Nuclear Might Be The Answer – At Least For Now

For a few moments this weekend, our worst fears were reignited. An earthquake of 6.8 magnitude on the Richter scale struck off the east coast of Japan and created a tsunami. This is perilously close to the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant that was so dangerously damaged by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, and workers that are cleaning up that plant were briefly evacuated because of fears that the same thing could happen again.

Luckily, in this case, the quake was considerably smaller than before, and the tsunami it created injured only one person, rather than causing the apocalyptic scenes and massive death toll of the previous one – the waves that reached the coast were only 20cm high this time. So it seems that the world continues to be safe from the possibility of another major nuclear meltdown along the lines of the Chernobyl incident of 1986. However, this latest scare does force us to ask tough questions about what our energy mix should be made up of.

The problem we face is that, of all the major energy technologies currently available to us, nuclear is the most sustainable option that can realistically provide the huge amounts of energy our current society needs. Nuclear is essentially a carbon-free energy source – it doesn't release any greenhouse gases in the process of creating energy, and only a relatively small amount in the extraction of uranium from the ground. And it produces far more energy than any renewable technology, all while taking up less space and being much quicker to scale up to the necessary levels.

At the same time, it's potentially very dangerous, as Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima have all shown us.

So what can we do? It seems clear that we should not see nuclear as a long-term option. Over a long enough timescale, nuclear power raises a number of complicated questions that we may not be able to answer – what do we do with the waste, for one thing; and how can we ever be truly safe from meltdowns and leakages caused by natural disasters like the Japanese tsunami? This means that we must continue to aim for a long-term policy that combines the scaling-up of renewable technologies like solar, tidal, and wind power (as well as many other possibilities) with a reduction in the amount of energy we consume.

But while we chase those policy goals, we must also be pragmatic about the risks that face us today. We need to cut down on our carbon emissions much more quickly than renewable technologies can be developed, and this means that we must take a sensible approach to nuclear power and consider it as a carbon-free technology that, although dangerous, can be of use to us in the short-term.

Very few nations have regular earthquakes, and the safety technology of nuclear plants has increased massively since the days of Chernobyl. Consequently, we must accept that the risk of a nuclear meltdown is relatively small; while the risk of catastrophic climate change if we do not reduce our emissions is huge. It's time to balance those probabilities, assess the risks, and choose a technology that allows us to avoid climate change in the short-term while providing the energy we need to keep society running while we pursue other long-term energy goals like reducing consumption and growing renewables. And that may well mean being brave and choosing nuclear.

[ Richter scale, Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant, Chernobyl incident, carbon-free energy source, greenhouse gases, renewable technology, Three Mile Island, natural disasters, Japanese tsunami, long-term policy, policy goals, carbon emissions, nuclear power, catastrophic climate ]

Europe is stronger united than divided

Once again, the UK is being extremely silly when it comes to the important topic of Europe – a shame for all those of us who think a strong UK presence in the EU is important. This time around, the British Prime Minister David Cameron has been opposing the nomination of Jean-Claude Juncker as President of the European Commission, arguing that he is too much of a ‘Brussels insider’ to be able to make the necessary reforms to the EU in the coming years.

This was a ridiculous platform on which to base his argument – of course Juncker is a Brussels insider, just like the previous President Jose Manuel Barroso was, and just like the next President of the Commission will be. They’re all Brussels insiders, that’s practically a requirement of the job – to take on Juncker on that basis was always going to be a losing battle, and one which has lost Cameron much respect among other European leaders.

That loss of respect was shown in the final vote on the Juncker nomination – 26 votes in favor, only 2 against, from the UK itself and Hungary. This massive defeat, with only a fairly marginal right-wing country behind the UK, makes it much harder for Cameron to have a leading role in the very reforms he is trying to promote over the next few years. And all of it was done just to gain a little extra support from Eurosceptics in the British Conservative party and the UK electorate.

It may seem like those Eurosceptics lost the battle – Juncker will almost certainly be the next President, after all. And yet, they may have taken a large step towards winning the war – with Cameron losing influence in Europe, it will be easier for the Eurosceptics to convince the public to vote for Britain to leave the EU in a few year’s time. There may well be a referendum on that exact issue in 2017 – the Conservatives have promised to hold one if re-elected next year, and there is a fairly good chance that other parties will promise the same so as not be left behind in the electoral race.

This would be a huge tragedy. The UK has long had a somewhat combative relationship with the rest of the EU, but this is a good thing – the EU is, as mentioned above, full of insiders who all have the same opinions. Having a grumpy old uncle like the UK on the sidelines is actually good for them, it provides useful criticism and can help rein in the worst excesses of groupthink. In return, the EU has done a lot of good for the UK, even if many British citizens don’t realize it – it has made the country more multicultural, made the people of the UK more educated about the rest of Europe, and allowed quick and easy trade. This has been a big part of helping London to become the most important city in the continent and one of the most important in the world.

For this relationship to end would be bad for everyone. The UK would lose a substantial part of its world influence without being part of the European bloc, as well as losing all of that preferential trading with other European countries. Meanwhile, the EU would lose a large chunk of it’s population (the UK has 70 million people, 13% of the EU’s 505 million citizens), as well as saying goodbye to one of the more moderate countries on a continent that is increasingly falling under the influence of extremist right-wing parties.

Consequently, it is highly important for both sides to work to repair this damage over the next few years. The UK must accept that it cannot always be center stage and bend the rest of the EU to its will; but the other countries of the EU must also be willing to make a few concessions to please their grouchy neighbor – it may seem painful or unfair to do so at times, but it will ultimately be in the best interests of everyone in the Union.

bad day for the EU, British citizens, British Conservative party, British Prime Minister, Brussels insider, combative relationship, David Cameron, electoral race, European bloc, European commission job, European countries, European leaders, extremist right-wing parties, final vote, Jean-Claude Juncker, job requirement, Jose Manuel Barroso, Juncker nomination, losing influence in Europe, loss of respect, make necessary reforms, marginal right-wing country, moderate countries, preferential trading, President of European Commission, strong UK presence in EU, support from Eurosceptics, UK electorate, world influence

Democracy isn’t just a stunt

The last week has seen large protests in Hong Kong against the power that the Chinese government in Beijing continues to wield over the ‘special autonomous region’. Beijing maintains the right to choose the city state’s Chief Executive, and protesters in favor of full democracy held a mock ballot to call for a different electoral system, as well as getting as many as 500,000 people to march in the streets to show their displeasure.

The Chinese government predictably denounced this as a stunt, and as ‘not legitimate’, which is obviously a rather foolish thing to say – of course it was a stunt, and no-one actually believed the results of the ballot would be considered binding. But the protest does seem to indicate a strong feeling among the people of Hong Kong.

China’s difficulties with Hong Kong stem from the ‘one country, two systems’ set-up that came about when British rule ended in 1997. The UK only agreed to hand Hong Kong back to China if the Chinese agreed to maintain the existing system for a minimum of 50 years – capitalist and with some amount of democracy (although the British themselves never gave the people of Hong Kong a fully free vote, hence why Beijing has the power to select the Chief Exec).

Consequently, China must give Hong Kong a fairly long leash, allowing freedom of the press and freedom of assembly; while also ensuring that the leash is firmly attached, and Hong Kong does not get any ideas that it is a separate or independent country from the Chinese mainland. This is achieved through encouraging Chief Execs that support the Communist party – China is also promising full elections in the future, but again, only Communist party members will be allowed to stand.

These demonstrations indicate, however, that China will eventually need to accept that it is hard in the modern era to remove democracy and freedom once people have a taste of it. The citizens of Hong Kong will not accept slippage of their rights, they will not allow Beijing to change their system without a very large fight. In fact, it seems considerably more likely that as time goes on the people of mainland China will want to increase their democracy to be in line with Hong Kong, rather than vice versa.

So rather than trying to stifle or control democracy in Hong Kong, or dismissing legitimate democratic expression as a stunt, China instead needs to find a way to slowly and carefully open itself up to democracy. There have already been some successes here, with elections for local positions being held – although again, only Communist party candidates are allowed to run in such ballots.

The introduction of a market system in China over the past three decades has done much to increase living standards, but the market alone cannot keep people happy forever. Now that the people of eastern China are wealthy (although there is still much room for improvement in the west of the country), they will begin to look for other things to increase their happiness – and they may well follow their counterparts in Hong Kong and in the west in demanding more say in those who govern them. China needs to embrace this tendency sooner rather than later, and not stifle the feelings of its autonomous citizens in the south.

autonomous citizens, British rule, change system, Chief Executive, China's difficulties with Hong Kong, Chinese government, Chinese mainland, Communist Party, Communist party members, control democracy, elections for local positions, electoral system, freedom of assembly, freedom of press, full democracy, fully free vote, Hong Kong demonstrations, increase democracy, increase living standards, independent country, legitimate democratic expression, maintain existing system, market, modern era, party candidates, protests against power, protests in Hong Kong, remove democracy, special autonomous region, stunt

Could First Nations end the tar sands destruction?

Our recent article about indigenous issues in North America was obviously very well timed, as there have been two major breakthroughs on the issue since writing it – both of them in Canada. Firstly, the city of Vancouver, on Canada’s western coast, has officially recognized that it was built on First Nations land (First Nations is the equivalent Canadian term to ‘Native Americans’ in the US) that was never officially given up by treaty. People simply turned up and built on the land, without any concern for the legality of what they were doing or the ownership of the resources they were using. This will, of course, not change anything – Vancouver isn’t going to pack up and move to a different part of the country, after all – but it is a highly symbolic acknowledgement of the events of the past.

More importantly, the Supreme Court of Canada this week also announced that it recognizes the Tsilhqot’in tribe of British Columbia as a ‘nation’ who never surrendered their land to the Canadians and therefore have the right to govern themselves and do whatever they like with their territory. This is a landmark ruling on First Nations rights, and one which has been going through the courts for twenty years. In terms of showing respect for the native peoples of the Americas this is huge, and it also shows that Canada is light years ahead of the USA in such matters; but the most immediate effect might be on energy policy.

Canada’s most famous energy resource (at least in recent years) has been the tar sands around Fort McMurray in northern Alberta province. This is a region with a heavy First Nations presence, and many of the campaigns against the tar sands have focused on the health and livelihood effects they have had on local native people, as well as their environmental destruction. Getting the tar sands oil from northern Alberta to other parts of the country, continent, and world, also requires threading oil pipelines through land that may now be recognized as being owned by First Nations. This declaration by the Supreme Court suddenly seems to make building these pipelines much more difficult, as it accepts that native people have the right to say no to them.

Such a possibility is very bad news for energy companies. There may be a few First Nations who are willing to accept pipelines in exchange for employment opportunities and royalties from the sale of the oil, but the vast majority will be against the despoiling of their land and the destruction of the environment. There have already been multiple anti-pipeline protests in indigenous areas of the country, including British Columbia and Ontario, and with some First Nations even going to Washington to protest US support for the Keystone XL pipeline that will take tar sands oil down to the Gulf of Mexico.

All of this means that the increasing acknowledgement of the rights of First Nations in Canada could be vitally important not just to the native people themselves, but also to those of us interested in sustainable, clean energy. There is now the very real chance of one of the most damaging energy sources in the world being cut off, with no possibility of actually transporting tar sands oil to anywhere outside of Fort McMurray itself. This could force the governments of Canada and the US – and perhaps other countries that were hoping to import tar sands oil – to re-evaluate their priorities when it comes to energy, and to start investing in serious sustainable alternatives. The First Nations already understand the destructive power of fossil fuels – it’s time for the rest of us to follow their lead.

British Columbia, clean energy, damaging energy sources, destruction of environment, destructive power, employment opportunities, energy companies, energy policy, energy resource, environmental destruction, First Nations, First Nations land, First Nations rights, Fort McMurray, fossil fuels, Gulf of Mexico, health and livelihood effects, Keystone XL pipeline, local native people, multiple anti-pipeline protests, Native Americans, native peoples, northern Alberta province, Supreme Court of Canada, sustainable alternatives, tar sands destruction, tar sands oil, threading oil pipelines, Tsilhqot'in tribe

Pride Week – A Time For Tolerance

It's currently World Pride Week (with the main march happening this year in Toronto), and a time in which many local gay pride marches also take place around the world. Such parades are well-known, at least in the west, for their fun atmosphere, with dancing, drinking, colorful clothing, and people getting sprayed with water pistols. But Pride Week also offers us an opportunity for a deeper reflection on issues of morality and human rights.

It's not particularly controversial to say that many people around the world are not big fans of alternative lifestyles that include homosexuality, bisexuality, transgendered people, or any of the many other identities that fall under the Pride banner. In Russia, gay pride marches are often attacked by extreme right-wingers, with collusion from the police. But even in supposedly tolerant countries like the US, a large number of people in a significant proportion of the country are at best uncomfortable with LGBT people, and often actively hostile to them. Sometimes this is for religious reasons, sometimes because of arguments about morality, and sometimes simply because of a visceral personal feeling with no real reason to back it up.

Most people reading this blog live in free countries, where they allowed to think whatever they like about anyone they choose, and so holding these opinions is fine, even if it is unjustified. But we must always remember that our opinions are simply that – opinions, which should have no bearing on whether or not LGBT people receive basic human rights.

In places like Uganda (and, again, even the US and Russia) many gay people are in fear for their lives and can be sent to prison or even killed for their sexuality. Whatever your beliefs about LGBT people, this is undoubtedly wrong – nobody deserves to die simply because of who they have sex with. Lesser examples of discrimination also abound – gay couples being turned away by motels or inns, for example; or, of course, the struggle over allowing gay men and women to marry. Again, whether we officially call it marriage or not, it would be wrong to stop LGBT people from expressing their love for one another and receiving the many benefits that the state gives to married couples.

These are basic human rights to equal treatment and dignity that we are talking about, and we must support these rights for all people if we are to support them for anyone. If we start to say that some people are not worthy of such rights because of their sexuality, then we can have no complaints when others start saying we do not deserve the same rights – perhaps because of our race, our gender, or our religion.

Homosexuality is not a choice, nor is it a disease, and it is certainly not something we should fear or try to eradicate or hide from view. It has been a part of society since history began (read anything about the Ancient Greeks if you don't believe me!), and we need to start treating it in the sensible, mature manner which it deserves. We can start by saluting the tolerant countries and communities that have taken in gay Ugandan refugees who fear for their lives, who have worked with vulnerable young people to stamp out homophobic bullying, and who are happy to welcome and take part in the pride parades of their towns and cities. And we can wish everyone, gay, straight, or anything else, a happy World Pride Week and a tolerant, understanding future.

Strong action on biofuels – but can anything stop the rise of coal?

There’s both good and bad news coming through this week when it comes to energy news. On the one hand, we have some positive new EU rules on biofuel use; and on the other hand, we have some very bad news about the growing use of coal. Let’s have a look at both of them.

In Europe, the EU have agreed new targets for biofuels derived from food crops such as maize. There is a general target for 10% of all fuel to be from renewable sources by 2020, but from this year onwards, only 7% can be from food-derived biofuels – previously the entire target was expected to be reached from such fuels. Why is this good? Well, although making fuel out of renewable resources like food crops is a better option for our environment than continually digging up more fossil fuels, it is starting to have a damaging effect on food prices and hunger. By allowing food crops to be used as fuel, there was always a risk of pushing prices up and of prioritizing food for our cars over food for humans. This new target should help to avoid those problems, although it’s not as strong as the original 5% that was suggested.

What will be needed, however, is for more money to be invested in developing alternative biofuels from things like algae. These will have a much smaller environmental and social impact than using food crops, but are currently only in the developmental stage, and the EU is not yet providing enough incentives to encourage further research. They have set an informal target of sourcing 0.5% of their fuel from such sources by 2020, but this is both too small and non-binding.

Now for the bad news. Despite these alternative fuels, coal is now reported to be the fastest growing energy source in the world, and is currently commanding a greater share of the worldwide energy market than it has since the 1970s. The continued use of such an environmentally damaging fuel threatens to wipe out any gains that might be made from new energy technologies, and could push us ever closer to unstoppable climate change. The growth in coal usage is partially being encouraged by the needs of rapidly developing countries like China, but we cannot totally blame them – western countries are also increasing their usage of coal, and are not providing enough help for developing countries to green their energy systems and economies.

So on the one hand, we see politicians aiming for a more enlightened energy policy. On the other, we see market conditions (the high demand for energy coupled with the cheap price of coal) pushing us in the other direction. It leads us to conclude that a more coordinated international energy system may be needed – one which is based on political and social decisions rather than simply the whims of the market. We need to develop a system of international investment in researching and developing new energy technologies that can put an end to coal and oil once and for all. This isn’t going to happen without serious cooperation between states, and it isn’t going to happen if we leave things up to a capitalist market system – instead, cheap fossil fuels will simply continue to be extracted and burned.

The EU’s approach is a good start – they are working together to try to develop a system that benefits European citizens, people of other countries, and still leaves room for businesses to operate and grow within the confines of a planned energy policy. It needs to be extended and made stronger, and applied to all areas of our energy consumption, and similar moves need to be encouraged on a worldwide stage. If we are going to avoid climate change and dig ourselves out of the energy problems we have created, we are going to have to work together, consciously.

[ avoid climate change, biofuel use, capitalist market system, cheap fossil fuels, cheap price of coal, coal usage, damaging effect on food prices, developing alternative biofuels, developmental stage, encourage further research, energy consumption, energy news, energy policy, energy problems, energy systems, energy technologies, environmentally damaging fuel, European citizens, fastest growing energy source, food crops, food for cars, food for humans, food-derived biofuels, fossil fuels, growing use of coal, international energy system, international investment, new EU rules, new targets for biofuels, on worldwide stage, rapidly developing, renewable sources, social decisions, social impact, stop rise of coal, unstoppable climate change, western countries, worldwide energy market ]

Bursting the housing bubble

To read the newspapers in the UK, you might think that the housing market is both the most important thing in the country, and something that is of innate benefit to all citizens. There is constant jubilation over rising house prices, and that seems to be about the most important thing to publications like The Daily Mail. Think about things a little more deeply, however, and it’s becoming plain to see that the UK is in the midst of a housing crisis which is desperately hurting the lives of the poorest members of society.

For many people, rising house prices are not a good thing. Poorer people who have lived in London for decades are finding themselves increasingly unable to stay in the market in that city. In many cases they are renting from the local government, or from private landlords, and the increased value of the property means that the government wants to sell their house for a profit, or the landlord wants to charge double the rent. When that happens, and these people want to move somewhere nearby – it’s impossible, due to the high prices.

Worse, many of the new owners that are fuelling this bubble in house prices are absentee landlords living in other cities or countries. Many new developments in London are specifically targeting Chinese and Singaporean owners, advertising London housing as an investment in the future – buy the house now, rent it out for a few years, sell it when the prices go up. This creates a very unstable situation for the people who rent, and further prices these new homes out of the reach of ordinary Brits.

In many cases, the potential benefits of such expensive housing are also not realized. Local governments can collect something called ‘council tax’ from each household, but the way in which this is arranged means that any apartment-style building is considered low value, and pays very little tax  compared to a normal house. This is the same even if the cost of the building is higher – one apartment owned by a Ukrainian millionaire in Hyde Park cost over £100m, but requires less council tax per year than a £200,000 home in a poor area. This means that many parts of London are not getting the tax income they need to provide services and housing for the poor.

Consequently, social housing for the poor is no longer being built in England, or is only being built very slowly. There is little money available to provide it, and even if such money was made available by increasing taxes or diverting money from other budgets, the government of the UK has essentially abandoned its responsibility to house its people over the past thirty years. It is now assumed that something as vital and as basic as shelter should be left up to the free market – this is the curse of neoliberal ideology striking again.

When combined with the outlawing of squatting – which in many cases was the last recourse of the poor and homeless who need somewhere to sleep – this is undoubtedly a crisis. The rich continue to profit from the rising prices and the desperation of the poor to have somewhere to stay; while the poor themselves suffer from uncertainty and exploitative rents, going to food banks because they can’t afford to eat after paying the rent, or simply becoming homeless when they can’t make ends meet. Once again, the policies we live with are backwards, and the poor suffer.

apartment-style building, becoming homeless, council tax, diverting money from other budgets, expensive housing, exploitative rents, food banks, free market, getting tax income, housing bubble, housing crisis, Hyde Park, increased value of property, increasing taxes, innate benefit, local government, neoliberal ideology, poorer people, poorest members of society, potential benefits, private landlords, provide housing for the poor, rising house prices, social housing, stay in the market, The Daily Mail, the poor suffer, UK housing crisis, Ukrainian millionaire, unstable situation

European Disunion

Well, after a seemingly endless campaign, the European Union election results are finally in – and many of us will be wishing they had stayed out, as they do not make very comforting reading for anyone who believes in a Europe of peace and unity. The big story of the night is the large number of anti-EU right wing populist parties that did extremely well in elections – particularly the Front National in France, the United Kingdom Independence Party, and the Danish People's Party. All three of these parties won their respective national votes, and all three of them could be called anti-immigrant, xenophobic, and perhaps even racist – in some case, directing animosity towards citizens from other members of the EU.

The voters of Europe (at least those who bothered to turn out, which in most countries was only a small percentage of the population) have spoken, and it seems that they have chosen hatred, division, and mutual suspicion. They have chosen to ignore the decades of cooperation that Europe has achieved under the EU, a state of peace that is almost unknown in the history of the continent. And they have chosen to blame foreigners for their problems – underemployment, the need for more social services, and cultural disruption – rather than looking to the true culprit of capitalism.

Truthfully, we should be against the EU in many ways, but it is the neoliberal capitalist aspect of the EU that we should be fighting. The part of the EU that pushes for privatization of services; that wants to create a common market in services across the continent, allowing companies from rich countries to take over things in poorer places; that subsidizes farmers to the tune of hundreds of millions of Euros a year to produce food that is simply wasted or which inflates prices on the world market; that negotiates unfair trade deals with poorer countries around the world, while colluding with the US to create ever more profit for itself.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the only country in the recent election that seems to be fighting this capitalist EU is Greece, where the left wing Syriza party came out on top of the polls. Greece has been at the epicenter of this neoliberal EU, having been forced to adopt an agreement to slash jobs and services, reduce wages and benefits, and destroy the social fabric of Greek society all to pay back European banks. The Greeks have seen the true face of the capitalist EU, and have responded accordingly by electing a party that specifically opposes that form of Europe, without rejecting the many benefits that greater European unity has given us (although it must be noted that the extremely right wing Golden Dawn party came in third place in the Greek election, so that country is not completely free of ridiculous racist ideas by any means).

It is time for the rest of us to take a lesson from the Greeks. Rather than voting for parties that offer nothing but hatred and which target relatively helpless groups of poor immigrants who are only trying to make a living, we need to develop our own versions of Syriza. Political parties which understand the frustrations of ordinary people, but which also identify the right causes for these symptoms. Political parties which understand that it is the neoliberal capitalism of the EU which is the problem that needs to be solved, not the open borders and freedom of movement. And ultimately, political parties that want a Europe based on equality, fairness, justice, and most of all, unity.

[ European Union election, election results, right wing populist parties, United Kingdom Independence Party, Danish People's Party, cultural disruption, privatization of services, left wing Syriza party, Greek election, freedom of movement ] 

The end of the road for Yasuni National Park

In the last week the news has finally come out that Ecuador has signed official agreements with regards to drilling for oil in the Yasuni National Park. We all knew this was coming after recent leaks telling us that the government was in negotiations, but this is still an extremely sad day for those of us who value the environment and look to promote cleaner energy sources. This drilling agreement reflects badly on all of us, not just the Ecuadorian government – it essentially represents a failure of imagination on the part of the international community.

Yasuni, on the eastern border of Ecuador with Peru, is considered one of the most biologically diverse regions on the entire planet – in fact, by many standards it is literally the most diverse place in the world. Even in terms of human beings, the area contains at least two completely uncontacted tribes, uncorrupted by modern human civilization. Unfortunately, as well as containing all sorts of plants, animals, birds, and humans, it also contains a lot of oil – something that we as a society seem unable to resist. Drilling could now take place as soon as 2016, destroying the pristine environment of this beautiful place.

The Ecuadorian government had initially tried to avoid drilling through a very modern method – essentially crowdsourcing the money required to make it worthwhile not to drill. They claimed that if they were paid a total of $3.6bn over a number of years by the other countries of the world, then Ecuador could enjoy the developmental benefits that the oil would bring without having to actually extract it – allowing the rest of the world to benefit from the continued biodiversity of the region and the huge levels of carbon emissions that would not be released if the oil was kept in the ground. This was a potentially revolutionary idea, taking in concepts of climate justice and sustainability, and encouraging the world to work together to protect our natural environment.

Of course, it didn’t work. Despite a large amount of press when President Rafael Correa first announced the initiative, very few countries showed any serious interest in it – with Norway being the main honourable exception. Unfortunately, Norway alone cannot carry the burden for the whole world, and in the recent announcement Correa claimed that only $13m had been procured. Ultimately, the lack of cooperation of certain countries was too great a barrier. The oil industries of the US and Europe stood to gain too much from the chance to drill in Yasuni, and would have attacked any politicians that agreed to provide funding. The growing Chinese demand for fuel and their difficulties with managing their rapid growth in the coming decades meant that they too wanted access to Yasuni. And none of the developed nations wanted to set a precedent for accepting their responsibility for climate change or helping poorer countries deal with the changes that need to be made to avoid it.

Ecuador is not completely without blame, of course. They could still have taken a different approach to development, deciding not to drill anyway, and focusing on the many alternative sources of energy they have access to – abundant sunshine, geothermal energy, huge potential for hydroelectricity, and so on. It is a shame that Correa’s imaginative ideas did not extend to providing this kind of example to the world. But ultimately, we must all take responsibility for what will happen in Yasuni – we had the chance to show a commitment to the environment, to sustainability, to alternative energy, to a different way of doing things in general. And we shamefully failed to take it.

abundant sunshine, alternative sources of energy, biologically diverse region, carbon emissions, Chinese demand for fuel, climate change, climate justice, destroy the pristine environment, developed nations, developmental benefits, drilling agreement Ecuador, drilling for oil, drilling in Yasuni, Ecuador president, Ecuadorian government, geothermal energy, helping poorer countries, huge potential for hydroelectricity, international community, modern human civilization, oil industries, promote cleaner energy sources, protect natural environment, provide funding, Rafael Correa, revolutionary idea, sign official agreements, sustainability, uncontacted tribes Ecuador, value environment, Yasuni National Park

Has carbon trading failed?

News reports suggest that Australia could become the first country to shut down its carbon trading scheme, essentially giving polluting industries the green light to continue with business-as-usual. The point of the carbon trading law was to put a minimum price on the emission of carbon dioxide, a kind of subsidy-in-reverse on industries and companies that release a lot of CO2, and an incentive for businesses to reduce their emissions as much as possible – after all, no carbon dioxide means no additional carbon payment, which potentially means more profit than your competitors. All of this has proved too forward thinking for the new right wing prime minister of the country, who seems to deny the fact that climate change even exists.

This will not come as a massive surprise to many of us. Australia has long been known as the villain in international climate negotiations, showing a thick-headed lack of responsibility for their own role in causing the problem (particularly through a very heavy use of coal), and refusing to countenance any possibility that they might have to change their ways to improve life for Australians and for the rest of the planet. Per capita, Australia is now one of the highest polluters in the world.

However, while it may be easy to criticize the Aussies for their decision to turn their backs on carbon pricing, we should also be critically examining similar schemes in the rest of the world and asking ourselves if they are really helping. Only a few countries have large, firmly in-place carbon trading schemes, and much of the evidence suggests that those that do exist have been poorly designed and are plagued with problems – the EU carbon trading platform being the primary example.

The EU platform has had a serious problem with a practice known as ‘grandfathering’. The argument was that existing industries would find it too difficult to cope with carbon trading if they had to start paying for all their emissions at once, so the EU agreed to provide a certain number of free carbon permits, with the idea that the companies would then pay for any pollution greater than the number of permits they were given. Unfortunately, and presumably due to corruption and lobbying, many big companies were given permits greater than the total amount of carbon they already emit – meaning they don’t have to pay anything to the trading scheme, and even have leftover permits to sell to other companies. The oversupply of free carbon permits has essentially collapsed the price of carbon in the European market, rendering the scheme useless.

If we are not going to take carbon pricing seriously – and the EU scheme most definitely does not take it seriously – then perhaps it is better if we all take the Australian route, give up on it, and start again with something better and more robust. One option is to severely limit the amount of carbon permits available, and making the punishment for over-pollution much more severe, rather than allowing the market to decide on how seriously pollution and emissions should be taken. Fines from the government for polluting could be considerably higher than the price for carbon on the open market has proved to be, and non compliance could easily be punished further by shutting companies down. This would be a brave move by any government, but brave moves are what we need right now. The market has clearly failed, and now it is time for governments to step up and show some commitment and strength by putting legal limits on emissions, rather than simply market limits.

Australia pollution, Australian route, carbon pricing, carbon trading failed, carbon trading law, carbon trading scheme, climate change, emission of carbon dioxide, EU carbon trading platform, European market, existing industries, free carbon permits, international climate negotiations, market limits, open market, polluting industries, price for carbon, punishment for over-pollution, putting legal limits on emissions, reduce emissions, right wing prime minister, thick-headed lack of responsibility

Services made with our hands and our hearts

There is a lot of election talk in the UK these days, which is unsurprising with the EU elections recently taking place and the next national election due in one year’s time. Current polls are starting to suggest that the lead the opposition Labour Party has held for a few years is beginning to slip, and the Conservatives may rebuild their base over the next year and win the election outright – rather than having to go into coalition with the Liberal Democrats as they did this time around.

All of this is very interesting, but only if you’re a bit of a geek for UK politics. What might prove more interesting to all of us in the long term, however, is that a particular topic seems to slowly be creeping onto the radar of the national discussion that will take place over the next year – and that topic is renationalization. The Green Party are explicitly arguing for the railways to be nationalized again, and some in the Labour Party are encouraging leader Ed Miliband to do the same, seeing it as a potentially very popular policy among voters from all sides of the political spectrum.

Many British institutions that were traditionally owned by the state – most notably the railways and the energy infrastructure – were sold off to private companies during the 18 years that the Conservatives were in power under Margaret Thatcher and John Major. The current Conservative government is following a similar path by slowly trying to sell off more and more of the much-loved National Health Service. However, such policies are seen by much of the public as a disaster – they have seen the ways in which energy bills and train tickets are permanently going up while service levels get worse and worse. A recent poll by YouGov found that 68% of the British public support handing the energy companies back to the state, 66% support nationalizing the railways, and a massive 84% believe that the health service should not be sold to private companies.

The railways, energy companies, and health service were built up by generations of hard work from the people of Britain. They were not created by private companies, and private companies did nothing to create the value they had when they were privatized. By selling them off, Thatcher essentially gave away decades of labor to her corporate friends at a price far below what it was actually worth. The companies running these services have proven that they do not have the same level of passion for them that the British people do, they do not care for the effects of their policies on the people, and they care only about profits rather than about providing an efficient service to those who need it. Things will be no different if the health service is given to private companies – indeed, they may be worse, as profit would then be taking precedence over what is literally a matter of life and death.

The damage privatization did to the UK was huge, and is ongoing – both in terms of the gradual decline of the railways and the energy companies, and in terms of the ideology of private profit and ‘free markets’ that it helped to spread. However, we still have time to reverse it if we act now, and consequently the upcoming election campaign needs to hinge around the issue of keeping the National Health Service in public hands, and returning the other services to the people who built them. The Green Party should be commended for making this part of their platform, and those on the left need to encourage Labour to follow suit – for the good of all working people in the UK.

British institutions, British people, British public support, Conservative government, Conservatives, damage privatization, Ed Miliband, effects of policies, efficient service, election talk, energy bills, energy companies, energy infrastructure, EU elections, free markets, gradual decline, Green Party, health service, in public hands, John Major, Liberal Democrats, Margaret Thatcher, national discussion, national election, National Health Service, opposition Labour Party, political spectrum, popular policy, private companies, private profit, railways to be nationalized, renationalization, train tickets, UK politics, upcoming election campaign, win election, working people, YouGov

Fifteen is Fair

The city of Seattle recently announced that it was taking a unilateral move in the rather slow-moving war against poverty in the US by raising the city's minimum wage to $15 an hour. This is quite an interesting move by itself, and will hopefully prove wrong all the legions of people who claim businesses will flee any country or city that institutes such a high wage. However, just as interesting is the chain reaction that the announcement has set off, with fast food workers across America now going on strike and increasingly agitating to be paid the same $15 an hour that their colleagues in Seattle will be getting.

Many on the right wing have criticized the striking workers, saying that flipping burgers and wiping down tables in McDonalds should only be an entry level job, a gateway to getting a 'real job' in the workforce and becoming increasingly well paid as you gain more and more experience. It's a job for teenagers and students, they say, people who don't need to be paid more than a few dollars an hour for pocket money. Anyone over a certain age, or with a family to support, who still finds themselves working in Burger King is there because of their own fault, they tell us – they need to work harder to better themselves and move up the economic food chain.

This is a very nice sentiment – it certainly would be wonderful if we could truly say that fast food work is the domain of teenagers only, who all move on to bigger and better things after a year or so. But this ignores the reality of contemporary American society. A number of barriers stand between many people and better employment – perhaps they can't speak English well enough, perhaps they are discriminated against for their ethnicity or gender, perhaps they are working illegally, perhaps they simply don't have the money to afford America's ridiculous university tuition fees. Whichever of those reasons might be true, there is an increasing segment of the workforce which has no immediate prospect of getting a better job outside of the fast food industry – these people have lives, children, and needs that should be catered for just as much as for anyone else, and this simply isn't happening on the exploitative wages they are currently being paid.

Strong minimum wage laws are not going to destroy America if passed – as Seattle will no doubt prove. The demand for fast food isn't going away any time soon, so McDonalds and Pizza Hut are not going to shut down if forced to pay their workers what they deserve. Equally, the fast food workers will now have more money to spend on food, clothing, and consumer items, putting more cash into the economy and leading to more jobs and higher wages for everyone else – so even if the price of a Big mac gets hiked by a dollar or two to pay for the minimum wage, we'll still be able to afford it. All a $15 minimum wage does is ensure that fast food workers are no longer exploited by companies that only truly care about profit, and makes sure that those workers can afford to feed themselves and their children. It might even help to break the cycle of poverty, by allowing fast food workers to save towards the university education of their own children – ensuring they don't have to spend their lives flipping burgers as well.

The $15 minimum wage campaign needs to extend beyond the fast food workers and become a national movement. It's time for the people of America to take notice that in the past decade wealth has been trickling upwards rather than downwards – with the rich getting richer, while everyone else loses out. It's time to reverse that trajectory and begin bringing some of those riches back down to the people who do the work.

[ war against poverty, nrglab, McDonalds, Burger King, American society, Pizza hut, national movement, tuition fees ]

The UKIP Mask Begins to Slip

Another week in the European Parliament election campaign, another story of racism and xenophobia coming from UK candidates. These stories are happening so often now it's almost becoming difficult to keep track – the EU elections really do seem to bring out a special type of crazy that doesn't normally get as much attention during national elections.

The main story during the whole campaign has been that of the United Kingdom Independence Party, or UKIP, who are currently polling in second place, behind the Labour Party, but ahead of the ruling Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. This popularity, however, comes despite an increasing number of scandals and controversies. One candidate recently suggested shooting gay people in an effort to get them to admit that they 'aren't really gay'; another quite openly claimed that people who vote for the other three parties should be executed for treason.

Of course, these people tend to be rather minor figures, often standing only in local council elections rather than as national figures or potential MEPs. However, the leader of the party, Nigel Farage, is himself no stranger to controversy. In an interview with a London radio station this week he reiterated his position that he would not want to live next door to Romanians; when asked by the presenter what the difference was between Romanians and Germans (Farage's own wife is German), he simply replied 'you know what the difference is' – a reply that seemed so openly racist about 'certain groups of people' that even the notoriously anti-immigrant The Sun newspaper called Farage out over it.

Farage's response comes from a long line of 'unspoken racism' that seems to characterize current British discourse on immigration in many ways. Certain people are seen as 'good', and we have no problem with them immigrating to the UK. Americans, Canadians, Australians, and increasingly even Germans (who are seen as industrious and hard working) and, in Farage's case, Indians (who are presumably seen as less threatening due to usually being Hindu rather than Muslim). Others are seen as 'bad', and must be kept out – Romanians, Albanians, Pakistanis, Somalians, branded as uniformly criminals, thieves, and beggars. But none of this is ever said out loud – it is assumed that anyone with 'common sense' will automatically know it, and will understand what Farage means when he says 'you know what the difference is'.

Perhaps the closest this ideology has come to being said out loud comes in another of Farage's statements – he claims he doesn't have a problem with the quantity of people coming into the country, but rather the quality of those immigrants. This is where the mask covering UKIP's racism really starts to slip – the argument, it seems, has nothing to do with the economic impact of immigration on the British working class, or on the cohesiveness of British culture (the usual arguments made for restricting newcomers). Rather, the problem is that some groups of people are simply seen as having less 'quality' than others.

The saddest thing about Farage's comments is that the ideology they reveal is one that is shared by a significant segment of the British population. Many people have complained about the comments, but many more will have heard them and nodded, and said that this is what everyone is really thinking – that some groups of people are more worthy than others, are somehow inherently 'better'. This is a slippery road to start walking down, and can very quickly lead from genuine worries about economics and social issues into full-blown racism and the demonization of people simply because of their homeland or ancestry. But it seems that for now such a path is popular enough to hand UKIP a spot near the top table in the upcoming European Parliament.

[ European Parliament election campaign, United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, Nigel Farage, The Sun newspaperб British working class ]

Happiness and the Organic Lifestyle in the Himalayas

We're often discussing very negative news stories on this blog, and it can be nice to have a change of pace and theme sometimes to talk about something more positive. Coincidentally, it seems that when I have something positive to say, it's always about the tiny Himalayan nation of Bhutan. It's the same this week, as Bhutan have just announced that they intend to be the first country to become entirely organic, hopefully within the next decade.

We've previously discussed Bhutan's use of the Gross National Happiness concept to replace the more traditional economic measure of wellbeing that is Gross Domestic Product. The idea is that simply having more and more money is not a worthwhile measurement of the success of society as a whole – money should be seen only as a conduit to a greater goal of happiness that needs to be partially achieved through non-monetary means, and which can be measured and indicated in a whole variety of ways. This drive towards becoming a pesticide-free country is part of this plan to increase happiness.

The government believes that the nation will be happier eating organic food grown using the traditional methods of Bhutanese agriculture that worked so well for so long in the country's history. This kind of agriculture will give people a connection to their traditional culture, as well as potentially keeping them healthier in the long run due to the exclusion of possibly harmful toxins from the food chain. More importantly, Bhutan believes it can still grow enough food to feed itself in this way (and presumably a little extra to export for foreign currency), allowing it to continue to live as self-sufficiently as possible.

Some critics are worried that Bhutan may be stretching itself too far, however. They argue that the high, sloped lands of the Himalaya region are difficult enough to grow food on in the first place, and that they will be further damaged in the coming years by the effects of climate change. Consequently, they argue, Bhutan will need all the help it can get to grow food for its people, and if that help includes chemical fertilizers and pesticides then there is nothing wrong with that. They may have a point, and Bhutan will indeed need to be careful about the way it approaches this transition. But, as we have previously discussed in this blog when talking about the lies of companies like Monsanto, organic growing methods have consistently proved to yield roughly the same amount as most industrial agricultural plantations – if this trend continues, and if the country uses local plant species that are well-suited to the local soil, Bhutan will have nothing to worry about.

We will be watching this experiment closely and with great interest. If they succeed it will be a great example to all of us of the powers of organic agriculture and the possibility of jettisoning our current extremely wasteful and hazardous industrial methods of growing food. And of course, it will be a further sign of the possibilities of Gross National Happiness, which will hopefully begin to spread across the world as the prime measurement for the success or failure of societies. We wish Bhutan all the best in their quest to create a happy and healthy life for all of their citizens.

[ organic food, himalayan nation, traditional culture, gros national happiness, gross domestic product, pesticide-free country ]

A barbaric practice, even when it goes right

Last week’s tragically botched execution of Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma has brought the issue of the death penalty and its inhumanity back into the light. After a long legal battle over obtaining the chemicals to be used in the execution (with the state refusing to explain where they bought the lethal drugs for fear of retribution against the manufacturer), this execution was already controversial enough. In the end, it was to get much worse. The doctors had difficulty finding a vein to inject Lockett with the drugs, and ended up using one in his groin; they proceeded to cover the area with a cloth to protect his modesty (as if that matters when one is being executed by the authorities), and consequently failed to notice that the vein had collapsed, pumping poison into Lockett’s muscles rather than his bloodstream. The execution was officially called off, but it was too late: Lockett died agonizingly of a heart attack as his body reacted to the chemicals, rather than slowly and peacefully being sedated and dying in his sleep, as was the plan.

Much of the focus in news stories around this has been on the procedural aspects of the case, with Oklahoman authorities closing the curtains on the public viewing gallery when things started to go wrong, and doctors apparently telling spectators Lockett was unconscious when he could still clearly be seen struggling. All of these things need to be investigated, for sure, but the biggest issue here should be that of the continued existence of the death penalty itself.

The US is one of the only developed nations on earth to retain the death penalty. The last execution in the UK was in 1964, Canada and Australia abolished the death penalty in the 1970s, while some places including Italy, Portugal, and Venezuela abolished it as early as the 19th century. Meanwhile, although some US states do not use the death penalty, the US as a whole is fifth on the list of countries that execute their own citizens (on 2012 statistics), behind only China, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. They may well drop down to sixth in the table this year, due to the huge numbers of executions of political leaders currently being orchestrated in Egypt – but this is not really the sort of company that a supposedly enlightened nation like America should be keeping.

So why does the US continue to maintain this barbaric practice that puts it in the same league as some of the so-called ‘Axis of Evil’ countries? It seems to me to be the pervasive fear of the poor and the ‘other’ in American society that keeps the public support for the death penalty going. Americans of all social castes are constantly being told by the media and politicians that other people are out to get them, to take what they have and to do terrible things to them. They live in a continuous state of fear that every person they see who is different from them is a potential threat – black people, Muslims, the poor – and they want to use the death penalty as a way of deterring those individuals from attacking them (although there is very little evidence that executions work as a deterrent to crime).

The death penalty overwhelmingly targets the poor and exploited of America – people who are in desperate situations already, and find their situation getting worse and worse until something extreme happens. Rather than punishing them with the ultimate vengeance, it’s time to start addressing the socio-economic conditions that make people poor and keep them poor. And it’s time to abolish the death penalty and show that we can be civilized human beings, even to those who have committed terrible crimes.

abolish death penalty, American society, Axis of Evil, barbaric practice, black people, botched Oklahoma execution, charles warner, chemicals for execution, civilized human beings, Clayton Lockett, Clayton Lockett crime, commit terrible crimes, death penalty, death penalty inhumanity, deterrent to crime, execute citizens, in desperate situation, legal battle, lethal drugs, muslims, Oklahoma inmate, Oklahoman authorities, political leaders, potential threat, procedural aspects, public support, socio-economic conditions, the poor, ultimate vengeance, United Nations human rights office, untested three-drug protocol

An Armed Standoff Over Blood And Soil

In case you've been fortunate enough to have avoided the US news cycle over the past fortnight, you've probably heard at least something about a man with the slightly odd name of Cliven Bundy. For those who don't know: Bundy is a rancher in Nevada who has been using federally-owned land to graze his cattle for the last two decades. The government claims that he owes millions of dollars in unpaid fines for doing so, and with Bundy showing no signs of paying up – not least because he claims not to believe in the authority of the US government – they sent the authorities to clear the area of Bundy's cows. Bundy was ready for them, as were a large number of supporters, all heavily armed and apparently ready to engage in an armed standoff with the government if necessary. In the face of the threat posed by these armed renegades, the government has backed down for now and allowed Bundy to continue grazing on federal land while also not paying his fines.

Cliven Bundy has now become something of a cause for celebration in right wing circles, who see the standoff as a great victory for freedom-loving patriots against a corrupt and oppressive government. Perhaps the strangest thing about this is that the right wingers actually have something of a point for once – there is indeed a discussion to be had about the fact that much of the land in the western United States is technically owned by the federal government. This land was, after all, stolen from the original Native American populations of the region, and we would be well-placed to start discussing who really 'owns' it.

But that isn't the point that Bundy actually wants to make, it's just a byproduct of his argument. It also isn't the issue for which Bundy will be remembered. Instead, Bundy will go down as a perfect symbol of the dark psyche of the American right wing. All of the classic tropes are there – an instinctive turn to guns and threats of violence whenever things go against them; a claim to be patriots while at the same time attacking the government and refusing to pay the taxes that support their fellow countrymen; and a belief in the superiority of white males and their right to do whatever they feel like doing without interference or the need to consider the rights of others.

This last point was amply demonstrated by Bundy himself in the days after the standoff. In an interview with the New York Times, Bundy essentially told reporters that black people were better off being slaves – they had a better family life, and some good honest work to do, he said; they didn't spend all their time on welfare. How does Bundy know about the lives of black people in today's America? Why, he once drove past some of them sitting outside a housing project, of course. A true expert, you'll no doubt agree.

And this illustrates a great problem with America – it still hasn't found a way to talk about land without getting it mixed up with issues of race and fear. White people who have owned their land for centuries – but only because of a legacy of slavery of black people and genocide of Native Americans – are scared of newcomers, scared of the way in which the federal government seems to accept such newcomers, and scared that the end result will be 'their' land being 'taken' from them. This lead to people arming themselves, clinging to their guns as a means of safety, and eventually – or so it seems – engaging in armed standoffs with the government in an attempt to defend their privilege. Sooner or later, America will need to discover a new language for discussing these issues of inequality and entrenched wealth and ownership, or moments like the Cliven Bundy standoff may become more and more common as the country continues to change faster than wealthy white people with guns believe it should.

[ Cliven Bundy, unpaid fines, US government, native american populations, american right wing, New York Times ]

A song of fire and ice

So it seems that yet another form of unconventional fossil fuels looms on the horizon, with the potential to be promoted by governments as the latest solution to our energy crisis, while at the same time destroying fragile environments through its extraction. The culprit this time is a form of gas known as ‘fire ice’, which is locked into the form of ice crystals under the Atlantic ocean, at the point where the seabed changes from shallow to deep. By lowering the pressure on these crystals, or upping the temperature, one cubic metre of fire ice can break down into 160 cubic metres of gas.

The amount of energy contained within fire ice deposits is thus huge – there is potentially more energy available from fire ice than from the rest of the world’s oil, coal, and natural gas supplies combined. And yet, with that energy comes a problem we have been trying to escape for decades now – carbon. There may also be as much carbon in the fire ice deposits as there is in every other organic carbon store in the entire world. Releasing this carbon into the atmosphere by using fire ice for energy would be an unmitigated disaster, completely destroying any attempts at sustainability and making an era of massive climate change a certainty.

The fire ice is also very difficult to extract due to its location far offshore. This means more money will be required to exploit it, and it also increases the dangers – both to those humans doing the extraction, and to the ecosystems of plants and animals that live in the Atlantic and would suffer from this extreme industrial process taking place in their homes. But none of this will likely stop governments and corporations from doing their best to exploit these large reserves of fossil fuel energy.

And that fact shows the madness of our current energy system. Even when fossil fuels are difficult, dangerous, and expensive to extract, we will prioritize them over cheaper, safer, and easier options – like renewable energy based on the bountiful systems the planet has dropped in our laps, wind, tides, the sun, and more. If we insist on digging things out of the ground in order to keep our economy running, then we are getting to the stage where even nuclear power is beginning to look like a better option than fossil fuels (although obviously it would still be a distant second to true renewables) – it is at least carbon free, and while we might complain that it is highly polluting and dangerous to human health, so are fossil fuels, with over 4,000 people a year estimated to be dying from air pollution in London alone.

Rather than creating a new dependence on fire ice or other forms of unconventional fossil fuels like fracked gas or tar sands oil, we need to be exploring how to put into place the radical change to our energy system that is necessary if we are going to live sustainable lives free from the worst impacts of climate change. It seems that a big shock to the system may be necessary before we really start to see any change, unfortunately. In the meantime, NRGLab will continue its own research into new technologies that make our energy use more efficient, more environmental, and – most importantly – cheaper for ordinary people. When people finally have access to cheap and clean electricity, we hope that it will prove to be the shock that is needed to kickstart a new era.

Atlantic ocean,bountiful systems, carbon free, clean electricity, climate change, coal, current energy system, destroying fragile environments,destroying sustainability, ecosystems of plants, energy crisis, energy from fire ice, expensive to extract, exploit fire ice, fire ice gas, form of unconventional fossil fuels, fossil fuel, fracked gas, ice crystals, industrial process, lowering the pressure, natural gas, nrglab, nuclear power, oil, organic carbon store, radical change to energy system, releasing carbon into atmosphere,renewable energy, research into new technologies, reserves of fossil fuel energy, solution to energy crisis, tar sands oil, true renewable, unconventional fossil fuel, upping the temperature