C.diff and an NHS unresponsive to the people it serves: massive health issues. Lets address health, properly defined, in all its dimensions.

C. difficile is a massive problem for the NHS. At the same time the culture of the NHS is such that it is not responsive to the people it serves. The facts show this very clearly - and I, like many others, have recent, direct, personal experience of both C. difficile in a family member resulting in death, and poor responsiveness from the service. Technical capabilities in the NHS are often fantastic (though technical matters have 'gone astray' in places - overuse/misuse/abuse of antibiotics being the root cause of superbugs like C. diff and MRSA). Some very caring and committed people work in the NHS - BUT the emphasis on CARE as well as on prevention is in my view poor, especially for the elderly.

I want an NHS that pays as much attention to social and mental needs as it does physical ones, and medical/technical capabilities (it wont actually be adressing health, properly defined, if it does not do this, since health is about having a good physical, mental, social balance). I want it to be much more focussed on prevention of health problems than it is. I want services to be available to people locally. I want funding to enable all these things to be of a high standard and am willing to pay more in taxes, as required, to get it as well as being willing to advocate this politically. My view is that if people see the tax as fair and necessary and see that the income is used well they are willing to pay it.

Schumacher Lectures in Bristol, this weekend.

The arguments put by Mark Lynas in a piece in the Evening Post yesterday are very strong indeed. We do need to stop rising global carbon emissions within a decade; we are into deep water, great uncertainty and much higher risk if we dont; pessimists are really those who talk about 'politically possible' solutions and not those who indicate how grave the situation truly is; meeting the climate challenge can improve our lives at the same time; technology alone wont solve our problems; biofuels aren't the solution due to needing land for other purposes, like food production; we do need to lower energy demand as well as go for renewable energy; we do need to develop a far less growth-centred approach to economics...

Mark is giving one of the Schumacher Lectures, this weekend in Bristol, so I may well post more on the topics raised and any related areas in the coming days. I've been to several Schumacher Lectures but dont really feel comfortable with some of the views and attitudes I've experienced - probably because of my strong rationalist leanings (and possibly my working class background). I dont go in for all the 'spiritual' stuff in the way some fans of the Schumacher Lectures do, though I do agree strongly with most of the economic and technological ideas and have read and been inspired by E F Schumacher's books, like 'Small is Beautiful'.

What?!?! Local councils praised for traffic plans by Minister. What is this person on?

This has been reported today, 'Councils in the former Avon area have been praised by the Government for developing plans to beat jams and keep traffic flowing.Transport Minister Rosie Winterton gave Bristol, North Somerset, South Gloucestershire and Bath and North East Somerset a 'good' rating for its Local Transport Plan, which aims to cut down congestion around the city.' My reaction: What?!?! How can this possibly be! Has this person ever seen traffic congestion in Bristol? Has she ever experienced the sheer quality and good value (NOT) of a Bristol bus or train journey? Or the accident risks, unhealthy air, noise... a cyclist, pedestrian or indeed car driver has to endure here?? Come and look properly around here Minister. Investment in local public transport and sustainable transport needs to triple to bring us up to scratch. Perhaps then people like Dave Hough from Henbury, writing today that something must be done about Bristol's buses, would feel that something had been done.

Shock poll find - people are commuting into Bristol in their cars in very large numbers!! Is the glass half empty of half full?

Shock (NOT!) - a major poll reported on today has found that nearly half of all commuters to Bristol come by car!! Well that was something we didn't know already just by looking around us at the congestion, sniffing the excessive, unhealthy pollution in the air, and listening to the rumble of unwanted sound that can often drown out a conversation, wasn't it !!?

OK we need the data, apparently to be collected annually, to establish the current situation and then track changes over time (we should in fact have been doing this before now), but the basic transport situation in Bristol has been painfully obvious for many yrs.

The Big Commuters Count poll of 9000 people found that: about 47% travel by car (40.9% driving, 5.9% as passengers); 9.8% go by bus; 10.6% cycle; 20.4% walk; 5.1% travel by train; with less than 2% for park and ride, work from home, motorbike, moped/scooter, taxi/minicab and ferry.

One interesting aspect to this story is that the Bristol Evening Post angle on it is based on the idea that the figures show 'people were still firmly stuck to using their cars', whereas Bristol City Council's website says of the same results '...that many employees in Bristol are prepared to leave the car at home when they can, and use more sustainable ways of travel'. So, is the glass half empty or is it half full??

Labour Party = Tory Party !! Where are the real political differences?

I've previously made the point that there really is not that much difference between the three big political parties these days (see here and here). Doesn't the fact that the Labour Party steals Tory Party policies (and vice versa) strongly reinforce my view?? Of course it does!

I long ago came to the view that the real political differences are between those who are truly green (they dont necessarily have to be Green Party people or in fact political party members at all) and those who are not - the Greens vs what are sometimes called Greys (and I'm not referring to parties set up by pensioners etc here) .

It seems to me that the Labour, Lib Dem and Tory Parties offer voters pretty much the same unsustainable neo-liberal/consumer capitalist society and basically the same pretence at being green.

Support blog action day on the environment, Oct 15th !!

The text below is copied from http://blog.blogactionday.com/category/resources/ in order to help promote: Blog Action Day

You can also click to watch the first and second videos promoting the day.

On October 15th, bloggers around the web will unite to put a single important issue on everyone’s mind. In 2007 the issue is the environment. Every blogger will post about the environment in their own way and relating to their own topic. Our aim is to get everyone talking towards a better future.

We’re looking for bloggers of all nationalities and backgrounds, writing about all topics to join in.

Here’s what you have to do:

Publish on October 15th

Publish a post on their blog which relates to an issue of their own choice pertaining to the environment.

For example: A blog about money might write about how to save around the home by using environmentally friendly ideas. Similarly a blog about politics might examine what weight environmental policy holds in the political arena.

Posts do not need to have any specific agenda, they simply need to relate to the larger issue in whatever way suits the blogger and readership. Our aim is not to promote one particular viewpoint, only to push the issue on the table for discussion. So write in whatever way suits your readers and your blog, just relate it back to the environment and make sure it goes up on October 15th.

Other things you can do

You can also participate in Blog Action Day by posting a banner on your site (http://blogactionday.org/promote ) or by donating your day’s blog earnings to an environmental charity of your choice.

Register your blog

We are keeping track of all the blogs that have committed to participating on BlogActionDay.org and it would be very helpful for you to register your blog at http://blogactionday.org/commit
At this time the form is only available in English, but the form fields are as follows:
1 - Blog Title
2 - Blog URL
3 - Approximate RSS Subscriber Number(This will not be published. It is used to generate an approximate ‘reach’ for Blog Action Day. Simply enter an average, recent feed count from Feedburner or similar service. If you don’t know the audience size, just enter ‘0′. )
4 - Your Email( You will ONLY receive two emails. The first will be two days prior to Blog Action Day 2007. And a second in August 2008 about next year’s day.)
5 - The final field is to test whether you are a human or spam robot. Simply type in the number written there

Thank you for participating in Blog Action Day 2007! In future years we hope to have the entire site translated in many languages

'So it goes' - is the environment dying to give us biodiesel for the Earthrace powerboat?

So, the '...revolutionary biodiesel powerboat Earthrace arrived in Bristol Docks.As part of the Sound of Many Waters - Clifton Cathedral's year-long campaign of caring for the environment' recently (see the local story about the 'cross between a spaceship and a spider' here and more details on the boat and what its going to do here). Amazing design, technically very interesting, thrilling to be on, and so on....but is it really powered by truly green biodiesel fuel?? (I'll leave aside, for the present, whether spending all this effort trying to achieve a world record for circumnavigating the globe is the greenest thing to do with your time!!)

If the biodiesel put into the boat comes from large scale crop moncultures, which involves massive land, including forest, clearance and energy/chemical intensive production then its certainly not a green fuel. Far from being carbon neutral, the sums show that fuel from these origins is making climate change much worse, as well as taking land from food production and inflating food prices.

If the biodiesel comes from the recycling of used vegetable oil and fat, which some of it may do for this boat(??) (including some fat extracted from project founder Pete Bethune's own backside apparently), this is much greener.

Truly green biodiesel could be produced from all the waste veg oil and fat we produce in large amounts (its a waste disposal problem for goodness sake!!), but we aren't organising our society to do this at the moment - instead we seem to be going for the environmentally damaging production of biodiesel and other biofuels from large scale monocultures, with people wrongly still calling it green!! There are some very rich people out there getting a lot richer, making a lot of already poor people poorer, and over-exploiting the environment - and investing in bio-fuels produced by very un-green methods! So it goes, as Kurt Vonnegut wrote (and the environment does seem to be dying to give us biofuel).

Conservative 'Conservationist' Con

Mary Martin is right about climate change being a major concern but wrong to think that Conservative leader David Cameron has truly 'addressed this grim problem' (letter 'Global warming concerns justified', Bristol Evening Post's Open Lines, 8 October). David Cameron and the Conservatives have given us some green sounding words but up and down the country where in power have been a million miles away from implementing green policies.

All over the UK Conservatives have: supported new roads; supported aviation growth; opposed EU green schemes; advocated axing environmental regulations as "red tape"; opposed congestion charging; supported incineration of waste; supported tax cuts for super-consumers; supported low taxes for the most polluting multinational businesses; advocated unfettered global trading; supported nuclear power; supported Trident nuclear weapons over tackling climate change, even though climate change is now recognised as the biggest threat to our security.

Not really a list of green Conservative policies in action is it - but it is in reality what they are doing, so maybe its wiser to judge them not just on what they say but on what they do.

My household and individual ecological footprint (more accurate).

Why post details of my household/individual ecological footprint? Well: 1. I have the information and have been calculating it in reasonable detail and with fair accuracy by the same method for yrs now, for both work and personal purposes; 2. People are increasingly interested in their footprint and growing numbers do a calculation eg via a website; 3. I've said previously I would publish a more detailed footprint document, having done some estimates using websites (see Sept 9 '07 posting); 4. As someone who has for yrs been campaigning to get greener society with much lower footprints and environmental impacts, people may be interested to see if I try to practice what I preach; 5. The information is quite interesting; 6. The figures show that you can lead a pretty normal life and have a low footprint - I have a car, I eat meat, I have holidayed abroad...ie I dont live in a teepee eating only leaves or in the latest high-tech, ultra-expensive green house...to get a low footprint, though I do aim to be very efficient and to prioritise.

My total 3 person household ecological footprint for 2007, was 1.04 hectares (10,400 square metres). This is 0.35 hectares (3500 square metres) per person. This amounts to approx 5 tonnes of carbon, or 1.7 tonnes per person per yr – about half the national average of 10.22 tonnes given on the direct.gov website

The 2007 footprint compares to a 1999 household score of 1.47 hectares (14,700 square metres), which is 0.49 hectares (4,900 square metres) per person. The 2007 figure is 29% lower (meaning annual cuts, from an already low base, of 4% per yr on average).

According to the Ecocal model software (http://www.bestfootforward.com/ ) a sustainable score for a UK household is 0.4 – 0.5 hectares per person.

A reasonably detailed breakdown of the score can be viewed here. I've placed a link just under About me and Biography in the right hand column of this blog site so that its conveniently available.

Biofuel plant approved for Avonmouth is not green.

Biofuels are still commonly seen as green. Some may see the plans to build the UK's biggest biodiesel plant in Avonmouth, just agreed by 'green' Bristol City Council, as part of the green development of that area. Biofuels certainly dont qualify as green if they originate from large scale monocultures however, with very large areas cleared for the energy and chemical intensive cultivation of single crops. (The same sort of argument applies to biodegradable plastics like the corn starch ones Bristol City Council wants to make available to line our brown recycling bins with).

Most biofuels, sometimes called agrofuels, are made from large-scale monocultures of oil palms, sugar cane, soya, maize, sugar beet, oilseed rape and jatropha. They should not be considered green as they contribute substantially more to greenhouse gas emissions by nitrous oxide emissions from fertiliser use and by land conversion, than are saved by burning slightly less fossil fuels. They are set to significantly accelerate climate change, something academic and green campaigner George Monbiot has written about with some passion (also see http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/).

Its not just climate impact that makes biofuels from monocultures distinctly non-green: bio-diversity losses, water and soil degradation, human rights abuses (including the impoverishment and dispossession of local populations) and the loss of food sovereignty and food security. The impacts seen today result from a less than 1% market penetration of biofuels in Europe yet the EU target is 10% by 2020 and the UK are aiming for 5% by 2010.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has called on governments to cut their subsidies for the sector, saying biofuels may "offer a cure that is worse than the disease they seek to heal."

The European demand for biofuels is pushing up commodity prices and thus encouraging multi-billion dollar investment in infrastructure and refineries linked to large-scale deforestation. The impacts of this investment could be irreversible and will open up tens of millions of hectares of virgin forest to land conversion and logging.

Greens support an immediate moratorium on agrofuels from large-scale monocultures - a period for scientists and policy makers in the EU and western nations to gain a greater understanding of the total impact on social, human and land rights plus climate and biodiversity impacts. The Green Party supports the Agrofuels Moratorium Call launched in July 2007 in Brussels (supported by over 100 organisations in its first week).

There should be no public sector incentives for agrofuels and agroenergy from large-scale monocultures. We need a moratorium on EU imports of agrofuels. All targets, incentives such as tax breaks and subsidies which benefit agrofuels from large-scale monocultures, including financing through carbon trading mechanisms, international development aid or loans from international finance organisations such as the World Bank should be suspended now.

The moratorium called for by the signatories applies only to agrofuels from large-scale monocultures (and GM biofuels) and their trade. It does not include biofuels from waste, such as waste vegetable oil or biogas from manure or sewage, or biomass grown and harvested sustainably by and for the benefit of local communities, rather than on large-scale monocultures. Such sustainable biofuels development may well be valuable - where local sources of food production and biodiversity are not endangered, soil is protected from depletion, industrial scale chemical fertilizer regimes and the use of any GM technology are banned. This means small-scale production units, eg on farms, which benefit the local communities.

See also: http://www.channel4.com/blogs/page/newsroom?entry=how_green_is_biofuel

Barrage might hinder 'green port' development

A powerful contribution to the public debate on the severn barrage/tidal energy from the Bristol Port Company today. They are concerned that barrage plans are not commercially viable, would cause real environmental problems and would hinder their plans for a deep water dock .

They claim that a deep water dock would cut lorry journeys (and thus carbon emissions) by allowing goods to be delivered closer to towns/cities.

I see their point about a barrage hindering the potentially 'green development' of the port.

Incredible biodiversity...including in common fruit & veg.

Isn't all that biodiversity incredible? From the genes in a species, the differences within a species, to the number of species making up a community and the variety of communities making up ecosystems (which are themselves of many types)...

Just look at some of the variation in one common vegetable:

B ertan
I nfinity
O nward
D anvers
I mperator
V alery (or St Valery)
E mperor
R edchild
S inclair's
I ngot
T humbelina
Y ellowstone

All the above are varieties of carrot. Carrots are not all orange either - they can be white, yellow, red, purple or black too!

Its a great shame that the 'choice' offered in supermarkets does not reflect such variety and indeed all edible biodiversity more, where appropriate. Take apples for instance - there are 2300 varieties of apple in the National Fruit Collection, but on sale in many supermarkets are perhaps 6 varieties (though some are working on improving the number offered).

There are over 20,000 edible plant species but fewer than 20 species currently provide 90% of our food. We rely on a very narrow range of varieties within species too, including wheat. This is fundamentally bad from a food security point of view.

Government Energy Review not serious consultation and designed to get the result they want

The view of Greenpeace on the government's Energy Review is absolutely spot on. Greenpeace work on this issue is highly valuable. I couldn't put it any better than they do - its worth five minutes taking a look at their video:

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/about/video-another-bad-idea-sponsored-by-the-uk-government-20071003

I will be writing to my MP about energy policy shortly.

Petition opposing cuts in higher education grants

Its wrong to cut higher education grants in the way Gordon Brown's government is planning. They want to phase out funding for students studying for qualifications equivalent to, or at a lower level than, a qualification that they already hold. It's clearly anti-lifelong learning. Please consider signing this petition.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/HE-GRANT-CUTS/

Well done to the Knowle West Food Festival!!

The Knowle West Food Festival, well covered in the local media, did great job of promoting healthier and more environmentally friendly attitudes to food. A great example of the sort of community-based event we need more of.

I think the City Council should appoint a Local Food Officer to help to make these community-based events happen more often, in more parts of Bristol - and on a bigger scale and with more, related, follow-up developments too. There are few ways to become greener better than changing attitudes towards food, so much of our footprint is food-related - grow your own, cook your own, go local, go fresh and unprocessed, go organic, go high fruit and veg!!

Energy policy: go 'sexy' or go sensible??

A lot of very good points on the tidal energy debate are made here by Roger Crudge. I would add that we also must not forget that energy efficiency and energy conservation are the greenest, most cost-effective and most rapid way to fight climate change and build energy security because it lowers demand.

Many elected politicians seem to prefer to associate themselves with a big, sexy civil engineering project, probably linked to an awful lot of profitable (possibly unsustainable) ancilliary development, than with the most sensible energy option.

Support the Burmese people - sign the petition to urge China/UN to pressure Burma's rulers

Just signed another online petition to support the people demonstrating in Burma and the site produced the message below to pass on to people:

Burma is ruled by one of the worst military dictatorships in the world. This week Buddhist monks and nuns began marching and chanting prayers to call for democracy. The protests spread and hundreds of thousands of Burmese people joined in -- they've been brutally attacked by the military regime, but still the protests are spreading.

I just signed a petition calling on Burma's powerful ally China and the UN security council to step in and pressure Burma's rulers to stop the killing. The petition has exploded to over 200,000 signatures in a few days and is being advertised in newspapers around the world, delivered to the UN secretary general, and broadcast to the Burmese people by radio. We're trying to get to 1 million signatures this week, please sign below and tell everyone!

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/tf.php?cl_tf_sign=1

Tories have rapidly backed away from a green policy on airport expansion

I see that 'green' David Cameron's Conservative Party have rapidly backed away from a green policy on airport expansion. They've abandoned the idea of stopping all airport expansion, even though their advisors thought it a positive policy. So much for their words of concern about climate change. Under a Tory government Bristol Airport could still expand if it got through the local planning process.

Inaccurate, unbalanced Evening Post story on major tidal energy report by the Sustainable Development Commission: Why??

Todays Bristol Evening Post story about the Sustainable Development Commission’s report into the barrage and tidal energy, released yesterday, is inaccurate and unbalanced. It chooses to focus in on one small part of the major report, tidal lagoons - just one alternative to the barrage - omits several key points emphasised by the Commission, and doesn’t even get the number of pages right (it actually has more than ten times the pages stated in the story). Accuracy and balance are obviously valued qualities in a good news story, doubly so for a major and complex issue like the barrage.

For the record:

1. The Commission emphasise that the barrage would have to meet tough tests to be considered a sustainable, green project. Not mentioned in the story.

2. The report states that the barrage would have to comply with environmental legislation protecting the estuary. Not written about by the Post.

3. The report emphasises that very large scale compensatory habitat creation should be seen as an opportunity. Not a dicky bird in the story on this though.

4. The report says that going for tidal power should not result in ignoring the dramatic reductions in our energy consumption, increased energy efficiency and decarbonisation of our energy supplies, that are needed. No coverage of this vital point though.

The Post’s story does cover the Commissions view, challenging the government position, that any barrage project should be publicly led and owned – perhaps the key economic issue – but does not put this in what should be its proper place, at the head of the piece, instead putting it in the middle.

What’s more, the story’s main line, that tidal lagoons are considered no better than a barrage by the Commission, is not based on an accurate reading of their report. Their report in fact says that not enough is currently known about the practicalities of tidal lagoons to make firm decisions, so pilot work should be done on them to find out more.

Informed readers following this issue may be wondering why comments from barrage sceptics, like the RSPB and Green Party, accurately included in the story, broadly welcome a report apparently criticising one of their more favoured tidal energy options! This is because the RSPB and Green comments reflect the report accurately and the Post’s story does not.

Dose of realism from the Sustainable Development Commission in its tidal energy report brings us back down to earth

The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) report released today represents a good dose of realism for the government on the tidal energy issue, after it decided to announce an investigation into 'the Severn Barrage' in the middle of a party conference where it would gain maximum publicity and green 'kudos' - not the most balanced start for a major project.

The SDC says that the barrage must pass tough tests to be considered sustainable. Quite right.

SDC comments should be very broadly welcomed because they bring us back to properly weighing up the alternatives, in the context of energy strategy as a whole, which should have energy efficiency as its leading concept.

Dawn Primarolo has been 'morphing' into Michael Cocks rapidly for years

The Bristol Blogger is having a go at Bristol South MP Dawn Primarolo today. Gosh what a great socialist she is...and I'm sure teaming up with Nestle and Boots will help her in 'building Jerusalem'!!

‘Red Dawn’ Primarolo has pretty rapidly ‘morphed’ into her Labour predecessor in Bristol South Michael Cocks since he was controversially deselected in the 1980’s . This article documents only part of her transformation - she's moved even further to the right since 1999.

Whatever happened to her being against nuclear weapons and nuclear power for instance?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyvsATYoZTM

Getting the assessment of technology right: Severn Barrage or other tidal energy extraction methods for instance

Its now emerged that alternatives to the 10 mile long Severn Barrage proposal will also be examined as part of the 'barrage' feasibility study. This is good news, though its a concern that the big barrage, and all the profit-loaded development that comes with it, is what is obviously being favoured - boosting renewable energy supply and energy security, with minimal impacts should surely be the uppermost consideration. Interesting that Labour's Cabinet Minister for Business...John Hutton chose to announce the barrage study in the middle of a party conference, getting lots of media coverage and 'green' kudos, instead of waiting for the Sustainable Development Commission to report (which it will this Monday!!).

Its vital that we get the technology assessment right, to establishment the proposal with the best combination of benefits, especially renewability, security and low impact (they could do a lot worse than seeking OU advice !). The assessment should, for all alternatives, look at: cost-effectiveness now and on into the future; technical capabilities and limitations; impact on the economy and working lives now and on into the future; impact on the natural environment and other system environments now and into the future.

I'm strongly of the opinion that we are far too 'energy generation obsessed' and are seriously under-investing in far less sexy but much more sensible energy efficiency and conservation. This, as the cheapest, quickest and most effective way to fight climate change, by orders of magnitude, should really be the basis of energy policy.

Disease spread - a not so widely discussed aspect of climate change, until now...

Climate change has a wide range of serious health implications both for people and other animals, including enabling diseases to spread more easily.

A worrying story about African Horse Sickness in todays Bristol Evening Post (in a section where I dont usually find that much to read). This sickness is related to Bluetongue disease which has just arrived in the UK for the first time, and which we so far have seen 11 confirmed cases of. Horse owners are understandably concerned that we should be prepared for the imminent arrival of African Horse Sickness, which is spread by midges as Bluetongue is.

Climate change is certainly in the picture as one reason why Bluetongue has spread northwards across the globe, through Europe to the UK. The virus is transmitted by midges more effectively in warm, moist conditions. (A cold winter might drastically reduce the virus but we dont have many these days).

Its also possible that globalisation is a contributory factor, helping virus-carrying midges to spread as people and goods travel more and more across the globe more and more frequently.

The consequences for animal welfare are significant, as are the costs and stresses on farmers, particularly as we still have foot and mouth problems. The appearance and spread of African Horse Sickness could be devastating to the equine industry.

EU Reform ('Constitutional') Treaty - let the people decide on it!!

Not really that big on direct democracy in todays Labour Party are they - Labour MP for Bristol East Kerry McCarthy has backed the EU Reform (or 'Constitutional') Treaty and backed PM Gordon Brown's policy of denying the people a referendum on it. This is despite the fact that this month the TUC voted for having a referendum.

Politicians from EU member states have given public statements that the Reform Treaty would have substantially the same effects on the EU as the EU Constitution (which the EUs people rejected after referenda). Since the government previously promised a referendum on the constitution (in its manifesto at the last election) it follows that we should have a referendum on the treaty that replaced it. Greens passed a motion to this effect this month.

Massive potential for overspend building a 10 mile barrage

We cant build the Redland Green local secondary school to budget. Bath's spa project was three times over budget and six yrs late. Wembley Stadium was massively delayed and cost nothing like original estimates. Ok, each project had their own particular problems, but even so who thinks that we can build a 10 mile long Severn Barrage on time and within its estimated £15 billion (£15,000,000,000) budget? As with many big projects it wont just be private money that's involved - there will have to be local and national government involvement.

We really should ask whether investing in a huge barrage is the most effective and efficient way to spend money becoming greener. How many millions of houses could be made ultra energy efficient within months with spending on this scale, massively cutting carbon emissions? Private and public money going into the barrage isn't available to spend elsewhere, on what could be better projects.

Take major steps to fight climate change very soon - poll result.

A major survey of 22,000 people in 21 countries on climate change has been conducted. The key results? 4 out of 5 people say human activity is a significant cause of climate change; 9 out of 10 people say action is needed, with nearly 7 out of 10 saying its necessary to take major steps very soon. People have caught on to the message from best science - will we see action of the type and scale needed from conventional politicians now?

The 'Gordon Brown Party' Conference and the difference between saying and doing

The crucial thing about Gordon Brown’s conference speech was the massive difference between what he seemed to say and what has been achieved in the last 10 yrs, during which he’s been a crucial, central figure of the Labour Government. For example Gordon Brown spoke warmly of action on climate change but UK emissions of carbon dioxide are higher now than ten yrs ago, income inequality is high and rising, childhood wellbeing is in a poor state according to UN figures. He spoke warmly about supporting our armed forces but they often lack protective equipment and vehicles, and are housed in often sub-standard accommodation. He stressed a commitment to the NHS but tens of thousands still die prematurely due to un-tackled hospital-acquired infections like C-difficile.

In the end what counts is not what politicians say but the action they have taken and the outcomes they have achieved. Lets assess Gordon Brown based on his record, which includes attaining a very tight grip on his party.

The Labour Party conference should be renamed the Gordon Brown Conference because it has been so very leader dominated (and at times election obsessed). I ask - where has the Labour Party gone? Presumably it is happy to be dominated and controlled by its leader, going along with what the leader wants, like the retention of Trident, or no referendum on the EU constitutional treaty, whether it really wants it or not, because it feels this is its best hope of retaining power. Is it not better to have a more broad-based leadership though?

Gordon Brown’s conference speech to some extent imitated fellow ‘conviction politician’ Margaret Thatcher, (or even Winston Churchill). It worked at pressing the right buttons with people. He scattered key words like Britain and British tens of times throughout his speech because he wanted to create a certain sort of appeal. Opinion poll figures after the speech seem to indicate that it has upped support for the Brown government. Are we really going to be fooled like this?

Yr on yr loss of green spaces

Great letter on loss of Bristol's green spaces from Chris Miller today. I've commented twice this month alone on the flogging off of allotment land for house building so there's a few clear exmples for a start! Pigs can fly, the Earth is flat, and Bristol City Council's 'green capital' plans really will make us a sustainable city!!

On: 'green' Tories, Cameron & Thatcher (and other jokes) ; Mining impacts; Environmentalism; and Our Common Future's 20th anniversary

The Bristol Blogger used my name in one of his headlines yesterday. The story raised some issues that I have commented on via his site (copied, and expanded on a bit, below). Responding to his post (and one commenter) I said...

I'll do my best to stay calm and not rant on at great length about Tories merely talking green when it suits them, to get votes...(not that its working for them at the moment). Or in fact rant on about how there's a lot more to being green than environmentalism. Mind you my 'mate' Dave Cameron does wear a green tie a lot....

Interesting choice of film on mining those 'green' Tories have chosen to show, to say the least!! (Did you know that as well as apallingly dangerous working conditions and pittance pay: to make a single gold wedding ring takes 5-6 tonness of rock, leaving huge holes, tunnels, eroding canyons, leaving 20 tonnes of mine waste; traces of cynanide allowing miners to extract as little as half a gram of mercury from a tonne of rock; mercury used in extraction bioaccumulating in humans and the environment; huge piles of tailings laced with toxic substances; acid mine drainage polluting waterways....all thanks to major transnational companies).

Read the Newsweek article Blogger linked to with interest - not a bad piece really.

SHOCK! Mrs Thatcher and I do have something in common - no we are not both greens - we are both chemistry graduates (my specialism - rubber, Thatcher's - ice cream!!). She did understand and did pick up on climate change as an issue before quite a few other political figures, as far as I can gather. Despite having the scientific knowledge Thatcher cared not one jot about the environment though and took us not one iota in the direction of laying the foundations of a sustainable society - quite the opposite in fact. As an ardent capitalist she was even further from being green than being an environmentalist. Suffice to say I'm not about to 'do a Gordon Brown' and invite her for a photo opportunity outside my house wearing a suitably coloured dress - not that I'd want to or that she'd be the slightest bit interested!!!

There are certainly earlier, better and more lasting contributions to the climate debate from politicians, not least former Norwegian PM Gro Harlem Brundtland, a key figure, active still, in the highly influential report 'Our Common Future' - which is 20yrs old this yr, something which seems to have gone relatively unmarked! See http://www.jonathonporritt.com/pages/2007/09/our_common_future.html

Bristol City Council at it again ! More allotments to be flogged off for for building over

On Sept 6 I commented on the campaign to save allotments in Myrtle Drive, Shirehampton from being flogged off for building houses on. Today I read in today's local paper that Bristol City Council are at it again - wanting to sell off allotments in Bonnington Walk, Lockleaze for house building. The UKs 'green capital' would be doing the opposite of this ie trying its very hardest to up the number of allotments and the take up of allotments.

Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem - what's the difference?? Where is principle, conviction and real engagement in today's political world?

Being a glutton for punishment I watched a fair bit of last week's Liberal Democrat Party Conference and today have been watching the Labour Party Conference, whilst working. One speech that struck me today was that by Quentin Davies MP. This man of apparently great principle (he defected from the Conservatives to Labour in June this yr after 30 yrs of membership and 19 yrs as an MP, including being a Conservative front bench spokesman....) said in his speech that David Cameron's Conservatives didn't believe in aything. As he was speaking the TV camera panned to left-winger Dennis Skinner MP, who I'm sure feels comfortably at home with his fellow 'socialist' Quentin.

This is today's Labour Party. Quention Davies MP, son of a GP, educated at Cambridge and Harvard, followed by Diplomatic Service and investment banking. Dennis Skinner MP, miner, NUM leader in Derbyshire, educated at grammar school and Ruskin College . I cant decide which one is chalk and which cheese though!!

I have to ask where principle and conviction resides in todays big political parties. They dont seem to care too much it seems, provided they can get into a position to win elections - this is 'principle' number one. Minds are very concentrated on attracting the support of floating voters in certain key seats, mostly in the south and east of the UK and far too little on enacting principles through policy to solve problems. This would require real debate, real engagement with people to persuade them of what is needed ie what I'd call real politics. Instead what we get is basically just marketing.

The public dont feel there is much difference between the three big parties. The figures support their perceptions. For at least the last few general elections the tax/spending plans of the three parties varied by less than 1% of national wealth for example. The result of this and the general tone of politics is a very limited, often rather dull debate.

So many issues and problems for Bristol are transport-related

Today is World Car-Free Day. If Bristol is going to become the UKs ‘Green Capital’ it is transport-related problems that have got to be tackled perhaps more than any other. The list of issues raised by our current car, lorry and road-focussed, intensive approach to getting around is very long(not to mention flying of course, that’s another – related - issue).

Here’s a list of issues off the top of my head:

climate change contribution from carbon emissions;

toxic air pollutants and their health and wellbeing impacts, especially for children;

noise and vibration and the quality of life effects;

the footprint caused by transporting food over many hundreds/thousands of miles;

congestion stress, delays and costs;

public transport, cycling and walking investment relatively and absolutely poor whilst service quality is also lacking;

deaths, injuries and accidents;

road crime;

contribution to obesity and other health problems through lack of exercise;

loss of green, open space and threat to wildlife and biodiversity due to road construction…

Given these very serious issues doesn’t it make sense to: cut the need to travel as much; protect and enhance local community facilities and services; go by walking, cycling, bus/coach/train (invest serious money accordingly); make the price of travel by all methods fully and fairly reflect their total costs (raise the costs of non-renewable fossil fuel, bring in congestion charging and reinvest money raised in public transport..); plan transport properly (create a Transport Authority for Greater Bristol asap) ?? Challenge the green talk we get an awful lot of and demand green actions and outcomes.

For more on World Car-Free Day.

Severn barrage: outmoded, overpriced, destructive

Great letter on the Severn Barrage issue in todays Bristol Evening Post from Redland's Carl Turville, opposing barrage support given by Bristol West Lib Dem MP Stephen Williams. The points against the big barrage project are true and very telling indeed, though I'm not so keen on the opening jibe or as confident as the writer about the intentions of Russia I have to say (so lets build up our energy security).

The big barrage is indeed outmoded and overpriced as well as destructive. New energy efficiency and renewable technologies are rapidly coming along that are better. They are often homegrown.

It is vital that we harness the best and most appropriate technologies - they wont destroy wild, green places that need protection.

St Brendan's College green progress and green plans set a good example

The college where I worked for five yrs (1999-2004, including teaching environmental science), and whose governing body adopted the environmental charter I drafted and put to them certainly seems to be continuing to make some green progress as well as having green plans for the future. I hope of course that they make all the green progress they can.

In June this year: St Brendan's College said that it ‘is part of a new national initiative launched today which aims to showcase green education and help encourage sustainable development.’ It gave several specific examples of green initiatives, including new buildings that will have 'sustainable technologies such as ground source heating, solar energy generation, automatic buildings that control themselves, natural ventilation to avoid the need for air conditioning and automatic close down of PCs at night.'

Yesterday saw the unveiling of the 500th sign thanking people for not driving in Bristol, one of several, installed at St Brendan's College, encouraging students staff and visitors to think again before using their own car.

St Brendans continues to offer the AS and A level Environmental Science course (and has done since I taught it there).

Plus the college website says that the ‘…second key area in which the College Chaplaincy functions is that of Christian action. This takes a variety of forms, the most significant being: Justice and Peace Group,…& People and Planet Group…


But this is not all….


St Brendans is also part of the Sound of many waters Catholic environmental initiative and on Oct 4 is launching a UK Catholic school’s environmental audit project with the help of a presenter from the TV program Coast (an Open University/BBC series!).

Multiple studies show road safety cameras save lives!! (Though camera opponents will believe only what they want, whatever the facts)

Bob Bull thinks the evidence does not show that speed/safety cameras save lives and serious injuries. His letter says the figures I gave have been proved wrong (‘Speed Cameras’, Bristol Evening Post Soapbox, 20 Sept). I have to tell him that the evidence in favour of speed/safety cameras, from multiple studies, is overwhelming. I fear that he and possibly others will only believe what they want to believe, no matter what the facts are. An independent review by University College London, published 2005 of more than 4,000 cameras over a four year period, featured on the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents website, clearly demonstrates that cameras reduce speeding and collisions a great deal. Deaths and serious injuries at camera sites were cut by 42%.


The review concluded: vehicles breaking the speed limit at fixed camera sites fell by 70%; the reduction at mobile sites was by 18%; speeding at 15 mph or more above the limit fell by 91% at fixed sites and by 36% at mobile sites; average vehicle speed across all new sites fell by 6%; people killed or seriously injured fell by 42% at camera sites, meaning there were 1,745 fewer people killed or seriously injured at the camera sites per year – including 100 fewer deaths; people killed and seriously injured fell by 50% at fixed sites and by 35% at mobile sites; there was a 32% reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured at camera sites; the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured fell by 29% at camera sites; a 22% reduction in collisions involving (fatal, serious or slight) personal injury at camera sites, equating to 4,230 fewer personal injury collisions per year.


The impact of the first British speed cameras, installed in West London in 1992, was assessed by the West London Speed Camera Demonstration Project in 1997. In the first three years of operation, cameras: cut deaths by 70% ; cut serious injuries by 27% ; cut slight injuries by 8%.


A 1995 study by the Police Research Group concluded that speed cameras reduced casualties by 28%.


Initial evaluation of the pilot schemes by the DfT in 2003 found that the: drivers exceeding the speed limit fell from 47% to 20%.; drivers exceeding the speed limit by more than 15mph fell from 7.4% to 0.3%.; average speeds at the camera sites fell by 10% (3.7mph).; 35% fewer people (numbering 285) were killed and seriously injured; there was a 56% reduction in the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured at camera sites.; there were 14% (about 510) fewer crashes.


A three year review of cameras in 24 areas (“The National Safety Camera Programme: Three-year Evaluation Report” by University College, published 2004 ) found they significantly reduced speeding and collisions, and had cut deaths and serious injuries at camera sites by 40%.

Looks like Bob Bull and company are in a small minority of 18% or less since the level of public support for the use of cameras has been consistently high with 82% of people questioned agreeing with the statement that ‘the use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties’.


Public attitude surveys clearly show that people support safety cameras because they save lives. In a 2005 parliamentary statement the Secretary of State for Transport said that 71% of people surveyed agreed that the primary use of cameras was to save lives. Surveys conducted in the 8 pilot areas had previously found that: 70% agreed that “fewer accidents are likely to happen on roads where cameras are installed”; 67% agreed that "Cameras mean that dangerous drivers are now more likely to get caught"; 82% agreed that "Cameras are meant to encourage drivers to keep to the limits, not punish them"

Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents site has more.

Lib Dem middle of the road mediocrity

Yet another mediocre, middle of the road, Liberal Democrat Party conference making a big thing out of their environmental policies. They say the environment is at the ‘heart of everything’ they do, even though the party is, as the name suggests, built on liberal and social democratic ideas not ecological ones. Apparently they are the ‘only party’ with radical policies to tackle climate change - but their policies are inconsistent, incoherent and contradictory, merely tinkering around the edges of society instead of going to the root of problems.

Their stated aim of a zero carbon society is indeed one we must attain if we are to avert the worst impacts of climate change. However, Lib Dems don’t propose to make changes on the scale or of the consistency needed to achieve this aim – the numbers just don’t add up. Where are all the many and varied changes needed in the ways we do business, live our lives and measure progress?

As long as Lib Dems (and other parties for that matter) remain committed to ongoing economic growth on a finite planet at all costs, and ever-freer global trade, we cant begin to truly build a sustainable (and zero carbon) society, whatever their leaders have said this week.

Policies to address climate change require a different economic world-view. This is to be welcomed not avoided, as Lib Dems and others avoid it. The kind of materialism that is now driven by modern consumer capitalism is leaving people with lower wellbeing well as destroying our ecology. A sustainable, zero-carbon society will be a healthier, happier, society, with warmer homes, better public transport, stronger local communities, more green jobs - and more free time – and is to be strongly advocated and planned for. Policies needed to live good lives are the same policies needed to tackle climate change and achieve a zero-carbon society.

Lib Dem conference site for info. Examples of poor Lib Dem policies in local govt from Green Party conference site.

Shock (?) - Bristolians support the new waste/recycling system

So, people in Bristol support recycling - shock? Not!!

The Bristol Citizen's Jury on waste set up to advise on Bristol's new waste management and recycling systems, especially the brown bin food waste composting arrangement, has come out clearly in support of recycling.

People critical of the system were for me always a minority, probably a pretty small, but a very vocal one. Was the issue ever that controversial or contentious? Was a Citizen's Jury needed?

See the city website, or Bristol Evening Post report, 'Verdict in - people support recycling', 18 Sept., for more.

Lifelong learning, one key to a better quality of life, hit by government funding phase out

The Open University is currently very unhappy with the Labour government. Today I received the strongly worded email below from the university Vice Chancellor. I have to say that that the Open University's view is one I agree very strongly with - its short sighted to put barriers in the way of lifelong learning, a very valuable concept in building and maintaining a high quality of life through nurturing talents and equipping people for today's world.

I wrote to you last Monday to inform you of the unexpected decision by Government to phase out funding for students studying for qualifications equivalent to, or at a lower level than, a qualification that they already hold.

I write now to keep you updated on progress.

I have met with my fellow Vice Chancellors at the UUK meeting last week and there is much support across the board that this development is not helpful to the life-long learning agenda nor indeed to Government's own pronouncements about nurturing the talents of all its people. We are not alone in opposing this policy.

David Vincent and I also had a meeting with the Minister for Higher Education, Bill Rammell yesterday and we were left in no doubt that this decision is unlikely to be reversed....

...I remain of the opinion that this policy runs counter to the intention of the Leitch report on skills and the Prime Minister's own position on lifelong learning. We are a nation operating in a first world, high-skill, knowledge economy and we should be providing every incentive to encourage our people to align their knowledge and skills with that economy. This policy seems hardly likely to do that.

Brenda Gourley, Vice Chancellor

Severn Barrage wont help to stop 'threat from Russia' for many yrs!

The principle of investing in renewable energy sources in part to diversify supply and build energy security is an excellent one. Many people, Greens in particular, have been calling for such investment for decades. Unfortuneately it hasn’t really happened on any significant scale, despite the fact that we seem to be increasingly reliant on fuels like gas and coal from abroad.

Liberal Democrat MP for Bristol West Stephen Williams is, however, talking out of his hat by giving the 10 mile long Severn Barrage proposal as an example of enhancing energy security worth highlighting. Supposedly this is a renewable energy development that will ‘help to stave off power supply threats from Russia’ because ‘Putin is starting to use energy supply as a weapon against Western Europe’ (‘Barrage will stop threat from Russia’, Bristol Evening Post, Sept 17th).

As an absolutely massive civil engineering project the Severn Barrage will of course take many years to design, approve, construct and get into full operation and so cannot offer us any increase in energy security until it is. So - contrary to the headline and Stephen Williams words - it wont stop the threat from Russia, which is happening right now and in the critical decade to come (perhaps even as we construct our barrage if we ever got round to it)!

On these grounds the barrage cant help us fight climate change for some time either – in fact because of the many tonnes of concrete, steel and fuel used in construction it would add to climate change until the carbon free energy production makes up for it. Yet science tells us that the coming decade is the most critical one for fighting climate change and establishing better energy security.

To build our energy security (and fight climate change) more rapidly what we really need, and what Stephen Williams should be highlighting, is a very much larger energy efficiency, insulation and conservation program, sufficient to significantly lower energy demand, combined with the introduction of 'feed-in tariffs' to boost domestic 'micro-generation' of energy. These policies work faster, are truly green, and along with the introduction of individual carbon allowances, annual emissions cuts of nine per cent, plus investment in renewables generally, represent the next generation of low or zero carbon energy strategies.

Community benefit and the common good - from nuclear waste??

The terms ‘community benefit’ and ‘common good’ are in my view ideas inherently incompatible with nuclear waste. Yet both these terms have recently been used in connection with it! A report before West Somerset councillors describes a proposal, from the Magnox Electric firm, to set up a nuclear waste disposal facility near the Hinkley A nuclear station to help with decommissioning, along with a ‘community benefits fund’ to ‘compensate’ residents living nearby.

Is this the beginning of a number of such proposals around the country as old nuclear stations have to be decommissioned? This is the kind of territory that having an ongoing nuclear power program gets you into (including trainloads of nuclear waste flasks through Bristol every two/three weeks).

The Bristol Evening Post (‘Nuclear waste dump spurs cash handouts’, Sep 10) quotes the report as saying,

‘The establishment of a permanent disposal facility for low-level radioactive waste means that a continuing element of risk will continue for the foreseeable future and , as such communities should derive a benefit.’

First, this is an admission of the dangers of even low-level radioactivity!

Second, I certainly wouldn’t feel I’d benefited from having nuclear waste disposed of near me because ‘compensation’ was paid into community development projects.

The report also refers to the ‘substantial financial contribution to a common good fund’. Apparently its ok to sacrifice the common good of public safety provided cash is offered!

Not surprisingly the Stop Hinkley organisation does not like the fund idea, and does not want to see this idea used around the country. Spokesman Jim Duffy referred to the offer of cash as a ‘sweetener’ and ‘pay-off ’ which would be ‘spread very thinly in the community’ and could set a precedent – they are spot on. The idea of trading safety for cash like this should be seen as unethical.

Stop Hinkley’s views and work. The Bridgewater Mercury report on this issue.

Guardian report on how green groups are poised to withdraw from the government’s nuclear power consultation process because the facts are being distorted.

The influence of the nuclear lobby is high so perhaps, whether people generally want it or not, we will get both the nuclear dump plus 'compensation' and a new set of nuclear stations built (each of which will at some point need its waste disposed of).

'Cut the Carbon' in Bristol

I’m a very firm religious sceptic (thus the refs to humanism, rationalism and secularism in the right-hand column of this blog – under the heading Find out more about…) However, a good act is a good act and this one by a religious organisation is well worth supporting. Christian Aid‘s Cut the Carbon campaign is now in Bristol.

Christian Aid says the science shows that a cut in carbon emissions of 80% by 2050 is needed, as opposed to the government’s 60% target. They are calling for everyone, - individuals, government and business – to cut carbon emissions by 5% per yr.

A cut of 5% a yr on average around the globe would certainly make the world greener and more secure. However, the latest legislation from the government did not include the setting of annual reduction targets and over the ten yrs of Labour government carbon dioxide emissions have risen by approx 2%.

I’ve been measuring my household ecological footprint quite accurately since 1999. It was fairly low then (quite a bit less than average, and in the ‘green’ zone, according to the Ecocal computer model’s comparisons). Since 1999 my household footprint has been cut by approx a third (approx 4% a yr) – if its possible to achieve this sort of cut from a low base then 5% cuts are certainly practical where there is more waste, inefficiency and impact. It needs committment from people and leadership from government.

Details of Christian Aids Cut the Carbon campaign.

Who pays for 'cheap' supermarket food??

'There is no such thing as truly cheap food' is something I've long believed. There are many hidden social and environmental costs here and around the globe, now and on into the future, that purchasers just dont have reflected in the cost of goods or supermarkets in the size of their profits. Action Aid illustrate one cost of 'cheap' food with their latest campaign.

I've been involved with Action Aid for some time now as a child sponsor and strongly support its work on reducing global poverty (especially extreme poverty), HIV/AIDS, women's rights, food and hunger, emergencies, and rights to education, security and fair governance. I especially support its current Who Pays? campaign aiming to highlight the fact that its not the major supermarkets like Tesco, ASDA, Sainsbury's, and Morrison's who pay the costs of the price war (they make massive profits in fact). The costs are passed to the workers making what many buy, who work long hours for little pay in poor conditions (Action Aid cite examples from South Africa, Bangladesh, Costa Rica and India). Supermarkets force very hard bargains from suppliers who in turn force low pay and conditions, including health, safety and environmental standards.

Action Aid are asking people to sign a pledge card (which I have just done). The pledge says 'Many people around the world who produce goods for the UK supermarkets endure exploitation and poverty. I want government regulation to tackle this problem so I know no-one has suffered producing the goods I buy.'

An independent watchdog, binding rules and keeping supermarkets from abusing their power sounds good to me. I dont really use supermarkets that much anymore (I belong to an organic/local fruit and veg box scheme, use my local corner shop a lot and have meat, fish, dairy and misc. delivered by ordering from an online supplier). Supermarkets are useful for some things now and then though and many people will rely on them for some time yet.

More on Action Aid and their campaign.

Cant change the past but can help shape the future - stop slavery today !

‘As regards the current debate on apologising for Bristol's role in the slave trade during the 17th and 18th centuries, a recently published book (50 Facts That Should Change The World) stated that there are 27 million slaves in the world today. Perhaps rather than focussing on the past and seeking an apology for it, we should actually learn from that horrendous episode and now focus our attentions on stopping slavery in the modern (enlightened?) age’, said Damian Wardingley from Eastville (‘Learn from the past – help today’s slaves', Bristol Evening Post, Open Lines, 13 Sept 2007).

This is a very good point. We cant change the past but can help shape the future so that there is no more slavery.

Slavers literally own and control people, giving them little or no rights or freedoms, little or no pay for work, and basic subsistence only. The 27 million figure probably means a definition involving these aspects – use only slightly broader thinking and definitions means there are many more.

For more on slavery today.

Organic (ie low additive) food is healthier

The latest research on food additives, published in The Lancet last week, strongly reinforces the argument that organic food is healthier (most of the 290 additives allowed in non-organic food, including all artificial colours, the subject of the research, are banned from organics). Artificial colours in food worsen behaviour and attention span in children.

Full details of the study ‘Food additives and hyperactive behaviour in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the community: a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial’ are available here if you register, free, with The Lancet.

I see that as a result even the Food Standards Agency has modified its additives advice somewhat (though it does not go far enough for me).

The most serious form of ADHD affects between 2.4 and 5% of the UK population

Academies: education/child focussed or a business deal?

Both Labour and the Tories are keen on schools becoming academies. I’m certainly not, as I’ve written before, in relation to Hengrove. Schools should be set up and run in the interests of children, parents and local communities and not private individuals, businessess or religions. Consider the latest news on academies in Bristol - Are we talking about education , children, parents and community here, or a business deal??

The Bristol Evening Post reports that Christian charity Oasis Trust, founded by Rev Steve Chalke, has confirmed it is interested in turning Portway School in Shirehampton into an academy. In South Bristol Oasis is already due to take over what is now Hengrove Community Arts College, transforming it into Oasis Academy Hengrove in a year's time.

The Post says, One major complication for any potential sponsor is that Portway has already been rebuilt under a private finance initiative. The construction firm HBG has a 25-year deal to run the school premises and its associated community facilities. This means that although the sponsor would not have to contribute to the cost of a new building it might not have the same control as it would under the usual academy arrangements.Several organisations have looked at the possibility of taking over at Portway, among them another Christian group that runs schools, an offshore banking group and a further education organisation. But these schemes have not been pursued.Some observers say the Government does not think a privately- sponsored academy is viable at Portway because of its dwindling numbers. For this reason, there has been talk of including some primary sector schools in an academy "package."

Sounds like the primary focus is not education, children, parents and community – but is a business deal - to me. And didn't they try to put together a primary/secondary 'package' in Hengrove which the local people vigorously and successfully opposed?

The Post goes on ..Rich Williams, who was the National Union of Teachers' representative at Portway, said: "There seems to have been one mistake after another in the past few years over schooling in this area."It would be better and cheaper to invest in smaller classes rather than pushing for an academy."

Spot on Rich Williams – this is what we need to invest in, not academies. Smaller classes are key to good quality education.

People in Shirehampton would like to see more community involvement returned to the school, which has been run by an appointed interim executive board instead of a governing body for more than two-and-a-half years.

Spot on the people of Shirehampton – community involvement is key to good quality education and neighbourhood quality of life. But its not what we are getting from the big political parties.

Anita Roddick: Great leader and role model

Body Shop founder Anita Roddick spanned the spheres of business, the environment and politics, naturally. She was a bundle of energy and a great inspiration and role model for me in the early 1980's when I was first involved in green campaigning (and she is still an inspiration and role model). Her campaign involvements were many and varied: women; environment; animal rights; business ethics; fair trade; homelessness; missing persons; indigenous peoples; human rights...

Her sudden death at 64 is a shock to many, not least her partner, children and granchildren, as well as the many people her life and work impacted. How many people did business her way in 1976? She challenged, informed and was a spark to light a fire. Her influence will live on.

Children need real: play, food, experiences, interactions & time

We are letting children down very badly in the UK. I’ve written about the importance of understanding children and childhood, boosting outdoors education for children, the effects of air pollution and transport policies on childhood health, the rights of young people to gather in Bristol’s green spaces, and involving and empowering children and their parents within their schools, on this blog (click the label young people). Many other posts relate directly to child wellbeing, such as those on road safety, organic food, loss of community facilities like swimming pools and safeguarding the environment eg open/green spaces on into the future.

It wont surprise readers then that I fully back the letter ‘Let our children play’ sent to todays Daily Telegraph, not just because I’m a green but also because I’m a father and a teacher who worked with kids in secondary schools/colleges for over fifteen yrs.

The list of 300 expert signatories to the letter
is even more impressive and weighty than the 100 or so on a similar letter to the Telegraph in Sept 2006 (see blog entry of Feb 22, 2007).

The BBC headline when reporting this 'No outdoor play 'hurts children'...' is very appropriate. Children need: real play; real food; real first hand experiences of the world; real quality interaction with adults; and real time.

What does it take to convince some people about the need for road safety cameras?

Bob Bull’s letter in todays Bristol Evening Post criticising the Green Party (‘Driver education is what is needed’, Open Lines, 10 Sept) for being very strongly in favour of speed/road safety cameras misses the point on several crucially important grounds as well as being plain wrong that cameras ‘…in no way contribute to safer roads or better driving.’. The national pilot scheme on safety cameras showed a 35% average reduction in casualties where cameras had been placed. The pilot also showed an average 56% reduction in the number of pedestrians being killed or seriously injured at safety camera sites. http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/dcsc/public/speed/index.htm

Bob talks about cameras in relation to accidents but completely fails to mention that speeding not only increases the likelihood of accidents but also of deaths and serious injuries in the event of accidents. Take the 30 mph limit – the police point out that in an accident at 20mph 90% of pedestrians survive, at 30mph 50% survive but when breaking the limit at 40mph 90% die. So Bob, more speed, more death. http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/slowdown/slowdown.htm

He also misses the point that its not just the ‘..road safety groups and the Green Party…’ that have, in his terms, ‘…naively supported the speed kills campaign..’ but also our police force, local councils and central government. Are we all naïve? Bob seems to forget why a speed camera can appear in a place – local community concern, evidence of breaking the law by speeding, and a history of road collisions. So Bob, despite the vocal minority against cameras, many people do actually want them and campaign for them! http://www.transport2000.org.uk/activistbriefings/SpeedandRoadSafety.htm

No-one is against the driver education and better traffic policing he calls for but we need these things along with cameras to increase road safety and the quality of life. Finally, its notable that Bob, along with others who have written to oppose safety cameras, did not condemn the illegal destruction of them by extremely anti-social people.

My household ecological footprint (approx!)

My three person household’s ecological footprint is between 1.82 – 2.90 global hectares (comparable national average = 5.3 according to direct.gov) and carbon footprint between 4.20 and 7.64 tonnes per yr (10.22 = national average), according to various rough estimation methods available online (details below). Not bad at all given that the lowest figure I could find was 2.56 global hectares for the Findhorn Ecovillage in Scotland (though note that since the methodologies and degrees of accuracy vary any comparison should be very cautious). See WWF and Wikpedia for decent background on fooprinting issues.

For various reasons I am putting together a more accurate and detailed household/personal footprint document, (with results put into context via use of a consistent method) and will make it available through a link on this site soon. By far the biggest footprints are found in the northern hemisphere and especially in the west – strikingly illustrated by this map, which expands/contracts a country’s land area according to footprint. The planet entered ecological debt in the 1980’s.

There’s an awful lot of talk theses days about our footprint, usually ‘carbon footprint’ (tonnes of carbon emitted per yr) and sometimes ecological or environmental footprint (land area needed to sustain a lifestyle) as a measure of human impact on our planet. I spend a lot of time with my environmental science and technology students discussing and calculating footprints eg using the Ecocal computer model developed by Best Foot Forward Ltd following the work of Chambers, Simmons, and Wackernagel (reported in the book Sharing Nature’s Interest for instance).

Having spent the last seven years annually measuring my own ecological footprint when my students were doing theirs I recently took an interest in the carbon footprint application available through Facebook, curious to see how the rough estimate compared with the more detailed calculations I’d been doing at work.

http://apps.facebook.com/hotonearth/ - ‘carbon footprint’ application available through Facebook gave an estimated figure of 4.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide per yr for my 3 person household (1.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person per yr).

This figure seemed a bit low (my own estimate is 5 tonnes, or 1.7 tonnes per person per yr – about half the national average of 10.22 tonnes given on the direct.gov website), so I decided to trawl around online, trying out some of the many sites available for both carbon and ecological footprint estimation.

http://www.bestfootforward.com/footprintlife.htm - rough estimate of annual eco- footprint = 2.9 global hectares (4.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide per yr) ie 0.97 hectares per person (1.57 tonnes carbon dioxide per person).

http://www.earthday.net/footprint/info.asp - 2.8 global hectares (compared to a national average of 5.3).

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/kids_new/519308/572107?version=1 - 2.21 hectares (needing 1 x UK – great since we do only have one!!).

http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/ - 1.82 hectares – below the UK average, according to this site - (6.62 tonnes of carbon).

http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk/index.html - 7.64 tonnes of carbon dioxide (10.22 national average).

Breaking the law - ever justifiable? If so, when?

Is it ever justifiable to break the law when campaigning? This is a topical question given for example recent campaigns against climate change/flying at Heathrow.

Few people, if any, would argue that law breaking is never justifiable - think of prominent examples of law breaking to achieve positive social change like Vaclav Havel and the 'Velvet Revolution' in 1989, perhaps inspired by people like Mahatma Gandhi to gain independence in India and Martin Luther King Jr campaigning for civil rights in the USA.

I do belong to a radical party that has this core value: 'Electoral politics is only one way to achieve change in society, and we will use a variety of methods to help effect change, providing those methods do not conflict with our other core principles.'
http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/values.html

It is justifiable to break the law when campaigning and in fact some may feel compelled or duty-bound to do so, often inspired by people like Gandhi (who in turn was influenced by Henry David Thoreau) . However, if the law is broken it must, in my view, generally: appeal directly to the sense of justice of the majority; not reject the rule of law; be non-violent; accept lawful punishment that results; be a shrewd tactical move (why do it otherwise?); be consistent with core green values.

Mansions: more 19th than 21st century...

Personally I'm never going to be comfortable with Bristol’s Lord Mayors living in a luxurious Mansion. This is supposed to be an age of much greater equality and fairness not the 19th Century. Anyone else feel this way?? An article in today’s Bristol Evening Post relating to this caught my eye…

'David Clarke, the Lord Mayor's secretary and Sword Bearer, gives a brief history about the Mansion House to the guests' (‘Tea time at the Lord Mayor’s show’, Bristol Evening Post, 7 Sept) but does he give the full history and context surrounding the Mansion House or does he start, as the article suggests, in 1874? I may be wrong but I just cant see him outlining the 1831 Bristol Riots!

Just in case he doesn't, the extract below from the Bristol City Council website makes
the picture a bit more complete and if you want more detail see the extract below ** from the Bristol Radical History site (see the very good Guardian article too):

'It is in fact the third Mansion House, the original building in Queen Square was destroyed in the Bristol Riots of 1831. [Note: ‘A popular revolt for the vote which led to the first Reform Act’, The Guardian]. Although replaced by a second house in Great George Street, this was closed in 1835 under the drastic economies forced on the City Council by the Municipal Corporations Act. For many years the Mansion House was not only the home of the Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress, but also the lodgings of the High Court Judges.'


**1831 was a period of significant unrest in Britain centred in the political arena around issues of parliamentary reform[3] and the abolition of slavery. In France in 1830 suffrage issues had caused a revolution that had brought people to the barricades and forced the King to abdicate. The warning signs were there for the corrupt and tiny minority that controlled political power in Britain. As a pacifying reform, a bill that would extend suffrage to a small section of the middle class was introduced and then defeated in the House of Lords in September of that year. Public anger was widespread, there were riots in the Midlands against anti-Reform aristocrats, the effigies of Bishops who were against reform were burned and there was widespread sabotage in factories and mines.
In Bristol the magistrate, Sir Charles Weatherall, a notorious opponent of reform arrived in the city to open the hated assizes and decided to celebrate the defeat of the reform bill with the Bishop and other notaries. A protest by pro-reformists was joined by an angry mob who then attacked the Mansion house where Weatherall tried to take shelter after his carriage was stoned. After a cavalry charge by the Light Dragoons cleared the crowd from Queen’s Square the wealthy merchants who made up the notoriously corrupt Bristol Corporation must of thought the unrest was over. How wrong they were! The next day the mob returned with greater numbers and with a determination to burn, loot and destroy those institutions that they despised, the prisons, the houses of the rich (Queen’s Square, the Mansion House) and the houses of the corrupt (the Bishop’s Palace, the Cathedral). Some middle class pro-reformists attempted to halt the actions of the crowd by trying to convince them that Weatherall had left the city and in so doing had completely missed the point. This wasn’t about parliamentary reform[4] any more this was an explosion of class anger…(http://www.brh.org.uk/articles/mute.htm)

Dont flog allotments for housing - increase the number of sites and get people using them

One of the greenest things you can do is grow some of your own food. I therefore strongly support Paul Wilkes campaign on saving allotments (‘They’re losing the plot’, Bristol Evening Post, 6 Sept). Allotments have great environmental, health and social benefits. Bristol should be doing more to encourage the popularity of allotment gardening. Instead of flogging off allotment sites the city council, which after all has ambitions to be the UKs ‘green capital’, should aim to increase the number of plots per thousand residents. Neil Dixon, of the National Allotment Gardens Trust, http://www.nagtrust.org/page3.html said, ‘The average across the country is about 15 allotments per 1,000 population and in some areas that rises to 38 per 1,000. Bristol has about seven per 1,000. Bristol has sold a fair amount of allotment land. Some of the money has been used to run its allotments stock and improve it, in other cases it has gone on other projects.’

Allotments benefit well-being - allotment gardeners enjoy affordable fresh produce, tend to eat more fruit and vegetables than average and get plenty of exercise growing it! Composting on allotments also cuts waste. Go to these sites for information on allotment growing: http://www.allotments-uk.com/ http://www.nsalg.org.uk/ http://www.allotment.org.uk/index.php

At a Shirehampton site allotments are set to be redeveloped for 32 houses and flats ( Bristol City Council is set to flog Jubilee Allotments, in Myrtle Drive, to the Jephson Housing Association).

Paul Wilkes said "They are going to have to stop building on allotments. Where else are they going to find space for all the plots they will have to provide? They are closing allotments. Demand is increasing…more people appreciating the health benefits. The general population is increasing. So eventually you will need more allotments, not fewer."

He’s dead right. To flog off allotment sites now, when there is high potential to get more people, especially young women, growing their own, is very short sighted and not what you would expect of a city with ‘green capital’ ambitions. Thirty yrs ago only 2% of allotment holders were women. Now women account for at least 20% of allotment tenants. The rise is allotment popularity has been well reported http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4776325.stm .

What line do we get from the city? Council spokesman Simon Caplan said: "The Jubilee Allotments have been vacant and derelict for at least 10 years. The land has been earmarked in the local plan - the long-term blueprint for the city - for housing. As far as the law goes, we have to provide enough allotments across the city for people who want them. We do that. Demand has gone down and we have sold off land. We have 98 allotment sites currently, with the equivalent of 4,039 full plots, of which 2,942 are let (73 per cent). So there remains plenty of capacity across the city. Our target is to have 90 per cent let by 2012. The total we raised from these sales was £6.4 million - and £2.5m will go back into allotments to upgrade them."

Better quality allotment sites is good but it doesn’t sound like there is anything even remotely like a policy of getting more allotments plots per thousand to me. With this attitude we will never reach the national average number of plots in the city – so much for ‘green capital’ thinking!

Green Party policy on allotments, enacted in Bristol, would take us forward considerably:

· Local authorities to provide more proactive support for allotments and to work to cut waiting lists where demand for allotment plots is high.
· New allotment sites to be created on brownfield land and new housing estates.
· More public information on the availability of allotments and improved public education on the benefits of allotments.
· Allotments to be given much greater protection through the planning system.
· The removal of restrictions on the sellling and bartering of allotment produce, as long as it confirms to food safety standards.
· Improved access and better facilities for disabled people and raised beds.
· Allotment provision to be tailored to meet the needs of those who wish to take them up including different sized plots and ensuring provision is as close as practicable to all who would like them.

Involve people in plans right from the outset, as idea generators

Its really important to fully involve everyone with a stake in new plans right from the outset so this one has not got off to the brightest start. Plans for the redesign of Broadwalk shopping centre in Knowle have been unveiled (80 new flats, extra office space, and a new façade) by the owners Frogmore (‘Broadwalk’s revamp plans are unveiled’, Bristol Evening Post, 6 Sept) but locals are reacting to ideas presented rather than having been part of the idea generation process to now, it seems.

The Evening Post report, by Tom Hodson, on the plans quoted several local traders. Matt Savage from Knowle Traders' Association complained that local businesses had not been consulted prior to the unveiling, though the association will be meeting with owners Frogmore now.

Will Appleby of M &W Meats in Wells Road said: "It will bring more people to the area, but I still can't understand why they didn't tell us about it beforehand, so we could have helped push the scheme."

Pedro Nunez of The Barber Shop in Redcatch Road said: "It doesn't look as bad as I thought it would, but it would have been nice to have known more about it before they unveiled the plans."

Amir Amrabadi of Mr Crispins Fish and Chips in Wells Road said: "One of my worries is that the dentist inside the centre might go, which has thousands of patients and brings people into our shops."

Lets hope the process from now is a lot more participative – plans have been on show in the Broadwalk Shopping Centre.

Pesticide dependent farming: critical to sustainable development?? Huh?

The Crop Protection Association’s Dr Anne Buckenham said‘…it's worth remembering that farmers will only use a pesticide if they need to control pests that would otherwise ravage their crop and deprive them of their income. The judicious use of pesticides is therefore critical to sustainable development in many countries.’ (Bristol Evening Post, Open Lines, ‘The other side of the pesticides debate’, 5 Sept).

Slight flaw in this thinking, in the medium and long term, if not in the short term. Pesticides are manufactured from oil, a finite, non-renewable fossil fuel.

Oil will run out and where will pesticides then come from? The consumption of oil and its many products, pesticides included, is causing climate change that is already seriously impacting farming. Take these together and you have unsustainable food production.

How does it help farmers to keep them dependent on pesticides and not assist them to develop sustainable, more natural alternatives? Farmers can ‘control pests that would otherwise ravage their crop’ by methods other than unsustainable, toxic chemical use – organic farmers do it. At some stage soon they have to find sustainable methods in any case.