Woking uniquely features a large statue of a Martian.
The logic for this is implicit below.
On 17th November the IMechE hosted a meeting: Question Time: Global Challenges.
This was held in the HG Wells Conference Centre
The agenda and participants are given below.
The premise was that climate change is happening, is anthropogenic, and local actions such as those already underway in Woking provide an,if not the, answer.
However - my question:-
The latest statistics published by the International Energy Agency show that from 1990 to 2007 worldwide CO2 emissions increased by 38%.
They further forecast that worldwide burning of fossil fuels will continue to increase and by 2050 will be double that of 1990.
How can whatever Woking (and by extension the UK) have any real impact?
The IMechE has recently published a report pointing out the improbabilty of the UK achieving the "legally binding" CO2 reductions targetted for 2020 and 2050 by the current (past sell-by-date) government.
http://www.imeche.org/NR/rdonlyres/77CDE5E4-CE41-4F2C-A706-A630569EE486/0/IMechE_MAG_Report.PDF
This offers an excellent practical approach to the (perceived?) threat.
The UK government's reaction has been unenthusiastic.
Whilst some consider it heretical to raise the question...
Extract from letter in The Economist October 31st 2009 from Horst-Joachim Luedecke, Retired physics professor:-
"The IPCC .. 2001 report concluded that there was no discernable increase in storms, hurricanes, floods or droughts."
"sea levels .. a natural increase of 1-2mm a year has been occuring for many centuries. However, over the past few decades no anthropogenic signal in sea-level changes has been detected. This is firmly backed up by precise satellite altrimetry."
A "War of the Words" if not a "War of the Worlds"
Agenda as published by IMEchE
Binding targets on greenhouse gas emissions for the UK have now been set by the Government following the advice of the Committee on Climate Change. The IMechE believes these targets to be very challenging and that achieving them cannot help but strike a balance between mitigation (reducing emissions) and geo-engineering (artificially intervening to try and reduce the Earth’s temperature). Even allowing for success, there will also be a need for Woking to adapt to a warmer world and the drier, yet more stormy climate that will come from the emissions already in the atmosphere.
This QT intends to highlight a number of issues for Woking in the next forty years. It will focus on the extent to which solutions lie within Woking itself and to what extent Woking will continue to rely on outsiders for the essentials of life and treatment of its wastes. How much will it become a "sustainable community"? It will aim to bring the issues down to the individual family level and hence start to drive the personal behavioural changes at the heart of any delivery of any low carbon agenda.
The debate will be chaired by the President of the Institution, Keith H Millard FIMechE.
Panellists
John Thorp - Chief Operating Officer of Woking Borough Council
Woking has a population approaching 100,000 which is expanding by around 3% per year. Its industry is only 10% manufacturing and 8% transport. It has a public Climate Change Strategy but how can it contribute to 80% reductions in emissions when it has such a residential profile?
Miriam Kennet – CEO of the Green Economics Institute
The Green Economics Institute exists to promote "social and environmental justice". It aims to find solutions that "will bring long term and real prosperity to people, nature and the planet and its systems". How can it create this "everyone wins" solution and how does it balance the needs of people in Woking with those in Warsaw or Walajabad?
Jim Skea – Member of the Committee on Climate Change
The Committee on Climate Change is an independent body set up to advise Government on carbon budgets and then report to Parliament on the progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As a central body, removed from implementation, how does it interact with others who are expected to follow its plans?
Andy Deacon (not Richard Hurford) - Energy Saving
The Energy Savings Trust is funded by UK Government, devolved Governments and the private sector to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions by advising people on how to use energy more efficiently, conserve water, reduce waste and make renewable energy sources more accessible. How does it turn advice into action when money often gets in the way?
Derek Parkin - Managing Director of Business Services at E.ON UK
Although reducing energy demand is bad business for generation companies, they still need to sell something. What is the future business model for an energy supplier?
My other questions under the heading of AGW/CC/GGE:
What is the observed correlation between levels of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature?
What is the forecast correlation between levels of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature?
What probability factors are associated with the forecast?
What is the observed correlation between global temperature and sealevel?
What is the forecast correlation between global temperature and sealevel?
What probability factors are associated with the forecast?
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Fixing our broken Economy V Fixing our relationship with the EU
Dear Dave,
I hope I have misunderstood something but.........
It seems that as the incoming government you:
1) cannot fix the economy without changing EU rules;:
2) will put EU issues aside to concentrate on fixing the economy.
Chicken versus Egg
"It's only words..."
On Tuesday 6 October William Hague spoke at the Daily Telegraph forum at the Manchester conference.
Much of the debate centred on the day's principal topic: “Rebuilding our broken economy”.
Given the urgency of addressing these matters, I asked the question on constraints faced by the incoming government by EU directives and the impending ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
His answer: that it would be necessary to opt out of the social chapter and the Working Time Directive.
What was clearly foreseeable on 6 October has now come to pass; the Treaty has been ratified.
You have now said:-
“First, if we win the next election, we will prohibit, by law, the transfer of further power to the EU without a referendum. Never again should it be possible for a British government to transfer power to the EU without the British people’s consent.
“Second, we will introduce a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament.
“And third, we want to negotiate three specific guarantees with our European partners over powers that we believe should reside with Britain, not the EU. We will negotiate the return of Britain’s opt-out from social and employment legislation in those areas which have proved most damaging to our economy and public services. We also want a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. And we would negotiate for a return of powers in criminal justice to prevent EU judges gaining steadily greater control over our criminal justice system.”
With the power now vested in the EU following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty aka the European Constitution, it is surely disingenuous (at the very least) to suggest that you will be allowed to pass the legislation you now plan?
Considering them in turn
- …”we will prohibit, by law, the transfer of further power to the EU without a referendum…”.
The treaty already gives the EU the power to take such powers as they wish (the escalator clause). So you don’t promise that such powers will NOT be transferred – you simply promise a referendum.
So you hold a referendum on a proposed transfer, we vote NO, and the power transfers anyway – as EU law overrides local law under the treaty..
“…we will introduce a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament. “.
You don’t promise to pass such a law – and any such law is meaningless anyway as the treaty states that EU law overrides local law – so again pointless…
“…And third, we want to negotiate three specific guarantees with our European partners over powers …”.
You can guarantee to fail on this. Europe ministers from three member states: Poland, the Netherlands and the Irish Republic; have all stated that you would fail to achieve your demand to repatriate social and employment laws to Britain as this would need to the agreement of all 27 leaders of the EU because it would require amendment of EU treaties.
UK legislation of this kind would require our prior withdrawal from the Union to have any purpose.
I hope I have misunderstood something but.........
It seems that as the incoming government you:
1) cannot fix the economy without changing EU rules;:
2) will put EU issues aside to concentrate on fixing the economy.
Chicken versus Egg
"It's only words..."
On Tuesday 6 October William Hague spoke at the Daily Telegraph forum at the Manchester conference.
Much of the debate centred on the day's principal topic: “Rebuilding our broken economy”.
Given the urgency of addressing these matters, I asked the question on constraints faced by the incoming government by EU directives and the impending ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
His answer: that it would be necessary to opt out of the social chapter and the Working Time Directive.
What was clearly foreseeable on 6 October has now come to pass; the Treaty has been ratified.
You have now said:-
“First, if we win the next election, we will prohibit, by law, the transfer of further power to the EU without a referendum. Never again should it be possible for a British government to transfer power to the EU without the British people’s consent.
“Second, we will introduce a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament.
“And third, we want to negotiate three specific guarantees with our European partners over powers that we believe should reside with Britain, not the EU. We will negotiate the return of Britain’s opt-out from social and employment legislation in those areas which have proved most damaging to our economy and public services. We also want a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. And we would negotiate for a return of powers in criminal justice to prevent EU judges gaining steadily greater control over our criminal justice system.”
With the power now vested in the EU following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty aka the European Constitution, it is surely disingenuous (at the very least) to suggest that you will be allowed to pass the legislation you now plan?
Considering them in turn
- …”we will prohibit, by law, the transfer of further power to the EU without a referendum…”.
The treaty already gives the EU the power to take such powers as they wish (the escalator clause). So you don’t promise that such powers will NOT be transferred – you simply promise a referendum.
So you hold a referendum on a proposed transfer, we vote NO, and the power transfers anyway – as EU law overrides local law under the treaty..
“…we will introduce a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament. “.
You don’t promise to pass such a law – and any such law is meaningless anyway as the treaty states that EU law overrides local law – so again pointless…
“…And third, we want to negotiate three specific guarantees with our European partners over powers …”.
You can guarantee to fail on this. Europe ministers from three member states: Poland, the Netherlands and the Irish Republic; have all stated that you would fail to achieve your demand to repatriate social and employment laws to Britain as this would need to the agreement of all 27 leaders of the EU because it would require amendment of EU treaties.
UK legislation of this kind would require our prior withdrawal from the Union to have any purpose.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Climate Compensation
From The Times October 29, 2009
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6894604.ece
"Gordon Brown has suggested that the EU should pay €10 billion a year from 2020 to help poorer countries to go green and has said that Britain would pay €1 billion."
RT Comment
More hot air: fossil fuel consumption is going to keep rising regardless - driven by increasing global population and living standards.
Atmospheric CO2 levels will increase; if this is indeed the driver of climate change(= temperature increase)it is inevitable. Forget mitigation, concentrate on adaptation.
So, "Gordon Brown has said ... that Britain would pay €1 billion a year from 2020 .. to help poorer countries to go green.
Of course. We Brits are guilty of starting the industrial revolution and emitting lots of CO2. Just like we are guilty of inventing the slave trade etc. etc.
To which leaders in the "poorer countries" should we make out the cheques?
It would be as well to take advice from the Mo Ibrahim Foundation.
(The £3m annual prize for good governance in Africa will not be awarded this year.)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6894604.ece
"Gordon Brown has suggested that the EU should pay €10 billion a year from 2020 to help poorer countries to go green and has said that Britain would pay €1 billion."
RT Comment
More hot air: fossil fuel consumption is going to keep rising regardless - driven by increasing global population and living standards.
Atmospheric CO2 levels will increase; if this is indeed the driver of climate change(= temperature increase)it is inevitable. Forget mitigation, concentrate on adaptation.
So, "Gordon Brown has said ... that Britain would pay €1 billion a year from 2020 .. to help poorer countries to go green.
Of course. We Brits are guilty of starting the industrial revolution and emitting lots of CO2. Just like we are guilty of inventing the slave trade etc. etc.
To which leaders in the "poorer countries" should we make out the cheques?
It would be as well to take advice from the Mo Ibrahim Foundation.
(The £3m annual prize for good governance in Africa will not be awarded this year.)
Sunday, 25 October 2009
Royal Mail & Tory Policy
Dave has written:
http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/2009/10/24/its-a-good-job-i-dont-write-a-weekly-letter
His principal issue is the Royal Mail strike although comments have largely shifted to the BBC/BNP spectacular - enough!
Now, the US postal services must be facing similar challenges with technology change yet operate at a profit.
Google shows that privitis/zation of the US Mail has been discussed but does not seem to be a high priority.
There is an EU dimension to our problems.
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/post/index_en.htm
"The objective of the EU postal policy is to accomplish the Single Market for postal services and ensure a high quality universal postal service as part of the Lisbon Agenda."
"Postal Directive (Directive 97/67/EC as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC) and as amended by Directive 2008/06/EC)."
So we can see yet another benefit of continued EU membership!
http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/2009/10/24/its-a-good-job-i-dont-write-a-weekly-letter
His principal issue is the Royal Mail strike although comments have largely shifted to the BBC/BNP spectacular - enough!
Now, the US postal services must be facing similar challenges with technology change yet operate at a profit.
Google shows that privitis/zation of the US Mail has been discussed but does not seem to be a high priority.
There is an EU dimension to our problems.
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/post/index_en.htm
"The objective of the EU postal policy is to accomplish the Single Market for postal services and ensure a high quality universal postal service as part of the Lisbon Agenda."
"Postal Directive (Directive 97/67/EC as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC) and as amended by Directive 2008/06/EC)."
So we can see yet another benefit of continued EU membership!
Thursday, 1 October 2009
Another Quango: Infrastructure Planning Commission
From The Times October 1, 2009
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article6856130.ece
Infrastructure change ‘will fast-track planning’
"More than 50 of Britain’s biggest energy projects, including wind farms, power stations, gas storage sites and high-voltage transmission lines, could be fast-tracked through the planning system under powers handed to the Government today.
In the biggest shake-up to Britain’s planning regime in 60 years, the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), formally came into existence this month. Its goal will be to slash the time needed to secure planning consent for projects considered to be of national importance from as long as seven years to less than a year."
100 staff: say total employment costs £100K p.a. per head = £10m p.a. - spend in 2010.
50 projects by 2011 means approximately 50 in 2010.
Therefore £200K per project.
Well, I suppose it can provide jobs in Bristol for people liable to be laid off in local manufacturing industry (think SFO) where "value added" is easier to calculate.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article6856130.ece
Infrastructure change ‘will fast-track planning’
"More than 50 of Britain’s biggest energy projects, including wind farms, power stations, gas storage sites and high-voltage transmission lines, could be fast-tracked through the planning system under powers handed to the Government today.
In the biggest shake-up to Britain’s planning regime in 60 years, the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), formally came into existence this month. Its goal will be to slash the time needed to secure planning consent for projects considered to be of national importance from as long as seven years to less than a year."
100 staff: say total employment costs £100K p.a. per head = £10m p.a. - spend in 2010.
50 projects by 2011 means approximately 50 in 2010.
Therefore £200K per project.
Well, I suppose it can provide jobs in Bristol for people liable to be laid off in local manufacturing industry (think SFO) where "value added" is easier to calculate.
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Bank says QE is making a difference
"Well, they would, wouldn't they?" - Mandy Rice-Davies
From The Times October 1, 2009
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6856131.ece
"Gordon Brown isn’t the only one launching a fightback. The Bank of England has started a campaign to win round public opinion. In its case, the Bank is trying to combat scepticism about its quantitative easing policy that injects new money into the financial system."
The BoE is creating money (£175Bn so far via Quantitative Easing - a term apparently invented in Japan in 2001 for economic policies which produced questioned benefit) by buying Gilt-Edged stock at prices which have been pushed up by the Bank's own policy of low interest rates.
Government schizophrenia/doublethink Part 1: The Treasury through the Debt Management Office - DMO - (which formerly reported to the BoE) is busily selling Gilts to fund immediate government current expenditure.
The banks which held Gilts have made capital gains which they have prudently applied to rebuilding their capital reserves which were devastated by their bonus-driven imprudent lending to fund the housing bubble at home and away.
Government schizophrenia/doublethink Part 2: rebuilding balance sheets versus lending.
History
In the US banking system the reserve ratio is fixed a 10% (or 10 times) capital. In the UK the Bank of England now holds to a "voluntary reserve ratio" system having abandoned a compulsory limit. In 1998 the average cash reserve ratio across the entire United Kingdom banking system was 3.1% (approximately 33 times); it has probably been significantly lower since.
UK Reserve Ratios
1968 1978 1988 1998
20.5% 15.9% 5.0% 3.1%
It appears that, the BoE having relaxed its controls, the Financial Services Authority had responsibility for monitoring this situation. No-one is to blame.
Now: the BoE holds Gilts on which it has spent £175Bn of new money a la Weimar/Zimbabwe school of economics.
Sometime not too far away:-
1) the DMO will have difficulty selling x £100Bn and will have to offer higher interest rates.
2) the BoE will become concerned about inflation and will increase the bank rate.
The prices of Gilts will then fall.
“It is unclear quite how the Bank will unwind QE. But it has every reason to take its time.”
As it will be the taxpayer who sustains the loss, I guess this time will be when all those involved (no-one is responsible) have retired on their risk-free inflation-proofed taxpayer-funded public sector pensions.
I shall be delighted if someone can prove my cynicism unfounded and that QE is really the best of all possible worlds - or even all possible multiverses.
“This is, of course, completely impossible.” - Douglas Adams.
“The truth is out there”, doubtless with “42” as a significant factor.
From The Times October 1, 2009
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6856131.ece
"Gordon Brown isn’t the only one launching a fightback. The Bank of England has started a campaign to win round public opinion. In its case, the Bank is trying to combat scepticism about its quantitative easing policy that injects new money into the financial system."
The BoE is creating money (£175Bn so far via Quantitative Easing - a term apparently invented in Japan in 2001 for economic policies which produced questioned benefit) by buying Gilt-Edged stock at prices which have been pushed up by the Bank's own policy of low interest rates.
Government schizophrenia/doublethink Part 1: The Treasury through the Debt Management Office - DMO - (which formerly reported to the BoE) is busily selling Gilts to fund immediate government current expenditure.
The banks which held Gilts have made capital gains which they have prudently applied to rebuilding their capital reserves which were devastated by their bonus-driven imprudent lending to fund the housing bubble at home and away.
Government schizophrenia/doublethink Part 2: rebuilding balance sheets versus lending.
History
In the US banking system the reserve ratio is fixed a 10% (or 10 times) capital. In the UK the Bank of England now holds to a "voluntary reserve ratio" system having abandoned a compulsory limit. In 1998 the average cash reserve ratio across the entire United Kingdom banking system was 3.1% (approximately 33 times); it has probably been significantly lower since.
UK Reserve Ratios
1968 1978 1988 1998
20.5% 15.9% 5.0% 3.1%
It appears that, the BoE having relaxed its controls, the Financial Services Authority had responsibility for monitoring this situation. No-one is to blame.
Now: the BoE holds Gilts on which it has spent £175Bn of new money a la Weimar/Zimbabwe school of economics.
Sometime not too far away:-
1) the DMO will have difficulty selling x £100Bn and will have to offer higher interest rates.
2) the BoE will become concerned about inflation and will increase the bank rate.
The prices of Gilts will then fall.
“It is unclear quite how the Bank will unwind QE. But it has every reason to take its time.”
As it will be the taxpayer who sustains the loss, I guess this time will be when all those involved (no-one is responsible) have retired on their risk-free inflation-proofed taxpayer-funded public sector pensions.
I shall be delighted if someone can prove my cynicism unfounded and that QE is really the best of all possible worlds - or even all possible multiverses.
“This is, of course, completely impossible.” - Douglas Adams.
“The truth is out there”, doubtless with “42” as a significant factor.
Friday, 25 September 2009
Afghanistan: Letter to Lord Avebury
On Wednesday 23rd September there was a "fringe meeting at the LibDem conference which was addressed by Lord Avebury and attended by inter alia the Afghan ambassador.
Dear Lord Avebury,
I was at the Muslim/Afhanistan meeting in Bournemouth on Wednesday and raised the question about the identity of the "insurgents"
To reiterate and expand the question:
"Insurgent implies outsider. Who are the insurgents?
Why do the Afghan population harbour them?
Are we not seen as the insurgents?
You argued the necessity for the continued presence of our armed forces but with the imperative that they only be applied military targets.
If we cannot identify the insurgents this is impossible.
Indeed, given the inevitable (and horribly euphemistic) "collateral damage" to the civilian population, our actions exacerbate matters.
Lessons of history: this is our 4th Afghan adventure; what makes it different this time?
Surely, our only rational and achieveable objective should be to empower the local communities to resist insurgency whether labelled "Taleban" or "al Queda" or even "another ethnic group" by training the Afghan National Army and police force.
Bright idea?
To assist this process: there are significant numbers of Afghan young men seeking to get to the UK as refugees. We could allow them in on condition that they undergo military training and then return to Afghanistan to directly contribute to the establishment of the Rule of Law thereby removing their need to be refugees.
I would remind you of your own words from 4th December 2008:-
"My Lords, a few hours ago the Minister said that we invaded Afghanistan to prevent it becoming a haven for international terrorism. She did not remind your Lordships that that was also one of the excuses given for the invasion of Iraq, which, as President Mubarak said at the time, was likely to create 100 bin Ladens. He was probably out by a factor of 10, but that has happened. It has also involved us, as the noble Baroness said, in a £700 million contribution so far towards reconstruction, has placed huge burdens on our Armed Forces, and is an ingredient in the motivation of terrorists across the world."
I would also remind you of the words of another (then) Liberal:-
"The inhabitants of these wild but wealthy valleys are of many tribes, but of similar character and condition. The abundant crops which a warm sun and copious rains raise from a fertile soil, support a numerous population in a state of warlike leisure. Except at the times of sowing and of harvest, a continual state of feud and strife prevails throughout the land. Tribe wars with tribe. The people of one valley fight with those of the next. To the quarrels of communities are added the combats of individuals. Khan assails khan, each supported by his retainers. Every tribesman has a blood feud with his neighbour. Every man's hand is against the other, and all against the stranger."
- Winston Churchill 1897
Yours sincerely,
Dear Lord Avebury,
I was at the Muslim/Afhanistan meeting in Bournemouth on Wednesday and raised the question about the identity of the "insurgents"
To reiterate and expand the question:
"Insurgent implies outsider. Who are the insurgents?
Why do the Afghan population harbour them?
Are we not seen as the insurgents?
You argued the necessity for the continued presence of our armed forces but with the imperative that they only be applied military targets.
If we cannot identify the insurgents this is impossible.
Indeed, given the inevitable (and horribly euphemistic) "collateral damage" to the civilian population, our actions exacerbate matters.
Lessons of history: this is our 4th Afghan adventure; what makes it different this time?
Surely, our only rational and achieveable objective should be to empower the local communities to resist insurgency whether labelled "Taleban" or "al Queda" or even "another ethnic group" by training the Afghan National Army and police force.
Bright idea?
To assist this process: there are significant numbers of Afghan young men seeking to get to the UK as refugees. We could allow them in on condition that they undergo military training and then return to Afghanistan to directly contribute to the establishment of the Rule of Law thereby removing their need to be refugees.
I would remind you of your own words from 4th December 2008:-
"My Lords, a few hours ago the Minister said that we invaded Afghanistan to prevent it becoming a haven for international terrorism. She did not remind your Lordships that that was also one of the excuses given for the invasion of Iraq, which, as President Mubarak said at the time, was likely to create 100 bin Ladens. He was probably out by a factor of 10, but that has happened. It has also involved us, as the noble Baroness said, in a £700 million contribution so far towards reconstruction, has placed huge burdens on our Armed Forces, and is an ingredient in the motivation of terrorists across the world."
I would also remind you of the words of another (then) Liberal:-
"The inhabitants of these wild but wealthy valleys are of many tribes, but of similar character and condition. The abundant crops which a warm sun and copious rains raise from a fertile soil, support a numerous population in a state of warlike leisure. Except at the times of sowing and of harvest, a continual state of feud and strife prevails throughout the land. Tribe wars with tribe. The people of one valley fight with those of the next. To the quarrels of communities are added the combats of individuals. Khan assails khan, each supported by his retainers. Every tribesman has a blood feud with his neighbour. Every man's hand is against the other, and all against the stranger."
- Winston Churchill 1897
Yours sincerely,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)