Recently I posted some pictures of Godelieve Engbersen – TT Tilburg (south of the Netherlands) showing her while she is handing out a copy of the Dutch Transition Handbook to Job Cohen, new leader of the Party of Labour; and she also gave a book to Marianne Thieme leader of the Party of Animals.
Godelieve Engbersen: ‘There is too less attention among political leaders for sustainability.I want to give a book to all political leaders.’

OVESCo in Lewes has been running since 2007 & is seeking capital backing for its first community power project (most likely to be a PV array)! The company is an IPS set up by Transition Town Lewes members.

Water Power Enterprises (h2ope) has a couple of projects up and running as ISP’s in Settle & New Mills. The share issue has been very successful.

Low Carbon West Oxford won LCCC funding & is an IPS with a number of PV projects (homes & schools), but has yet to get its first hydro power project up & running. Again capital would help to push a community project along.

I understand Totnes has a TESCo! That has plans for a community Project. Totnes like LCWO also received LCCC funding, but also had the problem of delivering in a very short space of time, which meant PV was the easy option.

Then there are the ‘Energy For All Projects’, which have raised capital via share issues for wind farms.

All the above are relatively embryonic and there is some way to go before we see a Danish type models for Coop’s all generating renewable power. There is a need for support with project feasibly studies & start up costs and perhaps a Green Investment Bank could help here.

The ideal would be for projects to receive grant funding & low interest loans if they were community based (not for profit) with any returns recycled into the community for other projects.

OVESCo is looking at setting up a conference in Sussex to get all the potential community project partners together with government & financial support agencies. Details TBC, but contact hello@ovesco.co.uk if this is of interest.

Well you can say that — my point (last para) is, you’re not likely to find anyone in government saying that.

Of course big market tanks overthrow governments sometimes, and bring rather unsavory characters to power, as well as initiating depressions, so I understand the nervousness. The BNP has been slavering for their peak oil moment for years now.

Mr.Hopkins’ suggestion of a community-owned ESCO is an interesting one, albeit private finance looks set to be the main investment into this Green bank proposed by the government. I just hope that interest-rates on the loans are not too high; as ideally an energy co-operative should be able to supply needs-based power for heating/cooking 100% free for all local people who put a stake into it (with charges levied for business or non-needs usage). I make this point because a coming oil-crisis would mean a lot of people out of work and unable to neccessarily afford privatised fuel and food bills together (which is why I have plans for de-centralised permaculture food schemes).

I agree with Mr.Hopkins’ views on the need for greater clarity and government direction in improving conservation of energy. Perhaps the Conservative “smart grid” energy plans would be better without their unreasonable nuclear and “clean coal” proposals?

Mr.Hopkins makes a very good point about the gross negative EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested) with respect to carbon-capture from coal. Far too much coal is used up in the process and thus constraining supply. It’s also worth noting that a German report (which I have cited in a PDF I wrote critiquing the Tory “Low-Carbon” green paper) notes a 15 year remaining supply of global coal respective to demand.

Mr.Hopkins makes a very good point about the narrow-focus of the government on North Sea oil and gas liberalization and our existing vulnerability to global fossi-fuel markets. While I welcome such increases in efficiency of extraction; it is somewhat dangerous for the government to put too much focus on this at the expense of the global elephant in the room.

Mr.Hopkins also makes a good point about the flaws of the market-based focus on energy ‘security of supply’. I understand that it’s important to define supply-security primarily in the geological context rather than the political-context of dependence on nations with ulterior interests. Supply-security is also about ensuring that needs-based (cooking, heating, food-security, ambulance/fire/police services, etc) energy systems are ring-fenced in terms of funding and allocation and are protected from high-cost and high-risk energy infrastructures.

Mr.Hopkins correctly cites that things like home insulation and micro-generation are not going to reduce carbon emissions significantly. However, I think we can all understand that our carbon-based economy (and all the emissions it brings forth with it) is going to collapse regardless. Hopkins’ citing of Prof Rod Smith’s observations on economic growth and exponential resource consumption is an important reminder of how the exponential function seems to be absent from the minds of politicians. There is a good video on Youtube titled “The Most IMPORTANT Video You’ll Ever See” which discusses this issue. Our infinite-growth based paradigm cannot continue. We do face a future of continued economic contraction. This need not be a tragedy, however, given the possible implementations of Steady-State economics (see the works of Herman Daly et al) that no longer require growth for prosperity. I am glad that Mr.Hopkins is aware of this new economic paradigm and its incorporation into permaculture-derived resource usage too.

Perhaps the key question is: “can growth be redefined so that it does work in a sustainable manner, and if so how?”

Would be interesting to see any comments from the New Economics Foundation on that point. We know that it cannot be underpinned on an ever-increasing usage-rate with respect to our non-renewable natural resources, so leaving that aside, could it occur, in a redefined manner, in a powerdown, relocalised, reskilled and resilient world?

The alternative is a Kingsnorth-style collapse and die-back, after which the limits to growth will for some time be rather starker and simpler than those we currently face.

On that cheerful note….

Cheers – John

While I have come to take this same view (in the absence of evidence or promise of decoupling) it is very hard to cross the culturally impregnated growth fetish. As such (and wishing to have our cake and eat it if possible) I’d like to refer you to a researcher called James Greyson who’s done some interesting recent work including precycling – claiming it offers to reduce resource consumption and waste simultaneously while still offering the opportunity for growth. Here’s a link to some of his work:

http://blindspot.org.uk/News–and–Events.php

This duplicates part of Albert Bartlett’s lecture which appears on YouTube and is must-see material to anyone who wishes to gain a better understanding of the exponential function. I’m sure you’ve all seen it but here’s the link anyway:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

So, surely, it’s impossible to praise anything in the Queen’s speech since it is not targeted at producing a sustainable society. It’s impossible to imagine the government tweaking a few things next year to get us to sustainability. It’s growth at all costs, and the cost is the collapse of our societies (and, with them, our civilisation).

You mentioned Paul Kingsnorth and I understand that the initiative he’s involved with does recognise that collapse is inevitable. If so, perhaps that’s the start of describing our predicament faithfully, so that we don’t get fooled by bits and pieces of policy that we try to desperately find comfort from.

I have some perspectives on it that may be worth sharing:

- apart from the availability and interest rate associated with credit at the moment (which may be negotiable with some environmentally-minded institutions) there’s nothing to stop a town applying for a £1.5 million bank loan. However there needs to be a clear business & implementation plan, clear commitment, and a clear governance structure behind it.

- I agree that Monbiot & Kingsnorth have valid comments, but they are translating & extrapolating economic growth at current levels of carbon intensity. That’s exactly why we need to move to a low carbon economy – if we create new manufacturing and service sectors in home insulation, that is economic growth…

- Two of the main issues with localisation are fragmentation of decision making (and consequent squabbling) and economies of scale for infrastructure that spans the country. In many cases it’s more carbon-efficient to plan at a higher level, and more financially efficient to deliver at a strategic level. However, what often happens in reality is that bureaucracy at that larger level reduces the environmental and financial efficiency…

Simon

Great suggestion about a group loan to finance a community owned electricity company.

I live in Peru and I’m fascinated by the idea of local scale energy generation to benefit small communities. The geography of Peru means that there is huge potential for microhydro schemes. Of course, wind and solar can be added to to have a mix. The other factor is that because rural lifestyles are much less ‘developed’ here power consumption is much less so the potential impact of small scale is greater.

The great thing about renewables is that once the initial investment has been made, running costs are relatively very low since no fuel has to be purchased.

Yesterday I discovered two books which I can’t wait to read:

1. ‘Small Is Profitable: The Hidden Economic Benefits of Making Electrical Resources the Right Size’ by Amory B. Lovins

This one looks really interesting. Unfortunately it is very expensive, but for a Transition group looking into community-based electricity generation, it loooks to be required reading and the cost could be shared amoung the group.

2. ‘Building Social Business: Capitalism That Can Serve Humanity’s Most Pressing Needs’ by Muhammad Yunus. Here’s a summary: http://bit.ly/9O2To4

The model of local renewable electricity generation lends itself perfectly to the idea of a company that just runs and runs, needing no further financial input and that serves the community, either with the lowest possible electricity price, or with an income stream to use for other things.

This is exactly what I want to do here in Peru – if a small community can harness renewable resources, generate electricity, sell it to the national grid the net revenue (after running costs) could be split: 70% to go to the community in various forms (as cash; as direct investment in things like reliable drinking water, drainage/sewage systems; rubbish treatment, etc); or to create a microcredit fund to encourage small businesses). The remaining 30% could be used to replicate the model in other places to benefit other communities.

No ‘shareholders’ taking money out of the system. Ironically, because the model is based on truely renewable resources the perpetual growth assumption actually would apply.

The aspect that I am particularly interested in at the moment is the legal ownership structure. If anyone could recommend a good book about community ownership, the mutual model, etc. I’d be very grateful. My email is mark@canfly.es

But surely you realize that’s impossible Rob?

The moment anyone really thought zero-to-neg growth *was* the future, the markets would tank. Everyone is trying like hades to find a way for growth to be the future, otherwise those Athens riots are coming to London.

There has been zero attempt to revise banking mechanisms, even to take account of mistakes up to this point, much less rejig the accounting rules of the world so forcibly whipped growth is a thing of the past! As long as interest rates are positive growth has to be as well. People who lend want their money back — no growth, no repayments; no repayments, no wealth. No wealth… depression.

Whilst all the positive signs in the QS are to be welcomed, therefore, one should recall that no government is really going to be on top of the bigger point you end with. It will take more melting down before this fact is faced, if ever.