The Power of Renewables

The Scientific American this month includes and article on Alternative Energy, in other words the energy which is soon going to have to become mainstream if we wish to avoid climate breakdown.

It states that currently renewables make up less than 7% of US consumption. Most of the EU is not much better. It’s a very interesting article although it leaves me with frustration about how little has been done so far despite the technology being there. Why should we have to wait for it to become profitable before we do something that is clearly in the interests of humanity?

Given how even moderate voices are expressing frustration and the scary predictions coming out of the Copenhagen conference on global warming, can catastrophe really be averted by capitalist solutions? Is capitalism for taming?

Sean Thompson write in October last year on this very topic and his article continues to be some of the best explanation and analysis I have read in the last few months. The Green New Deal, one of the more radical options on the table when it was written (although even at the time nowhere near radical enough) seems like a real puppy now and is even being touted by Al Gore. At the time, my belief was that although it might have helped solve the immediate crisis, it wouldn’t solve the longer-term one. Now, I am certain that the Green New Deal, which uses the market to provide funding for large renewable projects among other things, cannot solve either.

It is high time nations looked beyond the capitalist mind-set, whose solution is always more of the same. Manufactured wants (do we really need a new phone every year?), the breakdown of communities and the disincentivising of sharing our material needs all contribute to global warming and all are inherent within the unstable system that is capitalism. It really is the end of capitalism or the end of the world as we know it. The market must be overcome and replaced by the needs of humanity and the planet.

The plus side, of course, is that if we do manage to steer an ecosocialist solution to this crisis, we will not only have solved this crisis but will have made a better world for our descendants.

(apologies for incoherency!)

Conference Day 1

Just a brief summary of some of the highlights of day 1 for me (must be brief since it is past midnight and I have a full day tomorrow!)

A great fringe meeting was held to show Cuba: The Power of Community. A film about how Cuba survived peak oil and the ’special period’ after the collapse of the soviet union. Well worth a watch. Has inspired me to (hopefully) get involved with a local permaculture group here in the East End. Progressive politics allied with community action…

Ken Livingstone spoke at a plenary session along with Darren Johnson and Tony Travers. Ken told conference that contradictions were inbuilt to New Labour. “When you say we won’t increase tax on the rich and corporations, you just end up shifting the tax burden between working and middle classes, the deserving and undeserving poor, poor people with children and those without etc”. He recommdneded seeing the film due to be released called ‘The Age of Stupid” and mentioned that unless we tackle climate change, there may not be human civilisation at the end of the century. Throughout, I got the impression he was sincere and had truly adopted the environmental cause. Coupled with his other policies, I think he was the best mayor London is likely to see in a decade or two. I certainly do hope he will be re-elected in 2012 if he does stand again.

I also attended an anti-zionism fringe held by Green Left with Tony Greenstein and Simon Lynn. Several important points were raised, including that anti-zionism is a fundamentally a Jewish concept and indeed Zionism was originally described by many as anti-semetic: the idea that Jews could not live equally among other people. It was highlighted that Anti-Zionism is simply a form of anti-racisim and that if one opposes zionism, one must logically oppose all other forms of racism. Zionism has certainly never had a hegemony on world Jewry and dissent from main-stream opinion is growing among Jews. “There is no heirarchy of oppression; the principles apply to all”.

Sadly, today was also the day that we lost the posts of male and female principal speakers and a new leader and deputy leader were elected by the party. I sincerely hope this will not be part of a trend towards greater centralisation and less grass-roots action.

————————————————————————————————-

Tomorrow I look forward to the GPTU fringe on Migration Rights with Teresa Hayter and Bob Hughes speaking. The first plenary to discuss policy will also be held with a motion on Minimum/Maximum wages which I seconded appearing as the second agenda item.

The motion reads:

“British people work some of the longest hours in  Europe, with some 3.6 million people regularly working more than 48 hours a week, yet 7 out of 10 people working over 48 hours per week say they would like to work fewer hours. For many however this is impossible, as they simply cannot afford to do so. Overwork is forcing workers into unhealthy lifestyles as they attempt to reconcile long working hours and family responsibilities, according to a report from the  charity Working Families. Half of the parents surveyed with unhappy with their work and family balance. A majority reported that work dominated their lives, and family life suffered as a result. Working long hours also led to increased levels of stress, resulting in irritability, exhaustion and depression. At the same time, the gap between the most prosperous and the poorest in society has not been as great since the nineteen thirties.
In 2006, around 4 million adult employees were paid less than ?6.50 per hour. Two-thirds were women. 3.8 million children in Britain live in poverty. Since 1980 the poorest quintile of the population has experienced no growth in real earnings. Nearly twice as many people have relatively low incomes as 25 years ago. The average total earnings of FTSE 100 chief executives have doubled over the last five years to a new record of £3.2 million.
The top three per cent of the population own three times as much as the whole of the bottom half of the population.
Therefore, the Green Party will campaign:
A.for the immediate ending of the British opt-out of the European Working Time Directive;
B.for the National Minimum Wage level to be increased to come in line with the Council of Europe Decency Threshold, which is set at 60% of net national average earnings (this would currently mean a minimum wage
of £8.17 per hour);
C.For maximum income limit of 10 times the National Minimum Wage, through the establishment of a 100% rate of income tax on taxable personal income above that level.“

I hope the motion is passed and with a clear majority. It would send out a clear signal of where the party stands when it comes to important issues regarding the distribution of wealth and and equal society.

A change of design

In keeping with other Green Blogs and after the sadness of not being included in the top 20 green blogs on Jim’s blog (congrats to the excellent blogs that made the top 20!), I have decided to opt for a redesign. Hope you enjoy.

I thought I’d use this opportunity to highlight two very very important dates in the calendar in the remainder of 2007.

1) NHS Together Demonstration, Saturday 3rd November. Click here for details.

2) Climate Change Demonstration, Saturday 8th December. Click here for details.

I am sure there will be a big Green Party presence at both demos.

Also, congratulations to Derek Wall of GreenLeft on being re-elected as principal speaker. Good news and I am sure he will continue his (crazily) dedicated work!

—————————–

Whilst I can’t be uncritical of Venezuela, I can’t help but be inspired by some of the actions of the government there. Venezuela’s economy is quite dependent on oil, but the government appears to be trying to look at the most sustainable ways of using it: like selling it to Tfl at discounted rates to use on buses so that those on income support can get half-priced bus fares (only 45p a pop). A great way of encouraging people to ditch the car in favor of more sustainable modes of transport.

World AIDS Day

 

A truly international tragedy. One which creates orphans, kills the young and ruins lives.

 

The tragedy that is the global HIV/AIDS epidemic is one which can only be solved by a multi-factorial strategy. It is a problem which brings together so many campaigns for reform – all must be successful in order to combat the disease. As I commented in my post “ABC?”, poverty and lack of education are central to the issue. In addition, reform of Intellectual Property law is needed – perhaps as part of a comprehensive rethink of the meaning of property and a fresh look at the ills of capitalism.

 

As well as the global perspective, on a more individual level the epidemic highlights human rights issues. The right of women to refuse sex and to be protected from rape by the state; the right to easy to access and comprehensive medical care; the right of gay men to not fear discrimination and to a decent sex education for children regardless of gender and sexuality.

 

All of this makes the HIV/AIDS epidemic an extremely political one. The solutions are societal and require a massive rethink of how society is run.

 

Over the next few days, I’ll be posting a series of thoughts on various aspects of this epidemic, I hope they’ll be interesting and worthwhile.

 

 

Teen-hating

A really interesting article here by Polly Toynbee on CiF. I usually have big disagreements with her, but this article is well thought through and argued. Anti-social behaviour, as with so many problems in society, stems from inequality. Of course, she doesn’t argue for wholesale change of society to reduce those unfair inequalities…

ABC?

An interesting paper [free registration required] published in The Lancet today about global sexual behavior. It has a number of interesting findings worth thinking about:

1) Although more premarital sex happens now than happened before, this is simply because marriage now happens at a later age. People are not having first intercourse younger than they were back in the 1970s (contrary to popular, ‘tabloid’, beliefs).

2) Although we are always told that the cause of a high HIV prevalence in the developing world is promiscuity, the study actually found that people developed countries are more promiscuous than developing countries. Despite this, HIV prevalence is lower in these countries. This is a highly significant finding: it shows us that HIV is not an illness that is caused by “tribal practices” in certain countries – it is much more about condom use, which was found to be lower in developing countries than in the ‘western’ world. Sexual health is not so much a cultural issue as it is an issue about deprivation and poverty.

3) The article suggests that Uganda’s successes in tackling the HIV epidemic were down to factors other than the ABC programme. It points out that changes were seen before the programme came about and that these positive changes were down to greater social stability, community cohesion as well as strong policy support. The government in Uganda was also very open about the scale of the problem, which no doubt helped with awareness and with ensuring the population were well informed about how to minimize risk. There is no good evidence to suggest that the emphasis on the Abstinence and Be Faithful strands of ABC was beneficial. We already know that abstinence only programmes in the USA result in more risky sexual practices when young people eventually do have sex.

The paper has made a number of vitally important points which challenge the views of some groups and adds to the evidence base for use when designing future public health policies – really worth the read! It shows that the most important things determining sexual health of a population are poverty, gender inequality and social cohesion. These are the issues that need to be tackled. As the authors state: “The selection of public-health messages needs to be guided by epidemiological evidence rather than by myths and moral stances.” I believe that the most important thing here is to tackle the underlying inequalities and poverty so that people are empowered to make the choices that will help keep them safe from health problems.

studentmedic

Green Taxes

So everyone is agreeing with green taxes now – the libdems, labour and even the tories. I guess it is progess of a form – but I have massive concerns. Green taxes can only work if there is massive redistribution of wealth in society. Green taxes without wealth redistribution would burden the poor unfairly and leave the rich, who can afford it, using more than their fair share of the earth’s resources. It is complicated, and my thoughts aren’t fully formed on the subject but I feel there are a few big pieces missing in what we are hearing from the grey parties. Green taxes can only ever be a very superficial part of the picture. To change society for the better and make it more sustainable, deeper change is needed. For a start, the consume-or-die attitude that prevails should be challenged. In the end, real ‘left wing’ economic ideas come into play here: unless we challenge the consumerist, ownership attidues that prevail in society, I believe we have little chance of moving in the right direction.There is a talk by Derek Wall tomorrow evening at the LSE: “Does capitalism equal climate change?” I’m hoping to be there to see it. I think the answer is clear, however, capitalism does equal climate change. The envrionmental and social challenges facing the world today have the same roots.
“As if a flea could own a dog.”

studentmedic

===================
Excellent post by greenman on his blog. Well worth a read!

Not the best of feelings.

No posts for a few days as I am feeling quite unwell (have had to leave hospital early two days in a row now). I thought I’d write something to take my mind of it all! So here it is, as promised, a piece about my thoughts on ”Green Taxes”.

Green taxes are really in the vogue right now – Cameroon likes them, Menzies Campbell likes them, everyone (except the governing party!) likes them. However, I want to talk about the issues with such taxes. Such a tax can only work, in my opinion, if there are massive wealth redistribution efforts in place as well. Like most things about the environment, it seems to me that it is tied in with social change. A government must not put in eco-taxes which could diminish the wealth of the poor in society in a way that is more damaging to them than it is to the rich. Everyone should be affected equally by these taxes – otherwise the rich will carry on polluting and the poor (possibly being those who have the biggest reason to pollute!) will have to change.

Perhaps it would be possible to charge eco taxes yearly and calculate them in relation to income rather than like VAT. I am generally distrustful of any tax policy other than one which is related to income, unless proven otherwise. There is massive wealth inequality in the UK (increasing under New Labour) and unless that is challenged, eco-taxes would be grossly unfair. It is much like the congestion charge – in the end the outcome is that the rich can afford to drive around in central London (and possibly even prefer it now that they don’t have to share the road with commoners), whilst the rich struggle to afford it. It seems really unfair to me – even if the intentions are good. I don’t think that means the congestion charge is a bad thing, but ideally it would be more fair and would be able to take into account peoples’ incomes.

I think the Green Party policy of a citizen’s income goes some of the way to making the idea of eco-taxes more acceptable although I think there might be room for more here.

I’d be interested to hear other people’s thoughts!

studentmedic

Relevant Green Party Policy:

EC780 A system of environmental tax measures (“eco-taxes”) will be introduced alongside the phasing out of VAT (see EC771). Such taxation is designed to encourage movement towards a sustainable economy, by increasing the prices of items or services produced using unsustainable or polluting practises. It will therefore be calculated to achieve the desired environmental effects, not to maximise revenue. It is acknowledged that environmental taxation can only be successful when integrated with a great many other policy measures, including regulation where necessary.

EC781 Eco-taxes can be expected to decrease in their revenue raising power as their purpose takes effect. However, as much of the revenue from these taxes will be spent on measures to combat pollution and its effects, the need for such revenue can also be expected to decrease as we move towards a more sustainable society. Therefore, although the operation of all related policies will be continuously reviewed, it should not be assumed from the outset that a reduction in eco-tax revenues will result in a funding shortage.

EC782 Eco-taxes will be levied as close to the point of production as is practical. Resource taxation will be charged on the use of raw materials, and will reflect their relative scarcity and the environmental disruption caused by their extraction. The raw materials which would be subjected to such resource taxes include fossil fuels, hardwoods, metals, minerals and aggregates.

EC783 The principal way of reducing UK carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels will be through a system of tradable quotas (see CC230). A resource tax on fossil fuels may be levied to reflect other environmental impacts of their production and use.

EC784 Road fuel duties are important in encouraging drivers to become mileage conscious. As far as is practical the costs of motoring should rise in line with increased car usage, to make increase car use less attractive and encourage the use of public transport. Fuel taxes should therefore be increased to incorporate Road Fund Licence (“tax disc”).

EC785 As well as taxing the use of resources which are input into a production process, taxes will also be levied on the outputs of those processes, depending on their ecological impact. This will include taxes levied on the desired products of manufacture if they are considered to be pollutants (e.g. pesticides or plastic packaging products) as well as taxes on waste products and emissions (e.g. toxic gases) which are discharged into the surrounding environment.

EC786 Import duties will be levied on both raw materials and finished products which will reflect the ecological impact of the production, extraction and transportation of such goods where sufficient eco-taxes are not considered to have been levied in their country of origin. This system will include a re-introduction of duties on goods imported from other European Union countries where considered necessary (see EU443 and EC777). Enforcement procedures exercised by Customs and Excise must be sufficient to prevent a rise in the levels of organised crime in relation to smuggling and evasion of duties. Energy-intensive products imported from countries which have not entered an international contraction and convergence agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (see ‘Climate Change’ policy), or which are not meeting their obligations under such an agreement, will be taxed on import to reflect the greenhouse gas emissions produced during their manufacture and transport.

BUT

Citizens’ Income

EC730 A Citizen’s Income sufficient to cover an individual’s basic needs will be introduced, which will replace tax-free allowances and most social security benefits (see EC711). A Citizen’s Income is an unconditional, non-withdrawable income payable to each individual as a right of citizenship. It will not be subject to means testing and there will be no requirement to be either working or actively seeking work.

EC731 The Citizens’ Income will eliminate the unemployment and poverty traps, as well as acting as a safety net to enable people to choose their own types and patterns of work (See EC400). The Citizens’ Income scheme will thus enable the welfare state to develop towards a welfare community, engaging people in personally satisfying and socially useful work.

EC732 When the Citizens’ Income is introduced it is intended that nobody will be in a position that they will receive less through the scheme than they were entitled to under the previous benefits system. Children will be entitled to a reduced amount which will be payable to a parent or legal guardian. People with disabilities or special needs, and single parents will receive a supplement.

EC733 Initially, the housing benefit system will remain in place alongside the Citizens’ Income and will be extended to cover contributions towards mortgage repayments (see HO602). This will subsequently be reviewed to establish how housing benefit could be incorporated into the Citizen’s Income, taking into account the differences in housing costs between different parts of the country and different types of housing.

Tiredness Kills

I am amazingly tired. All this running around the hospitals does take its toll! I’m quite excited about the hustings for male principal speaker of the Green Party being held tomorrow evening. It should be fun to see some fellow Greens and to hear the thoughts of prominent figures in the party. Unfortunately, so far, I havn’t really been involved with the party on any real level (aside from going to a couple of local party meetings back home).  I really wanted to go to conference this year, but alas the anti-war demonstration in Manchester was a higher priority for me personally – shame about the timing. Hopefully this year, I will get a chance to get a bit more involved (conference ‘07 might see me attend my first party conference…).

On the train home tonight, I was thinking about how hard it can be to reconcile wanting to be active on an immediate level and also wanting to press for a wholesale change in the current global system —> I write to my MP, I sign petitions, I try to buy a bit more ‘ethically’ (even if I do succumb sometimes and shop at… the shop that shall not be named(!)). At the same time, however, I believe that only real, structural change in the way we conduct our society will solve the problems that we face. A just, equitable, sustainable society is only possible if capital is not its driving force.

One could argue that by helping make capitalism more cuddly, one reduces the public awareness of its ills… One could argue, that by campaigning for change, one increases awareness of all the short-comings in society and helps make people more politically aware. Which is more true, what is the right thing to do??? Are the changes that we could achieve really beneficial if they fall short of a wholesale change in society? I sure hope so, even if they aren’t as good! Answers on a postcard please!

Next time, I will write something about my thoughts on so called ‘Green Taxes’.

Best Wishes,

studentmedic

Go figure…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6033023.stm

Of course, the real way to tackle this problem would be to deal with the underlying issues which cause such poor health in the north. This government has a woeful record at doing that. Hospitals are important, of course they are, but throwing money at that end while not dealing with the wider public health issues will do very little to improve the situation.

Like most things, I think education is at the core of the issue. Not the kind of education that blairites seem to advocate (“what does learning this do for the economy?”) but the kind of education that empowers people to make informed decisions about issues that relate to them. This applies whether it is decisions about health, about politics, about our local communities – anything really. That is what a real education is about – not about how much money can be generated, not about whether it will help in the quest for ”economic growth” but about whether it will enrich peoples’ lives.

Of course, education is only part of the picture. Other measures such as better labelling of foods; fresher, local and organic produce; more access to disease prevention measures; access to health promotion resources and so on are all important in helping improve the health of the population.

It is vital that the government acts to address the wider issues surrounding health. Increasing funding for hospitals is vital, but in itself, it just won’t do.

Sorry for a short and somewhat disjointed post. I felt the need to post about the article tonight, but don’t really have the energy to follow it through. Hopefully I will get the chance to edit it a bit tomorrow!