[Committee] [Zero Carbon] RE:Andrew Simms / Ideas for 2007

[Steve Stretton]

Dear All,


Very best wishes to all for the new year. I've written a few comments about
Andrew Sims/the New Economics Foundation, 'Contraction and Convergence',
Energy and Energy Policy, Carbon Taxation, as well as some of my thoughts
about last term and the year ahead.


Nicky, thanks for your message. I haven't yet read "Ecological Debt", but a
number of my friends have recommended it and I have some familiarity
(personally I agree) with the underlying ideas, such as ecological economics
(the idea that the economy exists within and depends upon a larger
ecological system), behavioural economics and institutional economics (see
bottom for rough definitions or search on Wikipedia). I think it would be
excellent to invite Andrew Sims along: we might be able to hold it at CRASSH
(Interdisciplinary centre based in Mill Lane). 
In general the notion of a zero carbon economy is intended to be entirely
compatible with these ideas and those of 'contraction and convergence'.
http://www.gci.org.uk/contconv/cc.html
As far as emissions targets on a personal level is concerned, perhaps people
might be interested in helping to coordinate a carbon rationing group in
Cambridge? See http://www.zerocarbonnow.org/camacag/wCRAG%20Workshop.ppt
and/or 'Robin Smith' <robincsco at hotmail.com> for details.


It is critical that we solve the climate change problem and in doing so we
will prevent an enormous future 'ecological debt' between the rich and poor
worlds from building up. The poor would be hit on a massive scale by climate
change (natural disasters, droughts, fires etc). We are entitled to be
somewhat pragmatic in achieving what is an incredibly important goal for the
future of the human and natural world. 


Here are some further comments for our discussion:
TARGETS: In general I believe the UK should probably be MORE AMBITIOUS than
the current 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. It is true that if we
are LUCKY WITH CLIMATE SENSITIVITY and that EVERYONE AGREES then things will
be ok with this target, but in any REAL situation there will be leaders and
laggards, and the climate looks more sensitive than it did in 1990. Given
that China and India are developing fast we will need a ZERO-EMISSIONS MODEL
to be adopted for new developments: else TOTAL global emissions will RISE,
even WITH rich-country reductions (the world will return to coal). 


Here are the notes from the two meetings at the end of last term:
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY:
https://camtools.caret.cam.ac.uk/access/wiki/site/3eee4372-bf50-478a-0079-ed
581413d528/sustainable%20energy.html
ENERGY: Against the background of rapidly rising energy demand we need a
different model than one based on each year burning thousands of years of
accumulated fossilized organic matter. This new model will require huge
investment in very-large scale renewables, particularly solar energy in the
South - including USA/Australia/North Africa - (rather than the
largely-symbolic efforts so far); nuclear fission energy (perhaps including
Thorium, Uranium from Seawater and/or possibly new forms of Fast breeder
reactors) and Carbon Capture and Storage technology (in northerly countries
such as US/UK/China: in the UK we should support BP to become a market
leader in this in consultation with China). See notes from the 'Sustainable
Energy' day.


ECONOMICS OF ENERGY: Practically, in the long term we need zero emissions
technology to COST LESS than the fossil fuel alternatives (even in places
like China, the government cannot fully decide what economic agents do). In
converting to a ZERO-EMISSIONS model, counties can (simultaneously) show the
way and at the same time REDUCE THE ECONOMIC COST of low-emissions energy
technology. For example, nuclear energy could perhaps be cheaper than coal
over the lifetime of the project (See EU Commmision strategy paper 'An
energy policy for Europe'). In perhaps 20 years, low cost organic solar
panels could be ready to provide decentralised energy across the world.


ENERGY POLICY: Large-scale investment is attractive for societies because it
will support our society for years to come without the need for
geo-political intrigue to secure oil supplies. Furthermore it will be
CHEAPER (even ignoring environmental costs) than relying on ever dwindling
supplies of natural gas and oil. We will need LONG-TERM ELECTRICITY PRICES
IN LOW EMISSIONS ENERGY if we are to are to support such long-term
investment and I'll be arguing for this in letters to the government over
the next month before the energy white paper is published in March. I'm also
planning a talk in Cambridge perhaps on January 31st.


A zero emissions society can be more pleasant and more attractive than the
current state of affairs. ELECTRIC CARS will be much quieter than the
internal combustion engine and do not emit other pollutants which make air
quality poor in areas such as Los Angeles and cities in Eastern China.


Notes for CAMACAG 'WHAT IS THE PROBLEM' meeting:
https://camtools.caret.cam.ac.uk/access/wiki/site/3eee4372-bf50-478a-0079-ed
581413d528/atmospheric%20carbon%20action%20group.html
On GENERAL ECONOMIC POLICY, we can make economic gains by adopting CARBON
TAXATION as our MAIN SOURCE of income and eliminating other taxes (and
perhaps also increasing provision for pensioners). This could IMMEDIATELY
reduce demand for carbon-intensive lifestyles, although not to zero, and
would have ECONOMIC GAINS (since a carbon tax is extremely economically
efficient).


Finally, on HOUSING, sustainable developments, such as the BedZED
development south of London and the PassifHaus specification in Germany are
designed to be both ecologically and socially sustainable. The BedZed
development has East-West roads with office space on the North side (with
reduced demand for air conditioning) and housing in the South facing side.
This reduces transport needs and provides a local community with less need
for car 
travel. 


In the new year the society should support such developments in Cambridge
(the council is hoping to make the Clay Farms area low emissions) as well as
pushing for better insulation and solar water heating across the board. We
can act as a consultee in January. Please let me know if anyone would be
interested in helping out with this. The contact is Eithne Flannaghan at
Cambridge City Council.


The draft data structures outlined by Maki for the new website and the new
Wiki organised by Gunnar are excellent. This website and wiki will replace
the existing site when complete. I'm happy fund the hosting of the website
for the time being. The design team will develop logo, posters and T-shirts.
We may also have an EDUCATION AND AWARENESS programme. We have an
opportunity to apply for up to £5000 funding, but an application must be
completed in the first few weeks of January (and before 24th Jan in any
case). Any ideas ASAP to Anna <als53 at hermes.cam.ac.uk>.
We discussed that our main first meeting might be on the 25th (overall
introduction, covering Housing and Atmospheric Carbon Action), with Energy
Policy perhaps on 31st Jan.


Hope you are having a great holiday. 
Best wishes for 2007,
Steve


GLOSSARY
Ecological economics (the idea that the economy exists within a larger
ecological system) 

Behavioural economics (looking at what people ACTUALLY respond to, rather
than assuming in theory how they should behave)

Institutional economics ('institutions' being a general phrase for the study
how general social structures behave and might solve problems such as the
'tragedy of the commons'). 

Contraction and Convergence. The idea that rich-world per-capita emissions
need to reduce (contraction) to an average that the whole world can support,
so that poor-world emissions can rise to the same level (convergence).

-----Original Message-----
From: N. Scordellis [mailto:ns337 at hermes.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of N.
Scordellis
Sent: 30 December 2006 14:48
To: Stephen Stretton
Cc: committee at zerocarbonnow.org
Subject: Andrew Simms


Hi everyone,

I've jut finished reading a book by Andrew Simms called "Ecological Debt: 
The health of the planet and the wealth of nations" which explained the 
idea that while rich countries are demanding that poor countries pay back 
their debts, in fact we are the ones who owe them because of the ecological 
debt we've built up. It also descibes a contraction and convergence model 
of how to solve the problem on a global scale.

After reading it, I thought perhaps he'd be a good person to invite to come 
and speak, so before I go ahead and try to contact him I want to check: a) 
has anyone else read this book/got any opinions on Andrew Simms' ideas? and 
b) does anyone by any chance have any contact with him or anyone else at 
the New Economics Foundation? See 
http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/z_sys_contactdetail.aspx?page=877&folder=142
&cid=8 
for more details.

Let me know what you think...

Nicky