thinkingstring.com

One last word on this by Dave Hampton, the The Carbon Coach.

What it boils down to, to me, is a belief system to live by. If you prefer to give your own magical personal power away, to others, don’t be surprised if that leaves you feeling powerless.

I chose to put the YES case - not because I believe it’s right, and the NO case is wrong - far from it! On another day in another place i might easily be found passionately arguing for more regulation!

Besides, as with all debates, they are win lose - hence artificial. Simon P and I probably agree much more than we disagree.

Not ‘both and’ but ‘either or’ and more!

(thanks to my friend Stephen Stretton for that one.)

Anyway, the state, the government, the law makers, the civil servants, the public, the campaigners, the police, the sun readers, …the tacos*… - are all one. We are all ONE. Everything is connected.

*See one minute wombat video if you haven’t:
http://www.global-mindshift.org/memes/wombat.swf
(From Pachamama and Change the Dream..)

And if we are all ‘one’ then it’s obvious we get a load more ‘bang to the buck’ - from our limited personal energy - from shifting ourselves, and our own (re)actions, and from the wider example we set, than from any amount of hectoring, lecturing, demanding, arguing, and thinking about what OTHERS need to do.

Job Vacancy
Save the World
Apply Within!

Instead of asking yourself which view your head agrees with - ask yourself which feels the more empowering belief. i.e. the no brainer.

Franny Armstrong and Team Stupid today launched the campaign 10:10 - on the back of the release of the film The Age of Stupid. The film (which this author has not yet seen) spices up a documentary on oil and climate change with a fictional, backward glance in time at the present day. It is designed to be no less than a catalyst for change in the attitude of viewers regarding the reality and urgency of climate change, and thus one that inspires meaningful action across a broad front. The film’s production, distribution and funding models are themselves innovative - and that too has helped form a buzz around the film. Meanwhile, the associated 10:10 campaign is an attempt to get individuals and corporations to sign-up to a pledge to reduce their GHG emissions by 10% (over 2009) levels by the end of calendar year 2010. So while the film is intended to galvanise action, the campaign is intended to provide the framework for execution. I sincerely wish both the film and the campaign the best of success.

However it pains me however honesty compels me to say that I also ultimately believe that neither effort will make a difference to the course we are on.

Here’s why…

We are well beyond the point where simple changes to everyday behaviours are going to make any meaningful difference to climate outcomes. That’s not to say that there aren’t a long list of good things that can’t be done at an individual level - from the choice of lighting and building environmental control methods to the selection of green energy producers. There are nearly as many lists of methods regarding “how to drop 10% of your emissions” as there are tonnes of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere every year. We have no shortage of knowledge with regards to what needs to be done. What we lack is any broad interest in actually making those changes and making them stick.

Of course, that lack of interest is what both the movie and the campaign are attempting to address. But it won’t work - there is too much momentum built into the system of doing things for the change to occur. Honestly - of all the people I know I can’t think of a single person who is today not already switched onto the idea of the need to reduce their own reduce emissions who is likely to change opinion now to meaningfully internalise the need to alter behaviour. Note the emphasis - I do know people who are doing their darnedest to make a difference, both in their own lives and in the broader community and business world. However of all the intelligent, successful and everyday people I know, living everyday lives I see no evidence whatsoever that the message on climate change is sinking in. Of course they are all aware of all the little things that I happen to do at a personal and professional level - however all that is relegated to either being something that is regarded as endearing and quirky personal characteristics (and thus forgiveable) or the “Well that’s just all about work…let’s talk about something meaningful like the great deal I can get on a new sports car since the recession.”

The all too obvious answer of course is to interject with the suggestion that if a sports car is needed then perhaps a Telsa Roadster might be a better environmental choice than an AMG modified Mercedes. However the real, strategic answer is “How about cycling, walking, or catching the train instead.” Its the difference between the tactical choice and the strategic direction and lets be honest, we’re not gearing up for it. After all, in order to make enough of a difference that we avert further climate change we don’t need 10% of film goers to elect to watch The Age of Stupid, and then have 10% of them not only to sign onto the 10:10 pledge but to also actually achieve the committed reductions. We need more like 50% of the developed world’s population to make and then deliver on that commitment, while supporting the developing nations in a wide variety of ways such that they do not fill the resulting emissions reductions with their own GHG fuelled economic growth.

The question is “What’s stopping us getting there? Surely a people-powered social change such as that of the 10:10 commitment will overcome the inertia?” Actually, its hard to believe that it will. Realistically speaking there is little to point to which would indicate that the carrot approach of market forces alone will set the appropriate path and pace for change. Cutting through to the “bottom line” we can actually say that market forces have proven to be utterly ineffective at delivering a low carbon economy. Only a bloody great big stick approach involving market intervention of a dramatic kind is likely to alter that outcome, and there is much to point to support the case that such market intervention is unlikely to occur.

Take the USA. Obama’s administration does I think get climate change, as well as understanding that a path toward a low carbon economy provides opportunities for a renewal of US economic fortunes. However one needs to look no further than the debate - if we can sensibly call it that - in the US concerning the health care system to find an example of the ability of the US population overall (stirred on by Republican Party agitators) to violently insist on retaining a status quo that is both already enormously damaging to human health and fiscal responsibility, as well being forecast to cause far greater economic exposure down the track. There are plenty of parallels between how the US health care debate is playing out and how events would unfold if the administration attempted the necessary market interventions required to reduce the USA’s by 10% next year, with further dramatic changes scheduled annually thereafter. Rest assured that bipartisanship will be sunk deeper than the Good Ship Titanic if the Democratic Party administration took that path. The chance to play politics on the issue of climate change and by doing so to place a Republican leader back in the White House in 2012 will override the longer returns to humanity that come from avoiding a greater than 2c degree rise in global temperatures by 2050.

Meanwhile in the UK there is consensus amongst all but the Brown family that the Tories will form the next UK government. Even the most ardent of Labour supporters can smell the paint fumes from the writing that is on the wall on this one. From the perspective of the government in waiting there are therefore no significant votes to be had in taking a more hardline approach to climate change than has already been mooted. Cameron has done green and almost certainly has recognised that he doesn’t need the incremental votes of the 10:10 pledged voting public to achieve power. Look no further than the very real absence of a detailed plan from Camp Cameron on how to achieve real structural change regarding climate change (hint to London’s Conservative Mayor, Boris Johnson - it makes no difference to climate outcomes if Heathrow expansion is cancelled in favour of a runway in the middle of the Thames).

Meanwhile down in Australia the debate between the incumbent Rudd government and the Liberal opposition over the details and implementation timetable of the proposed Climate Bill is raging. The Rudd administration, seeking to exploit the currently shambolic leadership of the opposition party has flirted with the idea of pushing the question of the adoption of the bill - which has thus far been blocked by Liberal Party opposition - through to a double dissolution election. Doing so would deliver both the opportunity to strike politically while the opposition is weak, outside of the standard election cycle (thus extending the overall potential duration of the Rudd government term of power), while giving all the appearance of taking action, while actually avoiding the pain of making real change. The latter is in fact the only guaranteed outcome of the whole process as there isn’t a climate scientist of any repute who has looked at the proposed Australian bill who feels it commits Australia to the necessary level of emissions cuts. Politics over real climate action again.

If all that sounds awfully cynical let me hold up some examples to ponder of where phenomenally important decisions and agendas have been pushed through by the government of the day. The following list is not, to be absolutely clear, meant to be representative of what have been good decisions. There are merely examples of the lengths that government will go to when they really want to achieve an end.

Exhibit one: The Iraq Invasion. When George W. Bush wanted to topple Saddam Hussein he co-opted no less than Tony Blair, Australian Prime Minister John Howard, Colin Powell, and most of the USA/UK/Australian media in a campaign of popular and political persuasion both audacious in its scope as it was inevitable in its outcome. The general citizenry were lied to regarding the evidence for WMDs, and when none were found the raison d’être for the war was conveniently changed. When hundreds of thousands of protesters voiced their opposition to the invasion they were ignored (something to keep in mind if 10:10 does in fact succeed in drumming up widespread ground-up calls for action on climate change).

Exhibit Two: When in 1999 the question of whether Australia ought to become a republic could be ignored no longer as a question of federal political importance no less than a national referendum was held to put the issue to the public vote. Some would say that the outcome was manipulated by the structure of the actual referendum questions citizens could reply to - but like the Iraq War the point isn’t necessarily about the rights and wrongs of the process, its more to do with the fact that when an issue is deemed important enough to be brought to the voting public’s consideration a process and will exists to do so.

Exhibit Three: During 2008 and into this year as the economies of the world collapsed governments have not pulled back from a degree of market intervention that is without precedent. Money is being printed in the US and the UK. Banks have been nationalised, car companies and airlines bailed out. Indeed the outcome of the 2008 US election cycle ultimately hinged on the question of how the nascent government would address the failing economy and the rapidly growing ranks of the unemployed and homeless. You can bet too that as the dust clears from the market collapse that a whole slew of new regulations will be introduced designed to tighten up fiscal and corporate governance in the hope of avoiding a repeat. So we have widespread extraordinary intervention already, and we’ll get a whole lot more intervention in the form of ordinary legislation later.

The 10:10 campaign, for all the good it will do, and for all the good intentions of those behind it exists solely because there is a leadership vacuum on the issue of climate change from the only people who can truly make the strategic and structural changes required - the collective governments of the G8 nations and those of India, China and other major emerging large GHG emitters. People power alone is not enough to sway the outcome - those protests that have already taken place continue to be dismissed as the Greenie Fringe. Our elected leaders have the capacity and track record in manipulating widespread public opinion on the occasions that they wish to. When that fails they simply claim the mantle of electoral mandate in order to override a minority of public dissent in the secure knowledge that the majority are too distracted to really care anyway. Simply put - we won’t achieve the necessary GHG emissions cuts without structural changes to the global economy; to society; to transportation and housing; and to the balance of fairness of the world’s economic systems without deep market intervention. And we won’t achieve that without a degree of leadership so far utterly absent on this issue.

We can be honest. Or we can continue to be collectively stupid. The status quo may win votes and avoid an uncomfortable degree of change, but only history will honestly judge the degree of the stupidity of the age in which we live.

The debate, if you can call it that, in the US over health care system reform is a truly bizarre spectacle, and one that is an abject lesson in how to distract an argument away from the core subject being discussed.

The indisputable fact is that approximately 40,000,000 people in the US cannot afford access to basic health care services. By “basic” I refer not to agonising decision over whether to have nipple enhancement or not while you’re in to get your breasts done. No…by ‘basic’ I mean services like non cosmetic dental care, A&E care, blood pressure and cholesterol diagnosis and treatment, diabetes diagnosis and treatment, natal care, and services to repair all the wear and tear experienced during the average first 18 years of life. The bottom line here is that the current system, the status quo, is structured such that 40 million mothers, fathers, grandparents, sons and daughters have zero ability to pay for services to fix health problems that are chronically painful and perhaps life threatening. With no “health care net” available either “no ability to pay” translates into “zero access”.

To reiterate what is an important and fundamental point. The current population of the UK is approximately 60 million people. If 40 million people in the UK were similarly effectively blocked from access to health care then two thirds of the population could not go to the dentist or doctor ever. The current population of Australia is 21 million - so if you deported all the doctors, nurses and dentists from Australia and closed all the hospitals and clinics you’d still only be halfway to denying 40 million people basic health care services.

Meanwhile, for the other 260 million or so Americans who do have access to health care, services and treatments are eye poppingly expensive. However, be careful your eye doesn’t pop too far out as it may not covered by the health insurance scheme provided by your employer - which is shelling out an estimated US$12,000 per employee per annum to pay for that insurance (providing insurance for the employee and up to 3 dependants). That’s US$12,000 more that could be paid directly to the employee as wages if the employer did not structurally have to cover the health insurance costs. If you think twelve thousand bucks is chicken feed, it is worth remembering that that figure is the about the US minimum wage - though it is also worth remembering that if you were an employee actually on minimum wages, it is unlikely that your employer would also be providing health insurance making you perhaps one of those 40 million people unfamiliar with the inside of a doctor’s waiting room.

This author speaks from experience with regards to the platinum coated pricing schemes of US health care as we had a son born in New York state during the family’s four year tenure in the USA. It is worth providing a short summary of those costs to provide perspective:
- total time mother/son spent in a hospital: 12 hours (the minimum time before you’re allowed to check out after giving birth)
- total time doctor spent in room: 60 seconds (to sign a form)
- nursing staff: 1 “in and out” with the majority of nursing provided by self funded midwife
- drugs and other interventions: zero (yes you read that right; no drugs, no interventions)
- use of “machines that bleep”: zero
- use of ambulance or similar: zero

In short - you would struggle to describe a birth experience that required less support from neo-natal services other than a home birth.

Total cost: just shy of US$8000; with the employer provided insurance paying for 90% and leaving us with a 10% or US$800 deductible. Just what was worth eight thousand dollars of medical treatment remains a mystery to this day.

Meanwhile the US is ranked by the WHO in almost all indicators, except for cancer survival rates, far below Oman, Morroco and Colombia, as well as the UK, France, Germany (just keep listing other major European and Scandinavian countries here), and Australia. The USA ranks 37th.

To summarise: the US has a health care system today that under-delivers against important key performance indicators (infant mortality, average life span etc), is eye wateringly expensive for those treatments it does provide, and leaves 40,000,000 people with zero health care. Oh, and by the way the status quo is projected to bankrupt the country entirely as it will fail to scale further as the populations increases and ages.

The debate therefore ought to be a simple one - does the US maintain this status quo, or does it seek to reform health care in such a way as to drastically improve the USA’s WHO rankings , provide basic services universally, and reduce the overall costs to prevent budgetary collapse.

However that isn’t the debate that is taking place. The debate that is taking place is over whether the provision of universal health care is “socialist” (translation: pinko subversise communist), and whether fantastical death panels will rule over the worth of Grandma’s life (Sarah Palin says she can see the Death Panels from her medicine cabinet). Take these two distracting and emotive topics, add a little dash of Glenn Beck to the aforementioned Salt of Palin and you’ve just hijacked what was a needed and sensible debate, and you’ve turned it instead into a roiling mess of argument that churns onward and achieves nothing. Or more accurately, it achieves the maintenance of the status quo.

Which brings us naturally to the topic of peak oil (this as my old friend George Watt would say, is a “neat little seque”). The connection here is twofold and less tenuous than you might think. Firstly, oil provides the energy that enables modern health care. Secondly, and more directly relevant to the main point here is that the debate over the timing of peak oil has been allowed to overshadow the necessary debate over the future of (petroleum based) energy prices.

The truth of the matter is that we will only definitively know when global oil supplies have peaked once we’re well down the slope of decline. Far enough down perhaps to have put behind us a few (more) instances of supply having insufficient scope of growth to meet real demand. There is much evidence to suggest that we’re already basically at the peak point, or just beyond. However arguing this point tends to just around in circles. It is very easy for peak-deniers to point to the status quo and argue that “Providers report significant reserves as they have in the past. They didn’t stop pumping last year. So they won’t stop pumping this year. And anyway, we can just drill a few more holes in the Alaskan tundra if we need more.” Such drill-baby-drill responses are the peak-oil equivalent of the pinko-communist-death-panel responses in the US healthcare debate. The main purpose, intentional or otherwise, is to maintain the direction and rate of the status quo and delay or prevent structural change and improvement.

The real discussion that needs to be taking place concerning oil is whether cheap oil will continue to be available. “Cheap” is of course a relative term. Ignoring for a moment that (not insignificant) fact of the infamous US$147 p/bl price peak, by “cheap” means “the median price of oil over the period during which it has fuelled the development and growth of the current economic model.” Furthermore, given that the maintenance of the social/economic/world-balance-of-power status quo relies on the oil price remaining somewhat near that median price, what are the implications for the economic decisions that are made countless times every day, that are based on the price of oil?

The outlook is such that it is almost certain, on balance, that anything but the status quo will result. For example, OPEC has for some time now called for a price range of between US$70 and US$80 p/bl as being the minimum that can support the necessary infrastructure and exploration investments required to maintain supply levels. Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer stated in June of this year that “(All this) points to new price spikes and volatility further down the road.” The same Kuala Lumpur hosted Asian Oil and Gas conference heard BP CEO Tony Hayward state that a target price of US$60 to $80 p/bl is also in BP’s sights in order to pay for required investments.

A per barrel target price of between US$70 and $80 p/bl is a very interesting one for a number of reasons.

For a start, it represents the upward slope of prices for petroleum and oil-derived products (fertilizer and plastics feed stocks) that are felt downstream by consumers and industry. The Wall Street Journal reports that petroleum prices as a percentage of disposable income more than doubled between 1981 and 2008. This is enough to change consumer behaviour, and certainly enough to alter the balance of cost calculations for heavily oil dependent industries.

Secondly, it is worth looking at the 2006 study performed by the US Department of Commerce titled “Macroeconomic and Industrial Effects Of Higher Oil and Natural Gas Prices”. The D.O.C. study was designed to predict the effects on the US economy (and by extrapolation all other developed economies) of an oil price that is maintained in the range of US$70.00 to $80 p/bl for two years or more. Not surprisingly, the study found depressive effects on GDP, industrial output, consumer disposable income levels and more. All other things being equal such a price would also result in an additional 500,000 people becoming unemployed due to cross sector job losses, compared to an oil price range in the US$50 to $60 p/bl range.

Those resulting changes occur for a very simple reason: as oil prices increase (and therefore the prices of products derived directly and indirectly from oil increase) the decisions made by individuals whether acting as individual consumers or in their capacity as business decision makers changes too. Spend less, invest elsewhere, carry less employees, locate and manufacture elsewhere. Scaling upwards to the strategic and structural as oil prices continue to go upward from US70+ we eventually reach a point where airlines downsize and go out of business en masse, and where commuters desert their SUVs and catch a train or a bus instead. Jeff Rubin, former Chief Economist of CIBC Worldmarkets is quoted as saying “I think we’ll see a return to triple digit prices (per barrel oil prices) very early into an economic recovery”. His book titled “Why Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller: What the Price of Oil Means for the Way We Live” is worth a read as a basic outline of his thinking.

This therefore is the discussion we ought to be having - how do we achieve a soft landing for society as oil prices increase, and the associated economic decisions are reworked? Sure, there are clearly some, like Mr. Rubin who are sounding the drum. However the majority of individual and corporate decision makers continue with the assumption that energy prices will remain roughly in line with those enjoyed during the past 50 years, and that therefore the same structural economic system will continue. All the rest have either not noticed at all, or have been distracted by the circular debate regarding peak oil.

All of which is a segue if I ever seen one. And a sick one at that.

Very pleased to be accepting contributions from my old colleague Tom Mellor on ThinkingString. Tom has spent more time at the pointy and unpleasant end of large scale, technology related infrastructure projects than most people I know.

Tom will be writing about risk management, infrastructure and information security, how to successfully implement infrastructure projects, and no doubt a few other things aside. See here for a short bio on Tom.

Every so often the inbox holds a pleasant surprise, and so it did today upon returning from London (spending some time with PR firm Ogilvy to muse on the meaning and relevance of “sustainability” to businesses). The Institute of Industry Analyst Relations (IIAR) have just published the first part of their annual survey results, looking at the relative influence of the various IA houses, as well as that of individual analysts. The full survey results for 2009 are available here on the IIAR website.

The nice surprise was that this writer was voted as the second most important analyst in the “GreenIT/Sustainability” space, behind Simon Mingay of Gartner, and ahead of Dave Metcalf of Verdantix (a boutique IA house specialising exclusively on GreenIT). Congratulations and well done to both Simon and Dave; it is great to be bracketed by such great individuals - the thorn between two roses perhaps.

While some will say that “green” is done - yesterday’s news - the coming year holds some crucial turning points in setting the appropriate direction and pace for carbon cap and trade, while the price of (petroleum derived) continues to get attention as the concept of peak oil supplies moves ever more to the centre of mainstream media consciousness. We might well be done with the delicate washing of green that characterised 2007/2008, but the heavy lifting of enacting corporate change is yet to begin in earnest.

Unravelling the complexity of that challenge, and doing so without hype or spin continues to be the mantra for this industry watcher. Thanks for listening, and I hope that one or two things I’ve said this year have made sense to someone.

Fittingly the news (as reported here) that the UK government is to push the use of high speed rail over the use of short haul aircraft for travel within the UK comes to me via a copy of The Guardian from the nice man seated opposite me in seat 29, en route to Edinburgh. We sit here in a little threesome of macbooks, the newspaper man, his colleague and I, with only a niggling worry at the back of the mind that there is only one 240v socket to share between us. The other two macbooks being the newer it is likely that my battery will run out sooner, giving me “first come, first serve” ownership rights over the electricity nipple. Perhaps the only time that a short(er) battery life gives any sort of advantage.

The preferential use of rail over air for passengers, and over road for long haul freight has been a long term interest for this author. Perhaps a legacy of being birthed in the rail town of Crewe, and being descended from a family with the stains of coal dust, diesel, and points grease deeply embedded in the pores. My father recently retired from his position as General Manager of Invensys Rail Division’s Asian operations, based in Bangkok, after a lifelong career in the industry of rail infrastructure internationally working for Westinghouse Brake and Signal (now a division in the conglomerate Invensys). Both of my grandfathers worked as boilermakers in the Crewe train yards, and my mother was a computer operator for British Rail in the 1960s. No trainspotter me, but I hold no distain for the concept of long distance steel wheeling and will now happily eschew the opportunity to doff my shoes and stand in line to be body-rayed at Heathrow.

The UK Governments newly found support for rail is a welcome change from years of neglect, and billions of pounds of subsidies and countless examples of planning support for more carbon intensive travel options, especially flying. The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead continue their legal challenge to the previously granted approval for a 3rd Heathrow runway even as transport secretary Lord Adonis reportedly states that “switching 46 million domestic air passengers a year to … rail is manifestly in the public interest”.

Interlude - just noticed that the curved girders supporting the roof over the platforms at York is attractively pierced with little star shaped cutouts.

Those 46 million passengers will only choose rail over anything else if the price is right (not I would argue, necessarily cheaper), while the service and experience meets or exceeds that to had in car or in the air. The provision of positive customer service experiences must also extend beyond the actual journey to include the planning, booking and ticketing; the transfers between the starting and end points and the relevant stations; and the numerous peripheral steps in between. The latter by the way, is a euphemism for “shopping opportunities”. Much effort has been made to create a sense and reality of “joined-up” services when flying. Ironically the Heathrow Express rail service provides a more seamless travel experience for air travellers starting or continuing their journeys into the capital than many long distance rail passengers might expect to find. Not only is there a morass of overlapping and uncoordinated rail services in the UK, operated by a mess of privatised and public companies, there is generally very little integration between rail and other transport modalities.

For passengers, the challenges of navigating between services - finding the connecting train for example - is hardly assisted at present to anywhere the degree that a potential air traveller might enjoy. It is impossible for instance to access a single application or internet hosted service from a handheld device and be provided with real time information on services throughout the duration of a multi-hop journey. Considering the availability and accuracy of GPS based location services on modern smartphones it is difficult to believe that an mash-up application can’t be developed that would not only pull together all the details of a travel booking, but could also guide the traveller to the correct platform for the next connecting service too.

Meanwhile, it is not just 46 million passengers who ought to encouraged into modern rolling stock, it is also long distance freight. Mile for mile, rail is most energy efficient method for hauling bulk goods, especially heavy produce. The pressure group Freight on Rail states that each bulk freight train can take the load equivalent of fifty HGVs off the roads. HGV drivers will twitchily reach for the keys for their big rigs all the while threatening rolling protests and road blockages at any suggestion of a concerted effort to switch bulk haulage (back) to rail, but the fact remains that shuttling the goods they carry by rail between distribution points emits far less GHGs than the fleet of HGVs required to do the same job would emit. Freight on Rail reports that 26% of the UK’s emissions can be attributed to road transport of goods.

A resurrection of the UK rail network is more than just rolling stock, routes and encouraging passengers and cartons alike onto the tracks. It is also about urban planning. Rail is an infrastructure at both local and national levels. Towns, transport interchanges and other peripheral infrastructure elements need to be planned with the idea that rail is a preferred transport modality. Rail infrastructure is long lasting and immovable once installed and so new urban developments, and redevelopment of existing towns etc need to flex a little to best accommodate their presence and encourage the use of the supplied services. Such ideas fly in the face of the open market free-for-all that characterises post-Thatcher Britain, however perhaps in these market interventionist times we may find the political and public will for a more planned approach now, with the goal of a better service and environment for all in the years ahead.

Last minute addendum: if this reaction by the airline industry is anything to go by, Adonis’s announcement might just have some legs.

A little while back I wrote about disclosure. Just a few thoughts trying to articulate a code of mini-corporate conduct by which I am attempting to shape my own little slice of the economic pie.

And so it is with no small amount of surprise, mixed together with what I hope is the appropriate amount of sincere humility that I find that David Tebbutt has said a few words on the subject here in the blog he authors for SmallBizPod.

As I mentioned to David via Twitter today, I’m not seeking to inspire here, just to get my own house in order.

Kicking around some ideas related to what “governance” means to eco/grreen - this is a work in progress.

First up is the observation that it’s really “governance of sustainability” which is more expansive than “eco/green governance”.

When applied to an organisation “sustainability” then encompasses ecological sustainability, and also financial sustainability,risk management, human asset management, and operational management. The following graphic illustrates this idea:

Throughout all of these areas are compliance conformance and reporting needs, project portfolio execution and coordination tasks, and strategic planning.

There are numerous ways in which each of these areas interrelate. While a “eco-governance” is a generally new concept it is clear that you can’t actually achieve anything meaningful if you handle it in isolation.

I’m working this up into a full blown article, meanwhile I’m just thinking out loud…

A recent tweet by tebbo recommended a short article on a proposed in-wheel electric motor that can be retrofitted to existing petrol vehicles…. “RT @Vibroseis Retrofit hybrid kit for your car using electric wheel motors http://bit.ly/8gLox <<< Nice one Mr ex-IBMer”

Its an interesting idea. The technology proposal is for a set of electric motors to be installed between the wheel and the brake mechanisms, and powered by a battery array in the trunk. The motors will take up some or all of the load with the petrol engine therefore needing to work less, perhaps including down to only an idle speed. The petrol engine wouldn’t be able to be turned off completely when in motion as it will be required to power the vehicles existing essential systems - steering, brakes, aircon, digital-integrated-multi-media-web-browsing-GPS console, and heated 48oz coffee mug holders.

The practical challenges to making such a system work have to be: electric engine power limits; battery technology constraints,; integration with existing controls especially braking (incl. ABS) and acceleration - such systems may be fly by wire or cable/hydraulic; networking of motor units in order to synchronise output across the two/four wheels; the need to support multiple wheel size, stud pattern, rim offset configurations.

Wheel sizes and configurations are standardised more than you might think. A quick check of the webiverse finds that there are probably about 20 combinations of wheel size and stud pattern that are used across a high proportion of vehicle manufacturers and models. The practical consideration of deliverable motive power from the electric motors versus vehicle weight might reduce the range of cars the technology is practical for anyway, so the most common 20 size/stud patterns might well fit 75% of the addressable market. If the electric engine drive assembly is designed to allow for it then additional stud patterns can be bolted on easily. The published design schematic (see figure) seems to indicate that this is catered for.

The other caveat is that of bureaucracy. As the electric motor system is a change to the motive power source of the vehicle, and on paper adds horsepower over and above the existing petrol engine I would imagine that every vehicle in which it is installed will need to pass some sort of re-registration and roadworthiness inspection. There will no doubt be insurance implications as well.

There is another important design consideration - style. There is a trend toward Brake Bling. The designers will do to remember to cater for those who wish to greenvertise their new electric wheels.

It’s been an interesting week in jolly, old England. The thermometer that is positioned in a hanging plant basket just outside the kitchen window where it can be read of a morning from the climate comfort of the indoors crept to 39c on Wednesday. Allowing a few degrees for the fact that the rear of the house cops the full blast of the PM sun, and we can safely call the temperature that day as 35c. Meanwhile, due to the simple exercise of keeping the curtains closed on the sunny side of the house as the day went on, indoors maintained a temperature a noticeable 6-7 degrees lower than outside. If only he house (an extended 1930’s semi) had some decent shading verandas it’d be even more pleasant.

If only..

If only all those people who gleefully jumped up during this winter’s snowfalls, pointed out the window and jabbered “See…snow. In England. Just proves global warming is a load of hot air. If the climate was warming we wouldn’t have snow now would we?” would now take a sweaty moment to consider the meaning of a different day. As Goerge Monbiot points out, the same climate deniers are noticeably silent in the face of a heatwave.

A four day UK heatwave does not a global climate trend make however. It may be likely that the UK regionally gets more hot weather incidents as a result of changing climate, but the specific incident of a few hot days is not the indicator that we’ve suddenly reached climate tipping point.

However, the recent heatwave ought to provide something for the climate deniers to think about. Because they’re also fond of saying “We’ll anyway, I like hot weather. We fly to Spain every year to holiday in the beautiful heat. If it does get hotter, I’m all for it. Malaga in East Anglia I say. Bring it on!” That’d be the same people then who drearily moaned there way through four days of hot days this week? Moaning about sleepless nights, their faces flushed red after the small exertion of walking 200 metres from the town carpark to the school to pick up little Edward or Edwina. The same ones passing out at their desks due to the lack of office air conditioning, having already dangerously weakened themselves through the hot crush of the morning commute on the Tube.

What they might well think is “This hot weather is not as much fun when you have to live in it, going to work in a suit when its 35c, and going about the everyday humdrum of life under blazing, cloudless skies.” Because the lesson of this week’s heatwave is not “One heatwave = final proof of global climate change,” the lesson is “England’s infrastructure is not designed to deal with hot weather.”

England’s housing stock for instance lacks the wide eves or verandahs to be found in countries like Spain, Australia, and South Africa, that provides shading for the walls of the dwelling when the sun is at its hottest point. Meanwhile the county’s office stock is, aside from new structures such as The Gherkin, devoid of air-conditioning, and locked in a design that gives no thought to the need for extensive natural air flow on a hot day. Instead, what windows there are are likely to remain shut against the incessant roar and exhaust fug from the traffic below.

Little Edwina will be spending the day sitting in a school classroom, distracted from lessons by the heat, the stickiness, and her state of mild dehydration. The UK school system doesn’t do heat well - there is an almost complete lack of shady areas in the playground.

Summer hats that would protect faces, heads and eyes from the fierce midday sun (right when school lunch break is) are not a feature of 99% of school uniforms, and there is no universal policy anyway that would encourage / force pupils to wear them outside on the hottest days.

As the drought conditions across southern England showed a few years ago, this nation is also woefully unprepared to deal with any extended period of summer dryness; at the time of the hosepipe ban high street retailers (remember them?) continued to sell an extensive range of backyard wading pools “All of which can be filled and refilled with impunity.”

In short; 35c is an enjoyable lark when on holidays, dressed in swimming trunks, sunglasses, a beach hat and with nothing more taxing for the mind to do than read a Dan Browne novel by the poolside bar. Living with 35c: working, commuting, shopping, schooling, cooking, cleaning, sleeping and myriad of other daily activities are not at all as much fun. Its even less fun when the basic infrastructure of the country isn’t geared toward dealing with it. And changing that infrastructure will require a lot of money, a lot of time, and a lot of disruption.