Archived blog from the developer, Mike Towle . . . . . . . . . . .

2019-11-20 Wednesday: There's a lot of talk about carbon emissions and global warming. Some politicians are taking it more seriously than others. I came across a startling statistic the other day that for me really brought the problem into focus. Apparently, it takes four grown trees one year to absorb all the Co2 produced from just one hour flying, per person!

I don't fly a lot, maybe once or twice a year. But a lot of people do fly a lot. In fact, in 2019 it is expected that over four and a half billion people will fly (source: Statista). The average duration of a flight is around 2 hours. As one hour of flight by one person produces around 200 pounds of Co2, so 4.5bn flights x 2 hours will produce 1,800bn pounds of Co2 per year. That's 900 million tons. One grown tree can absorb around 48 pounds of Co2 per year. So it would take 37,500,000,000 trees one year to absorb all that carbon. That's 37.5bn! The air travel industry has a big problem. Though many airlines are starting to work on this, they're a long way from solving it. In the future, you can expect significant extra charges on your airfare to cover environmental impact.

The average European person is responsible for producing around 10 tons of Co2 per year. In the USA it's higher, in China less (though their emissions are increasing). It takes 360 trees to absorb all the Co2 produced by one European. As there's around 500 million of us Europeans, that's 180,000,000,000 trees. Yes, 180bn. The average Co2 production per person on average across the planet is about 4 tons per year. So, 4 tons multiplied by 7.5bn people equals 30bn tons. 60,000bn pounds, as in 60,000,000,000,000 pounds. At 48 pounds per tree per year, it would take 1,250,000,000,000 trees to absorb all that Co2!

Staggering. So how many trees are there in the world? Well, a quick Google search revealed there are 3,041,000,000,000 (source: Geography Realm). That's well over twice as many trees than we need to absorb current Co2 emissions? If the figures right. So what's going on, why is Co2 such a bit issue? Previous estimates have been a LOT lower, at around 400,000,000,000 (400bn) trees. So maybe the latest estimate is a little optimistic? Also, a lot of these tress are young and/or rather small. Their capacity for absorbing Co2 will be considerably less than a fully grown Pine, Elm, Maple, Oak or something similar. In reality, we might find the average Co2 absorption capacity of the worlds trees is far less than 48 pounds per tree per year. It could be, the trees are just about coping with current Co2 production?

A study led by Xiao-Peng Song and Matthew Hansen of the University of Maryland (Mongabay) concluded the number of trees over the last 35 years has actually increased! But, there's a caveat here. To quote directly from the article in the link: "tree cover is not necessarily forest cover. Industrial timber plantations, mature oil palm estates, and other non-natural “planted forests” quality as tree cover. For example, cutting down a 100-hectare tract of primary forest and replacing it with a 100-hectare palm plantation will show up in the data as no net change in forest cover: the 100-hectare loss is perfectly offset by the 100-hectare gain in tree cover. Yet, that activity would be counted as “deforestation” by FAO. Therefore tree cover loss does not directly translate to “deforestation” in all cases." The article doesn't discuss Co2 absorption. But it seems to me, the inescapable conclusion is the world's capacity for Co2 absorption is reducing. At a time when the production of Co2 is increasing.

Clearly it's a situation that can not continue. We need to reduce our production of Co2 and plant more trees, and we need to do it now. The longer we leave it, the harder it'll be. A LOT harder.

You may think, sat at your desk as I am now, that we're contributing little to the Co2 problem. But your computer will be using electricity, generating that electricity on average produces one pound of carbon per kilowatt hour (source: Blue Sky Model). So your computer may produce between one and two pounds of Co2 per working day. Work five days a week for 52 weeks and that's 390 pounds of Co2 per year. It takes 8 trees to absorb that.

We all need to take responsibility for this. Especially those politicians who refuse to accept there's a problem simply because the problem is inconvenient.


2019-08-08 Thursday: Is it harder to start and run a small business now compared to say 30 years ago? I suspect it is. And, this is a big problem because a surprising amount of long term growth comes from the creation of small businesses, as some of those small businesses become medium or even large businesses. There are plenty of stories of businesses started up at home in a spare room, that years later end up employing hundreds, or even thousands.

I think there are three main problems:

First problem is the internet. It's great for almost instant communication, and for getting your message and brand out there. But there is SO much competing for the viewers attention, these days getting your message and brand out there is very expensive. It requires a lot of carefully placed advertising. It requires the kind of investment most small businesses, and certainly most start-ups simply don't have. The internet hasn't turned out to be quite the leveller we all thought it would be back in the early 2000's. Of course, some get lucky, and with next to no monetary investment they rise to the top of the pile. They become the influencers, their messages trend, they set the tone, and plot a path to the future. It's lead almost entirely by young people. No harm with that, good luck to them. But how does that help the women who wants to sell her new line of shoes, or that guy or who wants to build up his business importing saxophones? Without a substantial advertising budget, it doesn't.

The other problem is regulation. There is far more of it now than there was 30 years ago. Starting a business now, you could easily spend all your time sorting out what regulations apply to you, how to manage them, and what administration is required to keep all the government agencies happy. Where do you find the time to actually run your business? In practice of course, most people will ignore much of the regulation, and just keep their fingers crossed they don't go too far wrong - or if they do, they don't get caught!

The third problem is the internet! Again? Yes, well partly, because there are a lot of businesses out there on the internet, fulfilling all sorts of needs for both private and commercial customers. So where does a prospective new business find a niche? Years ago, if you were interested in catering, say, and wanted to set up a simple cafe, you'd look for a busy area that doesn't already have a cafe, or least not too many, and where the rent isn't too expensive. But now, you have to be more particular. You can't rely on business from housing estates or apartments, like you might have done once, because a lot of those residents will use one of the on-line delivery services. In the United Kingdom, you have to be very careful you don't pick premises with too high a rateable value, otherwise all your profit will go to the local council. Business rates on commercial property in the UK are just ridiculously high. A throw back from the hey day of retail back in the 1990's, when high street retailers could actually make money. Sadly, those days are gone, but sky high business rates remain, turning many high streets into commercial deserts. Also, unless you're just relying on customers walking past, then you also have to pick premises that people can actually get to. Many councils are limiting car parking to such an extent, they're crippling access to many parts of their towns. So not just the internet, but the tax system, and your own council may also all be working against you. Perhaps your business doesn't need a shop front? That reduces some of the problems. But not having a shop front means you need to market your goods/service in some other way, which leads us back to the internet.

What shocked me, is that when I checked the statistics for business start ups, I found that in the UK 82% were started up by people aged 40 and over! 57% by people aged 50 and over. So the vast majority of new business are being started by people who are middle aged or older. Is this due to young people not having access to capital, and/or not having the experience to deal with the issues I mentioned above? I honestly don't know. It surprised me. I'd assumed they'd be a lot more younger people starting businesses. But the statistics showed only 4% of businesses were started by people in the 18 to 29 age range. You can check out these figures here: Small Business TRENDS. Further, figures show older entrepreneurs are more likely to be successful. Peaking around people aged in their mid fifties (sourced from the Harvard Business Review).

Looking at figures showing business start ups over the decades, there are less now than there used to be. In percentage terms, relative to population size the number of start ups appears to be around half what it used to be back in the 1970's. That's depressing. And a rather damning indictment of the policies of many governments towards small businesses.

So the answer to my question, sadly, seems to be 'Yes'.