Category Archives: carbon footprint
Solar Schools : John Nightingale
John Nightingale has drawn attention to the Solar for Schools project which is relevant to research published by his church (the Church of England); this recently worked out that the main source of its carbon footprint is not its church buildings but its schools!
A graphic from the Solar for Schools report in the overview, shows that schools can:
There are two strands to Solar for Schools: Fundraising (for the CBS), Development, Education and Asset Management services for existing school systems
The CBS funding model is explained in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuYupvSiPCc
Solar for Schools supports the UN Sustainable Development Goals
To learn more, contact Danielle Parker, Project Manager / School Ambassador
daniellep@solarforschools.co.uk
o
We need a new operating system: the gauntlet has been laid down
Readers are recommended to open the truly excellent video at Simpol – Simultaneous Policy – Global Site’, snapshot below.
Simpol had a record response during the last UK election – over 100 MPs signed up (listed here) and it has been gaining ground in several countries, becoming an international citizens’ movement Simpol Global Site – Our Politicians
John writes:
“With Covid-19 set to send the world into a 1930s-style depression, or probably worse, pundits are busy asking whether this is the end of capitalism as we know it. It was the same during the 2008 financial crisis. But nothing much changed. We soon went back to business-as-usual. And nothing much will change this time either, at least not in terms of the basic economic Operating System (OS) that we live under and which greatly determines our lives.
”The reason is that, barring a complete system collapse, we can only go back to the existing OS because there is nowhere else for the world to go. Without any alternative OS being available which might permit fundamental change, the existing OS of course eventually re-boots itself in the same familiar pattern”.
John ends by saying:
“Fortunately, the The Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) campaign offers a practical answer to the question of how to effect this transformation. And it’s already some way towards achieving it. Already today, increasing numbers of national politicians from both right and left and across a number of countries support it.
Prominent economists, scientists and thought leaders already support it too, including Ken Wilber, Noam Chomsky, Ervin Laszlo, David Sloan Wilson and countless others. That’s because Simpol offers the most practical way of putting OS.2 in place and it answers more concerns or objections than any other global initiative out there.
“I know this is a big challenge, but time is now short. Action is needed. That’s why I’m laying down the gauntlet. Having read this far, you now have three options:
- You can ignore Simpol and the whole vital issue of moving to OS.2, in which case you remain part of the problem.
- You can point out some other initiative and show, in detail, how it does a better job than Simpol. And make no mistake: I have no particular attachment to Simpol. If you or someone else can show me something better, I’ll be happy to drop Simpol tomorrow and follow your alternative.
- If 1 and 2 are not options for you, then stop being part of the problem and start being part of the Simpol solution by reading the book and signing on to Simpol and spreading the word!
“It’s your move”.
The video is also available here: Changing the World is SIMPOL – YouTube
o
WMNEG has written urging the BCC to review its food waste policy
Members of West Midlands New Economics Group (WMNEG) note the recent announcement that an independent review of the city’s waste service will be ‘commissioned by the council as part of the joint commitment to providing the best standard of service possible for Birmingham’s citizens, businesses and visitors’.
In light of the government’s new Resources and Waste Strategy, published December 2018, and updated in July 2019, WMNEG members strongly urge BCC to take this opportunity to review its policy on food waste (currently 48% of Birmingham’s waste stream, according to your own figures).
One of the consultants used in Birmingham City Council’s research for its waste strategy paper 2017-2040 (Ricardo, Best Practice in Waste Prevention, Reuse, Recycling and Recovery, 2016) refers briefly to Oxford County Council’s [sic – actually South Oxfordshire’s] weekly collection of food waste which, via anaerobic digestion, is turned into energy and fertiliser – but you seem to have rejected this example of good practice (presented to the people of South Oxfordshire in admirably simple terms: see Appendix).
WMNEG would like to draw BCC’s attention to another example of good practice, a city of over three-quarters of a million people whose diversity matches that of Birmingham – San Francisco. Here the city authorities have engaged in an enthusiastic and successful programme of education about food waste collection, particularly in hotels and restaurants (with financial incentives part of the deal), but also in residential apartment blocks (considered problematic by many urban authorities). San Francisco’s composting facility is located 70 miles from the city – away from populated areas to avoid odour problems, and close to farms that purchase and use the compost to grow fruit, vegetables and grapes for wine – much of which produce is consumed in San Francisco. A circular economy indeed! (Sources: The Zero Waste Solution (Connett); San Francisco’s own website)
With climate change and reductions in the city’s carbon dioxide emissions also high on BCC’s agenda, note that, according to Connett, ‘agronomists say if every city replicated San Francisco’s urban compost collection programme [i.e. food waste and garden waste], we could offset more than 20% of the nation’s carbon emissions.’
Former Cabinet Member with this portfolio, Lisa Trickett, wrote in her blog (27 September 2017) of the need to decrease food waste rather than collect and recycle it, but surely in the real world both approaches are needed simultaneously?
WMNEG would urge BCC to take another look at food waste as a resource, in line with the principle adopted in your own strategy of recognising that ‘waste’ is in fact potentially a valuable resource, and that the ‘circular economy’ is the economy of the future.
–
Appendix: South Oxfordshire District Council’s information for householders (from their website)
Your food is collected every week. Use your small kitchen bin to collect your food scraps each day and then transfer them into the large food recycling bin which we’ll empty each week.
What can I put in my food recycling bin?
- All your raw and cooked food waste such as leftovers and spoilt food, and including:
- meat and fish – raw and cooked including bones
- all dairy products such as cheese and eggs
- raw and cooked vegetables and fruit
- bread, cakes and pastries
- rice, pasta and beans
- uneaten food from your plates and dishes
- tea bags and coffee grounds
- cooking oil, lard and fats (can be placed in a plastic bottle inside the caddy)
- old cut flowers
NEW! We can now collect cooking oil placed in a plastic bottle (no bigger than 1 litre) from inside your food waste caddy…’
,
Progressive politics could build an economy for the people, by the people
Miatta Fahnbulleh, chief executive of the New Economics Foundation, believes that politics is finally waking up to the reality that our economic model is broken.
Across the political spectrum, she sees a growing consensus that the economy does not work for the majority of people as the New Economics Foundation has argued for years.
It took the 2008 financial crisis to expose the weaknesses of our current economic model and ten years of pain for the mainstream to catch up.
She lists some of the evidence:
- ‘Economic growth’ has – for the first time in modern records – ceased to deliver a pay rise for many.
- A decade of wage stagnation has left millions of people struggling to meet the growing cost of every day essentials.
- Many are having to borrow to get by, with three million households now in severe debt.
- Traditional sources of support through public services have been cut to the bone in the name of austerity.
- One in three children now live in poverty.
- wealth continues to be concentrated at the top: the richest 10% now owning 45% of the country’s wealth,
- The poorest half of households own just 9%.
Miatta fears that, Brexit will make it harder, not easier, to take on the bigger, more important challenge of transforming the economy and the build-up of rancour will grow and the clamour for change will get louder. She continues:
“We need a new economic model – one that works for people and our planet. The new economy must be rooted in a thriving and healthy environment, in which a green transition is seen as the priority because climate change and the damage to our environment is now the biggest threat to economic justice we face.
“It must deliver better and more equal living standards in which the basics for a decent quality of life – minimum income, housing, health & social care, childcare and education – are guaranteed for all and provided communally. It must be built by businesses that work for the long term and in the public interest with stronger voice and power for workers baked into their business model.
“But perhaps above all, it must be an economy that genuinely empowers people. By giving people greater ownership and stake in the economy through common ownership of public goods and essential infrastructure and co-operative and mutual ownership of enterprise.
“It must be supported and stewarded by an active but decentralised state rooted in communities and shaped by strong democratic participation. Finally, it must push power and decision-making down to communities where people know best, enabling them to act collectively to improve their lives”.
She thinks that Labour shows signs of promise with its commitment to radical economic reform and its recent policy announcements on employee ownership, ownership of essential utilities and zero carbon emissions by 2050. But it has some way to go to reimagine an economy that is not dependent on a central state ‘doing change’ to people from the top.
The Conservatives have embraced the principle – if not the practice – of decentralisation and empowering communities, but – she observes – they have not yet set out a compelling economic response that offers an alternative.
Up and down the country, people are already taking the lead in putting the new economy into practice – credit unions, community banks, community transport and co-operatives. Here and in other countries people are setting up a wide range of locally oriented businesses.
Miatta foresees that this movement of people could form the backbone for a progressive politics uniting to build an economy for the people, by the people.
—
Read her article here.
o
The Green New Deal infrastructure programme
Global weather patterns have increased attention on the adverse effects of climate change and unease grows about the imminence and widespread threats posed by automation.
In the Guardian, Colin Hines, convener of the Green New Deal Group, described the Green New Deal infrastructure programme which would mitigate such adverse effects. He pointed out that the UK could contribute to substantially reducing its domestic carbon emissions while addressing the serious threat of rapid and ubiquitous automation raised by Yvette Cooper. The report may be read here.
Jobs created in every constituency
Two major labour-intensive sources of local jobs were advocated: face-to-face caring in the public and private sector – frequently discussed – and infrastructural provision and improvements. Both are difficult to automate and can’t be relocated abroad
Infrastructural provision and improvements are crucial to tackling climate change, prioritising energy efficiency and the increased use of renewables in constructing and refurbishing every UK building.
In transport the emphasis would be on increased provision of interconnected road and rail services in every community, encouraging electric vehicles for private use.
Hines added that apart from the advantages of improving social conditions and protecting the environment, this programme will have two further very politically attractive effects:
“The majority of this work will take place in every constituency and will require a wide range of skills for work that will last decades. It would help to improve conditions and job opportunities for the “left behind” communities in the UK.”
o
Repair, refurbish and maintain buildings using council in-house resources
WMNEG member Peter Beck wrote to the Birmingham Post on Thursday December 6th 2018:
While agreeing that “the Paradise Project is a fiasco” (no name and address Post letter 29 Nov 2018) I draw a somewhat different conclusion as to who is to blame. I also think that Jonathon Walker’s article (Post 29th Nov) should perhaps have been titled “Council anger with Amey”. However Carl Jackson’s article (Post 22 Nov 2018) is very revealing and there is so much for us to learn from this disaster of a development.
https//:www.flickr.com/photos/ell-r-brown
It is of course questionable as to whether Birmingham City Council (BCC) should be seeking partnerships with, or to employ the likes of Capita, Carillion, and Amey. They have proved a very costly exercise.
And why should we trust Argent, the present managers of this development? Such companies and unelected organisations such as the LEP and PCLP (mysterious bodies to most of us) are out of BCC control, and unaccountable to the residents of Birmingham.
It does beg the question as to why we continue to demolish perfectly good existing buildings and spaces (offices, hotels, parking spaces, public spaces, shops, restaurants and cafes etc) only to replace them with the same.
After all, this requires a huge amount of embedded energy and contributes to climate change. A good example is the Central Library. The original plan of architect John Madin for its setting was ignored, it was done on the cheap, and then successive administrations (Tory, Lib Dem and Labour) neglected and failed to maintain it. Even so, the cost of refurbishing was estimated at £38m while the new one has so far cost more than £100m.
The new one has resulted in a drastic reduction in staff hours with an opening time of 11.00 a.m. – hardly a “world class” facility/service as originally claimed! Further, it has led to the closure of the unique Brasshouse Languages Centre building and the transfer of its language classes (with the recent loss of English as a Foreign Language classes). The fee payments are presumably helping to fund the Library but the classrooms do not adequately meet the students’ needs.
Another farcical aspect of the Paradise Project is its treatment of public spaces. Centenary Square is being dug up yet again but the new version will be quite inferior to its original “gardens” ancestor.
My conclusion is that BCC should avoid private/public joint ventures and it should restrain those senior officers who currently work hand in glove with developers. We should once again give the councils the in-house resources they need to carry out the restoration, reuse, recycling, repair, refurbishment and maintenance of existing buildings. Lots of permanent jobs would then be created.
o
Local Futures: one week until we converge in Bristol!
‘
Join us in Bristol on October 20th for our 18th Conference
Moderated by writer and broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby.
Other events 19th-21st
Details here
Readers new to this organisation please note two of its sterling projects:
Planet Local – a web series showcasing diverse examples of localization in action in such areas as community renewable energy, local food and farming, local economy, eco-villages, alternative education, radical democracy, the local commons, and more.
The International Alliance for Localisation (IAL) was originally conceived as a way to formalise and expand this informal network of groups and individuals who are working on issues that fall under the broad umbrella of this global-to-local shift network. The hope is that the IAL will help to catalyse a powerful global movement for localisation. The general public and even most local groups themselves are often unaware that they are, in fact, part of a rapidly growing worldwide localisation movement. We believe that linking together these groups that are currently operating in isolation can greatly strengthen them all.
People and groups from 58 different countries have joined the International Alliance.
A few IAL members
At the conference, we will address one of the most pressing questions of our time:
How do we move forward to create healthy and inclusive economic models that work for people and planet?
Local finance, ethical banking, local business alliances, local food strategies, big picture activism, national and international networks for a new economy, connecting with nature, building community, empowering youth, direct democracy and inclusion…this is just a taste of the topics we will cover.
–
Illustrated coverage here: Another World is Possible
o
Prevent another economic meltdown with a European Green New Deal
Social Europe is a digital media publisher which examines issues in politics, economy and employment & labour and is committed to publishing cutting-edge thinking and new ideas from the most thought-provoking people. It recently published this paper by Colin Hines (left), Convenor of the Green New Deal Group, former Co-ordinator of Greenpeace International’s Economics Unit and author of several books, including Localization: A Global Manifesto (Earthscan).
Extracts
In the acres of recent coverage about the causes of the Lehman Brothers collapse and how to ensure it doesn’t happen again, there was much emphasis on changing the EU’s economic imperatives away from austerity policies that contributed to Brexit, the rise of the extreme right, increasing opposition to immigration and sluggish economic activity, particularly in the Eurozone. What was absent was detailed discussion of what needs to be done on the ground.
In a Green New Deal group report ‘Europe’s Choice – How Green QE and Fairer Taxes Can Replace Austerity’ we proposed a comprehensive plan for a continent-wide sustainable infrastructure project to generate ‘jobs in every community’.
In answer to the usual question of how this will be paid for we proposed that such funding would come from a new round of Quantitative Easing (QE), but, this time, the e-currency would take the form of ‘Green Infrastructure QE’ to fund vital, labour intensive economic activity. In the medium term, substantial funding could come from a more effective and fairer increase in the tax collected in Europe from wealthy individuals and companies.
It has been estimated that tax evasion (illegal non-payment or under-payment of taxes) in the EU is approximately €860 billion a year. Tax avoidance (seeking to minimise a tax bill without deliberate deception), which is the other key component of the tax gap in Europe, is harder to assess, but an estimate might be €150 billion a year. In combination, it is therefore likely that tax evasion and tax avoidance might cost the governments of the member states €1 trillion a year.
The form such a programme would take in the UK was detailed in our recent publication Jobs in Every Constituency: A Green New Deal Election Manifesto.
It consists of a nation-wide, carbon emissions reducing infrastructure programme focusing on:
- Making the UK’s 30m buildings super-energy-efficient to dramatically reduce energy bills, fuel poverty and greenhouse gas emissions;
- Accelerating the shift to renewable electricity supplies and storage, given the dramatic drop in their price worldwide and increased availability;
- Tackling the housing crisis by building affordable, highly insulated new homes, predominantly on brownfield sites;
- Transport policy that concentrates on rebuilding local public transport links;
- Properly maintaining the UK’s road and rail system;
- Encouraging electric vehicles for business and personal use and sharing.
This is labour intensive, takes place in every locality and consists of work that is difficult to automate. It also contributes to improving social cohesion and environmental sustainability.
A Manifesto for Jobs in Every Constituency
This massive work programme in energy and transport would tackle many existing problems in our society. It would provide a secure career structure for decades. This would require a significant number of apprenticeships and the range of long-term jobs would provide increased opportunities for the self-employed and local small businesses. This growth in local economic activity would in turn create other jobs to service this increased spending.
The government should commit to a detailed programme explaining how to generate jobs in every constituency, using for example the energy and transport proposals in the Green New Deal. This would require extensive consultation with local government, businesses and communities to establish what such a programme should look like on the ground.
The government should commit to a massive training programme resulting in a huge range of skills to provide the ‘carbon army’ required to bring about a low-carbon future. A carbon finance sector would also be needed to publicise, advice and put into practice the range of large funding packages necessary.
The government must then explain how this approach would both mitigate the effects of any future global economic downturn and help compensate for the expected trends in automation. It must also make clear that a key advantage to such an approach would be to help meet the UK’s obligations under the Paris Agreement to curb carbon emissions.
Time for a Europe-wide Green New Deal: There is much handwringing by the greens, the left and centre parties about how to stop the rise of the right across the continent. A huge contribution would be for all these parties to adopt such a manifesto for jobs in every community, since it would return a sense of hope for the future, provide economic security for all, whilst fully protecting the environment.
–
For a summary of the GND spending proposals in this article, go to https://www.socialeurope.eu/prevent-another-economic-meltdown-with-a-european-green-new-deal.
o
SUSTAINABLE HOUSING FOR SMALL HEATH & Green New Deal endnote
Alan Clawley believed that maintenance and improvement of the built environment is the starting point for urban regeneration and localisation. In 2002 WMNEG was awarded a grant by the West Midlands Social Economy Partnership to do an action research study. Study visits were made and a report was published in 2004 for distribution to policy-makers, practitioners and academics.
The study, “Sustainable Housing in Small Heath” (2004), is the illustrated story of the year-long study into the application of renewable energy in an inner-city neighbourhood. In section seven of his report on Small Heath he set out his thoughts on this.
The large scale urban renewal schemes of the 80s was seen by government as the only an alternative to massive clearance, redevelopment with municipal housing and building huge new council estates on the edge of the city or further afield in new or expanded towns. The Conservative government with Michael Heseltine, its leading minister, was enthusiastic about it at the time.
The New Labour government has moved even further down this path. Few council houses have been built and within a few years there may be no council owned housing at all. The job of managing and building social housing has been passed to the voluntary housing movement.
Whoever is responsible for “social housing” in Small Heath it is inconceivable that they will try to return to the days of mass clearance and redevelopment. They will have enough on their plate dealing with the legacy of the former council housing built since the war without worrying about poor owner-occupiers. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that some form of public intervention will be needed in the next decade to ensure the future of its people and their houses.
THE MEANS
We have the technology for sustainable housing now. For the last twenty years the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales has been trying out new ideas for ecological housing. Their website describes the technologies which are available now, publications, consultancies and training courses. The basic tools in the sustainability tool box include photo-voltaic roof tiles, solar heaters, super-insulation, rainwater collection, and reed beds. There are many more yet to come.
Fitting all 8,500 houses in Small Heath with a solar water heater would be a start. A more detailed technical and financial feasibility study needs to be done to get an idea of the total costs involved over many years and suggest means by which it could be financed. There are now many ecological consultants and green architectural practices capable of doing this.
There are no solar panels in areas like Small Heath: the application of this technology to Small Heath is the next step. If a big impact is to be made then it is in areas such as Small Heath that progress must be made. This will not happen on its own, nor can it be left to the manufacturers of green building products to sell them to the residents of Small Heath. Government must take the first step to make sustainable housing affordable and available to people on the lowest incomes. This will certainly require a new Act of Parliament, along the lines of the Housing Act 1974. A private members bill will not be adequate.
The practical approach would be like that used by Urban Renewal in the 80s as described earlier. This will mean organising work at the individual, street and neighbourhood levels:
- A local project team should be set up for Small Heath with staff skilled in sustainable housing.
- An open competition for providing the service could be held for which suitable agencies, such as housing associations, surveyors, architects, community development trusts, voluntary organisations, and even departments of the City Council are invited to bid.
- Small factories and workshops should be set up at the start to make, install and maintain the components needed.
- Local people would be employed and trained to run the businesses and do the work.
No time limit should be put on the programme. The process of converting old houses into sustainable houses should be seen as a continuous process of renewal that needs long term support, not bursts of funding.
ENDNOTE: 2018
Colin Hines, convenor of the Green New Deal Group, has advocated such ‘retrofitting’ measures nation-wide. In the Guardian last week he adds:
“A climate-friendly infrastructure programme would make the UK’s 30m buildings super-energy efficient, dramatically reduce energy bills, fuel poverty and greenhouse gas emissions. Building affordable, highly insulated new homes, predominantly on brown field sites, would involve a large number of apprenticeships and professional jobs, as well as opportunities for the self-employed and local small businesses. This can be paid for by “people’s quantitative easing”, from fairer taxes, local authority bonds and green ISAs”.
9
A shorter working week: Owen Jones & NEF’s Anna Coote
Owen Jones recently called for shorter working week and harked back to a 2014 article by Anna Coote, head of social policy for the New Economics Foundation.
We have long called for shorter and more flexible hours of paid work, firstly in our report 21 Hours and more recently in our book Time on Our Side. Any move towards a shorter working week would need to be implemented gradually, alongside efforts to strengthen wage levels across the economy. But as long as that’s understood, there are clear benefits for environment, economy and society:
- A smaller carbon footprint: Countries with shorter average hours tend to have a smaller ecological footprint. As a nation, the UK is currently consuming well beyond its share of natural resource. Moving out of the fast lane would take us away from the convenience-led consumption that is damaging our environment, and leave time for living more sustainably.
- A stronger economy: If handled properly, a move towards a shorter working week would improve social and economic equality, easing our dependence on debt-fuelled growth – key ingredients of a robust economy. It would be competitive, too: the Netherlands and Germany have shorter work weeks than Britain and the US, yet their economies are as strong or stronger.
- Better employees: Those who work less tend to be more productive hour for hour than those regularly pushing themselves beyond the 40 hours per week point. They are less prone to sickness and absenteeism and make up a more stable and committed workforce.
- Lower unemployment: Average working hours may have spiralled, but they are not spread equally across our economy – just as some find themselves working all hours of the day and night, others struggle to find work at all. A shorter working week would help to redistribute paid and unpaid time more evenly across the population.
- Improved well-being: Giving everybody more time to spend as they choose would greatly reduce stress levels and improve overall well-being, as well as mental and physical health. Working less would help us all move away from the current path of living to work, working to earn and earning to consume. It would help us all to reflect on and appreciate the things that we truly value in life.
- More equality between men and women: Women currently spend more time than men doing unpaid work. Moving towards a shorter working week as the ‘norm’ would help change attitudes about gender roles, promote more equal shares of paid and unpaid work, and help revalue jobs traditionally associated with women’s work.
- Higher quality, affordable childcare: The high demand for childcare stems partly from a culture of long working hours which has spiralled out of control. A shorter working week would help mothers and fathers better balance their time, reducing the costs of full-time childcare. As well as bringing down the cost of childcare, working fewer hours would give parents more time to spend with their children. This opportunity for more activities, experiences and two-way teaching and learning would have benefits for mothers and fathers, as well as their children.
- More time for families, friends and neighbours. Spending less time in paid work would enable us to spend more time with and care for each other – our parents, children, friends and neighbours – and to value and strengthen all the relationships that make our lives worthwhile and help to build a stronger society.
- Making more of later life: A shorter and more flexible working week could make the transition from employment to retirement much smoother, spread over a longer period of time. People could reduce their hours gradually over a decade or more. Shifting suddenly from long hours to no hours of paid work can be traumatic, often causing illness and early death.
- A stronger democracy: We’d all have more time to participate in local activities, to find out what’s going on around us, to engage in politics, locally and nationally, to ask questions and to campaign for change.
–
Anna’s article followed a call for a four-day week from Dr John Ashton, president of the UK Faculty of Public Health. He called for the country to switch to a four-day week to help combat high levels of work-related stress, let people spend more time with their families or exercising, and reduce unemployment. Bringing the standard working week down from five to four days would also help address medical conditions, such as high blood pressure and the mental ill-health associated with overwork or lack of work.
West Midlands New Economics blog 