Month: March 2015

EECC post event summary

March 26, 2015 /

The inaugural Environmental and Ethical Careers Conference took place on Monday 23rd March.  Over two hundred KCL students and alumni attended the event to listen to a host of industry experts discuss the array of potential roles available in the sustainability sector.

Speakers provided a broad overview of the sector as a whole, as well as a more detailed insight into specific sectors such as business, the not-for-profit sector, and finance and consultancy.

A careers information fair in the Great Hall also provided attendees with a chance to talk one-to-one with representatives from a selection of organisations including PWC, the RSPB and NUS.

There was something for everyone at the event, and panel discussions showcased the latest developments in sustainability.  The conference demonstrated that sustainability is a major growth sector and increasingly becoming a core component of many businesses’ and organisations’ activities.  As one speaker from Futerra put it, their aim is to make sustainability so desirable that it becomes normal.

The event also provided attendees with advice on the key skills and experience they require to get a job in the competitive sustainability jobs market, where demand for jobs vastly exceeds supply.  Commercial awareness and time management skills were deemed as important as knowledge about sustainability, and potential employees need to clearly demonstrate the value they can add to the companies they work for.

The event also offered many topics of discussion about how best to drive sustainability; for instance whether to sell a positive message as opposed to warnings of impending crises, and whether large corporations or smaller businesses and NGOs were the more effective mechanisms to promote change.  The event provided a platform for a range of opinions to be presented on this topic, all delivered by sustainability experts.

IEMA were present throughout the day, providing the most up to date information and advice about the sector and offering free memberships to students.

The event as a whole proved a resounding success, and plans are already underway to run the EECC bigger and better next year.  For those who missed the event or wish to have a recap, summaries and recordings of the panel presentations will be online next week.  In the meantime, if you would like any further information on the event, please email ecosock.kcl@gmail.com

 

 

Run up to EECC- ‘How I got my job’

March 19, 2015 /

With the Environmental and Ethics Career Conference coming up on Monday, I asked members of our team how they got to where they are now and if they had any advice for students and graduates who would like a career within Sustainability. Here’s what they said:

Tom Yearley, Energy Manager

MTom Yearleyy name is Tom Yearley, I am currently the Energy Manager at KCL. I took this role in September 2014 to progress my career as an environmentalist. As energy manager I am responsible for paying all utility bills for the University and for the University achieving the 43% carbon reduction target by 2019/20. This is a significant challenge and to date I have established a fund of over £3,000,000 to invest in order to achieve the savings.

To get to where I am today I did an undergraduate course in economics: the study of scarce resources. Since leaving University I have worked for a wide range of public and private sector organisations, including banks, law firms, food manufacturers, BAA, the BBC, and a gas import terminal. Most recently I spent five years working at the University of Reading as their Energy Officer. My aim through my career has been to gather a broad range of experience across the sustainability sector. Along the way I have become a full member of IEMA and a Chartered Environmentalist.

If you want a job like mine, I would suggest a similar objective. I see one of my key strengths is the breadth of experience I have gained. I would recommend that a year as a junior consultant in a good consultancy company is more useful than an MSc. That’s not to say that an MSc in a subject you wish to specialise in is not important! There are many opportunities for recent graduates to gain employment in the environmental sector, including paid internships, junior consultancy roles and the more traditional graduate recruitment roles.

Martin Farley, Sustainable labs project coordinator

I Martin Farleystarted working in biology labs thinking I was going to finish a PhD. The labs I happened to work in highlighted to me that science had other issues beyond trying to get my stem cells to differentiate correctly, and the program I was in afforded me an opportunity to work in another internship.

I was tired of studies that weren’t exciting me, so I started to just google words that I liked the sound of. One of the first searches was ‘green science’ and I ended up coming across an article about a fellow in the US named Alan Doyle. A few contacts later, I ended up as a laboratories programme facilitator in the University of Edinburgh. Since then, I’ve loved the progress and growth in this position and can’t imagine going back to research.

If I had to give some advice (which I’m still a bit young for), I would say try everything you can until you can’t take it anymore, and then use that experience to push yourself into what you love. It’s been said but if you don’t love it, you won’t do it well.

Ann Maclachlan, Operations Sustainability Manager

I joined KCL in November 2014 as Operations Sustainability Manager.  My role covers a wide range of sustainability issues such as development of our Environmental Management System, Sustainable Procurement, Sustainable Construction, waste and running our Sustainability Champions program.

I did a BSc in Immunology and Microbiology followed by an MSc in Environmental Studies.  When I left university I got an analyst consultant role with AEA Technology and have since worked as Environment/Sustainability Manager for a range of organisations including an Airport Operator, Interiors fit-out company working in the education and retail sectors as well as for a renewable energy company.

My advice to anyone interested in a career in Sustainability would be to look out for seminars/workshops etc. to attend – these can be great opportunities to not only learn more but also to make connections that can help you progress in a career.  Doing your thesis in conjunction with a business can be a great way to gain experience before you graduate – I did a project for mine in conjunction with Edinburgh and Glasgow Airports which gave me some great experience in industry and 18 months after graduating I joined Glasgow Airport as Environmental Assurance Manager!

Sarah Hayes, Sustainability Projects Assistant

My name is Sarah and I am currently working as a Sustainability Project Assistant as part of King’s Sustainability Team. This role is quite varied – I get to organise events, look after the teams communication networks, work with the energy manager and procurement manager to get involved with things such as DEC assessments, Environmental management systems (EMS) and much more.

To get where I am today I studied and undergraduate in Geography and then a Masters in Environmental monitoring, modelling and management. During university I undertook two internships, one with Air Quality Monitors and one with the Renewable Energy Foundation. At the end of my Masters I started working for King’s and have recently become a graduate member of IEMA.

If you would like a job like mine, I would suggest getting as much work experience as possible (which is what this role is great for). If possible try to gain experience whilst at University; even if this is just volunteering with a society or charity at weekends. My two internships during university helped me to realise where I want to go in my career and also helped boost my CV. This role with King’s, along with other graduate and internship schemes, is a great opportunity to get paid experience in the field and I know that this will help me with future career options.

It can be so hard to get your first job (especially if you have found it hard to get any experience), but keep going! One day you will get a ‘break’ and get offered that first job and then the rest is easy…..right?! J

 

EECC – one week to go!

March 17, 2015 /

The Environmental and Ethics Career Conference is fast approaching, and with the final list of speakers now available there is no excuse not to reserve your ticket!

pictureAs you may know, the EECC is offering students and recent graduates of King’s College London the chance to see and hear about the diverse array of organisation and opportunities in these two areas, and will provide sector-specific  and role-specific careers advice that is otherwise difficult to find. The EECC is made possible by alumni donations to King;s Community Fund and is co-organised by EcoSoc, the careers department and King’s Sustainability Team.

The format of the conference will be a combination of a careers information fair in the Great Hall from 12.30 – 14.30 and a series of talks throughout the day on Strand Campus.

For the full list of talks and speakers please click here.

If you require any more information please contact us! 

Be an Ocean Hero this Earth Hour!

March 12, 2015 /

[This guest post comes courtesy of Gwyneth Hill, a former Masters student who now works for Sustain. The views presented do not necessarily reflect those of King’s Sustainability]

This year’s Earth Hour is on its way, starting at 20.30 on Saturday 28th March. How you can do your bit to save the planet the might ask. This year, we’re turning our thoughts to the Oceans for Earth Hour 2015. Marine life is under treat from plastics, litter, pollution, and increases in acidity and temperature. However, nothing threatens our oceans more than irresponsible and unsustainable fishing. Not only are target stocks decimated, but non-targets such as sharks, rays, turtles and seabirds are caught up and killed by fishing gear. Long lining vessels searching for tuna drag their hooks through the water like a knife, stabbing and wounding the ocean as they go. Over 70% of European fisheries are over exploited and critically endangered species such as the European Eel and the Bluefin Tuna. While the killing, trafficking and sale of terrestrial endangered species are abhorrent to most of us, we don’t really bat an eyelid when we see jellied eels for sale or sharks (marketed at rock or huss) in our fish and chip shops.

So how can we solve the problem? One option is to look at the Marine Conservation Society Good Fish Guide, (however it does requires the public to know where and how something was caught, information that is not always publically available). The best thing to do is to look out for the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) logo on menus and in the supermarket. The MSC certifies fisheries as sustainable and responsible. Once a fishery has been certified, it can use the MSC logo when selling its products, so that when the fish arrives to the consumer they can be certain that it was fished sustainably. Farmed fish is not always the answer as they can be dirty, spread pollution and still rely on wild fish for fishmeal. Look out for Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) certified farmed fish. There is a limited supply in the UK as the ASC is a young organisation but you can find it at Sainsbury’s.

For this year’s Earth Hour I’m asking you to Be an Ocean Hero by helping to get King’s College MSC certified. The Earth Hour team have joined forces with the MSC and are asking you tell your university that sustainable, responsible fish is what you want on your menu. This includes responsibly farmed fish too! Join the campaign by posting a selfie of you pulling a fish face on twitter or Instagram and challenge your friends to do the same with the #fishface #EarthHourUK #msc and the three best selfies will win an iPad mini! Phrases like “I support sustainable fishing, let’s sea your MSC #fishface for #EarthHourUK @insertname @insertname” work really well.

By making this one small change to our purchasing habits, we can have a really dramatic impact on our marine environment, so get posting people!

fish face

A Clash of Titans: The Principal’s Debate on fossil fuel divestment

March 6, 2015 /

[This guest post comes courtesy of Justin Fisher, a former Masters student and alumni member of KCL Fossil Free. The views presented do not necessarily reflect those of King’s Sustainability]

Last Wednesday marked an important day for King’s as President and Principal Ed Byrne hosted his first Principal’s Debate. This was in response to King’s Fossil Free campaign, which has for more than a year been increasing support for its motion asking the College to divest Debate_Pic_1itself from the fossil fuel industries. For those who have not followed the progress of the campaign, it really kicked off in October with the submission of a 1200 signature petition to the university administration. While that number has since increased to over 1400, the university finally declined the divestment option formally in mid-February. However, much to King’s credit, the Principal’s Debate went ahead as scheduled, and it made for a most lively and engaging evening, and further demonstrated the scope of the passionate support for divestment at King’s.

The question at hand was, ‘Is divestment from fossil fuel companies a useful policy tool to bring about action on climate change?’ Representing the College on the ‘no’ side were King’s VP of Research & Innovation Chris Mottershead and King’s Professor of Climate & Culture Mike Hulme. Speakers on the ‘yes’ side included Mark Campanale, co-founder of the Carbon Tracker Initiative, and Mark Horowitz, a PhD candidate in neuroscience at King’s and one of the initiators of King’s divestment campaign. Each speaker was allowed to make their case before fielding questions from the audience and making some final rebuttals.

Chris Mottershead has been in close contact with the campaign for months, and it was to him that the petition was given back in October. Interestingly, Mottershead has spent the majority of his career working for BP, and he has perhaps unsurprisingly been weary of endorsing divestment at King’s. In his remarks he focused attention on the role of governments in owning and controlling the majority of carbon reserves, seemingly trying to make the case that fossil fuel companies are not the ones driving fossil fuel extraction, and the role of consumer demand. He was also careful to focus on the global need for fossil fuels, and reiterated time and again the need for consistency in the ways King’s invests. However, he admitted that he does not believe that King’s has any current investments in renewables. One of the most powerful concessions of the debate came when an audience member bluntly confronted Mottershead with the question of whether his three decades of experience working with BP created a conflict of interest with the divestment question. Mottershead responded that it ‘probably’ did. He also compromised his position when he claimed, late in the debate, that fossil fuel companies don’t actually have much political power, which drew loud jeers from the audience. Clearly the crowd was not buying what Mottershead was selling, though few would deny the importance of government action. Indeed, that is one of the primary aims of the divestment campaign.

Professor Hulme proved a welcome and intriguing addition to the panel. A Nobel-laureate for his work with the IPCC, his experience working with climate change is beyond question, and his academic approach to the topic provided a lot of interesting debate and easily provoked the majority of the questions from the audience. Hulme carefully explained the importance of economic development in the poor world and technological innovation in mitigating the worst impacts of climate change, and continually reiterated that reducing the question of climate change to carbon emissions is an oversimplification. He offered a reminder of the range of challenges brought about by climate change, and explained why he preferred a broad approach with multiple targets. He was also fixated on the semantics of the question, as he reiterated time and again that he did not believe that divestment was a useful policy tool, nor did he believe that it would bring about what he believed to be the necessary range of actions to address the myriad problems posed by a rapidly changing climate. However, when he eventually conceded that divestment may well be a useful tool for social mobilisation, there was a noticeable buzz of excited exasperation from the crowd. Indeed, it seems as though few of Hulme’s points were incompatible with the aims of the fossil free campaign, and he did offer an important reminder of the complexity and diversity of the issue.

Mark Campanale offered a level and analytical approach to the question, which is not surprising given his role in helping to found the Carbon Tracker Initiative. It was Carbon Tracker that first coined the term ‘carbon bubble’ and explained its implications; if the world takes action to limit global warming to below 2°C, in any form, then as much as 80% of Debate_pic_2known carbon reserves will be left in the ground. Given that fossil fuel companies are valued largely on the reserves they hold, these so-called ‘stranded assets’ would rapidly sink such companies and lead to a crisis similar to that when the US housing bubble burst in 2008, only far worse. That bubble was worth a staggering $2.8 trillion. The value of the carbon bubble? An unfathomable $28 trillion. Campanale explained carefully the financial folly in continuing to invest in companies whose future projects are all but guaranteed to lose money, providing a sound financial case for divestment.

Mark Horowitz was the final speaker and he made the most of his time, deftly covering a range of issues from scientific projections of the effects of increased carbon emissions to the advent of grid parity in much of the poor world (where renewable power has become a more affordable option than fossil fuels) to the political obstruction of fossil fuel companies undermining climate regulations. He patiently explained that the position of the campaign is not a radical one; rather, that of companies’ intent on burning far more carbon than is known to be compatible with life on this planet is as radical as it gets. He offered an impassioned and logical approach and against Mottershead and Hulme’s assertions that fossil fuel companies provide a social good, asked at what point does the negative begin to outweigh the positive, bringing about the need for a change in the balance of power? Horowitz asserted that perhaps the decades of experience on the other side of the table had fostered a complacency towards the status quo when what is needed more than ever are fresh perspectives.

The most engaging part of the evening were the audience questions that came after each speaker made their case, some of which have been alluded to above, which lasted for more than an hour. The general mood of the room was encapsulated in an assertion from an audience member that they had no doubt that King’s would eventually divest, and the real question was whether it was going to be a leader or a laggard. Indeed, with other London universities such as SOAS and LSE setting formal processes to work on the question, King’s is already looking more like a follower than a global leader.

The debate ended with Ed Byrne asking the audience to show its support for one side or the other by way of applause. The thunderous racket in support of divestment, accompanied by a visual show of support with audience members holding the Fossil Free logo, boisterously summed up the excited pro-divestment sentiment of the crowd. The debate offered a tremendous platform for both sides to explain their stance, and a lot of genuinely useful dialogue was generated as a result. At the end, though, one could not help leaving feeling as though support for divestment is growing. It was good of King’s to participate in such an event, and we shall now wait and see how well the administration was listening.

How do the public perceive fracking?

March 2, 2015 /

[This guest post comes courtesy of Ben Hough, a Masters student on the Environment, politics and globalisation course.  Ben talks here about his dissertation and how trust is a key factor for the public when it comes to fracking. The views presented do not necessarily reflect those of King’s Sustainability]

Anti-fracking demonstrators at Parliament

In light of the government’s abrupt U-turn on hydraulic fracturing (aka fracking) back in January, David Cameron may be starting to regret his pledge to go “all out for shale”. But could he realistically have anticipated the level of public opposition to this new technology, especially given its ‘success’ in the USA and its much hyped potential to reduce our energy bills and dependence on Russian gas? And if so, how could his coalition government have handled the process differently and what lessons can be learnt?

Fracking is a technology which enables the extraction of natural gas from onshore formations of low permeability shale rock through the injection of water, sand and chemicals. The vast quantities of the availability of this gas has already triggered a domestic energy boom in the USA, and other governments, including in the UK, want to follow suit. Whilst the process itself has been around for some time, it is the potent combination of fracking and innovations in horizontal drilling techniques which have vastly increased the scale of the industry in recent years, pleasing its proponents and upsetting environmentalists in equal measure.

In terms of a new technology, fracking shares similarities with other energy and extractive industries, particularly those in their early stages in which; “failures cannot meaningfully be anticipated in advance in the safety of a laboratory…” Beebeejaun (2013). As the nuclear industry has shown, the real world occasionally presents scenarios for which no adequate contingency plans have been made. Events such as the tsunami triggered meltdown at Fukushima in March 2011 and the fracking triggered ‘earthquakes’ in Lancashire a month later inevitably intensify public concern about the safety of such technologies. Accordingly, whilst geologists typically identify a negligible direct risk to people and the environment from fracking, based on the limited quantitative evidence available, the public include subjective qualities in their assessments and so are much more cautious. The fact that the government failed to anticipate or effectively respond to this fear has ultimately created more resistance, but has hopefully provided a valuable public relations lesson for the future at least.

The discrepancy between lay and expert judgement also highlights the issue of public trust, particularly in the institutions which undertake, regulate and resist fracking. Typically, if knowledge is deficient (as with fracking), the public must rely on information and assurances from other parties when forming opinions about the risks associated with new technologies and hence the groups they choose to trust and the extent of trust are crucial for acceptance. Studies on a range of industries (including nuclear power, carbon capture & storage and chemical processing) have consistently shown that when the public have greater trust in the organisations responsible for their operation and oversight they perceive more benefits and fewer risks. Conversely, where trust is low, risk perception increases. A survey on this relationship undertaken for my dissertation found that the same logic applies to fracking, with those exhibiting lower trust levels in the government and fracking companies also perceiving greater risks overall. Although this is probably no surprise, it does suggest that if the mind-set of the British populace currently opposed to fracking is to be changed, the government should work on restoring trust. Whilst this is easier said than done, results from the survey suggest that if more weight was accorded to the assessments of the British Geological Survey in government communications (rated 2nd for trustworthiness out of 19 organisations and the lead independent organisation for fracking research in Britain), the public may be more inclined to accept a measured pro-fracking message.

The survey also looked at different types of trust, asking respondents to rate the government’s management of fracking in terms of the information provided, the regulatory framework, risk reduction, the public consultation process and overall honesty. When averaged across the sample they failed to score well in any of these categories but were rated lowest for their consultation efforts; hardly surprising considering that results from an earlier question revealed that only a quarter of respondents had been aware of a three month national consultation, purportedly set up to address the public’s environmental concerns. This is significant not only for the unacceptably small proportion that were aware the process had taken place, but more because the implication in the subsequent report that the public had had ample opportunity to voice their concerns was rather disingenuous. Indeed, the value of a consultation which engages only a small fraction of the population is dubious and leaves you wondering how many other consultations on similarly contentious issues you might have missed. Having said that, results from a later consultation on the proposal to give oil and gas companies underground access without securing landowner permission first, showed that over 90% (out of over 40,000 respondents) were against the idea, but were ignored by the government who went ahead with the changes anyway.

Aligning with Karen Bakker’s concept of an ‘uncooperative commodity’, the extraction of onshore natural gas by fracking creates issues for the public which are quite distinct from those generated by the offshore fossil fuel industry. Specifically, the removal of land rights to facilitate the extensive horizontal drilling required to make fracking economically viable (referred to previously), the resistance of shale gas to production (exemplified by the ‘earthquakes’) and the risk of ground and surface water contamination from methane and fracking fluids (already observed in the USA) have created new grounds for opposition qualitatively different from those arising during the development of North Sea oil and gas. Whether these concerns are founded on evidence or not, they should be addressed sensitively by government if strong opposition is to be overcome.

Finally, the emergence of fracking at such a crucial point in the fight against climate change must surely generate contradictions that even its fiercest proponents would struggle to resolve. The industry and government line is that gas will replace dirtier coal and oil and enable a transition to a cleaner energy future, but surveys (including mine) suggest the public are not convinced. There is a danger also that the prominent role the UK has made for itself in EU and global climate policy will be sacrificed if investment for renewables is stalled by the cheap supply of domestic gas which fracking provides, although there remains considerable doubt that the reserves will live up to optimistic industry estimates.

Whilst the concessions attained earlier this year are certainly significant, many environmentalists insist they do not go far enough and fracking looks likely to remain a significant political issue for the foreseeable future. Whether or not the level of opposition the government is now experiencing could have been prevented by a more participatory and democratic approach to the issue is unclear. However, I expect David Cameron will be a little less zealous about his support for similar new technologies in the future, certainly before the public has had a chance to express its approval.

 

© 2024 King's Sustainability

Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑