Radley College Geography Magazine
Volume 2, Issue 2—Lent 2012 In this issue: Renewables—An Uncertain Future Trade—Good or Bad? 1‐2‐1 With GJAH Oil Disasters—The Exxon Valdez The Shale Gas Situa on
Renewables—An Uncertain Future...
A
common concep on is that the UK is making huge pro‐ gress in regards to renewable energy and that before long our once cri cal dependency on fossil fuels will be replaced by a diversifica‐ on of energy sources, especially re‐ newables. Yet in reality this may be far from the truth. A recent debate has highlighted how the 'big six' (EDF, E.ON, Centrica, SSE, Sco sh Power & npower) energy companies have a complete stranglehold of the energy market. Whilst not only overcharging cus‐ tomers they are also being held responsible for holding back a once‐in‐a‐genera on opportunity to make the transi on to renewable energy. With many of the UK's coal and gas power sta ons coming to the end of their life combined with the Gov‐ ernment planning to reform the electricity market, an opportunity has arisen to firmly establish re‐ newable sources of energy in the country ‐ and get us on track to meet the ‘zero‐carbon electricity by 2030’ target set by the Commi ee on Climate Change (CCC). The controversy is that the UK is conceding control of its future energy policy to compa‐ nies such as EDF and Bri sh Gas, who have been successfully lobbying the case for nu‐ clear and gas and crucially not renewables. The 'Big Six' companies control 99 per cent of the household energy we use and own more than two‐thirds of our power sta ons. By having this monopoly on the energy market they have the ability to keep us hooked on increasingly expensive imported fossil fuels, like coal and gas by simply not inves ng in renewable's.
Ofgem (the government watchdog over energy) have found the big six guilty of over‐ charging customers £250 million during the winter of 2010‐11, and their profits con n‐ ue to rise. In the first half of 2011 alone they reported profits of around £3.5 billion, including profit margins of up to 733 per cent in some cases. Therefore the pursuit of renewables to these companies will simply not yield such a high profit margin and as a result they con nue to narrowly focus the fossil fuel market. Environmentalists argue that not only are they s fling smaller companies – such as those offering renewable ener‐ gy – by crowding out the market, they are failing to invest in clean, affordable energy. Currently, three‐quarters of our electricity comes from coal and gas, with renewables contribu ng only eight per cent. The reality is investment by the large companies needs to be propor onally higher. The big six could commit to driving forward the 'renewables revolu on' through their in‐ vestment plans, but overall they are inves ng far more in the short‐term in fossil fuel projects to maximise their profits.
Ber e Johnstone (c) & Tom Stables (d)
Trade—A Force For Good?
I
n modern parlance ‘trade’ is a misused word, or under‐used, rather, as we as a society fail to understand the gravity of its meaning. And if you’re not in the trade industry itself, the only me you are going to come across the word is in a geography essay, or as a tle for those graphs in the economist only geogra‐ phers and unfulfilled re rees (unless they’re also geographers) read. But li le do we realise that life as we have come to understand it, depends quite wholly on this idea of trade. Looking around now, the laptop on which I am wri ng this ar cle is from California, my pen is from China, my watch is from Switzerland, my socks are from Taiwan, my gown comes from Oxford. I realise the scale of trade’s impact on our lives and the significance of this word that we take for granted. But the trouble with trade is just that: we take it for granted and so are not informed enough to be cognizant enough of trade’s inevitable disadvantages that most of us just don’t appreciate. And it is these disadvantages and imbalances that I want to explore. The defini on of trade is as follows: ‘Trade is the transfer of ownership of goods and services from one person or en ty to another by ge ng something in exchange from the buyer.’ However the problem that seems apparent only to geographers is that this ‘ge ng something in exchange from the buyer’ isn’t happening – or at the least, it is happening at a very imbalanced rate as the buyers are receiving the majority of the profits. And to apply the content of the dic onary to real life, all one has to do, is to subs tute the terms: ‘buyer’ with ‘High Income Country’, and the term ‘seller’ with ‘Low Income Country’. In doing this, one will realise the cycle of money that flows from HIC, to LIC, and then reverts again to HIC. But what is hidden in this tangible cycle of economic dispersal is the intangible element of labor and effort. At the moment, we see this:
In this diagram of money circula on we see clearly that the distribu on of profits between the Trans Na onal Companies (TNCs) and the LIC workers is hugely imbalanced; but from a moral perspec ve this imbalance amplifies when considering the physical labor that is contributed by the LIC worker. In recogni on of the fault in this archetypal TNC trade situa on, FAIRTRADE is working to even the scales. And to put some sta s cs behind these ideas, let’s briefly study the Kuapa Kokoo farmer’s co‐ opera ve in Ghana. Cocoa has been produced readily and tradi onally in Africa; and Ghana really is the epitome of cocoa produc on. However in 1980, the government of Ghana forced all cocoa farmers to sell their cocoa directly to the government. This was the pping point of cocoa trade in Ghana, as cocoa farmers were now required to fol‐ low a strict governmental programme, which resulted in the necessary encountering with government taxes and tariffs, and too the inability to avoid them. Furthermore more the price that the government paid them was ludicrously low. The next hit to Ghana, came a decade later in 1990 when the government decided to priva ze the trading of cocoa. It was at this point that world trade kicked off to an en rely different league and intensity as it was now that these small Cocoa farms became exposed to the full might of the transna onal‐corpora ons. In response the Kuapa Kokoo was set up as a coopera ve to buy cocoa directly from farmers and in return, acknowledge their efforts by paying them a fairer percentage of the profits. The very need for the crea on of FAIRTRADE in the first place jus fies and ver‐ ifies the unfairness of trade. To delve further into the reasons as to why trade is unfair, there are several addi onal arguments that one can feasibly portray. And those are the following factors: That HICs buy raw materials from LICs and decide how much they will pay. Again this signifies the lack of power that LICs have over the influence of the potent TNCs. Profits, as shown in Ghana, are divided unequally. Tradi onally, more developed countries have made manufactured goods from primary products acquired from LICs, and sold them back at severely increased prices, thus earning more for their exports. Over me, and as a result of the constant advancements and feats in technolo‐ gy, manufactured goods are rapidly gaining value – where primary products that we HICs get from LICs have remained unchanged; and so the difference between the more developed and less developed countries is becoming ever‐increasing Finally, due to the condi ons of climate and educa on in some poorer countries, many of the LICs have become over reliant and dependent on the income gained from trade which commonly comes from only one or two areas (e.g. cocoa and co on); and consequently if either the cocoa trees or the co on fields dry out one summer (an increasing issue with current climate change), their sole source of income will have diminished.
Therefore, how can one deny trade’s inequality when faced with the above facts? Yet despite the profoundness of the above points, it is crucial to acknowledge that manu‐ factured products pass through mul ple levels. The cycle shown near the start of this ar cle is merely the bare backbone to what is in fact a great complex structure of tax and exporta on etc. So, due to the fact that the products pass through processes of packaging, exporta on and stocking, o en flying to more than one country before they reach their final des na on, those products gain much increased value at each stage. So the pla orm at the top of this cycle – the TNCs benefit from the products mul plied value; whereas the Laborers from LICs, being at the bo om of this cycle, gain the least. Again we acknowledge the imbalance of this no on; however what people fail to no‐ ce is the rigidity of this process of the passing through mul ple levels. One has to un‐ derstand that most of the im‐ balance in the profits is caused due to this lack of ability to avoid the passing through of mul ple layers. And one simply cannot avoid them. Further‐ more, one simply cannot avoid the fact that the further you go up each pla orm, the less val‐ ue there lies at the bo om. And so the only way to make trade fair, logically, is to elimi‐ nate these pla orms and lay‐ ers in‐between. But the prob‐ lem lies in the fact that to do so, is impossible. In short, it is possible to pay the farmers more for their effort, but not to make trade fair. Even making it fairer by paying the workers more, like Kuapa Kokoo do, is s ll not benefi ng the LICs because supplying the bo om of the chain with more value has an automa c ‘knock on effect’ to the above pla orms, thus increasing the value at the top as well. The conclusion: the gap between the more and less developed remains the same. And really, it is only this gap that ma ers. This is because the words: ‘poor’, and ‘rich’, are compara ve terms. So if in 300 years, Ghana was doing as well as the USA is doing now, the USA then will be 300 mes be er off. Ghana would s ll be defined as ‘not doing well’ – the only difference, of course, is that the standards change over me. So having established that trade is unfair, but that this is impossible to improve com‐ pletely, we can also assume that the unfairness of trade has not been bred from ‘bad’ morals on the part of the TNCs.
Map of Global Shipping
So should trade stop, having determined that its inequality is absolute? Well, as you can assume, many people believe that the answer to this ques on is a resounding ‘yes, it should’. However I believe, despite the evidence, that the answer should be ‘no, trade should con nue. And the reasons for this are as follows: firstly, trade has become intertwined with our lives, as I stated at the beginning. Therefore to stop trade would be suicidal because we have become too dependent of trade already, that we wouldn’t be able to con nue living at a quality even close to the one that we are currently taking for granted today. It is a different ques on, however, to ask whether we should have never engaged in trade from the very beginning, but since it has already began, to ab‐ ruptly stop due to the apparent unfairness would amount to there not being HICs and LICs, but there being LICs exclusively. Secondly, one has to consider the alterna ve to trade: what would we be like if we didn’t trade? The answer to this is not a difficult one; without trade we would be self‐ sufficient – isolated. To put this into perspec ve, each country would be like an indige‐ nous tribe in Africa. We would cul vate our own land; make our own clothes and our own technology – if any technology. And thinking of this alterna ve more thoroughly, the first thing that takes the stage in my mind is the link that I make with seeing ani‐ mals’ way of life, and imagining this scenario. It would be more or less, like a less con‐ nected, less advanced Ancient era. So with this in mind, to stop trade is to regress to our pre evolved state 3000 years back. It would be regressing to the standards of ani‐ mals. And in fact, when examining the tangible dis nc on between humans and ani‐ mals; the main aspect that is brought to a en on, is human’s ability to communicate – and more so, our willingness to communicate. This is what separates us, from the apes.Therefore, it would be undermining our human stature, and it would be defea ng the purpose of humanity, to deprive ourselves of the ability to do what it is that we do best. Yannis Gidopolous (e)
1-2-1 A chat with Dr. G.J.A. Hughes Where and when did your interest in Geography begin? I reckon it began when I was quite small and my Dad (a big fan of geography himself) used to pick me up on his shoulders and walk around the rivers and beaches near our home, explaining what was going on. I was also lucky enough to have a really good teacher at school – he was extremely passionate about the subject, which certainly rubbed off on me. What area of Geography are you really passionate about and why? I was a big physical geographer at school but over my university career I started to pick up an interest for economics and poli cal issues. I love both sides of the subject but I think of myself now more as a human geographer. How have you enjoyed your first 2 years as Head of Department? It’s been really challenging for a rela vely young don but I had a good training period with MJH (‘The Master’) and I’ve been really lucky to have a fantas c team around me with loads of energy and ideas. That’s one of the great strengths of the department. Over the course of your Geo‐ graphical career, what is the most spectacular ac vity you’ve ever done? When I was in New Zealand, I did the highest sta c bungee jump in the world into water and was able to get up close and personal with some of the river processes. I also did a bit of skydiving over a coastal area in Australia and got to see some longshore dri from 14,000 up. What is the most embarrassing Geography moment you’ve ever experienced? In my undergraduate course we did a fieldtrip to Prague and we had to come up with a field study. My (very ill thought out) idea was to measure how the price of beer varied between tourist and residen al areas. Needless to say my study didn’t go down too well with the staff in charge, especially when I turned up a er sampling one too many of the local brews!
You famously beat one of your own pupils (Charlie Austen) at darts recently – do you have any other hidden talents? Charlie le me with the double 6 (the easiest double on the board) and I wasn’t going to let him get away with that! However, mountain biking is my great joy and I also play the guitar in a band. I can speak a bit of Welsh and have also followed in EGP’s foot‐ steps in playing Real Tennis. Geography some mes takes a bit of s ck from the Maths department. How would you prove to them that Geography is not a ‘hobby subject’? Geography is a subject that helps to understand and offer solu ons to real global and local problems and thus can add context and applica on to other subjects, including Maths. I’m sure many mathema cians would be fascinated by the geographical implica‐ ons of their subject. For example, you can study the coastline of the UK through the use of fractal geometry. Some serious maths minds like Mr Hills and Mr Palmer I know are par cularly big fans of Geography… And finally, before GW gives MH the sack for his secret love of Geography, where do you see Geography heading in the future – both at Radley and more widely? At Radley Geography is becoming one of the most popular op onal subjects and are now ge ng around 100 boys per year in the GCSE year group. I’d like to see it con nue to be a popular choice for boys in the school, especially given the decline in numbers taking Geography in other parts of the country. More widely I think Geography is one of those subjects that will become more important in me; it broadens peoples’ view of the world, helps them understand how humans and the environment interact, and arms them with the skills to pursue many different careers. It didn’t surprise me when I read in a recent Guardian poll that Geographers have the highest post‐university em‐ ployment rate of any subject. A good selling point, I think!
The Quick Q&A
Sam Warburton vs. Phil Taylor Human vs. Physical Lager vs. Ale Eusta c vs. Isosta c Night In vs. Night Out England vs. Wales (obviously) Brownfield vs. Greenfield Film vs. Theatre Construc ve vs. Destruc ve
Hugh Wolton (g)
Oil Disasters—The Exxon Valdez
T
he high profile cases in the last two years of the Deepwater oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Rena tanker grounding in New Zealand would suggest oil disasters are a rela vely new occurrence. However, the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster s ll remains one of the most environmentally damaging oil‐related event in recent mes and shows that the transporta on of this valuable fossil fuel has been, and will remain, a major environmental issue. The Rena, New Zealand, Oct 2011
Deepwater Horizon, USA, Apr 2010
On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska. This area of coastline is of extreme ecological importance. Despite the efforts undertaken to stabilize the vessel and prevent further spillage of oil, more than 250,000 barrels of oil were lost in just a short Exxon Valdez, Mar 1989 period of me and covered 1,300 miles of coastline due to its low density. Exxon and the U.S. Coast Guard began a massive cleanup effort that eventually involved more than 11,000 Alaskan residents and thousands of Exxon and contractor personnel. In 1992 the U.S. Coast Guard declared the clean up complete, however, some may argue that there are s ll remnants of the oil spill evident today. This is considered to be the largest oil spill clean‐ up in history and cost Exxon just over $4.3billion. While there were severe short term impacts on many species due to the spilled oil, and they suffered damages, based on the studies of many scien sts who have worked ex‐ tensively in Prince William Sound, there has been no long term damage caused by the spilled oil. However, there were more than 230,000 sea birds lost as an effect in the bay. Piers Hugh‐Smith (f)
The Shale Gas Situation
G
lobally the consump on of Natural Gas has doubled since 1990. As a result of the influ‐ ence of the countries that allocate the gas and dominate the mar‐ ket, such as Russia (20% of global share) and Iran (10%), the price has never been higher. However, the introduc on of shale gas could poten ally cause a shi in the dominance of these countries.
Shale gas is a natural resource which is trapped within sedimentary forma ons of shale. To extract the gas you have to drill down ver cally, up to 20,000 , and inject high pressure water mixed with sand and chemicals to force the rocks apart and allow the gas to seep out. Nonetheless, this method is both expensive and suscep ble to eco‐ logical impacts.
The global poten al of shale gas is undeniable; as Jorma Ollila the Shell chairman said there is enough shale gas to meet the domes c demand for the next 200 years. Coun‐ tries such the United States, who lead the field in research and extrac on, have in‐ creased their produc on 5 fold since 2006. Now shale gas contributes 23% of the gas used in the US and by 2050, 50% of their gas demand will be met by shale. The UK also has vast reserves of shale gas. Areas of Lancashire have the shale gas poten al to gen‐ erate £6 billion of income per year for the next 3 decades. This produc on of could de‐ crease gas and electricity bills and make UK manufacturing more compe ve; could this spark economic growth and poten ally narrow the gap between the UK north and the south?
However, public opinion towards the extrac on of the gas is largely nega ve for rea‐ sons such as the earthquakes in Blackpool and the environmental effects such as the contamina on of drinking water. The process of extrac ng shale gas, ‘Fracking’, can cause toxic chemicals to seep into underground aquifers, which has caused concern in some areas of the US due to animals being poisoned and rashes appearing on people a er washing in the contaminated water.
The poten al of this gas is unques onable, but is it realis cally a viable op on to ex‐ tract it on industrial scales? One of the main reasons why the produc on of shale gas has been possible is the 300% rise in gas prices in the last 10 years which makes it finan‐ cially feasible explore it. Nevertheless, does Shale gas actually represent a useful source of energy for a world that is trying to move towards more sustainable alterna ves or merely ‘show the dangerous lengths we will go to feed our fossil fuel addic on.’ Will Treadwell (a)