Applied Planetary Engineering is very pleased to announce that it has been invited to take part in the UK Government's Sustainable Development Research Network conference in London in September.
Sponsored by DEFRA and run by the PSI, the Policy Studies Institute, it will bring together around a 100 of the top advisors to the UK Government on sustainable development, climate change and other aspects to resolve the global environmental challenge.
Applied Planetary Engineering thanks the PSI, DEFRA and the UK Government for it's invitation to the event.
Showing posts with label applied planetary engineering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label applied planetary engineering. Show all posts
Monday, 30 July 2007
Wednesday, 14 March 2007
The Trident and Environmental Paradox
Over the last few days the political parties have been trying to get their environmental policies to the top of the political agenda. Today they vote on the replacement for Trident.
This site has spent so much time on the Trident debate presenting a political and ecological analysis that the political parties or the media are not presenting.
Yesterday we were told that the environment is the biggest challenge we face. So we have to turn TVs off standby and recycle our cans. How many people for how many years will have to do everything we are told to do in order to offset the emissions produced and resources used in building such a s system. It just puts dissonance into to minds of the population.
All our efforts are futile when we see the resources that want to be allocated. The cold war was a world run on the balance of fear. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The environmental challenge is a world of Mutually Assured Survival.
There needs to be a coherent and cooperative global approach to planetary management. The superpowers of the present and future are the ones that the world can depend on and look to for survival. The survival of everyone, everything and this Earth.
Scotland: The World's First Ecological Superpower. Sent to all MSPs April 2006
The UK Nuclear Deterrent.
Scotland, Trident and the Legacy of JFK
This site has spent so much time on the Trident debate presenting a political and ecological analysis that the political parties or the media are not presenting.
Yesterday we were told that the environment is the biggest challenge we face. So we have to turn TVs off standby and recycle our cans. How many people for how many years will have to do everything we are told to do in order to offset the emissions produced and resources used in building such a s system. It just puts dissonance into to minds of the population.
All our efforts are futile when we see the resources that want to be allocated. The cold war was a world run on the balance of fear. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The environmental challenge is a world of Mutually Assured Survival.
There needs to be a coherent and cooperative global approach to planetary management. The superpowers of the present and future are the ones that the world can depend on and look to for survival. The survival of everyone, everything and this Earth.
Scotland: The World's First Ecological Superpower. Sent to all MSPs April 2006
The UK Nuclear Deterrent.
Scotland, Trident and the Legacy of JFK
Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Trusting My Life and This Planet to Politicians
I don't know whether I was being a bit hard on Blairgowrie Liberal Democrats in my post Just when did you write this? My complaint of their election campaign consisting of 'a' leaflet being probably 5 months out of date. Should I apologise, should I have expected better or more from a political party that wants to be taken seriously. If the Lib Dems think they deserve an apology then have one.
I had read Tartan Hero's Campbell Tests Brown for Coalition Job, basically the "vote Ming get Gordon" ticket, (why is it nearly every time I type Gordon I have to go back and correct Gorgon). Then I had this Lib Dem Focus leaflet. The Lib Dems have set out their climate change policy, to be fair the only ones yet with something I can really assess.
They want to tax heavy polluters then give the money to (via shifting tax burdens) to "hard working and particularly low paid Scots". So who are these heavy polluters, the energy industry, the transport industry etc? We live in a market economy, if you increase these costs, they still get passed on to "hard working......". There is no net gain financially. Even if there was a financial benefit to them what are they going to spend the money on, increased consumerism and foreign holidays? Adding to the problem they tried to resolve.
In my post Carbon Offsetting I did the rough overall calculation for politicians to start basing their environmental policies on. We are damaging the environment, this is a cost, this damage if not repaired and stopped will lead to the demise of us all. These (all) polluters cause damage. What the Lib Dems are not doing is using the tax revenues to repair and improve the environmental situation, they have not recycled the money back to solve the problem of the damage caused. Ergo, they do not have an environmental policy. So why have a "wee pretendy go" that they have.
When I had the discussions with the Government's consultants to run the Millennium Dome as a global environmental management centre these were penetrating and incisive. There again they must have realised I knew my subject, because it was them who wanted to support my proposal. Until that is it may have been undermined, Isn't it iconic. Even 10 Downing Street won't deny the facts. As such I feel I have a right to feel annoyed and frustrated at politicians pretending they have solutions to the environmental challenge. We won't let Roger do it, it is much better for our ego and kudos if we can get the public to believe we know what we are doing. This is putting my life, my families, my friends, every bodies life and the future of this planet in danger for the sake of political posturing.
Sometime I want to get the Stern report and everything a politician presents on the environment, get a red pen mark it and send it back to them with see me on it. There again perhaps that was why the Cabinet Office did want me to proof and comment on their Regulatory Impact Assessment guide. (And produce the outline agenda for the G8 Summit in Perthshire, Climate Change and Africa). Why should I or anyone else with more than 40 years study of how this planet works have any confidence what so ever in someone who wanted to be a lawyer and in the last few months thinks they are an expert in planetary ecology just because it became fashionable to do so. Solicitors and politicians don't fix my central heating boiler or MOT my car so why should I trust them with a planet.
There I was feeling alone in my frustration when I read Doctor Vee's tribute to Chris Lightfoot. "read each manifesto until you encounter something really offensive or stupid, then stop and reject that party." Bye Bye Lib Dems.
I do agree with MacNumpty about negative comments. My view is critique as much as you want, but be prepared to outline the better alternative as well. So Ming, Gordon, Jack, Alex, Annabel, Dave, Nicol, Tony, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all are you going to turn up at Blairgowrie Town Hall at 7.30 Weds 28th March.
I had read Tartan Hero's Campbell Tests Brown for Coalition Job, basically the "vote Ming get Gordon" ticket, (why is it nearly every time I type Gordon I have to go back and correct Gorgon). Then I had this Lib Dem Focus leaflet. The Lib Dems have set out their climate change policy, to be fair the only ones yet with something I can really assess.
They want to tax heavy polluters then give the money to (via shifting tax burdens) to "hard working and particularly low paid Scots". So who are these heavy polluters, the energy industry, the transport industry etc? We live in a market economy, if you increase these costs, they still get passed on to "hard working......". There is no net gain financially. Even if there was a financial benefit to them what are they going to spend the money on, increased consumerism and foreign holidays? Adding to the problem they tried to resolve.
In my post Carbon Offsetting I did the rough overall calculation for politicians to start basing their environmental policies on. We are damaging the environment, this is a cost, this damage if not repaired and stopped will lead to the demise of us all. These (all) polluters cause damage. What the Lib Dems are not doing is using the tax revenues to repair and improve the environmental situation, they have not recycled the money back to solve the problem of the damage caused. Ergo, they do not have an environmental policy. So why have a "wee pretendy go" that they have.
When I had the discussions with the Government's consultants to run the Millennium Dome as a global environmental management centre these were penetrating and incisive. There again they must have realised I knew my subject, because it was them who wanted to support my proposal. Until that is it may have been undermined, Isn't it iconic. Even 10 Downing Street won't deny the facts. As such I feel I have a right to feel annoyed and frustrated at politicians pretending they have solutions to the environmental challenge. We won't let Roger do it, it is much better for our ego and kudos if we can get the public to believe we know what we are doing. This is putting my life, my families, my friends, every bodies life and the future of this planet in danger for the sake of political posturing.
Sometime I want to get the Stern report and everything a politician presents on the environment, get a red pen mark it and send it back to them with see me on it. There again perhaps that was why the Cabinet Office did want me to proof and comment on their Regulatory Impact Assessment guide. (And produce the outline agenda for the G8 Summit in Perthshire, Climate Change and Africa). Why should I or anyone else with more than 40 years study of how this planet works have any confidence what so ever in someone who wanted to be a lawyer and in the last few months thinks they are an expert in planetary ecology just because it became fashionable to do so. Solicitors and politicians don't fix my central heating boiler or MOT my car so why should I trust them with a planet.
There I was feeling alone in my frustration when I read Doctor Vee's tribute to Chris Lightfoot. "read each manifesto until you encounter something really offensive or stupid, then stop and reject that party." Bye Bye Lib Dems.
I do agree with MacNumpty about negative comments. My view is critique as much as you want, but be prepared to outline the better alternative as well. So Ming, Gordon, Jack, Alex, Annabel, Dave, Nicol, Tony, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all are you going to turn up at Blairgowrie Town Hall at 7.30 Weds 28th March.
Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Flooding in Perthshire 'Retrospective' Update
The Courier has reported that the WWF has recommended that alternative methods be used to ease flood problems in Perthshire other than the building of concrete flood defenses. These include restoring flood plains and wetlands, going for a more sustainable approach to flood management.
It is unclear why the WWF has gone public on this or why the Courier has reported it as news. This method was known about 25 years ago to my knowledge and experience. In consultations for DEFRA in 2002, in the post FMD epidemic shake up of farming and land use, and in work I did for the Cabinet Office, these were changes I strongly argued for. This contributed to changes in the Common Agricultural Policy, which were pushed through with strong support by PM Tony Blair.
Really the Courier and the WWF should be looking at the reason for the unsustainable 'concrete solution' always having pre-eminence when flooding is mentioned. Is it anything to do that when a report is commissioned, it is very often done by concrete loving civil engineers?
The situation also raises the problem solving approach to environmental challenges. Far too often a technocentric approach is taken over the more appropriate ecocentric solution. The situation of flood prevention is a good example of where the media and headline makers should report on the most advanced perspectives on a subject area and not rely on reporting as news things which were current 25 years ago.
All Perth and Kinross Councillors had access to the Perthshire Flood Damage article of 17th January 2007 so for many yesterday's report told them nothing new. One benefit of the internet is that the most accurate and up to date information can be supplied to those who require it. A Benefit for all of society and the planet.
Perthshire SNP MP Pete Wishart has since written to me and informed me that his is waiting for a reply from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Though I have no doubt that any reply may fall short of the truth at least it is another point from which we can start asking questions from as to why when the Government had the solutions to flood problems in Perthshire in 2001 they chose to ignore them.
Saturday, 17 February 2007
Climate Change Technology
Richard Branson has offered a prize of $25 million for someone to develop technology to combat climate change.
Over at NASA they are looking at different ideas as well, 5 Ways to Save the World will be shown on 19 February at 9pm, I really don't know why I even wasted cyberspace mentioning it, I won't be watching. Why? Three words, they won't work.
The technology already exists. It was developed in 1982 as a solution to climate change. Even 10 Downing Street accepts it exists, but nothing can be done as that would amount to a commercial endorsement, better to let 5 billion people die.
Friday, 2 February 2007
Millennium Dome: Isn't it iconic
Mild mannered Greenwich Conservative Councillor Nigel Fletcher, when not being Shadow Education Special Advisor, raised the question of whether the AEG casino bid was ‘tainted’, with the connections to Deputy PM John Prescott. A point picked up on by the ever watchful Greenwich Watch.
Meanwhile over at The Business, Fraser Nelson also puts the spotlight on the hapless Prescott.
How ironic.
Tags and memes, tracking information flow through systems. If I had a pound for every journalist and comment that calls the Millennium Dome ‘iconic’, I would buy AEG out with an offer they couldn’t refuse. So where did ‘iconic’ come from. An internet search has so far has revealed no connection between the words ‘iconic’ and ‘Millennium Dome’ prior to Lord Falconers announcement of what was to become AEG winning the bid to take over running the Dome on 18th December 2001. There are plenty of references to that date and speech, for example and at random, this one.
How ‘ironic’ that the new buzz word, ‘iconic’, to describe the Millennium Dome was never used in public in the previous 5 or 6 years. Now why and how did it suddenly appear on Lord Falconer’s lips while announcing the winner of the Dome competition.
Lord Falconer and most since like to use the word in the sense of an ‘iconic building’ Somehow this seems strained. The word hangs unfulfilled by the premier wordmiths of our culture. Marilyn Monroe is iconic.......as a blond Hollywood sex symbol. The Pentagon is iconic........as a world recognised centre of defence. See how iconic likes to be followed by it’s association. Perhaps a definition could help: icon, a symbol resembling or analogous to the thing it represents. Lets add ....ic: relating matters to a particular subject.
Is this why Lord Falconer’s and everybody else's use of the word ‘iconic’ seems false, strained or unfulfilled. To use the word iconic in it’s full beautiful context, should also entail to what it is associated with. The Millennium Dome is iconic, is not enough. Though I have to admit it is a lovely word.
So the word to describe the Dome has only been used in public since 18th December 2001 when Lord Falconer used it in announcing AEG had won the competition, and it has never been used in it’s full context.
Now in the posting of 30th January Millennium Dome: The 2001 Proposal the Government’s Consultant’s Wanted to Support, what appears in this, supplied in April 2001 to Jones Lang LaSalle, 8 months before Lord Falconer announces AEG as the winner of the ‘iconic building’, oh, a little phrase and concept.
‘The Millennium Dome would have ‘iconic status’ as a centre for global environmental management’. Wow. The first time ever the word ‘iconic’ has been used to describe the Dome, and as a bonus in it’s proper full usage.
Anyone with any suspicions over the Governments involvement with AEG might be tempted to consider that the Government supported the AEG proposal by using the marketing strategy from another proposal.
Perhaps the other proposal was so good and was so attention grabbing, that parts may have been lifted from it, that given a proper open competition it may have even won. There again when has an outsider ever won anything connected to the Dome?
Perhaps this was the reason askFT, the advisory arm of the Financial Times called it "a truly exciting and innovative project".
Well who would have wanted an extra £50 billion coming into the UK economy via Greenwich, the problems of climate change more or less sorted, many of those killed in the SE Asia Tsunami, hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters now alive, with it’s one size fits all global environmental monitoring and alert system. Etc Etc, as Yul Brynner may have said.
Well no one when you could have had a bling bling do nothing casino. Well lets put those suspicions aside right now. I mean, while the competition was running, Lord Falconer wouldn’t have been having meetings with one competitor, showing unfair bias, would he? There are no suspicions that somehow Blair's aides may be involved, are there?
Wednesday, 31 January 2007
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.
Sunday, 28 January 2007
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.
Saturday, 27 January 2007
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.
Friday, 26 January 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, 24 January 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, 23 January 2007
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.
Monday, 22 January 2007
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, 21 January 2007
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.
Saturday, 20 January 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, 17 January 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, 14 January 2007
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.
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.
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
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
Friday, 12 January 2007
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
