Faced with the twin crises of the global economy and the global climate, politicians and economists worldwide have embraced a ‘grow and hope’ strategy: let’s just get back on the noble track of economic growth – the process of endlessly getting richer – and hope for the best. But grow and hope solutions that aim to stop climate change whilst maintaining economic growth cannot possibly work. If economic growth continues, we will be unable to avoid runaway climate change - natural disasters, resource wars and species extinction on unprecedented scales.

The EU’s climate change target is to limit the increase in global temperature at 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels (in fact the science tells us we need a more radical 1.5 degree target, but that’s for another rant.) ‘Growth Isn’t Possible’, a recent report published by the New Economics Foundation (NEF) think-tank, shows that meeting the 2 degrees target whilst maintaining growth cannot be done. The report calculates that if the global economy was to maintain growth at a relatively low 3% growth rate, in order to meet the 2 degrees target, the global economy’s carbon intensity – the amount of C02 released per dollar made - would have to fall by 95% by 2050.

Grow-and-hopers have to be hoping, specifically, for this 95% fall in carbon intensity. Now, the ‘green growth’ lobby have always seen techno-fixes as the answer to our prayers – we’ll keep getting richer and leave it to those brilliant (bit nerdy though) scientists to sort us out. I doubt, however, that even the most ardent techno-fixer would have claimed, prior to the NEF report, that we could hope for technological advances sufficient for a 95% cut. Of course, this is exactly what ‘grow and hope’ proponents will be claiming now.

However, we’ve seen no evidence of any technology-fuelled falls in carbon intensity as of yet: the carbon intensity of the economy remained effectively unchanged between 2002 and 2007. And there’s no sign of significant improvement when the techno-fix industry’s most hyped-up ideas are scrutinised. According to the Director of the US Geological Survey carbon capture and storage won’t be commercially viable on a widespread scale until 2045 – too late for us! As for biofuels, if the UK were to use oilseed rape and corn biofuels instead of petrol and diesel we would need 36 million hectares of land to grow it – 650 per cent more than all the arable land in the UK! What about nuclear? David Flemming, in ‘The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy: A Life-Cycle in Trouble’ argues that the world’s endowment of uranium ore is now so depleted that the nuclear industry will never, from its own resources, be able to generate the energy it needs to safely store its waste (the waste must be cooled in what is a very energy intensive process).

Worse still, we’ve got to account for the ‘rebound effect’: increases in efficiency are accompanied by increased consumption. Suppose we invent a new energy-efficient car that gets more km from a litre of petrol than before. One of these cars is going to save me a fair bit of money, meaning that I’m going to be able to buy more stuff. Indeed, an analysis of domestic energy consumption before and after the installation of energy saving devices has shown that only half the efficiency gains are translated into genuine reductions in carbon emissions.

We must accept then, that techno-fixes cannot deliver the improvement in carbon intensity that we need. Environmental campaigner and writer Danny Chivers has summed up the techno-fix-and-growth strategy perfectly: ‘Your house is on fire, so you sit down in the living room and start drawing up designs for a giant wall-smashing robot.’

Our only option, therefore, is to give up economic growth. But what does this mean? Grow and hopers tell us that we need growth to alleviate poverty. They tell us we need growth to make us happy. They’re wrong on both counts.

Let’s take the poverty myth first. As is noted in ‘Growth isn’t Possible’ ‘Between 1990 and 2001, for every $100 worth of growth in the world’s income per person, just $0.60, down from $2.20 the previous decade, found its target and contributed to reducing poverty below the $1-a-day line.’ Trickle down economics has failed – instead of poverty being alleviated, what we’ve seen is the rich enjoying faster cars, more holidays and bigger TVs. There are more than enough resources in the world to ensure that everyone has their basic needs met – poverty isn’t a problem of scarcity, but of distribution.

Moving on to the second myth, GDP (the metric used to measure growth) is a notoriously bad indicator of wellbeing. Research conducted by NEF reveals that although the UK’s GDP has doubled since 1980, people’s satisfaction with life has hardly changed. Doing away with growth isn’t going to mean doing away with the things that really make us happy – flourishing relationships; artistic creativity; strong communities; healthy lifestyles; educating ourselves; personal freedom. In fact it will mean lots more of those things – in a zero-growth economy, we’d work less and have more time to do the things we love.

This might sound like hippie bullshit, but I bet there’s a guilty part of you that wants to agree. Parents tell their kids that money doesn’t matter, but spend hundreds on their Christmas presents. After seeing ‘Trainspotting’, I bet you agreed to ‘Choose Life’ instead of ‘…a fucking big television…washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers’. But we leave the cinema to return to consumer paradise. Doing away with growth will just mean practicing what we preach – let’s embrace this!

Kenneth Boulding said that ‘Only mad men and economists believe in infinite growth in a finite world’. Andrew Simms, the head of NEF, illustrates this wonderfully by recalling an encounter with one such mad man economist. How, Simms asked, when the human race has used up the last of the Earth’s natural resources, will economic growth continue? Our mad man’s response: ‘We’ll exploit asteroids!’ Simms is calling for both pragmatists and utopians in shaping the ‘bold transition’ to the new economic system we so urgently need. Please: be a pragmatist, be a utopian; don’t be a mad person, don’t be a (grow and hope) economist.

People & Planet students and Athabascan First Nations campaigners outside the RBS AGM, Edinburgh, Spring 2010

As a fresher, I remember being bewildered by the number of banks bearing numerous freebies as a token of gesture! Little did I know about the questionable ethics and practices certain banks were responsible for. I hope this article will draw your attention not only to the risks associated with some banks, but also highlight the importance of choosing your bank carefully and why the banking industry needn’t be the monster it is purported to be!

Why are banks so interested in me? “I’m just a poor first year..!”

Like any other profit making business, banks are keen to attract as many new customers as they possibly can. After all, many students will go on to become high earners and potential shareholders – something vital to the banks’ future profits.

How can banks be said to “damage” the environment? Isn’t it the big oil and mining companies?

The answer to this is ‘yes’. Although oil giants including Shell, Exxon and BP are directly responsible for contributing to fossil fuels attributed to climate change, it is the banks that are responsible for providing investment in the fossil fuel industry. Quite simply, without banks’ investment, oil giants like Royal Dutch Shell and BP, would not be able to go about their ‘dirty’ business.

What’s so bad about RBS-Natwest?

Following the bail-out of RBS (which also owns Natwest) by the UK Treasury in 2009, much of the risks associated with the financing of fossil fuel extraction have been transferred to the taxpayer. Despite attempts to ‘greenwash’ itself as a more sustainable bank, research undertaken by PLATFORM shows that RBS lent over £10billion worth of public money to oil and gas companies since the bail-out.

RBS, which until recently described itself as the ‘oil and gas’ bank, is by far the biggest UK financier of ecologically devastating projects in the fossil fuel industry.

You may have also heard of the recent campaign at RBS annual shareholder meeting to persuade the bank to clean up its portfolio and stop investing in Canada’s tar sands. Of all UK banks, RBS has been the biggest backer of companies extracting tar sands.

What are tars sands?

It’s a form of dirty oil contained within a compound of bitumen, water, sand and clay found under the ancient forests of Canada. The process of extracting oil from tar sands causes up to three times the pollution than that produced by crude oil from under the sea!

This is another argument for why RBS should be investing in less risky, cleaner technologies. It is also why YOU, as new or current students should think twice about your choice of bank before signing on the dotted line!

Which bank?

Ultimately, this up to you, but you should explore what banks are close by and if necessary ask your Student Union whether they can look into attracting ethical banks. Below are some tips:

Finally, during Freshers week you’re likely to encounter banks inviting you to sign-up for a student account. But don’t be afraid to look elsewhere off-campus or online. A number of banks make much claim to their ethical and ‘green’ credentials and should be willing to answer your questions. Below is a list of examples:

www.Co-operativebank.co.uk offers an attractive student account with ethical policies

www.triodos.co.uk – check out their Fair-trade Savers Account

www.smile.co.uk – the internet arm of the Co-operative bank

www.hsbc.co.uk – offers a ‘go green’ account

For more info check out:

Report: Towards a Royal Bank of Sustainability

peopleandplanet.org/ditchdirtydevelopment

Fundraising on a bike

Next week myself and a friend will be embarking on a 140 miles trek from Plymouth to Penzance to raise money for People & Planet. We will be following the South West Coastal Path, a 630 mile footpath that follows the coastline of the south west from Minehead to Poole. The path is an official national trail and is noted as “one of the world greatest walks”. Our walk will be tough but the scenery will be phenomenal as we walk across secluded beaches, along high cliff and around the Lizard; Britain’s most southerly point.

We hope that our exhibition will raise plenty of money for People & Planet; money that allows to the organisation to run it’s radical and often difficult to fund grassroots campaigns. Money raised will help fund P&Ps excellent campaigns pushing the education sector to go green and fighting human rights abuses in university supply chains.

If you wish to donate towards our hike visit our JustGiving page

You can also keep up-to-date with our progress via our Facebook page and Tweets
Why not organise your own fund raising event? It’s fun and rewarding. Visit the People & Planet fund raising pages to find out more.

After the Bank Holiday, we all know what’s next - EXAMS! I’ll taking my GCSEs very soon and I’m very anxious about them because I’m one of those geeky people (we care about our school work and take it very seriously).

I’m sure there should be some readers doing their A-levels, BTECs and NVQs as well. Whatever exams you’re doing in the coming months, you will probably want to be well prepared. So here are some tips from me…

1. Set yourself some realistic targets - for those who are in school, you will probably get your target and predicted grades from your subject teachers. Draw a table of listing your target and predicted grades, then reflect on the work you have done this academic year. You will evetually come up with a grade you will like to achieve. Ask yourself is it realistic? Don’t try to push yourself too much, be honest with youself. If you find the subject difficult, you might need extra help/revision to assist you. You will have to lower your target grade a bit, perhaps.
2. Make a revision timetable or something that will help you in progress of revision - I’m not a great fan of revision timetable. My teachers told me to make one but I know I won’t follow what’s written! I decided to make something quite similar but nothing like a timetable. I drew a table and list subjects

The other day I had a conversation with my mum where she admitted that, given the state of the world, she almost regrets bringing my sister and me into it. I was taken aback because I had never heard her talk like that before. No, I insisted, it’s not all bad.

People & Planet students protest against climate destruction, Rich Lott

Granted, a lot of it is - climate change threatens the world with intense storms, increased flooding and droughts, reduced food production, water scarcity, higher rates of disease, and millions of refugees fleeing from these problems. But crisis brings with it opportunity. It may be daunting that it is up to our generation to save the world, but it is also hugely exciting (although admittedly, I would rather that everything was all okay in the first place). Necessity will give us the opportunity to create a new society, and if you want one that is moulded to your own values and beliefs you had better sit up and start paying attention.

But people will never change, my mum told me, they are just too used to being told what to do. I’ll concede the latter; blame whoever you want – the state, mass media, consumerism, the parents – people are used to being lazy, apathetic and self-centred, and this needs to change now if we as a species are to survive the next few centuries. But I don’t think that the problem is down to human nature.

The problem is down to hope, or rather, the lack of any. People have been told what to do (or had their choices narrowed down for them by what is considered acceptable or achievable) for so long that they no longer believe that they are in control of their own lives. We are incapable of thinking outside the box, and no, the irony of using such a horribly cliched phrase to express this is not lost on me.

Lifestyle choices for graduates have been narrowed down to a ‘choice’ between law, the civil service and finance (the credit crunch has not done much to alter this). People feel tied down by their mortgage (ditto) and unable to take risks. Though most importantly, people feel helpless and hopeless in the face of the world’s problems. We seem to lack the imagination to envisage a world in which we matter, in which each of us can make a difference, but if we all stopped moaning and started acting on our beliefs the world would change. I honestly believe that. I believe that you can make a difference, and you should too, or else what kind of life are you going to lead? You can do anything you want to do, as long as you never give up. In the words of Rebecca Solnit, ‘It is always too early to go home.’

History shows us the difference that individuals can make: Mahatma Gandhi, Emmeline Pankhurst, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela… the list is endless. So don’t just strive for that big promotion, a new car, the deposit on a house; you deserve better than that. Aim high and help create the world in which you would like to live. And never give up.

Artists take on issues of equality

Artists write tracks on equality and diversity because they see the world and the way it is or because the things that have happened to them. They also do it because they want a better future for the world they live in, their children and family.

Yes, music can change things locally and globally because it brings a message to those who are not aware of what is going on. Also, to those who thought they were alone in what they are seeing  it brings them and others  together

Climate change is not just an ecological problem. It is not all about drowning polar bears. It is also bad for your health – but the good news is actions to fight it are good for you.

Back in May, The Lancet published a forty-page report on the medical effects of climate change, the longest in the highly respected journal’s history. It is still freely available to non-subscribers.

The paper was dubbed “the Stern Report for medics” by climatologist Professor Mark Maslin, recalling the influential 2006 review of the economics of climate change.

It concluded that climate change was the greatest threat to public health this century. A combination of increased disease, food and water insecurity, extreme weather events, rising sea levels and lack of shelter will put billions at risk. These will be exacerbated by armed conflict, mass migration and ecological collapse with developing countries the worst hit.

To say the least, it was not lightest of reading material.

Well-off countries such as our own will not be unaffected. Thousands died during Europe’s 2003 heatwave, which also killed around 2,000 people in the UK. Most were carried off by the heat, but a significant proportion was probably killed by air pollution. Presumably more casualties will follow – perhaps your own elderly relatives among them.

Making this kind of link between the broad threat of climate change and more personal concerns such as health is a key strategy to persuade the public to curb their own emissions.

The Lancet’s editor Richard Horton said much the same at the launch on November 25 of an entire edition dedicated to the “public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”. The event, at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, was attended by health minister Andy Burnham. I and the rest of the audience also heard video messages in support from UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon and the head of the World Health Organization.

A large number of medical students were also in the audience. I spoke to a few who were members of Medsin – the Medical Students International Network. If you are a medical student, you really should get involved with this bunch, if you aren’t already. P&P works alongside them.

The series of five papers is the first exploration of how people’s health will benefit from taking steps to cut emissions, both in the UK and abroad. They focus on urban transport, emissions from household energy use, farming and food, low-carbon electricity production and the effects of ‘short-lived greenhouse gas pollutants’ such as soot.

One of the more interesting observations is that a low-carbon transport system, with greater walking and cycling, would save both lives and CO₂ emissions. It would cut heart disease and strokes in London by 10-20%, and make an impact on other health problems, such as depression. The impact would still be positive even after factoring in the greater chance of lethal car crashes from more cyclists being on the roads.

There would be a less substantial impact on health from improving the energy efficiency and ventilation of the UK’s homes. These effects would be related to improved temperatures, lower exposure to indoor pollutants and radon (a radioactive gas that seeps out of the ground in some areas) and fewer carbon monoxide poisonings.

Much of the media seized upon the farming paper. This concluded that halving the sector’s emissions by 2030, aligned with the government’s target for the nation as a whole, will require a 30% cut meat production. If this is reflected by consumption, it will also cut the occurrence of heart disease by 15% through lower intake of saturated fat. Less meat eating would cut cancer rates and lower obesity too.

Not surprisingly, the National Farmers’ Union was livid, blasting the Department of Health’s acceptance of the report as “ill-informed and simplistic”.

Another paper gave a poke in the eye to the nascent geo-engineering lobby. Deliberately emitting sulphate aerosols, which have a cooling effect but form dangerous particulates, would also have a substantial health impact.

So, if you are confronted by a climate change deniers or sceptics, ask them if they trust their doctors. Then tell them that the heads of eighteen colleges of medicine across the world described the prospect of failure at the Copenhagen climate talks, which begin in Monday, as a “health catastrophe”.

But whether the health angle will trump the kind of tabloid hoo-hah we have seen over the hacked UEA e-mails, in the long-term at least, is quite another matter.

PS

I see that Shared Planet 2009 in the fine city of Manchester has been and gone. It’s a rather important anniversary for me. I met my wife at Shared Planet 1999, at Warwick. The P&P website has the details.

Gareth Simkins is an environmental journalist who writes for The ENDS Report, the UK’s premier source of environmental business and policy news and analysis. He was active in P&P as a student and developed the Go Green campaign in 2003.

OUR BASIC HUMAN RIGHT IS FREEDOM, freedom of expression and choice without discrimination. We punish and invade impoverish and Middle Eastern countries who do not obey these rights, yet in a growing number of European world powers have forgotten such rights.  French Muslim women are now forbidden to wear the Burqa with anti-Burqa campaigns reaching Belgium, Italy and Spain. Even here there is talk of such right being abolished for some Muslim women. You would be wrong to think such view in recent days was from the BNP leader Nick Griffen. In fact it came from our coalition government by Conservative MP Phillip Hollobone who expressed support for similar measures in this country.

After all, we have been through has a society, war have after war trying to win equality for those oppressed have we just merely given up to the pressure of standing up to what is right or wrong. Some would state that this due to globalisation that has caused an east and west divide. This has lead to us becoming “Islamophobic” like in societies before when we were all anti-black and anti-Jewish? This is something I highly doubt.  Or maybe it could be considered that due to globalisation there is a crisis of national identity. What does seem likely considering in Britain if you are patriotic you’re stereotyped to be skinhead and a member of the BNP party?

Others clearly state that it is just a human mechanism to target a small minority in society when things go wrong like Hitler did with the Jews. As in France there are only 2,000 women who actually wear the Burqa.  One can suggest that this is highly plausible because Islam is an easy card play like the Jewish faith was in the 1930s.  This can be further emphasised by the black mugging in Britain during the 1970’s and 1980’s because of a recession there was inner city unrest and strikes, the mugging problem was amplified by the government even though it was only small scale. This distracted the British public of wider social issues as many called for tougher immigration security. This may sound familiar and credible as many argue that this is exactly what is happening in France currently.   They have already seen inner city unrest and large scale riots and with the French government preparing further harsh pension cuts, it can be seen as winning political strategy to bring about anti-Burqa laws. Also it is curious to note that the Burqa ban in Belgium is the only thing the Belgium government can decided on since it has been unable to form a government or even deal with the financial crisis.

In France like many other European countries Muslim women are the poorest in society with many deluding themselves to believe this is the result of the Burqa, However, many women who wear the Burqa wear it by choice and feel liberated. In Egypt there is an increasing number of female intellectuals’ who are choosing to wear the Burqa.  Personally, I have not tried it but should the French government be helping these women instead of taking away their freedom of choice away.

There is always going to be mixed feeling towards the Burqa but as a diverse society should we be more excepting or should there be a limit on choice and freedom.