Showing posts with label land. Show all posts
Showing posts with label land. Show all posts

Sunday, November 04, 2012

Misleading mulling

No comments:
We have an erroneous way of thinking about land and using figures relating to it. This erroneous thinking is used to 'justify' unsustainable building over green spaces, the green belt, parks and playing fields, allotments, farmland...In Bristol, despite the fact that our eco footprint is several times the land area available, Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories on the council all orginally backed a policy of flogging off our green spaces. This was despite widespread public opposition across the whole city. The Lib Dem council adminstration are still incentivising flogging local green spaces now and several Mayoral candidates have plans that will cut city green spaces and green belt land. We need a Mayor who will listen to public opinion, genuinely involve people in decision making and not bow down to any party political line.

On the Daily Politics a while back Claire Fox from the Institute of Ideas (who you'd think should know better) attempted to justify the liberalisation of planning laws by saying that only 10% of land in England is developed. A New Statesman leader said this back in March this year:  

‘Only 10 per cent of England (and 6 per cent of Britain) is developed... The UK is 60 million acres in size, of which 41 million are designated "agricultural" land, 15 million are "natural wast­age" (forests, rivers, mountains and so on) and owned by institutions such as the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Defence, and four million are the "urban plot", the densely congested land on which most of the 62 million people of these islands live...’ http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2012/04/land-government-million

In terms of whether to build on green land or not crude land area is not really the way to consider this issue. Look at these figures: average biologically productive area per person globally was approx 1.8 global hectares (gha) per capita in 2006. Average ecological footprint in the UK is 5.45 global hectares per capita (gha) (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint). This means that not only have we used up all the available biologically productive land in the UK we are actually drawing greatly on large amounts of land from abroad as well as allowing carbon levels to build up in the atmosphere because there is insufficient productive land and water to absorb it fast enough. Our 5.45 gha/person ecological footprint is three times greater than the average productive land per person available worldwide.

Monday, March 12, 2012

NIMBY?

No comments:
People far too often resort to unjustified labelling in debate. Accusations of being a NIMBY (not in my back yard) are common in discussions for and against development for instance. Using the term implies that those accused hold narrow, selfish, short-sighted views in opposing change. I've found that people labelled in this way usually dont hold such views and often have a developed case with a range of reasons so, whatever the rights and wrongs of the instance, the label is unfairly applied.

Here's one example, involving  plans to redevelop a Network Rail site by building nine three story homes at Bellevue Terrace, Totterdown, Bristol. Just down the road from me. One commenter on the story thinks objecting to this development is '...the purest example of NIMBYism I've seen in weeks..' even though one resident, backed by her local councillor, describes how the space is green and good for wildlife. Suzanne Ferris said: "The former allotment site was a verdant space bright with nature in a heavily built-up area. The urbanisation of this wildlife pocket will remove forever part of the green corridor from the railway line to Arnos Vale Cemetery.”

You can have a look for yourself at the place here (and in the photos above). Its hardly the Amazon (!) but if we are serious about issues such as: the value of green spaces to our relaxation and health; obtaining and maintaining healthy populations of wildlife eg garden birds like sparrows and starlings; the value of green spaces as a temporary 'store and release' mechanism for water when it rains heavily; green spaces as carbon absorbing...then at some point we surely have to stop concreting over every bit of local, small-scale greenery?      

Opposing development that would change a space from pollution absorbing and biodiversity providing to pollution producing and biodiversity cutting is perfectly reasonable. Its not NIMBYism because all that would say is 'not here' in a narrow, selfish and short-sighted way and people in this area clearly have more reasons than that! If you are going to use the tactic of labelling people you need to give justification for doing so.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

South Bristol link road bulldozed through (along with many others)

7 comments:
The Treasury neatly side-stepped a year's work by experts, campaigners and civil servants on 45 local transport projects in the DfT's 'development pool'...as the Chancellor announced he was providing funding for all 45 schemes and gave the go-ahead to the Kingskerswell Bypass and the South Bristol Link Road to grab headlines...

...As well as the Kingskerswell Bypass and the South Bristol Link Road, the go-ahead was also given to the Lincoln Eastern Bypass, the A164 Humber Bridge to Beverley, and the A43 Corby Link Road...

We are all justifiably angry as ourselves, the Kingskerswell Alliance and Transport for Greater Bristol had hired consultants to produce an evidence-based response to the funding bids showing major flaws in the plans. Instead it appears the schemes have been bulldozed through to allow the Chancellor to do some headline grabbing posturing today.

Analysis of the Kingskerswell Bypass showed that it would simply move traffic jams further down the road. It would also be environmentally devastating, trashing the habitats of rare bats, birds and newts. The South Bristol Link Road will at best shave just 2 minutes off journey times, and passes through Common Land and the green belt.

This is unlikely to be the end of the road for the campaigns as there are grounds for legal challenges now, and later there will most likely be protests.

Roads blog Campaign for Better Transport

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Petition : The Big Save Our Parks Petition

No comments:
Please click on the title above or the link after the petition wording to sign up. I'm happy for Neighbourhood Partnerships to take decisions on green spaces provided local people are fully informed and involved in them at all times.

“We, the undersigned, call on Bristol City Council to reconsider the proposed land sales as part of the Parks & Area Green Spaces Strategy. We consider the consultation process undertaken by the Cabinet to be flawed and by signing this petition, we want the Cabinet Councillors and officers to hear our concerns. Neighbourhood Partnerships should decide on any green space disposals in their area - making sure local people are involved in the decision making, unlike the decisions taken so far by Cabinet. We support continued investment in green spaces but not at the price of selling off the green lungs of our City.We understand that, under new rules, petitions with 3,500 or more signatures will be debated at Full Council. The 20-year green space strategy is so important to Bristol and will affect communities for many years to come, so we believe it is right for all Councillors and the public to have their say at a meeting of the Council."

Background Information
Under recently adopted rules governing petitions, the Authority is obliged to bring a matter to Full Council where an issue attracts 3,500 signatures from people who live, work or study in the city.Once this trigger point is reached, petition organisers can advise Council Officers that they wish to take up this opportunity for debate at the next available meeting.We hope that by getting enough signatures from across the city that we can call for a debate at the March Council meeting and SAVE OUR PARKS.


Petition : The Big Save Our Parks Petition

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Green stadium design for an aspiring green capital?

No comments:
'Why not outline for us how a man like yourself with so many letters after your name would achieve for the people of Bristol such a facility along sustainable development principles?' says sharp tongued Bristol Evening Post online debater Mark from Bristol.

I dont pretend to have all the answers but sustainable development is good sense not rocket science. First, dont build over green land in the green belt - either redevelop Ashton Gate or find a suitable brownfield site near existing good transport links. Second, seriously consider sharing any new ground. Thirdly use well established green design principles eg the One Planet Living Principles that are outlined here:http://www.oneplanetvision.org/one-planet-living/opl-framework/

I took part in the BCFC consultation and submitted some ideas on green stadium design plus examples of several football clubs who have used green design principles (see here and Dartford FCs Princes Park stadium design, pictured). Despite asking for a response by email and phone call I received none. Had city gone for a top notch green stadium design it would have been much harder for people like me to oppose it - and perhaps it would have been harder for Ashton Vale people too. Shouldn't our aspiring 'green capital' have a green football stadium??

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Letters: Greed not greens cause hunger | Environment | The Guardian

No comments:
Excellent letter in The Guardian:

Letters: Greed not greens cause hunger Environment The Guardian

The
Channel 4 documentary What the Green Movement Got Wrong (Last night's TV, 5 November) in our view made a series of misguided and inaccurate allegations and assumptions. It identified GM as a solution to hunger and implicated anti-GM campaigners for exacerbating food insecurity. As development organisations, we consider the documentary was extremely biased against environmental organisations that do so much to promote positive solutions. Hunger is a blight on humanity, but it is a political and economic problem. Its root causes include the broken and biased trading system; the bankers who gamble on the price of staple foods; and land grabs by financiers – all of which make food unaffordable for the hungry and deny their right to food.

In our view, the most significant impact that GM companies have made is to dominate the seed chain, selling expensive and patented seeds to farmers, seeds that are used more for livestock feed, cotton and biofuels – not for feeding people. The documentary didn't include any independent voices from civil society in the global south who are campaigning against GM and for local sustainable food production.

Had they done so, it is likely to have become clear that the small-scale farmers who provide food for most people in the world are not calling for GM technologies that are beyond their control. They are calling for political will from governments to take on the corporate lobbyists and protect their land, natural resources and production systems; a fair trading system to ensure fair prices; and a fair hearing from governments and documentary-makers on the future food system.

Deborah Doane
World Development Movement
Patrick Mulvany
UK Food Group
Andrew Scott
Practical Action
John Hilary
War on Want

Tuesday, September 07, 2010

STOCKWOOD residents say they do not want more houses – they want more facilities and to keep their green spaces.

No comments:
In my experience Cllr Gary Hopkins (Knowle) often disrespects the public's views and laughs at comments made too...Bristol's Parks and Green Spaces Strategy is and always was more of a 'build over green spaces' strategy...

STOCKWOOD residents say they do not want more houses – they want more facilities and to keep their green spaces.

In a public meeting at Christ the Servant Church last night, more than 150 people came to discuss the city council's Area Green Space Plan.

There are ten Stockwood "disposal" sites identified for possible sale and development, including: part of Craydon Road open space; part of Sturminster Close open space; and small areas near Burnbush Close and Maple Close.

The city council has promised to reinvest 70 per cent of any money made from sales back into improving parks and green spaces across the city. The other 30 per cent will go into general funds...

...In a fiery public meeting, the council's cabinet member for strategic transport, waste and targeted improvement, Gary Hopkins, came in for criticism.

Residents said he had been "disrespectful" and "appalling" for apparently laughing several times as he fielded questions.

The Liberal Democrat member said he was not laughing at the issues in hand but found it ironic that Conservative ward councillors Jay Jethwa and David Morris had been "doing nothing for two years" while the plans were being developed by officers, with input from the Bristol Park Forum.

**Mr Hopkins said: "All three political parties, not including the Green Party, were in agreement with the strategy two years ago.

"I fully understand that people are very concerned about the land next to them. I would be."

Mrs Jethwa accused Mr Hopkins, whom she called a liar...

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Peru tries to expel 'incendiary gringo priest' - Channel 4 News

1 comment:
What a man! This is religion not about believing, writing and saying good things but in doing good and living a good life. Peru tries to expel 'incendiary gringo priest' - Channel 4 News

Brother Paul McAuley is a hero among the indigenous tribes ofthe Peruvian Amazon, but the 62-year-old missionary from Portsmouth has made such a nuisance of himself in his campaign for tribal rights that Peru's government has ordered his expulsion, writes Jonathan Rugman.

"If I have to go, I'll get carried out," he told me last week. "I won't resist because I respect Peruvian law, but I won’t have the energy to take any steps to walk. That would be to betray these people."...

...It was Brother Paul who in 2008 filmed video pictures of the River Tigre, blackened by clouds of billowing oil, and he has asked the Peruvian authorities to investigate.

And it was Brother Paul who in the same year obtained a chilling video – which he passed to Channel 4 News - of a man apparently tortured and killed after demonstrating for native rights.

"The death of the native has never been investigated," he said. "We have been going on for two years and we know nothing about how he died."

The Catholic missionary lists his main achievements as helping overturn possible 20 year jail sentences facing Indian protestors, and obliging the government to conduct environmental and social studies before forestry logging concessions are awarded; though he says Peru's President, Alan Garcia, has refused to sign that pledge into law.

The Peruvian press has called Brother Paul a "white terrorist", and an "incendiary gringo priest", and the campaigning charity that Brother Paul founded is certainly causing a rumble in the jungle...

Thursday, April 08, 2010

Why vote Green? Part Seven

No comments:
We believe health and wellbeing should be the measure of progress in society. Public health issues are thus a high priority for Greens and above all we favour the prevention of ill-health and the promotion of good health. We would: abolish prescription charges; re-introduce free eye tests; ensure NHS chiropody is widely available; fight to restore free dental care; provide everyone with the choice of an NHS dentist.

A poor quality environment produces ill-health, so Greens lead on campaigning against all pollution and for high air, water, land and food quality. We very strongly favour sex education, health education and economic incentives to cut the abuse of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. Greens were prominent in opposing genetically modified food, including keeping them out of school dinners. We oppose the fluoridation of our water supplies, an issue that has reared its head last year in Bristol, because it does not work, is not safe, is unethical and is not wanted.

More information:

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Reclaim Power action today, Copenhagen summit

7 comments:
Here's my guest post on today's Reclaim Power action at COP15. Thanks v much, Catherine, Camp for Climate Action

Today grassroots activists from all over the world marched on the COP15 summit with the aim of taking over the conference for one day and transforming it into a People’s Assembly. The Reclaim Power action was intended to give a voice to those who are not being heard, to be an opportunity to change the agenda, to discuss the real solutions, to send a clear message to the world calling for climate justice.

After mass arrests of protestors and street medics who gathered at the meeting point, over 1000 people made their way to the Bella Center, many crossing the police tape and trying to run into the conference space. After being forced back by police batons, dogs and pepper spray, some tried to sneak in over an inflatable bridge!

Indigenous delegates led the group who marched out from the Bella Centre to attempt to join the activists. Police reportedly used batons on delegates inside the centre trying to get out –
[http://indymedia.dk/action_timelines/16th-dec] However despite heavy repression, 500-600 people attended a People’s Assembly, while two activists got into the conference centre and disrupted the plenary.
[See photos -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21552129@N03/]

Before the action many NGOs including Friends of the Earth and Via Campesina were barred from the talks that day while corporate lobbyists such as BMW were allowed in. However, there are billions of people globally who (unlike the NGOs) were never invited and don’t have a voice. These elitist and undemocratic talks are part of a political and economic system that puts corporate profits before the needs of people. The market based solutions being pushed in the UN Climate talks lead to ‘climate colonialism’ through land grabbing and accelerating the transfer of wealth from the exploited to an elite.

This action is about recognizing the power we have to change things when we work together. Throughout history changes have been made by ordinary people doing extraordinary things, from the suffragettes to the civil rights movement to indigenous groups reclaiming their land from multinational corporations.

This economic system is driving climate change – the pursuit of infinite economic growth is an impossible dream on a planet with finite resources. The pursuit of profit at any cost is detrimental to life. We need system change, not climate change - come and join those creating and fighting for a world which is both just and sustainable.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Biofuel power for Bristol would very seriously detract from 'green capital' ambition

No comments:
Biofuels Scandal: The Hidden Cost of the Biofuels Stations proposed for Bristol and for sites across Britain. Public Meeting organized by Zenith Milner, Environmentalist, Thursday 3rd December, 7:00pm to 9:00pm, The 3rd Floor, Bush House, Arnolfini, 72 Prince St.,Bristol, BS1 4QD

Heavy government subsidies, to the tune of tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, are all that are making power stations using virgin plant oil viable. But the truth shocking is that, instead of reducing the gases that cause climate change, these biofuels stations actually increase them. Also, they cause local air pollution, causing respiratory and heart diseases and they bring about rainforest destruction on a massive scale.

The ravenous need for crops, such as palm, to create the oil required for these stations, often results in violent evictions of indigenous peoples and peasant farmers who receive no compensation, and have nowhere else to go. With them, thousands of species are threatened with extinction, including the orang utan, and Sumatran tigers and elephants.

In a world where one in six people are in hunger, ie one billion, industrial scale biofuels, which mean that more and more land is used for fuel, rather than for food, are condemned as a "crime against humanity" by Jean Zeigler, UN. But a number of these stations are planned around the country including Avonmouth, Bristol [despite its 'green capital' ambition - Ed] with minimal or no public consultation.

You are invited to come and voice your views on whether we should build biofuels power stations in this country. We hope to have representatives from Southall, Portland and Newport campaigns on biofuel power station applications with us.

Come along and bring friends and colleagues with you and let others know about it - lets get those councillors and MPs can candidates for such posts attending. Write to them and invite them – they may send a representative if unavailable themselves as has already happened.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Indigenous Perspectives Conference, Pierian Centre - Monday 12th October: 9.30am–4.30pm

1 comment:
This from Bristol's Pierian Centre: One of Britain's leading adventurers, Benedict Allen, is to open the Indigenous Perspectives Conference on Monday 12th October. Allen is the author of 11 books, but is probably best known for his TV programmes of exploration and endurance. His first-hand experience of indigenous people in jungle, tundra and desert qualifies him to speak with authority and warmth at this one-day conference at the Pierian Centre.

The Indigenous Perspectives Conference brings together representatives of indigenous peoples from all over the world together with campaigners and academics specialising in different aspects of indigenous culture. It celebrates the 2nd anniversary of the U.N’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – and it is a unique opportunity to hear the indigenous voice in all its variety, and to find out how close to silence and extinction it’s being pushed.


The cultures covered include the Jumma of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, the Mapuche of Chile, the Emberá of Panama, West Papua, Tibet, the Kiribati islands of Micronesia, and the Yagan and Kawesqar peoples of Tierra del Fuego. Speakers range from senior academics to individuals who have been jailed and beaten for defending their culture.

Benedict Allen has narrowly escaped death six times; arguably no-one has more experience of living continuously isolated in as many remote environments.

Last seen on our screens in March presenting BBC’s Travellers’ Century, Allen paved the way for the current generation of TV adventurers. As The Sunday Times put it: “Filming whatever actually happens, without all the hidden paraphernalia of a film crew, and whether in danger or lonely or undergoing various exotic rituals, he has effectively taken the viewers’ experience of adventure as far as it can go.”

Allen himself looks back on his earlier journeys over 25 years ago, saying “I belonged to the last generation that might pass through a wilderness for months on end and not encounter a single person of my own culture. It was a privileged time: never in all those years can I remember coming across a single other foreigner, whilst out on a trek.”

The conference falls with heavy irony on Columbus Day (12th October) – and also coincides with the 40th year of Survival International’s invaluable work. If you’re interested in attending please contact us on
info@pieriancentre.com or 0117 924 4512.

In addition to plenary sessions reviewing issues like the impact of climate change on indigenous peoples, there will be small-group seminars on the experience of military force , the role of tourism, the impact of historic genocides on surviving peoples, the relationship with the land, sustaining cultural identity in exile, and the tensions between traditional and democratic authority.

The Conference is on Monday 12th October, 9.30am–4.30pm. It takes place at The Pierian Centre, 27 Portland Square, St Pauls, Bristol BS2 8SA. The delegate rate of £45 includes lunch and refreshments – with limited concessionary places at £25 for low income, and £12.50 for students.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Ecological footprinting: living in a dome

No comments:
Copy of a briefing I've written on ecological footprinting for possible inclusion in a book:

Picture a city totally enclosed by a transparent dome. The city’s people would obviously be unable to survive for long inside it unless they had access to air, water and other essential resources from outside. Think through how far the dome would have to extend in order to keep the city going indefinitely given a certain level of consumption, energy and resource supply and technological development and you are ecological footprinting. London was found to have a footprint of 49 million hectares, about the land area of Spain (!) in a study by Best Foot Forward in 2002. You could also picture a dome totally enclosing a person, a house, factories, offices, a country, group of countries – or indeed a planet! You could draw a boundary around various products, say beef or cars, and assess the ecological footprint of the product’s lifecycle.

An ecological footprint is the total land and sea area required to supply the resources and safely absorb the wastes and pollutants from a certain lifestyle and can be thought of at a range of levels. The unit of land area used is global hectares, where one global hectare is equal to one hectare (2.47 acres) of world average biological productivity with current technology. Some, like WWF, use ‘planets’ as a unit, which is good because any footprint greater than one immediately illustrates the unsustainability, excess demand or ecological debt (world footprint is now 1.3 planets and if current patterns are not changed we are heading for a 2 planet footprint by 2035). Land and sea is needed for: crop, animal and forest products; for housing and infrastructure; to absorb carbon emissions from fuel burning; biodiversity preservation; human wellbeing and quality of life.

William Rees came up with the ecological footprint idea, publishing the first academic paper on the subject*. Personal Environmental Impact Accounting, a concept closely related to ecological footprinting, was developed in the early 1990s by Don Lotter and released in 1992 as EnviroAccount software which became Earth Aware software in 1996 (still available as a free download from the internet). Rees worked on footprinting with Mathis Wackernagel in the early 1990’s at the University of British Columbia, Canada, the two publishing a book Our Ecological Footprint in 1996 explaining the concept. Much work has since followed eg the book Sharing Nature’s Interest published in 2000, written by Wackernagel, Nicky Chambers and Craig Simmons.

Footprinting’s methodology for the national level is detailed in the 2006 Living Planet Report and the Global Footprint Network's method paper. The Global Footprint Network has clearly indicated how research should be used to improve the method. This is important because different methods have been used in various studies with respect to: sea area; fossil fuels; imports and exports; and nuclear power. Data sources used have varied. Whether to use average global numbers or local numbers when looking at a specific area has been an issue. Including space for biodiversity has been debated. Footprint standards, are bringing methods closer together, making data more consistent and comparable. EU assessment of footprinting has been positive and ackonwledges the work being done to perfect methods.

When consideraring footprint data it is important to remember what they don’t tell us in addition to what they do. The footprint concept is itself inevitably a simplification of reality. The computer models used to calculate footprints are further inevitable simplifications. This is both a plus and a minus of course. Footprints do not deal with that which it is difficult or impossible to convert to a land area: pollutant toxicity; health impacts; the depletion of non-renewable resources (though it does account for the energy, land and resources needed to process them); socio-economic impacts; noise and visual impacts, for instance.

Keeping in mind its limitations, ecological footprinting is an excellent tool for awareness raising, getting a sense of the overall scale of unsustainability by comparing it with actual land area. The biological capacity of an area indicates resources that can indefinitely regenerate without depletion or degradation. Most industrialised countries have insufficient capacity to support their population eg Netherlands (average footprint 4.8 gha/person, land area 0.8gha/person in 1999) unless they have large land areas and low population densities eg Canada (footprint 2.7 gha/person, land area 8.8 gha/person, in 1999). The world as a whole went into ecological debt (where consumption exceeds regerative capacity) on 19 Dec 1987 and because of unsustainable living we enter into this debt earlier every year – in 2008 we went into debt on 23 Sept!



*Rees, William E.(October 1992). "Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out". Environment and Urbanisation 4 (2): 121–130.

Monday, January 12, 2009

Cows, cars and climate

4 comments:
Letter writer Gil Osman is right to indicate that there is nowhere near enough emphasis on the greenhouse gas methane as one major cause of climate change (here). It is generated in very large and rapidly growing amounts by human activity, beef and dairy farming in particular, because cows produce many litres every day (Gil says 40 litres but some estimates go into hundreds of litres)! Pigs, chickens and other farm animals make a significant contribution also (and methane is also generated in landfill sites and by growing rice and is released to global warming by various means eg as permafrost melts).

The figures Gil gives are certainly credible estimates, with the greenhouse gas contribution from animals raised for food (18%) being higher than the greenhouse gas contribution from all transport (13%). Its not just the methane emitted by the animals that is the problem - meat production makes intensive use of fossil fuels, chemicals, drugs, land, plus money, and the international trade in meat only makes this worse! http://www.vegsoc.org/environment/index.html

Meat production is inherently inefficient. A food chain involving meat is longer, with more links. The ecological rule of thumb is that there is a 90% energy transfer ‘loss’ (used for the organism's life processes or lost as heat to the environment) at each link in the chain! On average a meat eater’s diet uses twice as much land per person as a vegetarian’s and five times as much as a vegan’s. Over two thirds of UK land is used for farming, most of this being used for meat. Around two thirds of the vegetable crops grown in the UK are fed to farm animals.
http://www.vegansociety.com/environment

According to the book ‘Sharing Nature’s Interest’ the ecological footprint of meat is 6.9 to 14.6 hectare years per tonne, depending on the type of animal rearing (pasture-fed animals have a lower footprint than grain-fed ones). Comparable figures for other foods are: non-aquaculture fish 4.5 to 6.6; fruit and vegetables 0.3 to 0.6; milk 1.1 to 1.9; grain such as wheat and rice 1.7 to 2.8; and pulses such as beans and peas 3.6 to 2.8. Even allowing for the fact that these are broad estimates the comparison is stark and is rooted in basic science.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s figures show that meat consumption has tripled since 1961. World meat consumption is now well over 230 million tonnes per year. By 2020 demand for meat will surge nearly 60%. Meat consumption has been and still is a feature of a ‘developed’ country given that someone living in a developed nation consumes three times as much as someone in a ‘developing’ one.

Put the facts on methane emissions and land/energy/chemical use from meat production together with fast rising meat consumption and you can see that we have trouble – not just in terms of climate change but also in economic terms, with food and fuel prices reaching very high levels during 2008 helped by high and rising demand. You’ll note that I’ve not even touched on the ethical/animal welfare issues or the health and disease issues involved in eating animals in large quantities!

So when Gil writes ‘Perhaps governments should be encouraging people to cut down on their meat consumption…’ I’d agree (although this should be in addition to tackling the environmental impacts from transport, energy generation and use, and so on which are many, varied and significant). It is especially important to tackle a meat industry parts of which, as Gil says, are clearing forests to create farmland for cattle rearing, boosting climate damage from cow methane, releasing carbon dioxide from the soil, rapidly releasing carbon dioxide when forests are burned and cutting the extraction of carbon from the air by forests simultaneously (more here).

I’ve spent some time describing the evidence and the problems. Solutions wont be easy. Action is needed across a wide range of policy areas, from environmental and health education informing personal food choices, to UK and EU action on personal and household carbon budgeting, to international agreements on deforestation and global trade…Would I advocate that we all go vegetarian or vegan? No, and I’m not a vegetarian myself, though I would strongly advocate that people consider a low meat diet, making dietary choices to stay within a carbon budget, and taking into account health, disease and animal welfare issues. Its certainly environmentally friendly to eat less meat whilst at the same time being cheaper, healthier and more ethical.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Bristol green spaces flogging delay

1 comment:
The Bristol Evening Post website today reports that,

'Plans to sell off 90 acres of parkland in Bristol will be delayed because the recession has seen land values plummet.

Bristol City Council could hold off for several years until land values rise again before pushing through its plan to sell parcels of green space.

A report to the council's Quality of Life Scrutiny Committee meeting on Monday says the recession would have an impact on the 'rate of progress' of the plan.'

Any delay should be used to reassess the policy of selling off green land. Its not right to have a kind of 'land sale target'. Other ways of funding improvements to parks must be more fully investigated.

Green spaces are one of the most popular and desirable features of the city - and we certainly need them if we are going to build sustainability and enhance the quality of our lives. This city is supposed to have green capital ambitions after all!

Worryingly there is growing evidence that Bristol City Council is not fairly and uniformly applying its green spaces policy process of establishing Area Green Space Plans through consultation in the same way across all wards in Bristol.

The meetings that were called to deal with the Neighbourhood Partnership area involving Knowle, Filwood and Windmill Hill excluded discussing Filwood. This means that Filwood will be handled separately and with very considerable pressure on it for housing development - I'm told that consultants not present at the other meetings will be present at meetings about Filwood for instance.

On the Bristol to Bath Railway Path the council have a sham consultation on a land sale loaded with leading questions instead of bringing forward the Area Green Space Plan process for the location.

Filwood Park was sold off within hours of the adoption of the new policy on green spaces, The Parks and Green Spaces Strategy - outside the spirit of the policy entirely.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Bristol's Northern Slopes - housing plans??

No comments:
Just one to watch in 2009 (it wont be the only one). The Area Green Space Plan process and the principle outlined in Bristol City Council’s policy the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy, that disposals of green spaces will be of ‘low value’ land identified by consultation, looks set to be completely ignored. A large part of the Northern Slopes, a Site of Nature Conservation Interest and proposed Local Nature Reserve, may have houses built over it if the council get their way!

This is no surprise to me: given that Filwood Ward was separated off at the recent Knowle/Windmill Hill/Filwood Area Green Space Plan meetings (where only Knowle and Windmill Hill were dealt with) and awaits different treatment (!!); given that my complaint to Bristol City Council shows that the policy is easily swept aside; given the actions of our so-called ‘green capital’ council in selling Filwood Park, in planning to sell green land with ecological merit on the Bristol to Path Railway Path, in favouring green space loss and opposing Town Green status for Castle Park

The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Stakeholder Technical Assessment lists possible sites for housing and has maps, including site ST111 which includes a large part of the Northern Slopes. The Knowle West Regeneration Framework covers this valuable green space too (a bit of background + links here) and there is a Kingsweir / Torpoint Masterplan that will be complete within 6 months apparently. All these could over-ride the Area Green Space Plan process and given the councils green spaces record look set to do exactly that!!

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

Loving the car

2 comments:
Interesting to see the online critical responses to letter writer Philip Gannaway. He is concerned about what he calls ‘anti-car rhetoric’ (Soapbox: ‘Learning to love the motor car’, Post 5 Dec).
He would acknowledge I hope that there are many positive reasons for seeking a society with low car use, not least our health, safety, security, stability and quality of life.

The Council and Government should invest heavily in sustainable transport methods as a matter of urgency.

He would acknowledge, if he believes in reason and the real world (terms he is keen to use in his letter), that the best available science says that we must urgently make very large cuts in carbon emissions from cars. The damage done to our climate would, with other measures, then be lower, enhancing the security and stability of life on into the future. Bristol’s carbon emissions are six times the sustainable level, a large proportion of this due to car use.

With car use lowered road safety would be increased. Thousands are currently killed and tens of thousands injured every year.

Fewer cars on the roads means cleaner air, which means lower lung damage and much improved health, especially for children. Tens of thousands die prematurely each year due to toxic air pollution.

Towns and cities more focussed on walking, cycling and public transport would be more tranquil and less stressful places to live. The quality of our lives could thus be enhanced.

We devote so much time, money and land to the car too – why not free up a lot of this and put it to good use in other ways?

Sunday, December 07, 2008

Grow your own

No comments:
Food seeds are now outselling flower seeds in the UK. The last time this situation happened was over 60 yrs ago! Many allotment sites are full and have waiting lists – and growing numbers of people in their late teens, twenties and thirties are choosing to grow some of their own food. It’s increasingly popular because it is an activity where the costs are low and benefits high, which is a big plus, particularly in times of recession. In Bristol you can rent an allotment site for between £10.50 and £63 per year depending on the size and type, and some qualify for a discount of 25% or 50%. Costs can also be shared if people club together. The rise in popularity started long before economic downturn though so its certainly not just about money.

Growing some of your own food raises quality of life. It encourages and rewards creativity. It is a calming, stress-busting activity that can be the source of a good deal of pleasure. Physical work out in the fresh air boosts your health, as does the fresh food grown. Allotment and garden exercise is also much cheaper than going to a gym!

The challenge can be formidable, especially at the start. However, if you take your time and go step by step you can experience the satisfaction of seeing the seeds you planted grow, the satisfaction of harvesting and then the pleasure of eating! Choose to grow what you love to eat and save money formerly spent on over-packaged food – a pack of seeds costing the same as one bag of salad leaves can produce leaves for picking a few times every week throughout a whole season! You can cheaply grow what is expensive in the shops.

You will know exactly how the food has been grown and can choose to avoid artificial fertilisers and pesticides. The miles travelled by garden and allotment grown food is very low and so carbon emissions and climate impact is also low. You can help to keep in circulation the seeds of many old, flavoursome and pest-resistant plants – preserve more varieties and you preserve genetic diversity which commercial growers show no interest in.

By helping to keep allotments used to capacity, or even increase the number of plots (The Small Holdings and Allotments Act of 1908 made it the responsibility of local authorities to provide allotments on the demand of four people or more) you are helping to keep land from development. Allotments are not well protected and many have been lost to housing developments since the 1950’s, not least in Bristol (despite its stated green city ambitions). However, the ‘grow your own’ community is increasingly diverse and allotments can grow into very friendly and organised groups willing and able to protect their plots!

For more information: http://www.nsalg.org.uk/ http://www.allotment.org.uk/

Saturday, November 01, 2008

Never mind the council policy it's the council officers you know that counts!!

No comments:
I've only been away from Bristol for a week and just look at what has been revealed about the unethical practices occurring within Bristol City Council within respect to land selling! It seems that if you want to buy land you just need to have the right senior officer contacts and never mind official council policies!! Excellent investigation by the Bristol Blogger once again (also see the Green Bristol Blog and Bristol Greengage).

Now I'm back I'll be following up on my ongoing complaint to the council. This latest news certainly adds spice to the situation!

Joined up thinking needed for joined up transport modes at Temple Meads

2 comments:
The new Stockwood Pete blog strongly argues the case for 'a proper transport hub for Temple Meads' whilst making powerful points about lack of openness and local democracy with respect to the associated land. Its not just green land development that is driven by developers it seems! Good stuff - Pete is sure to be an influential blogger! Local paper report on the issue here.