Monthly Archives: June 2017

Climate Change, Environment, Europe, Government, Politics, Society, United States

The Paris Climate Accord teeters on the brink thanks to Trump

PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT

Donald Trump’s recent announcement that he was pulling the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord was met with dismay by many around the world. But Mr Trump has done what few politicians are capable of by actually doing what he pledged prior to being elected. Many businesses would agree with President Trump, saying that the agreement was ‘a self-inflicted major economic wound.’

The UN Climate Change conference in Paris in November 2015 was a last-ditch and desperate attempt to get any kind of agreement and by getting the reluctant developing nations on board. These annual climate conferences have been going on now for over 22 years. Each symposium, in mostly exotic locations, have seen tens of thousands of delegates flying in for the gatherings and creating thousands of tonnes of additional and unnecessary emissions. Their personal carbon footprints are the polar opposite of what they claim to be aiming for, a reduction in greenhouse gases to prevent the calamities of global warming.

The Paris Accord had many objectives, among them an agreement for nations to have targets in reducing emissions. But these were written into the treaty as being voluntary, not legally binding, and there are no penalties for failure. That of course does not include the UK and Scotland who recklessly passed legally-binding Climate Change Acts in 2008. China, one of the world’s biggest polluters through its heavy use of fossil fuels, said it would not be reducing its emissions until after 2030.

Scientists have said that the ‘promises’ made in Paris amount to less than half of what is essentially needed to stop a litany of runaway global disasters. We may be inclined to ask where the rest is to come from? Population control? Consider the statistical data: 1995 – 5.7billion; 2017 – 7.5billion; 2050 – 9.7billion; 2100 – 11.2billion.

A key aspect of getting the developing nations to agree to the Paris Accord was the commitment from the richest nations to contribute £78billion every year to the Green Climate Fund. This was aimed in helping poorer countries make the costly shift to cleaner energy sources and to shore up defences against the impact of climate change. The UK promised £720million but President Trump has now withdrawn America’s £2.3billion.

Already, many East European states – amongst them Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic – are mounting a behind-the-scenes revolt against the Paris Agreement.

America is now energy independent, with its abundance of shale gas. Mr Trump’s desire to un-mothball many coal mining sites in the US by making them fully operational again is vindicated if we consider the enormous tonnage of coal exported to Europe, America’s best customer. Europe relies, too, on Russian gas for one-third of all its supplies. Coal, oil and gas are the nemesis of the green lobby.

China, which accounts for 30 per cent of global emissions, is deliberately leaving its coal reserves in the ground for a rainy day. Meanwhile, it is importing coal from America and Africa. A host of countries – China, India, Japan, Germany, South Korea, South Africa, Turkey, the Philippines, as well as countries within the EU – have plans to build an additional 1,892 coal-fired plants to the existing 3,722.

The theory of global warming and climate science has become almost a religion with a cult following, while the renewables revolution has been an environmental disaster. EU countries are planning to significantly increase the number of trees they cut down and burn, thus greatly reducing the forest carbon sink they would otherwise provide. They have completely ignored the fact that new trees will take 20 years to grow before they absorb the equivalent of the CO2 released by burning.

Crucially, without American financial support the Paris Agreement will collapse. It will do so because other Western countries will be unwilling to shoulder a share of the £2.3bn that the U.S. will no longer contribute.

Standard
Government, Politics, Scotland, Society, Technology

Digital interfacing must be embraced by public sector

PUBLIC SECTOR

Digital Interfacing

Digital interfacing within the public sector would allow public bodies to greatly cut costs while providing efficient services. With budgets constrained like never before, politicians must now embrace and incorporate digital platforming into the public sector.

Intro: Digital platforming would help public bodies to provide efficient services by cutting costs.

Over the last 10 to 15 years digital platforms like Google, Amazon and Twitter have been utilised by almost everyone to such an extent that they have disrupted our daily lives.

Part of that disruption has been negative. How many people have you seen looking at their mobile phones when they should have been paying more attention to the world around them? Predominately, however, the disruption caused by the digital era has been positive. Digital technologies clearly deliver a benefit – if they didn’t we wouldn’t use them to the extent that we do.

Consider Airbnb, the digital platform that allows users to make a fast and cheap way of booking accommodation. This interface has three million listings across 65,000 destinations. It’s fast and cheap because it provides a digital link between hosts and guests and removes the need for an intermediary.

These platforms offer ways to receive a service: users identify with the platform rather than the organisation. They are also orientated and focused on customer need as witnessed through the design and delivery of the service.

They also establish trust by offering value that increases with the breadth of services offered and the number of users registered. Most importantly, they remove unnecessary waste and duplication, eliminating tasks, activities, intermediaries and sometimes even whole organisations out of the service.

These radically changing business models have had far reaching implications for the workforce and they will continue to do so. That’s been illustrated through Uber’s impact on local taxi firms and the complexity of protecting workers’ rights and tax revenues in the ‘gig economy’.

In the public sector, digital developments have provided a route to delivering better quality for less cost. Addressing ever-increasing demand of services with reduced budgets is here to stay. NHS Scotland recently created the TURAS platform, one which is geared to support education and training of healthcare workers. It automates processes and allows clinicians to self-serve on training and education material. The net effect has been a cut in administrative overheads.

Government to citizen services need to follow this lead. Public bodies and the services they provide must move to become technology related businesses. Whilst Registers of Scotland have made good progress in this direction, the vast bulk of the Scottish public sector requires wholesale transformation. Substantial changes are needed that will require careful thinking about the right purpose, strategy, culture and structure.

The public sector in Scotland will also need a specific focus on balancing the face-to-face contact needed for some services and by making provision for those people not digitally connected. This will need new investment in connectivity and infrastructure.

Such challenges should not be used as an excuse to avoid embracing digital. Public Sector bodies should be specifically focused on removing unnecessary tasks and activities that might well lead to the closure of entire business units. This must happen where they no longer have a role in delivering services to citizens.

Politicians in Scotland should be bold in realising the changes that are now needed. They could remove some of the barriers around legislation and by promoting partnership with the private sector.

 

Standard
Government, National Security, Society

Any new anti-terrorist measures must not be rushed

ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS

Intro: Theresa May has called for a review of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy but she should be wary of pushing through legislation for the sake of being seen to act.

Amid the reaction to the horrific events over the past few weeks in London and Manchester, it has become apparent that there is no simple answer over how best to respond to the serious terrorist threat the UK is facing.

There have been calls for the general election on Thursday to be postponed, which mercifully have not gained much traction. There was also immediate criticism of MI5 and our intelligence agencies for failing to detect the hiring of a van and the possession of widely-available knives by those who have wreaked havoc on our streets.

As public order is restored and the dust settles, some have reverted to a less fevered analysis by revisiting anti-terrorism measures. New legislation might emerge in dealing with the insidious threat we now face. We have, of course, been here before, with the stand-out example being Tony Blair’s response to the London bombings of 2005. The then prime minister swiftly drew up several new measures to help thwart further attacks, but it barely required the benefit of hindsight to reach the conclusion that most of those measures could be described as a knee-jerk reaction. Some of the proposals were enacted into law, others were never heard of again. Mr Blair’s strategy was largely driven by a desire to be seen to be doing something when strong leadership should have been the imperative and priority. Legislation that is rushed, however, is hardly ever appropriate or even practical.

Theresa May’s verdict following the most recent attacks in London that ‘enough is enough’ is an uncomfortable conclusion, but her call for a review of counter-terrorism strategy is correct. We know to our cost that the measures put in place after 2005, and since then, have given the police extensive new powers but have not been able to stop the three terrorist attacks on the UK in 2017.

The Government should now pause before re-writing the statute book, and act only after thorough consultation on what is required, and what is possible. The time that any new laws or amendments to current legislation would take by using such an approach should not be seen as a frustrating delay, because it must be recognised that the threat we face is changing. There is also not an off-the-shelf strategy to counter it. Whatever measures are introduced must be workable and effective, otherwise they become a waste of time and vital resource.

We have to be sure, too, that existing statutory provisions are being used properly – for example, there have been numerous claims after recent attacks that the authorities were alerted previously to the behaviour of those involved.

At a time when the public is being asked to be increasingly vigilant, and to report any suspicious activity, we have to be confident that this kind of intelligence is being fully utilised. It’s vitally important that it is.

Standard