The Tide is High

This year we have seen more of what are called "super high tides". February 21 saw tides of 12.15 metres (39 feet, 10 inches), and on 31st August there was a tide that was 12.1 metres (39 feet,8 inches), while on 28th September we saw a tide reach 12.2 metres (40 ft, 0.3 inches).

These high tides result from an unusual alignment of the sun, moon and Earth so that the gravitational pull on our oceans is higher than usual five more times this year. But is there is risk of flooding? That depends more on pressure and wind.

The tidal gauge in St Helier at Albert Pier is the source of the information that gives us the exact readings of high and low tides.

This records the actual tide as opposed to the forecast tide, which can vary.

Barometric pressure affects the height of the tide, if the air pressure is low the tide will be higher than the tide table prediction. Wind speed and direction is also a prime factor on how such tides will affect the island's coasts. Strong winds can pile up water on coastlines and low pressure systems can also cause a localised rise in sea level.

Fortunately high air pressure and low winds meant no flooding. Instead, we could just enjoy the tide, very high, lapping at the sea wall, which is rather magical.

Jersey marine biologist Andrew Syvret explained there is a common misunderstanding about how the tides work.

He said: “People think the tide rises and falls in the English Channel; that it floods and empties.

“The reality is you have a huge see-saw of water, with high tide at one end and low tide at the other. This massive bulge of water moves backwards and forwards twice each day.

“When it arrives in our corner of the English Channel this bulge of water really hasn’t got anywhere to go. We then find ourselves in a giant anti clockwise tidal gyre – a great whirlpool.”

And gravity over the surface of the land and sea varies due to differences in the subsurface and surroundings -- the greater the mass, the greater the gravity

In addition to that, there is a very small but significant rise in sea levels in recent years. This is measured in millimetres, not metres.

Some Political Notes

Justice and Planning Policy

"Deputy Steve Luce is to ask the Court of Appeal to overturn a Royal Court judgment concerning an application for 17 new homes on a site beside Keppel Tower on Grouville Coast Road. The application was the subject of two successful legal challenges by a neighbour – the owner of Seymour Cottage."

Steve Luce, the Planning Minister, has decided to appeal against the Court’s decision to overturn planning permission at a site along the St Clement’s Coast Road. This is the second time the developers have brought plans, and the second time the court has rejected the plans – revised, but not significantly.

It is a one-man band appealing these decisions – the grandson of a lady who owns a cottage next to the development, while the developers have been able to call on lawyers of their own.

But now the Planning Minister has stepped in, with a statement that he thinks the Court is overreaching itself in its decisions against what is in the Island Plan. He insists that he is not taking the part of the developers, but of course, he clearly is. Methinks the Minister doth protest too much!

“The Minister is keen to emphasise that he is not aligning himself with the developer, but wants complete clarity on Island Plan policy. He is concerned that the decision by the Royal Court gives more weight to heritage issues than the Island Plan intended.”

The Planning Minister, having made decisions, should stay neutral. If decisions on planning go to the Courts, that is a decision between the two parties involved. It is certainly not an equality of arms for the Planning Minister to enter the fray, backed by lawyers, and the effectively bottomless pit of tax payers money.

I’ve seen in the past a lot of “development by attrition”, whereby permission is rejected by Courts, plans amended slightly to be returned, another time spent in the Courts, and so on. It usually involves individuals with relatively limited means against developers with lawyers and greater funding. If despite that, the Court has rejected plans twice, the Minister should stay out of that, as the Court is interpreting facets of the Island plan in coming to its decision. He should not tell the judges how to judge.

What it looks like is that the comments about "clarity" on the Island Plan are a wafer-thin excuse for yet another attempt for Ministers to interfere with the Courts after he has been annoyed by his decisions. 

"Clarity" and "clarify" seem to be the buzz words within the Council of Ministers these days. Presumably what "clarity" on the Island Plan means is that when the Minister makes decisions, it is clear that the Court cannot overturn them!

After all, it does reflect badly if the Minister makes Planning approval decisions, and the Court rejects them. It suggests to me that perhaps it is the Minister who needs to review his understanding of the Island plan and its application, which may be rather too much in favour of development, regardless of its scale and impact.

The old chestnut bout needing housing raised its head again in the BBC report. The lady in question put that in perspective last time: yes, the Island badly needs social housing, but this development is not social housing, it is luxury flats!

Deputy Luce made this statement:

“If the decision stands, one of the key principles of the plan – to protect the countryside by concentrating residential development in built-up areas – is under threat. And it could also affect what we hope to do in St Helier in the coming years”

I defy anyone reading that to guess that the plans were of a large development on a coastal region - and one which would impact the coastal landscape significantly! Some clarity by the Minister.

It is a built up area, but there should be a presumption to preserve the impact on the coastal landscape, and keep a sense of scale. We have already seen what happens when that is disregarded: it’s called Portelet.

A Sensible Bus Strategy

There is nothing quite like standing in the rain getting soaked while you wait for a bus. If anything puts people off using buses, it is surely the weather.

So it is good news to see that Eddie Noel has set aside for the moment his more bullish attempts to beat the motorist with a stick, and is planning to install six new bus shelters at various locations around the Island.

TTS has been installing more shelters each year and more locations are currently being worked on.

Deputy Eddie Noel, Minister for TTS said “I am really pleased we have identified these six new sites for shelters and I will be announcing more sites later in the year. I see them as important improvements for bus users.”

This is an excellent move, and he is building on the sterling work of his predecessors, Kevin Lewis and Mike Jackson. It was Mike who really kicked off the plan for more bus shelters, as before that, under Minister Guy de Faye, that was simply not on the radar.

There is a consultation available at:

http://www.gov.je/Government/Consultations/Pages/Proposed-Bus-Shelters.aspx

Why not email Transport and Technical Services, and tell them to go ahead?

Email: TTS@gov.je, with subject “Consultation”, and tell them to go ahead! Three cheers for TTS!

Ashes to Ashes

Esplanade Site: One thing which has not been addressed, and is of serious concern to me - what is the likelihood of serious contamination of the site, and is there a real risk to the public when excavated? Who will be providing oversight for the contractors to see that they can identify and deal with contamination? The site, I believe, is on land reclaimed before modern protocols about burying contaminants (fly ash, asbestos) was in place.

Fly ash is a potential health hazard because it often contains high concentrations of heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, copper and zinc as well as small amounts of dioxins.

The maps Save Our Shoreline have show 'graves' of Bellozanne ash across the entire site to different degrees in layers going down to beach level (10 meters +). Back when this land was reclaimed, the residue was just dumped without separation.

A Danish report noted that:

“Despite the serious environmental pollution and the negative impact of air emissions to public health, the dispersion in the environment of solid residues, notably fly ash and bottom ash, may have an even more serious negative impact on the environment and public health. Yet, the risks of dispersion and exposure to fly ash and bottom ash are greatly underestimated."

Laboratories can use X-ray fluorescence spectrometry in the environmental and recycling fields. This emerging technique is used for the composition management of the major components of fly ash, including calcium oxide, silica, and alumina; chlorine concentration management in fly ash; and confirming the absence or presence of lead and other toxic heavy metals when fly ash is recycled for various applications.

It is important that samples of the material taken from the landfill are checked periodically - and at different depths - to make sure that it is not potentially hazardous. An assumption that it is not, given what we know about the site’s history, exposes the public and the contractor’s staff to potential risk. If hazardous material is present, it does not mean the building needs to stop, but it does mean that proper safety protocols are put in place.

After all, if asbestos is found in a building, the builder has to at once cease work until proper safety protocols for its disposal are put in place, and failure to do so has led to fines. Workers’ health is at risk, and this construction work is no different in that respect.

Counting Car Emissions - Too Much Hot Air?

Jersey's government should introduce MoT-style tests for all vehicles, according to an air quality report. The Environment Department said emissions and road worthiness checks would make sure vehicles are kept within EU standards. Currently only buses, taxis and trucks have annual tests but the study found 40% of cars do not meet EU regulations. Jersey's Environment Minister, Deputy Rob Duhamel, said vehicle standards needed to be addressed.
 
"Clearly this is not satisfactory and in order to weed out those vehicles that are perhaps more polluting than their modern counterparts I think some serious discussions will have to take place with the transport minister about the introduction of MoT tests," he said. Air quality surveys run jointly by the Health & Social Services and Planning & Environment departments help shape the States air quality strategy.
 
Transport Minister, Deputy Kevin Lewis, said he would support the idea in principle but now was not the right time. "I think the short answer is not at the moment. There is a recession on and I don't think the garages are geared up for it at the moment. "We have our own road checks carried out by DVS and the honorary police and people not keeping their cars up to standards do have them taken off the roads."
 
Deputy Lewis said in future the island might be expected to introduce tests after pressure from places like the UK and France. The transport department said there are about 100,000 cars on the roads in Jersey.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-22692416
 
I'm a collector of odd statistics, and the last one is clearly rather a odd figure. Unless there are a huge number of visiting tourists, it is most likely the figure of 100,000 (such a curiously round number!) refers to the number of cars registered to be on the roads in Jersey. The population is less than that, and once one excludes people without cars, and children and teenagers under 17, the number will fall still further. So some people have more than one car, and this figure probably also includes hire cars and cars on garage forecourts, not all of which are out on the road all the time at once.
 
But while I will return to that figure, I'd also like to look at the main story here, and the statistics in that. The report in question is the "Jersey Air Quality Strategy and Action Plan", which is available on the States Assembly website, and this says:
 
"The greatest proportion of air pollution in Jersey is from road traffic emissions. The 2010 Sustainable Transport Policy (STP) recognises that emissions from transport are significant in the Jersey context of air quality, and presents a series of recommendations which have the potential to reduce emissions from vehicles.Transport emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates (PM10) present the greatest challenges to improving air quality in Jersey. "
 
The monitoring has highlighted various "hotspots" such as Georgetown in St Saviour, Beaumont in St Peter and in St Helier: First Tower, the former Bus Station, Broad Street and La Pouquelaye. Other sites identified as being at risk of elevated levels of nitrogen dioxide include Le Bas Centre, Mont Felard, Robin Place, Saville Street/Rouge Bouillon and Beresford Street
 
The report notes that "40% of vehicles on Jersey's registration system are over 10 years old and so do not meet the requirements of the Euro 3 standard". This is an emission guideline for all vehicles manufactured for sale in the EU after the year 2000. But what we don't know is how far out from that standard they are.
 
In other words, the earlier standards such as Euro 2 (1996) addressed other matters such as levels of CO2, and HC+NOx) but didn't put any limits on emissions for NOx and PM10. What we don't know is the profile of pollution from older vehicle emission. The report simply takes cars by a cut off date and says that all cars before that date do not meet the modern standards. But in fact, the situation is complicated by the development of cars over that period, and their continual improvement regardless of directives.
 
An American study noted that today' new cars emit 97 percent less hydrocarbons, 96 percent less carbon monoxide, and 90 percent less nitrogen oxide than those built twenty years ago. But the same report also notes that cars purchased in the 1990s will emit about 80 percent less hydrocarbons and 60 percent less nitrogen oxide during their lifetimes, even though they will be owned longer and driven farther.
 
California's Air Resources Board Chairman, John Dunlap noted that in 2003, new vehicles would emit only 25% of harmful pollutants coming from 1994 vehicles. But he also observed that emissions from cars and light trucks had already been reduced by more than 90% for the period from 1966 to 1994.
 
So the closer the car is to the cut off  point of Euro 3 (2000), the more likely it is to be near to that threshold. The threshold is, after all, an arbitrary one, set by politicians to reduce emissions. The figure of 40% not meeting EU regulations may be strictly true, but it does not give the whole picture. It suggests a situation which may well appear worse in terms of pollutants from vehicle emissions than it actually is. The cars prior to 2000 fit on a continuum, in which more recent usually means less polluting.
 
Moreover, it has been found that emission levels of vehicles are dependent on many parameters such as model, size and fuel type. For example, diesel exhaust contains more PM (by a factor of approximately 50-100 on a mass basis) than gasoline exhaust. The absence of any such profile on cars in the 40% category also gives a misleading picture. It is worth noting that an unexpected side effect of the earlier EU focus on controlling CO2  boosted the popularity of diesel engines, which have under the Euro 3 directive somewhat laxer standards than petrol ones.
 
The "Clean Air in London" report notes that: "the shift from petrol to diesel cars since 2000, for which Governments have been responsible, has resulted in actual primary NO2 emissions in 2010 being more than twice the level they would have been under the 2000 car fleet mix scenario (107%) - even after allowing for NO2 emissions as a fraction of NOx emissions increasing from around 5% to 20% or more in the real world;"
 
What the Jersey Environment Air Quality report does is to highlight a statistic - 40% - of vehicles for which there is (1) no automatic determination of failure to meet Euro 3 standards (2) no indication of how close vehicles are to meeting some of those standards. What would be more accurate, therefore, would be to say that 40% of cars do not automatically meet EU regulations, which is a different matter entirely.
 
Moreover, as I noted at the start, a proportion of the approximate 100,000 vehicles "on the road" are not on the road but either in garages or at homes. We don't know how many of those are at garage forecourts, or how likely those are to be sold. So we should also note that the figure is 40% of vehicles registered but not necessarily being driven around Jersey at the moment. Some may even be older collectors cars, only taken out on special occasions.
 
As these statistics are being used as a pretext for mandatory emissions testing (alongside a roadworthiness certificate), it is important that we understand their limitations. That's not to say that emissions are not important, but the figure being bandied about here is not giving the full picture. It's a good starting point, but as a tactic to introduce mandatory emission testing, it falls short.

Odds and Ends: Asbestos and the Constables Submission

Asbestos

A Jersey campaign group says there are 217 containers with asbestos in at the Energy for Waste Plant.  Save Our Shoreline (SOS) initially thought there were 40 containers with the material in, but there is actually more than five times that amount. SOS are concerned the units are not air or watertight, meaning asbestos fibres could seep out into the atmosphere.  If they do and are inhaled they can cause lung damage, although the symptoms can take many years to appear. Deputy Kevin Lewis, the Transport and Technical Services Minister, confirmed to Channelonline there are 217 containers and that a long term solution to handling asbestos needs to be found. He said: "It was my election pledge to get rid of the toxic ash and asbestos from La Collette and I remain committed to doing that."  Deputy Lewis insists there is no short term danger in storing the asbestos in containers, but admits they are not a long term fix. He has set himself a target of finding an alternative method within the next twelve months. (1)

Deputy Lewis has stated that "They are getting old now, I am happy with it as it is, in a sense it is double wrapped and sealed in containers but the containers are starting to rust." (2)

So are we to believe the containers will remain safe? The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality has a guideline on "Approved Asbestos Disposal Containers"

It notes that "Asbestos disposal containers do not have to be new. Containers may be used but must be in such a condition that
the structural integrity and impermeability of each container remains intact"(3). Important factors are that the containers are " free of all but minor rust" and "free of sharp creases and dents". Obviously the latter could impact on the wrapping material inside, if the dent caused the structural integrity of that to fail. It's not clear who can examine the containers at La Collette, or if there were any dents or creased, especially with the lifting of the containers, whether that would be reported on; it is certainly unlikely that it would appear in the public domain.

US Guidelines on hazardous waste also require that containers are labelled, not just of the kind of waste, but also the "Accumulation Date - the day, month and year that you first placed waste in the container" (3). Labels must be durable and not obscured by other markings.

Release of fibres or dust that could be inhaled is the main concern with waste asbestos. I've not been able to trace any incidents of storage containers breaking down, and causing environmental danger with asbestos, but there is, of course, always a first time. The longer the containers rust, the greater the risk to their structural integrity, whether in situ, or when attempts are made to move them.

Constables Again

It's been brought to my attention that Article 2(1) of the States of Jersey Law 2005 states the 12 Connétables are members of the States by virtue of their office. That Law states the Constitution of the States is as follows: "2 Constitution of the States (1) The States of Jersey are constituted as follows - - the Bailiff; - the Lieutenant-Governor; - 10 Senators, elected as provided by this Law; - the Connétables of the 12 Parishes of Jersey, who are members of the States by virtue of their office; - 29 Deputies, elected as provided by this Law; - the Dean of Jersey; - the Attorney General; - the Solicitor General. (2) All members of the States shall have the right to speak in the Assembly. (3) Only elected members shall have the right to vote in the Assembly." Under the definitions in that Law "elected member" means a Senator, Connétable or Deputy.

This means that while the Constables are "elected members" of the States under the definitions, it is "by virtue of their office" that they are members of the assembly. Now this may seem nit-picking, but the Constables are also members of other committees by virtue of their office - for example, the Constable of St Helier is the President ex-officio of the St Helier-Bad Wurzach Partnerschaft, and that of St Brelade is an honorary member of the St Aubin's Boat Owner's Association.

But it would be a strange use of language, surely, to say that they were "elected" to those bodies. If the Constable changes, the person taking over (by a public election for Constable) also appears as a member, but there is no specific election within the St Helier-Bad Wurzach Partnerschaft or the St Aubin's Boat Owner's Association. It is just that the Constable, whoever that might be, is a member. There is no election within the body itself.

So the presentation of the Committee of Constables which states that the Constable "is indeed elected to office in order with the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002" is in fact being rather disingenuous in its presentation. The procedure for elections is set out in the law, as it states "the same law which sets out the procedure for the ballot for the election of Senators and Deputies" - but they don't state that the reason why Constables are in the States is quite different, it is by virtue of their office. The said law, as in fact they point out, also lays down procedure for ballots for Procureurs du Bien Public and Centeniers, but they are not in the States. That part of the law is just about elections, not about membership of the assembly, which is stated elsewhere.

One oddity which no one has yet remarked upon was that the recent change in the law in May 2012, which revoked the Constables right to carry a warrant card, also gave the Procureur du Bien Public the ability to deputise for the Constable in the States if they are incapacitated for a long period, but because the position is an honorary one, they would not be paid. This seems a very bizarre situation, and singles out the Constables as quite different from the other classes of States member. I cannot think of any other government where members have effectively alternates to be present and vote in the States if they cannot be present because of incapacity. It is an anomaly which should be rectified if the Constables remain in the States.

I'm still in favour of retaining the Constables, for reasons stated clearly elsewhere in this blog, and I will not re-iterate my arguments. But if they do remain, they should do so on proper grounds, not on a spurious presentation to the Electoral Commission.

And why, oh why, did they end  by saying that the submission would "assist the Committee in its review in reaching a conclusion" which will "ensure the delivery of an effective and efficient public service at island and parochial level and provide 'joined up Government' for the benefit of all islanders". The banal phrasing and descent into cliché - "joined up government" does their submission no credit at all.

Links
(1) http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=501022
(2) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-19254729
(3) http://deq.state.wy.us/shwd/downloads/guidelines/swg04.pdf
(4) http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/hazwaste/regs/pdf/haz_waste_leg_guide.pdf

Dangerous Visions

I was listening to Mark Boleat's talk at the Chamber of Commerce yesterday, and I was struck by his mention of how affluent Jersey was, and how good the standard of living was here.

With respect to his erudition, he seems strangely out of touch with the lower rungs of Jersey's society, where making ends meet on a monthly basis is a major feat, doctor's expenses are cripplingly expensive, and pensioners face increasing hardship. I don't think he inhabits the same world as people that I meet. Perhaps he should go out more, away from the lofty heights of his tower, and consider the pensioner who is faced with a choice between heating one room to keep warm, and buying enough food to keep body and soul together. No one who did could say "we live in an affluent society".

But more damaging is his linking of economic migration leads to a higher standard of living, and saying that you cannot have one without the other, and this poses no problem to sustainability:

It is sometimes argued that immigration poses a sustainability issue for any economy. This cannot generally be the case, as immigration has little to do with sustainability. The least sustainable economies are those with a declining population rather than those with a rising one. However, there can be a short-term issue in providing the physical infrastructure that a rising population needs, and there is also a longer-term issue in respect of land use. A rising population will, other things being equal, require more physical development, although generally the effect of declining household sizes has a rather greater effect. If an area with strong immigration makes the necessary land available for increased housing supply, obviously at some environmental cost, then there is no reason why house prices should increase by any more than in other areas. If, however, land is not made available then the effect of rising immigration is to increase house prices.

There is debate in many communities about the "desirable" size of the population for that community. Often the debate is about whether the area has the resources to accommodate a larger population. With the important exception of land, the resources a community requires are not predominantly natural resources but rather manufactured goods and services. Whether these can be acquired depends on the purchasing power of the community. An area that is not naturally inhospitable or inaccessible can accommodate almost any size of population.

Territories that are often compared with Jersey - Bermuda, Guernsey, Malta and Gibraltar - have higher densities of population. The Far East centres of Singapore and Hong Kong have population densities more than seven times that of Jersey.

What he fails to realise - or willfully ignores - is that many of these territories have had to address various issues of sustainability, whether it is electricity supply, water supply, sewage disposal, traffic, food security, hospital resources, education facilities - to name but a few.

Let's look at the issue of water, for example. It is obvious from last year, that with a major reservoir out of action for part of the summer, and low rainfall, that Jersey was facing serious drought conditions. Plans were even mooted to ship water into the Island from Norway. As things stand, there is a limit to the capacity of the water supply, and as we approach that capacity, the Island will be increasingly vulnerable to drought conditions.

Of course, there is always the desalination plant, and one Deputy told me a few years ago that they could just put in another one if needs be, and run them all the time. He cheerfully disregarded the cost of running them, which I suppose is what one must expect from a politician on £44,000 per annum. In fact, it costs around £4,000 a day, which is why - when it was needed in 2011 - Jersey water said that decision "on whether or not to fire up the plant will not be taken lightly.".

What does this mean for Mark Boleat's position on sustainability? It means that if we are dependent on sources of water like the desalination plant because of too great a population, the cost of water to the consumer will increase dramatically. This in turn will impact on the standard of living, making Jersey a much less attractive place to live.

But being an Island, it is difficult for the population to have the mobility of a larger area like Britain - people who get caught in a poverty trap can often not afford to emigrate, because that requires an amount of capital that they do not have. So those people will suffer, and income support costs will rise, and hence the Island rate will have to go up to pay for that. This will impact on the standard of living of what we may term "middle Jersey". There is always a chain of consequences, linked together. Sustainability is an issue, and cannot be just dismissed.

How have other jurisdictions managed to cope with water supply? Let us consider Hong Kong. This has a high population density, few natural lakes, rivers or groundwater reserves:

Until 1964 water rationing was a constant reality for Hong Kong residents, occurring for more than 300 days per year. The worst crisis occurred in 1963-64 when water was delivered only every 4 days for 4 hours each time. The city-state then embarked on a three-pronged approach to supply water to a population that increased from 1.7 million in 1945 to about 6 million in 1992. The approach involved seawater flushing, the construction of larger freshwater reservoirs in bays that used to be covered by the sea, and water imports from mainland China.

In 1960 legislation was introduced to promote seawater flushing on a larger scale, followed by substantial investments in a separate network although the system was unpopular due to the need to build a separate plumbing network in each house. (1)

But in the end, the best solution was to import water through a network of pipes from mainland China:

About 70% of water demand met by importing water from the Dongjiang River in neighboring Guangdong province. In addition, freshwater demand is curtailed by the use of seawater for toilet flushing, using a separate distribution system.

Clearly, Jersey could lay down a pipe network to France and import water that way, providing there was an adequate supply in Normandy. A pipe network carrying water would probably be a more difficult engineering feat than electricity, but it would be possible. Of course, because of intensive farming, the actual discharge of a river in France can be more than half composed of wastewater effluents despite efforts which have improved the Seine. And groundwater shows an overall increase in the concentration of nutrients and pesticides. But the increased cost of this would have to be passed on to the consumer, and once more we end up with an economic cycle which would reduce the standard of living.

Equally, provision could be made in building laws and planning permission to ensure a dual plumbing system is put into new houses, so that - like in Hong Kong - fresh water and water for toilet flushing, perhaps from rainfall, could be put in place. I know someone in Trinity who has no water pipes at all; he depends on a tanker, and on rainwater storage.

This won't do for flats, where water consumption will easily outstrip demand, but it could be put in place for new houses. This would help to solve the problem of water supply, and I think it is quite a good idea - but it would mean that the issue of sustainability would have to be addressed and not ignored. Building costs might also increase, because of the extra requirements - this happened in Hong Kong - and that will impact on house prices.

So we can manage with more population growth and means of keeping water consumption down by alternative means of getting water - like the family in Trinity, and like the Hong Kong system, but it does require addressing the issue of sustainability. It can't be ignored, and it is directly related to immigration. More people use more water: it is as simple as that.

Let's look at Bermuda. This Island is only 20.6 square miles, with a population in 2010 of 64,268. and a density of of 3,293 people per square mile. Jersey is 46.13 square miles, with a population in 2011 of 97,857, giving a density of 2,121 people per square mile.

So what is Bermuda's water supply like?

The only source of fresh water in Bermuda is rainfall, which is collected on roofs and catchments (or drawn from underground lenses) and stored in tanks. Each dwelling usually has at least one of these tanks forming part of its foundation. Residents typically add bleach to make the water safe to drink.

All private dwelling units and apartment complexes must by law have their own water tanks - see below - to collect and store rainfall, mandated in size by local building and planning regulations. Without rivers or a rainy season and no fresh water lakes, Bermuda depends on the weather for water. Without regular rain, home owners and commercial properties will have problems. With a solid limestone rock base, piped in water is not feasible, except in certain commercial areas.

The supply of drinkable and/or well water is not is not and never has been a Bermuda Government service for the real estate taxes paid. Homes can store about 14,000 gallons per bedroom completely independently of any other building. But with Bermuda Government import duty averaging 30 percent at wholesale and the resulting impact on retail prices of all building materials and plumbing fixtures, a major disadvantage is the huge extra cost of building water tanks that property owners in most other countries do not have to endure.

Water tanks - the most common source of water for home and apartment buildings - are often found under bedrooms, living rooms or patios but are not allowed under bathrooms or kitchens. Bermuda relies on the combination of rainwater falling on roofs and piped to more than 21,000 water tanks and groundwater extracted from underground lenses for more than 90 percent of its entire water supply. Rainwater by itself is nowhere near sufficient, at a volume of 1.4 million gallons overall yearly, to supply all of Bermuda's demands in one of the highest populations anywhere in the world per square mile. Rainwater can be used immediately but groundwater - large pockets of water under the ground - can take two years to go from rain to lenses (2)

And this impacts considerably on their standard of living, and poses health risks, as the quality of water can vary. Moreover, there is a large use of bottled water for drinking, which again goes against sustainability, and impacts on waste which needs disposal; in this respect, Bermuda seems locked into being a throw-away society. And reading how this impacts on people does not make it seem like a nice way to live:

The quality of tank water depends largely on how well the property owner maintains the water system including the roof and tank. The Department of Health of the Bermuda Government recommends, among other things, that he roof should be power-washed or wire-brushed when dirty, or no later than once every two years, to remove old paint and fungal growth. Then it should be washed with undiluted bleach before applying an approved roof paint; the tank should be cleaned at least every six years. But this means emptying it first, then refilling it. Some properties have not had their tanks emptied, cleaned and refilled for 20 or more years. The health of occupants is at risk. Also, there is a danger that tanks not emptied and cleaned periodically will develop a slow leak, which will render the landlord or tenant liable to buy water, possibly frequently; disinfecting the water using 2-4 ounces of bleach for every 1,000 gallons of water in the tank.

Imported bottled water is very much in demand. But be aware bottled water contains no fluoride, and generally more adults suffer from a fluoride deficiency, which can lead to tooth decay. (2)

So much for a "comparable" jurisdiction! "Some properties have not had their tanks emptied, cleaned and refilled for 20 or more years". That's an indirect consequence of the way Bermuda copes with water supply problems, and as Mr. Boleat has probably not been resident in Bermuda for any appreciable length of time outside hotels, which he may have visited, he may well have been unaware of this.

And notably Mr. Boleat doesn't mention that Bermuda is strongly addressing the issue of immigration. Bermuda has Work Permits for Employment of all non-citizens, and that is required for all working newcomers including those from the United Kingdom and visiting consultants or guest speakers. Moreover the system is designed to favour native Bermudians. Many Bermudians have two or three jobs, to make ends meet. But this is not allowed - under the Immigration Laws - for people who are not Bermudian:

Non-Bermudians allowed Work Permits in Bermuda are not allowed to emigrate to Bermuda. Instead, they come for as long as they are approved for a Work Permit, then must leave unless they marry and co-habit with a Bermudian and are permitted to stay because of that and can wait 10 years to become a Bermudian as the direct result of that same enduring marriage.

When a work permit comes up for renewal, the employer must advertise the job and give full consideration to qualified Bermudian applicants. If there are no qualified Bermudians, non-Bermudians can be rehired, assuming they have not exceeded their six-year term limit or any extension granted to it. (3)

Strangely, when considering the higher population of Bermuda as an argument that Jersey could sustain a higher population density, these very stringent controls went unmentioned. Indeed, Mr. Boleat fulminated against what he termed the "lump of labour" fallacy - the idea that if people come in from abroad to take jobs they are depriving local people of those same jobs - and yet Bermuda's Immigration policies seem designed specifically with that in mind!

So it can be seen that "the resources a community requires are not predominantly natural resources" is not just related to land use, according to the Boleat thesis, but requires a more detailed examination and comparison with other jurisdictions. Of course, as a matter of resource, the water problem could be solved by simply throwing money at it - a pipeline to France or more desalination. But that will impact on costs, and that will lower the standard of living for most people, apart from the richer members of society, whose monetary resources can insulate them from those effects.

The statement "immigration has little to do with sustainability" cannot just be allowed to stand without question. And when examined, it is found wanting.

Links
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_in_Hong_Kong
(2) http://www.bermuda-online.org/architecture.htm
(3) http://bermuda-online.org/employwp.htm

Invasion of the Dinosaurs

' Ever since the Industrial Revolution, Man has polluted his planet, until now his only home. Not only has Man ruined his own environment, he has made life impossible for other living creatures. Seventy-five species of animals were made extinct in the first seventy-five years of this century. Others are threatened. The Giant Lemurs of Madagascar may soon suffer the same fate as the King Kangaroos of Australia-'

... Man is the only animal to prey on his own species. As society breaks down, armed gangsters take over. In America, with fifty murders a day, law-abiding citizens live behind electrified fences to keep criminals out. In the City of London another type of criminal exists. Property developers have destroyed-'

... The conveyor-belt system of mass production brings drudgery to the workers. Their natural creative drive is stifled. They are slaves to the machines. Working in continuous noise, unable to speak to their fellow workers, they are brutalised... '

... the brutalisation of millions of people extends from the factories to the buildings in which they live. To accommodate an ever increasing population vast tenement blocks are thrown up in our cities, providing no sense of community for the unfortunates who dwell in them. Gone is the concept of the village... '

(Re-education Room, snippets from re-education film, Invasion of the Dinosaurs)

"Invasion of the Dinosaurs" has just been released on DVD. It's the Jon Pertwee story where Central London has been evacuated due to a mysterious outburst of dinosaurs, appearing and disappearing; being a "Doctor Who" story, this is to do with the manipulation of time, scooping up dinosaurs from the past.

"My belief is that the people responsible for bringing these creatures into the present want to clear London of its population. They have some vast project that can only be carried out in a deserted London."

As the Doctor notes, the dinosaurs are just part of a bigger plan - to clear the area, and "roll back" time on earth to before mankind was settled, so that the people remaining hidden in London (and in the "safe zone") will be free to take humanity and direct history along different lines.

Not all people would agree with this, and a number have been duped into believing that instead they are going to a "New Earth". The novelisation by the writer of the story, Malcolm Hulke, makes their reasoning very clear:

'We are on our way to New Earth, a small planet similar to Earth but at an earlier stage of development.' 'You've been in suspended animation for three months,' Adam informed her. 'But it will all come back to you when you fully recover. New Earth is still pure, undefiled by the evil of Man's technology. There is air that is still clean to breathe, and a simple pastoral people, innocent and unspoiled. It will be our task to guide them so that the evils developed on Earth shall not be repeated.'

Sarah screwed up her face, and pretended that she couldn't remember what he meant. 'My memory still isn't very good, Mark. How will we live?' 'We shall found a settlement. We have seed, tools, and enough provisions to keep us going for a year. We'll be like the Pilgrim Fathers who went to America.' 'What about the present inhabitants of the planet? I don't think the Red Indians liked the Pilgrim Fathers very much. Maybe these people won't like us.' 'We shall treat them kindly and decently,' Mark insisted. 'We'll guide them, and make sure they don't make the same mistakes that were made on Earth.' 'What mistakes?' 'Surely you know. Factories and mines that destroy the landscape. Explosives of all kinds that kill and maim. Cars and aeroplanes that pollute the atmosphere.'

Ruth and Adam appeared from the direction of the main living quarters. 'Finding it interesting?' Adam asked Sarah. 'Very. Mark's just reminding me about all the awful things humans have done to ruin Earth.' She turned back to the young athlete. 'But what about medicine and education? Surely they were good things.' Ruth laughed. 'Compared with its evils, the benefits of technological civilisation are very few.' Adam took up the argument. 'Supermarkets, colour television, plastic cups. But what are they all worth?'

'Finding it interesting?' Adam asked Sarah. 'Very. Mark's just reminding me about all the awful things humans have done to ruin Earth.' She turned back to the young athlete. 'But what about medicine and education? Surely they were good things.' Ruth laughed. 'Compared with its evils, the benefits of technological civilisation are very few.' Adam took up the argument. 'Supermarkets, colour television, plastic cups. But what are they all worth?' 'They make life comfortable for a lot of people.' Adam, ignoring Sarah's reply, continued: 'We shall take the good, but leave the evil behind.' 'And who decides which is which?' 'It's all so obvious.' Adam's eyes began to look like those of a prophet who was in personal communication with God.

'But don't you think that people have a right to choose the kind of life they want?' Sarah blurted out. Ruth looked at her a little sternly. 'People on Earth were allowed to choose-and see what kind of a world they made! Moral degradation, permissiveness, cheating, lying, cruelty!' Ruth's one-sided attitude angered Sarah. 'There is also a lot of love and kindness and honesty! Didn't you ever notice those things on Earth?' Ruth's mouth set into hard lines. 'You mustn't say such things!'

And that is very much the story of Invasion of the Dinosaurs. It is a story about fanaticism, in a good cause, but fanaticism none the less. The writer Malcolm Hulke had come across in the 1970s a number of people concerned with the environment, and environmental issues, but also found that also attracted people who were extremely fanatical about their aims.

The people trying to change history in Invasion of the Dinosaurs see the earth heading towards catastrophe, and the normal mechanism for changing matters are too slow, so they take matters into their own hands. Anyone who disagrees with then has to be "re-educated" so that they can see what is right, because there can be only one right way.

'I quite agree,' added Ruth. 'She'll have to go to the Reminder Room.' Sarah backed away. 'What's that?' Adam gripped her arm firmly. 'You are in desperate need of re-education.' 'Don't worry, child,' said Ruth, taking Sarah's other arm. 'Very soon you will have returned to our point of view-about everything.'

The key sentence - as script editor Terrance Dicks points out in a documentary on the show - is "You mustn't say such things" And from there, with the re-education room, it is not a very distant step to "You mustn't think such things."

Now there are indeed major environmental issues which need to be tackled. But I've also observed how people who do take Green Issues seriously, if not as committed as some environmentalists, get labelled as "heretics". With regard to Climate Change, I've seen this with Dr Judith Curry, where her position, taking perhaps a slightly less committed approach to the interpretation of the evidence, led to her being labelled a "heretic".

It is an extraordinary term to find in scientific debate, and denotes more a pattern of belief in those who denigrate her in this way than her own position. What is happening is very akin to religious belief when that becomes fanatical, when the very best hopes are corrupted into a fascist theocracy. It can be seen in a strident tone, a determination to always have the final word, an inability to discuss, but instead to bludgeon one's opponent with mountains of "facts".

The sad thing is that there is a real problem with the way our world is run, but the way the fanatical presentation of these matters is done will in fact alienate people who would otherwise be sympathetic. As the Doctor says to Grover: "Look, I understand your ideals. In many ways I sympathise with them. But this is not the way to go about it, you know." The problems haven't gone away, but shouting at people is not the way to be heard.

In the 1970s, there was also a TV series called Doomwatch, which presented environmental issues in a dramatised form. There was not always a "right answer", although there often were wrong ones, usually caused by people cutting corners, putting profit above people etc. But in many ways that was the right way to approach the matter. When Charles Dickens was concerned about the poor, he was about to write a tract about the squalid conditions, but changed his mind and wrote Christmas Carol. That tale is still told; it gets into the minds of people far more than a plain tract would have done. A parable is often the way to tell a truth that is not confrontational but gets over the barriers and pre-conceptions people have. Using a verbal megaphone to blast away at everyone is the complete opposite, and no one will in fact end up listening because all they can hear is noise.

The story of "Invasion of the Dinosaurs" has a lot to say about the wrong way to promote environmental issues. In fact, the dinosaurs are not just the monsters from the Jurassic, but those people who cannot adapt their message by listening to the response they have from other people. They talk at, not talk to, and they don't listen. That is the dinosaur still within our midst, and sadly, it probably won't go away.

The Doctor : "It's not the oil and the filth and the poisonous chemicals that are the real cause of pollution, Brigadier. It's simply greed."

On Lines in the Sands

Over a year ago now, I remember going down to St Ouen's Bay. I parked at the far end of the day, in the car park with the toilets, and made my way down the slipway on to the beach with my eldest son. It was a cloudy day but the cloud was fairly high and the temperature was pleasant. We walked down across the sand until we reached the markers, posts and ribbons stretching into the distance towards the other end of the bay. I could see in the distance that at Braye slip, a small line was slowly forming. It looked as though there would be a moderate turnout and people were walking beside me, but at that point it seemed I would have to walk some distance to catch up with the small line in the sand.

But by the time I got to El Tico, the line ahead had grown considerably so I decided to stop and wait for it to join my position. I looked back across the beach and now there was quite a multitude, some deciding like me to stop where they were, and others coming forward to fill in the gaps. Within about half an hour or perhaps slightly more, there was a definite line of people stretching across the length of the bay from Braye slip to as far as I could see the slipway at L'Etacq.

It was like one of those join the dots puzzles when a picture appears fuzzy and then sharpens into focus and a whole becomes clear. There was now a solid line of people, a great crowd who had all come encouraged Mike Stentiford, to present a protest against the creeping development which threatened to erode the natural landscape of the coast. It took time and a little stamina but I think above all else it was the fact that it was Mike Stentiford who had made this clarion call that brought so many people to take their places and draw the line in the sand. Perhaps only the late Gerald Durrell could have also commanded such widespread respect and such affection that people would give up their time and come here.

I remember having a nesting box in the garden which was empty for many years until suddenly some blue tits took residence in it. We knew they were breeding and had heard the young and seen the parents going to and fro bringing food to the nest within the box. But we didn't know how many young there were likely to be this was the day before the Internet made all kinds of information readily available. We rang up Mike Stentiford to ask for a little brief advice and he gave us not a few minutes but a good 20 minutes to tell us what to look out for. Such generosity to complete strangers.

And now over a year has gone by, and I wondered precisely what lessons have been learnt. Ignorant of the indigenous and migrating wildlife, such as the Brent geese, and ignorant too of the natural beauty of the small harbour and its village, the developer has now turned a greedy eye towards St Aubin, and once more it is Mike Stentiford who is leading the protest. One can do absolute wonders with computer software and the mockup which has appeared in the press makes the development as attractive as it could possibly be, even if one might well quibble over the singularly small buildings which it shows. It is easy to forget that these artistic renderings are as real as the virtual world of James Cameron's Avatar. It is a neat, clean world, a Disneyland fantasy, into which we must avoid being sucked, because all fantasies like this are presented in the most seductive fashion possible.

Developers of course are out to sell something, in this case an idea, a utopia. We can do this, they say, and it will not cost you a penny. Such altruism! And the reclamation of the land, we are told by Guy de Faye, will be landfill, so we can guarantee that it won't happen overnight - because I do not believe there is enough rubbish of suitable quality to dump there right now. In the meantime, we can expect many years in which St Aubin would be an unsightly mess with the new sea wall (probably not in granite but the same sort of blocks that attract decaying seaweed at the other end of the bay) and a large hole gradually being filled in, lots of heavy duty vehicles and machinery, noise and dust. We will then be told that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs -- an apposite description for the smell of rotting seaweed. The smell of rotten eggs.

But why do it in the first place? Why is there this insatiable itch to take a picturesque little village and turn it into some kind of Ocean Park? I can understand the money motive but what is alarming is that there are developers out there who seem to think that this kind of thing is progress. It reminds me of the passage in C.S. Lewis's work "That Hideous Strength", where the developers want to introduce their bright progressive future, and - of course - wipe out any inconveniences along the way.

"It's about the village of Cure Hardy," said Cosser when they were seated. "You see, all that land at Bragdon Wood is going to be little better than a swamp once they get to work. Why the hell we wanted to go there I don't know. Anyway, the latest plan is to divert the Wynd: block up the old channel through Edgestow altogether. Look. Here's Shillingbridge, ten miles north of the town. It's to be diverted there and brought down an artificial channel - here, to the east, where the blue line is - and rejoin the old bed down here." "The university will hardly agree to that," said Mark. "What would Edgestow be without the river?"

"We've got the university by the short hairs," said Cosser. "You needn't worry about that. Anyway it's not our job. The point is that the new Wynd must come right through Cure Hardy. Now look at your contours. Cure Hardy is in this. narrow little valley. Eh? Oh, you've been there, have you? That makes it all the easier. I don't know these parts myself. Well, the idea is to dam the valley at the southern end and make a big reservoir. You'll need a new water supply for Edgestow now that it's to be the second city in the country."

"But what happens to Cure Hardy?"

"That's another advantage. We build a new model village (it's to be called Jules Hardy or Wither Hardy) four miles away. Over here, on the railway."

"I say, you know, there'll be the devil of a stink about this. Cure Hardy is famous. It's a beauty spot. There are the sixteenth-century almshouses, and a Norman church, and all that."

"Exactly. That's where you and I come in. We've got to make a report on Cure Hardy. We'll run out and have a look round tomorrow, but we can write most of the report today. It ought to be pretty easy. If it's a beauty spot, you can bet it's insanitary. - That's the first point to stress. Then we've got to get out some facts about the population."

William Hague on Climate Security

Foreign Secretary William Hague has recently delivered a speech titled 'The Diplomacy of Climate Change' to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. There has been a lot of problems with addressing climate change, because a good many people simply refuse to look at any evidence, or find various alternative explanations.

The debate is often, as in Jersey, conducted between environmentalists such as Mark Forskitt and Nick Palmer, and deniers such as Senator Sarah Ferguson, in such a way that it seems removed from the public arena. Indeed, a few politicians whom I spoke to recently thought that part of the debate on the Island Plan had been subjected to an attempted hijack by environmentalists, who were taking up valuable time, and distracting from the main issues. Of course, they are sure, we don't really need to do anything with redundant greenhouses, but knock them down for housing. And no one can really believe Jersey should look at become that bit more more sustainable in producing its own food, because that's not commercially viable.

But when a politician of William Hague's stature throws down the gauntlet, perhaps it is time to listen. Hague began by setting out the importance of climate change; it is not a trivial issue, because as resources become scarcer, if the issue is not addressed, competition and conflict over who gets those resources will become increasingly important:

Climate change is perhaps the twenty-first century's biggest foreign policy challenge along with such challenges as preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. A world which is failing to respond to climate change is one in which the values embodied in the UN will not be met. It is a world in which competition and conflict will win over collaboration.(1)

The keynote phrase in his speech is "climate security". As the climate changes, and as non-renewable energy resources become scarcer (so that biofuels, rather than food) becomes more viable, the connectedness of the modern world means that any problems ripple through the system, impacting on a global scale. No one can bury their heads in the sand. It is irresponsible to do so:

You cannot have food, water, or energy security without climate security. They are interconnected and inseparable. They form four resource pillars on which global security, prosperity and equity stand. Each depends on the others. Plentiful, affordable food requires reliable and affordable access to water and energy. Increasing dependence on coal, oil, and gas threatens climate security, increasing the severity of floods and droughts, damaging food production, exacerbating the loss of biodiversity and, in countries that rely on hydropower, undermining energy security through the impact on water availability. As the world becomes more networked, the impacts of climate change in one country or region will affect the prosperity and security of others around the world.

He notes that the time to start thinking about low carbon business is necessary now, not "business as usual", because otherwise it is future generations that will pay the price for our delay, our willful refusal to take any form of action. Locally, this means looking at food production, about the standards of houses being built to be energy efficient, about transport, power etc. Part of that can be done by private citizens taking action - as is the case locally with the move to buying organic products (not dependent on oil-based fertilizers), increased recycling by dropping off newspapers, plastic bottles at recycling banks, less use of plastic bags. Small things can bring about surprisingly significant changes. But part has also to be the responsibility of governments in empowering the citizen towards a lower carbon, less wasteful, lifestyle.

We need to shift investment urgently from high carbon business as usual to the low carbon economy - this means building an essentially decarbonised global economy by mid century. At the same time we must ensure development is climate resilient: otherwise the changes in climate that are already unavoidable will block the path for hundreds of millions of people from poverty to prosperity

Rather than decrying wind power and other renewable sources of energy, the UK, under what Hague describes as probably the greenest coalition government in its history, is committed to improving production from those sources. A new wind farm has just opened offshore in Kent. Instead of blocking such strategies, and talking them down, Jersey should show how innovative it can be. Guernsey recently financed a seabed survey, to give public data as a springboard and incentive to commercial wave power companies. We too can do more, and we need to start thinking about targets. Denmark generates more than 15% of its electricity from the wind, which is not insignificant.

The UK is already the world leader in offshore wind with more projects installed, in planning and in construction than any other country in the world. We are undertaking the most radical transformation of our electricity sector ever. We aim to provide over 30% of our domestic electricity from renewables by 2020. We have committed to build no new coal-fired power stations without carbon capture and storage technology - CCS - and we have announced our intention to continue with four CCS demonstration projects.

The other matter of importance highlighted by William Hague is to not just let matters rest with environmentalists but also to look at business engagement. Is anyone in the States of Jersey talking with any commercial groups who provide renewable energy? And are builders sufficient aware of environmental specifications? What of older "Masterplans"? Did they factor in environmental and climate issues?

And we must also reach out beyond, to NGOs, faith groups and business. Of all these, perhaps business engagement is key to making a difference. It is business that will lead the low-carbon transition. It is business which best understands the incentives needed to help us all prosper.

The Parish of St Helier has been very pro-active in looking at recycling. In August they published a report which noted that:

In April this year the Parish sought expressions of interest for a Recycling Partner capable of finding environmentally sound and cost effective end uses on or off Island for the recycled materials the Parish is producing; the recycling partner would also be responsible for the transport of the recyclables from the depot to the end-users. This generated considerable interest with 11 initial applications from French and Jersey companies, some of which put forward very detailed proposals.

And they are looking in particular at ROMI Recyclage, which has been established since 1866 and has a number of sites across France.

The business operates over a broad range of recyclables to ensure stability for the company during fluctuations in the waste commodities market, which will in turn provide stability for the Parish's income streams from the sale of recyclables

With regard to building, it is worth noting that one office has been built recently to BREEAM specifications. What is BEEAM?

BREEAM (BRE Environmental Assessment Method) is the leading and most widely used environmental assessment method for buildings. It sets the standard for best practice in sustainable design and has become the de facto measure used to describe a building's environmental performance.(2)

And Ogiers new premises, recently mentioned in the Green Building Press, has recently been completed; it is the first office building on Jersey to be built to BREEAM specifications

Ogier, providers of offshore legal and fiduciary services, have moved into their new premises, Jersey's largest and greenest single occupancy office. The the partnership between the company, developer JCN and local building firm Camerons as the main contractor has resulted in a new landmark for St Helier. Ogier House has achieved a "very good" BREEAM....Additional to the atria, solar shading has been used to reduce the need for air-conditioning and movement sensors avoid electricity being wasted by lighting rooms with no-one in them. Seasonal Commissioning ensures the building is operating at optimum efficiency all year round, with thermal zoning of different rooms. Space has been allocated for storage of recyclable waste, promoting green management strategies within the building.(3)

Hague makes the point that it is not "an idealists pipe dream" to look at strategies for moving to a low carbon economy, and the sooner we do so, the better we will be prepared for the future:

A global low-carbon economy is not an idealist's pipe-dream but a 21st century realist's imperative. Countries that adapt quickly to a carbon constrained world will be better able to deliver lasting prosperity for their citizens.

Describing the weather catastrophes of the past year - in Russia, Pakistan, China - Hague comments that:

While no one weather event can ever be linked with certainty to climate change, the broad patterns of abnormality seen this year are consistent with climate change models. They provide a vivid illustration of the events we will be encountering increasingly in the future. The clock is ticking. The time to act is now.

And he concludes with a message to take action now:

This is not a hard choice. We have to get this right. If we do, we can still shape our world. If we do not, our world will determine our destiny.

Links
(1) http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2270476/william-hague-climate-change
(2) http://www.breeam.org/
(3) http://www.greenbuildingpress.co.uk/article.php?category_id=1&article_id=681
(4) http://www.recycle-more.co.uk/nav/page726.aspx

Mobile Consequences

GUERNSEY is almost at saturation point for mobile phones, according to Sure marketing director Paul Taylor. A report shows there are 63,000 mobile customers in the island for a population of about 62,000. The report, compiled by the Office of Utility Regulation, found that from December 2009 the telecoms market increased by 4.5%, yet despite the number of mobile customers remaining largely unchanged, the average spend per customer had increased by 8.4%. There were also more than 22,000 internet customers. Mr Taylor said that the mobile market was nearing its limit.' Based on the population, it is hard to see how much more this can grow and so the challenge now for all operators is to work a lot harder by offering customers excellent service, network reliability and value for money.' However, he believed there was room for growth within the internet market, which had seen a 6% increase in the last six months. But a spokesperson for Wave said Guernsey did not have a finite market, because technology was always changing, and it was confident that growth would continue. '(1)

This is in some respects like Jersey's car market, where there are almost as many cars as people in the Island. When these figures are considered more carefully, it can be seen that there is some degree of oversaturation, because I simply cannot imagine under fives, for example, with a mobile phone, yet they must form part of the figure of 62,000.

There is no mention of recycling in the article. At present, as usual with a consumer society, there are searches underway for new sources of key minerals such as coltan, used in the manufacture of phones. But if more phones were recycled, the mineral could be re-used. What recycling there is seems to be limited and patchy, but if part of the licence given to mobile phone operators included a clause to provide recycling facilities, and ensure phones were recycled free of charge for a small discount on new phones of perhaps 5%, then it would be built into the system. The operators want their licenses, and what could be simpler?

As it stands, the main source for coltan is the Congo, where it fuels the war effort:

"The surging global demand for mobile phones has been helping to bankroll armed groups in Eastern Congo's conflict," said Annie Dunnebacke of Global Witness. "Mobile phone manufacturers need to undertake checks all the way up their supply chains to make sure they are not buying from mines controlled by militias and military units." (2)

It is not just mobile phones, but all kinds of electronic equipment that fuels the conflict:

The conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, formally Zaire, is complex, complicated by the struggle for power over the country's vast resources by actors within and outside Congo. In recent years, one particular mineral, coltan, has been at the center of the fight. The precious ore is mined in rebel-controlled areas at the expense of national parks and depletion of wildlife. Coltan is a key element in cell phones, computer chips, nuclear reactors, and PlayStations. The market for the mineral has greatly increased in recent years, exacerbating conflict in Congo. (3)

And this has environmental consequences as well. It destroys farming land, and wildlife reserves are despoiled. In particular the gorilla population may well be driven to extinction because of the pressures on their habitat by the mining operations:

Farmers have been forced off their land or into mining as war has ravaged their land. Miners threaten the environment of eastern lowland gorillas. Miners are killing elephants and gorillas on wildlife reserves and national parks. While the numbers of wildlife are dwindling, the environment is being degraded ("Miners" 13 April 2001; "Cell" 2 May 2001). Coltan mining provides great wealth for warring sides, takes away the livelihoods of people who live on the land, and destroys wildlife. (4)

It is about time that some kind of "ethical sourced" badge rather like the "free range" or "fair trade" other product labels are provided on mobiles and other equipment using coltan so that the consumer can make an inform decision as to whether it should be bought or not. Coltan has other sources such as Australia, and need not fuel the war in the Congo.

I don't think the operators will do this of their own accord, and perhaps the law needs to be changed so that they have to state the origins of their supply. But as Leo Hickman mentions in the Guardian, "Without a cast-iron certification scheme to guarantee these claims, there is sadly still no way for consumers to know they are not complicit in this trade."(5)

Lastly, there are two local collection points for recycling mobiles:

Jersey Telecom Retail Outlet
Jersey Post Office counters

Do you have one lurking in a cupboard or drawer, gathering dust? Why not recycle it?

Links
(1) http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2009/07/25/lose-gatwick-and-finance-will-go-too/
(2) http://www.globalwitness.org/media_library_detail.php/718/en/metals_in_mobile_phones_help_finance_congo_atrocities
(3) http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/congo-coltan.htm
(4) http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/congo-coltan.htm
(5) http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/jun/27/ethicalmoney.leohickmanonethicalliving

14 Year Old Speaking Wisdom for Our Planet

Ou comment une jeune fille de 14 ans remet à leur place les dirigeants du monde.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JvVf1piHXg

This is an impassioned and intelligent discourse on the environment, on poverty, on waste, on wars - by a 14 year old girl.

Subtitles in French, but the language is English. It is only 6 minutes long, and quite, quite brilliant. I wish I could be as clear.

I was sent it by a friend, and have just listened to it with my son. We were both absolutely blown away with the clarity in which she says everything. It is an extraordinary speech, so full of passion and plain common sense. She is talking to the delegates of a conference, and has an assurance and confidence that belies her years. While impassioned, it is also full of cogent argument, not just an appeal to the emotions, although there is that too.

Please watch it if you have the time, especially if you think these things don't matter.

Les Creux, St Brelade: An Exercise in Ugfliciation

"We all need to play our part in respecting the environment.", Freddie Cohen, Election 2005 Manifesto

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=BC0BDC890C0213DD


I've added a playlist of 4 short videos which show the area around Les Creux. There is not only the dumping of the soil to be seen, as I start with the road widening, in which the construction company (or should it be destruction) have widened the road hugely, hacking away at the cliff face, so that instead of vegetation, there is now a raw granite face - which itself is not just the roadside denuded of plant life, but hacked away itself. Large wooden "sleepers" also abound, making the whole roadside - which used to be a pleasant stroll - into a very ugly path.

It is clear that lots of the material from here is that dumped further around, and one of the clips also shows that.

There is also a brief shot of Lord Trent's Grave. Jesse Boot, later Lord Trent, was the founder of Boots the Chemist, and it is his widow we have to thank for Millbrook Park, the Lalique Glasswork at Millbrook Church, and the football field next by to that. What they would have thought to this "uglification" of the landscape, I do not know!