Category: Environment

Drive

Listening to talk radio passes the miles of spray as I thundered down the motorway in the heavy rain. Oddly, going West to East seems somehow to be “down” although that makes no sense at all. Today, the M4 looked at its least attractive.

Inherently, those who take the time to phone in to radio stations are a self-selecting group of people who have been themselves been selected by the station’s editors. Afterall, who wants a dull silence or an abusive incoherent rant? That’s what social media is for (smile).

I’m guilty as a listener of quick stereotyping. I’m human. Radio voices do give a hint of education and personality. Unfortunately, my irrational biases are not too different from a lot of people. That association of a middle English accent-less voice as being “intelligent” is so easy to make. Contrasted that person with a broad regional accent, God forbid, West Country, then it’s all to easy to think smock and pitchfork.

What I’m recalling is a man speaking in the poshest London accent one can imagine. The subject was flip flops (flippy floppy[1]) that opposition politicians are doing as they change their policies. Is it national News that circumstances change and policies change accordingly? Apparently, it is.

He was saying that he had intended to vote Labour in the forthcoming UK General Election because he wanted change. It’s time for a change. Now, recent announcements had put him off. The radio host asked him who he was going to vote for when the election finally came. His answer was not inspiring; the devil you know, he said. My reaction was one of destain. I wanted to shout at the radio; you mean after all the screw-ups this lot have made you would still want them back in power!

I thought how can an intelligent person, maybe that was a leap too far, stick with the devil you know, when you know that devil is so grossly incompetent? Their overall performance has been poor. It’s a mystery but is that’s a common view? Is the taste for change so weak?

That sort of spur of the minute instinctive reaction is quite legitimate. Afterall, it’s a secret ballot. So, if that’s the way a person feels then that’s the way they will go. Comfort blanket politics.

My problem is that the whole notion of accountability goes out of the window if people constantly stick with the “devil you know” regardless of what they have done. If choosing differently is always considered to be too risky then no one will ever know if things can get better (to paraphrase a slogan from a past election[2]).

There’s some political mendacity here too. If we go back to the 2016 referendum, it was decidedly risky to vote for Brexit. That didn’t stop tub thumping right-wing politicians from pushing the risky option. Now, those same right-wing politicians want to cling to power so they are advocating exactly the opposite. That’s to encourage the electorate to think that change is far too risky. I can image a new political slogan saying – Yes, we are awful but we say we are not so awful as all the others. Dick Emery[3] would be proud.

[1] https://youtu.be/CFNML_MGq-M

[2] https://youtu.be/V6QhAZckY8w

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/03/dick-emery-dies-archive-1983

Look ahead

Much as I support the UK Government’s position on hormone injected beef, the exit from negotiations on trade have wide implications. Maintaining the regulations that ban the use of hormones in beef is a good move for farmers and consumers.

However, for cheese exports the collapse of talks is tragic. Zero to 200% is one hell of a tariff jump. The UK will be in a worse position with respect to trade than it was pre-referendum. That’s with a strong ally, namely Canada[1]. Brexit has made us worse-off.

Yet, the Brexit supporters that remain, still herald Brexit as a wonder. Logic plays no part in their thinking. It’s easy to respond in an angry way to this self-inflicted blindness. It does no good. The stubborn streak in those who have dug a big hole is a thick one. And the hole is getting ever bigger.

Clearly, there’s no urgency on the part of Canada[2]. On the UK side the urgency is much greater. The need to stimulate growth to bring about a recovery in the British economy is much needed. Sadly, the legacy of a decision made in 2016 has made created a weak negotiating position.

For a long time, the UK has been given a soft landing due to transitional arrangements. Now, these arrangements are drying up. Far from the propaganda of the Brexiters, trade deals are not easy.

The problem is a reference back to the past is like crying over spilt milk[3]. How to go forward when the relationship between different States has been significantly changed is no simple matter. The situation is not irrecoverable but the avenues that can be explored are limited.

So, I caution of a never-ending lament. Brexit will need to be rectified. The means to do it are tortuous and may take a long time. The means to undo the mistakes of the past may face opposition from many quarters. One of the predictions for the European elections, this year, are that there will be a swing to the political right. Several right-wing political parties across Europe are on the ascendancy.

Instinctively these right leaning political parties are likely to less internationalist and more focused on immediate domestic concerns. So, third parties, like the UK, may not be high on Europe’s future agenda. On the UK side the major political parties have gone quite on Europe. There’s plenty of campaigning on international issues, like climate change and military conflict but little on enhanced working together.

There are many national news stories where solutions are best arrived at by greater communication, cooperation, and coordination. This year, so far, the signs are that these three “c” are going to take a back seat. Ironic, isn’t it. Facing greater international challenges than for decades, States choose to look inward. This myopia will continue until leaders speak positively of the future. Vision is needed.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/canada-britain-pausing-free-trade-agreement-talks-2024-01-25/

[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-uk-trade-cheese-1.7094817

[3] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cry-over-spilt-milk

Enough

I’m not a supporter of the Labour party leader but his call for change is surely one that is echoing through every street of the land. By the way, good choice for a location to make a national New Year speech[1]. And all the Conservatives could do in response is make populists claim that he’s a populist whilst doing nothing other than being populist. Populism eating itself. Populists accusing others of being populists. Admitting the flaws in what they do whilst trying to paint those flaws on others.

No, Prime Minister Sunak procrastination is not the way forward. He’s without core principles, hanging on to exploit whatever comes along. There’s zero authenticity only maximum opportunism.

Liberal Democrat party calls for a General Election are spot on. The reality is that we are destined to have a year’s worth of election campaigning ahead if the election date if not called for the spring.

Liberal Democrats “Tory Removal Service” may signal a love for publicity gimmicks but getting national attention when the media landscape is polarised is not a simple business.

Leader Ed Davey is showing that there is an alternative to the worn-out outdated political parties[2]. It’s a challenge to the British electorate. Do you want the stale ding-dong of national political debate to go on disappointing forever? We can do better. We can mend a political system that has been fundamentally broken for an age.

Rather than feathering the beds of supporters we need a government commitment to equality. Rather than short-termism we need a government that takes the long view. Rather than shunning our neighbours we need a government that embraces internationalism.

Yesterday’s resignation of Conservative MP Chris Skidmore[3] appears much like a rat leaving a sinking ship but it’s more important than that classic media interpretation of events.

Skidmore addressed the issue of short-termism head on. He’s resigning citing the on-going legislation to boost North Sea oil and gas drilling. Next week, the UK Parliament returns to consider an Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill. This Conservative Government’s move is a kick in the teeth to the country’s green credentials. He states, I can no longer stand by. The climate crisis that we face is too important to politicise or to ignore.

Promoting the production of new oil and gas sources is a backward move. Yes, we need energy security but that should be a driver to invest in electrification and reducing energy waste. There’s a list of policy moves that could return the UK to a position of leadership on climate change.

2024 is likely to see the current Conservative administration flaking like peeling paint as it slowly decays. We do not need opportunistic papering over the cracks. It would be so much better for the whole country if they stood aside – soon.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67880324

[2] https://www.libdems.org.uk/news/article/new-year-2024

[3] https://news.sky.com/story/tory-mp-chris-skidmore-to-stand-down-over-bill-that-promotes-production-of-new-oil-and-gas-13042746

The Will

We’ve entered the first days of a New Year. Traditionally, it’s a time for reflection and speculation.

Looking back at the path behind.  Looking forward at the unmade path ahead. Four and twenty years into the new millennium perhaps it’s not so enjoyable to look back. To be reminded of the travails of the last decade, in particular, isn’t that helpful. We can go back to feel good moments, like 2012 and the London Olympics[1]. Sadly, there hasn’t been enough of these moments of unity and common purpose. Unscrupulous politicians have become fixated on dividing people.

This year, the opportunities to change all that are staring us in the face. It’s an Olympic year[2]. Choices abound. Elections mark an opportunity to carve a new path ahead. Doomsayers are totalling up the conflicts in the world. Listing the threats. Calling our attention to our weaknesses. This is one side of the coin. I’d rather highlight the other side of the coin.

As much as humanity is well capable of breaking things it’s getting ever better at fixing things. We may be slow in recognising climate change, but it’s spurring innovation on a massive level.

Despite the aging demographic in this country, the world is more youthful. That worldwide youth is gaining better education, in numbers unimaginable in past millennia.

The Human vs. Machine narrative is a false one. The choice is ours as to what to do with technology. We need to take that responsibility. The means to do so are available to us if we choose to us them.

Health outcomes, at a global level are improving. Our understanding of the afflictions of humanity is advancing to meet the challenge. Our responsiveness to new threats is improving.

So, don’t look down at your feet. Look up, look forward and prepare for a better future.

There’s also a stubborn noise in our political debate. Every request is for more money. The thesis is that the problem, whatever it is, will be solved by more money. Sometimes that’s the way to go. Investing in science and research has been shown to work. It clearly helps to have a well-trained and well-motivated workforce. However, this sum isn’t digital. In other words: More Money = solution. Less Money = failure. In a lot of cases, it’s not money that is the missing component.

Much of what I’ve observed fits a different equation. Namely, sustained political will equals progress. Lack of political will equals stagnation. And political will deployed like a blunderbuss equals disappointment and waste. I’m talking of a version of “A House Divided Cannot Stand.” The issue is how to differentiate and not how to divide. They are different.

The British high-speed rail debate is a sad example. Sustained political will can deliver. Poor management, shilly-shallying and constantly shuffling the pack, which is what has happened, lays the tracks to failure and waste in the long term.

2024 can be a year when we take back control of our destiny. Commitment to building a better country. A generous and inclusive society that brings people together. We have the will.

[1] https://www.londonolympics2012.com/

[2] https://www.paris2024.org/en/

Eurostar

More than a few times the thought that climate change will impact transport has been raised. Not so much as transport impacting climate change but the two go hand in hand. Whereas the assumptions built into roads, rails and airports were of their time, time doesn’t stand still.

More frequent heavy rain and raised tides, and the flooding associated with them, are to be expected. To hear that the rail tracks between London and the Channel Tunnel have been underwater shouldn’t be too much of a shock. Flooding is a worldwide threat to public transport systems. In London, over the last couple of days, flooded tunnels brought travel chaos. Millions of gallons of water were not where they were supposed to be.

We can get used to disruption caused by strong winds and torrential rain sweeping across the country. The question to ask is – should we? I always wonder as soon as I see the word: “unprecedented” in a public statement. Huge volumes of water may not have been predicted to overwhelm the pumping systems designed to keep them under control, but now we know. It makes me think we are going to hear the word “unprecedented” a lot more in future.

This city centre to coastline railway is relatively new[1]. It cost £6.84 billion and opened in November 2007. Most travel commentators would say that it has been a great success. I was looking forward to the day that the German train company, Deutsche Bahn was to implement plans for a London to Frankfurt train service. Sadly, that project was shelved in 2018. I wonder why[2]? That “B” word again.

The subject of these comment, the Thames Tunnel is over 3km long. The rail lines dive beneath the river from the counties of Essex to Kent. This High-Speed rail tunnel goes under the river near Fiddler’s Reach. This part of the River Thames, much like most of the tidal river, was once busy with commercial shipping. It’s been the site of unfortunate events before[3].

Further upstream is the Thames Barrier. A truly magnificent structure. The barrier protects central London against a storm surge. It works well. However, it will eventually need to be replaced. The inexorable tide, no pun intended, is moving just one way.

Risk is a multifaceted factor: operational, economic, social, political, safety, security. Did current risk assessments foresee a likelihood of flooding? I don’t know. The safe running of High-Speed trains through underwater tunnels should be subject to risk assessment. I’m sure it is.

Eurostar has experienced a set back as 2023 comes to an end. Eurostar services are again running as normal. But this weather-related event highlights the fact that climate change will impact transport systems. If the thought has not found its way onto the desk of a civil servant, it might be as well to do a high-level audit of the nations transport infrastructure.

Either that or get used to using the word “unprecedented” a lot more.

[1] High Speed 1 (HS1) is a 109.9-kilometre high-speed railway linking London with the Channel Tunnel.

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/london-frankfurt-cologne-train-deutsche-bahn-db-eurostar-cancelled-shelved-a8394806.html

[3] https://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EAW143996

Next Decade Aviation

Here, I thought I’d speculate on what’s coming our way. That’s looking at the next ten-years.

Although this maybe contradictory to my earlier writings the subject is by no means all or nothing. Aviation is a technology-based means of mobility. Without the technology component there is no flight. Aviation a youthful industry when compared with ships, roads, and rail.

On the other hand, people are at the heart of the aviation system. That’s particularly true in assuring its stability, safety, and security. People create, innovate and fix systems when they fail. People make go-no go decisions. People protect systems from attack.

Commercial aviation maybe a youthful industry but it has an inbuilt conservatism. It’s the characteristic of not wishing to change when systems are working well. This has both and upside and downside.

A maturity of rules, regulations, processes, and procedures comes about by continuous improvement. By people learning. However, it’s often the case that industry does not reflect the society that it serves. People are excluded or walk away when expectations are dashed.

Across the globe, the future of the aviation workforce depends upon change. There again is a rub. People operating in a successful system rarely welcome change. Especially, if the drivers for that change come from outside the tight knit community of aviation professionals.

The first decades of the jet-age were characterised by a sense of adventure, glamour, and pride. As commercial aviation became available to a wider traveling public there was a gradual opening to professional entrants from most sections of society, even if that was predominantly male.

Now, big company traditional career paths are more an exception rather than the norm. Aviation competes with other industries at a time of rapid digital transformation. This has the impact of opening a wide range of options to potential professional entrants. In the coming decade the trend is going to advance.

A successful aviation industry organisation looks for skills and behaviours as much as it looks for raw technical talent. Assuring stability, safety, and security means having a responsible attitude, an instinct to challenge and question.

Today in the post-pandemic world, the industry is going through a period some people have called the “great resignation”. A generation have walked away from the pressure and stresses of the crisis. Industry behaviour, in a rush to cut costs, exasperated this by treating people exceptionally poorly.

For a sustainable future, commercial aviation needs to work to eliminate the hire and fire cycle. The global aviation industry needs to think and act differently. Aviation needs to get off the trap of the “similar-to-me” effect found in hiring. When a selection bias dominates potential professional entrants are put off. Talented young people are likely to choose meritocratic employment where rewards are there for achievement and commitment regardless of non-relevant factors.

Some work will be replaced by automation. However, retaining aviation people with people skills, regardless of background, will be invaluable in the next decade.

Earthrise

24th December 1968 did change everything. What was achieved in that year hasn’t been matched. An unexpected event took place on an adventure to orbit our Moon. Now, 55-years have gone by. Enormous strides have changed lives. Technology has raced ahead. We reside on a beautiful and bountifully planet. Yet, we have continued to pump massive amounts of carbon into the Earth’s atmosphere. I wonder, does this tell us anything about human nature? If there is such a thing.

The photograph called “Earthrise” was taken while the Apollo 8 spacecraft was skimming over the surface of our Moon[1]. I don’t suppose there has ever been a more significant colour photograph in human history. As one of the astronaut’s said, he could hold his thumb up at a window and mask everything and everybody alive except for the three of them in the capsule.

The Earth appeared as a swirly blue marble set in the dark emptiness of space. The image is stark. Eyes are drawn to the lush colour and liveliness of the globe. Contrasted with the darkness and vastness of space. Clouds, oceans, and landmasses all scattered across this lonely planet. At the time of the Apolo mission there was about three and a half billion inhabitants. Today, there’s eight billion people spread across the surface of the Earth.

This image has become pivotal in our thinking. So much of our debates and discussions about the future are dominated by conflict and competition for resources. When there’s the opportunity to stand back and realise that our small homeland is shared, those tensions fade, at least a little.

Fragility and, almost irrelevance, when set against the vastness of space, is our daily reality. Illuminated by the Sun, a minor star, and in just the right place for life, so we fight and war as if humanity was at the centre of the universe. That animalistic behaviour could be the route of our downfall. Only, we are doing something else to top that persistent stupidity.

What sets Earth apart? That cultivated atmosphere. Such are the interactions going on in the first 100 kilometres above the surface of the planet that a sustained healthy atmosphere exists. It takes a quick look at the images coming back from the exploratory rovers on Mars to see how alive and miraculous Earth’s atmosphere has become.

The question is, are we the generations of humans who will permanently degrade it? Presently we are struggling with the needs and desires of the eight billons of us and the realising that a balance must be struck. For one pumping massive amounts of carbon into the Earth’s atmosphere is pure idiocy. It’s even greater idiocy when we have advanced and invented technologies that mean we don’t need to do it.

COP28 may be another step on the road to sanity but we continue to struggle with the realities of our situation. A human-made climate crisis and a dramatic increase in climate related catastrophes may wake us up. Perhaps every screen saver on the planet ought to be the Earthrise image.

POST: The first such image of the Earth seen from the Moon was taken by Lunar Orbiter 1 in 1966. It was in black and white and of poor quality.

[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/who-took-legendary-earthrise-photo-apollo-8-180967505/

Two upfront

One of the fundamentals that remains a part of civil aviation is having two pilots in the cockpit. It’s an indication of the safety related activities of the crew of a civil aircraft. Today, we have a mixture of human control and management. Pilots still fly hands-on when the need arises. The expectation is that throughout their working lives pilots have the competence to do so, at any stage in a flight.

Progressively, since the establishment of aviation’s international order in the 1940s the required crewing of aircraft has changed. Back in September, I visited the de Havilland Aircraft Museum in Hertfordshire. There I walked through the fuselage of a de Havilland DH106 Comet[1]. This was the first turbojet-powered airliner to go into service and it changed the experience of flying forever and a day.

That passenger aircraft, like aircraft of the time, had four crew stations in the cockpit. Two pilots, a navigator and flight engineer. It was the era when electronics consisted of valves in large radio sets and such long since forgotten devices as magnetic amplifiers. The story from the 1940s of IBM saying, “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers” is often repeated.

For modern airliners the navigator and flight engineer have gone. Their functions have not gone. It’s that having a crew member dedicated to the tasks they performed is no longer required. As the world of vacuum-tube electronics gave way to transistors and then to integrated circuits so computing got more powerful, cheaper, and abundant.

With a few significant failures along the way, commercial flying got safer and safer. The wave of change in a human lifetime has affected every mode of transport. More people travel to more places, more safely than ever could have been imagined 80-years ago. Does that mean the path ahead will take a similar shape? Excitable futurologists may paint a colourful picture based on this history.

Let’s get away from the attractive notion of straight lines on graph paper. That idea that progress is assumed to be linear. Tomorrow will be progressively “better” by an incremental advance. That’s not happening now. What we have is differential advances. Some big and some small. 

The aviation safety curve is almost flat. The air traffic curve, with a big hole made by COVID, is climbing again. The technology curve is rapidly accelerating. The environmental impact curve is troubling. The air passenger experience curve may even be at a turning point.

Touchscreen tablets already help flight preparation and management[2]. Flight plan changes can be uploaded and changed with a button press[3]. The squeezing of massive computing power into small spaces is being taken for granted. What does this leave a crew to do?

Back to the start. Two pilots in the cockpit, with executive responsibilities, remains the model that maintains public confidence in civil aviation. The golden rules still apply. Fly, navigate and communicate in that order. Crews, however much technology surrounds them, still need to act when things do not go as expected. Does this mean two cockpit crew forever? I don’t know.

[1] https://www.dehavillandmuseum.co.uk/aircraft/de-havilland-dh106-comet-1a/

[2] https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/newsroom/news/2021-02-electronic-flight-bag-the-new-standard

[3] https://simpleflying.com/datalink-communications-aviation-guide/

Flight Ahead

Although, I’m an advocate of having people in control of machines it isn’t people that are opening new opportunities in transport. Technology is racing ahead and making the past illustrations of popular science magazines become a reality. I can do without the hype in the headlines of flying cars. Building expectations of one in every garage remains a 1950s dream or nightmare, dependent upon your point of view. Aside from that hot air viable new electric vehicles are in the works.

Heavier-than-air machine that do more than buzz around our heads are going to proliferate. The inevitability of this is open to question but if I was to assign a probability to it, the number would be close to one. If we stretch our minds back to an unobserved small corner of the planet in late 1903, a couple of diligent brothers flew a machine that hopped a short distance into the air under its own power. Many newspapers of the time didn’t bother to print this breakthrough story because wise and eminent scientists had told them that it was impossible for people to fly.

It’s clear, getting into the prediction business should be done with humility.

We have a dilemma. It’s so rare of us to turn away from advancing technology when we know it can be made. It’s even more irresistible when the economics scream out buy me. So, a ticket to ride in the realm of Urban Air Mobility (UAM) will need to be no more than a typical taxi ride. Given that a taxi ride from my home to Gatwick Airport is about £20 then that’s the mark to hit. True that short journey may not be commonplace by air at that price until around 2033, a decade away, but it will be irresistible when it comes.

This chapter in air transport, that is being written is as significant as that in late 1903. I know that’s a mega statement, but the signs do point that way.

Eventually, UAM will become a network of piloted and autonomous electric air vehicles operating between cities and major destinations like airports.

Now, a couple of solvable challenges stand in the way. One is the endurance and portability of the energy storage devices. The other is complexity and mastering the science and art of functional safety. There’s plenty of confident hyperbole to suggest that these two are short-term barriers to progress. I say they are not.

Weight is one of aviation’s biggest enemies particularly on small vehicles. Batteries are expensive, heavy and require tailored control. Autonomy or the semi autonomy, needed to make the economics click is challenging systems engineering orthodoxy. Both tasks require the meticulous diligence of the Wright brothers to get past. No fanfare or flashy investor can push them aside.

Making the absolute most of energy storage technology is essential. Finding the optimal configuration of batteries, transmission and control electrics means iteration and the tolerance of a good handful of failures. The engineering of what’s becoming a system of systems, with the complexity of vehicles and the complexity of traffic management, interacting at great speed demands extensive analysis and testing.

These tasks can be accomplished. Rushing them would be foolish. That’s difficult to resist when everyone wants to be first.

Future

The road to fixing climate change is not an endless road. Today, our whole approach to climate change goes somewhat like this:

I’m not sure I’m convinced. Yeah, maybe we have a problem. We should do something. Definitely, but send me the plans, I’ll get to it, I’m busy. Time passes. What was it we should be doing? Oh yes, but that plan is for (insert a name) not me. I’m not contributing much to the problem. Anyway, there’s time between now and (insert a date).

So, we go on. There’s no doubt that there are changes needed to tackle climate change that are immensely difficult to do. Trouble is that by fixating on those difficult problems we talk ourselves out of doing the easier things. Let’s put simple actions like home insulation on the agenda again. Let’s loosen-up on our ridiculously restrictive policy on wind farms. Let’s invest in our national electrical grid to permit more connections to be made easier and quicker.

Yes, it’s advantageous for the PR companies employed by high carbon businesses to talk up difficulties and herald small gains as miracles. I mean, that’s what they are employed to do. On the other side we have PR companies employed by activists and campaigners who paint pictures of dire consequences and delinquent Governments.

I keep pointing out the dangers of populism and nationalism. The history of both is not a good one. They generally make most people poorer and a minority richer and more powerful. However, the tactics they use to gain popular appeal don’t seem to die off down the ages. A case in point is the story of Rome and Julius Caesar, as he crushed Roman democracy and seized power[1]. The chronicle is being well told on BBC 2. In the Britian, it’s often only their incompetence that halts the progress of Caesar like characters. Not mentioning any names.

To make change happen on climate change there needs to be a greater appeal to the populous. Expecting politicians to take a lead on the subject is nice in theory but wanton of hope. In our system of governance terms of office can be measured in days. Expecting neurotic politicians to step-up to a challenge that requires real long-term commitment is asking a bit much.

Campaigners will not give up on highlighting the challenges ahead. Periodically, politicians will pick-up on that campaigning fervour and try to jump on-board. However, as soon as a more immediate public concern comes along, they will jump-off.

I’m not saying that the cost-of-living crisis isn’t a number one priority. What I am saying is that a cost-of-living crisis is not an excuse to put climate policy on a dusty shelf for another few years. The road to fixing climate change is not an endless road.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0gjlmkv