Transition Bedford

Patrick Hall MP

Perhaps a more important focus of this post would be that Bedford Borough Council have signed up to 10:10 and have committed to reducing emissions by 10% across their built assets during 2010. Superb, Amazing, Wonderful, well done BBC!!! But that will be another post.

A few weeks back 226 MPs voted for Parliament to sign up to 10:10, 297 voted against. For those unaware of what 10:10 is take a look here, here and here. This tight majority was only made possible by a few votes against and Patrick Hall MP for Bedford and Kempston was one of those votes. In past conversations and communication with Patrick i have always considered him to be extremely knowledgeable about the issues, supportive of our community level efforts and quite honestly i feel that he is dedicated and committed to the changes needed on a personal and political level.

So if a vote of this importance failed because traditionally supportive MP’s voted against, i have to question several things.

10:10 Parlimentary vote

A. Is Patrick Hall’s level of commitment really up to “one of the greatest challenges facing humanity?

B. Was 10:10 a good and sound bill? is there a better way? or perhaps more importantly (for me) was it understood by the MP’s voting?

C. Does our political systems have the ability to deal with the level of change needed?

Based on my current understanding i’d have to answer NO, NO (the bill wasn’t understood)  and NO.

Patrick’s reasoning for voting against, in short, is that the 10:10 bill was divisive, rushed and unachievable and that the government is already doing enough.

These questions are all the more pertinent for Bedfrordians because on the 20th of November Patrick will be standing side by side with one of the all time legendary thinkers and crusaders of the environmental movement, Tony Juniper, at an open event organised by the Bedford Quakers entitled “Climate Change, Copenhagen and Us“. It is my personal view that Patrick’s vote has undermined the potential of one of the most significant successes for that very same environmental movement and its potential to influence the Copenhagen negotiations, which have been dubbed by some as the most important negotiations this side of WWII and by others our last chance. If you’d like to know more about Copenhagen see here, here and here.  10:10 is a high impact climate change campaign with real potential to ratchet actual change on multiple levels from personal to community level but in this case it’s biggest wins has been the buy in from organisations and institutions and by consequence it’s potential to mobilise systemic, national and international level changes and with a single minded focus on influencing the negotiations in Copenhagen.

So my analysis of the above questions are as follows. It should be noted that these are personal views and i’ve sent my thoughts to Patrick Hall MP and will also provide him with the link to this article and an opportunity to comment. It should also be noted that i sent a letter to Patrick asking him to vote for 10:10 and that some of his reasoning for voting against have been included below. Lamentably in the modern world his response was still delivered via tree felled paper letter and carbon intensive vans and trucks. I’m sure he has a logical reason for not tacking, what i believe to be, the necessary environmental stance on this issue too.

A. Is Patrick Hall’s level of commitment really up to “one of the greatest challenges facing humanity?

Patrick said in his response to me that “ climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing our world today”. A plausible scenario is that his conviction doesn’t match the sentiment of this overused statement. I hope this to be incorrect and have made no definitive judgment. Clearly, conviction and commitment to a statement like this is ratified by the action of the speaker. Nearly half of Patrick’s political peers, Bedford Borough Council and many other public bodies, ratified their words with voting for or sign up to the immediate action outlined in 10:10. On this issue Patrick’s slow but sure approach has clearly placed him very much in the mid range or mediocre levels conviction and commitment compared with his peers.  This is a very serious short fall as Copenhagen draws near it is clear that our biggest risk comes not from climate denial but big statements backed up with mediocre (often very logical) response to the stark science leading to diluted action.

The possibility that Patrick lacks conviction and commitment exists but is not a theory that i subscribe to but will unfortunately live with me through any climate and political decision that he makes from this point forward. This doubt can only be fully quashed by clear evidence, not words, to the contrary. However, I prefer to believe that this is not an issue of conviction and more a technical issue of our MP honestly believing that there is a better approach. This forces me to doubt his understanding of 10:10 on 3 levels.

B. Was 10:10 a good and sound bill? is there a better way? or perhaps more importantly (for me) was it understood by the MP’s voting?

1. Perhaps, he misunderstood the importance of 10:10. It is designed to be a signal internally within the UK and externally to international partners entering into climate negotiations, that action needs to be taken NOW. It’s as much about a mind shift as it is about action. Too much of this debate revolves around “delivering long-term sustained reductions” as Patrick puts it, with key targets set in distance futures outside the current and next term of office. This is a misunderstanding of the science. Within 87 months we will cross the threshold of 450ppm atmospheric carbon, which will start to trigger unstoppable feedback loops. This fact is confirmed by the EU and most government and scientific bodies. What is also uncontested is that it is necessary for the richer nations to blink first, to take the bull by the horns in order to set a pace “NOW” with reduction that far exceeds stabilisation at 450ppm because our poorer neighbors will naturally respond slower considering life saving development needed. 10% reductions are coherent with the science and the politics and the 10:10 vote was the moment that the UK could send a signal to the world. Missed!! Watered down in logic and reason. Patrick in his response enters into discussions about 2015 and 2022 and the importance of long term sustained reduction. There’s also a simple fact missed here. The longer you put off reductions the sharper and more radical the reductions will need to be once they’ve started the down curve. We have a finite amount of carbon left before crossing thresholds. Given the vast nature of the atmosphere and the newness of planetary science in the public domain, I think that the finite nature of our global carbon targets is a concept that hasn’t penetrated. Let me put it this way. If you have a £100 left to last you the week and you spend £80 on Monday, you will have to real struggle in the future. The prudent thing to do is to spend it wisely. The sooner we take to reducing emissions the better.
2. Perhaps our MP misunderstands the strategic importance of 10:10. It forces public bodies to focus the mind beyond rhetoric and nice ideas towards constructive practical planning and tangible carbon reduction strategies. It forces the question “how can we make these savings?” to be answered with a depth of seriousness that just doesn’t exist in many pubic institutions in the country. So many are just sidling the issue of actually making changes and dealing with the “serious” issues of running councils and government. Getting people to actually start and strategically engage is key and failure to achieve the target is actually secondary. It is not a legally binding target.
3. Perhaps he’s misunderstood the technical demands behind reducing emissions in the UK building stock by 10%. For me the first two reasons are reason enough on their own but this is not to say that we should pledge to an unachievable target just to gain strategic traction and political leadership. These are achievable, if not challenging, targets. i’ll say that again because i think this is important. These are achievable targets!!! All together now. These are achievable targets!!!! Did i mention that we can actually do this? Challenging but achievable. Given that climate change is “one of the greatest challenges facing our world today” I think anything less than challenging targets falls way short of the mark. This is a very important misunderstanding because until you’re aware that these targets are achievable you can’t work towards them. I work day in day out advising business and public sector organisation on how to reduce their emissions. Standard Carbon Trust figures (the Carbon Trust is the government funded organisation set up to deliver carbon reductions in corporate and public buildings) state that with very simple energy management improvements it is possible to reduce 10% of a building’s emissions. This has proven by my experience to be a conservative figure where significantly greater savings are available at no or very little cost. Moreover for the next level of engagement i.e. small investments in technological upgrades that would save money on public owned building stock can be delivered with a short payback and would make sound financial sense for government and LA’s to invest if only purely based on prudent use of public money. Moreover there’s an abundance of funds available to LA’s. In one of the many schemes, there is 10’s of millions of pounds available to LA’s and schools etc where significant capital investment (with no upper limit), such as for replacing controls or lighting etc, can be invested at no cost through this interest free loan scheme, where the loan is paid back out of energy related cash savings and cost savings persist long after the loan is repaid ultimately reducing operational costs. All loan related equipment must be installed by the end of 2010. To state that “reducing emissions from buildings can be complex and involve major building works. It could not be done for the whole public sector over the course of just one year.” Is factually incorrect. The buildings that are advanced and have already taken advantage of low hanging fruit also display the highest level of commitment so it is likely that 5% to 10% savings are still achievable. Those buildings yet to begin in earnest will have low hanging fruit of 15% to 20% savings. Success is dependent on political will and here in lies the problem. Patrick Hall MP for Bedford and Kempston has signaled and voted for a lack of political will and has made it impossible for these targets to be achieved.

C. Does our political systems have the ability to deal with the level of change needed?

We’ll quite frankly it would be ridiculous to expect politics alone to solve such a fundamental issue. But does the system have the ability to rise to it’s end of the bargain? I’d have to say no my experience has led me to believe that it probably does not. Simply put a political system that aims for pleasing as many people as possible across 10′s of millions of people gets lost in mediocratiy and now is not the time for such luxuries. However, the system is only as active and as strong as the mandate given by the people. That places the onus squarely on us to lead and for government to respond accordingly.

If we thought that this was something for the political system to solve alone then there wouldn’t be thousands of community groups like ours popping up all over the world. If we wait for the governments, it’ll be too little, too late; if we act as individuals, it’ll be too little; but if we act as communities, it might just be enough, just in time. That is not to undermine the importance of government in responding to climate change and peak oil. In fact, we need swift decisive action from our elected representatives more now than ever before. We need our political system to do something that it just isn’t designed to do, and that is, react with conviction, take challenging and sometimes radical steps. We need our system and the people behind it to put their head above the parapet, to take some risks, to make leaps, where it or they are accustomed with making tiptoe steps, incremental changes and safe decisions……

Time to step up to the plate!