Environmentally disastrous public transport

I have just been looking at the local railway service's website. There's an amazing array of special offers encouraging people to travel by train. And very environmentally friendly one might think. But is it? The answer is a resounding NO. Most of the journeys being made using these astounding special offers are undoubtedly not essential. An in many cases it is not a case of going by train instead of by car. It is simply encouraging people to travel more and more. And if the trains from Norwich are only half full with people making essential journeys, it makes economic sense to fill the rest of the train with cheap travellers. And that way the rail service is not only profitable, but it can justify itself.

Unfortunately this has been taken to new limits in London. Here, travel cards allow a cap to be put on the cost of traveling each day on the London Underground. However many journeys you make, it gets no more expensive. The upshot of this is almost certainly many people use their card for journeys of one or two stops, making the underground even more unpleasantly overcrowded, but at the same time allowing the operators to claim that public transport is incredibly popular.

I think a fact that most environmentalists promoting public transport have failed to grasp, is that public transport can only really be environmentally friendly, in a centrally controlled political system, such as once operated in the Communist world. I recall visiting Czechoslovakia in the 1960s when train travel was dirt cheap, car travel only for a few, bus travel more expensive than trains, and air travel too expensive for most people. With central controls, then all fares can be regulated to ensure the right balance is achieved. But with the type of free-for-all we now have, with subsidised fuel for air travellers, and all travel actually responsible to shareholders (which means there is a legal obligation to maximise profit above all other considerations), there is virtually no prospect of an environmentally friendly public transport system. And while I am at it, I will remind everyone, that air travel is now de facto part of public transport, and often much more fuel efficient than the average rural bus service. But of course there is a difference, in that most air travel is non essential. {Having written that, I realse that many rural bus services are now packed with pensioners swanning around on their passes, making them most of free travel.

More people travelling more and more. That's the real problem. And everyone wanting more of everything, and wanting it cheaper than before. Thereby driving the manufacture of goods overseas where environmental controls are less stringent, the production of food overseas where welfare standards are lower etc etc etc. Depressing. Perhaps a positive aspect of the economic downturn is that we are all realizing how much 'stuff' we all buy that we don't really need. Perhaps some politicians may even realise that continued economic growth is simply not sustainable if it is dependent on constantly expanding human populations.

Free Market economics

As everyone probably knows, understanding economics is not my strong point. However, having survived being self-employed for over 40 years, and created a relatively successful organisation from next to nothing, I have learned a few things along the way. The first thing I would observe is that the idea that a totally free market is a good way of letting the world run its affairs is probably daft. It is difficult to pinpoint any period in history where it has actually worked. And the reality is that the current so-called 'free markets' like the 12th century in England, are actually far from free -- they are heavily skewed in favour of a select few, who make vast profits.



The second observation I would make, is that small may not be always beautiful, but huge is certainly disastrous. To me it is blindingly obvious that there are limits to growth, and that when corporations get absolutely huge, they are bound, at some point to collapse. The only reason for them getting so big appears to be in order to justify vast salaries for the people who run these behemoths. Does anyone think to ask how 'efficient' or sensible it is to have to spend vast millions sorting out the trail of problems left behind when these huge companies collapse? Surely the only huge corporations that should exist have to be state owned? That way vast profits cannot be creamed off into private pockets, but can be reinvested for the public good? And when the mega-corporations get so big, the whole argument about competition collapses anyway -- they become de-facto monopolies. There were very good reasons for nationalising railways, water companies and power companies with monopolies. And very flimsy, selfish reasons for privatising them. And not good for the environment either. Perhaps if capitalism is to survive, a limit to capital needs to be imposed. That way when collapses occur, then they will not bring down whole economies.



In the course of developing the World Land Trust, I have seen that there are important economies of scale. But as we grow, I also see a loss of flexibility, a loss of dexterity and innovation. The trick is to keep a balance. But I am certain that there is a limit to growth, beyond which the organisation loses sight of its original vision. A point at which the number-crunchers take over. As I have mentioned elsewhere, business methods are introduced, and 'efficiency' is measured in purely financial terms. Despite the spectacular growth of the World Land Trust in the past few years, so far we are keeping our enthusiasm and our vision. But stopping it becoming another 'corporate conservation organisation' is the challenge ahead.

Fuel and food myths

There is a panic in the press about rising fuel prices and rising food prices. This is misleading the public, because the reality is that for the past 40 years we have been living in a blip in history. We are now getting back to normality.

Historically, the basic necessities of life have consumed most of an average family's income. For hundreds of years, most of the income a family generated went on feeding, clothing and housing. But for the past 40 years, in Britain and Europe, all these commodities have been getting progressively cheaper and cheaper. But this reduction in cost was based on unsustainable premises.

I could argue that a lot of the western economy, based as it is on extreme capitalism, is under threat. Crocodile tears have been shed at the collapse, or near collapse, of financial institutions, but why should we care? What do they really contribute? When capitalism is taken to the extremes of globalisation, there are huge numbers of people making money out of doing absolutely nothing productive -- simply shifting money around (but of course somewhere, someone is almost certainly being exploited, as any old fashioned socialist can explain to you). I can't get too upset about this, except it does have a major impact on wildlife. It leads to ever more rapacious attacks on natural resources. Agriculture expands, to provide more and more, cheaper and cheaper food, for our wasteful societies. I recall a recent statistic that stated around 40% of food in the UK was wasted. No wonder the rainforests are being cut for soya plantations.

What's the answer? Forget switching off the TV, we need to be far less wasteful in many other really big ways. Forget the idea of constant economic growth. Forget the idea that everything should be as cheap as possible, and thrown away in a few months. And bring population growth to the top of the political agenda. More and more people are going to put more and more pressure on resources; resources such as healthcare and transport.

I will repeat myself (and continue to do so whenever possible): Governments are using climate change and all environmental issues to obfuscate the real issue, and that is human population growth. And they are also ignoring the fact that any increase in population in a developed country, has significantly more environmental impacts than in a very poor country.

Oil Price hike great for conservation?

With world leaders trying to bring down the price of oil, one thing seems to have been overlooked. The dramatic rise is probably the best thing that could have happened for the planet.

It is surely the swiftest way of curtailing the profligate use of energy. And in any case the high price of petrol is not actually related to the high price of a barrel of oil (at least in the UK,) it is largely related to the tax that is placed on it. It seems bizarre that the UK and other governments are trying to get everyone to reduce their dependence on a carbon economy, to reduce emissions, but as soon as a simple way of doing it comes along they cry "Foul." Not only does a hike in oil prices reduce demand for petrol etc, it will undoubtedly have a knock-on effect on a whole range of consumer products. So all in all, surely for the sake of the future of the planet, we should be welcoming a dramatic rise in oil prices, and hope for further increases. Or have I got something wrong?

Lewis Wind Farm Refused Consent by the Scottish Government

An update from WLT supporter, Deborah Kilner, on the proposed wind farm in Lewis.

When I wrote about the proposed Lewis wind farm (in 2004!), I never dreamt it would take until April 2008 to get a decision - thankfully, a full refusal of this inappropriate scheme put forward by AMEC and British Energy. The members of Moorland without Turbines (MWT) have continued to work tirelessly in defence of their much loved environment and they deserve sincere congratulations for their succesful campaign.

The Scottish Government's Energy Minister, Jim Mather, made the following quotes on why the scheme was rejected:

"I have considered this application very carefully. I have listened to representations from the applicant, taken the views of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (the Western Isles Council) and considered the 10,924 objections and 98 letters of support."

"The Lewis Wind Farm would have significant adverse impacts on the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area, which is designated due to its high value for rare and endangered birds."

There is no doubt that the professional approach of the MWT volunteers in persisting with rallying local resistance to the AMEC/British Energy proposals was an absolutely pivotal factor in the decision to refuse planning permission.

Much though the decision has been greeted with relief, there is still an ongoing battle to oppose two other large schemes - the Eisgein proposal from multi-millionare Mr Nick Oppenheim, now much amended from his original scheme, and the other large proposal for the Pairc area.

It really has been a "David & Goliath" contest and it is not every day that ordinary people take on and beat large corporations like AMEC and British Energy.

Please take a moment to look at MWT's web site, if you are interested in finding out more: www.mwtlewis.org.uk

Water, water everywhere, and lights everywhere as well

850,000 litres of water were bought by the House of Commons, at a cost of £324,000, according to a recent article in London's Evening Standard newspaper. And this is a government allegedly committed to saving resources, reducing carbon etc etc. The company that delivers the bottled water clocked up some 70,000 miles delivering it, and each litre was packaged in a non-returnable glass bottle. According to the Evening standard Minister Phil Woolas claimed it 'Bordered on being morally unacceptable.' Perhaps an understatement.

Government twittering about energy, and everyone being exhorted to stop flying drive less, doesn't make a lot of sense, when you see huge amounts of waste. Bottled water must be one of the craziest of all -- shipping around the country a substance that it to all intents and purposes indistinguishable from what comes out of a tap, is a huge drain on energy and other resources.

And then there is my old gripe: street lighting. Light pollution is rife, with millions and millions of kilowatts blazing away into the night sky. Causing birds to get lost on migration, probably causing the extinction of many species of insects, and an aesthetically nauseating orange glow over much of the northern hemisphere. Before worrying about whether or not we have left the TV on standby, let's worry about the street lighting left on all night, the church towers floodlit, and all the other major forms of waste.

Threats to Woodlark Island

Kelly Jacobs, the WLT's new Education and Training Officer sent me the following, which I thought I would share with my readers:

I was shocked and saddened to hear the news that 70% of the rainforest on a single small island is to be destroyed for palm oil plantation.

The government of Papua New Guinea has granted a permit to Vitroplant Ltd., a Malaysian biofuel company, to convert 60,000 hectares of the 80,000 hectare Woodlark Island into palm oil plantation.

Perhaps unsurprisingly the villagers inhabiting the island were largely unaware of the project until after its approval. Although they oppose the development they feel helpless against a giant corporation. Short term benefits of improved infrastructure and jobs are far outweighed by the massive impact this development will have on the culture and lifestyles of the 6,000 islanders.

I can't help feeling angry at the low regard in which the government holds the islander's claims to the land. The local culture of gardening, low impact cultivation, hunting and fishing will eventually be devastated by, not only the initial deforestation but also, the continuing environmental impact of monoculture plantations on the biodiversity and likely ongoing pollution to the land, water supplies and coral reefs surrounding the island.

With at least 20 endemic species found on the island, ranging from the Woodlark Cuscus to damselflies, it is likely that the deforestation and ensuing pollution of the habitat that will arise from the plantations will result in the endangerment and possibly extinction of certain species.

Dr Chris Norris, a zoologist and palaeontologist, and Dr Kristopher Helgen, a mammalogist, have both commented on the strong possibility that there are more endemic plants and animals yet to be named, described or even discovered. If the clearance of 70% of the island for monoculture palm oil trees goes ahead, these species could go extinct without ever being discovered. In this enlightened age we all feel not only an emotional connection to threatened habitats and wildlife, but also share the knowledge that once a species is extinct it is gone forever and once a forest has been cleared it can never be restored exactly (and the release of carbon, with the forest being felled, cannot be 'undone').

100 of the 6,000 Woodlark Islanders travelled to the capital of Milne Bay Province, Alotau, to protest against the biofuel industry taking precedence over native rights. But this disregard for local communities is by no means a one off. In January 2008 the news came that a Penan chieftain who long campaigned against logging in Borneo had been found dead, believed to have been killed by loggers - and he wasn't the first (http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0103-borneo_hance.html).
Suddenly it seems a much bigger issue than saving a single, though highly significant, island. It seems to me that the freedoms we enjoy in our comparably cosy lives are such that the people living in rainforests and trying to protect them can never imagine. No wonder they are calling for international aid and awareness raising. Threatened and bullied by giant corporations that are inevitably headed by wealthy developers these people on the front line will eventually be cowed into submission and all we will do from afar is lament the loss of the forests and wildlife.

We shouldn't think that there is nothing that we can do and just shrug our shoulders. There are governments to write to, petitions to sign and that age old adage of 'voting with your feet' to employ. Sign the Earth Action petition to the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea and add your voice to the more than 2,600 others from 71 countries for saving Woodlark Island. It takes less than 5 minutes; surely you can spare that, sat in your chair at your computer? I'm not holding a gun to your head, beating you with a stick or threatening to run you down with an excavator. Put yourself on the front line for a moment - I bet in your head, you run back home pretty quick!

If, like me, you are outraged by this news, read more about it at http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1213-woodlark.html and sign a petition to the PNG government at http://www.ecoearth.info/alerts/send.asp?id=png_woodlark.

Thanks Kelly for bringing this to my attention, and I hope some of our readers will respond.

Stuff and more Stuff (or Doom and Gloom)

Early in October I wrote about the futility of switching off the odd light and TV to save energy. It becomes more and more apparent to me that the whole issue of consumerism is being blatantly ignored by politicians paying lip-service to environmental concerns. It is perfectly obvious, that all these measures are doing is redistributing our spending. And almost everything we spend on has a huge resource implication. However, watching a TV programme on modern art made me think: Perhaps if millions of dollars/pounds/euros are spent on a piece of modern art (however that is defined) that at least does not have massive implications for the environment. After all a $5million painting only requires very few resources compared with a $5million ocean going boat. Trouble is, that the artist or dealer getting the $5million may well spend it on cars, intercontinental travel etc etc.

Which brings me full circle. While we have a free market, where commodities have to be as cheap as possible, there is little hope. Energy will be wasted, goods will continue to become increasingly disposable, and we will all make more and more unnecessary journeys, and commute longer and longer distances. And if at the same time the population continues to increase, there is only one possible result.

However, I was interested to read a geologist pointing out that this does not mean the planet will be destroyed -- it's not a case of saving planet earth -- it simply means that humans and a few hundred (or perhaps thousands) other species will go. The planet will survive, and so will enough of the other species to start the whole process over again. Over the millennia, catastrophes have wiped out large percentages of life. More recently human civilizations have regularly collapsed. The current 'civilization' has not been around very long, and probably won't be around much longer. But the planet shouldn't worry. But any person under 50 probably should worry. A lot.

water water every where, and far too much to drink

I would like to return to one of my old hobby horses. I go to London most weeks, and this week was no exception. I am a Trustee of the BBC Wildlife Fund, and we were assessing the applications for funds to be distributed from the £1.4 million raised in the summer.

But travelling across London on the underground I was aware of the number of travellers clutching plastic bottles of water. I have been travelling on the London underground for over 50 years, and this a relatively new phenomenon. Why?

It appears that there is a widespread belief that everyone needs to drink two litres of water a day. Presumably this is a rumour spread by the manufacturers of bottled water, because there is no scientific evidence for this. You need to drink water, when you feel thirsty -- the body self regulates.

But with all this talk about saving energy, banning the sale of bottled water ( or at least taxing it to the limit) would be an instant way of saving vast amounts of energy. Non-renewable resources and fossil fuels are involved at every stage of the manufacture and production. The bottles themselves, the collection of the water, the distribution, and the disposal of the waste bottles. And yet perfectly good, potable water comes out of taps (despite the arguments about it tasting of chlorine, etc, it is perfectly healthy and safe). In fact some of the bottled water has more nitrates, and more chemicals than tap water. In fact I saw on one website the claim that some bottled waters couldn't be supplied through the tap, since they wouldn't meet H & S regulations.

And surely bottled water wastes more energy than leaving a TV on standby? But do politicians ever mention it? No, they drink it at all their meetings.



Does any one have a figure for the embedded energy in a bottle of water (including distribution and disposal)?

Changing Lightbulbs

The suggestion that it is a huge environmental advance to make everyone change from incandescant lightbulbs to fluorescent bulbs leaves me utterly incredulous. This truly is an example of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. BUt this is what the politicians want us to believe is an important step forward.

Think about it. All over Britain there are tens of thousands of lightbulbs left switched on all night for no apparent purpose. Street lights. Lights in shops that are closed. Lights illuminating the outside of buildings.

There is only one way of making significant energy savings, and that is to increase the price dramatically, otherwise, energy saving will invariably increase the disposable income in someone's pockets, which they will spend on something that will almost certainly use energy and other resources. It's an old hobby horse of mine, but we really need to think a bit more strategically at the issues.

I spent a couple of days in London this week, and ended up utterly and completely depressed. For all the talk about environmental awareness, it is perfectly plain to me that 99% of the population do not really care -- they are obsessed with fashion, with far too many cheap electrical goods, too much 'stuff' everywhere. Cheap transport, cheap everything. And too many people, all aspiring to own more and more of it. Switching the TV off and changing to fluorescent lightbulbs (which I saw somewhere, have mercury in them) is not going to save the world. We need some big gestures, and big gestures only come from governments. But with virtually all governments totally committed to economic growth, making commodities as cheap as possible, what hope is there? Never was it truer, to state: "It's the economy, stupid." I hope someone can find a light at the end of the tunnel.

The big green con

It is high time we took a reality check on the 'green' credentials of the carbon offset business. I have looked at numerous websites, and my conclusion is that the overwhelming majority are cynical attempts to exploit a growing environmental awareness, that do little to help conserve the planet for the future. Most are for profit businesses, and while there may not be anything intrinsically wrong in this, in practice, it will rarely lead to long term benefits to the natural environment.

The World Land Trust got involved in carbon offsets, simply because we saw it as a mechanism for raising funds for carrying out activities which were in themselves incredibly important-- that is saving land that is important for biodiversity. The fact that it also locks up carbon, is an added bonus for us. But there are plenty of cynically exploitative businesses out there, planting trees almost randomly.

It is generally recognised that for tree planting to have a significant carbon offset, it needs to be in the tropics, and having carried out our own research, and having worked with experienced local partners, we now know that it is relatively expensive to do this properly -- in fact we reckon it costs £12-£15 a tonne, to do the job properly, and ensure long-term survival. Consequently, I am very suspicious when I see businesses (that also have to make a profit, unlike a charity)claiming they can do it for as little as £7.00 a tonne. It is perhaps time the Advertising Standards Authority took a close look at some of the claims.

Biofuels, ethanol, biodiesel and rainforests.

Just as one environmental disaster seems to get proper attention another rears its ugly head. Climate change is at last being taken seriously, and the impact of burning fossil fuels recognised. So what happens? George Bush and other world leaders start encouraging us to use 'biofuels'. Unfortunately among the most efficient (i.e. profitable) ways of producing biofuels are from sugar cane and palm oil. And the easiest way of producing large quantities of these is to cut down tropical rainforests (thereby releasing even more CO2 into the atmosphere, as well as wiping out even more biodiversity).

Which makes the WLTs attempts to save rainforests all the more urgent.

Bio-ethanol, and mass starvation

The US, at long last has finally decided that it has to produce renewable energy. And it has also realised that the huge grain surplus it produces is a good source of bio-ethanol. President Bush in his State of the Union address set a production goal for 2017 of 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels. That will need one hell of a lot of grain -- and it has been pointed out that the impact of this one the world's poorest countries will be devastating. This is because the world's food aid programmes generally have fixed budgets, consequently if the US grain surplus dwindles, the market price of what's left will go through the roof, and the funds available to supple the grain to the world's poorest countries will not be sufficient.

And the knock-on does not stop there. If the US finds a ready market for its grain surpluses, and the UK starts growing more and more rapeseed, this will mean that the developed world will import more cheap food from developing countries. Overall this will undoubtedly push world food prices up. The increase will have very little impact on the wealthy nations of the world, where the cost of food is a negligible proportion of the day to day living costs. But in the poorest countries it will be devastating -- forcing millions into starvation.

And this is all without even considering the ecological consequences, of converting more marginal lands in the tropics for intensive agriculture, its use of pesticides, water for irrigations, etc etc etc.
As ever, politicians and economists look at short-term fixes, with little regard for long-term solutions.

Population quotes

I received a link to this article from the USA, which is an very succinct summary, well worth a read.....

http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/apr/17/commentary-society-not-science-must-solve-global-w/

Greenwash etc.

The hype about carbon offsetting is beginning to annoy me. This is because, although there is clearly a major worldwide problem, no one is really confronting the real issues, and looking at the problems logically.

I will list a few issues, not in any particular order of importance, but as they occur to me. Some of them I have mentioned before, on more than one occasion, others are new. All simple to fix, but ignored, as it it either not politically correct to discuss them, or no one wants to know.

1 Public transport. I visit London regularly. And the underground system is overcrowded, and thoroughly unpleasant to travel on most of the time. Why? Because too many people use it. But, I hear the greenies say, "Public Transport is a good thing". I agree, but only if the journey is needed. If public transport is made too cheap, and too convenient, then people use it for unnecessary journeys. And in London, the travel passes, and 'Oyster' cards, mean that once you have made a couple of journeys, the rest are effectively free -- so people use it to go a few hundred yards. I never use buses in London, but I suspect the same is true on the buses.

And on longer journeys it's even worse. The rail networks offer ludicrously cheap fares all over the country, to ensure the trains are profitable outside the peak times -- but most of these are pure leisure journeys. But all this extra travel then makes the public transport system seem 'efficient' and 'greener' than any other form of transport. The reality is that, take away all the non essential journeys, and most public transport is far less 'environmentally friendly' than it is made out to be.

2 Bottled water Of all the wasteful products in the world, bottled water is surely the most unnecessary. Packaged in plastic from fossil fuels, and shipped vast distances, and drunk by people who can rarely distinguish between the product and the one that comes out of a tap, it is surely the most wasteful of all natural resources.

3 Street lighting The amount of energy that could be saved if street lighting went of at midnight is phenomenal. And all other forms of unnecessary outdoor lighting. Not only is this incredibly wasteful of energy, it is also a pernicious form of pollution, causing disruption to the behaviour of migrating birds, the lifecycle of insects and much more. Easy to do, but no will to do it

4 Greenwich Mean Time If the England and Wales were to keep summertime all the year round, and have double summertime in the summer months, not only would energy be saved, but there would probably be fewer depressed humans around. Easy to do, but no will to do it.

5 Human population enough said.......

Cost efficiency vs quality of life

We are digging ourselves into a deeper and deeper hole, because we imagine (or politicians have conned us into believing) that quality of life is improved by having low taxes and all commodities as cheap as possible. The con' is that under low taxation, the poor get poorer and the rich get richer -- a gap that has widened significantly in my lifetime. Efficiency has become equated with cost. Just because it is cheaper for a council to privatise the street cleaning does not mean it is efficient. There are many ways of measuring efficiency, and in a wealthy society we should include quality of life and several other factors. It can be 'efficient' to cut down a mangove forest if you own it, because you can make a quick profit, and then reinvest in something else. But is this efficient for the rest of the inhabitants of the region, who then get swept away by the next tsunami?

I am constantly horrified at how cheap most commodities have become. Food, furniture, fabrics, electronics, travel -- you name it. Almost everything of this nature is getting ludicrously cheap. Compare real prices with real prices of 30 or 50 years ago. Luxury good have spiralled into the nether regions, with paintings by Damien Hirst commanding astronomical figures -- but the resource base of a painting may not be any greater than a single copy of a magazine. And while I am meandering, and prattling about resources, an article in 3rd Sector Magazine pointed out that charities are among the most wasteful users of paper and other resources. Charities involved in direct mailing (NOT the WLT I must emphasise) expect a 95% wastage -- that's a lot of paper, pens, and apparently other unwanted 'gifts' as well. But perhaps that's another story.......

Saving energy, and economic imperialism

I don't know who is conning who, but with all the talk about energy conservation there is a serious con' going on. There is talk of taxing aviation fuel, there are constant exhortations for us to use low energy lightbulbs, use energy efficient cars etc etc and so on. But while energy is in the hands of private business, who, we should bear in mind, have a legal responsibility to maximise profits for their shareholders, who really believes that the energy companies want us to use less? I certainly don't. Of course they all want us to use more and more. That's why they are building windfarms all over the Scottish Isles and the North Sea.

Sorry, but this is unacceptable. There is only one way of making us all conserve energy, and that is to nationalise it, and price it to ensure that the most polluting and inefficient sources cost the most. There are, of course problems with this approach of increasing price -- inevitably the poorer sections of society will be the hardest hit, but there are ways around this problem. But what is very clear to me is that the free market economy will simply encourage us all to use as much energy as it can. And if we don't use it in Britain or America, we'll simply import goods made with cheap, polluting energy from Asia.

We are digging ourselves into a deeper and deeper hole, because we imagine (or politicians have conned us into believing) that quality of life is improved by having low taxes and all commodities as cheap as possible. The con' is that under low taxation, the poor get poorer and the rich get richer -- a gap that has widened significantly in my lifetime. Efficiency has become equated with cost. Just because it is cheaper for a council to privatise the street cleaning does not mean it is efficient. There are many ways of measuring efficiency, and in a wealthy society we should include quality of life and several other factors. It can be 'efficient' to cut down a mangrove forest if you own it, because you can make a quick profit, and then reinvest in something else. But is this efficient for the rest of the inhabitants of the region, who then get swept away by the next tsunami?

A couple of months ago I met with Pete Taylor, who worked for the WLT a few years ago, setting up the Focus on Forests website. Since then Pete has worked with Friends of the Earth, and is now working for the World Development Movement (WDM) on their website. I had a good lock at their website, and there are several parts of it which will have resonance with some of my readers -- they certainly struck a chord with me.

Unlike most of the big development agencies, WDM does not receive large amounts of its funding from DFID, or other government agencies, and consequently is able to criticise, when criticism is justified. The following following link is a fairly alarming report:
http://www.wdm.org.uk/news/30millionaidonconsultants26112006.htm

The British Government, it appears, is spending £30 million on encouraging poor countries to privatise their water companies. With predictions that the next major wars will be fought over water resources, this could be viewed as a very cynical attempt to recolonise the poorer nations. Imperial colonisation may have passed into history, but economic colonisation is alive and well -- just look at the spread of CocaCola and McDonalds. But it is scary when funding ostensibly intended as aid, is used to encourage such economic colonialism.

I confess a total dislike of the very concept of private ownership of resources such as energy and water. They should be a common heritage and managed for the benefit of the commonweal. They should not be used to line the pockets of a few investors and speculators. They are also the prime example of how when profits for the shareholders are claimed to equate with efficiency, other benefits are ignored. Which is easy to do, when you have an de facto monopoly. I have never ever really heard a convincing argument for privatising water supplies, for instance. Our local water companies have changed hands several times, but it's still the same water coming through the pipes, the only difference seems to be that different groups of shareholders have taken some of the profits that could have been used to repair the leaks in the system and help conserve water. And how energy efficient is it when French electrical engineers come all the way to East Anglia to repair cabling, because the company is owned by French shareholders? (as happened locally last month).

If governments are going to be serious about energy and natural resource conservation, they are going to have to think very seriously indeed about privatisation, because in many cases privatisation of such resources is incompatible with conservation. I recall having the basics of this explained to me in the early 1970s, when I was part of a team working of the Whale manual for Friends of the Earth. Under any competitive industry regime, it was not 'efficient' to conserve whales. It was in the interests of the investors to exterminate them as rapidly as it was compatible with profit margins, and certainly in the lifetime of equipment used to exterminate them..... but that's another story.

Privatisation of utilities

Following on from blog a few weeks ago, I thought about other one-time nationalised industries. Electricity, gas, coal. I.e. Power supplies. Everyone in the UK is being exhorted to conserve energy by the government (as well as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and every environmentalist under the sun). Public awareness of the issues concerning energy from non-renewable natural resources is now almost certainly higher than at any time in the past. Even awareness about the complexities surrounding so-called renewables such as wind-power are more widely understood.

But call me thick, when energy supplies are privatised, and owned by profit making companies, the companies have primary responsibilities to their shareholders, and they have a legal responsibility to return a profit. In order to make a profit they have to sell energy, and since they are in competition with other companies selling the same or similar products, the principal way they can increase profits is by selling more of their product. They can of course increase 'efficiency' whatever that means, but ultimately, to maintain profits, they have to sell more of the product. Which of course is in direct conflict with the objectives of conserving energy. The same of course applies to petrol and diesel for cars.

The advocates of free markets will of course argue that it's all to do with market share, but I am not convinced. The evidence is surely to be found in trade statistics, and also to be found in the philosophies of economists and politicians. Since most countries seem to be driven by the apparent 'need' for expanding economies, they have also based this concept on the 'need' for expanding populations. Of course the only people who actually need these, are those obsessed with making ever increasing profits (i.e big businesses and politicians controlled by them). For centuries economies were based on the overall majority of businesses being small, and sustainable, with huge groupings of population being largely self-sufficient.

I deduce from this that the only realistic way that a country like Britain is ever going to reduce its demands for energy and other non-renewable resources, yet still maintain its expected standards of living, is to have a declining population. Comments on a postcard, email, etc.

Public versus private transport -- a reasoned response

Last week I ran into an old Friend from my days with Friends of the Earth back in the 1970s. He was the transport campaigner Mick Hamer, and I talked to him about the issues I have raised concerning public transport, and in fact I rather loosely (but apparently more or less correctly) quoted him in an earlier blog. Mick kindly sent me his opinion, which does address some of my concerns, and gives a very logical and rational approach.

I think the bottom line is that a society in which everyone flies or drives is one that is completely unsustainable. One in which people only walk, cycle or use public transport is one that is pretty close to be sustainable--or could be made so. There would be less global warming, less pollution, no new roads and less building on greenfield sites.

Should people be discouraged from flying and driving? Yes. Should people be discouraged from taking trains or buses? This is much more difficult, partly because it is a less important problem than flying and driving and partly because if you want to tackle flying and driving then it makes sense to offer public transport as an alternative.

Hope that useful, Mick.

This is a good approach, though I do have to say, that it is biased towards urban-dwellers. It does not really help if you live in low-density rural areas.

Environmentally disastrous public transport

Sorry to go on about it, but having recently travelled by 'public transport' to a conference in Angers, in the Loire Valley of France, I have even more disquiet about promoting 'public transport' as being environmentally friendly.

On arrival at Waterloo International I was confronted by a seething mass of travellers, most of who seemed to be en route to DisneyLand Paris. And Yes, the train was full, no doubt enabling the pundits to claim that it was more environmentally friendly than going by car or flying. But as I flashed through the countryside I wondered how many people needed to make the journey, compared with those who were making it simply because it was cheap and easy. In fact, my own decision to go to the conference was to a large extent based on the fact that it was reasonably cheap and easy to do so.

It reinforced my view that 'public' transport may be a social good, but it is not automatically environmentally good. All transport has an element of negative impact on the natural environment. In some cases, those impacts are less than other forms of transport, but in many (most?) cases efficient public transport simply encourages people to travel more, and the cheaper it is the more it is used. But this does not mean that it is environmentally friendly. Paradoxically, air transport has less impact on many terrestrial ecosystems than extensive networks of major roads, for example.

Instead of urging people to use public transport, a good environmentalist should urge people to cut out non-essential journeys. If we all did that, then public transport economics would probably change dramatically, and since most 'public transport' systems are now privatised, it would produce some interesting results. This is because most public transport systems, being privatised, and profit driven, are now to a greater or lesser extent dependent on people making more and more non-essential journeys.

I am not saying don't go to Disneyland, and I am not saying don't make journeys for pleasure. But I am saying don't think that all public transport is environmentally friendly. Train journeys have an impact on the environment -- not perhaps as much as air flights - but an impact nonetheless. They require fossil fuels to power them, and concrete and steel to ride on.

As with so many of my blogs (unfortunately) I am not offering any answers or solutions. I am trying to open up what seem to me complex issues, being treated in very simplistic ways, not only by politicians (who are often simple souls), but also by environmentalists who should know better.

A footnote: What is 'public transport'? Is it transport FOR the public (ie. Virgin trains, Ryanair, or taxis? Or is it transport OWNED BY the public (i.e British Rail, now privatised, British Overseas Airways Corporation, now BA etc)?