised.

I`m going to read this again in a few months. I certainly recommend that you read the book, there are many novel ideas. It's provocative stuff.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Book Review: Global Warming Survival Handbook

At the time of Live Earth a book appeared in my mail box the "Global Warming Survival Handbook" by David De Rothschild. This book aims to highlight the way that people can contribute to keeping our earth as a Live Earth.

The Handbook is broken down into four primary sections Food and Shelter, Survival Strategy, Energy and Transportation, and Work and Commerce. I like these categories particularly the 'Survival Strategy' section which is more about attitudes and behaviour than the rather superficial actions that these books tend to focus on. Having said that, there are a whole range of ways to reduce personal emissions as part of the book, from buying compact fluorescent to counting your food miles or using your bike to get to work. Although 'survival strategy' adds something to the book it fails to give sufficient credit to people who are likely to buy a book on climate change, De Rothschild misses a trick in talking about behaviour change, consumer preference, and not small p politics and activism.

Overall the Handbook is a good guide to greening your life. If you are interested in reducing your emissions and have been making attempts here and there, then this is a good place to look for a more comprehensive guide to personal action on climate change. If you feel that there has to be more than changing your lifestyle and your consumption habits in order to effect change then congratulations you are a true believer in democracy (and therefore dangerous). This is not the book for you but keep looking and good luck in taking power back and giving political passivise a smack in the face!



The Global Warming Survival Handbook is available on Amazon ($10.17) here.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Review: The Great Warming -- A Christian Perspective

Climate change, a christian perspective, an argument for action on climate change based on our common humanity. The Great Warming is a facinating fresh perspective on the problem of climate change.

We don't have the flash graphics and the head on approach of An Inconvenient Truth; we have a very nicely put together documentary about the impacts of climate change, focusing on human health, agriculture and personal stories.

This angle, along with the neutral term Great Warming, does well to move past the negative association that many US christians have with environmentalism. It seems obvious to many that climate change is a moral issue, perhaps to obvious for the comfort of those of us involved in this issue within a secular society. The involvement of the chirstian community therefore makes perfect sense, but how to get this 'creation protection' started? The great warming is a superb start, it's suitability for church groups and it's solutions based approach are most wellcome!

"In a couple of hundred years people will look back at us as we look back at the Bronze Age and the Stone Age, and we’ll be called the Fossil Fuel Age.”

"We are living at the dawn of a new age – an era of changing climate, erratic weather, and social calamities that could change our way of life forever."

If you wan't to make the case for conservation, for low impact living, in your community and the thought of somone as strongly associated with the Democrats as Al Gore dosent seem appealing then The Great Warming could be for you!

Clip from the film...



Background
Get Your Copy/Get Involved

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Review: Green Futures by Forum for the Future

There are a great variety of magazines and journals covering so called Green issues. Which of these reading materials are of interest is a very personal matter; are you more interested in lifestyle changes, environmental policy in your country, international progress on climate mitigation, the science of climate change, broader sustainability issues or perhaps a purely financial focus.

In my case, whilst I find lifestyle mags to be of some interest such works represent a niche market, albeit a niche that I very much hope expands, I am therefore more interested in progress both business and public sector that effects the wider population.

One of the best magazines that I have read on this aspect of action; progressive business and govornment policy, is "Green Futures".

Topics covored in recent issues range from wind and tidal power development and expansion to microgeneration payback times and trends internationally. The coverage of low impact transport systems and the role of urban planning is also of great interest to me. To quote Amory Lovins roughly 'Travel is a symptom of being in the wrong place'. In all but recreational examples this is a symptom that has a range of treatments; work, school, home and shopping should not each be a car journey away from each other.

One of the main reasons that I enjoy this magazine is probably the same as the reason that--sat typing this--i have just turned off the podcast i was listening to. We all want to stay informed but information without inspiration and without empowerment is depressing not activating. Forum for the future was set up "On a promise of solutions and partnerships, rather than conflicts and blame".

So if you are interested in a smart and creative business approach to climate change along with the latest development is Green policy then I highly recommend going over to the Forum for the Future website, checking out a few articles and buying that subscription...or maybe a Christmas present for someone else?

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Book Review: The Atlas of Climate Change

Climate change: a problem that is far more abstract that we would like.

This is certainly the case for those of us in the developed world who dont live on the produce of the land, who dont live by the sea and who know so little of our natural environment that even drastic ecological changes can pass us by.

One possible way to remove this perception of the abstract is to explore in detail where the droughts, the flooding and the biodiversity loss is going to be lost.

The atlas of climate change is devided into 7 sections covering; the signs of change, forcing change (geek for changes in the greenhouse effect), driving climate change (emmissions from transport), expected consequences, responding to climate change, commiting to soloutions (personal and public action) and climate change data.

Very much a reference work I cant see to many people sitting down and reading this from cover to cover. It is however a very useful and accesible reference work. If you are a climate activist wishing to make your point about the importance of engaging china in the dialogue, or a educator trying to get across the injustice of UK emmissions, or even a policy maker trying to make country by country comparisions this is a great place to start.

The atlas does a good job of combining detailed maps and images with larger trends: on one page we are shown how rising sea levels will affect various regions of the globe by 2100, ranging from over 90 million being inundated in india and pakistan to fewer than a million in east africa; on another page we are shown one of the instances of inundation, a 1m rise in sea level could devestate the nile delta and destroy 15% of egypts arible land.

Beyond the maps a good general introduction is given to the basics of climate change and the whole emissions situation is clarified. One point that I found perticularly interesting was that only 53% of post 1750 GHG emmisions where co2 and that heating and electricity only currently constitutes 21% of co2 emissions, i had always thought that co2 from power generation would be THE primary cause of climate change, trends are pushing in that direction but it is infact only one of many contributors, the scale of emmissions from landuse change and agriculture is really significant.

For anyone interested in climate change and wanting to understand our challenge better I can really recomend this book. I intend to keep this by my side, every time I write anything about energy use and trends this will be my first port of call to see if a more detailed look would be useful.

The Atlas of Climate Change is writen/researched by Kirstin Dow, Associate Prof. University of South Carolina and Thomas E Downing, director SEI in Oxford.

Published by Earthscan ISBN: 1-84407-376-9

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Book Review: Just One Planet--Poverty, Justice and Climate Change

For those of us working on climate change, it is often apparent that a surreal disconnect exists between our perceptions of the risks we face and the actions of those in wider society.

How often have you walked out of a conference—where the deadly effects of climate change have been eloquently outlined—and looked around in amazement at the ungrounded masses? Planes fly off to the USA for weekend breaks, 4x4's drive by on the two mile school run, people appear oblivious to the impending climate crisis. In reality this disconnect is untenable because climate change won't only affect environmentalists, we have Just One Planet and we all have to do our part to avoid destroying it.



Marks book 'Just One World—Poverty, Justice and Climate Change' covers basic climate science, adaptation strategies and policy frameworks for dealing with problem in a just manner. Whilst the introduction to climate science is reasonable it isn't anything new for people with a interest in climate change. The real strengths of the book are in it's examination of vulnerabilities, its explanation of adaptation strategies (particularly how these can be synergistic with development), and it's look at international climate policy.

The danger represented by climate change varies depending on location, the key factors being the physical impacts of climate change and the ability of the local populous to adapt. The worst impacts of climate change will be felt in sub-Saharan Africa and in parts of Asia. It therefore looks likely that in many cases the physical impacts will be heaped on the most vulnerable.



Vulnerability of a society is not simply dependant on its degree of wealth but also on how its industries will be impacted. In developing countries such as Tanzania, Bangladesh the primary industries are agriculture, forestry and fishing, constituting 44% and 23% of revenues respectively. In the developed world, even where agricultural activity is significant its input in terms of GDP is not, in the USA and the UK levels are 1.5 and 1% respectively. This disproportionate vulnerability is a key problem for climate negotiations , particularly when paired with the fact that the wealthiest 20% of the world are responsible for 63% of historic emissions and the lowest 20% just 3%.

Mark goes on to explain that not only is adaptation later likely to be hugely more expensive than mitigation now but that there is a real injustice in how many developed countries are approaching this question. Looking at what the most economical course of action is not only disregards the inherent value in our planets biological heritage but also skews analysis overwhelmingly towards considering the developed economies. Where are the needs of the poor considered in an economic analysis?

But far from being simply a record of climate injustice and its institutionalisation Just One Planet goes on to elaborate on how mitigation, adaptation and development can all be effectively integrated in the developing world. With a focus primarily on the LDCs and with significant reference to the work of Practical Action (ITDG), Just One Planet makes some genuinely important remarks on the real threat to humanity that climate change presents us with.

We can't fail in our fight against climate change as to do so would be to abandon billions to the long term poverty, the mellenium development goals are nothing but pipe dreams if we don't take rapid mitigation and adaptation seriously. Currently the adaptation funds have been pledged less than half a billion dollars, considering that for example protecting the coast of Tanzania will cost 15 billion, these pledges are utterly disproportionate with the severity of the situation.


For anyone with an interest in climate policy, development work or campaigning I can thoroughly recommend this book. From a personal perspective I found the chapter on international policy offered the greatest selection of ideas that where new to me, particularly the malfunctioning of the CDM, the arbitrary basis for the three adaptation funds and the barriers that prevent proper integration of adaptation and development.

D Mark Smith, October 2006 ISBN 1-85339-643-5; £14.95, $21.95, €28.95
Published By ITDG (Practical Action) more Info on Development Books
Available in the USA through Stylus Publishing

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Book Review: Big Coal--The dirty secret behind Americas' energy future.

This is my first book review. I was approached by Houghton Mifflin Company about reviewing the book...In general this is an interesting development; from my experience it seems that bloggers are increasingly being taken seriously as small scale media outlets.

Big Coal

The Dirty secret Behind America's Energy Future

by Jeff Goodell

In 'Big Coal' the author, Jeff Goodell, takes a critical look at coal power. The book is divided into three stages; getting coal out of the ground and to the power station, burning that coal and finally, the consequences of this carbon in the atmosphere. Looking at coal power generation Jeff shows quite clearly that besides greenhouse gases and electricity the biggest output from this form of generation is political power--power that is not constrained by wires.

Destroying the Myths of Clean Coal

"There are an estimated one trillion tones of recoverable coal in the world,
by far the largest reserves of fossil fuel left on the planet"

Later we are informed that coal produces over twice the carbon dioxide emissions of natural gas per unit energy--taken with the previous statement this is not a good combination. In the first section of the book many of coals' most potent myths are crushed. Chief amongst these myths is that 'clean coal' technology is clean. People are dying in there thousands, landscapes are being decimated by mountain top removal, climate change is being accelerated at an alarming rate.

A few things to consider when listening to a debate about 'clean coal' (clean doesn't usually imply carbon capture and storage).

• Coal doesn't bring wealth to a region. Over the last 150 years 13 Billion tones of coal have been carried out of West Virginia. The state isn't wealthy because of this, in fact it has the lowest median household income in the country!
• Coal isn't a small health problem. During the last three years--incidentally 3 of the 4 hottest years on record--72'000 people died prematurely as a result of coal fired power pollution, that is more than died from Aids, murder or drug overdose.
• Carbon Dioxide is pollution. No technology that emits huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere can legitimately be called clean. Destabilisation of the global climate is already killing tens of thousands and will have an increasingly severe toll on the worlds people and environment.
• Coal is't a secure form of energy. Centralized energy generation is never going to be secure against terrorist attack, one large generating unit is much easier to take out than millions of small wind turbines, solar panels and biomass boilers. This is particularly the case when the only way to get fuel in is on one railroad that traverses half the country!

The main reasons for reading this book would have to be the superb short stories; tales of valiant efforts by republicans who actually care to put in place strong regulations, tales of industrious scientists working out the links between particulate pollution and deaths, tales of very many smart people being hampered by very many highly resourced people with vested interests. This is a fascinating and enlightening book, despite the darkness of its subject matter.

For an interview with Jeff Goodel head over to global public media and hear more about this book from the man himself.

Postscript; Climate Change; ReviewA;

Home del.icio.us Digg This!