Generally good stuff, but wrong conclusion

 Another item that the Paper.Li tools would not handle

JEP 2012 06 27

Have we a new growth industry in sustainability?

Wednesday 27th June 2012, 2:56PM BST.

BLINK and it probably passed you by. But, for something billed as being so important for the long-term survival of the planet and all who roam over it, two formal days in Rio de Janeiro last week reviewing the progress of the 1992 Earth Summit could very well have seem a touch derisory.

To give it its full name, this was the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, or Rio +20, attended by delegates from 190 nations. Twenty years on, you could be forgiven a sigh of resignation that worthy predictability could be the only outcome.

The omens were, to put it mildly, unexciting. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had already labelled negotiations on global attempts at setting a balance between conservation and development, industry and nature as ‘painfully slow’, though he described the conference as ‘too important to fail’.

Coincidentally, and not a little ironically, just up the South American continental main road, world leaders were closeted in a Mexican holiday resort for a summit of the G20 richest nations with lashings of economic sticking plaster on a mission to patch up the crisis in the Eurozone and restore economic growth to the fragile world economy. In the lastminute.dot.panic world of keeping currencies afloat and massaging quick-spun reputations, the long-term focus on sustainability may have become just another can to kick further down the road to landfill.

Twenty years ago, the great and the good queued up to claim the green laurels at the Rio podium. This time, Barak, Dave and Angela were conspicuous by their absence. However, a quick glance at the statistics shows that concerns about the health and sustainability of the planet have, if anything, become more alarming.

In 1992, the world’s population stood at 5.5 billion; now it tops 7 billion. Then, summer sea-ice covered 7.5 million square miles; last year it had reduced to 4.5 million. The atmosphere contained 356 parts per million of carbon dioxide; now it’s risen to 396, and emissions are up 40%.

And while individuals may very well interpret the evidence to suit their own conclusions, it’s not unreasonable to question that if in 1992 the world was prepared to devote two solid weeks to negotiating binding commitments, its successor should now have come up so disappointingly short on tangible measures to address, food, water, energy, city growth or marine pollution, despite its grandiose banner of determining ‘the future we want’.

It’s not that sustainability has simply fallen off the agenda; we could just have witnessed a reality check. Two decades ago, the final communiqué contained 6,000 pages, which is a fair indication that every nation wanted to safeguard its own exploitation.

MAYBE we’re concentrating on the wrong approach. Regulation – that little engine beloved of ‘authorities’ in institutions large and small – has much to answer for. It pushes up the cost of compliance and acts as a mighty disincentive. Even basic low-tech innovation falls out of fashion and beyond budget.

Also, in the background lies another little indicator with a disproportionate influence on how we value progress and development. It’s called GDP: the measure of all we spend and produce – goods, services, batteries and farm produce. It’s the Holy Grail. When GDP goes up a percentage point, happiness breaks out; a percentage point down and economists panic.
Growth is an addiction, but what does it represent? Is there such a thing as having enough? Bigger isn’t always better. Maybe we should develop a better respect for limits. Any farmer will tell you that if you grab too much, it rots in your field the next morning.

Who says there’s no room for a more sophisticated balance sheet which awards more points to the health of a nation’s infrastructure – welfare, satisfaction and sustainability – than pure material growth? Furthermore, we could deduct the cost of pollution, crime or social disruption from the equation.

Rapid economic development has traditionally been regarded as the blueprint for economic advancement. There is definitely nothing wrong in wanting a more comfortable existence than the previous generation, with new trinkets and labour-saving devices. But after years of slash and burn, there are now huge concerns in some of the emerging BRIC countries that for too long they have been tearing out centuries of subsistence farming, lowering precious water tables all to build factories to supply rich overseas consumers.

Their new rich are becoming richer, but their poor are dispossessed and driven into greater poverty. Where will they be when the fragile agricultural base is totally destroyed and the promised quality of life cannot be delivered?

If there is one thing we have learned recently, it is that assumptions and certainties are no longer unshakeable. While the West may not be consuming significantly more stuff than ten years ago as a result of global recession, the ecological footfall of developing countries is rapidly advancing, with irreparable damage. We can claim to have become far cleverer in harnessing new technologies to produce and sustain more, but consumption remains the major threat to sustainability and food security.

Well, we have been here before, and curiously there is a pattern. Apocalyptic prophesies of planet destruction were made 20 plus 20 years further back, in 1972, by an influential group of scientists and environmentalists called the Club of Rome.

Then, as now, they cautioned against the rapacious squander of scarce irreplaceable food and energy sources and runaway population growth. But we are still here and some of the commodities we feared we would miss the most, we no longer use. It convinces some critics that we should simply concentrate on the art of the possible. Sounds to me like the beginning of a new growth industry.

A little technical difficulty

The tool that Publishing.li uses to include stories in the paper seems to have become as uncooperative as a teenager on a bad day.  So here is a link it would not let me upload 

questions without answers
Recorded bits of States question time

I shall be on a Prince course next week.  Nothing to do with Machiavellis book The Prince nor any putative ruler of an independent Principality of Jersey.  Just a tedious project managament certification.

It does mean howeever I may not be able to curate Jersey Today , and things may have to run on autopilot.

The States order paper for next week has been published, see OrderPaper

BNotices of lodged propositions include

Economic Growth and Diversification Strategy.
Lodged: 1st June 2012.
Council of Ministers.

Draft Income Support (Amendment No. 8) (Jersey) Regulations 201-.
Lodged: 1st June 2012.
Minister for Social Security.

Oral Questions include
  Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement will ask the following question of the Minister for
Planning and Environment –
“Would the Minister update members on the genetically modified Jersey Royal potato
experiment?”

 Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chief Minister –
“Will the Chief Minister clarify precisely what the perceived problems are with the terms of
reference for the historic abuse enquiry as proposed by Verita; would he state whether Mr.
Andrew Williamson has been engaged to review the terms of reference and, if so, what the cost
of his engagement is?”

Health Consultation

Dates for public meetings about the white paper Caring for Each Other, Caring for Ourselves are out.

 

The first one is on Monday night!

 

Monday 11 June

Trinity Youth Centre (behind Trinity Parish Hall)

7:30 pm to 9 pm

 

 

Monday 25 June

Les Quennevais School

7:30 pm to 9 pm

 

 

Monday 16 July

12 pm to 1 pm and

7:30 pm to 9 pm

St Paul’s Centre

 

 

The white paper is at: http://www.gov.je/Government/Consultations/Pages/CaringEachOtherCaringOurselves.aspx

many reasons for unrest and anger Mr Gorst

23rd May 2012 WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 It cannot have gone unnoticed to you that over the last few days it has become apparent (and confirmed) that you have called in Andrew Williamson to look at the Terms of Reference submitted to you by Verita in November last year. This has been done in what can only be seen as a sneaky and underhand way with no consultation at all with the interested parties who met with Ed Marsden last year.

 Now that a leaked report from Verita is in the public domain, we fail to see that there can be any issues with the recommendations contained therein unless of course they are seen to be too ‘robust’ for certain members of the Council of Ministers. As far as we are concerned it is a very fair report, and naturally if it is tampered with in any way, i.e. watered down, it will not be fit for purpose. If this Committee of Inquiry is not held with all Verita’s recommendations there will be little or no point in holding it. This report was based on wide ranging input to Mr Marsden from States Members present and past to Careleavers and ordinary members of the public with an interest in this matter.

 Will all these people be afforded the same input to Mr Williamson? We think not.

 Furthermore, the contempt you are showing yet again to the survivors of abuse beggars belief, when it is clear that had this whole scenario not been uncovered, they would have been kept in the dark as to what was happening. The dismissive attitude towards the survivors through all this affair has been a disgrace, and rather than bring them open and honest closure at this stage, attempts are still being made to try and thwart the CoI, or perhaps if the CoM had their way not proceed with it at all.

 Clearly any meeting which you promised with the JCLA before you lodged your proposition will not be very fruitful if your proposition is not be based on Verita’s report, a report which also shows a timescale for getting this all up and running long before now. Why the constant delays?

 Are you in a position to let us and the taxpayer know how much extra on top of the cost of Verita, bringing Mr Williamson into the equation will be, when it should be unnecessary?

 Perhaps you would kindly answer these questions in an honest and timely fashion, as they are of great concern to quite a number of people, which includes the general public also.

 In addition to the above, we would also like to clarify some points you made in the States Assembly last Tuesday 15th May in answer to a question to Deputy Shona Pitman regarding the involvement of Careleavers in the terms of the compensation scheme.

It seems you were given to understand that Careleavers had a lot of involvement and were quite happy with the scheme. On both counts – not so.

 There was very little involvement, and far from being happy it was almost a case of ‘take it or leave it’.

We were also given to understand that there would a year to call in claimants. In fact the length of time given has been 6 months.

 We were led to believe that advertisements for claimants would be made in the UK press. Again this did/has not happened.

We were told that the JCLA would be included on the list of places where claim forms and booklets could be picked up and help given explaining the procedure. The reasoning behind this was that most survivors will not go anywhere near a States building or related office, such is their mistrust of the States. However, when we pointed out that we were not included in the literature, we informed Richard Jouault and Judy Martin and they assured us that we would be added to the list of names that appeared in the JEP advert.

 Needless to say this did not happen either.

 It was also put to us in a meeting with Richard Jouault and Deputy Martin that rather than run in parallel with the compensation claims the Committee of Inquiry would be better taking place after the compensation issues were all finalised, a suggestion we dismissed out of hand. There is no reason why the two should not run along side each other, one being a civil claim against the States of Jersey and the other an Inquiry. If we take an example from Ireland, compensation claims, a Committee of Inquiry and criminal cases were all taking place together.

 It is interesting that several abuse claimants unbeknown to us as members have called to our offices on the off chance, just to see if we did have the relevant paper work because they did not wish to go elsewhere for the reasons above.

 Finally, why did you not see fit to correct the JEP when they named Verita’s report as the basis for the ToR, and also on one occasion (which we did ask Anne Pryke to rectify, but she didn’t) quoted ‘millions and millions’ of tax payers money to be paid in compensation, not good for the Island’s image. This appeared in the JEP before the compensation scheme had been announced and the claimants had no idea of the terms of the scheme. This was misleading to both the general public and abuse survivors as well.

 This should never have been allowed as we understand it whilst some may come from the taxpayer’s purse, there will subsequently be an insurance claim involved.

 Understandably - many reasons for unrest and anger Mr Gorst.

 Your swift response to all these questions would be appreciated and some indication as to what stage we are at right now.

 We are sending this letter to all States Members as well, as we would be interested to know how they feel about the issues raised, and apart from your response would appreciate some feedback from Members also. Some may say, as they have indeed, ‘just move on’, but moving on means for all concerned that past issues must be acknowledged and addressed. With all due respect many of the survivors have waited decades for the abuse they suffered in the ‘care’ of the States of Jersey to even be recognised.

 Finally, is it too much to ask that we have the promised Committee of Inquiry, in an open, honest and robust form, and as soon as possible to finally lay this matter to rest?

Then and only then, will moving on be made easier.

 Nothing less will suffice.

Down is up

The Paper.li platform that hosts Jersey Today is down for maintenance today. You should still be able to read the latest paper as I managed to beat the deadline this monrning. However tomorrow's edition many not appear, or only in limited form. The platform changes sound good, including a facility to archive papers. Another improvement due is a facility for curators like me to be able to view contents before publishing. That may help me a lot as I'll be able to widen the filters knowing I'll have a chance to cull the irrelavant bits before it goes public.

Thank You - 1,000 up

I started this online newspaper as an experiment.  I had an idea and wanted to check out what already existed so I started playing with paper.li.  As it happens my doings were spotted  and posted on another blog, so Jersey Today was born.

Now after roughly 20 days of being in the public eye we shall sometime on the 16th May pass the 1000 views. Lots of you have re-tweeted and liked on Facebook, so I figure I'm doing something right here.  And a big thank you for spreading the message.  It is still an experiment, and I have identified some very irritating limitations with paper.li.  Equally it does a lot that would be a huge effort to do myself.

I am working on some additional  ideas.  This site for one to enable me to link to items like pdfs that paper.li does not handle at all well. It also gives you a chance to comment if you have constructive suggestions or valid criticisms.

The graphic below has active links within it. The headline Jersey Today should take you back to the paper. The section heading on the right will bring up the items under that heading into the left panel and you can scroll down using the slider in the middle if appropriate. Failing that click this link Jersey Today