44 minute read
Issue 1:
LIMITED EDITION
Advertisement
‘If there is anything that we wish to change in the child, we should first examine it and see whether it is not something that could better be changed in ourselves’.
CARL JUNG
Welcome to London Suisse Luxe Magazine.
After many years of publishing, I wanted to produce a magazine that included subjects that gave more – especially more discussion of the things that matter.
I interview British spectacle designer Tom Davies and discuss how he embraces his ever-expanding business. I visit Hamburg where I talk with Christian Völkers the CEO of property empire Engel & Völkers and in London we connect with leading pioneers in the field of cancer treatments that are addressing ways advancing Proton therapies will be accessible to those who need it most.
This decade I believe is the decade of change, change in our way of thinking, change to how we treat our planet, and change to the information available to us on how we can slow down serious issues such as climate change. We have covered subjects related to key areas affected by this change which include - Lifestyle, Business, Climate, and the future of Travel and the ways we should digest and implement the information we receive in the best possible way, enabling for a better future for each of us.
Each article is written with you, the reader, in mind.
We hope you enjoy what we have prepared.
Yours, Dina Aletras. www.aletramediagroup.com
Contents
13. LIFESTYLE
Tom Davies The Vision Leader
Antonio Cecere The Many Facets of Diamonds
Wallace Chan Defining Artistic Boundaries
Soul Survivor Looking Beyond The Physical
61. CLIMATE
The Global E-Crisis Where Does All The E-Waste Go?
Protecting Planet Earth Stephanie von Meiss COO of The Klosters Forum
37. BUSINESS
Nicholas Serandour Democratising Proton Therapy
Britain’s Farewell to The EU The Long Goodbye
Christian Völkers Building An Intelligent Brand
77. TRAVEL
Travel Trends 2020 To Infinity & Beyond
London Suisse Travel Guide In Association With Winged Boots
24 Hours in Zürich In Association With Zürich Tourism
the LEADER VISI
IN 1996, BRITISH SPECTACLE DESIGNER TOM DAVIES BEGAN
WORKING FOR A START-UP EYEWEAR FACTORY IN HONG KONG
PRODUCING PRODUCTS FOR INTERNATIONAL BRANDS, SUCH AS
TISSOT FROM THE SWATCH GROUP, SEIKO AND FOSSIL.
BY DINA ALETRAS
N
From the beginning Tom identified a need to offer customers well fitted frames that were comfortable and made with meticulous craftsmanship. Fast forward to 2001 and the brand Tom Davies was created, soon establishing itself as one of Britain’s leading bespoke eyewear brands. In 2002 Tom began offering a bespoke service to private clients and by 2008 Tom had opened his own workshop offering a full custom service through his global network of exclusive opticians. Today Tom Davies is known for the skill of its designs and refined handmade artistry. Dina Aletras met with Tom to hear more about the man who has made glasses for A list celebrities such as Superman, Ed Sheeran and Heston Blumenthal.
For many people glasses are something of an imperfection, an inconvenient necessity and as a hindrance to their looks (hence the popularity of contact lenses). You see them very differently?
There are lots of reasons people hate their glasses. I can talk for hours on this subject. But the quick way to look at this is to ask “do you like your sunglasses?” The answer is that mostly people love to put on sunglasses. The key reason is that it brings symmetry to the face and so I design glasses that make a positive contribution to how people perceive you by working with your natural features.
You wear glasses yourself, even though you have great eyesight? What makes you so fond of them? When I wear glasses, I’m more handsome, generally more exciting and younger looking. That’s the power of a great frame. I know why people hate their glasses. They don’t fit them and promote asymmetry and they are so nervous about what they should buy that they often buy frames which are boring.
Your early background was in art and design – what fascinated you about eyewear so much that you became an optical designer?
At my first and only job interview my boss said “this is the most important area of design in the world. It defines you, it’s the first thing people notice about you and if you get it right you are a hero” something along those lines anyway. I was spellbound. Until that moment I’d not given glasses a second thought beyond “speccy four eyes” for eyewear as a general creative category.
Obviously, glasses can be essential to someone’s appearance (in both a positive and negative way), how do you go about working out what shape, size and colour of glasses will suit someone?
It’s all about the shape of the brow line. This is your natural frame. Any shape can work if you follow the brow line.
Your hair is almost always following these lines, whether you planned it or not and so to make a frame look good on you, it must have a relationship with your brow line.
You designed the glasses for Henry Cavill to wear in Superman. Taking on such an iconic piece of eyewear must have been a challenge? How did you approach it?
I was approached initially because like most people, normal frames do not fit the actor that easily. Plus, something this iconic needed perfection. But I really threw myself into the challenge and wanted to also look at the psychology of the frame Clark Kent would wear. The actor has such a chiselled handsome face that the style which would have looked good on him as a general frame would have made him look like a cool Superman. The design needed to change how he would be perceived. A disguise system which is opposite to the usual superhero mask. The materials, colours, textures and shape all played a massive part in making him NOT look like Superman when he had the frames on but still looked fantastic.
You’re an incredibly influential designer, but you’re also known for your sound business sense. What advice would you give someone with a big idea like yours, but no business knowledge? I suggest getting a great mentor, an excellent accountant and being willing to listen to them is very important. Then, be tough, take outrageous risks and love what you do. Then the business part will fall into place.
You’re known for the fine materials you use in the manufacture of your eyewear, such as pure titanium, buffalo horn and 18 carat gold. How do you source your materials?
There are several key suppliers for these materials around the world which most people like me know. But when you want to set up something new, like the horn or the gold, I must visit the suppliers myself. It’s important to know the full supply chain as you rely on this heavily when if you order bespoke glasses tomorrow, the race is on to make and deliver the frame. We cannot hold unlimited materials, so I need to know my suppliers are ethical, environmentally sound, have good quality raw materials and good quality control procedures. Although I’ve got 200 staff, this is one of the things I still do myself.
You have many famous clients and have helped many people with their looks and their feelings about their eyewear by creating bespoke glasses for them. Do you ever see people, in person, or in the media, and think they’ve made the wrong choice of eyewear/wish you could help them enhance their looks with a good pair of glasses?
Ha ha… all the time. But its not limited to celebrities. I sometimes sit on the train or tube and have to hold myself back from giving advice. I’m not sure if it is because I’m obsessed or if it’s the natural salesman in me but I’m constantly “helping” people come to my stores to buy new glasses. The thing is, I know I can change their lives.
You’ve recently moved your manufacturing base to Brentford, after years in Asia. Why is this?
It was time. I’d wanted to do it back in 2007 but I couldn’t afford it and didn’t have the expertise to do it. I had a lot of contacts in Asia and friends who could help me set up a factory. The problem here is that there is no supporting business for eyewear in the UK. No hinge makers, tool makers, plating companies, material suppliers or the skills to use eyewear equipment. So, I needed to become a master first, so I can import it all back in. Besides, I’m fed up of all the flying!
As well as your bespoke service, you also have a ready-to-wear collection. Whilst they’re beautiful, it must be harder to ensure that people make the right choice when buying ‘off the shelf’?
I’d say that bespoke is in my DNA. Most people who are my customers will tell you that even my ready to wear fits better than their old glasses. The relationship between the size of the bridge, the lens and arms, the design and the head shape, is all considered in the creation of each style. I don’t design in default sizes.
At the heart of your designs is bringing symmetry to your clients’ faces. How much of it is also based on current fashion trends or other designer influences?
Nothing. I can make any frame or style look good on you if we follow my symmetry rules. In terms of fashion trends, they move very slowly in eyewear. The only trend I really see these days is that anything goes. It’s all about the individual.
What’s next? What do you have planned for the future of your business?
I want to launch a few new brands from the House of Tom Davies and I’m working on new branding concepts. I am still a way away from my original mission set back in 2000 which was to be the largest eye wear brand in the world. So, the future is building a great company with a strong foundation and aiming for the stars.
tdtomdavies.com
survivor SOUL
DEE WELDON BIRD IS AN EXTRAORDINARY WOMAN, WHO EXPERIENCES
THE WORLD IN A UNIQUE WAY. SHE SEES ‘BODY’ (THE ENERGY, THE
PHYSICAL BEING) AS SEPARATE FROM ‘SOUL’ (AN ESSENTIAL ESSENCE
THAT CONNECTS TO AND ENABLES THE PHYSICAL TO EXIST).
BY JO WALKER
She sees the connection between the two as vital to life itself - a body can’t exist without a soul, but a soul is a thing separate to physical life and chooses a body to exist with, creating a kind of symbiotic relationship where each affects the other, and – vitally - where life experience can block access to the essential spiritual influence of the soul. Whilst the physical body will eventually perish, the soul that chose to connect with it will remain immutable and eternal, forever in its place within an infinite universe. She therefore provides Soul Readings (where she connects with people’s souls and explains what they are saying and why people are here) and Soul Transference (where she enables people directly engage with their souls – she describes this as swimming in a soul pool) to communicate this connection and help people to make sense of themselves and of their lives.
Before meeting her via Skype, I wasn’t sure what to expect. In my years as a writer, I’ve spoken to psychics, a Shaman, a Buddhist Monk and many others who experience life in a spiritual way that people would consider ‘alternative’ to conventional religion. I was used to speaking to people who experience the world in a different way to most people, but having read Dee’s website (www.deeweldonbird.com), I felt unsure of myself – I didn’t quite understand where she was coming from.
I needn’t have worried. From the moment we said ‘hello’, she put me at my ease, and I felt that I’d met a friend, someone utterly sincere and completely committed to helping me, through explaining what she could see. I wasn’t sure I understood exactly how she saw things, but
all I experienced was kindness and honesty. She gave me a soul reading. I wasn’t sure what to expect, but Dee helped me to relax and, whilst I’m not sure what she did, afterwards I felt somehow cleaner, more settled, more ‘me’, more able to take on the world. Vitally, something thing that had always been at the forefront of my mind, dominating my thoughts and actions (to my annoyance) was settled somewhere comfortably in the past. I felt less haunted, more focused on my future and what life could bring. It was an experience that I can’t quite explain, but it was profound.
Speaking to Dee, it’s clear that all she wants to do is to use her gifts to help and communicate, but she also knows that others might not understand what she sees and says, and she is keen to try and explain and communicate her insights. She’s encountered skepticism and hostility and feels she has had to prove herself for her entire life, explaining that she spent her first thirty years working as a medium proving that she wasn’t fake. As a result when describing what she sees when she does a soul reading, she seeks to explain her insights in every way she can - she explains them in words, she draws them, she physically enacts what she means, she’s written five books. She explains her work this way: “You have the physical path and your soul path. Your physical path is trying to remember your soul path. It includes everything physical - stuff you have picked up on route that maybe don’t belong to you and has caused you to look at your life distorted. By having a soul reading it reveals and discloses your soul map and highlights your physical path if you have focused
on this route. If your more connected with your soul, then it will highlight your soul path. If you have soul transference, then it strengthens your connection with your soul and gives you a chance to let go of anything from your physical route that you no longer need. This is how soul readings are life changing. Once you connect with your soul without your physical self getting in the way there is no going back living in physical distortion. “
She had what most of us would consider a traumatic childhood and yet, despite this, she talks about love. Her mother was ill (she suffered with schizophrenia), and as a result was separated from Dee for long periods of time, and when Dee was with her, she was abusive towards her (and yet Dee still talks about her with compassion and understanding). She loved her father very much, but he passed away when she was just two. She found her mother dead just eighteen months later. She then ended up living a nomadic life, with various foster carers, where the abuse continued.
She explains that this horrific start to life, strengthened her ability to connect with her soul. Saying that as a result of this unstable childhood, the Universe brought her up. She describes the moment that she found her mother dead as the moment she walked through her own soul – a moment where physical grief and confusion introduced her to her soul. A moment where, in the pre-verbal world of childhood, at a time where experience is all, she experienced pure soul. She explains childhood as a time where it’s easier to experience soul and sees the physical as becoming more engrained as we mature, and as we acquire language. She describes the most horrific abuse in a very factual way and describes how her connection with her soul enabled her to distance herself from the physical and emotional abuse she suffered. She explains that the physical abuse made her separate from her physical body and become pure soul.
Astonishingly, despite this traumatic childhood, she talks about love as the thing that she held onto throughout these years. The cover of her first book, From Both Sides of The Fence the Gifts in U, features a haunting picture of a twilight fence, the only splash of colour in the picture is a heart shaped red balloon. Dee describes this as her love balloon – the love she held onto from her father. I think this is striking and gets to the heart of who Dee is – despite everything she sees and wants to communicate love. She finds that love in our souls and in the infinite universe.
She explains that she could see and speak to people’s souls as a child and not knowing that not everyone else saw things as she did. As she grew up, she says she was seen as a ‘bit of a weirdo and a freak’ and describes how she initially tried to suppress her psychic abilities in order to fit in and be accepted, but that they wouldn’t go away and she continued to live in the dual reality of physical and soul. She has continued to live this way into adulthood. This hasn’t always been easy, people tend to be afraid of what they don’t understand, meaning that she has encountered hostility, but she is living her truth and remains committed to it. For Dee, the physical and the soul transmit to us on different frequencies. For most people the physical takes over and stops us talking to and understanding our soul. She says that some of us experience our souls as ‘gut instinct’ a kind of sixth-sense guidance that our physically dominated selves frequently choose to ignore. For Dee most of us are more connected to and dominated by our physical selves and pay scant attention to our soul. This creates a fundamental disconnect with who we are, and this is where Dee comes in – she enables people to reconnect with, to listen to, to speak to and to experience their
soul. When Dee talks to a person, she hears what the physical is saying, but connects with what the soul is saying – seeing through someone’s assertion that they’re ‘ok’ and understanding the deeper truth, and the pain or the sorrow that’s behind the cheerful face – the truth that the soul is communicating to her.
She talks about space – space in the universe, space between breaths, “Words do not exist to explain my experience with Dee! It was beyond this world – a truly life changing meeting. There is no shadow of a doubt I saw my soul and it was such a beautiful unforgettable time! Dee your power is magical, and you have a gift which in turn gave me the biggest gift of my life and for that I am forever grateful! “
“Dee has a gift unlike any other. She shines a light on parts of yourself that you know but have yet to discover. Because of this, my reading with her changed my life.”
space between words -and how there is space between the frequencies that the soul and the physical transmit on. She sees the physical as covering the five senses. The soul is the sixth. The sixth sense can cover the five, but the five senses can’t encompass the sixth. Therefore we need to tune into the sixth sense, to our soul in order to live a complete life. She explains that, because of the space around them, you can’t merge the transmissions from the physical and the soul, and that therefore you need to tune in separately to listen to and understand your soul. Describing this as trying to listen to two radio stations at once, she makes clear that both parts of ourselves transmit on different frequencies.
Dee sees and experiences the world very differently from most people, and I think this is what makes her the person she is. Dee is a force of nature, but a kind, loving one, and someone who is committed to using her gifts to help people. She explains: “I’ve always lived by my heart and truth, even if people hate me. I’m not here to be liked, I’m not here to be loved, but I’m here to speak the truth.” The one thing that I took away from my meetings with Dee was love. Dee is a woman with lots of love to give and lots of love to share. I think I’ll leave the final words of this article to her: “Love is in everything you do – everything you think – everything you see – everything you feel – everything you know – love excludes from nothing – love is within you and gives you energy to experience and face everything in your life – love has no preference. Knowing you are love – it is up to you what you do with it – whether you like it or enjoy it or not love is behind everything”
deeweldonbird.com
“I recently experienced a soul reading / transference with Dee, and it was a magnificent experience! It’s incredible how much you can change perspective about your life once you have your session. Specially about your authenticity and the reason why you are here. I ended the session and started a more serene life, sure that everything I needed was already in my hands. It was also very peaceful to be completely in my soul. I never experienced such peace & serenity before. Thank you, Dee, for letting me experience my own soul!”
HACKED OFF
WHY THE HACKING OF BEZOS SERVES AS A WAKE UP CALL
BY JOSEPH SULLIVAN
On the 1st May 2018, the world’s richest man opened a WhatsApp message sent from the account of Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s crown prince and future king.
There would have likely been little reason for Jeff Bezos to treat the message with any suspicion, having met the Saudi monarchy’s heir on multiple occasions, and attending a dinner with him just weeks before. The message appeared to be part of a friendly exchange, yet little did Mr Bezos know that the file was encrypted with malware, a malicious piece of code which infiltrated his iPhone X and extracted large amounts of his data within a matter of hours. The precise details of the message and its content remains unclear, as does the nature of the data accessed by the hackers, however, it is highly unlikely that this is the first time Bezos has been subject to hacking, given his status as a high profile target.
The precise motive is also unclear; however, it is considered that the relations between the pair soured prior to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Khashoggi was a prominent critic of the Saudi status quo and had written several articles for The Washington Post, a publication owned by Bezos, which would have undoubtedly angered Riyadh. The Saudi’s meanwhile deny any wrongdoing, with claims of bin Salman’s direct involvement dismissed as “absurd”. Many details remain unknown, complicated by the fact that the Amazon founder’s privacy was compromised further after intimate communications between him and girlfriend Lauren Sanchez were leaked to the National Enquirer, allegedly by Sanchez’s brother.
The issue of online privacy is a particularly sensitive one. In this truly digital age, just how much control do we have on the information stored on our devices? From personal messages to pictures, documents to online banking services, millions of us willingly store confidential and sensitive material on our mobile phones. As such, we are all vulnerable to the consequences when our digital behaviours are exploited. The Bezos case is a fine example of this, and the fact that this happened to the wealthiest man on the planet, a multi-billionaire likely afforded the highest levels of protection should serve as a wakeup call. Simply put, if the privacy of one of the world’s most influential businessmen can be compromised, anyone’s can. Rightly or wrongly, Mobile phones are an integral part of our lives. Beyond the rapid changes these devices have made to the nature of communications, advances in mobile technology have revolutionised the way we consume media, conduct business, and make transactions. The devices are increasingly complex, with a vast array of applications & functions supported by millions of lines of code. Our voluntary submission of personal data helps paint a picture of our daily lives, from the trivial and mundane, to the sensitive and intimate. A multitude of third parties now have an unparalleled opportunity to access the wealth of personal details typically stored on a device, often to optimise their functionalities, or say the targeting of their advertising. Equally, this presents an opportunity for those with more nefarious intentions, with a heightened risk of hacking by both criminal and surveillance operators.
There are myriad threats to our data and content beyond a phone being directly hacked, and sadly, there are no quick fixes. For instance, diligently deleting sensitive communications from your device does little to reduce the risks. Should the person at the other end fail to clear the content, it is still very much available for the hackers to access & exploit. This is also true of cloud storage services, which store data, messages and media files as a backup across many devices and can be easily infiltrated.
Significant weaknesses exist in various components of the devices; signals for instance can be exploited by surveillance devices known as ‘stingrays’, mimicking mobile phone towers and tricking devices into transmitting their location and user identities. Meanwhile, sim cards are particularly vulnerable to ‘hijacking’, whereby criminals can take over a mobile number and impersonate another user. This method is common in instances of bank fraud, with mobile numbers commonly being used as a means of conducting and authenticating transactions.
Another security concern lies in the collection and usage of geolocation data, which is routinely gathered and stored by mobile phone manufacturers, applications and networks, as well as law enforcement agencies. For many, the notion of government actors monitoring our movements unbeknownst to the public will sound downright Orwellian. The usage of geolocation data was controversially brought to the fore after The New York Times revealed how Google stores location data for hundreds of millions of devices, its records stretching nearly a decade as part of its Sensorvault database. Such detailed records make it relatively simple to track the physical movements of an individual, which has been hailed for its potential application in a law enforcement context. It does however present a risk of innocent people being caught up in such investigations and raises questions of morality and the suppression of certain freedoms. Additionally, whilst law enforcement is somewhat constrained in the ways it uses geolocation data by legislative instruments such as warrants, there are no such parameters to prevent criminals and spies exploiting it to target an individual’s movements.
Privacy aside, more troubling is the potential for geolocation targeting to be applied in a military context. In 2014, reports surfaced from a former US drone operator that the National Security Agency (NSA) routinely uses SIM card geolocation data as a means of precisely targeting drone strikes and assassinations in its anti-terrorism operations. This report was supported by NSA documents released by whistleblower Edward Snowden, and is perhaps the most disturbing example of how the information stored on mobile devices could be utilised. With human lives at stake, there is zero margin for error.
A HISTORY OF Climate Change Science & Denialism
DAVID CARLIN WORKS ON CLIMATE CHANGE FOR THE UN ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM’S FINANCE INITIATIVE (UNEP-FI). HE LEADS A GLOBAL PROJECT TO HELP BANKS UNDERSTAND AND ASSESS THE RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES BROUGHT ABOUT BY CLIMATE CHANGE.
The girl got up to speak before a crowd of global leaders. “Coming here today, I have no hidden agenda. I am fighting for my future. Losing my future is not like losing an election or a few points on the stock market. I am here to speak for all generations to come.” She continued: “I have dreamt of seeing the great herds of wild animals, jungles and rain forests full of birds and butterflies, but now I wonder if they will even exist for my children to see. Did you have to worry about these little things when you were my age? All this is happening before our eyes.” She challenged the adults in the room: “parents should be able to comfort their children by saying ‘everything’s going to be alright,’ ‘we’re doing the best we can’ and ‘it’s not the end of the world.’ But I don’t think you can say that to us anymore.” No, these were not Greta Thunberg’s words earlier this year. This appeal came from Severn Suzuki at the Rio Earth Summit back in 1992. In the 27 years since, we have produced more than half of all the greenhouse gas emissions in history.
Reading recent media reports, you could be forgiven for thinking that climate change is a sudden crisis. From the New York Times: “Climate Change Is Accelerating, Bringing World ‘Dangerously Close’ to Irreversible Change.” From the Financial Times: “Climate Change is Reaching a Tipping Point.” If the contents of these articles have surprised Americans, it reveals far more about the national discourse than then any new climate science. Scientists have understood the greenhouse effect since the 19th century. They have understood the potential for humancaused (anthropogenic) global warming for decades. Only the fog of denialism has obscured the long-held scientific consensus from the general public.
Joseph Fourier was Napoleon’s science adviser. In the early 19th century, he studied the nature of heat transfer and concluded that given the Earth’s distance from the sun, our planet should be far colder than it was. In an 1824 work, Fourier explained that the atmosphere must retain some of Earth’s heat. He speculated that human activities might also impact Earth’s temperature. Just over a decade later, Claude Pouillet theorized that water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere trap infrared heat and warm the Earth. In 1859, the Irish physicist John Tyndall demonstrated empirically that certain molecules such as CO2 and methane absorb infrared radiation. More of these molecules meant more warming. Building on Tyndall’s work, Sweden’s Svante Arrhenius investigated the connection between atmospheric CO2 and the Earth’s climate. Arrhenius devised mathematical rules for the relationship. In doing so, he produced the first climate model. He also recognized that humans had the potential to change Earth’s climate, writing “the enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree. “Later scientific work supported Arrhenius’ main conclusions and led to major advancements in climate science and forecasting. While Arrhenius’ findings were discussed and debated in the first half of the 20th century, global emissions rose. After WWII, emission growth accelerated and began to raise concerns in the scientific community. During the 1950s, American scientists made a series of troubling discoveries. Oceanographer Roger Reveille showed that the oceans had a limited capacity to absorb CO2. Furthermore, CO2 lingered in the atmosphere for far longer than expected, allowing it to accumulate over time. At the Mauna Loa observatory, Charles David Keeling conclusively showed that atmospheric CO2 concentrations were rising. Before John F. Kennedy took office, many scientists were already warning that current emissions trends had the potential to drastically alter the climate within decades. Reveille described the global emissions trajectory as an uncontrolled and unprecedented “largescale geophysical experiment.”
In 1965, President Johnson received a report from his science advisory committee on climate change. The report’s introduction explained that “pollutants have altered on a global scale the carbon dioxide content of the air.” The scientists explained that they “can conclude with fair assurance that at the present time, fossil fuels are the only source of CO2 being added to the ocean-atmosphere-biosphere system.” The report then discussed the hazards posed by climate change including melting ice caps, rising sea levels, and ocean acidity. The conclusion from the available data was that by the year 2000, atmospheric CO2 would be 25% higher than preindustrial levels, at 350 parts per million.
The report was accurate except for one detail.
Humanity increased its emissions faster than expected and by 2000, CO2 concentrations were measured at 370 parts per million, nearly 33% above pre-industrial levels.
Policymakers in the Nixon Administration also took notice of the mounting scientific evidence. Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote to Nixon that it was “pretty clearly agreed” that CO2 levels would rise by 25% by 2000. The long-term implications of this could be dire, with rising temperatures and rising sea levels, “goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter,” Moynihan wrote. Nixon himself pushed NATO to study the impacts of climate change. In 1969, NATO established the Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society (CCMS) partly to explore environmental threats. By the 1970s, the scientific community had long understood the greenhouse effect. With increasing accuracy, they could model the relationship between atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and Earth’s temperature. They knew that CO2 concentrations were rising, and human activities were the likely cause. The only thing they lacked was conclusive empirical evidence that global temperature was rising. Some researchers had begun to notice an upward trend in temperature records, but global temperature is affected by many factors. The scientific method is an inherently conservative process. Scientists do not “confirm” their hypothesis, but instead rule out alternative and “null” hypotheses. Despite the strong evidence and logic for anthropogenic global warming, researchers needed to see the signal (warming) emerge clearly from the noise (natural variability). Given shortterm temperature variability, that signal would take time to fully emerge. Meanwhile, as research continued, other alarming findings were published.
Scientists knew that CO2 was not the only greenhouse gases humans had put into the atmosphere. During the 1970s, research by James Lovelock revealed that levels of human-produced chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were rapidly rising. Used as refrigerants and propellants, CFCs were 10,000 times as effective as CO2 in trapping heat. Later, scientists discovered CFCs also destroy the ozone layer. In 1979, at the behest of America’s National Academy of Sciences, MIT meteorologist Jule Charney convened a dozen leading climate scientists to study CO2 and climate. Using increasingly sophisticated climate models, the scientists refined estimates for the scale and speed of global warming. The Charney Report’s forward stated, “we now have incontrovertible evidence that the atmosphere is indeed changing and that we ourselves contribute to that change.” The report “estimate[d] the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3°C.” Forty years later, newer observations and more powerful models have supported that original estimate. The researchers also forecasted CO2 levels would double by the mid-21st century. The report’s expected rate of warming agreed with numbers posited by John Sawyer of the UK’s Meteorological Office in a 1972 article in Nature. Sawyer projected warming of 0.6°C by 2000, which also proved remarkably accurate.
Shortly after the release of the Charney Report, many American politicians began to oppose environmental action. The Reagan Administration worked to roll back environmental regulations. Obeying a radical free-market ideology, they gutted the Environmental Protection Agency and ignored scientific concerns about acid rain, ozone depletion and climate change.
However, the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts had already meaningfully improved air and water quality. Other nations had followed suit with similar anti-pollution policies. Interestingly, the success of these regulations made it easier for researchers to observe global warming trends. Many of the aerosol pollutants had the unintended effect of blocking incoming solar radiation. As a result, they had masked some of the emissions-driven greenhouse effect. As concentrations of these pollutants fell, a clear warming trend emerged. Scientists also corroborated ground temperature observations with satellite measurements. In addition, historical ice cores also provided independent evidence of the CO2-temperature relationship.
Despite his Midwestern reserve, James Hansen brought a stark message to Washington on a sweltering June day in 1988. “The evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here.” Hansen led NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies(GISS) and was one of the world’s foremost climate modelers. In his Congressional testimony, he explained that NASA was 99% certain that the observed temperature changes were not natural variation. The next day, the New York Times ran the headline “Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate.” Hansen’s powerful testimony made it clear to politicians and the public where the scientists stood on climate change.
Also in 1988, the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC was created to study both the physical science of climate change and the numerous effects of the changes. To do that, the IPCC evaluates global research on climate change, adaptation, mitigation and impacts. Thousands of leading scientists contribute to IPCC assessment reports as authors and reviewers. IPCC reports represent the largest scientific endeavour in human history and
showcase the scientific process at its very best. The work is rigorous, interdisciplinary and cutting edge.
While the IPCC has contributed massively to our understanding of our changing world, its core message has remained largely unchanged for three decades. The First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990 stated “emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases.” Since then, the dangers have only grown closer and clearer with each report. New reports not only forecast hazards but describe the present chaos too. As the 2018 Special Report (SR15) explained: “we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes.”
As this story has shown, climate science is not a new discipline and the scientific consensus on climate change is far older than many people think. Ironically, the history of climate denialism is far shorter. Indeed, a 1968 Stanford University study that reported “significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000 and these could bring about climatic changes,” was funded by the American Petroleum Institute. During the 1970s, fossil fuel companies conducted research demonstrating that CO2 emissions would likely increase global temperature. Only with political changes in the 1980s did climate denialism take off.
Not only is climate denialism relatively new, but it is uniquely American. No other Western nation has anywhere near America’s level of climate change scepticism. The epidemic of denialism has many causes. It is partly the result of a concerted effort by fossil fuel interests to confuse the American public on the science of climate change. It is partly due to free-market ideologues that refuse to accept a role for regulation. It is partly because of the media’s misguided notion of fairness and equal time for all views. It is partly due to the popular erosion of trust in experts. It is partly because the consequences of climate change are enormous and terrifying. Yet, you can no more reject anthropogenic climate change than you can reject gravity or magnetism. The laws of physics operate independently of human belief.
However, many who bear blame for our current predicament do not deny the science. For decades, global leaders have greeted dire forecasts with rounds of empty promises. James Hansen has been frustrated the lack of progress since his 1988 testimony. “All we’ve done is agree there’s a problem…we haven’t acknowledged what is required to solve it.” The costs of dealing with climate change are only increasing. Economic harms may run into the trillions. According to the IPCC’s SR15, to avoid some of climate change’s most devastating effects, global temperature rise should be kept to below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. That would likely require a reduction in emissions to half of 2010 levels by 2030, and to net-zero emissions by 2050. Had the world embarked on that path after Hansen’s spoke on Capitol Hill, it would have required annual emissions reductions of less than 2%. Now, according to the latest IPCC report, the same goal requires annual reductions of nearly 8%. 1.5°C appears to be slipping out of reach.
We have known about the causes of climate change for a long time. We have known about the impacts of climate change for a long time. And we have known about the solution to climate change for a long time. An academic review earlier this year demonstrated the impressive accuracy of climate models from the 1970s. This is no longer a scientific issue. While science can continue to forecast with greater geographic and temporal precision, the biggest unknown remains our action. What we choose today will shape the future. This article was originally published on the History News Network website. historynewsnetwork.org
THE GLOBAL
E-Crisis
THANKS TO PEOPLE LIKE RICHARD ATTENBOROUGH, THE WORLD
IS NOW AWARE OF THE PLASTIC CRISIS FACING OUR PLANET.
We are all conscious of the importance of recycling, of reducing our carbon footprint, of global warming and the impact that our lifestyles have on it, but our focus tends to be on the plastics, paper and fuel we consume in terms of the products we buy from the supermarket, the food we consume and the household waste we produce. But there is another form of disposable product which is creating the world’s fastest growing waste problem. Created by our demand for electronic products and our tendency to dispose of one product when another supersedes it, it’s called e-waste.
This waste, comprising screens, cables, chips and motherboards, has been shaped and nurtured by our love of devices. These screens, cables, chips and motherboards now number more than humans and are projected to grow to 25-50 billion this year.
The figures are alarming: 50 million tonnes (the equivalent in weight to every single commercial aircraft ever built) of e-waste are produced each year, and this could more than double to around 120 million tonnes in the next thirty years. The material value of our used and discarded devices is more than $62.5 billion globally, which is more than three times the annual output of the world’s silver mines and higher than the annual GDP of more than 120 countries.
The situation is exacerbated by the fact that only 20% of global e-waste is formally recycled. The remaining 80% is incinerated or goes to landfill. Thousands of tons of it also find their way to some of the world’s poorest countries where they are pulled apart by hand or burned by the world’s most impoverished workers - creating serious consequences for their health as well as (as yet) unknown amounts of pollution.
It’s clear that we need to recycle and reuse our devices more effectively, and, whilst electronic devices are currently part of the problem, they might actually be a big part of the solution to it. A more digitally connected world offers huge opportunities for emerging economies as well as the opportunity for all countries to create a sustainable industry that generates less waste, and in which our devices are re-used and recycled in a variety of ways.
In turn, this could create employment, economic expansion, educational opportunities and trade deals. Additionally, the connectivity allowed by the internet can help with better product tracking and recycling schemes as well as encouraging consumers to use these schemes effectively.
Recycling our devices could also allow us harvest hugely valuable resources (there is 100 times more gold in a tonne of mobile phones than in a tonne of gold ore) and, as a result, to reduce the Co2 emissions created by mining the earth for fresh minerals. Not only that, but extending the life-span of our devices and re-using their electrical components when they are replaced could an even larger economic benefit – in that creating a system where electronic resources are not wasted, but are reused, creates sustainable jobs and makes the industry more economically viable.
As a result, several global agencies now recognise that tackling this issue is of vital importance, with, for example the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) setting a target to increase the global e-waste recycling rate to 30%. These agencies, along with the World Economic Forum and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, have released a report which calls for a new vision for the sector. Additionally, 67 countries have agreed to legislation to deal with the e-waste they generate and high-profile e-waste generating companies such as Apple, Google, and Samsung have also set ambitious targets for recycling and for the use of recycled and renewable materials.
Ultimately, we need to change the current use and dispose attitude that we have towards our devices and move towards a more circular economic culture, where we extend the lifespan or our devices and recycle them effectively, but everyone, from consumers, through to tech entrepreneurs, investors, academics, business leaders and lawmakers will be needed to make this sort of circular economy work. It’s a big challenge, but one we need to address, before the precious materials that make up our electronic devices create a problem akin to today’s plastic crisis. For this to happen e-waste needs to be seen not as waste to be disposed of, but as a vital resource that we can harness for the good of our planet.
Travel Trends
2020 MARKS THE BEGINNING OF A NEW DECADE, A
CENTURY ON FROM THE ROARING 20S, HUMANKIND HAS
ALREADY ACHIEVED TRAVEL ASPIRATIONS WHICH COULD
NEVER HAVE BEEN DREAMED OF 100 YEARS AGO.
BY ALEXANDRA DELF
The travel trends emerging at the start of this fresh new century are due to push our boundaries further than ever before. Caught between a slow travel movement, promoting transport which is increasingly ethical and less damaging to the planet and the race to space, 2020 is showing signs of being an incredible year for progressive travel.
TO INFINITY AND BEYOND
Travel has always had escapism at its core, but boundaries are being pushed further than ever. Technology is influencing every area of the travel experience, examples include companies such as Biohax, the global leader in human microchip tech already successfully implanting over 4,000 devices. These can be used as a travel tickets or digital receivers and future plans even show potential use as replacements for passports. Emission-free flying is another huge new area of development and 2020 looks to be its most promising year yet, with Rolls-Royce planning the test flight of its first electric plane this year. Even easyJet are looking to the future with the aim of having a fleet of electric planes in place by 2030.
There are entrepreneurs whose aim is to get us across the planet as fast as possible via land and air and even make commercially viable space travel a possibility. Leading the charge are three billionaires: Richard Branson with Virgin Galactic, SpaceX from Elon Musk and Blue Origin created by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. The space race is on to open up an entirely new world of travel which includes commercial sub-orbital flight and space hotels. Throughout human history only 536 people have ever been into space and just 12 have walked on the moon; 2020 looks set to change that with more than 600 people placing deposits for a Virgin Galactic flight, with tickets costing from £195,000 each. With Leonardo di Caprio and Justin Bieber already signed up, Virgin Galactic have reported 2020 will be the year for their first flight. Meanwhile Space X plans to take a Japanese billionaire around the moon in 2023 and Origin has cited 2020 as the year it could be inviting tourists to take a flight on its New Shepard suborbital rocket. Space tourism will undoubtedly spawn an incredible variation of accommodations and those so far under construction include inflatable space stations and luxury space hotel, the Aurora Station from Orion Span. The Von Braun Rotating Space Station, will boast bars, restaurants and even private residences for sale. The only question now is what to pack in your capsule wardrobe?
RESPONSIBLE TRAVEL
In steep contrast to intergalactic travel, the concept of flygskam or flight shaming is something which has gained popularity over the last two years and came heavily into the spotlight thanks to Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg. Prompting a focus on responsible travel and a consideration of a lower carbon footprint when travelling, this is a trend which is now changing the face of travel as we know it. As awareness surrounding the climate crisis has increased, both individuals and corporates are looking to off-set their carbon footprint. This includes funding various projects such as forest conservation, landfill gas capture and renewable energy. With heavy scepticism around some carbon offsetting programmes, many high-profile individuals in Sweden have decided to embrace ‘slow travel’ turning from plane to train travel, which offers one-10th of the carbon footprint of a flight. This focus on slow travel has seen an increase across the travel sector for ‘no-flight’ holidays and a revival of boat and train travel. Tour operators in the luxury travel sector are now promoting an appreciation of the journey rather than the end destination. Keep the luxury and lose the flight with train trips on Venice Simplon-Orient-Express or Belmond Royal Scotsman. This focus on travel which is increasingly ethical and less damaging to the planet is especially on the rise in the luxury sector where the sharing economy is also a key trend for 2020. Previously thought of a budget option, the concept of a sharing economy between HNWI is fast gaining traction as consumers’ increased awareness of idle assets grows. One such platform is Stay One Degree, the world’s first trusted private members’ club for luxury travellers.
Jorge Munoz, Co-Founder at Stay One Degree, said, “Interestingly, 50% of luxury holiday homeowners have never rented out their homes. We believe this percentage will drop as owners recognise that they can generate significant rental income and reduce the wastage of having a home sitting empty. They can rent to people that they trust within our club whilst also giving fellow members unique and genuine home experiences.” Fast forward to 2050 and the choice is yours, perhaps a slow travel trip around the globe on an electric plane flight to visit your preferred energy positive hotel? No documentation needed of course, thanks to your subcutaneous microchip implantation. Alternatively, try a quick trip into space to stay in one of a selection of intergalactic private residences on Mars and beyond. Bon Voyage!
Global payments made simple
T E C H N O L O G Y H A S E V O L V E D , A N D S O H A V E Y O U R N E E D S . I T S T I M E F O R T H E N E X T
G E N E R A T I O N O F I N T E R N A T I O N A L P A Y M E N T S O L U T I O N S .
I N N O V A T I V E L Y M A N A G E Y O U R B U S I N E S S & I N D I V I D U A L C R O S S B O R D E R C A S H
F L O W R E Q U I R E M E N T S .
W E D E L I V E R S A M E D A Y G L O B A L P A Y M E N T S I N 4 1 C U R R E N C I E S U S I N G 1 A C C O U N T .
8 D E V O N S H I R E S Q U A R E , L O N D O N , E C 2 M 4 P L , U K
+ 4 4 ( 0 ) 2 0 3 7 5 1 7 5 2 2
W W W . S W I F T F O X . C O . U K
