Tuesday 29 April 2014

What is Sustainability?


Sustainability - yes it's certainly a well-used buzzword these days!  But what does it mean? Dictionary.com gives two definitions:
1. The ability to be sustained, supported, upheld, or confirmed.
2. The quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources, and thereby supporting long-term ecological balance.

I think '2' is better than '1' but a definition that I believe rings true is:


The trouble is that whilst 'sustainability' is preached by many politicians and others with forked tongues, I don't see much evidence of them practicing what they preach.  But in fairness to the decision-makers, the traditional way of evaluating business cases doesn't favour long-term considerations.  Let me give you two examples, one imaginary and one real.

Starting with the fictional case, let's imagine I own a forest, which I don't want to keep.  I am approached by two potential purchasers.  Company A wants to pay me $1million.  Their plan is to clear all the trees and build 20 luxury villas.  Company B wants to lease the land and pay me $10,000 per year.  Their plan is to establish a sustainable logging business.  From a financial perspective the decision is a no-brainer.  The $10,000 per year from Company B is less than even the potential interest payments on the $1million payment from Company A.  But in fact, Company A's business plan only makes sense to them because they are not bearing the true costs of their actions.  The clearing of the trees will mean that tons of carbon dioxide will no longer be absorbed, thus adding to the problem of global warming.  At a time when we are trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, how do you put a cost on a project that is blatantly exacerbating the problem?  Whereas Company B's sustainable logging project would incur little cost to the future environment.  If Company A had to pay a hefty penalty to, say, the State for reducing carbon dioxide absorption, it's housing project would almost certainly not be viable.

My second example is very real.  The UK Government is currently obsessed with the desire to invest in fracking projects.  The installations will inject liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks, to force open existing fissures and extract gas.  Quite apart from the technical risks associated with fracking, let's compare it with alternative renewable energy sources, i.e. windmills, tidal power, solar systems, etc.  all these green technologies exist but the argument that is used time and time again is that they are too expensive.  Well my counter argument is that if fracking companies were charged a hefty premium for the carbon dioxide that they will be adding to the atmosphere, which would result in extremely high prices to the consumers, then the business case for green technology would win hands down.

Returning to my favoured definition for sustainability - the ability to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs - just how often do you see this put into practice?

In the words of Jeffrey D. Sachs: "We need to defend the interests of those whom we've never met and never will."

Monday 21 April 2014

Don't Give Up on Technology


I have worked in technology-driven companies for the whole of my career, so I guess I'm a bit of a technofreak.  As well as trying to keep abreast of technological developments, I must admit to sometimes having the need to buy a gizmo, even if I'm not sure I need it!  That said, with wall-to-wall technology around the planet, it's often refreshing to sit back and consider what hasn't been affected (or maybe infected!) by the human quest to apply science to every conceivable problem.  I'm currently staring through my office window at a tree, probably about 60 years old.  I know that because I counted the rings on a similar tree that was felled nearby.  In a previous blog post I have marvelled at what trees do for our planet, through photosynthesis.  I don't know of any technology that could replace it, particularly when you consider it will run for hundreds of years almost maintenance free.

Nevertheless, what has been achieved through technological development by the human species is phenomenal.  Although we also have to recognise that many of the achievements have not been without massive harm to the planet.  I recently completed an online course on climate change and I summarised each week of the eight-week experience in my blog.  It is difficult to be sceptical on the human contribution to global warming, through the emission of greenhouse gases, particularly when there is so much evidence to prove it.  But I suppose the encouragement I drew from the course was the fact that the technology to stem global warming and prevent destruction of the planet for future generations, is readily available.  Harnessing the global interest and the will to make it happen, is what is proving to be extremely difficult right now.

So is there any problem that we do not have the technology to solve?  The answer is an emphatic yes, and let me give you a live example.  Malaysia Airways flight MH370 disappeared on 8 March with 239 people on board and at the time of writing still has not been found.  Now I know numerous commentators around the world have stated that it is almost inconceivable that an aircraft of that size, packed with all manner of technology, and supported on the ground and by satellite with even more technology, could go missing.  I have to say it almost shattered my confidence in technology, particularly in the early days of the search when there was doubt as to whether the plane had flown north or south!  Now that the investigators believe they know roughly which part of the Indian Ocean the plane submerged, the search goes on.  Having spent a lot of my career with companies engaged in the application of underwater acoustics technology, I know just how difficult the ongoing task will be and there are unlikely to be quick conclusions.

So despite our plethora of technology, there are some problems we can't solve, probably because when systems are designed not all the 'what ifs' are taken into account.  Another factor, in my opinion, is the temptation to design for the sake of design, without necessarily understanding what the problem is to be solved.  So instead of producing a 'widget', the designer produces a 'widget with wings' even if it doesn't need to fly!  This is particularly true of consumer electronics.  When you buy a computer these days it will normally have so much bloatware (applications that you are never likely to use) that it renders the PC far more susceptible to bugs than it needs to be as well as possibly affecting its performance.

Technology can be frustrating but we shouldn't give up on it.  It needs a purpose, not just a whim.  Let me give you an example of what I think would be a fantastic goal.  I've been following the trial of Oscar Pistorius and it's got me thinking about the legal system and in particular, establishing the truth.  We all have fantastic brains, the processing power of which surpasses any computer.  This includes a vast memory, which records visual and other sensory information.  So we can remember what we saw, heard, smelt, felt and tasted - the five senses.  Where the human memory has difficulty competing with the computer memory, is in data retrieval.  We cannot 'time stamp' information and neither can we recall using keywords.  In other words we don't have the equivalent of a Google search engine.  We pull things out of our memory using context or clues.  Sometimes, having recalled the information, we get it wrong and I am not sure if it was stored incorrectly or, having recalled it, we misinterpret it.  Whatever, wouldn't it be great if technology could access any stored information in the brain?  So, for example, in a trial, the defendant's stored data of the events under examination, could be accessed like built-in CCTV!  Now it wouldn't be perfect because, assuming the information is only as good as the original perception, it might not be accurate.  However, it would overcome the corruption of evidence from intentionally falsifying the facts.  Now it could be argued that such a system is fantasy.  Well the same could probably have been said to someone who proposed television before it was invented!

So don't give up on technology, it just needs a purpose!

Tuesday 15 April 2014

Focussing on the Present


As I follow world affairs, which I do avidly, it seems to me that as a species we are more concerned with the past and the future, than we are with the present.  I know that's a broad-brush statement but as an example, let's look at the situation in Ukraine.  Often when a commentator explains the continuing turmoil in Ukraine, she will describe its history, which led to a sizeable part of the population having Russian roots, and she will explain its future options, in terms of a closer relationship with the European Union or Russia, but not both.  The reason it can't be both, seems to be because of its history, i.e. the ethnic split in the country.  But after  many years of apparent peaceful coexistence between the now warring factions, what's brought this to a head?  Well, in my opinion, it's the age-old problem of money.  Ukraine's economy is floundering, it needs help and whichever direction it turns, there is a tension created within and outside Ukraine.

Now there's no way I could possibly propose a solution to this problem.  If there was a simple solution I am sure it would have been proposed and implemented already.  What does seem crazy to me, however, is that this type of problem, i.e. fighting over ethnic origins, is so common yet so futile.  The past has gone and there is nothing we can do about it.  The future is indeterminate.  All we know with any certainty is the situation that confronts us now.  As I get older and indeed into my twilight years, I often wonder if I'm getting any wiser.  After all, with decades of experience surely I should be better placed than,say, when I was a teenager, to make better-informed decisions.  And if better decisions provide a lower risk of misfortune, should I also be happier than I was in my youth?  It's probably not a good idea to look back to teenage years, because like all adolescents I had the typical ups and downs that we all have probably experienced during the transition from childhood to adulthood.  I think I was probably at my happiest when I was about nine years old.  Why?  Because as I recall, I took every day as at came, I lived for the present.  Of course I didn't have many years to look back on, particularly as from zero to three I couldn't remember anyway.  But as I recall, the future really didn't concern me.  Life was all about having fun!

So why as we get older and apparently wiser does present-focussed happiness seem to go out of the window?  My simple answer is - I don't know!  That said, it is probably true that at any age, a happy event - like a celebration, party, day out, sporting event, reading a book, etc - is usually focussed on the present.  Whereas a morbid event - like a funeral or a remembrance service - is focussed on the past.  I can't think of any future (anticipated) events that we celebrate.  We can get excited by a vision, but the celebration happens if and when the vision becomes a reality.  Our gazing into the future, individually and collectively, is often dominated by worrying.  Now worrying is an interesting exercise.  It involves using your imagination to create something you don't want.  The frightening thing is, that having used our creative energy to envision a nightmare scenario, we often then take actions, consciously or sub-consciously, that help the unwanted event to happen.  It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Returning to the situation in Ukraine, throughout the reporting of the troubles, the focus has been on very negative outcomes - invasion by Russia, civil war, financial meltdown, etc.  I haven't seen any predictions of an improving situation.

Albert Einstein said: "Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow.  The important thing is not to stop questioning."

That says it all.  Have a nice day!

Tuesday 8 April 2014

The Island Mentality


This blog post was prompted by the recent debates between Nigel Farage, leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister of the UK.  The two debates were addressing the old chestnut of whether the UK should remain part of, or withdraw from, the European Union.  The pro-EU argument was put forward by Nick Clegg and the counter argument by Nigel Farage - a Europhile versus a Eurosceptic.  Now I don't know how you judge who wins an exchange of views of this type but a poll conducted by YouGov after the second debate, suggested a clear victory for Nigel Farage, 68% to 27%, in terms of who put forward the best case.  So is that it?  Is the UK population making it quite clear that it wants to withdraw from the European Union?  I doubt the two debates made any difference to public opinion because we are seeing a battle of logic versus emotion, with the latter winning.

Although I was born and bred in the UK, I have been fortunate to visit all but one of the seven continents of the world.  The one I have missed out on so far is Antarctica.  My travels have been for business and pleasure and since leaving the cut-and-thrust of international business development, I now reside in Turkey.  So although I am a British citizen and proud to be so, I do feel more able to take a more objective view of the independence debate than, say, a 'Little Englander' with scant knowledge of life outside the British Isles.  For as long as I have lived in, and viewed from afar, the UK, there has always been, in my opinion, a very strong 'Island Mentality'.  To provide a full analysis in such a short blog post is impossible, but suffice to say, it is fuelled by historic world dominance and for many the reality of today's much weaker global position has not sunk in.


Great Britain is no longer Great and what's more, the United Kingdom is not United.  The Kingdom does regrettably still exist and in my opinion, the feudal monarchy adds another impediment to the nation being able to shake-off its illusions of grandeur.  The island mentality goes beyond the desire by many for an independent UK.  The country of Ireland, apart from the northern bit, got rid of its shackles with Britain a century ago and in September of this year, Scotland will decide by referendum if it wants to leave the UK.


So the 'logic' of 'smaller is better' is endemic within the British psyche.  How far should we extend this 'logic'?  Most of the UK's GDP is generated in London and the Home Counties.  So perhaps the South East of England would be better off as an independent state!  Or maybe each citizen should be totally independent!!  I find it useful to test arguments by examining mental models of the extremes and in my mind, the extreme independence model doesn't hold water.  Why?  Because we live in an interconnected and interdependent world but it seems to me that Britain, as well as many other 'cultural islands' in the world, have difficulty recognising how interdependent we all are are and, in my opinion, have to be.  We are all world citizens sharing a planet, which has been divided up by our ancestors into territories, many of which have little relevance to today's issues and indeed in many cases are a hindrance to solving our pressing global problems.  But how do you shake-off the island mentality?  Well you certainly can't do it by radio and TV debates.  I had hoped that the younger generation, who experience global interconnectivity through the Internet, and have never known anything different, would be a catalyst for change.  There is anecdotal evidence, however, that most young Brits are firmly in the independence camp, although polls suggest that 16 and 17-year-olds, eligible to vote in the Scottish referendum are more inclined to vote against independence.

So let's see how it goes.  It doesn't matter how we decide to organise the human species on the planet, the real crunchy issues won't go away and we are in danger of just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.




Tuesday 1 April 2014

How much more evidence do we need?


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently issued a report, titled 'Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability'.  The report describes the impact of climate change to date, the future risks from a changing climate, and the opportunities for effective action to reduce the risks.  The report has not been the result of a few guys huddled in a back room, indeed the number of experts involved in its preparation is impressive.  A total of 309 coordinating lead authors, lead authors, and review editors, drawn from 70 countries, were selected to produce the report.  They enlisted the help of 436 contributing authors, and a total of 1,729 expert and government reviewers.  We surely can't dispute their findings?!  Although, as we know, there are still plenty of skeptics in our midst.  The important thing about this report is that it's not just addressing what might happen in the future, but also what is happening right now, as people all around the world, including the residents of the Somerset levels and the Thames valley in the UK, know to their cost.

Climate has no respect for territorial boundaries or people's economic circumstances.  Health, homes, food and safety are likely to be affected by rising temperatures.  In the words of Rajendre Pachauri, chair of the IPC, "nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by the impacts of climate change".  Dealing with the climate requires a two-pronged strategy of mitigation and adaptation.  In previous posts, I have stressed the urgent need to take mitigation more seriously by, for example, accelerating the transfer from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, drastically reducing deforestation, planting more trees and reducing individual and industrial energy consumption.  But because of the greenhouse gases already 'locked' into the system, mitigation will take time to have a real noticeable impact and meanwhile global temperatures will continue to rise.  So as the IPCC report makes abundantly clear, based on the knowledge, experience and expertise of the world's climate experts, adaptation needs to proceed with urgency.  In fact, this latest IPCC report puts far greater emphasis on adapting to the impacts of climate change.  But the adaptation will require massive investment to protect, for example, populations against rising sea levels, fresh water supplies, crop yields, human health and at-risk industries.  Who foots the bill?  Well, that's an interesting question, particularly when the problems have been largely created by the richer, developed nations, but the effects will seriously damage the economies of the poorer, developing nations whose carbon emissions per capita have been a fraction of those in the developed world.  This issue is global, not national, and therefore, in my opinion, the costs of the solutions and their ultimate benefits, should be shared by all.

Are the world's politicians taking the seriousness of climate change on board?  US Secretary of State, John Kerry, was quick to respond to the latest report, saying the costs of inaction on climate change would be "catastrophic", which are fine words.  But politicians have short political lives and massive investments without immediate returns are not advantageous to their political careers.  When I look at where the world's prominent politicians apply their energies, it is rarely aimed at climate change mitigation or adaptation.  John Kerry, for example, is currently more concerned with the situation in Ukraine.  Well, I don't know how much more evidence we need, but it would seem to me that the writing is almost on the wall and unless we put far more effort into preventing annihilation of our species, all other 'urgent' political issues just pale into insignificance.

We have all the evidence we need so let's take action to prevent an environmental Armageddon.