Tag Archives: nbsp

US tax dollars must not finance $1bn Great Barrier Reef destruction! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The US Export-Import Bank is on the verge of financing one of the world’s most destructive projects: India-based Adani Group’s massive Carmichael coal mine in Australia’s Galilee Basin.

The project also includes a new railway to carry the coal to a new export terminal at Abbots Point, Queensland, and a new sea ‘canal’ dredged through the Great Barrier Reef to allow the passage of coal freighters.

But a determined coalition of scientists, business owners, Australian elected officials, and civil society groups from the US and Australia have called ‘foul’ in a letter to US Export-Import Bank Chairman Fred Hochberg.

“The Adani coal project alone is expected to result in an estimated 7.6 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions over its lifetime”, the letter states. “Damage to the Great Barrier Reef has also resulted from reckless coastal industrial development, such as massive ports and liquefied natural gas complexes that have compelled UNESCO to consider classifying the reef as a ‘World Heritage in Danger‘.

“This includes two liquefied natural gas projects that received nearly five billion dollars in public financing from the Export Import Bank under your direction. In our view, this financing violates US law , as may US government financing for Adani’s coal export project.”

Friends of the Earth US President Erich Pica said: “Chairman Hochberg should refuse to provide financing to any project that would harm the precious Great Barrier Reef. To do otherwise would contradict President Obama’s call to protect this special place for his daughters and grandchildren and his State of the Union address, at which he called climate change the biggest threat to future generations.”

One mine – three countries’ CO2

Aside from the immediate environmental destruction, the project would cause 128 million tons of carbon pollution annually – more than Sweden, Norway, and Denmark combined, contradicting the spirit of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan and recent climate progress both in the US and abroad.

A decision to finance the Carmichael project would also undermine US credibility on climate issues at home and abroad, including the including the US-China emissions reduction deal, a $3 billion commitment to the Green Climate Fund, and recent climate and clean energy progress in the President’s FY2016 budget.

And it would infuriate the generations of climate campaigners that were out protesting around the world last weekend on Global Divestment Day, organised by 350.org, which called on investors, pension funds, foundations and financial institutions everywhere to dump fossil fuels.

Three million tonnes of Barrier Reef seabed to be removed and dumped

If completed, coal will be mined and transported by rail to the coast, where it will be shipped overseas through ports expanded by dredging three million tonnes of seabed from the bottom of the Great Barrier Reef.

“The Great Barrier Reef is under considerable threat from a variety of stressors including climate change, crown of thorns sea stars, and runoff from land”, said Dr. Selina Ward, a prominent Queensland Reef scientist at the University of Queensland School of Biological Sciences.

“The Abbot Point port expansion would considerably exacerbate this pressure. This continuing industrialisation of the GBR coastline invites reef degradation, especially from the dredging of the ocean floor, the dumping of the dredge spoil and the enormous increase in carbon emissions from the proposed coal mines.”

The recent January 31 election in the State of Queensland saw the biggest swing against a first term government in Australia since 1955. Many Queenslanders rejected the sitting government due to its support for the Galilee Basin coal mines and associated port facilities and their impacts on the Great Barrier Reef.

The Greens achieved their highest ever Queensland election result, and Labor is now forming a government, after that party pledged to prevent any dredge spoil from being dumped in the World Heritage Area or nearby wetlands and to reverse the billions in tax breaks and tax dollar support the previous government promised Adani.

“Queenslanders clearly do not accept the government’s destruction of the Reef”, said Greens Senator Larissa Waters of Queensland. “The Queensland Government’s plans to industrialise the Reef threaten to destroy one of the most precious places on earth, through dredging, shipping and climate change.

“We call on the US Ex-Im Bank to reject any requests for financing of the Abbot Point expansion or associated rail and mine infrastructure. US taxpayer dollars should not be subsidising the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef.”

And it’s an economic disaster too, conclude major banks

And while Ex-Im is considering backing the project, major financial institutions – including Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC, Barclays, Goldman Sachs, Credit Agricole, and JPMorgan Chase – have publicly rejected the proposal.

They don’t like the fact that the project would jeopardize the Reef’s World Heritage status. But even more serious for potential financiers, reports show the project is not financially viable.

“The fact is that this disastrous project would damage a world treasure like the Great Barrier Reef while making our climate crisis even worse. The notion that Ex-Im would use American taxpayer dollars to support it is unconscionable”, said John Coequyt, director of the Sierra Club’s International Climate Program.

“If the Export-Import bank puts a single US dollar towards funding this project, it is literally financing the destruction of one of the great natural wonders of the world.”

 

 

Principal source: Friends of the Earth.

 

 




390497

Oil lawyer turned judge rules: industry not liable for $50bn Gulf Coast damage Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




While much of the attention paid to the Gulf Coast in recent years has focused on BP’s destruction of the Gulf of Mexico and the coastline, it is important to remember that the fossil fuel industry has been polluting the South for decades.

In fact, the problem is so bad that the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East (SLFPA-E) filed a lawsuit against 97 fossil fuel companies two years ago to force them to pay for the destruction that they have caused to the Louisiana coast.

The lawsuit seemed almost doomed from the start: Republican Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed legislation in 2014 that forbade the lawsuit from moving forward, but this legislation was later ruled unconstitutional and thrown out.

As Climate Progress points out, the growing concern among Louisiana citizens is that their coastline is disappearing: More than 1,900 square miles of coast line has vanished in the last 85 years, and the fossil fuel industry has been responsible for polluting what’s left.

Oil wells are to blame, industry admits – but still wins

The industry has even admitted it is responsible for at least 36% of the total wetland loss in the state of Louisiana. The State Department estimates that the wells drilled by the dirty energy industry are destroying as much as 59% of the coast.

An admission of liability, hard facts, and the protection of the public’s well being should have been enough to make this case a slam-dunk for any seasoned attorney. Unfortunately, the dirty energy industry has powerful connections all over the South – from politicians to judges – and those connections have resulted in the dismissal of the lawsuit.

The industry successfully lobbied to have the case moved from a state judge to a federal judge. This action, known as venue-shopping, allows a defendant to search for a more friendly judge before the case is heard, and US District Judge Nanette Jolivette Brown is about as friendly with the industry as a judge ever could be.

In mid-February, she tossed the suit, ruling that SLFPA-E had failed to make a valid claim under the law. Her 49-page judgment went into the fine detail of the permits under which the companies worked, and arcane points of law and legal precedents concerning drainage and landowners’ rights and obligations.

An loyal friend and servant of the oil industry

Before her appointment to a federal judgeship by President Obama (confirmed unanimously by the US Senate), Judge Brown spent decades as a corporate attorney, working for firms that regularly represented the dirty energy industry in matters of environmental litigation.

During her time in practice, she worked at the law firms of Adams & Reese, the Onebane Law Firm, Milling, Benson, & Woodward, and the Chaffe McCall law firm. The McCall firm’s website says the following about its oil and gas representation:

“Seventy-five years before the first commercial production of Oil and Gas in Louisiana, Chaffe McCall made its mark in the Louisiana legal field. Since early in the twentieth century, the firm has been sought out by clients in all aspects of the Oil and Gas industry. Our attorneys are thoroughly conversant with state and federal regulations of natural resources and the environment.”

Meanwhile, Adams & Reese boast the following about its oil and gas litigation department:

“Whether advising an oil and gas operator, marine transportation company, offshore supply company, drilling contractor or a barge line, the Adams and Reese Oil and Gas Practice Team is strategically located along the Gulf South to provide legal services for exploration and production, as well as marine transportation, in the Gulf of Mexico and adjoining inland waterways.”

And it wasn’t that she just happened to be at a firm that represented the industry. After all, not every attorney at a law firm handles every case and represents all clients.

But Judge Brown’s credentials specifically say that she “specialized” in environmental litigation, meaning that she sat in a courtroom and defended the very people that she just handed a massive legal victory. If she had even a shred of dignity, she would have recused herself from the case due to the massive conflict of interest.

The industry is getting out of a potential $50 billion penalty because it successfully pulled the case out of the state courts, and into the hands of an old friend.

 

 

Farron Cousins is the executive editor of ‘The Trial Lawyer’ magazine, and his writings have appeared in numerous publications including DeSmogBlog, California’s Information Press and Pensacola’s Independent Weekly. Follow him on Twitter @farronbalanced.

 




390462

1.5 million solar lamps brighten Africa’s future Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Many of the 600 million people who are still without electricity in Africa rely on home-made kerosene lamps for lighting – putting themselves in danger from fire, toxic black smoke, and eye damage.

But cheaper solar technology is being offered that can provide long-lasting light and additional power to charge telephones and other electric devices, without the need for an electricity grid connection.

The campaign to eliminate the kerosene lamp was begun by SolarAid, an international charity that seeks to combat poverty and climate change and whose declared goal is to “eradicate the kerosene lamp from Africa by 2020”.

It set up an African network to sell these devices in 2006, with the aim that every kerosene lamp will be replaced with solar power by the end of the decade. So far, with over 1.5 million solar lights sold, about 9 million people have benefited from its scheme.

Saves up to 15% of family income, reduces emissions

The charity says that a solar lamp saves money because buying kerosene or candles uses 10-15% of family income, about $70 per year, whereas a solar kit bought for as little as $10 produces light for more than five years.

The risk of a kerosene fire is also removed, along with the indoor air pollution, and the lamps allow children to study at night. A typical family’s use of kerosene lamps causes emissions of 300kg of carbon dioxide a year – now an easily avoided contribution to climate change.

In 2006 SolarAid set up SunnyMoney, a social enterprise that sells the lights via school networks and local businesses – and has grown to become Africa’s biggest solar lights distributor, while also inspiring dozens of other solar businesses addressing domestic and commercial markets.

Selling the lights, rather than donating them, keeps money in local communities, provides employment, and allows the profits to be ploughed back into extending the scheme.

“One of our main objectives is to catalyse solar markets, so we welcome the competition”, says Susie Wheeldon of Solar Aid. “Together we are all helping to make Africa’s solar revolution happen – and eliminate dirty, dangerous, expensive kerosene lamps!”

In 2009 under 1% of Africa’s population was using modern solar lighting with LEDs, and that figure has now risen to about 5%. SolarAid’s own network grew by 81% from 2013-2014 – a near doubling.

“Our ambition is to develop partnerships, grow our network and ultimately get solar lighting to 100% of the African market. If the solar market doubles every year that will be achieved by 2030 – but we want to go even faster that that and hit the goal a decade earlier”

Currently, the organisation has East Africa networks in Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia and Uganda, where over 80% of people have no access to electricity, and is expanding to adjoining countries.

There are a range of lights and chargers offered from a variety of manufacturers, each with a two-year replacement warranty and up to five years battery life.

The cheapest, at $10, is a study light that gives four hours of bright light after a day’s charge, while the more expensive models offer light for up to 100 hours, charging for up to two phones at a time, and radio charging. The most expensive, which cost around $140, are designed for small businesses.

Even oil companies are selling solar lights now!

SolarAid began life in 2006 when the British company SolarCentury, one of Europe’s leading solar companies, began donating 5% of its profits to the charity. SolarCentury’s founder, Jeremy Leggett, says that the charity benefited by £28,000 in 2006, but the company’s increased profits mean that the figure will be nearly £500,000 this year.

“We were the first in the field back then, but now there are many solar lights of all kinds on the market”, Leggett says. “Most of them very good, although there are some ghastly cheap products that do not last, which can harm solar’s reputation.”

He says the company donations had been matched with other corporate and government aid. Ironically, even Total, the oil company, is now selling solar lights at its petrol stations.

Leggett believes that the market is growing so fast that there is a good chance of SolarAid reaching its goal of getting rid of all kerosene lighting in Africa by 2020.

He is hoping to build on his idea of donating 5% of corporate profits to climate change and poverty alleviation charities, and is launching a ‘5% club’ of enlightened businesses prepared to do the same.

“Most companies would not miss 5% of their profits, and the gains are enormous”, he says. “In my company, the programme is a great favourite with staff and gives everyone a feel good factor. Compared with other similar companies, we retain staff longer because they feel their work is more worthwhile.”

 

 

Paul Brown writes for Climate News Network.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




390056

Save our farmers with fair trade milk! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




I have recently been listening to the bad news about the price of milk while actually milking cows, as my herdsman took a break over Christmas and the New Year.

Experiencing at first hand the economic impact of the climate in which dairy farmers are operating gives the issue a whole different meaning.

It seems to me that nothing could better illustrate the institutionalised madness that prevails in the world of globalised, industrialised, commodity-style food production than its impact on the price of milk and dairy farmers in Britain.

As with so many matters connected with food, the root of the problem lies in the distorted economic system.

I’ve just been down to my local Tesco store in Bristol, which, along with most of the major British supermarkets, is now selling milk very cheaply, in this case four pints of conventional whole milk for 89 pence (£0.89).

Apologies for dancing between pints and litres, but four pints of milk is 2.27 litres, so divide that into 89 pence and you get just over 39.2 ppl (pence per litre). This is theoretically the total amount of money that has to be divided between the farmer, processor and retailer.

The conventional milk did not appeal to me, so I purchased two pints of organic milk for £1.14 instead. Doing the same maths, that makes the retail price of the organic milk almost exactly £1 per litre, more than twice the price of the conventional product.

Down on the farm, things are getting desperate

That is what’s happening in the shops, but what about back on the farm? Well, for conventional milk production at least, it’s a pretty horrible story. About a year ago the farm gate milk price was around 37 ppl – the best for years and good enough to make a reasonable profit.

Farmers responded by vastly increasing their milk production, mostly by expanding their herd sizes and further intensifying production, with the very large industrialised farms getting even bigger.

The phrase ‘turkeys voting for Christmas’ comes to mind. Now imagine this happening all over the world, combined with a good growing season for dairying weather-wise. The inevitable consequence has been a serious over-supply of the milk market.

To cap it all, Russia then banned imports of dairy products from the European Union in response to EU sanctions over Ukraine, which precipitated a catastrophic downward slide in farm gate milk prices. Ironically there are a number of parallels with the dramatic fall in the price of oil.

As a result, most producers are only receiving just over half the price they received about a year ago; currently as little as 22 ppl for conventional milk, which is well below the cost of production.

There is only so long that any farmer can lose serious money on every litre of milk, and needless to say it is the small, so-called ‘inefficient’ family dairy farms (which represent the backbone of rural culture in England, Wales and Scotland) that are being forced out of business the fastest.

With support from their banks the biggest farms will survive by intensifying further and growing bigger still – something that has negative implications for the environment, animal welfare, rural communities and milk quality.

Last week, the total number of dairy farms in England and Wales dropped below 10,000 for the first time and all the signs suggest that the exodus will continue.

This is a kind of cultural cleansing by price, with the farmers giving up quietly without fuss as their bank managers politely tell them that they have nowhere to go and had better quit milking while they still have some equity in their business.

Are there any rays of hope on the horizon of this bleak landscape?

Well, it is slightly better for organic producers. At the time of writing this, the West Wales farmers co-op that supplies organic milk to Rachel’s Dairy, now owned by Lactalys, a French company with a tradition of looking after its producers, are paying a base price of 40 ppl. That’s double the conventional price, though I suspect this too will drop in the near future.

Otherwise, the prospects for non-organic dairy farmers are bleak indeed, with the leaders of the farming industry still advocating that we have no choice but to continue to ride the roller-coaster of global prices, as they foolishly believe that this is the most efficient means of regulating supply and demand.

In practical terms, this means that only when a sufficient number of dairy farms have gone out of business will the market turn and prices pick up again. A jargon label has even been invented to make the phenomenon more legitimate: it’s called ‘price volatility’! Prices will go up, there will be another surge of intensification, prices will slump, and so on and so forth.

As a result, there will be ever-fewer dairy farmers, with the industrial-style survivors producing vast quantities of commodity milk from permanently housed cows that are fed on genetically modified grains and never allowed out to pasture. This is a story that, if you knew it, would probably discourage you from wanting to buy milk at all.

A solution: fair trade milk!

The BBC’s Today Programme has covered this twice over the last few days. In the first discussion I heard Meurig Raymond, President of the National Farmers Union, and David Handley, Chairman of Farmers for Action (a French-style blockade-the-supermarkets group), bemoaning this bleak situation.

But when the presenter asked them what could be done about it, neither of them really had an answer, apart from blaming the supermarkets for the ongoing price wars. But is there the slightest chance that the supermarkets will change their practices when they too are engaged in a struggle for the survival of the ‘fittest’ – in this case currently Aldi and Lidl?

I thought not, so after the programme I rang up the editor and suggested that the only way to improve the financial fortunes of dairy farmers will be through the emergence of some kind of public contract, perhaps based on the principles of fair trade, where consumers can buy milk and dairy products knowing the price the farmer has been paid is equitable and fair.

Interestingly they ran another piece on the Today Programme in which fair trade was mentioned, but there was no clear call for action. So here’s what I think could be done: why not introduce a fair trade label for milk?

I’d be very interested to know what the UK Fairtrade Foundation thinks about this idea. Since about 10 years ago, when I was at the Soil Association, we did try to develop a fair trade organic label, but when we approached the Fairtrade Foundation we received a clear message which I can roughly summarise as:

“Fairtrade is about tea, coffee and bananas produced by peasant farmers in developing countries, not featherbedded, heavily subsidised, rich European producers!”

At the time, we backed off – mistakenly in my view, with the benefit of hindsight – as we didn’t want to pick a public fight with those guys.

Fair trade should begin at home

But it still seems to me that fair trade should start at home and that means using our purchasing power right now to support all those beleaguered small family dairy farms on the edge of a precipice, through the introduction of a fair trade milk scheme which gives them a guaranteed fair price, providing their production systems are ethical.

If we don’t do this the family farms will disappear simply to be replaced by ever-larger industrialised farms where the cows are put under ever-more pressure to produce milk yields beyond their metabolic limits. So, let’s challenge the various certification organisations to introduce a fair trade milk label, with some conditions for entry!

In my opinion the scheme should be restricted to farmers with herds of fewer than 400 cows. That’s because the cows should be required to graze pastures during the summer season and larger herds need more land to graze, which means the distances they have to walk night and morning become excessive. There would also be other restrictions that would ensure the story behind the fair-trade mark met with customer expectations.

In parallel with the introduction of such a label, there needs to be a proper investigation into the true cost of environmentally and socially sustainable dairy farming.

That way we can come up with an objective price for milk production that avoids damaging environmental and human health consequences, while at the same time preserving natural capital, avoiding pollution and promoting public health.

This is a project that the Sustainable Food Trust will champion as part of our True Cost Accounting initiative.

But in the meantime, it should be relatively simple to come up with a minimum price based on existing research on the cost of production and linking this to any agreed ethical, welfare and environmental criteria.

 

 

Patrick Holden is the founding director of the Sustainable Food Trust, working internationally to accelerate the transition towards more sustainable food systems. He is also Patron of the UK Biodynamic Association and was awarded the CBE for services to organic farming in 2005.

This article was originally published by the Sustainable Food Trust.

Photo: Steph French.

 




389304

Fracking policy and the pollution of British democracy Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




During the 2000s the ‘fracking boom’ in the USA was fuelled by speculative Wall Street finance. When that bubble burst in 2008, the dodgy finance was cut off and the number of drilling rigs collapsed by over 50% within a few months.

Last December, I wrote in The Ecologist of how the ‘funny money’ from quantitative easing was once more fuelling the number of drilling rigs, supporting the Ponzi-style ‘shale bubble’.

Just over a week ago I wrote of how that junk-debt-fuelled house of cards was being shaken by the fall in oil prices.

Now Baker-Hughes, the US drilling services company which monitors industry trends, has announced the biggest weekly decline in US drilling activity since 1991; and the decline over the last six weeks – the decommissioning of 209 rigs – is the largest since their records began in 1987.

An upcoming production downturn

That interruption in the ‘shale drilling treadmill’ means that the clock has started to tick. Within a year or so, due to the high decline rate of unconventional oil and gas wells, production will begin to tail-off once more.

The gas drilling stall in 2008 led to gas production levelling-off in 2011/12. When quantitative easing cash flooded in to turn the drills back on again, many rigs switched to drilling for shale oil instead. Today it’s not clear whether the US government can or will prevent the ‘shale bubble’ imploding.

In addition to the finance issues, over the last few weeks we’ve also seen health and environmental agencies in New York State and Quebec recommend bans on future development of the industry there.

Whether or not these difficulties will bring an official realisation of the unsustainable nature of unconventional fossil fuels is not clear. That same finance treadmill ensures those involved in the industry make big bucks from this process.

As a result they have the ready cash to pay public relations agencies to obfuscate the debate on unconventional gas and oil.

Crisis? What crisis?

And here in Britain? In the corridors of power, the events of recent weeks appear to have had no recognition whatsoever. The problems of the global oil and gas industry – from the US to Britain, to Australia – has not diverted the political shale gas and oil bandwagon (at least in England and Wales).

Last week I attended the public hearings for the Environmental Audit Committee’s (EAC) inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘. For me, those sessions typify the problems our national politics has in examining contentious public debates.

The Committee did not appear to want any specific detail of what the impacts of fracking would be in Britain – demonstrated by experience elsewhere, or through analysis of the proposals outlined by the Department for Energy and Climate Change.

And though the Committee were looking at the ‘environmental impacts’, much of the debate was centred around conventional economics and investment models – not the identification of ecological or health impacts.

At the same time, across Parliament Square, the Government were trying to steamroller through their shale project as part of the Infrastructure Bill – from tax breaks for drillers, to weakened regulation, all designed to facilitate the Government’s unsubstantiated case for a UK ‘shale revolution’.

The myth of a ‘balanced debate’

Politicians might call for a ‘balanced debate on shale’, but arguably it is they who are peddling a manufactured rhetoric. This is because the political process has been hijacked by lobbyists paid by the industry, whose manipulative tendrils reach right inside the Government.

For me, the most eye-opening part of the EAC’s evidence session was when Caroline Spelman asked, “What could be done to address public mistrust over fracking and who would be trusted to provide an objective assessment of the pros and cons?”

They very fact the question was posed shows how out of touch politicians are on this issue. For example, they could start by asking representatives of public to their inquiry, to ask them directly what their concerns are.

Instead what we often get in the place of public involvement, or the substantiation of the Government’s claims using objective evidence, are stooges – public relations representatives who say what the political consensus wants to hear.

The witness at the EAC’s inquiry I found the most troublesome was Chris Smith: formerly chair of the Environment Agency (who issued Cuadrilla’s fracking permit last week); chair of the Advertising Standards Authority (who recently took umbrage at  an anti-fracking leaflet); and chair of the new ‘independent’ Task Force on Shale Gas.

The problem for the Committee was that the Task Force on Shale Gas hasn’t done any work yet! All Smith could do was apologetically state that they would produce statements on a range of issues at some future date.

Industry ‘astroturf’ has become the benchmark of impartiality

While the Task Force on Shale Gas might laud itself as being independent, and command Parliamentary time in the place of those who might have something substantive to say, the details surrounding the Task Force’s organisation say something rather different.

There is another body called the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Unconventional Gas and Oil. Like a number of other APPGs in Parliament it’s essentially an industry ‘astroturf’ group, set up as a lobbying vehicle to access decision-makers in government.

The secretariat for APPG on Unconventional Gas and Oil is provided by a political lobbying company, Edelman, using funding from companies with direct links to or investment in the shale gas industry – such as IGas, Cuadrilla, The Weir Group, Centrica, Total and GDF Suez.

And what has this to do with Chris Smith’s ‘independent’ Task Force on Shale Gas?:

In fact the Task Force on Shale Gas’s ‘industry front’ credentials go deeper than that:

  • One of the three panel members the Task Force’s panel has an academic post which is part-funded by BG Group – who have investments in shale in the USA;
  • Another panel member is a professor at the University of Manchester – where research funded by Cuadrilla and others is being carried out – who signed an ‘open letter’ with other academics calling for politicians to recognised the “undeniable economic, environmental and national security benefits” of shale gas in Lancashire”;
  • One of the three ‘advisory experts’ has done consultancy work for an oil and gas exploration company, promoting the business case for shale gas development in Poland; and
  • Another advisory expert has spoken in support of shale gas at other Parliamentary committees, and has stated that “UK climate campaigners should support fracking for shale gas.”


Fracking is also polluting British democracy

To return to Caroline Spelman’s question, ” … who would be trusted to provide an objective assessment of the pros and cons?” – arguably not the Task Force on Shale Gas!

Such ‘objectivity’ is not based within people, or their credentials. Objectivity is defined by how evidence is assessed, and the transparency of the assessment process which digests and ranks that evidence.

When we trace the connections, and examine the substances of the debate to date, much of the media promotion of shale gas presents a partial view, overtly hostile to any contrary view, and often based upon debatable evidence.

Politicians ask for a ‘balanced debate’ from campaign groups, and yet much of the imbalance is fronted by the industry side. Even witnesses at the EAC’s inquiry believed that politicians had over-stated the benefits of shale gas.

When governments pursue policies such as unconventional energy in the absence of balanced evidence, then ultimately it’s the public and the environment who will suffer.

However, that’s not simply because ‘fracking’ is bad for the environment. It’s because the exercise of executive power in Britain today has become toxic for our democratic institutions.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer, and maintains the Free Range Activism Website.

A fully referenced version of this article is located on FRAW.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial‘ and other articles by Paul Mobbs.

 




389204

‘Peak oil’ – the wrong argument for the right reasons Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Collapsing oil prices should give everyone in the ‘green movement’ cause for reflection.

With lower prices forecast to last for the next couple of years, two lines of argument for sustainable energy – economic and peak oil – are now looking rather weaker. Equally, the case for reconsidering the arguments and the tactics of political environmentalism has strengthened.

Peak oil as an argument for environmental change was always flawed, as recent events have illustrated. Some writers and environmental organisations mention peak oil alongside wider environmental arguments for a transition to sustainable energy use (see this review for example).

Peak oil supporters predict that the price of oil will inevitably rise as ultimate exhaustion approaches. Rising prices, not lack of availability, will make oil-based products unviable.

Making sure the oil is left in the ground

If everything is left to the free market that scenario would undoubtedly occur at some point in the future. But what if the green movement achieves its aims of lower consumption, and switching to renewable energy sources while there’s still plenty of oil in the ground?

Remember the comment made 15 years ago by Sheikh Yamani, the former Saudi Oil Minister: “The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones.”

His suggestion was that lots of oil might remain unused, as the world switched to superior alternative energy sources – much as our ancestors stopped using stone for tools and weapons because other materials were more effective, notably bronze, iron and steel.

But the analogy with the Stone Age is misleading. Sustainable energy does not have obvious advantages for industry or consumers, never mind its wider benefits.

And even with very cheap solar power and large, efficient industries dedicated to converting it into fuels for aviation and other transport uses, it’s unlikely to compete on price with Saudi Arabian oil, whose production cost is around $5 per barrel. 

But if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change, most of the world’s fossil fuels will have to remain in the ground, according to the IPCC. So the success of any transition strategy will depend on artifically increasing the price of oil (and other fossil fuels), and / or applying regulations that discriminate against their use.

Being economical with our arguments

Peak oil is one of several ways conventional economics have been used to promote sustainable aims. As economic growth has faltered and governments have become obsessed with ‘the economy’, campaigners, professionals and academics have felt compelled to express their arguments in economic terms.

This has produced what later, saner generations may regard as ludicrous extremes. Several reports have attempted, for example, to justify the benefits of walking and cycling or the disbenefits of pollution on economic grounds – as though longer healthier lives were not sufficient justification in their own right.

This approach has proved no more effective than other ways of influencing politicians and business leaders. Cost-benefit analyses of transport projects typically show that small-scale pedestrian and cycling projects generate the highest rates of return.

So why do politicians who say they believe in the conventional economics behind cost-benefit analysis pour vastly more money into road-building and high speed rail, than into far cheaper, more effective and sustainable options?

I have been to many conferences where the presenters seem to implore: “if only we can show them the right economic evidence they’ll change their minds.”

This wishful thinking misunderstands the role of evidence and economics in political decision-making.

Building roads, and ignoring the evidence

In the mid-1990s the Conservative Government of John Major abandoned the ideology and the practice of big road-building, prompting a lively academic debate about the real reasons for these changes.

Some writers pointed to an influential report by SACTRA, a parliamentary committee, which amassed a convincing body of evidence that road-building is self-defeating because it “induces” more traffic.

Two other influences on the Major Government were pressure from the Treasury to cut public spending and the anti-roads protests which delayed road schemes and increased their cost.

No convincing evidence has emerged to challenge SACTRA’s findings since then, and yet those lessons have been comprehensively un-learned. The Coalition Government’s Command Paper Investing in the Future does not even pretend to offer any evidence for its claims about the economic necessity of road-building.

The CBI’s roads report Bold Thinking states that “the long-term benefits of road investment are well-known”, which is all the evidence they need. A senior civil servant from another country with a neoliberal political culture recently visited our research centre on a fact finding mission.

He reported similar views in his own country adding that “there’s a lot of scepticism about the health benefits of walking and cycling” as they appear in cost-benefit analyses. The evidence on road building and the economy is no stronger but these claims fit more easily with the values of political and business elites.

Faced with that reality, the argument that we must act sustainably for the sake of the economy was never going to persuade many decision-makers. In a context of low oil prices it will convince no-one.

Protecting the enviroment for its own sake (and ours)

When that argument becomes a common message people hear from the green movement, it weakens the values most readers of The Ecologist would share – that we must protect the environment for its own sake and for future generations (for a psychological analysis of the reasons for this, see the WWF report Common Cause).

If we are ever to change the values and practices of elites and the general public we must remain consistent, even when our arguments seem to be falling on deaf ears.

Comparing today’s situation with the mid-1990s, the evidence on road building hasn’t changed. The pressures on public spending are even greater. And yet the government is committed to spending £15 billion on building and ‘improving’ roads.

The fact that the bulk of the expenditure is being targetted at Tory and LibDem marginal constituencies tells us something important about how govenments really reach their decisions.

Make it political!

But that’s not all. One important element we are lacking today is the mass campaign of civil disobedience that rose up against Mrs Thatcher’s ‘biggest roads programme since the Romans’. We can only conclude that it must have been considerably more influential than most of us realised at the time.

It also tells us that to persuade government to force the transition away from fossil fuels, making economic arguments – however sound and well founded on irrefutable evidence – is never going to cut the mustard.

We have to make the transition to sustainable energy a political decision in the run-up to the 2015 election – and do what it takes to make the issue one that politicians cannot afford to ignore.

 

 

 

 

Dr Steve Melia is a Senior Lecture in Transport and Planning at the University of the West of England. His new book, ‘Urban Transport Without the Hot Air’, will be published by UIT Cambridge in May.

 

 




388391

‘Peak oil’ – the wrong argument for the right reasons Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Collapsing oil prices should give everyone in the ‘green movement’ cause for reflection.

With lower prices forecast to last for the next couple of years, two lines of argument for sustainable energy – economic and peak oil – are now looking rather weaker. Equally, the case for reconsidering the arguments and the tactics of political environmentalism has strengthened.

Peak oil as an argument for environmental change was always flawed, as recent events have illustrated. Some writers and environmental organisations mention peak oil alongside wider environmental arguments for a transition to sustainable energy use (see this review for example).

Peak oil supporters predict that the price of oil will inevitably rise as ultimate exhaustion approaches. Rising prices, not lack of availability, will make oil-based products unviable.

Making sure the oil is left in the ground

If everything is left to the free market that scenario would undoubtedly occur at some point in the future. But what if the green movement achieves its aims of lower consumption, and switching to renewable energy sources while there’s still plenty of oil in the ground?

Remember the comment made 15 years ago by Sheikh Yamani, the former Saudi Oil Minister: “The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones.”

His suggestion was that lots of oil might remain unused, as the world switched to superior alternative energy sources – much as our ancestors stopped using stone for tools and weapons because other materials were more effective, notably bronze, iron and steel.

But the analogy with the Stone Age is misleading. Sustainable energy does not have obvious advantages for industry or consumers, never mind its wider benefits.

And even with very cheap solar power and large, efficient industries dedicated to converting it into fuels for aviation and other transport uses, it’s unlikely to compete on price with Saudi Arabian oil, whose production cost is around $5 per barrel. 

But if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change, most of the world’s fossil fuels will have to remain in the ground, according to the IPCC. So the success of any transition strategy will depend on artifically increasing the price of oil (and other fossil fuels), and / or applying regulations that discriminate against their use.

Being economical with our arguments

Peak oil is one of several ways conventional economics have been used to promote sustainable aims. As economic growth has faltered and governments have become obsessed with ‘the economy’, campaigners, professionals and academics have felt compelled to express their arguments in economic terms.

This has produced what later, saner generations may regard as ludicrous extremes. Several reports have attempted, for example, to justify the benefits of walking and cycling or the disbenefits of pollution on economic grounds – as though longer healthier lives were not sufficient justification in their own right.

This approach has proved no more effective than other ways of influencing politicians and business leaders. Cost-benefit analyses of transport projects typically show that small-scale pedestrian and cycling projects generate the highest rates of return.

So why do politicians who say they believe in the conventional economics behind cost-benefit analysis pour vastly more money into road-building and high speed rail, than into far cheaper, more effective and sustainable options?

I have been to many conferences where the presenters seem to implore: “if only we can show them the right economic evidence they’ll change their minds.”

This wishful thinking misunderstands the role of evidence and economics in political decision-making.

Building roads, and ignoring the evidence

In the mid-1990s the Conservative Government of John Major abandoned the ideology and the practice of big road-building, prompting a lively academic debate about the real reasons for these changes.

Some writers pointed to an influential report by SACTRA, a parliamentary committee, which amassed a convincing body of evidence that road-building is self-defeating because it “induces” more traffic.

Two other influences on the Major Government were pressure from the Treasury to cut public spending and the anti-roads protests which delayed road schemes and increased their cost.

No convincing evidence has emerged to challenge SACTRA’s findings since then, and yet those lessons have been comprehensively un-learned. The Coalition Government’s Command Paper Investing in the Future does not even pretend to offer any evidence for its claims about the economic necessity of road-building.

The CBI’s roads report Bold Thinking states that “the long-term benefits of road investment are well-known”, which is all the evidence they need. A senior civil servant from another country with a neoliberal political culture recently visited our research centre on a fact finding mission.

He reported similar views in his own country adding that “there’s a lot of scepticism about the health benefits of walking and cycling” as they appear in cost-benefit analyses. The evidence on road building and the economy is no stronger but these claims fit more easily with the values of political and business elites.

Faced with that reality, the argument that we must act sustainably for the sake of the economy was never going to persuade many decision-makers. In a context of low oil prices it will convince no-one.

Protecting the enviroment for its own sake (and ours)

When that argument becomes a common message people hear from the green movement, it weakens the values most readers of The Ecologist would share – that we must protect the environment for its own sake and for future generations (for a psychological analysis of the reasons for this, see the WWF report Common Cause).

If we are ever to change the values and practices of elites and the general public we must remain consistent, even when our arguments seem to be falling on deaf ears.

Comparing today’s situation with the mid-1990s, the evidence on road building hasn’t changed. The pressures on public spending are even greater. And yet the government is committed to spending £15 billion on building and ‘improving’ roads.

The fact that the bulk of the expenditure is being targetted at Tory and LibDem marginal constituencies tells us something important about how govenments really reach their decisions.

Make it political!

But that’s not all. One important element we are lacking today is the mass campaign of civil disobedience that rose up against Mrs Thatcher’s ‘biggest roads programme since the Romans’. We can only conclude that it must have been considerably more influential than most of us realised at the time.

It also tells us that to persuade government to force the transition away from fossil fuels, making economic arguments – however sound and well founded on irrefutable evidence – is never going to cut the mustard.

We have to make the transition to sustainable energy a political decision in the run-up to the 2015 election – and do what it takes to make the issue one that politicians cannot afford to ignore.

 

 

 

 

Dr Steve Melia is a Senior Lecture in Transport and Planning at the University of the West of England. His new book, ‘Urban Transport Without the Hot Air’, will be published by UIT Cambridge in May.

 

 




388391

‘Peak oil’ – the wrong argument for the right reasons Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Collapsing oil prices should give everyone in the ‘green movement’ cause for reflection.

With lower prices forecast to last for the next couple of years, two lines of argument for sustainable energy – economic and peak oil – are now looking rather weaker. Equally, the case for reconsidering the arguments and the tactics of political environmentalism has strengthened.

Peak oil as an argument for environmental change was always flawed, as recent events have illustrated. Some writers and environmental organisations mention peak oil alongside wider environmental arguments for a transition to sustainable energy use (see this review for example).

Peak oil supporters predict that the price of oil will inevitably rise as ultimate exhaustion approaches. Rising prices, not lack of availability, will make oil-based products unviable.

Making sure the oil is left in the ground

If everything is left to the free market that scenario would undoubtedly occur at some point in the future. But what if the green movement achieves its aims of lower consumption, and switching to renewable energy sources while there’s still plenty of oil in the ground?

Remember the comment made 15 years ago by Sheikh Yamani, the former Saudi Oil Minister: “The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones.”

His suggestion was that lots of oil might remain unused, as the world switched to superior alternative energy sources – much as our ancestors stopped using stone for tools and weapons because other materials were more effective, notably bronze, iron and steel.

But the analogy with the Stone Age is misleading. Sustainable energy does not have obvious advantages for industry or consumers, never mind its wider benefits.

And even with very cheap solar power and large, efficient industries dedicated to converting it into fuels for aviation and other transport uses, it’s unlikely to compete on price with Saudi Arabian oil, whose production cost is around $5 per barrel. 

But if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change, most of the world’s fossil fuels will have to remain in the ground, according to the IPCC. So the success of any transition strategy will depend on artifically increasing the price of oil (and other fossil fuels), and / or applying regulations that discriminate against their use.

Being economical with our arguments

Peak oil is one of several ways conventional economics have been used to promote sustainable aims. As economic growth has faltered and governments have become obsessed with ‘the economy’, campaigners, professionals and academics have felt compelled to express their arguments in economic terms.

This has produced what later, saner generations may regard as ludicrous extremes. Several reports have attempted, for example, to justify the benefits of walking and cycling or the disbenefits of pollution on economic grounds – as though longer healthier lives were not sufficient justification in their own right.

This approach has proved no more effective than other ways of influencing politicians and business leaders. Cost-benefit analyses of transport projects typically show that small-scale pedestrian and cycling projects generate the highest rates of return.

So why do politicians who say they believe in the conventional economics behind cost-benefit analysis pour vastly more money into road-building and high speed rail, than into far cheaper, more effective and sustainable options?

I have been to many conferences where the presenters seem to implore: “if only we can show them the right economic evidence they’ll change their minds.”

This wishful thinking misunderstands the role of evidence and economics in political decision-making.

Building roads, and ignoring the evidence

In the mid-1990s the Conservative Government of John Major abandoned the ideology and the practice of big road-building, prompting a lively academic debate about the real reasons for these changes.

Some writers pointed to an influential report by SACTRA, a parliamentary committee, which amassed a convincing body of evidence that road-building is self-defeating because it “induces” more traffic.

Two other influences on the Major Government were pressure from the Treasury to cut public spending and the anti-roads protests which delayed road schemes and increased their cost.

No convincing evidence has emerged to challenge SACTRA’s findings since then, and yet those lessons have been comprehensively un-learned. The Coalition Government’s Command Paper Investing in the Future does not even pretend to offer any evidence for its claims about the economic necessity of road-building.

The CBI’s roads report Bold Thinking states that “the long-term benefits of road investment are well-known”, which is all the evidence they need. A senior civil servant from another country with a neoliberal political culture recently visited our research centre on a fact finding mission.

He reported similar views in his own country adding that “there’s a lot of scepticism about the health benefits of walking and cycling” as they appear in cost-benefit analyses. The evidence on road building and the economy is no stronger but these claims fit more easily with the values of political and business elites.

Faced with that reality, the argument that we must act sustainably for the sake of the economy was never going to persuade many decision-makers. In a context of low oil prices it will convince no-one.

Protecting the enviroment for its own sake (and ours)

When that argument becomes a common message people hear from the green movement, it weakens the values most readers of The Ecologist would share – that we must protect the environment for its own sake and for future generations (for a psychological analysis of the reasons for this, see the WWF report Common Cause).

If we are ever to change the values and practices of elites and the general public we must remain consistent, even when our arguments seem to be falling on deaf ears.

Comparing today’s situation with the mid-1990s, the evidence on road building hasn’t changed. The pressures on public spending are even greater. And yet the government is committed to spending £15 billion on building and ‘improving’ roads.

The fact that the bulk of the expenditure is being targetted at Tory and LibDem marginal constituencies tells us something important about how govenments really reach their decisions.

Make it political!

But that’s not all. One important element we are lacking today is the mass campaign of civil disobedience that rose up against Mrs Thatcher’s ‘biggest roads programme since the Romans’. We can only conclude that it must have been considerably more influential than most of us realised at the time.

It also tells us that to persuade government to force the transition away from fossil fuels, making economic arguments – however sound and well founded on irrefutable evidence – is never going to cut the mustard.

We have to make the transition to sustainable energy a political decision in the run-up to the 2015 election – and do what it takes to make the issue one that politicians cannot afford to ignore.

 

 

 

 

Dr Steve Melia is a Senior Lecture in Transport and Planning at the University of the West of England. His new book, ‘Urban Transport Without the Hot Air’, will be published by UIT Cambridge in May.

 

 




388391

‘Peak oil’ – the wrong argument for the right reasons Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Collapsing oil prices should give everyone in the ‘green movement’ cause for reflection.

With lower prices forecast to last for the next couple of years, two lines of argument for sustainable energy – economic and peak oil – are now looking rather weaker. Equally, the case for reconsidering the arguments and the tactics of political environmentalism has strengthened.

Peak oil as an argument for environmental change was always flawed, as recent events have illustrated. Some writers and environmental organisations mention peak oil alongside wider environmental arguments for a transition to sustainable energy use (see this review for example).

Peak oil supporters predict that the price of oil will inevitably rise as ultimate exhaustion approaches. Rising prices, not lack of availability, will make oil-based products unviable.

Making sure the oil is left in the ground

If everything is left to the free market that scenario would undoubtedly occur at some point in the future. But what if the green movement achieves its aims of lower consumption, and switching to renewable energy sources while there’s still plenty of oil in the ground?

Remember the comment made 15 years ago by Sheikh Yamani, the former Saudi Oil Minister: “The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones.”

His suggestion was that lots of oil might remain unused, as the world switched to superior alternative energy sources – much as our ancestors stopped using stone for tools and weapons because other materials were more effective, notably bronze, iron and steel.

But the analogy with the Stone Age is misleading. Sustainable energy does not have obvious advantages for industry or consumers, never mind its wider benefits.

And even with very cheap solar power and large, efficient industries dedicated to converting it into fuels for aviation and other transport uses, it’s unlikely to compete on price with Saudi Arabian oil, whose production cost is around $5 per barrel. 

But if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change, most of the world’s fossil fuels will have to remain in the ground, according to the IPCC. So the success of any transition strategy will depend on artifically increasing the price of oil (and other fossil fuels), and / or applying regulations that discriminate against their use.

Being economical with our arguments

Peak oil is one of several ways conventional economics have been used to promote sustainable aims. As economic growth has faltered and governments have become obsessed with ‘the economy’, campaigners, professionals and academics have felt compelled to express their arguments in economic terms.

This has produced what later, saner generations may regard as ludicrous extremes. Several reports have attempted, for example, to justify the benefits of walking and cycling or the disbenefits of pollution on economic grounds – as though longer healthier lives were not sufficient justification in their own right.

This approach has proved no more effective than other ways of influencing politicians and business leaders. Cost-benefit analyses of transport projects typically show that small-scale pedestrian and cycling projects generate the highest rates of return.

So why do politicians who say they believe in the conventional economics behind cost-benefit analysis pour vastly more money into road-building and high speed rail, than into far cheaper, more effective and sustainable options?

I have been to many conferences where the presenters seem to implore: “if only we can show them the right economic evidence they’ll change their minds.”

This wishful thinking misunderstands the role of evidence and economics in political decision-making.

Building roads, and ignoring the evidence

In the mid-1990s the Conservative Government of John Major abandoned the ideology and the practice of big road-building, prompting a lively academic debate about the real reasons for these changes.

Some writers pointed to an influential report by SACTRA, a parliamentary committee, which amassed a convincing body of evidence that road-building is self-defeating because it “induces” more traffic.

Two other influences on the Major Government were pressure from the Treasury to cut public spending and the anti-roads protests which delayed road schemes and increased their cost.

No convincing evidence has emerged to challenge SACTRA’s findings since then, and yet those lessons have been comprehensively un-learned. The Coalition Government’s Command Paper Investing in the Future does not even pretend to offer any evidence for its claims about the economic necessity of road-building.

The CBI’s roads report Bold Thinking states that “the long-term benefits of road investment are well-known”, which is all the evidence they need. A senior civil servant from another country with a neoliberal political culture recently visited our research centre on a fact finding mission.

He reported similar views in his own country adding that “there’s a lot of scepticism about the health benefits of walking and cycling” as they appear in cost-benefit analyses. The evidence on road building and the economy is no stronger but these claims fit more easily with the values of political and business elites.

Faced with that reality, the argument that we must act sustainably for the sake of the economy was never going to persuade many decision-makers. In a context of low oil prices it will convince no-one.

Protecting the enviroment for its own sake (and ours)

When that argument becomes a common message people hear from the green movement, it weakens the values most readers of The Ecologist would share – that we must protect the environment for its own sake and for future generations (for a psychological analysis of the reasons for this, see the WWF report Common Cause).

If we are ever to change the values and practices of elites and the general public we must remain consistent, even when our arguments seem to be falling on deaf ears.

Comparing today’s situation with the mid-1990s, the evidence on road building hasn’t changed. The pressures on public spending are even greater. And yet the government is committed to spending £15 billion on building and ‘improving’ roads.

The fact that the bulk of the expenditure is being targetted at Tory and LibDem marginal constituencies tells us something important about how govenments really reach their decisions.

Make it political!

But that’s not all. One important element we are lacking today is the mass campaign of civil disobedience that rose up against Mrs Thatcher’s ‘biggest roads programme since the Romans’. We can only conclude that it must have been considerably more influential than most of us realised at the time.

It also tells us that to persuade government to force the transition away from fossil fuels, making economic arguments – however sound and well founded on irrefutable evidence – is never going to cut the mustard.

We have to make the transition to sustainable energy a political decision in the run-up to the 2015 election – and do what it takes to make the issue one that politicians cannot afford to ignore.

 

 

 

 

Dr Steve Melia is a Senior Lecture in Transport and Planning at the University of the West of England. His new book, ‘Urban Transport Without the Hot Air’, will be published by UIT Cambridge in May.

 

 




388391

‘Peak oil’ – the wrong argument for the right reasons Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Collapsing oil prices should give everyone in the ‘green movement’ cause for reflection.

With lower prices forecast to last for the next couple of years, two lines of argument for sustainable energy – economic and peak oil – are now looking rather weaker. Equally, the case for reconsidering the arguments and the tactics of political environmentalism has strengthened.

Peak oil as an argument for environmental change was always flawed, as recent events have illustrated. Some writers and environmental organisations mention peak oil alongside wider environmental arguments for a transition to sustainable energy use (see this review for example).

Peak oil supporters predict that the price of oil will inevitably rise as ultimate exhaustion approaches. Rising prices, not lack of availability, will make oil-based products unviable.

Making sure the oil is left in the ground

If everything is left to the free market that scenario would undoubtedly occur at some point in the future. But what if the green movement achieves its aims of lower consumption, and switching to renewable energy sources while there’s still plenty of oil in the ground?

Remember the comment made 15 years ago by Sheikh Yamani, the former Saudi Oil Minister: “The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones.”

His suggestion was that lots of oil might remain unused, as the world switched to superior alternative energy sources – much as our ancestors stopped using stone for tools and weapons because other materials were more effective, notably bronze, iron and steel.

But the analogy with the Stone Age is misleading. Sustainable energy does not have obvious advantages for industry or consumers, never mind its wider benefits.

And even with very cheap solar power and large, efficient industries dedicated to converting it into fuels for aviation and other transport uses, it’s unlikely to compete on price with Saudi Arabian oil, whose production cost is around $5 per barrel. 

But if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change, most of the world’s fossil fuels will have to remain in the ground, according to the IPCC. So the success of any transition strategy will depend on artifically increasing the price of oil (and other fossil fuels), and / or applying regulations that discriminate against their use.

Being economical with our arguments

Peak oil is one of several ways conventional economics have been used to promote sustainable aims. As economic growth has faltered and governments have become obsessed with ‘the economy’, campaigners, professionals and academics have felt compelled to express their arguments in economic terms.

This has produced what later, saner generations may regard as ludicrous extremes. Several reports have attempted, for example, to justify the benefits of walking and cycling or the disbenefits of pollution on economic grounds – as though longer healthier lives were not sufficient justification in their own right.

This approach has proved no more effective than other ways of influencing politicians and business leaders. Cost-benefit analyses of transport projects typically show that small-scale pedestrian and cycling projects generate the highest rates of return.

So why do politicians who say they believe in the conventional economics behind cost-benefit analysis pour vastly more money into road-building and high speed rail, than into far cheaper, more effective and sustainable options?

I have been to many conferences where the presenters seem to implore: “if only we can show them the right economic evidence they’ll change their minds.”

This wishful thinking misunderstands the role of evidence and economics in political decision-making.

Building roads, and ignoring the evidence

In the mid-1990s the Conservative Government of John Major abandoned the ideology and the practice of big road-building, prompting a lively academic debate about the real reasons for these changes.

Some writers pointed to an influential report by SACTRA, a parliamentary committee, which amassed a convincing body of evidence that road-building is self-defeating because it “induces” more traffic.

Two other influences on the Major Government were pressure from the Treasury to cut public spending and the anti-roads protests which delayed road schemes and increased their cost.

No convincing evidence has emerged to challenge SACTRA’s findings since then, and yet those lessons have been comprehensively un-learned. The Coalition Government’s Command Paper Investing in the Future does not even pretend to offer any evidence for its claims about the economic necessity of road-building.

The CBI’s roads report Bold Thinking states that “the long-term benefits of road investment are well-known”, which is all the evidence they need. A senior civil servant from another country with a neoliberal political culture recently visited our research centre on a fact finding mission.

He reported similar views in his own country adding that “there’s a lot of scepticism about the health benefits of walking and cycling” as they appear in cost-benefit analyses. The evidence on road building and the economy is no stronger but these claims fit more easily with the values of political and business elites.

Faced with that reality, the argument that we must act sustainably for the sake of the economy was never going to persuade many decision-makers. In a context of low oil prices it will convince no-one.

Protecting the enviroment for its own sake (and ours)

When that argument becomes a common message people hear from the green movement, it weakens the values most readers of The Ecologist would share – that we must protect the environment for its own sake and for future generations (for a psychological analysis of the reasons for this, see the WWF report Common Cause).

If we are ever to change the values and practices of elites and the general public we must remain consistent, even when our arguments seem to be falling on deaf ears.

Comparing today’s situation with the mid-1990s, the evidence on road building hasn’t changed. The pressures on public spending are even greater. And yet the government is committed to spending £15 billion on building and ‘improving’ roads.

The fact that the bulk of the expenditure is being targetted at Tory and LibDem marginal constituencies tells us something important about how govenments really reach their decisions.

Make it political!

But that’s not all. One important element we are lacking today is the mass campaign of civil disobedience that rose up against Mrs Thatcher’s ‘biggest roads programme since the Romans’. We can only conclude that it must have been considerably more influential than most of us realised at the time.

It also tells us that to persuade government to force the transition away from fossil fuels, making economic arguments – however sound and well founded on irrefutable evidence – is never going to cut the mustard.

We have to make the transition to sustainable energy a political decision in the run-up to the 2015 election – and do what it takes to make the issue one that politicians cannot afford to ignore.

 

 

 

 

Dr Steve Melia is a Senior Lecture in Transport and Planning at the University of the West of England. His new book, ‘Urban Transport Without the Hot Air’, will be published by UIT Cambridge in May.

 

 




388391