The dangers of TTIP

Food Group focus concern on TTIP

The Transition Food Group met Julian Huppert MP recently to discuss concerns about the Transatlantic Treaty and Investment Partnership (TTIP) which aims to increase free trade between the EU and USA in a few years’ time.

Why are we at the TC Food Group so concerned? In one sentence, TTIP could lead to lower environmental standards, higher carbon emissions, and a threat to democracy. TTIP aims to reduce barriers to free trade by harmonising trading rules and standards. There is widespread concern that “regulatory harmonisation ” will erode or weaken rules and standards that protect the environment, food, workers, privacy, human and animal health, and financial stability.

An increase in global trade with more production and transport of goods stands in direct conflict with the urgent need to reduce global carbon emissions. One report suggests that TTIP could increase annual US motor vehicle exports to the EU by $84.7 billion by 2027­ that's 650% up on 2012 exports. European manufacturers would also benefit. Between 2 and 4 million vehicles per year would be shipped across the Atlantic in both directions, contributing to an extra 11M metric tonnes of CO2 emissions, according to a European Commission Impact Assessment Report on the future of EU­US Trade Relations.

Food Group members share widespread public concern about the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), international courts where corporations could sue governments for laws passed by our Parliament that ‘impede trade’ i.e. threaten the profits of multinational companies. This threatens democracy, and has been demonstrated by recent cases to restrict the ability of governments to legislate in the interests of their citizens. The Mexican government was forced to pay $96.4m because it imposed an import tax on products using harmful high-fructose corn syrup. Similarly, Syngenta and Bayer have been involved in a high-profile lawsuit to try and reclaim lost earnings from the ban on neoicitinoids in the EU.

The Food Group has a  Facebook group for discussion of TTIP

Putting a price on carbon

On Monday Professor Grubb from UCL spoke to us about pricing carbon and what it will take in practice to drive big reductions in greenhouse gas emissions on a large scale. It is a large topic and there was an interesting discussion afterwards. Here are just a few points that I took away – with a bit of commentary from me.

You can’t measure the cost of carbon emissions.
It is impossible to measure the cost of the impacts of carbon emissions for a whole raft of reasons. Some of the impacts, like diminishing biodiversity and human health as well as lives, are not marketable. Also, there are very severe potential impacts that are uncertain: climate change can lead to disruption of major weather patterns and ultimately to famine and war and how do you put a price on that? (You will find your house insurance does not cover it).  Finally, standard accounting doesn’t handle long-term costs very well. It rarely looks more than 20 years ahead, or 50 at the absolute tops, but climate change impacts will last a lot longer than that and affect our children more than ourselves.

So we can’t put a cost on the impacts but we can estimate what it will cost to make the necessary changes so that we avoid the impacts by not emitting the carbon. Theoretically, if we set a price of carbon which is just a bit more than the cost of avoiding it, then we will all stop emitting – but of course it isn’t that simple.

There are three domains of decision making in order of increasing scale, and only the middle one – optimising - responds directly to carbon pricing.
Traditional carbon economics relies on people making rational decisions about costs and benefits. Which new car shall I buy (or even if I buy a new car) ought to depend on the service it provides, price and running costs. Whether I insulate my house this year ought to depend on the balance of costs now and savings over the next ten to twenty years. When we make decisions by optimising costs and benefits – that is the second domain and in this domain prices really count.

The three domains of decision making and policies to drive them from Professor Grubb's presentation (download from here). 

The first domain is about what we do day to day – satisficing.
But most decisions are made without such deep analysis because it is too much trouble. We do things the way we have always done them, we don’t think too far ahead, especially if that involves unpleasant things or if there is a lot of uncertainty. From day to day we travel to work in the same way because it is convenient and we don’t have to think about it. So we might not buy a new car until this one breaks down irretrievably and then we don’t have time to do a lot of research – we just get another diesel because we liked this one (most of the time). One way to change our decision making in this mode is to take away ‘bad’ choices. So, maybe the most gas guzzling vehicles slowly disappear from the market, or free car parking is replaced by a shuttle bus service.

The third domain is transformational change.
The third domain is the hardest to predict because that is where we have big shifts in attitude and technology. Who could have predicted the way we now watch TV at our convenience instead of when it is broadcast or the fact we now do our research online instead of at the library? These services didn’t even exist and now we feel outraged if we don’t have them (for example in rural areas where internet connectivity is poor). We need evolutionary changes like this in our energy systems, our homes, transport and agriculture. We need to change how we buy and use energy, how we travel, and where we get our food from. But it is hard to justify investment in big technology changes on an optimising basis because they there are too many uncertainties. Big ideas need strong passion and mega strategic thinking to make them happen.

A steadily increasing carbon price will help across all domains.
Obviously we can’t just suddenly set a price on carbon that is enough to stop us generating emissions all at once. Even if it were technically feasible it would be political suicide. But if we set a price low to start with and increase it gradually, this could have an impact across all three domains. Rising prices will shake people out of their habits in time, and will encourage strategic thinking needed for transformational change. But rising prices have to be credibly inevitable – not merely lasting until the next government like the Australian carbon tax, or crashing through the floor in the next recession like the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Cap and trade systems can have price stabilisation mechanisms, and taxes aren’t necessarily better. The key thing is to get a policy that works and is politically acceptable.

Increasing prices don’t matter – increasing bills are the problem.
Increasing the carbon price will not increase bills if we improve our energy efficiency and energy choices fast enough to keep in step. In practice however change won’t come smoothly. Some people will be affected more than others and will need extra help, like interest free loans for improving home heating systems and improved public transport.

We don’t like taxes because we don’t trust our governments to spend the revenue wisely. 
In Sweden they have much higher taxes than us (and even a carbon tax) but they don’t grumble so much, probably because they trust their government to use the revenue them sensibly. They get good education, health services, free child care and so on. Everyone benefits. The fee and dividend system proposed by Citizens Climate Lobby is appealing to US citizens because the revenue comes straight back to citizens and the government doesn’t get a chance to lay their hands on it. It is very sad that we trust our governments so little.

This all sounds rather theoretical – what can we actually do about it?
Transition Cambridge members like to do things, not just talk, still less complain – so what should we be doing? Some things that will help are creating opportunities for people to change their habits – like making it easier to buy sustainably grown food and giving people confidence to upgrade their homes.  To start this off we simply do it ourselves. Also, when we make sustainable buying choices – from locally grown beans rather than factory farmed pork to an electric car rather than a diesel, or even Zipcar membership – and when we do these things because we want to, rather than simply because of the money, then we help to kick start transformational change.

Transition Media interview - Damien Clements

This time we have an in-depth interview with Damien Clements, talking about the Cambridge Living Future Community project.


First, would you say a bit about yourself?
I live in Cambridge with Angie and two kids Jamie (6) and Alice (3), we both work at The Therapy Room, a complementary health clinic we formed in 2007, specialising in 'treating people, not problems'. I am passionate about observing the connection of all things, and this led me towards the complexity of helping people to help themselves with regards to their health as a Functional medicine practitioner. It also drives me to continue my observation of how the health of one is inextricably linked to health of all. This is what first led me to permaculture as a series of tools to recognise these connections, and a design system to work with these connections, rather than pulling in opposing directions, by focusing just on people, or just the earth, or just fair share. Each are important in each situation, but the correct blend will give the best yield and sustain and even regenerate for the future.

I was finding that great results were being achieved with my clients who followed a diet that was right for them, improved their hydration, circulation (exercise), digestion, and whatever specific protocol we used. However, their direct family, their work situation, the local or global pollution, their internal programming, amongst many other factors were often limits to achieving long-term health improvements. These are influenced by their community local and global, and the decisions that are made influence us all. When I first thought about and really observed this, and begun to really take notice of the inequity, lack of sustainability, blindness of our corporate way of living, I felt quite powerless as one person to make any difference. CLFC is an attempt for me to connect with others and together make a positive difference for this and future generations, independent of whether we stop the worst of climate change.

From this start point and my need to find somewhere to live for the whole family, I began imagining what a place to live that balances all the principles of care of earth, people and fair share would look like. Living with low impact was important; self-responsibility was important; producing food, energy, making use of 'waste', connecting and sharing with people and the earth; soil, fellow species, flora was important, and passing on what we have learned to the wider community and the next generation.

There is a limit to what any individual can achieve alone but as a community of linked minds and spirits I believe much can be achieved and learnt from each other. It is made easy to be self reliant and isolated from other if you have enough money, and I am aware that it is easier to be this way for me, whilst fossil fuel energy is relatively cheap, and there is food on the supermarket shelves, but I have a yearning for connection with others and this is when I feel most alive.

And please describe the Cambridge Living Future Community in basic terms?
An alternative model for creating a new community that acknowledges humans as an intrinsic part of nature, with needs that can be balanced fairly between each other and the earth which provide those needs. The aim is to provide a fair yield for all, whilst regenerating or sustaining the earth. The first premise is that there is a need for truly affordable homes (especially in and around Cambridge), and so the question that CLFC are looking to answer is how to provide these homes whilst staying true to the principles of Earth care, people care and fair share, in the context of a failing economic and political system, climate change, peak oil, peak soil, peak water, loneliness, depression etc. The basis of CLFC is in self-responsibility, community collaboration, sharing, in order to provide a connected community who work together to provide for their basic needs - shelter, food, energy, water, waste, emotional connection whilst also providing support for each person to pursue their own passions and be the best they can be. I feel I could define CLFC in many ways and we have provided some differing descriptions on our website and within our CLFC vision document.

What other similar projects are there to CLFC, that we could use for comparison?
Transition Homes Totnes, Bridport co-housing CLT, LILAC Leeds. K1 here in Cambridge.

Is there a deliberate effort to live on an 'edge', for a benefit according to permaculture theory?
Yes,  this is where I live, and whilst it would be easy and cheap to go to Portugal and be self-sufficient, I want to be part of the community here, close to my family, and provide an example of creating an eco-village in the community in which I already live. A location on the edge of Cambridge city offers a larger population in which to propagate the idea of providing more homes as per this concept, but also the space to provide a more self sufficient way of life, that is difficult within a city. Urban edge eco-villages can be an effective alternative way of providing homes, provided by the community for the community.

Straw bale building, I think there may be some myths and misconceptions about that. What are the true pros and cons?
I am not an expert in straw bale building, but there are now many case studies of straw bale building, and Bath University have just completed a long-term study providing a great case for its use. They are fully fire-resistant, they don’t allow rats to get in and are soundproof. (Editor’s note: see also http://www.strawworks.co.uk/faqs )




"Wine Country Estate - SMS Straw Bale" by Rrechtschaffen at en.wikipedia. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons 


What is the timeline that this project is following?
Our timeline is dependent on many things - obtaining the right site, obtaining funding and investment, obtaining planning permission. We are moving as quickly as we can, as the biggest challenge is maintaining cohesion between everyone involved - core group, wider group, partners. People working together is the key to its success.

Suppose someone wanted to get involved, either as a resident, or an investor. What could they expect in return for their money?
For residents - A place to live, work and play within a community who share common values, with time to pursue personal and group passions as basic needs (majority) will be provided by for by the whole community. If anyone connects with our vision but is not rigid in their expectations then it is for them. Investors may be residents or if not they may be interested in being involved in a community project that offers an opportunity to invest financially (and/or with their skills) in the values they share and receive a fair return on their investment.

Do you imagine most of the residents will commute to work in the city, and how might they do that?
We plan to provide opportunities for many to follow their passions within the eco-village community, and we will also provide work and workshop space to allow for flexible working. We also plan to site nearby to bus stops, cycle routes, and have a car-share plan to allow for commuting.

Do all residents of the village need to study permaculture - what compulsory study and work would there be, in order to participate, if any?
No, but courses will be run as soon as land is found in permaculture, and everyone will be encouraged to come along. When the village is established everyone will commit some time to providing help to the community dependent on their abilities - food production, maintenance, building, child care, accounts, IT etc.

What is the best thing that someone can do, if they want to get a better sense of what the community will be like?
Come to the next meeting on March 10th, and join the online groups. If anyone has a “showstopper” issue that they feel prevents them from living in this community, we’d like to know about it so that we’re aware. As I said earlier, we want to observe first, this is the first permaculture principle. We’ll survey the options according to the community needs, look for natural systems that can work for us, and then attempt to get a yield but also close the cycle so that there is little waste.

How could the CLFC help influence life in the city, so that people other than residents are able to learn from the project?
By providing a venue for training and a case study in regenerative and sustainable living. A model to replicate and improve upon that could be implemented by other members of the wider community in the provision of new places to live, work and play.




An artist's impression of a similar planned development in Bridport, Dorset



Is the Community Land Trust anything to do with the Ecological Land Co-operative?
Not as far as I know. The ELC has more emphasis on agriculture - as part of the terms of the terms of lease deals there has to be a minimum yield from the land. The emphasis here is on community, you don’t need to be a smallholder. We do want to grow food, but it will be along community supported agriculture lines. The CLT have been around for a while in America and India and there are some great projects there. The model is about affordability and shared equity, instead of being linked to market value. There is also One Planet in Wales, which also has requirements for reporting back about the eco-footprint of the site.


Thanks Damien, for talking to Transition Cambridge Media!

Community Energy - coming closer to Cambridge with Reach Community Solar Farm!

(This is a guest blog post by Andy Rankin, one of the people involved in setting up Reach Community Solar Farm, and also a member of the Transition Cambridge Energy Group and owner of Midsummer Energy.)

Transition is great. No-one could ever accuse people in the Transition movement of not having the very best of intentions. We all really want to move to a world that is no longer powered by fossil fuels - and we want to get there quickly! And yet, sometimes, it can feel like progress is painfully slow - and that while a great deal of talking is done, real, meaningful action is always just around the corner.

Well, no more talking - it's action time now! We have a project just on our doorstep that really is taking steps towards making the future a fossil fuel free zone. Reach Community Solar Farm is a small community energy project a few miles outside of Cambridge that is aiming to generate enough renewable electricity to power 50 houses - half of the nearby village. In the long term we hope to be able to expand the solar array so that we can produce as much electricity as the whole village uses. And after Reach, perhaps other villages will follow suit (Gamlingay already has a wind turbine) - and who knows, we might even get a community energy scheme going in Cambridge City itself! There are already moves afoot... 

Reach Community Solar Farm won't happen though without people like you. In order to build it we need to raise £360,000. That's about £350 for each panel in the solar farm. Or £7200 for enough panels to power a house. But whichever way you look at it, it's a big sum. So we need people who believe in moving to a fossil-fuel free future - and who are prepared to put their money where their mouths are. 

The good news is that we're not asking you to give your money away. Because the electricity generated by the solar farm will be eligible for feed-in tariff payments, the solar farm will have a steady income over the next 20 years - and so we can pay investors an interest payment each year on the value of their shareholding. They should also get the full value of their shareholding back when the project ends, or if they withdraw their shares earlier.

Another big benefit to investors is tax reliefs. At the moment share offers like this are eligible for EIS and SEIS tax relief schemes, which allow taxpayers to reduce their tax bill for the year in which they purchase the shares by between 30 and 50% of the value of the shares. The tax reliefs make the effective return on investment much higher - so you can be doing good with your money but still protecting your investment too.

Some money also goes to a community benefit fund each year, and we'd love to spend this if possible on other projects that have an environmental benefit. Helping other community energy projects for example might be high up the list - but as the project is Co-operatively run, it's up to the investors how the fund is spent.

The share offer for the community solar farm closes on the 17th March - so there isn't much time left, and we still have quite a bit left to raise. Do consider investing - it's good for the planet as well as your pocket! You can find out more or buy shares online at reachsolarfarm.co.uk, or through the community shares crowdfunding site Microgenious: www.microgenius.org.uk/project/reach-community-solar-farm-29.

Making the polluter pay

Last weekend, I took part in a march as part of the Climate Coalition's "For the love of" campaign. The purpose of this campaign is to raise awareness of climate change, and all the broad range of things that it threatens. And as well as recognising the hugeness of that, also acknowledging the positive feeling in appreciating the things that we love. For me, it was animals that I love most and dearly want to protect.

We also did a joint action with Fossil Free Cambridgeshire, who are calling for divestment from all fossil fuels, which seems sensible if we want to avoid global warming of 2% more than pre-industrial levels. Transition wants to help build a world where oil is left in the ground and people live simple, happy lives with renewable energy, but at the moment there is nothing much incentivising this other than generosity or a clear-headed concern for the safety of people who will grow up in the 21st century.

It is the most pernicious form of the Tragedy of the Commons. It's unreasonable to expect everyone to cut their own emissions and other forms of damage that they do to the climate while trying to live a happy, ordinary life. It's the kind of thing that requires cooperation on a huge scale, very quickly, and in the absence of any actor who is willing and able to implement it, the governments are in the awkward position of needing to do so. Not a social contract, but an ecological contract.

Agreeing the need to do so, and establishing global consensus is just the first step. Fortunately most political parties in the UK are slowly coming around to this idea, but there is then the challenge of getting individuals and businesses to play their part without running them into the ground. It's not hard to live a low-carbon lifestyle, and it's not hard to find business sectors that are similarly benign, it's partly a question of how much you've invested in oil already. Some people will want to go on using fossil fuels and releasing carbon emissions, even if it costs more than it used to. And a good policy to limit climate change should help to balance this.

EU ETS is what we currently have, a European trading scheme for emissions that covers a market worth tens of billions of euros every year. This has been in place since 2005 and uses the "cap and trade" approach - each player has a cap to the amount of greenhouse gasses that it can emit, and if it manages to avoid going over the cap then it is free to trade the excess allowances for cash. A sound idea in principle, but it has three big problems that I'm aware of:

  - It does't bring ordinary people to the table. Although it's true that only 90 companies are responsible for two thirds of man-made climate change, they have customers who stimulate that demand. The responsibility for, or the invitation to, contribute to the solution needs to be extended to consumers as well as industry.

  - It isn't reducing overall emission by a great enough factor. The rate at which emissions are capped is only 1.74% per year, which is nowhere near on target for the change needed. If this was working, the prices would be going steadily upwards and the emissions would be going steadily downwards, but it has been notable more for instability than progress.

  - It's very complicated, which makes it nearly impenetrable. The rules are very convoluted, have already changed many times and adopted various instruments for price correction and international exchange, within only ten years of operation. The fiddly rules still don't cover all the broken bits, like the grandfathering system which encourages companies to use inflate their carbon emissions so that they qualify for more allowances in later years.

Another idea that has been put forward, and has some grass roots support in the USA, is Fee and Dividend. The big difference with this scheme is that instead of being allocate permission to create carbon emissions, those responsibly will pay directly instead. This is a harsher system which affects the bottom line of big industry polluters directly. And instead of the proceeds being used by the state (which ordinary people have very little control over) there is a dividend which is sent to every adult in the form of a cheque. This approach, of staying "revenue neutral", makes the government more of a bystander in the system and allows the people who are hurt by it to be compensated by those who cause it.

Again, this sounds like a good idea, but there still is little incentive for people to change their ways and get to grips with the way their lifestyles affect the climate. It is doesn't offer a transition as we understand it, but a world where the current generation are able to pass the cost of carbon on to future generations. Someone receiving a Fee and Dividend cheque in the post may well say "There they go again, burning loads of coal, but at least my disposable income has gone up which will help take my mind off it."

The other candidate for solving this problem is Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) which is a form of Personal Carbon Trading. The principle behind these is that allowances for energy use are put into circulation amongst individuals and businesses, and the pool of available allowances is drawn tighter on a yearly basis. An individual who cuts down his own use of energy, by making a personal transition in their own lifestyle, is then able to sell their spare TEQs using a system similar to an Oyster-card, so that businesses can purchase them at the going rate. This allows a definite reduction in emissions to be enforced and quite transparently for all involved. But more importantly, it engages everyone deeply in the effort. That's probably why Rob Hopkins said in an interview that if he became Prime Minister, implementing TEQs would be his first act.

Dr. Michael Grubb, the author of "Planetary economics", will give a talk next week on this topic, and answer some questions from the audience which is bound to be interesting.

http://www.transitioncambridge.org/thewiki/ttwiki/pmwiki.php?n=TTHub.CarbonPricing2015

Another perspective comes from Kevin Anderson, ex-director of the Tyndall Centre, who suggests that carbon prices are not able to achieve the intended goal at all. He does see Personal Carbon Trading as part of the solution, but a much more comprehensive and radical solution including a moratorium on airport expansions.

http://kevinanderson.info/blog/why-carbon-prices-cant-deliver-the-2c-target/

A transition interview with: Dave Fox

1. Who are you, and what group are you representing?

I'm Dave Fox, representing the TC food group and Trumpington Allotment Society. In both capacities I'm helping to organise Trumpington Seedy Sunday on 25th January. I've helped with some Cambridge Carbon Footprint (CCF) projects and am also a software developer and a carer. 

2. What have you enjoyed, and what have you learned, during the last five years, as part of working with these groups?

Finding fresh young energy supporting old green ideas, starting with a petition for more allotments that we presented to the City Council. Our allotment site continues to improve: it now has many tenants on small plots, a community polytunnel, well-used chicken plots and the neighbouring orchard. The allotment society is very sociable and runs regular community events.I have gained the confidence to teach growing skills and to use social media effectively. I have especially enjoyed seeing the TC website & bulletin develop. Both are very accessible and effective. I hope I've learned how to work more effectively in groups - for an only child, this is a lifelong education! Also CCF's Carbon Conversations course was great, it particularly motivated me to reduce my home's energy consumption.

3. What are you looking forward to for the next year?

Trumpington Seedy Sunday on 25th January, of course! We've got a special pre-release preview of the Gaia Foundation's new film Seeds of Justice, an interesting speaker and the usual bonanza of saved and surplus seeds. To be followed by a perfectly wonderful growing season ... you shouldn't be a gardener unless you're an optimist :)

4. What question should I have asked you?

"So why save and swap seeds?"

• It keeps a diversity of locally adapted varieties alive and helps protect biodiversity.
• It resists the privatisation of plant genetic material.
• It keeps seed making in the garden and out of the laboratory.
• It gets round the counter-productive aspects of the National List (of varieties which can be marketed).
• It resists control by multinationals (the threat of restrictive EU regulations has just resurfaced).
• It saves you money through sustainable practices: appropriate varieties, local knowledge.

A transition interview with: Jacky Sutton-Adam

1. Who are you, and what group are you representing?

I'm Jacky Sutton-Adam and I represent the Food Group. We have fortnightly meetings, our mission is to inspire and support people with practical food and growing projects that nurture the planet and communities. I've been a member almost since the beginning in 2008 and our group is diverse in its interests, ranging from hands on growing projects to food skills and food waste/redistribution initiatives. A big part of what we do is public outreach at shows and events such as the Mill Road Winter Fair.

I also represent the Food Group at the monthly Transition Cambridge Hub meeting, where we report on sub-group activities and discuss things that affect the whole of our community. I also help to compile the weekly Bulletin. Those aspects of my involvement with Transition have strengthened my connection to our community and helped to widen my appreciation of all we have achieved - it's quite something!

2. What have you enjoyed, and what have you learned, during the last year, as part of working with this group?

It's been amazing to watch food group projects develop from a person's idea to an initiative that flies with its own wings, and also to learn that nothing stays the same for ever: some things we've started come to a stop when the group energy for participating dries up. I've learned to view these discontinued projects as part of the cycle, not failures! Our practical activities have been a source of pleasure too, attending Crop Share working days at Willow Farm is always a good laugh - I enjoy the banter and daft photo opportunities - not to mention the brilliant lunches... and cake! We ran a Fermented Foods workshop last October that has really transformed my diet and kitchen. I've just done my 5th batch of kraut (fermented vegetables) and am about to try my hand at a beetroot kvass. I love these living foods - not just for the flavour, but also because they're such an ancient food tradition - I feel that I somehow connect with my human ancestry when I make and eat them.

3. What are you looking forward to for the next year?

We're having a RE-conomy meeting at the end of January - to open a conversation about money within and around Transition Cambridge. Although we're a voluntary community, there are things which you can do more easily if there's a bit of money to make it happen. So money is a useful part of the equation because it can help volunteers to get things done, and even stave off volunteer burn out. And if we accept as a community that money is necessary, we could then consider the question of livelihoods... If our members can't afford to live in Cambridge we risk losing their impact on and contribution to Transition Cambridge. Are there ways we can help them to settle here? I think it would be brilliant if we could support people in creating sustainable livelihoods by harnessing the synergy of volunteers' experience and knowledge with the vision and energy of aspiring young entrepreneurs.

4. What question should I have asked you?

I'd love to have been asked 'What do you think is the next growth step for Transition Cambridge?' - It would have to be more community groups emerging at street level! I've seen recent encouraging signs of the Transition message and way of life springing up in City Wards that historically have a bit low on sustainable community-led initiatives.. (Check out this CB4 skillshare/trading initiative and Rock Abundance in Queen Edith's Ward.) The Mill Road communities have trail-blazed the way over the last few years, is it now time for other areas to take up their version of this baton? Each little project that is inspired by what we do offers an opportunity to inspire yet more people. I don't think it matters if they are connected to Transition or not - the point is surely to nurture community spirit - once that happens anything is possible!