Jonathan Koomey of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Stanford University has estimated that 1.6% of the US electricity consumption is now being used to power servers in data centres. This includes the necessary cooling systems and associated data-networking equipment. The figure has doubled in the past five years giving an annual growth of about 14%. This represents the output of five 1000 MW power plants. For the whole world, the figure is 14 such plants, and the total cost of this electricity $7.2B per year.
If growth continues at this rate, information could become the dominant use of energy. The calculations above do not account for the domestic use of energy for information purposes. Consumption by TVs is a comparable level (1.5%) and the consumption from domestic and office computers similarly is significant.
So even if we stop burning up fuel to fly around the world, eventually, energy needed to sustain our data bases and provide the video conference in place of flying will be our next energy problem.
The solution: maybe a shortage of energy will itself bring about a population reduction. The human race is subject to the laws of nature just as much as any other species on the planet, but the implications of this may be harsher than we would wish (see Paul Chefurka, 2007)
EDF now have an advertising campaign in which the strap line is “rewarding you for using less.” This is a very interesting concept in view of the way they treated me. I used less electricity (because I left my house vacant) and they rewarded me by charging me for a complete trip round the meter, which incidentally costs about £13,000!
I moved to a rented house in another part of the country and left my house in Bolton empty because of a change of job. As it happens, just before I moved I changed gas and electricity provider. This is something we should all do periodically in our free market economy of energy supply. I this case, it was a coincidence that I made the change just before moving out of the property. But the consequences were very interesting:
On 2nd January 2007 EDF Energy claimed £13,367 from my bank account. This was done under a Direct Debit arrangement. In the event, my bank honoured the payment, but informed me by letter: “We’ve made all the payments that you arranged to come out of your account this morning. Unfortunately, because there was not enough money in your account to cover them, this means your account is now over your overdraft limit.” A slight understatement!
EDF Energy customer services were phoned immediately on receiving the letter. They told me that obviously an error had been made, but that it would take weeks to refund the money as it would need to be approved by a series of managers. When I asked why a similar procedure was not in place when claiming large amounts from domestic customers, they declined to comment (the line went silent).
After discussion with my bank, I requested that the money be claimed back under the indemnity insurance for direct debits. Interestingly my bank did not tell me that this was possible when I phoned them initially. Until that could be arranged I had to transfer some of my savings into my current account, so that I could continue to operate my bank account. The bank charged me £30 for dealing with exceeding my overdraft limit plus some interest charges.
Having looked into this further, I find that this has occurred as a result of a series of mistakes or poor practice made by EDF Energy, Atlantic Electric and Gas (my previous supplier) and possibly a meter reader contracted by EDF Energy. These three organisations each played a part. Further investigation reveals further alarming practices by both EDF Energy and Atlantic Electric and Gas.
My findings are as follows:
1. EDF Energy failed to put in place any system to check a claim for payment against a domestic customer that was clearly ridiculous.
2. EDF Energy also failed to present me with an invoice for this claim for payment. Interestingly, this was a final payment arising from us moving out of the property with tenants moving in on 1st December 2006. Final meter readings were phoned through for both electricity and gas at the same time. We received a final invoice for the gas, which we settled by cheque, but no invoice for the electricity has arrived. The first we knew about it was when my bank contacted me.
3. A meter reading made on 25 November 2006 by a contractor was incorrect for both the daytime and night-time meters. Either this or EDF Energy deliberately changed the readings.
4. Atlantic Electric and Gas, who were my supplier until 12th March 2006 provided EDF Energy with estimated meter readings that were artificially high and presented these as actual readings. This enabled them to claim more money than they were due, at a time when they knew that they were loosing the account to EDF Energy. To me, this looks to me like sharp practice.
5. EDF Energy increased their prices just one day after I transferred to them as a supplier. Clearly I changed supplier in order to achieve the best possible price. This again looks suspicious to me. Did all their customers have increased pricing on 13th March 2006?
6. Atlantic Electric and Gas produced a series of inaccurate meter readings for my night meter. This simply suggests incompetence to me.
The commentary and controversy about Rowan Williams’ recent foundation lecture at the Royal Courts of Justice entitled “Civil and Religious Law in England: a Religious Perspective” seems to be generated by people who neither heard the lecture nor took the trouble to read the transcript. Here is my attempt to translate - from Dr William’s regrettably difficult turn of phrase – the last three paragraphs (my apologies, Dr Williams, if I have mistranslated):
The concept of human rights now dominates the thinking behind the laws of many countries, including Britain. However, we must remember that our laws stem from our historical context of religion and culture. With respect to certain “aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions and authorised structures of mediation and conflict resolution” there is room to reconcile Islamic law (Sharia) with UK law. This may be achieved by parallel systems, as is currently the case with the Beth Din, a Jewish court which mediates on a range of disputes within the orthodox community. If we wish to reconcile the particular religious beliefs of minority groups within our society with our current laws, both sides must be prepared to work at this (“transformative accommodation”). The legal systems stemming from particular religions must be careful not to alienate their followers by being “inflexible or over-restrictive” and the secular legal system may need to find creative ways to prevent “ghettoising and effectively disenfranchising a minority.” In running parallel systems, one religious and one secular, however, it is “unavoidable” that people will have to make choices between the two.
What is so wrong with what Rowan Williams has said? I suggest that the reaction that has ensued betrays a deep prejudice and bigotry. Dr William’s legacy may turn out to be as precipitator of a turning point in cultural reconciliation. Sorry, to translate: we may one day be thankful for what Rowan has said, because when we have worked out what he meant, it will help the world become a better place.
In the public sector, by due process of democracy, politicians are elected, majority parties form governments, ministers are appointed by a party elected party leaders (prime ministers) and ministers run departments to spend tax payers money. The government, and hence the ministers and the departments are accountable to the electorate via the ballot box. Opposition parties are able to challenge on a weekly basis (question time) the decisions made by the prime minister and his or her ministers. Guided by party policy, declared in a manifesto, ministers and or officials in a department can be held accountable and ultimately may loose their jobs if the wrong decisions are made or behaviour deemed unacceptable. The whole system is designed to achieve the best interests of the taxpayer, in terms of how our money should be spent. Government also proposes new legislation and deals on an hour by hour basis with both internal and external (foreign) issues that may arise, such as natural disasters, war, terrorism, and defending our borders against a foe. Success or failure is judged by how successfully the government meets the will of the people, collectively by a democratic system.
The private sector is regulated by legislation developed by various elected governments over a period of decades such as the companies act. It is, however, a completely different system. In this system everyone is accountable to the shareholders. The driving force is profit. Please let us not confuse this. The success or failure of a company is ultimately judged purely by profit. The ultimate threat to those running either publicly quoted or private companies is that the company may fail financially. If no profit is made, or insufficient investment is made by the share holders backing a new venture whilst it is being developed to profitability, financial liability will exceed assets and this will become evident in the accounts a company is required prepare under the companies act. If a company fails, the shareholders loose their money, the company is sold or closed, creditors may never get paid and jobs may be lost, in that order. In particular, the shareholders are motivated to ensure that the executives they employ to run their company do a good job in creating the profit, and it is the shareholders who decide whom they employ.
So when fines are imposed on an organisation, the effects are quite different under the two systems. Fining a company for misbehaviour or poor performance will affect the share holders first and foremost. The company in question may have to be closed, if the fines are large enough or frequent enough. Fining a part of government funded organisation however has no such effect. It merely reduces the funds available that may be needed to tackle the problem. No shareholders are penalised. No threat of closure exists.
So, Mr Cameron, when you propose that NHS trusts are to be fined for allowing MRSA infections in patients to occur, what exactly do you expect to happen? Who are the shareholders who will suffer personally as a result of the mismanagement? When did an NHS trust close and all the business go to competitors because of financial pressure as a result of such fines? The whole concept of private/public partnerships is totally misconceived. This is a good example of why. Please get your thinking straight.
Also when asked, you were unable to say how, realistically, you could tell if such an infection were brought into the hospital by the patient, or acquired by the patient whilst in hospital. Your off-the-cuff reaction was that “surely modern technology could be used to check each patient when they arrive by screening them”. Just think about that for a moment. What are the costs? What is the bureaucratic burden? What a complete and utter waste of time and money!
I’m only glad that the democratic system kicks in here, so that the holders of such poorly thought out thinking will not find themselves in power in our government! At least I hope that is the case. All systems are fallible.
I ordered two tickets for the ballet from londonwestendtheatretickets.com. Seven days later, they arrived - from Oslo. Curious?
So what is happening here? londonwestendtheatretickets.com has clearly chosen to contract its ticket distribution process, and the best bid was from a company in Norway (!?). The tickets were sent by airmail. The risk of them arriving late was compounded by their long journey - they warned me to leave 7 days before they might arrive and they were not wrong. Obviously, their carbon footprint must have been a little larger than being printed and posted from London, but for something so light, is that important? However, unless londonwestendtheatretickets.com is run by idiots, it must make commercial sense to use this contractor.
Of course today we should all been concerned about carbon footprint. For example, shipping tomatoes and other produce from Israel to the UK, by air freight is often quoted. In this case, however, it may make sense, commercially and environmentally. The cost (and environmental impact) of heating a greenhouse in England to grow the same product is actually higher than the airfreight footprint (the necessary sunlight in Israel is free). However, the irrigation needed to grow organic carrots in Israel for consumption in the UK could be destroying the environment.
Perhaps this highlights the need for sensible restrictions of air freight. It is reminiscent of the use of containers, which in recent decades have allowed a free economy between road and rail. Who won? Well, left to commercial pressures, always the lowest cost options – very often road, although the use of rail has actually increase in the UK in recent years. So is this where government tariffs come in? Just make it the lowest cost to use the most environmentally friendly option.
Come to that, a ticket is not something that should need to be sent through the post, anyway. When you check in to an airline, all you need is your passport and a reference number (often, only your passport). Why can’t I check in to the theatre in the same way? Well of course I can, but using a credit card. However, my expectation is that this will be arduous and stressful. I have to use the machine in the theatre to get the tickets printed – I’ll probably be arriving at the last minute. Will there be enough machines. If I can’t get the machine to work, say I can’t work out which card I used, what will I do? Will there be adequate support? Will the box office even be open? So I opt for making sure that I have the physical tickets in my hot paw. I truly didn’t expect that I would be using airfreight in this process, though. It is my choice - maybe next time I will make sure I use the environmentally friendly option.
At http://www.acommonword.com/, 138 Muslim scholars, clerics and intellectuals have come together to declare the common ground between Christianity and Islam. Since October 10th, 2007, 3560 visitors have endorsed the site. Today, this same group of Muslims responded with a half page advert in the Sunday Times, to deliver a “Muslim Message of Thanks and of Christmas and New Year Greetings.” This is a very positive gesture in a mad world where differing points of view are normally so polarised.
In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine (originally 1920) into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The Arab League rejected the plan, but on May 14, 1948, Israel declared its independence. We should all remember what US and UK (supported by Australian and Polish) action was taken starting on March 18th 2003, to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. The resulting war has resulted in over 4000 coalition casualties and more than 600,000 Iraqi deaths.
Meanwhile, reported on Xinhua, a Chinese news site: “A year after former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was executed, his influence is still strongly palpable at his hometown as the country remains polarized in sectarian hatred.” Abdullah Jbara, governor of Salahudin province in northern Iraq, told Xinhua that the role Saddam had played should be viewed in an impartial manner just like any other political figures in the history. “The man had good acts as well as bad ones. So we need to look at his good deeds and make use of them, and at the same time we need to fix the wrongdoing he had committed,” said Jabara, who gained reputation and respect in the province for insisting that Saddam should be buried at his birth place instead of a secret location. This comes after a report in Reuters on 6th December: “Iraq will have to cut food rations in 2008 because of insufficient funds,” Trade Minister Abdul Falah al-Sudany said. So after all that has happened, and using a ration system developed by Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people now face harsher rationing than was needed when the West imposed trade embargoes on Hussein. Are we proud of the progress we have made?
Also, in a statement posted on the Internet on 29-12-07, Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden accused the United States of having a plot to take control of Iraq’s oil (is this news?). In the statement, bin Laden also accused Washington of seeking to build military bases in Iraq and dominate the region. The United States is making efforts to rebuild a pro-Washington national unity government in Iraq, which is meant “to give the Americans all they wish of Iraq’s oil”, said the statement, urging Iraqis to reject it. bin Laden also made very clear in this statement that a primary concern was the fate of the Palestinian people, and his intention of giving them back their territory between the river Jordan and the Sea.
So, whilst a small group of Muslims make strenuous efforts to bring peace and understanding between Islam and Christian groups, there is a miserable response from the Christian community. Instead, Al-Qaida will continue to gain sympathisers because of historical US and UK action in Palestine and Iraq.
Do we take the law on human rights seriously? It seems that the British legal system is prepared to indulge in petty argument about jurisdiction rather than deliver justice. An Iraqi citizen, who subsequently claimed asylum in the UK in the 1990s returned to Iraq in October 2004, was arrested and has been detained in Basra ever since. He may well be a terrorist, but no charges have been brought against him. In this country, of course, he could be detained for no longer than 28 days under such circumstances. However, in Iraq, it seems, detention can be indefinite. Meanwhile, this case attracts very limited coverage in the press, or even by Amnesty International. Why? Have all you journalists and campaigners gone to sleep for Christmas?
Hilal Abdul-Razzaq Ali Al-Jedda, 50 year old father of 6 and holder of dual British and Iraqi nationality has been held prisoner in Iraq since being arrested on October 10th 2004 by US forces and handed over to the British forces. He complains that his detention infringes his rights under article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. These claims were rejected by the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court and also by the Court of Appeal; both courts “delivered lengthy and careful judgments, commensurate with the importance and difficulty of the issues then raised”
On December 29th to 31 October the House of Lords had a hearing of his case based on a new question: “the attributability in international law of the conduct of which the appellant complains.” (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ ldjudgmt/jd071212/jedda-1.htm). So is Al-Jedda subject to UN or British law? The judgement was made by the House of Lords on 12th December. After thirty nine paragraphs, covering the history of who had jurisdiction over whom during both the course of the Iraq war and the period following it, we finally hear: “There is in my opinion only one way in which they can be reconciled: by ruling that the UK may lawfully, where it is necessary for imperative reasons of security, exercise the power to detain authorised by UNSCR 1546 and successive resolutions, but must ensure that the detainee’s rights under article 5 are not infringed to any greater extent than is inherent in such detention. I would resolve the second issue in this sense.
Furthermore, a third issue arises: “whether English common law or Iraqi law applies to the appellant’s detention.” Apparently, after further deliberation “The appellant’s claim in tort is governed by the law of Iraq”
In other words, the British acting in Iraq can make up their own laws, not the same as those exercised within Britain, and when it is convenient, they can claim that it is nothing to do with them, in any case, since Iraq is now in charge of their own country.
Jackie Ballard, Chief Executive of Royal National Institute of Deaf and Hard of Hearing People (RNID) is advocating allowing deaf parents to screen their embryos to select a deaf child over those with normal hearing. Genetic screening for “designer babies” is an area evoking considerable controversy, but this concept turns the debate on its head. Until now, the debate has been on the ethics of selecting good characteristics for your child, reminiscent of creating a master race, eugenics and Nazism. Ballard was formerly director general of RSPCA for 3 years, a Liberal Democrat MP and originally a social worker, is advocating deliberately designing a baby with a disability.
This has arisen from the debate on a clause in the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, which is passing through the House of Lords, and would make it illegal for parents undergoing embryo screening to choose an embryo with an abnormality if healthy embryos exist. Prof. Ulrike Zeshan of UCLan, Preston has said “If the intent of the bill is to prevent human suffering, then deafness does not fall under its remit. Deafness constitutes a linguistic/cultural minority and adds to our diversity. Our society chooses to say that deaf people are disabled, but left-handed people are not. Why? This is an arbitrary choice. Research has shown that there are societies where deafness is regarded as an equally viable option, not a disability.”
A spokesman said: “While the RNID believes in the individual’s right to choose, we would not actively encourage the selection of deaf embryos over hearing ones for implantation when both are available.”
So how exactly are you going to explain to your child that they are deaf because you selected them over an embryo that most likely would have normal hearing? To me this clarifies the rights of parents over choosing the genetic make-up of their children. They should not have such rights. Parents do not own their childern, who are in any case in their care for less than 20 years. The more difficult question is “should anyone have the right to design a baby?”