“what will the Borough of Bedford look like in 2020 as a low carbon, sustainable and vibrant town?”

During 2010 Transition Bedford will be holding several events (the first will be at the Bunyan Museum on the 15th of May – sign up to the mailing list for details) that aim to engage local people around creating a vision for the future of Bedford. Based around the Energy Descent Action Planning method used by Transition groups across the globe, we aim to create a vision and the backcast to the present and create an action plan of how we can deliver the vision.

This vision is one that defies the doomsday predictions and goes beyond the “business as usual” head in the sand approach, nor is it beholden to the view that green tech will save us or a return to the cave man type pre-industrial future. This vision is a new aspirational future that we can all fall in love with. Chances are it will have a mix of all the previous visions with some added innovation and creativity but will be put together in such a way that we can improve our quality of life and that of our children as well supporting the quality of life of a diversity of species.

Please join the website by clicking the button on the right and add your comments here. Lets start creating a vision that we can fall so passionately in love with that we become emotionally bound to making it a reality.

Ban Ki Moon addressing the conference

This clip is essential viewing for anyone following Copenhagen

As Copenhagen fails do not despair!!! There will be an international treaty but it will be led by the people, it will probably be done in a couple of years and it will be much more ground breaking, deep routed, driven and worldshiftng than that being discussed at Copenhagen. I’ll explain myself below.

I put a lot of faith and hope in Copenhagen but taking a step back and viewing this conference as part of wider set of activities the timing was quite clearly not right.  We often hear the Einstein quote;

“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”

Most world leaders are well and truly still using the same kind of thinking that caused the problem and given a mindset that is almost “mindset as usual” lets imagine that our leaders came up with what is from our current thinking an “ambitous, fair and legally binding treaty”. Do not underestimate two consequences;
1. just how much the faith of civil society, the charities, community groups and the people would have shifted towards political solutions.
2. just how weak this document or treaty would have been in real scientific terms and do not underestimate just how little of it’s “legally binding” targets would have been achieved.

With regard to the second point, this is not an abject lack of faith in the political process, we know that the best deal in Copenhagen was still tantamount to a suicide pact when placed against current science. Although “less than 2 degrees” was given as a headline target the actual nitty gritty emissions cuts were likely to commit us to something closer to 4 degrees. We also know that even domestic politics is laden with political promises and aspirations that have been historically and systematically watered down or just not delivered in any real form. This is true on a domestic scale let alone  on an international level. It is not bad people, we in the UK have a political system, which is probably one of the best in the world but its fundamentally short on finance to deliver all the promises made and many promises are made in the popularity contest that attempts to please the masses. Democracy, systematically, does not allow for decisive action on a national level, let alone international. More obvious proof that the promises made in Copenhagen wouldn’t be achieved is the Kyoto protocol, which for all its virtues, was a legally binding document ratified in nearly all UN member states and yet many “IGNORED” it or simply fell short of achieving agreed targets.

The point of this post is not to highlight the failings of the political system it is to point out the importance of the growth of a people lead movement. Copenhagen was the first time the world came together as a world community (on any issue) to recognise that we agree that climate change is a problem. We know on a local community level that this is part of the awareness raising phase and that action follows later in the cycle. There is most certainly a place for this internationally level action but I feel that if political leaders make a deal in 1 and even better 2 years time, they will do so at a time when the people lead “movement of the movements” is hitting it’s crechendo or reaching critical mass and a deal done at this time will be delivered. Moreover, a deal in Copenhagen may have stopped crechendo of people power.

The point of the this post is to highlight the importance of the people lead actions and solutions. A deal done when there is a critical mass in the peoples movement will not only be done at time of a new way of thinking, that new way of thinking will be people lead not leader led. Do not underestimate the power of the failings of these political processes to fuel the fire and put the onus back on the social movements and conversely how a “good deal” at Copenhagen would have prematurely been like a heroin shot in the arm of the people lead movements as we sit back sedated, aaahhh the government to the rescue! It’s similar to the international aid, top down, approach of giving away food and supplies to the worlds poorest, it creates dependency and limits the empowered and driven action of the people you are trying to help. We are so used to the “authorities” solving our problems but over the last few years we have collectively been coming to the realisation that we the people need to make the change that there is no night in shining armor  (in this case Obama and the USA) going to swing in and save the day. This realisation and the sense of actually taking you’re own future into your hands is amazingly empowering and scary at the same time. Civil society, people, community members, individuals, mothers, fathers and residents will have to believe even more in their role in solving the climate problem.

We have been “governed” for millenea, we have forgotten what self governance and empowerment feels like, looks like and tastes like. It is so natural for us to let be governed. First by emperors and and royals, then power decentralised slightly as it shifted towards governments and only recently the power decentralisd still further into the hands of corporations. This natural shift from the few to the many is very slow but when seen speeded up the next logical shift will be from the corporation to the civil society and finally the people.

Some would say that the people are two stupid or unruly to self govern and especially in the face of an emergency. I would say that climate change is a horrid burden for our generation and yet it provides us with a great opportunity for the people to work together to self govern and we can’t do much worse than the power structures of today that are leading us of a cliff of logic. I have no doubt that we will endure and rise to the challenge. I have no rose tinted glasses, there is already collapse and catastrophe happening caused by our misuse of the planet that sustains us. To a certain extent this will only rise as consequences are already built into the climate system.  We have difficult times ahead but those difficult times are forcing us to come together as a planet of peoples and to respect nature and her cycles.

COP logo

Even the COP logo depicts the web of people on the planet rather than centralised power strucute.

Get this right and we can harmonise both a socially as people and environmentally with nature. Conversely, how can we possibly harmonise as people, if a few people have all the power? and the nock on is clear that our social disharmony is at the route cuase of our environmental disharmony. With this in mind “power to the people” is not a luxury in the face of emergency it’s an essential part of the response.

It’s also worth noting that this subject was discussed on TB google group were one of the TB Initiating Group members has put forward some really insightful comments that most certainly opened my eyes. I haven’t named the individual because i haven’t asked permission but you can read the discussion in full here.

My Ref PH/LJ

18 November 2009

Dear Mr Hughes

Thank you for your email sent 17 November 2009 regarding your recent blog post on the 10:10 campaign. After reading the content of your blog, I feel it necessary to formally respond as clearly my views have been misunderstood.

As we have communicated in the past regarding climate change and the 10:10 campaign, I will not reiterate my feelings on the importance of tackling climate change as clearly this is something we have in common.  I do not think it is fair, however, to doubt my dedication to this issue based on the arguments put forward in your blog.

In order to fully address your concerns, I will respond to the three questions posed in your blog.

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

Absolutely.  I struggle to understand how my recent actions have made you doubt my commitment to tackling climate change, but let me assure you, I am and always have been dedicated to preserving and protecting the environment.  It may be cliché, but climate change is in fact one of the greatest challenges facing our world today and we all must accept the enormity of the task at hand.

My decision to vote for the Government amendment in the opposition day debate on 21 October 2009 fully embraced this philosophy.  If you read the Government’s amendment, you will see that it makes tackling climate change a priority for Parliament.

However, you over-simplify the debate by suggesting that it was a vote for or against the 10:10 campaign.  Nowhere in the Government’s amendment does it condemn the 10:10 campaign or discourage Government departments from signing up.  In fact, it does entirely the opposite.  Both the Government amendment and the Liberal Democrat motion endorse the 10:10 campaign, but the difference was that the Liberal Democrat motion wanted to commit the Government as a whole (whatever that means) to the campaign.  And as I stated previously, while I fully support the aims of the 10:10 campaign, I do not believe that committing the Government to the 10:10 campaign would be either cost-effective or long-term for the reasons set out in my previous letter.

Therefore, I firmly maintain that I have always voted in favour of tackling climate change, and disagree that my vote in the opposition day debate in any way contradicts this or undermines my commitment to tackling climate change.

2.  Was 10:10 a good and sound bill? Is there a better way? Was it understood by the MPs voting?

First of all, I must disagree with your suggestion that I do not understand the importance of the 10:10 campaign.  As stated in my previous letters, I fully support the aims of the 10:10 campaign.  I am also aware of the urgency of tackling climate change and completely agree that action needs to be taken now.  What you fail to mention though, is that action IS being taken now.  Simply because the Government has chosen the pragmatic course of action by using 5-year carbon budgets rather than yearly targets to structure its climate change policy does not suggest it is waiting until 2020 or 2050 to implement action.  If we are to meet these targets, even if they are five or ten or 20 years away, we need to take action now – and we are.

I also object to your suggestion that I do not believe these are achievable targets.  I have every confidence that the UK will meet its climate change targets.  The Government would not have proposed these targets if we did not think they were achievable, albeit challenging.  The target proposed by the 10:10 campaign is equally achievable, and as previously stated, the Government is on track to meet and exceed this target.  The Government amendment in no way contradicts this commitment to achieving these targets or suggests a lack of political will.

Finally, I believe it is because of most MPs’ understanding of the issue that the Government amendment was successful in the vote.  Again, the Government is committed to tackling climate change and achieving its targets, but as agreed under the Climate Change Act, the best method of achieving these targets is by implementing 5-year carbon budgets, and this is what was reflected by the vote.

3. Does our political system have the ability to deal with the level of change needed?

I believe our political system does have the ability to deal with the level of change needed.  I am confident that the policies, schemes, and initiatives the Government has already implemented and will continue to advocate for are the first step towards achieving these goals.  It is an ambitious strategy, but necessarily so.  The Government is tackling climate change from every angle – transport, business, fuel, homes, etc.  It is a comprehensive approach.

I do, however, agree with you that climate change cannot be tackled by political will alone – it requires the concerted efforts of every individual in the UK and the rest of the world.  The Government has therefore put in place a number of financial incentives for individuals and businesses to encourage everyone across the UK to do their part to reduce the UK’s carbon footprint.  The Government must lead by example, but it cannot accomplish this task alone and this is reflected in the Government’s climate change strategy.

Finally, I would ask that in the future if you choose to reference a letter I have written to you in the past that you display it in its entirety, rather than select phrases that disfigure the meaning of my intentions.  I agree with much of what you state in your blog, including the urgency of the situation and the need to reduce emissions immediately.  However, you have dismissed the crucial point made in my previous letter that rushing through policies to meet the 10:10 goal is short-sighted.  The Government is still on track to meet and exceed the 10:10 goal regardless of whether it formally commits to the campaign, but by basing its climate change policies on 5-year carbon budgets rather than yearly targets, we can better respond to and manage fluctuations.

Ultimately, not signing up to the 10:10 campaign does in no way indicate a lack of commitment on the part of the Government to tackle climate change.  Rather, it demonstrates the foresight that measures rushed through to meet the 10:10 goal would not be in the best interests of long-term reductions in emissions.  The 10:10 campaign is a fantastic way for individuals, businesses and even Government departments to reduce carbon emissions in the UK; it is not, however, a forum for formulating Government policy that needs to last beyond 2010.

I look forward to discussing this further on Friday.

Yours sincerely

PATRICK HALL

Member of Parliament for Bedford and Kempston

My Ref: PH/LJ/

23 October 2009

Dear Mr Hughes

Thank you for your email sent XXX October 2009 regarding the opposition day debate on climate change on 21 October.

I understand your concerns relating to climate change and share your commitment to tackling this issue.  Climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing our world today.  Both as a nation and as a member of the global community, the UK needs to do everything it can to create a greener, more sustainable future.

It is for this reason that I voted in favour of the Government’s amendment on climate change following the debate on 21 October.  I appreciate that this may be disappointing, but allow me to explain the nature of the debate and motions presented.

The Liberal Democrat motion and the Government’s amendment were both devised in the spirit of recognising the importance of tackling climate change.  The enclosed text of both the motion and amendment demonstrate consensus among both parties that climate change is a priority for this Parliament.   With this fact agreed, the debate centred on how best to tackle climate change, specifically, whether or not the Government should, as the Liberal Democrat motion stated, “sign up to the 10:10 campaign.”  While the 10:10 campaign is praiseworthy for its efforts to encourage all individuals to make lifestyle changes that will reduce carbon emissions, there are several reasons, however, that committing the Government to such a campaign would be unwise.

First and foremost, reducing emissions over the long term will take planning and efficient use of funds.  Thus, rushing through policies to meet 2010 targets might risk bad decisions being taken.

Cont’d

23 October 2009

In addition, under the Climate Change Act 2008, Parliament voted to empower the Climate Change Committee to recommend carbon budgets rather than yearly targets, as yearly changes in circumstances (such as a cold snap) could make it impossible to meet emission reduction targets one year.  Carbon budgets are based on 5-year periods with annual reviews and reports to Parliament.  Using a budget like this for a period of a few years will help manage fluctuations, and more realistically put emissions on a downward trend.

Furthermore, reducing emissions from buildings can be complex and involve a major building works.  It could not be done for the whole public sector over the course of just a year.

However, some Government departments could achieve such a target in a cost-effective and quick way, and this was recognised by Joan Ruddock MP, Minister of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, during the debate.  The Environment Agency, for example, has signed up to the target and aims to meet it through relatively simple measures such as mileage targets for all its vehicles and voltage regulators in its main offices.  The Government itself is on track to meet and exceed its carbon emissions target of 12.5% by 2010/11.

Therefore, while I fully support the aims of the 10:10 campaign, I do not believe that committing the Government to the campaign would be the most cost-effective or long-term course of action.  Instead, I believe the best method of domestically tackling climate change and meeting the UK’s emissions reduction goals is through the comprehensive strategy set out by the Government.

This begins with the Government reducing its own emissions.  As noted above, each government department has been set a departmental carbon budget for its own emissions.  The Government has also committed all departments to participate in the Carbon Reduction Commitment, a legally binding climate change and energy saving scheme in which organisations have to measure their carbon emissions and pledge reductions.  They can trade-selling surplus reductions to others, or buying credits if they produce too much carbon.  The scheme extends much further into the public sector as schools, hospitals, prisons and local authorities will also be included.

Furthermore, in line with the Liberal Democrat motion to make all homes warm in

Britain by 2020, 1.2 million homes received some form of insulation over the past year as part of the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target.  This programme is being upgraded to make 20% more money available for energy saving measures for homes.

The Government also recently launched the Community Energy Savings Programme which will help 90,000 homes in the poorest areas achieve a 20% cut in CO2 emissions and savings of around £300 in their fuel bills.

Cont’d

23 October 2009

However, domestic measures alone are not enough to effectively tackle climate change, and this requires international cooperation.  The UK played a key role in securing international agreement at Kyoto in 1997 and we are the first country in the world to meet our Kyoto targets to slash carbon emissions, and by almost twice the amount required.  With the expiration of Kyoto impending, the UK will once again assume a leading role in climate change negotiations this December.

The UN climate change conference to be held in Copenhagen, this December, will again be calling for an international agreement on areas such as the reduction of greenhouse emissions and commitment by the major developing countries as to how much they are willing to do to limit their emissions.  It is hoped that during this conference a signed deal will be reached on these matters.  Therefore, the level of commitment by political leaders on this issue is vital in securing the desired outcome.  It is for this reason that that the Prime Minister himself will be attending the conference in order to ensure that an agreement is reached.

Unlike other parties to the conference, the UK has published its specific priorities for the Copenhagen agreement prior to the conference.  You can read the publication entitled The Road to Copenhagen in its entirety at:  http://www.actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/en/ambition/road-to-copenhagen/.  In short, the publication calls for firm, binding targets from developed countries; and significant action by developing countries, with appropriate support from developed countries, to reduce their emissions below “business as usual” levels.

Based on the Government’s domestic and international strategy to tackle climate change as laid out above, I am confident that it will deliver long-term sustained reductions in carbon emissions, not just in 2010, but to 2022 and beyond.

Yours sincerely

PATRICK HALL

Member of Parliament for Bedford and Kempston

Enc

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!

Duke of Bedford

the region. I did a web search using terms such as Duke of Bedford and “Green”, “Eco”, “Environment”, “Climate Change” and “Renewable”. After these failed to yield any connections, i tried “conservation” given that the Duke is a substantial land owner. Relevant findings were pretty scarce. If anyone knows of any green and transition related activities of our local Duke, please do post them here. For that matter if you know of any high profile local residents that are supportive of a transition to a more just, sustainable and vibrant community, please do let us know. It would be nice to know about people who aren’t necessarily white middle classed males too. Not that i have anything against them, being one.

What i found was that previous Dukes were;

- connected to the ” worlds first ever ecological experiment” and linked to Darwin

- gave some land to allotments

- involved in captivated breading of a near extinct bread of dear

but these are all activities of previous Dukes of Bedford and not the current one. I know that he is the land owner of one or more of our local ancient (or very old) woodlands that have been managed and coppiced for centuries. The one in Ampthil was earmarked to become a Centre Parks, much to the dismay of some residents. While this deal was to make the Duke significantly richer by building on Green Belt land and environmentally there are clearly negative issues, the environmental debate about the development is not clear cut. The land adjacent to the woods was donated to The Forest of Marston Vale. It could be argued that the forest will stay largely intact, while not accessible by locals and there is the argument that by providing local tourist destinations, it is supporting the transition to a low carbon tourism.

Any comments or reviews of local people of influence warmly welcomed.

Bishop of Bedford

This article appeared in this weeks Bedfordshire on Sunday and i thought i’d reproduce it here with full credits of course. The reason being that it’s an article of significance but also because i often see articles in the local papers that i think we should re-post on the TB site so that we can collate information. These articles generally indicate a project or organisation that i’m amazed to find exist in our region that i know little of and that i feel we’d do well to connect with. In my mind, largely Transition Bedford as a Transition hub is a mechanism from supporting and bringing together existing activities. So here’s the article. You can see the original here

Bishop faces up to ‘greenhouse’ issue

BY CHRIS GILL

This is the Bishop of Bedford as you probably haven’t seen him before – or are possibly likely to see him again. News – Bishop of BedfordThe Rt Richard Inwood agreed to be photographed with the word Copenhagen written across his forehead to show his backing for climate justice. Other Bishops in the St Albans diocese followed suit ahead of climate talks in the Danish city.

The images will be projected onto landmark buildings across the UK, along with hundreds of other messages from people who are calling on the international community – and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in particular, to seal a fair and effective climate change deal at the key summit.

The Rt Rev Inwood, said: “Climate change poses a very real threat to humanity and to our planet. “We must be in no doubt that the Copenhagen climate summit requires strong leadership that will deal fairly and effectively with the consequences of climate change.

“It may seem incongruous to see a Bishop with Copenhagen written across his forehead, but I think it’s important that when people see these images they recognise the seriousness of the issue and that is why I have taken part in Christian Aid’s campaign.” Amy Merone, who works for Christian Aid in the region and who has coordinated the Bishops’ photography project, said: “We are delighted that Bishop Richard, along with the other Bishops in the St Albans Diocese, has given his support to this project. “We want people to be taken aback when they see the images and in turn recognise the seriousness of the climate change issue.”

I’ve never believed that the “shift” or the “great transformation” would be some divine esoteric shift bestowed upon us. It has to be one created by the collective act of millions, if not billions, that makes us feel connected, empowered, unstoppable and irresistible. Again, the shift isn’t that one day we’ll go to bed in a exploitative and destructive world and wake the next morning in Utopia. The other side of the shift is our very same society BUT it has the foundations of a sustainable and just society/planet and that there will still be lots of work to do but a step change will have been achieved. And not too soon!!! Can you feel it? Nearly there!!!!! Work harder, dedicate more time, be more obsessed about the area you’re working to change, now is the time for oober dedication!! Just out of interest i predict 3 shift changes. The chasm is too large to jump all in one. Something like 2012 for the first shift, 2017 for the second and the final one in the early to mid 2020′s. This three shift idea is largely based on my understanding of Carbon Accounting and how business, communities and organisations could reduce their emissions to zero or near zero negative climate changing emissions. Structurally they’d need several major shifts as the task is too big to complete in one go. You kind of have to make the leap and shift your systems but then wait for all the systems that you are connected to to catch up before you can make another shift. Its perhaps more like a shuffle than a shift. The globe, in my understanding, will go through a similar shuffle over the next 15 to 20 years. It’s going to be a roller coaster.

I put a question to each of the mayoral candidates via the Times & Citizen;  “I see a Local Authority’s approach to renewables as a kind of litmus test to just how seriously you take the issue of climate change, i’m not particularly interested in opinions on climate change, i’d like to know what specific policies you intend to implement to increase renewables in the area?” The Times & Citzen published a written edit of the response in last Thursdays edition. My initial response was one of dismay at how many of the answers seemingly missed the point. However, some of the content is lost in translation which is largely an issue of editing. I’ve since watched the video responses online. I urge you to take a look. The candidates mostly promise significant action. This article is a request that we hold to account who ever gets in.

Due to my personal ideals I’ve never voted in a my life, be it Local Authority of National Government. However, given that we have less than 90 months left before our global atmospheric emissions cross the 450ppm mark, which is widely agreed as being a tipping point, i may put my ideals aside. This next political term needs to be very decisive for Bedford, the nation and the world. Little do most politicians understand the full extent of the challenges and opportunities that will face us in the next four years. No space for floundering, little need for words, it’s action, vision and creativity that is our only true friend.

See the full press release below and an article on the Transition Culture website

DECC – Press release – 28 September 2009 – £10m for 20 best low carbon communities

Opportunity for low carbon communities to shape future policies

The Government has today launched a search for local authorities, charities and social enterprises to take up the challenge to help communities fight climate change.

Communities can apply for a share of a £10million fund as part of the Low Carbon Communities Challenge to build on existing low carbon schemes.

Around a quarter of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions come from heating, lighting and powering electrical appliances in homes. By 2050 this needs to be almost zero if the UK is to cut its emissions by 80% highlighting the importance of local action.

This challenge offers the chance to be in the forefront of moving to a low carbon economy. The twenty successful communities will each receive support to pay for real measures selected by the local residents themselves. These could range from a local biomass plant to retrofitting homes to electric car charge points.

In return for technical and financial assistance, people living and working in the area will work alongside government and contribute to finding low carbon solutions from which the whole country will benefit. Successful outcomes from the project will pave the way for a national roll-out of proven measures.

The Low Carbon Communities Challenge will help communities curb their carbon emissions and encourage economic investment that delivers greater energy efficiency.

A specialist support squad made up of partners with funding and expertise from inside and outside government – including The Energy Saving Trust, The Carbon Trust, WRAP and the third sector – will work together with each community to offer help on anything from negotiating in planning debates to identifying personalised low carbon answers.

Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, said;

“We’re searching for communities across the country to kick start the low carbon revolution. The Challenge is an opportunity for communities to lead the way so that everyone can play their part in tacking climate change and save money on fuel bills.

“The UK has the most ambitious emissions reduction commitments in the world and projects like this will develop the policies we need to be successful.

“With just over two months to go until the crucial climate talks at Copenhagen, the UK is well placed to show it is taking action in all areas to combat climate change.”

The twenty communities will act as national blueprints that will be used to inform government policy development and delivery. The direct involvement of these real life working case studies mean lessons can be learned on the ground to ensure future policies achieve the carbon emission cuts we need.

In addition to ongoing evaluation UK research institutions are being invited to participate, to ensure independent analysis of the various communities’ progress. Using its new £6m investment on energy and communities, The Research Council will be inviting academic proposals to come forward which would build on and contribute to the Governments investment.
The Challenge was announced this summer as part of the government’s Low Carbon Transition Plan.

For towns to be eligible they must demonstrate they are already making changes and are committed to developing both infrastructure and behaviour change that results in carbon reduction such as wind farms, electric car infrastructure or home energy refurbishments.
In testing the success of different plans the flagship Low Carbon Communities will provide invaluable research and information on how communities can successfully work together to cut emissions and fight climate change.

Notes to editors:
1.                              “Low Carbon Communities Challenge” will cover England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
2.                              Applications will be assessed and shortlisted by the UK Working Group – an advisory group made up of Government officials and external organisations – against the criteria.
3.                              The challenge is scheduled to start in January 2010.
4.                              By joining up support from across government and beyond, the Low Carbon Communities Challenge will provide easy access to a comprehensive range of services to help communities curb their carbon emissions and promote economic investment. The support will be delivered through a consortium of partners with funding from inside and outside government including:

Global Action Plan and
Groundwork
Carbon Leapfrog
Energy Saving Trust
The Carbon Trust
WRAP
Salix

Unlike governments, nature doesn’t do bailouts. Yet as of today, hu manity will have placed more demand on ecological services – from filtering CO2 to producing food, fiber and timber– than nature can provide in this year, according to Global Footprint Network calculations. From now until the end of the year, we will meet our demand for ecological services by depleting resource stocks and accumulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

“It’s a simple case of income versus expenditures,” said Global Footprint Network President Mathis Wackernagel. “For years, our demand on nature has exceeded, by an increasingly greater margin, the budget of what nature can produce. The urgent threats we are seeing now – most notably climate change, but also biodiversity loss, shrinking forests, declining fisheries, soil erosion and freshwater stress – are all clear signs: Nature is running out of credit to extend.”

Just like any country, company, or household, nature has a budget – it can only produce so much resources and absorb so much waste each year. The problem is, our demand on nature exceeds its capacity to generate resources and absorb CO2,a condition known as ecological overshoot. We now use a year’s worth of capacity in less than 10 months. Our calculations show that if we continue with business as usual, according to moderate U.N. projections, in less than 25 years humanity will require the regenerative capacity of two planets– a level of demand that is likely to be physically impossible to meet.

Global Recession Barely Slows Demand

Because of the global economic slowdown, we will reach Earth Overshoot Day one day later than last year, according to Global Footprint Network projections. By comparison, in the past, Earth Overshoot Day has steadily moved four to six days closer to January 1st each year.

“The fact is that in spite of a very painful world economic situation, we are still way over-budget in our use of nature,” said Wackernagel.  “The challenge is to find a way to reduce overshoot in boom times as well as lean years. This will mean finding a way to maintain healthy economies and provide for human well-being in a way that doesn’t depend on liquidating resources and accumulating CO2.”

Addressing Carbon Key To Balancing the Budget

Earth Overshoot Day comes just 80 days before world leaders meet at Copenhagen to tackle the most prominent consequence of our ecological overspending: climate change.  Our carbon Footprint (as calculated by Global Footprint Network, the amount of land and sea it would take to absorb all the CO2 we emit) has increased 1,000% since 1961. Carbon dioxide emissions now account for over half of human demand on nature. We are now emitting much more carbon dioxide than the natural ecosystems of the planet can absorb; thus it is building up in the atmosphere and contributing to climate change.

How Earth Overshoot Day is calculated

Every year, Global Footprint Network calculates humanity’s Ecological Footprint – the amount of productive land and sea area required to produce the resources we consume and absorb our CO2 emissions – and compares that with biocapacity, the ability of ecosystems to generate resources and sequester CO2. Earth Overshoot Day in 2009 is calculated from 2005 results (the most recent year for which data are available), and on projections based on historical rates of growth in population and consumption. In addition, the historical links between world GDP and resource demand are used to account for the impact on consumption of the worldwide economic slowdown.

Ecological Footprint analysis reveals that globally, we currently use 40 percent more regenerative capacity than is available in nature. However, countries vary widely in their average demand. If everyone lived like a resident of the U.S., for example, we would reach Earth Overshoot Day in March.

Taking Action

This Earth Overshoot Day, Global Footprint Network will be participating in Climate Week NYC to call on leaders for action at Copenhagen. We have also engaged with dozens of partners around the world who are hosting their own events and outreach efforts.

“Once city, country and business leaders realize that considering the reality of ecological limits is the best way to remain competitive and prepared for the future, they will begin to make the policy decisions and drive the technological innovations we need to live within nature’s means,” Wackernagel said. “And it is, of course, critical for individuals to do all they can and to push their leaders to action.”

Global Footprint Network with its international partner network is focused on solving the problem of overshoot, working with businesses and government leaders around the world to make ecological limits a core aspect of decision-making everywhere. With an international commitment to end overshoot, we can make Earth Overshoot Day history instead of news.

This article has been syndicated from the Global Footprint Network