Manchester Diary Three
February 2020
Another rainy day, but relatively mild (low 40s). Past two weekends have been dominated by furious storms with drenching rain and very high winds. Southern England is flooded. Flights were cancelled, train schedules disrupted, roads and villages inundated. Now the soil is water logged, exacerbated by the visible over grazing that farmers try to counteract with nitrogen fertilizer treatments on the hilly fields, creating a truly psychedelic brilliant green. But, no dice, the proof of the lack of absorption is in the run-off, lots of it. And the mud, the streams are running a thick brown. George Monbiot is on a tear about this and reading Feral, I thought he was exaggerating, until now. When I walk around, or tool around the countryside, it is nearly unbearably, obviously, worn out, degraded, yet, so beautiful these green bare hills interrupted by old dark, mossy stone walls.
Monbiot, like some of his counterparts in N. America, is calling for a selective rewilding, rewilding of the land, sea and human life. Part of the problem with doing so here, as I have mentioned before, is the concentration of land ownership. Rounds of land concentration from the Dissolution of the Monasteries (2 million acres+) in 1531 into the hands of the aristocracy, to the introduction of cash payment for land with the Tenures Abolition Act of 1660 (in a non-monetized economy for the majority), the further expropriation of small land owners by coal mining interests, and the steady erosion of the commons starting in the 12th century, with the final enclosure Bill enacted in Parliament in 1914 (effectively halting it), means that any land use changes must be adopted by an aristocratic elite. And rewilding is not at the top of their list. Monbiot also explains how EU policies contribute to erosion. These consist of compulsory standards such as eliminating the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural lands – obliging farmers to stop wild plants from returning – in exchange for farm payments. More than fifty trees per hectare disqualifies the farmer for funding. And those who do not actually farm the land do not want to expend the funds necessary for rewilding – essentially tree planting.
Now this comes up against the recent proclamation of Boris Johnson, that the UK would plant 30 million trees a year over three decades with most of the called for expenditure of 15 billion pounds going to big landowners and farmers (normal, they own most of the land). They, however, say they need at least twice that amount, as do the independent experts. Grants to keep trees out, grants to replant them. Nature is costly either way. And of course, the issue will be, what trees, where. Farmers say food production should not be compromised, so no trees should be planted. President Trump (not to be outdone), is calling for the planting of a trillion trees, a trillion trees. That is a lot of trees. But where? And what trees? By whom? And what for?
Last weekend I went to Edinburgh for a field trip, by train. On the way up a medical emergency meant the train driver was hospitalized and the train cancelled in Preston. Twenty minutes later we stranded passengers crammed onto the next train to Edinburgh. The train line takes you through the Lake District, a mountainous region that had snow on the hills, lovely ride. Edinburgh is a gracious city of about 500,000. It is hilly with a 15th century old town of Harry Potter renown and all the tourist shops to prove it. Some of the buildings rise up to 9 skinny stories high from the lowest part of the old town to its highest cobbled streets, so you can enter at different levels. The 19th century ‘new town’ is built at about 4 stories, fairly wide streets, apartment blocks opening to interior court yards. It feels airy and pleasant, eminently walkable, lots of little shops (Scottish crafts are alive and well), eateries, bakeries, grocery stores, cheese shops, butcher shops, and many hair salons for all genders and tastes. There are a number of vibrant cultural venues as well as great museums, my favorite was the National Portrait Gallery.
As the portrait of the Queen of Scots by Julian Calder (2009) shows, there is a lot of Scottish pride and lack of patience for England at this point. The desire for more independence was palpable, and yet, Westminster would have to approve any further devolution of authority. Including, of course, approving another vote for independence, how likely is that?
The food culture in Edinburgh was quite surprising, and delightful. There is a big effort to source foodstuffs from nation, from seafood to produce. Sea kale, wild mushrooms, seaweed, sea buckthorn, berries, various birds, cheese, honey, pork, lamb, beef, fish and shell fish. Really fun and delicious. Oh, and independent bookstores too. Is Edinburgh an example of cosmopolitan localism? A way to source the best of the international but to keep the local alive?
I was surprised at the prevalence of international workers in the hospitality sector, but also sales. What will happen to them with Brexit is hard to say, but clearly the population numbers in the UK are not sufficient to sustain those sectors with native born, even less with ‘English’. Scotland is pretty prosperous, North Sea oil makes a big difference, but it too has concentrated land ownership and rewilding is a difficult proposition, even though the North of Scotland is not especially agriculturally rich. The return was yet another train story. Arrive at the train station, train cancelled back to Manchester. Wait an hour. Get on a crowded train to London just in time to secure seats. The conductor starts coming through to check tickets – lots of constraints on what fares and lines can qualify on UK train lines. He gives up after 10 minutes, there is such a mess due to all the cancelled trains due to the storms and who know what else. No one further checks any tickets. Manchester passengers get off in Preston again. Wait. Climb on another full train to Manchester, no further ticket checks. Get in Sun eve. Train to Chinley, cancelled. Got on a train to a nearby town, call a taxi to get from that train station to Chinley where the car is. $35 to go 3 miles. Apparently, the Sunday trains (they go to Sheffield), only run when a train driver wants to work and get some overtime!!!
Andreas Malm in Fossil Capital, makes the point that the UK is really the progenitor of global warming due to being the birth-ground of steam power that permitted the transformation of manufacturing, of local making into industrial manufacturing for the globe. Coal power enabled the concentration of production unlike water mills that had to be located where the stream conditions were right. Water also had its own rhythm, the rhythm of the seasons and the weather, dry conditions, less water, wet and rainy could be overwhelming. Coal could be transported where it was convenient for manufacturers, its energy could controlled and was constant. The concentration of cotton processing and textile weaving tended to be near places where the raw material could be easily imported and products exported. At the same time, the rise of textile mills – which were the predominant form of manufacturing in the 18th, 19th and into the 20th centuries, especially cotton – displaced the dispersed weavers across the countryside, who could also farm to supplement their sustenance through growing food, and who could control their labor time. Coal fired, mechanized production concentrated in factories could produce more cheaply and much faster. Work became wage labor, the clock organized people’s time. People, dispossessed by further enclosures, including the rise in sheep raising by the aristocracy, migrated to factory jobs, and cities grew and grew. The growth of cities goes hand in hand with the growth of industrial manufacturing and the lack of access to land and livelihoods in the countryside. So yes, cities are the engines of economic growth, but largely based on coercive strategies, like enclosure and the expropriation of traditional rights. Its not as though there was not economic activity before steam power, but steam power allowed a parallel concentration of energy density and mechanization, with a novel concentration of wealth and economic power in the industrialist, all backed by the state. Cotton, after all, came in from abroad, resourced by UK companies (to start), backed by the military. And, of course, slavery that expanded into the New World. Slavery in the New World produced cotton for the new industrial working class to turn into fabric to sell across the world, undermining local production in countries that had strong cotton growing and weaving traditions, sending local populations into poverty. Amazing. And all this out of such a small part of the world.
Yet, when you cruise around the birth place of world transformation and see the towns and villages that were so important, forming a fan around Manchester, it requires a lot of imagination to ‘see’ what they were. Mine tailing are invisible, streams (when its not pouring rain) run clear, mills have been transformed into common work places, museums, or abandoned (lots of those around), and the towns seem small, overwhelmed by cars lining the streets, and the somewhat sad row houses. It was a brutal environment, transformed now into a kind of low-level mass consumer market for cheap goods from China and charity shops. Here was the heart also of the trade union movement, but it has been squashed. It was also the Silicon Valley of the 17th & 18th century. Difficult to discern the new innovation coming from this region today, perhaps it is, but as hard as the region is trying to incubate it, the transformative ideas seem imported, or maybe globalized. The local approaches to local problems seems snuffed out by the chasing of equity funding which applies the same formulae everywhere, from Manchester to LA.
