Saving Earth's life support

Blog 5 by Paul Lund (23 July 2009)

This week’s look back to 40 years ago when Apollo 11 landed on the moon has given us a reminder of what it was like in 1969 to watch the first pictures of planet Earth coming from the moon.
Astronauts in 1968, on the Apollo 8 mission, were the first to orbit the moon and emerge from the dark side to take pictures of Earth. They, like many of their successors, described how they were awe inspired at seeing the Earth – their home – floating in a dark pitch of nothingness. These views of our blue planet, swathed in white clouds, with its incredibly thin layer of atmosphere, dramatically illustrated our vulnerability and how essential that thin veil is to maintaining life on Earth.
This view of the Earth’s fragility in space caused the astronauts to wonder about our home’s unique magic to support life in our solar system – like no other known planet. They were so moved they made impassioned arguments for doing all we can to protect our world. Many others, then and since, have shared that concern for how extremely vulnerable this small globe really is, hung like a jewel in space.
Human feelings of love and protection for the greatest planet we know then surfaced and one significant result was the formation of Friends of the Earth – now the ‘most extensive environmental network in the world, with one million supporters linked to more than 70 national organisations across five contents.’
How amazing it would be if we could all fly around Earth, in outer space, and share that sense of wonder and compassion for our dear planet. Sadly, even Richard Branson’s future space jet tours will be out of reach to most of us. The epic films – which started for me with the 2001: Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick’s film of 1968) – and those pictures of Earth from space, even live TV images from space, nowadays don’t’ do the same for us. Perhaps we now expect more excitement than our technology can ordinarily deliver.
Google Earth in 3D is one thing, but to feel stunned and awe struck we need to have something very exciting and close to the real experience. Possibly a simulated ride aboard a space shuttle on 3-D IMAX screens might get close, or a recreated shuttle cargo bay opening out to viewing the expanse of space, with all on-board hearing and seeing what it would be like aboard a spacecraft orbiting Earth.
NASA’s Kennedy Space Centre does have tours which include simulated sound and vision experiences of a space shuttle launch, and a real live astronaut taking part in talking to audiences. Hopefully some of astronaut John Blaha’s incredible journeys and experiences will instil a sense of amazement among his audiences and they will go away with a better insight of how beautiful and wonderful our world truly is. There’s a moment in one episode of Star Trek’s ‘Voyager’ when a crew member was told: “There’s nothing like an ‘away mission’ to remind us of why we are here.”
Those chosen few who have experienced the reality of leaving Earth’s orbit have, in a way, become Earth ambassadors for all humans. However, in many ways we are losing respect and consciousness for how delicately we depend upon our evolved life support system.
If, like me, you remember the Jacques Cousteau programmes on TV then you will be of that generation who were amazed and enthralled by the strange and mysterious life of our seas and oceans. Those programmes were just as fascinating as space travel, perhaps because we were seeing real living creatures so strange and unimaginable they were as good if not better than the alien dramas or moon landings.
Cousteau was famous, before his TV films, for jointly developing (1943) the self contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) or the Cousteau-Gagnan diving lung. This led to the popular recreational sport that became scuba diving around the world. The design of a simple mouthpiece and links to a pressurised air tank, with regulator and outlet, gave divers the freedom to explore and enjoy the exotic wildlife of coastal waters.
Captain Jacques-Yves Cousteau and his team of divers brought amazing pictures of marine life to our screens from the 1970s through to the early 1990s. He filmed and made television in a unique way which enthralled us all and he became a hero and champion for planet Earth with his impassioned pleas to us all to save this amazing world of wildlife, just like his astronaut counterparts.
Earth is a “limited and fragile spaceship that needs to be preserved,” according to the films Cousteau made. He implored us to do more to protect sea life and all nature, and his legacy lives on in the Cousteau Society for the Protection of Oceanic Life, which has over 300,000 members. Interestingly, he approved of population control and thought 100,000 people on earth would be the ideal number. Just compare that to today’s 60 million in the UK alone!
Now the ‘Calypso’ – his famous voyager – is to further continue this legacy. The salvaged and refurbished vessel is intended to sail again as an ambassador for the seas and oceans – “Carrying the legacy of Captain Cousteau and the Cousteau flag all around the world.”
We are amazed by exploration of the seas and oceans, which cover 70% of our world’s surface. Incredibly, there is still so much more of this marine environment still to explore, especially in the vast underwater mountains, valleys and deepest sea floors. Hundreds of thousands of marine species still wait to be found and named, according to the Census of Marine Life which has been an international research venture between 8o countries. This census will end in 2010, but the work is far from finished.
It seems to me we need space exploration, deep ocean exploration and in fact any kind of exploration of uncharted, unseen, parts of our world and beyond. We need this simply in order not to lose touch with the bigger picture of our own life support systems here on Earth, but we need to be doing much more as the population grows and more people are distanced from nature and their basic sustainable needs.
If you think of Earth as a vessel, an ark or space ship, carrying this fantastic biodiversity through time, then we are the captains of our future. We carry the responsibility of safely transporting life in all its diverse forms into the future.
I think it would be wonderful if one day a space craft was named Calypso – in acknowledgement of man’s exploration to new depths... on Earth and in space.
“One protects what one likes and one likes what enchanted us.” Jacques-Yves Cousteau.
Even with all the media coverage we have today, and with our beloved Sir David Attenborough’s epic series – among them Planet Earth and Blue Planet, we are strangely complacent as a culture about nature’s decline and unmoved by the greatest rate of species decline and extinction ever.
In this 200th anniversary year of the birth of Charles Darwin, I wonder what he would have said if he saw how we are threatening the loss of many thousands of species – not through natural survival of the fittest, but through how we are treating the environment.
It is a sobering and quite frightening realisation that along with climate change, habitat loss and pernicious pollution on Earth, we are causing untold damage to our fellow inhabitants, so much so that an estimated half of all life forms (species) are expected to become extinct before the turn of the next century. That amounts to the biggest loss of biodiversity for 65 million years, since the dinosaurs disappeared, and probably greater than at any time in Earth’s history.
Now add to this the evidence about the speed of this change. It is greater than at any time in the past, with about one fifth of all living species predicted to have gone in just 30 years. Among the figures issued by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), under their Red List assessment, are that one quarter of the world’s mammals face extinction, and these include such lovely species as lions, tigers and orangutans – all of whom are under threat.
On scientific grounds alone, we just have to think about the medical advances which have been made through the use of, for instance, plant substances to cure all kinds of human illness, and then what might be discovered in the future from the one in eight plants now listed as endangered. There are endless numbers of other reasons – economic, scientific, ethical, and aesthetic – for why we need to protect and conserve biodiversity.
We are such an intelligent species, aren’t we, but I wonder where it’s all gone wrong. We have risen to become the supreme dominant form of life on the planet and we are now affecting or influencing all forms of Earth life, so we must assume, without any question, the responsibility of protector of all nature and natural resources. Unless you believe an alien life form is monitoring what we are doing and will intervene before it’s too late – admittedly a stretch of the imagination – then we must be absolutely resolute to not allow our species to cause the destruction of the natural world.
‘In 2002, almost all governments committed to the 2010 biodiversity target “to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth”. The way the 2010 target was phrased highlights the reasons why we should care about nature: its utilitarian value and the fact that it is essential to human wellbeing, but also its intrinsic value (aesthetical, spiritual and recreational).’ This is taken from an IUCN briefing which you can read at www.iucn.org
“The IUCN Red List provides a window on many of the major global issues of our day, including climate change, loss of freshwater ecosystems and over-fishing,” says Simon Stuart, Chair of the IUCN Species Survival Commission and co-editor. “Unless we address the fundamental causes of unsustainability on our planet, the lofty of goals of governments to reduce extinction rates will count for nothing.”
According to the United Nations Environment Programme “Human existence would not be possible without such things as water and air purification, nutrient cycling and the maintenance of biodiversity.” This statement is emphatic, it says exactly what will happen unless we save Earth’s life support systems and reverse what we are doing globally, or the consequence will eventually be our own species extinction.
Anthropogenic climate change – or the amount that man has and is causing – accounts for a rise of 30% in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. There is a natural level of CO2 in the atmosphere which our climatic cycles and biosphere can cope with over a period of time without causing damage. The excess build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (Man’s increasing contribution through burning fossil fuels [20%], deforestation and agriculture [10%] over the past 250 years) is now universally believed to be driving excess global warming and the danger is that natural processes could start to break down. This is already causing weather patterns across the world to change and will result in immense disruption to all life dependent upon those natural cycles or processes unless we find ways to take out our industrial proportion of CO2 or stop CO2 emissions by stopping the use of fossil fuels.
If this situation cannot be stopped, science predicts there will come a point of no return – the Tipping Point – when the breakdown of some natural processes will become wildly out of control and even add to the problem, such as the melting ice releasing trapped ancient methane gas which is a far more dangerous gas and will increase global warming still further. This ‘run-away scenario,’ as it has also been called, is a prediction that climate change will become unstoppable, no matter what we then do. Beyond this only guess work and computer modelling can forecast the future which could result in severe human population loss along with much of our natural world disappearing too... sadly, but inevitably, the end of human life as well, though some life forms will survive and evolve under different conditions.
We could even now be at the forefront of Man’s extinction, perhaps more rapidly than the loss of the dinosaurs, as a result of climate change. The irony, however, is that we will have caused our own destruction, something that no other species has done to itself.
Those in positions of controlling global corporate business or international conglomerates – the industries who mine the Earth’s resources, unsustainably exploit the growth of trees, animals and oceanic life – though having become divorced from the reality of what they are destroying, must fundamentally change, or we are not going to be able to manage and survive in a world that has its life support system broken. The world’s governments must also cooperate and the major industrialised nations must act now in ways never before achieved in any other conflict or disaster.
Everyone carries responsibility, but some like the heads of national and international polluting industries carry higher responsibility. They should be accountable to world justice and humanity’s survival as well as our collective responsibility to protecting Earth’s biodiversity.
The Zoological Society of London’s Ben Collen says: “Within our lifetime, hundreds of species of birds, mammals and amphibians could be lost as a result of human actions.”
He continues: “Initial studies on the world’s smaller species such as dragonflies, corals and freshwater crabs indicate that threat levels may be similar or even greater. We must set clear goals to reverse these trends and ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out the small things that provide us with great benefits such as pollination, nutrient cycling, and climate regulation.”
Making money has become more important than anything else and whilst billions of people on Earth suffer through insufficient food, water, shelter and ability to create adequate livelihoods for themselves and their families, the corporate bodies and institutions make more wealth for an exclusive few. For many others there is the lure of affluent consumption and the need to raise more and more finance to afford an increasingly expensive lifestyle. With this comes overwork, stress and what we now call Western diseases, or ills, which are at the opposite end of the scale to those which poorer societies suffer.
A momentum for change is growing – under the threat of irreversible climate damage, mass extinction of species worldwide and severe threats to the survival of people all over the planet. Though scientific recognition has been unequivocal, governments have so far been slow to react.
Somehow several changes must come together quite soon. We need to regain that incredible awe, respect and love for how remarkable this spec of blue in space – perhaps the whole of our galaxy – really is in supporting life. Deals must be struck worldwide on financing a low carbon future and targets must be set – and achieved – from now until the problems of how humans live as part of nature are overcome. If we can all do this, then I think we would (to use that well known phrase) make ‘an enormous leap forward for man and a giant leap for mankind’ – on Earth.
Those who remember the Live Earth global music concerts – just over two years ago – might have been mesmerized by the television pictures and excitement that was building between the capital cities around the world as they linked into that fantastic awareness raising event. Who remembers Madonna’s performance? All those musicians gave us messages to help inspire the world-wide television audience? It seems like a distant memory now and unless Live Earth could be held every year, then it will slip from our memories and just pass into the annals of TV history?
The United Nations – with all that it has spent on its Environment Programme – has yet to achieve the impact on humanity which is necessary; maybe a United Mankind and more space exploration is needed to help convince us that there is simply no other planet like Earth within our grasp.
In the end it all comes down to every individual. Each one of us can decide to do something towards saving Earth’s life support – and if we all do this, as a society or culture, then things will change.
“...I’m starting with the man in the mirror; I’m asking him to change his ways; And no message could have been any clearer; If you wanna make the world a better place; Take a look at yourself and then make a change; You gotta get it right; while you got the time...”
‘Man in The Mirror’ by Michael Jackson (1958-2009).

Author: Paul Lund, for the Mid Somerset News & Media blog
References
2009 Red List of endangered species, International Union for the Conservation of Nature - www.iucn.org
Wildlife in danger of extinction - www.massextinction.net
Climate Change the big picture – 6 facts from the Met Office UK.
Anthropogenic climate change – www.global-greenhouse-warming.com
Cousteau Society for the Protection of Oceanic Life www.cousteau.org

Going Off-Grid was a learning experience

The first OFF-GRID eco festival combined with ‘an intimate, family focussed camp’ took place from 20th-23rd August, and was a big success, according to co-organiser Dan Hurring.
It was a small camp size of up to 500 people, on a hill-top field between Shepton Mallet and Dinder.
Organised by Natural Communities CIC, who run the popular Sunrise festivals, Off-Grid potentially could have increased its demand, when organisers offered stranded ticket holders of the cancelled Big Green Gathering the option to spend their tickets at this event. However, the effect was less than organisers expected.
Attractions included great music, circus, walk about acts, games, dance, workshops, talks, tented stalls and organic cafes, but also the focus was about learning. “This is ultimately an educational experience, it’s a community networking event, it’s a place for skills and knowledge sharing,” said Dan Hurring.
Entertainments were powered by all sorts of micro generators, but mainly wind turbines and solar photovoltaic sources, which managed to keep most of the show going over its four days.
“It’s been DIY, more so than most of our events in the past, we even ran out of power for our production office computers and phones, but there’s been a lot of working together among the solar power providers here, with lots of borrowing and fixing bits together, and we’ve had some amazing technical geniuses working on-site,” explained Dan.
In a small but significant way, Off-Grid proves it is possible to run an outdoor event of this kind without noisy generators or mains electricity, both of which add to carbon dioxide emissions.
Dan Hurring thinks they are pointing the way forward to a future for festivals that can do more in this direction.
“There’s a lot of challenges ahead for festivals and we’re entering a time when fossil fuels are likely to become a lot more expensive, when climate change means we need to take a lot more care in what we are consuming, and so I think festivals are facing a transition from the very oil-based set up to something new, which events like this can point the way to...
“Saying that, there’s a long way to go – even here there’s a lot of learning for us – such as in sustainable transport, which we didn’t really achieve, and also there’s not enough solar provision available in the UK at this time to power a bigger festival even a one quarter of the size of Glastonbury Festival,” he said.
There are many eco challenges still facing festivals, admits Dan, but he believes there are people with the minds and skills to do what’s needed, since it’s inevitable that all festivals will need to be greener in the future.
Ticket holders of the cancelled Big Green Gathering, who made use of the offer to exchange their tickets for entry to Off-Grid also voiced their anger and disappointment about the loss of an important ‘green cultural event,’ but others had optimism that it might result in more smaller events – like Off-Grid – taking place in future.
Paul Lund (25.8.09)

It is not easy being green these days

These days “the greens,” as the media likes to call us, have a lot to contend with. Living a green life is now more popular than ever, but with it comes an awareness of the enormous problems facing our living world.
In the past being green was a more simple affair, as much about encouraging wildlife, enlisting children in junior branches of conservation charities, as it was about a range of practical measures like save, sew and make-do at home. That was how I remember my own childhood, along with my mission of helping save giant pandas, tigers and other threatened species – carried out by saving up the pennies and converting them into postal orders to send to the World Wildlife Fund, the Fauna and Flora Preservation Society, and other such organisations.
Now, being green encompasses so much more than it did. The amount of greenness has expanded and now includes alternative green choices for every aspect of daily life, including expanding our knowledge about renewable energy and the science of climate change.
Every decade has its environmental challenges, but not every problem has been solved. From the 1960s we had to worry about pesticides, pollution and rapidly increasing loss of habitats. The early alerts about global warming came in the 1970’s and I certainly remember how the Shell and BP 16mm environmental films – making the rounds among natural history societies – illustrated how bad water and air pollution had become. In the 1980s we saw recycling issues rise as the mountains of waste sent to landfill would out-fill the holes available. The 1990s were the dawn of sustainability, the rise of renewable energy, holes in the ozone layer and dramatic news about biodiversity loss world-wide.
‘Green’ had become not just conservation of wildlife and self-sufficiency, but representative of a whole new spectrum of eco lifestyle choices. As this first decade of the 21st Century has progressed, society has been confronted by the scientific reality about climate change. It was now serious and a threat to life around the planet.
‘The 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1995’ * Met Office
In case we doubted the scientists, newspaper and TV reporters began bringing the evidence to us from around the world. Views of melting ancient glaciers, sea level rise starting to affect some Pacific islands, species threatened with extinction, freak weather patterns becoming common, plus our gardens showing signs of plant stress. Though the economy and Afghanistan have been leading stories in the media this year, the climate change drama hasn’t stopped but has revealed more issues from around the world.
We have all learnt much more about our climate, power savings and polluting gases than we knew before. Many energy and climate phrases have entered into common usage, such as the ubiquitous Peak Oil or the Climate Tipping Point – a time of climate change that would tip us past a point of no return. This point is predicted to arrive sometime over the next few decades, unless we can make huge and drastic changes to stop spoiling or polluting the Earth’s atmosphere with greenhouse gasses. Carbon dioxide being the main culpable gas, released from burning fossil fuels. If optimum volume oil extraction has passed its peak, energy companies will still find enough oil to drain down through the next few decades, even assuming the rising demand is met with faster supply.
‘Sea levels have risen 10cm around the UK since 1900’ * Met Office
By no means is it certain mankind can make amends – either because we humans simply can’t comprehend the world is really changing that much, or because we are too far wedded to consumerism and dependency on carbon fuel and oil based lifestyles.
However, the urgency to do something has spread among nations around the world. As individuals, or small groups here in the South West, we are doing as much as we can to lessen our personal impacts on the environment, but at the same time looking for positive leadership and direction from the ‘authorities’ including government. Our popular iconic figures, from Tony Blair, Prince Charles, Sir Richard Branson, Dame Vivienne Westwood to Sir David Attenborough, all agree and applaud us to make the necessary changes now.
As the issues become more complex – we, as concerned citizens, need to understand something of the science and reasons for the environmental damage we are causing. As eco activists we must also keep pace with climate news and technological developments, or we will not be able to encourage fellow citizens of the necessity to join the greener cause – and do more than the simplest eco actions.
‘Arctic summer sea ice has shrunk 20% in the last 30 years’ * Met Office
Knowing the importance of the melting ice caps, or the reason for preserving the Greenland ice shelf is part of today’s new Green Crusade to save not the pandas but the planet. In fact Polar bears have replaced pandas in the nation’s hearts, as have the penguin chicks freezing to death because it was raining not snowing.
The effect of losing tropical rain forest on climate change is another example of a process we should understand, if only to ask for FSC (Forestry Stewardship Council) approved garden furniture without adding to the trade in logging of prime forest habitats and its further impact on the climate. By knowing about warming of the world’s oceans, leading to death of marine animals like corals, we can see how another indirect cause of man’s carbon dioxide emissions is leading to further problems. As reefs disappear coastal habitation is affected. These are just two more examples out of the many, but without passing on this understanding I don’t see how people can feel involved and asked to help.
Like me, maybe you have wondered about such odd things as cigarette packets that warn smokers of the damage their contents will cause, but we don’t see any warnings from the aviation companies or coal-fired power stations compelling their users and consumers of the damage caused to the environment through flying or using electricity from non-renewable (clean) sources.
Maybe death on a huge scale, caused by climate change disasters, is not seen as attributable to a purchase in the same way, but industries have been held to account in the past and slowly the moral ethic is taking precedence. The Aviation Global Deal Group is the industry’s own response to taking action on emissions and will be part of the Global Climate Change Deal to be agreed at the Copenhagen summit in December.
‘Powered by barely eight watts of electricity... [new LED light bulbs] emit more light and less heat than a 60 watt incandescent bulb’ Energy for Tomorrow by National Geographic, 2009
Taxes on rubbish disposal are set to rise in the future and perhaps we will see more and higher green taxes applied to damaging industries, if that is what it takes to change people’s minds.
We can speculate about such outcomes in the next decade or two, but it is clear mankind must act decisively. Public understanding of the issues is a key factor, as is determined and trusted leadership that enables real progress and willingness for nations and society to change.
‘In any given hour, more energy from the sun reaches the Earth than is used by the whole human population in any given year’ National Geographic, June 2009
US President Barack Obama is credited with the ability to drive America into a new green age, but politics and industrial interests have already reduced his effectiveness to go further in protecting the environment than any federal leader has done so far. Will the UK fare any better when it comes to making hard decisions and seeing them through to legislation?
The Copenhagen Summit this December will be significant and prove how committed the nations of the world really are in making cuts in carbon emissions. The consequences of continuing down our carbon fuelled road are clear, but the magnitude of commercial interests and investments seeking the maximum return seem impossible to stop.
Meanwhile, we will continue to play our part as conscientious “greenies” and eco practitioners and campaigners in our communities across the South West.
Paul Lund
24 August 2009
References:
Helpful information about climate change is available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ *

People are still popular on World Population Day

Its official, humans are as popular as ever and we still want to carry on reproducing ourselves and having families. Hardly a surprise there, you might say.
The current UK population projections show we are heading for almost a 40 per cent increase in numbers, from 61 to 85 million, over the next seven decades.
Just take a moment to imagine what another 24 million people would do to the daily commute or attempt to find a house in a nice quiet part of town in 2080. Then take a guess at what some other countries around the world might look like if we assume growth to be of a similar scale.
Assuming the world will solve such limiting critical factors as new pandemic disease, producing enough food to supply the increased population growth and managing to avoid catastrophic climate and environmental change (which is more than a big ask) then this is what our children have to look forward to in their old age, or what your grand children and great grand children will have to cope with.
In the latest You Gov opinion poll (published July 11, 2009 on World Population Day), commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust (an environmental charity, think-tank and campaign group), over 2000 people were asked to name what problems an increased population might cause. Among the multiple questions answered, 74 per cent highlighted transport congestion, 65 per cent said lack of affordable housing, 64 per cent thought damage to the natural environment, 53 per cent believed poorer quality of life, 50 per cent had food supply on their mind, 48 per cent turned to energy and water supply and bottom of the list was 47 per cent who identified climate change.
Back in the world of natural population growth, ecology rules – at least it does if you depend entirely upon nature for your food, shelter and environment. We humans have gone a stage further than nature in manufacturing our own food supply, building homes in all climate conditions and controlling our environment. We have been so successful at doing this that we have over populated the planet and what will curtail our over abundance now is simply running out of space, destroying or polluting our world so badly that we will become the cause of our own downfall.
Of course it is deeply engrained in our DNA to reproduce, and the evolutionary purpose of pleasurable sex is to encourage as much multiplication as possible. Whilst this is innate behaviour, it is hard to be scientific or intellectualise over deciding whether or not to have a second or third child. Such decisions – unless conceiving was unplanned – are more likely based on emotions and perhaps second on the practicalities of home and finance.
All life on earth has similarly evolved with the single self mission to survive and increase by successfully reproducing itself. The essence of a successful species is if it can increase its number to the point that it has multiple populations, able to withstand local losses caused by predation, food or shelter supply and to quickly enable losses to be overcome. Survival and expansion is the rule, but governing this are many factors, not least the predator – prey ratio.
Thankfully, as humans, we can largely forget about the impact of prey taking out our fellow citizens, but in the world of science fiction we could still prove to be a tasty morsel for those aliens with an insatiable appetite for live hominids!
Aside from the invasion of human gobbling extra-terrestrials, the real issue in population control, is can the Earth’s physical resources stretch to supplying all the needs that continual growth in numbers would demand. Many poor nations already prove how inadequate or ill prepared they are to feed their current population when drought or disease arrives. Current estimates also reveal one billion people on the planet are malnourished now and this will only increase as populations grow.
Mass conflicts and natural disasters also show us how difficult it is to give aid to evacuees but the impact of climate change and increased human numbers will bring even more severe disasters and human misery.
There is little disagreement and overwhelming support for the view that both the world and the UK are overpopulated. In the survey 72 per cent thought world population was too high, causing serious environmental problems, and 70 per cent took the same view of the UK. The survey results also revealed widespread agreement that population growth is responsible for a range of environmental and social ills.
At the bottom of the figures pile, four per cent thought population growth caused no problems.
When people were asked to take the environment into account when deciding family size, 34 per cent of couples thought it better to have no more than two children, eight per cent favoured having only one child and seven per cent said couples should consider having no children – a total of 49 per cent supporting two children or fewer. Thirteen per cent favoured a maximum of three children and 14 per cent said couples should have as many children as they liked.
As an environmentalist, concerned about the growing number of people who are disconnected from understanding the importance of the planet’s natural systems in supporting life on Earth, I am worried that 14 per cent seemingly think population increase has no connection with the environment. If we all accept responsibility that numbers cannot keep expanding then what should we be doing as a society or at a family level?
Roger Martin is chair of the Optimum Population Trust, and a Mendip resident who was previously CEO of the Somerset Wildlife Trust. He says: “The poll clearly demonstrates widespread concern about the environmental damage caused by population growth and widespread support for measures to limit it. The unequivocal nature of these findings makes the silence on population policy on the part of politicians and environmental groups even more astonishing. The political parties and the green movement need to realise that the public can sustain a mature debate on population. It’s time they started treating people like grown-ups.”
I rather feel the environmental lobby is much bolder than Mr Martin gives credit. The green movement, in my view, is certainly not afraid to speak out about the dangers posed by unregulated population growth, but I think the issue with smaller groups is that population growth has simply not been red flagged to the extent as, say, energy and food shortages – predicted to appear when climate change disasters stretch across Europe.
Perhaps the feeling among some is that population numbers will physically be reduced anyway when the impending scenarios of critical sea level rise, land loss and the lack of food supply strike hard. Economic losses across the world will mean that aid and rescue missions will simply break down. The other factor is that climate change forecasts and the seemingly unstoppable use of fossil fuels until they run out (up to 2050 onwards) creates so many dangerous scenarios and catastrophes that population growth – like expansion of house building, urban growth and loss of vital global green habitats – will be the lesser of the evils.
The more delicate question, for the moment, is how society should stop people having more children than a country can sustain, or else should Western governments start reducing the expectation that medical interventions will always prolong life into old age. If this seems shocking to you or inconceivable then we need a debate about what people will accept as the best way to curtail or even reduce population growth.
Increasingly there is a view that people who deliberately self abuse through drink, smoking or morbid obesity, cannot expect the NHS to spend limited resources in saving them from premature death. In future, will we see increasing emphasis on self help and responsibility for personal health leading to better life saving care when needed? Will financial support or benefits only cover families with one or two children? Could society ever reach the point that sterilisation is introduced after the second child?
Education and increased awareness about the hardships and deaths caused by unsustainable human numbers has to be the first attempt at voluntarily limiting numbers. A fully adequate contraception and education service in the poorest countries and local initiatives to persuade a change in trends also has to be part of the global plan.
The most popular measure of dealing with population growth, according to the You Gov survey was a reduction in immigration, favoured by 69 per cent, followed by the right to work after retirement age (63 per cent), better family planning to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies (62 per cent) and limitations on the offer of flats to young single mothers (48 per cent).
An argument in favour of population growth in that younger people are needed to support the retired is reduced if people can work for as long as they feel able and capable. Older people remain more useful to society by not then becoming an economic drain that needs more working people to support them.
The UK population has been moderating, since the baby boom of post war Britain in the 1950s. Some science has even shown how men’s fertility has declined as increased female hormones are found in drinking water. However, with prosperity comes an economic ability to sustain a larger family and this influence has driven up the birth rate, but may well now decline in the next decade.
Among the other statistics which the OPT gave, it is comforting to discover that nearly half the public believes couples should limit themselves to two children or fewer to reduce human impact on the environment, A majority of those questioned would welcome a significantly smaller UK population than at present; and almost as many said their quality of life would improve if their area had fewer people.
Nearly nine-tenths of those who expressed an opinion supported a lower UK population than at present. In the South West there were 57 per cent who favoured only having two children or fewer.
In China the population growth is limited (one child policy) by government decree, which has perhaps prevented over 400 million more mouths to feed over 25 years. India too has its policies, but has the second largest world population (1/6th of the world’s pop.) at around 1.17 billion (July 2009) with 45 per cent malnourished. Their growth of 19 million a year, according to India’s government, is falling as education measures are more successful.
Current world population stands at around 6.8 billion, rising by about 80 million per year. The United Nations’ medium estimate is by 2050 there will be 9.2 billion, and that’s with a 40 per cent reduced fertility rate.
If intelligence is something we think we are good at, I fear we might have to go back to school on this one – because who can say we are intelligent beings when we are on the verge of collapsing the whole Earth biosphere through our industrial activities (global warming), unsustainable growth in human numbers and neglect – as a higher species – to thoroughly consider our role as protector of all other life forms on Earth.
It has always seemed to me incredible that we still can’t solve conflict without killing each other, or even legally killing mass numbers of humans through armed conflict or wars. I can’t think of any other species that, en mass, attack their own kind because they have different ways of expression or some other behaviour differences. In nature it doesn’t happen. So why have we become so divorced that we happily threaten and battle with our own kind? Over population might be one answer as studies on wild and captive animals has shown that high density and inadequate living space can lead to murder and even cannibalism. Is this why we are prone to attack our fellow citizens, given enough provocation? The recent television programme about battery versus free range chickens gave enough insight into why birds behave the way they do when life is bad. Is this a lesson we can learn from?
Whilst we think we are ‘intelligent’ Homo sapiens, I wonder how intelligent we really are in regarding our fellow human race members. We have some critical issues to solve in the next few decades with climate change, dwindling natural resources and massive habitat loss through man’s destructive behaviour and increasing numbers being top of the list.
If these can’t be solved then the impacts they will have on earth will be serious and most probably lead to dramatic changes in human life being able to sustain itself at anything like the numbers we have today. The debate about population size has to include quality of life and whether we can offer medical care and ease suffering if numbers are so large we simply don’t have even the basics to go round.
Paul Lund
NOTES: Figures are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2131 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between May 22 and May 26 2009. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all adults nationally (aged 18+).
Full results can be viewed at: www.optimumpopulation.org/submissions/YouGov11Jul09.xls
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: See www.optimumpopulation.org or telephone 020 8123 9116 or 07976 370221.

More famous than the town

Those Green Fields of Glastonbury ... Could the Festival’s legacy create something special in Glastonbury?
I am wondering if Glastonbury Festival isn’t now more famous than Glastonbury itself!
Well, you might think so after another ‘wall to wall’ weekend of BBC coverage, and thousands upon thousands of fans coming not to the town but to ‘Glastonbury.’ Media coverage rivals Wimbledon and BBC had nearly as many staff at Glastonbury as the Beijing Olympics.
At this time of year when people say “the festival,” you know they can only mean Glastonbury Festival, and if you are coming to Somerset in late June, to go to the Festival, then the place called Glastonbury can only mean – ‘the Festival.’ Simples!
If you look worn out and sunburnt people ask: “Have you been to Glastonbury?” Or, “What was Glastonbury like?” Such questions can only refer to the Festival! All roads lead to Glastonbury, unless you are leaving the Festival, and all of Glastonbury – just about – is at ‘Glastonbury.’
This occurrence will always be such, so long as there is a Festival. As tens of thousands of festival goers come to Glastonbury – or rather they go around Glastonbury to get to the Festival – the town has to take a back seat. I should add here that if you live in Pilton you might be one of those who still call it the “Pilton Pop Festival,” perhaps to save confusion, or just because that was how it became known in the early years. And isn’t it odd that Shepton Mallet might be half the distance to the Festival than Glastonbury is, but taking its name never quite inspired the same elegant conjugation as Glastonbury did.
So, we are thankful that Glastonbury was chosen but at the same time we don’t want to be forgotten altogether each June when the Festival moves Glastonbury 8 miles away.
Now, try this... stop and ask someone in Glastonbury “where are the Green Fields?” Their reply will be either they don’t know what you mean or they’ll direct you to the nearest grass park. Do the same at the Festival and almost everyone will know what you mean, even if they have no idea where to find them! They are famous among the festival fraternity and their successful history has probably been the inspiration for many other green festivals and events around the country.
Why am I writing about this name connection and confusion about fields?
It’s because I would like to propose and see something of the famous Festival Green Fields coming here to Glastonbury – permanently.
It strikes me that it’s high time that both major attractions shared something in common over each other’s ‘green’ success. Something that would initiate a new, more equal, relationship and bring something different to what the Extravaganza can provide between the Festival and its name sake.
What I am thinking of might be a way of working together. It could also be a solid structure, or a piece of art that communicates the ethos by which those Green Fields are best known or what they symbolise – Love our world and care for it.
Before I explain more about this, let’s just take a look over those Festival Green Fields and what they have been doing for the Festival and the local area, over the years.
Some people go to Glastonbury – the Festival – just to be part of the Green Fields and dislike the very thought of ‘Babylon,’ as it is called, which for the majority is the heart of the Festival with its noise, hustle and bustle, main stages and fast food markets. The old railway line marks the subtle change and going uphill to the stone circle you can feel a definite alternative pace, a more relaxed tempo and altogether a more tranquil mood. This is what I call an emotive and could be the first consideration or motivation in whatever might be designed or created for Glastonbury – ‘establish a feeling of peace and relaxation.’
According to the Festival map, the Green Fields take up five or six actual fields, if you include either the Greenpeace dedicated field (just below or north of the old railway line), or the Stone Circle field, the latter being more of a ‘chill-out’ zone than anywhere to find out about green issues. The main focus for sustainability, ‘green issues’ and everything eco under the (renewable/alternative energy) sun is the Green Futures field and its opposite neighbour – Croissant Neuf, which contains some green type stalls and power from solar energy.
Further south, going uphill, are the Healing and Craft fields. They also take on the mantra of being as eco-friendly as possible.
The Green Fields occupy what is now an increasingly smaller area across the whole site as the rest of the Festival has expanded. However, more of the whole Festival is now influenced by the need for sustainable environmental practice over such issues as recycling waste, renewable energy use, water and the whole issue of Fairtrade or ethical purchasing. The Festival even has its own Ethical Trader Award and now a Sustainability Coordinator, so the influence is running through the Festival’s veins and this can only be good for everyone as well as the environment.
It’s because the Festival and its Green Fields have probably, I believe, largely influenced the town of Glastonbury to the extent that today residents in the town are far more aware of green issues as a consequence, that these links should be more stated, even celebrated.
Sustainability, eco-consciousness and renewable energy have been a way of thinking for many Glastonbury people – both new settlers and the born and bred here – for a long time. Both Glastonbury Festival and the Big Green Gathering maintain offices in town, as do other green and eco inspired businesses. You could say the town has been ‘thinking green’ for 20 years or more, since the early 1990s, which equals the length of time the Festival’s campaigns and the inspiration the Green Fields have been having on the town.
The Festival’s Green Fields have probably been an encouragement for residents in Pilton too, who formed the Pilton Green Group. Shepton Mallet’s interest in forming a sustainability movement has in all probability roots back to Glastonbury Festival. The Green Fields must also have done much good for many other Somerset and UK groups, green events and individual campaigners, one way or another.
Perhaps one of the Green Field’s most acclaimed successes was to give birth to the Big Green Gathering in 1994. This festival, now in Somerset on the Mendips, attracts about 20, 000 fans, and has found its own fame as the most eco-friendly event of its size.
In my brief visit to the Glastonbury Festival Green Fields this year, I was again struck by how much effort had been made. Here were small voluntary groups who had put on good displays and were engaging with ordinary people. I was stopped twice by smiling faces and young people wanting to show me something of interest. This is such an important element of any approach if the ‘Glastonbury Green’s’ hope to engage with the ‘Glastonbury Babylonians,’ who might then go away with a new environmentally friendly attitude. Here is my second emotive – ‘create interest, influence and connections.’
As with the whole Festival – the Green Fields have changed. They are not the “hippy” commune they were years ago. Not only has the world changed its attitude to environmental issues, because of the wide spread effects of climate change, but the organisations have become more proficient in their campaigning methods and knowledge base. Of course the ‘flamboyance’ that is Glastonbury was there too and why not – after all this is a fun festival – but as soon as you did engage and listen to what was being said it was clear people knew the facts and were passionate about explaining them.
Today we are all seeking the truth and any so called ‘green-wash’ or half-baked eco ideas simply won’t pass the test. We want to hear from experts or people who know their subject and put forward a convincing argument. Glastonbury Festival has this covered and puts on an impressive list of guest speakers. In the programme lists for this year’s Green Fields you might have been lucky enough to hear: Tony Benn; Caroline Lucas, Green Party MEP; Brigit Strawbridge; Lib Dem Leader Nick Clegg MP; Vince Cable MP; Michael Eavis and Justin Rowlatt, to name just a few.
My suggestion or plea at this point is to ask the Green Fields to spread their messages and communications far and wide. In the age of podcasts, You Tube, on-line networking and other multi-media forms simultaneous broadcasting, reporting, and linking up with places and people around the world can be done with powerful effects. The Programme says you can find their information at www.myspace.com/greenfieldsinfo
It is still the case that in all the massive national and international broadcast television, radio and web media coming from Glastonbury, only a fraction is devoted to the Green Fields (about three minutes on BBC2 TV) and the messages and campaigners who can be found there. Some might say Green Field people like the anonymity that their quiet ‘green grass field world’ devoid of mud, provides. Others will be sceptical about how much media technology can change things. I think they could be missing a trick if they don’t do more in this direction and look at what the results show.
Will we see films of the Glastonbury Green Field speakers on the Green TV web site? I don’t know, but I think you should be able to. Like the rest of Glastonbury, media interest depends upon who’s there and major stars of stage and screen will attract more coverage. Content coming from those debates and discussions can be web-cast in various ways to audiences around the world. Put simply, the more informed we all are the more chance we have of working together to solve the problems. As the Festival message this year said: “We’re in it together” – with Greenpeace, Oxfam and Water Aid all “working together for a cleaner, greener, fairer Glastonbury.”
As with all other popular aspects of the Festival, I also think the Green Fields people could be doing more throughout the year.
Yes, it’s true this Festival is physically here for under one week out of 52, in more years than not, but the audience who desperately want to come to it each year exist all the time. They hardly change their dedication with the years either, as once hooked on Glastonbury in your youth you want to just keep on coming back, time and time again... as many do, but others find it impossible for one reason or another. They represent a market and audience with specific interests who could be engaged with news, views, ideas, and even appeals for their support.
This image that – Loving Glastonbury, then Love the World – has created goes far and wide. We don’t often see the extent of the international interest in Glastonbury, but it is worldwide.
Like me, you might know people who even wear their ‘Glasto’ wrist bands all year round or never remove their Glastonbury car window stickers – there’s something at work here too, and I don’t think it’s about people being lazy! A strong bond does exist with the fans here and opportunities to strengthen and widen that link would, I am sure, be welcomed. Here is my third emotive – ‘join hearts and minds create physical forms that symbolise dedication and unity towards a fairer and greener world.’
I imagine the Festival’s Sustainability Coordinator will recognise how linking some initiatives started at the Festival could be advantageously taken up here in Glastonbury – and vice versa. This link needs to be fostered and could bear fruit in a short while. There are two Glastonbury open green parks which traffic passes by on the way to the Festival and which, I suppose without too much effort, might host some statuesque symbols of a united Glastonbury and Festival... both working for a more sustainable, fairer and greener world.
Symbols of this stronger alliance might first come in the form of special eco sculpture – made at the Festival and gifted to the town’s parks and open spaces. The theme would be creating sustainability through working together. They could reflect the elements or ‘emotives’ I have mentioned earlier.
In another move a free emailed newsletter for those who want to receive it would be something that keeps people engaged all year round with what is being planned next, what “Green Fielders” can do at home and work for the planet. The many ‘good causes’ endorsed by the Festival could include their links and news... and the connections would surely grow much further than that.
Emailed newsletters are popular everywhere. They build on the ‘brand image’ by stimulating interest, creating a link or loyalty and reinforcing the messages. It’s lovely to have the printed souvenir programme and guide, which this year was priced at £10 and ran to 82 pages. I am only now reading what I missed! A dedicated e-news would certainly have been something I would have signed up for.
Back at the Festival, perhaps one on-site innovation could be the development of a small alternative technology centre in the heart of ‘Babylon’ - the main market area. Its purpose would be to inspire and highlight what everyone can do with technological solutions, including a display of green electric cars, bikes and quads. Some readers might see the link to Glastonbury’s future here.
We need to look to the future and predicting what life will be like in say 10, 20 or 30 years time is a valuable exercise. If we predict that in just 10 years from now electric cars will be common place and festivals will have electric powered buggies, transport quads and vans (recharged by renewable energy) then how can we bring that vision forward and begin the new green age of transport at next year’s Glastonbury or the year after?
The Glastonbury Festival has a powerful voice and does do a power of good around Somerset. It brings in much needed work and incomes for thousands of people and businesses as well as giving many of us something to look forward to and feel so proud to be a part of. Moving up the scale to actually creating demand and funding the arrival of eco technology and new business is the future.
This is where I believe Glastonbury town can play its part, involving its residential environmentalists and strong ties to the Festival. Working partnerships with sponsorship from the commercial sector and government funding could see new green technology businesses benefit from the cooperation that grows between the Festival and Glastonbury.
Sometime in the future I hope we can show the Festival an eco-friendly Green Heart on Glastonbury Tor. The Tor is our most significant icon – which can be seen and filmed clearly from the Festival and the Festival can be seen from the Tor. It is a link and a way of displaying a message – in an intelligent, artistic and meaningful way. Arrangements were begun two years ago to do this, but we also need to make sure the Festival is fully supportive in order to maximise the impact and the message conveyed, nationally and internationally.
For a long time people hoped to see Glastonbury’s own permanent green technology and Eco Village business park. The Morlands was to be the focus, but plans failed. It’s true that the Town Plan did adopt the idea of creating a centre for demonstrating sustainable environmental practice and home energy alternatives at the Morlands, but the South West Regional Development Agency took a different view, in the end, to what they thought would be successful there.
This concept is still as relevant today, if not more so, as it was six years ago, when I first began discussing it with SWRDA. The one area which is still holding back this project is the need for financing some important next moves, finding a new location and enabling all the links and developments to be put in place. Linking hands with the Festival and working together could make this happen sooner, rather than later. Joining all our hands together in a great South and West circle with those from Eden and CAT (Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales) would be a very powerful union.
Ancient Glastonbury made today’s town famous for its history. Throughout the world today, people with spiritual, religious and philosophical interests make links with Glastonbury – regarding the town with much interest. UK and overseas visitors come to Glastonbury as a destination for cultural, historic and even mystic reasons because of its place in history. Now the Glastonbury Festival adds another, contemporary, dimension having undoubtedly attracted many people over the years to establish businesses here in town and encouraged green or environmental campaigning in this part of Somerset more than in any other area of the county.
Glastonbury is therefore attracting a new UK and international following because of the Festival and the environmental campaigning that has come from the Festival.
These national and international visitors come to the town all year round and a permanent connection with the Festival – exhibiting green and environmental themes – would make positive gains, even giving the Festival a platform to interpret its messages over 52 weeks of the year.
We are all in this environmental emergency together, and there isn’t much time to lose. Any advantage we can use to succeed in reconnecting people with the need to protect, conserve and sustain our fragile world is worth taking. My fourth and last emotive – ‘inspire, empower, and release the spirit for good in the world.
Together we have that powerful spirit and, incredibly, the country if not the world listens to Glastonbury!
Glastonbury the Festival and Glastonbury the town and community can and should work in partnership. In so doing the ordinary Festival fans will come here knowing they have each been responsible for making something very significant happen in a very special place.
Paul Lund
Founder,
The Sustainable Environment Company CIC (Not for private profit company, founded in Glastonbury 2006)
2nd July 2009


Those Green Fields of Glastonbury ... Could the Festival’s legacy create something special in Glastonbury?

Emotive Aims – Social and Environmental Motivations
1. Establish a feeling of peace and relaxation
2. Create interest, influence and connections
3. Join hearts and minds, create physical forms that symbolise dedication and unity towards a fairer and greener world
4. Inspire, empower, and release the spirit for good in the world

RPL.2nd July 2009

The Morlands – how it could be such a Great Green Enterprise for Glastonbury (PART 2)

In a town like Glastonbury, where more residents show concern for the environment and where eco skills and knowledge are popular, I think green issues could and should play a more fundamental role in attracting new tourists and boosting local incomes. Education or teaching of sustainability and permaculture skills could grow here, given the opportunity. Demonstration and training in the use of home renewable energy technology could also give our community an extra edge. More possibilities are open, providing new types of employment and trade, but initial resources and investment is needed and people active in these areas should be brought together to plan what can be done. The’ Glastonbury Community Town Plan 2006’ began a process in which all those involved thought they were building a lively and on-going – community owned – forward looking plan. It was hard work for those involved, but resulted in something we could all relate to because we had all made it! It was a distillation of long debates and meetings at which local people defended their reasons and proposals for improving the town’s social and economic future. We all learnt a lot about ‘consultation’ and supporting each other’s ideas. However, this, £40,000 plus, exercise has sadly fizzled out. Was it because it had not been written by Mendip Planners, or was it just a victim of new government guidelines on local planning? Whatever it was, the Plan has been left collecting dust on the shelf.It was surprising and heartening just how conscious the consultants who wrote the plan were towards the greater community of Glastonbury. They spent time speaking to as many people as they could and very expertly drew attention to the need for good marketing of what is specially made in Glastonbury, or what would help further the ‘Glastonbury’ brand and image. Glastonbury cheese and ale products already benefit. Any Glastonbury company wanting to produce retail products under the brand, especially in the food, drink and gift market, should be encouraged through the Chamber. Such things could attract more of the tourists’ ‘spending power’. We all like to take gifts back which say something about the place we have been. Certainly, when I was a child, it was Brighton Rock! Anyone going there had to bring back a stick of the pink and white confectionery for me. I’m not an economist, employment specialist or town planner, but it seems to me that building on what a town is already good at seems a better investment than trying to introduce something completely new and alien to the local culture and its sensibilities. From the late 1990’s Mendip District Council planning briefs and general community agreement was in favour of sustainable, environmental and wildlife friendly redevelopment of the Morlands. Many endorsed this and newspapers where obviously pleased to report the news.In the run up to 2000, some will remember the bid for Millennium Funds by Somerset County Council for money (£10M plus) to develop the Avalon 2000 scheme. This would have taken on the Morlands – as the “Gateway Centre” to the Levels and Moors – saying it could bring 100,000 new tourists annually to the area. They were not successful, but in their wake came other schemes including the controversial £30M commercial retail park, thought to make 500 new jobs. This so called “bulky goods Retail Park” was contested and thrown out, leaving the Morlands gates wide open for the next new owner to arrive. Smaller schemes were put up for discussion in between all this, including the “Glastonbury World Centre” – a mix of healing, spiritual, tourist and eco attractions, with a futuristic space craft shape of a building at its heart, said to resemble the Tor’s contours. Then there was the “Morlands Village” – an eco-themed sustainable and mixed use development, utilising existing buildings where practicable and including a more affordable range of options. When SWRDA took on the Morlands, around 2001/2, it seemed they had an interest in finding space for some eco/sustainability themes, but then appear to step back from all aspects of tourism, sustainability and community use. They cancelled the plan to build a combined heat and power plant (CHP) and scaled back the original phase 2 tourism and conservation plan, eventually disregarding it, passing over those sites to the authorities. Community uses became the remit of the Beckery Island Regeneration Trust (BERT), a charity who would need to raise its own funds to take over the use and refurbishment of some buildings for social and non-profit activity. The two developers – Urban Splash and Priority Sites – seemed to have no interest in providing innovative environmental designs. Their illustrated plans looked no different to any urban industrial cityscape, devoid of character and eco-interest. Their only tick for nature was their ‘lolly pop’ standard trees, in rows, surrounded by pavement – hardly the sort of thing to attract any self respecting flying wild animal.I asked one of the developers’ representatives what energy saving renewable technologies they were installing (wind turbines and solar panels). “None” was the answer, because the site’s energy needs were coming from the CHP plant. Did they know of the decision by SWRDA to cancel the CHP development? “No”, but in the very next conversation they found that one out from Morlands site manager! Furthermore, a definite decision had been made not to load on extra construction costs to the developer by installing such features from the start. They would leave that sort of thing to the end-users, either the building purchasers or leasers, they told me. I leave you to consider how likely an office renter or speculative purchaser, looking to grow their business or sell on, will want to ‘retro-fit’ a new building, not least tangle with the possibility of planning permission and uncertain savings over a short term occupancy.I think we all thought that such green measures were going to be part of the whole site’s design and would be a requirement to obtain planning consent. Unless a planner can correct me, and tell us all that Mendip will not pass plans unless they do have self energy generation measures, this is apparently not the case.It would be a great shame if this one prominent Glastonbury redevelopment site is not, after all, the sustainable eco-friendly built complex we had all envisaged. It is the “gateway” to town for most visitors and if it ends up looking like Bridgwater-off-the-M5 it will not inspire anyone. The latest revelation that SWRDA is now leaving the Morlands, or if you believe their statement, is coming to the end of its part in the overall process, leaves me to speculate what might be done to restore the community’s faith in everything that Morlands stands for or will represent in future.What do we want to see there – both in design and usage? Whilst some will say it’s all too late now, others would point out no buildings have gone up, nor has the red brick complex to the south been demolished. So, if Glastonbury wants to see a change it must rally support and campaign about exactly what we want to see there. Making your local councillor aware of what you feel is a first step, and then reporting your views to the Mid Somerset News Editor will help. I can see another demonstration of peoples’ frustrations and wish to see positive community benefits derived from the site if no action is forthcoming or people are again not listened to. Any future Mendip Planning applications, requesting permission for the Morlands, must be scrutinised meticulously and contested if they don’t show real advantage for the community and environment. Recently I was invited back to Stroud in Gloucestershire to take part in their Communiversity – a kind of symposium which incorporated outdoor walks, visits, lectures and discussion. The theme for this second annual event was ‘Inspiring self reliant communities.’ There is a full report about Stroud’s Communiversity and details about some of their social enterprises on the Glastonbury Town Council web site and possibly on other sites too.
What impressed me about Stroud’s recent revival was how they are investing in the future with social enterprise and community orientated projects leading the way.
Social enterprise is often called the ‘not-for-profit’ sector, but that more accurately applies to the charitable and voluntary organisations. It is actually ‘not-for-private-profit’ and means that companies who are working in this way can or do make a profit but without the “profit” motive being the single number one reason for being in business. They actually reinvest all their net profit, after costs, back into the community or their mission. The reason why this is a better business model for local communities is because the social enterprise companies are reinvesting their money in the local social and cultural structure. They might be supporting environmental projects, young peoples’ needs, older peoples’ needs, in fact anything that could be popular with the community or which might not otherwise find support so easily. The other factor is that these SE companies are governed by legislation and a legal requirement to use their profits in this way. An ordinary company – Limited or PLC – will give a part of its profits to its shareholders or investors, or simply reward its significant employees with pay rises. At a local level, such profit-oriented companies do not help the community – unless they wish to give away some of their money as gifts to good causes.
In reflecting back on Stroud, they have invested and built a number of enterprises which are returning not only profits but other social gains to the community. I particularly like the Made in Stroud Shop – selling a whole range of locally made arts, crafts and gifts – which brings together a wide selection of quality articles which you wouldn’t see in any other shop. Their income supports a large network of home-workers as well as their shop staff. They also run the weekly farmers markets which have to be seen to be fully appreciated. They are nothing like the Glastonbury Farmers Markets, but are part of the central shopping experience and spill out from a central covered area to the streets around. I was very surprised to be remembered by one market stall holder from my visit last year, when I bought a bottle of his locally grown wine. We had talked about the pros and cons of the cork stopper disappearing and the survival of the cork tree groves, back in August last year! And that’s all part of a successful market and shopper experience when you are an individual – rather than a passing face at the checkout. In case you are wondering, I did buy another bottle for my host in Stroud!
Other really good ventures which Stroud is promoting include their new Social Enterprise Centre.They acquired an old school building and have been converting it into a hub for small charitable and not-for-private-profit companies. With many of these start-up businesses they need a very cheap but very cheerful and supportive environment to work in. The SE Centre will provide desk space and computer and phone connections for just £5 per day. It will be fully up and running this summer and has invested in renewable energy technology - especially utilizing ground-source heat (geo-thermal) through sinking a bore hole and circulating water which is heated by the earth.
This new centre, like its predecessor, will be very much in demand and the social enterprise company Stroud Common Wealth Ltd, who manage the building, will also make a profit in future which it will put into more facilities.
This new enterprise growth and encouragement – along with their Community Supported Agriculture, Land for People, eco-housing experiment and other projects – is an excellent example of how Stroud is building a self-reliant economy and community. They are attracting attention and demonstrating how to achieve sustainable development and grow people’s income through use of their skills, ambition and energy. Their local MP, David Drew, is a keen advocate of Stroud’s enterprising culture, as are the town’s councillors – dominated by members of the Green Party.
So what can we take from Stroud as examples of workable and effective models for local enterprise? We don’t need to sell off our valuable spaces and buildings or become mesmerized by the thought of outside commercial interests providing the new jobs and incomes. After all, they are unlikely to give anything back to the community’s culture and long term economic survival.
The Morlands red brick buildings – to the southern tip of the site, adjoining the old Mill Cottage – are still in contention. Their future is not certain but community proposals for their restoration could turn this area into a valuable and energized community of social enterprise and small self-employed traders who need space at low cost but with added advantages.
Another use for these buildings or others in town could be in the shape of a Green College. Readers of my previous blog and letters published in the newspaper will recognize this idea. At this stage it is worth leaving open just what this College might be able to do and how it could be part of an existing academic network or an independent charitable trust.
There is still another potential development that would bring together many of the town’s ideas and wishes to see the Morlands as a ‘green-lifestyle’ example in practice. The idea to showcase how people can make changes at home and at work – beneficial to the environment and need to bring down our carbon emissions – could be exemplified through the way the Morlands is brought together under new direction.
Demonstration schemes and a centre for exhibiting the latest efficiency savings possible at home and work, still remain as vital and relevant today as when I first began discussing the idea with SWRDA in 2002/3. Since then the idea has become a supported plan and given the backing of the community through the Glastonbury Community Town Plan 2006.
To develop the vision a little more – the centre could be built in the space surrounded on two sides by the old red brick Morlands buildings. It would form a centre piece and “gateway” into Glastonbury – since this area is the narrow opening for the A361 where motorists pass between a narrow gap between buildings both sides, and enter onto the Morlands frontage proper, with the way ahead to Glastonbury town centre, or Street in the southerly direction.
The design and structure of this building would be open to the architects’ imagination and influences of the landscape, and desire to make it a cutting edge sustainable construction. What it would house would be a range of new and exciting demonstrations, showcase examples, and interactive exhibitions about renewable energy generation, home efficiency savings, lifestyle choices, the place of humans in the environment and how we depend upon sustainable ecological processes to live and grow food. Food and the local economy would feature, with special links to producers and markets. The Centre would be run as a hub for work extending out into communities all over Somerset. It would, in fact, be the first such public demonstration centre of its kind in Somerset, but in other parts of the UK similar centres are very effective and popular as tourist attractions and resource providers.
Such a building needs to be sustainable not just in design, materials and all its functioning technology (heating, lighting, electricity supply), but also in income terms. To achieve this it will have to be economically viable in the long term – generating enough income to maintain aspects which are not supported through grant aid. Some thought has gone into this and what has emerged is a design that incorporates a café/restaurant, a green shop, a film theatre which shows digital films and encourages local film and video students to produce new material.
Also included was a media studio – capable of broadcast links to professional radio networks and as a possible base for a new eco radio service (linking to the world of wildlife media that exists in Bristol). This facility would clearly have other benefits and could become a teaching and creative base for young people.
Yet another proposal was to include small office units that could be used by local charity organisations and social enterprises, which would benefit by working closely together and being part of the whole Centre enterprise. They would enjoy subsidized rents and have the resources of the Centre and its community development team to help and encourage them. This closely resembles the Stroud example and we would work with their staff to create the most efficient model of success.
Still more ideas exist for utilizing outside space to accommodate travelling road shows – perhaps a weekend of wind turbine demonstrations, or a seasonal weekday given to growing fruit and veg at home with practical cookery demonstrations and an atmosphere of community gathering and social entertainment.
The ethos for such a complex could be summed up in the five ‘E’s’ – Environment, Ecology, Enterprise, Education and Entertainment.
To answer the critics head on – jobs would be created and jobs would be supported. If you would like to look at an example, try the Southampton Environment Centre. It started work with three people, but grew to 25 posts with a substantial turnover. They also dealt with supplying advice and green consultancy to local businesses – something we could also do.
Not that many jobs, you say? Well, this is only taking over a small part of the Morlands land. The Brick built buildings would add more jobs and could be part of the same management company running – what we call – the Sustainable Environment Centre. If you then take on more plots and look at how we could make further sustainable developments just look at the success shown by the Centre for Alternative Technology in North Wales, or the – often quoted here – Eden Project. I believe we could create not duplicate copies of these popular tourist attractions, but extensions of their missions.
We have particular issues here in Somerset which call for different approaches, but working together with the pioneers of these two highly effective and successful enterprises we could even outstrip the number of jobs being supported by the Morlands under SWRDA – because what we would be doing is creating projects which develop new opportunities across the county.
If this strikes a note with you and you could support such an idea, then I would ask you to make your voice heard and write in to this site and to the newspaper. Call Glastonbury FM and tell them that you would like to hear more about Glastonbury’s green plans and current projects. Ask your local councillor what he or she is doing to support these issues and make sure that the Morlands turns out to be a green icon for Somerset and not a white elephant that attracts only out of town companies - unconnected to Glastonbury’s focus as a tourist and visitor attraction.
I don’t know if we can start afresh with the Morlands. It might already be too late as work goes ahead on the mundane office units. However, there is considerable interest to save the remaining standing buildings and try to find the finance to bring them into either public or charitable/social ownership and then turn them into spaces or community zones for the type of ventures I have described.
Even if this fails, there are still other locations around town which could become available for redevelopment. We need to be ready to put forward viable plans which can be financed and give the opportunity to create something we can all be very proud of.
Lastly, I just want to say that we are all responsible, as citizens, for how our local environment is used. It is too often the case that people just feel helpless and think towns and cities are ruled by planners and officials, with no place for ordinary people with fine ideas. Councillors are local people who have been voted in by their communities to represent, dare I say, the popular view, but also to make decisions based upon wise and thorough consideration of what is best for that community’s future. If you think your councillor would like to hear your views then I urge you to do something about it. If you also think your councillor is not working hard to further the long term interests of the town, then you know what to do at the next election.

The Morlands – how it could be such a Great Green Enterprise for Glastonbury (PART 1)

I have been following the debate over the Glastonbury Morlands since 2001, when all previous plans for the derelict site had failed and the South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) arrived to save the day. SWRDA agreed to invest their millions and bring new prosperity to Glastonbury, creating jobs to replace those lost in what some said had been a decline in the town’s fortunes, ever since the old sheepskin (tannery) industry went and the whole business no longer employed the numbers it once did.Since then the problems of the Morlands have never been far from the news headlines locally and continue to exacerbate even the mildest mannered citizens who say it’s a disgrace that almost £20 million has been spent in eight years without a single new brick laid.In fact a few new bricks and some old rocks have been laid, but around culverts and to build bridge heads, plus a fair few tonnes of tarmac laid to make roads around the site, where previously there had been over 20 years of abandoned buildings – overgrown by buddleia and brambles. The Morlands factory closed in 1982, but the site was in fact two separate companies with the Bailey factory operating out of the buildings in the north area, where the tall chimney is seen. When you look at the site today, you see how little space is left now that 31 acres of land are carved up with ‘B’ size roads and a ‘landscaped’ roundabout. A mosaic of rubble strewn plots is left, colonised by a colourful variety of first year wasteland flora. These areas are intended for redevelopment into what SWRDA originally said (2002) would become a unique sustainable enterprise park, but plans released in 2007 looked like it would become any ordinary city industrial estate – probably attracting affluent users who could afford the developers prices.The Morlands / SWRDA debacle, and the political fall-out over what has or has not been successful, has gone on far too long and has done Glastonbury no favours. None of the politicians have had any discernable impact on the way SWRDA has conducted its business here. I think it would have been different if we had strong local leadership and strict requirements for SWRDA to report frequently, setting targets for progress. The Agency’s communications with the local public have been lamentable. I know – having been drawn in by the statements its staff made, and going to public viewings of their plans which encouraged me to ask what would they be doing to demonstrate their system for renewable energy. I was keen to be involved and saw the potential for something new and environmental. They were encouraging and told me a plan to develop a public centre for demonstrating renewable energy technologies could fit into their scheme, but it would need support and self financing. My task would be to organise support and build a project. However, over the past four to five years of communications with SWRDA this has proved utterly frustrating, resulting in my team of local people and experts, plus all the public support that was raised, being completely disregarded in the end. Such unprofessional conduct and inattention to community opinion should not have been allowed to continue; certainly not left to this extent were no one has any faith in the SWRDA. The fact the SWRDA is only accountable to Government ministers is, of course, the reason why no one seems to be able to touch them. Numerous examples show how local people count for least, with local politicians faring little better.All of this just might seem more palatable if Glastonbury was actually going to benefit from the type of business premises to be built on the site, or from the influx of new companies from outside that we were told would relocate to them, or if real encouragement and investment for local enterprise was coming with the package. Nowhere have I read the case for how the SWRDA’s favoured technology companies are going to bring prosperity to Glastonbury, but if anyone can shed light on this please write in. I believe we should expect and deserve the sort of redevelopment that is at the leading edge of green building technology. My recollection is that this was in fact promised, under option 3 “green industries” in 2002. The other two options, “tourism” and “workplace employment” both had sustainable principles in their plans. That was probably what encouraged the imagination that Glastonbury would be moving into a new era of award-winning architecture with eco-friendly green technology at its heart. What better statement and message to give to the South West by a Government funded development agency than to have an enterprise redevelopment that set the benchmark for all future commercial building projects. However, the final choice went to option 2 “employment” as the focus, after all the consultations had shown local people were in favour of eco options, recycling, tourism and community uses.Aside from the uses that buildings might be put to, I can’t think why every roofed structure, wall and engineered surface should not be individually assessed and designed to include the latest energy efficiency controls, intelligent use of solar radiant heat, natural air conditioning by design, solar photovoltaic capture for electricity generation and ground source heat extraction, plus other energy recycling/generation methods. And it shouldn’t stop there. Enhancing the visual environment is so important to our lives and the way we work. Humans are part of nature and we need to be connected with the living environment all around us or we fail to see our place in the whole scheme.The whole Morlands site needed eco design and infrastructure, maximising self sufficiency from the start. What we have seen so far is standard – grid energy – electric connections installed. What should have been a technology park for the future is looking more and more outdated as time goes by – and that’s also because the basic designs drawn up in 2007 are no longer going to meet current trends and the need to drastically reduce our carbon emissions. This is also no longer about the fact it will not attract any company wishing to increase its green credentials – through a move to modern eco-tech headquarters – but now enough evidence exists that all new developments must be ‘future-proofed’ to a standard that will achieve the Government’s C02 targets of 80% reduction in green house gasses by 2050, as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008.Looking to the town’s future, the original intent by the SWRDA was to include provisions for the younger workforce. But who has seen plans for investment in young people – their hopes and ambitions? Where will dedicated low cost, serviced enterprise accommodation, providing start-up support, mentoring and physical resources be located? With all the money SWRDA has (or had) to invest in community development and regeneration they are surely the ideal organisation capable of funding such vital work. In place of such detail we have been given the allure of “hundreds of jobs” to be created. I certainly feel that local politicians have been too quick to jump on the simplistic job creation headlines, which SWRDA have heralded as their mission here. Of course ‘jobs’ are wanted, but the idea that SWRDA could create 400 or more new jobs was far too intoxicating for some who saw this as the answer to reducing Glastonbury’s higher than average local unemployment rate. It reminds me of the authorities who built high rise blocks because they provided cheap and plentiful “homes” for people. That policy, with hindsight, was wrong. It led to social and economic deprivation, and planners eventually conceded quality environments, not dense tower blocks, were the answer. In the same way I don’t think the “any jobs” will do approach is the answer. Just because they simply reduce numbers of unemployed is not good enough and will not answer the long term need for creating a sustainable economic situation. If you only dig a little deeper the picture emerges of the type of jobs Glastonbury people might see advertised at the newly redeveloped SWRDA ‘high tech’ Morlands Enterprise Park. Temporary construction workers or labourers are promised – to be recruited locally. Industrial and office units will require cleaning, catering and security workers. Some office clerical or warehousing might come. Plus, you might include the Tesco jobs that could appear as a consequence of Avalon Plastics moving to the Morlands and selling up their old factory site just north of the Morlands.The ‘high tech’ end of the jobs market – to quote SWRDA in the form of “ICT, aerospace” (which could include military defence applications) and “environmental technology” (somewhat misleading and not necessarily the eco-friendly type either) – would more than likely come with the immigrant companies (their managers would be encouraged to relocate to the new Houndwood housing estate in Street... had timescales not fallen out of sync). We are not big on aerospace in Glastonbury, so – unless I am much mistaken – there’s not much likelihood of finding many suitable candidates around here to fill those types of posts. I would also like to understand (?) how aerospace businesses will boost the Glastonbury economy, as one councillor described. What advantage do they think we will gain? Perhaps this will come as the ‘high tech’ employees start spending their money in Glastonbury, in the supermarkets maybe? Investing in better tourism services would be the best bet since government defence cuts could sever the defence technology lifeline, and as one local food campaigner said – “what have supermarkets ever done for us?” For anyone not familiar with the trade that Glastonbury does do well in, I need only mention the three best historic attractions - Glastonbury Abbey, the Tor and Chalice Well Gardens. These are popular visitor attractions, as is the area’s spiritual and esoteric history, its contemporary “alternative” influence – with retail and service trades – and not forgetting the seasonal influence of local outdoor festivals, camps and conferences. Trade in ‘catering’ to tourists’ needs, retail, self-employment and holiday / guest house accommodation is what is keeping the town alive. You might also include in this – events such as the carnivals and Glastonbury extravaganza, though others will say they make little difference economically to the town, other than possible B&B incomes. Glastonbury is therefore an important tourist attraction and a magnet or settlement for artists, musicians, writers, therapists, performers, who mainly derive their income from the visitors. As well as this we have the ordinary social and ‘home-servicing’ trades and professions you would find anywhere. So, ask yourself the question – what would grow the economy and provide more stability for our rural market or tourist town? Now consider the longer term and what the future may hold. What is it we need to do that will increase or keep us vibrant in tourism, or what might even decrease our attractiveness, or tarnish our peace loving image, if we are not careful? Have you arrived at something you think we would be good at doing? More of the same perhaps or fresh built attractions? Maybe you think better and newer services for tourists will work or some unusual visitor attractions? What about something to attract festival fans to stay longer, and spend more of their cash locally even? Creative thinkers will come up with propositions that keep the festival enterprise and spin-offs alive all year round.A report in the Central Somerset Gazette (21.5.09) said “Events, carnivals and festivals are a vital part of the local economy and provide a major art attraction for the people living in the county.” It also said these kinds of events attracted over 2 million visitors to the area in 2008. With uncertain climatic conditions arriving, instability in world economics and possible energy supply shortages, there is increasing realisation that communities everywhere will need to be more self-reliant for their basic needs. Any home grown skills, abilities, attractions or resources will become more important. A technology or enterprise park that can be virtually self sufficient in energy and offer something for the area’s visitors will fare better in such a future. This is not conjecture, its fact.In my next blog I would like to explore what has captured the imagination and set pulses racing for the people in Stroud and how similar enterprises could make a difference for Glastonbury, plus what the Morlands should contain and provide for the community if we could start afresh with a dedicated community zone on site.