... A FORUM TO STIMULATE DEBATE ... ... JUST ADD A COMMENT AT ANY ENTRY BELOW... ... FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF TOWN AND VALLEY ...

Thursday, 2 July 2015

Climate change: "The very idea that we - as atomized individuals - could play a significant part in stabilizing the planet’s climate is objectively nuts."

How do we tackle climate change?

Naomi Klein would say it has to be part of a 'movement'. 

This is from a speech she made last month:

Climate Change Is a Crisis We Can Only Solve Together

a truck at a flooded area in Chile
SOS is seen written on a truck at a flooded area in Chile, where heavy rainfall in the usually arid north has been attributed to climate change. (Reuters/Ivan Alvarado)
This speech was delivered on June 6, 2015, in Bar Harbor, Maine, as the College of the Atlantic commencement address.
How do we help most? How do we best serve this broken world? And we know that time is short, especially when it comes to climate change. We all hear the clock ticking loudly in the background.
Watch Naomi Klein’s full speech:
But that doesn’t mean that climate change trumps everything else. It means we need to create integrated solutions—ones that radically bring down emissions, while closing the inequality gap and making life tangibly better for the majority.
This is no pipe dream. We have living examples from which to learn. Germany’s energy transition has created 400,000 jobs in just over a decade, and not just cleaned up energy but made it fairer—so that energy systems are owned and controlled by hundreds and hundreds of cities, towns, and cooperatives. The mayor of New York just announced a climate plan that would bring 800,000 people out of poverty by 2025, by investing massively in transit and affordable housing and raising the minimum wage.
The holistic leap we need is within our grasp. And know that there is no better preparation for that grand project than your deeply interdisciplinary education in human ecology. You were made for this moment. No, that’s not quite right: You somehow knew to make yourselves for this moment.
But much rests on the choices we make in the next few years. “Don’t be afraid to fail” may be a standard commencement-address life lesson. Yet it doesn’t work for those of us who are part of the climate-justice movement, where being afraid of failure is perfectly rational.
Because, let’s face it: The generations before you used up more than your share of atmospheric space. We used up your share of big failures too. The ultimate intergenerational injustice. That doesn’t mean that we all can’t still make mistakes. We can and we will. But Alicia Garza, one of the amazing founders of Black Lives Matter, talks about how we have to “make new mistakes.”
Sit with that one for a minute. Let’s stop making the same old mistakes. Here are a few, but I trust that you will silently add your own. Projecting messianic fantasies onto politicians. Thinking the market will fix it. Building a movement made up entirely of upper-middle-class white people and then wondering why people of color don’t want to join “our movement.” Tearing each other to bloody shreds because it’s easier to do that than go after the forces most responsible for this mess. These are social-change clichés, and they are getting really boring.
We don’t have the right to demand perfection from each other. But we do have the right to expect progress. To demand evolution. So let’s make some new mistakes. Let’s make new mistakes as we break through our silos and build the kind of beautifully diverse and justice-hungry movement that actually has a chance of winning—winning against the powerful interests that want us to keep failing.
With this in mind, I want talk about an old mistake that I see reemerging. It has to do with the idea that since attempts at big systemic change have failed, all we can do is act small. Some of you will relate. Some of you won’t. But I suspect all of you will have to deal with this tension in your future work.
A story: When I was 26, I went to Indonesia and the Philippines to do research for my first book, No Logo. I had a simple goal: to meet the workers making the clothes and electronics that my friends and I purchased. And I did. I spent evenings on concrete floors in squalid dorm rooms where teenage girls—sweet and giggly—spent their scarce nonworking hours. Eight or even 10 to a room. They told me stories about not being able to leave their machines to pee. About bosses who hit. About not having enough money to buy dried fish to go with their rice.
They knew they were being badly exploited—that the garments they were making were being sold for more than they would make in a month. One 17-year-old said to me: “We make computers, but we don’t know how to use them.”
So one thing I found slightly jarring was that some of these same workers wore clothing festooned with knockoff trademarks of the very multinationals that were responsible for these conditions: Disney characters or Nike check marks. At one point, I asked a local labor organizer about this. Wasn’t it strange—a contradiction?
It took a very long time for him to understand the question. When he finally did, he looked at me like I was nuts. You see, for him and his colleagues, individual consumption wasn’t considered to be in the realm of politics at all. Power rested not in what you did as one person, but what you did as many people, as one part of a large, organized, and focused movement. For him, this meant organizing workers to go on strike for better conditions, and eventually it meant winning the right to unionize. What you ate for lunch or happened to be wearing was of absolutely no concern whatsoever.
This was striking to me, because it was the mirror opposite of my culture back home in Canada. Where I came from, you expressed your political beliefs—firstly and very often lastly—through personal lifestyle choices. By loudly proclaiming your vegetarianism. By shopping fair trade and local and boycotting big, evil brands.
These very different understandings of social change came up again and again a couple of years later, once my book came out. I would give talks about the need for international protections for the right to unionize. About the need to change our global trading system so it didn’t encourage a race to the bottom. And yet at the end of those talks, the first question from the audience was: “What kind of sneakers are OK to buy?” “What brands are ethical?” “Where do you buy your clothes?” “What can I do, as an individual, to change the world?”
Fifteen years after I published No Logo, I still find myself facing very similar questions. These days, I give talks about how the same economic model that superpowered multinationals to seek out cheap labor in Indonesia and China also supercharged global greenhouse-gas emissions. And, invariably, the hand goes up: “Tell me what I can do as an individual.” Or maybe “as a business owner.”
The hard truth is that the answer to the question “What can I, as an individual, do to stop climate change?” is: nothing. You can’t do anything. In fact, the very idea that we—as atomized individuals, even lots of atomized individuals—could play a significant part in stabilizing the planet’s climate system, or changing the global economy, is objectively nuts. We can only meet this tremendous challenge together. As part of a massive and organized global movement.
The irony is that people with relatively little power tend to understand this far better than those with a great deal more power. The workers I met in Indonesia and the Philippines knew all too well that governments and corporations did not value their voice or even their lives as individuals. And because of this, they were driven to act not only together, but to act on a rather large political canvas. To try to change the policies in factories that employ thousands of workers, or in export zones that employ tens of thousands. Or the labor laws in an entire country of millions. Their sense of individual powerlessness pushed them to be politically ambitious, to demand structural changes.
In contrast, here in wealthy countries, we are told how powerful we are as individuals all the time. As consumers. Even individual activists. And the result is that, despite our power and privilege, we often end up acting on canvases that are unnecessarily small—the canvas of our own lifestyle, or maybe our neighborhood or town. Meanwhile, we abandon the structural changes—the policy and legal work— to others.
This is not to belittle local activism. Local is critical. Local organizing is winning big fights against fracking and tar-sands pipelines. Local is showing us what the post-carbon economy looks and feels like.
And small examples inspire bigger examples. College of the Atlantic was one of the first schools to divest from fossil fuels. And you made the decision, I am told, in a week. It took that kind of leadership from small schools that knew their values to push more, shall we say, insecure institutions to follow suit. Like Stanford University. Like Oxford University. Like the British royal family. Like the Rockefeller family. So local matters, but local is not enough.
I got a vivid reminder of this when I visited Red Hook, Brooklyn, in the immediate aftermath of Superstorm Sandy. Red Hook was one of the hardest-hit neighborhoods and is home to an amazing community farm—a place that teaches kids from nearby housing projects how to grow healthy food, provides composting for a huge number of residents, hosts a weekly farmers’ market, and runs a terrific CSA [community-supported agriculture] program. In short, it was doing everything right: reducing food miles, staying away from petroleum inputs, sequestering carbon in the soil, reducing landfill by composting, fighting inequality and food insecurity.
But when the storm came, none of that mattered. The entire harvest was lost, and the fear was the storm water would make the soil toxic. They could buy new soil and start over. But the farmers I met there knew that unless other people were out there fighting to lower emissions on a systemic and global level, then this kind of loss would occur again and again.
It’s not that one sphere is more important than the other. It’s that we have to do both: the local and the global. The resistance and the alternatives. The “no” to what we cannot survive and “yeses” that we need to thrive.
Before I leave you, I want to stress one other thing. And please listen, because it’s important. It is true that we have to do it all. That we have to change everything. But you personally do not have to do everything. This is not all on you.
One of the real dangers of being brilliant, sensitive young people who hear the climate clock ticking loudly is the danger of taking on too much. Which is another manifestation of that inflated sense of our own importance.
It can seem that every single life decision—whether to work at a national NGO or a local permaculture project or a green start-up; whether to work with animals or with people; whether to be a scientist or an artist; whether to go to grad school or have kids—carries the weight of the world.
I was struck by this impossible burden some of you are placing on yourselves when I was contacted recently by a 21-year-old Australian science student named Zoe Buckley Lennox. At the time she reached me, she was camped out on top of Shell’s Arctic drilling rig in the middle of the Pacific. She was one of six Greenpeace activists who had scaled the giant rig to try to slow its passage and draw attention to the insanity of drilling for oil in the Arctic. They lived up there in the howling winds for a week.
While they were still up there, I arranged to call Zoe on the Greenpeace satellite phone—just to personally thank her for her courage. Do you know what she did? She asked me: “How do you know you are doing the right thing? I mean, there is divestment. There is lobbying. There’s the Paris climate conference.”
And I was touched by her seriousness, but I also wanted to weep. Here she was, doing one of the more incredible things imaginable—freezing her butt off trying to physically stop Arctic drilling with her body. And up there in her seven layers of clothing and climbing gear, she was still beating herself up, wondering whether she should be doing something else.
What I told her is what I will tell you. What you are doing is amazing. And what you do next will be amazing too. Because you are not alone. You are part of a movement. And that movement is organizing for Paris and getting their schools to divest and trying to block Arctic drilling in Congress and the courts. And on the open water. All at the same time.
And, yes, we need to grow faster and do more. But the weight of the world is not on any one person’s shoulders—not yours. Not Zoe’s. Not mine. It rests in the strength of the project of transformation that millions are already a part of.
That means we are free to follow our passions. To do the kind of work that will sustain us for the long run. It even means we can take breaks—in fact, we have a duty to take them. And to make sure our friends do too.



Climate Change Is a Crisis We Can Only Solve Together | The Nation

See also:
Futures Forum: Climate change: keep it in the ground
Futures Forum: Climate Change: and growth on Radio 4
Futures Forum: Climate change: and 'environmental populism'
.
.
.

Wednesday, 1 July 2015

The East Devon beach hut story: very much in the news

Next Tuesday in Sidmouth, there will be a public meeting to consider the District Council's proposals for its beach huts:
Futures Forum: The future of East Devon's beach huts >> public meeting >>> Sidmouth Tuesday 7th July

The wider media has shown interest in the issue too: 

SIDMOUTH: Public meeting to be held on beach hut auction controversy


30th June 2015 by Jack Dixon jack@pemedia.co.uk

FURIOUS residents will have their say on proposals to auction off Sidmouth’s beach huts at a public meeting in the town.

A full house is expected at next week’s meeting, organised by the Vision Group for Sidmouth. The event will provide a platform for angry residents to voice their concerns before East Devon District Council’s public consultation closes in less than a fortnight’s time.

The council currently owns 24 beach huts at Jacob’s Ladder, which are hired out every year at a cost of £625 each. Under the current rules, individuals can renew their hire agreements each year, creating huge waiting lists for the sought-after huts.

Now EDDC is planning to auction off the facilities, with existing leases scrapped and new five-year hire agreements sold to the highest bidders. The plans have so far proved unpopular with current tenants, some of whom have hired out their huts for many years.

Organisers of the Save East Devon Beach Huts campaign, which is also fighting the proposals in Budleigh Salterton, Exmouth, Seaton and Beer, say they have been “overwhelmed” by the response from members of the public. Almost 500 people have joined the campaign’s Facebook group, many of whom are expected to air their concerns in public at next week’s meeting.

Campaigners argue it is unfair for longstanding tenants to be turfed out of their huts by those who can afford to pay a higher price. And some are concerned that the chalets will be snapped up by holiday home owners.

East Devon District Council says there are well over 300 people on its waiting list for huts across the area, and that putting them on the market is a way to open the facilities up to new tenants while generating money that can be reinvested in hut improvements or other council services.

Subject to planning permission, EDDC also says it will look to replace the ageing huts at Jacob’s Ladder with new and improved facilities designed for the location. It is considering adding a further ten huts between the end of the Esplanade and Chit Rocks to satisfy the “considerable demand” for beach facilities in Sidmouth.

The public meeting is being held in the Cellar Bar at Kennaway House on Tuesday, July 7th at 7.30pm. 

The beach huts consultation closes the following week on July 13th.

SIDMOUTH: Public meeting to be held on beach hut auction controversy - View from Sidmouth


BEACH HUTS: WHERE’S THE NEWS? IT’S NOT HAPPY-CLAPPY

1 JUL 2015

Spotlight last night featured East Devon beach hut owners up in arms about proposed changes that would see the agreements between hut renters and EDDC torn up in favour of an auction of five year leases of sites only which would go to the highest bidder. There would be no restriction on where new leaseholders would come from. ITV regional news featured this item last week too.


Meanwhile, in Budleigh Salterton:

Anger over beach hut bidding wars

29 June 2015 Sean Keywood



Disgruntled Budleigh Salterton beach huts owners and users this week. 


... in Seaton and Beer:

SEATON: Beach hut auction plan still on the cards

24th June 2015 by Kevin Fahey & Anders Larsson

SEATON: Beach hut auction plan still on the cards

THUMBS DOWN | Seaton beach hut tenants are not pleased with the proposal

SEATON: Beach hut auction plan still on the cards - View from Sidmouth

... and in Exmouth:

Uproar over Exmouth beach huts: East Devon District Council slammed over "auction" plan

By Exeter Express and Echo | Posted: June 17, 2015



Exmouth beach huts are under threat of being auctioned off to the highest bidder say councillors

.
.
.

East Devon's beach huts and the Asset Management Forum

At a cabinet meeting in January, proposals for the District Council's beach huts were debated.
The report which was presented to cabinet was in fact based on an earlier report given to the Asset Management Forum:

14. Asset Management – tenanted non-residential property review

Minute 147
The Deputy Chief Executive presented the report of the Principal Estates Surveyor in respect of a review of tenanted non-residential property undertaken as part of the Council’s Asset Management Plan. A report on beach huts and chalets based on this review (including the overall management and financial information and arrangements site by site) had been considered by the Asset Management Forum. The review process had been challenging due to the range of locations, structures, arrangements and pricing. The aim of the recommendations had been to address certain discrepancies including where the provision was actually a cost to the Council as well improving the provision overall and introducing an ongoing replacement programme. The recommendations reflected a more co-ordinated approach and a greater standardisation of arrangements across the district.
Discussion included:
  • Although it was appreciated that the beach hut provision should not be subsidised by the Council, new arrangements should not put long-standing tenants in difficulty – not everyone had the space or ability to store the huts over the winter period.
  • The Council was not charging enough for managing the huts – there should be a greater differential between site-only and maintenance/management of beach huts.
  • The short-term provision of beach huts should be retained as this was a valued service to tourists and visitors and provided useful local income streams to the Tourist Information Centres.
  • The service needed to operate more commercially.
  • A proposal for a rolling tendering process of 20% of huts and chalets per year was not supported. It was felt that tendering in 2016 would allow ample time for consultation and review of approach.
  • Consultation with current users was regarded as essential.
  • Developing a ‘sinking’ fund was a prudent approach to cover replacement costs.
  • The proposal was to improve the current arrangements in Sidmouth where provision was below standard.  Options would be considered when planning permission was in place.
  RESOLVED
  1. that a sinking fund of £19,000 per annum be established to ensure retained huts and chalets can be replaced at the end of their life;
  2.  that the Property & Estates Services team work up a detailed proposal and feasibility assessment to deliver a scheme at Jacobs Ladder for the provision of new, more permanent beach huts;
  3.  that an additional site on the beach at Sidmouth, between the end of the Esplanade and Chit rocks, be established for the provision of 10 sites for beach huts subject to planning permission and viability assessment;
  4. that the Seaton Searchlight Emplacement be marketed for sale and invitations invited on both a freehold and leasehold basis (interest already expressed was noted);
  5. that the future of the huts and chalets at Exmouth be considered (in consultation with the Town Council) as part of the wider Exmouth regeneration programme to ensure a coherent approach;
  6. that 5 year leases be tendered for the existing 56 sites at Beer and 93 sites at Budleigh Salterton to commence 1 April 2016 subject to consultation with current users;
  7. that all sites be included within StreetScene’s rolling condition survey programme of infrastructure assets;
  8. that all beach hut tenants be responsible for their own NNDR (National non domestic rates) payments, where applicable;
  9. that all site tenants commit to their beach hut/chalet conforming (within a realistic range) in respect of design, style and colour;
  10. that Beer concession sites be brought into line with open  market rents at renewal.
  11. that the following proposals be referred back to the Asset Management Forum for further consideration, with the Forum being made fully aware of the importance of undertaking consultation:
        a)    that at Seaton and Budleigh Salterton, from April 2016 the managed hut sites be offered on an open            market basis as a site-only package, and will include a one-off charge of £250 for the existing hut;
        b)    that alternative use options for the beach hut storage unit  at Budleigh Salterton be explored and                  reported back to the Council’s Asset Management Forum at a future date;
REASON
To progress recommendations of the Asset Management Forum’s review of the Council’s beach huts and chalets.

Cabinet minutes for 7 January 2015 - Asset Management – tenanted non-residential property review - East Devon

There has been some controversy around the body which first considered a report into these matters.

Here is the relevant page from the District Council:

Asset Management Plan

The Asset Management Plan (AMP) sets out the Council’s approach to the Strategic Management of its land and building assets. It is developed in consultation between the Senior Officers and Members of the Council that form the Asset Management Forum. The AMP seeks to ensure that assets are used in the most effective and efficient way to meet service and financial objectives.
Corporate Property Asset Management Plan 2014 - 2017 
Last updated 19 June 2015

Asset Management Plan - East Devon

The Forum does not keep any records of its own discussions, however:

Asset Management Forum minutes

P Freeman made this Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council
The request was refused by East Devon District Council.

From: P Freeman

Dear East Devon District Council,

Can you please provide me with copies of (or web links to) the
agendas and minutes of the meetings of the Asset Management Forum
since 2011?

In the event that these are considered confidential, please state
explicitly the grounds for them being confidential.

Many thanks.

Yours faithfully,

P Freeman

From: P Freeman

Dear East Devon District Council,

Please note that this request has been submitted under both FoI and
EIR.

Yours faithfully,

P Freeman

From: Kate Symington
East Devon District Council

Mr Freeman

Thank you for your request for information.

There are no minutes held for this meeting. The Asset Management Forum is not a decision-making body, its recommendations are presented to Cabinet and these reports (headed Asset Management) are generally presented under part A and are fully accessible to the public. Cabinet meeting agendas and minutes can be accessed here www.eastdevon.gov.uk

I hope this is helpful.

If you feel dissatisfied with the way we have responded to your request, please contact our Interim Monitoring Officer at [email address] 

You may also approach the Information Commissioner for advice at www.ico.org.uk

Regards

Mrs Kate Symington 
Information and Complaints Officer
East Devon District Council

01395 517417
www.eastdevon.gov.uk

show quoted sections
Asset Management Forum minutes - a Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council - WhatDoTheyKnow

This has been noted in the context of the District Council's relocation plans:

“HONITON FOR SALE” PART 2 – SOME QUESTIONS BUT VERY LITTLE CHANCE OF ANSWERS

The press release speaks only of something going out to tender – it does not say exactly what the tender was for and we will never know because the Asset Management Forum at EDDC has always met in secret and provides no agendas or minutes of its meetings for the public.
Councillor Halse’s comments seem to imply that EDDC is not going to get as much as it had wanted for Knowle. They have long said that the move will be “cost neutral” but that was when only Knowle and Manston Depot were mentioned. Is it still cost neutral when you add in the loss of the Heathpark site and the East Devon Business Centre? Again we will never know because the Relocation Working Party meetings are also held in secret and no agendas or minutes are produced.
We have a situation now where ALL decisions are now made in secret. Instead of information going to committees for discussion and decision they are being referred to creatively-named “Forums” and “Groups” so that the decision-making can all take place behind closed doors where even majority party councillors have no idea what is going on.
Let us hope that when the next council is convened it votes for a Committee system of decision-making rather than an Executive Board system which allows a very small number of people – hand-picked by the Leader – to take decisions on behalf of the majority.
“Honiton for Sale” part 2 – some questions but very little chance of answers | East Devon Watch
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: Honiton "up for sale"

This was referenced on the social media site Streetlife in the last couple of days:
Streetlife | Beach Huts proposal
.
.
.

Cycle paths in Sidmouth: £100k scheme to open 7th July

An understanding of the importance of cycling is gaining ground:
Futures Forum: Cycle paths in Sidmouth... and Dawlish... and Cambridge

More is being invested on the link from Sidmouth to Feniton:













Breaking news & sport in Sidmouth | Sidmouth Herald

£100,000 was committed to cycling routes in Sidmouth in 2013 - from S106 funds:




Sidmouth

There are projects going on to spend £250,000 of sports money and over £100,000 of play money that is available in Sidmouth. All of this funding has come from new homes created in Sidmouth, called section 106 agreements. 
These are joint projects with Sidmouth Town Council.

Sport

In 2013 we gathered in ideas from the community on how £250,000 of section 106 money from new homes in Sidmouth should be spent. We received nine eligible, affordable and possible ideas from the community and from sporting organisations. These were added to two strategic town council projects. 
443 residents of Sidmouth voted on which of the proposals should be funded. The successful ideas were: 
  • Improvements to cycling around Sidmouth. A cycle route linking some residential areas with the Woolbrook area, in particular to allow easier cycling to school and college. Including improved cycle parking at the schools and local shops. It might be the first part of a future Sidmouth to Feniton cycle route. £100,000.
    Update: This is being progressed by Devon County Council who are in charge of cycleways. 

Sidmouth - East Devon
Sidmouth £250k giveaway winners announced - News - Sidmouth Herald

This is the County Council proposal from last year:
Sidmouth Cycle Route – Extension to Woolbrook - Report of the Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment

And this is the report from the Herald at the time:
New Sidmouth cycle route in focus - News - Sidmouth Herald

See also:
Futures Forum: The great S106 cash give-away
.
.
.

Is Uber really part of the 'sharing economy'? >>>>>>>>> "The whole point of a genuine p2p and sharing economy is empowerment for those directly participating in it."

Things got rather heated in Paris last week:

Uber backlash: taxi drivers' protests in Paris part of global revolt

The taxi-hire company faces resistance worldwide, signalling trouble for other ‘sharing economy’ companies, such as AirBnB

 
Taxis drivers protest in Paris against Uber. Photograph: Aurelien Meunier/Getty Images

Charles Arthur Saturday 27 June 2015

“Got chased by a mob of taxi drivers who threw rocks,” tweeted the singer Courtney Love from Charles de Gaulle airport. She was caught up in what is becoming a global trend: the backlash against Uber. French taxi drivers were protesting on Thursday at vehicles operated by drivers working for the Californian business, which functions like a taxi-hire company, but via smartphones and without directly employing its drivers.


Uber backlash: taxi drivers' protests in Paris part of global revolt | Technology | The Guardian
Uber expansion meets global revolt and crackdown | Technology | The Guardian
Two Uber Executives Indicted in France - WSJ

There seems to be a more 'liberal' response in the UK:
'Everywhere he goes in London, Boris Johnson is abused by cab drivers' – video | Politics | The Guardian
The Idler | California über alles

In London, Simon Kelner of the Independent is not too sympathetic towards the traditional taxi drivers either:

French cabbies want Uber off the streets – but that particular boat has sailed


SIMON KELNER Thursday 25 June 2015

No amount of strike action can reverse Uber's upper hand



I write this column today from France, from the frontline of the battle between protectionism and free market economics, between traditional labour practices and the digital economy, between the old France and the new world.

More pertinently, however, I write this column not having a clue about how I’m going to get back home later on today. This, we know, is the season when French air traffic controllers generally work to rule, but today the trouble is on the ground, and it’s the taxi drivers who are revolting, disrupting travel up and down the country.

Nice airport, among several others in France, is being blockaded by licensed taxi drivers who are protesting about the threat to their livelihood posed by the rise of Uber. Elsewhere, major routes – including the main ring road in Paris – have been blocked at rush hour, and what we know is that when French workers strike, they tend to be effective. They know about fraternité here.

Notwithstanding the severe inconvenience this day of action has caused, however, it is impossible not to feel some sympathy for the French cabbies, who are fighting this battle on behalf of taxi drivers everywhere. It costs around €200,000 (£142,000) to get a licence to drive taxis in France, and the existential threat they face from the unlicensed drivers of Uber who need only a car, a mobile phone and a sat nav to set up in business is a very real one.

This sympathy is tempered, of course. As a service, Uber is efficient, the drivers tend to be polite – a recent poll of British travellers rated Parisian cabbies as the rudest in the world – and, not least, it’s cheaper. But this is about so much more than the most effective way of getting from A to B. One of the barriers to France’s economic progress, we are told, is their highly unionised labour force and the protected practices in many of their trades (even though France has higher productivity figures than Britain). Yet the tensions exposed in this particular dispute are about how the digital world has opened up choice and increased convenience for consumers, and the effect this has had, in all sorts of areas, on our traditional customs and practice.



There is, in one sense, a pointlessness about the taxi drivers’ action. They might as well complain about the invention of the computer. Maybe bookshops should get together and put piles of novels in Piccadilly to stop the traffic in protest against Amazon. Or musicians could refuse to play again until music streaming services are shut down.

The French cabbies want Uber off the streets, and their challenge is now working its way through the French legal system. It seems unlikely, given European regulations on competition, that they will be successful. London cabbies have also protested against Uber, but I can’t help feeling that this particular boat has sailed, so to speak. The consumer is king today. The opening up of markets, and the greater competition as a result, has brought real benefits for consumers, whose decisions are primarily based on value and convenience.

On both these counts, Uber seems to have the upper hand, and no amount of strike action, or indeed socio-economic engineering, can reverse that.


French cabbies want Uber off the streets – but that particular boat has sailed - Comment - Voices - The Independent

The New Yorker gives some perspective:

The Long History of the Fight Against Uber

BY OM MALIK JUNE 26, 2015


It took only five years for what once seemed like a fuzzy idea—limos on demand—to become the source of violence in the streets. CREDITPHOTOGRAPH BY JEAN-PAUL PELISSIER/REUTERS

Most people know the story of the Luddites, but it is still a tale worth repeating, especially in light of recent protests over Uber. Luddites were skilled artisans and other laborers in early-nineteenth-century England who rebelled against changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution. The Luddite uprising began in Nottinghamshire in November, 1811, when a group of stocking makers destroyed the machines that made things more quickly than they could and that thus threatened their livelihoods. Within a year, the protests spread to two more counties, Yorkshire and Lancashire. It was essentially a rebellion against free markets and the Industrial Revolution. It was skilled workers raging against the influx of unskilled labor.

Earlier this week, Paris—the very city where Uber was born, in 2010—was the scene of a series of violent protests against the company and its popular taxi-replacement service. UberPop (known as UberX in the United States) is, in its own app-based way, akin to the arrival of large knitting machines manned by unskilled labor, threatening the livelihoods of a certain class of workers. It took only five years for what once seemed like a fuzzy idea—limos on demand—to become the source of riots in the streets.

“Now we go to shopping malls or go to a taxicab line to find better ways to find what we need,” Liran Einav, a professor of economics at Stanford University,said at a symposium hosted by the Federal Trade Commission this month. “The sharing economy is the natural next step in the evolution of markets, where we don’t need to go anywhere to get a cab or to find what we need in the shopping mall.” To put it another way, we are transitioning from an era of going someplace to get our goods and services to a new phase where such goods and services come to us when we ask for them. Uber is a big part of that change. The company gets a lot of attention, positive and negative, in part because of its valuation (fifty billion dollars and counting) and its booming popularity.

Uber isn’t alone, of course. There are startups that will park your car, get you a masseuse, find maids to clean your apartment, and do your grocery shopping. They are part of what is often called the sharing economy—though it often isn’t really about sharing. It is an economy driven by our desire for instant gratification.

The need for instant gratification, in turn, is driven by the presence of a computer within an arm’s reach, pretty much all the time. For several decades, computers have been a fixture in our universities and our offices. The nineties tech boom democratized computer ownership and we all brought PCs into our homes. Now we walk around with computers in our pockets. Each shift in accessibility—from computers at work to computers at home to networked computers everywhere to computers in our pockets—has allowed us to become more productive, but it has also encouraged us to become more impatient. Why wait to pay bills at home when you can do pay them while walking home? Why wait for a cab to come along when you can order up an Uber?

The Parisian taxi drivers are partly protesting against economic regulations in cities where taxi drivers have to pay for expensive medallions while Uber drivers do not. But, in a larger sense, they’re actually protesting against our increased impatience. We don’t have time to wait for a cab, because someone around the corner is willing to do the same job more cheaply. Our phones make us more productive while we wait, and yet we don’t ever want to wait. As individuals, taxi drivers are stuck: their industry is controlled by outdated regulation and now they face ruthless free-market competition. Meanwhile, the habits and the expectations of their customers are changing—people are voting with their wallets and with their time. And that’s not something that protests in the streets, whether in Paris or Nottinghamshire, are likely to change.


The Long History of the Fight Against Uber - The New Yorker

With a critique from the LA Times:
What the New Yorker magazine misses about the Uber protests - LA Times

And the latest from the streets of New York:
Uber stages protest at City Hall as NYC City Council considers car service limits (Video) - New York Business Journal
Uber Offers Free Rides to Its New York Protest | TIME

Plus the perspective from around the world:
Uber protests: Riots in France, citizen’s arrest at Sydney Airport
The Chinese Ride-Hailing Startup That’s Out-Ubering Uber | WIRED

This has generated a huge debate around the 'sharing economy':

> The sharing economy benefits the self-employed:
In an Uber World, Fortune Favors the Freelancer - The New York Times

> The likes of Uber are not really part of the sharing economy:
Why the sharing economy could be the internet’s most divisive revolution yet | Technology | The Guardian

> The heavy-handed state is over-reacting:
Sabotaging Uber: The Umpire Strikes Back : Anything Peaceful : Foundation for Economic Education 

> It's been the likes of Uber which has been heavy-handed:
Approaching Policy After Uber’s Scorched Earth | TechCrunch

Here is a very critical commentary from last year:

Uber Delenda Est

Kevin Carson | November 30th, 2014

About six months ago, when Uber was first becoming a visible national controversy, I wrote a column (“One Cheer for Uber and Lyft” C4SS, May 16, 2014) in which I argued that Uber, despite being a genuine example of neither peer-to-peer (p2p) nor sharing, was a step in the right direction because it offered at least some competition to the medallion cab monopoly. It was doing to them something like what Microsoft’s Encarta CD-Rom did to Britannica, and would hopefully in turn suffer from a genuine p2p sharing app the same destruction that Wikipedia inflicted on Encarta. Today I’m revoking even that one star. I’d assign them a negative rating, if I could.

A lot of negative material has come out since I wrote that last column — much of it just in the past few weeks — about the crappy way Uber treats its customers, its drivers, its competitors and critical journalists. This is not what a p2p alternative does. A p2p sharing app would be about drivers and customers organizing horizontally, as equals, to meet their mutual needs outside the legacy taxicab monopoly. To the extent that this horizontal organization exists, it is the host organism on which Uber has parasitically attached itself, and from which it leeches out the blood.

Uber, among other things, has pressured its drivers with bad credit to sign up for subprime auto loans. Unlike a genuine p2p ride service, which would be a low-overhead way for drivers to use their existing cars as a source of independent income without increasing their financial fragility through risky capital outlays, Uber wants drivers with new, fancy cars to better suit its marketing image. So it aggressively encourages its drivers to take out subprime loans from GM Financial and other shady operators, who in turn repackage those subprime loans into securities and sell them to pension funds.

If an Uber driver does take on a load of car debt with a big monthly payment, she’d better be careful what she says on Twitter or Facebook. Uber recently fired employee Christopher Ortiz (oops — “deleted the account” of an independent contractor) for tweeting “Driving for Uber, not much safer than driving a taxi” (@chrisjortiz). Uber drivers may in theory be independent contractors using a ride-sharing app, but their subjective experience sounds remarkably like the plain old worker-boss relationship — which is just the older master-servant relationship with a thin coat of democratic varnish slapped on.

Further, Uber sets itself up as a sort of checkpoint between driver and passenger and increases the driver’s dependence on the company by discouraging tips. According toFuture of Freedom editor Sheldon Richman, riders do not pay the driver directly. They pay Uber through the app, and there is no provision to add a tip to the bill. Uber’s website says“Being Uber means there is no need to tip drivers with any of our services,” and a company email to drivers forbids them to ask for or accept tips. Nevertheless, Uber propaganda in the past has given riders the misleading impression that tips are “taken care of” or “included in the fare” (“Uber: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly,” Free Association, November 23). I don’t do business with any operation that tries to prevent me from tipping service workers.

To repeat, the whole point of a genuine p2p and sharing economy is empowerment for those directly participating in it. It enables participants to reduce the overhead of daily living and the income stream required to service it, and to increase their independence by deriving incomes from the spare capacity of underutilized capital assets they already own. Uber makes its “independent contractors” more fragile and dependent from two directions at once: By encouraging them to take on debt that requires a higher regular income to service, and at the same time making them vulnerable to being fired (er, “deactivated”) at the whim of an employer. So is Uber an employer or a sharing app that’s just used by drivers? Well, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

Fed up drivers are beginning to organize in protest. On Oct. 22 drivers in four US cities and London turned off their app for several hours and refused to take passengers (Rebecca Burns, “The Sharing Economy’s ‘First Strike': Uber Drivers Turn Off the App,” In These Times, Oct. 22). Drivers in California and London have organized unions (assorted “App-Based Drivers’ Associations”). The California union is affiliated with the Teamsters. The London union is demanding Uber’s share of fares be reduced from 20% to 10%, and that a tipping option be added.

Drivers aren’t the only people Uber treats like dirt. Uber management used private location data to track the movements of VIP passengers around New York for their own amusement at a launch party in Chicago back in 2011. Even more disturbing, Uber’s New York chief used the same “God View” software to track the movements of a critical journalist — and bragged about it:

Early this November, one of the reporters of this story, Johana Bhuiyan, arrived to Uber’s New York headquarters in Long Island City for an interview with Josh Mohrer, the general manager of Uber New York. Stepping out of her vehicle — an Uber car — she found Mohrer waiting for her. “There you are,” he said, holding his iPhone and gesturing at it. “I was tracking you.”…

Two months earlier, to make a point about questions Bhuiyan had asked about ride-share competitor Lyft, Mohrer had emailed her logs of some of her Uber trips. He had not asked for permission to access her data.


Uber has also begun using high-pressure tactics (a lot like those in the Comcast customer retention handbook) to bully riders into not deleting their Uber apps, since customers reacted to the privacy violation revelations with a higher defection rate.

Let’s see, what else… Oh, right! Uber mocks its customers. In addition to responding directly to an irate rider who complained about surge pricing of $360 to go 120 blocks during peak demand hours, CEO Travis Kalanick posted the complaint to Facebook with the comment “Get some popcorn and scroll down.” Kalanick’s response, by the way, included a rather patronizing explanation of the laws of supply and demand and how the high surge pricing prevented driver shortages and long wait times when things were busy. I’m quite familiar with the concept of surge pricing — it’s entirely legitimate — but an astronomical price of three dollars a city block is a bit hard to swallow. I’d gladly quit my job and walk for $3 a block.

You can also add the ride-sharing competition, along with drivers and passengers, to groups that Uber seems to hold in less than high regard. Uber hires contractors (which it calls “brand ambassadors”) to pose as passengers and attempt to recruit the drivers at Lyft and other competitors. Under this “SLOG” program, Lyft employees have also ordered and then cancelled over five thousand Lyft rides. Although an Uber flack denied that the company ever engaged in deliberately cancelling rides, they’re almost certainly lying. Lyft came up with the figure by cross-referencing the phone numbers the cancelled rides came from with those of riders who had attempted to recruit Uber drivers.

Kalanick snickered that Uber representatives personally approached Lyft investors and encouraged them to defect to Uber. As the author of the linked article said, companies probably try to sabotage each other’s funding all the time. But it’s highly unusual for a CEO to publicly crow about it.

As if all that weren’t bad enough, Uber takes an extremely adversarial view — to the point of plotting reprisals — of journalists who report unfavorably on it. Senior Vice President Emil Michael, in remarks at a swanky dinner party attended by Ariana Huffington and other celebrities, suggested digging up dirt on media critics. In particular, he suggested digging up information to prove a specific allegation about the personal life of Pando-based critic Sarah Lacy in order to publicly discredit her. This is especially disgusting, against the background of 8chan creeps engaged in similar attacks against Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian under the #GamerGate hashtag.

Michael subsequently said the remarks didn’t represent his own views or the policies of the company. Huh? This is the ultimate in meaningless corporate disclaimer culture. When the actually stated views of a company’s senior management are dismissed as not representing “the views of the company,” what exactly does that mean? That the fictitious corporate person known as Uber LLC has different views of its own, separate from the views of the people running it and making its policies? That the “views of the company” are whatever happens to be written in the Official Happy Talk of a policy manual somewhere?

Spokeswoman Nairi Hourdajian also said it was against Uber policy to use private location data to track the movement of journalists. You know — just like it doesn’t deliberately cancel rides. “Access to and use of data is permitted only for legitimate business purposes.” So I guess all those Uber bigwigs at that party were yukking it up over celebrities’ private location data were doing it for “legitimate business purposes.” The policy at the company where I work says it’s against company policy for management to engage in reprisals against employees who report official misconduct to the corporate ethics hotline; but then the misconduct itself was against company policy, wasn’t it?

It’s hard not to conclude that Uber’s corporate “code of ethics” consists entirely of sending a public spokesperson out to lie about the unethical stuff they do.

And although Uber in recent months has become a mainstream libertarian shibboleth alongside Bitcoin — I regularly get swarmed by right-wing trolls after tweeting critically about it — it’s even begun to alienate longtime right-libertarian supporters. But how could this be? Because the company is, in the words of Reason‘s Nick Gillespie, “bedding down with regulators to screw over competitors”: “After spending years antagonizing would-be regulators, Uber is now working with them to hammer out agreements that will let the company flourish even as less-connected competitors face tougher regulations.” Uber has hired former Obama adviser David Plouffe to negotiate regulations with local governments, and has said it “needs to be regulated.” The kind of needful regulations he has in mind, it goes without saying, are those that raise the cost of entry and make it harder for little guys to compete with Uber. A good example of the specific regulatory model they have in mind is the recent ride-sharing regulations passed by Washington, D.C. — which Uber and Plouffe have applauded — that includes $1 million in liability insurance and registering with the DC cab commission.

Still don’t hate Uber? It was also a platinum vendor sponsor of the Urban Shield police conference in Oakland. Urban Shield is an annual, DHS-funded training conference for militarized police.

As loathsome as Uber is, though, its liberal and “progressive” critics miss the point more than they hit it.

Critics of drivers operating outside the medallion licensing system, like Pando’s Paul Carr, point to the enormous percentage of stranger rapes that are perpetrated by unlicensed cab drivers. Carr treats the “laws and regulations” that Uber’s “sinister” culture of disruption seeks to bypass as a proxy for things like “public safety.” Apparently he’s never heard of the Bootleggers and Baptists phenomenon.

Carr also makes much of the overlap (at least in terms of rhetoric) between the “disruptive” ideology Uber’s management, Objectivism and “free markets.” For a supposedly hard-hitting “investigative reporter,” that’s a remarkable display of gullibility. As we’ve already seen and will see again, Uber’s talk about “free markets” and “disruption” is nothing but lip-service. They’ve disrupted the old medallion cab monopolies somewhat, and increased local competition at least to a certain extent, but they’re still a corporate monopoly in their own right that depends heavily on an anti-competitive legal structure to treat their workers like crap.

Getting back to the threat of rape by drivers, the licensed cab services really don’t perform any especially heroic levels of effort to prevent rape. Typical screening involves a simple driving history and criminal background check. The Whitmire outrage — in which a San Francisco passenger was assaulted by a driver with a violent criminal history and prison record — resulted, Carr argues, from the fact they used Hirease instead of the much more stringent Live Scan that involves a search of the FBI database. But Uber operates in most areas under background check regulations. If local regulations are so badly written as not to require the use of Live Scan, it’s rather perverse to treat Whitmire’s crime purely as an example of market failure rather than regulatory failure as well. Live Scan typically costs $70 or $80, so whether or not an unlicensed cab service uses them in particular for a background check is hardly a cost issue; and it doesn’t make much business sense, from a reputational standpoint, to use a less reliable and trustworthy background check service.

I suspect Carr is also conflating the new, semi-aboveground corporate ride-sharing services like Uber with the older, more informal kind of unlicensed cab services. If the typical unlicensed cab driver on the earlier jitney model is dangerous, it suggests that the very illegality of offering an unlicensed cab service suppresses the kinds of open advertising of a service’s standards and reputational tracking of drivers that would make them safer. It’s a lot like the slave-labor conditions that exist in sweatshop industries that hire undocumented immigrants, and the prevalence of rape, abuse and outright slavery in the sex trades — which exist, in both cases, because of the legal status of the workers and the suppression of above-ground informational and legal recourses for those who are vulnerable to the very law enforcement and civil law establishments that supposedly exist to “protect and serve” them.

I’m also surprised Carr hasn’t noticed the gap (at least four orders of magnitude) between the price of a Live Scan criminal background check and that of cab medallions in a typical big city. A local background check regulation simply requiring a Live Scan check would add $80 to the price of driving a cab. And in San Francisco, the $350 price of the driving permit itself, which includes both criminal background check and driving record, is completely separate from the $250,000 price of the medallion. The main point of the medallion licensing system isn’t safety, but limiting the number of competing cabs to the industry’s estimate of “what the market will bear” so they can gouge the public with a monopoly price. Anyone who says otherwise, or attempts to sugarcoat the system in goo-goo “public interest” rhetoric, is either stupid or a liar.

On the other hand, the purpose of a genuine sharing service is that the main item of capital equipment — a car and smart phone — is something the driver probably owns anyway. Between that and $80 for a background check, the overhead involved in participating in a real sharing network — i.e., an open-source system run by and for the drivers and passengers themselves — is virtually zero. An open-source e-hailing app, with whatever built-in system of driver reputational rating and background checks the users decide on, doesn’t require a corporate headquarters with highly paid suits in the C-suite and billions in venture capital.

I can’t resist pointing out the irony involved in a critique focused so heavily on Uber’s culture of misogyny and rape, coming from someone at a publication that employs a creepy pickup artist like Mark Ames, who reportedly confessed, under the pseudonym Johnny Chen, to date-raping and contemplating the murder of a teenager. Ames also allegedly confessed to threatening to murder a pregnant girlfriend if she didn’t get an abortion, and to bullying female eXiled staff into having unprotected anal sex. Who knows? If things don’t work out at Pando, maybe Ames can get a job driving for Uber.

Paul Carr, despite his preferred persona as a hard-bitten skeptical alternative journalist, takes the “free market” rhetoric of Uber’s defenders at face value.

…I was immediately inundated with @replies accusing me of being “anti-free market” and insisting that the only thing the government should do for technology companies is “get out of the way.” What was curious about those most loudly defending Kalanick — apart from the fact that they all were idiots — was that almost all of them directly or obliquely referenced the same author in their Twitter bio…

Ayn fucking Rand.


But anyone who either defends or attacks Uber as an example of the “free market” is a damfool. Uber and Lyft are not genuine sharing services. And they’re sure as hell not “free market” or “laissez-faire” operations, Reason‘s and Pando’s agreement to the contrary notwithstanding. The proprietary, walled-garden app they use to enforce the toll-gates between riders and drivers is every bit as much a state-enforced monopoly as the legacy taxicab industry’s medallions.

And portraying Uber’s legal action to prevent disclosure of its insurance policy as a “trade secret” as some kind of “free market” fundamentalism or “aversion to regulations” — as Carr does — is just plain stupid. “Intellectual property” is abhorrent to genuine free market principles — but state enforcement of trade secrets is especially so.

To say Uber is refighting the old fight of jitneys is also pretty stupid. Uber’s position is at least as close to the regulators as to the regulatees in that old fight. Jitneys were opportunities for unemployed people with used cars to subsist outside the wage system via low-overhead self-employment, and keep the full fruits of their own labor. Uber is a parasite that superimposes itself on genuine jitney services and charges drivers tribute for the right to operate.

Regardless of critics’ attempts to portray the legacy medallion cab companies as no longer a powerful monopoly because of the business they’ve lost to Uber and Lyft, no industry where the competition is limited to firms that can afford to buy a $300,000 license to operate is an “underdog.” Of course Uber isn’t an underdog either. It’s just made the monopoly structure a little bigger and a little shallower. But it is still a monopoly that uses vast monopoly powers to treat its workers and customers like garbage and skim off 20% of fares and make its senior management rich for nothing but the use of a smart phone app that could just as easily be free and open-source.

I argued six months ago that, even as Uber was unleashing creative destruction against the legacy taxicab industry, it in turn should be destroyed by a genuine open-source alternative. I echoed C4SS Director James Tuttle’s call to “hack the app, salt the service, fight the competition with better competition.” One possible action along those lines, among many, was suggested by a C4SS comrade on our email list who befriended the driver on an Uber trip: “I’ve got his number on my phone. Now we bypass Uber, call the guy and hear if he’s available to pick us up, and pay him cash.” This is something home care aides working for temp agencies do on a regular basis: cut out the middleman and make a deal directly with the customer that benefits both parties. Since, rather than being a genuine p2p service that empowers drivers and passengers to collaborate with each other, Uber has become a glorified temp agency that sets up a toll gate between driver and passenger, it should get the same treatment.

Today I repeat that call, but with far more urgency. The sooner Uber is destroyed by genuinely open-source, cooperative, free market and libertarian alternatives, the better. It’s time for Uber’s customers and drivers to destroy it from both inside and out. Its customers need to jailbreak it with an open-source app. Its drivers need to either violate their non-competition clause and go over to open-source alternatives, or organize independent union locals and go on strike inside from inside (which, as we saw in examples above, they’re already beginning to do).

Uber delenda est.


Center for a Stateless Society » Uber Delenda Est

This piece was itself referred to in the latest Idler newsletter:
The Idler | California über alles

See also:
Futures Forum: "It is only a matter of time before Uber arrives in Exeter."
Futures Forum: The sharing economy "monetizes the desperation of people in the post-crisis economy while sounding generous—and evokes a fantasy of community in an atomized population."
.
.
.