Ed Dowding

Written by MIT researchers for an international think tank, the Club of Rome, the study used computers to model several possible future scenarios. The business-as-usual scenario estimated that if human beings continued to consume more than nature was capable of providing, global economic collapse and precipitous population decline could occur by 2030.

However, the study also noted that unlimited economic growth was possible, if governments forged policies and invested in technologies to regulate the expansion of humanity’s ecological footprint. Prominent economists disagreed with the report’s methodology and conclusions. Yale’s Henry Wallich opposed active intervention, declaring that limiting economic growth too soon would be “consigning billions to permanent poverty.”

Turner compared real-world data from 1970 to 2000 with the business-as-usual scenario. He found the predictions nearly matched the facts. “There is a very clear warning bell being rung here,” he says. “We are not on a sustainable trajectory.”

via Looking Back on the Limits of Growth – Smithsonian Magazine.

Posters in the Hub Westminster with typographical design by Robert Reed.

Source: This is Reed

@SaveFarmTerrace tweeted me yesterday:

@eddowding Our mayor wants to sell our fab beautiful allotments in Watford UK to developers to build more houses on. Pls follow and rt us!

— Sara jane trebar (@SaveFarmTerrace) December 26, 2012

So I’ve written a letter to the Mayor. Right now the comment is held in moderation so I’m posting it here just in case.

Please try to post any follow up comments at http://dorothythornhill.mycouncillor.org.uk/2012/12/04/farm-terrace-decision-a-side-issue-on-housing/#respond and not on this blog.

—

This seems like a great idea! More decent homes is just what Watford needs. If you’re to preserve Watford as being a fantastic place to live, there needs to be great accommodation, great local resources, good schools, food, healthcare, water supply and treatment infrastructure, and so on.

As you say, this is all a by-product of success. It’s a tough job running a town, and sometimes, too, there are decisions and compromises which need to be made.

But let’s pause for a second, because there’s an issue here which looks like it might be going unaddressed.

The statements:

1. Lack of housing is a real issue for the town
2. Private landlords are charging high rents due to shortage of decent properties
3. Social housing waiting list is now in excess of three thousand
4. “We can’t say Watford is full up – there is no such concept.”

So, let’s say more houses are built. This will be good quality housing – and since demand will exceed supply on account of that waiting list and Watford’s popularity – new rooms will be let at market price, and thus do nothing to reduce the average cost of rents.

Since Watford is awesome, and we’re not prepared to accept the idea that Watford can be full up, then this cycle looks set to go on forever.

If it goes on forever, is there a risk that Watford will become a less desirable place to live? Will we suddenly discover that there’s too much housing relative to the infrastructure which creates and supports the high quality of life? Would Watford then become an urban slum? What then?

Well then I suppose we’ll decide that Watford has a shortage of decent properties, there aren’t enough jobs to support a decent wage, meaning more people are on social housing lists, and we’ll have to build more houses… which seems awfully familiar.

If it were the case that Watford is in this position now, what should be done to avoid the circular path laid out above?

Let’s go back to the statements, because there are a few important unknowns here: “Private landlords are charging high rents due to shortage of decent properties”.

1. 1. Are there sufficient properties, just not in a decent state?
   2. Or are there still insufficient properties? And if so, what’s the short-fall?
2. We must be able to say that Watford is ‘full-up’ because there comes a time when it’s so full that it can no longer be defined as Watford; or that the sewers are overflowing. What is the local carrying capacity? Is there budgeted infrastructural development to carry a greater population? What is the maximum viable population for all projected years?
3. What infrastructure other than housing is required to support a quality of life?

Perhaps you might be able to answer these before making any decisions, and so that we can publicly continue this dialogue?

This is a copy of a letter I’ve just written to a chap who works as a “Finance Analyst – Environmental” for BP. I post it here for reference.

—

Hi James

I promised to send you some bits and pieces about how there *is* a real alternative to the tiresomely immoral, impractical, unnecessary, well-paid yet deeply regressive job you currently find yourself lumbered with.

I’m sure you’ve noticed that there’s somewhat of an environmental disaster / tragedy going on, with most everyone who’s looked at the numbers agreeing that environmentally and economically we can not afford to burn the fossil fuels which remain. In fact many are doing all they can to sequester carbon back into the ground, so the elegance of leaving if there is a very tidy solution.

To deal quickly with the economic aspects, let’s take a parallel example:

The annual cost of damage caused by nitrogen across Europe is estimated at 70-320 billion Euro,  which is considerably higher than the estimated benefit of using mineral nitrogen fertilizers in European agriculture (20-80 billion Euro).

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/index.cfm?id=1410&obj_id=13140&dt_code=NWS&lang=en

ie it’s not actually worth it, it’s just that we have a system which slices and dices reality such that individuals agents along the line are able to profit from it, which perpetuates its existence.

To apply to the same reasoning of measuring the triple bottom line cost / benefit analysis to the oil industry we don’t need to go very far before drawing the same conclusion: whilst expedient in the short term whilst we transition to alternative energy sources, the net impact is a very large cost to the economy, the planet, and all its inhabitants.

When the worlds best and most trusted climate scientists think that the US droughts and EU flooding are caused by climate change (http://www.newscientist.com/search?query=climate+change), and you consider the financial and socially disruptive effects of these alone one comes to the swift conclusion that society is bearing a net cost on account of BPs activities. Factor in the spills, hurricanes, air and water pollution, and cascading energy profligacy of cheap and subsidised fossil fuels and we have to ask why has this not been regulated out of existence already?

But we don’t need to get into numbers or regulation here. We can merely consider the enlightened self-interest of the fossil-fuel companies.

1. Fossil fuels are going to run out.
2. Burning them is not good for environment or health.
3. We waste most of the energy we produce: avg UK building loses about 30% through the roof, cars are 97% INefficient.
4. Alternative energy sources are increasingly viable and scalable.

So we can basically agree that fossil fuels are a dying industry. So can the extractive industries reframe themselves as being ENERGY companies?

Fossil fuel subsidies are $600-800bn / year. Alternative energy R&D is about 1% of this in the USA, so probably no more than 8% globally. Should they instead be taking this subsidy and investing in the alternative R&D, thus preserving their profits for generations to come?

You asked about the alternatives, and how we transition to them. The report which can be downloaded from http://www.zerocarbonbritain.org is nothing short of brilliant. It outlines a fully costed, fully calculated plan for moving Britain to be a zero carbon country by 2030.

Adopting this plan would reduce our risk, create employment, rejuvenate the economy (in a lasting manner, since it creates livelihoods more than just jobs), and drastically cut our emissions meaning that we’ll be early in meeting our legally binding emissions targets and thus can grow still richer on the tardiness of countries. Still more: by being an early mover we will build up expertise and production capability which we can export, too, giving us not only sovereignty, but also economic and political leverage in an increasingly turbulent and unpredictable world. I, for one, would certainly like to be holding these cards in the coming century.

Please do read the report – not all of it, perhaps, but at least the executive summary. It’s inspiring, credible, actionable, possible, and most of all it is desirable.

—-

On a personal note I’d also like to point you at http://www.goodfuckingidea.com/706 which tells the tale of someone in a similar position to yourself.

If you’d like more reading, or a beer to discuss the possibilities, I’d really welcome that. You now know where to find me.

In the meantime, try not to be TOO evil, but recognise that no matter how hard you try, you’re going to fail with a magnitude that is unprecedented in human history.

Looking forward to buying you that beer,

 

Ed

cc Marisa, who was listening intently so that she might influence US foreign policy, I suspect.

Marie Berry, who just quit BP having realised it was completely dumb on account of a blog post I wrote.

It seems this list can bring wisdom and insight to pretty much everything we do.

Apart from the more specific ones (like ‘keep water high on the land’, but maybe just try to metaphor these as taoist haikus to trigger bewildering insights.)

• Relative Location Components placed in a system are viewed relatively, not in isolation. Functional Relationship between components.
• Everything is connected to everything else. Recognise functional relationships between elements.
• Every function is supported by many elements – Redundancy Good design ensures that all important functions can withstand the failure of one or more element.
• Every element is supported by many functions Each element we include is a system, chosen and placed so that it performs as many functions as possible.
• Local Focus “Think globally – Act locally” Grow your own food, cooperate with neighbours. Community efficiency not self-sufficiency.
• Diversity As a general rule, as sustainable systems mature they become increasingly diverse in both space and time. What is important is the complexity of the functional relationships that exist between elements not the number of elements.
• Biological Resources We know living things reproduce and build up their availability over time, assisted by their interaction with other compatible elements. Use and reserve biological intelligence.
• One Calorie In/One Calorie Out Do not consume or export more biomass than carbon fixed by the solar budget.
• Stocking Finding the balance of various elements to keep one from overpowering another over time. How much of an element needs to be produced in order to fulfil the need of whole system?
• Stacking Multi-level functions for single element (stacking functions). Multi-level garden design, ie., trellising, forest garden, vines, ground covers, etc.
• Succession Recognise that certain elements prepare the way for system to supports other elements in the future, i.e.: succession planting.
• Use Onsite Resources Determine what resources are available and entering the system on their own and maximise their use.
• Edge Effect Ecotones are the most diverse and fertile area in a system. Two ecosystems come together to form a third which has more diversity than either of the other two, i.e.: edges of ponds, forests, meadows, currents etc.
• Energy Recycling Yields from system designed to supply onsite needs and/or needs of local region.
• Small Scale Intensive Systems start small and create a system that is manageable and produces a high yield.
• Make Least Change for the Greatest Effect The less change that is generated, the less embedded energy is used to endow the system.
• Planting Strategy 1st-natives, 2nd-proven exotics, 3rd unproven exotics – carefully on small scale with lots of observation.
• Work Within Nature Aiding the natural cycles results in higher yield and less work. A little support goes along way.
• Appropriate Technology The same principles apply to cooking, lighting, transportation, heating, sewage treatment, water and other utilities.
• Law of Return Whatever we take, we must return Every object must responsibly provide for its replacement.
• Stress and Harmony Stress here may be defined as either prevention of natural function, or of forced function. Harmony may be defined as the integration of chosen and natural functions, and the easy supply of essential needs.
• The Problem is the solution We are the problem, we are the solution. Turn constraints into resources
• Mistakes are tools for learning
• The yield of a system is theoretically unlimited The only limit on the number of uses of a resource possible is the limit of information and imagination of designer.
• Dispersal of Yield Over Time Principal of seven generations. We can use energy to construct these systems, providing that in their lifetime, they store or conserve more energy that we use to construct them or to maintain them.
• A Policy of Responsibility (to relinquish power) The role of successful design is to create a self-managed system.
• Principle of Disorder Order and harmony produce energy for other uses. Disorder consumes energy to no useful end. Tidiness is maintained disorder.
• Chaos Has form, but is not predictable. The amplification of small fluctuations.
• Entropy In complex systems disorder is an increasing result. Entropy and lifeforce are a stable pair that maintain the universe to infinity.
• Metastability For a complex system to remain stable, there must be small pockets of disorder.
• Entelechy Principal of genetic intelligence. i.e. The rose has thorns to protect itself.
• Observation Protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted and thoughtless labor.
• We are surrounded by insurmountable opportunities
• Wait one year
• Hold water and fertility as high (in elevation) on the landscape as possible
• The only ethical decision is to take responsibility for our own existence and that of our children.
• Cooperation, not competition, is the very basis of future survival and of existing life systems.

http://www.thefarm.org/permaculture/