The Millennium Dome: Costing the Earth Part 1

The first time it was possible to predict there was going to be a problem with the Millennium Dome was 25th August 1997, the Daily Mail ran a front page headline. Dome: Smell of Doom. There are many ways to assess projects or complex systems. Using various techniques, that would not be employed by project managers engaged in the Millennium Experience (as it was called at the time), it was possible to determine what these problems were and how to correct them. Unfortunately the Dome organisation did not want outside assistance and the project ran into the predictable problems without the solutions.

The greatest thrill and anticipation was knowing there was to be a competition to take over the running of the Dome. The intention was quite simple. Enter the competition, win it and run the Dome as it should be run. Make it the worldwide success it always had the potential to be.

Just like the the recent annoucment of the winner of the Supercasino, with attention focused on a web page, similar took place at the start of 2001, and the awaiting of the announcement of the competition to run the Millennium Dome. In this case it was the website of English Partnerships.

Detailed predictions were made of the future. These showed the environment was going to play an increasingly greater role in determining policy and development. Also that the consequences of the damage we were inflicting on the ecological systems of the planet, those that support and sustain all life, were becoming increasingly critical. In 2006 society would start to be destroyed by them, if the effects were not stopped and started to be reversed by 2012 the extinction horizon would be reached. The point of no return, billions of people dead and the loss of most of the planet's animal and plant species. The 'Mad Max' scenario.

Space had NASA, Defence had the Pentagon. Yet the Earth, the single most important resource on which all life depended had no globally recognised iconic representation to protect and enhance it.

So what could save a planet. What or who could drag a world from the precipice of oblivion, deflect the Earth from it's trajectory of disaster to the path of a safer better future.

The angel sat there, white and beautiful, unloved and unwanted, ridiculed and despised. But she could save a planet. She could be the beacon of light and hope for a world that would soon slide into chaos.

Tony Blair never understood her, didn't get what she was about. So in a speech said the Millennium Dome would be the envy of the world. He says he is a Christian, so should have known envy is a deadly sin. It's all just spin. Just change a word and lift the curse. The Millennium Dome would be for the benefit of the world.

The website was watched, waiting for the process to begin to make the Millennium Dome a centre of excellence in global environmental management.

Millennium Dome: The 2001 Proposal The Government's Consultants Wanted To Support

The original one page synopsis of the proposal entered into the competition for the Millennium Dome April 2001. This is the proposal that the Government's own consultants wanted to back. Some formatting has been lost in transfer.

MP2
millennium project two

Introduction

The use of the Millennium Dome and Greenwich Peninsula as a centre of excellence in environmental management, research, consultancy, co-ordination and education.

Status

Pentagon:Defence The City:Finance NASA:Space Dome:Environment
Iconic Definitive Unambiguous

Concepts

Future Sustainable Interactive Progress Locally Relevant Globally Significant

Range

Accessible for a child with a computer, connected to an inner city tree planting scheme, a resource for local and regional authorities, interactive with national governments and international organisations. Applicable to anywhere and everyone in the world. A project that will benefit every single person on the planet. A fusion of ecology and IT interfacing with socio-economic, commercial and political systems

Components

Visitor centre, interactive exhibition and experience, media and IT networked, conference venue, research, education, entertainment, forum and co-ordination for agencies and organisations, consultancy, policy and strategy development.

Mission and Historical Precedent

21st Century Catalyst Millennium Defining Epoch Making
Agrarian Revolution:The Fertile Crescent Industrial Era:North West England The Next Way: The Millennium Dome and Greenwich Peninsula

Project Creation
All ideas, concepts and intellectual property by Roger Thomas 1988,1991/8,2000/1. Creative direction and project management. Simple solutions to complex challenges.

The Millennium Dome, Why a Supercasino? An Applied Planetary Engineering Assessment.

Synopsis

In the 2001 competition to find a use for the Millennium Dome, the proposal that the Government’s own consultants wanted to back was Millennium Project Two, a global environmental management centre. In the criteria of the competition this should have been the winning proposal. The proposal outlined a revenue generation for the Dome of £50 billion per year. Recent events and associated reports validating the initial projections. Why did Greenwich throw away such a world leading and revenue generating proposal, wanting a supercasino instead? An applied planetary engineering assessment would indicate this was not the optimum decision.

----------------------------------

So is the Millennium Dome going to be a Supercasino? One reason why a global environmental management centre was proposed for the Millennium Dome in the 2001 competition, was simply because it was the best proposal. The Government’s consultants Jones Lang LaSalle thought the same. This was the proposal they wanted to raise the finance for and provide the project team to implement.

Recently we obtained the competition criteria from Jim Fitzpatrick MP Office of the Deputy prime Minister, via Pete Wishart SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire. These criteria were withheld from the Millennium Project Two Bid, thereby excluding it from the competition by default.

So why was a casino chosen over the proposal the Government’s consultants liked and why was the competition criteria withheld? Did the Government all along believe that a casino and AEG would win the competition? Suddenly on the criteria of the competition did the winning proposal appeared left field and totally unexpected catching them unprepared? By withholding the competition criteria did the Government exclude what would have been the winning proposal from the competition.

Was this a face saving exercise by New Labour? After making such a mess of the first Millennium Project at the Dome, even pining their ability to run the country on the way they ran the Dome. If a bid appeared that made a complete and total success of the Millennium Dome, would this severely dent their credibility in running the original project and the country?

Did the Government have to ensure that whoever won the competition would be the worst acceptable proposal? Thereby having to exclude the best and favourite proposal?

So what will happen if the Millennium Dome becomes a Supercasino? The future is not bright. Without the Millennium Dome being used as a major resource in global environmental management, the effects of global ecological life support system collapse and it’s symptoms such as climate change will increase in severity and sooner than without it. Due to the international recognition the Millennium Dome had, it’s use from 2001 in supplying solutions to the global environmental challenge would have put the Earth 6 years ahead of where we are in confronting the problem and with a greater magnitude of available response. The destruction that is now going to occur from society neglecting the environment would probably never occurred. It appears the Government had the choice between planetary ecological apocalypse avoidance and a casino, and chose the casino.

What do casinos do? All a casino does is move and/or concentrate money. In return for the thrill of the experience of believing you may obtain more money than you are willing to bet, and against the odds in favour of the house. It just takes money from individuals in return for the thrill that they believe they can take more from it. Thereby concentrating the money from many into the form of profits for the casino. Here will lie the compounded problem for the future of the Dome and Greenwich.

As the environmental parameters that society will have to develop within become more severe as the ecological back lash increases in response to the damage, projects will have to be assessed and conform to a principle that they create more planetary ecological stability than they consume in their initiation. Similar to the past business model, that financial return must be greater than investment in order for a business to be viable. In future projects must contribute more to the sustainable evolution of the socio-economic/ecological system than they initially detract from it in their inception. A sewage treatment works will require energy and resources in it’s set up; concrete, other materials, machinery and the costs involved with the human resources to construct it. The resources are an initial drain on the Earth system, but over the life of the sewage plant it is creating clean water, reducing pollution, increasing biodiversity and productivity (algal blooms apart which increase biological oxygen demand). There is a net gain over the life cycle analysis of the project to the total planetary system.

The redevelopment of the Dome site, it’s construction and all the resources in the set up and running of a casino are an input from and a drain on the total Earth system. A casino though never pays back what it has borrowed, unlike a sewage works. A casino only moves or concentrates money. It never as part of it’s process imparts stability back to the total Earth system. It is in ecological terms a parasite on sustainable evolution or development.

In a legislative context in terms of environmental audits it has a future which may be terminated, as we become a more ecologically aware and benign society in order to survive. Again return to the Marshall Macluhan quote used in another article, "there are no passengers on spaceship Earth only crew". A casino is not even a passenger in environmental audit terms it is a parasite, with a negative return to the host (Earth).

Where is the income for a casino going to come from. Is this the local area or does it want to attract visitors and especially overseas visitors? The clue could be Supercasino. The service or catchment area of it’s customers may be extended to overseas visitors. Only by looking at the business plan of the casino would we know to what extent overseas customers play in it’s financial planning.

Already we are seeing the backlash against air travel. This is coming financially from sources such as the Chancellor Gordon Brown increasing taxes on air travel. How much further will this go? Secondly as the consequences of climate change become more severe, high polluting activities such as air travel will become a social pariah activity. As more people die as a result of climate change, air travel will become a socially unacceptable activity.

The onset of the effects of climate change will occur much quicker and more severely than the Government or media is portraying. In a very short term vast changes will occur. Due to the way climate is modelled, the constraints imposed on climate models in the way they are funded and the imposed parameters, the models tend to produce the least severe or under estimated consequences.

This situation will reduce the number of visitors by air travel. Visitors by air travel contribute to the planetary system negatively and by then engaging in an activity, casino gambling, also contribute negatively again. Any guidelines or legislation based on real world analysis of environmental systems, and not subject to political spin to hide the truth, would have air travel to a casino very close to the top of the list for activities that need banning either by legislation or by being so morally, ecologically and socially unacceptable they will not be tolerated.

The media carry many reports of vigilante action and protest against paedophiles. Similar may occur against air travelling for gambling. The environmental cost of air travel must be offset against the reason for that travel. Someone flying to implement a project to reduce pollution, increase biodiverity etc. will offset the damage to the environment caused by the travel, by the benefits obtained by the whole Earth system as a result of that work. Air travel for gambling does not fulfil that criteria.

The future for such an unsustainable activity as gambling linked with air travel for the Greenwich area is bleak, either legislation or a social pressure will impose limits on it in the near future. Though a great deal has been written on the social consequences of gambling, such as addiction, very little has been produced on the effects of somebody working in an industry as regards their own assessment of the their worthwhile contribution to society.

This can be expanded to ask the question, what is a place like Greenwich doing being involved with such an industry? Greenwich had a world renowned past, it is still the datum from which the world takes it’s position in time, GMT is a world defining standard. The tradition of Greenwich is rich in astronomy, observation, exploration and setting the standard. The knowledge of the world draws from Greenwich.

Greenwich had the opportunity to build on that illustrious past and take a planet safely into the future by navigating the course of sustainable planetary evolution and development.

Why did Greenwich sell it’s soul, integrity, past and future so cheaply? Why did it want to shed it’s pride as a world leader for the cheap and pointless world of being a gambling centre? Greenwich had the option of having the world leading centre of environmental management at the Dome, a beacon of hope and inspiration across a planet. The income from the venture would have dwarfed anything a casino could supply. As when reporters now want a quote on space they refer to NASA, when they want the authoritative response on defence they quote the Pentagon. Now the global focus of world attention is the environment, all the world’s media would have referred to The Dome Greenwich for the foremost authoritative comment, analysis research and implementation.

Greenwich safely charted the world as a historical precedent. When the time came to make a decision on it’s present and future it could have been the NASA of the environment, the Silicon Valley of sustainable planetary development and evolution. £50 billion a year would have come to the Dome, Greenwich would have had the global kudos and esteem. Development would have been respected, required and sustainable. No thanks said Greenwich, we want to join the scramble for a casino, let somewhere else in the world have the honour, reputation and revenue from having the world’s leading centre on the environment. Applied planetary engineering would suggest Greenwich may have not made the best decision.

If it wasn’t true it would be unbelievable.

MSC Napoli Part 3

Well the Napoli Incident is moving up the news ratings just as we have reported, and is to be expected. MSC Napoli in Google News is getting an ever increasing number of returns. These range from the local concerns of residents that nothing was done, to the building up of an international incident. Pollution threats to the marine environment, VW car parts to South Africa, French winemakers lost barrels.

Only to be expected, here was a major marine and environmental incident unfolding and what did the world’s media see as the response. Well absolutely nothing from the UK Government or any political party, but plenty of pictures of a rummage free for all.

Devon 24 the collective website of the areas local papers have a place for suggesting stories for follow up, this is what MP2 applied planetary engineering placed:

The situation of why there was no centralised control of the grounding of the Napoli. The decision ended at grounding and then no attempt to follow that up. Did anyone know whether any of the containers washed up contained toxic or dangerous material?

The Napoli should be seen as an indicator of the actual level of attention the environment gets from political parties and the political system in general. None.

The Napoli has shown despite all media attention politics has craved over the environment, the actual political concern and imperative is zero. This maybe due to most politicians are lawyers, accountants, economists or managerial. Their qualification and experience from school until the present are history, art history, politics or subjects that President J F Kennedy would consider from the 'mind of man'. When confronted with a situation that requires some knowledge of the ‘real’ bigger ‘world’ of environment and effective decision making and project management to meet those demands. They prefer to retreat into their 'comfort zone' cocoon of politics, law and commerce, or bury their heads in the sand of the beach. Better to play some political game of law and the Home Office rather than deal with the real world of a ship, a pollution threat and a potentially international environmental incident. That might require some technical knowledge, an actual appraisal of a situation and decision making being actually implemented in full view; instead of the ineffectiveness hidden away in some biased report or evasion of questions when the incident has all but forgotten in the safe place of the future.

"Ship on a beach, perhaps we should stick to what be know let’s carry on with the social, legal and economic consideration of casinos".

Politicians drone on about the importance of democracy. Perhaps they should also let on to the public that democracy is government by the people or their elected representatives. You don’t need politicians to have a democracy. That politicians are increasingly ignoring the important aspects of life on Earth, might mean that their time for some natural extinction is due. You concentrate on your bloody casinos and let the rest of us deal with securing a safer better future for this planet we are part of.

MSC Napoli Part 2

PM Tony Blair grins and promises the "Greenest Olympics ever". No they can’t be or ever be the greenest Olympics if the full audit is done, as covered in Scottish Olympic Costs 20th January.

Mean while down on the south coast somebody has parked a 80,000 tonne ship on the beach. Providing a major attraction for a group of people that under went a spectrum of descriptions. Starting as beachcombers, then to scavengers, finally to looters. Why were they there? The reason was because no one else was. No police, no coastguard, no army, no anybody. No Government or other overall authority at all.

What were we told through the media? An 80,000 tonne ship has run aground on the south coast but it is thought that it is ‘only’ carrying 150 containers of toxic or dangerous material, (and 3500 tonnes of heavy fuel oil). It is reassuring that the ships manifest details exactly what it is carrying. This means that if a ship manifest doesn’t say it is carrying cocaine or heroin or illegal immigrants, then the Customs won’t need to look. A massive ship ‘only’ carrying 150 containers of dangerous materials, beached and aground, went totally missed by the radar of the Government and the opposition parties.

"Talk is cheap but Whisky costs money", as my friend Martin would say, and in this case Galore. The MSC Napoli has torpedoed the thin veneer of political pretence of concern over the environment.

While Tony smiles and glad hands on a PR and photo opportunity desperately trying to improve the image of an out of control Olympic budget, pantomime takes over.
"It’s behind you". Shout the audience.
"What". Says Tony.
"It’s behind you".
"Gosh", says Tony looking over his shoulder, "an 80,000 tonne ship left on a beach unattended, where did that come from?"

So does the PM still think he can still be a world leader with any credibility on global environmental issues. "Oh you're the guy who forgot about the ship on the beach, what did you want to lecture us about, climate change was it?

The Government could have had an applied planetary engineering centre at the Millennium Dome that would co-ordinate events like this as well as providing the solutions to climate change. but gambled on a casino instead, as part of costly sport event. While explaining how 'green' it is, completely miss the environmental agenda basking on a beach. Where is the opposition, where is the media analysis. Environment has a long way to go before it is taken seriously by either the politicians or the media. Beware the dangerous obsession with climate change.

Scotland: The World's First Ecological Superpower? Feb 2006

The Torrey Canyon Disaster 1967 One reason some of us put the environment first, these were some of the events that made us what we are.

Good Intentions

There is a ship on a beach, climate change now causes George W Bush to announce he wants 20% of US fuel from sustainable sources, the Olympics are costing more and more, raising complaints from Scotland over that and Trident, terrorism and war still are in the news, and cash for peerages . All separate?

Six horses gallop through our daily news their reins trace back in time to the clutched hand of February 2001: An odyssey in time.

Well that was how the story started for the next post. Come 11.30 last night and still writing it was getting obvious that story was proving to large for a single sharp approach in a short one article format. Making the connections and putting in the references for the forensic reader to follow to make an definitive account of the last 6 years was being defeated by the length to do it justice. Perhaps better to break it down and if any connections are questioned or queried, be assured they do exist and are valid.

MSC Napoli Part 1 (of many)

First, that is some qualification for a ship to get, OU was it. Right joke's over. Second, this story is going to run and run, so put the Part 1 as we mean to go on. This story is going to keep the media going for weeks or even months, there is so much mileage so many questions, it's about for a while.


Let's start in this article by looking at a previous one from 14 January 2006, The Nuclear Deterrent: An Applied Planetary Engineering Analysis, this contained the line "6) Vast maritime clean ups are required of chemical dumps and dangerous ship wrecks containing cargo and materials which should not be in the oceans". This article referred to the document Scotland: The World's First Ecological Superpower, sent to all Members of the Scottish Parliament at the beginning of April 2006.This document was produced on the recommendation of Perth Business Gateway as an update for Scotland in 2006 of the proposal for 2001 for the Millennium Dome.


For the start of understanding the MSC Napoli story that with unfold over the next days, weeks, and months, we can only ask or advise for you to read that document. If you do this will give you the grounding and lead to the unfolding Napoli story.


When I saw the beachcombers taking their findings home on the TV news I wondered how these pictures would be viewed around the world. I didn't have long to wait, US main news, ABC, showed them as their 'and finally' slot last night. "Booty and the Beach", "looters" and "hundreds of scavengers" ran the voice over.


It's only by acting 'on the way others see you' that may be the reason suddenly today the beach has been sealed off by coastguards and police. No worries though the MSC Napoli story has got legs to keep running and running, it hasn't even got going yet. Please return for the full implications of the story which will now unfold in the media.

Attitude to the United States: 8 out of 10 Cats........

The press today reported that there is a dissatisfaction with the UKs relationship with the United States. 68% of those questioned thought the US presence in the middle east provoked conflict etc.

Changing Futures was the 2nd in a trilogy of works submitted to UN and Government reports trying to dissuade the UK Government from invading Iraq. "It will all end in tears". Quite simply as your mother would have said.

The 3rd addressed the UK relationship with the US in the build up to war. The UNED-UK summarised them as it as ‘questioning UK response to the USA not agreeing to Kyoto Protocol...... Relationship between north (UK and USA) and south (Ethiopia)........strength and capacity of the UK.

This is the final part of the trilogy dated 8th January 2003

Is the UKs Relationship With America the Cause of Many of Our Society's Problems

The UK was the first country in the world to enter and lead the Industrial Era of global development.
Much of the science, technology, commercial, financial, political and institutional processes that took the world into the industrial age originated in the UK.

At this point in America Davy Crocket hadn't got round to fighting the Mexicans yet.

Much of the model and strategy that America used when it went and entered its industrialised phase of development came from what the UK had already developed and gone through.

The UK had already had a global empire or was in the process of building it up.

Like children countries have to grow up and develop, it is the nature of change.

The UK has finished its secondary education and now needs to go to university.

America is a much younger country it is now leaving primary education and needs to start secondary school.

For some reason the UK wants to hang around with its much younger friend. There is no problem with a 19 year old being friendly and getting on with a 11 year old.

The trouble comes when the 19 year old starts spending all its time with the 11 year old doing the things it wants.

If the 11 year old is a bit of a bully and starts stealing sweets from the other kids in its class and one of them turns round and gives it a slap. A 19 doesn't go into the playground and join in with its friend.

Far better if its worried about 11 year olds to carry on with its education and become a teacher and lead by example.

19 year olds hanging round with 11 year olds stagnate, they stop getting on with their own life. They need to do things a 20 or a 21 year old does, become an adult.

America goes on and on about its economy, well let it. Does Bush ever express his concerns for the environment local or global. Britain has been through that.

Britain needs to continue its development for itself. But in doing that by virtue of its leading edge position in global development it must also be the world leader in post-industrial, third phase, ecological sustainable development. The next step after the industrial era.

British society is bored and listless, because Britain is playing in last centuries back yard with an 11 year old. Waiting for the 11 year old to grow up.

Britain is stagnating and falling apart beacause it has forgotten that it is the leader and where it goes eventually America will follow.

Britain has lost leadership in itself. It has forgotten to be innovative, creative and bold in its journey into the frontier of the future.

The world does then not have a leader, it too stagnates and falls apart in quarrels and bickering. Instead of Britain saying "well we are moving on", it holds itself back joining in.

Britain wastes its time trying to tart up and patch yesterdays ideas. That is what Britain has never been about.

Britain needs to be starting today and building the path to tommorrow, then walk the walk. Once Britain changes and moves the rest will follow, then the world will be dragged out of the mire it's in.

Does anyone else think differently?

Roger Thomas

8th January 2003

Carbon Offsetting: The Gold Standard Part 2

Coincidentally just after putting the post of 20th Jan Carbon Offsetting, a message was received from the Sustainable Development Research Network (SDRN) to take part in the consultation exercise in carbon offsetting the Government has proposed.

It’s going to be a time of calculators, Avogadro’s Number, dry mass and time graphs. We will do our best to ensure the carbon offsetting proposals are of the highest standard. The only problem that occurs with these consultation exercises is sometimes when you get all the science and the strategy correct, everything then seems to defer to some political goal which wasn’t previously part of the plan.

MP2 will offer a carbon offsetting service in the near future. Whether it will be the one the Government decides or one we think will be more effective, we will be literary setting the standard.

Applied Planetary Engineering Blairgowrie Perthshire

MP2 applied planetary engineering is based in Blairgowrie, the 2nd largest town in Perthshire Scotland. Perthshire was the location for the G8 Summit in 2005, whose main agenda was climate change and Africa.


As MP2 had some influence on this agenda via a contribution to a United Nations Environment and Development-UK report commissioned by the UK Government. An automatic legacy would to carry out leading edge research into the global challenges for effective implementation.


Blairgowrie is ideally situated in this respect. It is just south of the Cairngorms National Park, a sub arctic/tundra area of outstanding beauty and wilderness. While celebrity campaigners travel the globe reporting on the effects of climate change, needlessly contributing to the problem. In Blairgowrie it is only necessary to look out of the window.

Applied Planetary Engineering Search Update

We appreciate there have been some problems with this site falling out of the search engines. When it was launched it was the top hit on Google for applied planetary engineering. It then mysteriously disappeared, Google would not even acknowledge it's existence let alone search for it.


This problem may have been over come and the site has returned to the top of the Google index. If any of our readers would like to try searching for the site using applied planetary engineering and would like to report their results it may help us in providing an improved service.

Scotland, Trident and the Legacy of JFK

In the early 60s President Kennedy initiated a programme to put man on the moon and bring him back alive before the end of the decade. This was done, but it is the space programme in the 70’s which will give us the example of how to save a planet.

Apollo 13 lost it’s life support system due to a small explosion in the service module. Earth has now but all lost it’s ecological life support system due to economic growth, greed and exploitation. When it finally shuts down about 5 billion or more will die.

The only way the astronauts arrived back on Earth alive was to shut down all non essential systems to preserve sufficient power to enable them to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere and land safely.

The only way we can survive is to assist the Earth to rebuild the ecological life support systems of the planet. To do this we must shut down all non essential systems. One of the biggest emitters of pollution and consumers of resources is the global weapons industry.

The results of it’s products bring about destruction further adding to the collapse of the planets life support systems. Repairing the damage and rebuilding towns, cities, infrastructure and countries after war consumes resources and causes pollution, causing more ecosystem collapse.

The weapons industry is a ‘multiplier’, each and every step from production, through implementation and restoring the consequences of it’s actions destroys a little bit more of the planetary systems that keep us alive and the beauty of life, part of the reason for living.

Opposition to the new nuclear deterrent can be justified in that the resources used and emissions released in it’s production are an unacceptable contribution in destabilising the increasingly fragile ecology of the planet.

The arms industry and the nuclear deterrent are one of the non essential systems that need immediately shutting down on the space ship that is this Earth. The peace of the planet and the security of Scotland then comes down to the mutually assured destruction of the 21st century.

As Marshall McLuhan said, on spaceship Earth there are no passengers only crew. The resources allocated by the Government previously for nuclear weapons, now go into the creation of making Scotland a world leader in planetary management.

All life on the planet is now threatened. Scotland takes a global lead in maintaining that life on the planet. So who will threaten Scotland? Any threat to Scotland reduces the viability of Scotland to ensure the continuation of life on Earth. Any potential aggressor risks their own demise by their course of action.

The only weakness that if the carrying capacity of the planet is reduced so much one group may decide to reduce the population of the planet by the mass killing of others to try and give themselves a better chance of survival.

Though by the stage that this scenario is reached chaos and anarchy on a global scale will be so rampant it will be difficult to identify one particular enemy, each part of humanity will be at conflict with the rest over the scraps of existence that remain.

Soon the soils of Scotland will dry out in searing summer heat, fires will burn through the mountains uncontrolled. Winter winds will blow the dust of Scotland across the surface of the Earth. That remaining will be washed down by storms into the rivers choking and blocking them. Flood waters spilling through villages, towns and cities.

What has taken millennia to create will disappear. No longer will we have to travel to the moon to see barren desolation, the lunar landscape will be brought here. Glen Lyon, Cairngorms, Rannoch Moor, everywhere denuded and gone. Deposited in the streets and houses of towns.

There is no point in having a nuclear deterrent to protect nothing. Use those resources to create the future. Through the flip flops of fate Kennedy left us the legacy of how life is sustained on a stricken space craft. Get rid of or shut down all none essential systems. Trident first, free the resources.

Scotland: The World's First Ecological Superpower

2012 Deadline

In 2004 the BBC ran a week of programming on climate change. This had 2 central themes. The UK’s Chief Scientist says, "Climate change is a greater threat than terrorism", and the Pentagon report to the US President and "Abrupt Climate Change Scenario.....".

Contacting the BBC (News Planning) to say I was the original author of the climate change / terrorism risk assessment, the BBC having read the original (it was live on line at the time) agreed I was the original author and not the Chief Scientist. Unfortunately they felt as I was not a media personality or celebrity it was not suitable to me to comment on what they agreed was my own work. The moral is beware what you hear in the media, there is a dumbing down of news and information, style takes precedence over substance and the celebrity campaigner’s views on the environment are the most important because they are a celebrity.

The Pentagon report to the President ‘An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario...’ is one of the most important works on the environment for Scotland as it covers the shutting down of the North Atlantic Conveyor, the Gulf Stream. If this happens potentially Scotland then suffers the ‘Day After Tomorrow' scenario, the instant ice age. Though since it’s publication the rate of global warming has increased so much that it may be negated by that rise.

One interesting part of the work is the forecasts for the future. On page 17 in their opinion, 2012 is the start of the big break down of civilisation. The point from which there is no return. As MP2 produced this figure 25 years ago and quite independently, the date of 2012 should be given a high degree of credibility.

Lovelock thinks we have gone past the point of no return and the deaths of billions is now an inevitability. The date of 2012 may be the last possible chance we have to save our lives and the planet, if we haven’t sorted out the complete global situation by then, we know our death and our extinction.

An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario is an easy, informative and influential read for anyone with an interest in society and the environmental challenge, especially in Scotland. Now over 3 years old and though showing it's age it is still worth a look.

This is the obscene scandal of the UK Government. They go for a massive project such as the Olympic Games, it’s resource use and emissions produced only hastening the impending environmental catastrophe, while doing nothing of the appropriate magnitude to ensure we have a 2012 to have an Olympics in.

Carbon Offsetting: The Gold Standard

The Government has recently proposed a standard for carbon offsetting schemes. MP2 will in the near future be offering such a scheme. Anticipating the proposal and as a information resource on carbon offsetting we started to produce a Q&A section last year. Using the technologies we have developed we plan to move the standard of offsetting to another level over and above anything the Government may consider as a gold standard.


The World Wild Fund for example run a carbon offsetting scheme. As part of their awareness and fundraising programme they use the quote "climate change is a greater threat than terrorism", which they attribute to the Governments Chief Scientist Sir David King, especially in ther participation in the Stop Climate Chaos campaign. Though Sir David was not the original author of the concept. MP2 was with a submission, Changing Futures, to a UNED-UK report commissioned by the UK Government 13 months before Sir David published.


Even though the WWF do not pay any money to MP2, it is our R&D base which is assisting their and many other organisations offset schemes. That report from 2002 also linked Climate Change and Africa, which became the agenda for the G8 in Perthshire in 2005. Influence or prediction? How much is MP2 already contributing to carbon offsetting around the world, with it's leading edge work assisting other organisations. Even without planting a tree MP2 has helped change the consciousness of a planet for the better. How many tonnes of carbon has that offset?


The exploration of carbon offset figures make for an interesting journey into the world of planetary ecology and political policy. The figure given to the Government consultants in the Dome bid of 2001, as the Domes market potential as an environmental management centre was $1000 billion per year, the damage to the global environment. The UN and other organisations gave a figure of $200 billion, but this was for climate change alone. What about pollution, species extinction, loss of bio-diversity related stability and all the other damage being inflicted on to the environment as a consequence of human activity, plus the exponential nature of the rise of this damage (cost)? Both the consultants on 17th April 2001 and Pete Wishart MP on 9th January 2006 accepting the figure on the basis of it's rationale.


When PM Tony Blair gave a keynote speech on the environment to the world's media on 14th September 2004 he gave the cost of damage to the environment as $150 billion per year. Less than a sixth of the figure supplied to the Government's consultants 3 years before.


Take the figure for the market potential of the Dome. $1000 billion is in dollars, so to make it more understandable, lets us convert it to £s. Here we have to realise the dollar has recently fallen against the pound. If we use a recent rate as if by magic it would look like the damage to the global environment has reduced. If we use an exchange rate of 1.76 dollars to the pound, similar to the rate in place at the time this will give a more realistic assessment of damage.


This figure is:£568,181,818,181 £568 billion of damage per year to the global environment due to human activity.


If we are going to look at carbon offset we need to consider how much oil we consume a year. This is 80 million barrels a day or 29,200,000,000 barrels per year.


For those like to ask "Do you know....."
The world uses just over 1 cubic mile of oil a year.


A barrel is 42 US gallons, which is less than a UK gallon, so we have to convert from barrels to US gallons (at 1.2 US to the imperial gallon) to the UK gallon we are familiar with, giving 1,022,000,000,000 UK gallons.


It could be said that this is not a true picture as some of this oil may be used in the production of plastics or other products and not burned as fuel and that gas or coal have not been brought into the equation. Again the fuel could have been used in a chain saw to cut down a rain forest, being used as a 'multiplier' increasing the destruction of the planets ecological life support systems. The intention here has been to give an overview of the situation, to make those large global figures understandable, tangible and human in scale.


To find the amount of damage to the environment in pounds caused by oil use divide the environmental cost by the number of gallons giving
55.6p per gallon or 12.25 p per litre


With many politicians reading this site and with all the political parties working out their environmental taxes perhaps we should leave this article on carbon offsetting there for now, with our damage to the environment based on the £1000 billion figure.

Scottish Olympic Costs

For many months MSP Alex Neil has been simmering away in the media as a regular commentator on the spiralling cost of the London Olympics and the effect it will have draining resources from Scotland. Yesterday the debate came to the boil with cross media news reports on the loss Scottish charities and other organisations will suffer as a result. The number of comments to an article by Michael Howie from The Scotsman underline a public discontent to match.

Unfortunately the way the figures are represented, perhaps that should be unrepresented, hide the true enormity of a blunder of gold medal proportions. The Millennium Dome is to be used as part of the Olympic programme. On the basis of the competition criteria for the Millennium Dome, obtained by Perth MP Pete Wishart, the winning proposal should have been that of the global environmental management centre. The proposal the Government's own consultants, quite rightly, wanted to back and as recent media and political attention on the environment as shown, would now be generating the £50 billion per year figure presented in the submission; supplying the solutions to the planet's ecological challenge such as climate change.

Over 10 years, leading up to the Olympics, £500 billion lost to the UK economy, on an approximately 10% of the population pro rata basis of the UK, £50 billion lost to Scotland, by virtue of deciding to use the Dome as part of the Olympic bid instead. Add on to this the environmental and social costs. The environment proposal did contain an early warning and alert system for natural hazards. How many more would now be alive from the South East Asia Tsunami, hurricane Katrina and the numerous other extreme events since, (500,000?), if the Government hadn't gambled on taking the venue/casino option?

If the 2012 Olympics ever go ahead the real full audit of the cost to the UK will be £500 billion and lives around the world. It would be unbelievable, if it wasn't true.

Perthshire Flood Damage: A Case Against the Government?

Synopsis

The UK Government knew about and were given the solutions to the recent flooding in Perthshire on 17th April 2001. On that day there was a discussion with the consultants Jones Lang LaSalle appointed by the UK Government and English Partnerships to find a use for the Millennium Dome. The proposal submitted was to use it as a global environmental management centre, providing the solution to climate change and most importantly global ecological life support system collapse. This was the proposal the consultants wanted to back as a use for the Dome. That proposal contained the threat, to Perthshire and elsewhere, and the solutions. The final decision was to have a venue/casino complex instead. No alternative attempt or strategy was made by the Government to protect Perthshire and other places from environmental damage to the same degree or appropriate magnitude. Is there a case for Perthshire to take action against the Government for civil or criminal neglect or other legal action?

.....................................

On 9th January 2006 I had a meeting with Pete Wishart MP for Perth and North Perthshire at his Perth office. At that meeting Mr Wishart was given an outline of the bid and process to use the Millennium Dome as a global environmental management centre. Though at the time, in 2001, of the competition for the Dome the UNEP IPCC and other sources had put the cost of global damage due to climate change at $200 billion per year, my submission to the consultants that the true cost of total environmental damage was nearer $1000 billion per year. Due to the effective argument in support of that revised figure both the Government consultants in 2001 and Mr Wishart in 2006 accepted it as a valid reasoning. A figure in October 2006 supported by the Stern Report.

As the proposal had been removed from the competition despite it’s short listing, by default, due to the non supply of the competition criteria to allow it to continue in the process, Mr Wishart said he would try and obtain the competition criteria.

Mr Wishart did eventually obtain the criteria, though these came from Jim Fitzpatrick MP Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, not Tessa Jowell DCMS as we had both originally thought.

The criteria of the competition were: a worthwhile and sustainable use for the dome; value for money; deliverability of the deal; and regeneration benefits. As the proposal for the use of the Dome as a global environmental management centre would have beaten the venue/casino on all these grounds, the question must be asked, were these withheld to ensure another, but not the best, proposal won?

What Perthshire and elsewhere are now doing, is paying the cost of the decision not to use the Dome as an environmental management centre. Perthshire is in fact subsidising AEG to run a venue and casino in London. The environmental and social costs of the decision being imposed on Perthshire and everywhere else as environmental damage. A decision that was not made on the true criteria of the competition, which the tax payer paid to have run.

Even without going into detail ask yourself would you rather have, 1) the problem of climate change resolved or 2) a casino/venue in London, what would you choose? The Government chose a casino/venue.

Perthshire should consider whether it has a legal case against the Government for the damage it has suffered as a result of that decision.

As a damage limitation exercise, which was in the interests of Perthshire, when I was invited to make recommendations to DEFRA on sustainable policy. I very specifically and strongly pushed for changes in the Common Agricultural Policy to allow the provision of land to be taken out of production allowing the development of natural flood plains etc. together with other land use changes to reduce the damage of flooding by smoothing out river surges.

When the Cabinet Office asked me to review Regulatory Impact Assessment; Guidelines for Legislation, I took the model for multiple goal analysis of economic, social and environmental factors and made strong recommendation that this be changed to a concept of optimum win win scenarios, specifically using the example of river hydrology and flood prevention.

The implementation of these recommendations will have resulted in some minimisation of the recent flood damage to Perthshire, but not to the extent which could have been achieved had the criteria for the Millennium Dome competition been adhered to.

In submission to a United Nations Environment and Development -UK report commissioned by the UK Government the article Changing Futures gave the original and now globally known risk assessment "climate change is a greater threat than terrorism". Please use this link then, go to the specific document from within that text ‘published’. Most importantly for Perthshire, the original outline for the agenda of the G8 Summit in 2005.

An assessment of the Millennium Dome competition criteria has been sent to Mr Wishart as requested. I have asked him for his advice on launching an inquiry into the running of the competition, which as Perthshire is now paying the costs of that competition it is particularly relevant. At present I am awaiting his reply.

Suggestions

1) Consider is there a legal case against the Government in view that the damage to Perthshire could largely been avoided?

2) What support can Perth and Kinross Council give to setting up a global environmental management centre in Perthshire as laid out in the consultancy document Scotland: The World’s First Ecological Superpower, sent to all MSPs at the start of April 2006. All the solutions to climate change already exist they only need implementing?

3) We are the leading and most influential authority on sustainable planetary evolution and are local. As such would be delighted to provide any consultancy, strategy and other services to Perth and Kinross to overcome the environmental challenges and ensure a safer better future for the area and the planet.

The UK Nuclear Deterrent: An Applied Planetary Engineering Analysis

Synopsis

The UK cannot have a new nuclear deterrent due to the resources used and CO2 emitted in it's production and implementation. Costs to the environment which are not covered or payed back later. The budget approx £25 billion should be used to produce ships, equipment, training and research making Scotland a world leader in oceanographic research and marine management. These jobs and investments will be sustainable both for the benefit of Scotland and the planet as a whole. This is in line with the Scottish: Ecological Superpower summary sent to all MSPs at the start of April 2006.

------------------------------
On the 12th January 2007 Prime Minister Tony Blair said he wants the UK to be a warrior nation for decades, (and in so doing demonstrates that he doesn’t know the true meaning of warrior). On 20th April 2006 Chancellor Gordon Brown at the World Bank said he wanted the environment to be at the centre of policy.

Both want a new nuclear deterrent for the UK, indicating that neither understand the environmental challenge and agenda. The Scottish National Party oppose the nuclear option on moral grounds, but many are concerned this with also cause job losses in Scotland.

One aspect of planetary engineering is foresight. This situation, as a win win scenario, was covered in the consultancy document and executive summary, Scotland: The World’s First Ecological Superpower? Produced at the suggestion of Perth Business Gateway in February 2006, as an update from the original 2001 proposal to use the Millennium Dome as a global environmental management centre. The document was sent to every Member of the Scottish Parliament at the start of April 2006.

So Tony Blair and Gordon Brown want a nuclear deterrent. Well they can’t have one. The reason? They have given that themselves. Climate change is the greatest threat to the international community. (It isn’t, planetary ecological life support system collapse is, which climate change is a symptom of, but that’s another story).

The process of a £25 billion defence project consumes resources and emits CO2. A consequence of which is the moving of the Extinction Horizon (EH) closer to the present. This is a point of no return sometime close in the future. After this date, the degrading of the planet’s ecological life support system will occur reducing it’s capacity to support life. This includes human society, civilisation and individuals. The ‘Mad Max’ scenario.

Some such as James Lovelock believe we have already passed this point of no return, and the deaths of billions is now inevitable. The reason billions aren’t dying at this exact moment is there is a lag time between reaching that point and it’s physical manifestation. This is the ‘time zone’ we are not occupying as a human society. The end of days. This extinction of human society may be true if taking a passive approach, allowing the Earth’s ecological systems alone to recover after the extinction of human civilisation has reduced the loading and destruction imposed on them.

Taking an interventionist approach, which is where human society and civilisation works with and assists the earths ecological systems to recover, could move this Extinction Horizon to some time into the near future as opposed to being at some point in the recent past. The interventionist approach involves massive and immediate applied planetary engineering implementation. The time frame which we are working to is the period between the non assisted extinction horizon, which is in the past, and the point in time of it’s physical manifestation.

Climate change and the overemphasis on reducing CO2 emissions is a convenient political over simplification sound bite, which does not address the true situation. An analogy would be having a vehicle and in preparing it for an MoT or other vehicle inspection test, talking of and only concentrating on the tyres. These may well be essential and important to the vehicle passing the test, but they are not the only important thing. The vehicle as a whole must pass the test and that includes brakes, steering, suspension and every other component and system involved in the safe an continued progress of the vehicle on the highway.

The test and objective of applied planetary engineering is to grab this Extinction Horizon, which is behind us, in the time frame of planetary evolution. Having grabbed it, move it into the present, then push it away into the future. Applied planetary engineering is about moving the Extinction Horizon further away into the future. Each and every action, by one degree or another is moving this Extinction Horizon relative in time to where we are now.

If we move further into the time zone of the lag time between potential extinction and physical manifestation, we can no longer grab behind us in time and move the Extinction Horizon into the future. Game Over.

Applied Planetary Engineering is the development and implementation of the strategies to move the Extinction Horizon further into the future.

Now assessing Tony and Gordon’s desire to have a new nuclear deterrent in terms of applied planetary engineering, this is a none starter.

1) The resources used and CO2 emitted do not push the Extinction Horizon into the future. The results of the project bring and make more inevitable the ecological backlash or Armageddon due to it’s contribution to the destruction and destabilisation of the Earth’s ecological life support system.

2) This is a long term project. By the time the new nuclear deterrent is ready, this point in time will be after the physical manifestation of the Extinction Horizon, if not resolved, which the resource use and emissions released in building a nuclear deterrent will have contributed to. We cannot afford the luxury of any large projects which do not contribute to moving the EH further into the future. There will be nobody left to make war against.

3) Every single person and most species of animal and plant are now under threat from global ecological life support system collapse. This is the great unifier. We must all work as one, as one planet to rescue our collective future. If we do not do this, there will be no future in which to fight each other in. When we are as one with one common cause, why do we need weapons of mass destruction?

4) Production of military products do not pay back the initial resource use and pollution footprint in their creation. Use resources in waste water treatment for example and this improves the stability of the ecosystem, giving a stability return on the projects initial environmental cost. Military projects do not do this, and jaw jaw is less detrimental than war war.

5) Strategy to manage the planet and push the Extinction Horizon into the future will require climate and oceanographic monitoring, research, assessment and implementation. The £25 billion can finance the new generation of ships and research vessels to do this. Building these in Scotland still provides jobs which push the Extinction Horizon into the future, not moving it into the past.

6) Vast maritime clean ups are required of chemical dumps and dangerous ship wrecks containing cargo and materials which should not be in the oceans. The oceanic ecosystems are not just under stress and hence losing stability and productivity due to climate change, they are being affected by pollution. This needs cleaning up. The £25 billion can go towards the ships and technology required to do this. Jobs will be created in Scotland which will contribute to the continuation of the sustainable evolution of the entire planet.

The executive summary Scotland: The World’s First Ecological Superpower gave the main areas for investment. Applied Planetary Engineering needs the tools to do the job of ensuring a future for all of us and this planet. Make that investment.

If Tony and Gordon go for their nuclear toys instead, it will be over all our dead bodies

Welcome

This is one presence on the net of Millennium Project Two, the entry into the 2001 competition to use the Millennium Dome London as a global centre of advanced environmental management. Using the study and implementation of Applied Planetary Engineering