A new short pamphlet from the Irwell Group looks at the zero-growth option for Manchester’s economy in the light of economic recession and the spectre of runaway climate change. The old approach of trying to get 3.5% growth for ever is not going to work, and if it did the results would be increased inequality and climate suicide.
Go to the Irwell Group site: http://irwellgroup.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/102/
Posted in Economy, In the bioregion, News
Tagged climate change, Economy, Irwell Group, linkedin, Living well, recession
This is an interesting study that seems to show that plants growing in urban areas (Leicester in fact) can make a significant contribution to carbon sequestration. The example is similar to what Permaculture originator Bill Mollison was saying 30 years ago – lawns are deserts (that also use a large amount of petrochemicals) – growing more trees makes a difference and also provides useful products for a local economy.
However, the research calculates the static carbon sink – the amount locked away, not the annual sequestration rate – it would probably be salutary to compare that to the rate of CO2e produced in urban areas (and in their ecological footprint).
BBC summary of the study: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14121360
Tagged carbon, ecological footprint, footprint, linkedin
“Rather than being a poor follower of the south in its development, the Highlands has the opportunity to adopt an ecological strategy and be at the forefront of modern political endeavors: to live off the resources of the planet without destroying them and to share them justly amongst a population”.
In the scale of its imagination this document is still worth reading 22 years on. Although in a different place and in somewhat different times (but not very different really) the Green deal for the Manchester-Mersey Bioregion was also trying to imaging a similar scale of sustainable economic and social development. This kind of thinking and policy is still needed as it becomes plainer and plainer to see the bankruptcy of the dominant economic model with its emphasis on economic (Capital) growth with its inevitable breaking of the planetary support system’s limits.
Today’s Guardian has this exclusive story based on unpublished estimates from the International Energy Agency.
This is profoundly depressing – not only is there systemic failure to ‘scale up’ sustainable practice, but the policies of government are woefully inadequate to the scale of the problem. Indeed this is not altogether surprising – the governments at Cancun committed the world to a suicidal 4C rise in temperature.
I have recently made some rough comparisons of proposals from various sources at http://tinyurl.com/3j3apwz . Few of them have any emphasis on reduction of energy use and with the exception of Zero Carbon Britain’s excellent work, there is no recognition of the need to exceed international targets here because of our historical and outsourced emissions.
But what is sadly missing from all this is any coherent praxis: how do we get this stuff more squarely on government and party agendas? How do we rapidly build a social movement underpinned by a vision of a better way of living with the strength and capacity to secure real change? How do we do this in solidarity with people in the global south who are already experiencing the worst of the climate emergency (see the Bolivian government’s work on this)?
Posted in Energy, International, News
It is interesting to compare proposals for energy use and production as they apply to our region.
In the chart below I have plotted the carbon reduction proposals from the following documents:
1) Sustainable Energy Action Plan for Greater Manchester (SEAP), Commissioned by AGMA.
2) The UK Carbon Budget no. 3 from DECC.
3) CAT’s Zero Carbon Britain, 2030 (ZCB 2030)
4) The World Wildlife Fund /ecofys Energy report (WWF / ecofys)
5) The Welsh Assembly’s proposal, cited in the UK Carbon Budget paper.
Thee plans all propose to reduce carbon emissions but they differ greatly in the pace of change proposed. As we will see they also differ in how they think they will get there. The figure plotted is the proportion of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions as a percentage of the 1990 baseline.
click to see larger version
Below is the table of data that sits behind the graph. To give a common basis for comparison I have had to interpolate some date and also because SEAP uses 2005 for its baseline year I have converted their figures to a 1990 basis.
| 1990 | 2005 | 2020 | 2030 | 2050 | |
| Carbon reduction target (target CO2e as % of baseline) | |||||
| SEAP | 100 | 95 | 62.7 | 38 | 11.4 |
| UK carbon budget no. 3 | 100 | 95 | 66 | 45 | 20 |
| ZCB 2030 | 100 | 95 | 40 | 0 | 0 |
| WWF / ecofys | 100 | 95 | 70 | 30 | 0 |
| Welsh Assembly | 100 | 95 | 60 | 44 | 24 |
The important points are:-
Both WWF and ZCB2030 propose a reduction to zero net carbon emissions while the three government sources do not envisage this.
As a result ZCB and WWF both have a more rapid decline in emissions, and this is critical – you have to look at the area under the line to understand the continued build up of greenhouse gases. The ZCB plan notes that in the developed countries we need to go faster than the average because of our per capita higher emissions.
Rather lost in this summary are the assumptions. ZCB in particular combines an an ambitious reduction in energy consumption (Power Down) with plans to replace the use of fossil hydrocarbons. They also take account of land use emissions. The government’s carbon budget does not include clear targets to Power Down. WWF also propose a reduction, but to 85% by 2050 rather than ZCB’s 50% by 2030. David MacKay in his book Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air makes an identical proposal to that of WWF – it is good they propose powering down, but this is likely to be too little and too late. Perhaps someone would like to calculate the difference between WWF and ZCB in terms of CO2e put into the atmosphere?
Neither ZCB nor the WWF propose the use of Nuclear.
Here are some additional comparisons. They are less complete due to the gaps in some of the plans (to be slightly charitable here, the government has noted that there are a number of possible pathways to its inadequate 80% 2050 target). I have added David MacKay’s projection on reduced energy consumption and the SNP government’s impressive target for production from renewables (although it would be difficult to generalise from the Scottish case to the NW).
| Increase in renewable production | |||||
| SEAP | 2 | 6 | |||
| ZCB 2030 | 100 | ||||
| WWF / ecofys | 100 | ||||
| Proportion of energy from fossil hydrocarbons | |||||
| ZCB 2030 | 0 | 0 | |||
| WWF / ecofys | 0 | ||||
| SNP | 0 | ||||
| Energy demand (%) of baseline) | |||||
| SEAP | |||||
| UK carbon budget no. 3 | |||||
| ZCB 2030 | 50 | ||||
| WWF / ecofys | 100 | 85 | |||
| MacKay | 100 | 85 |
Here the lack of ambition of the SEAP report becomes clear. While they do leave out some areas of potential change as outside the scope of the Greater Manchester decision makers / local authorities / AGMA, nevertheless the very limited renewables projection really requires challenge. Likewise the lack of clear and challenging power down targets. On the positive side, there are some indicators that if applied will enable us all to track progress within the bioregion.
This point about Power Down is absolutely crucial. We now know very well that increases in energy efficiency, if not accompanied by clear proposals for powering down will just mean that more energy overall is used. This is called the Jevons Paradox. Why so important in the North West now? Because of the new threat of exploitation of the Bowden Shale for gas. This involves natural gas, trapped in shale rock, that has to be extracted by a process of pressurised injeuction of huge quantities of water, sand and solvents, called fracturing. As this preliminary report from the Tyndall Centre makes clear, exploiting this resource may have some significant risks (although the methods being used in USAnia that have caused such concern will -probably- not all be used here), but most important will (despite the propaganda from the prospectors) have a negative impact on greenhouse gas production, delaying necessary action.
So far as I can see AGMA’s environment commission hasn’t commented on this burning (well not quite yet) issue on our doorstep – further argument for a bioregional approach rather than focussing on the urban conurbation as the definition of the subregion. However, the Co-op (which funded the Tyndall research), the Green Party and the Labour Party have opposed the drilling (the latter provisionally. Of course the risks and assessments have been ignored by our golpista prime minister.
John Bellamy Foster Interviewed by Solidair/Solidaire, “The Ecology of Socialism”.
Excellent and clear piece that explains that:
” In capitalism you have an economic crisis whenever there isn’t economic growth or it slows down significantly (more specifically when the growth of profits and accumulation turns negative or stagnates). It is a grow-or-die system. Whenever there is an economic crisis it poses, like I said, “a disaster for working people,” since they are ultimately forced to bear the cost. We are experiencing that right now in a very big way. But it is also true that the ecological footprint of humanity is now too big, and we are crossing all sorts of physical boundaries of the system. This too is a reality, and one that will only worsen with continued exponential growth.
“How do we deal with this double economic-ecological contradiction, which is built into capitalism? I think the answer should be obvious: we need to struggle against the system itself. People need jobs and security, as well as all the basic requirements of life. They also need opportunities for human development. But this cannot be accomplished any more by doing everything possible to expand the total level of production endlessly, with the promise (almost invariably not kept) that significant crumbs will fall to those below. Instead we have to focus on essential needs, on equality, and on human development.”
Posted in Economy, International
Tagged contradictions, ecological footprint, Marxist analysis
The coalition vandals have ended (from 1 April) the Sustainable Development Commission. Here is one of their last contributions – a useful piece of work that helps us operationalise the notion of ecological limits at a local (and therefore also bioregional) level.
“‘Living within environmental limits’ is one of the five principles of sustainable development. It is easy to talk about environmental limits, and many of us accept that such limits must exist. But how do we recognise them? How do we know when we’re bumping up against them? What can we do to prevent those limits being breached? And with the re-energised focus on local decision making we ask, what do they mean for local areas?
…
“We have proposed a definition of environmental limits and examined seven ‘key’ environmental areas under OECD’s ‘Pressure-State-Response’ framework, highlighting existing legislative limits and where these do not exist. We have considered ‘land use’ and ‘soils’ as particular areas for government action as there is currently little or no action taken to recognise environmental limits in these areas. The report also makes suggestions for action by local governance bodies and community groups.”
Link to the full report. (so long as they pay the website subscription ….).
Campaigners from Save Our North West Green Belt have called for people to object to new planning application for peat extraction on land owned by Peel Holdings …… William Sinclair Horticulture Limited have submitted a revised application to Salford City Council to continue extracting peat for another 15 years, after having its Environment Statement rejected last August 2010.
read more (Mule)
read more (Wildlife Trust)
This is vital – peatlands are a very important carbon store and we just can’t have them continually destroyed for the sake of profit – especially when better alternatives exist.
Message sent to me by the people organising the campaign against the government’s sell off of our forest lands:-
WE’VE WON! The government has just confirmed they’re totally scrapping the forest sell-off. The phoney consultation has been cancelled. The sinister legal changes to pave the way for privatisation have been dropped.
We did this together. Next time someone tries to tell any of us that signing petitions or emailing our MPs doesn’t work, we’ll know exactly what to say: “People power does work. Just look at the Save Our Forests campaign”.
Now I don’t want to pour cold water on what is a good victory, but why was this campaign successful while other campaigns are having less success? The privatisation of the NHS, the withdrawal of Education Maintenance Allowance, the punitive and destructive 25% cuts in our council’s budget- these all go on despite campaigns and petitions.
The reason has to do with class – in an old fashioned sense. This was not a campaign of the urban working class, or even particularly of the liberal intelligentsia. This was a campaign with broad support that included the tories’ core constituency, Old Rural England.
It is shocking that when environmental destruction threatens us all so profoundly, that it has still not been possible to create a campaigning alliance across the lines of class, between the country and the city, and between those of us living in the Imperial Triad core countries (North America, Europe, Japan) and those in the global South, that calls for another way of living, another way of earning, another way of using the resources of the earth.
The reason is that the campaigning focus of selling the forests is pretty easy to pinpoint, a clear demand against a policy that is not absolutely core to the Cameron-Clegg regime’s project. The wider onslaught against public services and the environmental emergency are deeper problems to deal with, constituted as they are by a system of capital accumulation that knows no stopping and that restlessly invents new ways to overcome its setbacks – at whatever the cost to human lives and the planet’s health.
Maybe though this initial success, protecting our forests does after all show us that change can be created by the will of the people (as in the Arab world just now). Perhaps we just have to expect more, finding other emblematic foci for further campaigns that allow invigoration of the movement for change by its successes, and allow the broadening of that movement (composed of those who didn’t vote for this regime, even if they might have voted for some of its members) to take in diverse and contradictory currents all running together into an irresistible flow.
Posted in National
Readers might find this handout helpful in that it sets out on a couple of pages the bioregional perspective. Prepared for the Climate and Capitalism conference held in Manchester, 23 October 2010.
