Please read this article written by one of our memebrs on energy consumption in the UK and simple ideas on how we can start to reduce these figures.
http://www.democraticreform.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/UK-Energy-Consumption.pdf
We need your help for reform !
“How are we going to encourage people to use less energy?”
Following some excellent speeches at the Democratic Reform Movements Environmental conference Thursday last week a lady from Occupy reminded us of the basics during our Q and A. Of late I have been researching so much about renewable energy and nuclear and finance that it seems recently we have overlooked the simple things. The question was in short: “How are we going to encourage people to use less energy.”
And indeed using less energy is something we can all do to lessen our impact on climate change. And there have been some encouraging reports in this area as data from the Department of Energy and Climate Change shows in the publication UK Energy In Brief 2011:
CO2 emissions in Million tonnes (Mt):
“Estimates based on energy production and consumption in 2010 indicates that carbon emissions were 4 percent higher than the previous year and 17 percent lower than in 1990. ”
Information taken from graph on Page 16:
Year Residential emissions Total emissions
1990 79.0 589.7
1995 80.8 550.8
2000 92.0 549.4
2008 79.9 525.1
2009 75.2 473.7
2010 85.3 491.7
Domestic Electricity use in TWh:
Information taken from graph on page 31
Year Domestic Electricity Usage Total Electricity Usage
1980 86.1 241.6
1990 93.8 284.4
2000 111.8 340.3
2008 119.8 350.4
2009 118.5 331.0
2010 118.7 336.9
The exciting thing to see from these two graphs is that overall total CO2 emissions have gone down, and in the domestic area of CO2 emissions, emissions in 2008 and 09 almost matched those of nearly two decades ago. Considering a growing population this is a good thing. Emissions and energy use rose again in 2010 due to cold weather. And although overall energy usage has increased both in domestic use and total use in the UK the rate of increase would seem to be slowing down, certainly domestic use in the last 10 years.
The reason for this is probably due to a lot of things but as an older report explains: “82 per cent of energy used in households is for space or water heating. Such uses are susceptible to weather conditions and, in particular, temperature variations. ” Therefore recent government backed initiatives to increase insulation have had some effect in this area:
Insulated homes in UK (thousands):
Information taken from graph on page 37 of UK Energy In Brief 2011.
Year Cavity Wall Insulation Loft Insulation
April 2007 8.490 9,500
April 2008 8,700 9,860
April 2009 9,440 10,650
April 2010 10,170 12,180
April 2011 10,760 13,230
Other improvements such as energy efficient washing machines, fridge freezers, ovens and other domestic appliances have all also helped. What cannot be forgotten though is that individuals have the ultimate control – or power if you like – to reduce energy consumption. Householders can do simple things like making sure they switch off appliances when they are not in use, lights when no-one is in the room. We all make hundreds of thousands of cups of tea / coffee every year in the UK and kettles are one of the most intensive users of electricity in small bursts, so only boil as much water as you need. (You know the old joke that when a certain soap opera goes on commercial break – the national grid lights up because of all the kettles going on). The same applies when cooking; try using less water when boiling vegetables etc, put just enough water in to cover the food. Try to take shorter showers and shallower baths – we all like to luxuriate from time to time, but do you need to have hour long soaks every day rather than a 3– 4 minute shower? (If you really, really do – let some cold water out before adding more hot.)
Get energy meters! It sounds sad, but since we got ours in our flat it has become like a game working out what our appliances are costing us. Our nifty little meter tells us how much CO2 we are creating, how much energy we are consuming – and in a way to anyone on a budget how much we are spending on electricity per hour. And I think despite most of us being aware and concerned about the environment – seeing money being wasted will be a key way to getting people to conserve energy.
Recycle – because although you might not think of it like this – every time you put something that is recyclable in the bin – you are throwing away energy! This is particularly true in the form of things like glass, aluminium and paper as the website Recycling Guide says: “The unreleased energy contained in the average dustbin each year could power a television for 5,000 hours. ” Check out their website for more facts and figures.
I didn’t go into industry figures as their electricity usage for essential operational working would be hard to distinguish from other possible electricity uses, such as leaving a computer and monitor on overnight; but we all have to do ‘housework,’ at work from time to time such as keeping our desks or work areas clean. Make sure you apply the same energy reduction techniques at work as you would at home.
Our Treasurer’s speech to The Democratic Reform Movement’s Envrionmental Conference
Climate change presents us with such a broad range of challenges and worries. It will involve problems and solutions on a micro and a macro level. It will require individuals, countries and a connected world to adapt.
As such I have chosen my title Energy Security, Risk Assessment and the Future of Climate Change as it allows us to take an overview of the situation but also look at the parts, of the way that climate change is directing policy and altering our lives.
Moreover in our lives we find that things become dictated by risk assessments. To an extent they seem like an imposition, like some of the more bizarre risk assessments you might find in an office as reported by the daily tabloids.
However, risk assessment is a perfectly natural thing to do, it’s just that in most cases on a micro level we make them as individuals – they are either instinctive or learned at an early age, but the fact of the matter is humans use them every day from making a cup of tea to walking across a busy road or docking a space ship.
The level of risk often demands its own level of assessment.
In most cases risk assessment is based on accumulated knowledge, from parents, peers, history and so on. But in some cases, as is often the case with climate change, we face new risks that we might not have a precedent for.
This is where scientists try to use the precautionary principle to tackle the unknown quantity, However this principle only deals with the one side of the coin that is the actual event of risk – as highlighted by the phrase “better safe than sorry”.
This makes risk assessment hard as we may need to predict future events based on model-led trends. Indeed this is what the IPCC has given us and based on those models we can see the world is at risk of suffering from global warming; although some people do not believe this, the case to support global warming is almost 100% proven. Although man’s effect in it is still a contentious issue.
So what can we expect, well most climate change models predict that if the earth warms by another 2 degrees there could be serious repercussions; that this would start a chain of events that would send global warming out of control. Again there is some contention concerning these models, but most scientists believe these predictions to be correct.
So even though some people still disagree with man’s involvement in global warming the atmospheric CO2 Concentration seems to strongly suggest that the industrial revolution is responsible for more than 75% of the increase in CO2 levels over the last 2 centuries.
Already many parts of the world have and are suffering extreme weather conditions; we see the polar ice caps melting, droughts, floods, and already rising sea levels.
So what about here in the UK; our future energy security policy is intrinsically tied in with our need to reduce carbon emissions to prevent or slow down further warming.
We can expect to lose one third of our energy production by 2020 as “most of Britain’s nuclear and some of its coal-fired power stations will reach the end of their lives by” this point.
This presents an opportunity, but also a massive challenge as Britain needs to replace these sources of power in a short time scale; and has the possibility of creating greener, renewable energy sources.
Indeed this is a key objective in order to meet our Kyoto agreement pledge of 15% renewable energy sources by the same date.
We cannot rely on fossil fuels as we have done, and even if the risk assessments around global warming are wrong, although unlikely, fossil fuels still contribute massive pollution which is already having a harmful effect on people in the form of increased asthma, breathing problems, water and soil pollution etc.
We also need to be aware that these resources are becoming more and more scarce, with some predations that we may reach peak oil around 2050.
So looking to the Future… The UK has a wealth of wind and wave resources.
The Liberal Democrats within the current co-olition government are keen to promote wind turbines, which is good news for all of us.
And working with British energy company SSE and Denmark’s Dong Energy, the new Energy Secretary Ed Davey have recently installed a massive wind turbine farm for £1.2bn known as the: “Walney Scheme, just off the coast of Cumbria”
. This project boasts “more than 100 turbines, generating enough power for 320,000 homes.” These turbines, the companies say were installed and cabled within six months which is an impressive turn around.
There are also several projects in line to harness the power of wave and tidal resources and the more optimistic observers of renewable energy believe we can smash our objectives.
However there are just as many people who believe we can only achieve carbon free energy if we embrace nuclear power.
Nuclear is a contentious issue. There are obvious safety concerns, especially after Fukushima in 2011, with countries like Germany refusing to build more plants and trying to shut down their existing ones.
In most cases nuclear is also vastly expensive and requires state subsidy, as some commentators have said nuclear power is one of those industries that allows a fantastic way to: “privatise profits and socialise losses.”
Another concern is that even modern nuclear plants often go over budget in construction and can take an average of about 15 years to build. Meaning any new builds, even if started this year, would fall a possible 7 years behind a 2020 deadline for reductions and the necessity for new power sources.
Based on these timelines, likely costs, possible damage to environment and harm to people there should be some sceptism about nuclear’s claims.
The DRP acknowledges that to an extent some of our carbon free energy may need to come from nuclear power (new or existing). However we would be keen to support and subsidise other forms of renewable energy where-ever possible.
We believe nuclear has received enormous amounts of subsidy in the last 60 years, over all other options and would want to redress the balance where it is sensible. In line with our value of decentralised governance, rather than prescribing to regions which renewable they must take up; we would work closely with them, the science community and the relevant companies to ensure that each region had the best renewable source for them; i.e. a tidal wave generator would be no use in the Midlands where they may benefit from nuclear. The Scottish highlands may benefit more from wind turbines than solar panels, and the opposite could be true of the south east.
We would also hope to be able to phase out all nuclear by 2030 in line with plans by groups such as Zero Carbon Britain.
And so far I’ve only been discussing energy options for electricity I haven’t even
touched on renewable gas sources such methane harvesting which is being successfully produced in Holland by Ecotricity4 and piped into the UK to supply green gas to around 14,000 homes.
The UK used to have complete energy independence and if we are smart and utilise our scientists, resources and unique positioning – we in the DRP truly believe we can have it again – just imagine 100% renewable, green energy – no more oil spills on our cost from takers, no more hikes in gas or electricity prices because of destabilisation or war in the middle east. Jobs, trades, industries in the midlands, north of England and Wales for communities that have felt abandoned since the collieries and steal works were shut down in the 70’s and 80’s. A vision of a strong vibrant community proud to say we’re British, proud to say we’re green, proud to say we’re doing our bit to save the planet!
Ed Davey Throws Weight behind Green Energy by Opening Giant UK Wind farm. Terry Macalister. The Guardian. 09/02/2012.
The Politics of Climate Change. 2009. Page 83. GIDDENS, A. Polity Press.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/09/windfarm-worlds-biggest-cumbria
http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/faqs/powerup
http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/our-green-gas/how-our-green-gas-works accessed 13/02.2012
Squatting: The need for shelter versus property rights
We don’t normally take reports from the BBC but this is a well written discussion surrounding the history of squatting – we would be interested to hear your thoughts, especially in the light of the numbers on waiting lists and the assertion of Channel 4 last month that there are 1million empty homes in the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15776450
James Parker resigns as Party Leader
Dear All,
The development of the Democratic Reform Party has led to changes over the recent months. It is with regret that one of these changes this week has been the resignation of Party Leader, James Parker.
James has played an influential role in the party and his leadership has led to many positive developments with other organisations. His resignation to become General Secretary of the Democratic Reform Movement will only help build on the success already made and, as a member organisation of the DRM, the DRP will continue to offer our support to him in this role.
I know I can speak on behalf of all the members that we are extremely grateful for all his work with the DRP and his tireless work in pursuit of the democratic reform agenda on an international level.
As a result of James’ resignation, Deputy Leader Ian Pugh will be operating as interim Party Leader.
It has been a pleasure working with James, and I would like to wish him all the best in his future endeavours.
Phillip Badger
Communications
Economic Recovery
A great deal has been written about the causes of the Great Recession, and indeed causes of economic slumps in general. But little has yet been published on what causes the recoveries. US Republican lead candidate often justifies his involvement in private equity firms by talking about Schumpeter’s Creative Destruction i.e. creating growth through painful decisions that may in the short term result in increases in unemployment, but in the long run increase innovation and stability. When I wrote the 2010/11 DRP economics report it was all the rage to talk about Keynesianism versus Monetarism, and the DRP argued that the choice between the two was a false one, for there is a large grey area inbetween, where growth is pursued, but a long term deficit reduction strategy ensures market confidence and long-run viability. But by the time I wrote the 2011 report it was clear that talk of these strategies was no longer enough, and that the mainstream parties are rapidly falling behind in their talk on the economy.
So what brought us out of recessions and depressions in the past? If we’re talking about individual countries then most commonly it was devaluation and an increase in exports. But we’re in a global recession right now, and we can’t all export our way out. So we need to look into the reasons behind the bigger and deeper recoveries, like the Great Depression for example. Here the answer is startlingly clear: vast changes and reforms across the political, social, technological, economic and even international landscape.
The evolution of a new socio-geographic system, as seen with the rise of modern industrial cities in the 1890s, or the rise of the suburbs in the 30s and 40s was one significant cause of growth. Urbanisation brought with it, and is still bringing with it, efficiencies of scale and geography, which saves people both time and money, as well as presenting new opportunities arising simply from the number of people and organisations in close proximity with one another. According to Professor Freeman depressions create innovations, which are unleashed when the recovery starts. This was seen in the Great Depression, where productivity was increasing at an incredible rate even when the economy was suffering. In the 30s we saw the rise of electrical power, underground train networks, public health and sanitation.
What we need today are similar such innovations, and vast changes. That’s why we’re calling for more help for start up businesses, those who wish to gain more qualifications, and those who have new ideas. It’s why we’re calling for widesweeping changes throughout the political system, in order to devolve power to a level where those with experience in day to day life actually have a voice over the decisions taken. It’s why we’re helping David Woods to design an online democratic system that will provide methods for all people to engage creatively. And it’s why we’re calling for investment in research and our IT infrastructure, to both facilitate the creation of more ideas, and also to allow more cooperation and business at greater speeds across greater distances. With food and drinks we need to go local. But if there’s one business sector that’s bound to continue doing well in the coming decades it’s online business. And our online infrastructure is still far weaker than it should be.
It won’t be technology itself that drives the recovery. It will be how it’s used, and the creativity and intellectual strength of the ideas that surface with it, and ultimately change the way we live and work. Ancient Greece and later the Roman Empire built Aqueducts that lessened the strain on households to get clean water. The Agricultural Revolution made food a smaller part of our household budget. The Industrial Revolution supported a huge increase in population, massively increased productivity, built the technology that allowed mass central heating, mechanised fabric production to make clothing cheaper, and meant that the materials used to build homes became cheaper. Thus shelter, warmth and clothing came to take a lesser part of our household budgets. Today the big things left over are shelter and transport, which together account for around 50-70% of household incomes. And tied into this is the obvious environmental problem with sustainable energy production.
Thus looking forward we need to be looking at new housing solutions (which could also solve homelessness), new energy solutions, and new transport solutions. With some of these there are obvious problems. For instance where we now have factories that work 24/7, we have entire buildings, offices, and even streets that are only occupied 9-5 on Monday through Friday. For others the solution is already coming. In the past 50 years the average person’s expectation of life has been to get an education, get a job with some big firm, then retire and go play golf. But that model looks less and less sustainable with time. As education, and and information and communication technologies advance the future will bring more entrepreneurialism, self-employment, and working online. And so it’s these areas that we need to support most. We are living in an Information Revolution today, which gives us the capability to harness the intellectual and creative capacity of the 99%. Bearing in mind what the Industrial Revolution accomplished when it only harnessed the 1%, the Information Revolution could change our lives forever. But governments must have the vision to see this, and act. It doesn’t mean asking governments and politicians to have all the ideas. It means having politicians with the guts to admit that they don’t have all the ideas, and that they need to empower those who are having the ideas, the 100%, in order to see them put into action.
Democracy 2.0 and the End of Capitalism
The Democratic Reform Party believes that with the Information Revolution it is becoming more and more possible to develop an improved knowledge democracy i.e. democracy 2.0. But the implications of this could go well beyond what you think. One of the major marketing successes of capitalism has been its ability to tie itself together with democracy. In part this is due to Cold War distinctions; it just so happened that western capitalist countries were democratic and 
communist ones were not. However, capitalism is in fact very different to democracy, and one could perhaps argue opposed to it.
Under Capitalism the means of production are owned by investors of capital, as opposed to employees, producers, consumers or any other patrons (those who transact with the firm) of the firm. So basically that means businesses are owned by those who have a lot of money. Given this definition there has never been a completely capitalist economy. Employee owned firms for example, have long been widespread in the service based professions e.g. law, accounting electricity utilities, and medicine; and have recently expanded into new professions as well. Cooperatives are growing in popularity, and it seems like Corporate Governance is popular once again as a conversation topic. But the majority of firms are investor owned firms, and they have been for some time. What’s different today is that people are now more interested in who owns firms, and the means of production, than they have been for generations. Thus we have a real chance today to diversify power beyond the hands of the investors, and thus bring an end to capitalism.
It seems increasingly immoral to have power and wealth distributed on the basis of how much power and wealth people already own. And so people experiment more with cooperatives, and with the ‘John Lewis model’. But if this was in the interests of business and economies to do so would they not have done so long ago? Yes and no. The problems of ‘workplace democracy’, as it’s usually known, are listed below:
- Investors hold the capital today, and they need incentives to invest, which normally means giving ownership of the firm to the investors, and thus entitles them to the formal rights of control, and receipt of the firm’s residual earnings. Giving power to other patrons instead, whether they be employees, producers or consumers, could result in difficulties attaining capital, and investors could take their money overseas.
- Human nature is such that people are unwilling to cede control to others. Throughout history democracies have born out from ‘bottom-up’ pressure, rather than top-down reforms. It would be an incredibly brave and selfless act to cede control to workers if not already under pressure to do so. Thus the government has a choice of whether or not to step in, and of course such heavy government intervention in the market is usually frowned upon.
- Although employees have expertise in their particular areas of work, only those in management positions have the ability to see the big picture, and employees also don’t know what other patrons want. There could be a contradiction of interests. What should the firm aim for? The increased wellbeing of its staff? The long term value maximisation of its shareholders (the usual aim of corporations)? Or to look out for all different patrons of the firm through a sort of co-determination similar to that used in Germany?
However, even given these problems I would argue that it is in all of our interests to keep empowering people, not only in politics and society, but also in the workplace. In relation to point one the argument that investors will move overseas is often overstated; if opportunities exist to make a profit, and risk is under control, investors will be found. Besides, investors are essentially lenders, which means that where private investors cannot be found, there will always be institutional investors and bank loans. And as Hanson argues in “The Ownership of Enterprise” (p5) “employee ownership offers far greater efficiencies than it is generally credited with”.
Point 2 is rather more substantial in terms of government intervention in the markets. But once again it is overstated. The argument against government intervention comes from the right wing of the political spectrum, and yet workplace democracy has found support right across the political spectrum. On the left it’s believed that workplace democracy can succeed where state control failed in equalising power and wealth and decreasing worker exploitation and alienation. Whereas on the right many have turned to workplace democracy in order to increase worker productivity, and worker identification with the interests of capital. Indeed even in the United States, the natural home of capitalism, the government promotes employee ownership through large tax subsidies, provisions in the pension laws, and special corporation statutes for employee owned firms. And in Germany worker co-determination is mandated for all large enterprises.
Point 3 of course depends on which country and company you’re talking about. But it is an argument in favour of giving all patrons a voice, rather than just the employees, in order to ensure a balance of interests that accords with the company’s and country’s aims.
Yet even if we agree that further democratisation is needed in the workplace we must not use existing models of workplace democracy; rather the new system should utilise new technologies to move corporate governance forwards. This new workplace democracy (based on an idea from Dave Woods, Project Manager for the Open Parliament), would entail not One Member One Vote, or One Share One Vote (the dominant form at present), but rather One Choice One Vote. Quite simply, this would entitle every patron of the firm to a single choice in voting decisions. They could use that choice to vote. Or they could ‘lend’ their vote to another for an agreed time period, trusting them to be more able to vote in a way that will benefit them, the firm and society. Thus if for example they believe one of their colleagues knows a particular issue inside out, then they could lend that person their vote, and reclaim it at any point. This system of voting for other people would increase turnout, allow an increased number of votes, and also help decisions about promotions, which would enhance meritocracy. It would be very difficult to pass up someone that’s highly qualified and able, and has lots of votes, for someone who practically no one seems to believe in.
This transition in businesses would spell the end for Capitalism (at least as we know it), and the beginning of a new age of democracy, empowerment, and equal opportunities for all. It would not spell the end of the free market or free enterprise, since these concepts go hand in hand with workplace democracy. It would not cede the state any more power; in fact quite the opposite, since power would be more decentralised and thus harder for governments and lobbyists alike to influence. And there is also a strong argument to suggest that it could increase productivity and economic growth. As just a single example, the UK economy loses billions – yes billions – from clinical depression every year. Empowering people has been proven to increase wellbeing, and could go a long way towards stemming the rampant onwards march of mental illness (depression is now the 2nd most disabling condition in the world, with more cases appearing every year). And on top of all this it would not necessarily mean less stability either, as firms would decide individually on the specific contracts under which changes in management and ownership were governed. And the existing system of governance seems remarkably unstable in any case. I’m sure most people reading this can think back to an article or 2 in the media about some multinational or other going through several CEOs in a year. What you may not know is that this is a global trend. Among the world’s biggest public companies the average job tenure for CEOs has fallen from 8.1yrs in 2000 to 6.6yrs today.
According to the Economist (p63, January 21st 2012) the latest buzz phrases at the top of business are “humble leadership”, “servant leadership” and “bottom-up leadership”. Sounds remarkably similar to what we’re saying don’t you think? The end of Capitalism and the beginnings of democracy 2.0 are not as far into the future as they might seem. We’re simply proposing that the pace of reform is picked up.
DRP Weekly #3: Facing an economy in Crisis
Find the summary of the first Democratic Reform Movement Event: Facing an Economy in Crisis.
Well being and Equality – Are we failling our children?
Our Treasuerer will be attending a meeting entitled “Well being and Equality – Are we failling our children?” the starting point of the conversation is the 2007 UNICEF report that puts children in the UK at the bottom of the chart for happiness and well being and all recent updates to the reserch seem to suggest that their positon has not changed.
More details can be found here (http://www.meetup.com/21stCenturyNetwork/events/44635742/)
So what do you guy think – Are we failing our children, and if so what could we do to turn things around?
EvenBreak jobsearch website
We don’t usually advertise other sites on here but without this site – www.evenbreak.co.uk – I would not be here working with the DRP.
Please take the time to look especially if you are disabled or wondering if you may be able to employ someone with a disability you will be surprised at what you will find. http://www.evenbreak.co.uk/blog/which-jobs-suitable-for-disabled-people/
