Climate Camp – Biofuels workshop

Another climate camp workshop of extremely high quality.

In theory, biofuel could contribute to a sustainable energy policy. For example, collecting and reusing chip-fat to make fuel makes sense. HOWEVER – with our current world order – major increases in biofuel (agrofuel) production are going to be driven by, and produced by large corporations (Cargill, Monsanto, BP…) And big corporations work by buying up and processing massive volumes of the commodity, as cheaply as they can. Expanded demands for massive volumes of vegetable oil will, with our present world system, inevitably be met from huge mono-culture plantations in the tropics – with huge pressures to convert rain forest and other virgin areas / carbon sinks to this purpose, to displace small farmers and indigenous peoples in the process, etc.
And even where the crops are grown in Europe, there will be huge pressures on land, to roll back any gains that have been made in bio-diversity and environmental quality over the last decades. (In the UK – if ALL set-aside agricultural land was converted to crops for bio-fuel – with disastrous environmental results – it would only meet 2% if our current fuel consumption.)

Personally, I’m clear that a drive towards agrofuels at the moment would be disastrous – not only for climate change, but for the rights of third-world farmers and indigenous peoples, bio-diversity, and the environment overall. The workshop really opened my eyes to see how inextricably the issue of bio-fuels is tied in with land rights and water rights.

However, it seems clear that it’s not that all biofuels are inherently a problem. It’s more that, in our current world system, big corporations have all the power to exploit them, and have huge power over governments, and the needs of our planet, and the people, have little voice.

That’s a slightly more complex message than “ban bio-fuels”. But it seems important to explore. For example - there has been a massive increase in “fair-trade”, organic commodities like coffee, sugar and tea. (Though of course not nearly enough.) Might it work – for example – to have legislation insisting that ALL bio-fuel comes “fair-trade” and organic sources? (And also from sustainably managed land – along the lines of FSC certification for timber – only stronger?) Or am I in cloud-cuckoo land?

More information, and simple campaigning ideas at:
http://www.biofuelwatch.org/
http://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/agriculture/biofuels
And – on agrofuels in the broader context of land and water rights
http://www.grain.org/

Climate Camp - Greenpeace workshop on the European renewable energy targets, and the UK government’s “Renewable Energy Strategy” consultation

This was (like everything else at climate camp!) excellent – and had some good news, for a change.

The UK has committed to meet, by 2020, “legally binding” European targets on renewable energy. The commitment is for 20% of EU energy, and 15% of UK energy to come from renewable sources by 2020. (Currently less than 2% of UK energy comes from renewable sources.)
Campaigning groups like Greenpeace and FoE are agreed that – for once – this is a really significant step in the right direction, which should have a big positive impact. (Particular if combined with strong steps on energy conservation, etc.)

The government has issued a “Renewable Energy Strategy” consultation paper -
which sets out detailed plans on how these targets can be met.

Many of the points are very positive – for example ambitious plans on wind power, ground source heat, electric cars, “anaerobic digestion” of food waste to generate “biogas”, etc..

HOWEVER – the government is also lobbying to be allowed to water down, or wriggle out of large parts of the commitment – by :
- Allowing countries to buy “renewable energy credits” from outside the EU – to count towards the target.
- Allowing the shifting the deadlines for large projects – so that projects that are only in planning stage in 2020 count towards the targets,
- Diluting the target with rewards for “carbon capture and storage”
- Expanding biofuel use. On a large scale, biofuel is currently NOT sustainable – there should be a moratorium on its development – see next entry.

Greenpeace and WWF have commissioned a report from Poyry which shows that hitting these 2020 renewable energy targets can close the “energy gap” – enabling our needs to be met without building a new generation of non-renewable (coal, nuclear…) power stations. So – given the will – we could go all out for renewable energy without endangering our “energy security”. (This is very significant because the claim that we can’t is the main justification the government uses for their plans to build a massive new generation of coal and nuclear power stations.)
Summary - http://www.newenergyfocus.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=1&listcatid=32&listitemid=1528
Full report - http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/implications-of-the-uk-meeting-its-2020-renewable-energy-targets

Furthermore – this could be really good for our economy E.g. – to date - Germany have created 250,000 jobs in the renewable energy sector In the UK, we have created one hundredth of that number – 2 – 3 thousand. (Although the 2020 targets should generate a further 160,000 jobs.) And this is despite the UK having pioneered research in some of the technologies – e.g. wave power, and having industrial skills that could be readily applied (e.g. aerospace to wind power.)

And which actually can and should be even more ambitious. For example the Centre for Alternative Technology has produced a feasible strategy for a rapid shift to a “zero carbon Britain” .

What is holding us back? A big part of the answer is undoubtedly the lobbying power of the big energy corporations, and the established links of government and the civil service. For example, there are whole sections of the civil service working on nuclear energy policy, but only a handful of people working on renewables.
For example, the optimal structure of the National Grid is different for a system where most energy comes from massive nuclear and coal-fired power stations, compared with a system where significant generation is from lots of distributed renewable sources. (And – for example – EDF is busy buying up transmitter stations near wind farms – to try to exert more power on the grid architecture.)

There is also separate (but related) government consultation document on heating strategy


Actions you can take –
1 - Write to your MP and (particularly) MEP
- to urge that the UK supports the most ambitious version of the 2020 renewable energy targets, and doesn’t try to water them down.
- To point out that the big energy corporation lobbyists are wrong when they say that sustainable energy cannot meet our needs. The Poyry Greenpeace-WDF report shows this. We should go all-out for investment in renewable energy, rather than a massive programme of new nuclear and coal-fired power stations. (And dubious, unproven technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS).
http://www.foe.org.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/support_renewable_energy_9479.html has a template letter to John Hutton, the energy minister.

2 - Respond to the government’s consultation. Go to http://renewableconsultation.berr.gov.uk/consultation/consultation_summary
This will close 25 September 2008.

3 - Lobby you local authority / local bodies, to move faster towards “transition town” ideas of sustainable energy. Pointing out how this is absolutely in keeping with government commitments, and with the way government policy will be going. The FoE and Greenpeace web sites contain lots of ideas.

(And see Greenpeace’s model of a climate-friendly town – to engage with local authorities.)

Climate Camp

Climate Camp was a fantastically inspiring experience. It was such a wonderful collection of people, working in effective and empowering ways to build an alternative, sustainable future. The people were mostly young (but including a good scattering of oldies like me), and, in just a few days, despite extraordinary pressure from the police, built a wonderful, comfortable, efficient community in a field in Kent.
Really effective actions were launched, lots of hearts and minds of local people were won over, powerful ideas were shared and developed, in a hotbed of discussion, there was superb music and laughter, and the outrageous attempts by the police to disrupt the camp were resisted.

The climate camp web site is great. The collection of photos, and the TV footage there tell the story well.

And check out Radio Revolucion – what a band!

Bertolt Brecht invented Web 2.0 ?

Vannevar Bush is often quoted as devising concept of the WorldWide Web some 50 years before the Web actually came to be built.

But what about "Web 2.0"? Well - it seems that the concept was laid out by none other than Bertolt Brecht even earlier - in 1926. (Or 1932?)

“Radio is one-sided when it should be two. It is purely an apparatus for distribution, for mere sharing out. So here is a positive suggestion: change this apparatus over from distribution to communication. The radio would be the finest possible communication apparatus in public life, a vast network of pipes. That is to say, it would be if it knew how to receive as well as transmit, how to let the listener speak as well as hear, how to bring him into a relationship instead of isolating him.”

(I picked this quote up from "Words Flew Right Around the World" on Chumbawamba's latest album.)

Strike a Pose

... continuing the "galleries" theme - I loved this caption from Leeds City Art Gallery.

The gallery had set up an activity where anyone could scribble their own label for a work on card, and put their label under the work. This one was from a teenager -

Vulnerability in art part 2 - lack of ....

On my exploration of the Graves with my mind on vulnerability (see my previous posting), I was suddenly struck by this picture, where I'd have expected vulnerability in the subject, but it seemed to me totally lacking.

















"Blessing the Sea" by Legros - 1872. You'd have thought they'd have been feeling pretty vulnerable - in the face of the might of the ocean - but then I guess this painting is about a display of peacefulness and invulnerability - possibly hiding or banishing the fear.

I guess it is about the intention of the maker of the work of art. Perhaps the idea that art can be about exposing your vulnerability is quite modern. This portrait of a prosperous woman of the 1700s (I think) certainly seems about showing of her prosperity and possession in the world - not about any inner feelings she might have.

This picture is of the Lady of Shallot (Maw Egley, 1858). Vulnerability is surely a big part of the story, but I didn't get any sense of it - just of putting the surface elements of the narrative in place, visually.

Looking at this picture by de Morales (1500s), I thought - surely Christ must have been feeling vulnerable at this moment of all moments ? But the picture seems to be about the portrayal of Christ acting out his role in his drama, rather than about his inner feelings.

And another picture - which you'd really have thought might be about vulnerability - but where I didn't feel it at all. ("manner of de Ribera - ~ 1635)

Though not all the older pictures fitted this - in this one of an "Apostle", by de Ribera (1635), the old man's vulnerability really came across.

I thought that other interesting (though fairly obvious) elements to explore in relation to vulnerability might be the gender of the artist, as well as the period of the picture, the intended audience, and perceived purpose of the work.

Vulnerability in art works

I went to the Graves Art Gallery in Sheffield to see whether developing my own "trail" round some of the works could add to my appreciation. Partly inspired by our "View of the young person in museum and gallery design" project - where we've been discussing this.

The idea of imposing a theme was quite a struggle at first, but then -






This self-portrait by Sam Taylor-Wood gave me a strong feeling of

Vulnerability

and I decided to explore the gallery with this feeling in mind.




..... and it started to spring out at me from lots of works:

... this picture of a Telephone Engineer by Prunella Clough - he seems bowed down by the machinery around him - which he is still part of - though still dignified.





Pictures of women too (well - OK - no surprises - mostly of women ) .... this is by Roberts - painting his wife - and she seems strong but vulnerable - though not in a stereotypical way.


And this picture - by Augustus John felt a bit more stereotypical - eyes with a mysterious vulnerability deep within them.









But also buildings - this is a painting of Sheffeild by Greaves (1927)




and this painting of a leaf on a couch (the photo hasn't come out too well - too much reflection.)
It was painted by a War Artist (Armstrong) just after the second world war - not sure whether that contributed to its feeling of vulnerability.







and this more obvious sculpture of a couple by Mark Quinn.
















Then I was surprised by the contrast with works where you'd have expected vulnerability, but where it seemed absent.
See my next post ......