The Strategist

Putting the kybosh on Project Hayes

I like wind farms. But the Environment Court was right to put the kybosh on Project Hayes.

Meridian Energy wanted to put 176 wind turbines on the wild and remote Lammermoor Range in Central Otago, New Zealand. If the project had gone ahead, it would've generated 630 MW of clean electricity. It would also have damaged the local environment and spoiled the look of the tussock-clad range.

We need more wind farms, along with solar plants, to make use of a renewable resource, to generate clean electricity, and to reduce carbon emissions by replacing dirty energy with clean. Just not at any cost. Wind farms involve the industrialization of a landscape. That's ok when the landscape is already industrialized or otherwise heavily modified by man - what are called 'brownfield' sites. Meridian's Project West Wind, a wind farm in the hills behind Wellington, NZ, is located in an area that is intensively farmed and criss-crossed with grid transmission lines.

But it's not ok when we're talking about wild and unspoiled landscapes. In the industrialized world there aren't that many left, and those that remain should be left alone. Instead, we need to make better use of the many brownfield sites that surround our cities and towns.

Regeneration 5 - the wild coast

Wellington's south coast is the city's rampart on a rough stretch of ocean - the Cook Strait. Blasted by ocean winds, pounded by stormy seas, the south coast is an epic landscape of high cliffs and hills, jagged crags and islands, and sweeping vistas of sea and mountains. Many ships have been wrecked in the south coast's wild weather and on its rocky shores and reefs.

Since European settlers arrived in 1840, the south coast has been extensively modified, urbanized and polluted. The native forest was largely chopped down for grazing land. Big earthworks, like Wellington airport, the Owhiro Bay quarry and the Palmer Head fortifications, gouged great chunks out of the land. For many years the city's sewerage ran untreated into the waters off Moa Point (which locals nicknamed 'Poo Point'). And suburbs have spread over the headlands and ridges, from Breaker Bay in the east to Owhiro Bay in the west.

For all that, the south coast retains its wildness. You don't just live on the south coast. Sometimes, in the teeth of a southerly storm, it can feel like you're just hanging on, like the creatures that struggle to survive in the rock pools and crevices between the high and low tide marks.

Recently there have been big efforts to regenerate the south coast and heighten its wild feel. At Moa Point, the discharge of raw sewerage ended when a modern treatment plant was built. Further along the coast, past Owhiro Bay, the quarry was closed and the hills and shore left to return to their natural state. And last year the Taputeranga marine reserve was created off the south coast - this will allow the once rich marine life to regenerate.

The photo below shows the cliffs of the old quarry site, on the way to the seal colony at Rimurapa (Sinclair Head). The sheer size of these cliffs always astonishes me. If you look closely, in the bottom right of the picture, you can see four people walking along the foreshore.

They are as ants.

Waiting for the utopian city

 

If you could design your city of the future, what would it look like?

This article highlights scientific research into ways that biotech could be used to create sustainable urban habitats and fight climate change...

"Forget skyscrapers studded with undimmed lights. Instead, think of crystal whites and luminous blues forging the city’s silhouette. Picture a city that sucks in carbon and uses bacteria harvested from dead fish to light the darkness."

The ideas outlined in the piece are interesting, and would be pretty cool if they came about. But why wait for some utopia? We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there are many practical things that we can do now to make cities more liveable and sustainable and less polluting.

Like giving walking, cycling and public transport priority over cars. Like making cities self-sustaining, though measures like distributed and micro renewable energy generation (solar panels on rooftops), urban farming, and household rainwater collection and greywater recycling. And like growing or renewing urban forests to soak up carbon dioxide and provide habitat for other animals.

Archbishop Williams - a church leader for our times?

Why did I give up going to church?

One reason was that the Anglican faith I was baptized into seemed to have nothing to say about the things that worry me. Like the way humans are hell-bent on devastating the earth. Like the lunacy of the "economic growth" ideology. Like the vacuousness of much of modern life - our obsession with celebrities and buying stuff.

So I found it pleasantly surprising to read the Archbishop of Canterbury's thoughts on climate change, sustainability and modern lifestyles. In an interview with the Times, Dr Rowan Williams called for...

"families to respond to climate change by changing their shopping habits and adjusting their diets to the seasons, eating fruit and vegetables that could be grown in Britain"

"more land to be made available for allotments, saying that they would help people to reconnect with nature and wean them off a consumerist lifestyle"

"politicians to end their obsession with economic growth and recognise that a sustainable society could not be achieved by the relentless pursuit of material wealth."

I won't be surprised if the Archbishop is attacked by those with a vested interest in maintaining capitalist society and its grotesque inequalities. Their hired guns will call him a fuddy-duddy, ridicule him as well-meaning but naive, and tell him to "stick to religion".

But religion is not confined to the interiors of churches. It is not about sitting on pews, reciting scripture, and praying to otherworldly beings.

Religion should help us deal with real world problems. It should give us ideas about how to grapple with the moral dilemmas that confront us daily. It should fortify us in our belief that the good life is not about lusting after power, money, status and stuff.

Dr Williams is, perhaps, a rare bird, a church leader who says practical, sensible and courageous things about our relationship with the environment and about the moral issues of our time.  

The end of the beginning: tally of "Own Two Feet"

A better way to get in shape - cycle about or spend money at the gym?

On 6 September I set myself a personal challenge. To cut back on my use of the car and to get about using my own two feet (or failing that to use public transport) over a four week period.

Why? I wanted to become more self-reliant and resilient, and cut back on my use of fossil fuels. I wanted to gauge the difference this makes to my quality of life. I wanted to get a sense of how practical an "own two feet" lifestyle is for a suburban dweller.

How did I go? Over the 28 days of the challenge, I travelled 336.5 kilometres (208 miles). Here's how I got about:

• I walked 103.5 km, mostly home from work, but also shorter trips in my neighbourhood, e.g., to the supermarket or the school.

• I cycled 100 km, mostly to and from work and the swimming pool.

• I travelled 103 km on the bus, mostly going to work, but also on a couple of weekend trips to and from the city.

• I scooted 4.5 km, on local trips with my son.

• I drove 25.5 km, on six short trips, mostly in the first week, either because it was raining or because I had to get to several places quickly. The longest time I went without using the car was nine days.

Upshot - for four weeks in spring I was able to get around my city, doing the usual range of activities, largely without needing to use the car.

Some people might think that this challenge sounds like a drag. Far from it. I enjoyed it. It gave me plenty of sun, fresh air and exercise. It gave me time to think, to observe what was going on around me, and to discover some interesting nooks and crannies in my native city. It also had a psychological benefit: I feel healthier, and there's something very satisfying about being able to rely on yourself, rather than a car, for getting around.

What surprised me was how quickly leaving the car at home became a habit. So much so that I'm going to keep on doing it, to extend the challenge to one year. I'll report every month on my progress.

I'm not pledging never to use the car again. Cars are useful, especially when you need to move heavy stuff around, transport the kids between several sporting events on Saturday morning, or go somewhere where there's no public transport. But we need to learn to use cars wisely and in moderation, e.g., by getting the most use out of single car journeys.

Many thanks to everyone who encouraged me and made insightful observations and helpful suggestions over the last four weeks. 

The quest ends: week 4 of Operation Own Two Feet

 

This is the end of week 4 - the final week - of "Operation Own Two Feet", my personal challenge to cut back on using the car. In the last seven days I've travelled 79 kilometres (49 miles). I cycled 42.5 km, walked 15.5 km, and caught the bus 21 km. I haven't used the car for the last nine days.

This morning I walked to my mother's house in the city, 10 km (6 miles) away, to pick up my son who had spent the night there. It took about 90 minutes, compared with 10 to 15 minutes if I'd gone there in the car.

You could argue that if I'd driven I could have spent the saved 75 or 80 minutes doing other things. But the walk served several purposes:

• it gave me a good work-out: 10 km of brisk walking, including two big hills;

• I took photos along the way, so spent part of the time doing one of my hobbies;

• my walk had zero impact on the environment, i.e., no carbon emissions from the car;

• I saved money - the cost of petrol; and

• I visited my mother and picked up my son (we caught the bus home).

All up I'd say that this was a pretty efficient use of time and energy.

In the next couple of days I'll write about the overall result for Operation Own Two Feet, and draw some conclusions about the practicality of an "own two feet" lifestyle.

Caught my eye - the Åland islands, Flight 93, and Malaysia's ghost fleet

Here are some articles and posts that caught my eye this week...

• A superb collection of photographs with an environmental theme.

• Dean blogs about his trip to Åland islands. I like the way he weaves military history into this travel narrative.

• The Oil Drum posts a lecture by Joseph A Tainter on complexity and sustainability.

• Lexington Green argues that Flight 93 shows the "General Militia" is not an antiquated concept.

• A ghost fleet of merchant vessels lies idle off the coast of Malaysia.

Operation "Own Two Feet"

Over the next four weeks I'm running a little experiment. I call it "Operation Own Two Feet". The idea is to reduce my reliance on cars for getting from A to B, and to use my own two feet more (or failing that, public transport). This morning, for example, I walked to and from the swimming pool, a round trip of 5.5km. Usually I would've taken the car. 

Why?

• I want to become more self-reliant, and cut back on my use of fossil fuels.

• I want to gauge the difference this makes to my quality of life. How much money will I save? If I walk or cycle rather than drive, what are the opportunity costs of the extra time taken to get somewhere, and what are the benefits? For instance, I might have less time to work or relax, but more time to think about things and keep fit.

• I want to get a sense of how practical this approach is for a suburban dweller. Is a car really essential for modern living, as many people believe? Or can we get by without one? Does urban design make it difficult for people to leave the car at home and walk or take public transport instead?

My situation? I'm 44 years old, weigh 78kg, keep fit, and like walking. I live in a suburb which is a 7km drive from where I work, in Wellington City, capital of New Zealand. My suburb is a self-organizing community, with good amenities within walking distance. My son goes to a local school which is five minutes walk from home. There's good public transport to the city and beyond.

I'm keeping a daily log of my progress and observations here. I'm also keen to hear what you have to say about the practicality, or otherwise, of an "own two feet" lifestyle where you live.

Ancient practices for modern times - coppicing and pollarding

The Oil Drum has an interesting post on wood (biomass) as an energy source.

I was intrigued by the discussion about coppicing and pollarding, and the potential that these ancient practices have for generating local or regional sources of fuel, power, income and employment, and habitat for animals.

Coppicing and pollarding are traditionally rural activities, but vacant urban space - the "inner wasteland" - could also be used for growing wood for fuel.

Willow is a mainstay fuel source, but in New Zealand there might also be native equivalents. Mahoe, Melicytus ramiflorus, for example, is a vigorous and fast-growing tree which, when cut back, quickly sends up woody shoots.

Was the Lockerbie bomber set free in a squalid oil deal?

A seedy angle on the release of the Lockerbie bomber is emerging. It sounds like the UK government agreed to set free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi as part of a deal allowing oil majors BP and Shell to tap Libyan oil reserves.

Here's what the Times has to say:

"The strong circumstantial evidence is that a lucrative agreement to allow BP to explore for oil off the Libyan coast was being held up by Mr Megrahi’s exemption from the prisoner transfer programme. The idea that the Westminster government had no view and no influence is not credible."

And the Guardian:

"...ministers and senior civil servants met Shell to discuss the company's oil interests in Libya on at least 11 occasions and perhaps as many as 26 times in less than four years....

The revelations, showing that the government invested large amounts of political capital in securing North African oil, lend weight to claims that commercial interest lay behind last week's decision to release the Lockerbie bomber...from jail in Scotland to receive a hero's welcome in Libya."

Big picture implications?

Once again a democratically elected government seems to have allowed itself to be used as a tool to further the business interests of a coterie of very rich people. The close links between the UK government and Big Oil cast real doubt on Whitehall's commitment to negotiating an effective global climate change treaty at Copenhagen in December. And as long as people like this "run the show", the UK government will never grapple seriously with big concerns like peak oil, resource depletion, and the need to make a transition to a low carbon economy.

Here's the latest gimmick for fighting climate change...

Want to soak up carbon dioxide emissions and fight climate change? Don't mess about growing silly old trees. Don't bother stopping the destruction of tropical rainforests. Now we can make shiny artificial trees instead (h/t John @farmgeek)...

"Dr Fox said the prototype artificial tree was about the same size as a shipping container and could remove thousands of times more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than an equivalent sized real tree."

Maybe so, but trees are proven technology, with hundreds of millions of years of evolution behind them. Unlike artificial trees, real trees grow by themselves - no need to make them using oil, coal, steel, electricity, and emitting carbon dioxide. Real trees cost bugger all. They provide shade and habitat for birds and animals, stabilize hillsides and prevent water runoff. If fruit and nut trees, they provide food for urban and rural dwellers.

Yep, give me real trees any day. Like this mighty giant of the forest, near Wanganui...

Jeff Rubin on why peak oil hasn't gone away

You thought peak oil was just a bad dream, right? Here's a topical interview with economist Jeff Rubin on triple digit oil prices, the rise of localism and the madness of car culture (h/t Global Dashboard). 

"Why don't we invest in our future, not our past? When 50 million North Americans park their cars, is there going to be a bus to get on? Right now there isn't. It's public transit we should be investing in, not single passenger cars."

Governments are very good at looking backwards (or looking forwards to the past). Hence billion dollar bailouts for car makers, construction of new freeways and airports, and economic policies that encourage companies to move their operations to China and the Philippines.

Trend watch: China's move a big strategic play

More on China's move into renewable energy, especially wind. I've said it before - this is a big strategic play...

"If China matches growing technological prowess with its cheap production costs and a massive internal market, it could become a global power in the production and use of green technology.

This would this enable China to gain a crucial hold in key industries of the future. It would help clean up a heavily polluted environment. And it would lessen a dangerous strategic vulnerability: China's dependence on foreign oil which must be imported along sea lanes controlled by the US Navy and other competitors, like India and Japan."

Meanwhile Western governments mainline on Middle East crude and Russian gas, oblivious to the huge costs, the environmental and economic risks, and the strategic vulnerabilities. 

Rise of the eco-skyscraper

Who'd have thought that skyscrapers, that symbol of rampant capitalism, would go green? It's like someone ripping out the guts of a Hummer and dropping in a poncy electric motor.

Chicago's Sears Tower is getting a green makeover. It will be retrofitted with solar panels and wind turbines, upgraded wall and window insulation and water systems, advanced lighting, fuel cell boiler plants, and energy efficient elevators.

The owners claim that the retrofit will lead to "unparalleled energy savings and reduced CO2 emissions...reducing the base building electricity use by up to 80 percent".

Meanwhile in Guangzhou, the Pearl River Tower is being hyped as the most energy efficient superskyscraper ever. When finished in 2010, the tower will have wind turbines, sun shields, solar panels, smart lighting and water-cooled ceilings. It's designed to use half the energy of similar sized buildings.

Of the two strategies - retrofitting an existing skyscraper or building a new one - I'd argue that retrofitting is the way to go. If you've got an existing structure, it makes sense to kit it out with the latest green technology.

A new structure may use less energy and emit less CO2 than a retrofit (because it was designed that way at the start). But you have to factor in the vast amount of energy that is used and the CO2 that is emitted in the manufacture and transport of building materials and the construction. And the building will still use extra energy which has to be generated somehow, probably through burning coal.

So while it's cool to see green design and technology coming to the fore, it's a shame that this is being wasted on monstrosities like skyscrapers, rather than making 21st century cities green, liveable and energy efficient.

And yes, call me a cynic, but we have to be mindful of "eco-skyscrapers" as another form of greenwashing, designed to give corporate owners and tenants a veneer of environmental respectability. Like Okhta Tower in St Petersburg, the fancy new head office of Russian gas corporation Gazprom.

Caught my eye - China power and cyber "strikeback"

• China's making massive investments in solar and wind power. As I've mentioned before, this is an important trend to watch, and one where China could steal a technological march on the west.

• Edward Glaeser writes about bulldozing America's shrinking cities, and how "urban decline is a reality in much of older, colder America".

• America and Britain prepare to "strikeback" against Russian, Chinese, and North Korean (???) hackers.

Inner wasteland 6: the shrinking city of Flint, Michigan

An abandoned house in my neighbourhood.

SE emailed me about my Inner Wasteland and Regeneration series:

"While I cannot say I agree with you in every instance about the utility of making greenspace for the sake of greenspace, I can say that your ideas on Urban Wastelands may be coming to fruition in the US".

He kindly sent me this article about Flint, Michigan, a city with a dwindling population. Here the local county is shrinking the city - allowing abandoned suburbs to revert to woodland, and concentrating housing, business and services in the city's core...

"The local authority has restored the city's attractive but formerly deserted centre but has pulled down 1,100 abandoned homes in outlying areas. Mr Kildee estimated another 3,000 needed to be demolished, although the city boundaries will remain the same. Already, some streets peter out into woods or meadows, no trace remaining of the homes that once stood there."

Now I'm not arguing for making urban "greenspace for the sake of greenspace". What I'm suggesting is that urban wasteland should be converted into space that is productive in some sense. Examples of productive use could include...

• communal gardens, which would provide food and livestock, plus employment and local resilience;

• parkland, which would provide recreational opportunities; and

• woodland, which would absorb carbon dioxide, stabilize hill-slopes, minimize rainwater runoff, and provide habitat for wildlife.

SE's given me a couple of other interesting ideas to chew on, which I'll follow up in another post.

Imagining the 21st century: influences

 

Max Platte's 'Solace in the wind', Taranaki St Wharf, Wellington

I've been thinking about influences - the things that could have great impacts on our lives in the 21st century. Here are three that I think will be important...

• Limits - humankind is hitting the limits of what we can draw from the earth, be that oil, minerals, water, food. Scarcity of natural resources, and the implications for our wasteful way of life, will be a principal concern for governments and communities. Most of us are going to have to live with a lot less, and do fundamental things differently and far more efficiently.

• Religion - monotheistic creeds, especially Christianity and Islam, have a big future. In a polluted, overcrowded, violent and impoverished world, many people will be attracted to their simple but effective and revolutionary messages. Christianity, for instance, offers hope for the future. If you live in one of the world's many mega-slums and your destiny is a short life of grinding poverty and brutality, Christianity offers the hope of resurrection after death and salvation in the afterlife.  

• Communities - in the west people are rediscovering the benefits of belonging to communities, especially self-organizing and resilient local communities that work together and pool resources for the common good. Resilient communities will be crucial for helping us make do with less, and for protecting us from those who want to take what we have.

I'm keen to hear readers' views on what you think will be big influences on life in the 21st century, either in comments or by email.

Reflection - on the rise of new creeds

In this review in New Statesman, English philosopher John Gray commented that as "energy and power flows eastwards, the secular ideologies that developed from Christianity are likely to dwindle in influence".

Fascinating thought. Does it also imply that in the 21st century the big global ideas and belief systems will come out of Asia, rather than Europe as has largely been the case for the last few hundred years (e.g., Marxism, capitalism, science, Christianity)?

If so, what are these big ideas likely to be? A resurgence and spread of traditional Asian faiths and belief systems, like Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism (think about how Zen Buddhism gained many converts and influenced many others in the west from the '60s on)? New creeds which place a premium on order, stability, personal responsibility, duty, perhaps partly in reaction to the change that has swept through Asian societies since the 19th century? Or something else?

What if widespread and prolonged ecological crisis across Asia gave rise to popular creeds based on ideas akin to deep ecology thinking? In such creeds, nature might be revered and rejuvenated; human populations tightly controlled and confined to cities; high technology  turned to producing clean energy, intensively cultivating food in cityscapes, and restoring devastated ecosystems.

The prophets of the future may be children growing up in China now - watching their grandparents perish of respiratory diseases caused by coal-fired pollution, gazing at dead fish in poisoned rivers and seas, or dreaming of the stars beneath smog-filled skies.

What's the future for Transition Towns?

At Ethical Living, Leo Hickman asks how the Transition Towns movement can keep expanding into new communities...

"[In the UK] many of the communities that have warmly welcomed the ideals of the Transition Movement have to date been those that already have, let's say, something of a reputation for being hubs of left-leaning greenery. I'm thinking Totnes, Lewes, Brixton, Bristol and the like. How does the movement now reach beyond these low-hanging fruit?"

One idea might be to adapt the concept to include concerns other than Peak Oil and climate change. As important as these issues are, communities may have other, more immediate, concerns. For example, one community may be worried about meth-fuelled crime, another by the poor quality of representation in local government, a third by a lack of local jobs.

Another idea is to take the key themes of Transition Towns - communities thinking about the future and taking action to deal with big issues - and apply this to the way central and local government work with communities. The role of government should not be to dictate ("I'm a bureaucrat and I know what's best for you") but to facilitate - to provide communities with resources and support.

Regeneration 4

I often walk along the Wellington waterfront at lunchtime. Today I took this photo at the western end of Taranaki St wharf, which has been landscaped with coastal shrubs, grasses and rocks. It's a good example of how native vegetation can be used to restore an old industrial site. Old sea anchors, propeller blades and other sea artifacts nestle amongst the rocks and shrubs, reminding passers-by of the maritime heritage of the area.

On Neanderthals and Homo rapiens

Why do some people find it so hard to believe that Neanderthals were exterminated by humans 30,000 years ago?

"Neanderthals met a violent end at our hands and in some cases we ate them," Rozzi said. The idea will provoke considerable opposition from scientists who believe Neanderthals disappeared for reasons that did not involve violence...

When ancient humans arrived in places as far-flung as Australia, North America and New Zealand, they hunted to extinction the megafauna - big animals like mastodons, giant kangaroos and moa birds. In the 20th century humans slaughtered each other on an unprecedented scale - from the battlefields of the Somme and Stalingrad to the gas chambers of Auschwitz and the killing fields of Rwanda. Now, we're destroying the earth's forests, rivers and oceans, and the animals and plants that live there, even though we know that we're digging a mass grave for ourselves and our children.

It's for good reason, then, that English philosopher John Gray describes humankind as an "exceptionally rapacious primate" - Homo rapiens. It doesn't take much to imagine that our distant ancestors moved into lands occupied by Neanderthals and, driven by the evolutionary urge to feed and breed, swiftly exterminated them.

Inner wasteland 5

Yesterday I took my camera and went for a walk around an industrial park at Rongotai, near Wellington's airport.

Like most old industrial parks, Rongotai is bleak and ugly, an inner wasteland of asphalt, steel, bricks, corrugated iron, concrete, and barbed wire fences. Walking around, you notice the enormous amount of empty space: the wide streets; the large parking lots and yards; and the many smaller spaces  squeezed between or behind buildings and festooned with rubbish, weeds, rusting engine blocks, pallets and packing cases. 

And yet, in the cracks and corners of this urban desert, a profusion of weeds, grasses, shrubs and trees have taken root. Self-seeded natives like dune grasses, karo, cabbage trees, ngaio and taupata - survivors of an ancient ecology - are thriving. It's an object lesson in resilience, and a reminder of nature's tenacity.

Such tenacity suggests the regenerative potential for even the bleakest of urban deserts. Trees, shrubs and grass could be planted to soften the harsh edges of industrial areas, provide places of relaxation and recreation for workers, and absorb rainwater and carbon dioxide. As industrial areas decline and die, the land could be regenerated as park land and urban forest (for recreation, and carbon dioxide capture) and turned over to growing food. 

Car-free communities and climate criminals

Here's some things that caught my eye this week...

• A car-free community in Germany...

• Brand new suburban homes being demolished in the US...

• Global warming forces Carteret Islanders to abandon their homes...

It's ironic, and tragic, that the car-free Carteret Islanders have to flee their ancestral islands because of the greed of these climate criminals.

Climate criminals

Here's how Big Oil, Big Gas and Big Coal are responding to the threat of climate change...

"America's oil, gas and coal industry has increased its lobbying budget by 50%, with key players spending $44.5m in the first three months of this year in an intense effort to cut off support for Barack Obama's plan to build a clean energy economy.

The spoiler campaign runs to hundreds of millions of dollars and involves industry front groups, lobbying firms, television, print and radio advertising, and donations to pivotal members of Congress. Its intention is to water down or kill off plans by the Democratic leadership to pass "cap and trade" legislation this year, which would place limits on greenhouse gas emissions."

Is there any reason why the heads of these corporations, and their corporate hired guns, shouldn't be treated as pariahs and tried as criminals?

Inner wasteland 4

Have you noticed how much of our urban space is covered only in grass - playing fields, bowling greens, golf courses, front lawns, roadside verges and so on? Why are we so obsessed with grass? At least playing fields serve a useful purpose (I can't say the same about golf courses) but the often spacious roadside verges don't.

The picture shows a verge at the entrance to Miramar, Wellington - another instance of the "inner wasteland". This is a large grassy area which is mowed every week or so by a tractor that burns Saudi crude. It features a billboard enticing us to buy cars that also burn Saudi crude. All up a poor use of space.

Pulling down the billboard and planting the site with trees and shrubs would be far more useful. As with this nearby site, trees would provide habitat for birds, make an attractive entrance to Miramar, soak up carbon dioxide, and cut the fuel costs of mowing the lawn.

Regeneration 3

I took this photo in Wellington's "Town Belt", on the eastern slopes of Mt Victoria. This is an area of regenerated urban forest, used by Wellingtonians for walking, mountain-biking and other recreation.

When the first English settlers arrived in Wellington in 1839, most of Mt Victoria was covered in dense native forest. By the late 1860s, most of the forest had been cut down and much of the land converted to pasture. From the 1880s a mix of planting, natural regeneration and protection led to the creation of a lush urban forest.

As well as recreational and visual benefits for Wellingtonians, the forest prevents erosion and water run-off, absorbs carbon dioxide, and provides habitat for wildlife. In cities which are shrinking, like Flint, Michigan, abandoned suburbs could be regenerated as woodlands for a variety of uses.

Big Oil gives a rat's arse about climate change

Avaaz via Global Dashboard

Inner wasteland 3

Apologies to any golfers...

Golf courses are one of the worst examples of the "inner wasteland". They occupy a lot of space yet are used by a small number of people. They require large amounts of water. Vast quantities of chemical pesticides and fertilizers are dumped on them.

Imagine if this golf course in Wellington, NZ, was converted to a mix of community energy, food and wood production. Some areas of the space could be covered with solar panels, perhaps with sheep grazing the rows between. Other areas could be converted into community vegetable gardens, chicken coops, fish ponds, and stands of fruit, nut and coppiced trees.

As a global society we are butting our heads against natural limits to growth. There is, for example, not enough accessible oil left to satisfy our insatiable demand. There are not enough fish left in the world's oceans to meet our insatiable appetites. Throughout the world, the area of arable land is shrinking due to changing weather patterns, advancing deserts, salinization, and the exhaustion of rivers and aquifers. 

In such a world, we have to rethink how we use available land, and for whose benefit. In such a world, golf courses are an extravagance, a waste of space.

>> Regeneration series

Transition Towns - not waiting for the government

Here's a thought-provoking Times profile of the Transition Towns movement, community gardening and resilient communities in the UK.

The Transition Towns movement originated in Ireland and the UK, and has since spread to communities in the US, Australia, Chile, Japan and New Zealand. It's about communities adapting to the impacts of global energy depletion and climate change, and becoming more resilient and self-sustaining. The movement involves an open source transfer of ideas, information and templates, so that people who want to organize their communities can draw on a model that's worked elsewhere.

Here's how Rob Hopkins, one of the founders of Transition Towns, describes the movement:

"Transition is a social experiment on a massive scale. What we are convinced of is this: (a) if we wait for the government, it’ll be too little, too late; (b) if we act as individuals, it’ll be too little; but (c) if we act as communities, it might just be enough, just in time."

I couldn't agree more, and I work for government.

Inner wasteland 2

Another 'inner wasteland' site, this one next to Burnham wharf at Miramar, Wellington NZ.

There'd be little point in trying to grow a garden here, as the north-west wind gusts across Evans Bay. But you can see that nature is already starting to reclaim the space, with pohutakawa and karo trees. So why not fence off the site, plant coastal native trees and shrubs, and allow it to regenerate? The trees would provide habitat for birds, make for an attractive entrance to Miramar, and soak up carbon dioxide.

Regeneration 1

This is a pond at the Pauatahanui coastal wetlands, north of Wellington, NZ.

Thirty years ago this area was water-logged farmland and a go-kart track. Since 1984 Forest and Bird and the Department of Conservation have regenerated the wetlands, to the point where the area is now home to many species of waterfowl. 

In the 21st century, regenerated wetlands, like Pauatahanui, will play an important role in protecting communities from storm surges and rising sea levels. Rather than let greedy land developers bulldoze subdivisions behind the beach, we'll need to move some communities inland and allow the coastal zone to regenerate - as wetland, dunes and forest - to provide a buffer from the sea.

>> Inner wasteland series

Inner wasteland 1

For some time I've been writing about the urban 'inner wasteland': vacant lots, grassed or concrete verges and backyards, old industrial sites, empty rooftops and so on. And about the need to use such land productively - for cultivating food, generating electricity, collecting and storing rainwater, absorbing runoff, and growing trees to provide timber and fuel and soak up carbon dioxide.

Why? So that our communities can become more resilient by providing at least some of the basics of life - energy, water, food. So that our communities can generate extra employment and activities for local people. So that our communities can take a more active role in local environmental management.

I'm posting a series of photos to highlight the inner wasteland in my city, Wellington, NZ. It's not difficult to find inner wasteland. There are sites all around us - empty, ugly, weed-infested; strewn with rubbish, discarded condoms, and abandoned shopping trolleys; often tucked just out of sight and out of mind. Like the site pictured above - an empty building and lot at Burnham wharf, Miramar. For a society that is obsessed with property rights, we make poor use of a great deal of land.

I'll also look for regenerating places, where people are making productive use of land that was once waste (e.g., for urban gardening), or where nature is doing the job for us.

>> Regeneration series

China - getting ahead of the game

In January 2007 I wrote that "China's unquenchable thirst for oil will lead to a clash of interests with the West....If western nations were smart, they would change the game by switching to new energy sources and technologies - the way of the future - rather than fight over a rapidly declining energy source."

In a fascinating twist, it's now China, rather than the west, that's trying to "change the game" with an aggressive move into clean transportation: the manufacturing and use of electric and hybrid vehicles (cars, buses, scooters).

As Jonathan Watts points out, this seems part of a deeper strategy:

"the science and technology minister, Wan Gang, said the country aimed to come out of the economic downturn greener and more advanced than it went in. 'Accompanying every financial crisis is a revolution in technology that serves as an engine for economic development. This time, new energy technology will probably be the new driving force.'"

China is already a big player in solar and wind power. If China matches growing technological prowess with its cheap production costs and a massive internal market, it could become a global power in the production and use of green technology.

This would this enable China to gain a crucial hold in key industries of the future. It would help clean up a heavily polluted environment. And it would lessen a dangerous strategic vulnerability: China's dependence on foreign oil which must be imported along sea lanes controlled by the US Navy and other competitors, like India and Japan.

Grow green cities

For a while I've been writing about the need to make productive use of the 'inner wasteland' in cities, for cultivating food, generating electricity, collecting and storing rainwater, and growing trees to soak up carbon dioxide.

So I was interested to read this Guardian article about two British organizations - Natural England and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (Cabe) - who advocate green cities...

"A new Cabe report criticises local authorities, saying their open spaces are underused and that only a few cities are taking climate change seriously....Cabe suggests towns could buy land and use it for urban forestry, parks, wind turbines and solar arrays.

The report says life in an urban area obscures how much we rely on natural ecosystems and how much the quality of the environment affects people. 'There are opportunities to create community gardens or orchards from derelict plots which [would] improve mental health and well-being.'"

There's no need to buy land to get started on this. In New Zealand at least, local and regional authorities own large tracts of urban land. Much of this land stands empty, is under grass, and is mowed every two weeks or so with lawnmowers which run on oil imported from the Middle East.

1789 and all that

"The Storming of the Bastille", by Jean-Pierre Houël.

According to the Times, Scotland Yard is expecting big trouble during the G20 summit, which is being held in London on 1-2 April.

The officer commanding the police response said that a hard core of protesters was intent on storming buildings and provoking violence.

“Everything is up for grabs. That is the aspiration, to get in and clog up these City institutions as best they can,” Commander Bob Broadhurst, of the Metropolitan Police, said.

“We are seeing unprecedented planning among protest groups. Some of the groups of the late 90s are coming back to the fore and there is a coming together of anarchists, anti-globalisation groups and environmentalists. They are plotting and planning what they are going to do and the picture is changing almost every minute. They have some very clever people and their intention on April 1 is to stop the City.”

There's a palpable air of crisis to this story, a mood of circling the wagons, very 1789. It's hard to tell if this is for real - if the protests really do pose a danger to G20 politicians - or if this is a story manufactured by government PR, with the aim of providing cover for a massive crackdown.

Also interesting is how the Times chose to accept without question the police view, and play up the "violent disorder" angle. But there are other, deeper, angles to this story:

• Are the protests driven by popular anger over the inability of politicians to respond effectively to global crises, like the near collapse of the financial system (and the greed and incompetence of financiers) and the threat of climate change?

• To what extent do the protests reflect a general loss of confidence in politicians, and how widespread and enduring is this likely to be?

• And has the Met become the defender of an ossified power system and those who benefit from it (a global elite of politicians, financiers and corporate executives)?

When I think about the times we are living through, two big questions grip me. Firstly, can our national and international institutions do what's needed to ward off economic and environmental crisis and collapse? Answer: probably not - the track record to date hasn't been flash, and our politicians seem to lack the skills, inclinations and imagination to tackle the problems.

And secondly, is this an epoch of transformation in the way we organize ourselves politically, economically, socially and in relation to the natural world? Answer: probably - and if so, what are the key areas of transformation, and how will change come about? Through violent upheavals, grassroots organization, re-invigoration of existing institutions, and new forms of networking and organizing - or all of the above?

The Bullshit Files #10: Labour's retro retro-fit campaign

This is an excellent idea from the opposition New Zealand Labour Party - a campaign to retrofit most New Zealand houses with insulation (h/t Kiwiblog)...

"A comprehensive nationwide retrofitting scheme would make houses warmer, save on power bills, take pressure off our health system, cut absenteeism at work and schools, and create real jobs."

It's just a pity that Labour didn't do this during the last nine years that they were in power. Having done sweet fuck all while in government, Labour now has the gall to run a campaign that, while sensible, has zero chance of being implemented.

Yep, chalk up another one for the Bullshit Files.

Urban farming - skyscaper style

This wasn't quite what I had in mind when I wrote recently about urban farming: Eric Vergne's skyscraper farms. According to Inhabitat...

"Eric Vergne’s Dystopian Farm project envisions a future New York City interspersed with elegantly spiraling biomorphic structures that will harness cutting-edge technology to provide the city with its own self-sustaining food source."

There are obvious advantages to centralizing urban food production in skyscraper farms. These include economies of scale and efficient use of space. But this approach would be ripe for abuse, as oligarchies, corporations and criminal gangs could seize control of the food supply for their own benefit. And skyscraper farms would be vulnerable to catastrophic events, like earthquakes, fires and terrorist attacks, which would cause major disruptions to food supply.

A better approach is to have a mix of skyscraper farms and small-scale urban cultivation - backyard, rooftop and communal gardens (the latter on "inner wasteland", e.g., vacant lots, old industrial sites, parking lots, disused factories, offices, apartments). This would build resilience into urban food supply by distributing production throughout the system, rather than concentrating it at a handful of vulnerable nodes.

John on sustainable living for city slickers

Responding to this post, John of Lifeboat Farm offers some advice to urban folk who want to live sustainably:

"If I was going through our "exit strategy" again but constrained to staying urban, the single most important thing I'd do would be to reduce or eliminate debt, with learning gardening as a secondary priority.

While it's romantic to think about alternative energy or farming in an urban context, the reality is it is much cheaper and easier to save a kilowatt than capture one. Reducing energy use, reducing waste, and making the most of what you have are all rewarding strategies for a more sustainable existence."

I should add that John ran the thought-provoking Kiwi Foo seminar on sustainable living that I referred to in the post.

Living off the land, city slicker style

Does living sustainably mean that you must live in the country, grow your own food, and power your house with energy generated by wind, water and sunlight?

I thought about this during a Kiwi Foo Camp 09 session on the "nuts and bolts of sustainability". The presenter described how he and his wife were living sustainably on a small Wairarapa farm. It sounded bucolic and innovative, and it's the image of sustainable living that many of us have.

But for most people, who live in cities and towns, it's a dream. Living on a small farm or "lifestyle block" is only possible for a small number of people who already own land in the country or can afford to buy land and invest time and money in it. It's not a realistic option for city slickers.

Real advances in sustainable living have to be made in urban areas, where most of us live and where most of the world's food, water, energy and other resources is ultimately consumed. Part of this involves imagining and promoting what sustainable urban lifestyles might look like. There's no one answer but myriad practical possibilities, big and small.

At one level urban sustainable living might involve simple things, like buying less consumer goods, walking more, growing herbs and veges in the backyard, composting kitchen scraps, and catching the bus or train to work. At another level it might involve quite "radical" ideas - like "urban farming", resilient communities, distributed energy generation, and making productive use of the "inner wasteland". It would certainly involve politicians, policy-makers and town planners creating frameworks which assist and encourage people and communities to live sustainably.

Some things I learnt at Kiwi Foo

I was at Kiwi Foo Camp 09 over the weekend, among a group of technologists, inventors, entrepreneurs, designers, media people, bloggers, advocates and many others. Here are some compelling ideas that I came across in seminars and discussions:

• Economy - with the global credit crunch and diminishing natural resources, people will be crying out for technology that helps them do things cheaper, faster and more efficiently.

• Community participation - Thinksmall, an online platform which aims to encourage New Zealanders to debate and develop solutions to issues that are vexing them. The platform is pitched at national issues, but could be used by communities as a tool for discussing and organizing on local concerns - anything from rates hikes and vandalism to local government spending on costly "legacy" projects (e.g., new stadiums).

• Microfinancing - P2P (peer to peer) lending systems, where investors can lend directly to people who want money (e.g., for a business start-up, to buy a house) and choose different types of risk to suit their lending approaches.

• Sustainable living in cities - I've written before about the "inner urban wasteland" - vacant lots, grassed road verges, backyards, old industrial sites, bare rooftops - and how we could productively use these spaces, e.g., for growing food and generating energy. At a session on sustainable living, one of the participants suggested growing fruit and nut trees on road verges, thereby providing food, shade and soaking up carbon dioxide.

• People with disabilities - encouraging government, business and communities to actively tap the skills and expertise of disabled people, rather than treating them as a drain on the public purse. This is one aspect of developing a resilient society and economy.

I'll be writing more about these interesting ideas - and others - over the next couple of weeks.

"Wind age, wolf age..."

In this opinion piece, scientist Vicky Pope slams both climate change true believers and deniers for selectively using scientific evidence to support their causes...

"Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of the science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening.

Both undermine the basic facts that the implications of climate change are profound and will be severe if greenhouse gas emissions are not cut drastically and swiftly over the coming decades."

One intriguing point is the way people ask climate scientists like Pope if they "believe in climate change". As Pope says, it's not a question of belief - the scientific evidence is overwhelming that human activities are driving climate change. Yet people don't consider that climate change will occur. Instead, they believe it will occur.

It's almost as if, for some, belief in climate change has become an eschatological faith, displacing other apocalyptic visions, like nuclear Armageddon (which held sway throughout the Cold War) and the millennium bug. As The High One foretold of the dark days of Ragnarok...

...age of axes, age of swords, shields split, wind age, wolf age, until the world falls into ruin.

More cool and clean energy technology

Here's another example of very cool, very clean energy technology - "green" speed bumps that generate electricity as cars drive over them (thanks Flan, for alerting me to this idea).

As designer Peter Hughes explains...

"With a steady flow of traffic, four of the ramps used as speed bumps would be enough to power all the street lights, traffic lights and road signs for a mile-long stretch of street. The ramp is silent, comfortable and safe for vehicles."

Like turbo expanders, the beauty of this sort of technology is that it's embedded in existing systems, it taps energy that would otherwise be wasted, and it produces power at the point of demand.

Pinch me, I must be dreaming...

...or maybe I've drunken one too many glasses of red wine (hey, it's been a long hard day at work).

Anyway, it's remarkable to hear an American president put energy, climate change and environment policies at the heart of his administration's agenda, and to directly link these to economic and national security strategies:

"Now America has arrived at a crossroads. Embedded in American soil, in the wind and the sun, we have the resources to change. Our scientists, businesses and workers have the capacity to move us forward."

On 26 January President Obama set out his plan for creating a low carbon economy, reducing America's disastrous dependence on foreign oil, and leading the world to fight human-induced climate change. Here are the key points of what I hope will be a landmark address:

• New energy economy: develop clean energy investments and double the capacity to generate alternative energy over the next three years; construct 3,000 miles of transmission lines; make 75% of federal buildings energy efficient; insulate 2 million homes.

• Increase automobile fuel efficiency: implement new standards for model year 2011 so that all cars and trucks get 35 miles to the gallon by 2020 (representing a 40% increase in fuel efficiency).

• Lead on climate change: the federal government to work with states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This includes allowing California and other states to raise vehicle emissions standards well above the national standard.

Peace Corps worker sees the light

Here's a thorny problem (h/t: Adrian).

You're living in a small village in Mali, Africa, as a US Peace Corps worker*. You need to recharge your car battery so that you have light to read at night. But you don't want to compromise your principles by (a) recharging the battery with a petrol generator because you oppose the use of fossil fuels, or (b) recharging with a solar array because you'd have to join the local church which owns the array and accept the Word of God.

Bugger!

Click here to find out what the volunteer does to see the light.

*Yes, the Peace Corps is still around, and no it's not an Orwellian term for the US Marine Corps.

Tories lead on low carbon Britain

Black Law windfarm, Scotland (photo: Gary Henderson).

The British Conservative Party has announced a set of stunning energy policies. If pushed through, the policies would revolutionize the way energy is generated and used in the UK.

This is really exciting stuff - so exciting that I got out of bed at 6am on a Saturday morning to read and write about it. The Tory plan has a pragmatic vision of a low carbon Britain. It contains some big ideas and cutting edge technology and practices, many of which I've written about on this blog. These include:

• A hi-tech national grid that would put smart meters in every home. This would allow energy companies to tell people when it's cheapest to use electricity, and allow consumers to feed electricity they generate into the grid.

• Each household would get a £6,500 entitlement to cut energy use through insulation and use of energy efficiency technologies. Energy companies would insulate homes at no cost to the householders and recoup the cost through energy bills.

• Feed-in tariffs would encourage the decentralization of power production into smaller, "distributed" local power plants. Feed-in tariffs, which are commonly used in Western Europe, provide a premium for electricity that is generated and fed into the grid by consumers.

• The government would provide incentives to the grid to construct a network of undersea direct current (DC) cables. This would allow offshore renewable energy to be transmitted over large distances, like from Scotland to the southeast of England.

All too often, centre-right political parties identify with the anti-environment interests and practices of big business. This has let centre-left parties claim the environmental agenda by default - talking up their green credentials without doing much to earn them.

Not only does the Conservatives' plan herald a step change in the way energy is produced and used. It also introduces genuine contestibility into the political debate around energy, environment and climate change.

The trains in Spain...

I love trains. I loathe planes - the commercial airliner variety anyway. Not just for environmental reasons, but also for comfort and the sheer romantic appeal of train travel. So you'll understand that I think it's great to see that train travel is taking off in Spain:

"Spain's sleek new high-speed trains have stolen hundreds of thousands of passengers from airlines over the last year, slashing carbon emissions and marking a radical change in the way Spaniards travel.

Passenger numbers on fuel-guzzling domestic flights fell 20% in the year to November as commuters and tourists swapped cramped airline seats for the space and convenience of the train, according to figures released yesterday."

It's also encouraging to see the Spanish government taking the lead in rolling out innovative transport technology. Quite a contrast with the British government which, despite all its cant about reducing carbon emissions, seems only interested in building more airports and roads.

The years of living recklessly

Take a close look at the graph of the world's fisheries. What freaks me out are the trend lines. If you extrapolate - crudely - to 2020, then all the world's fisheries will be overexploited or will have crashed.  

I found the graph via Thomas Barnett's website (source of graph: this article, which is worth reading). Tom suggests that environmental issues like fisheries collapse and lack of clean water are far more important than climate change.

I don't think it's an either or situation. Climate change, fisheries collapse, water scarcity, rainforest logging, financial crash and so on - all are different aspects of the same phenomenon: a global society living recklessly beyond its means.

They say you want a revolution...

This is spot-on - George Monbiot's perspective on the White House's $17.4 billion bailout of GM and Chrysler:

"Just think what could be done with money like this if it were invested instead in a green energy revolution. Not only would it stimulate lasting manufacturing jobs, it could also fund the emergency measures required to prevent runaway climate change.

But on both sides of the Atlantic, governments plead poverty when they are asked to invest in the future, then lavish funding on the past. Never underestimate the lobbying power which lurks behind sunk costs."

Something for President-elect Obama to think about before he getting too carried away with promises to rebuild Detriot's automotive industry.

If the rebuild involves forcing GM, Chrysler and Ford to build fuel efficient electric and hybrid cars, that might be okay. But there are far better investment opportunities for US taxpayers' money, like revamping the national grid, rolling out renewable energy (e.g., solar and wind power), and building efficient mass transit and long distance rail.

"Global Trends 2025" - no Age of Aquarius

 

I continue reading the US National Intelligence Council's "Global Trends 2025: A World Transformed" report, and briefly comment on some of the findings that interest me. (Photo: species_snob.)

Chapter 4 - 'Scarcity in the midst of plenty?' - describes possible trends in the supply and use of natural resources - energy, water, food, and land. It also covers, to a lesser extent, climate change, and the impact that rising temperatures and extreme weather events may have on water and food supply.

This chapter is a grab-bag of ideas. Here you find speculation about climate change winners and losers, the strategic implications of an Arctic free of summer ice, a second Green Revolution in sub-Saharan Africa, and a US presidential diary entry from the year 2020 describing the evacuation of Manhattan after a catastrophic hurricane.

That said, the chapter outlines some interesting ideas. One is that many countries will simultaneously grapple with chronic shortages of water, energy and food, exacerbated by the impacts of climate change (such as melting glaciers and storm damage). Some governments may be overwhelmed by the scale, complexity and interaction of these problems.

The report also suggests that by 2025 the world "will be in the midst of a fundamental energy transition" - a "post-petroleum age" no less:

• As oil production in many traditional oil producers falls, the world's oil reserves will be concentrated in the Middle East, amongst a handful of producers.

• The world will be deep into a shift from dirty fuels (crude oil, coal) to "cleaner" fuels (gas, renewables, nuclear, biofuels, hydrogen fuel cells).

Note the report's careful use of the term "cleaner" fuels. We'd all like to see the dawning of an Age of Aquarius of clean energy. But the unpleasant reality is that coal - which is cheap and plentiful - will remain in big demand, while production of unconventional oil (mined from oil sands) may increase.

This undercuts the report's assertion of a transition to cleaner fuels. Coal and unconventional oil are the dirtiest fuels about. The mining of coal and oil sands lays waste to the environment - oil sands, for example, are mined in vast open-pit operations, like in Alberta, Canada, and use enormous amounts of water and energy in the process.

A greenie as US energy secretary?

An interesting story that I didn't write about last week was President-elect Barack Obama's choice of Steven Chu to be US energy secretary. 

Chu is a Nobel Prize-winning physicist. He's a professor of physics and molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and the head of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Chu is a champion of alternative and renewable energy, and energy efficiency and conservation. He has argued strongly for tough measures to control greenhouse gas emissions.

Let's hope this signals the start of a genuine and deep commitment by the United States to:

• fighting climate change;
• developing a clean energy system;
• protecting the environment with strong regulation; and
• weaning the country from its disastrous dependence on Middle East crude.

At the very least, Chu's appointment will mark a radical departure from the Bush administration, which was dominated by ex-oil company executives and the agendas of dirty energy corporations.