Sunday, May 20, 2012
Website update
After much work I have updated my website. Now there is much better integration with various forms of social media such as Twitter, Linkedin and Instragram. Also updated the background pages of the blog and Twitter to match - my homemade patchwork of images, hope you like it. All my publications on the website are also now up to date, including a new section featuring the translation of my book into Spanish.
Monday, March 19, 2012
The serious business of tree hugging
Back in 2001, infamous tough politician from Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, admitted that he liked hugging trees. At the time, he noted: “Hugging trees has a calming affect on me. I’m talking about enormous trees that will be there when we are all dead and gone.”
This week, I was amusingly accused of being a tree hugger after I circulated a petition to save a forest in Northern Ireland known as the Prehen woodland.
By global standards, this forest is minuscule. The remaining tract of forest in Prehen, just outside Derry, covers 18.5 acres, compared to the 1.7-billion acres of the Amazon forest basin.
But this small forest is also unique. It is an ancient woodland with trees dating back to the 1600s and is one of the few ancient woodlands left on the island of Ireland. One of the last colonies of indigenous red squirrels lives in the forest and it offers local people a green area on the edge of the city.
Nonetheless, the local government and planners still allow continued encroachment on the forest, giving developers licence to chop down ageless trees to build luxury homes. The developers then have the gall to advertise the new homes as located in a forest setting.
The savagery the officials have allowed on this tiny forest over the years is disgraceful, but is also part of a bigger global problem.
Forests cover about 30% of the world’s land area. But deforestation continues at an alarming rate. Logging, mining, housing and the planting of crops for grazing, besides other practices, destroy 4 500 acres of forest worldwide every hour, according to the United Nations. It is estimated that 18-million acres of the world’s forests is lost each year.
Experts estimate that, within 40 years, the last remaining rainforests could be consumed. This will have a devastating effect on the global climate and the 1.6- billion people who rely on forest products for all or part of their livelihoods.
Yet those who fight to roll back this destruction, like veteran local Prehen campaigner George McLaughlin, are generally dismissed as troublemakers by the planning authorities while, globally, corporations and governments turn a blind eye for a quick buck or financial support for their next election campaign.
Given the gargantuan annihilation of trees around the planet, should I, or anyone for that matter, care about the Prehen woodland in Northern Ireland?
Of course, we should. We need to challenge the human delusions I have seen in relation to forest annihilation. When it comes to vast forests like the Amazon, we are tricked into thinking they are too big to be completely wiped out. When it comes to small forests like the Prehen woodland, we think they are too insignificant to matter.
However, not caring about the Prehen woodland, or any other, is like saying the extinction of a specific species of insect is not important because there are lots of other insects in the world. But, like an extinct species, once this ancient woodland is gone, you cannot grow it back.
Adams claims he likes hugging trees because he knows they will be there long after he is gone. Well, in this case, he might be wrong.
When will the authorities in Northern Ireland wake up to the reality staring them in the face? Or will they continue to sell their resources to the highest bidder for some short-term gain, just like many others worldwide?
Given the record of government and the planners in relation to the Prehen woodland and internationally, there is little prospect. But each day I hope, just as my financial adviser is prone to say, past performance is not always an indicator of future performance and, perhaps, someone with the power to stop the wanton destruction of forests like the Prehen woodland will stand up and have the courage to say: “No more.”
This week, I was amusingly accused of being a tree hugger after I circulated a petition to save a forest in Northern Ireland known as the Prehen woodland.
By global standards, this forest is minuscule. The remaining tract of forest in Prehen, just outside Derry, covers 18.5 acres, compared to the 1.7-billion acres of the Amazon forest basin.
But this small forest is also unique. It is an ancient woodland with trees dating back to the 1600s and is one of the few ancient woodlands left on the island of Ireland. One of the last colonies of indigenous red squirrels lives in the forest and it offers local people a green area on the edge of the city.
Nonetheless, the local government and planners still allow continued encroachment on the forest, giving developers licence to chop down ageless trees to build luxury homes. The developers then have the gall to advertise the new homes as located in a forest setting.
The savagery the officials have allowed on this tiny forest over the years is disgraceful, but is also part of a bigger global problem.
 |
| Prehen Ancient Woodland |
Experts estimate that, within 40 years, the last remaining rainforests could be consumed. This will have a devastating effect on the global climate and the 1.6- billion people who rely on forest products for all or part of their livelihoods.
Yet those who fight to roll back this destruction, like veteran local Prehen campaigner George McLaughlin, are generally dismissed as troublemakers by the planning authorities while, globally, corporations and governments turn a blind eye for a quick buck or financial support for their next election campaign.
Given the gargantuan annihilation of trees around the planet, should I, or anyone for that matter, care about the Prehen woodland in Northern Ireland?
Of course, we should. We need to challenge the human delusions I have seen in relation to forest annihilation. When it comes to vast forests like the Amazon, we are tricked into thinking they are too big to be completely wiped out. When it comes to small forests like the Prehen woodland, we think they are too insignificant to matter.
However, not caring about the Prehen woodland, or any other, is like saying the extinction of a specific species of insect is not important because there are lots of other insects in the world. But, like an extinct species, once this ancient woodland is gone, you cannot grow it back.
Adams claims he likes hugging trees because he knows they will be there long after he is gone. Well, in this case, he might be wrong.
When will the authorities in Northern Ireland wake up to the reality staring them in the face? Or will they continue to sell their resources to the highest bidder for some short-term gain, just like many others worldwide?
Given the record of government and the planners in relation to the Prehen woodland and internationally, there is little prospect. But each day I hope, just as my financial adviser is prone to say, past performance is not always an indicator of future performance and, perhaps, someone with the power to stop the wanton destruction of forests like the Prehen woodland will stand up and have the courage to say: “No more.”
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 19 March 2012 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Friday, December 23, 2011
Christmas is the time for taking
 |
Public sector workers in Leeds, West Yorkshire Nov 2011. |
Some two-million public-sector workers, including teachers, healthcare professionals, university lecturers (including myself) and other civil servants, refused to work as government sought to cut pensions and force workers to work longer. The unions described the strike as the biggest in a generation. Government felt it was futile.
I do not wish to rehash the views of the unions and government, but rather highlight the split in opinion on the strike between public-sector and so-called ordinary private-sector workers such as retailers and workers in companies.
The argument from the private sector was simple: public-sector workers still have pensions, so why are they complaining about cuts and having to work slightly longer to get their, relatively speaking, generous payouts. Private-sector workers generally have no pensions, or their pensions were cut years ago. Currently, the mean average public-sector pension is about £7 000 a year, whereas in the private sector it is £5 000.
But what is mystifying about these arguments is that they somehow imply that what has happened to private-sector workers is right, or that if one sector of society is going to be screwed by big business and the pension companies, then everyone should. Two wrongs do not make a right.
The rich, of course, remain immune to all this. The annual pension of 346 directors from 102 of the UK’s top companies will be £200 000, compared with the average workplace pension of £8 100, a study found recently.
The current pension fight is also the thin edge of the wedge. A recent report by PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that, by 2080, the average person will have to work to 74 to get a pension. Further, figures suggest that the public sector may lose 490 000 jobs in the next few years. This will play itself out in the lives of ordinary people.
As the public sector shrinks, for example, waiting times in hospitals and teacher-to-pupil ratios will increase. Despite attempts to portray the public and private sectors as separate, they are also integrally linked. An enormous number of people in the private sector is dependent on the public sector for contracts.
According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the average family in the UK will lose £2 500 in annual household income, compared with three years ago.
So this is not about the public sector versus the private sector – this is about government choosing to support the very rich at the expense of ordinary people.
Bankers, who caused this crisis, continue to steal from taxpayers unashamedly. Directors’ pay rose by 40% last year. A total of £4.2-billion will be paid out in bonuses to bankers this year in the UK.
The Royal Bank of Scotland, now 84%-owned by taxpayers, is still intending next year to pay its top bankers £500-million in bonuses. Last year, the bank made a loss of £1.1-billion and paid out £950-million in bonuses. The top 100 bankers received over £1-million each.
Taxpayers are paying for these bonuses. So when nearly five-million people are told their pensions are going to be cut, including teachers, social workers, soldiers, firefighters and the police, it makes perfect sense they are angry, especially when they have been paying their contributions to pension schemes in good faith.
Now is the time to work together. But instead of the working public uniting to say enough is enough, different sectors of society are hurling abuse at each other. This is akin to having an argument on the deck of the Titanic about who is going to be affected the most when the iceberg hits, while the super-rich row off in the lifeboats.
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 16 December 2011 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
Friday, October 28, 2011
OFMDFM Response to CSI Strategy
OFMDFM have now published all the Consultation Responses the Cohesion, Sharing and Integration Consultation process on their website, which includes 288 submissions. The consultation also included 11 public meetings and 15 sector specific meetings.
They have also produced an independent Consultation Analysis Report on the responses received.
They have published a response too, OFMDFM Response to the Consultation on Cohesion, Sharing and Integration.
They have also produced an independent Consultation Analysis Report on the responses received.
They have published a response too, OFMDFM Response to the Consultation on Cohesion, Sharing and Integration.
Does size matter?
There is a story about Steve Jobs, the late cofounder of Apple, and it goes something likes this: When the first prototype of the iPod was produced, it was shown to Jobs by one of his engineers. The initial reaction from Jobs was to ask why it was so big. The engineer protested, saying that, for its size, it was incredible and it could hold a 1000 songs.
At this point, Jobs took the iPod, or so the story goes, walked over to a fish tank in his office and dropped the iPod into it. He then pointed to the bubbles that came out of the submerged device, noting that they were proof that there was still space inside and the iPod could be made smaller.
This story, whether true or not, highlights the link between technology and size, and the general trend towards increasingly smaller gadgets.
The first computer I used in the 1980s had a 10 Mb hard drive and was a giant hunk of metal. The hard drive alone weighed as much as a brick and was close to the size of a brick. At the time, 10 Mb was considered to be an enormous amount of storage space; today, the average app is bigger than 10 Mb and a flash drive 1 000 times the size would be no bigger than your thumb nail.
The rapid shrinking of devices has prompted some technology analysts to note that we are no longer in the midst of a computer revolution but rather in a time of evolution.
Evolution implies a gradual practical adaptation to the environment. This is largely true when it comes to computers. For example, the more people travel, the more likely they would want a lightweight and small laptop, and manufacturers respond accordingly. However, modern society creates aberrations in a logical technological advance towards the minuscule.
In the 1980s, it was the size of your ghetto blaster that was critical to your street credibility. Destroying your spine by dragging around a 4 ft radio on your shoulder with speakers large enough to blow your head off was the epitome of cool. This was replaced by the tiny iPod with mini earbuds.
But, recently, I noticed that the use of discrete earbuds has been replaced by oversized headphones. Sound quality aside, one reason for this is that, as iPods have become smaller, it is harder to show off your shiny new gadget. So highly visible headphones, with the designer labels showing, have become the new fashion accessory.
The use of 4 × 4 vehicles in cities is a further example that bucks the trend toward miniaturisation. No one really needs a car the size of a tank to drive around a city, and a small micro car would make more sense. But that does not stop from us buying large vehicles completely unsuited to the urban environment. Some argue this is about comfort and safety, but we all know a 4 × 4 is also a status symbol.
So size is not only dependent on functionality but is deeply linked to social standing. The question, therefore, is whether we are, in fact, evolving or not? One thesis is that modern life is causing a slowdown in evolution, but other scientists argue we are adapting even more rapidly to different environments, foods and lifestyles.
But I simply do not trust humans to do what is in the best interests of the species. Driving environment-destroying cars is a case in point.
You would think we would have evolved to have a ‘sensible gene’. Such a gene would prevent us from using things that destroy the planet or eating food that slowly kills us, not to mention wearing overpriced impractical sound cups on our ears in busy public spaces. We would do well to remember the words of Wendelin Wiedeking, former CEO of Porsche: “If size did matter, the dinosaurs would still be alive.”
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 28 October 2011 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
At this point, Jobs took the iPod, or so the story goes, walked over to a fish tank in his office and dropped the iPod into it. He then pointed to the bubbles that came out of the submerged device, noting that they were proof that there was still space inside and the iPod could be made smaller.
This story, whether true or not, highlights the link between technology and size, and the general trend towards increasingly smaller gadgets.
The first computer I used in the 1980s had a 10 Mb hard drive and was a giant hunk of metal. The hard drive alone weighed as much as a brick and was close to the size of a brick. At the time, 10 Mb was considered to be an enormous amount of storage space; today, the average app is bigger than 10 Mb and a flash drive 1 000 times the size would be no bigger than your thumb nail.
The rapid shrinking of devices has prompted some technology analysts to note that we are no longer in the midst of a computer revolution but rather in a time of evolution.
Evolution implies a gradual practical adaptation to the environment. This is largely true when it comes to computers. For example, the more people travel, the more likely they would want a lightweight and small laptop, and manufacturers respond accordingly. However, modern society creates aberrations in a logical technological advance towards the minuscule.
In the 1980s, it was the size of your ghetto blaster that was critical to your street credibility. Destroying your spine by dragging around a 4 ft radio on your shoulder with speakers large enough to blow your head off was the epitome of cool. This was replaced by the tiny iPod with mini earbuds.
But, recently, I noticed that the use of discrete earbuds has been replaced by oversized headphones. Sound quality aside, one reason for this is that, as iPods have become smaller, it is harder to show off your shiny new gadget. So highly visible headphones, with the designer labels showing, have become the new fashion accessory.
The use of 4 × 4 vehicles in cities is a further example that bucks the trend toward miniaturisation. No one really needs a car the size of a tank to drive around a city, and a small micro car would make more sense. But that does not stop from us buying large vehicles completely unsuited to the urban environment. Some argue this is about comfort and safety, but we all know a 4 × 4 is also a status symbol.
So size is not only dependent on functionality but is deeply linked to social standing. The question, therefore, is whether we are, in fact, evolving or not? One thesis is that modern life is causing a slowdown in evolution, but other scientists argue we are adapting even more rapidly to different environments, foods and lifestyles.
But I simply do not trust humans to do what is in the best interests of the species. Driving environment-destroying cars is a case in point.
You would think we would have evolved to have a ‘sensible gene’. Such a gene would prevent us from using things that destroy the planet or eating food that slowly kills us, not to mention wearing overpriced impractical sound cups on our ears in busy public spaces. We would do well to remember the words of Wendelin Wiedeking, former CEO of Porsche: “If size did matter, the dinosaurs would still be alive.”
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 28 October 2011 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)