Can Belfast reinvent itself as a tourist attraction?

The Titanic Quarter, Belfast’s new tourist hub. Image: Getty.

The skyline in Belfast is climbing high. Only last month, the brand new Titanic hotel – a luxury hotel which has seen £28m worth of investment, and the creation of over 90 new jobs – opened for business.

It comes at a time of widespread change for Northern Ireland. And with tourist numbers up by 23 per cent in the first quarter of 2017 alone, it’s clear that Belfast is beginning to truly make its mark as a capital city in its own right.

Such business ventures are representative of a wider cultural shift, where a more positive history is being used as a tool for investment. The Titanic is just the latest in a growing list of similar projects: the Seamus Heaney Centre for Poetry opened in 2004; a C.S. Lewis Square in 2016. Most recently, plans have been announced for the creation of a George Best themed hotel in the city-centre.

At the root of all this lies a deeper cultural purpose: to celebrate a past that is not undermined by violence and to return to the original roots of Belfast, where a booming industry in linen, tobacco, engineering and shipbuilding created a thriving urban centre.

Efforts to revive the historical currency of Belfast haven’t been without their problems, though – and recent political headlines have reignited the underlying divisions that exist between communities in Northern Ireland, and relations with the United Kingdom as a whole. With Brexit has come the inevitable tensions surrounding the Irish border, threatening to undermine the peace of the Good Friday Agreement. The coalition between the Conservative government and the Democratic Unionist Party has done much to reinforce the damaging narrative that the province is a parochial backwater. And, most recently, the setbacks surrounding an inquiry into the Troubles have reopened old wounds.


As a state, Northern Ireland was born out of conflict, both externally with Britain and internally through civil strife. Peace has come at a cost, and the country remains overshadowed by its recent past. And it is a history that continues to draw living and tangible boundary lines across Belfast: 108 peace walls still stretch across the province. While communities on either side of these security barriers often tend to support their existence, there is little doubt that the walls are emblematic of Belfast’s fear of regression; the merging of history with the everyday has created an underlying lack of trust between the different districts.

So what have been the implications of this historical legacy? As the more traditional industries fell into rapid decline, this led to a period of ‘industrial suburbanisation’, with many of the new industries and housing developments being relocated outside the city. Combined with increasing emigration – it is estimated that over a third of the population left during the Troubles – the result was a detrimental impact upon both inward investment and Belfast’s place within the broader framework of the European market. Until the early 1990s, Northern Ireland was ranked among the 25 per cent of poorest regions in the EU. Hardly surprising then, that it has taken over twenty years to recover.

All this has resulted in what sociologist Sharon Zukin has described as “pacification by cappuccino”: the creation of neutralised yet increasingly gentrified spaces in Belfast, such as the Cathedral Quarter, that are a marked departure from its more traditional working class roots. Such sites of cross-community integration have also provided a distraction for investors and tourists from the less than desirable legacy of tension. This revitalisation is evident in the development of modern buildings such as the Waterfront Hall, SSE Arena and the Mac Theatre.

It’s clear that Belfast is an up and coming tourist destination. Yet the underlying reality is that history is coded in the very infrastructure of the city. If Belfast is to truly move forward, then the past must remain exactly that – the past.

Recent dismantling of a peace wall in West Belfast – one of the areas most affected by the Troubles – is a positive step towards greater community unity. With the spread of new ideas among younger generations, it’s time to make the most important investment of all – in one another.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.  

 
 
 
 

Which nations control the materials required for renewables? Meet the new energy superpowers

Solar and wind power facilities in Bitterfeld, Germany. Image: Getty.

Imagine a world where every country has not only complied with the Paris climate agreement but has moved away from fossil fuels entirely. How would such a change affect global politics?

The 20th century was dominated by coal, oil and natural gas, but a shift to zero-emission energy generation and transport means a new set of elements will become key. Solar energy, for instance, still primarily uses silicon technology, for which the major raw material is the rock quartzite. Lithium represents the key limiting resource for most batteries – while rare earth metals, in particular “lanthanides” such as neodymium, are required for the magnets in wind turbine generators. Copper is the conductor of choice for wind power, being used in the generator windings, power cables, transformers and inverters.

In considering this future it is necessary to understand who wins and loses by a switch from carbon to silicon, copper, lithium, and rare earth metals.

The countries which dominate the production of fossil fuels will mostly be familiar:

The list of countries that would become the new “renewables superpowers” contains some familiar names, but also a few wild cards. The largest reserves of quartzite (for silicon production) are found in China, the US, and Russia – but also Brazil and Norway. The US and China are also major sources of copper, although their reserves are decreasing, which has pushed Chile, Peru, Congo and Indonesia to the fore.

Chile also has, by far, the largest reserves of lithium, ahead of China, Argentina and Australia. Factoring in lower-grade “resources” – which can’t yet be extracted – bumps Bolivia and the US onto the list. Finally, rare earth resources are greatest in China, Russia, Brazil – and Vietnam.

Of all the fossil fuel producing countries, it is the US, China, Russia and Canada that could most easily transition to green energy resources. In fact it is ironic that the US, perhaps the country most politically resistant to change, might be the least affected as far as raw materials are concerned. But it is important to note that a completely new set of countries will also find their natural resources are in high demand.

An OPEC for renewables?

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is a group of 14 nations that together contain almost half the world’s oil production and most of its reserves. It is possible that a related group could be created for the major producers of renewable energy raw materials, shifting power away from the Middle East and towards central Africa and, especially, South America.

This is unlikely to happen peacefully. Control of oilfields was a driver behind many 20th-century conflicts and, going back further, European colonisation was driven by a desire for new sources of food, raw materials, minerals and – later – oil. The switch to renewable energy may cause something similar. As a new group of elements become valuable for turbines, solar panels or batteries, rich countries may ensure they have secure supplies through a new era of colonisation.

China has already started what may be termed “economic colonisation”, setting up major trade agreements to ensure raw material supply. In the past decade it has made a massive investment in African mining, while more recent agreements with countries such as Peru and Chile have spread Beijing’s economic influence in South America.

Or a new era of colonisation?

Given this background, two versions of the future can be envisaged. The first possibility is the evolution of a new OPEC-style organisation with the power to control vital resources including silicon, copper, lithium, and lanthanides. The second possibility involves 21st-century colonisation of developing countries, creating super-economies. In both futures there is the possibility that rival nations could cut off access to vital renewable energy resources, just as major oil and gas producers have done in the past.


On the positive side there is a significant difference between fossil fuels and the chemical elements needed for green energy. Oil and gas are consumable commodities. Once a natural gas power station is built, it must have a continuous supply of gas or it stops generating. Similarly, petrol-powered cars require a continued supply of crude oil to keep running.

In contrast, once a wind farm is built, electricity generation is only dependent on the wind (which won’t stop blowing any time soon) and there is no continuous need for neodymium for the magnets or copper for the generator windings. In other words solar, wind, and wave power require a one-off purchase in order to ensure long-term secure energy generation.

The shorter lifetime of cars and electronic devices means that there is an ongoing demand for lithium. Improved recycling processes would potentially overcome this continued need. Thus, once the infrastructure is in place access to coal, oil or gas can be denied, but you can’t shut off the sun or wind. It is on this basis that the US Department of Defense sees green energy as key to national security.

The ConversationA country that creates green energy infrastructure, before political and economic control shifts to a new group of “world powers”, will ensure it is less susceptible to future influence or to being held hostage by a lithium or copper giant. But late adopters will find their strategy comes at a high price. Finally, it will be important for countries with resources not to sell themselves cheaply to the first bidder in the hope of making quick money – because, as the major oil producers will find out over the next decades, nothing lasts forever.

Andrew Barron, Sêr Cymru Chair of Low Carbon Energy and Environment, Swansea University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.