Love the local

Bedminster has been named as the region’s only successful bidder in the first round of the Government’s ‘Portas Pilots’ – an initiative to get TV retail guru Mary Portas to help revitalise town centres....‘Bemmie’, as it’s affectionately known in the city, will now get a £100,000 grant and the expertise of Mary Portas and the project team (more here). Might as well have given Bedminster a bag of peanuts because that's all that £100,000 is. The focus on the issue of local shopping areas, and high streets, and the availability of some expertise, is welcome, provided it goes beyond govt public relations - but the amount of money is really tiny. What's really needed is a strategic, genuinely participative approach, backed by appropriate amounts of money which starts to shift the whole economic emphasis towards the local, regional and national economy and de-emphasising the global economy which is the source of so many problems.

Technology tale

I'm an advocate of scientific and technological thinking. Many currently define technology far too narrowly though - and most often in terms of applied science, business and commerce. For more effective problem solving and opportunity taking we should be thinking more broadly and making connections - its more creative and more likely to anticipate consequences or potential consequences of actions.

Technology is not just about rational problem solving either, there are political, organisational and psychological dimensions. Technology is the sum total of our practical knowledge and it predates science, industrialisation, capitalism...Its something we need to learn to be more selective and controlled about adopting, through proper, thorough technological assessment processes.

Forestry and fuel

Biomass does, up to a point, have potential to supply us with some of our heat energy and electrical power. This could be direct, in our homes, via good quality wood burners using sustainably produced logs. It could also be through biomass power stations, preferably combined heat and power ones. Not all biomass fuels or power stations are environmentally friendly though - it depends how you define and obtain the biomass. I was interested therefore to see this story Go-ahead given for new biomass power station where Govt has permitted a biomass power station at Royal Portbury Dock.

'The DECC said the plant would be fuelled mainly by imported virgin wood, dedicated energy crops and locally-sourced waste wood.'

Why cant we expand out forestry industry and fuel this power station fully ourselves instead of importing virgin wood? Wouldn't that be combining good, job-creating local economic development with fuel security and more environmentally friendly practice?? An expanded forestry industry would also have the benefits of soaking up pollution as the trees grow and providing wildlife habitats and opportunities for recreation. Get a proper energy and economic strategy - join the dots!!

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:

Parking proposal

Plenty of whinges but not much in the way of constructive suggestions from commenters on this story 'Bristol businesses facing workplace parking levy'. Bristol's transport system has large and longstanding problems, such as from congestion and pollution. It costs city dwellers and workers a lot in money, health and environmental terms. What solutions do the whinging commenters propose?

For me the area shown in the map (above left) showing two possible boundaries for the workplace parking levy scheme is far too small and has many inconsistencies - and the city's proposals for 'sustainable' transport and 'green' taxes (if indeed they meet the proper definition of sustainable and green) are often too timid, unintegrated and lacking in coherence. A properly stategic approach is what is needed, so that all council policies pull in the same direction.

Better Bristol

We need to talk about Bristol - and why it just can’t get things done like other cities. says the Post. Why can’t Bristol get things done like other cities? Not sure that Bristol is that much worse than the average - this would need quite a bit of looking into to establish properly. That aside however, I do agree that Bristol doesn't get things done. The key reasons as I see them: petty party politics and very poor cooperation between the parties; lack of vision and proper strategic thinking; frequently poor quality candidates coming forward to be councillors, spokespersons and cabinet members; relatively low status of being a councillor; ineffective and inefficient council systems and organisation; lack of joined up thinking resulting in lack of coherence and sometimes contradictory policies and practices; poor attitude towards consulting and involving the public genuinely - and poor attitudes in the public towards getting involved; being stifled and slowed down by the political system as a whole, in particular by central govt. These are pretty fundamental problems that only a large cultural change can solve - and I strongly suspect this is far from limited to Bristol.

People's paradigm

The idea to get lots of people involved in saying what they want Bristol to be like in the medium and long term is a really good one. See 'Occupy Bristol protesters draw up their vision for Bristol 2050'. There's no meaningful, democratic and effective medium and long term planning in the UK and this clearly needs to change. The intentions of Occupy Bristol are a bit different from the Post headline though - since Occupy advocate wide participation it wont be 'their' vision as such, it will be the visions of the people that come forward to make contributions. So, its over to Bristol's people...send your ideas to occupybristol@riseup.net  I very strongly agree that wider public participation means better decisions, not least because its more likely that local knowledge and good sense is included and people will have ownership of actions that result (as any exercise needs to go beyond ideas) and back them up in their own lives. Here's the story in the Post: 
PLANS to create a vision for the type of place people would like Bristol to be in 2050 will be discussed by protestors on College Green.


The Occupy Bristol camp is planning a series of open meetings to plan a future for the city.

A protester, who gave his name as Luther Blissett, said: "Neither the electoral cycle nor the product planning horizon are far enough away to allow us to be utopian, to hope for better futures. There is very little thinking about the medium and long term.



"The people's 2050 will try to inhabit this vacuum.


"It will not be a top-down document or plan that anyone tries to rigidly enforce, it will not be in that sense 'The Plan'. It will simply be a conversation that develops, spawning hundreds of little plans, counter plans and, crucially, actions.


"We hope that by looking forward 40 years we can provide a platform for the people of Bristol to come up with some interesting ideas about how we want our city and society to be organised."


This project has been inspired by the existing Bristol 2050 project but protesters say that only references the city's business leaders and should include the public.


Mr Blissett added: "There's plenty of evidence that wider public participation in decision-making means better decisions – because it means more knowledge and ideas go into the mix. The people's 2050 is an alternate vision, and we want your input."


The group asked people to send "utopian hopes and desires for Bristol 2050" in word or picture form to occupybristol@riseup.net.

Join the dots

Copy of a screencast I put together introducing some of the key elements of systems thinking::

Bristol: Carbon City

Really Cllr Kent is deluded - he blows his trumpet very loudly indeed when he says Bristol will get the transport system it deserves. Cllrs love it when they can announce they've got money for something almost no matter what it is. For a start building a new road will ultimately add to the congestion and pollution existing now at high levels - its already very costly to business in pounds and costly to people in health and the environment in lost quality and quantity. Bus Rapid Transit is often not the best technology - and persistently asking just a few questions at public meetings on BRT reveals environmental decision making 'systems' that are simply not joined up thinking. Whatever happened to building a low carbon city with a high quality of life for all, the aim of Bristol Green Capital?

See http://www.bristol247.com/2011/12/15/bristol-to-finally-get-transport-system-it-deserves-15367/

Euroland: grand??

The recent EU summit agreement - the UK aside - to economically integrate, harmonise and centralise is aimed at creating a fiscal union. I cant see how the agreement solves the fundamental problems with the nature of the euro zone though, either economically or politically. Can economic harmony be achieved with socio-economic systems as varied as Greece and Germany, Spain and the Netherlands, Italy and Denmark, Portugal and Sweden? Wasn't it always going to be a problem having one exchange rate over such a huge area? And what of the politics of this? Surely the attempt to bring together such diverse economies - almost creating one much larger country - is likely to cause huge political problems as the people in those countries realise the implications of what has been agreed? There's no realistic joined-up - systems - thinking here. The plan for Euroland is not grand.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8947625/EU-treaty-David-Cameron-stands-as-the-lone-man-of-Europe.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/09/eurozone-countries-treaty-exclude-britain

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/16131346

BRT = Build Ring-road Tomorrow

Millions of pounds on what is supposed to be an integrated, 'seamless' approach to public transport - and the bendy buses wont even stop at Temple Meads! No joined up thinking there then.

BRISTOL City Council's flagship Ashton Vale to Temple Meads bendy bus route will not actually stop at the station, it has emerged.

The £50 million scheme is one of three rapid transit routes the council is finalising, ahead of submitting funding bids to government in September.

The idea is that the three routes will make life much easier for people who want to get from one end of the city to another.

It is also supposed to be part of an integrated approach to transport, so buses, rail and rapid transit all work seamlessly together.

The problem is that the latest version of the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads route doesn't stop at Temple Meads because there isn't enough money to pay for a stop there.

That means people arriving into Bristol by train won't just be able to just jump on the bendy bus or vice versa.

Instead the stop for the Temple Meads area is actually outside the KPMG building in Temple Street, the other side of the Temple Circus roundabout.

So anyone who wants to get from the bendy bus to catch a train has at least a five-minute walk across one of the busiest roundabouts in Bristol and several sets of traffic lights...

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/New-bendy-buses-stop-Bristol-Temple-Meads-station/story-13003610-detail/story.html

I'm not a fan of bus rapid transit Bristol-style - especially as it involves new road building. The Lib Dem Cabinet member in charge, Cllr Kent, says "They will cut congestion, reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere" There is no evidence for this. I persistently asked questions at public meetings about modelling and projections that had been done and the 'answers' given to me were totally inadequate. Where was the early, timely, high quality information when it was being asked for?? Increasing the capacity of the road network has on all past occasions increased total carbon emissions as the space fills with traffic and becomes congested and this 'link' - as their spin is now calling it - will do likewise.

Cllr Kent has also referred to 'massive public transport improvements'. Massive? No - and certainly not matching the scale of Bristol's transport problems. Improvements? Evidence of this is seriously lacking. Developments like a transport hub at Temple Meads and an integrated transport authority would begin to bring significant improvements - but these dont appear to be on the table at all due to political failures over decades.

Cllr Kent and Libe Dem colleagues seem to have forgotten that its hardly green to build over green space that is finite in supply, with its consequent loss of biodiversity, aesthetic and health benefits - and of course the greenery is no longer there to soak up carbon dioxide emissions.

Talk, talk, talk on local rail and integrated transport

This is spot on: ...GREATER Bristol is more interested in carrying out rail studies than actually reopening stations, according to a rail expert.

Former London Rail boss Ian Brown has published a study for the Railway Development Society, which looks at investment in local rail services.

The study shows that while 356 stations have re-opened across the country since 1960, in Bristol there has been just two in half a century.

Mr Brown concludes that "the Bristol region has not as yet shown any evidence of fulfilling the role of an effective 'client' for rail, although there has been considerable expenditure on seemingly endless 'studies' ".

Local rail campaigners point out that areas with one body to sort out transport – Integrated Transport Areas – have fared much better, and Mr Brown agrees.

That includes West Yorkshire with 22 re-opened stations, Merseyside with 16, and Greater Manchester with 15...

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/City-interested-studies-stations/story-12963382-detail/story.html

Optimism on sorting Bristol's transport problems

The Bristol Evening Post says 'Bristol's metro is not as far off track as you might think'. I hope they are right and can help build up momentum for change on this issue. As many of my blog posts show I'm in favour of a Greater Bristol Integrated Transport Authority that implements a sustainable transport plan. History points to lack of agreement and cooperation between the local authorities though. If agreement and cooperation is reached they still need to get the process of decision making right: exploring the situation; formulating problems, opportunities and systems of interest; identifying feasible and desirable changes; taking actions; and re-exploring etc as appropriate. They need to fully involve as wide a range of people as possible right from the start, ensure good quality, comprehensive information is widely disseminated, get genuine cross-party and cross-organisational cooperation, agree the right goals, get finances sorted, assess technologies fairly and broadly, find a combination of technical, behavioural and socio-economic change that will consistently take us in a firmly sustainable direction... Its nothing like as straightforward and obvious as this Post report - which has a strong technocratic, techno-optimist slant - suggests.

Ocean dumping that fights climate change

Really interesting article in the latest Green World magazine called Save the whale, Save Ourselves? by Dr Luke Rendell from the University of St Andrews. It turns out that saving whales would not only protect magnificent species themselves - it would also help protect the human from climate change. Nice example of joined up, systems, thinking. Oceans absorb an awful lot of climate changing carbon emissions. However, the amount absorbed depends in part on the amount of iron present in sea water. Experiments where iron has been dumped into the ocean have shown increased, temporary plant growth and thus increased carbon uptake - but such artificial dumping could itself be highly damaging and unsustainable. If only there was a good source of iron, naturally available in-situ - there is and its called whale poo! Whales eat eg krill, or squid...concentrate and naturally make available iron to plants in the sea in their poo (eg Humpback Whale poo pictured). So, protect whales, whale numbers increase, whale poo increases, ocean plant growth is improved, more carbon is taken up and this helps fight climate change, which helps us through...natural carbon capture and storage. We should protect whales whatever mind you.

http://www.greenworld.org.uk/

Lib Dem discussions with Labour, Tory AND Green groups on the council

Interesting update on goings on at Bristol City Council in this* Post report, particularly on the town green and on green spaces. One correction: it says
'Her [Barbara Janke's] statement comes after discussions with the Labour and Tory groups after the Lib Dems lost their majority in this month's local elections.' when discussions were in fact held with Labour, Tory AND Green groups - we do exist y'know - and in larger numbers than before - though you'd rarely know it given the Post's coverage.

*http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Janke-Ashton-Vale-stadium-decision-month-green-spaces-sell-halted/article-3564838-detail/article.html

Very rich to make frequent use of the term green in her statement I thought. There is little evidence at all that Bristol has in general become a greener city over the decades - and plenty of evidence that we've become less green eg much larger total carbon footprint per person and per city, just like the UK on average, larger divsions of wealth between rich and poor... Plus of course conventional politics barely seems to recognise the economic and social dimensions of being green much of the time - it still needs to make the jump that green is far beyond trees, cuddly animals and recycling... (one of the reasons conventional politics has failed to really address deep rooted interconnected problems).

Voting Green: my ten reasons

1. Voting in another Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative person means supporting the status quo, politics as usual, big party domination or sometimes one party monopoly. Greens improve fairness, democracy and accountability, challenging the political status quo.



2. Fresh, innovative thinking and action is being initiated all over the country and further afield by hundreds of Greens elected as Members of the Westminster and European Parliaments, Members of the Scottish Parliament, London Assembly Members, and Councillors such as the large groups in Brighton and Norwich.



3. Greens are widely recognised for environmental leadership. Economic and social systems exist within the environment and are dependent upon it and Greens – being joined up thinkers – address all issues AND how they interrelate. This is essential if we are to solve problems, take opportunities, build equality and secure our wellbeing.



4. Greens work for strong local economies, keeping wealth circulating within communities, creating secure and stable jobs locally. This promotes wellbeing, fairness, self-reliance and sustainability, through greater local production, improved energy and food security. Greens believe small is beautiful and actively support small, locally owned businesses, local exchange and trading schemes and credit unions.



5. Local services and facilities of all kinds - health facilities, old folks homes, schools, libraries, swimming pools, buses and trains, pubs, corner shops, the local high street...should be maintained and enhanced not threatened and cut.



6. Green commitment to road traffic reduction is high. Traffic congestion causes multiple problems, especially in cities like Bristol – and yet the big parties have neglected to give transport the attention and investment it has long needed. Greens will enable people to access local jobs and facilities close to where they live and promote walking and cycling. They will invest in convenient, affordable, accessible and expanded public transport.



7. Greens believe health, wellbeing and equality should be the measure of progress in society. Public health issues are thus a high priority for Greens and above all favour the prevention of ill-health and the promotion of good health.



8. On environmental issues Greens are several decades ahead. They continue to lead the way: illustrating the interdependence of our economy and society with the environment.



9. Greens work to maximise efficiency, whether energy, water, transport use or other resources. It’s why they would insulate all homes free of charge - warming your homes, saving you money, efficiently and rapidly cutting fuel use and carbon emissions, creating thousands of local jobs.



10. The Green plan for rebuilding the economy - the Green New Deal – is a £45 billion investment to create 1 million jobs. It will begin to build a fair, sustainable economy and society by redesigning the financial system so that it serves the ‘real' economy and local communities.

Green spaces sell-off? Bristol City Council has no Plan B

What sort of environmental decision making is it that does not properly consider - and in fact reconsider - all the options available, planning for a range of situations? Very poor quality, irrational, unsystematic and unsystemic - in short rubbish! Even on its own money raising terms the green spaces flog off favoured by Lib Dem, Labour and Tory Councillors alike is failing as income expected is now only a quarter of that originally envisaged. Cllr Gary Hopkins high handed, dismissive tone is again clear in the Post report on this though. Pity this man is not at the end of his 4 yr term yet - resign and put yourself up for re-election this May Gary and see how you get on!

BRISTOL City Council has never looked at ways of paying for the £87 million parks improvement plan that didn't involve selling off green spaces, it has been revealed.

The authority has always maintained that disposing of up to 64 sites across the city was the only way that enough money could be raised to pay for improvements in up to 200 others.

But it turns out that in the last five years of the Parks Green Spaces Strategy (PGSS), the council has never costed or even considered a plan that doesn't involve land sales.

The original funding for the improvement plan was £41 million from land sales; £21 million of grant funding; £15 million of money from developers and £10 million from the council parks budget. Since these 2006 estimates, the council has dropped the amount it expects to raise from selling land from £41 million to £11 million...

Bristol Green spaces Bristol City Council Liberal Democrats

BBC - Richard Black's Earth Watch: H for 'human': The missing climate link?

Governments reliance on technical solutions alone to cut carbon pollution causing climate change is doomed to failure. Technical progress tends to be straight line whereas environmental impacts are growing on an accelerating upward curve (geometrically, exponentially) - one thus cant keep pace with the other. Social, economic, political, behavioural and technical changes are needed in a coherent combination to cut carbon emssions to a level we can sustain. This includes: not thinking that issues can be summed up by a simple equation; tackling multiple causes through joined up thinking; and changing the attitude to wealth that currently dominates in particular.

As many commentators have pointed out down the years, virtually all the hopes expressed by governments in terms of reducing carbon emissions ultimately hang on technology.

It stems from the famous IPAT equation:
Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology

...sometimes expressed as...

Impact = Population x GDP/capita x Impact/GDP

BBC - Richard Black's Earth Watch: H for 'human': The missing climate link?

Hugh's Fish Fight

Around half of the fish caught by fishermen in the North Sea are unnecessarily thrown back into the ocean dead.

Join the fish fight here

http://www.fishfight.net/

The problem is that in a mixed fishery where many different fish live together, fishermen cannot control the species that they catch. Fishing for one species often means catching another, and if people don’t want them or fishermen are not allowed to land them, the only option is to throw them overboard. The vast majority of these discarded fish will die.

Because discards are not monitored, it is difficult to know exactly how many fish are being thrown away. The EU estimates that in the North Sea, discards are between 40% and 60% of the total catch. Many of these fish are species that have fallen out of fashion: we can help to prevent their discard just by rediscovering our taste for them.

Others are prime cod, haddock, plaice and other popular food species that are “over-quota”. The quota system is intended to protect fish stocks by setting limits on how many fish of a certain species should be caught. Fishermen are not allowed to land any over-quota fish; if they accidentally catch them – which they can’t help but do - there is no choice but to throw them overboard before they reach the docks.

THE SOLUTIONs
We need to diversify our fish eating habits, and we need to change policy so that it works for fish, fishermen and consumers.

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which is the political framework for the quota system, is currently being reformed for 2012. Scientists and environmental groups have suggested a number of ways that that the policy can work to protect fish stocks. Some details of these can be found on our solutions page.
Re-writing the Common Fisheries Policy is going to be an enormously complicated business, and unfortunately there is no one easy solution to ending discards. Many people agree that the answer will lie in a combination of different ideas and policies.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?
• Sign up to the campaign on the sign up page. You will be writing directly to policy makers in Europe to let them know that the unnecessary and unethical discarding of perfectly good fish must stop. We can make a difference. If enough people sign up to the campaign, they have to listen to us. We aim to get 250,000 signatures by summer 2011.
• Write to your MP to ask them to support the Fish Fight Early Day Motion.
• Expand the selection of fish that you eat by trying some of the lesser-known species of local fish currently being discarded as trash. In the UK, cod, salmon and tuna account for more than 50% of the fish that we consume, and tasty, exciting and nutritious fish such as flounder, dab, coley and pouting are overlooked and thrown away.
• Spread the word, tell all of your friends and family about Hugh's Fish Fight and get them to sign the campaign too.Together we can stop this ridiculous carnage. Join Hugh’s Fish Fight now!

Thanks very much,

Hugh's Fish Fight - Half of all fish caught in the North Sea is thrown back overboard dead

New beginnings?

“Every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end.” said Seneca, the stoic Roman philosopher, in the mid-1st century AD.

In this new year of a new decade can we begin the green society and bring to an end an age we can’t in any case maintain for much longer? This would mean putting the concept of sustainable development into action in place of just signing up to the concept, speaking warm words about it but carrying on essentially with business as usual!

Its long been put about that sustainable development is a slippery concept, hard to define fully and properly, not well understood. But is it really? I think many people have a decent general grasp that it’s about achieving a balance, giving as well as taking and ensuring a decent future for generations to come ie not more and more jam, for some, today but an ongoing availability and decent supply of jam, fairly shared.

The features of sustainable development are good sense and not rocket science. It’s clearly not a good idea to be wasteful, yet one bag in every three bags of food bought in the UK ends up being thrown out, many buildings rapidly leak heat and we still don’t make products to last. Efficiency must replace waste.

It’s irresponsible to rapidly squander resources, especially those whose supplies are limited or those that require careful, sensitive management if they are to remain available. Yet we remain hooked on high use of oil, coal and natural gas, build over the limited supply of green spaces and take from forests, soils and seas faster than resources are naturally replaced. Renewability must replace squandering.

Sustainable development means assessing progress through the health and wellbeing of people and their environment. Yet we continue to pollute on a scale that causes human sickness and environmental imbalance and we retain increasing the flow of money as the number one political and socio-economic aim despite coalition government warm words and research into assessing wellbeing. We must live within environmental limits and set new social and economic goals.

I assume no-one wants to see growing dependence and poor community development. Yet we see power centralised, local character and variety eroding, goods and services imported and many jobs exported and we encourage other regions and countries to do likewise, so they suffer dependence and sagging spirit too. Strong local communities need to be built.

Waste, resource squandering, pollution, money for a few before health and wellbeing, weakening community, means people and environments in this generation and those to come, the world over, are not getting their dues. Fairness is inseparable from sustainable development – in fact all the features of sustainable development are interrelated so solving problems and taking opportunities requires joined up thinking.

Enacting and practicing the required combination of behavioural and technological changes on the required scale, at all levels of societies, across the globe, in the face of entrenched vested interests, takes leadership we are just not getting however.