Proposed South Bristol Ring Road: a major threat to communities, the environment and the climate

Received a letter requesting my view on the proposed South Bristol Ring Road today - my reply is below:

For the attention of Mike Landen, Chair of the Alliance Against the South Bristol Ring Road:

Many thanks for your letter requesting my views on the proposed ring road which I received this morning.

For very much the same reasons as you outline in your letter I am totally opposed to the ring road and if elected would do all that I can to advance the case against the proposal. The proposed road is indeed a major threat to communities, to the environment and to the climate (and thus future generations). Please visit my blog site for further details of my views on issues http://vowlesthegreen.blogspot.com/.

I'm proud that my party is united and consistent on this issue too. As is clear from the Bristol Green Party website (www.bristolgreenparty.org.uk) local Greens have campaigned hard against the ring road for some time now and have asked very pertinent questions of the council, to which we have had no satisfactory reply. All Green candidates throughout Bristol will feature opposition to the proposed road on their election literature in one way or another.

Please find attached a copy of my election leaflet for your information. The statements on protection of open, green spaces from inappropriate development and on cutting carbon emissions in the Bristol area by at least 3% per year both relate to the ring road very directly.

Many thanks for the work you and the organisation you represent are doing on this issue.

Glenn Vowles
Green Party Candidate for Knowle Ward

Knowle: Green Party Candidate

I have recently been officially notified by the Returning Officer that I am the Green Party Candidate for Knowle (all paperwork completed and nomination valid). My name, along with the Green Party and its 'earth with petals' logo will thus appear on the Knowle Ward ballot paper.

Below are the areas where I and the Greens have been and will continue to be very active (there are also many other areas of activity and concern - as expressed on this blog).

Say yes to a better quality of life and to sustainability

1.Save Jubilee Swimming Pool, councillors should stick with their election pledge

2.Protect and enhance local services and facilities, give local communities the biggest say on them

3.Create a Transport Authority for Bristol, sort out Bristol’s buses

4.Safer residential roads, with a 20mph limit, protect our kids

5.Appoint a Local Food Officer, widen fresh, local, healthy food availability

6.People before profit - no to the privatization of Home Care

7.Protect open, green spaces, no to inappropriate developments

8.Quality learning for all children, no to education factories

9.Invest much more cutting people’s fuel bills and in local public transport, cut Bristol’s carbon emissions by at least 3% each year

10.Bring abandoned land and buildings quickly into good use, stop ‘grot spots’ growing

Say yes to a local campaigner

http://www.bristolgreenparty.org.uk/

A 'Noise Strategy for Bristol' is needed to tackle this often forgotten pollutant

I've been working on the issue of noise pollution recently. My call for a noise strategy for Bristol is stimulated by my experience of noise on busy roads in Bristol. A 'green city' would be a more tranquil, less noisy place (see the recent work of the CPRE).

http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/landscape/tranquillity/national-and-regional-tranquillity-maps

Bristolians are increasingly living with unacceptable and unhealthy levels of noise (city council website acknowledges this). The noise levels from traffic, which the council acknowledge as the main noise source in the city, often peak at what can only be described as 'industrial' levels at the busiest times, especially with heavy lorries. However, strategies to address the problem are available and should be enacted now - thus my attempt to highlight the issue and call for a noise strategy and action plan for Bristol modelled on London's.

I have been taking noise pollution readings with a sound level meter along the Wells Rd in Knowle at various times, dates and locations on the road. My findings: when roads have just a few cars a 50 decibel reading (at 4-5 metres distance) is typical, the level at which normal conversation is conducted. As soon as a steady flow of traffic is present readings are a steady 80 decibels - note that normal conversation is interrupted at 60 decibels and shouting is needed to be heard above 70 decibels. Its common experience in Knowle that you cant walk your child to Hillcrest School down the Wells Rd and hold a conversation or give an instruction without shouting and you cant walk to work listening to your MP3 player without turning up the volume more than normal.

When traffic is busiest and heavy lorries are on the road noise pollution reaches industrial levels at around a common 93 decibels. The highest reading I recorded was 97 decibels, from a particularly large, heavy lorry which rattled as it broke the 30mph speed limit climbing the hill opposite The George pub on Wells Rd. If in industry, where it is recommended in Health and Safety regulations that workers are not continually exposed to noises louder than 90 decibels during their day, exposure at 97 decibels would be strictly limited to around an hour or so and/or ear protection issued. If we are to have a truly better quality of life we need to get far away from industrial standards on our streets.

The Bristol City Council website states that the council 'do not have legal powers to deal with...traffic...noise' (or noise from aircraft, or rowdy behaviour for that matter). But there are things that could be done eg on quieter roads surfaces, better road maintainance, and crucially traffic reduction and weight limits.

Noise pollution issues should be heard much more on the political agenda. Noise has become another form of urban blight which we need to quell. It causes behavioural changes such as inducing irritability and annoyance, boosts stress levels and nervous disorders eg through disturbing relaxation and sleep. Noisier areas tend to have higher incidence of taking pills for blood pressure, stomach complaints, tranquillisers and sleeping pills. Noise also causes 'acoustic fatigue' in buildings, resulting in stress cracks and damage.

Noise is certainly a significant factor in Bristolians' list of quality of life concerns, but the powers-that-be have so far refused to treat it with urgency or give it the seriousness it deserves. Unlike the UK capital, which has had the London Noise Strategy for a few years now - the first in the country - Bristol has no noise management strategy or action plan yet, according to the city council website.

London's strategy contains some 100 policies designed to tackle ‘ambient’ or ‘environmental’ noise in buildings as well as from traffic, aircraft and other sources. Its a very good model to follow for Bristol.

In view of the forecast population and traffic increase in Bristol over the coming years, it is particularly important that we address noise pollution - in many respects the forgotten pollutant - effectively, now.

Bristol still not annually calculating its ecological footprint

Graeme Bell makes a great comparison between his personal experience of the low litter levels in other European countries and how litter-strewn and grubby much of Bristol has become ('Litter', Bristol Evening Post letters, March 28). He uses European cities as a benchmark against which to assess Bristol's aim to be the UK's 'green capital'.

This is one perfectly legitimate way of judging progress and it currently finds that Bristol is sorely lacking (which is no surprise). When one looks at the details of the city council-led 'green city' initiative its hard to find concrete details of how everyone is supposed to be judging how 'green' we are, or more likely aren't, on an overall basis.

The city collects all sorts of data, including a set of quality of life indicators, but the yawning gap is that it has not annually assessed its ecological footprint, perhaps the best overall single indicator of how green or not we are. There is currently only limited footprint data available for Bristol and the council it seems still has no plans to publish a yearly figure so that we can all clearly see any progress made.

If this initiative is to be credible the city must sort this situation out and publish the city footprint, as measured by an agreed standard process, at regular intervals. It could also research a list of Eurpean cities that we could compare ourselves with.

Those that formerly argued to save local pool now argue strongly for closure! Why?

If Jubilee Pool really suffers from the all the disadvantages given by Councillor Gary Hopkins in his latest letter to the press ('Jubilee pool closure', Bristol Evening Post letters, March 26) why then did he say on his last election address that he would fight all plans to close Jubilee? Its interesting isn't it that he is now arguing for closure very strongly where once he argued the opposite.

Its also the case that he and his Lib-Dem colleague Simon Cook each emphasise different arguments.

Councillor Cook said that '...the private finance company funding the scheme (for a new leisure complex with pool...at Hengrove Park) would only provide the cash if Bishopsworth and Jubilee pool closed because it does not want competition'('Pool closure will harm our environment', Bristol Evening Post, March 19).

Far from deciding to close Jubilee Pool because it is not viable, or has serious deficiencies that can't be overcome, as Councillor Hopkins is now suggesting, the closure decision seems to have been taken in order to guarantee that any new pool is making a big, fat profit for private investors!

What a stitch-up! This is effectively putting private profit making before the availability of more local facilities and thus local quality of life. Why should a private finance company be allowed to shape policy in this way?

Green Party budget: costed in both pounds and in carbon; whereas Gordon Brown fails to act

Gordon Brown's budget today was a very poor effort all round and involves quite a bit of trickery. The so-called 'green' measures were on a pretty small scale eg in 1999 'green' taxes amounted to 9.6% of total taxation but after this budget will still only be 7.5% (figures from the BBC), so not even back to where we were 8 yrs ago!

If you want to see a truly Green budget as well as the Green reaction to Gordon Brown's efforts go to:

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2921 - a budget costed in £ and in carbon and with a scale of change needed to tackle climate change.

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2922 - the Green reaction to the Brown budget and his failure to begin to tackle climate change, despite the recent talk about it being the biggest threat humanity faces.

Private finance companies should not be able to dictate policy. Measure local service value in social and environmental as well as financial terms

Councillor Simon Cook's response to my point that closing Jubilee Pool would raise carbon emissions due to the additional car journeys caused well illustrates the 'warped logic' of Bristol City Council's Lib-Dem Cabinet decison making ('Pool closure will harm our environment', Bristol Evening Post, March 19). We are not going to become the UK's leading 'green city', the professed aim of the council, if we dont start measuring the value of local facilities in social and environmental as well as financial terms.

He says that '...the private finance company funding the scheme (for a new leisure complex with pool...at Hengrove Park) would only provide the cash if Bishopsworth and Jubilee pool closed because it does not want competition'. So, far from deciding to close Jubilee Pool because it is not viable, the closure decision seems to have been taken in order to guarantee that any new pool is making a big, fat profit for private investors! What a stitch-up! This is effectively putting private profit making before the availability of more local facilities and thus local quality of life. Why should a private finance company be allowed to shape policy in this way?

Councillor Cook acknowledged that I have a point about carbon emissions but then said '...the pool in Hengrove will still be walkable from Knowle'. It takes me ten minutes to walk to Jubilee and would take me forty minutes to get to Hengrove Park. Whilst this might be viable for me, provided I had the time, it is far less practical for the elderly and for those with a few young kids. He in any case should know very well that by extending the distance to a pool the chances of people turning to a car rise significantly. His idea of what is local and mine are obviously very different and he seems not to mind making it more difficult for the older and younger members of the community and their families to get to a health and fitness facility. What counts, it seems is that private investors can make a profit - my goodness the private finance initiative has a lot to answer for.

Councillor Cook says '...these pools do not make money'. Were the pools built in Bristol to make money or were they intended as places to promote healthy, active lifestyles, as a public service for the public good? If we are to apply his logic to all council services then what will be next in line for closure as not profit making, public libraries perhaps, or schools?

In a pretty desperate attempt to give the proposed Hengrove Leisure Centre, which will be built on open, green space by the way, a greener gloss, he says, rather vaguely, 'We will also try to build in some sustainable technology - maybe having some solar panels on the top, or a wind turbine'. I get the distinct impression from his vagueness that these features have not so far been integral to any plans, though I will track his progress towards doing these things with some interest. He should note though that pools like Jubilee are themselves possible candidates for renewable energy or fuel use and while he is in 'green' mode what about a decent bus service to any new pool?

Extra pollution from cars if Jubilee is closed

I've been doing some calculations on additional carbon emissions that would occur from a rise in car use if the Jubilee Swiming Pool closed.

What I've done is to compare the carbon emissions from walking a short distance, say 1km, to the local pool, with driving say 5km to a new pool when constructed at Hengrove Park, in a medium sized petrol engined car (some will drive further of course). It is reasonable to assume that this shift from walking to driving will happen a lot should Jubilee close, if people want to continue to swim, especially if elderly people or kids are involved .

Basically I've found that walking is between 15 to 30 times more energy efficient per km. Walking to Jubilee would mean carbon emissions of approx 15 grams per visit, which is easily environmentally sustainable. Driving to a new pool at Hengrove would emit 2kg (2000 grams) of carbon ie an environmentally unsustainable 133 times more (due to the longer distance and the much lower efficiency of car travel combined; photo represents the carbon increase to scale).

Carbon emissions from travel of 2kg per visit amounts to approximately a mans own weight in carbon each year if he drives 5km to a pool about once a week! In contrast walking to Jubilee the same number of times produces just 0.75 kg - less than a bag of sugar.

The point of all this is to show that taking a purely financial decision to close the pool is very narrow minded. The preliminary calculations I've done show that locally available services and facilities like swimming pools have a value to our community and wider society beyond money. If we are to become a low carbon 'green city' for instance (and the City Council is currently blowing this particular trumpet loudly!) we need to measure the value of local facilities not only in financial terms but also in social and environmental terms terms. We dont know what the total impact of the loss of Jubilee would be because we aren't measuring everything, yet despite this the council has already decided that the pool will close - not a green decision or a green approach to the issue at all.

Ten Tory eco-cons!!

Conservatives have supported the policies below very consistently, right across the country. Not very green is it?

1 Support for nuclear power

2 Support for new roads

3 Support for aviation growth

4 Opposition to EU green schemes

5 Axing environmental regulations as "red tape"

6 Opposition to congestion charging

7 Support for incineration of waste

8 Support for tax cuts for super-consumers

9 Support for low taxes for the most polluting multinational businesses

10 Support for Trident over tackling climate change

Apalling decision by Hengrove Community Arts College to axe GCSE courses already started months ago!

Hengrove Community Arts College has seriously let down its students. To axe GCSE courses started several months ago by students is totally unacceptable and I'd like to see it reversed.

The school is rushing, or is being rushed, to get a balanced budget so that it can become an academy later this year and needs to cut its losses by £150,000. Surely before they gave firm course places to their students they could and should have anticipated their situation? Offering a course and then beginning it with classes of students means they are obliged to continue it for my money!

What does this situation say about the education policy of creating academies? The drive to turn Hengrove Community Arts College into an academy is causing deliberate damage to the education of children now studying there. The just and fair course would in my view be to either abandon plans for an academy or at least delay it to give students time to finish their GCSE courses. Academies are not the solution to todays education issues, as is well illustrated by this situation, as schools should be set up and run in the interests of parents and pupils and not private individuals, religions, or businesses.

Labour and Conservative 'green' policies not to be trusted

Let me get this straight...

In recent weeks both the Labour and Conservative parties have been at pains to stress their so-called 'green' policies. We had Gordon Brown and David Cameron stressing the need to tackle climate change as the biggest threat to a decent life for future generations.

Just after the spurt of pronouncements on climate change, the same two parties voted in favour of the UK retaining its nuclear weapons (Labour MP rebels excepted) by spending tens or even hundreds of billions of pounds on new nuclear submarines and weapons . Hang on though...

...aren't nuclear weapons a huge threat to a decent life for future generations too? Have I missed something here? Has a rational case for spending this huge sum really been made when the known threats to our future eg climate change, energy security...require large investment? Wont spending huge sums of money on nukes mean less is available for tackling real and known threats, thus making us less secure??

The 'green' policies of Labour and the Conservatives are not to be trusted. Where they are half decent they are inconsistent with or cancelled out by other policies. Political will for implementation of coherent policies is often lacking and in any case their political thnking and action has got us where we are (ie with huge environmental challenges!). How for instance are we going to build an environmentally sustainable world if accelerating globalisation of trade, with all its massive energy consumption and pollution, continues unchecked by environmental considerations ?

Iran/Trident nuclear weapons/Kerry McCarthy MP/lack of democracy

There has been a disinct lack of open, public debate about whether we should be spending vast sums of public money on updating our nuclear weapons systems. Its seems that even whilst debate is supposed to be happening both inside and outside of Parliament the government has already decided to update our nukes anyway! What a great democracy we have!

I wrote to my MP Kerry McCarthy about Iran/nuclear weapons a short while ago (see earlier blog posting) and have today received the reply below. Please feel free to contact her in response to what she says (my response to her points below are in bold italics).

___________________________________________________________________
Dear Mr Vowles,

Trident

As you are aware, the vote on Trident is taking place this Wednesday.
In reaching a decision as to how I intend to vote, my starting point was this: Labour stopped being a unilateralist party some time in the 1980s. It was clear at the time that the British voting public rejected unilateralism, and rejected Labour because of this. The Labour Party - and I, as a Labour Party candidate - stood in the 2005 General Election, and several elections before this, on a manifesto which said we would retain Britain's independent nuclear deterrent; we were elected on that basis. As a general rule, I believe that political parties should stick to the promises they make to the voters at a General Election, and that MPs should not vote against the Government on manifesto commitments, unless things have changed drastically since the election was held.

Many Labour MPs will be voting against the government on this issue! On such a major issue, which we have had no separate public vote or even widespread debate on, issues of conscience and principle and strong, independent thought and voting are highly relevant!

I certainly do not subscribe to the 'blind loyalist' view, that MPs should never vote against their own party - if Parliament had been recalled over last summer to debate the conflict in Lebanon (which I, along with a number of other Labour MPs, called for) and we had had a vote on whether to support the Prime Minister's stance, I would have felt compelled to vote against, and I made that clear to party officials at the time. That was not, however, a manifesto issue.

People vote for parties in general elections for all sorts of reasons. They dont go through manifestos generally and do not necessarily vote on the basis of one particular policy or another. Some Labour and other voters will certainly not like the government decision to update our nuclear weapons.

I am disappointed that there has not been more of a public debate since the White Paper was launched last year. I was unaware of Jon Trickett's EDM calling for more consultation until today - I might have signed it back in January when it was first tabled, in a bid to encourage more public debate before the vote in Parliament.

OK, this is somewhat encouraging to me as an anti-nuclear campaigner. Why not follow through forcefully and vote against the government because of the lack of debate!

Behind the scenes in Parliament, however, the issue has been debated at some length. I have attended several meetings, including one organised by Compass in opposition to Trident, and others where Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, has argued the case for Trident against Labour opponents.

Behind the scenes debate is not good enough. On such a big issue we need lengthy, open, public debate.

Having listened to those debates, I have reached the following conclusions:

(1) I do not accept that renewing Trident would put Britain in breach of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as that treaty was negotiated on the basis that we are a nuclear state and we would not increase our nuclear capability - in fact, we will probably be reducing it. I have been reassured to hear the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary propose a reduction in the number of subs from four to three, and a significant reduction in the number of warheads is also a possibility although I understand that this does not need to be decided for a number of years.

The destructive capacity we will retain is absolutely massive! We will be passing on to future generations the problem of what to do about nuclear weapons because we have not done anything significant about them ourselves. As time passes more and more countries have officially aquired their own nuclear arsenal (look at India and Pakistan..).

Some people have raised with me the question of double standards - i.e. why is it acceptable for the UK to have nuclear weapons and not Iran? In response to this, I would simply point to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory and, by signing up to the treaty, agreed not to develop nuclear weapons; whereas the UK, is signing the treaty, only agreed not to increase its nuclear capability.

The spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has certainly been breached by the UK by deciding to update its nuclear arsenal and retain a massive destructive capacity. Iran has not yet broken the treaty - I very much hope that through dialogue Iran will take a path away from both nuclear power and weapons.

(2) I do not accept the argument that , seeing as the Cold War is over and global terrorism is the main threat, a nuclear deterrent is unnecessary; we have no idea what the global political situation will be like in the 2020s and beyond, and who our political enemies will be, or whether they will have access to nuclear weapons. We therefore cannot base a long-term decision on a snapshot view of the situation in 2007.

We do know that very serious security threats are posed by climate change and energy security issues amongst others. Spending money on nukes means less money is available to counter known security threats. Retaining nukes may make us less secure, not more!

(3) I do not see much merit in the case for delaying the decision for a few years; it has to be made sooner or later. There is some dispute as to the lifespan of the current subs and the timescale for rebuilding them, although I cannot see how most people feel that they are in a position to judge; if the Defence Secretary says we need a 17 year lead-in time, then I accept that. At the very least, it would seem to me to be better to err on the side of caution and start the process now.

Far too unquestioning an approach for me to be comfortable with.

That leaves the question of cost. The Government says £15-£20 billion; others say it will be a lot more. Even if we operate on the Government's estimates, it is indeed a significant amount of money, which could fund a lot of other projects. However, that takes me back to my original point - if we accept the fundamental principle that we are not a unilateralist party, then we have to accept that it costs to have a nuclear deterrent.

Total cost over the life of the system are more like £75 to £100 billion. Not a bit of extra security against the real threats will be gained by spending this massive sum. There is so much else we could do with it and most other countries in the world are not spending such money on nukes.

I am sorry that this is not the answer you were hoping for.

It certainly is not what I'd like to hear from my MP.

Please do not hesitate to contact me again if there are any other issues you would like to bring to my attention.
Yours sincerely,
Kerry McCarthy MP

Congratulations to my opponent Superman but I'm afraid your policies are plain wrong

Many congratulations to my political opponent in Knowle, Lib-Dem Councillor Chris Davies, for being awarded his second Bristol Evening Post Gold Star award ('Second Honour for Chris', Bristol Evening Post, March 9). As the Lib-Dem newsletter I recently received correctly said, his actions in first saving the life of his young next door neighbour for gold star number one and then foiling a bank robbery at the Nat West Bank on Wells Rd for gold star number two, are indeed reminiscent of superman!

Any superhero would be proud of the two achievements and so Councillor Davies' personal qualities cannot be faulted.

However, I'm afraid my superhero opponents Lib-Dem policies for Knowle and Bristol are plain wrong.

For example would he agree with me that the decision to close Jubilee Swimming Pool in Knowle is a mistake and that his fellow Knowle Lib-Dem Councillor Gary Hopkins broke his election pledge to 'fight any plans to close Jubilee Pool'? Does he think, as the Lib-dem Cabinet does, that there is 'no realistic alternative' to closing the pool ?

Removing a local pool 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 we are meant to be encouraging. 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.

Will Councillor Davies agree with me that a more rounded, balanced, less purely financial, greener and more democratic decision is needed? Would he campaign to reverse this pool closure decision and go back to the idea of reviewing the situation once the new leisure centre at Hengrove Park opens?

Furthermore, would he agree with my policy that reviews on the value of locally available facilities like pools 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?

My petition on the Prime Minister's website - new measure of progress needed

I was really pleased yesterday to receive the email below from 10 Downing Street.

I urge anyone who reads this blog to click the link below and sign my petition (it will be there to gather signatures for the next 12 months or so). If you can pass on my petition details to others that might also sign, this would be great!
___________________________________________________________________

Your petition has been approved by the Number 10 web team, and
is now available on the Number 10 website at the following
address:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ISEW-not-GDP/

Your petition reads:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to replace
GDP/GNP as the key indicator of progress in society with a
measure, such as the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, or
similar, to help take us in a much greener direction.

Continued use of GDP/GNP (economic growth) as the major
indicator of progress in our society is seriously flawed.
Accounts which produce GDP/GNP do not subtract the costs of
producing economic growth such as climate change and resource
depletion, and so are most unlike normal balance sheet
accounts. Any greener government would use a much broader and
more balanced indicator of progress or wellbeing, such as the
Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare or similar.

Thanks for submitting your petition.
-- the ePetitions team

Loss of local services, shops, pubs...makes us less green

My MP, Labour's Kerry McCarthy, has recently confirmed to me in writing that she does not support the Sustainable Communities Bill currently going through Parliament. She said,
'I do not support the Sustainable Communities Bill because I do not think there is any need for a separate piece of legislation on this issue.'

This is a great shame and a mistake. All around the UK local shops, post offices, pubs, services and facilities like local swimming pools, have declined rapidly under the current government, which she supports. This means that any action they have taken on this issue has been far from effective. The Sustainable Communities Bill would on the other hand give real power to local people to take action to protect and enhance their communities. Locally available facilities cut travel, boost quality of life and make us greener.

One would think from what PM Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have said that they strongly favour giving more power to local communities and that therefore they should support the Sustainable Communities Bill. After all in his speech to the Labour Party conference in 2006 Tony Blair said, 'People want power in their own hands...they wont accept a service handed down from on high. They want to shape it to their needs and the reality of their lives.' In addition Gordon Brown said at the same conference, 'People and communities should now take power from the state and that means...a reinvention of the way we govern.'

However, despite what they have said, far from giving power to local communities the Blair/Brown government has centralised power and presided over local community decline, making us a far less green society.

US and UK hypocrisy on Iran and its nuclear program

I've just wriiten to my MP Labour's Kerry McCarthy on the issue of Iran and its nuclear program. I've copied the letter below:

Dear Kerry McCarthy MP,
I feel that the UK must pledge itself to ensuring that what has happened in Iraq doesn't repeat itself with Iran and would like to know what your view is on this issue. Do you feel, as I do, that we must look hard for non-violent solutions to conflict situations, which take into account the interests of all parties as well as future generations in order to achieve lasting settlements?

Amidst the escalating rhetoric on Iran, its nuclear program in particular, there are some key facts:
Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and hasn't yet violated it. There are unresolved issues around full transparency of course but Iran's nuclear programme, including uranium enrichment, is perfectly legal under NPT requirements for non-nuclear states.

I believe along with fellow Greens that this encouragement of the spread of nuclear technology and nuclear power is a huge weakness of the NPT, but the fact remains that it is the operative legal framework.

Its my view that we are seeing extraordinary hypocrisy and double standards on the Iran issue. While the US accepts Israel's unacknowledged nuclear arsenal, and even rewards India's nuclear weapons status, it threatens war against Iran and fails in its own obligations to disarm under the NPT Treaty.

Our government is also guilty, apparently fighting wars to stop others gaining nuclear weapons while continuing to upgrade and refine our own. What moral authority can we possibly have to lecture Iran or anyone else about not developing nuclear weapons when we refuse to begin the process of disarmament ourselves, and indeed have decided to replace our own nuclear weapons arsenal even as the process of consultation on Trident is underway?

Have we forgotten the very real nuclear weapons are right here on our own doorstep, in Aldermaston, Fairford and Faslane. Will you please let me know how you view these facts and arguments?

The replacement of Trident is illegal, immoral, and hugely costly. It is dangerous, counterproductive, and places Britain at even greater risk of attack. Plans to replace Trident, together with the threat of first use of nuclear weapons, made by a Labour defence minister, risks making Britain itself a rogue state. The best policy on Iran is not to threaten attack but to engage with its people and its range of leaders to demonstrate the benefits to all of building positive relationships throughout the region and the globe. I hope you agree and look forward to receiving your views on this.

I'm not a Councillor - yet !

I'm grateful to the Bristol Evening Post for its reporting of Bristol's littered, graffiti-covered, vandalised 'grot spots'. This includes the coverage of my campaign about the derelict petrol station on Wells Rd, Knowle ('Clear up your petrol station, developers told', Bristol Evening Post, March 5). Its important that we get such areas cleaned up and even better change the law so that councils have much greater powers to ensure that owners of land and property can't abandon areas to rot for months and years unused.

I have to publicly correct just one small error in the subtitle of this story however. It reads 'Councillor angry at litter and graffiti at derelict site'. For the record, whilst I am certainly not happy about the litter and graffiti, I'm not yet a councillor! People in Knowle should of course feel free to make me their councillor, if they feel I deserve their vote, when I stand as the Green Party candidate for Knowle in the forthcoming May local elections.

I have been active on a number of issues affecting Knowle and Bristol for a very long time now (over 20 years), including recently: campaigning to keep Jubilee Pool open; highlighting the risk to childhood health of the air pollution around the heavily congested Wells Rd; and trying to get councillors and government to put waste reduction and re-use before recycling, to name just three, so this is not the first time people have assumed that I'm already elected.

Labour, Conservative, Lib-Dem - pretty much the same these days!

Wishy-washy comment and no substantial criticism of Bristol South MP Dawn Primarolo's policies is what we got from Lib-Dem Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Bristol South Dr Mark Wright today ('I can do a better job than Dawn, I believe', Bristol Evening Post letters, March 3).

He says, as I have earlier in this blog, that her transformation from radical left-winger to New Labour loyalist is remarkable but does not back this with any observations or analysis at all. The truth is that he cant really offer a distinctive, radical alternative because there is no substantial difference between his policies and hers these days !!

The narrowness of the debate between Labour, Lib-Dems and Conservatives is striking. There is a very large measure of agreement between them about the shape of our consumer-capitalist society.

At several past general elections the debate has centred around tax and spending differences between Labour, Lib-Dems and Conservatives of less than 1% of national wealth! All three make claims to be radical and get to the root of problems, but none of them actually are radical.

Dawn Primarolo's ten years in the Blair government has set back progress in all the areas she once claimed to have a radical position on! Nuclear weapons, nuclear power, income inequality, privatisation, childhood wellbeing, opposing violence and more! Its a pity that the Lib-Dems have not taken her to task on these sort of issues.

As a Green I care deeply about the lack of achievement and the backward steps on these fronts.

People before profit in the Home Care Service

Bristol's plans to privatise its Home Care Service are not in the best interests of those cared for or of the caring staff. Private companies are motivated primarily by profit and I personally feel that, like health and education, there should be no place for private profit making in home care.

The priority for the care of vulnerable people must be what is in their best interests, not what provides a private profit. Elderly people should receive services helping them stay in their own homes as long as possible but for some people this option is neither safe nor what they want. For these people we need good quality residential care.

Economies in the Health Service and in council budgets mean there's less residential care available, and that has meant a huge strain on the Home Care Service. This is not the time to weaken it, as the Liberal Democrat Cabinet wishes, by privatising it. Home Care is not a consumer product that can be bought on special offer from a shop, though I heard words to that effect from a Lib-Dem spokesperson when I was observing the recent council meeting on setting a budget.

The private sector will, by its nature strive to deliver services more cheaply. How? By driving down staff pay and conditions over time. Carers both in Home Care services and Residential Homes are already poorly paid and as a result it is often difficult to recruit suitable staff or to keep staff. Many Homes now are staffed largely through agencies. That is expensive for the council and means residents often have little continuity of care and a poorer chance of building good relationships with the workers they depend on.

There is also the issue of equal pay. Caring work is mainly done by women, and as such is often very poorly paid. The women who carry out this type of work are usually very committed to their clients and so put up with poor pay and conditions of service, but it is not right that as a society we reward them so poorly for such essential work. Fair pay is less likely to happen in the private sector where often profits depend on getting the work done as cheaply as possible.

And what about the issue of quality of service? Vulnerable people should be cared for by staff who are properly trained, managed and supported. Short cuts in this area are ethically unacceptable. Isn't it about time we did right by the elderly and other vulnerable people?

Promote local economic activity, services and facilities

I've been a strong supporter of the Sustainable Communities Bill currently going through Parliament as a Private Members Bill, for some time now. I hope it becomes law and have been undertaking activities suggested by the Local Works organisation(www.localworks.org) to help bring this about. It aims to halt the decline of local shops, post offices, pubs, services, communities and jobs but I've had no success in finding support for the Bill from my MP, Bristol East's Kerry McCarthy unfortuneately.

The government have opposed the Bill too, with the Dept for Communities and Local Govt writing to a committee expressing opposition and issueing a briefing to all Labour MPs doing likewise. One government whip asked some Labour MPs to 'talk the Bill out' when it was discussed in the House of Commons. Despite this the vote went against the government's wishes and the Bill got a Second Reading, with 177 MPs across the party divide voting to ensure this (all credit to them!).

The Bill requires an action plan to be established jointly by central and local government to stop local areas becoming 'ghost towns' and to promote local economic activity, environmental protection, and wide, inclusive public participation. Central government would have to consult with local government who in turn would be required to consult local communities about such things as the best ways to spend money - according to local priorities. Under the Bill local communities would have greater rights to allocate or re-allocate money spent by central government and national agencies. Sounds like good democratic practice to me!

Change the law so that 'grot spots' cant develop in the first place!

A few days ago I had a telephone conversation with Bristol Evening Post reporter Tom Hodson who has written features about littered and vandalised 'grot spots'. I expressed my concern to him about one Knowle grot spot and sent him the email below:

Tom
Please find attached photos of the 'grot spot' in the area of Knowle where I live. Its a former Texaco Petrol Station at 174-178 Wells Rd in Knowle and has been abandoned and left to gradually decay for I think at least 18 months, possibly longer. Its now covered in graffiti and strewn with litter. Its possible that people have been tipping their rubbish on the more out of sight parts of the area too. There is evidence that drinking and goodness knows what else has been taking place on the site, inside the fencing.

I've grown more and more concerned about this increasing eyesore as its been left to get worse. Its a possible health risk and obviously encourages a growing rat population. Why does it have to take so long before a valuable piece of land can be put to good use? Why are an irresponsible minority of people intent on ruining the way this bit of Knowle looks? Why are the land owners allowed to be so irresponsible in allowing the site to decay and become vandalised?

I've contacted the Bristol City Council Clean and Green Team (Denise James) and reported the state of the site. I also contacted the planning department at the council and found that finally a planning application was put in for the site on 29 Jan (13 1-bed and 10 2-bed apartments plus a ground floor retail outlet - application number 07/00377). When open, green spaces are threatened with mass house building its very important to make the very best use of sites like this former petrol station, and so subject to the nature and quality of the application, this development is welcome news.

I very much hope that a clean-up can be done by those responsible, with help from the council as needed. What I'd really like to see is a change in the law to give councils much greater powers to ensure that owners of land and property cant abandon areas to rot for months and years unused. This would stop such eyesores developing in the first place. I shall be following up on this as part of my work within Bristol South Green Party.

London's Congestion Charge

I personally cant agree with the National Alliance Against Tolls (NAAT) when they say that London's congestion charge has been a bad thing ('Congestion charge will not work here', Bristol Evening Post, February 20). Congestion, as the Confederation of British Industry are saying, has damaged London's business and its - and therefore the nation's - economy. Its also damaged Londoner's health and its environment.

The congestion charging initiative is a powerful approach to dealing with congestion. It helps to: reduce congestion; reduce through traffic; encourage use of public transport in central London; benefit business efficiency by speeding up the movement of goods and people; create a better environment for walking and cycling.

Congestion charging results in substantial decreases in traffic according to modelling predictions as follows. Inside the zone: traffic reduced by 10 - 15%; queues reduced by 20 - 30%; traffic speeds increased by 10 - 15%. Outside the zone: traffic increase on orbital routes by up to 5% ; traffic would be reduced on radial routes by 5 - 10%; overall reduction in traffic outside zone by 1 - 2%.

Obviously any scheme for Bristol has to be got right and so it is well worth doing the required research to see if we can get the benefits London has. It wont work without a powerful Transport Authority for Bristol in place first however, with all the powers needed to create a decent, affordable, high quality, environmentally friendly, integrated public transport system. Its not fair to say that the London congestion charge has not worked well up to now though, which is why the decision to extend it was taken.

From 'Red Dawn' to New Labour Loyalist - what a transformation!

I'm afraid I dont think Dawn Primarolo, MP for Bristol South, has been true to her 'principles' over her 20 years in Parliament which she is now celebrating, according to a large article in the local press recently. I think there is a clear relationship between her transformation from radical left-winger 'Red Dawn' to New Labour loyalist, and her rise up the political ladder to her position as Paymaster General in the Blair Government.

I was there at the count as the Green Party's 1987 Parliamentary Candidate when she first became an MP. Then I was certainly a political opponent but given her radical credentials, I felt there was at least some common ground between our political positions. As a former UNISON steward and the NASUWT rep I have always been a supporter of many aspects of the labour movement and many of its broad objectives and so expected to see her take on issues like: income inequality; nuclear weapons and power; the importance of how we treat children and childhood; and non-violence; on an ongoing, consistent and fundamental basis.

I was there at the count again in 2001 as the Greens Candidate and said as part of my speech at the end 'I hope she fights for a truly radical agenda more in the next five years'. She most certainly has done the complete opposite of this, given the actions of the government she is happy to be a member of!

Just look at the lack of achievement on what I initially thought was our 'common ground' back in 1987. Income inequality is high and is growing. The prospect of a non-nuclear future for the UK has been shattered by the governments decision to spend $76 billion over the coming years on Trident nuclear submarines equipped to the teeth with new nuclear weapons. The government is determined to forge ahead with a new nuclear power program. On children and childhood wellbeing a recent Unicef report shows that the UK is bottom of a league table of 21 industrialised countries compiled using no less than 40 different wellbeing indicators! And far from having a non-violent community we are now experiencing rising gun crime, especially involving young people.

Its a pretty damning record and puts the article written about her into some context. When politicians of apparent strong conviction dont hold to those convictions when political opportunities come along surely it helps to bring politics and politicians into disrepute?

The importance of understanding children and childhood

Children and childhood are very important and central to green thinking and action given that we are about creating a new ethics - that of securing a decent life for future generations. I was recently reminded by a magazine article of what I think is a very important and significant letter sent to the Daily Telegraph in Sept '06, signed by over 100 prominent public and professional figures on the subject of children and childhood.

The letter, with its massively impressive list of signatories, talks of the way we are neglecting children's emotional and social needs and indicates the depression, behavioural and developmental problems of children. It states that they need real food, real play, real experience of the world first hand, real and quality interaction with the adults in their lives, and time. I highly recommend reading the letter, available from:

http://www.suepalmer.co.uk/articles/Letter.pdf

We have also had the recent very damning report from Unicef

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6359849.stm

which showed the UK at the bottom of its league table of childhood wellbeing.

Green leadership interview

The Green Party is unique in having effectively two leaders. The organisation has two Principal Speakers, always one man and one woman. The current speakers are Sian Berry, and Derek Wall who was interviewed on internet tv recently. The 30 minute interview gives a really good outline of what green politics is about and what its current status is. If you have a broadband connection and are interested click the link below:

http://doughty.gdbtv.com/player.php?h=f85b27fea5ede43bc744643da3942ea4

Save Jubilee Pool: campaign developments

I recently received a letter about the decision to close Jubilee Swimming Pool taken by the Lib-Dem cabinet in Bristol (back in Sept/Oct 06). As I've been campaigning on this since they took the decision I thought you might be interested in my e-mailed reply (see below), as an update on the issue.
____________________________________________________________________
For the attention of Chris Orlik and Ben Mitchell:

I see you are campaigning in Knowle on saving Jubilee Pool (letter received from Ben Mitchell, Labour Spokesperson for Knowle and Chris Orlik, Labour Spokesperson for Totterdown Feb 10th 07). I have been campaigning on the pool issue for several months now and back in Oct 06 forced Gary Hopkins into publicly replying to two or three letters of mine published in the Bristol Evening Post. Just after my letters were published in the paper I placed copies of them on my blog (reproduced below for your information - blog date 5 Nov 06). My letters may be amongst those you refer to in your letter. I've now personally collected around 600 signatures on a petition raised online by Colin Smith on 1 Oct 06.

Gary Hopkins and his Lib-Dem colleagues need to be held to account for the poor decision they took to close Jubilee, not least in the forthcoming local elections. I would welcome some joint work on this particular issue if you feel able to do this. Perhaps a public meeting could be held on the matter, inviting Gary Hopkins and fellow Knowle councillor Chris Davies (whose seat is up for election this time). I've received phone calls of support/help from people of various political persuasions and feel that perhaps by everyone working together, maximum pressure can be applied to get the pool closure decision reversed.

A few months after starting my campaigning on Jubilee I was selected as the Green Party Candidate for the Knowle Ward. I hope that being in different political parties will not prevent us from working together on this issue where we seem to have common cause. I look forward to hearing from you.

Glenn Vowles
Green Candidate for Knowle

Boost your quality of life - work your proper hours!

Green MEP Jean Lambert has done some great work on work, stress and employment culture in the UK (see http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2874).

If we are going to raise the social sustainability of our lifestyles and raise the quality of our lives we need to get a good balance between our work and the rest of our lives! What's it all for otherwise!

Support Work Your Proper Hours Day, Friday 23 Feb. - click below to find out more....

Transport Authority for Greater Bristol needed

The Labour Government continues to fail us on transport. Five out of seven of their own targets, including air quality, public transport and carbon emissions have not been met according to the House of Commons Transport Committee that reported recently.The Department of Transport are apparently meeting targets on road safety and rail punctuality, though road safety campaigners and rail passengers may well do more than raise their eyebrows when they read this!

The committee went on to say that the Department of Transport had no "clear strategy" to put things right and seemed to have "given up" on improving bus services!

Given these facts I find it particularly galling that Bristol South MP Dawn Primarolo was on the same day reported as saying, "Who wants to live on the edge of a busy road?" ('Pupils do homework to oppose new road', Bristol Evening Post, February 15). I have to tell her that many of her constituents, such as those who live on or near the busy Wells Rd in Knowle, and people across the country are doing just that, often beside roads that her party had built!

Many have lived all their lives by busy roads and know that successive governments have let us down by not tackling congestion and air quality and not organising decent public transport services. If she goes to a recent study in the highly respected medical journal The Lancet she will find research showing that living near a busy road impairs childrens lung development. We know that the poor air we breathe has many toxic effects (http://www.britishlungfoundation.org/air-pollution.asp?lung=2.)

When can we expect the situation to improve so that our health and wellbeing is not damaged? There is no evidence that this will be within five years, given the current state of the Department of Transport, according the House of Commons Committee! The government needs to urgently create a powerful transport authority for the Greater Bristol area with the ability to do everything needed to get us moving around in safer, healthier, affordable and environmentally friendly ways or will be guilty of further letting our children down.

Bird flu and intensive farming practices

It looks increasingly likely that the bird flu outbreak on the Bernard
Matthews farm in Suffolk got there in imports of poultry meat from Hungary
now that government vets have confirmed that the virus type here matched
the virus there. Scientists are now trying to trace back to find the exact
source ('Hungary link to UK bird flu', Bristol Evening Post, February 9).

Part of the problem is that movements of both animals and their products
over large distances and frequently, is a key feature of current intensive
animal farming and trading practice. Furthermore the animals are kept at
very high densities, crowded in very close proximity to each other.
Disease spread is density dependent and so once infectious material enters
intensive farms it has the potential to spread quickly and easily.

With both the BSE/Mad Cow Disease and foot and mouth crises we have
experienced how animal movements and intensive stocking are factors
helping disease spread.

Is it not time to learn lessons from what seems to be a general pattern of
practice weakening our food security, safety and health? More localised
production by less intensive and more natural methods is both better from
an animal welfare, human health and food safety and security viewpoint.
Unfortuneately it seems that part of the hidden cost of so-called cheap
food is the periodic occurrence of potentially very serious diease
outbreaks of various types.

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.