MCFly 017- two grand a page?!

[NB We still don't know what the total cost of the report was, or which budget the money came from. We're looking into it...]

The controversy around the “Call to Action” report (see MCFly issues 15 and 16) grows and grows. Last week Manchester City Council told us that the report cost “£28,000 plus VAT plus expenses.” That worked out, (excluding expenses), at around £650 per page, as we reported here.

But the devil is in the detail. The Liberal Democrats have been told by the treasurer of Manchester City Council, Richard Paver, that the total bill, including expenses, was “between 70 and a hundred thousand pounds.” This means that the report's creators, London-based consultancy “Beyond Green” were paid an eye-watering two thousand pounds a page.

MCFly presumes this money has come out of the million pounds set aside for the Carbon Reduction Innovation and Investment Fund. While it's good that the money is finally being spent (after promises of 'imminent announcement of future-proof projects' were made in response to MCFly enquiries last August, see issue 6), not everyone is impressed.

Cllr Lev Eakins, (Lib Dem, Northenden), was dismayed that the report's costs “had risen to the absurd level of £100k, 10% of the entire climate change budget, and as yet the only part of that budget that has been spent since it was created over a year ago.”

Brian Candeland, chair of Manchester Green Party, was similarly scathing. “It's absolutely appalling. The costs of Manchester's 'Call to Action', arguably the most vacuous statement in the history of climate change campaigning, appear to be mounting .”

On Tuesday February 10, Richard Cowell, Executive Member for the Environment, will speak on the “Call to Action” at the Friends Meeting House. 6 Mount St.

The meeting will also see the launch of a “Call to Real Action” process, sponsored by Manchester Climate Fortnightly, that will publish an alternative report by April 7th.

Essay Contest another runner up

A Green New Deal for Manchester

The recession is already biting hard in Manchester. Even local councils are reducing their staff under the budget reductions still being forced on them by central government. The Labour government is obsessed with pouring money into the banks. It talks at times of protecting those suffering most by investing directly in job protection but does little in the way of action.

Action to stem the tide of unemployment has to be local, it has to be immediate and it has to work to protect us from the dangers of global warming. If the immediate threat to our children is that they will be unable to find jobs and end up as long-term unemployed then the long-term threat is that they will live as adults in a world blighted by climate change. In Manchester, we have the opportunity to press for a local Green New Deal based upon the needs of our communities.

Public transport

In December, the people of Greater Manchester rejected the TIF plan. We believe that this vote was based upon a justified suspicion of the complex financing plan proposed and doubts that local politicians would make good their promises. It was claimed in the referendum campaign that 10,000 jobs would be created by the public transport plans. These jobs are urgently required and the plan to provide them waits on the shelf. This last factor is particularly important. Many infrastructure projects have a long lead time in terms of planning and public consultation whilst the Greater Manchester transport plan can be implemented immediately.

We demand that Greater Manchester councils join together to obtain the funds to begin the plan proposed under TIF. We discuss possible funding sources below but it should be emphasised now that only inertia prevents the money from being found. At a time when literally hundreds of billions of pounds are being poured into private banks it is ludicrous to suggest that the necessary millions cannot be found to provide Manchester with new jobs and a decent public transport system.

Unfinished and empty buildings

Manchester council alone has a waiting list for social housing which approaches 30,000. Meanwhile, the recession has left the city littered with empty and half-finished building schemes which have been simply abandoned by property developers. The housing policy of Manchester Council has, for many years, been little more than reliance on the private sector either to take over council property or to provide a little ‘social’ housing as a sop for more over-crowded private blocks. This policy has now come crashing down.

However, this parlous situation also contains opportunity. The government announced in its Pre-Budget Report (PBR) that £775 million in funds for housing and regeneration would be brought forward into the current year’s budget and made available to local authorities. We demand that Manchester councils begin immediately the process of purchasing suitable properties. In particular, we demand that empty council property should be developed immediately for family occupation. It is a social as well as an economic crime that housing should stand empty of half-finished whilst building workers receive the dole and families wait for years on housing lists.

An Energy Efficiency Programme

In January, Manchester Council published its Climate Change Call to Action but it is very short indeed on any kind of actual action to limit emissions apart from a proposal to ‘analyse’ its own emissions and come up with proposals as to how to reduce them. The fact that in 2008, the Council has still not undertaken a comprehensive energy audit of its own [word limit breached]

Essay Contest runner up

Current problems

The main problem is we've gone backward in numbers and energy in the last 18 months. The opportunities to get new people engaged and involved when climate change was a 'hot' issue have been wasted. Several groups that held regular meetings/had websites exist in name only nowadays. Others have folded altogether. (That's not necessarily a bad thing. Crap groups do the 'movement' no favours.)

There's various causes for all this:

• Cliquy behaviour: if you don't wear the right clothes, the right opinions, you're not really welcome

• Tired old formats of meetings. Either dominated by unthinking dogmatic macho schmucks or- worse – terribly facilitated by people who claim to be non-hierarchical.

• Tired old formats of 'action' (petitions, marches etc)

• No accountability, so when some people's hard work is rendered useless by others' laziness, it's not discussed and (re)solved.

• The lack of anything from the Council to respond to throughout 2008.

• The lack of a social space. There is a “Basement” shaped hole in Manchester's activism.

Lousy and depressing meetings
One-off meetings and “actions” that don't lead to any further action, partly because they are organised in such a way that all attention goes towards the front of the room (speakers, organisers) and links between those attending are not nurtured. Feeds the egos of those organising, but doesn't grow the movement.

First time tragedy, second time farce
An unwillingness, or even inability, to reflect on previous failures and learn from those mistakes.

The focus is elsewhere
The focus of Mancunian climate activism has often been a march in London, a camp in Kent or a summit in Copenhagen. “Think global”, fine, but what about “act local”?

The focus is limited to the “sexy” stuff.
Aviation matters. But so does domestic power use, transport, food. Where are the systematic analyses, drawing upon the work of the Tyndall Centre etc? The focus on the Airport lets everything else off the hook.

Haphazard internal communications in and between groups. Email bulletins that ramble, or don't appear as scheduled. No systematic linking between groups, to communicate and maybe occasionally co-ordinate.

How many of the campaigning groups/parties/social movements have made serious systematic efforts to educate themselves and each other about climate science, national climate policy, local political realities? How many produced policy documents regularly, hosted on their own websites?

Lousy external communications
Look at the various groups' websites. They're boring, they're out-of-date, they don't link through to useful information about what they are campaigning on. They don't link to other campaigning groups!

How many use social media tools like Facebook or Twitter effectively- or at all?

How many are blogging regularly and systematically about things that matter?

How many produce short, attractive bulletins of what they are doing?

How many use YouTube video regularly?

Future Opportunities

Fixing the problems named above would be a start.

A monthly meeting, well-facilitated, for all groups and unaffiliated individuals to network, listen and share experiences. Skills-share and training could be organised.

Make sure new people are welcomed, but not overwhelmed. Find out what they can do, what they want to know.

The comic terribleness of the Council's “Call to Action” is actually a gift to climate campaigners.

If we can't propose better than that, in writing, by the end of March, then we should all just pack up, go home, and start booking weekend breaks in Barcelona and Prague.

Maybe we should anyway.

Essay Contest winner

Congratulations to Arwa Aburawa, who won the recent essay contest organised by Manchester Climate Forum. The question people were asked to address is "What are the current problems/future opportunities for climate campaigners in Greater Manchester." The judge was Dr Brian Doherty of Keele University.

All the entries can be seen at www.manchesterclimateforum.org.uk/whatistobedone.html

Here is Arwa's entry:

Looking around at the participants of any climate change meeting, one thing sticks out for me: they are racially unrepresentative. It is widely acknowledged that environmentalism and climate change in the UK attracts far more people from white, middle-class backgrounds than people from Asian, Black, Muslim or Jewish backgrounds. Whilst there is nothing wrong with this in itself, climate change is the biggest threat that this earth has faced and we need everyone on board to have a real chance of tackling it and avoiding the worst effects. So we can introduce more diverse people in Manchester's environmental scene, I think it's important to consider the following issues:

A. The history of the movement has set-up stereotypes about who is/isn't involved that need to be actively tackled

British environmentalism originated from an interest in natural history, specimen collection and conservation. As the movement grew its predominantly white, middle-class supporters continued to focus on countryside issues and wildlife preservation at the expense of working class and ethnic minorities whose experiences centred around an urban environment. This historical background set-up clear stereotypes about what an environmentalist looks like, their demographic, their gender and what their interests are. These stereotypes not only excludes a vast amount of people who experienced the environment and climate change in an entirely different ways but it has also marginalised the contributions made by minorities in tackling climate change.

Clearly, the movement has come a long way from these beginnings but there needs to be a more active attempt to break from these powerful stereotypes. Actively and loudly acknowledging the contributions made by 'poor' environmentalists such as environmental justice activists in India and minority activists in America who emerged after major environmental disasters, even local minorities (Hulme/Moss Side) who are taking control of their impact on climate change is a really positive way to open up what climate change it about, who it affects and why we all need to be involved. It takes it out of 'white' hands and makes it a wider global issue in which everyone's ideas are heard and respected.

B. Making links with wider issues which have a direct connection to ethnic minorities.

Environmentalism is a really broad topic and certain aspects can be highlighted to appeal to pre-existing interest. For example certain groups will already understand the importance of regeneration and so it makes sense to link up these aspects of environmentalism. Others topics could include religion, conservation and environmental justice. Here are some suggested steps for action:

• Contact diverse groups on their ground, where they feel comfortable and open to debate

• Spark their interest by making direct links to them, their religion, culture, history, families

• Raise profile of campaigners, famous figures, national heroes, religious figures who espoused environmental respect

• Eg. Gandhi, India's vibrant environmental movement, Prophet Muhammed and Hadith, Jewish festivals such as Tu B'Shvat (Festival of Trees) etc

These steps makes it easier for diverse groups to relate to environmentalism, gives them pride in the issue and stops the issue from being alien to them/their culture. For this involvement to be sustainable in the long-term, people also need to be empowered, confident with their input and given ownership and responsibility of the issue. This means giving diverse people the skills, knowledge and expertise to take the movement forward in a truly representative way.

• Empower them and provide a space for them to take their own ideas forward

• Give them ownership over the issue and respect their ideas

• Allow them to see the issues from a perspective which brings together different issues such as environmental justice, regeneration, environmental inequality and poverty.

Local and Global: Manchester Climate Meeting Update

Manchester Climate Forum organised a meeting last night at the Friends Meeting House and Dr. Victoria Johnson of the New Economics Foundation and Cllr Richard Cowell, the Executive member for the Environment were the invited speakers. On the agenda was the climate change issues facing us locally and globally. This is a brief summary of some of the questions that were asked, responses and issues that were brought up. Please feel free to add your comments, further questions or anything that has been missed out.

Global and Copenhagen

Dr. Johnson was at the Poznan meeting which is the run-up to the Copenhagen agreement and talked about the real possibility of international agreement amongst the major players such as the US, Europe, India and China.

“There is the possibility of international agreement but we will probably end up with a weaker agreement at Copenhagen. With the US's New Green Deal and other process there have been some good proposals for greening the economy. All that government's care about is jobs and the economy and if you can show that you can effectively green your way out of recession, then that will gather more support.”

Questions from the audience to Victoria also included why carbon emission trading schemes were still being used when they were clearly fail to reduce CO2. She replied that:

“Well , I don't think that carbon trading doesn't work rather the cap has been set too high and the prices too low. You have to get those right and I don't think they are and so they aren't actually having any effect.”

Local and Call to Action

Cllr Richard Cowell who attracted most of the questions, was eager to highlight the 'Call to Action'- Manchester council's latest climate strategy report.

“In terms of the Call to Action, I would say that it is very much a target driven report for a one million tonnes of CO2 reduction by 2020.

“In terms of the council's response I feel that the work that they do has to be absolutely embedded with the principles and the aims of what we want to do as a council, not as a sort of an add-on, not a bolt-on but something we could value across the different parts of the council.” [Emphasis added]

In response to questions of whether the Principles Document released in February 2008 is still binding -especially Principle 2 which states that the council will go above and beyond the government targets if the science dictates so and that it can be done without harming the poorest in Manchester- Cowell states:

“In terms of the government's increase to 80% reduction, I am hopeful that that will mean our targets will stand. But of course we will keep things under review.

“The concepts of the principle two were under the old target, so targets could essentially have increased and we will keep that under review.”

'Engagement' without Consultation

“Now, I can't continue to have consultation consultation of these bodies and issues, as I do think that really we have to start implementing. We have million's of reductions to make and we have to implement to reach them.

“I feel that the call to action is a way we can bring together and bring along a big variety of businesses, community groups, residents etc.”

“If there are ideas that can be achieved that we think are really good, that will work and bring about reductions and are in line with our strategy, then we will seek to implement those. It's not going to be a closed engagement but it's very much an open engagement.” [Emphasis added]

See previous blog posts on the analysis of the council's consultation and targets within the Call to Action.

Future Ethics: Climate Change, Political Action and the Future of the Human, Manchester 2008-2009

-guest blog post by Stefan Skrimshire, who is not a member of the MCFly group (so can't be held responsible for our views!)-

This January saw the last of three workshops, organised and sponsored by the Lincoln Theological Institute who are based at The University of Manchester. The aim of Future Ethics was to bring together thinkers and practitioners engaged in the broad topic of “political responses to climate change”. The motivation might be (crudely) summarised as the suspicion that whilst academics are typically too disengaged from real life to get their hands dirty, activists and practitioners typically give too little time to testing, critiquing, communicating and exchanging the ideas, theories, and beliefs that underlie their actions.

And so, in a fairly unique experiment, it was possible for a professor of philosophy to engage with a eco-village designer; a DEFRA employee with a member of Plane Stupid activist; or an Anglican vicar with a permaculture expert. Confining ourselves to a manageable number for open exchange (2- to 30 people) dialogue was facilitated with a mixture of interactive debate and discussion of pre-written ‘starter papers’ on a variety of themes:

Workshop 1: ‘What is to be Done? Apocalyptic Rhetoric and Political Action’ focussed on the topics of direct action; sustainable land use; science discourse in environmentalism; prophetic voice in climate discourse; theological metaphors of climate crisis; and the role of state authority in climate change mitigation. It attracted a diversity of perspectives, from civil disobedience, to social networking and campaigning, to the discussion of governmental and corporate responses.

Workshop 2: ‘What Price Security? New Issues in the Ethics of Risk’ attracted a number of experts in the field of international security (such as Professor Paul Rogers and Frank Barnaby from the Oxford Research Group), Risk Theory and social policy. Disciplines represented were once again diverse: from urban planning, to feminism, to philosophy of religion. Starter papers were presented on theoretical orientation in the morning - risk theory; the value of empathy; virtue ethics – and practical applications in the afternoon: nuclear energy; ecological art; spatial design.

Workshop 3: ‘A World Without Us? Imagining the End of the Human’ engaged with this heaviest of topics from its various perspectives in culture: from exploring philosophical and religious beliefs about ‘the end’, to post-apocalyptic films, to the rhetoric emerging from climate science itself at humanity’s diminishing chances of survival. The group addressed the complex ethical question of a responsibility to the future as well as its practical application in society and politics: what action can we recommend to other people when the diagnosis given to us is of a terminal condition? What ethical imperatives lie beyond ‘the tipping point’?

Reporting, recording, and communicating the findings of the workshops has been central to the aims of the project. All of these can be seen on our website: www.manchester.ac.uk/futureethics : film footage of select interviews; photo archives; notes from discussions; and ‘brainstorming’ flipchart notes reproduced. These reports have already attracted a huge interest. The website provides not only information and reports from the workshops, but also contains regularly updates bibliographical pages, links to organisations, upcoming events both domestic and international, published reports, and a page dedicated to further resources connected to each workshops, from documentaries to chapters from books.

The success of the project led to its directors increasing funding for an additional year, and plans are afoot for producing a longer, more finished collection of film archives from the events, as well as another Future Ethics gathering aimed specifically at practical applications at both grassroots and policy levels. In addition, we have just secured a contract with an international publisher to produce the book, Future Ethics: Climate Change and Political Action, which should be hitting the shelves at the end of 2009.

Stefan Skrimshire is Postdoctoral Research Associate in Religion and Politics at The University of Manchester, where he teaches and researches apocalyptic belief and crisis rhetoric in political cultures. Future Ethics is part of a research project on Religion and Climate Change and continues until September 2010. Stefan.skrimshire@manchester.ac.uk

Cars are bad for your social life (not just the planet)

At the end of January, Greater Manchester Public Transport Executive hosted a talk by Josh Hart, a researcher from the University of the West of England whose recent work has updated Donald Appleyard's San Francisco work on the social impacts of car traffic.
The report, which measured the effects of living on streets with low, medium or high levels of road traffic, confirms that cars have major impacts on human society and health, as well as our environment.
Hart's study, which is available to download in full or summary from the Living Streets website, found that people living on busy roads have fewer local friendships and acquaintances. They don't talk as often to their neighbours, and are put off using their front rooms and gardens by noise and pollution. As a result, they're less likely to know people who live around them, and therefore have fewer people to turn to when they're sick or lonely, with implications for issues such as childcare and non-government support for the elderly. Fear of accidents also dissuades people from cycling, walking and jogging, contributing to the obesity epidemic and general poor fitness throughout the British population.
One young couple with children, living on a road with daily traffic of over 21,000 cars, were quoted as saying that "The street is quite anonymous, we only know our immediate neighbours."
People on busy streets, Hart found, also felt less sense of responsibility for their neighbours and surroundings, leading to greater problems with litter and less willingness to get involved in activities such as Neighbourhood Watch or projects to green urban streets.
And, despite claims by the car-driving middle-classes of Manchester's left that their privilege-protecting opposition to the TIF bid was actually aimed at preserving the rights of working-class car users, it is of course the less well-off (who are much less likely to drive) who suffer most from the effects of traffic - as Hart's study amply demonstrates.
People living on busy roads are likely to have lower incomes and are less able to move away. The repercussions of this, according to the research, include poor health and worse school results for children. Noise and air pollution can lead to heart attacks, respiratory illness and strokes, and reduce attention levels in children, which reduces their ability to concentrate in lessons and, it has been suggested by some surveys, is even serious enough to cause higher rates of road deaths due to inattention.
Children from lower-income families are also more likely to be killed by cars – whether because of tiredness, or because they have nowhere safe to play. According to a Bristol Quality of Life report cited by Hart, for every one child killed or seriously injured by a car in Clifton, an affluent area of Bristol, 24 are killed or hurt in lower-income neighbourhoods like Easton.
But, says Hart, many European cities are far exceeding Britain's record at cutting traffic. UK councils, he says, don't have the political will to reduce car use. Measures such as prioritising pedestrians and cyclists in road planning, cutting speeds and access with bollards and pedestrianised areas, and creating residential areas where housing are cheaper because land isn't used up by parking spaces are sacrificed to continued cult of the car.
As the results of the TIF referendum show, although the British public claims that it wants better air quality, improved safety and healthier environments, it is still suckered by aggressive corporate campaigns, and politicians whose priorities don't include bike lanes and traffic controls will continue to get away with their failure to act responsibly.