Behind the costing of Heathrow's Third Runway

Well written piece here from Jonathon Porritt explaining some of the issues behind 'shadow charging' for carbon and DEFRA/DfT's mis-use of the Stern report figures in context of proposed third runway at Heathrow. Paul Ekins originally picked up on this.

A third runway for Heathrow?

I was invited to blog a piece by this title to accompany tomorrow's BBC Money Programme about the proposed third runway at Heathrow, much in the News this week because of 'Plane Stupid's' protest at the House of Commons and the Greenpeace protest at the airport itself . I'd question some of the assumptions behind this proposed decision. The decision-making approach adopted doesn't, to me, look systemic. It also highlights some very different meanings behind the term 'sustainable development'. I think systems approaches to decision making have something to offer in this kind of context.

Unintended consequences

George Monbiot's article, 'An Exchange of Souls' I found very chilling. He's highlighted the pitfalls of using cost benefit analysis in the context of climate change where human lives are at stake and challenged the assumptions behind working out the costs in monetary terms in Nicholas Stern's review of the economics of climate change. Besides claiming that subsequent analyses have shown that the government numbers are wrong, he seems to be saying that attaching numbers to environmental and social costs leaves open an option for others to argue that all costs of new developments can be outweighed purely in terms of economic benefits. The proposed third runway at Heathrow is his starting point. Monbiot's also recognising that this is an unintended consequence and that there's no way that Stern and his team intended the findings of their report to be used in this way. I've read this report and it makes all sorts of points about how these numbers should and shouldn't be used. Perhaps a salutary reminder that we can't control how people will respond to an analysis. Readers won't necessarily share the values of authors so can use it for different purpose. Monbiot concludes

I can accept that a unit of measurement which allows us to compare the human costs of different spending decisions is a useful tool. What I cannot accept is that it should be scrambled up with the price of eggs and prefixed with a dollar sign. Human life is not a commodity. It cannot be traded against profits or exchanged for convenience. We have no right to decide that others should die to make us richer.

Clean, green climate-friendly towns

I like Greenpeace's work on showing that we have many de-centralised energy options not just those we're going with at a national scale. Mainstreaming this kind of thinking seems to me to be one of the main challenges. Interesting animation here where they're urging us to 'Visit EfficienCity: a clean, green climate-friendly town'.

England in February

....can be splendid! These photos taken on a recent visit to Exmoor, stopping in Salisbury on our return.

UK 18 year-olds thoughts on the future

Interesting to see Jonathan Porritt's comments on the outcomes of an extensive 'future leaders' survey done by Forum for the Future with UCAS and all applicants to UK Higher Education. Quite a few comparisons across generations though I'm always a little suspicious of percentages that summarise what people think. Surely even when it's reported that "84% think that......" there must be a lot more diversity in thinking there?
According to the Forum for the Future site:

The survey paints a picture of a generation that is intensely aware of the big challenges facing the planet and eager to see broader social and political change, but which is less willing to adapt individual personal behaviour.

The survey results do, however, begin to highlight ways through this paradox. Respondents would like to see tougher action by government, business playing a positive role, and less of an obsession with material affluence.