culture, architecture, sustainability
Header image

TEDxChange Berlin: The Big Picture

Posted by Natalie in Events - 6 April 2012 - (0 Comments)

A looming, Berghainian former power station set the perfect scene for one of TEDx’s biggest events to date, as local and international guests and speakers entered awestruck to mutters of that familiar phrase: ‘only in Berlin’.

Out back in the blogger lounge, the retro post-industrial vibe continued in a room that could have been a sixties sci-fi film set.

On to business. We were treated to an introduction and Q&A with some of the speakers before they rushed off to centre stage and the main event began.

First up was Jeff Chapin of global design consultancy, Ideo, who deglamorised design with his story of bringing a latrine to market in rural Cambodia, increasing toilet hygiene and saving hundreds of lives.  Jeff stressed the importance of locally tailored solutions to suit specific cultural and physical environments.  Through astute anecdote, we learnt how design, though unglamorous, has the power to enable longer and deeper conversations about the things that really matter, such as health, family and security.

Next, a call to action from MEP and German Green Party member, Sven Giegold. Sven explained the link between the global financial crisis and our ongoing addiction to oil.  The financial crisis is, however, not one of scarcity but of abundance – four times the global GDP is now circulating the economy, searching for short term investments and profits and over-complex financial products. We need a new deal to solve the problem, rather than rebuilding the old system, and this involves regulation of the financial markets in combination with a genuine commitment to renewable energy.

Despite disagreeing with Sven on the nuclear question, his talk was compelling and I was encouraged to hear informed and insightful reference to the interconnectedness of the environment and global economy – a key perspective on the Big Picture.

Theo Sowa is CEO of the African Women’s Development Fund, and delivered an impassioned speech about the consultation of women (or the shameful lack thereof) in discussions about development issues. Her point was poignant in its patency and moving in its manifestation: a profile of some of the thousands of women who could provide invaluable solutions to some of the continent’s most pressing problems, if only they were asked. Theo’s standing ovation was certainly well deserved, however, from the Twitter feed it appeared that many in the audience inadvertently proved one of her main points:  Theo pointed out that we don’t ask victims for solutions, and that we need to stop treating all African women as victims; but the phrase that got repeatedly retweeted was that ‘we need to start asking the victims for solutions’.

After a moving performance from Senegalese singer/songwriter, Baaba Maal (which he dedicated to all the world’s women), Melinda Gates, co-chair of the Gates Foundation, who organised this event, delivered the final presentation of the evening.

Having already heard a taster of Melinda’s topic in our earlier Q&A, it was clear that she is wholly devoted to the Foundation and their causes; the top four being polio elimination, vaccination, family planning and agriculture.

Melinda’s talk was on family planning – a topic that is currently hugely controversial, but why? Debates about abortion and population control are both hugely emotive issues and ones that are frequently associated with family planning – making a practical issue suddenly loaded by association.

Family planning is about the freedom to decide whether to have a child. There is, in many societies and cultures, a reluctance to address or accept birth control because it removes the act of sex from the goal of reproduction, thereby condoning promiscuity.  This is not about promiscuity, however, but about the freedom of choice, and women having more control over their bodies and their lives; the ability to “bring every good thing to this child before I have another”.

Despite some unanswered questions about cultural relativity, and ambiguities about where the Gates Foundation sits amid top-down and bottom-up approaches, I am impressed by Melinda’s dedication to this issue.  ”I’ll keep doing this for the next thirty years”, was her zealous response to a question in the blogger lounge about how long the work would need to go on.

Answering another question, Melinda explained to us the role of a foundation, describing it as a ‘catalytic wedge’, to help drive down prices and develop new technology etc. The Gates Foundation’s funds are just a drop in the ocean, and to roll out solutions on a large scale and implement lasting, positive change, takes leadership, and is ultimately down to governments.  Organising and hosting an event such as this, encouraging and enabling so many people (not just us in Berlin but the hundreds of thousands of people who tuned in live across the world) to refocus our local lens and look at the Bigger Picture, is itself an innovative display of leadership – one that can only increase the Foundation’s global influence and impact in its impressive ongoing philanthropic endeavours.

This post was republished on the Gates Foundation‘s Impatient Optimist blog.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Related articles:

TEDx Berlin 2011: High Energy

The Big Picture

Moving Mountains: hunger and waste in an age of austerity

The Meaning of Clean

 

, , , , , , , , ,

FutureCityLab

Posted by Natalie in Projects - 27 January 2012 - (0 Comments)

An open-source project aiming for sustainable cities by 2050, this loose but dedicated network of professionals and experts focuses on the move towards locally sourced food production, new forms of energy harnessing, and building upon what is already there rather than  knocking down and starting over.  Inspirational stuff. I just joined them at http://ftrctlb.com/

 

 

think the unthinkable from ftr.ct.lb* on Vimeo.

, , , , ,

TEDx Berlin 2011: High Energy

Posted by Natalie in Events - 21 November 2011 - (1 Comments)

An eclectic line-up of apparently unrelated topics came together beautifully today at TEDx Berlin, with themes curving in a topical arc through this thoughtfully curated event.

Katherine Lucey, CEO of Solar Sister, ignited our imaginative kindling with a moving account of the power of electricity to change lives in rural Africa.  Her company provides people with solar lights that cost a one-off price of $20, making it a more financially viable option than the toxic kerosene lamps that cost $2 a week to run.  Working with local women in hardest-to-reach communities, the solar lamps improve quality of life and can kick start cycles of increased prosperity and self-sufficiency.  Katherine argued that energy poverty and energy prosperity are gender issues – an angle that seemed to cause controversy amongst the audience, judging from post-presentation conversations.

Next, Alexander Voigt, CEO of Younicos, talked us through the potential of renewables, in particular photovoltaics (PVs).  He showed that the challenge lies not with technology but our relationship to it.  Solar panels are increasingly efficient and affordable, so why aren’t we all installing them?

It may have been due to the moving start that the first TED video talk seemed particularly overwhelming. Using biomimicry, Markus Fischer and his team created their SmartBird, an achievement that has to be seen to be believed:

Design duo Mischer’Traxler create products based on the history visible in the rings of a tree.  A solar powered machine threads and dyes cotton around a mold, so that rings are produced and different colour intensities depending on how sunny it is (thus how fast the solar powered machine feeds the thread). A time lapse video and examples of their work demonstrates the ingenuity perfectly.

To end the first session, climate engineer and director of Trans Solar, Wolfgang Kessling, complemented Voigt’s earlier points well by showing that only 20m2 of PV panels is required to supply a family’s energy for a year.  This would cost just €5000 and, of course, reduce energy costs significantly.  Another 20m2 would be enough for 15,000km in an electric car.

As we shivered uncomfortably through the session, Kessling talked about ‘high comfort’ and making a building comfortable by controlling the air temperature and the radiant environment.  We often underestimate the importance of ensuring the passive efficiency of a building before investing in energy to heat it.  What’s more, he said, “We overestimate what we can do in the future and  underestimate what we can do today.”

Things warmed up in session two as we were told we would be part of a real time experiment in ‘high comfort.’  Fittingly, Nils Lindell was next up to divulge his experiences of attempting to live a One Tonne Life with his family in Sweden.

Martin Cordsmeier of Million Ways, then called for creative tenders to help society move towards a more person-focused system.  There are surely few more focused people than Lewis Pugh, who is widely regarded as the world’s greatest cold water swimmer.  His efforts at swimming in a lake left by a melted glacier at 5,300 metres aim to raise awareness of climate change, “The Mount Everest of all problems.”

Verena Delius, CEO of Young Internet, delivered a thought-provoking analysis of dynamism within companies and that dangers facing those that do not adapt to evolving markets.  Despite its focus on industry, we agreed in chats afterwards that such approaches can be equally applied to interpersonal relationships. Strike while the iron’s hot!

After a musical interlude from Studnitzky, Rune Nielsen, co-founder of Kollision, clarified what is meant by ‘media arcitechture,’ and how it can be used to make the invisible, visible; the abstract tangible and the boring playful.  Projecting interactive light shows onto the sides of buildings provided opportunities to engage the public in a conversation about the facts of climate change, and their interactive nature encourages communication between strangers.

Closing the loop on session two, Lehna Malmkvist of Swell Environmental Consulting, brought us back to the biomimicry theme by arguing that we need to reject one-way systems of resource management.  Ecosystems are the most complex and efficient systems on earth and we should take a leaf from nature’s book and move towards integrated systems where one stage’s waste is another’s resource.  Swell’s project at Dockside Green near Victoria, BC is a work in progress that practices what they preach, and they are learning by doing whilst implementing an economically and socially viable urban design project.

A glance at the programme for the third session indicated a sinister aside that seemed somewhat off-topic. Axel Peterman, criminologist and consultant to cult TV series Tatort, began with an advocation of interdisciplinary criminology that includes profiling suspects’ personalities.  Interspersed with gruesome photos and more captivating than an episode of CSI, the talk was a rare, if somewhat tenuously fitting insight into a world we all find so morbidly fascinating.

Of all the amazingly inspirational and industrious people that spoke at TEDx today, magician Thimon V. Berlepsch, taught me the most valuable lesson; something new about myself. He showed us that our human need for routine also has a detrimental side, in that it can blind us to childlike wonderment.  Breaking the patterns of mundanity brings the magic back to life.  For Berlepsch, this break comes in the form of travel, adventures into the unknown.  I’ve always wondered what that feeling is when travelling; that unique euphoria which melts into an elusive sense of homecoming perspective.  Some people tell me the urge to travel is a sign of instability, unwillingness to settle or a means of escape. They are right, but that’s not a bad thing.

The transition to Pamela Meyer’s How to Spot a Liar video talk was surprisingly smooth.  An interesting speech, whose most poignant argument in today’s context was that in order to avoid deception we must be self-aware enough to know what it is we are hungry for:

J Henry Fair’s aerial photographs make beautiful images out of horrible situations, and it is this dissonance, he claimed, that makes them affective and therefore effective:

The earth is bleeding - J Henry Fair - Industrial Scars

Nik Nowak’s presentation, entitled ‘Sound as Weapon’ was not as menacing as it sounds.  The title related more to the recent Occupy events where microphone bans were subverted with creative and peaceful innovation in the form of human mics.  Nowak then demonstrated his Soundtank during the break before the final session.

If we were becoming fatigued by this deluge of inspiration, Benedikt Foit and Habib Lesevic woke us up with a start.  Their game, Energy Streetfight, uses play as a way of engaging people to make real reductions in their CO2 footprint.  Passionate critics of the ‘consumerism virus’, the pair advocate the importance of individual action in combatting simplified but currently dominant notions of progress as economic growth.  Consumerism affects our perspective and leads to psychological passivity and the logic of taking.  While culture spreads the virus, it is also culture that can cure us, one revolutionary mind at a time.

Johnny West is a journalist, transparency activist and proponent of a direct citizen dividend for oil-producing countries to combat the resource curse.

Finally,  Daniela Schiffer’s highlighted the need for energy-saving efforts to be visible and tangible.  Her company, Changers, is an ingenious scheme that makes combating climate change an individual, measurable, comparable process with results that mean something in the real world.  An antidote to the sense of helplessness in the face of this mammoth issue, in a playful format with visibility and economic viability, where the individual feels a sense of worth and community, Changers is, I realised with pleasant surprise, the culmination of today’s discussions.

These ideas have been whirling around for a number of years now, and to see them form into real solutions delivered by remarkable and passionate people gave me hope when I’d almost given up.  As John Perry Barlow pointed out in his closing address, via video from California, today was consistently inspiring and in some places depressing.  The climate crisis is lacking in hope, and events like TEDx are essential for momentum to gather and positive change to occur.  As we teeter on the edge of the tipping point, these aren’t just ideas worth spreading, they are ideas that must spread if we are to overcome man’s greatest challenge yet.

TEDxChange, an initiative of the Gates Foundation, will be in Berlin on 5th April 2012.

, , , , , , , ,

The Meaning of Clean

Posted by Natalie in Environment - 21 April 2011 - (3 Comments)

I’ve just read that in a drive to boost sales, a bottled water company called Real Water have labelled tap water ‘damaged’ and are claiming that it is harmful to health.  It’s either overwhelmingly stupid or –having made the Guardian and probably a number of other blogs – a brilliant PR trick.  Whether it’s garbage or genius is not the point, because above all it is another example of the irresponsible and irrational capitalist propensity for putting profit before principle, and as usual it’s the environment that bears the brunt of this habitual lack of integrity.

During my MA at King’s we studied a module called Water Resources & Policy. My professor, John Allen, is a respected expert and Water Prize Laureate; what he doesn’t know about water isn’t worth knowing.  He taught us that access to clean water is a miracle of engineering and human ingenuity (I always remember his grimace at our bottled water until we assured him that, of course, they were merely refills from the tap).  Professor Allen hates bottled water because it is superfluous and pointless. Our tap water is clean and perfectly safe. It is so good and so cheap, yet we pay about TEN THOUSAND times more for a bottle of the same stuff.

Did you know that the water you flush your toilet with is the same water that comes out of the kitchen tap? It is totally unnecessary to waste good, clean drinking water on flushing, but we still do it. Why? It might be costly to update the infrastructure but the savings would be seen immediately in the decreased cost of water processing.   The reason is that people feel – rightly of course – that cleanliness and safety go hand in hand.  To start a system that has two different water supplies (drinking and flushing etc.)  might be accepted as the logical solution, but we’re not starting from scratch. Today we have a long-standing system in place, so to ask people to accept the changes is to ask them to switch to a ‘dirtier’ water supply.  Although it is rational, it is rejected because the idea that cleanliness equals health is so important to us that we lose sight of the meaning of clean.

This principle also applies to our attitude towards bottled water, and it is one that the bottled water companies love to exploit.  The notion of fresh spring water straight from the belly of nature and imbued with its goodness is the main selling point of bottled water, yet the irony is that the oil used in making and transporting the bottles is ravaging said nature to breaking point.  The problems with bottled water are well documented, but it is a booming, billion dollar industry. Consumers can change this by simply choosing to drink tap instead of bottled water.  In doing so we’ll be ten thousand times better off, and not just financially.

,

A Little Less Conversation

Posted by Natalie in Environment - 7 April 2011 - (0 Comments)

It seems that these days there is always something going on. Of course, there always has been, it’s just that now information exchange happens so efficiently we all know about it instantly. Even given this daily data deluge, we are currently seeing a global glut of particularly significant events. From Japan to Libya, the Ivory Coast to austerity cuts, you could say it’s kicking off.

Maybe this is why other important affairs are slipping under the radar.  Today is the penultimate day of the UN climate change conference in Bangkok where 1,500 participants from 173 countries are trying to improve an agreement made at Cancun last year and working towards a post-Kyoto protocol.

Perhaps predictably, negotiations are painfully slow. By yesterday, delegates had hardly penetrated the nitty-gritty and were still trying to agree on the agenda itself. When so many parties – representing even more interests – are involved, deciding what to talk about is potentially as difficult as tackling the issues themselves. For all voices to be heard, all interests considered and all agendas addressed, much time is required; it’s a painstaking process.

Time, of course, is one resource we don’t have when it comes to climate change mitigation. Another big revelation that has gone largely unreported is the result of a recent scientific study, which concludes that it is already too late to limit the temperature increase to two degrees. To achieve anything like this, the study claims, we would have to have an immediate drop in emissions to practically zero.  The chances of successfully combating a dangerous rise in global temperatures diminishes with every day of fruitless negotiations.

There is no easy solution to the difficulties of such weighty diplomacy and this is understandable, given the task at hand. We shouldn’t feel hopeless, however, despite the temptation to react with exasperation to our querulous leaders. As individuals we are far from powerless; in fact, we are far more powerful in many ways, because when we make a decision to change something we don’t need to consult the rest of the world about it. The cumulative effect of individual action should not be underestimated.

Addressing the big issues of industrial and national carbon emissions is, of course, imperative; but large things move slowly.  Using this lack of governmental progress as an excuse for individual inaction is counter-intuitive. Instead, we should be leading by example and making the most of our strengths. Any personal lifestyle adjustment that contributes to lowering emissions is important and worthwhile, because no matter how small, it has great significance in its immediacy.

, ,

Disagreeing with David

Posted by Natalie in Environment - 25 March 2011 - (0 Comments)

As a passionate naturalist, Sir David Attenborough has been an inspiration to me for as long as I can remember. He’s probably one of the main reasons I’m an environmentalist at all.

Is his address to the RSA (Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce)  Attenborough alludes to population growth as the primary factor driving ecological exploitation and destruction.

The world is a big place. It can, in fact, sustain a lot more people than already exist. The environment, however, continues to suffer increasingly and intensely.  It’s reasonable to jump to the conclusion that if there were less people there would be less exploitation, but that is simply not the case. It is an understandable assumption though, because one falls into the trap of taking over-consumption as a given, of capitalism as the natural, fixed state around which everything else must adapt.

The fact is that most of the population growth occurs in poorer countries, where people have the least per capita impact on the environment. In terms of carbon emissions, for example, Americans today are equivalent to around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 40 Nigerians, or 250 Ethiopians.  Despite developing nations being responsible for the majority of population increase, their environmental impact is negligible and massively disproportionate.  Look at it another way: in the US, almost half of food produced is wasted, that’s about 40 million tonnes a year. There are approximately 1 billion malnourished people in the world.

Ironically, despite this waste, the problem is over-consumption. If we consumed less, the world would be able to sustain all 6.5 billion of us, and more. This does not mean we all have to live in squalor without electricity or access to clean water.  On the contrary, a model of sustainable development that rejects uncapped capitalism would lead to more equality and a higher standard of living for those currently living below the poverty line.

Such opportunities speed up rather than hinder development, so that access to education, medicine and contraception increase. The population will plateau as a side effect of a better quality of life, as it has done consistently throughout history. To argue the opposite is to reify a flawed system and misjudge what it means to be human.

, , ,

That Sinking Feeling

Posted by Natalie in Environment - 24 March 2011 - (0 Comments)

When a rogue website reported that a small Pacific state had legalised cocaine the country’s denial was resolute, but the truth reveals a more disturbing story.

Yesterday I momentarily fell for what now seems like a ridiculously implausible hoax. A website called CBS published a story about how the Marshall Islands had legalised all substances and opened its borders, dropping all visa restrictions. The authorities promptly issued a strong and defensively emotional response, calling it libelous, yellow journalism.

It wasn’t just the name of the website that misled me for a moment (it’s unrelated to CBS News,of course); it was because I really wanted this story to be true. Anyway, is it so unfeasible that a country would legalise drugs? It’s certainly not unheard of. And the lack of visa restrictions might not be such a big deal when you’re surrounded on all sides by 2000 miles of unforgiving ocean.

The Republic of the Marshall Islands is a diminutive country made up of dozens of atolls and islands, lying in the Pacific Ocean west of Hawaii. It’s history is reminiscent of many previously isolated communities; the islands had been home to self-sufficient indigenous people for millenia. Due to their strategic position, however, the land and its people have been exploited in recent years, standing witness to wars of which they were never a part, victims of colonisation and reckless atomic testing.

Many Marshall Island communities now live in poverty and desperation. In the last few years things have become more critical: as water levels rise, it’s possible the islands could be reclaimed by the sea in the next 30 years.

The idea of the Marshall Islanders taking these independent, drastic and (dare I say) forward-thinking steps to generate revenue for climate change adaptation measures was appealing in the context of the country’s oppressed history and bleak future.  The inhabitants of these islands are still paying for other peoples crimes and have little control over their destiny. These people who have lived low carbon lifestyles for thousands of years will be the ones to suffer first and worst.

At around the same time, on a slightly larger island on the other side of the world, a chancellor made some similarly preposterous announcements, but these ones were real.  It’s no longer just the Marshall Islanders who have that sinking feeling.

,

Off the Hook

Posted by Natalie in Environment - 7 March 2011 - (2 Comments)

More and more people are beginning to come round to the idea that we need to undergo an oil detox.  Whether for economic or environmental reasons, it seems to be the only sensible path towards a sustainable future.  But what does it actually mean and how might it look?

A few weeks ago I wrote an article about the extent of our oil dependence and what it might mean to get clean.  Then yesterday, the Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne spoke with some urgency about the very same thing. Admittedly (and unsurprisingly), the government’s motivation is short-term, political and economic, rather than based on a long-term regard for the environment and our finite, polluting resources. In any case, at this stage we can’t afford to quibble about motivations.  Huhne said:

“Getting off the oil hook is made all the more urgent by the crisis in the Middle East. We cannot afford to go on relying on such a volatile source of energy when we can have clean, green and secure energy from low-carbon sources.”

The government is due to launch its Carbon Plan this week, and in anticipation of this important and long overdue document, I’m attempting to envisage what our oil-independent future might actually look like.

Attempting to summarise so generally rather than focusing on specific areas is never going to be comprehensive (the Transition Culture movement examines it in detail), but in order for it to seem more real and do-able, it feels necessary. After all, it needs to all fit together, to make sense in some way, so that it can be grasped, envisaged and acted upon. There’s no birth without conception.

It’s the year 2050 and carbon emissions need to have been reduced by around 80% compared with today.  The key to our success (and future survival) is all about localisation. We may live in large urban areas, but even within this municipal backdrop smaller developments will be the key functioning units. Examples already exist to help us understand what this might mean. BedZED (Beddington Zero Energy Development) is an eco-housing development in south London. It is currently the UK’s largest mixed use sustainable community, comprising 99 homes.   BedZED’s efficient design (maximising solar gain and thermal insulation) has allowed its residents to reduce their heating requirements by over 80 percent.  All energy is generated on-site, using renewables including 777m2 of solar PV panels and CHP (combined heating and power). Rainwater is harvested, recycling is at over 60 percent, and the building materials were all obtained within 35 miles of the site.

These innovations, already almost ten years old, are impressive demonstrations of how the future might look. Of course, at the moment the people who live there are still dependent on fossil-fuels for most things.  In the future, we may not be able to rely on the major infrastructure that we now talk for granted, such as transport.  Commuting will be increasingly by bicycle, and most people will work remotely if their profession allows.  Food will be produced locally and organically,  and communities may have an alternative local currency such as the existing Brixton Pound, an initiative of Transition Town Brixton.

As for waste, the future will see us change our whole concept of the production and consumption cycle from linear to cyclical; asking not how we can dispose of our waste, but how it can be used to create value. Taking the notion that ‘one man’s waste is another man’s wealth’ to it’s extreme will be key to protecting the environment and enriching our lives.  This video clarifies the point beautifully.

So far, so utopian. But we’re not quite there yet. Aside from being potentially limited in our medium to long-distance travel options, there is one part of our life that will be heavily reduced and not replaced. That most glorious, dirty and omnipotent habit of the post-war age, consumerism, will no longer exist (at least not as we know it). The t-shirts and iPods and mobile phones and computers and so on – basically most of the ‘stuff’ you have lying about in your house – require lots of oil to manufacture (and often as a raw material too). Not to mention getting it to you from the far east or wherever it’s been made.

A few weeks ago climate and sustainability expert Prof. Mohan Munasinghe, vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) called for the drafting of “Millennium Consumption Goals” to encourage so called ‘developed’ nations to curb their climate-damaging consumption habits, in the same way that the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are aimed at ameliorating living standards by stamping out hunger, poverty and disease in ‘developing’ countries.   Prof. Munasinghe points out that  85 percent of all consumption in world is done by the top 20 percent of its population.  ”If they can be more sustainable in consumption, it can reduce the environmental burden by a tremendous amount.”

Suggestions for these goals from the Transforming Cultures blog include halving obesity by 2020, halving the working week to 20 hours, higher taxes for the wealthy, and doubling the rate of non-motorised transport.  These goals make a good start, and are encouraging because they are realistic and achievable. Taking it further, if we are to make a significant step towards a truly sustainable lifestyle, the amount of ‘stuff’ we buy (and then throw away) needs to be drastically reduced.  Recycling and reusing should be at 90 percent, based on the aforementioned cyclical system. Consumption could be stemmed by setting a target of reducing by 70 per cent the number of new products purchased. In the spirit of optimism, I have decided to start with this latter goal now, and aim to buy nothing new from now on.

Of course, no one can know what the future will hold.  The increased prevalence of natural disasters prophecise sci-fi scenarios of a drowned world. On the other hand, dreams of small-scale farming and community living evoke a contrary picture of a simper life, free of the burden of employment and emptiness of consumption. Science, the new religion, through technology gives us hope and faith in our innovative, adaptable potential.

Ultimately, there is one thing of which we can be certain: there will be change.  The shrinking of our world and the limiting of our options won’t be easy, less so the longer we procrastinate. If we’re lucky we may not have to solve any of this just yet, but our children definitely will.

These innovations, already almost ten years old are impressive demonstrations of how the future might look.  Of course, at the moment the people who live there are still dependent on fossil-fuels for most things.  In the future, we may not be able to rely on many of the major infrastructure that we now take for granted, such as transport.  Commuting might be done by bicycle or electric tram, and most people will work remotely if their profession allows it. Food will be produced locally and organically, communities may have an alternative local economy with its own currency such as the existing Brixton Pound, an initiative of Transition Town Brixton.

, ,

Towards Oil Independence

Posted by Natalie in Environment - 28 February 2011 - (0 Comments)

Black is the new brown

Oil permeates every conceivable part of our lives. It has shaped our values, informed our decisions and improved our lifestyles beyond the point of no return. Even in the face of increasing destruction and the promise of ruin, the force of black gold has become too powerful and valuable to restrain.

Bruce Parry’s current BBC series is excellent for a number of reasons. The host’s natural, friendly character is so endearing, making it so easy for the people he meets to warm to him, and for us as viewers to do the same.  Arctic is inspirational and thought-provoking, but for all those adjectives there is only one that really articulates it for me: terrifying.

As an anthropologist and environmentalist, I am well  acquainted with the issues that Bruce explores. Nevertheless, I too am susceptible to that very human (and avian) of tendencies to bury one’s head in the sand. Seeing the industrial and indigenous encounters, witnessing the direct and brutal effect of the one upon the other is powerful, and the fact that this is prime-time family viewing is cause for both commendation and encouragement.

How heartbreaking, though, that the premise for the entire series is that the arctic is warming faster than anywhere else in the world (and that this is drastically changing the lives of its inhabitants). That fact is stated bluntly and without sensation at the introduction of each show and  it makes me despair.  Gone are the days of speculation, gone are those comforting adjectives of uncertainty, sprinkled lightly over our ears and eyes, allowing the ostrich in us to live on.

Climate change is no longer a potential threat to our near future, it is real and affecting us right now. I am not sure when that subtle but significant conversion happened, but it seems that all of a sudden when talking about it, the present tense is required. And the present is tense indeed: every decision I make is informed by its effect on the environment.  I haven’t flown for several years, and don’t intend to ever again. I don’t own a car or turn the heating on, but these well-meaning sacrifices are just the tip of the prematurely melting iceberg.

I am an addict. Those menial concessions are my methadone. My addiction is your addiction, and kicking the habit is the hardest thing we will ever do. Understanding that the ruthless actions of the oil companies are driven by us and the decisions we make requires quite a leap of the imagination. To comprehend the interconnectedness of our lifestyle with the degradation of the environment, its indigenous people and wildlife is to truly come to terms with our addiction to oil, and the first step to recovery. That’s why the Arctic series is important, because it helps us to do that in such a simple and human way.  But when you hear the phrase oil addiction, do you understand the depth of your dependency, and thus your responsibility? I’m not sure I do, which is why I am going to try and break it down. Call it therapy if you like.

So, without oil, we couldn’t drive cars. That’s fine I’ve got a bike. And the trains and buses could run on electricity fuelled by renewables. In fact we could still drive cars without oil, couldn’t we? They haven’t built a feasible solar-powered aircraft yet, but we have the basics in place, and it doesn’t seem too bad. What else?

An agricultural revolution that sees the end of intensive farming using oil-based fertilizer and pesticides. Not to mention that without oil most foods would never reach our shores, never mind our supermarket or our plate. And don’t forget meat – animals have to eat a lot of crops before they become fat and tasty enough to eat – approximately 7kg of fodder for 1kg of edible meat. Getting the shivers?

The laptop I’m currently using to write this is made of plastic, whose main constituent is (that’s right) oil. Clothes: synthetic fabric or intensively farmed cotton transported from south east Asia. Cold sweats?  At this stage I am struggling to comprehend a world without our drug of choice.

Food, housing, transport, clothing, cosmetics, furniture, machines, gadgets, drugs… you name it, oil is involved. Literally everything we do and need and want and own is because we have oil. Nauseous?

As the developing nations develop, the need for oil is ever increasing as standards of living improve and inhabitants start to demand the luxuries that make up our  own privileged, everyday lives.  And of course, it’s going to run out. Soon. It seems so painfully ironic that the receding arctic ice is now being exploited for its rich oil reserves, but the cold-turkey alternative seems far, far more painful.

Oil has allowed humanity to move forward at a pace previously unimagined.  The medical, scientific and technological advances since the beginning of the industrial revolution have been nothing short of miraculous. Oil-fuelled empowerment is incomparable to anything else in human history, helping us to feed the hungry and house the poor. We are, undoubtedly, improved – healthier, happier and more connected. The price for this advancement has been steep, so costly that we may yet pay the ultimate price.

With all that we have gained and all we stand to lose, perhaps (just perhaps) we can learn lessons before it is too late. Instead of carrying on blindly towards global societal collapse and environmental catastrophe (not necessarily in that order), we could use the technology and innovation that we already have to prepare for the inevitable, oil-free future.  Putting the brakes on a multi-billion dollar juggernaut is easier said than done; the economics of oil has meant that one of the things it has failed to provide us is wisdom, but faced with the alternative it seems unwise not to try.

,