Activism Parallels

I grew up in a country where unfair political practices marginalised people and resulted in conflict. The freedom fighters (ANC) where branded as terrorists - until the racist Apartheid South African government came to it's senses and negotiated a settlement and moved through a peaceful but difficult transition process.

So let's look at some parallels.

We live in a world in which unfair political and business practices marginalise the environment, animals, biodiversity and some people. Some of the freedom fighters (climate activists) are branded as protesters and are subject to violence and intimidation. I wonder whether there can be a negotiated settlement for this ongoing drama?

International Environmental Fund

Most of us know what the problem is:
1. Exploitative hunting and poaching (economics rewards individuals who sell natural products to markets - the more animal pelts you can provide or trees you can chop down the more turnover and profit you can make). An example is the Flying Fox, which is hunted for food, medicine and sport.
2. Competition for land (the economic system requires humans to own something to be able to make a living out of it, so if you can't fence it you can't earn anything from it - this therefore reduces the space for those who are not economically active, like tigers and trees).

So here's a radical idea - a potential solution

If you have a picture of a tiger on your product you should pay a percentage of the value of your product or service into the international fund to help preserve that animal. The same applies if you are selling tiger teddies or toys etc.

To make this practical the funds raised would go into a central fund that would be allocated to a variety of different causes as determined by the governing body based on their expert opinion of where the prioritised needs lie.

It's a bit like an environmental tax concept, and that could be the extension of this idea. Maybe what is needed is a pilot project to be rolled out gradually until the concept is well enough proved to become an international UN driven collaborative initiative, where all countries make a contribution.

Like all regulation-like initiatives it suffers of the weakness of requiring enforcement practices, which are traditionally difficult to police and expensive to administer - but that isn't a good enough reason not to try. This is what leadership is about.

Tiger Watch

I have mentioned before we are living through a mass extinction and part of the problem is that some animals (like Tigers) are worth more dead than alive. This is an attempt to try track news events related to this topic. You can make a difference - please follow this link to find out more.

2010
15 Mar: "Despite attempts to protect tigers, numbers have approximately halved over the last decade".
10 Mar:Eleven rare Siberian tigers die at Chinese zoo
2009
24 Aug: Sumatran tiger killed by poachers in an Indonesian zoo.

2005
6 Apr: Investigation into police poaching at wildlife reserves of Sariska and Ranthambhore.

Vested Interests

Climate change suffers from a principle I call Economic Inertia and this is created by vested interests. It's a bit like a nuclear chain reaction - once it's started the chances of stopping it are practically negligible.

Imagine you have just over a trillion barrels of proven oil reserves lying in ground that you have bought the rights to and have spent money to understand (drilling, testing, modelling, measuring etc).
Add to this all the costs of building and transporting sophisticate drilling and pumping equipment out to these remote sites scattered all over the planet.
Add to this the investments you have made in logistics to get the "product" to the market (Ships, tankers, pipes, tanks, processing equipment, refineries).
Add to this that you have hundreds of thousands of retail outlets where your brand name is an integral part of everyone's life.
Add to this the fact that you have a dependent relationship with one of the biggest manufacturing industires in the world (motor manufacturing). Also note that this is a captive market.
Add to this the fact that governments are dependent on tax revenues that they generate from your product.
Add to this that you have shareholders in your business and most people's pensions are invested in your stocks (including your own). Note that your industry is also responsible for th largest profits ever generated and that your bonuses depend on this.

And then imagine that someone comes along and says:
"Sorry old chap, your product is doing too much damage, you need to abandon everything, cut your losses and reinvest in something completely new."

What are the chances of oil companies becoming altruistic and shunning their record profits as well as all that secured future income? I don't think so. So "we" are trapped by an economic monster of our own design that will continue to propagate the problem of climate change. This is one of many reasons why my ex-colleagues and I, who worked as consultants in the sustainable energy consulting field reluctantly believe that humanity cannot stop the trend. We will get hammered by climate change and it will hammer us hard. We will survive (I am not a doomsday prophet) but our quality of life will be substantially reduced and life will be tough (but maybe that's what we need). I say this as someone who has worked for Shell. I know what it looks like on the "inside".

The same principle applies to nuclear energy - it is also defended vigorously by people with vested interests.

Some supporting facts:

The IEA estimates there are 5 - 10 trillions boe of recoverable oil & gas available (It really irritates me that a professional body like this can omit the date on such an important claim - oh maybe that's because they don't want to be held accountable when new data proves them wrong?).

BP claim that there is 1.26 trillions toe of recoverable oil (Two important sub-notes here: 1. I trust the BP data more than any other data & 2. Note that the IEA have deliberately fudged the perception of what is really happening by lumping oil and gas together).

Some interesting facts:
If you do a search for "proven oil reserves" on google you will get the following results ranked in "apparent importance":
Wikipedia (usually not a bad source but tends to be flaky and unreliable - not peer reviewed, open for anyone to edit at will)
The CIA (God help us if anyone believes they are the Über authority, but just in case you didn't know they use other people's data - also never trust anyone who doesn't disclose their references),
EIA (USA, beautifully cross-referenced and balanced report, some parts of this country do actually work, miracles never cease to amaze me)
And then surprise, surprise the two best authorities BP and IEA don't even make the first page of the google search. Considering that these two are the most reliable it gives me deep insight into the reliability of wonderfully powerful search engines - remember that like other machines, someone wrote the rules.

The IEA is subject to wilting from political pressure from the EU, so the reliability depends who's in power.
Generally from what I understand about the appalling attitude of Shell towards the idea of knowledge management as compared to what I have been taught about that of BP, I will venture to say that BP's data is probably the most reliable in this area.

A note on Knowledge Management:
A little anecdote to be included in my autobio one day. I was invited to a lunch meeting with the CEO of said company when I worked for them several years ago as part of an initiative to get to know new recruits (commendable). The CEO said "there are no holy cows here, ask me any question you want." When it was my turn I asked what his ideas were on "knowledge management", which was something I was really struggling with in my day to day work. He flippantly dismissed my question by stating that there was no such thing as "knowledge management" and that it was something that consultants had invented to make money. A few yeasr later Shell was embarrassed by the "shocking admission... that it had overstated its proven oil and gas reserves by 25 per cent." I was particularly peeved by the fact that this person had not attempted to understand what the basis for my question was and didn't give me the opportunity to explain what my experiences were as a new recruit in his organisation. As it turns out I went on to become the best student on my MBA for the Knowledge Management elective and still my proposals fell on deaf ears, especially when it came to my line-manager. It was one of many frustrations that lead me to the decision to apply my services elsewhere.

Economists have failed

Economists have failed to solve the Climate Change problem. Economics is a good tool, but it's what you do with the tool that counts.

As a futurist I look for trend breaks that indicate fundamental shifts in existing trends. Despite all the hype and all the talk and media attention that climate change attracts there remains NO TREND BREAK in the atmospheric CO2 levels (shown below).


















This means "leaders" are failing to exercise true leadership, business is not making a contribution and even more sadly - some of those who can make a difference and understand the problem can't find work.

To the economists I say your form of Economics has failed. It has not failed because there is a problem with economics, no Sir or Madam, it has failed because the rules of economics don't work when the boundaries are not clearly defined or properly quantified. The proper boundaries have not been established. The idea that the price of energy or carbon can solve everything is only valid when the price is correctly defined, and in the fossil fuel versus alternative energy debate this is not the case. The plot above is a testimony to this.

Sustainability & Economics

So how does a "SUSTAINABLE energy" business go bankrupt? It has an unsustainable business model. So how do 1000 sustainability minded people get it wrong? Simple, one person puts up their hand and says "We have a problem here" and someone in a management position shoots them.

The article says "400 workers, both domestic and internationally, are expected to be retained". Then it says "Econcern employs about 1,100 staff in total", but what they should have said was 'Econcern used to employ...' What's left of this company is called Ecofys, and I wonder how long they will continue to use the same business model?



The lesson, the bitter little pill, is to realise that sustainability and profit are not necessarily synonymous. As long as the current economic imbalances are in place where fossil fuels receives unfair subsidies (past and present) and the true environmental costs are not included, the following trend will continue unabated:

The Bear essentials

"So I'm taking a walk through my 'back yard' and I find these lost humans who have decided to cut down my forest and build dens for themselves. They have no idea how to live in harmony with nature," says the bear when he returns to the woods.

Let's look at the vocabulary that was used in the article about this bear and see if we can understand the psyche...

Title: "Bear on loose in suburbs of LA", so bears are not supposed to be 'loose', they belong in a zoo?

"Authorities ... have been contending with a wild bear that wandered into a residential area", so there is a contest for space here, and things can either be "wild" or tamed "residential areas". These are also people who are perceived to be "authorised" to do this.

"Authorities shot at the bear with non-lethal rubber pellets in a bid to contain it, and it has since headed back into the wilderness." I though you 'contained' things inside of bottles or cages. Sad that when you only have a hammer everything looks like a nail - so if you have a weapon the best thing to do is shoot at something like a lost bear who can't read the signs outside the residential area that clearly state "no bears allowed in the residential areas". Finally the last word is the most telling of all. The bear headed back into the "wilderness" (where it belonged?). Is "the wilderness" not that place where those people in the old testament went when they were lost?

So as humans we hide behind walls for fear of getting "lost" on a "wild" planet we call home.

I find it difficult to believe that a group of "authorities" resembling riot police brandishing rubber bullet guns were somehow authorised to deal with something as sensitive as nature, with it's under-represented animals and fragile symbiotic relationships.

Futurism and Transhumanism

"I was there."

As a futurist I perform some basic daily scanning exercises. I found this article (a BBC report) and realised that I was at both the meetings the reporter refers to.

Future Trends

It's a "normal" seasonal thing now in Californian.

Wildfires every year and soon enough we'll have regular heatwaves too.

Now I know where Cormac McCarthy got his idea for "The Road".

Accelerated feedback

In systems theory we talk about co-creating systems and reinforcing loops.

In a BBC report today 14Aug09: The fact that antarctic ice (specific data from Pine Island Glacier) is thinning four times faster than ten years ago shows that the ice-melting trend is accelerating. There are several reinforcing feedback loops that accelerate this phenomenon. Accelerated feedback means that equilibrium is rapidly lost. Our climate may have been very robust and stable for a very long time but we are on the verge of a tipping point - and when that happens, we won't be able to stop it. What concerns me is that despite the fact that many people know this we keep doing the same things, which keeps the same trend running in the same direction.

The trend is towards rapidly diminishing ice and this specific future is clear. There will be no significant ice packs, and with it sea levels are expected to rise significantly (7m for the Greenland Ice Sheet and 5m for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet). This isn't going to happen overnight - this is a long term climate trend, not a weather report - but it does mean that something you know very well (E.g. the London underground train transport network) will change significantly (i.e. get flooded and seize to operate).

Mass Extinction

We are currently living through a mass extinction. This is described as the "Holocene extinction event" where "nearly 70% of biologists view the present era as part of a mass extinction event, possibly one of the fastest ever, according to a 1998 survey by the American Museum of Natural History."

According to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ the Tiger, which is my favourite animal, is classed as endangered with a trend towards a decreasing population size. Sadly it appears as though a Tiger is worth more dead than it is alive.

What bothers me is that, with the exception of some advocacy groups and some environmentalists, hardly anyone is doing anything about this. The reason is most likely that everyone finds themselves in the same trap that I do: we are trapped in the rat-race. This forces us to look after ourselves without having any time for other things. This is the saddest characteristic of the system we find ourselves in. Individuals cannot do anything about it but just like Climate Change, we can do something about it as a collective.

So I ask myself: where are the leaders of the 21st century? Where are the people with vision? Are they too busy furnishing and renting out their 3rd and 4th houses?

So the conversation around the dinner table in the near future goes like this:
"The other day I saw something moving in the garden, I got such a fright."
"It must have been a rat."
"Of course it was a rat. That's all that is left on the planet. Humans and rats."
"So why did you get a fright?"
"Well I thought all the rats were farmed in cages at Rat Farm Inc, how on earth did it get to my garden?"
"I read somewhere there are still some wild rats running around."
"No ways. That's just terrifying. I'm gonna buy myself a shotgun!"
"Here, we go, the rat burgers are ready"
"Nice handbag. The rat pelt goes nicely with your rat pelt shoes and jacket."
"So what is it your husband does for a living?"
"He's a genetic engineer - rat genomics. He's trying to make rattigers. And yours?"
"He's making a horror documentary called 'attack of the killer rats'."

The Skeptic on Banking Bonuses says:

A BBC article reports:

"The FSA says that bonuses should not be guaranteed for more than a year, and that senior employees should have their bonuses spread over three years."

The Skeptic on Banking Bonuses says:

All this means is that bonuses will be three times bigger and spread out over three years. Bankers are the quickest breed to find ways around hurdles and ensure that they can line their pockets and buy a new house each year.

"There goes my diamond"

I recall Madam Medusa (The Rescuers) sitting on top of the smoke stack on a Mississippi river boat that was sinking, crying "There goes my diamond" (2min & 50s into this clip).

One of the expectations from climate change is more extreme weather.

With the ubiquitous nature of video cameras in modern society we will be seeing more of the following types of things:
There goes my house. Then quite spectacularly: There goes my business (a hotel), and these houses.

Some will be quick to argue that individual events like these cannot be attributed to climate change and they will be correct. Climate change is a longer term trend in which these types of events become more common.

Most people don't realise that there is collective responsibility for what is happening. I went on holiday a few months back and chose to fly instead of taking a ship. I used the lift instead of using the stairs when I went to work. I drove in my car instead of cycling or taking public transport. I boiled my tea water with an electric kettle instead of gas or a wood fire. ... And thus with 6 billion others I indirectly pushed that building over into the raging water and wasn't aware of it and didn't actually care because it wasn't my building.

I wonder what type of world we would be living in if everyone did care, and if everyone did make an effort?

"Drink blamed for oral cancer rise"

More top quality blamestorming.

According to the BBC report: "Numbers of cancers of the lip, mouth, tongue and throat in this age group have risen by 26% in the past decade."

Then a statement: "Alcohol consumption has doubled since the 1950s", so somehow there's a link here - which is apparently a direct link and the most significant link according to the headline. Let's see? How does this work? Oh, yes, So alcohol consumption is double what it was sixty years ago and this has a direct effect on the last ten years of cancer stats.

Oh, no, wait, it might also be "the most likely culprit alongside smoking".

Oh, no, wait, there may also be a dietry link: "Other risk factors that may be involved include a diet low in fruit and vegetables".

Oh, wait, it may also be related to the "sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV), which also causes cervical cancer." I thought we were talking about mouth cancer here?

It sounds like someone has no idea what's going on here and is just clutching at straws.

The there is an emphatic statement "Tobacco is, by far, the main risk factor for oral cancer". That's funny, I thought it was "Drink". I'm confused now.


Disclaimer: The sections that follow are wildly speculative and are based on a sneaky suspicion. I have no evidence to support these assertions at this point in time. I will, however, be doing some research on it to see if I can uncover the truth for myself (and for you loyal reader).

Let's open up this little can of worms and look at what someone is NOT saying:

Did anyone think of all those chemicals they use in the new white filings the dentists love to use. Anyone heard of carcinogens? I'm trying to do some research on exactly what chemistry goes into these polymer dental filings and when I've got it I will include it here. My frustration is that good quality information is only available at a cost - like this Elsevier article on "Evaluation of the carcinogenic risks to humans associated with surgical implants and other foreign bodies." With section (4) referring to dental materials.

Let me explain why I think there is a problem.

I was at the dentist last year and was persuaded to buy dental insurance to help cover the astronomically high costs of private dental care. The dentist went out of their way to explain that the policy also included cover for mouth cancer. It sounded like someone who was trying to cover their tracks by making sure I was aware of the kind of things that were covered. These are risks. What they didn't say was that their work might incur those risks. Then while they were working they used a mouth wrap that reminded me of what a female condom must be like to use. It covered the inside of my mouth and only exposed the one tooth that was being worked on. I was lying there thinking this is paranoid behaviour. Maybe not.

So let's go down the rabbit hole of behavior driven by economic incentives (i.e. more profit):

Anyone heard the story that those silver filings were bad for us and needed to come out to be replaced with "new technology" white filings. Funny how those white ones don't last so long and need to be replaced more often. This means we go to the dentist more often with rework. My silver (amalgam's) were fine. They never gave me any headaches, which was the one reason I heard one dentist use. That's quite sneaky - everyone gets headaches from time to time. So blame the filings - that way they can come out and be replaced by the "new technology". More work. More pay. It's new technology, it must be better - surely? I'm not convinced. I'm watching this trend with great interest.

I wonder whether an entire profession has ever been sued for malpractice? Oh, no, wait - it's like the banks. We can't live without them. So when it all comes out in the wash a swift apology and a change in practice may be all that is required. Once again someone will get away with economic murder.

Dentist to patient: "I'm terribly sorry that you have mouth cancer, and that you can't afford a new house. Too bad your profession didn't find a way to swindle the masses into believing that they had to have lots of rework done. Actually I think it's quite clever that we get so much work each time we change the group-think on which technology is good and which is bad. Would you like to rent my fourth house? I'll let you have it at a discounted rate because you are such a loyal customer of mine."

2048 Collapse for world sea fishing

This extract from the Economist:
"BORIS WORM, a marine biologist, has spent much of his academic life studying fish. In 2006 he came to the depressing conclusion that by 2048 the world’s commercial fisheries would have collapsed. Fish would no longer be on the menu. But Dr Worm is no pessimist and on July 31st he published a more encouraging piece of work in Science. It suggests that, with proper management, it ought to be possible to rebuild the world’s fisheries."