City of the Future - 1 week to go

One of the most exciting parts of my job is to see a plan come together and an event take place.

Next Tuesday will see our City of the Future public debate on a better economy for Birmingham take place in the Council House, Birmingham. The number of people registered for it has been rising steadily since the web page went live and we are confident of getting to capacity, so please make sure you book your place if you haven't already.
Last year we did a debate on HS2, which went really well and attracted a lot of attention, but that was a very hot, very controversial issue on which passions run very high (and still is). This time, we are hoping to generate some really positive ideas and inspire people on a topic that used to be considered a bit dull and abstract to many, but is now starting to gain more attention - economics.

I've admired the work of the New Economics Foundation for a long time, so am very much looking forward to seeing what three ideas Julia Slay will put forward.

The idea that economic growth is what makes people more prosperous and therefore people's lives better has not been challenged enough in the mainstream media. We are very much looking forward to hearing the argument for a successful economy without growth from Oliver Bettis from the Centre for the Advancement of a Steady State economy.

Dr Helen Borland from Aston Business School has her main research interest in Strategic Business Sustainability, which focuses on how firms can adopt an ecologically sustainable approach to their strategic decision-making, senior management and leadership activities. She will provide the local academic perspective and expertise.

Also, we have David Powell from Friends of the Earth's economics team. His knowledge is integral to how we can campaign on issues such as Feed-in-Tariffs, green investment and the value that is put on the natural environment. He also writes some very readable blog posts on the Friends of the Earth website.

I have also been busy writing articles for local press and blogs on the event. Firstly, was a big piece in the Birmingham Post (whose editor, Alun Thorne is chairing the event for us). Then I wrote a short piece for my local (hyperlocal) blog B31 Voices. I was also asked to contribute a piece for the Chamberlain Files, a new political blog for Birmingham run by former journalists of the Birmingham Post.

Now I have 7 days to wait and see what comes out of this event, but luckily I'm so busy the time should pass very quickly. Bring it on.

Joe Peacock

Who depends on whom?

Yesterday bhx got their usual positive headline in the Birmingham Post "Birmingham Airport increases profits after cost-cutting" as they released their annual report.

Behind the spin we can see a picture of a business model that is not exactly going to be the jet engine which drives prosperity to Birmingham, but quite the opposite. In 2004, we showed that their predictions were faulty in terms of job creation and economic benefit:

"there are now about 1,000 fewer jobs than 1994 and there has been only a 20 per cent increase in the airport's contribution to the region's coffers over the decade."

This was after they had promised an 80 per cent increase in jobs over the decade from 1994 at both the airport and in related local industries and a 120 per cent growth in wealth generated for the West Midlands economy. Now this year they are boasting about reducing employee costs by 11% and cutting 75 jobs.

We have been sold the idea that the runway extension is vital for the region as it will bring employment and prosperity and that is why £25 million of public money is being put into subsidising it.

Now though, CEO Paul Kehoe says; "We need the economy of the West Midlands to start to recover faster than other regions. If the West Midlands starts to perform we will start to perform."

Isn't that the wrong way round? If we're putting tax payers' money into building new capacity for this environmentally damaging industry because it's so good for the economy and allows it to grow, why are they no longer promising to bring benefits, but relying on us to all start earning more and flying off to spend our money on flying abroad again (the numbers of flights was well down on last year again, as was turnover).

Are they finally admitting that the airport just takes money out and puts very little in?

Joe Peacock

Airport Watch Conference, ULU 18th June

This weekend I went to represent Birmingham FoE at the Airport Watch conference and discovered that there has been a lot of evidence gathered both on the environmental, but also the economic effects that aviation is having on this country.

The day was divided into 3 parts: in the morning session we had presentations on the different areas that will be covered in the scoping document on aviation which the government is consulting on at the moment. Then, in the afternoon session we were able to question civil servants from the DfT who are working on this on the process on how it will work. For the final session, we had the minister for aviation, Theresa Villiers, who spoke on the government's attitude on various aspects of what we had been talking about through the day. This was the first time a minister had attended a gathering of aviation campaigners and her presence was a welcome sign.

Generally, quite a positive thread ran through the day's presentations, especially from the two chairs, John Stewart of HACAN and Airport Watch and Tim Johnson of AEF. The main reason for their positivity seems to be the government's very different tone to the previous administration and the presence of Theresa Villiers as minister, who was one of the main people within the conservative party pushing for abandoning the 3^rd runway at Heathrow.

In a way, it was a shame that the presentations were given in the morning when the speakers were just preaching to the converted (the attendees from airport watch and related groups would have known most of what was said already). The presentations were all very good and showed how well our evidence base is building in order to fight the case of the airports and airlines economic arguments, as well as their technical and environmental ones.

It was heartening that the government has made the consultation so open (in complete contrast to the one on HS2) and that they have deliberately left an appropriate time-frame for people to be able to collect evidence to back up their arguments. There is still a complete imbalance in the financial resources available to pro and anti-aviation campaigners, but we were given assurance that the evidence provided will be scrutinised properly, unlike the evidence given by the aviation industry which formed the basis of the 2003 white paper.

One of the biggest themes of concern to come out of the day was the conflict between the government's localism agenda and the need to tackle aviation and climate change at a national or even international level. I think that Theresa Villiers was left in no doubt that she needed to go away and look at that to ensure that all the work on the aviation framework was not going to be in vain. There was some assurance that issues of national strategic importance will be tackled at a national level, but this does seem to be a contradiction in much of government policy and the dots need to be joined up a lot better in many areas, if we are to be able to tackle environmental problems, particularly the country's climate change targets.

With no economic case for airport expansion, growth incompatible with legally binding CO2 reduction targets and a growing awareness of the blight on local communities in terms of both air pollution and noise are issues that sound alarm bells loud across government. The aviation industry surely has quite a battle to win in order to persuade people that business as usual can continue.

Joe Peacock

True Costs

Public transport is always being hit by the government when they need to save money and now is no exception, but if we think of the true costs of this over the past century, all those alleged savings from not keeping railways or bus services going would surely be cancelled out if we calculated the what the alternatives have cost the country.

Let's just think of a few things that are attributable to increased car use over walking, cycling or using public transport:

Congestion

It is hard to argue that our roads would be congested without lots of people each driving their own private vehicle. According to CBT, "the total cost of congestion is usually estimated at £20 billion a year".

Road accidents

Whilst some proportion of the accidents on our roads may involved buses, the vast majority are caused by cars. Again from CBT's 2008 report, "Last year there were 260,000 casualties on our roads, including 3,172 fatalities [1]. Using Government figures, the cost to the economy of these accidents was £12 billion."

Road-building

According to the Transport Select Committee, "Government spending on roads has almost doubled in real terms since 1999–2000." In 2005/6 it was £6.6 billion and we know that with all the damage caused by the freezing weather this winter many councils are struggling to keep roads repaired and in decent condition. With fewer cars, we could scrap all new road-building schemes and ensure that those we have suit the needs of buses, cyclists and pedestrians better.

Carbon Emissions

Passenger cars emitted 76.8 million tonnes of CO2 (or 20.9 million tonnes of carbon) in 2007, according to DEFRA. Using Stern’s figure of £190 per tonne of carbon, the carbon caused by these cars cost nearly £4 billion.

Obesity

The modern disease caused by sedentary lifestyles and over-eating costs the NHS £14 billion a year. It would be unfair to blame all of this on car use over more active forms of transport, but promoting walking and cycling could certainly help to fight it and reduce these costs.

In times when we are being told to look for ways of saving money, we should certainly not see spending money on public transport as anything other than a saving to the country as a whole when we see the costs of ever more cars on the road. It looks as if the distances that people are travelling have now peaked and are no longer going to keep on rising exponentially along with economic growth (although whether that will happen is also up for debate). To save money we need to invest in safer roads for cyclists and pedestrians and taking road space away from cars to make public transport work better. The benefits in savings and quality of life for all could be huge.

Let's start with showing how many cars we can take off the road for In Town Without My Car Day 2010.

Joe Peacock

[1] From Transport Statistics Great Britain 2007, published by the Department for Transport, November 2007

Section Eight, Transport Accidents and Casualties: Table 8.1

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/tsgb/2007edition/sectioneighttransportacciden.pdf

The Market Floor

Our recent economic crisis has been a huge blow to all world economies. The poor are those who are generally hit by how the market has slowed down. As first world leaders rely on how the markets predict spending/public patterns in buying. We need first world governments to introduce a market which is not based on speculation, as public spending pattens vary, but rather a more coherent approach to how markets are governed is needed.
Markets can either generate wealth and transform lives , or they can marginalise the poor and increase inequality and degrade the natural world on which we are very much dependant on.
Small food producers, farmers can only have an influence on the way they operate if they use their power to increase productivity and sales, which would enable them to set better prices and to allow their workers to be paid a better wage. This is only made easier for those who have a major infulence on how they want to govern their large business, such as large land owners, intensive farmers and large food producers.
Markets are governed by too many intensive rules and regulations, contracts, credit, bargening and far too much competition, this causes developing world farmers and British farmers to look for a way to get out of farming, as they are finding farming isn't lucrative enough for them to continue with, as they are not being supported by their government to make farming worth while. British farmers seem to get a raw deal as British produce is deamed expensive and therefore sourced from countries who are selling there food much cheaper such as Eastern Europe, which makes it attractive for buyers. Countries such as Africa and India they can't afford to sell their goods at low prices as farming is a major part of their life structure and selling food at a low price is not an option. Even the cost of food for some being sold at a high price increases their already poverty stricken lives and this cause unnessesary demonstrations and rioting., which should not be something one ought to be doing to have a meal on one's table.
Farming is no longer seen as an industry to pass on through the family line as most farmers are abandoning farming, as their children don't see farming or producing food as an exciting or interesting way to make a living. Most people are heading to cities which are often over crowed to look for work which is generally hard to find, this adds to our already poverty stricken world and causing farms to be left abandoned or sold and this will then cause a huge short fall in food production and will then allow big businesses to produce our food, which would allow a huge drop in standards in the way our food is produced.
The way in which the market is set should not be allowed to dictate farmers/food producers lives, especially for those living in poorer countreis or small scale farmers in Britain. Instead the market should help influence and support those who are very much in need, by helping them store any grain/ crop which can be used in a leaner season and enable them to be more in control of what they are growing/producing.
Instead markets should be used for sustainable growth to help enhance rural communities, promoting tourism, small scale farming which would work towards building any one particular local economy, which is the driving force towards a global ecconomy.
If our global ecconomy is to survive governments need to get rid of the old school gentlemans agreement approach to our ecconomy and perhaps set a fixed price for 5 years to allow our global economy a chance to recover and livelyhoods to be saved.