The Hydrogen Rainbow: The Kleptogarchy part 19

The Hydrogen Rainbow

Blue

The UK’s Energy Security Strategy skates over the carbon challenges. One reason may be that hydrogen in many hues has high billing in the strategy. There is ‘blue’ hydrogen for example, derived from splitting natural gas into hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Hydrogen produced this way is not low-carbon. The Smithsonian Magazine commented:

“A peer-reviewed study published in Energy Science & Engineering, an open-source journal, concludes “the greenhouse gas footprint of blue hydrogen is more than 20 percent greater than burning natural gas or coal for heat and some 60 percent greater than burning diesel oil for heat,” according to the paper.

“In addition, carbon dioxide is a byproduct of blue hydrogen production. While the plan is to capture and store the gas, the question remains as to what to do with that supply in the future. There is also concern about the long-term viability of holding it underground, reports Loz Blain of New Atlas.”[1]

Surely, enough reasons to question the priorities in the strategy?

Hydrogen comes with health and safety warnings. The gas is so flammable that explosions are a real risk. Accidentology Involving Hydrogen, a report from the Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Town and Country Planning in France, summarises:

“The properties of hydrogen such as its tendency to escape due to its small size, wide flammability range, low ignition energy and faculty to detonate make it especially dangerous in confined or semi-confined spaces (high points, recesses of tanks, roofs, etc.) Thus accidents involving hydrogen are 84% fires and/or explosions with serious human consequences. The best strategy adopted in battery charging or electrolysis workshops include opting for unconfined, non-congested open environments or workshops with good ventilation.”[2]

The hydrogen-filled Hindenburg on fire, 1937. Accidents like this ended the short airship era. Photo originally in the Illustrated London News, now in the British Newspaper Archive.

Airships fell out of favour after a run of serious accidents in the 1930s, including the R101 in 1930, the USS Akron and USS Macon in 1933 and 1935, and the Hindenburg in 1937. The R101 and the Hindenburg were hydrogen-filled, while helium buoyed the American airships. The massive 804-feet-long Hindenburg, containing 7 million cubic feet of hydrogen and fitted out like a hotel, was approaching Lakehurst, New Jersey, on May 6th after crossing the Atlantic from Frankfurt, a journey of some 60 hours when the fastest ocean liners took five days. The explosion and inferno were filmed from the landing ground, and cinemagoers all around the world were soon watching the tragedy on newsreels. There were survivors, 62 of the 97 on board, because the Hindenburg was so close to the ground that people were able to jump out, but the accidents of the 1930s ended airships’ rise as luxurious passenger transport.

Pink, Purple, Red

Nuclear expansion would create test beds for pink/purple/red hydrogen. If you are willing to overlook the inherent dangers of nuclear power generation and storage, then producing hydrogen from nuclear operations is a logical step.

Robert Rapier on Forbes.com[3] explains that if hydrogen is to have a substantial role in the world economy, production has to be large-scale, and that is possible from nuclear power. Hydrogen can be produced from nuclear power in a scalable fashion in two different ways. Firstly, the electricity can electrolyse water to split hydrogen from oxygen, with a claimed similar carbon footprint to hydrogen electrolysed from electricity generated from renewables. The electrolysis process absorbs about 20% of the electricity used, so the maximum output is 80% of the input.

Secondly, steam from nuclear power generation can enable steam methane reforming, called SMR. In this process methane is thermally decomposed to hydrogen and carbon. Robert Rapier reports that a single 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactor could produce more than 150,000 tonnes of hydrogen each year. That quantity of hydrogen could be enough to fuel a car over nine billion miles, over 361,000 times the circumference of the Earth.

The huge question hanging over hydrogen is its economic viability. To separate one unit of hydrogen from oxygen by electrolysis requires four or five units of electricity. The energy return on energy invested is negative, even before the hydrogen is contained in fuel cells and transported to users. The Global Association for Transition Engineering explains why diesel is more energy-efficient than a hydrogen fuel cell:

“So whereas in the Diesel Fuel System, the investment of 4 MJ [megajoules] of energy returned 80 MJ of fuel (EROI [Energy Return on Energy Invested] = 80/4 = 20) and some useful other products.

“In the Hydrogen Fuel System, the investment of 66.75 MJ of energy returned 8.4 MJ of fuel (EROI = 8.4/66.75 = 0.126) and some toxic by-product CO [carbon monoxide] and as much GHG CO2 [greenhouse gas carbon dioxide] after the CO is hopefully combusted as diesel fuel system PLUS the GHG CO2 emissions from the energy input.”[4]

Hydrogen fuel cells require more energy to produce them than they provide to end users, such as drivers of hydrogen-powered vehicles. The Japanese are at the forefront of hydrogen technology for transport. A Hyundai hydrogen car, the Nexo, has been advertised, costing just under £66,000 in 2019. In 2022 there are no refuelling stations or service garages at all in Wales, and few elsewhere in the UK except for the London area. The Nexo’s tank takes 6.33kg of hydrogen, costing £10 to £15 per kilo. A full tank is enough for about 400 miles, and so outside London the dearth of refuelling stations is a barrier to the hydrogen car market.

Toyota is another Japanese manufacturer with a hydrogen car, the Mirai, costing upwards from about £50,000, advertised as offering zero-emission motoring. That appears to be its main benefit, because there are emissions associated with manufacturing the vehicles, and the hydrogen has a negative return on the energy invested in its production. Driving a hydrogen-powered car is maybe a form of virtue signalling for wealthy residents in affluent cities, but it is not an answer to global heating.

Green

Green hydrogen is so-called because it results from using renewable electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Early days, but development is under way. Wiesbaden, Germany-based Hy2gen was founded in 2016 for this task, “the first international group to produce green H2 at industrial scale”, according to its website. By March 2022 Hy2gen, backed by French investment house Ardian and Switzerland-domiciled investment manager FiveT Hydrogen, had secured €1 billion in funding for its programme to commercialise green hydrogen. The Australian airline Qantas plans to use synthetic hydrocarbon aviation fuel from the mid 2030s. The idea is to separate hydrogen from water with renewable electricity and to mix it with carbon extracted from the air. Qantas’s chief sustainability officer Andrew Parker was quoted in the Financial Times[5]as saying Australia is the ideal place to produce synthetic hydrocarbon fuel because of large areas of land on which solar and wind farms could be installed, to generate the renewable electricity without which the aviation fuel would absorb more energy than it could yield. Synthetic hydrocarbon fuel is likely to be a lot costlier than kerosene jet fuel. According to management consultants McKinsey, current ‘sustainable’ aviation biofuels cost twice as much as kerosene fuel. Green hydrogen and carbon synthesised into new generation fuels, requiring complex infrastructure for carbon capture and hydrogen extraction, are unlikely to cost significantly less than biofuels. Flying will not be cheap.

The sums don’t add up. Hydrogen is not a hallelujah saviour, not for anyone who is terrified by global over-heating. Even if corporations regard hydrogen as open roads into the future, several may become cul-de-sacs sooner than they expect.

NEXT TIME – ELECTRIC DREAMS


[1] ‘‘Blue’ Hydrogen May Not Be a Very ‘Green’ Energy Source After All’ by David Kindy, August 17th 2021, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/blue-hydrogen-20-worse-burning-coal-study-states-180978451/, accessed April 13th 2022.

[2] https://www.aria.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/wp-content/files_mf/SY_hydrogen_GB_2009.pdf, accessed June 7th 2022.

[3] ‘Nuclear Reactors Could Provide Plentiful Zero-Carbon Hydrogen, If Only We Let Them’, by Robert Rapier, April 29th 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2021/04/29/clean-hydrogen-from-nuclear-power/, accessed April 13th 2022.

[4] https://www.transitionengineering.org/pop_the_hydrogen_bubble, accessed April 23rd 2022.

[5] ‘Qantas Says Synthetic Fuel Could Power Long Flights by Mid-2030s’, by James Fernyhough, Financial Times, May 24th 2022.


Jailing Steven Donziger: The Kleptogarchy part 6

Jailing Steven Donziger

Steven Donziger was not a familiar name to me until I saw posts on Twitter and realised that he was under house arrest in New York. His crime, at base, was to have angered oil company Chevron by assisting lawyers in Ecuador to mount a prosecution against the corporate giant for polluting its former well sites in Orellana province, amid the Amazon rainforest. Back in 1969, the US oil company Texaco, with Petroecuador, found oil in Orellana. As they drilled, toxic waste was dumped in pools that were later covered with soil. Waste continued to leak into water courses. In 1990 the companies agreed to spend between US$8 million and $13 million on a clean-up. The bill became larger in 1995, when the Ecuador Government got Texaco to agree to pay $40 million. By then Steven Donziger, a crusading lawyer in his early 30s, had represented some 30,000 Ecuadorians in a class action lawsuit against Texaco, filed in the USA in 1993. Nothing much happened. In 2000 Chevron did a deal to buy Texaco for a reported $38.7 billion, and so Chevron became the accused in the Ecuadorian dispute, which reached a wider audience in 2009 with the release of the Joe Berlinger film Crude. The film highlights the legal get-outs employed by Chevron to deny responsibility for environmental damage, such as pointing out that the toxic waste carried no trademarks or logos tying it to Texaco/Chevron; that the local partner Petroecuador had been solely responsible for waste after Texaco withdrew from Ecuador in 1992; that Texaco had paid $40 million for cleaning up, and that the Ecuadorian Government had released the company from further liability. Kent Robertson, in 2022 Chevron’s General Manager, Public Affairs, was media relations adviser when Crude showed him lambasting the litigants as a “group of conmen”.

The International Journal of Epidemiology published a paper in 2002 comparing the incidence of cancers in populations within and outside oil extraction areas in Amazonian Ecuador. The key messages included “significantly higher incidence of cancer for all sites combined in both men and women living in proximity to oil fields” and “urgently recommended” an ”environmental monitoring and cancer surveillance system in the region”.[1] In Crude, Chevron’s Sara McMillen, Chief Environmental Scientist, maintains there was no evidence of an increase in the cancer death rate. Maybe her words were very carefully chosen, as there was evidence of a rise in cancer occurrence.

Chevron’s tactics were to stop a hearing in the USA and transfer it to Ecuador. This happened in 2002 when Chevron agreed it would accept the decision of the Ecuadorian court. The case, with Donziger advising, moved through the court system, slowly. In 2011 a provincial court awarded damages of $18 billion, reduced to $9.5 billion by Ecuador’s National Court of Justice. But Chevron never paid, and moved assets out of the country so they could not be seized. Instead, Chevron counter-sued Donziger under the USA’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, accusing him of bribing an Ecuadorian judge. In the USA, Judge Lewis A Kaplan agreed with Chevron and in 2014 recused the company from paying anything to Ecuador, and ordered Donziger to pay $800,000 to Chevron. The oil company had relied heavily on testimony from a former Ecuadorian judge, Alberto Guerra, whom the company accommodated and paid in the USA. Guerra later said that he lied.

When Donziger refused to hand over his phones, computers and any other electronic devices to Chevron, which said it needed them to search for assets that could be seized to pay the $800,000, he was charged with contempt of court. Judge Kaplan wanted the US Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York to prosecute, but his request was turned down. Then Judge Kaplan recruited the private law firm Seward and Kissel, although the firm had recently represented Chevron. The case, heard by Judge Loretta Preska, resulted in Donziger’s conviction and in October 2021 was sentenced to six months in jail. Two months later he was released to serve out the term under house arrest.

This is a headline condensation of a process that started half a century ago with toxic waste. The waste is still there. Chevron has not paid the reparations ordered by the National Court of Justice in Ecuador. Chevron turned the tables on Donziger, the lead US lawyer representing the blighted communities, by accusing him of fraud. Judge Kaplan cited racketeering, extortion, wire fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, judicial bribery, coercion, witness tampering, and arranging for experts’ reports to be ghostwritten, much of the evidence coming from former Ecuadorian judge Alberto Guerra, who subsequently admitted to lying. Many in the legal world disagreed with the sledgehammer used on Donziger; in September 2020, the National Lawyers Guild and International Association of Democratic Lawyers reportedly filed a complaint against Kaplan, because of the way Donziger had been treated.

No doubt that Chevon’s business was and is lucrative for lawyers. Probably there is a bias in favour of US corporations when they are pursued in court by foreigners with limited resources. But the injured parties in the Ecuadorian Amazon are left with a toxic environment. The oil profits were privatised, but no one is willing to pay for a proper clean-up.

Meanwhile, Donziger tweeted on April 14th 2022: “Video of my ankle bracelet being cut at the halfway house yesterday. The U.S. government shackled this metal to my skin 24/7 for almost 3 years. I showered with it, slept with it, ate with it, and charged it with a battery at least once per day. Still not free; 11 days to go.” Donziger was 60 years old in 2021. The battle against Texico, then Chevron, has overshadowed 30 years of his life. Profits extracted at the expense of people and the environment will come to an end when Earth is uninhabitable, but it’s surely better to stop the rot right now.


[1] ‘Geographical differences in cancer incidence in the Amazon basin of Ecuador in relation to residence near oil fields’ by Anna-Karin Hurtig and Miguel San Sebastián, International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol.31 No.5, October 2002, pps. 1021–1027. https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/31/5/1021/745815, accessed April 18th 2022.


Unholy Alliances: The Kleptogarchy part 5

UNHOLY ALLIANCES

Climate change sceptic James Delingpole has spoken at the Heartland Institute, a US-based organisation promoting free markets, oil and gas, petroleum products, in fact the whole range of fossil fuels. The Heartland Institute is vehemently anti-Socialist and one of its websites is called stoppingsocialism.com. The institute fits into a nexus of evangelical Christian, extreme conservative, environmentally uninterested groups.

In a previous book – Empty Plates Tomorrow? – published in 2007, I wrote about a climate dissenter called Dr Arthur Robinson, founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and publisher of a newsletter called Access to Energy. Dr Robinson was a director of the Heartland Institute from 2016 to 2019 and is senior fellow for environmental policy in the institute’s Arthur B Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy. The Heartland Institute, which claims that 78% of state elected officials in the US read a Heartland newspaper ‘sometimes’ or ‘always’, is one of 100 associate members of the State Policy Network, a web of like-minded organisations dedicated to free markets. Fellow associate members include the American Conservative Union Foundation, Cato Institute, Charles Koch Institute, Donors Trust, National Tax Limitation Committee, and in the UK the Institute of Economic Affairs. They all promote small government and low regulation. Donors Trust exists to channel money to conservative causes. “We – and the conservative- and libertarian-minded donors with whom we work – believe in preserving the ideals of limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise”, the Donors Trust website states.

Multi billionaire Charles Koch, 86 on November 1st 2021, is a lynchpin of the American libertarian Right, opposing environmental regulation, government interference, and warnings about the damaging impacts of climate change. He is chair and chief executive of Koch Industries, the successor to his father Fred Koch’s Rock Island Oil and Refining Company. Koch Industries was, according to Forbes, the largest private company in the USA in 2019 with revenues of $115 billion, and is still heavily invested in oil and petroleum products, including the dirty oil of the Athabasca Sands, Alberta, Canada. Koch Industries’ revenues come from the extraction and processing of raw materials, commodity trading and even large-scale cattle ranching. Several public and state-owned companies are larger, but Koch is of similar size to US oil company Chevron, and China’s top e-retailer Alibaba, and large enough to influence politics globally. Koch money appears at numerous nodes in the State Policy Network. For example, Charles Koch is a board member of the Mercatus Institute, a State Policy Network associate at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia; also he co-founded the Cato Institute and he has his own institute.

Fred Koch and his wife Mary neé Robinson had four sons: Charles, Frederick, David and William. Only two, Charles and David, were active in Koch Industries in recent decades. David died in 2019, aged 79. Frederick, who died in 2020 aged 86, was uninterested in the family business but inherited enough wealth in it to support the arts and architecture as a philanthropist. William, 81 in 2021 and David’s twin, is a sailor, winning the Americas Cup in 1992 with the yacht America 3, and he collects art and wine, besides supporting favoured causes financially. It seems to be Charles Koch in particular who has skilfully extended the low regulation, small government agenda across the world, helping to build organisations that spread libertarian concepts and oppose socialism in even its milder forms.

Koch Industries, though, has benefited hugely from the socialisation of the uncounted downsides of its operations, and the resulting money flows have enabled the conservative Right to outspend and out-influence the hard-up pressure groups of environment and climate activists. Fossil fuels raising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, not counted. Methane from thousands of cattle, also damaging the atmosphere, not counted. Pollution from processing oil sands, not counted. Raw materials depleted, not counted. Leaving others to pick up the tab shows that libertarianism – the freedom to do as you please – is incompatible with the protection of our planet.

But those who take big profits without accepting responsibility for all the costs give themselves the financial clout to spend, spend, spend on persuading politicians to hold back on environmental action, and to convince the public that activists are misguided nuisances.

Limits on political spending in the USA all but disappeared after a January 2010 decision by the Supreme Court to back an organisation called Citizens United against the Federal Election Commission. Citizens United is a non-profit group dedicated to small government, free enterprise, and national security (although that usually requires quite large government), and its President and Chair, David Bossie, was deputy campaign manager for Donald Trump in his successful 2016 presidential campaign. Back in 2008, the group wanted to release a film criticising Hillary Clinton, who was aiming for nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate in the contest that Barack Obama eventually won. At that point, Citizens United was prohibited from showing anything connected with electioneering, because of 2002’s Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. This stopped corporations, non-profit organisations and labour unions from making any ‘electioneering communication’ within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a full election, or from spending anything at all to call for the election or defeat of any candidate at any time. There was also a $5,000 limit on individuals’ donations to political action committees. Citizens United claimed that this law was unconstitutional, that it broke the First Amendment to the Constitution, which enshrined free speech. The Supreme Court agreed by five votes to four, a majority of one – although the writers of the constitution could hardly have been thinking of corporate public relations when they composed their influential text.[1] Since that decision, millions of dollars have flowed into electioneering, especially from conservative and libertarian sources.

In the USA in 2020, lobbyists for oil and gas enterprises spent over $112 million influencing Congress and federal agencies, according to opensecrets.org.[2] The three oil and gas companies with the biggest lobbying bills were Chevron Corporation, $8.93 million; Exxon Mobil, $8.69 million; and Koch Industries, $8.02 million. More than two-thirds of the lobbyists, 68%, were former government employees. The environmental non-profit Greenpeace USA, as a contrasting example, had no recorded spending in 2020, and its highest total in recent years was $78,487 in 2010. Climate and environment activists cannot compete dollar for dollar, pound for pound, with big business’s big spenders. That’s why they try to make headlines on news broadcasts, even if it means they risk ending up in jail. They can’t outspend the polluters and they do not have the money to buy politicians.

In the UK Nadine Dorries, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, said quite openly in an interview on June 6th 2022:

“The donors have spoken today, the key people in the Conservative Party that you will hear about and see over the next hours.”

Telling it like it is. Politics is for the donors!


[1] Dark Money p.227. Dark Money, by Jane Mayer, was published by Scribe Publications in London and Victoria, Australia, in 2016. The subtitle is ‘How a secretive group of billionaires is trying to buy political control in the US’.

[2] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?cycle=2020&id=E01, accessed October 21st 2021.


False Booms: The Kleptogarchy part 1

Farmers Weekly magazine was booming when I joined as a reporter in 1972. We journalists were well paid, worked a 6 ½ hour day (in theory anyway), were entitled to first class rail travel and we also drove company cars. We had a pension scheme geared to our final salaries, and that is sustaining me today. The money to pay us so well would have been impossible without copious advertising for fertilisers, agrochemicals, veterinary pharmaceuticals, fuels, and super-sized machines.

The vast scale of the agricultural supply industry has been enabled by fossil fuels, which are raw materials for products like nitrogen fertiliser (made from ammonia released by burning natural gas), and they also power manufacturing processes for other farm inputs, and the machines that farmers use.

‘Externalities’, costs not met by businesses but pushed into the future, such as soil compaction under heavy machinery, and eutrophication[1] of streams, rivers, lakes, seas and oceans caused by fertiliser run-off, are not deducted from revenues and therefore contribute to ‘profits’. Costs to communities, and threats to humans’ future ability to survive on planet Earth, have not been allowed to get in the way of corporate profits or economic growth, although they shorten the period during which growth is possible!

‘Profits’ are the central concept of our capitalist economic system, but they are achieved by hiding the real costs of production, or by inflating brand values through mass advertising and promotions which brainwash people into believing that big spending on branded stuff, often on borrowed ‘money’, is essential to their sense of self-worth.

Imagine that I am thinking of starting a bread factory. Perhaps for budget bread, in which case I would focus on low costs and squeezing maximum productivity out of workers paid the minimum wage, which in the UK is currently £9.50 an hour for people of 23+. Even if I make profits, the staff are not going live comfortably, unless I share the profits out. Or I could go for gourmet breads, requiring considerable baking skills and high-quality ingredients. Production and labour costs will be elevated, so how do I persuade potential customers to pay over the odds? Will there be enough of them to make it work? Would I have to embark on an endless round of advertising?

But as a customer for wheat to make the bread, I would probably not know if its production damaged the soil, or added to toxic run-off entering water catchments, or had a high carbon footprint because of the fertilisers and agrochemicals applied to it. I would not necessarily know its ‘food miles’, the distances travelled between field and plate. These are among the ‘externalities’, costs that have been socialised, meaning that they do not fall on the individuals and organisations directly responsible for them, but they fall, eventually, on society as a whole. Profits ignore ‘externalities’ because if they were included in business costings, profit would often switch to loss. Businesses are therefore being subsidised by everyone else, including their customers.

Climate change, which could make the world uninhabitable for humans, is the largest externality. The application of conventional economics to climate issues has helped commercial and political global leaders to minimise the dangers of a warming world, but the evidence of costly weather disasters from around the world is now worrying wider populations. Insurance companies know how much specific disasters have cost them, but property insurance is unaffordable for billions across the world, and so the loss of their homes, workshops, crops and possessions go uncounted. Even in the UK, in 2022, property insurance for the standard house I live in, in a village far from the risk front line, would have come to about £440 if I had not taken on more voluntary excesses, meaning that only in the most extreme event such as the house being struck by lightning, catching fire and burning down, would it be cost-effective to make a claim. I read that about one house in 200 in the UK is hit by lightning every year, and that number is likely to rise as storms multiply in our hotter, more unstable atmosphere, so I guess it’s worth insuring — for as long as insurance companies remain solvent.


[1] Eutrophication is accumulation of nutrients in rivers, lakes, seas and oceans, spurring the growth of algae and other surface plants, which prevent oxygen and light from penetrating into the water. When the plants decompose, they release carbon dioxide which makes the water more acidic.

Next time

Toxic Urbanisation

PDR is serialising content from The Kleptogarchy, her investigation into why there is, and will be, insufficient action to slow global heating.


Gross Income Inequalities Shame Britain

The shock of understanding that a huge multinational group treats children from hard-up families as a profit opportunity is awful, but not a surprise. That’s what capitalism does, especially  when profits elsewhere are thin on the ground.

Social media has been awash with photos of meagre, barely edible parcels meant to provide ten days of packed lunches for children who normally receive free meals when their schools are open.

Widely circulated photo of a week’s worth of packed lunches, sourced from Chartwells, for one child. Source: Twitter

One of the suppliers has been identified as Chartwells, a division within Compass Group plc.

Compass, which claims 10% of the £220 billion global food services market, had a disappointing year in 2020, substantially due to Corona virus, and shareholders did not receive a dividend. Operating profit fell 82% to £294 million in the year to September 30th. Post-tax profit of £135 million was 88% below the previous year. In May the group raised £2 billion in new equity, but still ended the year with net debt exceeding £3 billion, not a brilliant prospect for shareholders, four of whom owned almost 25% of the group at end-September 2020: BlackRock Inc, 9.99%; Artisan Partners Ltd Partnership, 5.01%; Invesco Ltd, 4.95%; and Massachusetts Financial Services Co, 4.60%.

Chief executive Dominic Blakemore noted in the group’s report for the year to September 30th that: “In response to the pandemic, we are innovating and evolving our operating model. By innovating and adapting our offer and operations to the ‘new normal’, this will allow us to reduce costs and increase our flexibility, so that we can provide our clients and consumers an exciting offer that is delivered safely and provides great value”.

Lower costs and increased flexibility. The workforce has to be more flexible and to be pooled “across sectors to better accommodate volume volatility on site”. Lean and mean. But becoming leaner and meaner cannot continue indefinitely.

The food parcels for children receiving free school meals appear extremely lean and mean, and illustrate the gulf between brochure rhetoric and experienced reality. Mr Blakemore stated in the Compass annual report that “In Education, our expertise in nutrition means we are able to provide delicious food that supports learning at every stage of the education journey”.

There’s a big gap between ‘we are able’ and ‘we always do’.

Inadequate lunch packs have damaged Chartwells’ public image. Source: Twitter

Chartwells has a website — “Here To Help!” — asking “Are you looking for school meal options through lockdown?”

A number of ‘packages’ are listed, including Option A, daily packed lunch, costing £2.30. This is supposed to contain:

  • 1 ‘Deli sandwich’, either cheese, tuna, chicken or halal chicken
  • 1 portion of fresh fruit
  • 1 portion of ‘crudities’ – 50g cucumber, 50g peppers, 50g carrots
  • 1 snack – yoghurt, custard pot, dried fruit, jelly, malt loaf or ‘strawberry YoYo bear’.  

Option B is a food parcel for two weeks, costing £23, and supposedly containing

  • 1 loaf (not likely to be palatable after two weeks)
  • 2 of 200g blocks of cheese, type unspecified
  • 1 kilo of wholemeal pasta
  • 4 tins of chopped tomatoes
  • 2 tins of tuna chunks in brine
  • 16 vegetable portions – carrots, potatoes, sweet potatoes, lettuce, tomato, cucumber.
  • 14 fruit portions – 6 apples, 4 bananas and 4 oranges
  • 9 “healthy snacks”

Perhaps there should be a TV cookery show inviting chefs to whip up two-weeks’ worth of delicious meals from these ingredients (which I could buy from a supermarket for less than £15, if selecting the basic lines).

To add further insult, Compass put out a news release before Christmas 2020, saying:

“Chartwells, have recently joined the Marcus Rashford Child Poverty task force which is campaigning to expand holiday food provision for the children who need it the most. Over the Christmas period, we know that many children around the UK may go hungry and so we want to help as part of #CompassChristmas, to ensure that we can feed as many hungry tummies as possible with our Christmas Food Hampers.” The release went on to solicit donations towards the £20 cost of each hamper, either the full cost or a contribution.

Chartwells responded to the Twitter futore with this statement. Vicky Ford MP is actually Parliamentary Under-Secretary, not a Permanent Secretary (who would be a civil servant, not a politician)

Compass Group’s top brass are most unlikely to need donated food. They are exceedingly well rewarded for their efforts to serve shareholders. Even in the dreadful year 2019-20 Dominic Blakemore was rewarded with £1.162 million. In 2018-19 it was a great deal more, £4.659 million. (And Gary Green, head of US operations, received even more still, about £1.569 million in 2019-20 and £6.031 million the year before, converted into sterling from US dollars.) It’s all in the annual report, a delight for people interested in financial architectures, the plethora of available accounting measures, and the wide spread of resulting figures.

The total costs of employing the 548,143 persons in the Compass Group, including the directors and senior managers, were £9.975 billion. This is an average cost per employee, including salary, of £18,197.81.

Some of those at the lower end of Compass’s income scale may be eligible for free school meals for their own children. Low-paid households receiving Universal Credit are eligible, as are those receiving many other welfare benefits. Across England and Wales in 2020, more than 1.63 million children were known to be elegible for free school meals. Almost one schoolchild in every five.

A revenue opportunity for Compass Group, and all the other companies in the market, is a warning that the newly Brexited group of nations is afflicted by endemic low pay that erodes children’s chances from the moment they are born.

PDR


TTIP — the Tipping Point for Collapse of Democracy?

TTIP — Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership — sounds innocent enough, but its range is frightening. And this trade deal being negotiated between the EU and the USA is SECRET. Even members of the European Parliament can read the draft documents only under supervision,and they are not allowed to take phones, tablets, computers or pens into the locked room where the documents are kept. It’s all about protecting commercial interests, you see.

We do know that about 3.2 million people have signed an anti-TTIP petition to the European Commission, and that if the treaty comes into force, open competition in the supply of goods and services — health, education, media and more — will favour powerful multinationals over small local businesses and community not-for-profit enterprises.

TTIP is profoundly, alarmingly anti-democratic. From what is known so far, it would give businesses power over governments. If a corporation believes a government law or regulation would reduce its profits, it could take that government to court. As it stands, a secret court.

More in ‘Solving the Grim Equation‘, pages 191-194

PDR


Grim Now, Grimmer Later: Time to Act

Official launch on Tuesday July 7th — ‘Solving the Grim Equation’, published by Cambria Books and written by me, Pat Dodd Racher

Upstairs at The Angel, Rhosmaen Street, Llandeilo, at 7.30pm.

Author and One Planet Council patron David Thorpe will lead a question and answer session and discussion.

The Grim Equation means that increased consumption now will result in lower consumption in the future.

Exciting pioneer projects in Wales show that families can reduce consumption dramatically and use less energy, and still live happily. Pioneers have had to battle against hostility in local government, but thanks to the Welsh Government’s ‘One Wales One Planet’ policy the chances of projects being approved are increasing.

The One Planet Development policy, and guidance in Technical Advice Note 6, and the establishment in Wales of the One Planet Council, can give Wales a leading role in the inevitable One Planet future — because we have only one planet on which to live.

xxxxx

The longer we wait, the more uncomfortable the fall


Three Scary Trade Deals

Finding hard data on transnational corporations’ share of world trade is complicated. Perhaps the data is scarce because it is not in corporations’ interests to highlight the extent of their private trade flows, but whatever the reason, accurate information for the public is limited. The ‘shadow’ website http://www.gatt.org, which sharply criticises the World Trade Organisation (WTO), estimated[i] that just the 200 largest multinationals accounted for 28% of global trade. In corporations’ eyes, that was nowhere near enough. They want to grow, grow, grow, but the WTO’s Doha Round talks drag on and on inconclusively, and they became impatient.

So talks on three huge neoliberal trade agreements are currently under way, as far below public consciousness as possible. They would embody staggering concessions to corporations, in the form of investment treaties enabling corporations to sue governments for policy changes detrimental to corporate interests.

The first of the Super Three is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), between the USA, Canada, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, Vietnam, Brunei and Malaysia. Talks, which began in 2008, explore means of opening intellectual property and public services to open competition.

Secondly, the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), involving the EU and 20 other countries, came on the horizon in 2012. TISA would cover health, education, energy, water and drainage services, construction, finance, banking, insurance, transport and retailing, opening them all up to corporate competition. Such a deal would surely mean the end of public control of the UK’s National Health Service, because corporations would be able to sue governments for policy changes they disliked.

Summer 2013 saw the launch of talks between the EU and the USA on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The theme is competition right across the economy, including health and education, with corporations empowered to challenge prudent regulations, including regulation of finance, as barriers to trade.

Just why governments are so keen to hand power over to corporations is hard to fathom, unless politicians feel they are all on the same side – the side of private exploitation. Policy changes to which corporations objected would be impossible, unless the offending government, at the very least, paid compensation at full ‘market’ value plus compound interest.

Today’s generation of politicians and their negotiators are, it seems, intent on signing away democratic rights in perpetuity. How come they feel empowered to do this? Because they rely on people, us, not objecting in sufficient numbers to make a difference.

 

[i]www.gatt.org/trastat_e.html, accessed on November 6th 2010.


Free trade and exploitation: the distress of Guatemala

No population can survive without food, therefore it is a strong argument that governments should prioritise secure food supplies.

Free-trade food policies are based on the belief that food should come from areas of the world that can produce it at the lowest immediate cost. Detrimentally for our future, the lowest immediate cost takes no account of environmental degradation, or fossil energy or water depletion, or the livelihoods of small-scale farmers who are affected by globalised food chains. The proponents of free trade generally claim that tariff barriers and financial support schemes which protect farmers in the affluent world mean that farmers in ‘developing’ countries cannot compete successfully, despite their lower labour costs. Yet small-scale farmers in Africa, Latin America and Asia are the last to benefit from free trade. The cash benefits go to large farmers and corporations, for planting crops for export rather than food crops for local consumption.

xxxxxxxxx

Guatemala’s volcanic soils have the potential to feed the 14.4 million population, but much of the best land is foreign-owned, and revenues leave the country.

Guatemala in Central America is a stunning country, both for its memorable peoples and landscapes, and for the corruption of its governments down the years. The indigenous peoples continue to suffer from domination by a tiny number of foreign corporations and their local political enforcers.

I spent six weeks in Guatemala in autumn 2007, staying with a family and helping out at a UK-funded school, Escuela Proyecto La Esperanza, in Jocotenango. On Friday October 12th 2007 I was part of a small group travelling to the Mayan ruins at Tikal, in the forests of the Petén. We had to cross Guatemala City, which I remember for ubiquitous McDonalds; Esso, Shell and Texaco filling stations; and high-rise American hotels, encircled by tin-roofed shacks, unfriendly streets, potholes, rubbish and guns.

We followed the CA9 highway north-east out of Guatemala City to El Progreso, Rio Hondo and Quirigua, where there are intricate Maya carvings. Quirigua is in the Motagua river valley, which reaches the Caribbean at Puerto Barrios, Guatemala’s only significant port on the Caribbean.

Most of the valley land is owned by corporations, with fruit plantations and horticultural crops for export, the latter protected by acre upon acre of plastic. The bananas are plastic-protected too, encased in perforated blue plastic to protect against rain, dust and wind. What a lot of plastic to replace when the oil runs out. At Quirigua the plantations belong to Chiquita Brands — descendent of the infamous United Fruit Company — and to Del Monte.

xxxxxxx

Banana plantation in the Motagua valley, owned by Chiquita Brands International of the USA.

North from the Motagua valley through the Petén to the ruined Maya city of Tikal, we passed a succession of shiny new evangelical protestant churches (financed from the USA), set in decrepit villages. The farms visible from the road were either under two hectares or vast, containing much unused land. Most of the land north of the little town of Frontera, where the Lago de Izabal narrows into the Caribbean-bound Rio Dulce, is controlled by a handful of powerful families. They used to run cattle, tended by local labourers, but since the road was hard-surfaced in the years around 2000, the labourers have migrated away, to the slums of Guatemala City and as illegals to the USA.

Staying overnight in Finca Ixobel, a country guesthouse owned by an American widow whose Guatemalteco husband was assassinated by a death squad in the ‘civil war’ between 1960 and 1996, in which some 200,000 people died or ‘disappeared’, I read in Revue magazine for June 2007 that over a fifth of the population, 21%, have to exist on less than $1 (59p) a day, and well over half the people, 58%, subsist on less than $2 (£1.18) a day.

xxxxx

Forest has reclaimed the massive stone monuments of Tikal.

The Petén is, according to Pablo, who works as a guide in Tikal, the world’s fifth largest forest reserve, and the biggest in Central America. The reserve also functions as a drugs highway. Drug runners are constantly building air strips deep in the forest for the lucrative narcotrafico, which finances grand villas behind high walls, and four-by-fours with tinted windows. Drugs are more important to the local economy than tourism, despite the presence of amazing Mayan monuments. “Each year around 150,000 visitors come to Tikal,” said Pablo. Increasingly, they fly in to Flores Airport, to avoid the hazards to life and limb in Guatemala City. Flores Airport is bringing ‘development’ to the Petén, shopping malls plonked incongruously in the rural landscape. Pablo was pessimistic. He said that poverty is increasing because subsistence farmers do not have enough land. The landlords are opposed to any process of land reform, even though their own land may lie idle. Now they are looking forward to a golden era of biofuels, a scenario in which small farmers, campesinos, do not feature. Fewer families can afford to send their children to school, and in Pablo’s view the illiteracy rate was escalating again, above the low point of 40% estimated in 2002.

In Guatemala the law of the jugular applies. There are courts, and prisons, but legal procedures are slow and uncertain, and extra-judicial killings commonplace.

The apparatus of the state in Guatemala, such as exists, is deployed to protect existing power structures. The welfare of the people comes way down this agenda: politicians and businessmen – the same people, often at the same times – have little interest in working to abolish hunger among the indigenous peoples, to provide affordable healthcare, or to create a thriving countryside where families can produce enough food for themselves and their neighbourhoods.

xxxxx

Flimsy superstructures are no match for torrential rainstorms. Much housing is in tin shacks, often precariously sited on slopes.

The indigenous Maya believed that man was merely part of the natural order on Earth, a natural order that needed to remain in balance. When their practice departed calamitously from this tidy theory, their civilisation declined. The Maya loved mathematics and astronomy. Even today, Mayan children in school are fascinated by numbers and are skilful in arithmetic. Over a thousand years ago, the results of the Mayan linkage of religion with astronomy was causing catastrophe, as their huge, astronomically-aligned temples and monuments, in socially and occupationally complex cities, absorbed too much of their collective energy, and demanded too much food, fuel and construction materials from the rural hinterlands. The forest was felled.

As resources dwindled, Mayan tribes fought intense wars to try and seize as much as they could of the remaining food and water. The knock-out blow at Tikal was a 30-year drought around 1000AD. The occupants of Tikal walked away, and many of their descendants – still poverty-stricken — live in the western highlands of Guatemala, on steep, infertile land which the European families and the multinational corporations have not wanted.

The relationship between trees and human survival is too often overlooked, ignored. Jared Diamond, in Collapse: how societies choose to fail or survive[i] points out that forests

“….function as the world’s major air filter removing carbon monoxide and other air pollutants, and forests and their soils are a major sink for carbon, with the result that deforestation is an important driving force behind global warming by decreasing that carbon sink. Water transpiration from trees returns water to the atmosphere, so that deforestation tends to cause diminished rainfall and increased desertification. Trees retain water in the soil and keep it moist. They protect the land surface against landslides, erosion, and sediment runoff into streams. Some forests, notably tropical rainforests, hold the major portion of an ecosystem’s nutrients, so that logging and carting the logs away tends to leave the cleared land infertile.”

— Diamond 2005, p.469 in 2006 Penguin edition

This is what happened at Tikal. and in exploited lands all over the world, from Norse Greenland to Haiti in the Caribbean, from Easter Island in the Pacific to Rwanda in Africa. Deforestation ends societies, even civilisations.

Once free of human interference, the jungle returned to Tikal and clothed the monuments, which slept undisturbed for centuries, while the Mayans were conquered and later dragged unwillingly into a capitalist economy.

xxxxxxxxxxx

Culture and tradition often count for a lot more than consumer purchases. The blouses, huipils, are home-woven, and each village has its own designs.

Mayans are relatively indifferent to consumer culture, a ‘failing’ which annoys foreign entrepreneurs:

“An enormous disadvantage for this country is that the Indians [the Mayans] won’t work more than just enough to fill their basic needs, and these are very few. The only way to make [a Mayan] work is to advance him money, then he can be forced to work. Very often, they run off, but they are caught and punished very severely.”

— from the story of a German who emigrated to Guatemala in 1892, told in Daniel Wilkinson’s Silence on the Mountain: Stories of Terror, Betrayal and Forgetting in Guatemala, p.38.[ii]

This German immigrant, Friedrich Endler, ran a coffee plantation. The plantations struggled to find enough labour, so the government instituted a form of slavery, the labour draft. Daniel Wilkinson explains this system in Silence on the Mountain, a moving and tragic analysis of Guatemala in the 20th century:

“The labor drafts. Upon the request of a plantation owner, the governors of each department would round up a work gang of fifty to one hundred Indians and send them to work on the plantation. An 1894 law provided Indians with one way to escape this form of forced recruitment: become an indebted worker for a plantation.”

— Silence on the Mountain p.76-77.

The pass laws, so hated in South Africa later in the 20th century, already existed in Guatemala:

 “ ‘We were slaves because of the law of Ubico,’ recalled the next elderly peasant we talked to. He was referring to President Jorge Ubico, who had governed the country from 1930 to 1944, and the ‘slavery’ he described was not debt peonage but the vagrancy laws that had replaced it. ‘We had to carry a booklet, like an identity card, which showed what plantation we worked in and how many hours we had worked that year. If you didn’t carry it, the government could jail you and make you work without pay’.”

Silence on the Mountain p.97.

Land is at the heart of the unhappy history of Guatemala. Immigrants with access to capital claimed it. Government was for them, not for the Mayans, and there was no question of prioritising rights for the indigenous peoples above rights for plantation owners to obtain as much profit as possible. The landowners have benefited financially from colonisation and its successor, free trade, because they have deliberately marginalised the indigenous peoples.

by Pat Dodd Racher

 

[i] London and New York: Allen Lane and Viking Penguin, 2005.

[ii] Silence on the Mountain was published in 2004 by Duke University Press.


Enough Supermarkets! Now, how do we create vibrant towns for tomorrow?

by Pat Dodd Racher

Who notices when a ‘service’ mutates into a tyranny? What, in fact, does a tyranny look like? These questions rose to the top of my over-cluttered mind on Saturday, November 17th 2012, at the first ‘Independence Day’ gathering, held in Wesley Methodist Church, Frome, Somerset.

The dominant topic was supermarkets and how to stop them closing down our town centres, but the issue is much wider and relates to the power of money, money used to finance psychological research; money for marketing and blanket advertising; and money to buy influence over political processes.

It’s also about the failures of local communities to create more humane alternatives. It’s about public spaces and how to protect them. It’s about resistance to apathy.

The many stories we heard of battles against supermarket giants gave me an acronym, PFUDS.

PFUDS stands for keep to the Point, communicate Fast, Use the skills and methods at your disposal to maximum effect, Delegate, and Simplify.

The hardest of these, I reckon, is Simplify. Distilling the complexities of reality into a memorable message is complicated, and failure means that your campaign is likely to sink with a negative pfud.

Another big message from the day was the importance of a positive vision. Just being against a supermarket development is not enough – there has to be a vision for a more satisfying future.

Keep Frome Local, the organisers, lined up an impressive range of speakers. Andrew Simms, of the New Economics Foundation and the author of Tescopoly, talked about the social benefits of small shops within communities, as places for meeting and for exchanging news good and bad. In the USA, he said, studies about the impact of mega retailer Walmart on communities showed that wages fell, voter participation fell and social contact declined.

Rob Hopkins, founder of Transition Towns, said that several local authority chief executives he had met recently were aware that years of economic growth had come to an end, and that more local resilience would be essential. Neil Lawson, chair of the left-leaning campaigning organisation Compass and author of All Consuming, spoke about the capture of the political system by what he called the consumer-industrial complex. Shop less, he said. Judith Whateley, co-ordinator of the Tescopoly network, stressed that there was no substitute for scrutinising the volumes of planning documents which have to be submitted with each application, to find points to challenge. Several speakers, including Dave Chapman of Bridgwater Forward, drew attention to the importance of communications with planning officers and councillors. In Frome itself, the group Independents for Frome has a majority on the town council.

The colourful presence of the Peoples Republic of Stokes Croft, Bristol, included wares from their bone china decorating workshop, adorned with political and campaign slogans and graphics. The china has been rescued from closed-down factories in the Staffordshire Potteries. Brilliant idea from innovator Chris Chalkley, I thought.

Richard Hadley from Ledbury told how the townspeople defeated applications by both Tesco and Sainsbury. They used similar marketing techniques to their superstore opponents, and stressed economic damage, job losses, traffic hell, shop closures and falling house prices. They beat the superstore operators at their own game. Joanna Blythman in discussion with The Guardian’s John Harris spoke about the Fife Diet, a local eating campaign in Scotland and part of Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming. Joanna, author of Shopped: the Shocking Power of British Supermarkets, and of other books, has long campaigned against the superstore model of food retailing.

Independence Day was truly national, with participants from Scotland, Wales and all over England. For me it was a valuable educational workshop on campaigning – thanks also to David Babbs and Alex Lloyd from 38 Degrees – and now attention turns to ‘What Next?’ in the effort to revive retail diversity and end the rise of monopolies and with them the high risk of a tyrannical application of combined commercial and political power. Walmart in the USA is a form of tyranny, and I don’t want to travel any further down the road towards it, paved though it may be with good intentions.