Congratulations and commiserations

Many congratulations to George Ferguson and commiserations to the other candidates, especially to Marvin Rees. You have to work hard to become the first elected Mayor of Bristol - but the much harder work begins now. It's a new way to run Bristol with many uncertainties and it has to be made to work. I hope that people in all political parties will work well together and that George's cabinet has someone from each political party with councillors currently on the city council. I hope this is a victory for independent-minded thinking from political people inside and outside of parties. I hope that power is genuinely and effectively spread out into communities, with real opportunities to participate. I hope George's decent record on sustainable development becomes the norm for development in the city. I hope George takes full note of the very large number of votes given to parties (the Greens, Labour and the socialists) supporting the living wage and the fairness agenda and the good number of votes given to the only woman candidate, the Greens Daniella Radice (who was only one percentage point behind the Lib Dems). Feels good to have voted for someone who has won an election - after 30 yrs as a voter!

Very good, gracious speech from the new Mayor George Ferguson here and I agree particularly strongly when he said this,

"I want to use that mandate to go and ask the prime minister and the government in general for more powers for Bristol and for more resources. I think we deserve it.

"We have delivered what they wanted, now they have got to deliver what we want."

Misleading mulling

We have an erroneous way of thinking about land and using figures relating to it. This erroneous thinking is used to 'justify' unsustainable building over green spaces, the green belt, parks and playing fields, allotments, farmland...In Bristol, despite the fact that our eco footprint is several times the land area available, Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories on the council all orginally backed a policy of flogging off our green spaces. This was despite widespread public opposition across the whole city. The Lib Dem council adminstration are still incentivising flogging local green spaces now and several Mayoral candidates have plans that will cut city green spaces and green belt land. We need a Mayor who will listen to public opinion, genuinely involve people in decision making and not bow down to any party political line.

On the Daily Politics a while back Claire Fox from the Institute of Ideas (who you'd think should know better) attempted to justify the liberalisation of planning laws by saying that only 10% of land in England is developed. A New Statesman leader said this back in March this year:  

‘Only 10 per cent of England (and 6 per cent of Britain) is developed... The UK is 60 million acres in size, of which 41 million are designated "agricultural" land, 15 million are "natural wast­age" (forests, rivers, mountains and so on) and owned by institutions such as the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Defence, and four million are the "urban plot", the densely congested land on which most of the 62 million people of these islands live...’ http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2012/04/land-government-million

In terms of whether to build on green land or not crude land area is not really the way to consider this issue. Look at these figures: average biologically productive area per person globally was approx 1.8 global hectares (gha) per capita in 2006. Average ecological footprint in the UK is 5.45 global hectares per capita (gha) (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint). This means that not only have we used up all the available biologically productive land in the UK we are actually drawing greatly on large amounts of land from abroad as well as allowing carbon levels to build up in the atmosphere because there is insufficient productive land and water to absorb it fast enough. Our 5.45 gha/person ecological footprint is three times greater than the average productive land per person available worldwide.

Efficiency elide

Debates on UK energy policy focus almost exclusively on energy generation/production and often neglect even to mention energy saving and energy efficiency. It’s always going to be cheaper to save energy and be efficient than it is to generate it - not only does it cut household bills and increase the profitability of businesses by reducing their outgoings, it also cuts pollution rapidly, is a very good job creator, can increase comfort, cut noise levels, and can sometimes be done using materials normally thrown away...So whilst we are so wasteful of energy why consider building large numbers of new power stations of any kind? Why is our primary focus not on creating a lower energy, energy thrifty culture? Basic, already existing technologies can be used but the challenge is to combine these with thrifty attitudes and behaviours.

The energy generation debate at present often zooms in on nuclear and wind. Nuclear power is low carbon emission in operation but we’ve had it since the 1950s and it has done nothing to stop climate change. The UK currently has nuclear 16 reactors in operation at 9 different sites - and it’s had more in the past. We've come to rely on fossil fuels and population has increased as has our level and intensity of consumption but expanding nuclear power for decades - and expanding power generation by all methods - has been part of unsustainable plans for industrial and economic expansion. This attitude still prevails. Until we change from unsustainable economic expansion to properly and fully applying sustainable development - including an energy policy with energy saving and efficiency as its primary focus - then we won’t tackle economic, social and environmental problems such as climate change.

The scale at which we waste energy is vast, so the scope for energy saving is huge. For example the Energy Saving Trust said that UK households waste £1.3 billion by just leaving TVs and other electronic devices switched on... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/9355870/Energy-Saving-Trust-households-waste-1.3bn-for-leaving-gadget-switched-on.html#  . In hard economic times and with energy prices rising you'd think people would be more careful with their consumption but apparently they aren't, so we’ve made little progress towards a energy thrifty culture. Research in 2006 found the UK was top of the European energy waster league. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6075794.stm

Part of the problems is the fact that my local paper can’t even write a balanced and correct piece about nuclear power, let alone cover energy issues in the round as it should do. People are often ill-informed as a result.  Here's my case against nuclear power: http://tinyurl.com/c75rvbg .Here's  a  post arguing for energy efficiency, combined heat and power and decentralised energy: http://tinyurl.com/cxagb4o.  Some thoughts on local renewable energy developments here: http://tinyurl.com/bm5m764.

Rees: remodeller?

'I stand for change' says the leaflet just received from Marvin Rees. But the prescription is the same old stuff. Its party political, present day 'Labour' Party material. Being photographed next to Dawn Primarolo in another leaflet hardly suggests change either because Dawn has for decades been a key player in government - national and local - that has been a part of bringing our society its current social, economic and environmental problems.

The Rees/Labour prescription is often vague and populist, like that of many of the mayoral candidates (the Greens aside).  In the typical style of Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative Parties the prescription has policies that contradict each other eg Marvin Rees promises to 'make Bristol greener' but also promises to build 4000 homes without saying where they would be built or detailing how and favours a large development on green belt land (the proposed BCFC stadium) with its associated large supermarket developments.

When referring to a greener Bristol Marvin Rees talks about the stereotypical issues, like recycling, waste, ‘sustainable energy’. Typically his ‘environmentalism’ is a mere add-on. No joined up thinking. If he really got sustainable development he would successfully integrate his social and economic policies with his environmental ones and not end up having some policies that could make us more sustainable counteracted by many that make us less sustainable.   

Austerity applesauce

Any new Mayor of Bristol will have very hard budget choices forced on them it seems, given that, 'One of the first jobs facing Bristol's incoming elected mayor will be to cut an extra £25 million from the city councils budget. The authority has revealed it faces making deeper cuts than first anticipated as funding from central government is reduced.' (see here). However, that should not stop whoever the Mayor is from giving voice to the growing numbers of people who see the complete folly of cuts and austerity economics.

Govt borrowing is up AND we've had savage cuts. In fact Govt borrowing is up in part BECAUSE we've had savage cuts. Cuts are depressing economic activity. Austerity policies, pronouncements, plans and actions have reduced confidence, reduced spending, reduced investment, increased costs to govt, reduced govt income...and have been a big help (!) in causing and then lengthening the recession we are still in (thanks to Dave, George, Nick, Vince and co). I support the case against austerity and cuts and for a Keynsian stimulus for our economy to get out of recession and going in a sustainable direction.

Eco-Mayor? Open Mayor?

Labour candidate for Mayor Marvin Rees does not have good green credentials. Labour in Bristol and nationally have had very little to say on the sustainable development that greens want. Several of Marvin's statements indicate a lack of regard for sustainability, for instance: "freeing up public owned land to build homes" (here), which could mean going back to flogging off our cities parks and green spaces; and favouring the existing plans for the expansion of Bristol Airport, saying "Going forward, I am in support of developing the airport." (here) . He wont be getting my second preference vote as a result of this - and because he is not open enough to working with people in other political parties and in no party.  We need a Mayor who understands economic, social and environmental sustainability challenges and who wants to include people in his cabinet on the basis of expertise not political colour.

Eco-expansion???

It turns out that Tory candidate for elected Mayor of Bristol Geoff Gollop is in favour of expanding Bristol Airport (The Post inaccurately reported his views, see correction here). However, he's only in favour, he says, if it is '...controlled, is sustainable and is done in an environmentally-friendly way.' Come back to reality Mr Gollop because there is currently no such thing as sustainable, environmentally-friendly airport expansion, nor is there likely to be for some time to come.

Eco-Bristol?

Bristol will continue with its 'green' plans even though it suffered a Green Capital loss (see story here). One commenter on the story (YourLakeshore)  said "...it is great news that Bristol came 2nd in the whole of Europe - particularly as it had tough competition and Bristol has made it to the final twice. It also presents Bristol as being the green city of the UK..."

If Bristol is the green city of the UK why then is its ecological footprint only 17th best out of 60 in the country (see ranking and figures here)? Why is Bristol's ecological footprint set to rise with new road building, loss of green spaces, increase in population...? Doesn't there need to be a committment to cut this footprint significantly if Bristol is to be credible in its green claims? It is after all 2.9 times bigger than a sustainable level!

Also, its not really about being in competition with every other city in the 'whole of Europe' but only about competing against those who entered - and on criteria still a very long way from genuinely sustainable cities.

Sustainability summit sucks

UN talks on sustainable development are encountering disputes, delays and diplomatic wrangling, days before world leaders arrive to sign a new agreement.

The talks, in Rio de Janeiro, are aimed at putting the world economy on a more sustainable path, helping people out of poverty while protecting nature.

Yet developing countries have walked out over money, and the presence of Palestinians has brought complications.

Campaigners say there is little hope of momentous changes being agreed here...(full story)

Leadership lark

Head of Big Green Week,Paul Rainger  has been quoted as saying, "Bristol is an incredible place. Whether it's grassroots environmentalism, or robust political leadership, Bristol's brand of sustainability is unlike any other."  (see the story 'Bristol's best place for green electricity, says power firm' here). However, Bristol's people dont generally think we have robust political leadership and the head of Big Green Week is therefore out of touch. Many have been critical of the council for years, the turnout in local elections is low - and we have just rejected the current council leadership in favour of an Elected Mayor, albeit on a low turnout.

Also,  its not going to be hard to be the 'greenest city in the country when it comes to environmentally-friendly electricity' because the general standard at the moment is very poor. Many cities simply dont have much green electricity generation at all.

By the way its not clear to me that a fair comparison has been made by Good Energy given the figures quoted in the story. They just give a raw figure for the postcode area not green electricity per head of population or similar.

Nuclear no no

No-one would disagree (would they?) that burying waste from today's nuclear power stations leaves a very big set of social, economic and environmental problems for many generations to come. Since sustainability is about dealing with risks and costs now and not passing problems to future generations it therefore follows that burying nuclear waste is inherently unsustainable. The following question alone demonstrates this: with waste that can be active for thousands of yrs how can it be possible to guarantee that the institutions needed would be stable beyond periods which have so far proved to be whole lifetimes of civilisations?

Despite the logic above the UK plans to build more nuclear power stations (if the huge economic cost obstacles can be overcome) and the '...search for an underground storage site for high-level nuclear waste is likely to go ahead in Cumbria after a poll showed residents are in favour.

In Copeland, the local authority area encapsulating Sellafield [pictured], 68% of people backed entering formal talks with government on hosting the repository.

Across Cumbria as a whole, 53% are in favour and 33% opposed...'
(full report here).

Carbon con

Work has restarted on the groundbreaking "green" homes project at Hanham Hall on the outskirts of Bristol... Developer Barratt Homes won the contract to build the pioneering one, two, three, four and five-bed homes which are expected to set the construction industry's benchmark for "green" living... so they meet the new 2016 Zero Carbon Building Regulation standards...(full story)

Thing is that the houses, whilst having many interesting features, won’t actually be zero carbon. Now, you'd think that 'zero carbon' is pretty clear cut - but what the Govt have done is change the definition of 'zero carbon' to make the standard easier to meet!! (See here and here for some of the past debate).

HCA head of area David Warburton said: "It has been our long-held ambition to deliver an exemplar, energy efficient community at Hanham Hall, which local people will be proud to live in.

"This is now one of two projects of its kind in the country. It is great news that local people will soon see evidence of the bold vision for the project coming to life when work progresses on the delivery of a fantastic new modern and sustainable community at Hanham Hall."

I certainly want to see truly sustainable homes being built but they won’t be if they are not zero carbon. And when I read comments like the one above I also wonder whether they have given much thought to social sustainability, including making homes affordable and having a decent mixed community and facilities etc? Economic, social and environmental factors must work together for proper sustainability to be achieved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutrality

Sustainable Societies

Here's an interesting story about a Royal Society report which states that tackling over-consumption in rich countries and high population growth in the poorest are key to building sustainable societies. I'm very glad to hear this from an authoritative organisation but it is something I have been advocating for 30 years! Many others have been doing the same. Examples of my blog posts on this here.

I note that this Royal Society report says we need to go 'beyond GDP' as a measure of progress. This is also something I, along with others, have been advocating for 30 years (and in fact was the subject the dissertation I researched and wrote for my MSc in 1998/99). See examples here. 

Eco-inevitability

On the desirability, necessity and inevitability of sustainable living. The images in this screencast are from Beddington Zero Energy Development (BedZED), Brenda and Robert Vale's autonomous, off-grid house (the first built in the UK) and Hockerton Housing Project.

Planning policy test

Another excellent blog post from Stockwood Pete. Take a look - and follow the link Pete gives to tell the inspector what you think. Pete begins First, the progressive loss of chunks of the Green Belt in Ashton Vale, abandoned by the authorities who should be protecting it. Now the battle moves east, into BaNES territory between Stockwood and Whitchurch Village...full story here.
Stockwood Pete: Border Wars

Eco-city??

The Post reports that Bristol has been shortlisted to become a flagship European city which could trigger a financial bonanza worth millions of pounds.

We are one of just three cities – together with Copenhagen and Frankfurt – which have reached the final stage in the selection process to become European Green Capital in 2014...(more)

In terms of outcomes Bristol is in no sense green. Its ecological footprint is several times the land area it occupies, which means the city is parasitic and has impacts far and wide. In terms of carbon emissions, on average the annual total carbon emissions equivalent (direct + indirect) per person is around 12 tonnes - a sustainable level is thought to be 2 tonnes. This puts the nature of this competition in some perspective.

None of the cities in the competition is sustainable, though some are less unsustainable than others. Its always been about the least un-green rather than being genuinely green cities.

If Bristol wins and additional investment is attracted and this is well directed into strengthening the local economy, empowering local communities, adding to energy and food security, establishing a decent integrated transport system, protecting what's best about the city, such as its green spaces...then that will certainly be welcome. Lots of ifs here though!

See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/index_en.htm

CPRE Bristol

A new CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) group is being set up in Bristol. This is good news. CPRE is a grassroots organisation, led by volunteers, but it has a powerful national voice – planners and politicians listen to them. I hope that this group will become a strong voice in Bristol to campaign for a greener city surrounded by a thriving countryside, using CPRE’s resources and planning expertise to set out a positive vision for change.

As part of this move CPRE are holding a public meeting at 7.30pm on Tuesday 3^rd April at the Horfield Quaker Meeting House (300 Gloucester Road, Bristol BS7 8PD). All are welcome – entry is via the main entrance to the left of the building.

The new National Planning Policy Framework was published yesterday. It looks as though CPRE’s relentless lobbying and pressure on the Government has paid off to some extent, with additional safeguards for the environment now present, but it still removes a huge body of regulations that guided planning. Meanwhile, the Localism Act gives new powers to communities to plan development in their area.

CPRE  see both a threat and an opportunity – if the government is not going to control planning, then we should step in and reclaim control of our own neighbourhoods, and support others to do the same.

Its hoped that the Bristol group will take a special interest in Localism and local food – CPRE want to explore how communities can use neighbourhood planning to develop local food infrastructure and build links with local farming communities. But also want to keep an eye on the bigger picture, a vision of Bristol as a clean, green city circled by farmland, woods and water.

If you think you might like to join the new group or if you are interested in these issues and you want to hear more, please do go along on Tuesday. This is an open public meeting, so please pass this message on to others who might be interested.

Contact Joe Evans, Director, CPRE Avonside

07854 741130 for further information.

Anthropocene Animation

A 3-minute journey through the last 250 years of our history, from the start of the Industrial Revolution to the Rio+20 Summit. The film charts the growth of humanity into a global force on an equivalent scale to major geological processes. The film was commissioned by the Planet Under Pressure conference, London 26-29 March, a major international conference focusing on solutions. planetunderpressure2012.net  

For more go to anthropocene.info

Carbon Centre

At last! More serious attention is being given to the accurate measurement of carbon emissions. One might well ask why it's taken so long when our society has been committed  since the late 1980s - in words at least - to sustainable development. Sustainable carbon emissions are the number one performance measure within sustainable development...

A new UK facility aimed at improving measurement of carbon emissions and boosting development of clean technology is due to open. The Centre for Carbon Measurement will be based at the National Physical Laboratory in south-west London. It will raise accuracy of climate data, support better emissions monitoring to ensure a fair carbon market, and verify claims made about low-carbon products...more

Climate and carbon

This week is Climate Week. I'm all in favour of raising awareness of climate change and the need for urgent action on a significant scale though I find that many of these sort of initiatives provide more opportunities for greenwash and greenspeak than real, concerted green action. I note that significant contributors to climate change such as Tesco, EDF, H&M...are sponsors of the week!!! I have serious doubts about the policies of Govt, councils and business on carbon reduction and climate change - they are too small scale and too slow and so dont match best science. We are missing out on good, sustainable economic development as a result too. Many approaches dont show joined up thinking eg more products are being marked with their carbon footprint but shoppers dont have any information to tell them what is too high or too low a footprint and there is no requirement for them to stay within a carbon budget in any case. Anyhow, here's a screencast I've made giving an essential guide to carbon footprinting - call it one of  my contributions to the week: