More than 50% of the world’s population live in cities; making cities sustainable is therefore an imperative in building a sustainable society. Cities are complex in terms of both infrastructure and the range of social interactions that makes the city operate. It is possible to make cities work like living organisms; capturing renewal energy, fully recycling waste and providing a vibrant, clean and enjoyable place to live. They can also appear like cancerous growth growing into mega metropolises from which the natural world is excluded.
I have just spent a very pleasant weekend in Bristol at the Bristol Harbour Festival, a celebration of culture and leisure. Throughout the city there were outdoor events ranging from concerts and circus performances to street buskers and market stalls. The theme was fun, enjoyment and entertainment; the sun shone and everybody seemed to have a good time. The hustle and bustle of people in close proximity brings joy and fulfilment but if resources are insufficient this can switch to conflict and strive. It is vital that we make our cities sustainable to reap the pleasures of communal living on show at the festival.
The City Council’s intention is to become a green city was evidenced by numerous recycling containers and policemen on bicycles. Bristol came top of the Forum for the Future’s index of UK Sustainable Cities in 2008 but has since slipped to 4th behind Newcastle, Leicester and Brighton. This competition between city leaders, to be the greenest city, should engage a virtuous cycle as each city tries hard to outdo the other.
Green aspirations are not the same as delivering green solutions. Our hotel was a prime example of how to use excess energy to little good effect; we slept very badly until we opened the window, turned off the air conditioning and let the night air waft through the room. The recycling in evidence was collecting and sorting piles of trash with little evidence of true recycling. Bristol is doing well on the relative scale presented in the Sustainable Cities Index but if there was an absolute scale from 1 to 10 ― with 1 being unsustainable and 10 being fully sustainable― Bristol would score a 1.1.
To make our cities free from fossil-fuel dependency and resources delivered through long supply chains will be a tough challenge. Bristol should be praised for taking the first step but it must be seen as a small first step on a long journey.
Note:
The Sustainable Cities Index tracks progress on sustainability in Britain’s 20 largest cities, ranking them across three broad baskets: environmental performance; quality of life; and future-proofing – how well they are addressing issues such as climate change, recycling and biodiversity.
Sunday, 31 July 2011
Monday, 25 July 2011
De-risking the corporation
It is appropriate to write about risks to the world economy and the problems of the Euro zone in a blog about sustainability, not only because these are important issues but because there are close parallels between the Euro crisis and the challenge of sustainability. European politicians are taking decisions that will take them through the next three months or the next year. There is little time for the deep thinking required when the focus is on the immediate containment of the crisis. Business leaders are subject to the same pressure to deliver this quarter’s, or this year’s results. Deep thinking over the longer term has to wait until the company is doing well and short-term profitability is secured.
The operations of many businesses are unsustainable, dependent on long supply chains and relying on fossil fuels, directly and indirectly through the electricity supply. The action of many executives is to focus on the medium-term, hedging fuel costs and seeking insurance for supply chain disruption. The real solution is to think longer term, remove fossil fuel from operations and shorten supply chains to bring them under closer control. This is not primarily a CSR activity, or action designed in response to climate change – although such reasons can be cited to burnish the reputation of the corporation – these are strategic choices to de-risk operations and lay the foundations for long-term profitability.
The operations of many businesses are unsustainable, dependent on long supply chains and relying on fossil fuels, directly and indirectly through the electricity supply. The action of many executives is to focus on the medium-term, hedging fuel costs and seeking insurance for supply chain disruption. The real solution is to think longer term, remove fossil fuel from operations and shorten supply chains to bring them under closer control. This is not primarily a CSR activity, or action designed in response to climate change – although such reasons can be cited to burnish the reputation of the corporation – these are strategic choices to de-risk operations and lay the foundations for long-term profitability.
Monday, 18 July 2011
Into Africa
David Cameron arrived into Africa today on the 93rd birthday of Nelson Mandela, that giant amongst world leaders.
The message being preached by David Cameron is that trade is the way for Africa to fix its problems. He brings with him a 25-strong delegation that includes business leaders and the trade minister lord Green. Perhaps David Cameron is right; perhaps trade is the solution to the deeply entrenched difficulties that the continent faces. However, there is a higher-level policy under which Africa will find its salvation, ‘sustainability.’ Trade can play its part, of course, but only within the context of sustainability. I enjoyed greatly my time working in Africa and wrote in the book Green Outcomes in the Real World:
‘In discussion with a colleague, the topic of Africa arose. We had both spent time on the continent and shared a high regard for the people of Africa and would like to support measures that addressed some of the problems. I attempted to steer the dialogue towards my ideas about sustainability as the way to support improvement in people’s lives. I quickly ran into a problem. My colleague was an advocate of neo-liberalism and working on deep-rooted assumptions about the benefits of globalization. His concept of equity was based on the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to live a lifestyle that matched his own, on the implicit assumption that every society should be helped to follow the development path of the West, and that free trade, open markets and free flows of capital were the way to achieve this.’
In the next paragraph, I went on to write, in the context of sustainability:
‘The world needs other concepts to replace the old concept of globalization but, until we accept that economic globalization is no longer the appropriate basis for human development, it is hard to build new structures of thought. We are forever trying to add refinements to an edifice that is starting to show cracks, when the action required is to underpin our thinking with new foundations.’
Africa is at a crucial stage in its development, with a number of countries, particularly China, looking at this resource-rich continent with a glint in their eye. Today, David Cameron should be careful to ensure that the needs of Africa are uppermost in his mind in respect for the legacy of Nelson Mandela who remains an icon of unselfish principled leadership.
The message being preached by David Cameron is that trade is the way for Africa to fix its problems. He brings with him a 25-strong delegation that includes business leaders and the trade minister lord Green. Perhaps David Cameron is right; perhaps trade is the solution to the deeply entrenched difficulties that the continent faces. However, there is a higher-level policy under which Africa will find its salvation, ‘sustainability.’ Trade can play its part, of course, but only within the context of sustainability. I enjoyed greatly my time working in Africa and wrote in the book Green Outcomes in the Real World:
‘In discussion with a colleague, the topic of Africa arose. We had both spent time on the continent and shared a high regard for the people of Africa and would like to support measures that addressed some of the problems. I attempted to steer the dialogue towards my ideas about sustainability as the way to support improvement in people’s lives. I quickly ran into a problem. My colleague was an advocate of neo-liberalism and working on deep-rooted assumptions about the benefits of globalization. His concept of equity was based on the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to live a lifestyle that matched his own, on the implicit assumption that every society should be helped to follow the development path of the West, and that free trade, open markets and free flows of capital were the way to achieve this.’
In the next paragraph, I went on to write, in the context of sustainability:
‘The world needs other concepts to replace the old concept of globalization but, until we accept that economic globalization is no longer the appropriate basis for human development, it is hard to build new structures of thought. We are forever trying to add refinements to an edifice that is starting to show cracks, when the action required is to underpin our thinking with new foundations.’
Africa is at a crucial stage in its development, with a number of countries, particularly China, looking at this resource-rich continent with a glint in their eye. Today, David Cameron should be careful to ensure that the needs of Africa are uppermost in his mind in respect for the legacy of Nelson Mandela who remains an icon of unselfish principled leadership.
Sunday, 10 July 2011
Energy prices set to soar
The UK government is championing policy that means – according to the Sunday Times – that household energy bills are ‘set to double’. This makes a good headline, but relies on the assumption that household consumption remains steady as the price of energy doubles. The intention of course is to cut consumption; more expensive energy makes people careful with what they use. As the cost of energy rises, we should be looking for solutions that hold household bills in check through greater efficiency and frugal behaviour recognising that energy is a valuable and limited resource.
All professionals involved with buildings, infrastructure and industrial processes need a compelling reason to be frugal with energy. Future energy bills will be affordable, not through holding prices down but through using less energy. The logic is inescapable but politics is not a rational process. When the energy market pushes prices higher, it is accepted as beyond the politician’s control. When politicians set policy that will drive energy prices higher, politicians get the blame.
The announcement of an overhaul of energy policy expected this week comes hard on the heels of energy price rises. The rational reaction is to support tough policy because the recent increase in the cost of energy is an indicator of massive price hikes to come as energy supplies are stretched. Of course we need to move quickly to reduce consumption; that means policy to support investment; first, in energy efficiency (the biggest win), second, in generating low-carbon energy. The policy has to be to push energy prices higher; it is disingenuous for observers to argue otherwise.
Opposing tough energy policy is like lemmings opposing calls to slow down as the mass migration flocks towards the cliff edge. We are enjoying cheap energy; it makes no sense to keep it cheap and ignore the fact that the balance of supply and demand will drop off a cliff unless we take action soon.
The government should give people credit for having more intelligence than a pack of lemmings and ignore reports in the press to hold back on high energy prices. The rational silent majority expect higher energy prices; there will be complaints but people know this is the future. Let us have clarity; high energy prices are just around the corner; all decisions must be based on this unambiguous foundation to policy.
All professionals involved with buildings, infrastructure and industrial processes need a compelling reason to be frugal with energy. Future energy bills will be affordable, not through holding prices down but through using less energy. The logic is inescapable but politics is not a rational process. When the energy market pushes prices higher, it is accepted as beyond the politician’s control. When politicians set policy that will drive energy prices higher, politicians get the blame.
The announcement of an overhaul of energy policy expected this week comes hard on the heels of energy price rises. The rational reaction is to support tough policy because the recent increase in the cost of energy is an indicator of massive price hikes to come as energy supplies are stretched. Of course we need to move quickly to reduce consumption; that means policy to support investment; first, in energy efficiency (the biggest win), second, in generating low-carbon energy. The policy has to be to push energy prices higher; it is disingenuous for observers to argue otherwise.
Opposing tough energy policy is like lemmings opposing calls to slow down as the mass migration flocks towards the cliff edge. We are enjoying cheap energy; it makes no sense to keep it cheap and ignore the fact that the balance of supply and demand will drop off a cliff unless we take action soon.
The government should give people credit for having more intelligence than a pack of lemmings and ignore reports in the press to hold back on high energy prices. The rational silent majority expect higher energy prices; there will be complaints but people know this is the future. Let us have clarity; high energy prices are just around the corner; all decisions must be based on this unambiguous foundation to policy.
Monday, 4 July 2011
Saving Civilization
‘If we dare not – or cannot – change society we will become victim of our own success.’
Victim of Success: Civilization at Risk ISBN 9780955736919
The Space Shuttle Atlantis will be displayed at the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida, but first it will take off on Friday 8th July for one last mission. If the Economist is right in its recent editorial, this will be ‘the end of the Space Age.’
The history of manned space flight began in 1961 when Yuri Gagarin completed an orbit of the Earth in the Vostok spacecraft and reached a pinnacle in 1969 when Neil Armstrong stepped onto the moon. The vision was that this was to be the start of humankind’s expansion to other worlds and other solar systems. The aim of the Space Shuttle programme was to make space travel routine, reliable, safe and cheap, with one shuttle flight a week at a cost of less than $2,000 dollars per Kg. In the end, the Shuttle flew once every three months at a cost of over $50,000 per kilogram and two out of six shuttles crashed killing the entire crew.
I hope Atlantis comes safely home to take up its place as a museum exhibit but I hope also that this does not signal the end of human aspirations to expand beyond the confines of Earth and establish colonies on other planets.
The attraction of continuing to explore space has lessened, but the imperative to do so has increased dramatically. Robot missions have explored the planets in our solar system and found inhospitable worlds where we could only eke out an existence in sealed domes. We now understand that our beautiful world is unique and although in the long future we may find another planet in orbit around a different star it will not have the abundant natural provisions of planet Earth. The prospect of building a new life far away has lost its appeal but the imperative to find another planet is strong because of our Lemming-like dash to exploit the Earth’s resources without regard to the state of the world for future generations.
It is time for real change.
Victim of Success: Civilization at Risk ISBN 9780955736919
The Space Shuttle Atlantis will be displayed at the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida, but first it will take off on Friday 8th July for one last mission. If the Economist is right in its recent editorial, this will be ‘the end of the Space Age.’
The history of manned space flight began in 1961 when Yuri Gagarin completed an orbit of the Earth in the Vostok spacecraft and reached a pinnacle in 1969 when Neil Armstrong stepped onto the moon. The vision was that this was to be the start of humankind’s expansion to other worlds and other solar systems. The aim of the Space Shuttle programme was to make space travel routine, reliable, safe and cheap, with one shuttle flight a week at a cost of less than $2,000 dollars per Kg. In the end, the Shuttle flew once every three months at a cost of over $50,000 per kilogram and two out of six shuttles crashed killing the entire crew.
I hope Atlantis comes safely home to take up its place as a museum exhibit but I hope also that this does not signal the end of human aspirations to expand beyond the confines of Earth and establish colonies on other planets.
The attraction of continuing to explore space has lessened, but the imperative to do so has increased dramatically. Robot missions have explored the planets in our solar system and found inhospitable worlds where we could only eke out an existence in sealed domes. We now understand that our beautiful world is unique and although in the long future we may find another planet in orbit around a different star it will not have the abundant natural provisions of planet Earth. The prospect of building a new life far away has lost its appeal but the imperative to find another planet is strong because of our Lemming-like dash to exploit the Earth’s resources without regard to the state of the world for future generations.
It is time for real change.
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Underwater Land Tenure
Britain used to be joined to the European land mass by a land bridge until about 8,500 years ago when melting glaciers raised sea levels and formed the English channel. It is normal that over geological time the geomorphology alters, fortunately ever so slowly so that the changes from one generation to another are barely noticeable – or that is how it was. Human activity is now driving change faster than nature acting alone.
Britain’s southern coast is slowly dropping into the sea. If you buy a house with a spectacular sea view built on the cliff top there is a risk that it will collapse into the sea. This is not caused by human activity and although it can be delayed it cannot be stopped by human protection measures; this is the natural process of change at work. A house built further back from the cliff edge may not have such good views but the owner can be confident of passing a house with value and a future onto their children and grandchildren. There is a balance to be struck between enjoying the best view in the owner’s lifetime and being able to preserve the family’s inheritance.
The situation for small island states is altogether more serious and in this case humankind is culpable. The Maldives and other tropical atolls are typically no more than a metre above sea level. Sea levels have risen by about 20cm over the past century; scientists predict this trend to continue, and to accelerate, as emissions of green-house gases continue to rise unabated. Under international law, an inhabited island can claim territorial rights but this does not extend to small rocks - or to an island completely submerged by the sea.
The owner of a house on the edge of England’s south coast has traded a beautiful outlook now for a collapse that they can hope will be beyond their lifetime. The industrialised nations are making a similar trade, burning fossil fuel in the knowledge that many small island states will cease to exist as a consequence. In the former case, the house owner is playing with the inheritance of their own children. In the latter case, rich nations are destroying the inheritance of the smallest nations on the planet. Compensation is likely to be paid but how do you value the loss of, not just a house, but a location to call home and a state that ceases to exist.
Britain’s southern coast is slowly dropping into the sea. If you buy a house with a spectacular sea view built on the cliff top there is a risk that it will collapse into the sea. This is not caused by human activity and although it can be delayed it cannot be stopped by human protection measures; this is the natural process of change at work. A house built further back from the cliff edge may not have such good views but the owner can be confident of passing a house with value and a future onto their children and grandchildren. There is a balance to be struck between enjoying the best view in the owner’s lifetime and being able to preserve the family’s inheritance.
The situation for small island states is altogether more serious and in this case humankind is culpable. The Maldives and other tropical atolls are typically no more than a metre above sea level. Sea levels have risen by about 20cm over the past century; scientists predict this trend to continue, and to accelerate, as emissions of green-house gases continue to rise unabated. Under international law, an inhabited island can claim territorial rights but this does not extend to small rocks - or to an island completely submerged by the sea.
The owner of a house on the edge of England’s south coast has traded a beautiful outlook now for a collapse that they can hope will be beyond their lifetime. The industrialised nations are making a similar trade, burning fossil fuel in the knowledge that many small island states will cease to exist as a consequence. In the former case, the house owner is playing with the inheritance of their own children. In the latter case, rich nations are destroying the inheritance of the smallest nations on the planet. Compensation is likely to be paid but how do you value the loss of, not just a house, but a location to call home and a state that ceases to exist.
Friday, 17 June 2011
Climate Change as an Opportunity
Two observations have grabbed my attention over the last 24 hours to lift climate change out of the doom-and-gloom locker and into the in-tray for bold action to make the transition to a low-carbon society.
First, Sir Nicholas Stern, the economist who led the UK study that showed that it would be cheaper to act sooner rather than later to counter climate change, gave a lecture in Dorchester last night. He started by laying down the foundations slowly, carefully and eloquently, with a distinct lack of histrionics. The science is rock solid; climate change is serious; business-as-usual will lead to catastrophic disaster.
Nicholas Stern went on to explain an optimistic scenario of coordinated action to address both CO2 emissions and poverty. In his view you cannot do one without the other. The message was clear that action is required now; further delay would make the transformation more difficult and keep society on the road to disaster.
As is often the case, it was the comments at question time where the really interesting information came out. He was asked about how people could be persuaded to accept a hair-shirt solution of reductions in consumption and restraints on lifestyle. In his reply, he explained that the financial down-turn of 2008 led to a small reduction in CO2 emissions, but this was insignificant in relation to the scale of what is required. His conclusion is that reducing growth and reducing economic activity is clearly not the solution. The solution is a transformation in the infrastructure of society which he called the ‘Energy Industrial Revolution’.
Meanwhile, this afternoon, I listened to a Press Conference on the closing day of the UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn. My attention was drawn to comments made by Jϋgen Lefevre representing the European Union. He explained that climate change had started as an environmental issue. Now, Europe is starting to look on climate change as an opportunity to help lift Europe out of the financial crisis. The agenda is opening out to a broader agenda of economic development.
Both Sir Nicholas Stern and Jϋgen Lefevre are pointing towards aspects of the broader agenda that I termed back in 2007 the ‘Sustainable Revolution;’ of which the Energy Industrial Revolution will be a part. The Sustainable Revolution will bring economic activity and jobs. Building a low-carbon society improves quality of life and reinforces energy security. The environmental imperative to act is strong, but the outcome is good for the economy and good for society.
What a shame that this carefully explained message from the experts is drowned out by misinformation from a few vocal people who want to resist change, hold back progress and grab the headlines.
First, Sir Nicholas Stern, the economist who led the UK study that showed that it would be cheaper to act sooner rather than later to counter climate change, gave a lecture in Dorchester last night. He started by laying down the foundations slowly, carefully and eloquently, with a distinct lack of histrionics. The science is rock solid; climate change is serious; business-as-usual will lead to catastrophic disaster.
Nicholas Stern went on to explain an optimistic scenario of coordinated action to address both CO2 emissions and poverty. In his view you cannot do one without the other. The message was clear that action is required now; further delay would make the transformation more difficult and keep society on the road to disaster.
As is often the case, it was the comments at question time where the really interesting information came out. He was asked about how people could be persuaded to accept a hair-shirt solution of reductions in consumption and restraints on lifestyle. In his reply, he explained that the financial down-turn of 2008 led to a small reduction in CO2 emissions, but this was insignificant in relation to the scale of what is required. His conclusion is that reducing growth and reducing economic activity is clearly not the solution. The solution is a transformation in the infrastructure of society which he called the ‘Energy Industrial Revolution’.
Meanwhile, this afternoon, I listened to a Press Conference on the closing day of the UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn. My attention was drawn to comments made by Jϋgen Lefevre representing the European Union. He explained that climate change had started as an environmental issue. Now, Europe is starting to look on climate change as an opportunity to help lift Europe out of the financial crisis. The agenda is opening out to a broader agenda of economic development.
Both Sir Nicholas Stern and Jϋgen Lefevre are pointing towards aspects of the broader agenda that I termed back in 2007 the ‘Sustainable Revolution;’ of which the Energy Industrial Revolution will be a part. The Sustainable Revolution will bring economic activity and jobs. Building a low-carbon society improves quality of life and reinforces energy security. The environmental imperative to act is strong, but the outcome is good for the economy and good for society.
What a shame that this carefully explained message from the experts is drowned out by misinformation from a few vocal people who want to resist change, hold back progress and grab the headlines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)