Bell's backing

Former BBC war reporter and independent MP for Tatton 1997-2001, Martin Bell - the first independent MP for 50 years and now a UNICEF Ambassador - has backed George Ferguson's campaign to be the first elected Mayor of Bristol.

Martin said of George and his campaign: “I don’t rush around the country supporting everyone running as an independent, but every now and then I come out of hiding when I feel there is a candidate really worthy of support.

“I have experienced how political parties work in Government, and the sheer power of the whips, and the extent with which they persuade people to go along with the party rhetoric.

“I knew there must be a better way to run our politics than this.

“When I heard that Bristol had decided it wanted a mayor and discovered that George Ferguson was running as an independent, I thought he was the perfect candidate.

“I am not denigrating any of the other candidates but here is a man who will simply represent the people, not just a political party.

“I hope he gets elected as mayor on Friday - I believe he will.”

Negligent Nadine

Following MP Nadine Dorries shining example, boosting the reputation of MPs and the political system: Dear Open University [my employer] I’ll be taking up to a month off work and so won’t be doing my lecturing and research supervision role for a while. You will continue to pay me as usual [I wish!] even though I won’t be doing the work I'm paid for and will be earning extra money during my month off. Cheers!

Member's means

Many MPs have second jobs eg North East Somerset MP Jacob Rees-Mogg received around £132,000 in the year to August from his company Somerset Capital Management. The Conservative MP works 35 hours a month in return for the cash...(story here). As a matter of principle shouldn't we expect MPs to work full time for their constituency? Mr Rees-Mogg for example has time and energy that he could direct into working for voters in his constituency that he is directing elsewhere. Surely there are enough problems and issues to work on in his constituency, the SW region, the country, the EU and the world to keep this (and other) representatives busy for a lifetime! Docking some pay from MPs with second jobs is perhaps missing the point - they should not have these jobs whilst being an MP to begin with, so make it a rule that they cant.

Drugs discussion

Tory MP Michael Ellis has, as reported in this story, reacted to Danny Kushlik in the way many politicians - across political parties - have reacted on the issue of illegal drugs over many years. Its a shame that he's not more open to new thinking on this matter. Does he not realise that continuing on with more or less the same old, failed attitudes and polices, throwing a lot of - misdirected - money at the problem, is irrational? Politicians need to base their policies on drugs on the evidence, such as this research comparing legal and illegal drugs: http://tinyurl.com/3ao562j

Blackmailing Bristol?

The Coalition Govt is attempting to coerce or force voters in Bristol into voting for an Elected Mayor. To coerce or force a particular action is called blackmail isn't it?

' BRISTOL is less likely to get new powers from the Government if it doesn’t agree to an elected mayor...Previously the official line from the coalition was new powers for local authorities like Bristol – to sort out the city’s transport for example – were not dependent on saying yes to an elected mayor in May’s referendum....Minister for Cities Greg Clark [pictured]...made it clear cities that had an elected mayor would be treated differently to those that didn’t.'(more)

Vote for an Elected Mayor because that's what central govt wants. If you dont vote for an Elected Mayor you wont get additional powers and will find it harder to get money from us. Do what we want or you will lose out - there's 'localism' for you !!! Cheers Greg.

Waste war

Excellent work on food waste from Kerry McCarthy, Labour's MP for Bristol East. The Post reports that she has launched a campaign to prevent surplus food from supermarkets from being thrown away.

Kerry McCarthy was today due to introduce legislation that would place a legal duty on companies to donate excess food to charities.

Her Food Waste Bill, which was due to be presented to Parliament this afternoon, has already received cross-party support, including from Green leader Caroline Lucas and Tory Zac Goldsmith. If no objections are lodged, it will progress to the next stage of the legislative process.

Under the Bristol East MP's proposed changes, barriers that are stopping organisations from donating food, like fears over legal liability, would be swept away.

Incentives would be put in place to persuade smaller companies to take part, while food that is unfit for humans would be given to livestock....' (more)

Kerry’s Bill begins to tackle one part of the food waste problem but there’s still a lot to do on food waste as a whole. There is concern about rising food prices yet 33% of the food we buy is thrown away ie one bag in every three! I'm not a fan of big supermarkets. They are a part of the food waste problem certainly but it’s clear that there are food waste and efficiency issues all the way along the chain from soil to shops to home to plate to soil again and each of us must take some responsibility.

Of course not all those who complain of or worry about rising food prices will also be wasteful but levels of food waste are so high that there must be a good deal of hypocrisy out there. This is a problem of lack of awareness but also a problem of plenty and of affluence. Where shortage and poverty are greatest waste is highly likely to be smallest, but shortage/poverty is generally not now the case in the UK and so wasteful habits and cultures have grown. We need to establish a thrifty culture.

Great tips and advice on cutting food waste, saving money and enjoying food from Love food hate waste.

Greenest Government Grumbles

Labour MP Michael Meacher takes the Cameron Govt to task on its green claims - and makes some decent points on renewable energy, energy efficiency, the Green Investment Bank...Two days ago Ed Davey, the replacement for Huhne as Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change, repeated again the Coalition’s boast that it was the greenest government ever. Even by the standards of current self-congratulatory political rhetoric, that’s pretty vapid. It’s worth exploring the actual record. The Coalition Agreement proposed to increase the target for energy from renewable sources. In 2010 the UK was ranked third in the world for investment in green business, and investment in alternative energy and clean technology reached £7bn. However it has now been rated 13^th, mainly because investment in wind energy fell 40% last year, with only one offshore wind-farm being completed. That reflected the Chancellor’s openly stated negative attitude to green energy, supported by the letter sent by 101 Conservative MPs to the Prime Minister deploring wind-power development both onshore and offshore...Friends of the Earth in their recent report...judged that they found little or no progress in three-quarters of the government’s 77 green policies that they examined. (more)  

Roads research?

No need to be so tentative - experimenting like this is a great idea. We should be experimenting with ideas more.

CARS could be banned from some of Bristol's roads to make way for cyclists on one day each week, an MP has suggested.

Kerry McCarthy said the idea had come from the Colombian ambassador, whom she had met as part of her work as a shadow foreign minister....

Ms McCarthy stressed that if the idea was transferred to Bristol there would need to be extensive consultation with residents and businesses.

"In Columbia, where it happens, it is in the context that some people are very nervous about cycling in the city centre with all the traffic," she said.

"Perhaps the idea could be tried in Bristol as a bit of an experiment.

"I wasn't putting it forward as a formal proposal, but I thought it was something that was worth looking at.... (full story)

Fairness and females

The current political system is very clearly skewed in favour of men, in terms of style, substance and structures. It is therefore undemocratic, with people chosen for their gender rather than their ability. Its logical to counteract this skewed situation through measures like all-women shortlists (as Labour in Bristol West are planning to use*). To call a measure designed to achieve balance and fairness between men and women sexist, as some do, is to ignore the current bias in favour of men and turn reality upside down. Lets remember that its not so long ago that women had no vote at all! There should not be any need for all-women shortlists but until prejudice is significantly reduced something needs to be done - only 22% of MPs in the House of Commons and 20% of members of the House of Lords are women. Its unreasonable to say, as some do, that MPs who originally became candidates via all-women shortlists are somehow second class - because they have appeared on the ballot paper at a general election and have been put into power by voters in their constituency - presumeably any voter who felt they were not up to the job or were selected as a candidate by an objectionable process woud not have voted for them.

Politics in the UK is often overly and unecessarily macho and confrontational. Parliament has long been acknowledged as a 'boys club' or 'gentleman's club'. This is no way to address and solve problems and in part its down to the skewing of the system to favour men that is clearly shown by the stat that 4 in 5 in Parliament are men, including men with outdated, sexist attitudes. It is suggested that women candidates and MPs as weaker and second rate but many say that the performance of women MPs has been good and that Parliament with more women is better in several respects - a case of prejudice getting  in the way of reason.


There are other unfair aspects to our system. It needs wholesale radical reform
*See: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Bristol-Labour-Party-select-MPs-women-list/story-15155549-detail/story.html

http://www.parliament.uk/education/online-resources/parliament-explained/women-in-politics/

Lucas leadership impact

Look who is making her mark ! Again - previously ‘MP of the Year' in the Scottish Widows & Dods Women in Public Life Awards; ‘Best All Rounder' in the Total Politics End of Year MP awards; ‘Newcomer of the Year' by the Spectator... http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2011/08/which-of-the-class-of-2015-are-making-an-impact-neildotobrien-has-the-answers.html

Hackgate

It appears in our current system that the purpose of holding positions of power and responsibility in banking, the media, police and politics is to 'know little/nothing' and to resign. Useless, corrupt...

Phone hacking: MPs to quiz Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks [and Former Met Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson and many others!!]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14195259

Doing business with illegally logged timber

Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MP, is renewing her calls for a ban on illegally logged timber in the UK via a Private Member's Bill, which is on the agenda for its second reading this Friday. The Illegally Logged Timber Bill (Prohibition of Import, Sale or Distribution) would make it illegal in the United Kingdom for a person or company to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase timber or timber products illegally taken, harvested, possessed, transported, sold or exported from their country of origin; and for connected purposes. Why have this and previous governments not already dealt with this matter??

For more details, please visit http://services.parliament.uk/bills/201011/illegallyloggedtimberprohibitionofimportsaleordistribution.html
and http://www.carolinelucas.com/cl/media/caroline-renews-calls-for-uk-ban-on-illegally-logged-timber.html.

Ten Reasons to Support AV | Yes to fairer votes

From the Yes to fairer votes website: In May voters will get the chance to choose a fairer voting system – the Alternative Vote. It’s a small change that will make a big difference.

The new voting system will keep what is best about our current system – the link between an MP serving their local constituency – but strengthens it by making MPs work harder to get elected and giving voters more of a say.

This is because, with AV, MPs would now have to aim to get more than 50% of the vote, and so will have to work harder and represent more of their constituents.

The AV system will change this. It will keep what is best about our current system – the link between an MP serving their local constituency, and the likelihood of decisive election results – and strengthens it by making MPs work harder to get and keep their jobs by giving voters more of a say.

Here are 10 good reasons for supporting AV.Click on your favourite ones to send them out on Twitter:

1. AV will force MPs to work harder to earn - and keep - our support

MPs need to secure a real majority of voters to be sure of winning, not just the 1 in 3 who can currently hand them power. They'll need to work harder to get - and keep - their jobs.
The expenses scandal showed how deeply out of touch some of our politicians became from the people who elect them. It arose from a culture where some MPs have ‘seats for life, and leads to poor service, complacency and taking voters for granted.

2. AV will give us a bigger say on who our local MP is

Forget tactical voting - just pick the candidate you really want to win. But if your favourite doesn't win you can still have a say.

3. AV will tackle the ‘jobs for life’ culture in Parliament

Too many MPs have 'safe' seats for life. We saw that in the expenses crisis. The AV system will change this.

4. AV is an upgrade on our current voting system

AV builds on the current system, eliminating many of its weaknesses, retaining its strengths and strengthening the link between MPs and their communities. Voters still have just one vote.

5. AV will keep extremists out of politics

AV is the anti-extremist system because candidates have to secure a real majority to be sure of winning. First Past the post enables candidates to win with a very small percentage of the vote, which means extremist parties such as the British National Party have more chance of being elected despite most people in an area opposing them. This is one of the reasons why the BNP is opposing AV.

6. AV lets you vote for who you really want

Forget tactical voting- just pick the candidate you really want to win. With AV you can back just one candidate (like now), or if you'd like to, state a second choice, or even a third choice. Voters can vote for what they really want so there is no need to vote tactically.

7. AV gives control to more voters

Less than 2% of voters decided the last election. To be sure of winning a seat with AV, candidates will have to get over 50% of the votes in that area. They will have to work harder and not just take us for granted.

8. AV will force candidates to positively engage with the wider community

First Past the Post has created a culture of complacency whereby most MPs know they can just rely on their core vote. AV rewards politicians who can reach out to a widest range of voters. Politicians will need to engage more constructively with more people if they want to be sure of winning.

9. AV is already used by 14m people in the UK

Alternative Vote (AV) is a widely used and trusted system in Britain outside public elections, because it is used by businesses, charities, trade unions and membership organisations

10. This referendum is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for us to have our say on the current system

MPs have been deciding their own rules for far too long. This is the first time that voters are being given a say on the system we should use to elect MPs. This is our chance to have a public debate and to demand more from our democracy.

Find out more
What is AV? Introducing the Alternative Vote
AV myths Let’s separate the facts from the fiction
A broken system What’s wrong with First Past the Post?
Why a referendum? Seizing our chance for change

Ten Reasons to Support AV Yes to fairer votes

Cameron 'committed to full Trident replacement'

There isn't all-party support for retaining the UK nuclear deterrent, though the BBC asserts that there is. The Green Party eg through Caroline Lucas MP, is very clearly and strongly opposed and regards both the threatened and actual use of any weapon of mass destruction as immoral and illegal - and there are other MPs that support this view. Ludicrously our PM David Cameron uses phrases like 'keep our guard up' and 'insurance policy' about nuclear weapons!

It is, sadly, right to say though that few politicians are now arguing a fundamental case against nuclear weapons. I watched the 1959 film On the Beach about a post-apocalyptic world again recently. Its not a cheery number - with characters played by Gregory Peck, Ava Gardiner, Anthony Perkins, Fred Astaire and others facing the end of their lives and the end of human beings as fatal radiation levels spread across the globe - but for me its a classic film that makes some very telling points.

I'm 100% with Fred Astaire's character when he says 'The war started when people accepted the idiotic principle that peace could be maintained by arranging to defend themselves with weapons they could not possibly use without committing suicide.' (see video clip). Our PM David Cameron continues, with the support of the Labour and Lib Dem leadership, to support this idiotic principle.

"In terms of the future, all I can say... is that I am in favour of a full replacement for Trident, for continuous at-sea deterrent, and to make sure we keep our guard up.

"That is Conservative policy. It will remain Conservative policy as long as I am the leader of this party."'

All-party support

Labour MP John Woodcock, whose Barrow-in-Furness constituency builds the Trident submarines, also asked Mr Cameron for reassurance that he would not go back on his word.

Mr Cameron said: "I profoundly believe we should maintain our independent nuclear deterrent. I have looked at all of the alternatives over the years and I am completely convinced that you need a submarine based alternative - a full replacement for Trident in order to guarantee the ultimate insurance policy for this country."

BBC News - David Cameron 'committed to full Trident replacement'

Goose steps and mass graves? We're only trying to save the world - Telegraph

Brilliant article in the Daily Telegraph from Robert Webb (pictured) 'one of Britain's most popular comedians, [who]brings his wit and imagination to the Telegraph's comment pages with capricious stories of his everyday life.' We need more communication on politics and climate change like this!

When the Martians finally invade and make me Lord High Protector of the Earth, I like to think that my first act will be to have myself arrested. It might be useful if those who spend a lot of time banging on about how much they love liberty ask themselves if they would do the same thing.

What would you do? A quick tweak here and there, and then hold elections? More than a tweak? It's the whole Earth, so there's quite a bit to put right. And you'll need people you trust to help: friends… maybe family! And what about those Earthlings who don't appreciate your efforts? Well, protest is one thing, but when they start to really interfere with your helpful plans for them, then it might be time to be a bit firm – which is just your way of showing how much you love them. So the Friendly Protectorship might go on slightly longer than we first imagined. Best to give it a while: say 30 years? A lifetime?

Yes, you've guessed it: this week's column is about the leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas MP. If you don't immediately understand the connection, then that's because you are sane. To have made the mental leap, you would need to belong to the head-banging libertarian/Ukip fringe who seem to think that all Lefties are born tyrants. You might be tempted to offer them the figure of George Orwell – who spent a lifetime defending the values of the democratic Left against the triple menace of communism, fascism and imperialism – but that doesn't work on the head-bangers, because they think Orwell is one of them. This indicates a psychological problem that experts have identified as "an inability to read a book properly".

Anyway, Lucas – who this week made an attempt to make the House of Commons work more efficiently, and was roundly patronised for her efforts – makes an almost perfect hate figure for the head-bangers, not just because she shows worrying signs of talking about wealth redistribution and actually meaning it, but because of the inevitable scale of aspiration that is part of the Green agenda. They look at her and think: "This woman doesn't just want to keep the 50p rate, she wants to change the entire Earth! This can only mean jackboots."

I say she's an "almost" perfect hate figure because she doesn't have an eye-patch or a hook or wear swastika earrings. In fact, it's a bit inconvenient all round that, when interviewed, she sounds quite sensible. Still, that won't matter. There's a YouTube video posted by "ukipmedia" where, to my ear, Lucas is clearly winning a debate with Ukip spokesman David Campbell Bannerman. At the point where she says, "People are dying from climate change, David", the video then clunkily loops back so we can hear her say it again another three times. The intended effect is presumably to highlight some kind of "gaffe" or standout absurdity, but in fact it reveals far more about the mentality of the poster than the subject. It's the use of repetition that is sinister here, not the thing that's being repeated. "People are dying from climate change" is not a remarkable statement; it is a scientific commonplace.

Given the bitter tone of the environmental debate, I imagine that this last sentence will have made some of you really quite cross. The YouTube clip has inspired seven pages of comments, characterised in the main by unhinged vitriol and references to totalitarian mass graves.

Let me have a go at understanding these people: wish me luck. I suppose that if you really think climate change is a sham; if you really think it's possible for a global scientific community to get together to fabricate a mountainous embarrassment of evidence in support of a particular theory and that, furthermore, they are able to hoodwink successfully – or even secretly conspire with – hundreds of governments and political parties, who are wildly opposed on everything else, so that there is a consensus that something should be done, then I suppose you're going to be quite annoyed when, as a result of this mammoth fraud, someone asks you to turn the central heating down.

Because if what they're saying is true, then our only way out of it is through unprecedented, long-term collective action. And human beings are really not very good at unprecedented, long-term collective action. And, knowing our history, we certainly don't like the look of that word "collective". Or, for that matter, "action". So better to believe the whole thing is a lie: Jeremy Clarkson will back us up, and he's a fun guy.
Believe me – I don't want to be on the un-fun side of the argument. I enjoy a visit to ClarksonWorld along with the next man, but I can't live there. All the rides are free because someone else is paying. And I sympathise with the daunted. I'm pretty daunted. The crushing scale of the thing, the complexity of getting agreements between countries at different stages of industrial and political development, the technological challenges, the whole seeming futility of it makes you want to club Caroline Lucas around the head with a patio heater to shut her up.

But still, I don't "get" where coercion, goose steps and Room 101 is implied in any of this. A failure of imagination on my part, no doubt. Maybe the Martians should appoint David Campbell Bannerman instead. What would he do?

Goose steps and mass graves? We're only trying to save the world - Telegraph

Campaign for Dark Skies: CPRE/CfDS Orion Starcount

What you can do to help reduce light pollution

If you are as concerned about us with the amount of light wasted into the night sky, please consider doing one (or all!) of the following.

Ensure all your lights are pointing downwards, and that they are not spilling into the night sky.

Contact your local councilor via WriteToThem.com, and ask them what they are doing about the energy and money wasted by inefficient street-lighting in your area.

Contact you local MP via WriteToThem.com, to see what they are doing to reduce light pollution in your area and around the UK.

Contact any local businesses that have bad lighting, and recommend that they use efficient lighting instead. The cost of replacement can be saved in electricity bills in just a few years.

Contact the local press, to encourage more people to use efficient lighting in your neighbourhood.

CPRE/CfDS Orion Starcount

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12292852

Ground vs Green

Just chipped in to the 'Ground vs Green' debate going on on the Evening Post website, particularly in response to someone calling themselves 'another cynic' because they did not regard opposing building a stadium in the green belt as rational. Here's my contribution to a debate that is, as usual, of the very highest quality (!!):

'I think most rational people would be pro stadium. The only thing to be cynical about is the use of the TVG laws by a minority of people to undermine the workings of the democratic planning process.' said another cynic.

What's rational about:

- designating land as green belt and then not protecting it?

-the council/govt saying we need to fight climate change and then turning land from a net absorber to a net emitter of carbon?

-expressing concern about the need to be ready to deal with flooding caused by the sudden heavy rains we now get and then removing land that naturally absorbs and steadily releases flood water?

-saying wildlife needs to be protected but then concreting over habitats?

-having government agencies like Natural England working to show how necessary to our physical, mental and social health green spaces are and how we all need to live close to a green space and then removing said spaces?

-saying what a good idea local food production is, especially in view of things like peak oil, and then reducing the land area available to grow food locally?

-MPs strengthening the law on town and village green establishment in both 2000 and 2006 then going on to campaign against the use of the laws they established??

By the way another cynic, the current planning process is a statutory ie legal process primarily and not a democratic one. Though it has a democratic element to it through the involvement of elected Councillors and Secretary of State, they are supposed to be guided by rules and regulations not a party line...hopefully to establish a rational outcome. The Ground vs Green debate will not be finally resolved by petition or voting but by the law that is an essential feature of a modern democratic system - and in this instance it may well prevent a wider majority view prevailing over a very local majority view.

Farmers could be allowed to kill badgers from 2011 - News - The Ecologist

Farmers could be allowed to kill badgers from 2011 - News - The Ecologist

It strikes me that this Government is doing well in continuing the trend of successive Governments in not following the best available scientific advice and taking action of the type, scale and speed that the evidence suggests. Just off the top of my head in addition to the badger culling issue there is also: drugs and their classification; climate change; over-fishing...The grasp of science, scientific issues and their interrelationship with socio-economic and environmental factors in Parliament, in political circles generally and in the media is, with few exceptions, pretty poor.

More here, with useful links to some of the scientific debate on badger culling
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11303939

Greens agree to join the yes campaign for the alternative vote referendum

Green Party Greens to campaign for AV

This is a good sense, pragmatic decision. The alternative vote (AV) system has many flaws - not least that its not a proportional system - but nothing like as many as the current first past the post system. AV is a step in the right direction and has the advantage of demonstrating that electoral system change is wanted, if voted through. AV undermines tactical voting because every vote - not just votes for the eventual winner - will count given that voters can express first, second, third - and further - choices as appropriate. The referendum outcome may have an influence on the choice of electoral system for the second chamber/House of Lords when it is reformed also.

This is how the Electoral Reform Society make the case for AV:

The case for AV

*All MPs would have the support of a majority of their constituents. Following the 2010 election 2/3 of MPs lacked majority support, the highest figure in British political history.

*It retains the same constituencies, meaning no need to redraw boundaries, and no overt erosion of the constituency-MP link.

*It more accurately reflects public opinion of extremist parties, who are unlikely to gain many second-preference votes.

*Coalition governments are no more likely to arise under AV than under First-Past-the-Post.

*It eliminates the need for tactical voting. Electors can vote for their first-choice candidate without fear of wasting their vote.

*It encourages candidates to chase second- and third-preferences, which lessens the need for negative campaigning (one doesn't want to alienate the supporters of another candidate whose second preferences one wants) and rewards broad-church policies.

AV in Practice

*Leadership elections for Labour and Liberal Democrats
*Elections for UK parliamentary officials including Select Committee Chairs.
*Elections for the Academy Award for Best Picture
*Australian House of Representatives.
*Most UK Student Union elections.
*Australian Legislative Assemblies ("lower houses") of all states and territories (bar Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory, which both use STV).
*Australian Legislative Council in Tasmania.
*Irish Presidential election.
*By-elections to the Dáil (the lower house of the Irish Parliament).
*By-elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
*Papua New Guinea National Parliament (1964-1975 and from 2007).
*Fijian House of Representatives.
*Numerous American Mayoral and district elections.

UK politicians hide our total carbon emissions

In debates whilst standing in the local and general elections - and in debates for yrs before then - councillors and MPs have always told me that UK carbon emissions were falling (Kerry McCarthy even sent me a graph in the post). As someone who has worked and campaigned in this area for yrs I've known that this is not the case and have thus argued the toss with people from all the big parties. You can see why the story below might catch my eye then...

BBC News - Openness urged on UK's emissions

The UK government's chief environment scientist has called for more openness in admitting Britain's apparent cuts in greenhouse gases are an illusion.

Robert Watson says that if emissions "embedded" in imported goods are counted, UK emissions are up, not down.

He says the same syndrome is true for other rich nations which offshored manufacturing industry.

That means developing countries - particularly China - are blamed for goods they buy for export to the West.

“We don't have jurisdiction over emissions embedded in imports, they're difficult to calculate accurately”

He said: "At face value UK emissions look like they have decreased 15% or 16% since 1990. But if you take in carbon embedded in our imports, our emissions have gone up about 12%. We've got to be more open about this."...

Click on the BBC link to read more.