Some e-waste campaigners raised concerns that a blanket ban would in fact starve highly skilled repairers in the developing world of vital resources. This in turn would mean more e-waste was sent to landfills rather than being re-used and access to computers for those less well-off in developing countries would be undermined.

E-waste, or electronic waste, is believed to be the largest illegally traded toxic hazardous waste in the world. The UN estimates that up to 50 million tonnes of electrical and electronic goods are thrown away every year and this figure is set to rise to 73 million by 2015. Part of the reason for the continued rise is that emerging economies have flourishing consumer electronic markets but lack the infrastructure to dispose of e-waste effectively.

In the UAE, research has shown that between 75 and 85 percent of e-waste is sent directly to landfill or an incinerator. And although there are no concrete statistics on the amount of e-waste produced, with the high per capita income of residents and an electronics market valued at USD 2.8 billion, there is no doubt that a real problem is slowly gaining momentum.

BAN, an environmental NGO that campaigns for a ban on e-waste imports into the developing world states that accurate statistics on the amount of e-waste traded worldwide are not available. They explain that as most of the trade is believed to occur illegally, they rely on evidence from independently tracking shipping containers from the US and Europe. What their anecdotal evidence shows is that whilst some e-waste shipping containers do contain some useful materials, most of it is waste which ends up on informal dumps where it contaminates the surrounding land and water resources, and negatively impacts the local people’s health.

In fact, one aspect of e-waste that has been well documented is its highly toxic nature. Electronic circuit boards contain cadmium, mercury, arsenic, lead and computer plastics are coated with polybrominated flame retardants which are some of the nastiest chemicals around—especially when burnt.

“I’ve definitely seen children mining e-waste for raw metals … It’s an area of concern, and stricter enforcement of environmental laws is necessary,” says Kyle Wiens, who is currently touring through Africa and Asia for a documentary on repairers called Fixer. “But the repair industry isn’t like that at all. Fixing things is a skill, and it takes time to get good. Conditions are quite safe because people need a predictable, safe working environment to do repairs.”

During his time in Cairo, Wiens met highly skilled and professional repairers who were able to fix everything from mobile phones, computers, TVs and cars. “Mechanics in Cairo are some of the most imaginative people in the world but they need raw materials to work with. Attempts to cut them off from their supply chain [via a ban on exports] will harm the Egyptian economy in the long run.”

According to recent statistics, the number of Egyptians using the internet increased 39 percent to 13.5 million between 2008 and 2009, and the number of people who owned a mobile phone went from 30 million to 48 million in the same period. The repair industry has no doubt played an important role in making such technologies available to those Egyptians on the lowest wages.

For Wiens, a ban is simply too blunt a tool to deal with the complexities of the e-waste problem and may even aggravate it by pushing more electronic products into landfills rather than repairers workshops. He also adds that “it’s rather disingenuous to ban imports of products that could be refurbished and create local jobs while allowing imports of new, equally toxic electronics.”

Jim Puckett from BAN, however, argues that “a lot of nasty imports are justified by the repair pretext” which creates hazardous waste (all be it over the course of a few years) that cannot be dealt with safely or effectively in developing countries. Anyone stating that they want to help developing nations bridge the digital divide by sending them electronic cast-offs also need to be questioned, as “e-waste is a toxic waste that needs to be dealt with and not traded with—we need to stop exporting our problems to others to deal with.”

There are distinct advantages of shipping off e-waste from developed nations, where environmental legislation makes it expensive to deal with properly, to regions where regulation is not so stringent. However, these e-waste products do have some value and create jobs and cheaper products for those in the developed world. What happens to these products when they reach the end of their extended life remains problematic. Clearly, there needs to be a balance so that developing countries can make the most of e-waste but also protect themselves from those only interested in ‘exporting their problems’.

Tackling the West’s throwaway culture so that computers are not replaced every two years is one way of dealing with the growing e-waste problem and the temptation to dump it on others. Manufacturing computers and electronics so that they are not toxic in the first place is another solution—and one that can be done, insists Puckett. The big task, however, is to place more responsibility for the recycling and repair of electronics in the hands of manufactures. As e-waste campaigners state, this is ultimately the most efficient way to ensure that e-waste in the developed and developing world alike is dealt with properly—and not traded or dumped in irresponsible ways.

:: Originally published at The Majalla.

Manchester is one of over twenty cities which has made an official bid to host the Green Investment Bank (GIB) which will be government-funded to the tune of £3 billion. The bank is expected to funnel £15 billion of private finance into green projects over four years and employ up to 70 members of staff. Its main areas of work will be offshore wind, energy from waste, waste processing/recycling, non-domestic energy efficiency and supporting the Green Deal. The final decision on which city gets the bank will be made by Vince Cable, aided by an advisory panel, this February and the bank will be launched April 2012.

MCFly: Why do you want the Green Investment Bank to come to Manchester and what do you think will be the major benefits for the city?

Ashcroft: We see the Green Investment Bank as a key part of the low carbon agenda and we really want to be a success. We believe that the best to ensure that success is here in Manchester.

I think from a Manchester perspective we see three levels of benefits. Firstly, there is the installation cost of having the bank here which will bring in revenue in terms of rents rates and services – so there is a direct benefit in that respect. It will also bring 52,000 [UPDATE: should read "50 to 70" - transcription error on MCFly's part]  new jobs into Manchester which would be quite key and will mean new high profile jobs in the city. Thirdly, is the spin-off from 3 billion investment programme which could well spiral into 200 or 400 billion. So there are enormous benefits to the city and we also believe that we are the best place to guarantee its success.

MCFly: The government set out three criteria that each city or area making a bid had to fulfill. These are 1) the ability to recruit and retain staff with the necessary specialist expertise 2) presence of a specialist businesses ecosystem and 3) cost effectiveness. Do you feel Manchester meets these criteria?

Ashcroft: Manchester is well-placed both nationally as and regionally as well as internationally due to Manchester Airport to be able to make the most of the Green Investment Bank. In terms of the strength of the financial sector, we’ve got the strongest financial services sector outside of London, we have enormous private equity groups so in terms of the local ecosystem to support the Green Investment Bank, Manchester does very well. Another strength is that Manchester has quite a compact economy.

MCFly: London is clearly quite a serious contender due to the fact that it is already a strong financial hub. Can Manchester compete with the capital city?

Ashcroft: Based on the three criteria, I think Manchester can compete very well against London. And in terms of economics, Manchester offers a very compact economic solution which takes London out of the equation. But let’s face it, there are 22 cities and places which are competing for the Green Investment Bank so it’s a hot topic and there is a lot of interest from all types of places. You have interest from place like Scotland, Wales, Cardiff and Peterborough but nevertheless we feel that on all the criteria, Manchester comes on top in pretty much all of them.

MCFly: I understand that Manchester is offering low rates of rent to show the cost effectiveness of hosting the bank in the city. Is Manchester doing anything else to make sure its bid is successful?

Ashcroft: Technically, we didn’t lower the rents. There were some misquotes relating to how much it would cost to bring the Green Investment Bank to Manchester and so we want to say that you could bring in big banking projects and investment into the heart in Manchester, into Spinningfields which could be the equivalent of London’s Canary Wharf let’s say, and you could do that for less than £20 per square foot. It’s not that we are giving cut price deals, we are just offering attractive market rates which demonstrate how well Manchester competes with any other city in the UK.

MCFly: A blip saw Manchester’s Green Investment Bank website accidentally appear with text from the Leeds’ bid for the Bank. Do you think this may have damaged your campaign?

Ashcroft: There was no issue with regards to our website. I mean, we had a website under development through December and our final site was launched successfully. There was no issue as far as we were concerned- it was a blip, a fleeting moment which nobody saw apart from one journalist. It was a drop for 30 seconds and it was supposed to have lorem ipsom and latin text up there. If you look at the website now, it shows what we’ve been doing and the enormous commitment from key players from Manchester. All the big players have pulled together to support this bid and have committed to video content which is great. We are very proud of our website and the finished product.

MCFly: The Green Investment Bank won’t have full borrowing powers until 2016 at the earliest. Friends of the Earth have said that in order to avoid being a lame duck bank, GIB must be able to undertake independent borrowing from capital markets. Will this be a problem if the bank comes to Manchester?

Ashcroft: There are many ways that the fund can be amplified whether its through leverage borrowing or join venturing with partners. There are lots of ways that the issue of borrowing can be dealt with.

MCFly: The decision on which city will be chosen to host the Green Investment Bank is due in February 2012. What will happen between now and when the decision is made?

Ashcroft: We’re currently working with our parlimentary group of MP’s to make sure that they are fully briefed and we are going to be deciding with them over the coming week what the programme will be that we taking to the House of Commons.

The key date is the 30^th of January as documents have to be submitted by then and all our attention is focused on getting the final document together. In fact, we had a meeting just today to look at that and that document has to be submitted by 5pm on the 30th. After that, the the decision will take place pretty quickly we think and we expect a decision in February some time.

MCFly: As you mentioned before, there is a lot of competition to host the Green Investment Bank. What happens if Manchester isn’t chosen? Will the city still be able to take advantage of the opportunities it provides?

Ashcroft: We want the Green Investment Bank to be a success and we believe that the best place for it to succeed is in Manchester. We will be demonstrating the strengths of Manchester as a location for inwards investment and indeed for any financial banking proposition. However, the green investment agenda is enormous and the 3 billion kickstarter for the bank is essentially backing up what could be a 400 billion investment programme in terms of energy loans. It’s going to be a key component of the economy and so, yes, there will be benefits for everyone even if it is based in Manchester. There will be spin-offs nationally.

:: Green Bank Manchester.
:: John Ashcroft is the chief executive at pro.manchester which is a professional services group.

Arwa Aburawa
mcmonthly@gmail.com

: Originally published at Manchester Climate Monthly

Larissa Sansour's Nation Estate photography series depicts Palestine as skyscraper with cities built on various levels- a nation forced to build upwards due to political and geographical constraints

Hugely impressed with Palestinian filmmakers this week. Firstly, Larissa Sansour manages to get enough support to shut down the Lacoste film competition which kicked her off the shortlist for being, and I quote, “too pro-Palestinian”.

Second of all, I stumbled across a stunning short documentary by another talented artist from Bethlehem. Samar Habzoun’s documentary, which is titled ‘Hush’, looks at the issue of gender-based violence and life in a Palestinian women’s shelter. I am currently in the process of getting a full article commissioned so keep your eyes peeled….

Firstly, apologies for the lack of posts over the last couple of months. I keep saying I’ll put up some of my work but impending deadlines mean that updating my silly little website slips to the very bottom of my list of priorites. Still, I am busy working away and one important place I write about environmental issues in the Middle East is at GreenProphet.com, which is the leading news site on environmental issues in the Middle East.

So, if you’re interested in that sort of thing (and even if your not) it’s definitely worth checking out. You can see a full profile of my work at GreenProphet here.

Some highlights from the last two months:
- Uncovering greenwash in Jordan which saw an oil shale company owned by Shell fund university degrees on environmental issues
- Q&A with Lebanon-based Greenpeace campaigner Raefah Makki
- Interview with Fazlun Khalid who heads the world’s oldest green Islamic organisation, The Islamic Foundation for Ecology and Environmental Sciences
- Launch of Green Prophet’s Guide for Barefoot Bloggers which includes a chapter from yours truly
- Speaking to Green Hajj expert Dr. Husna Ahmed about greening the Islamic pilgrimage, water conservation and the role Muslim women can (and should!) play
- Covering repairers in Cairo whose re-use culture is helping the world avert e-waste from landfills

:: Image is of a water mural in Gaza.

Organic veg – in this case from the Ethical Superstore. Photograph: Organic Picture Library/Rex Features

This September saw the launch of a new organic food coop in Manchester called Manchester Veg People. It had been the culmination of years of work by local organisations such as the Kindling Trust and brought together local organic farmers with various clients such as sustainable groceries and restaurants. The unique thing about the coop, however, was that one of its clients was the Manchester University which has 29 eateries and as such requires a substantial amount of produce.

“We are lucky to have Manchester University as one of our clients,” admits Chris Walsh, who works at Kindling Trust which is part of the co-op. “They are our biggest customer by far and the public sector is a stable market for growers to tap into.” The co-op wants to ensure that growers receive a living wage for their work by selling their fruit and veg at market value and so having a stable market is one way to ensure that. Walsh adds that they are hoping to take on more public sector clients such as prisons and hospitals in the future which will also mean that organic food is reaching those not normally that interested in the quality of their food.

However, there is one downfall to having such a large (and relatively privileged) client taking advantage of fresh organic produce: there is a lot less left for everyone else. Julie Brown, who has been working with a more community-focused food co-op in London called ‘Growing Communities’ admits that Manchester’s co-op differs from conventional sustainable food models due to its focus on public procurement. She adds that as there are so few organic farmers around, there would be times when smaller organisations such as organic veg box schemes would struggle to co-exist alongside co-ops with large public sector clients. She says:

The problem is that there are not a lot of sustainable farmers left and so to make sure that smaller groups have access to local organic veg, you would need to be encouraging more growers. You would need to convince conventional farmers to switch to organic and also get farmers who are currently supplying supermarkets to start working with cooperatives and small groups.

Walsh responds that whilst he hopes that smaller veg groups won’t be affected by their work, he agrees that there is a lot of uncultivated land which could contribute to the sustainable food market. He adds that Manchester Veg People is currently working to establish six new growers which should boost the amount of local organic produce available.

There are lots of ex-growers who gave up farming in the late 1970s and 1980s as it wasn’t economically viable and I’d really like persuade them to start growing again, but this time growing organic as there is a fair market out there for them.

The Manchester Veg People Co-op currently includes the University of Manchester, The Kindling Trust, Dig veg box scheme, Unicorn grocery, Eighth Day Café, Tom &amp Julia Rigby Farm, Dunham Massey Organics, Moss Brook Growers and Glebelands. Growers are allowed to trade outside the co-op and those with established relationships can continue to trade directly. Any new links between growers and buyers developed by the co-op will however trade at an extra cost to make the co-op economically viable.

Julie Brown of Growing Communities insists that there is room for different scales of operations and sustainable food models to exist together as long as they are economically viable and environmentally sustainable. She adds:

The two co-ops may work differently but they have very similar principles so it will be interesting to see how Manchester makes their co-op work for everyone involved.

Arwa Aburawa is a freelance journalist who also writes for Manchester Climate Monthly.

: Article originally published at the Guardian- Manchester Uni contract raises questions on organic food market

#Occupy Climate Change

In the grand scheme of things, capitalism is a blip. A flicker on the historical radar and a rather dangerous planetary-scale experiment whose results are easy to guess and hard to ignore. When you have a giant machine pushing for infinite and perpetual growth in a world with finite resources, you know it’s not going to end well. Yet right now, for the average citizen of the West, a world without the hallmarks of capitalism – without Wall Street, the rat race, shopping malls, economic growth, debt and competitive consumerism – is almost impossible to imagine. The very thought of a consumer-free world opens up such a void, such a unknowingness that it scares the bejesus out of us.

Throughout history, however, there have been people willing to place themselves in that white void and be petrified, even liberated by change. The Arab Spring, which has seen ordinary citizens revolt against mighty dictatorships, is the most recent example of that human ability. And for that reason, the Arab Spring gives us hope. Hope that the world will be able to save itself from the system that has pushed the earth and its resources to the brink. That an alternative will not only be imagined but embraced in the name of new possibilities and freedoms.

The Arab Spring also shows that although we can’t imagine how it will happen or where the political and personal courage will come from, it will surprise us all the more. Despite what you may have heard by now, no one saw the Arab Spring coming. Not the political commentators, not the average person on the street and definitely not the Arab ‘leaders’ and ‘presidents.’ It came completely out of the blue, after years of complacency and apathy. Even those who first took to the streets could not have realized the significance of their actions. But once they were there, together, on Tahrir Square and at Benghazi, they didn’t go home – they wanted change now and more desperately than ever.

Gaddafi, who had ruled Libya for 40 years – almost as long as we have known what we need to do to stop climate change – was forced into hiding by rebels who decided that 40years was 40 years too many. For many Libyans before the revolt, the prospect of a Gadaffi-free Libya was unimaginable. Yet Gadaffi is gone now and we are given another hint that one day – when Capitalism is least expecting it – people will say that the destruction of the planet in exchange for constant economic growth is a price too high to pay. It gives us a glimmer that one day capitalism will be gone too, replaced by a new world system that places the value of our existence and the world’s existence before a quick buck.

Some say that capitalism is too big to fail, that there are too many people invested in its survival. But as we discover that the survival of capitalism means the destruction of the planet, we grow hopeful of our ability to stop, look around and step into the void.

Arwa Aburawa is editor at GreenProphet.com, the leading site on green news from the Middle East. She has also written on environmental issues for The Guardian, Al Jazeera English, Electronic Intifada and The Big Issue North. Her monthly green column can be found at SISTERS magazine.

:Originally published at Adbusters and image via © michellemccarron.com.

We’re now going to publish on a monthly basis and will blog and tweet and facebook and youtube lots in between. You can expect a lot of the same things that you got from Manchester Climate Fortnightly – important local news and campaigning as well as lots of new multimedia things such as short ‘guide to everything you need to know about…” videos.

Our first issue will be out in January- you can subscribe for free here: http://manchesterclimatemonthly.net/about/subscribe/

You can also follow us on Twitter: Mcr_climate

Or ‘Like’ us on Facebook.

Here’s what we’ve been up to in the last week or so:

Friends of the Earth’s ‘Final Demand’ Campaign Update

Weather Vs Climate: Food, Nuclear Power and Thin Threads Of Hope

Solar Power and The Right To ‘No’

We’re Back!

Greater Manchester’s local authorities are affirming official schemes to reduce carbon emissions. But so far their plans appear more aspirational than actual, and driven by the interests of business rather than preparing the city for a sustainable future.

On 29 July, the ten councils of Greater Manchester [Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan], unofficially led by Manchester City Council (MCC), agreed to cut their carbon emissions by 48 per cent against a 1990 baseline level by 2020.

Despite the scale of the commitment, the announcement attracted little media attention – revolutions and phone hacking scandals understandably sell more newspapers than council ‘strategy documents’ – and went largely unnoticed by environmentalists.

Manchester’s lead on this project follows its own much better publicised climate change strategy plan Manchester – A Certain Future (MACF), which was released at the end of 2009. Indeed, MCC’s head of environmental strategy Richard Sharland is acting director for the Greater Manchester climate change scheme that includes vague yet worthy aims such as “embedding carbon literacy into lifestyles” and “being prepared and actively adapting to a changing climate”.

Another goal of the plan is the “rapid transition to a low carbon economy”, rather surprisingly when you consider the council is shirking a commitment to publish a report on the implications of a steady-state economy for its own city.

In fact, judging from the lack of progress around the Manchester climate change plan the future does not look promising for the ‘Greater Manchester Climate Change Strategy’. Almost three years on and despite a stakeholder-led target of 1,000 endorsers by the end of 2010, the Manchester climate change report has secured the support of just 201 organisations. Only two of these have come up with a delivery plan to meet the target of a 41 per cent CO₂ cut by 2020 – one of them is the council itself and the other is Northwards Housing, which manages council properties.

I wrote to Manchester City Council asking if there had been any efforts to work with the endorsers to come up with delivery plans and they replied that they support Manchester businesses through the council-run Environmental Business Pledge.

“What if the endorsers are not businesses?” I asked. They admitted, “the MACF Steering Group has chosen to focus its limited resources initially on businesses and other organisations,” which they explained were “understood to have the greatest potential for carbon savings and resource efficiency improvements.” They did however add they would be increasing their focus on residents and individuals in future through the roll-out of the “Carbon Literacy programme” currently in development.

This focus on business reveals the real aim of the Manchester (and Greater Manchester) climate change plan – attracting green investment. In 2008/9, before the global financial meltdown, the low carbon economy and environmental goods sector in Greater Manchester was worth around £4.4 billion and supported 34,000 jobs. And according to the recent Greater Manchester Climate Change Strategy report, their low carbon transition goals will encourage the investment of around £8-10 billion in projects across the region over the next five years.

Replying to a Freedom of Information request, Richard Sharland revealed that due to the cuts, five full-time staff members at the council’s Environmental Strategy team were taking voluntary severance or early retirement for the financial year of 2011/12. He nevertheless insisted that “no actions from the Council’s delivery plan have been delayed or cancelled as a result of the Government’s financial settlement.”

With such a focus on drawing capital into the region, the important work of talking to residents, informing us about global warming and preparing communities by making them more resilient to climate change is simply sidelined for better economic times – something unlikely to materialise in the near future. So until then investments and the promise of ‘jobs and economic growth’ will continue to trump other concerns.

Arwa Aburawa

: Originally published at Manchester Mule- News with a kick.

::Image via theburied.life/flickr.