Core green principles

We do all need to look at our lifestyles as a letter from 'Bradley Stoker' asks us ('The world will soon be running on empty', Bristol Evening Post letters, February 7). It is very encouraging that increasing numbers of people are doing what Bradley Stoker did (finding out just how little oil there is left) that is, do a bit of research to find out the state of our planet and its resources and, having done so, take part in the debate and express concern.

The Green Party believes that life on Earth is under immense pressure and that it is human activity, more than anything else, which is threatening the well-being of the environment on which we depend (go to http://www.green.tv/ for illustrations). Conventional politics has failed us because its values are fundamentally flawed and it has brought us to the state we are in.

The Green Party isn't just another political party. Green politics is a new and radical kind of politics in that it aims to tackle the root causes of problems. For the Green Party all issues are connected and therefore all issues are green issues, whether its the economy, or education, health, or the environment itself. It is guided by ten core principles, which are developed and expanded upon to cover all those policy areas needed for the governance of a country in our comprehensive manifesto for a sustainable society (www.greenparty.org.uk) :

1.Humankind depends on the diversity of the natural world for its existence. We do not believe that other species are expendable.

2.The Earth's physical resources are finite. We threaten our future if we try to live beyond those means, so we must build a sustainable society that guarantees our long-term future.

3.Every person, in this and future generations, should be entitled to basic material security as of right.

4.Our actions should take account of the well-being of other nations, other species, and future generations. We should not pursue our well-being to the detriment of theirs.

5.A healthy society is based on voluntary co-operation between empowered individuals in a democratic society, free from discrimination whether based on race, colour, gender, sexual orientation, religion, social origin or any other prejudice.

6.We emphasise democratic participation and accountability by ensuring that decisions are taken at the closest practical level to those affected by them.

7.We look for non-violent solutions to conflict situations, which take into account the interests of minorities and future generations in order to achieve lasting settlements.

8.The success of a society cannot be measured by narrow economic indicators, but should take account of factors affecting the quality of life for all people: personal freedom, social equity, health, happiness and human fulfilment.

9.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.

10.The Green Party puts changes in both values and lifestyles at the heart of the radical green agenda.

Greens welcome opportunities to discuss politics, values and lifestyles and feel it is particularly important that people examine very closely any so-called green claims from other political parties. They seem today to be doing what they tried to do twenty years ago, that is jump onto the green bandwagon because they feel there are votes in it. They need to finally realise that the issues at stake are far too important for such behaviour and develop policies to solve problems rather than policies simply to gain electoral advantage.

Surge in green interest and concern

There is now a very strong surge in interest in being Green . Articles are appearing in all sorts of publications. I was contacted by a journalist yesterday for instance, who said,

'I'm writing a feature for Glamour magazine which I need an expert quote for - hoping you may be able to help! Basically the piece is about how winter never really arrived this year and how this could be attributed to global warming, increased levels of CO2 in our atmosphere etc. Anyway we basically wanted to run a few short tips from you about how the average Glamour reader can cut their carbon footprint.....Obviously these have to be quite female-orientated and unusual, rather than the things people are probably used to reading.'

My reply was as follows:

How about these suggestions (I've tried to think differently, as you suggested):

* Cut down on baby paraphernalia; support reuse and lower consumption by buying second-hand baby clothes; use untreated cotton bedding that hasn't had lots of chemicals used in its manufacture

*Dress ethically by visiting Ethical Consumers Green Clothing Directory (www.ethicalconsumer.org)

*Use natural fragrances - over 5000 chemicals are used in fragrance manufacture and 95% of these come from fossil fuels

*When eating out choose organic options from the menu (see www.soilassociation.org), especially if locally sourced; also support restaurants with small menus - the more different types of food they have to have ready the more food will go to waste

*When going to a hotel ask them to put 're-use' towel and sheet cards in the bedroom and bathroom - using sheets and towels for more than a day cuts at least 5% off the hotel's energy use and 70% of guests are likely to choose to reuse; dont use the freebie mini soaps and shampoos - they are a very wasteful form of packaging - and ask the hotel to use refillable dispensers

* Give a plant as a gift instead of flowers - many flowers are grown in chemical, water and energy intensive ways and are often flown around the globe for sale!

*Entertain by candlelight using natural beeswax or vegetable based candles that are biodegradable and aren't made from oil-based materials

*Cut your consumption, thus cutting energy and materials use, by supporting buy nothing day (see www.buynothingday.co.uk)

Looks like the magazine are likely to use the candle, plant and small menus quotes. Lets hope the surge of green interest is sustained and that fundamental action happens - it will need to be if we are to achieve real change!

We've had this green debate before!!

Is this the standard of 'green' debate we should expect in Bristol? Bristol Conservative leader Councillor Richard Eddy, photographed of course - since all Conservatives were really Greens all along - looking very concerned that newspapers are not being recycled at the city council, ' slagging off ' Councillor Gary Hopkins and his Lib-Dem colleagues as 'two-faced' ('Recycling - is it one rule for us and another for the council?', Post, February 6). Councillor Hopkins of course has a go back, in characteristically bruising style. Both claim to be Green these days, because they feel (as they have done in the past) that there are votes in it of course, but engage in the debate in the most un-green manner!

Councillors Eddy and Hopkins both seem to have a particular fixation with recycling, as if it is an end in itself! This one feature of politicians who are not Green but who are trying to appear Green. Actually recycling is far from the top of the list as far as being environmentally friendly is concerned. The first priority is waste reduction or minimisation and on this basis I'd be asking why there are so many newspapers at the council that need dealing with in the first place! After reduction comes the reuse of objects so that they do not enter the waste stream: for example the refilling of bottles. It's not until one gets down to the third level in the waste management hierarchy that one gets to recycling, composting and the recovery of energy from waste and yet much of the focus is here, both in government targets and council action.

Real Greens would be campaigning hard to emphasise the need for reduction and for reuse as our top priorities instead of quibbling over a relatively small point about city council newspaper recycling, the solution to which appears to be forthcoming anyway! However, I've no doubts that Councillor Eddy has achieved his political objective of getting some significant publicity by appearing to be concerned about so-called 'green issues'.

My great fear when I see and take part in the Green debate of today is that we have been here before. Back in the late eighties and early nineties there was a surge of interest in and concern for all things Green, as there is now. Politicians in the big parties suddenly 'became green' and claimed to have green policies. Yet if they had and they had followed through on those policies nearly twenty years on we would surely expect far fewer problems rather than the greater problems we actually have!

Something I wrote back in summer 1990, in response to Bristol City Council's Green Charter, is as worryingly relevant today as it was then:

'Can the institutions and decision making processes and politicians who have been in power and caused the problem really be trusted to solve it? Will they compromise at crunch points, as has happened over the years which have brought us to this point? Indeed we must ask whether the political will for real action can exist without Green Party councillors on the City Council. One of the big dangers is that people will feel that everything is ok because 'the council is doing something' when nothing fundamental has changed and environmental problems are more urgent than ever. It is vital that everyone keeps the pressure for action on, and remembering the kind of politicians that have given us our problems we must all beware of 'greenspeak'.'

Success: New Oak saved !!

It's great news for all those who have campaigned to prevent the closure of New Oak Primary School that plans to make the forthcoming Oasis Academy at Hengrove a 3 -18 school are to be dropped by Bristol City Council ('3 -18 school bid set to be dropped', Bristol Evening Post, February 2). The saving of New Oak is largely down to the sustained hard campaigning of local people, of all political persuasions and none, like Lorraine Lewis and others, who the Green Party have been very happy to help and support by applying additional political pressure.

I'm glad that council officers will recommend rejection of the 3 -18 plans now that 76% of repondents to the consultation are opposed and look forward to a confirmed, concrete political decision to keep New Oak open. I'm not happy with the position of all those who supported this plan originally though.

Councillor Jos Clarke, perhaps characteristically of many Liberal Democrats, seems now to be facing in contradictory directions. All along she has argued for the so-called educational benefits of the 3 -18 plan and has fronted the council position on New Oak closure. Now that she knows 76% are opposed she is saying she shares her constituents concerns about many aspects of the plan! Is she offering leadership as well as representation to her community or is she just following the trend of local opinion, now that it has been made abundantly clear, because she knows there is an election this spring? What a lack of conviction!

Councillor Clarke also sees fit at this point to pass the buck by saying that she and the council were pressured by central government to make a swift decision. Yes pressure was applied but it is her job and the council's job to lead and represent local opinion and stand up to such pressures in the interests of local democracy. Further lack of conviction.

An 11-18 academy involving the evangelical Christian Oasis Trust is still due to replace Hengrove School and so the Green Party remains concerned about the secondary schooling provided for Knowle, Hengrove and the surrounding areas served. It remains my position that schools should be set up and governed in the interests of children and parents, of all religions and none, and not private individuals, businessess or religions. Academies are not a genuine solution to todays education issues. Greens will continue to campaign for good general schooling which is well and fairly funded for all and which maximises parental and student participation and local community-based power.

Let's protect our wetlands !!

World Wetlands Day is coming up soon, on Friday 2 February. The Convention on Wetlands, sometimes called the Ramsar Convention, was adopted on that day in 1971, in the Iranian city of Ramsar. All sorts of organisations, particularly green ones, have taken advantage of having a World Wetlands Day to raise public awareness of the value of wetlands and the importance that should be attached to their protection from development. One possible threat to wetlands in the region is the Severn Barrage of course.

Our wetlands include: the ponds in our gardens and parks as well as naturally formed ones; rivers like the Avon, Severn and Frome; reedbeds; and bogs. A very large variety of plants and animals live in these habitats which are prized by nature lovers and seekers of leisure and recreation. They are very important for our bodiversity as well as fulfilling a key role in storing flood water. Vitally now that climate change is bringing more weather extremes, wetlands reduce flooding in built-up areas.

Climate change is now a reality. Rising sea levels, warmer, drier summers, stormier winds and wetter winters are features we are seeing. Wetlands soak up water like sponges, allowing it to drain away into the ground in a controlled way in times of flood risk. As a result less reaches our towns and cities, where it can be very damaging. Wetlands are a buffer between the sea and inland development - absorbing the storm energy and acting as a storage area for high tides.

Wetlands protect areas where people live. A lot of work has been and is being done to restore drained and damaged wetlands. New ones are being established across the UK including restoring traditional ‘washlands’, putting the bends back in straightened-out rivers, and creating large areas of reedbed, which act to clean polluted water. 400 hectares were produced by the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust alone in 2004/5.

Greens feel that valuing wetlands is the right thing to do for future generations and appeal to people to continue to support their rivers, ponds reedbeds and bogs. They are often of high aesthetic value because of their form, appearance and beauty. They are highly valuable ecosytems, benefitting both human and non-human life. They are often used for education and training so their value to learning is high. Wetlands are a good source of relief from toil as providers of spare time interest. Wetlands are very good for the economy because of the protection from damage they offer, and the leisure and tourism money they can bring in.

Air pollution impairs children's lung development

Children living and going to school within a third of a mile of the busy Wells Rd and Bath Rd in Knowle and elsewhere are seriously at risk of impaired lung development, according to the latest research published in The Lancet. The areas in and around these busy, congested roads have long struggled to meet decent air quality standards. Many other parts of Bristol will also fall into this category.

The US study, which examined the lung function of 3,677 children annually from the age of 10 until they reached 18 when the lungs are fully developed, showed that children who lived within 500 metres of a major road had lung impairment. Children who lived 1500 metres or more away had less impairment, even when factors such as smoking in the home were taken into account.

Its already known that toxic traffic fumes can trigger asthma attacks. The research suggests pollution can stop lungs from growing to their full potential - whether children are otherwise healthy or not.

There's no doubt that fumes from Bristol's very heavy traffic are the number one cause of the air pollution and subsequent childhood health problems, though scientists do not know exactly how air pollution does the damage yet. They do believe however, that lung inflammation in response to daily irritation by air pollutants is a factor. There is accumulating knowledge that the chemicals in the exhaust emissions of cars and lorries adversely affects lung development in the first eight or so years of life, probably through their powerful oxidant effect. Highly reactive oxygen molecules, free radicals, can damage cells and DNA.

Our central and local government has consistently failed to tackle the root causes of air pollution, traffic congestion in particular. The area where I live in Knowle is a very good example of this fact and is far from being the only area suffering. Whilst parents who read about this will be very concerned, all the government spokeswoman said on the issue was that they would consider the evidence and whether further investigations were needed. Further investigations are all very well but in the meantime children's health suffers on a daily basis. What we need is less talk and more action get us all walking, cycling and using public transport, instead of wasteful, inefficient and unhealthy car use. This means leadership eg on congestion charging, local rail, bus fares and quality of service, and putting your money where your mouth is. Dont hold your breath though - we haven't seen this for a long time!

Inspiration from Robert Burns, born 25 January 1759

Robert Burns poet and lyricist, born 25 January 1759, will have the anniversary of his birth celebrated by many. Many of us would have sung or listened to others singing his poem/song Auld Lang Syne at New Year. He often wrote in Scots dialect of course and particularly when he wrote in English, his political or civil commentary was often radical.

Burns was a pioneer romantic and inspiration to radicals, liberals, socialists and Scottish nationalists. As a green much of his work inspires me so I thought this may be the right moment to include a small sample of his work.

John Lapraik, a friend of Burns, stimulated him to write two great pieces. In the 'First Epistle to John Lapraik', Burns includes these lines:

"Gie me ae spark o' Nature's fire,
That's a' the learning I desire;
Then, tho' I drudge thro' dub an' mire
At pleugh or cart,
My muse, tho' hamely in attire,
May touch my heart."

The 'Second Epistle to John Lapraik' details the bad luck which has been the writer's share, and leads to a declaration on the value of lowliness and contentment:

"Were this the charter of our state,
On pain o' hell be rich an' great,
Damnation then would be our fate,
Beyond remead;
But, thanks to heav'n, that's no the gate
We learn our creed.
"For thus the royal mandate ran,
When first the human race began,
The social, friendly, honest man,
Whate'er he be,
'Tis he fulfils great Nature's plan,
An' none but he."

Cut human-caused weather extremes by going green

January 20th marked the four hundredth anniversary of the huge tidal wave around the Bristol Channel that caused so much death, damage and distress. Such an anniversary reminds us of the awesome power of natural forces. This power has been clearly demonstrated to us all in Bristol and across the country in our recent weather, with several deaths resulting.

The tidal wave four hundred years ago was a natural event. Yet we are now living in a time where we cannot say that all the weather extremes we experience are wholly natural events. Firm, reliable and verified scientific evidence as collected together by the UN and others has now been saying for decades that pollution of the atmosphere with carbon emissions has altered our climate and thus our weather. Weather extremes have always happened and always will but science now says that as a result of human behaviour these extremes will occur more frequently and that they will be more intense and damaging.

As I write even more scientific evidence is being presented by the BBC/Open University in their report on the climateprediction.net project. Many Bristolians have taken part in this by downloading climate model software onto their home computers from the BBC website. The findings of this project are stark and go beyond a pleasant Mediterranean climate. Evidence of: increased flooding risk; more powerful storm surges; more torrential rain; stronger heatwaves, and more, are confidently predicted to occur if we dont act to substantially cut carbon emissions. Links between environmental problems are also presented eg year on year decrease of open, green space in Bristol reduces the natural capacity of land to deal with extra rain and so flooding risk rises. Unlike green space tarmac and concrete dont act like a sponge.

Problems like carbon emissions and open space loss caused by human behaviour can of course be changed by altering behaviour. Saving energy through upgrading home insulation keeps you more comfortable and saves you money on bills as well as cutting carbon emissions. Taking the train and/or holidaying in the UK instead of flying cuts emissions but also boosts your local, regional and national economy as you spend here and not abroad - there's also a lot to discover in our diverse country. Helping to save a piece of local open green space from development will maintain the ability of land to cope with rain and campaigning to build and maintain genuinely local facilities like swimming pools cuts car use, making our air healthier to breathe. There are many big plus points in such behaviour change - so go green!

Hengrove Academy: Why is there such a lack of conviction in the big parties?

I'm really glad that the Bristol Evening Post has invited readers to write in with their views on plans for a new academy at Hengrove. People in the area are working really hard to make their views known. They are not getting the attention and support they deserve from their elected representatives despite their efforts to have ongoing proper debate over a decent timescale. We need decision making that is genuinely participative and on this type of issue the final decision should rest with the local community because its their kids schooling and their local environment.

The Green Party has taken a stance against the academy honestly based on its long-held convictions and issued a press statement as well as writing letters and publishing material on its local website. Where are the positively stated views of the Labour, Lib-Dem and Conservative Parties? Why are they so silent on this issue? Why have the Hengrove people who have contacted us been able to tell us just how hard it is to get definite views from elected reps? Hengrove Lib-Dem Councillor Jos Clarke, also in the Bristol Cabinet with responsibility for education, has not exactly made herself fully available to her constituents according to our information.

It is situations like this, where politicians in the Labour, Lib-Dem and Conservative Parties often seem to lack backbone and conviction, that helps to bring politics, local politics in particular, into disrepute. It seems they dont want to stand up and be counted for fear of upsetting voters, yet by not giving their views this is exactly what they have done anyway.

Politicians should also set a personal green example

Tony Blair and the government should set a good example on climate change by adopting more sustainable personal behaviour and so Philip C James letter ('Government must lead by example', Bristol Evening Post, January 15) hit the nail on the head. We all need to do our bit because it all adds up - the Government are asking us all to contribute and it is hypocritical if they are not doing likewise.

Philip asks whether Labour are ready to offer leadership on this issue. The signs are far from good. Tony Blair first said he had no intention of cutting back on personal air travel but then quickly announced he would start to offset his carbon emissions. I cannot see why Tony Blair would not help to promote the country he leads by saying that he would take a holiday or two here instead of always flying. What does he not like about the UK?

Whilst his very sudden conversion to offsetting his carbon is welcome up to a point, there are also issues with the effectiveness of some offsetting schemes. Its also the case that committment to carbon offsetting varies considerably across the Cabinet! What's more the government's own advice to businesses considering carbon offsetting says that action to minimise emissions should be taken first, with only emissions that cannot be eliminated then offset. This is excellent advice to all trying to make carbon cuts and Tony Blair himself should follow it.

In a survey of government ministers only 5 out of 14 questioned by The Guardian currently offset their personal carbon from flights. This is very poor. Secretary of State for Culture Tessa Jowell was quoted as saying, 'I'll be working to plant trees to offset my carbon emissions'. This shows a real lack of awareness at the heart of government about what makes a reliable carbon offsetting scheme - in the week they are launching an offsetting standard! There is no way as yet to accurately measure how much carbon is absorbed and released by forests and woods as trees go through their lifecycle. One EU study estimated that Europes forests absorbed somewhere between 120 and 280 million tonnes of carbon per year, indicating massive measurement uncertainty.

There is growing interest in carbon offsetting but people considering it, Cabinet members included, should look closely at the particular schemes used and shop around for the best. Those that are heavily reliant on tree planting may not be reliable in terms of carbon absorbed - the error in measurement can be as high as 50% according to one New Scientist report! This is perhaps no surprise as carbon absorption by trees depends on many things: species; age; our increasingly uncertain climate, especially droughts and forest fires; diseases; canopy type; a range of pollutants and other factors.

Tree planting done properly is a very good thing and in optimum conditions a lot of carbon can be absorbed but such conditions seldom exist and its very hard to know with accuracy how much is absorbed. There are still fears that foresters might cut down existing forests to plant carbon guzzling trees. There are also many competing land uses for areas around the world that might be considered for trees, not least food production.

In any case carbon offsetting by trees is only a temporary 'solution'. Once trees are mature they begin emitting net amounts of carbon as they begin decomposing in whole or part. They must be removed or managed so that locked up carbon is not simply released again a few decades on.

Its important that we dont come to rely on carbon offsetting, especially by tree planting. Its tempting to put off the real task of cutting pollution or wriggle off the hook of emissions targets. However, the only guaranteed way to tackle climate change is to adopt sustainable lifestyles, which in any case would enhance our general wellbeing. So come on Tony Blair and company - show us how this is done!

New Academy in Hengrove: Parents and kids should come before religious influence

I am opposed to the setting up of Academies such as the one Oasis Trust is involved in setting up in Hengrove, where many Knowle parents send their kids to school, and am thus in substantial agreement with Phil Jones from Knowle ('A case of indoctrination or moral guidance?', Open Lines letter, Bristol Evening Post, January 10).

Schools should be set up and governed in the interests of children and parents and not private individuals, businessess or religions (as in the case of the evangelical Christian Oasis Trust). Academies are not a genuine solution to todays education issues.

Very poor consultation, failing communication, accelerating opening/closing plans, the lack of experience of running schools of Oasis Trust and very strange council decisions concerning local primary education just make the situation even worse. I just hope that, whatever happens here, local children are provided with good general schooling.

Organic food: safer, healthier, greener, ethical

It is clearly wrong to say that organic food is not safer, healthier and more nutritious than that grown with artificial chemicals and drugs, as argued by Dr Anne Buckenham from the Crop Protection Association (Bristol Evening Post letters page, Feedback: 'Organic Food', 8 January). Organic foods generally contains more of the good stuff our bodies need for good health as well as less of the contamination that we don't need.

Properly and naturally look after the soil that crops come from and the animals used for meat, eggs and dairy, and their products will look after you. Most people will probably feel this is the case instinctively, as evidenced by growing organic food sales. There is plenty of science to support their instincts too and so the Labour Government's Environment Secretary David Milliband is mistaken to say that food grown with chemicals is not second-best, except perhaps for when the food has been imported from a long distance away, increasing its environmental impact ('Organic farmers hit back at Milliband', Bristol Evening Post, 8 January) .

Take what is perhaps the biggest UK food crisis in decades - BSE. Organic farmers banned the feeding of animal protein to farm animals long before the BSE crisis hit beef farmers. There have been no recorded cases of BSE in any animal born and reared organically.

Antibiotics are used massively in non-organic animal farming. They are used to promote rapid growth and to prevent disease in intensively reared, overcrowded farm animals. This is demanded by our current food system, with its emphasis on quantity not quality. High standards of animal welfare in organic farming minimise the need for antibiotics and other veterinary drugs which are used only when strictly necessary.

Organic fruit and veg generally have greater levels of beneficial minerals, essential amino acids and vitamins. Research comparing the nutrient contents of organic and non-organic fruit and vegetables reveals a strong trend toward higher levels in organic produce. Of 27 valid comparisons of the mineral and vitamin C contents of organic and non-organic crops, 14 showed significantly higher levels in organic produce while just one favoured non-organic.

Organic crops are not artificially protected with pesticides so they tend to produce more naturally occurring phytonutrients, many of which are now known to have protective,antioxidant properties. Some are proving useful in the prevention and treatment of cancer. The artificial fertilisers used in chemical farming tend to increase the water content of fruit and vegetables. This tends to produce the bigger yields our current food systems demand but it dilutes the nutrient content of non-organic fruit and vegetables.

Organic milk, according to research carried out by scientists in Britain and across Europe, has nearly 70% more essential fatty acid omega-3 that we hear so much about as essential for a healthy body. Studies have also shown that organic milk contains significantly more vitamin E. Organic cows milk good is because the animals eat a much more natural fresh grass and clover diet. Most non-organic cows eat a more grain-based diet containing cereals, maize and protein supplements.

Yes its important and healthy to get at least our five-a-day fruit and veg, whether it is organic or not, especially if the food source is local, regional or British because this lowers the environmental impacts of food production. However, eating at least five organic fruit and vegetables a day is even better, doubly so if local/seasonal. Non-organic apples can be sprayed up to 16 times with 36 different chemicals, many of which cannot simply be washed off. Government tests, in 2005, found pesticides in 80% of non-organic apple samples.

Pesticides are found on one in three non-organic foods tested each year, and multiple residues of up to seven different compounds are not uncommon. Pesticide safety is tested for individual compounds. Unfotuneately we know very little about the 'cocktail effect' of multiple residues. Some research suggests that they may be hundreds of times more toxic than the same compounds individually.

The British Medical Association say that some pesticides can be stored in our body's fatty tissues for years, raising concern about them being carcinogenic (cancer causing), mutagenic (causing birth defects) and neurotoxic (damaging to our nervous system). Organic farmers predominantly use natural methods to control pests so choosing organic is the best way to avoid pesticides in your food.

Organic food processors are prohibited from using a host of ingredients that researchers say may be harmful to our health such as aspartame, hydrogenated fat, phosphoric acid, sulphur dioxide, monosodium glutamate, or artificial flavourings and colourings, none of which are prohibited in non-organics.

My answer to the question: 'Do you think organic food is worth buying?' - is generally yes it is, especially if it is British, and we should be doing more to support it, increase the amount produced and help to bring prices down. Clinical and observational evidence in humans suggests that organic food, with fewer toxins and more nutrients, can make a difference to our health. Few, if any, dispute that organic farming is better for the environment and is more ethical too. It has to be said that it's difficult to do controlled health studies with people because of complicating factors like genes and lifestyle. In controlled animal feeding trials though, the evidence is clear. Animals fed organically produced feed are healthier in terms of growth, reproductive health and recovery from illness.

Pot (Government) and kettle (airlines): both black !!

'Its like the pot calling the kettle black'. In this case the pot is Government Environment Minister Ian Pearson, calling the kettle, budget airline Ryanair, black by recently saying they are "the irresponsible face of capitalism" for not acting to fight climate change. He has pointed to the airline and accused them of doing something that the Government he is a member of are guilty of doing themselves and so provides an excellent example of this saying.

"The pot" represented by the Blair Labour Government is very close to the kettle and has been going black cooking away over the fire for ten years. It has managed to achieve an increase in emissions that cause climate change of 2%, though one would never guess this from their warm words of concern about our climate. "The kettle" represented by the airlines has been boiling away over the fire, becoming black from the flames, helping the Government to achieve its rise in climate change emissions of 2% very efficiently and effectively.

The pot and the kettle are old friends who have turned black with time; the pot only sees the blackness which is on the kettle; he doesn't see the black on himself.

Its no wonder then that the airline critic was told by his bosses not to make any further comment on the issue!

Q&A in Seven Magazine

I will be featured in the Bristol Evening Post's Seven Magazine, in the Q&A section. My answers to the questions they put are:

Tell us about your job.
I'm an Associate Lecturer in Environment with the Open University, as well
as the Coordinator of Bristol South Green Party.

How long have you been doing the job?
I've been with the Open University for nearly seven years. My involvement
in the Green Party goes back over twenty years, including being a
Parliamentary Candidate in Bristol South in 1987 and 2001.

Where do you live?
In Knowle. I was brought up, went to school and have
virtually always lived in Knowle.

What is your favourite food?
I love traditional food like fish, chips and mushy peas but have taken to
having haddock instead of cod because haddock are in plentiful supply in
the oceans, unlike cod. I'm also very keen on Sunday roasts, especially
lamb, though I dont eat a lot of meat. I like a lot of different foods
though and do a lot of cooking.

What is your favourite smell?
Baking bread is hard to beat. There is a certain smell of the English
seaside and woodland that's very pleasant and relaxing too.

What would your idea of perfect happiness be?
I've never been comfortable with the idea of perfection. I want my
partner and daughter to be happy, healthy and achieve their potential of
course. And there are so many wrongs in the world I'd like to see put
right. I'd be very happy to see the Green Party get the public support and
votes its ideas have long deserved. They really do merit recognition - and
of course they have not jumped on the green bandwagon like others because
they started it going!

What's the most valuable lesson life has taught you?
I've often felt that its not been enough to be rational and well reasoned
when trying to achieve change, something else is needed. I also like the
saying that: proper preparation prevents poor performance.

What is your favourite record/piece of music?
This is very hard because I like a lot of music of pretty varied types. I
do play certain songs a lot though, so on this basis While My Guitar
Gently Weeps by George Harrson/The Beatles of which there is a fantastic
version on the new Love CD.

What is your favourite book?
For fiction: The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one I've read many times.
Tolkien builds a whole world very completely, with the history and
languages of many peoples, as well as writing very movingly in places. For
non-fiction: Ray Mears books on bushcraft or Edward de Bono's books on
thinking skills are very good.

What was your most embarrassing moment?
I found it hard to come up with much here, though I did remember mixing up
the words Turks and Kurds (with the obvious embarassing result) when
having a serious discussion on the Iraq issue with my mum-in-law. I was
told I blushed heavily!

What was your childhood ambition.
At secondary school I was very good at sports, especially rugby, because I
had a very good turn of speed, so I remember thinking that I might well be
capable of playing for good club like Bristol. I also remember being very
keen on writing, something I've been able to follow up on through my work
in education - and regular letter writing to the paper!

What would you like to be doing in five years time?
Supporting my daughter with her A' levels or whatever she is doing and my
partner with her work. I'd like to be part of a strong, successful group
of elected Green Councillors influencing Bristol City Council
significantly. I'm keen to write, so would like to help the Open
University to write an environmental course or two, and maybe I'll even
get a few books published!

What do you think of the events planned as part of the city's Abolition
200 commemoration and the invitation to Nelson Mandela?
Its most important to commemorate in ways that maxmise opportunities to
fight the injustice and inequality of today, here and around the world. It
would be very hard to find a better role model for persistently fighting
for a just cause than Nelson Mandela, and so I hope he comes here.

Efficient, healthy, green - the humble bicycle (Happy 30th Brithday Sustrans)

What would stretch twice around the world if they were lined up head to tail? Answer: all the cars in Britain, according to The Ecologist magazine. To make things worse car traffic is due to increase by over a fifth in the next ten years, not least in Bristol unless we change our habits. So, its worth reminding ourselves of just how efficient, healthy and green that great piece of technology - the bicycle - is, especially since Sustrans the country's leading, and Bristol-based, sustainable transport charity is about to celebrate its 30th anniversary.

Primary energy use in cycling amounts to just 0.03 megajoules per kilometre! Even walking, which consumes 0.14 megajoules, is not this efficient. The average for a car with average occupancy is 2.1 megajoules per passenger kilometre whilst domestic air travel is also 2.1 due to its higher occupancy rates. Public transport fares better with figures of 1.1 per passenger kilometre for the average rail (about the same as a double decker bus) and 1.4 for a single decker bus, depending on occupancy rates. The most efficient forms of public transport, such as London Underground trains or certain forms of tram might achieve figures as low as 0.2 megajoules when fully occupied - still no match for the bicycle.

This makes the bicycle 70 times more energy efficient than the average car and 6 or 7 times more efficient than even the best forms of public transport running under the most efficient conditions. So, in terms of efficiency, my answer to the question 'Have you got any suggestions for improving transport in and around Bristol?' is to invest much more in cycling and try harder to create a cycling culture. More is also needed for public transport.

We need a cycling culture for our health too. One BUPA study found that childhood obesity had doubled in a decade. Over a third of children aged 2-7 years dont get enough exercise and nearly two thirds of teenage girls are classed as inactive. Contrast these figures with the fact that a 10% increase in the number of people riding a bike regularly would lead to a 4% reduction in people with heart disease, saving hundreds of millions a year in healthcare. And it would create a more pleasant, greener environment.

Current hunting ban is weak

Given that more than 300,000 people seem to have taken part in 314 fox hunts across the country on Boxing Day it seems that what many have been calling a ban on hunting is not really a ban at all.

Greens like me would enact a proper ban on hunting with hounds. The present Act 'banning' hunting is weak and almost unworkable. The police have said that they are unable to enter private land without the landowner's permission. They have maintained they don't have the manpower to deal with the issue. Hunting with hounds is also a 'non-recordable' offence at present. The political will from the government just wasn't there when it came to banning hunting.

Praise from the Bristol Cabinet's Environment Spokesman

Thanks for letter of support, councillor

The above is the title of a letter in the Bristol Evening Post from Knowle's Lib-Dem Councillor Gary Hopkins, who speaks on environmental issues and other matters for the Bristol Cabinet. His letter goes on to say:

'I WELCOME the letter of support from green candidate Glenn Vowles ("Recycling is not to blame for rat boom", Open Lines, December 13)...It is good to see that at last an opposition politician is responsible.'

The way politics is conducted is very important. Its often conducted in such an apalling, negative, irrational and point-scoring way, with criticism for the sake just of criticism. Many people are put off by this and dont bother to vote and/or develop a view of politics and politicians as the lowest of the low.

I believe in applying ethical standards across the whole of life and when campaigning politically feel that it should be done ethically. I was very happy to support Councillor Hopkins on the issue of recycling and the rat boom because he is right on this one and had been very unfairly criticised over several days in the press. By supporting him on this issue I was also defending recycling.

He should be in no doubt though that I am very critical of the general Lib-Dem stance on a very large number of issues, not least the appalling state of public transport in Bristol which is ruining the quality of out lives and giving us very poor air quality. And of course Councillor Hopkins is in the Cabinet that took the decision to close Jubilee Swimming Pool, despite the fact that his election address said he would fight all plans to close it.

Expanding airport would destroy efforts to fight climate change

It is my view that the proposed expansion of Bristol Airport, doubling passenger numbers by 2015 and then trebling them by 2030, along with the readiness of BIA (Bristol International Airport) to fund the building of new roads linking the airport to the motorway and the South Bristol ring road, will destroy any other efforts made by people in the region to reduce the use of fossil fuels and fight climate change. Currently the airport is responsible for much more fossil fuel use than all the traffic in Bristol according to their own figures.

Aviation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions and it has now been acknowledged by the recent Stern Report that climate change is the gravest threat to global prosperity. The costs of UK aviation’s contribution to climate change has been estimated at well over £2 billion. The health costs of the UK aviation sector’s air pollution amount to over a billion pounds per year. We cannot expect to start tackling climate change and expand airports. Models of development strongly featuring road and air travel growth are increasingly discredited, not least by climate change, and are not genuine development ie change for the better.

BIA state that ‘climate change is a global issue and action is needed at national and international level’. It makes no mention of changes being needed at regional, local and personal levels. If we are to tackle climate change action is needed at all levels. If individuals, local councils, businesses and regions are not playing their part then achieving change and tackling the problem at national and international levels will be very difficult indeed. We cannot say that that the solution to climate change is only for national and international level action, since we all make decisions every day which impact on our climate.

It is my view that BIA are not fully and properly assessing the total impact of what they are proposing. I do not go along with BIA’s assumption that actual and projected trends in flying are a good thing. Such trends must be subject to change and shaping by debate in society and should not simply be accepted. In my view it is both desirable and necessary to change the trend of expanding airports and increasing flying. It will soon become inevitable to do so, if we are to have a lifestyle we are able to sustain. The coming decades, the very ones in which BIA are proposing to expand their operation, are critical ones if climate change is to be addressed at all levels.

Airport expansion as a means of employment generation, stressed in parts of the BIA expansion plan, is extremely inefficient, both in terms of per pound spent and per unit of carbon generated by the work. We need development that breaks the link between the growth of the economy and growth in carbon generation. The overall hidden economic costs of the EU’s aviation sector have been estimated at over £14 billion a year, with the UK accounting for £4billion. References to the business community making it clear that they see the development of BIA as vital to regional economic growth are somewhat sweeping in our view. There are many businesses, not least those in the region’s tourist industry, who will want people to spend their money here rather than flying abroad and spending it there. Most of the growth in flights are tourists taking their money with them. We know from Treasury figures that air passenger transport represents a drain on the UK balance of payments of billions each year, and this figure does not include the costs of importing fuel and aircraft.

I'm not convinced by BIA’s stated commitment to ‘continued investment in the sustainable development of the airport’. I cannot see how an airport can develop sustainably, given the science and economics of climate change. At best it can only continue to try to become less unsustainable. Continued growth in air travel will easily outweigh any gains due to transfer of airport use from outside the region to inside it, greater use of public transport to get to the airport and other relatively small scale and possibly token attempts at being more environmentally friendly in building design and operation. The proposed use of renewable energy and fuel sources, energy saving in buildings and services and improvements to aircraft operational procedures are welcome as far as they go but they are far from focussed on the main airport environmental impact – energy use from flying planes.

What is effective in serious moves towards a sustainable society is to correctly prioritise the significant and fastest growing impacts and then effectively tackle these first. This puts air travel very high up the list. Expanding airports takes us in the wrong direction since far from countering growth in carbon output it encourages it very efficiently and rapidly.

With current technology there is no such thing as sustainable aviation. Aviation’s contribution to climate change is far from small in absolute terms. Even a regional airport like Bristol International has environmental impacts at the level of a city. BIA’s own figures for percentage of total regional greenhouse gas emissions from their operation show an increase from 0.4% to 0.7% as a result of their plans, an increase in contribution of 75%.

The proposed rise in flight frequency from 11 take offs/landings per hour to 17 represents an increase of 55%, with a corresponding increase in the frequency of a noise event occurring. I take no comfort at all from BIA’s statement that ‘measures proposed to manage aircraft noise will ensure that the number of people affected will remain broadly as the present day’ to say the least, given the health costs to those affected The economic costs of UK aircraft noise is already over £300 million. Note that we are strongly sympathetic to those who want noise pollution assessed in a different way.

BIA has not been consistent with its pronouncements on roads in the airport area. MD Andrew Skipp said at the launch of the airport expansion plan that roads in the area could handle the extra passengers. Yet in the local press he also said ‘Clearly the current transport arrangements south of Bristol need improvement..’ and spoke of the need to address traffic flow and congestion through Barrow Gurney. This is most confusing and does not add to the confidence I have in BIA.

Recycling not responsible for more rats in Bristol

Despite the fact that I am a political opponent of Knowle Councillor Gary Hopkins, I have to say that on the issue of Bristol's increasing rat population he is absolutely right. The criticism on increasing rats being due to the new recycling system has little foundation.

The increase in rats, which is a real one, is mostly down to the warm Summer and Autumn, according to reports from the pest control industry. This has boosted their breeding success and also made them more visible when they seek out water every day. It is a national trend and includes a very large number of areas where there has been no new recycling system introduced.

There might possibly be a small contribution from additional, highly irresponsible and of course illegal, fly tipping after the introduction of the new recycling system. Similarly slightly more uncollected material due to people being unwilling or unable to cooperate or respond correctly to the new system may contribute a little to the problem. Heightened awareness of waste and the public debate on rats may also lead more people to report rat issues.

Of course urban rats thrive when people are irresponsible with their waste eg through littering and provide rats with plenty of food!

Credit where credit is due, Councillor Hopkins has overseen the introduction of system which has very significantly boosted Bristol's recycling rate and cut some environmental impacts as a result. Its not a perfect system and the city still has some way to go to match the very high recycling rates found in other European cities but we should all be pleased that we have made a big improvement and are finally heading in the right direction.

Expensive nukes dont make us secure

It is wrong for the Government to spend £15 to £20 billion on new nuclear submarines to carry Trident nuclear missiles not least because the spending simply is not focussed on real threats to the security of our society. Securing sufficient, clean, green energy supplies, global terrorism and organised crime, climate change and a number of other issues all clearly represent security threats that we know will be ongoing for some time but investing in new nuclear submarines tackles none of these. Kingswood MP Roger Berry may not be my preferred political colour (Green) but he is right to say, 'Today's security threat is not one that can be met by nuclear weapons' ('Blair faces fight over new nukes', Bristol Evening Post, December 5).

This is not the only sense in which the £20 billion (more like £70 billion if one adds up the weapons and submarine lifetime expenditure) will be misused. At todays costs £20 billion would be enough to build 800 new schools, and who would say they aren't needed. It could pay for the protection of over 700 million acres of rainforest, or meet our UN Millenium Goal aid target of 0.7% of GDP every year for the next eight years, thus fighting global poverty which will add to our insecurity if not tackled ! There are many other life and security enhancing ways to spend the money.

Just think of what could be done to enhance state pensions or improve care for the elderly or improve aspects of the NHS with the billions to be spent on nuclear submarines armed with nuclear weapons. And lets not forget that the Germans, Italians, Spanish, Danish, Swedish and others in Europe and around the world do not feel they have to spend billions on nuclear weapons to make them more secure - so why do we?

Bristol North West MP Doug Naysmith is no Green but he is in tune with what will make us more secure when he said, 'We should be reducing nuclear arsenals, not increasing them.' ('Blair faces fight over new nukes', Bristol Evening Post, December 5). He is right because by not reducing nuclear weapons significantly, an aspiration of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signed decades ago, we have sent out the message to countries who have since developed nuclear weapons, like India, Pakistan, North Korea and possibly others, that possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons is a necessary and acceptable part of being a secure state. The resulting higher risk of wider availability of nuclear material may well enhance the ability of terrorists to terrorise on a larger scale, with 'dirty' bombs containing such material.

I'm glad that a number of MPs will oppose the Government, though I note that former radical left-winger, now Bristol South MP, Dawn Primarolo wont be among them. Tony Blair is likely to win the vote on this, most likely with Conservative support too. The Government have not and wont now be leading the world in nuclear disarmament. The destructive capacity they have decided to retain is equivalent to 1000 Hiroshima nuclear bombs. Why on Earth is such a massive capacity to indiscriminately annihilate needed? How can the Labour Government, or the Conservative and Lib-Dem opposition who also want a large nuclear arsenal, ever be considered Green if they favour 'defence' by threatening to destroy life on a mass scale?

Outdoors education is worth more...

It is very welcome that the Government is encouraging schools to expand
opportunities for learning outside the classroom ('Let's put school trips
back on the curriculum', Post, November 29). However, I have to ask
whether they have allocated it all the money it needs and deserves and
whether they have allowed schools to build in the time and flexibility
really needed to make the most of opportunities. The National Curriculum
needs to be trimmed down significantly or made more flexible in my view,
to make more time available for things like educational visits and
fieldwork, as well as perhaps giving students greater choice of what to
study so that they are more likely to feel a sense of ownership and having
a stake.

We should not forget that there is more to education than the school
classroom. This is particularly important not least for environmental
education, whose profile surely needs to be raised given that we all need
to live more sustainably. I'd like to see all Bristol’s schools working to
carry out environmental education: in and through the environment as a
resource; about the environment by imparting knowledge; and for the
environment by encouraging students to formulate caring values, attitudes
and practical actions in their environment; and by developing the skills
needed to study the environment in students.

I'd strongly encourage schools to use relevant first hand resources and
real life experiences. Activities outside the teaching room should be a
natural extension of the working environment. Skills of enquiry and
exploration within local areas could be contrasted with environments
elsewhere. Communication skills could be developed by reporting on
enquiries and research. Self reliance, responsibility and independence
would be encouraged by working out in the environment. An understanding of
place, time, change and relationships using actual environmental
phenonmena is surely a very good and much needed goal.

Being out in the environment is a great way to develop students
understanding and knowledge of: natural processes; the dependence of life
on the environment; human impact; environments past and present; the
effects of past and present decisions on the environment; how decisions
are made about the environment at local, national, European and global
levels; the role of individuals; the cross border nature of pollution; key
topical issues of the time like climate change; the pros and cons of the
whole range of views; and the importance of planning, design and effective
action.

I want schools to develop: interest in and appreciation of the
environment; care for living things and their habitats; respect for the
environment through
study and activity; ability to think clearly and seek solutions
creatively; ability to perceive conflicting interests. Encouraging this
through activity out in environment is worth much more than the £2.7
million package the Government announced to help widen access. Its a start
which will make some impact of course, but with 8 million students going
on trips each year that's only 34 pence per student extra !

Save our open spaces !!

It is welcome news and a victory for all those involved in the campaigns to save Castle Park from inappropriate development that Bristol City Council have asked the developers to 'go back to the drawing board'. Contrary to Dave, who said that this news '...is just pathetically Bristol - the place where good ideas never come to fruition.' (Open On-line, Bristol Evening Post Nov 21) very large numbers of people felt that plans which reduced open, green space weren't a 'good idea'. He gives the impression that he would be happier if at least something, anything, was built over the park!

I hope that this move by Bristol City Council is a sign that they will stand up to developers more, though I'm not holding my breath. I'd like to see the laws relating to developing land changed, redressing the balance of power which currently all too often unfairly favours developers over councils. Ideally the law should: embrace the principle that we are guardians of the land for generations to come; ensure land is not simply a means to make quick, fat profits; favour making land available for those who will make a real go of using it sustainably to enhance the quality of life.

Alan said 'In Bristol nothing ever happens because some minority complains and the council listens and backs down.' (Open On-line, Bristol Evening Post 21 Nov). He is wrong on all counts here. Actually it is commonly acknowledged that a lot is happening in Bristol, for good and ill. The council is often and rightly accused of not listening, but had to in the case of Castle Park because of the obvious strength of feeling. It was not a minority that complained, as is evidenced for example by the relative ease and speed with which very large numbers of signatures were obtained on the petitions.

Despite the feeling one can get in some places, Bristol is relatively well off for open, green spaces compared to similar cities. However, there is a lot of pressure from one sort of development or another which is eating away at open space year on year. Its very important to a greener, better quality of life that we maximise efforts to protect them. Lets hope that what Castle Park's developers eventually put to the council once they have reconsidered, makes no reduction in open, green space at all.

Climate - we all need to play our part

At long last a Climate Change Bill has been included in the Queen's Speech at todays state opening of Parliament. This is a very welcome development as the issue and actions upon it will be debated. The Bill as proposed by the Government is weakened by not including annual targets for carbon reduction however. Perhaps pressure to insert annual targets can be exerted during parliamentary debate on the Bill, if that institution is prepared to assert itself.

Annual targets are very important because they are an effective means of measuring progress and of constantly reminding the Government and the rest of us that we need to make continuing cuts in carbon emissions. This is particularly important for the current Government because, despite its words of concern about climate change it has allowed carbon emissions to increase by 2% during its time in power! We cannot allow this to continue if we are to really address the problem.

Annual targets are also important for individuals, households, businesses and communities who all need to play a part. Everyone has a degree of personal responsibility and a degree of influence - we are all carbon consumers and emitters after all.

The recent climate change demonstration in London, attended by thousands, shows that apathy on this issue is not so widespread. Growing numbers are willing to embrace and advocate greener lifestyles and have called on Government to act accordingly.

There is a lot we can all do ourselves. We can stop buying products from companies who refuse to respect our planet. We can refuse to buy overpackaged products, like the swede I saw wrapped in layers of unrequired plastic. We can refuse to buy food grown with vast amounts of chemicals and flown around the world. We can stop buying goods that we dont really need, whether a green product or not, and also save ourselves money.

When we do buy we can support the more environmentally friendly sources, like the local, the organic, the fair trade. When we invest our money we can try to ensure it does not go to corporations who pursue profit regardless of all social and environmental consequences.

We can all begin to cut the rate of climate change tomorrow through what we purchase and by changing how far and by what means we choose to travel. Government has a key role to play of course, and agreement is needed across the globe for a complete solution, but if we dont all play our part, including demanding more green actions from Government then they wont act.

Expanding air travel = bad economics

Andrew Skipp, Managing Director of Bristol International Airport is clearly wrong to suggest that expanding air travel is good for the economy ('Were ready for take off', Bristol Evening Post, November 9). The Bristol Evening Post's Comment of 9 November about 'the undoubted economic benefits a bigger airport will bring to the region' is also wrong. Figures on the economics of air travel clearly show that expansion is unfavourable.

The economic costs of aircraft noise in the UK are estimated at £313 million a year. The health costs of the UK aviation sector's air pollution amount to some £1.3 billion a year. Aviation is also the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, and it's now acknowledged by the Stern Report that climate change is the gravest threat to global prosperity.

The costs of UK aviation's contribution to climate change have been estimated at well over £2 billion. And unless the government radically changes its policy on the matter, aviation's CO2 emissions will have increased by 588% between 1992 and 2050. By 2050, aviation could be contributing up to 15% of the overall global warming effect produced by human activities - with staggering economic costs. The damage from climate change is rising at a faster rate than economic growth.

The overall hidden economic costs of the European Union's aviation sector have been estimated at £14.3 billion a year - of which the UK alone accounts for £3.782 billion, or 26%. This doesn't include the costs of aviation accidents and accident services.

One of the major justifications for airport expansion is that aviation boosts our economy through tourism. Yet we know that air passenger transport currently represents a drain on the UK balance of payments of £3.5 billion a year - not including the costs of importing fuel and aircraft. With 80% of the forecast growth being accounted for by leisure flights, we can only expect this to get worse.

Airline tickets, aircraft and aviation fuel are, despite all the words of concern about climate change, still zero-rated for VAT. This costs HM Treasury £1.8 billion a year in lost VAT alone, and in fact aviation fuel pays no tax at all. If aviation fuel were taxed at the same rate as unleaded petrol (and why shouldn't it be? - it's more of a luxury), this would raise some £5 billion a year. Effectively, Britain is subsidising its aviation industry through a colossal tax-break of £6.8 billion a year, as well as through £3.8 billion in external costs.

The effect of these tax-breaks and external costs is the equivalent of every man, woman and child in the UK donating an average of more than £180 a year to the aviation industry - not including accident costs, direct and indirect subsidies to supporting industries including the oil industry and the aircraft manufacturing industry (like the £500 million donated very kindly by the taxpayer to BAe to help pay for its new Airbus), or the costs of providing airports with ground transport infrastructure at public expense.

Any serious economist not in the pay of the aviation industry would surely tell you that consumers make choices according to what seems good value for money. Undoubtedly air travel seems like good value for money. But it only seems so because it gets away with externalising vast hidden costs, and because it receives tax-breaks beyond the wildest dreams of most sectors of the economy. This is the biggest duplicity of all in UK aviation policy: it convinces people that air travel is cheap, while in fact they're paying through the nose for it. Or, to be more explicit, people who don't fly (three out of every five Britons last year) are subsidising people who do, and people who fly occasionally are subsidising people who fly a lot.

We must stop building more airport capacity in the mistaken belief that this is an unequivocal good for the economy. Because there's £10.6 billion a year in hidden subsidies, and billions more in balance-of-payments deficit, that says it isn't.

Severn barrage - sustainable power?

It may seem odd, at first thought, that a green like me would be against a major renewable energy proposal such as the Severn Barrage, but I am. Dont get me wrong though, I am strongly in favour of making the best use of the renewable energy available due to the very large rise and fall of the tide in the Severn Estuary, just not by building a huge barrage across the whole estuary.

Why am I against the barrage idea? What method of extracting energy am I in favour of?

The barrage would be a vast civil engineering project, consuming vast resources. The financial costs alone would be enormous - more than £10 billion. A huge project means huge impacts, particularly environmental ones (the estuary is very rich in bird life and ecolgically speaking is very productive). There could also be huge economic and social costs because such projects are often plagued by huge cost rises due to delays and unforseen problems. Even if there were no delays it would take a long time to build it, but we need to become more efficient and renewable now!

The idea of building tidal lagoons in the estuary to extract tidal energy is a much better one. Tidal lagoons would not cut across the whole of the area. They may well have a postive impact on biodiversity and would not destroy bird habitats. Lagoons could be built a few at a time, each one having a much shorter construction time than a huge barrage. More lagoons could be added, over time, spreading the financial costs and risks.

The issue of being in favour of renewable energy in general terms does not mean being in favour of every single proposal. Its very important to back the project that has the best combination of social, economic and environmental benefits. In the case of tidal energy from the Severn I believe 'smaller is more beautiful' !

Save local pool, fight climate change

With all the ongoing talk nationally about the Stern Report and the need to fight
climate change my thoughts turned to how we need to make the right
decisions about keeping local facilities (which help us to fight climate change
by reducing our need to travel by car). One campaign I'm involved with is
is trying to save my local swimming pool (Jubilee) from closure. I've found it easy to collect
around 400+ signatures to date on a petition and I know others are also
collecting and so the final total will be very large. I've copied below my letters
to my local councillor and the local paper on this issue.

Original Letter:
The decision to close Jubilee Swimming Pool in Knowle is a mistake. Not
only that, Knowle Councillor Gary Hopkins has broken his election pledge
to 'fight any plans to close Jubilee Pool' on his election address. He now
thinks there is 'no realistic alternative' having agreed to the closure
plan as a member of Bristol's Cabinet. I wonder how the voters of Knowle
feel about being let down like this?

Not long ago £200,000 was spent on refurbishing Jubilee Pool ! It is a
well used and valued local facility. To remove it reduces the quality of
life in Knowle. The availability of goods, services and facilities locally
is a key feature of the quality of life and the capacity to live
sustainably.

Swimmers in Knowle would have to travel further to swim after the closure,
adding to air pollution and climate change. The closure may put people off
going for swim, a very healthy physical activity, and it may be those who
find it most awkward to travel further that are most put off, such as the
elderly or families with young children.

When Councillor Hopkins originally made his pledge to fight plans to close
the pool I was pleased to see someone standing up for locally available
facilities and so now feel very let down. I believe he has not fought very
hard to persuade his Lib-Dem colleagues to take a more rounded, balanced,
less purely financial, greener and more democratic decision.

I would like to see them reverse this decision and go back to the idea of
reviewing the situation once the new leisure centre at Hengrove Park
opens. Furthermore, the review should not only be a financial audit but
should also be a social and environmental audit, examining the total
impact of closure and of alternatives to it. This should be combined with
completely open discussions on what it would take to keep Jubilee Pool
open with all its users and other interested parties locally. I believe
someone who really believed in fighting for local facilities would have
strongly argued for this with Bristol's cabinet.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Second letter:
Many thanks to the Bristol Evening Post for printing my letter about the decision to close Jubilee Pool, Councillor Gary Hopkins broken election pledge and the reply I obtained from him. Its good to debate these things in the open. I must say that I feel very dissatified and in fact quite insulted by his reply though.
I wonder if he communicates with all the people that he represents in Knowle this way? When a person who lives in his ward takes an active personal interest in a local issue is it really relevant that they were not present at the Cabinet meeting where the decision was taken? Is it really relevant that they have not previously had contact with him about the issue. I am politically active but did not write to him in this capacity at all!

Its convenient for Councillor Hopkins to blame others for a decision he and his colleagues have taken. Politics based on accusation and counter accusation is common everywhere, not least in Bristol, but it puts people off and causes politics to come into disrepute. Its gets us nowhere if parties simply blame the previous lot.

He talks of 'Hengrove or nothing' when referring to finance availability. Rather than give up and saying there is no alternative I believe it is well worth continuing to try and continuing to talk to people - a lot can change in four years.

He says he has fought for Jubilee Pool but this fighting it seems has now ended. £200,000 has been spent on a pool that he and his colleagues have now decided must close. I'm sure people were led to believe that when such money was spent it was because the facility had a decent future! It seems like economic madness to me to spend and then close.

He even casts some doubt on whether the Hengove complex will be built, saying 'when (or more rightly if) the Hengove complex is built'. If there is any doubt about Hengorve then why decide to close Jubilee now? I'm afraid I cant follow the logic here and certainly am not aware of any doubts about Hengrove!

Councillor Hopkins is right to say that Jubilee may have closed without the previous campaign to keep it open, in which he played a role. He goes on to make a good case for the pool, talking of it being easily walked to and accessed by public transport - this is the kind of facility we need to keep, but he has given up on it. With a little creativity there may be small scope to improve the Jubilee site in some way.

He said 'unlike the Labour Party we did not lie to people'. I dont find accusations of lies very productive. Though straight talking and rational debate is fine it is an indication of the state of big party politics that they all seem to talk of each other as liars like this.

I cant say I am keen on building a new pool when we already have one that has had a lot of money spent on it. The prospect of a new pool in Knowle would be just that, a prospect - it may or may not happen and the plans for it may or may not be acceptable. What is certain is that a swimming facility now exists here!

I've publicly and regularly called for the protection and indeed enhancement of local facilities in South Bristol for around twenty years, though have had no direct recent involvement over Jubilee until now. As a regular pool user and Knowle resident I was very pleased to see the previous defence of the pool by Councillor Hopkins others - I want that to continue, though I note that he did not comment at all on the substantial point in my original letter. This is that 'I would like to see them reverse this decision and go back to the idea of reviewing the situation once the new leisure centre at Hengrove Park opens. Furthermore, the review should not only be a financial audit but should also be a social and environmental audit, examining the total impact of closure and of alternatives to it. This should be combined with completely open discussions on what it would take to keep Jubilee Pool open with all its users and other interested parties locally'.

Is he not willing to tell me if he agrees with me about the process that should be used to assess the situation and make the decision about the pools future?

Climate change action and costs

Government policies on climate change do not go far enough or fast
enough, just as past 'actions' have
been insufficient, slow or non-existent. UK carbon emissions are 2% higher
now than when Tony Blair came to power in 1997 (Govt's own figures!), despite the apparent
concern !

Successive govts have neglected real action on climate, and now
look where we are, with the Stern Report stating with authority that
climate change could cost trillions of pounds. The upward carbon pollution
trend needs to peak within ten to fifteen years if we are to keep temperature
rise to 2 degrees in the next 50 or 100 years, according to the climate
models.

Taking action in the early 80's or 90's when Greens (including me) were calling for it
would have been both easier and cheaper than it now will be, though acting
now is much cheaper and easier than taking no
action and suffering even more climate change! The chances of success for
any action on climate would also have been higher if we had acted earlier.

The Stern Report has underestimated the extent of economic change needed
to really tackle climate change. We are a factor of ten away from being
sustainable in resource and energy terms and need to establish a new
approach to socio-economics which seems to me to say that we need to gear
much more than 1% of GDP to the task!

Action needs to range across all areas involving the consumption of fossil
fuels at some point in the chain of economic events - these days this
means.....just about everything! Globalisation of trade is of course
rapidly raising carbon emissions levels....Also whilst the Stern Report's
primary focus is the economic impacts of climate change - I think it is
worth remembering the huge social and environmental impacts indicated in his report too! Frankly
its not so much the cost of climate change as the impacts on people and
the natural world that have always concerned me, though you cant of course
separate these off from economics as they are interdependent.

Without an economy which is reconciled with the environment we wont and
cant tackle climate change effectively. Stern and the Government are wrong
if they are saying that we can grow as in the past, but just pay a climate
change bill and carry on.

How green is Bristol?

I very much like the idea of Bristol leading the way and becoming model 'green city' as outlined by City Council Leader Barbara Janke ('Let's be the best eco city', Bristol Evening Post, 28 October) but what stands in the way of this genuinely becoming the case more than anything is the massive environmental impacts of the city itself ! Economic activity in Bristol is fighting against our environment, as is well illustrated by our traffic congestion and air pollution problems existing alongside a poor quality and expensive public transport system.

There are, as she points out, many excellent organisations based here working on making the world greener - she names the Soil Association, Sustrans, Bristol Zoo and environmental businesses, to which I would add the Schumacher Lectures, @Bristol, the city farms, the CREATE Centre and the BBC Natural History Unit and great organic and local food suppliers like the Better Food Company. I've no doubt that there are many others.

However, what is vital is to keep a sense of context and scale here. Take the city's carbon emissions as one indicator of green-ness. The council itself has estimated that Bristol emits nearly 6 tonnes of carbon per person each year. A sustainable carbon emissions level is more like 1 tonne per person each year!

The 'best eco city' would not be a factor of five or six times away from sustainable carbon emissions, to say the least. We continue to be a very long way from being green as a city because national and local government policies are either too little too late or lacking in coherence and consistency between social, economic and environmental policies.

To make real progress towards being a truly green city needs a thorough and radical approach, and so the 'green city' needs a strong group of Green councillors to help to take us there.

Reduce, reuse, recycle, recover - in this order !!

As well as experiencing Bristol's fairly new recycling/composting system with its brown bins...I'm working on a waste management policy at the moment. Actually recycling is far from the top of the list as far as being environmentally friendly is concerned.

The different options for dealing with waste issues are considered as a waste management hierarchy. The first priority is waste reduction or minimisation. After reduction comes the reuse of objects so that they do not enter the waste stream: for example the refilling of bottles. It is not until one gets down to the third level in the hierarchy that one gets to recovery, which includes materials recycling, composting and the recovery of energy from waste by a whole range of methods (some more environmentally friendly than others). Waste disposal is at the bottom of the hierarchy and includes final disposal to landfill and the incineration of waste without recovering the energy.

Our society is upside down as far as what we do with our waste is concerned because the option we use most is at the bottom of the list of environmental priorities! Thus greens are campaigning hard to emphasise the need for reduction and for reuse as our top priorities. There does of course also need to be a shift to recycling and composting but there are certainly dangers in thinking that these alone are the complete solution to all our waste and environmental problems because they are not - as their position in the waste management hierarchy illustrates.

Without significant reductions in waste we will still have to deal with very large amounts of material in a fuel and money intensive way. For example, currently Bristol sends compostable material all the way to Dorset in large lorries because it has not yet developed a composting facility locally. In one sense moving to more recycling is a relatively 'easy' step to take, despite all the teething problems, inconvenience and costs of new systems. What would really tackle our waste and pollution problems is a very significant shift to producing minimal waste and designing for reuse, repair and long life products. This is a much more difficult step to take in the sense of the scale of change because it ultimately implies restructuring our economy so that instead of being geared to mass consumption it is geared to conserving our real wealth. Thus being green is as much about a new economics as it is about the environment.

Conservatives - truly Green????

The Conservatives launched a document about tax policy today and all I've seen about it on the news tells me that they are still the same old party - and they have massively long way to go before they are green to say the least!

Conservative Party leader David Cameron has some real problems with his party. Comments from Conservative Candidate for NE Somerset Jacob Rees-Mogg, who seems to think that people who have been to Oxford or Cambridge have an inherent, natural right to run the country unlike us "potted plants" as he called us, illustrate this perfectly (Bristol Evening Post front page report, 'Which would you rather run the country', October 5th). Mr Moggs education at Eton and Oxford did not give him the sense to stop him putting his foot in it did it!

Cameron's warm words about being green and wanting to tackle climate change for instance are nothing but hot air until he backs them up with a wide range of good, detailed, coherent and consistent policies on the matter. Furthermore, even if David Cameron himself turns out be be genuine in his support for green policies (and that is still a very big if) he has a very, very long way to go before his party genuinely goes with him. My experience of Conservative candidates over twenty years of contesting elections at various levels is that they regard environmental policies as inherently bad for business, an unjustified burden on taxpayers or even some sort of radical left wing, or even worse European Union, conspiracy, instead of the good sense and care for the future that they really are!

Beware of David Cameron's attempts to rebrand his party. It surely takes more than a new oak tree logo, pictures of leaves and blue sky liberally spread around your conference - and a green tie - to make you green! This particular leopard has not changed its spots and so if people want green politics they should look to the real thing - the Green Party itself.

Priorities should be health, education and environment!

The government just doesn't seem to have its spending priorities right. One day I read about the future of wardens looking after the elderly in sheltered flats across Bristol being threatened by govt funding cuts of up to £9 million (Care Wardens Job Axe Fears, Bristol Evening Post, 10 October). The next day I read about Bristol facing a GP crisis in five years if we continue to train doctors at the same rate (Family Doctors in Crisis, Bristol Evening Post, 11 October) and also the denial of drugs costing as little as £2.50 per day to those suffering from Alzheimar's (How can they deny people this drug?, Bristol Evening Post, 11 October). These are all areas where one would think caring people would prioritise spending, along with education.

Given spending priorities like these I just dont understand why the government has committed itself to spending, not millions, but billions on a replacement for Trident nuclear missiles by saying it will retain Britain's nuclear so-called deterrent. What is more we have always been told that nuclear weapons work because they will never be used (the mutually assured destruction argument)!!

Tony Blair stood outside 10 Downing Street the other day and made a statement rightly criticising North Korea for exploding a test nuclear weapon, saying that they had spent vast sums whilst their people were poor and sometimes starving. Why doesn't he then follow the same logic, get his spending priorities right and direct money to where it is needed, such as the examples I have given or perhaps additional flood defences for Weston-Super-Mare or for investing in a creating a green future for todays young people and their children?

It seems to me a double immorality to spend money on threatening mass destruction with new nuclear weapons and at the same time denying people decent health, education, environmental and social care spending.