Capitalism is the problem
Filed under: Environment, Politics, Privatisation | Tags: Capitalism, Circularity, climate, climate change, Decoupling, Dutch East India Company, energy, environment, Erald Kolasi, GDP, renewable-energy, sustainability
Leave a Comment I have been reading some excellent books recently. You know the ones that you wish you had written? I have written a book, and I have just read The Physics of Capitalism by Erald Kolasi. It is brilliant and takes no prisoners. It also a book that I will need to incorporate into the next edition of my textbook if the publisher ever gets round to inviting an update. I know my book needs revision, not least because we’ve all been on generative AI catch-up. My bio needs an update, too.
Back to Kolasi. He’s a physicist. A physicist taking on economists in a way that economists should have been taking on economics in the 21st Century. Back to me. My book starts with a statement about the finite planet and argues that business strategy has to be devised and executed so as not to breach the planetary boundaries, of which there are nine. Kolasi’s genius (at least for me) is to use his knowledge of physics to critique arguments by economists (and others to be fair) about technological “solutions” in the context of climate change. It is hugely effective and it tells it bluntly and with humour (though totally unfunny if you are an economist).
At its bluntest, Kolasi likens economists to people who simply cannot accept that we cannot make light go faster than the speed of light (3×108 m/s) or go below absolute zero (currently -273.15oC). More realistically, in terms of the efficiency of the stuff we use and rely on, internal combustion engines struggle to be more efficient than 35 per cent (conversion of liquid fuel into kinetic energy/Carnot cycle). 70 per cent is a theoretical maximum, but such an engine is unlikely to be put into a car; photovoltaics, 15 per cent (though theoretically possible, but never achieved, 90 per cent). And so it goes. As Kolasi notes, too, even if we could get 90 per cent conversion of solar energy to electrical energy we would still struggle to meet demand for panels and electrical energy as they need an energy source to extract raw materials and manufacture. There are limits (that neo-classical economists will not accept).
GDP and decoupling
The likes of Hannah Ritchie have been making a strong case for decoupling as a sign that capitalism can survive a climate crisis. We can grow economies (as defined by GDP) and reduce carbon emissions simultaneously and absolutely. It’s a dangerous myth.
Some definitions first: relative decoupling is simple reduction in carbon emissions whilst experiencing an increase in GDP. Absolute decoupling is a kind of safe zone where decline in carbon emissions outstrip growth and head towards zero. From what I can see, and have read, there is no absolute decoupling even using current measures of GDP. For Kolasi, the current measure is the problem as it does accurately measure change in the biophysical scale; namely, the use of natural resources in production and reproduction.
Then there is the question of permanence, assuming GDP is a fair measure of output. Kolasi tells us that with this perspective, economic growth and life expectancy have decoupled as Americans die earlier than previously. Where we thought there was a positive relationship between growth and life expectancy, that seems not to be the case. But no one is saying there has been a decoupling.
Then we can consider the data on emissions. They are to some extent estimates. We might have a handle on carbon dioxide, but we certainly do not have measures of methane, nitrous oxide, synthetic and fluorinated gases, all of which are more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. Even before the Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency in the USA relied on self reporting by corporations! Now it is unlikely that any degree of self-reporting will be needed.
Finance
Talking of changes in direction, up to 2021, banks had been reducing (not eliminating) lending for fossil-fuel projects. That has now changed. The Guardian newspaper has reported that “Two-thirds of the world’s largest 65 banks increased their fossil fuel financing by $162bn from 2023 to 2024.” The US Treasury has withdrawn from the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System, essentially giving a green light to private banks to start lending again. Indeed, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs all withdrew from the net zero banking alliance. Here is a table of the worst offenders (apologies for the poor resolution, but if you download it, it is fine):
Be rest assured, banks have not changed.
The steam engine
A book that opened my eyes to the non-inevitability of industrial fossil economies was Andreas Malm’s, Fossil Capital. The argument was threefold: first, capitalists were not prepared to share resources such as flowing water. Second, flowing water was located in areas that required investment by capitalists in infrastructure such as housing, schools, medical. Thirdly, where this infrastructure existed, labour militancy was difficult to manage – wages were going down and work rates increasing. Capital is best optimised if it is mobile. The steam engine enabled capital mobility despite being less efficient than water, at least until major improvements were made to the design of steam engines (to stop them from exploding if nothing else). All this being true, it is not the whole story. Kolasi has helped me to refine this argument.
Let us compare changes over time (Kolasi 2025: 290):
| Year | Steam HP | Water HP | Wind HP |
| 1800 | 35,000 | 120000 | 15000 |
| 1830 | 160,000 | 160,000 | 20,000 |
| 1870 | 2,060,000 | 230,000 | 10,000 |
That brings us to two additional concepts that I did not get from Malm: exergy and spectralization. Exergy is a thermodynamic system’s maximum capacity for useful work (p290); spectralization is the “diversification and variation in the conversional methods of existing technologies in response to changing social and ecological conditions” (p222). And so…
“…Boosting the spectralization of conversional technologies was the main causal vector for the corresponding improvement in the efficiency of industrial devices. The Industrial Revolution in England and virtually everywhere else as well, followed a path of exergy-driven efficiency gains that spurred additional gains and butterfly effects in economic productivity. The English achieved this incredible growth through a huge increase in the aggregate output of mechanical work a process spearheaded by the spectralization of high-pressure steam engines, and eventually the spectralization of other types of engines as well.”
Kolasi, 2025: 290-1
Let me unpick that, probably imperfectly. Efficiency per se is not the point. It is exergy efficiency. And curiously, Kolasi demonstrates that steam engines had a negative impact on aggregate efficiency across the English economy as a whole. Indeed in their early days they were highly inefficient relative to water and wind. The more steam engines that were installed – at least until 1770 – the lower the efficiency of the economy in aggregate. My head hurts trying to get it around this idea.
In the 19th Century it is a different story. But steam’s impact is not that it could be used to power textile factories. Rather it is this spectralization whereby if became a significant component of the economy as a whole, not least in transportation (shifting coal to factories and shifting product to markets). And if we think that steam power is a thing of the past, we must remember that it is steam power that generates most of the world’s electricity.
Steam power does something else, too, which I had not considered. Steam enables capital to be used harder. By which we mean, it enables us to hit things harder – in a foundry, for example, that is useful.
That leaves a question as to why coal? Well here’s a thing, the answer lies is that great British phenomenon of the enclosures. Back in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the aristocracy displaced many people from their traditional lands by enclosing it – fencing it off and turning it into private property. This displacement led to a rapid urbanisation. People were concentrated in towns and cities and used wood to heat their homes. More rapacious, though, was the state’s need for timber for warships. The nation’s forests disappeared. Coal was a suitable substitute and, as Kolasi writes, “…the northern parts of England were full of it”. Full of it for sure, but it was under ground. The mines were established but they needed pumping. That was first significant industrial use of steam power – to pump mines.
The steam engines then went through spectralization – the addition of condensers to improve thermodynamic efficiency; new gear configurations that allowed the engines to generate rotary motion and to power machines in factories; and the transition from low- to high-pressure machines as the driving motive force. Kolasi (p281) argues this was the “breakthrough moment of the entire industrial revolution”.
Colonialism
The English enclosures displaced many and created a work-hungry proletariat. International colonialism resulted in mass slaughter, disease and slavery. Kolasi (pp300303) goes into great detail about the activities of the Dutch East India Company (VOC). Most brutally, the company slaughtered the majority of the people of the Banda Islands (modern day Indonesia) because they had a monopoly in nutmeg growing. On discovering exactly where the fabled trees grew in 1621, 15,000 people lost their lives through brutal acts of beheading and being pushed over cliffs. These people were substituted for by slaves. The VOC set the stage for the Amsterdam Stock Exchange becoming the first publicly-traded company; but as is ever, the company declined as the secret of nutmeg was demystified and grown in other regions with suitable climates. The Dutch Government nationalised the assets in 1799.
The Circular Economy
We hear a lot about the circular economy…it is essentially another attempt at saving capitalism from itself. In its purist form, the waste from one cycle of production becomes the raw materials for the next. A weakness here is the issue of recycling. Many of us are asked to recycle our waste – my weekly doorstep collection is a case in point. I separate out my plastic, card, glass and metals to be collected. Notwithstanding the fact that turning glass and metals into reworked materials requires energy. Plastic…to much cannot be recycled, and even if it can, the capacity is rarely there to enable it. So, recycling is not realistically part of the circular economy – energy is lost in the circularity.
For circularity to be meaningful, materials have to be reusable or re-purposable. A glass bottle needs to be reused as a glass bottle (energy is required for transportation and cleaning. Textiles need to be re-tradable, up-cyclable and volumes need to come down, drastically. A recent story in the Guardian newspaper illustrates once again just how much textile materials find their way dumped in habitat and wilderness because we cannot absorb the volumes being disposed of.
Sources: Decoupling Chart – Hannah Ritchie (2021) – “Many countries have decoupled economic growth from CO2 emissions, even if we take offshored production into account” Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved from: ‘https://ourworldindata.org/co2-gdp-decoupling’ [Online Resource]
Bank investment table – Banking on Climate Chaos: Fossil Fuel Finance Report, 2025: https://www.bankingonclimatechaos.org/?bank=JPMorgan%20Chase#fulldata-panel (accessed 21 June 2025)
Steam Engine: Chris Allen / Steam engine, Nortonthorpe Mills, Scissett
VOC Plaque: By Stephencdickson – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=72939415
Ghana Wetlands – source unknown. Taken from Guardian story.
Ocean – David Attenborough
Filed under: Business, Environment | Tags: biodiversity, climate change, conservation, David Attenborough, environment, nature, Oceans, Oceans movie
Leave a Comment 
Thee weeks ago, along with my beloved and my sister I visited Bempton Cliffs in East Yorkshire. It is a colony of seabirds clinging to steep chalk cliffs. I took the photograph (left) of gannets, one of my favourite birds for their sheer seabird-iness! Many of the other people there were trying to see, quite rightly, some early-arrived puffins who normally breed at the top of the cliff in burrows.
In recent years, the colony has been deeply affected by bird flu. I was concerned that so devastated they may have been that the colony would not recover; but alas, they were there and as amazing as ever. Gliding, diving, hollering.
About the same time, we were trying to find a cinema that was showing Ocean featuring David Attenborough. You can count on one hand the number of people in the UK that have known a world without David Attenborough. It is also true that there is no-one alive who has not been witness – whether consciously or not – to the wholesale destruction of the world’s oceans. It is not about over-fishing. It is about the wanton destruction of marine eco-systems. Largely invisible marine eco-systems.
David Attenborough has come a long way. He started with a show that traced the capture of animals for incarceration in zoos, Zoo Quest, between 1954 and 1963. Of course he later fronted some of the most memorable natural history documentaries of the 20th Century. He worked with teams that constantly innovated film technique, sometimes encountering real risk in order to do so. However, in most of those films he did not – or was not allowed to – juxtapose the wonder with the destruction that was happening in parallel. In some cases they filmed simply metres away from organised and illegal logging in rain forests, and the destruction of many other habitats through pollution and resource exploitation.
This one-sided storytelling became increasingly intolerable for Attenborough. Habitat and species loss seeped into the films; but they were never central. It has taken a collaboration with National Geographic for him to tell the story that was not told in Blue Planet. And it is devastating.
My family has its origins in the fishing industry in my home town of Hull. They were trawlers – dragging a net along the ocean floor to pick up cod and haddock, fish that fed on the ocean floor. But that trawling literally destroyed everything in its wake. And 3/4 of the “catch” was discarded. Over and over again, these trawl nets destroyed eco-systems and emptied the seas. I – along with everyone else, probably – have never actually seen a trawl in action. Now you can in graphic detail. You can see the devastation. And you can understand why the oceans are dead or dying. Oh, and the process of trawling releases huge volumes of carbon dioxide locked into the seabed.
There is not an ocean anywhere not now being exploited by factory ships. In Antarctica, the ships have come for krill, a small crustacean that feeds penguins and whales amongst other to be processed into fish food (for all of that harmful salmon fish farming) and, wait for it, pet food. These are international waters being exploited by a select few corporations.
The film is in three parts. We start with the wonder of the oceans – in particular the bits we know the best (though seemingly only recently have we bothered to look), kelp forests and coral reefs in particular. Then the grim bit – probably 30 minutes of hell on Earth. And finally, the hope. There is hope. Kelp forests regenerate super quickly if left; so too, the fish species, even those thought to be lost. Coral can recover as some fish species remove the algae that effectively suffocate the coral and prevent regrowth. It is particularly salient at the minute because the film was released to coincide with the UN Ocean Conference (Nice, 9-13 June 2025). At that conference, the future of the oceans were being decided. You can read the communique here. on 15 June 2025, the Guardian newspaper published a summary. We need to protect 1/3 of the oceans the regenerate the rest. That is an amazing thought – just one-third can result in the rest of the Earth’s oceans recovering to once again provide a living for shore fisher communities globally. These communities have been subject to an ocean colonialism (Attenborough’s words).
Or we can turn the oceans into chronic deserts.
Why banks do not invest in renewables
Filed under: Environment, Privatisation, UK | Tags: climate change, Electricity markets, energy, environment, Feed-in-tariffs, investment in renewables, renewable-energy, renewables, spot prices, sustainability
Leave a Comment 
I wrote last month on Andreas Malm and Wim Carton’s book, Overshoot. Like all arguments – and their book is full of them – there are weaknesses. Or in my case, a failure fully to understand. In pursuit of that understanding, I have turned to an extraordinary book by Brett Christophers, the Price is Wrong – Why capitalism won’t save the planet (right).
Christophers waits until chapter 6 – appropriately entitled, The Wild West, to broach the point of why. It is not because the previous chapters were superfluous – far from it. Rather it is because electricity is complex, and despite out belief that all electricity is the same, Christophers has to make the case that not all electricity is the same.
First, we have to look at the structure of the liberalised (i.e. non-vertically integrated markets), of which the UK is a prime example after privatisation in the 1980s. Let me break down some of the stakeholders in the system:
- Generators – owners of power plants (some located outside of the country)
- renewables
- wind
- solar
- hydro
- non-renewables
- gas
- coal
- biomass
- nuclear
- renewables
- Last-mile suppliers.
- Buyers of wholesale electricity for supply to end users (domestic and businesses)
- Electricity System Operators (ESOs)
Markets
Increasingly the industry’s liberalisation has led to regulated markets being constructed by policy makers. In the UK there two distinct routes to market by generators.
- spot markets (electricity for immediate use)
- corporate – Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) – generator contracts directly with corporate entity which is often a large user of electricity. There can also be PPAs between generators and utilities (retailers).
Spot markets trade in blocks of time, 30 minutes in the UK, for example. There is a base load, usually supplied by renewables and then a top-up, usually coming from the most flexible of supplies; namely, gas. In the UK the last coal-fired power station closed in September 2024.
Spot markets and volatility – why renewables are unattractive to investors and fossil-fuelled plant is attractive
The prices of electricity on spot markets are volatile. They are volatile over each day – demand can vary widely from the peak of the early evening to the overnight lull. But volitivity over a month…that seems to be more scary to investors. For example (p 170) in February 2022, spot market prices in Germany ranged from under €50 per MWh (day 19, Saturday) to just under €250 per MWh (day 25, Saturday). Demand is difficult to predict; indeed, we might ask, are there any other (commodity) markets with such pronounced volatility?
If you are an investor – a bank, for example – such volatility instils a sense of unease. It does not make investment impossible, but it makes it more expensive. Christophers’ research suggests that interest rates for renewable energy projects can be as much as 3x that of non-renewables.
We should then ask, why would a gas-fired power station – that sells into the same volatile market – not also be high risk? There are two things to be aware of here. First, banks have been investing successfully in fossil fuel projects for many years. Successfully. It is a known and tangible entity that has largely been low risk. Bankers, however, when making investment/loan decisions ask one simple question, will the client be able to pay back the loan on any terms agreed? The banker wants to know how much income the project will be generating to service the debt. The project owners will, of course, not be able to answer that question because of the volatility. It seems to be insufficiently adequate for the loanee to say that they are 100 per cent certain that all electricity they generate will be bought by suppliers because what they generate will always be cheaper than electricity generated by gas. The spot markets always include the lowest-priced electricity in a merit hierarchy.
There seems to be other issues here for investors. The returns on renewables is lower than that for fossil-fuelled plant. Typically, noted by Christophers (pp 211-221), fossil-based investments can generate returns of up to 20 per cent. Renewables come in at between 4 and 9 per cent. If we consider oil company shareholders, they are offered by the executive investments that will bring in double-digit returns, or equivalents that will deliver at best half of that. What will they choose? And what if the executive takes the decision to go with the renewables, knowing that their returns will be lower? Most will be out on the ears at the next shareholders’ meeting. These are so-called opportunity costs. Investing in renewables means that the investment will not be made elsewhere; i.e. something that brings in a higher return. But, argues Christophers, the shareholder concerns are minimal in comparison to that of the banks. Banks are looking for double-digit returns. It is also the case that many investments in renewables are made by companies that are not fossil-fuel based. They specialise in renewables. They will only deliver across their portfolio single digit returns to a market that is volatile, that exhibits the so-called merchant risk. Added to that, renewable plant is part of a “transition” – an energy transition. That transition, argues Christophers, has two elements. The first adds to the uncertainty. Transitions by definition are uncertain. The second is transition has no history. Generators are asked to project into the future with no historical data on which to make the calculations.
We might then ask, what about owners of plant fired by fossil fuels, how do they make the case to investors if they sell into the same volatile electricity market (because new gas-fired power stations are still being built)? Well, it seems quite simple, a traditional fossil-fuelled power plant is not part of a transition. It is proven technology and can demonstrate historical returns on investment. It is eminently bankable.
And here is another scenario. If the spot price of electricity (say in the UK) falls, so does the price of gas. The spot price is determined by the gas price (or the highest bid price in the bidding round, usually 30 or 60 minutes in each 24 hour period). In that scenario, the price of gas falls and the bid posted for electricity generated by a gas-fired power station is at a lower price because the primary cost of the power station is its fuel. If the gas price falls, so does the cost base of the plant. There is a hedge at work in the eyes of the bankers (p180).
The same is not true of wind-based renewables plant. The fuel – wind – is a gift of nature. It is free. The cost base of the plant, in the event of the spot price decreasing, does not decrease. That seems to indicate to bankers that there is a point where there is no return, and hence the ability of the plant owner to service the debt. In other words, finance cannot be secured because the fuel is renewable, meaning that even if the turbine is turned by the wind it can still be used by another wind turbine. But non-renewables once used are used. It is counter-intuitive that this is a positive and hence a challenge to bankers. In essence, then, there is a significant merchant risk; namely, “the risk associated with selling renewably generated electricity exclusively or predominantly at volatile merchant (wholesale) prices.” p174
Work arounds – how renewable plant owners can hedge the risk
Christophers offers three ways around this problem.
- Option 1: the futures contract. This is a situation whereby the electricity will be bought and sold at a predetermined price. The fear/danger is that the spot price falls such that revenue is flat and threatens not to cover liabilities. This is a balancing act where an option to sell (short) on the electricity futures contracts means that if the spot price does fall, the negative outcomes in terms of income “earned” in the spot market are compensated for by a gain in the futures market. Essentially, the trading value of the contract enables the sale to be transacted at a fixed future price which typically rises as the spot price declines. This is a common mechanism for hedging in liberalised electricity markets.
- Option 2 – swaps. These are more common in North America and Texas in particular. Swaps act as substitutes for futures contracts. The principle is that a party averse to risk relating to falling electricity prices can offset the risk by entering into a swap that pays out even if electricity prices fall.
Hedging, though, is complex. Only the largest producers have the so-called competence to hedge at scale. There are at the very least significant cash flow challenges. For example, if the spot market does decline, one party has to put up considerable cash to cover the decline. There is even a bigger challenge to contemplate. Christophers asks fairly, what happens if the renewable electricity supplier cannot supply the amount of power it is contracted to supply to the futures or swap markets? The above relate to Christophers’ arguments on pages 178-183.
- Option 3 – PPAs – these reassure banks that there will be a return sufficient for loan repayments.
- Option 4 – government subsidy/support. Such support has its own hazards.
- investment grants do not help in pricing
- Investment Tax Credits can help reduce the level of break-even spot price
- Price controls/Feed-in Tariffs (FiTs) – compensating generators when the spot market “reference” price drops below the contract “strike” price; though when the strike price climbs above the reference price, generators pay back into the pool. The net price is always the strike price.
Price controls stabilise markets and satisfy investors. But then introduces yet another source of uncertainty. Will governments – especially when they are fiscally stressed – honour or extend FiTs rates? Unless they do, renewable generators are back to spot price volatility. Christophers offers examples of state withdrawal in China and India (pp.
Notwithstanding problems with subsidies (option 4), markets can bankrupt renewables generators. In Texas in February 2021, a bolt of cold air caused a number of generators to cease as their equipment, not used to such extreme conditions, seized up. This was not just renewables generators. Fossil-fuel plant also seized up. As a result of the limited supply, electricity spot prises went up considerably. Renewables generators were supplying into a market with spot prices below $100 per MWh (as low as $50). During the crisis, prices were $9000 per MWh. Now if renewables generators were selling into that market, then there was money to be made (assuming the turbines were working, of which many were). But if the generators had PPAs at fixed prices, if they were unable to supply they had to go into the spot market to meet the terms of their PPA. That was enough to bankrupt generators (p310).
Why renewables will not supplant fossil fuel investments
Filed under: Environment, UK | Tags: Andreas Malm, climate, climate change, energy, Overshoot, PV cells, renewable-energy, sustainability
Leave a Comment Overshoot
For us non-economists there seems to be a logic that should prevail. If renewables are significantly cheaper than non-renewable fossil fuels, then why do banks and financial institutions continue to provide capital to the fossil fuel industry to extract more oil and gas, despite climate change?
For an answer, I return to the work of Andreas Malm and a recent book (2024), Overshoot (co-authored with Wim Carton). We experience overshoot when policy makers conclude that we can afford to spend our carbon budget in the (mistaken) belief that we can bring back 1.5 degrees by carbon capture and storage. Or even more problematically, reduce the surface temperature of the Earth through geoengineering. It is propagated by fossil-fuel industry lobbyists in order to maintain business-as-usual. Business-as-usual is important because sunk assets of the industry are long-lived and the value of the oil over which they have extraction rights is high.
Commodification
For Malm and Carton (pp209-218) an answer is the inability to commodify sun and wind. We can commodify the equipment that converts the sun’s energy into electricity. We can commodify wind turbines. But because the sun and the wind are renewable – i.e. tomorrow’s sunshine is independent of the sunshine from the previous day – it has not been used up. Moreover, using Marxist theory, Malm and Carton argue that value can only be ascribed to products if human labour is required in its exploitation. Even in the most efficient mining operations, humans are still directing the operation. Wind, sun and water are labourless. That makes them valueless in the eyes of economists. There is no “surplus value”.
By contrast fossil fuels are commodities. They are traded, stored and consumed. The sunshine cannot be traded. There is no world market. There is no OPEC equivalent in renewables. It has no economic value in the capitalist mindset. It is costless. But costlessness may be valuable to consumers, it really is not to capitalists because they are unable to maximise profit – or indeed generate profit at all. Consequently there is only so much renewable energy that any national energy system can support – Malm and Carton suggest about one-quarter to one-third. Above that, costless electricity is so abundant that the price drops to zero or below. It is in Marxist terms, a “labourless void”.
This phenomenon can be illustrated indirectly by asking, name and ascribe a capitalisation to the world’s biggest manufacturer of PV cells or wind turbines. Likewise the owners of the world’s largest PV farms. We can all name the top 10 oil majors and easily find a capitalisation. For those who think Tesla may be a candidate – notwithstanding the current crisis within the company – it is an automobile manufacturer, not a renewable energy company. Essentially, renewable energy technologies (of the flow) have “no talent for providing the accumulation of capital”. (Malm and Carton, 2024: 215).
Competition
Other explanations are available, of course. Is it that there is perfect competition in solar, wind, etc. Barrier to entry are not high and hence there are too many players in the industry (a very Porterian approach). As Malm and Carton argue, if that was the case, then the whole industrial revolution would not have happened as the textile industry was just that, highly competitive.
What is particularly interesting in these technologies is their disruptive potential that could be led by consumers. No amount of consumer demand for fossil-fuel-free electricity, as we have seen, will see off the producers of electricity from fossil fuels. The profit motive blocks this. But it is possible for consumers to become their own generators. And whilst the majority of citizens own little in the way of land, homeowners do have roofs – house, sheds, etc., And in those houses they have space for storage – batteries. Most consumers remain indifferent to this. Even better would be whole neighbourhoods pooling their roofs and generating electricity for collective consumption. The question here is just about the design of the delivery system. For the time being at least, the grid is optimised for national distribution, and as such does not accommodate collective consumption.
Why then has there been any investment in renewables. Malm and Carton offer five reasons.
- Government subsidies – paying someone to do it
- End consumers not needing to make a profit (whilst reducing their own bills)
- Early profit – first movers, for example
- Low rates of profit can still be justified up to a point
- Fossil fuel companies have invested in renewables to fuel their own plants because, like all end users, it is valuable to them
Ultimately market capitalism cannot deliver transition, a mixed economy can.
Mark Miodownik lecture, 5 March 2025
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Everyday Miracles, King's College, London, Professor Mark Miodownik
Leave a Comment 
Arriving at the venue, Kings College London, I expected a huge auditorium for such a superstar materials scientist guest as Professor Mark Miodownik (left, with Professor Chris Lorenz*). But the lecture theatre was small, intimate, perfect. Unbeknownst to Professor Miodownik, he has educated many of my undergraduate students with clips from his BBC series, Everyday Miracles, a fascinating history of materials innovation. But that was then.
His lecture was about consumerism from the perspective of a self-declared technological determinist who finds (waste) solutions in materials science fused with…well, just about every other discipline.
Professor Miodownik walked us through the basics of consumer capitalism to the circular economy. But then the magic. A new concept, Animate Materials. A future in which, just as in nature, technologies repair themselves, often with the help of micro-organisms. It means the end of potholes and crumbling concrete. We learnt that disposable nappies are so brilliant because of a super absorbent polymer. The downside is that it is not biodegradable which means that the 300,000 nappies disposed of every minute stay with us. But somewhere out there is a biological solution…his team has discovered one, but it is a slow process. In the meantime, let’s toilet train children sooner (current average seems to be 37 months!).
Great lecture in a superb venue (never been to King’s before).
* forgive me if I have mis-identified you!
Kyoto – Soho Place Theatre
It is Valentine’s day 2025, and I look to offer my beloved a romantic evening. What better than to go to a West End theatre to see a romantic comedy with thousands of others desperate for love and romance. Our chosen performance was not a traditional romance; rather it was demanding, pertinent and funny. Yes, it was very funny. It was a romance between humanity and Earth.
Many of my readers know that I have been sceptical about theatre for many years until I realised there is theatre and then there is theatre. Last April we went to the National Theatre in London to see Nye. That is theatre. Now, the Royal Shakespeare Company’s presentation an unlikely play by Joe Murphy and Joe Robertson who started writing together in 2011 when they met at university. Both are northerners, one indeed from my home town of Hull.
Those of us of a certain vintage remember Kyoto, though probably not the detail. It was the first UN treaty to tackle climate change. It was the product of COP3 and a process set in motion after the Earth Summit of 1992 (held in Rio de Janeiro). The story is told by one man who was there, Don Pearlman, played by Stephen Kunken. Pearlman, a child of Lithuanian parents who emigrated to the USA, was a lawyer working for the dark forces of the oil majors (the Seven Sisters). But his motivation were more than just money. He was a true patriot, defined by his origins and the opportunity afforded to him by the USA.
His job was to derail any attempt to set targets and timeframes for carbon reduction caused by burning fossil fuels. And he is good at it. His key adversary is the chair of COP3, the then Argentinian Ambassador to the UN, Raúl Estrada, played by Jorge Bosch. They have a number of head-to-heads. Pearlman thinks Estrada is a buffoon, but we know otherwise.
For two-and-a-half hours we watch the protagonists in this minimal theatre setting argue over words, commas and implications. We know the outcome, but the tortured process is worked supremely by this cast. Bearing in mind the origins of the playwrights, it is not surprising that they introduce the character of the former UK deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, played so well by Ferdy Roberts (right) capturing both voice and mannerisms to great comic effect. I am sure Prescott would have been flattered by this depiction. He sadly passed away very recently. The man was very much part of my early life as a constituent and a constituency party member. But I had never really thought that he may have some enabling wisdom to share with Estrada. Never give up until the compromise is reached.
In modern times I am not sure that there can be compromise, which is why this play seems now to be anachronistic. It came just at the right time with Al Gore as the US Vice President (contrast with yesterday’s seriously depressing speech to the Munich security conference by the current incumbent, JD Vance). We know that since Kyoto, step-by-step, the targets have been deepened and it is now actually possible to talk about phase-out of particular fossil fuels. We also know much better now that renewables can deliver energy security at a competitive price. We also know that those dark forces never gave up, bankrolling Pearlmans galore (a practice of lawyers, apparently) and, of course, politicians and their propaganda. Estrada showed us that we have to be better than those who value money over a livable planet. There is nothing more romantic than that.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) and airport expansion
Filed under: Environment, Transport, Travel, UK | Tags: Airbus, Airport Expansion, aviation, Hydrogen aeroplanes, Logan Air, SAF, sustainability, Sustainable Aviation Fuel
Leave a Comment 
Decarbonising aviation is very difficult. It is a good example of why oil-based fuels have been so important in the development of modern society. Nothing quite matches the energy intensity of oil, with the exception of nuclear. Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) are trumpeted as the solution to aviation’s sustainability problem.
I am grateful here to Ben Purvis, Research Associate, Sustainability Assessment, University of Sheffield, for his contribution to the The Conversation for the content here. Purvis notes that there are so-called pathways for creating sustainable aviation fuel. These are:
- Oils or fats, including used cooking oil or tallow.
- Municipal solid waste, agricultural residues and sewage
- Hydrogen and captured carbon using renewable electricity.
It might seem that used cooking oil processing into aviation fuel is a win-win. But with the best will in the world, there is just not enough to go round. At the moment it is around 2 per cent of all aviation fuel. There is a UK mandate to increase this to 7 per cent by 2030 and 22 per cent by 2040. That is still only 1/5 or there about. To meet the current demand the UK imports 92 per cent of its used cooking oil from China and Malaysia (with its own carbon footprint). Currently the UK has one facility converting used-cooking oil to aviation fuel. That is the Phillips 66 Humber Refinery.
A recent report from the Royal Society notes that the 12.3 million tonnes of jet fuel per year needs 42.4 million tonnes of rapeseed biomass per year. In land terms, that is 68% of the UK’s agricultural land or 6.2 to 10.3 million hectares (see Innovate UK). The aviation industry’s own sustainability roadmap, CORSIA, precludes use of agricultural land for “fuel” crops.
The UK Chancellor of the Exchequer said on the 30 January 2025 (BBC radio 4, Today, c0815) that SAF could reduce aviation’s GHG emissions by 70 per cent. “Engines have become much more efficient. And, just at the beginning of this year, this government introduced the mandate for sustainable aviation fuel, which can reduce carbon emissions from flying by 70%. And of course, there’s going to be much more progress on that in the years to come.” (Quotes taken from the Guardian)
Equally there is global competition from both the EU and the USA (the latter now depends on the airlines rather than the state as burning fossil fuels now seems to be a US citizen imperative). Whilst it is clear that production could be increased with more investment, there is little confidence that it would be profitable; moreover, there is the small problem of cost – whichever pathway is taken, SAF costs more to manufacture than does aviation fuel (kerosene). That is £s on each ticket.
Surely there is enough municipal solid waste and sewage to go round? Well maybe, but the technology is in its infancy or not yet approved (see below) and no commercial facilities are producing it as yet. As for hydrogen, first it is packed with carbon if fossil fuels are the source of energy for the electrolysis necessary to produce it. Electrolysis by electricity from renewables remains distant. There is a long way to go before the UK grid is totally decarbonised. And now the British Government has added data centers to the mix, which means electricity supplies more generally are under pressure. Hence the Government’s latest endorsement of nuclear power and another un-tested technology, Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).
Not only manufacturing is a challenge, but the infrastructure to store hydrogen at airports or other facilities is just not in place. Hydrogen is also explosive and there are examples of denial of licences for users to store it, for example bus companies. It would require a major change to planning laws for widespread storage.
One UK company is undeterred: Logan Air. Logan Air has announced (12 February 2025) a plan to launch the world’s first hydrogen-fuelled commercial service by 2030. The company does not reveal the identity of the manufacturer of the aircraft that they will use for their point-to-point service (also as yet not stated). This against the backdrop of Airports Council International backtracking on its hydrogen ambitions in favour of scaling SAF, better air traffic management and improving aircraft engine efficiency.
There remains, therefore, the central question of actual aeroplanes. There was some succour in that Airbus was developing hydrogen planes (the A380 Airframer). This aeroplane was going to be a 100-seat 1850km range aircraft (right). But as recent as 6 February 2025 the Force Ouvriere trade union was informed that the launch date has been put off by between 5 and 10 years with an additional budget cut of 25 per cent. The company has identified the lack of available green hydrogen as one of the reasons for the delay. Another, less explicit but particularly troubling reason, is the company’s intention to replace its popular A320neo with a newer and more efficient conventionally-fuelled aircraft. The end of fossil-fuelled aircraft is nowhere in sight. The only option then, for sustainable aviation, is SAF from vegetable oils, tallow or waste.
There is a need, therefore, to clarify whether SAF is actually sustainable. In theory, because the things that it is made of already exist or are grown, burning it does not add to overall CO₂ levels. (Hydrogen, even more so, because it is derived from water and the emissions are just water.) So, aeroplanes still emit CO₂ when we really need to be capturing it and locking it into plants such as trees to generate negative emissions. Equally, it assumes that the crops and the waste had it not been for SAF would have degraded and decomposed releasing greenhouse gases in any case. The reality is that the area being used to cultivate crops to be turned into SAF would in actual fact be used either for food consumption or some form of rewilding. Essentially growing crops to fly planes (at least part of the way to their destinations) would displace food production. This would be a major distortion of land use.
The reason that SAF is so topical is because the British Government seeks to make the case that not only can we continue to fly at current levels, but that airport expansion is possible because the emission reductions from SAF rollout will offset increased flights (all in the name of growth). The above argument challenges that proposition. The calculation also needs to factor in the carbon emissions generated by constructing new runways. It is not trivial.
Warhol and Haring together at the Brandhorst Museum, Munich, December 2024
Filed under: Art, Museums, Travel | Tags: Andy Wahol, Art, Brandhorst Museum, graffiti, Keith Haring, Munich, street-art
Leave a Comment I had not realised it earlier – or not paid attention – that Keith Haring and Andy Warhol were artistic compatriots. There is a generational difference, for sure. Stylistically, too. But this superbly well curated exhibition (on until the end of January 2025) brings the two artists together – their lives, loves and work.
Haring is this curious subway graffiti artist (Haring would prefer me to drop the graffiti adjective) who became the artist he wanted to be, commercially and critically successful. In 1986 he opened Pop Shop in New York (292 Lafayette Street) to sell his designs on all sorts of artefacts – from textiles to skateboards (left).
For both of these artists I found plenty of contradictions. Haring, particularly so. Whilst both were so-called pop artists, that did not mean they were not looking to be commercially successful. Neither were bohemian in that sense. Whilst Warhol famously bought a factory in which to live, work and socialise, that came at a (financial) price. Haring wanted his work to be as accessible to as many people as possible which explains to some extent the subway art. He was often arrested for this, but seemingly his whiteness protected him from serious prosecution. Many of the works were removed (stolen evening – though whether graffiti can be stolen, I am not sure) and sold at auction as he became increasingly marketable. He moved on to free work for charities and hospitals where, presumably, his work would be a little more protected. His work was also printed onto dresses worn by Grace Jones and Madonna both of whom he met through Warhol.
But the affection the two men had for one another was the focus of my approach to the exhibition. I am not sure for myself if a friend caricatured me as Mikey Mouse (right) that I would be too chuffed. But Warhol was delighted with Haring’s effort which captured the essence of the man (for sure it is Warhol), one of his styles (repetition) and critique (Disney and dollars).
Warhol died in 1987 after some disastrous surgery. Haring was devastated and did what most artists would do, remember them through art whether it be visual, aural, written, whatever. Haring went for a curious depiction that takes some explanation. Warhol is naked. (Warhol had taken naked photographs of Haring in the past.) Warhol is sucking a banana which was a common Warhol motif. He is holding an apple that is somewhat sorf and juicy. This perhaps has a number of meanings – by this time Haring himself was ill with Aids and had a prescribed diet which included a lot of fruit. Equally, it could mean something else entirely.
Both Haring and Wahol were social activists as well. Haring’s social commentary ranged from Aids awareness to anti-apartheid statements (right). There is also an endorsement of the German Green Party.
In the true spirit of Haring’s accessibility, we visited on a Sunday when the entry fee is just 1 Euro. We had dinner in a nearby Vietnamese diner. The front-of-house was dominated by a woman who had an amazing ability to take multiple orders without writing anything down and then remembering who ordered what. Very Warhol.
Gran Canaria: museums, galleries and colonialism
Filed under: History, Museums, Travel | Tags: Art, CAAM - Centro Atlántico de Arte Moderno, canary-islands, Casa-Museo de Colón, Gran Canaria Museums, Museo Canario, Travel
Leave a Comment Museums and galleries
Las Palmas – the capital of Gran Canaria – is home to at least four museums, three of which we visited.
Naturally there is a Columbus Museum (Casa-Museo de Colón – https://www.casadecolon.com/) that chronicles the significance of the islands for Columbus’s so-called discoveries. What we learned from the museum was how strategic the islands were for transatlantic crossings, particularly to the Caribbean. Columbus made four such crossings as captain and for each, the Canary Islands provided resources – food, water and labour. For example, for his first tour he needed, essentially, to refit his ships and fix a rudder.
The museum basically presents maps and artefacts in a reproduction of ship environments; for example, the Captain’s quarters showing a bed, desk (right). There is lots to learn about cartography – the evolution of maps is part of the story, of course. Visitors trace through the centuries how humanity moved from a flat earth to a globe and eventually got the shape of the continents right. I suppose cartography is the discovery that we can celebrate if not the conquering aspect of the voyages.
I give them credit for being focused and not getting distracted – Columbus is a big story. It is a lovely small but informative museum close to the cathedral in the historic centre of the city.
The top floor of the museum is an art gallery with time-limited exhibitions. At the time of our visit (29 November 2024) was a celebration of the work of a Canarian artist, Juan de Miranda. There is, as one might expect for a painter of his era, a lot of religion and aristocracy. But also some quirks. For example, I was intrigued by the portrait of St Lucia dated from around 1785. St Lucia is often depicted with eyes on plate. The meaning is not entirely clear but it is thought to reflect her lack of desire to marry. To be blind and eyeless – or to have one’s eyes literally disembodied – may well help her to avoid what she did not want!
CAAM – Centro Atlántico de Arte Moderno
As one might expect, this is gallery of modern art (free entry). Over three floors there are three exhibitions dedicated to particular artists and themes. On our visit (4 December 2024) the artists were: British artist, Zak Ové; Canarian artist, Juan Hidalgo Codorniú and Teresa Arozena. Arozona’s work featured large prints of photographs showing the impact of tourism on the natural environment of the islands of the archipelagos (largely negative). Whilst they are recognisable for anyone who opens their eyes as they wander around the tourist spots (and possibly beyond), they are not particularly standout or framed in an interesting way. For example, shots of the dunes of Maspalomas fail to capture their scale (always difficult with photographs) and show engagingly the threat posed to it. I sense that we as tourists may have some better shots to take home with us.
Juan Hidalgo Codorniú had a lot to say about himself. A long career (he died in 2018) as a conceptual artist presented some interesting artefacts. Like for all conceptual artists, there are good, interesting and not-so-interesting pieces. Bizarrely in one of the galleries is a large area of simple pornography, and another a series of pictures of the artist with nude models. Let me put it this way, they are of their time (the latter the 70s), but unworthy of the exhibition more generally. One piece stood out, though. The depiction of the Earth in a condom (right) resonated. Though I suspect his meaning was different to mine – rather more sexual. It gave me a sense of the earth being emasculated/suffocated, particularly by men. But all we need is a little tear!
Finally, Zak Ové, whose collection here was streets ahead and eclectic. Ové’s father was also an artist and this work seemed like an extension across generations. Both men had a deep commitment to black rights. Seemingly the family lived adjacent to Michael X (aka Michael de Freitas) – there are some atmospheric photographs of him – one particular in Paddington Station, London. (He was eventually convicted of murder and executed in Port of Spain in 1975.) Images of the Notting Hill Carnival in the 60s also feature. Striking images include Evil is White (left) – though for me it could also include the adjective, male.
Ové is also a big user of re-used materials. One gallery demonstrates the fun and creativity associated with his approach. For example, for Fish (2009) he used brass instruments, rubber gloves and dolls. There is a series of masks made from old leather jackets dating form a 2024 collection.
Ultimately, this is a fascinating exhibition in an unlikely location. All the better for it.
Museo Canario
This museum is charming. It is made up of a private collection that was donated along with the building that charts the pre-history of the indigenous people of the island up to the point they were conquered by the Spanish. So it does not deal with the conquest. I bought a book to take up that story – it is complex, see later.
Charm comes in many forms – the building (left, the gift shop is housed in the collector’s library); the collection is disproportionately comprised of lots of bones and skulls; the staff (guaranteed not to leave without having visited the gift shop and bought something) and a curious but welcome adoption of technology (QR codes enable visitors to have an audio guide for each gallery in a selection of languages).
The story is one of arrival (by boat with a few animals and seeds); shelter (in caves and huts); clothing (tanning animal skins and weaving); food (agriculture, preparation/grinding of grains particularly barley); pottery (technology and types) and death (causes and funerals). There are representations of life dotted around the galleries. For example, pottery making (right).
The are other museums and galleries on the island. In Las Palmas, for example, there is El Museo Néstor, dedicated the work of the Gran Canarian artist Néstor Martín-Fernández de la Torre. Moreover, Gran Canaria is more than Las Palmas. There are important other towns in the north of the island such as Galdar.
Colonialism
The colonial history of the islands seems to be something few museums want to address. The conquest of of the islands is not told in any depth. I had to do my own research and, so far, have relied on a single source, Carlos Alvarez’s book, Chronicle of the Conquest of the Canary Islands (left).
Alverez notes that there are a number of different accounts of this period (17th Century), none of which, of course, take account of the indigenous populations’ experiences. Alvarez has done a lot heavy lifting for us in checking the facts; for example, when false dates are presented, he make it explicit to us that it is false and why (if possible). In reading the book I conclude a number of things.
- The islands were not homogenous – geology, culture, natural resources. I sense this is still the case today.
- Colonialisation requires the cooperation of an indigenous population – on Lanzarote, the population surrendered rather quickly realising that they could not defeat the invaders. They agreed to be converted to Christianity as confirmation of their surrender.
- Of all of the islands, Gran Canaria was the most difficult to conquer (eventually in 1478). The final conquest was brutal – but conquistadors suffered high losses until Captain Don Juan Rejón arrived armed and prepared for his success attempt at conquest.
- The islands became property of the Spanish nobility (though the Portuguese had a go at wresting control by miliary force). They were traded between Spanish nobles. The owners and nobles were paranoid (fearful of losing their claims) and vindictive. This actually led to the “accidental” death of Captain Rejón an (unwelcome) unscheduled landing on La Gomera en route to La Palma (yet to be conquered). Consequently, the story of the conquest is told in the voice of the nobles – and their squabbles – rather than the voices of the indigenous people.
Being on the Island of Gran Canaria
Filed under: Travel | Tags: canary-islands, Gran Canaria, Gran Canaria buses, Maspalomas, nature, Travel
Leave a Comment Architecture
I think this is the first time that I have stayed at a place that is one big resort. And I was not quite prepared for what constitutes mass tourism based around sand, sea, eating and drinking. We are not staying in one of the resort hotels, we have a small apartment that we are renting from friends. So, we can cook our own food and observe.
The architecture of the island is split into two very distinct groups – tourism and colonialism.
The tourism architecture is, I presume, functional, but does not even have the merits of brutalist architecture that some of the post-war buildings in the UK herald (or suffered, as some see it). Here are a couple of examples from Maspalomas:
The building on the right really does emulate so many examples of telecom exchange buildings in England. It is breath-taking in its lack of sympathy. That on the left is a gap in the generic shops in one of the town’s shopping centers. I could go on with this, but will not. It is a cheap shot at functional architecture that serves its purpose and makes available tens of thousands of beds that simply are the local economy of the south of the island.
Good examples of the colonial architecture can be found in the capital, Las Palmas. I’m not impressed with my phone camera shot here, but this fine example is now a posh restaurant. Make of it what you will regarding style and period.
Public transport
Of course there are no trains on Gran Canaria. There seemingly once was a plan to build a tramway south along the coast from Las Palmas to Maspalomas (reminiscent of the tramway in Belgium between De Panne and Ostend), but there is insufficient money to invest. That said, the island boasts an extraordinary bus service. Las Palmas has its own yellow bus network, the rest of the island has the benefit of Globalbus services. The buses are largely single deck, 3 axel vehicles, a combination of Volvo, MAN, IVECO and Scania chassis (right). Their frequency is excellent – though the real-time information at bus shelters leaves a lot to be desired. Buses can be 5 minutes away for 15 minutes, never actually getting any closer. I’m not sure if I am confident about the published timetable either. From where we stayed in St Augustin east and west, there were plenty of buses during the day. Fewer in the evening (the last bus back from Las Palmas is currently 2115, which is a bit early if we had wanted to attend an evening football match or a concert). Plus, if one arrived at 2115 it would already have departed. Pretty sure about this by experience.
Each bus shelter has a list of destinations, the buses that serve that destination and the price. These range from €1.40 to €5.60 to various locations on the coastal routes. The drivers are amazing. They take no prisoners, for sure. Some of the routes are a bit like the Amalfi coast route in Italy – a bit, the architecture doesn’t compare – and the drivers work the roads with great skill.
We have also used the bus to get inland – into the interior mountains. These buses are fewer, of course, with last buses making it necessary to travel early. For example, to get to Tedeja, one really needs to be on the 0800 from Maspalomas to have enough time in the town and be able to return on the last bus at 1700. Once on, it is perfectly reasonable to regret it. The drivers know the roads and drive the hairpin bends like F1 drivers.
Public works
The roads along the coast are pretty good. I have seen a few rougher streets in the tourist areas, but the motorway along the coast – GC-1 is excellent. Though just like British roads, there are countless roundabouts (traffic lights are few). Inland, whilst the quality is good, they are narrow, bendy and cut into the side of the mountain (GC-550, above right).
I am always on the lookout for how the daily stuff is done. So, along the coast are very large rubbish bins. The are the same colour as the sand which is odd, because for people with eyesight like mine, I could do with them to be fluorescent pink rather than brown. I did wonder how they were emptied. And then I found out (left).
The trees are largely palms. I did just think they got on with it, but no, they are managed by the local authority (right).
Wildlife
The coastal area is pretty much bereft of wildlife.
Birds: I have seen a few small waders on the beach (Sanderlings and possibly Common Sandpipers), but nothing like the numbers I would encounter on a similar beach on the south coast of England. There are a few egrets on the island. Alien parakeets are everywhere, as well as collared doves. I’ve seen what I think my poor identification skills might claim to be Whimbrel. Gulls are not present in numbers. I trust I have seen a few black-backed gulls. On the lagoon near to the dunes of Maspalomas, there were three what appeared to be Glossy Ibises (they were rather dark-feathered, though). It has been a delight to see Common Hoopoes. Birders have classified the birds that one can expect to find here.
Reptiles: Of course, there are reptiles on the island. Again, on the southern coastal area, there are a few geckoes clinging to walls and scurrying into crevices. I was not expecting to find giant lizards in the tourist areas and I am sure that at night or early morning the dunes are busy with reptilian life (the rocks do retain their heat). I may need to revisit the hinterland and be patient.
And then there are crabs. Red-rock crabs to be precise (Red Rock Crab, Grapsus adscensionis).
. They are found on the rocks, particularly those inaccessible rocky areas where humans rarely go (it is quite dangerous). They are distinctive, mobile, potentially aggressive with one another, but a delight to watch if one cares to look. And I think that kind of sums up the island generally. It is not the most beautiful, but there is beauty if visitors want to find it, even in the architecture.
Be informed 