Skip to content

Adventuring we go!

November 21, 2016
by

img_0858

Hello!

It’s been a while but we’re off adventuring again. We’re leaving london for a few months to explore Costa Rica and this time there will be four of us.

Yes, since our last big journey, I’ve given birth to a book and two small humans. In that time, the world has come together to try to address our climate change challenges, which is a hugely significant step and a cause for optimism.

However, despite this collaborative step, nations are regressing into isolationist nationalism. There is a rise in extremism in formerly moderate countries and with it a rise in prejudice and hate directed at women, minority groups, people with darker skin or different accents.

We are far more similar than we are different – genetically we are almost identical and of a mixed tapestry of interwoven origins. But that is science and, as we are being continually told, we now live in a post-truth world. The man elected to become one of most powerful in the world, Donald Trump, and his powerful friends seem to revel in undermining science and our understanding of earth systems and the natural world, and in destroying the achievements humanity has made towards respecting each other despite our differences.

This shocks and profoundly worries me. I want to continue to believe that we share values of human decency towards each other, to protecting human rights and the environment we share. Time will tell.

In the meantime, the planet continues to be transformed under our influence. In the Anthropocene (the Age of Humans) we face significant challenges and we need strong leadership to captain us into a world of some 9 billion people, limited resources and an unstable climate. This is an extraordinary time. The decisions we make now will affect the planet for centuries to come.

On the urgent to-do list is: climate change, extinctions, freshwater loss, and more. None of these can be addressed in isolation, and none without looking at the root cause of the problem: us. Social issues are entirely enmeshed in our environmental problems. Happily, the solution to one can very often be the solution to the other. It is only by understanding and meeting our human needs in concert with the natural world that we will find palatable solutions for our problems.

So I’m off to Costa Rica to look at how this small but fascinating country is meeting our shared global challenges.

Between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, in the heart of Central America, this little nation has been running a socio-environmental experiment, aiming to protect and nurture its natural resources, as well as the health and wellbeing of its people – and that requires a healthy economy. Can it be done?

I’m heading off to the land of rainforest and cloud forest, volcanoes and waterfalls, sloths and whales, to find out. And I’m bringing my two young children. I want them to discover a different world from london, where people eat different foods, speak another language, and where nature dominates much of the country. I want them to have new experiences but I’m also conscious that it may be their last chance to see some of this bountiful nature. They will never know the incomparable coral reefs of my childhood, it is too late for that. But for the many creatures and plants that are on the edge of extinction, it is not yet too late.

Most of all, though, it is their generation that will inherit this planet. I want them to value its diversity, to know what we all stand to lose, to see that there are different ways of living, of producing energy and food, and different ways of being happy.

This time some of our adventures will be filmed, and I don’t mean my amateur attempts at using video – we’ll be meeting up with a television crew out there to make something beautiful and meaningful, I hope.

I don’t know what we’ll find, there will be inspiration, disappointment and everything in between. But I know it’ll be interesting.

I’ll try to post updates here, so do join us!

Advertisements

Saving journalism with a button

August 30, 2016
by

Imagine if every online news article, feature, interview, column, video or slideshow had a click-to-read button – like the click-to-share buttons (for Twitter and Facebook) or the RSS feed button. This simple button would charge you a tiny read fee, perhaps 5 pence/cents for standard article, as much as £$1.50 for in-depth mixed media content.

Daily use could be capped at a chosen amount, say £$5, after which an additional security click would be required. Users could top up their read-fee accounts by direct debit or with regular payments, along the Skype or PayPal models, or with contactless payment system.

The system would, of course, require all media outlets to sign up to it – and institutions like the BBC with its licence fee and other public/charitable bodies mightn’t be able to – but this seems to me the only viable way to maintain quality journalism, in-depth trusted reporting from knowledgeable correspondents into the coming decades.

Because, I don’t think people have a problem with paying for journalism; they have a problem with the bureaucracy it currently entails: registering, filling forms, entering bank and other personal details. It’s a faff and, because of that, most people would rather not bother climbing a paywall.

This one-button, simple system – like the tap of an Oyster card, the click of an Amazon payment button – means there is a just one-off registration system to read whatever you want.

The readfee system would always offer the first, say, 30-50 words for free. This would act like a teaser for longer articles on the journal site or on aggregators and social media, like Facebook, and provide enough news for scanning eyes. I anticipate that the real payout would be for exclusives and feature length content. Ads could be dispensed with entirely or adopted into the new system.

Micropayment systems are, of course, not new – they have been proposed in the past and several are already in use (this system shows success). But they fall down for two reasons, because they are not universal and they are not simple enough to use – they may require a separate browser, for example.

This is why I propose a universally adopted one-button payment system.

Media houses could be in charge of their own article rates – I expect that market forces would lead them to standardise fairly quickly. Special offers and other enticements could be agreed within the button operating rules. But, the rules should agree a minimum payment, even if it is as little as tuppence. The button would display the number (price) of the article.

Now, all we need is for the first news organisations to sign up – come on, are times not bad enough!

Dispatches from a failing state

June 27, 2016
by

There’s been a trend over the past decade in translating forgotten Eastern European plays from the 1930s and 40s, resetting them in a contemporary Britain and staging them to new London audiences. The problem I’ve always found with these adaptations is that the plays – often satires – only really make sense in the context of the time and place for which they were written. Emerging into a relaxed 21st century London after curtainfall, stretches the “it could happen here” premise too far.

The events of of the past week have undone this certainty – have undone me.

As I write, Britain faces a deep economic recession with cuts areas already struggling in the wake of years of austerity policy, including our cherished National Health Service, social care, transport and infrastructure, housing, regeneration for deprived areas, education and environmental services. Food, energy, oil prices are set to rise. Jobs will certainly be hit, opportunities for young people slashed as the 27-nation options become limited to just one. Where there was unity, however fragile, there is now dangerous division – between nations, within nations, between rich and poor, rural and urban, educated and uneducated, white and coloured, native English speakers and those with foreign accents. A week ago, an English MP was murdered in a racist attack, and such attacks have increased across the country. Our social democracy and our shared value system is threatened – and what threatens us in Britain threatens our European neighbours too.

How the hell did we get here?

  • Tory austerity policies that hurt the poorest, most vulnerable most, combined with policies that enriched the very richest, helped to increase inequality and foster a consensus among the disenfranchised that things couldn’t get any worse for them, and that voting Leave was a vote for change, a protest – two-fingers up to the ruling elite.
  • Ineffective opposition from Labour to the progressive dismantling of our social care and justice systems, to austerity and, ultimately, lack of leadership in campaigning for the Remain cause. Effective leadership could have persuaded the poorest that their situation was the result of government austerity not EU policies, and revealed just how reliant on EU funding many of their communities are.
  • Selfish careerism from David Cameron who called this unnecessary and ridiculous referendum, and with such arrogance he did not even contemplate losing it.
  • Irresponsible programming and reporting by the BBC and mainstream media, which has given Nigel Farage such a sustained and regular platform on TV over the past five years that he appears to have the same legitimacy in the public debate as our elected members of parliament. It is partly for this reason that Cameron felt so bullied into holding the bloody referendum. Further, though, the BBC has again been creating false balance. Just as it created a false balance between scientists warning about human-caused global warming and those who claim it is not happening, so the same false balance was created between Remain and Leave arguments. For example, although the City and financial institutions overwhelmingly supported Remain, the impression given – largely because the format for TV/radio coverage is debate between a pro and anti  was that there is an even split between the experts. Here’s an extract from a Boston Globe article on this: “The relentless hostility of large parts of the press has also cowed the BBC to the most extraordinary extent, so that in its quest for “balance” it has largely abandoned its obligations to the truth. A lovely example came over the radio news the other day, when one report started “Leave campaigners have attacked a claim by 17 Nobel Prize winners that leaving the European Union would damage British science.” Framing the matter this way suggests a complete equality between the people who actually know what they are talking about and anyone else with an opinion.” Other publications – The Sun, The DM – typically abandoned truth in an extreme betrayal of their readers’ interests.
  • Voters have not taken seriously the responsibility that comes with having a say in the democratic process. Too many appear to have not understood or researched the repercussions of the two options, or used their vote for point-scoring. We are all paying for the consequences of this in Britain and beyond.

Next steps?

  • It is my hope that Labour quickly unites behind a new, electable leader. She or he must then liaise with the government, with Lib Dems, SNP and others to coordinate a strategy that minimises the negative consequences of this referendum.
  • My hope is that a cohort of the inept – Boris, Farage, Gove – attempt soon to negotiate a Leave deal with EU members. The package they bring home is so unattractive that it is overwhelmingly voted out.
  • A general election is called at which time policies will have to be declared and properly debated.
  • Britain remains in the EU.

And us?

We must stand with our values. Where we see racism, we must challenge it. Where we hear lies, we must challenge them.

 

I should add, as a postscript, that I see many problems with the EU, for example, the TTIP. If there had been an intelligent campaign for leaving, based on well thought-out arguments and policies, a plan for managing our relationship with European partners, I may have considered its merits. There was not. The Leave campaign was a racist, inward and backward-looking propaganda based on lies and orchestrated not out of the protagonists’ heartfelt beliefs and public service commitment, but the worst sort of careerist game playing. I was unequivocally for Remain.

Dot Earth

January 30, 2016
by

Discussing the Anthropocene in a San Francisco park with Andrew Revkin for his New York Times blog Dot Earth.

 

Paperback writer!

January 7, 2016
by

The UK paperback of ADVENTURES IN THE ANTHROPOCENE: A Journey to the Heart of the Planet We Made is out today, published by Vintage!

anthropocene_PB-2

Happy New Year!

January 3, 2016
by

Wishing you all a wonderful 2016, whatever adventures life brings xxx

Beyond Paris: Planning for a hotter world

November 25, 2015
by

Hopes are high that the 21st United Nations climate summit in Paris this December will finally achieve international agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But it’s coming rather late in the day. It’s time now to face up to the fact that we now live on a warming planet with extreme and unreliable climate, and figure out ways of ensuring humanity’s continued survival.

This means urgently focusing global action towards ambitious adaptation strategies for our protection in a warmer world, and investigating geoengineering options to mitigate the situation.

Instead, the world’s politicians and scientists are colluding in the worst kind of charade to spare us from the unpalatable truth: it’s now too late to avoid dangerous global warming.  Read more…