These notes originally formed Chapter 6 of ‘Corporate
Social Responsibility’... (go back to csr
Chapter 5) (go on to csr Chapter 7)
– I try to update them from time to time, but there
are many gaps: this is a huge field!!!
Links: Other
Parts of ‘The Natural Environment’: Extra notes on the environment:
imagining other index page Part
2 The Environmental Movement Australia
Part 3 Environmentalism and Political
Philosophy Val Plumwood Part 4 Climate Change
Bookmarks for topics in
these notes (an incomplete list - I will add more later!): and see #other problems
acid
rain agriculture air pollution
(and cars) air
pollution updates alternative technology
badgers bees Bellamy (David) biodiversity
[and conservation] biofuels
BP BSE (and CJD)
carbon carbon dioxide carbon trading cars: see air pollution CFCs climate change: see Global warming and Part 4 Club of Rome coal co-operatives coral reefs
ecology Elkington
and Hailes exponential growth externalities Exxon Exxon Valdez oil spill
Gaia
hypothesis GDP genetic
modification Global Warming
and see Part 4 Gorz (Andre) greenhouse effect green business
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change) Iraq
Limits to Growth lobbying Lomborg (D)
market
mechanisms methane Monbiot (George)
Nigeria nuclear power
[see also renewable energy]
oil other problems ozone-layer
pesticides population precautionary
principle
recycling – see waste renewable energy (solar, wind, tidal etc)
[see also nuclear power...]
the sea Shell Silent Spring social
enterprise the
soil spaceship earth Stern Report sustainability
waste and recycling water weather
2. Key Concepts: #key concepts
2.1 Ecology and the ecosystem - living things
interacting with each other and with their environment: biodiversity makes for
stability; non-hierarchical interdependency.
2.2 World model: the planet as ecosystem – spaceship
earth: impact of human activity; Club of Rome report 1972 “Limits to Growth”:
population, resource depletion, production of food, and of goods, land, pollution,
exponential growth, feedback loops.
2.3 Gaia hypothesis: earth as self-regulating system
3.1 Monetary values: how to put a price on quality of
life? air, sea, rivers: free?
3.2 Externalities/residuals - the market’s limitations
4.2 Acid rain: #acid rain
lakes, trees, plants, buildings, coral reefs
4.3 The ozone layer: #ozone layer
- skin cancers: CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons): found in:
aerosols, foam blowing, air conditioning, fridges. Action: substitutes ?
recycling? time-lag...
[4.4 the greenhouse effect – global warming – climate
change: now see Part 4.
]
4.5 coal: #coal
4.6 oil: #oil
4.7 corporate lobbying on climate change: #lobbying (notes to be moved)
4.8 renewable energy: #renewable (notes to be moved...)
5 Other problems (alphabetical order):
5.1
Agriculture, the land, and soil: #agriculture
5.2
Badgers: #badgers
5.3
Bees: #bees
5.4
Biodiversity: #biodiversity
5.5
Biofuels: #biofuels
5.6
‘Development’ – and developing countries: #developing
countries
5.7
Food and food miles: #food miles
5.8
Fracking: #fracking
5.9
Genetic modification: #genetic modification
5.10
Nuclear power: #nuclear
5.11
Pesticides: #pesticides
5.12
Population: #population
5.13
Sea: #sea
5.14
Waste: #waste
5.15
Water #water (and flooding).
6.1 The market, new technology – “carbon trading” (
6.2 Self-regulation - “reduce, recycle, re-use” –
green business, But: just PR?
6.3 Policing the market - pressure groups & green
lifestyle/green consumer (“light green” approach) – carbon accounting. But:
growth still? Structures not changed.
6.4 Regulating the market - planning the economy. But:
unaccountable bureaucracy; public not involved.
6.5 Sustainable development, “sustainability”. But:
just a “buzz” word? Current inequalities
and power structures maintained, unless redistribution occurs; third world
expectations and rights not dealt with.
6.6 Alternative technology, new social structures
(“dark green” approach). But: utopian? How to implement? Eco-groups, ecological
housing etc.
7.
General References: #references.
**************************************************
1.1 Humans have always
affected their environment, especially since they settled on the land. (Nomadic
peoples and hunter-gatherers have a more balanced relationship with the land).
Agriculture needs the clearing of trees, and many places we think of as
“natural” such as the
However, note the time-scale below, and remember how
recently we have used agriculture and industry – we have affected the
environment without realising how short the time-scale of our existence is:
5.2
million years ago first hominids emerged in
2.6
million years ago first stone tools
2.3
earliest Homo genus
1.175
million – 350,000 Homo erectus
250,000
– 28,000 Neanderthals
1.6
Homo sapiens appears as a species, and 100,000 years ago anatomically modern
humans appear in
90,00
years ago modern humans reach Near East
72,000
y.a. first use of fire to modify stone tools, 70,000 y.a. earliest decorated
stones
50,000
y.a. modern humans reach
40,000
y.a. cave art begins, modern humans reach
12,000
y.a. modern humans reach
10
– 11,000 y.a. farming begins in
7,500
farming reaches
6,200
y.a. earliest known city in
200
years ago industrialised society
emerges.
In
other words, industrialised society has existed for 0.000027% of the time
humans and their ancestors have been in existence. Or: 8 generations out of
300,000.
(From
Natural World, Winter 2009)
1.2 However, once industrialisation
got under way, factories and railways altered the landscape dramatically, and
began to cause what we think of as pollution.
William Blake, the 18th century English poet and artist, who
wrote the words of “
Later, especially in
large towns such as
1.3 Another kind of
pollution that arrived with towns and cities was air pollution
(see further details below). The smoke from factory chimneys became so thick,
that at times visibility was reduced to a few feet. The mixture of fog and
smoke (especially when they reacted with sunlight: photochemical smog) came to
be called “smog”. Again, when it was realised that large numbers of people,
especially the very young and the elderly, were suffering from asthma and other
lung diseases as a result of the air pollution, then legislation was
passed: the Clean Air Act of 1955 in
The other salient point
to be emphasised as something that was learnt from the phenomenon of smog was
that often combinations of chemicals are more dangerous than each
one separately. Thus smog actually caused by a mixture of otherwise fairly
harmless gases, but which when exposed to sunlight, became dangerous –
photochemical smog. These interactions are an important part of
the phenomenon of pollution.
1.4 The next step in our
gradual realisation of the scale and complexity of problems of pollution came
in the 1950s, with the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”. She noticed that there were less
birds than there had been, and she traced the decline to the increased use of
chemical pesticides. It was soon realised that chemicals used to spray crops or
to remove weeds were not disappearing, but remained in the bodies of the
insects, animals and finally humans that ate the crops. Thus the idea of the
“food chain” was accepted as important in understanding our interaction with
the environment.
1.5 In the 1970s
another publication – the report of the “Club of
(i) There are limits to many resources, such as
coal, minerals and oil, and at some point in the future we are going to exhaust
these resources
(ii) Each element in the relationship between humans
and their environment needs to be studied in relation to the whole – as
each affects other elements. Thus,
obviously, population growth leads to more pollution,
and growing more food leads to a scarcity of land; but also reducing pollution
means a growth in
population – so a faster use of resources. Another way
of describing these interactions is to think of feedback loops – as when you place a microphone to near a
loudspeaker, and the sound from the speaker goes
through the microphone, back through the speaker, and so on – the result is a
horrible whining or hum!
(iii) Examples of
feedback:
Note: now we are aware
of climate change (see later), there are some striking examples of feedback.
CO2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’ – that is, a gas that acts like the glass of a
greenhouse, and traps warmth (which would otherwise have escaped into space).
We have produced more CO2 since the industrial revolution began, as we have
burned fossil fuel (coal, gas and oil). This is increasing the average
temperature of the earth...
- oceans, soil and trees
absorb half the CO2 that humans produce. As the climate warms (due to the
increased CO2 we have produced), the sea and the soil may produce yet more CO2
as they warm up, thus in turn increasing the global warming effect. Also
tropical forests may die from excessive warmth or dry weather, and there will
be less absorption of CO2
- oceans, soil and trees
absorb half the CO2 that humans produce. As the climate warms (due to more
CO2), the sea and the soil may produce more CO2, also tropical forests may die
and there will be less absorption of CO2
-
the polar ice-sheets reflect nearly 80% of sunlight – if they melt the water
reflects less heat
-
(iv) The kind of growth pattern that many
natural phenomena (such as increases in population) follow is what is called exponential – that is, the rate of growth
increases as time goes on. This is a dangerous
process, since we tend not to realise there is a problem until too late in the
day. For example, weed on the surface
of a pond may be growing exponentially – if so, it
will take some time to cover half the pond, but then only a fraction of that
time to completely cover the pond
and suffocate the living creatures in it.
There were some
unexpected results from this study: in particular, it was suggested that if we
only apply solutions to single problems (e.g. pollution, or population control)
we will in fact make the overall situation worse!
A recent overview of our
damaging relationship to the environment comes from John Vidal, Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/19/seven-deadly-things-trash-planet-human-life
The 7 are: hyper-consumerism, corporate power, the
car, population, soil, inequality, poverty...
See my notes below 5. other problems on specific topics. This includes: new
dangers such as nuclear radiation – which not only poisons individuals
subjected to it, but damages their genetic makeup, and therefore affects future
offspring. Some radioactive materials also “decay” very slowly (radioactivity
is a process of decay of the atoms in a substance), and some man-made
radioactive elements will take hundreds of years to disappear. We don’t seem to
be able to leave “nature” alone, however, and scientists are now experimenting
with genetic modification of plants, and animals, and even cloning – the
public is alarmed by these experiments, and there is widespread opposition, but
commercial interests come into play and the experiments are going ahead in many
cases.
The science of ecology
deals with living things interacting with each other and with their
environment. We can study the ecology of any area – a pond, a river estuary,
even parts of our bodies (since bacteria etc live on our skin!). The area
studied acts as an ecosystem. What scientists have observed, and which gives a
scientific basis to some of the points made above, is that there is widespread
interdependency between the different elements in an ecosystem. This
corresponds to the point made above about food chains.
A recent article by
Robin McKie (Observer10th July 2016) illustrates this in a number of ways,
including how otters can help absorb carbon dioxide...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/10/sea-otters-global-warming-trophic-cascades-food-chain-kelp?page=with%3Aimg-2
– when the population of sea otters declined, then the crustaceans which formed
their foods increased, and they in turn destroyed the kelp forests – which are
important for absorbing CO2. The article deals with ‘trophic cascades’ – the
effects via the food chain on other components. This can be top-down (as here)
as well as bottom-up. The other discovery noted is that killer whales began to
feed on otters when their own food (whales) was diminished by whaling...
And a previous article:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/26/endangered-species-carnivores-extinction
Two important lessons can be learned from ecology:
(i) The
more elements in a system, the more likely it is that the whole system will
stay in balance. This is because a degree of “redundancy” is built in
i.e. elements can take over the function of others when needed (as in a
sophisticated electrical circuit, or in the human brain!). Thus, diversity,
especially biodiversity, makes for stability, and therefore to survival.
We can apply this principle to economies and human communities as well, I
believe. Any country that relies on only producing one or two agricultural
products (as was the case with
(ii) More unexpectedly, there is not the same hierarchical
arrangement in ecosystems that we have developed in our human, social
systems. Just because mammals are more complex living creatures, it does not follow
that they play a more important part in the survival of the system as a whole.
We could even argue that the “humblest” forms of life, i.e. bacteria, are the
most important, as without them most other life-forms would disappear.
2.2
WORLD MODEL: THE PLANET AS ECOSYSTEM – SPACESHIP
EARTH
Another fundamental principle (pointed out by the Club
of Rome report see Meadows et al 1972) comes from the application of ecosystems
thinking to the whole planet.
We live in a carefully balanced, closed system
– that is, the only extra resource that enters the system is sunlight,
otherwise everything else (water, air, land, plants, minerals) is finite. The different elements within the system -
population, resource depletion, production of food, and of goods, land,
pollution, interact in complex ways.
More recently, James
Lovelock (a scientist who worked for NASA on the question of how to identify
life on other planets) came up with the radical observation that the earth is a
self-regulating system (see Lovelock 1979, etc). It is amazing that life exists
at all, given the very special conditions that it needs; moreover, the earth
seems to maintain itself in balance – plants, microbes, water and air all
interacting and re-adjusting themselves to keep a steady set of environmental
conditions. Lovelock was not suggesting that there is anything like a god
maintaining the earth (even though Gaia was the name of the Greek earth
goddess), but some have rejected his theory because it seems metaphysical.
Lovelock always maintains that he is giving a scientific description of how the
earth system works.
It was also not
Lovelock’s intention to suggest that we need not do anything to protect the
environment: if we humans do enough damage we could upset the whole system,
whereas other living things always seem to keep the balance. The human race,
then, surely has a special responsibility to take care!
Update: Gaia and James Lovelock: June 2012 interview
where he defends nuclear and fracking (!):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/15/james-lovelock-interview-gaia-theory - argues we need fracking because methane is
better than coal; suggests politics here works like a self-regulating system,
the parties balancing each other out; the greens are a religion... Lovelock
says he is influenced by EO Wilson in that the mega-city is the way of the
future (seems to have little sympathy for those who fall out because of
competition etc), sustainable development is meaningless drivel’
Full
interview at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jun/15/james-lovelock-fracking-greens-climate
One of the challenging
criticisms that the green movement, and ecology, have thrown up is that conventional
economics is unable to help us understand the environment. At all sorts of
levels, the value-system of economics is inappropriate.
In economics we put a value on all kinds of
“productive” activity, and the
On the other hand,
economics is not able to put a value on the essential parts of
the environment: air, water, sunshine – so that if an industry damages, say the
air, there is no market
mechanism that will prevent this. Essentially, economics treats the natural
environment as a “free” resource: it belongs to no-one and so no-one will seek
costs, or sue anyone, if it is damaged. The market is a mechanism that only
works with regard to private property.
In economics, such “costs”
to the environment (e.g. a polluted river) incurred alongside but not in the
production process are actually called “externalities” or “residuals”.
(See Mishan 1967)
Surely this encourages
the attitude of irresponsibility that is at the root of most environmental
problems? The air is not in fact “free”, and it is encouraging misuse of it to
regard it this way. How ironic, that because the air belongs to us all, it is
counted as of no value! We have a situation then where, in the end, we can only
deal with the costs of pollution when the state steps in and sets fines or
penalties for pollution.
It has also often been
pointed out that the conventional economic measures such as GNP do not measure
the quality of life. Not many people want to live in a noisy, dirty,
ugly industrial environment where illness is widespread as a result of
pollution – yet such conditions may well be counted as part of a high GNP! Some attempts have been made to find
alternative measurements, such as a Measure of Domestic Progress (MDP),
suggested by the New Economics Foundation - this measure would “factor in the
social and environmental costs of economic growth, and the benefits of unpaid
work such as household labour, that are excluded from GDP” (see www.neweconomics.org) (see section E).
Finally, economics
cannot put a value on life itself, for example when someone is killed, other
than by calculating the amount of production that was lost by the death! What
an insult to the relatives of someone who has been, say, killed at work, to be
compensated in terms of the value to the workplace! The problem is that if we
use money as the measure of value, this means that the value of something lies
in what we can exchange it for, not in any intrinsic (or “use”) value. Both
Aristotle and Karl Marx believed that problems would follow from disregarding
use value in this way.
Diana Liverman surveys
the debate over the “commodification of nature” and the related question of how
to put a price on environmental services, in an article published in the Annals
of the Association of American Geographers – 94 (4).. As she points out, the
pro-market view regards putting all aspects of the environment on to the market
as the best solution to environmental damage – whilst opponents believe this
would lead to pillaging and damage to indigenous peoples. (See further under
Solutions, below).
Note: there are
obviously many forms of environmental damage. By taking this one alone I do not
want to suggest it is the only problem or even the most serious. What I want to
do is to use it to demonstrate some applications of the principles noted
above, and to begin to link the issue of pollution to specific industrial or
commercial practices.
4.1.1 causes and effects of air pollution
The most obvious
consequence of air pollution, as noted already, is illness. Such illnesses as asthma and
bronchitis are on the increase – almost certainly triggered by air pollution.
Research at the University of Southern California, in 2004, (reported in the
Guardian, November 2004 – see www.usc.edu/keck
and www.guardian.co.uk/medicine),
identified another problem: when they enter the lungs, the tiny particles that
are part of air pollution cause inflammation of the arteries which eventually
builds up into a hardening that can cause heart disease and heart attacks! These particles come mainly from the burning
of fossil fuels such as oil (and diesel engines are the main offenders here),
but other industrial processes such as smelting and working metals also produce
them. These particles are measured in micrometres, and those that fall between
2.5 and 10 micrometres are inhalable.
Update:
The particles come
mainly from the burning of fossil fuels such as oil (and diesel engines are the
main offenders here), but other industrial processes such as smelting and
working metals also produce them, as do building works and power stations
(especially coal – see below). Not to mention aircraft (the controversy over
the expansion of Heathrow comes in here!), and ships, which are heavy polluters
but are not, I believe, subject to regulation...
To illustrate the nature
of air pollution, (we have already mentioned factories and chimney smoke), it
is useful to list some of the ingredients of the exhaust from the internal
combustion engine:
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons.
Some of these (nitrogen
oxides) are comparatively harmless in themselves, but as noted, when combined
with other ingredients such as small particles, and especially when mixed with
water (i.e. rain – or the moisture in our lungs) then the resulting solution is
a harmful acid (causing ‘acid rain’...) When sunlight acts on these mixes of
chemicals there is a photochemical reaction, causing a particularly nasty kind
of smog.
Update:
John Vidal article,
Guardian (G2) 20.03.13) – distressing to see that photochemical smog is still around...
(my notes on this were first written in the ‘70s and ‘80s – and the Clean Air
Act goes back to 1955!!). There are 5.4 million people in
Other outputs from the
internal combustion engine – carbon monoxide (which suffocates), and
hydrocarbons (which are carcinogenic), are far from safe!
We will come across some
of these ingredients again, when discussing other consequences of air pollution
below. However, it is worth mentioning the issue of lead in petrol: in
order to reduce the amount of refining that petrol needed to give a smooth
combustion, lead was added. Scientists began to be concerned about the effects
of tiny lead particles in the atmosphere on the lungs – especially of children.
Children living in inner city areas, or near roads with heavy traffic, it was
suggested, might even suffer a loss of IQ (a measure of the abilities of the
brain). There was a long campaign – because, as ever, petrol producers
maintained that it would be too expensive to change the fuel (or that the
customer would not pay!). However, eventually the government stepped in and we
now have “unleaded” petrol.
This story does illustrate
another aspect of the issue: the power of vested interests – in this case the roads
and car manufacturing lobby.
Vested
interests are always lobbying government to try to convince them that there is
no problem. Back in 1975, the
manufacturing
overnight (Simon Caulkin, Observer,
Environmental
Directive could be “the last nail in the coffin of manufacturing”. Given this, Stephen Tindale, director of Greenpeace says: “The current
gulf between a company’s green credentials
and the behaviour of trade associations” risks
exposing companies as hypocritical.
There were also signs that the ‘New Labour’ government
responded to such anti-environmental lobbying: Tony Blair, early in 2005,
raised the permitted levels of carbon dioxide emissions, having originally
accepted a target of 20% reduction over three years.
Cornal Walsh (Observer Business,
giant ExxonMobil have given large sums of money to
political parties that will adopt their line and oppose further controls
(according to Friends of the Earth, in the same Observer article by Walsh).
It is also revealing to
note how the car and oil industries put up a long resistance to the idea
that they ought to be researching alternative fuels. [Neale, in
Fairweather at al 1997]
The British Roads
Federation has long campaigned against cuts in road building, and it is a
significant donor to the Conservative Party, which it (rightly?) sees as more
road-friendly. Even the RAC and AA are of concern to anyone who wants to see
car use reduced, since they – naturally – are not in favour of any reduction of
car use. If you want to join a road rescue/protection organisation that does
not campaign for more roads, there is an Environmental Transport Association,
ETA, see www.eta.co.uk (“The motoring
organisation that won’t cost the earth”!).
Updates on health and related effects of pollution:
(i)
In other words, even a small increase may have an effect – and this puts
into question the whole notion of ‘safe levels’...
(ii)
Yet again, we find an ‘unintended consequence’ of pollution!
Emissions:
Examples
of CO2 emissions by type:
Low end:
A.
VW Polo BlueMotion 1.4: <100 (g/km)
B.
Peugeot 107 1.0: 101 – 120
Middle:
C.
Fiat Panda 1.2: 121 - 150
E.
Renault Scenic 1.4: 166 – 185
High end:
G.
Porsche Cayenne: 225 (some Porsches 300)
Average CO2 emissions in cars sold in EU: 160 g/km
Most
new models sold now fall into middle bracket, especially @ F: 186 – 225 (1,166
as against 193 in A/B range). Rest (C,D,E: 2,391). G: 799.
GLA
says 33,000 a day in G category!!
EU target: all new cars must emit average 130 g/km by
2012.
Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders
(smt.co.uk):
· Average new car CO2 emissions have fallen by
26.4% since 2007 to 121.4g/km in 2015, with a 2.6% decline on 2014.
· New
cars were, on average, over 20% lower CO2 emitting than the average car in use.
· Total CO2 emissions from all road transport
has fallen by 9.6% since 2007, with a 10.6% reduction from cars (Source:
· Diesels have played an important role in
delivering lower CO2 emissions. By buying diesel,
The previous Euro-5 standard, introduced in 2011, focused on PM (or soot) from diesel cars, requiring an 80% reduction in these emissions.
Diesel particulate filters (DPFs) that capture 99% of all PM were developed to meet this, and are now fitted to every new car. Today, PM from cars meeting Euro-5 is equivalent to just one single grain of sand per kilometre driven.
With Euro-6, the emphasis has shifted to NOx, reflecting concerns about the emerging science connecting these emissions with respiratory problems.
How much cleaner is Euro-6?
This latest standard mandates a 56% cut in diesel NOx emissions compared with
Euro-5.
Euro
5 standards: Petrol NOx: 0.06g/km Diesel NOx: 0.18g/km Diesel PM: 0.005g/km
Euro
6: 0.06 0.08 0.0045
Getting round the law:
Once
again it has to be said that business can always find a way round regulations:
the 2016 scandal involving Volkswagen has caused a lot of alarm. 11 million
diesel cars were fitted with software that allowed them to cheat emission
tests, and were sold from 2008. The software changed the performance of the
engines under test conditions, with the result that on the road the engines
were producing emissions above the permitted level.
The
company has put aside 16.2 billion euros to deal with the scandal and is facing
legal cases around the world. A chief executive (Martin Winterkorn) has
resigned and is being investigated by prosecutors – but he was paid 7m euros
last year... VW owns Audi and Porsche.
This
was not the first time such cheating occurred: in 1973 Chrysler, Ford, GM,
Aside
from using software to cheat tests, many cars have been found to have a
different level of emissions and/or fuel consumption when on the road
conditions are compared to manufacturers’ claims. Note that all the above
covers both CO2 and NO2 emissions...
Other points about cars:
Myth of excessive taxation of drivers was put paid to by EU report: road
accidents, pollution and noise from cars cost every EU citizen more than £600 a
year. Report: The True Costs of
Autonomobility, was by transport academics at
Even
with drivers’ insurance payments discounted the total cost to the EU was £303
bn or 3% of the bloc’s entire GDP. (Peter Walker Guardian 26th Dec
2013). Total costs did not include costs of congestion or ill health caused by
lack of exercise...
Fuel
duty (including VAT) and vehicle excise duty contribute around £38 bn a year to
the Treasury - £10 bn less than the estimated cost.
They
conclude that ‘internalisation of external costs is the essential thing in a
market economy. It’s a prerequisite for everything – for individual behaviour
and for innovation within the car industry.’ See also CSR chapter 6...
On the theme of “growth”: the number of cars on the
roads in
4.1.2 Updates:
Air
pollution is getting worse, rising 8% in the last 5 years, and more than 3
million people a year die from outside air pollution. Indoor air pollution
(firewood or dung stoves) causes another 3 million.
Most
of the affected children live in poor parts of the world: south
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/16/nuclear-scare-stories-coal-industry
Extract: A study by the Clean Air Task Force suggests that coal power in the
You're picturing filthy plants in
While nuclear power is faltering, coal is booming. Almost 1,200 new plants
are being developed worldwide: many will use coal exported from the
John Vidal, Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/10/india-coal-plants-emissions-greenpeace?INTCMP=SRCH#box
A
new industrial emissions directive from
4.1.3 lead in petrol: a
success story
We will come across some
of these ingredients (in car exhausts) again, when discussing other
consequences of air pollution below. However, it is worth mentioning the issue
of lead in petrol: in order to reduce the amount of refining that petrol
needed to give a smooth combustion, lead was added. Scientists began to be
concerned about the effects of tiny lead particles in the atmosphere on the
lungs – especially of children. Children living in inner city areas, or near
roads with heavy traffic, it was suggested, might even suffer a loss of IQ (a
measure of the abilities of the brain). There was a long campaign – because, as
ever, petrol producers maintained that it would be too expensive to change the
fuel (or that the customer would not pay!). However, eventually the government
stepped in and we now have “unleaded” petrol.
As an example of how
pollutants can change when exposed to the environment, acid rain is formed when
gases in the air dissolve and make the rain acidic. The main ‘culprit’ here is
sulphur, in coal...
In
- acid rain is now known to affect
the oceans (Green World 65, Summer 2009):
- pH indicates the
alkalinity of water – 7 is neutral, i.e. anything below 7 is acidic, and above
7 is alkaline or base.
The pH of the ocean’s
open water has been 8.2 for millions of years, now (since burning fossil fuel
for couple of centuries) it is down to 8.05 (i.e. more acidic), and this
damages coral reefs, & microscopic life that are at the base of the food
chain;
– acidity goes down to
1,000 metres and in some places to 3,000 metres – ocean makes up 99% of
planet’s living space – plankton control the carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle and
part of the oxygen cycle – 3.6 billion yrs ago plankton began to produce
oxygen, hence life could develop – every second breath we take is of oxygen
from plankton also plankton makes less calcium in more acidic water – we don’t
know what effect this will have, though coral
reefs (home to rich diversity of life) are dying
-
acidification could lead to mass extinction: the previous 5 such events were
all accompanied by acidification (last time 65 m yrs ago, the dinosaurs died
out – probably the gases came from a meteor strike). [Alanna Mitchell, author:
The Hidden Ecological Crisis of the
We
cleared up a lot of the problem in 1980s by switching from coal to gas (little
sulphur), catalytic converters (reduce nitrogen), scrubbers in factory
chimneys, and this led to an 80% cut in acid rain. In the early ‘80s, (?only)
3m tonnes SO2 were emitted p.a. in
-
pre-industrial levels of SO2 were 280 ppm by volume, and by mid-century is
likely to be doubled to 560 ppm – plankton makes less calcium in more acidic
water – we don’t know what effect this will have
[Also
in the oceans, Coral Reefs are dying off, or at least bleaching or going into
survival mode (New York Times, 031010, Justin Gillis). However, this is mainly
due to warming of the oceans – see the notes on Global Warming and Climate
Change... Acidity may also affect the reefs, so I include a brief note here.
Coral
reefs are made up of millions of polyps (tiny animals) algae get nutrients from
them and live in the reefs, in return the algae capture sunlight and carbon
dioxide and make sugars that feed the polyps. NB a good example of symbiosis…
The first eight months of 2010 matched the highest temperatures yet recorded,
in 1988 (Jan – Aug). Reefs harbour perhaps a quarter of all marine species,
even though they only occupy a small space in the oceans. Reefs of the coasts
of
What has just been said
(new technology or new chemicals can have unexpected side-effects because of
complex interactions; the damage is often world-wide) is even more strongly the
case with the ozone layer. This is a thin layer of ozone gas, high in the atmosphere,
that protects us from 95% of the sun’s harmful ultra-violet radiation. Some years ago, in the 1980s, scientists
noticed that the layer had a hole in it over one of the poles. The layer is
being destroyed by gases used in industrial production and air-conditioning,
especially CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons), and carbon dioxide and
methane have a similar effect. CFCs are also used in aerosols, in processes
that involve “foam blowing”, and in fridges.
If the protection we get
from the ozone layer is reduced, then there will be more cases of skin cancer
as a result. Again, this problem has
been known about for since the 1970s, and some changes have been made: the
United Nations passed the Montreal Protocol in 1987, as a result of which CFCs
have being phased out. (Substitutes have been identified and put into use, but
even here there is controversy over their safety). Like other aspects of our
self-regulating planet, the ozone layer is able to replenish itself naturally,
and scientists are watching for this.
However, as with many
natural phenomena, there is a “time delay”, and, according to the
National Geographic (August 2003) there is still no evidence of ozone levels
going back up in the lower stratosphere, where most ozone is to be found (some
evidence of decreases in the upper stratosphere were reported).
This example
illustrates:
- the unexpected consequences of new inventions
and chemicals: I believe very strongly in the “precautionary
principle” i.e. any innovation in technology should be carefully tested for
safety and environmental damage before being implemented. Of course, this might
mean slowing down the rate of change and innovation, but given the danger –
with regard to environmental damage – of reaching a “tipping point” beyond
which changes become irreversible, surely precaution makes sense?
- the problem of time delays before corrective
action reverses damage,
- and, again, the need for international action.
Nov 2015: New Statesman has good overview
of the history of the industry, by Martin Fletcher: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/energy/2015/11/last-days-big-k
The
last coal mine in
Deep
coal mining dates back to Tudor times and peaked during the arms race before
the first world war, with 3,024 mines producing 292 million tonnes of coal, and
employing 1.1 million people, in 1913.
Bevin
boys were 48,000 men brought in to keep the industry going in the second world
war.
Since
1700 164,000 miners have lost their lives. Mining deaths did not fall below a
thousand a year until well into the 20th century. 1,297 were killed and
20,000 injured in 1923.
1972
and 1974 miners’ strikes were a turning point:
1984
- 5 strike was triggered by a plan to close 20 unprofitable pits and lose
20,000 jobs. But Scargill played into the government’s hands (the strike called
in the spring when demand was falling, he didn’t call a national ballot and
split the union, undermining legitimacy of the strike, he also got money from
Gaddafi and
NUM
has 800 members (was once half a million). Miners still employed don’t believe
the reasons given for closing mines are good – rather see it all as political.
2015
three deep mines left but two closed in the summer.
Of
48 million tonnes of coal consumed last year, 42 million were imported (from
May 2015: Guardian is leading a
divestment campaign – Keep it in the ground....
Some
good news: 28th May, a key parliamentary committee recommends
Dec 2013: George Monbiot,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/16/nuclear-scare-stories-coal-industry
Extract:
‘A study by the Clean Air Task Force suggests that coal power in the
You're picturing filthy plants in
While nuclear power is faltering, coal is booming. Almost 1,200 new plants
are being developed worldwide: many will use coal exported from the
March 2013: John Vidal, Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/10/india-coal-plants-emissions-greenpeace?INTCMP=SRCH#box
March 2013:
A
new industrial emissions directive from
Little
has happened on Carbon Capture and Storage. This involves pumping condensed CO2
into underground ‘reservoirs’ for storage instead of releasing it into the
atmosphere. Not only is the technology experimental (and the long-term
feasibility of such storage is unknown) it appears that more fuel is needed by
a power station that is going to capture and condense the CO2. So to run such a
power station is more costly. Moreover, the chemicals used in the process are
likely to go into the atmosphere, so the air quality is reduced (Wikipedia).
4.6
The Oil Industry – a walking disaster!
It is not possible to do justice to the role of the
oil industry here, but it is clear that their presence is felt in a whole range
of ecologically damaging situations, Such is the power of the industry,
and its importance to governments, that it also has significant impacts on
politics. Often the resultant civil conflict has caused death and suffering.
Here are a few examples of environmental damage by the
oil industry (some of these are from New Internationalist 335, June 2001):
1: Exxon Valdez: by Ewen MacAskill in
Guardian
US government scientists
are about to publish a report on the situation in
11 – 38 millions of gallons
of oil were spilled. It hit Bligh Reef. The tanker was on its way to
Salmon, sea birds, seals
and otters were affected.
The crew’s ability was
partly to blame, and the Raytheon Collision Avoidance system had not been
maintained. There were other failings – stressed crew and not informed that
coastguards were no longer issuing warnings of Bligh Reef, etc.
Dispersants failed (and
some were not used because of toxicity fears), explosions were tried, and
burning, (but these led to fumes harming villagers downwind). How water was
tried but this killed plankton – food for bacteria and fungi which would
otherwise have ‘eaten’ the oil.
Clean-up crews suffered
illnesses afterwards. Only 10% of the oil was actually cleared up.
In 2007, there were more
than 26,600 gallons of oil still in the water, and in 2010 23,000 gallons lying
on the sand – it was thought the pollution would gradually disappear, but it is
only going at a rate of 4% a year, and even slower in the
Between 10,000 and
250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 harbor seals, 247 bald eagles, 22
orcas, and unknown numbers of salmon and herring killed.
There are more than 26,600
gallons of oil still lying just below the water surface – it was thought the
pollution would gradually disappear, but it is only going at a rate of 4% a
year, and even slower in the
Two decades on (and more!), the ecological impacts of Exxon Valdez are still being counted.
Other threats to the
- BPAmoco (a joint British/US company) is involved in
plans to extract oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
- Dangers of encroachment into permafrost in
Settlements also bring environmental
damage and HIV… New St 13.08.07
- There were over 100 oil spills in the
2:
An
explosion and fire in the semi-submersible Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU)
killed 11 workers and injured 17 more. There was a massive oil spill in the
The
drilling platform was built in
Oil
started leaking at 8,000 barrels of crude per day. 4.9 million barrels were
spilled in the end, making it the largest spill in American history. In 2010 there were still a million barrels in
the water.
Criticised
for a ‘rush to completion’ of the well, poor management decisions, and no
culture of safety on the rig. Six or seven faults in procedure and equipment.
(Wikipedia)
Less
wildlife was damaged than in the Exxon Valdez case (3,000 birds, 500 turtles,
64 dolphins) – and difficult to tell effects given seasonal variations (
‘The Deepwater Horizon operation saw the injection of 771,272 gallons (2,919,582 litres) of dispersant at depth, in addition to the 1,072,514 gallons (4,059,907 litres) used on the surface.
The impact of the deep water deployment is definitely an unknown unknown, as it has not been used on anything like this scale before.
Expeditions are planned to investigate the impact on reefs, but they have yet to report.
Other important investigations are going on into how quickly the oil is
breaking down in the warm Gulf waters - something that should in principle
happen much faster than in the icy conditions of
That rate will have practical implications for the seabirds that will come to winter along the Gulf coasts - the piping plover, the blue-winged teal and the northern pintail - because it will largely determine how much oil will be there to greet them.
And while the warmer Gulf waters are unlikely to take quite so long to settle, even a preliminary reckoning will have to wait until the first wintering birds have returned, shrimping boats have cast their nets again right across their grounds, and the wetland grasses have had a first chance to shed their oily carapaces and sprout anew in a fresh Spring.’
3:
The oil industry, the environment and politics: Shell and
In the
Niger Delta, Shell has been extracting oil for some time. The resultant
pollution (oil leaks ruining the land, gas flares poisoning the air) has been a
cause for anger on the part of the local Ogoni people. Protests have been put
down ruthlessly, with many killed by police and – it is alleged, by
paramilitaries employed by the company and armed by the government.
In November 1995, a special court established by the military government illegally detained and tried some protesters on spurious charges. Convicted without due process, they and the “leader” Ken Saro-Wiwa were executed 10 days later, despite enormous international outcry.
The UN
questioned the legitimacy of the Saro-Wiwa trial, to no avail (May 2009). It is
alleged that there has been widespread brutality against the Ogoni, involving
torture and the destruction of villages. Sadly, this is not an isolated
occurrence. A recent report by human rights organization Global Witness
documents the murders of more than 700 environmental and
Indigenous-rights activists over the past decade – more than one
killing a week, on average. (Greenpeace
Update
2013: the son of the executed Ken
Saro-Wiwa, also called Ken, is now a presidential aide; he alleges that the theft of vast quantities of oil from the
pipeline ‘is on and industrial scale, and involves commodity traders,
international [criminals] and a whole network of people. There are some
allegations that the oil companies themselves are implicated.’ See John Vidal
in The Observer, 06.10.13: http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/oct/06/oil-theft-costs-nigeria
Extract follows:
"From the moment I got to the scene [the next day] I was suspicious," says Catholic priest Father Obi, appointed by Shell to be an official observer for the Bodo investigation. "The scene had been hurriedly deserted. Shell must have known what was going on. The military must have known. Everyone knew there was complicity. I am personally sure that Shell knew that its oil was being stolen. If the managers did not know, then those who they put in charge [of the operation]seemed to know. This [theft] could not have happened without the collusion of the authorities and the military." Obi is concerned that the official report has still not been published and is threatening to release his own.
It all adds up to organised crime stealing oil using the cover of the
authorities, he says. "Why was a massive barge able to hold 10,000 barrels
of oil being loaded at
4:
Other issues related to the oil industry
(i)
Safety: (by Andrew Clark and Terry Macalister, in Guardian Financial,
In 2005, the BP Texas refinery exploded, killing 15
people – recently disclosed documents show the director responsible for running
the refinery, Don Parus, knew that it was held together by little more than
“Band Aid” and “superglue”.
Parus made remarks to an independent investigation,
which was held after 23 fatal accidents in 30 years (the most recent involving
a worker being boiled alive!).
The local fire brigade say that there is an average of
one fire every week – 50 to 80 a year. The site director, appointed in 2002 had
worried whether he could turn round the lax safety attitude single-handed, and
even said: “killing somebody every 18 months seems to be acceptable at this
site”.
Many documents have been disclosed as a result of a
legal settlement with a woman who lost both parents in the explosion.
An external report said there was “an exceptional
degree of fear of catastrophic incidents” – and it was surprising how many
workers going into the plant in the morning volunteered that they were thinking
about safety and wondering whether they would go home!
BP has pledged to spend $7 billion to improve the
safety and integrity of their
(ii) Politics:
-
Shell’s involvement in
-
Finally, I think no-one could be unaware of the involvement of US companies in
(iii)
Gas:
(Update 2011):
Bringing
gas ashore in County Mayo (article, Observer 290511) Shell bought major stake
after gas discovered by Enterprise Energy Ireland (1996); will bring raw gas
ashore (new process) to be refined at Ballinboy, 6 miles south; pipe will come
ashore at Broadhaven bay, and will cross farmers’ land (could have gone across
bogs?); gas will be at high pressure; Bay and nearby Carrowmore lake are
EU-designated Special Protection Areas. At first, planning permission was
denied, but then Shell and
Opponents
have served jail sentences – ‘Rossport Five’; a film has been made: The Pipe
(getting awards around the world). Some fishermen gave up their rights in
return for money from Shell, others fought against losing their livelihood –
one was prevented from fishing by the Irish navy!!!
(iv) A few words on
‘peak oil’:
Monbiot,
G 17.11.2009: Two whistleblowers
from IEA say it has deliberately exaggerated amount of oil still extractable.
Research paper from Univ of Uppsala also argues IEA wrong (because impossible
rate of extraction included). IEA World Energy Outlook forecasts demand to rise
from 85m b/d in 2008 to 105m in 2030, and says that production will rise to
meet this demand (including biofuels). Projections for 2030 have been falling,
from 123m predicted in 2004. But even today’s numbers are too high says the
whistleblower.
Need
therefore to be substituting other sources now (especially in farming…).
G
100905: (1) reserves running out – in 2002, 25 bn barrels used, only 8 bn new
reserves discovered (total: 994 bn extracted, 764 remaining, 142 to be found).
(2) supply unstable: politically/commercially/conflict… (3) tpt increasing its
share to 57.2% in 2002 – esp air travel increasing – and
(v)
Government subsidies:
(Update
2013):
FoE
accuses Osborne of giving excessive subsidies and £1 billion of tax breaks to
the oil and gas industry – he has expanded field allowances, first set up by A.
Darling in 2009 to encourage the exploitation of small or technically
challenging fields. Larry Elliott, Guardian 04.02.13
****************
Conclusion: this is just a brief portrait of the power and scope
of the oil industry. When it comes to dealing with damage to the environment we
also have to acknowledge to role of the electricity generating industry,
car manufacturers, and the offshoots of the oil industry namely petrochemicals
and pharmaceuticals. In my view all these industries contain huge
companies that are, to say the least, slow to recognise their social
responsibility – and most of the time they are positively hostile to such
notions. Again, I have only given a glimpse of their power and influence, but
this needs to be kept in mind when we move on to “solutions”.
4.7 Thoughts on corporate lobbying, especially on global warming (also see Part 4):
Unless you accept the view that there is no danger of
global warming and climate change, what is most disturbing, from the point of
view of corporate social
responsibility, is the extent to which vested
interests are lobbying government to try to convince them that there is no
problem. Back in 1975, the
industry
predicted that the 1975 clean Air Act would wipe out car manufacturing
overnight (Simon Caulkin, Observer,
BP argue in favour of cutting greenhouse gases, the CBI has warned that the European
Environmental Directive could be “the last nail in the coffin of
manufacturing”. Given this, Stephen Tindale, director of Greenpeace says: “The current
gulf between a company’s green credentials and the behaviour of trade
associations” risks exposing companies as
hypocritical.
There are also signs that the present government is responding
to such anti-environmental lobbying: Tony Blair, early in 2005, raised the
permitted levels of carbon
dioxide emissions, having originally accepted a target
of 20% reduction over three years. Cornal Walsh (Observer Business,
withdrawal from
adopt their line and oppose further controls
(according to Friends of the Earth, in the same Observer article by Walsh).
As argued in CSR Chapter 5, concerning the consumer,
it is often the case that scientific research is funded by corporations who
want particular findings to be
supported. Walsh mentions such financial links between
Exxon and the American George C Marshall Institute, which together with the
Network, which has overlapping personnel with the
free-market Adam Smith Institute (see CSR Chapter 2 on this
institute).
There is also an overlap between these pro-market,
anti-environmental organisations and the Competitive Enterprise Institute in
the
climate advisor is a member! Lord (Bob) May of
(Guardian 271/05) makes the same points, adding that
another key figure in the opposition to theories of global warming is William
O’Keefe, who was previously
chairman emeritus of the Global Climate Coalition.
This organisation (disbanded since President Bush came out in opposition to
the oil industry in order to deny global warming.
We can also see how the dispute has become part of the
right vs. left political distinction when we note (as does Bob May) that the
Telegraph and the Mail both
question theories of climate change. May ends his
article with a warning made by Jared Diamond at the Royal Society, that there
have been populations in the past,
such as those on
Diamond called “ecocide”.
23rd
Dec, Guardian, Adam Vaughan: Half of the
Note
Gas
29.2% à
45.2%
Renewables
25.4% à
24.9%
Nuclear
21.5% à
21.3%
Coal
20.3% à
5.8%
Other
2.9% à
2.8%
6th
August 2016 (see also nuclear power re alternatives to Hinkley Point): letters Guardian: in
2015, 147 gigawatts of renewable energy – the largest ever annual increase –
came online and more than twice the amount was spent on renewables compared
with gas or coal. $6.22 tn is being invested in the green economy...
Damian
Carrington on renewables providing more electricity than coal for first time; http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/24/renewable-energy-outstrips-coal-for-first-time-in-uk-electricity-mix
Between
April and June the mix was: gas: 30%, renewables: 25%, nuclear: 21.5%, coal
20.5% (cf fuel mix for 2010 below...)
Solar
power: Report
on flexible panels from the Solar Cloth Company: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/22/solar-sails-set-course-for-a-new-journey-into-renewable-energy
Book: The Quest: energy,
security and the remaking of the modern world, by Daniel Yergin (
Cost
of changing to non-CO2 generation of electricity: Damian Carrington
reports on study by Prof David McKay (Chief scientific advisor to dept of
energy and climate change) using a ‘2050 pathways calculator’ – which shows
that it would be no more expensive to convert than to continue with maintenance
and replacement of existing power stations. See: http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2134710/uk-switch-low-carbon-energy-cost-gbp5-person
- there are more articles by Carrington here, and the website looks good!
Fuel mix
Green
energy: a tipping point? Investment in green energy overtook fossil fuels in 2008 –
according to UN figures (G 040609): $140 billion as against $110 billion for
gas and coal. If include energy efficiency measures this goes up to $155
billion. Report: Global Trends in Sustainable Energy, by New Energy Finance consultancy
for the UN.
Most
growth has been in
Microgeneration: DTI study says could
provide 30 – 40% of
Wave power: Waves could provide 15 – 20% of
the
Wind
Power:
From FoE leaflet: average wind farm will pay back energy used in its mfr within
5 months – given a life-span of 20 years that’s 17 years carbon-free energy.
Sep
2008: article by Michael Connellan in Technology Guardian about wind turbines
failing – note this is said to be ‘insignificant’ by one insurance expert, and
towards the end of the piece it is said that one of the turbines that failed
was 20 years old... i.e. overall impression without reading in detail is that
there is a problem, when I doubt there is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/04/energy.engineering?INTCMP=SRCH
Sep
2010: (Terry Macalister, Guardian, 13.09.10): Largest ever offshore windfarm to
be built off coast of
Nov
2012, Zoe Willaims on the dispute: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/30/windfarms-bitter-fight-dividing-uk?INTCMP=SRCH
Hundreds
of articles at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/windpower
!!!
Two
5. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
5.1 Agriculture (and
birds) – and the soil:
Parks – how English
‘national parks’ are ‘neither national nor parks’ (George Monbiot G 1st
June 2015):
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/30/scotland-land-reform-national-parks
Declining bird
population. David Adam, G 25.05.09:
About
75% of British countryside is farmed.
During
1980s, farmers were paid a guaranteed price by EU for wheat, barley etc. àoversupply, grain
mountains …
Cost
of storing surplus grew, and cheaper to pay farmers not to use the land à ‘set-aside’ (“voodoo
economics” acc. David Adam).
8%
- 15% farming land set aside and policy continued for 20 years. During this
time bird population flourished… (less chemicals, more weed seeds).
2007
policy dropped after poor harvests and rising food prices. More food needed, so
farmers took set-aside land back into use. But if prices rise…
Decline
in cereal prices àslight rise in unfarmed land – government
plans to start set-aside again (because concern over wildlife?), giving
subsidies. RSPB wants mandatory 4-5% of farmland to be out of production, while
farmers want it left to them (they say they can manage the problem, and
compulsory measures mean farmers don’t deal with it so thoroughly/effectively –
others say if farmers don’t implement set-aside, they only have to forgo the subsidies
– £240 per year for each acre devoted to conservation – while growing wheat
would bring £130 profit per year according to John Cousins, farmer in Hadleigh
nr.
Useful
and controversial piece by George Monbiot: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/03/rich-landowners-farmers-welfare-nfu-defra
and
replies in Guardian 7th March: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/06/mistake-claim-all-farming-same
Repeated
plowing kills off beneficial fungi and earth-worms – it requires more
fertilizer and is prone to being washed away in heavy rain (and the nitrogen
etc spreads into rivers and streams).
Each
1% increase in soil organic matter helps the soil hold 30,000 more litres of
water per hectare. It also helps the soil store carbon dioxide (reducing global
warming).
Intensive
methods are the problem: allotment holders (according to
5.2 Badgers: George Monbiot 23.10.12
a cull could, according to Prof John Bourne who led the government’s trial
(cost 49 m) ‘make TB a damn sight worse’. In the 1960s strict quarantine rules
and rigorous testing of cattle almost eliminated TB, but farmers complained and
controls were relaxed...
Dec 2016: Patrick Barkham on Dave Goulson’s speech to the 2015 National Honey Show – now on YouTube - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/05/banned-pesticide-kills-bees-neonicotinoid-insecticide
‘Scientists this year calculated that these insecticides caused a 10% reduction in the distribution of bee species that forage on oilseed rape. Another study found neonicotinoids cut live sperm in male honeybees by almost 40%. Two studies show a strong correlation between neonicotinoids and declining butterfly populations, while another showed the insecticide accumulating to dangerous levels in nearby wildflowers.
The European Union placed a moratorium on three types of neonicotinoids on flowering crops such as oilseed rape three years ago but these insecticides have not disappeared.
I’ve just about learned how to pronounce neonicotinoids, but what I didn’t realise until Goulson told me is that the insecticide’s use in British farming continues to rise. It is deployed on non-flowering crops such as wheat. We use them in horticulture and daub them on our pets: flea powders for cats and dogs contain imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid. Goulson says the “plausible deniability” he encounters from neonicotinoid makers is “rather similar to what the tobacco industry did for 50 years claiming that smoking didn’t cause any harm”.’
Sep 2012: Damian
Carrington [blog
link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/
]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/sep/18/bees-pesticides-neonicitinoids
Sep. statement includes: ‘The govt has already put new research in place to
explore further the impacts of neonicotinoids on bumble (sic!) bees in field
conditions and to understand what levels of pesticide residues and disease in
honey bees are normal. This work is due to finish in spring 2013.’
Scientists from Fera [Food
and Environment Research Agency – an executive agency of Defra, whose
‘overarching purpose is to support and develop a sustainable food chain, a
healthy natural environment, and to protect the global community from
biological and chemical risks’ http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/]
and the University of Exeter have come to the conclusion that neonicotinoid
pesticides may not pose as great a threat to bee populations as had previously
been thought. In a study, published this month in the journal Science ,researchers suggest neonicotinoid oilseed rape
pesticide Cruiser may not be responsible for colony collapse disorder in bees,
though two studies published earlier in
the year in Science[my emphasis] came
to the opposite conclusion.
Neonicotinoids are among the most widely-used
agricultural insecticides in the World; honeybees ingest residues of the
pesticides as they gather nectar and pollen from treated plants. Previous
studies had shown that sub-lethal doses of the preparations caused
disorientation and other harmful effects in bees, leading authors to suggest
the chemical could be linked to colony collapse disorder, wherein worker bees
abruptly disappear from a colony.
In response to findings from April this year, which
linked thiamethoxam, the active ingredient in Syngenta’s Cruiser OSR pesticide,
to colony collapse disorder, the French government banned the chemical. Italy
has since followed suit and environmental activists in the UK have called on
the government to introduce a National Bee Action Plan and join the French and
Italian governments in outlawing the pesticide.
The week, the UK government announced it would not act on
the matter, following consultation with Fera and the Health and Safety
Executive.
However, the Fera study does not suggest that pesticides
are in any way harmless. It merely points out that the authors of a previous
French study had not accurately calculated the rate at which honeybee colonies
recover from losing individuals or expand during the spring, when oilseed rape
is blossoming. Previous research, led by
French scientist Mikaël Henry, showed that the death rate of bees increased
when they drank nectar laced with a neonicotinoid pesticide at concentrations
which they would typically find in the field, the new study does not contest
this.
Clarifying the results of his research, Dr James
Cresswell of the University of Exeter who led the Fera study said, “We know that neonicotinoids affect
honeybees. I am definitely not saying that pesticides are harmless to
honeybees, but our research shows that the effects of thiamethoxam are not as
severe as first thought.”
He said that his study merely showed that “there is no
evidence that [thiamethoxam] could cause colony collapse; when we repeated the
previous calculation with a realistic birth rate, the risk of colony collapse
under pesticide exposure disappeared.”
Damian
Carrington (Guardian) Oct 2012:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/oct/22/bees-pesticides
Oct 2012: 23.10.12 George Monbiot
points out that other European nations have banned neo-nicotinoids, and a new
study in Nature this week provides more evidence of the devastating impacts of
neo-nics. However, as Monbiot argues, class interests work against doing the
sane things about all this.
See
also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot
In
January 2013 Damian Carrington
reported that EFSA has said that imidacloprid should not be used on crops that
attract bees.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/16/insecticide-unacceptable-danger-bees
Feb 2013. An article by Damian
Carrington – the importance of wild insects as well as bees for pollination:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/28/wild-bees-pollinators-crop-yields
March 2013: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/15/bee-harming-pesticides-escape-european-ban
-
Damian
Carrington: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/mar/01/bees-pesticide-neonicotinoids?
In
an article on
The
research was published in Science journal.
In
the 20th century in the
-
a good Guardian editorial on bees and neonicotinoids:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/03/pesticides-ban-editorial
April 2013: European commission
will suspend use of three neonicotinoids for two years – British government
abstained in the first vote and then voted against a ban.
Damian
Carrington report: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/29/bee-harming-pesticides-banned-europe
From
the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/9835181/BandQ-Homebase-and-Wickes-remove-bug-killers-blamed-for-decline-of-bees.html
May 2014. IFLS article, put on
Facebook criticises a study by Dr Alex Lu as not proving what he claims – that
neonics are a serious contributor to bee decline. A Public Health Bulletin
summary is interesting: http://foodpoisoningbulletin.com/2014/harvard-study-strengthens-link-between-neonicotinoids-and-bee-death/
June 2014:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/24/insecticides-world-food-supplies-risk
June 2014:
The researchers say that the classic measurements used to assess the
toxicity of a pesticide are not effective for these systemic varieties and
conceal their true impact... "There is so much evidence, going far beyond
bees," Prof Dave Goulson from
the
FoE call for National Bee Action Plan http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/bees_report_briefing.pdf
May 2016: the state of the ‘bee
industry’ (!) in
About a third of the country’s beekeeping operations, known as “apiaries”,
are in
Then, in the early 2000s, two things shook up the industry. First, the world discovered almonds. Thanks to global demand,
particularly from
Second, the bees started to die. During the 2006 winter, beekeepers reported losing anything from 30% to 90% of their hives to disease, an unprecedented amount compared with previous decades, in which losses hovered around 10 or 15%. (The average death toll has since levelled to just under 30% each year.) Even Johnson, a second-generation keeper with “honey in the blood”, finds boxes and boxes of dead colonies every winter, and has to scrape out the crusted nectar and tiny corpses.
What became known as “colony collapse disorder” – a lethal combination of disease, drought, land loss and pesticide use – brought the industry to its knees, forcing hundreds of keepers, unable to maintain their hives through the cold winter, out of business.
Consequently, the national supply of bees fell, while demand for pollination has since quadrupled alongside almond growth. This year, almond farmers paid $180 to rent a single hive. And every half-hectare requires two hives...
In 2015, poachers stole more than 1,700 hives
*******************
Sep
2016: re-wilding:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/03/rewilding-countryside-national-trust
The
National Trust bought a sheep farm, Thorneythwaite near Borrowdale, and will
replace the monoculture with ‘healthy soil, natural water management and
thriving natural habitats.’
Cohen
adds that farmers receive up to 60% of their income from EU subsidies. Now
‘they will have to do what the public wants’ (We wonder...)
Re-wilding
will help offset global warming and slow floodwaters, as well as bringing back
wildflowers, butterflies, farmland birds, water meadows...
August
2016: grouse...
The
hunting season opened recently, and a row has broken out over the desirability
of grouse shooting – heightened by a radio discussion between Chris Packham and
Ian Botham. An overview of some of the issues is provided by Clive Aslet,
former editor of Country Life, in the Observer,
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/13/countryside-guardians-merit-praise-not-censure
- though, as this title suggests, the author is more pro-grouse shooting than
against it?
Interesting
to note that Alladale Wilderness Reserve in Sutherland is possibly going to be
rewilded – re-introducing wolves, bear, lynx, wildcat and wild boar... He also
points out that badgers eat hedgehogs... ‘the countryside isn’t a wilderness –
humankind keeps the balance. Many wildflowers, for instance, only survive in
combination with farming practices, whether the grazing of chalk downland or
the turning of soil by the plough.’ He maintains that grouse moors have
lapwings, plovers and curlews – and not many foxes and stoats, which produces
ideal conditions for many species, along with an income to pay for it.
The
State of
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/21/uk-species-struggling-wildlife
IUCN
Red List (begun in 1996, but includes extinctions going back to 1500 – see
Guardian display
(International
March 2013: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/mar/01/biofuel-habitat-loss-usa
on takeover of land for biofuels in
Microalgae
- Good News?
Jan 2008: Luiz da Silva: rich
countries produce 65% of greenhouse emissions;
5.6 ‘Development’ and
developing countries:
George
Monbiot, G 110510: more to blame than developing world for
environmental damage – not case that ‘only rich countries can afford to protect
the environment’. Look at Gulf of Mexico disaster, and report: Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences which says deforestation between 2000 and 2005
was done mainly by US – least damage done by Democratic Republic of Congo (10
times less), with Indonesia in between (half as much damage as US). Moreover,
it is western demand for oil, palm oil, timber, animal feed that damages
Monbiot
(G 110510) cites The Dark Mountain Project (co-founded by Paul Kingsnorth)
which claims that greens are trying to sustain the world at level of developed
countries, advocating technologies that would damage wild places and the third
world, trying to save industrial civilisation, when should be trying to save
the biosphere. We should be ‘negotiating the coming descent [from our level of
civilisation] while creating new myths which put humanity in its proper place.’
Monbiot believes the projections of the end of resources are alarmist – and no
good waiting for civilisation to collapse without trying to change the way it
operates. Need also to distinguish between technology that not seriously
harmful (wind-farms) and that which is: oil…
note: forthcoming book from Dark Mountain Project, also festival May
2010.
Developing Countries:
Article
on a pioneering researcher who is studying the genetics of food crops in the
developing world – not to encourage GM but to facilitate cross-breeding of
better plants: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jun/02/genetic-mapping-plan-to-boost-africa-crops
A
related article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/feb/25/vandana-shiva-seeds-farmers
Obituary
of Wangari Maathai, Kenyan winner of the Nobel prize for environmental efforts
to help the very poor, first woman to head a university department in
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/26/wangari-maathai and a piece by John Vidal on Wangari:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/sep/26/wangari-maathai-africa-nobel-laureate
see also:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/wangari-maathai
In
1977 she set up the Green Belt movement – poor women suffer the most from
environmental degradation, she argued. Initially the movement planted trees,
but then it took on issues of democracy. The tree became a symbol for
democratic struggle. Set up Mazingira, the Kenyan Green Party and won 98% of
the votes in her constituency, joined the coalition that overthrew Moi in 2002,
and became a junior environment minister in President Kibaki’s government (2003
-5).
Larry Elliott G 091109: Tobin tax is right to redistribute from
socially useless to socially disadvantaged… 0.05% tax on UK financial trades
would raise about 100bn a year (study by Austrian govt) – would wipe out
structural part of our budget deficit. Brown suggests half should be used for
developing countries. Crucial is technology transfer: coal-fired CO2 emissions
are rising, especially as
See
paper: Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change; why financing for technology transfer
matters, by A. Ghosh and K. Watkins, for Global Economic Governance Programme,
Note
also how
Ecologist June 2009 (Khadija Sharife): dams are not helping Africans: more
than 60% of
Dams in Africa
causing problems because: large-scale projects lead to corruption, money
supposed to be for displaced not reaching them (27,000 in Lesotho), migrant
workers bring HIV to popn already impoverished by displacement: many orphans…
Many dams have caused indebtedness, inequalities, environmental degradation,
prevented small-scale projects, etc. Big dams proposed for
Native Peoples and
Conservation.
1. Yasuni
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/20/can-oil-save-the-rainforest: John Vidal on
See
also: http://www.earthday.org/campaign/save-yasuni-national-park
2. Mark Dowie, 03.06.09.
Author
of Conservation Refugees; The Hundred-Year Conflict between global conservation
and native peoples, MIT – points out that originally (
Two books on food and development: Feeding Frenzy: The New Politics of Food, by Paul McMahon (Profile
12.99); A Hungry man in a Greedy World, by Jay Rayner (William Collins)
reviewed in Observer 26.05.13. Latter argues that ‘food miles’ is not the most
important aspect of deciding whether food produced is environmentally friendly
(whoever said it was the only factor? We need to take into account things like
the amount of fertiliser used, the costs of the technology etc. For example,
lamb, apples and diary products shipped from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/26/feeding-frenzy-hungry-man-rayner-review
NB we throw away 30-40% of the food we produce, yet 1
billion people live in near starvation! Panic in commodity markets in 2008 and
2010/11 led to an increase of 30% in food prices. We produce enough food – why
was there such a panic? (Led by
I probably would agree with Alex Renton’s review, that
a number of different approaches must be used: less meat-eating, less waste,
and helping African farmers to be as productive as US ones by taking down trade
barriers.
Meat production (and CAP): Meat production also counts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse
emissions. (UN FAO).
Ecologist (June 2009): Taxpayers are subsidising
intensive and factory farming to the tune of £700 million a year according to
Organic
food – could feed
John
Beddington, government chief scientific advisor says (date?) we face a ‘storm
of problems’ including food shortages. Others say this is not the case – and
food is only short if crops are used inappropriately for biofuels, or animal
feed.
Food miles: Do food
miles matter?
See
also Jay Rayner, previous topic. Concept first coined by Prof. Tim Lang of
CO2
emissions in
From
the Guardian, 16th March
2013: letter from Lyn Summers, retired
All
these – together with fears of fracturing the rock layers and polluting the
water table – seem to me to be ‘risks too far’.
Another
letter says that it is wrong to say fracking is opposed by “opponents of
fracking” – bodies and individuals who have said it is incompatible with
meeting our targets for reducing greenhouse gases include: the parliamentary
energy and climate change select committee, David MacKay – chief scientific
advisor to the Dept of Energy and Climate Change, and the committee on climate
change.
Yet
another letter says that according to Le Monde Diplomatique, Sir David King has
‘noted that production at wells drops off by as much as 60-90% within the first
year.’ US companies such as Eagle Fox in
On
the other hand, Fred Pearce, author of The Last generation: how nature will
take her revenge for climate change, says it is a ‘bridging technology’ which
we need because there is far too much burning of coal. ‘The share of coal in
the world’s energy supply rose from 25% to 30% in the past half decade.’ He
only identifies two problems: one, that ‘there are plenty of places where
fracking would not be a good idea, especially in overcrowded Britain’ – and
secondly that what is proposed as a short-term solution can become ‘locked-in’
– and Osborne, as an opponent of wind-power etc, is not the person to trust (my
words) not to get ‘locked-in’. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/15/fracking-monster-greens-must-embrace?INTCMP=SRCH
From
Freedom March 2012: in Morgan
County, West Virginia, a group calling itself Morgan Country Frack Ban is also
trying to get the county declared an International Water Site. They say: ‘Ecology
is the only economy that really matters. One cannot make a living on a dead
planet; and one cannot drink money.’
Ian
Sample, Guardian 17th Feb
2013: report by senior academics at University of Texas says that fracking
is essential to the US, and found that many problems were common to all
drilling, and water contamination could often be traced to surface spills,
However, they were hindered by the industry’s not disclosing what chemicals it
used in fracking fluids, and a widespread failure to sample and record baseline
levels of water quality.
John
Vidal in the Guardian, 20th Oct 2011, on
the ‘Global Citizens’ Report on the state of GMOs’ – this groups together 20
Indian, South-east Asian and Latin American conservation groups, representing
millions of people. The report casts doubt on the effectiveness of GM crops:
more insecticides have to be used, and Monsanto, Syngenta and Dupont control
nearly 70% of global seed sales, and are the three largest GM firms. Monsanto
has control of over 95% of the Indian cotton-seed market and this pushes prices
up.
250,000 Indian farmers have killed themselves over the
past 15 years, mainly because of indebtedness. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/19/gm-crops-insecurity-superweeds-pesticides
The
Ecologist Magazine, Dec/Jan 2009 has article on
Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, who has battled with Monsanto over the
contamination of his crops with GM rape seed – he argues that it is almost
impossible now to buy non-GM seed in
The
Ecologist June 2009: French govt has agreed
introduction of labelling ‘fed on non-GM feed’ on meat and dairy products, a
victory for group Que Choisir. In
The
Ecologist May 2009: criticises the
publication by ‘Sense About Science’ – ‘Making Sense of GM’, which appears to
have been written by people with connections with the GM industry, viz: Prof. V
Moses, head of industry-funded GM lobby group CropGen; 8 contributors from John
Innes Centre, which receives funding from the GM industry; and a draft version,
obtained by Private Eye, shows that one of the contributors – whose name was
removed from the publication! – was toxicologist Andrew Cockburn, former
director of scientific affairs at Monsanto (when he was invited to author part
of a government review there were questions in parliament and one of the other
panellists resigned). More disturbingly,
the publishers (directors of SAS) are part of the Living Marxism group, which also is ‘behind online magazine Spiked
and the Institute of Ideas – the group promotes climate change denial,
eulogises GMOs, human cloning and nuclear power, and portrays environmentalists
as Nazis…’ (Jonathan Matthews in The Ecologist). LM lost a libel action against
ITN when it tried to argue that new pictures of starving Bosnians were faked.
The magazine had to close… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Marxism. See also Zac Goldsmith’s Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/05/sense-about-science-celebrity-observations.
Jonathan Matthews is the founder of GM Watch www.gmwatch.eu
Instead of HS2 we need ‘a European supergrid... to
iron out fluctuations from different sources of renewable energy’ (Robin Russell-Jones,
Chair, Help Rescue the Planet).
Decc (now demised!) showed that renewables with
‘backup gas can produce same output as Hinkley Point a decade earlier and at
least 25% cheaper. Only 900 new jobs would be created by Hinkley, each at a
cost to consumers of 800,000 a year’ (Neils Kroniger, Green Hedge UK Ltd)
‘For the same price as Hinkley we could put solar hot
water and PV with battery storage on [the same] 6m homes and thus taking a
quarter of British homes out of fuel poverty for ever... We have over a million
solar roofs, and tens of millions have been invested in solar research –
meanwhile 2.5 bn has been invested in moving some dirt and laying some concrete
at Hinkley... (Professor Sue Roaf, Edinburgh).
The Severn Barrage could produce 10% of our energy
needs (Michael McLoughlin).
The likely cost continues to escalate: the National
Audit Office has warned that consumers could pay £30 bn in ‘top-up payments’
due to falling wholesale power prices. DEC has already put the potential cost
of Hinkley Point at £37 bn. Hinkley would produce 7% of Britain’s total
electricity, but it has been hit by delays due to concerns in EDF about the
financial burden. In addition, trades unions in
Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/25/china-nuclear-power-plants-expansion-he-zuoxiu
The problem of radioactive water is enormous: each day
around 400 tonnes of ground water flows from surrounding hills into the
basements of three of the reactors, where it mixes with coolant water. Most of
the contaminated water is pumped out into storage tanks – of which there are
more than 1,000, holding 500,000 tones of contaminated water.
Work has begun on a barrier underground to prevent
water from reaching the basements – it is 1.5 km long and will be frozen.
Workers are removing 1,331 spent fuel rods from
reactor number four – and this should be completed by the end of this year. In
the other three reactors radiation levels are still too high for humans to
enter.
Decommissioning the entire plant is expected to take
at least 40 years, at a cost of around £55 bn.
07.11.14 Guardian
carried Ecotricity advert: Nothing Happened:
On
Sunday Oct 19th four nuclear power stations shut down, and Didcot
went up in flames – nine million homes-worth of electricity was lost, but our
windmills carried on and provided almost 25% of the country with power.
Nuclear power:
Studies
by Sustainable Devt Commission as well as Greenpeace and CAT show that
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/24/divorce-after-fukushima-nuclear-disaster?INTCMP=SRCH
on the emotional and psychological effects.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/20/rwe-npower-nuclear-subsidies-warning
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/04/end-of-nuclear-careful-what-you-wish-for
Feb
4th 2013: Highly critical report (Nuclear Decommissioning Authority:
Managing Risk at Sellafield) published on management of Sellafield – (Terry
Macalister) Commons public accounts committee, chaired by Margaret Hodge,
saying ‘the public are not getting a good deal from the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority arrangements with Nuclear Management Partners.’
It’s
not clear how long it will take to deal with Sellafield’s waste, and last year
the consortium got £54 million, despite only 2 out of 14 major projects being
on track. Of the 14 projects, 12 were behind schedule, and 5 of those were over
budget.
Every
year some £1.6 billion is being spent on the site, where waste includes 82
tonnes of plutonium.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/04/sellafield-management-criticised-commons-committee
Oct 2012: Rupert Neate, Observer,
reports the price of uranium has sunk since
Oct 2012, obituary of Crispin
Aubrey – investigative journalist and green campaigner – note he published two
books on Sellafield etc: Meltdown: the collapse of the nuclear dream; and Thorp
(1991): the
March 2012: letters in the Guardian
on news that the
Feb 2012: letters Guardian point
out, in response to article on ‘prism’ reactor, said to be able to use up spent
fuel: we have 25,000 tonnes of depleted uranium and 100 tonnes of plutonium;
the Japanese spent $13 billion over four decades trying to develop fast breeder
reactors unsuccessfully (Tom Burke et al).
Between 1955 and 1995 the
Weds
Nov 2011: thorium
reactors
– less dangerous as don’t produce plutonium; smaller (300 MW) and therefore
cheaper –
Jan 2010: Dr Ian Fairlie replies
to retired prof Wade Allison (not a radiation biologist nor epidemiologist)
who, 11.01.10, minimised risks from nuclear radiation (esp. said that there
should be a threshold, not a continual level of less risk from decreasing
doses). LNT (linear no-threshold theory) is used by UN, International
Commission on Radiological Protection, Health Protection Agency etc.
Recent
German govt study found 22% increase in leukemia, 160% in embryonal cancer among children living near all German nuclear
reactors.
Data
from
Jan/Feb 2010 (Guardian):
at
Sellafield there are 100 tonnes of plutonium – a ludicrous amount!! The budget to clean up old nuclear sites is
£2.8 bn per annum.
22.11.09 Obs:
Govt
refusing to give details of five separate security breaches at nuclear power
stations. These could include:
unauthorized incursion, incidents involving explosives, attempted theft of
nuclear materials… See the Office of Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) annual
report. Dai Davies MP tabled a question, but energy minister David Kidney
refused to give details.
letter Gdn 09.01.08:
Risk
of tumour/leukemia in children increases closer to plant (study of 41 districts
near 16 plants in
5.12 Population: global
growth: predictions for world
population, from 6.5 bn in 2010 to 9.2 bn in 2050; consequences: 50 m new
mouths to feed each year (= population of UK/Italy); if
Book: Population Ten Billion,
by Danny Dorling, (Constable) professor of human geography at
5.13 The Sea: the
Dangers
of encroachment into permafrost in
Recycling
in
2014:
recycling rate: 44.8% --- 2015: 43.9%
EU
target: at least 50% of waste to be recycled by 2020
Waste
company
Consumer
uncertainty about what can be recycled is part of it (plastic bottles get
recycled, other containers don’t) – also lack of facilities provided by local
authorities: 80 local authorities (20%) do this.
24/9/2006: Waste food, and sell-by dates:
from Lucy Siegle, Observer Magazine,
In
the
Of
this, 60% is food (6m tonnes!). (
70%
of produce is dumped by producers and retailers before it even gets to the
stores.
Each
adult throws away £420 of food a year (plus a further £470 in packaging).
A
quarter of the food waste that goes into British landfill is reckoned to be
edible.
The
Charity Fareshare (www.fareshare.org.uk) aims to feed some 4m Britons suffering from food poverty – and some
retailers (M & S, Sainsbury, Pret a Manger) donate food that is just within
use-by date.
So,
a question: are “use-by” dates a way of getting us to buy more (because we
throw away food that reaches its use-by date, when maybe it’s still OK)?
And what does BOGOF really mean? Is it “buy one get one free” or “buy one
throw one in the bin”?
See: Corporate Social
Responsibility: The Consumer,
on food: link, on “planned obsolescence”: link.
More figures on waste, especially related to
computers:
People
get a new mobile phone on average every 18 months
Last
Christmas more than 6 million PCs were left on standby in empty offices
1.5
million computers are thrown away each year, of which 99% work perfectly
The
average Briton throws away own body weight in rubbish every seven weeks acc.
Wrap (govt-funded recycling agency). Estimated 30% could be composted.
[“Change” (Co-op) Spring 2007]
Letters in today’s Guardian criticise Miliband for
proposing to charge residents who produce a lot of waste.
Points made include:
-
most waste is material the manufacturers produce, that we don’t want;
-
the amount of food waste we throw away has not changed much over the decades
and is nearer a fifth of household waste (as it was in the ‘60s);
-
the bulk of the 100 tonnes of waste produced comes from industry and commerce;
-
many people want to recycle but don’t believe that what the council collects
will actually be recycled;
-
in
collectors
to provide them with recyclable material – result clean city and less
unemployment as well as saving energy and resources.
Why does this government insist on blaming the
individual instead of dealing with the failings of business and industry? What
has this kind of approach got to do with a “Labour” government?
5.15 Water, waterways, flooding etc:
Guardian
But the main problem is scarcity if we look from a
global perspective: there are more than a billion people making do with less
than 19 litres each per day, while Americans use around 375, and Europeans 250.
Climate change is going to cause more problems: in
Water Patrol from Canal and River Trust (April 2015?):
lists invasive species e.g. American signal crayfish (carries a disease that
threatens native crayfish, which have declined by around 95% since the 1970s),
and eats invertebrates, snails, small fish and fish eggs. Others: mink,
terrapins, giant hogweed, Japanese knotweed, floating pennywort, killer shrimp,
zebra mussels... See www.canalrivertrust.org.uk
Guardian
8th May 2012, Damian Carrington:
water companies are not being asked to reduce leakage – the entire industry
will only be asked to reduce leakage by 1.5% by 2015, and 11 companies have
zero targets. Every day 4.3 billion litres of water leaks from the system.
The average water bill is now £376. Water companies
made £2 bn in pre-tax profits and paid shareholders £1.5 bn in dividends in 2010
– 11.
Guardian, 23.01.08, Paul
Evans:
need for new kind of solutions to problem of excess rainwater/flooding: Chris Baines: need to look at whole rural landscape, find ways of
slowing rainwater when it hits ground, holding it, delaying its release. Increase
broadleaf woodlands on slopes, fewer animals, reinstatement of hedges,
re-creation of reed-beds etc. Likely increase in rainfall: Autumn 2000 was
wettest for 270 yrs, floods affecting thousands of properties, 1.3 m hectares
of agricultural land on flood-planes in Eng and
5.16 Weather – changing
weather and its effects.
Damian
Carrington quotes National Trust’s review of 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/28/national-trust-2016-review-wildlife-weather-bees-butterflies
Some creatures and plants did well, others suffered, as result of
varied/unsettled weather, which is ‘becoming the norm’ according to Matthew
Oates, green expert for the National Trust. NT is the country’s biggest farmer,
with 2,000 tenants and the biggest landowner after the Forestry Commission.
Winters have become milder, and the summer wetter – which is what scientists
predict with climate change.
6. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS (VIEWPOINTS) AND THEIR LIMITATIONS:
As is my custom in these
notes, I will lay out a number of different solutions that have been proposed;
each one reflects a certain (usually political) viewpoint, ranging from the
right to the left – but with other views escaping from this traditional
spectrum. As regards CSR, these views range from something close to hostility,
through to the argument that the whole system needs changing, and “in the
middle” different views of what CSR actually involves.
There have always been
those who believe so strongly in the market that they would leave all these
problems alone, provided the market is made as free as possible. I have
commented on the problem of market values above, (link) and I have also made the observation that we do not
seem to deal with problems until they cause us noticeable damage. But this is
precisely how the pro-market viewpoint deals with problems: why should we
spend money unnecessarily on putative problems, when once a
phenomenon hits someone’s pocket they will start paying to prevent it?
A parallel view to this
stresses that it is only as a result of the market and competition that we
are come up with new technologies at all. If we could not make money
out of something, would we bother with trying to make it? Consequently, the
best way to deal with the negative consequences of industrial and technological
growth is to try to find new and better (i.e. more energy efficient, less
polluting, less wasteful) technologies. We also need to be looking for
technologies that will help to clear up pollution, otherwise how are we going
to do it? And after all, money can be made from clearing up a mess! Witness the
discussion of how it is the Chinese who are processing most of
The
To solve the problem of
getting international agreement on reducing carbon dioxide (and other
greenhouse gases), the
I shall take this as an
example of a market-based approach, although it also depends on international
governmental agreement. At first sight it looks like an attempt to put a value
on “externalities” – but it is a money value, and then the inevitable happens,
i.e. if any reduction in pollution occurs it will be because it makes economic
sense to the country concerned, not because of any intrinsic value in reducing
pollution. Also I am concerned that desire for profit will mean the scheme is
used for profit rather than to reduce pollution. (I will try to explain this
below)
Under the scheme, each
country is given a target amount of permitted emissions, and these are
expressed as “credits”. If a country manages to reduce its emissions beyond the
target (i.e. emissions are reduced to below the target), it will have credits
in hand that it can “sell” to another country that is likely to exceed its
target. If it goes over that figure, it can “buy” excess credits from
elsewhere, but if it still fails to meet its target there will be fines, in
proportion to the excess that it produces. (See the Guardian, Life,
There are now trading
schemes that are up and running – for example the European Trading Scheme –
where millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide are traded each month. In fact, it
looks as if banks and others (including Enron, before it collapsed!) are
interested in how they can make money from buying and selling pollution
credits. If this happens, I am not sure what will become of the original
purpose of the scheme. However, the hope is that as governments make their
targets more stringent, it will be cheaper to reduce emissions than to buy
credits. But this obviously depends on governments being strict, and to
date what we have observed is the British government backtracking and reducing
pressure on industry. Not only this, but
governments have to set targets for particular companies – and this has not
been thought through carefully or fairly, according to some critics (Ian
Sample, loc cit).
More optimistic
observers (e.g. Michael Meacher, the former Environment minister, Guardian
Update (2007): J Freedland, Guardian 05.12.07: is much cash now
in carbon cap-and-trade market: grew x 3 last year, now worth at least $30
bn. On
But opponents who
believe the underlying problem is industrial growth, not just the increasing
production of greenhouse gases, will not see much benefit from this treaty. It
is all very well being a “realist”, as Michael Meacher is, but if as much
damage has been done to the environment as some scientists claim, then surely
the time has come for something more drastic? However, Adair Turner, former director general
of the CBI, believes that environmental restrictions and economic and
industrial growth are compatible (Simon Caulkin, Observer
There
is also the argument (says Freedland) that capitalism is best at innovating –
For example, we now can have a meter to show how much energy a household is
using… promoted by SEED: social environmental enterprise + design.
Two other arguments that
oppose the pro-market position should
be noted:
(i)
the market
may throw up new technology, but there is always the possibility that this is
accompanied by new problems. For example, when nuclear power was first put into
operation, enthusiasts told us we would have virtually free electricity.
Experience has thrown up the incredible difficulty and cost of disposing of
waste, and the likelihood that cancers have been caused. Now the whole
viability of nuclear power is in doubt.
Another example would be how
automation was supposed to bring more leisure time, but in practice has meant
that we all work harder because the technology enables us to do more. With BSE and CJD we “discovered” some unforeseen consequences of
intensive meat production. After all this, isn’t the public right to be wary of
new technology having as yet unknown harmful consequences? It is surely little
wonder that there is uncertainty about GM crops, mobile phones and radiation
from radio masts.
(ii)
as the
market works on the basis of risk-taking to make a profit, how likely is it
that money will be found to deal with very expensive environmental problems? We
have noted already that insurers do not have a bottomless purse when it comes
to the likely consequences of climate change. Nuclear power, too, would not
survive without enormous government subsidy. In fact nuclear power has probably
only been worked on because of its connection with bombs. I would maintain that
the market can not deal with nuclear power, and that to hand such a dangerous
and costly industry over to “free market” forces would not only be dangerous –
experience has shown (in this country at least) that a buyer is unlikely to be
found.
6.2
SELF-REGULATION
Amongst those in business who accept
that the dangers of climate change are real, there is still disagreement over
the extent to which regulation is necessary. Elkington and Hailes in their
best-selling “Green Consumer Guide” (1988),
represented the view that business would “green” itself – as a result of market
forces, and consumer pressure. They argued for “bridge-building”
between business and environmental groups, and they set out a number of
criteria that consumers could use in order to make their purchases
environmentally sound – which would then put pressure on business to meet this
demand.
This position differs from the
entirely pro-market view given above, since Elkington and Hailes recognise the
need for some sort of outside pressure on firms in order to produce “green business”. However, this is a very mild form of
pressure, and often takes the form of providing “consultancy” over
environmental issues – whilst building on public alarm over the environment.
In fact, John Elkington himself has
become a consultant for “sustainable business”, and other environmental
campaigners have decided that if you can’t beat them you should join them! For
example, Jonathan Porritt (formerly
of Friends of the Earth) is now chair of the government’s Sustainable
Development Commission, and runs Forum for the Future, a “charity working
closely with business”.
I am not convinced that Elkington
and Hailes’s argument makes sense: their optimistic view that business is
becoming green seems to have little foundation, given the track record of most
business in relation to the environment, (as argued above).
It is also hard to see how links
between business and environmental groups can be made, since (see next point)
environmental groups are often based on a radical philosophy that is not
compatible with traditional business methods and values. Moreover, it is not
clear to me where consumer pressure will come from – except, as argued above,
when consumers are faced with some sort of threat as a result of environmental
degradation (by which time it may be too late).
However, it is not too difficult to
envisage business realising the benefits of environmental consciousness, and
such slogans as - “reduce, recycle,
re-use” are attractive to businesses if explained in such a way that they
realise they might gain from adopting them!
This of course leaves the final doubt: to what extent is a business that
boasts of its environmental credentials simply indulging in clever PR? Greenwash!?
Update: Re-usable water bottles
– www.sigg.com – Swiss company sustainably
made, and free from phthalates and Bisphenol-A (which can leach out in
landfills).
Personally I would apply this
argument even to some of the new “green businesses” (see www.GreenBusiness.net) – are these businesses supplying real needs in an environmentally
friendly way, or are they simply pushing their way into a “niche market”?
(This is much the same argument that I rehearsed concerning Body Shop: Chapter 1).
Take “Red Jellyfiish” as advertised on
the above (American) website: its main activity is selling posters and e-cards
with themes about nature – “every purchase helps the environment” presumably by
donations from the proceeds to environmental protection groups. You can also
click on one of the advertisements appearing on the site and a similar donation
is made (out of the money paid by the advertisers presumably). I need hardly
say that posters are hardly a basic need, and all sorts of questions come to
mind about the ecological costs of producing them!
Recently we have seen the growth of “social
enterprises”, which have environmental considerations as part of their
goals – and which seem to have adopted Elkington’s triple bottom line (see
below link). These will be dealt with separately, as they are not primarily
concerned with the environment.
See Chapter 8 : Inequality - Social Enterprise link
Update:
Corporate Social
Responsibility?
Meanwhile,
airlines resist plan to include them in emissions targets!! IATA says 170
countries oppose the proposals to make flights in and out of EU subject to caps
that apply to power stations etc.
Workplaces?
National Trust HQ,
But
Christian Aid report, by Andrew Pendleton 190207: only 16 of top 100 meet govt
guidelines on greenhouse gas emissions – almost 200m tonnes missing from annual
reports. Top 100 produce 12-15% of our emissions. True figures should be 67%
higher..
Consumers International and Accountability (includes National
Consumer Council and Which) report,
June 2007, says 40% distrust business claims about the environment, and 50% not
sure. 60% believe scientists, 50% believe pressure groups. Family and friends
are also trusted more than business or politicians. Only 17% trust the media…
Director of Accountability: Philip Monaghan (international non-profit making
body). [Terry Macalister, G 190607.] Survey of consumers’ actions shows 60%
often reduce energy use, nearly 50% bought energy-reducing light bulbs, but
complaints about cost of environment-friendly products, and 1/3 “confused”.
Shell: sponsored conference on
the environment, but still burning flares in
6.3
POLICING THE MARKET & CHANGING LIFESTYLE
Many of those concerned about the
environment would feel that it is worthwhile joining a pressure group and/or
adopting a green lifestyle:
there is some overlap with the previous viewpoint, where pressure is applied
simply to make business “behave better”. However, pressure groups are not
market forces! Moreover, your lifestyle is your individual choice and may have no effect on society whatsoever.
Putting pressure on business is a
strategy adopted by the “light green”
end of the environmental movement. The environmental or green movement is split
between what are called “light green” and “dark green” wings. I will deal with
the “dark green” approach below (section 6), since they would go much further
than simply “pressurising” or “policing” capitalism.
The “light green” position is that
capitalism can be reformed – and that it is our responsibility as consumers and
businesses to find ways of doing the least damage possible to the environment.
We can do this by adopting a green lifestyle.
Thus, as with Elkington and Hailes’s
“green consumerism”, what we are given is guidelines for us to modify
our purchasing behaviour. There is little explanation as to what will motivate
us to do this however. The most widespread guideline to environmental impact is
the “carbon footprint”: for those who wish to minimise their “carbon”
impact, it is possible to measure how much carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) we have
used each day in various activities (from boiling a kettle to leaving the computer
on standby, or from driving some miles in a car, to travelling by air). Once we
know how big our “carbon footprint” is, we can all take steps to reduce it. The
same procedure can be used for whole businesses or nations. This is sometimes
called “carbon accounting”. If we go beyond only thinking about fossil
fuels, and include other impacts on the environment, we can identify an “ecological
footprint” for each of us (or, again, for a given business, industry, or
nation).
Incidentally, the
Whilst these measurements produce
some interesting information, and can be used to “shame” excessive polluters, there
are obvious limitations with this approach. First, do companies or nations feel
“shame”?! Or are they only concerned about their wealth or their power? Second,
there is an underlying drive for growth that still has to be dealt with:
to significantly reduce all our ecological footprints would surely require a
re-structuring of whole economies and societies? This is even more obvious if,
thirdly, we consider the inequalities that exist between the developed and
less-developed world: the main polluters are countries like the US, and they
should surely have to reduce their footprints first and further than the rest –
but how is this to be done?
On the other
hand, leading a green lifestyle within developed countries is increasingly
feasible – for example, houses that are
sustainable and have nearly no environmental impact have been designed and
built, according to Steve Rose, the Guardian 29/11/2004. (see www.earthship.com
or www.lowcarbon.co.uk). They are “heated by the sun, generate
electricity from solar and wind energy, use rainfall, process their own sewage
through plant beds which also produce bananas all year round”. They also can be
built using waste such as old car tyres.
There are many green products (the
Ecover range for example) on the market; there is more interest in organic
gardening, including composting food waste; you can buy cosmetics and clothing
made from hemp – which is more environmentally friendly for developing
countries to grow (see www.thtc.co.uk for the Hemp Trading Company, or www.motherhemp.com),
and you can even arrange to have a green funeral: www.naturaldeath.org.uk!
Divestment: recently (writing 2015) The Guardian has
started a campaign to get investments taken away from the fossil fuel industry.
Here is a link to a piece about the Gates Foundation, which gives a lot of
money to charity etc, and Bill Gates has said that climate change is the most
serious problem we face, and yet it invests heavily in oil and mining: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/19/gates-foundation-has-14bn-in-fossil-fuels-investments-guardian-analysis
6.4
REGULATING THE MARKET
Believing that only limited change can
be brought about by or within capitalism prompts some to turn to the state, or
to international bodies with the power to regulate and control business.
Socialists often make the assumption that with state control, or workers’ control, we will automatically
adopt greener industrial practices. There is a questionable logic at work here:
state ownership does not necessitate care for the environment, and in fact
could be carried out in a manner that is totally un-ecological – as was seen in
the former Soviet union, which turned out to be (along with communist East
Europe) one of the world’s worst polluters. (Conversely, it is possible to take
measures to protect the environment without at the same time converting to
socialism. Andre Gorz (1987) recognised this when he wrote of
the danger of “eco-fascism”).
Those such as Gorz who want to
maintain a link between socialism and ecology must “add” something to the idea
of common or state ownership as promoting equality. It could be argued, for
example, that planning the economy
must involve long-term perspectives,
which in turn must mean ecological
sensitivity. Gorz (1994) argues for an “eco-social
rationality”, but the strongest point he makes is that this rationality is
quite incompatible with capitalism’s
drive for growth and profit and its creation of never-ending needs (see on
the consumer in Chapter 5 -
marketing link). Where his thinking is lacking is on how to implement this
eco-social rationality, and he even seems to have made socialism less important
than ecology in some of his writings.
Having said this, there still
remains the further, real/practical problem for “traditional” socialists that most
of the experiments that have been carried out so far with state planning have
led to an unaccountable bureaucracy.
This might be, as many believe, because “power corrupts” or, more subtly
because planning came to be regarded as a specialised activity, in which the
amateur public could not be involved. This is the problem of technocracy that
was mentioned when discussing the worker – and we will return to it under
“inequality” in Chapter 8. Here I also
deal with worker co-operatives as a remedy for
inequality (link). In
Chapter 1 I (link) have
argued that worker-ownership is likely to produce more socially responsible
businesses, it is worth asking if there is a natural connection between
co-ownership and sensitivity to the natural environment? The Suma whole-food
co-operative certainly includes environmentally friendly processes in its aims.
Elkington (1997) writes of seven “sustainability revolutions” that he
believes must take place to reach sustainable
business. These include changes in the approach to markets, values,
transparency, life-cycle technology, and governance. He describes the series of
events that have changes our awareness of the environment – in a similar way
that I did at the start of this section – identifying three “waves” of
sustainability, with peaks and troughs for each. For Elkington, the
formation of Friends of the Earth
and Greenpeace (1970s), the
disasters at Bhopal and Chernobyl (1980s), public battles over
environmental issues such as Brent Spar
and Shell in Nigeria (1990s),
together with the more recent BSE “mad
cow” disease etc, and the current phenomenon of globalisation, have all helped
us move towards sustainability by convincing business that it must do
something. Now, he says, business must be aware of the “triple
bottom line” – economic, environmental and social, but this will not be
really effective until it is “built into” corporate agendas from the moment a
new business is set up. This is very reminiscent of John Humble’s (1973)
argument, referred to in the Chapter 1, link and it seems to me to be just
as over-optimistic, and lacking in grounds and evidence of actual change inside
corporations.
Writers like Elkington are fond of
inventing colourful terminology to describe the different business practices
they observe with regard to CSR. Thus there are “corporate locusts” (who
devour the environment rapidly), “corporate caterpillars” (slowly
munching away!), “corporate butterflies” (like Body Shop, with some CSR
but many limitations) and finally “corporate honey-bees” who are fully
sustainable. He even acknowledges that “corporate butterflies” have an impact
on consumers that is out of proportion to their small economic role. How he
then can be optimistic and not see the world as nearly over-run by swarming corporate
locusts I do not know!
There are, then, serious weaknesses
in the argument that business is becoming sustainable. Predictions of how the “big picture” is changing –
large-scale historical predictions - are fun to draw up, but time has an even
funnier habit of proving them wrong! (Burnham, Heilbronner, Marcuse, Marx –
their names are legion). One would have thought that after the incredibly
complex and supposedly scientific predictions of Marx were demonstrated to be
seriously wrong, social scientists would be a bit more humble and recognise the
unpredictability of history. This is not to say that we should not say how we wish the world to become – but it seems
to me that the basis for these arguments have to be ethical not pseudo-scientific.
Another serious weakness in these
arguments about sustainability is that they do not address current inequalities
and power structures across the world: to ask the Indians and the Americans at
the same time to be “sustainable” is to maintain the gross inequalities (See Chapter 7 and Chapter 8) and that were touched on above
with regard to carbon emissions. It is surely impossible to expect Americans to
give up their way of life altogether, and if carbon reduction is achieved we
can be sure it will be done by new and cleaner technology. On the other hand,
what do we say to third world countries about their environmental impact? Are
they to be denied the standard of living of the developed world?
Comments
on report by Sustainable Development Commission at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/30/g20-sustainable-development-commission
6.6
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY, NEW SOCIAL STRUCTURES
A “dark green” approach, that
some will regard as utopian, requires changes to social structures, politics
and economics, usually based on “alternative
technology” (see www.cat.org.uk and Dickson 1974).
See also Chapter 4
and CAT.
The key to understanding alternative
(or “soft” or “appropriate”) technology is the realisation that technology
is not neutral – it does not simply develop as we progress, but it is
developed as a result of the way that certain problems are defined and certain
kinds of solution are sought. In other words, technology varies with
the kind of society in which it is found, and this is not simply a question of
some societies being under-developed. There is nothing “inevitable”, either,
about the discovery of certain kinds of technology, or technological
“advances”. Again, what we define as an advance will depend on our social goals
and values.
What has happened in the developed
world is that we have developed technologies (and work processes) which:
·
put machines and production before
people: the working conditions of most people in the early stages of
industrialisation were appalling, (and the whole process was built on slavery
anyway) – but the promise was held out of a better future, and workers were
told that these sacrifices were worth making.
As we saw, the work process was alienating, and industrial disease and
injury has continued to scar large numbers of workers to this day, and getting
compensation has meant endless struggle. .
·
centralise power and
control: right from the earliest changes
brought about by industrialisation, i.e. mechanisation, the ability of the
worker to control his/her own work was taken away – no longer were most people
self-employed peasants or craftsmen, working the hours they chose, with the
tools and techniques they chose. Instead the managers and factory owners
controlled the clock and the work process. The corollary of this was the
growth of the “expert” who knew how to manage work and machinery – workers’
skills were no longer trusted (as we saw with Taylorism). Managers in the
factory, and then managers and owners working together in their associations,
replaced trade unions not only with their power to organise work, but with
political power too (see next section).
·
pollute the environment
and consume energy wastefully: it was cheaper
to run a machine by steam power than to use human strength, especially since
coal seemed plentiful. The air, rivers and the sea were “free”, as we have
seen, so there was no need to worry about running out of it, or about pollution
causing real damage. As with coal, so with oil (so long as it could be bought
at a “reasonable” price!) and raw materials: these seemed to be plentiful,
“God-given”, and the political power of the first nations to develop ensured
that a “reasonable” price was maintained.
The idea of alternative
technology grew out of this analysis, and out of the needs of developing
countries: rather than believing that our machines and factories and other
forms of technology would be useful wherever they could be sent (or sold!), it
is argued that each local community
needs to decide what are its
priorities for work, social life, environmental impact and economic growth.
Then, appropriate technology can be developed to meet these needs.
Thus, in a society (e.g.
In case this is thought
fanciful or simplistic, aid agencies at the United Nations learned the hard
way, in the middle of the last century, that sending tractors out to developing
countries to help with the ploughing was mostly a waste of time, since tractors
can only run when there is available fuel, labour to maintain them, and
available spare parts. (Of course, this might suit developed countries – since
it sets up a relationship of dependency, as we saw in the section on the
third world).
Other examples of “low
level” appropriate technology include using reeds to make egg cartons (rather
than paper or plastic), bicycle-power or wind-power to run pumps or to generate
electricity – since all of these use locally available raw materials, are
non-polluting, and can easily be maintained. However, recently has come the
development of more technically advanced technology that still might count in
some respects as alternative, such as solar cells: in countries with long hours
of sunlight, these are infinitely preferable to nuclear power from an
environmental point of view, and they do not need the skilled maintenance that
nuclear power stations do. However, of course, they are not so appealing to the
state!
The other use of
alternative technology is, of course, within developed countries in order to
reduce environmental damage, and to improve quality of life (see the points
about lifestyle above). However, these are not likely to have much impact on
the overall social and political context.
Observer
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/03/lynx-rewilding-britain-wildlife-countryside
Finally, we might return
to the question of co-operatives (see above, also
references in: Chapter 1,
and Chapter 8) since for
some these are the seeds of a new kind of society… On the other hand, as with
social enterprise, the Body Shop etc, there does seem to be a tendency for such
“different” initiatives to be “co-opted” by the system as it is, and then their
radical potential is lost.
**************************************
Bookchin, M (1990)
Remaking Society: Pathways to a Green Future, South End Press – combining anarchism and ecology/social
ecology
Cairncross, F (1995)
Green Inc: A Guide to Business and the Environment, Island Press – are growth and sustainability compatible?
Recent: Davies, Nicholas B. and Krebs, J.R., West S.A.: An
Introduction to Behavioural Ecology (4th
edn) 2012. On fluence of natural selection on behaviour (Krebs has been
opposing badger cull,
Dobson, A (1990) Green
Political Thought, Unwin Hyman – if you want to clarify “light” and “dark”
green thinking, and to decide if green political thought is coherent
Dickson, D (1974)
Alternative Technology and the Politics of Technical Change, Fontana/Collins.
Dowie,
Mark: Conservation Refugees: The
Hundred-Year Conflict between global conservation and native peoples, MIT
Ecologist, The (1972)
Blueprint for Survival, Penguin – another key warning from the 1970s (see also
Meadows)
Elkington, J (1997)
Cannibals with forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century
Business, Capstone,
Elkington, J and Burke,
T (1989) The Green Capitalists, Onion Publishing Co.
Elkington J. &
Hailes J. (1988) The Green Consumer Guide, Gollancz – a “light green” view on
consumption that will not damage the environment
Fairweather B. et al
(1997) Environmental Futures, Macmillan – see Alan Neale’s article on the motor
industry’s resistance to change (NELP)
Farley,
Paul, Michael S Roberts: Edgelands...
(see Woolfson)
Flannery,
Tim: Here on Earth: a new beginning,
electrochemical reaction’ – looks at
evolutionary and human history, extinction, climate change and the role of
civilisations as super-organisms – we survive
because we co-operate with other
biological entities. We need to respect Gaia. We could feed 9 billion humans
and save other species. (Tim Flannery is an
Australian biologist and climate
scientist).
Gore,
Al: The Future, WH Allen, 25.
Reviewed John Gray Guardian 02.02.13: - ‘a tour de force that no government can
afford to ignore’. Starts with 6 drivers making
the world a different place – more
globalised economy, planet-wide electronic communication and robotics, new
political economy shifting to the east,
unsustainable population growth and
resource depletion, biological and biochemical advances that allow us to shape
the fabric of life, unstable relationship
between human civilisation and the
environment (climate change etc). Can we
keep up with these changes? Warns against a mechanistic understanding of
science and reductionism. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jan/31/the-future-al-gore-review (Though does argue for
the world...)
Gorz, A (1987) Ecology
as Politics, Pluto – from a Marxist perspective, includes “socialism or
ecofascism”
Gorz, A (1996) Social
Theory and the Environment, Polity
Heinberg,
Richard: Peak Everything
Humble, J, (1973):
Social Responsibility Audit, a Management Tool for Survival, Foundation for
Business Responsibilities – a very early text on CSR, arguing for
incorporation of social responsibility as a core business
objective, and proposing the social audit technique
Jamie,
Kathleen: Findings... (see Woolfson)
Jupiter,
Tony: What has Nature Ever Done for
Us? Profile, 9.99. Reviewed by Robin McKie, Observer 20.01.13. Nature underpins
our productivity and our fecundity
– it is not true that if we take
care of nature we will have to slow down
our development. Shows value and usefulness of e.g. vultures in Inda,
peat bogs,
mangroves, soil itself. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jan/19/what-has-nature-ever-done-for-us-tony-juniper-review
Review by Mark Cocker.
Leslie,
Brian, editor: Sustainable Economics, and author: The Party’s Over (2003)
Liverman, D (1994- 4)
article from the Annals of the Association of American Geographers
Lomborg, B (2001 The
Skeptical Environmentalist – see also www.lomborg.com
Lovelock, J (1979) Gaia:
A New Look at Life on Earth, Oxford Univ. Press – the planet as a self-regulating natural system: controversial
Lovelock, J (1995) The
Ages of Gaia, OUP
Lovelock, J (1991) Gaia:
the practical science of planetary medicine, Gaia Books
Meadows, D.H. et al
(1972) The Limits to Growth,
Packard, V (1960) The
Waste Makers, Penguin – another
early text!
Mabey,
Richard: The Common Ground... (see
Woolfson)
Mishan, E.J. (first
published 1967) The Costs of Economic Growth, Pelican (1969)
Pearce,
Fred: The Last Generation: how nature will take her revenge for climate change
Porritt, J (1984) Seeing
Green, Blackwell – Porritt is involved in green politics in the
Porritt, J and Winner, D
(1988) – The Coming of the Greens,
Ridley,
Matt - The Rational Optimist 4th Estate May 2010 £20
Ryle, M (1998) Ecology
and Socialism, Radius – a green socialist perspective
Sachs, W (1997) The
Development Dictionary – see the chapter on the environment for a critical
pro-third world perspective on western notions of protecting the
environment against economic growth
Scruton,
Roger: Green Philosophy: how to
think seriously about the planet, Atlantic 12.99. Many ecological externalities
e.g. river pollution can be sorted by a
combination of free markets and
common law. Opposes international organisations and state power. Tries to blame
the loony left for any inconsistencies etc.
(Jonathan Ree, Guardian 12.01.13
Simms,
Andrew and David Boyle: The New
Economics
Singer, P (1976) Animal
Liberation,
Sprackland,
Jean: Strands... (see Woolfson)
Ward, B, Dubois, R
(1972) Only One Earth, Penguin – earth
as a spaceship
Woolfson,
Esther: Field Notes from a
view nature – more attention paid
to, and books, on the ordinary... and on the creatures we live near to, some of
which are seen as pests. Woolfson’s previous
book: Corvus, 2008, an ode to the
maligned crow family. This book is about why the urban wildness is important to
us, and starts with her home-town,
Questions the idea that ‘invaders’
should be removed.
See also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/23/alien-species-british-countryside-kneejerk-nature
by Mark Cocker (we should take each case on
its own merits). Woolfson: how
everything would be changed if we lost sparrows!!
World Commission on
Environmental Development, (Brundtland report) (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford
Univ. Press – one of several
important UN declarations
www.cat.org.uk - Centre for Alternative Technology
www.earthship.com
or www.lowcarbon.co.uk - ways of measuring your “carbon
footprint”
www.thtc.co.uk
- the Hemp Trading Company
www.motherhemp.com
- also for hemp products
you can even arrange to
have a green funeral: www.naturaldeath.org.uk
www.monbiot.com and www.bellamy.org
- for the debate over energy futures
www.eta.co.uk -
Environmental Transport Assocation
www.usc.edu/keck and www.guardian.co.uk/medicine - for
information on air pollution and heart disease
www.neweconomics.org - The New
Economics Foundation
www.lomborg.com - the “sceptical
environmentalist”
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/nov/28/claxton-field-notes-small-planet-mark-cocker-review - on ecology
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/johnvidal
- John Vidal, Guardian environment correspondent.
George Monbiot (and others) on the film The Great
Global Warming Swindle,
www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/07/21/distortions-falsehoods-fabrications,
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_warming_skeptic,
(Global_warming_skeptic)
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics/common_claims_and_rebuttal
(Climate_change_skeptic/common_claims_and_rebuttal).