-
MORE RED THAN GREEN - from environment to sustainability
13 posts
Written by Kaarin Taipale
CV : Originally I'm an architect and historic preservationist, who became a journalist (editor of a professional magazine), later a municipal civil servant (City of Helsinki). I'm the former chair of ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability, a worldwide organization of cities. In my blog I would like to give a global view on urban development. In the future we will have to fight for both: democracy and sustainability - which are interconnected. Fair labor, fair trade, clean energy and a safe cities!
-
ON THE ROAD TO COPENHAGEN – BALI AFTERTHOUGHTS - 12-12-2007 20:42:44 - Only logged activists can post a comment, please sign in or register here
Best regards from Bali. I was there last week to organize and speak in two side events on behalf of the Ministry of the Environment of Finland. The topic in both of the events was to highlight the energy and emission savings potential of buildings and construction.
Now, it is time to focus on Copenhagen, where the new climate protocol should be finalized and agreed upon in 2009. This is a huge challenge not only for the City of Copenhagen and Denmark hosting the meeting, but to Sweden’s EU Presidency and to the European Union as a whole.
The EU needs it own “roadmap” towards Copenhagen, making sure that the EU not only upholds but strengthens its position as the world leader in progressive and innovative climate policies. This means including all aspects of sustainable use of energy, such as energy for development, fair mechanisms of technology transfer, and decent work. This requires that the European Union is unanimous and strong in its positions.
The EU should use its best diplomacy, most determined political cooperation and financial bilateral mechanisms to make certain that developing countries, China and India in specific, will play a fair but focal role in Copenhagen. That the same goes for the United States, goes without saying.
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and similar tools have to be further developed so that by 2009 they can be more broadly applied than today. This is particularly important in the buildings and construction sector, which uses 30-40% of all energy and has huge emissions savings potential, which can be implemented with existing technologies.
Indeed, if there is to be a title for the Copenhagen 2009 conference, it should be A Better Built Environment for All, which would encompass the aspects of mobility, buildings, construction, infrastructure, public services and information and communication. The implementation of this target would bring together the private and the public sector, both federal, national and local governments, and civil society organizations. -
Energy – a new realm for moral double standards? - 08-10-2007 11:04:16 - Only logged activists can post a comment, please sign in or register here
Oh boy, it is energy and climate change everywhere. Aren’t you getting tired? Too bad, since I’m afraid that the topic won’t disappear from the headlines in quite a while. But what is this with double standards; speaking one thing and doing the other, acting as a saint in public but committing sins in private?
Let’s go back to climate change. When we burn fossil fuels, oil, gas, coal or peat, carbon dioxide gets into the atmosphere and changes it. Temperatures rise, glaciers melt, oceans get warmer, hurricanes get more frequent, some places get more rain and floods, others are hit by draughts and forest fires. Extreme phenomena become more frequent.
If this is caused by excessive burning of fossil fuels, it should be clear, what the medicine is: let us burn less non-renewables and more renewable!. But as you know, it is not that simple, and that is where the double standards enter the picture.
The first lobby says that they do not ”believe” in climate change, as if it was a religion, not science. I find it interesting that often the same guys have a strong belief in their investment portfolios, hedge funds and whatever. If there would be a way to predict the moves of the stock exchanges as accurately as we can calculate global warming, we’d all be millionaires!
These calculator people are the same, who demand accurate predictability of tax percentages and inflation rates. However, for them it is quite clear that no one can prophesize the price of oil. Quite recently, 50 USD per barrel seemed the ultimate limit, now 80+ is the going rate.
We, the consumers know that we should save energy, but it is so nice to buy cute gadgets that use electricity, keep our summer cottages warm all around the year, and dream of a bigger car. Four-wheel-drive SUVs are fabulous. And how many nuclear power plants does it take to make sure that the tiny red light on the digi-box stays on?
The industrialists yell that growth and competitive edge must not be put in danger, energy must be cheap and there must be plenty of it available. The same guys move their factories to countries with polluting energy and cheap labor. They pretend that the problems can be outsourced, hidden in China or India. But the same guys speak quite fluently about globalization, and they know very well that we have only this one single planet.
Every year, the automobile industry brings new, slightly less polluting car models to the market. “Save the environment, buy a new car!” – This must be the ultimate energy double standard! In Norway, the consumer protection authorities recently forbid such advertising. In Finland, the conservative government plans to raise the price of gas just a little, so that it won’t hurt anyone. Gas is like vodka, always worth every cent.
Then we have those who believe in technology. “Engineers will come up with a solution, don’t worry.” – Strangely enough, the same people who regard themselves as rational thinkers call windmills “ugly”. “New energy technologies have to be developed on the market, subsidies would distort free competition!” they say. However, these engineers are not bothered by the fact that crude oil has soon been subsidized with a sum of one trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is about 300 million Euro per day. – In Finland, it is ok to subsidize burning peat, that is called agricultural policy. But subsidizing wind energy, no, that would distort the market!
And then we have the politicians. They know that they are supposed to talk about climate change in a noble manner. But the also know that their voters want to have a bigger house, a bigger car and faster growing investment portfolios. It is not politically correct to remind them that 20% of all energy is burned in traffic, and almost 40% in heating, cooling and lighting of buildings.
But there are strange news coming from across the oceans. Even US companies are asking for regulation and limits to carbon emissions. They know that their competitive edge depends on who develops the most energy efficient products and production methods. The firms want to have a level playing field and no free riders. Building researchers don’t talk about energy consumption any more, they think of buildings that will produce their own energy.
The homeless ice-bears are not our biggest problem. The real risks are linked with economy and security. Energy will force us to rethink everything. That is why I suggest hereby that we’ll leave moral double standards to bedrooms and start being honest at least in energy issues. -
Big Brother and Climate Change - 01-06-2007 14:11:06 - Only logged activists can post a comment, please sign in or register here
“The United States is taking the lead, and that’s the message I’m going to take to the G-8,” Mr. Bush said according to the New York Times (NYT 1st June 2007). – Is 'leadership' all that it is about? Until now – and certainly in the foreseeable future – the EU has been the obvious world leader in the fight against climate change.
No, it is not just about political power, I guess, but also about economic power. Bush has now understood that there is no way around but also the industry will have to take climate change seriously. He’d like to see that US companies would negotiate directly with Indian and Chinese governments and businesses and agree on standards and transfer of technologies.
For Bush, energy efficiency is suddenly ok, if it is achieved with technologies that the US can sell to other countries, instead of technologies developed in the EU, Japan, Korea, India or China.
What drives me nuts is that within the EU, there is still a huge number of politicians, business leaders and, I’m sorry to say, trade union leaders, who don’t see that the EU really has to get serious about energy savings, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.
This morning in Helsinki, the EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs gave a presentation about EU energy policies. He listed three challenges: security, sustainability (well, he only discussed the climate change) and compatibility. He praised President Bush’s speech. Maybe this was ‘only’ diplomacy. The EU has every reason to denounce a plan to hold any “climate talks” next Fall parallel to the Bali negotiations about the next phase of the Kyoto Protocol.
How terriblydisappointing, such skilful political manoeuvring: to disguise business promotion as concern for the environment. Let us hope that the EU will be more skilful, more united and more swift in its moves than the Big Brother. -
Poor kids, poor kids - 31-05-2007 12:26:03 - Only logged activists can post a comment, please sign in or register here
How appropriate that PES has childcare week now; in Finland the Conservatives who won the parliamentary elections this March, are now showing the true nature of "HOPE" that was their campaign platform.
One of their first actions has been to announce that everyone will have to pay for the daycare of children, also the unemployed and the single parents with very low income. In Finland until now, the public children's daycare has been regarded as one of the flagships of the Nordic Welfare State, giving also the kids of the poorest homes decent food every day, and allowing mothers, also single mothers go to work and take care of their family.
During the election campaign, the Conservatives blamed the social democrats for having wasted public money into what they called "employment-creation-tricks" and beautifying the unemployment statistics, whereas the labor market in fact would need more workforce for low-paying jobs (such as healtcare, care for the elderly, childcare, you know what kind of work is not regarded fancy, fit for a man, and worth paying for).
And now, what else does this proposal mean than taking (mostly) women off the workforce, because they are supposed to stay at home and take care of their kids. Kinder, Küche, Kirche, as the German used to say, keep women between the stove and the bed. That is what they call "family values".
The suggestion of the Conservatives, still supported by the Prime Minister's Center Party, is so appalling that also the Greens, who are in the coalition Government now, have had a really hard time defending it.
Sure, the poorest families will always get free daycare for their kids, "for social reasons", the Conservatives say. That would mean writing applications, getting scrutinized, getting labelled as "a social case".
This is the fundamental difference between neoliberal welfare policies of the Conservative and true equity: pennies and cents for the beggars instead of equal access to basic services. -
We lost this one - 22-03-2007 11:31:03 - Only logged activists can post a comment, please sign in or register here
So, last Sunday we suffered a terrible loss in the Finnish Parliamentary elections. In the 200-seat house we'll have 45 MPs instead of 55 previously. The conservatives won, like in Sweden recently - however, in Sweden they had prepared for the victory, in Finland the blue ones did not count on winning, not even themselves... This means tough talks in forming the government, lead by the center party (51), the biggest party with the slightest possible margin, just one more seat than the conservatives (50).
Why? Poor advertising campaigns? Bad weather? Bad image after 12 years in government? "Conservative tide in Europe"? Too close and too visible links with the trade unions? Poor selection of candidates (also indirectly influenced by the trade unions)? Boring message (better public services, smaller tax cuts)? Loss of credibility (why didn't you improve the public services while 12 years in government? why did you allow all the tax cuts to the wealthy)? Male chauvinist power elite in the party leadership, allowing only photogenic young ladies, with no real voice, a place in the limelight next to it? Old-fashioned leadership culture, with no real internal debate? No real understanding of contemporary urban poverty and the changing job markets? Fake eco-touches only on the surface, but conservative energy policies in reality?
I'm just quoting some of the comments in the present public debate here. Unfortunately, there is a lot of room for self-criticism - and many of us hope that the opportunity will be used for an open, constructive discussion, instead of trying to hide the mistakes that have been made. Creating a new culture of dialogue is our only chance to learn and to find a new edge.
This is a chance for the Finnish SDP to renew itself and to arrive at the 20th century - already next year we'll have local elections, where we should come up with new initiatives. Global urban policies: pioneering energy policies, sustainable public procurement as an innovation platform, and more diversified public services are on the top of my list. Not very sexy, I agree, I'll try to reformulate!
But for the next four years, it will be a cold ride. More tax cuts to the wealty, more irregular jobs with minimum wages, more poverty and unemployment, maybe strikes - and more nuclear energy.
Certainly, on the loss, we are to blame ourselves. But there is one thing that I can't understand: how could so many people believe the ads of the conservatives telling that they'll bring HOPE and that they are a workers' party, as well? How? -
Energy efficiency, savings - or nuclear? - 13-01-2007 19:00:21 - Only logged activists can post a comment, please sign in or register here
For years now I've bored people by writing about energy, even when asked to talk about "urbanism" or "architectural styles after modernism and post-post-modernism." It has not been much appreciated, when I've stated that the quality of urban space or buildings does not depend on how they look but on what they are. It seems difficult to grasp that nothing else than the looks will change, if you change the looks... square to circle, white to red, brick to timber... so what?
My other hypothesis meets with equal disbelief: that poor design or planning in reality means an absence of it. If a structural detail or a functional aspect of a building does not work, it means that no one has spent any time thinking of it. Maybe there was no funding available, or no knowledge about alternative solutions. But the worst case - and the most common - is that it hasn't even occurred to anyone that there is a problem which needs to be solved.
This is what has happened with energy. Engineers have calculated the insulating capacity of various materials and details, and the industry has produced fantastic windows, as examples. In Finland we boast about our district heating systems and the efficiency of co-generation of energy and heat, now even tri-generation, where cooling is added. But, scrutinized by the construction industry lobby, the politicians have not set really ambitious energy targets, even if every singly new building could be a zero-net-energy building with marginal extra cost and existing technology. No rocket science.
Of all energy, almost 40% is consumed in buildings, transport takes almost 20% and industry the rest. You can argue the accuracy of the figures, but the maintenance of buildings (heating, cooling, lighting, equipment) is the single biggest consumer of energy. It is shocking to see how much energy is spent on cooling and lighting. The figures and shares change from country and continent to the other, but the principle remains the same.
These days, it is much more sexy to talk about the need to build more nuclear power than to talk about energy efficiency and savings. During a recent public debate the director of the Finnish company Fortum Nuclear Services corrected the language of other speakers by noting that energy savings are the result of energy efficiency. His implied message was that energy efficiency requires new technologies, and the applications take time.
Wrong! Efficiency is efficiency - which of course leads to a smaller growth of energy consumption - but energy savings are simply savings: again, no rocket science, no hi-tech. You switch off the light, you leave your car in the garage and walk or take the subway, or you take off the plug of the mobile phone charger when you don't need it. This requires a change in your behavior, you can't blame the engineer or the politician. However, it requires political will to ask for it, instead of more nuclear power.
| < | October 2008 | > | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
| 29 | 30 | 1- | 2- | 3- | 4- | 5- |
| 6- | 7- | 8- | 9- | 10- | 11- | 12- |
| 13- | 14- | 15- | 16- | 17- | 18- | 19- |
| 20- | 21- | 22- | 23- | 24- | 25- | 26- |
| 27- | 28- | 29- | 30- | 31- | 1 | 2 |
-
-
contact us
-
sitemap
-
contact us
-
sitemap
© PSE - Terms of use and privacy policy - About
With the financial support of the European Parliament