More poor climate science in the local press...this time from a councillor

Rather bizarrely and contrary to all the best scientific advice Councillor Brian H Hopkinson seems to be saying that we should all fly more, yes more, in order to help reduce climate change ('Global Warming', Bristol Evening Post, July 25)! What an incredible reply this is to my letter (see blog entry of July 9th) correcting earlier writers climate science errors. Clearly he is wrong and has not looked into the idea of global dimming he refers to that much.

It just reinforces the point in my letter (July 9th blog) that people contributing to the climate debate need to get all the facts of this complex matter straight. This is especially important for elected representatives, like Councillor Hopkinson, because they are presumeably more active in debate and their views may have more influence on public opinion.

Brian said '...if we stop all flights, which some so called eco-friendly experts propose, we may well accelerate our demise even quicker.'. By this logic flying is good for our climate!

Some climate scientists feel that aeroplane vapor trails are implicated in global dimming, but the constant flow of air traffic previously meant that this could not be tested. Near-complete shutdown of flying for three days following the Sept 11 terrorist attacks gave an opportunity to observe the climate of the USA absent from the effect of vapour trails. During this period, an increase in daily temperature variation of over 1 °C was observed in some parts of the USA, that is, aircraft vapour trails may have been raising nighttime temperatures and/or lowering daytime temperatures by much more than previously thought. Note that both temperature raising and lowering effects are happening here.

Brian clearly thinks the dimming phenomenon is in opposition to global warming. He is wrong about this. He is guilty of the mistake of not looking at the whole picture, as other letter writers have been. It's a lot more complex than either a warming or dimming issue. Global warming and dimming are not mutually exclusive or contradictory. In fact they are both clear indications of human ability to impact our climate systems!

Global warming and global dimming in fact occur at the same time. Global dimming interacts with warming, blocking sunlight that would otherwise cause evaporation and the particulates bind to water droplets. Water vapor is one of the greenhouse gases. On the other hand, global dimming is affected by evaporation and rain. Rain has the effect of clearing out polluted skies. You can see how the two, warming and dimming, are all part of the climate change picture.

Climatologists are very keen to stress that the roots of both global dimming causing pollutants and global warming causing greenhouse gases have to be dealt with together and soon. Misuse of the science by people like Councillor Hopkinson risks confusing some of the public. This results in people on this letters page wrongly writing that trees around airports will suck up all the pollution, melting ice does not raise sea levels (July 9th blog) and now, flying helps to reduce climate change. Its highly damaging exactly at the point when we need well informed clarity from the people we elect.

Be yourself - no matter what they say!

There''s been quite a bit of discussion in our household about the dispersal order placed on the College Green area that seems to be singling out 'skateboarders, goths, grungers and emos' (the Evening Post's description).

My daughter regularly goes there to meet up with a lot of other young people with similar interests in looks and music. She is adamant about the injustice of the order and I must say I agree with her view and have offered a bit of advice about who to contact about the matter and how.

The issue has stimulated both her and her friends to get politically active and contact councillors/MPs/the media. Good for them! Why does our society demonise young people so much?

I was most impressed with the letter my daughter sent off (copied below):
___________________________________________________________________

Dear Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Davies
(copied to Bristol's council leader Helen Holland and my MP, Kerry McCarthy)

I've just read the report in the Bristol Evening Post about the dispersal order imposed on the College Green area ('Skateboarders Green Protest', Evening Post, July 18).

As a 14 yr old girl who regularly meets up with friends and has a good, sociable time on 'the green' on Saturdays I would like to know what my local councillors and others will do to help protect my right to be present in an area with my friends, causing no harm. I'd like to know what your views on this dispersal order are, especially whether the order is fair if used in a way that is aimed at a wide range of young people instead of being properly targeted at trouble-makers. Nobody wants those who cause trouble to get away with it.

My friends and I do nothing wrong. We cause no trouble. We are generally peaceful, don't drink and don't do drugs or bother people, just like most of the others who go to the area. We are really quite a close community in many ways. Its only a small minority that cause problems and some people go to the green just to pick on those who look different. I do hope that the order itself wont be used to pick on young people who look different too. Lets remember that drinking, drug taking and violence are a regular problem inside and outside of the pubs and clubs in Bristol every weekend and that these are certainly not problems caused by 'skateboarders, goths, grungers and emos'.

I'm worried that the order might be used in such a way that just a 'presence' in the area could be enough to move me and my friends on. After all the police have said, according to the Evening Post, "members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed by the presence or behaviour of groups in this locality'. Presence or behaviour ! Ok, if a particular person or small group's behaviour is shown to cause a problem then that person or group causing trouble should have action taken against them. This does not apply to the hundreds that go to the green however, and surely just having a presence is not enough in itself?

There has been and always will be people who are different and look different who want to gather to meet in groups. Because they are identifiably different - say they are black, or gay, or disabled or scarred by accident or have long hair, flares and flowers in their hair, or like to wear black and dye their hair red, or whatever - should not mean that they can be moved on just because they gather in a place. Generally, people should be allowed to be themselves, no matter what people say, though they may be feared, often due to ignorance and misunderstanding.

There aren't many safe places, like College Green with its CCTV, in central Bristol for young people to gather and meet. Facilities and open spaces are limited. Perhaps it would help if there was better investment by the council and government in facilities for young people, after asking them what is needed and wanted.

I look forward to receiving your reply, giving your views and saying what you will do.

Ellie Vowles, Age 14

The Big Ask online march for a strong climate law

E-mail sent to Kerry McCarthy MP:

I've joined The Big Ask online march - Friends of the Earth's campaign for a strong climate law. To see me marching with hundreds of others please click here:
http://www.thebigask.com/

Last year around two thirds of MPs called for a Climate Change Bill to reduce the UK's carbon dioxide by at least three per cent a year. If you were one of them, thank you.

The Government has now produced a Draft Climate Change Bill. I welcome this, but it must be tougher to meet our climate challenge. The Bill must:

- reduce emissions every year so the UK reaches a target of at least 80 per cent cuts by 2050

- include annual targets so politicians can't blame preceding Governments for missed targets

- include emissions from international aviation and shipping

Please assure me of your support for a tougher Bill.

Informed debate needed on climate change not poor use of science

Two recent letter writers make basic scientific mistakes in their statements about climate change in the local press. People contributing to public debate on the issue should take great care to get all the facts about this complex matter straight. There is a danger that the public could be misled into thinking that there is not a big problem when there is, and that there is no need to take action, changing our behaviour, when there is an urgent need.

Pearl V Smith feels the expansion of Bristol Airport is fine because 'The airport is surrounded by trees, and they absorb carbon and give off oxygen - many, many more trees than Bristol has.' ('Trees near airport suck up pollution', Bristol Evening Post letters, July 6). First: there are nowhere near enough trees to absorb all the carbon. Second: if there were enough trees the amount and rate of absorption is highly uncertain and of course the carbon is only stored for the life of the trees. Third: aircraft are rapidly transforming carbon, which natural processes have locked into fossil fuels over millions of years, into carbon dioxide gas, in flights of seconds, minutes and hours - trees can't possibly absorb at a rate that can practically compensate for this.

David Camlin feels that sea levels are not going to rise because of melting ice sheets, saying 'As Archimedes could have told you if he had visited the Antarctic, ice shelves, which are afloat on the sea, do not cause any contribution to sea level rise when they melt.' ('Climate change debate', Bristol Evening Post letters, July 6). First: there are ice sheets on Antarctic land that are melting and this adds water to the sea (also the case for places like Greenland in the Arctic by the way). Second: when both floating ice and ice on land melts there is a highly significant change of colour from energy reflecting white ice to energy absorbing dark sea. This means less of the Sun's energy is reflecting back into space and more is absorbed, raising the temperature, expanding the ocean and causing sea level rise. Third: since 1945 the Antarctic Peninsula has experienced a warming of 2.5 degrees, approx five times the global average rise, in part because of the colour change on melting. The annual melt season there has increased by two to three weeks in just the past twenty years.

Its very important that we have well informed debate on climate change. People should use the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, set up by the United Nations, as their major source since they have looked at all the research on all sides of the debate and assessed its quality and consistency. They are saying that climate change is real, serious, urgent and our fault. To conclude differently is to fly in the face of the best expertise the world can currently assemble.

Live Earth pledge

When I saw former USA Vice President Al Gore's climate change film An Inconvenient Truth (http://www.aninconvenienttruth.co.uk/) he went up massively in my estimation. I had not fully realised the depth of his involvement in the issue, going way back to the 1960's, even before then.

I've been watching some of the Gore inspired Live Earth concert today and signed up to the pledge below. I hope you will go to this site to sign up for it too: http://liveearth.msn.com/

I PLEDGE:

1.To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;


2.To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become "carbon neutral;"


3.To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2;


4.To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;


5.To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;


6.To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,


7.To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crisis and building a sustainable, just, and prosperous world for the 21st century.

Climate change: real; serious; urgent; and we are the cause

Its reported today that a recent Ipsos Mori poll found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change. They are wrong to believe this. Scientists have reached a consensus that climate change is a real, serious and urgent issue and that we are the cause.

Recognizing the global climate change issue, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. It is open to all members of the UN and WMO.

The IPCC assesses on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. Its view is evidence based and they have concluded in their assessment reports, including their fourth one, being published this year in stages, that we have caused a serious problem that must be tackled with urgency.

Anyone still dismissing or playing down climate change is flying in the face of the best expertise that the world can assemble to examine the matter.

I agree with Royal Society vice-president Sir David Read when he said: "People should not be misled by those that exploit the complexity of the issue, seeking to distort the science and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of climate change. The science very clearly points towards the need for us all - nations, businesses and individuals - to do as much as possible, as soon as possible, to avoid the worst consequences of a changing climate."

Lots of really good work being done in Knowle West

Letter writer RL Smith persists in his negative view of Knowle West, attempting to defend himself by replying to my criticism of his prejudice (see June 16 blog entry). I've sent a reply to his latest letter - this debate has run for some time in the local press now, with letters criticising and supporting him. My latest letter said:

I'm afraid I'm not at all persuaded by RL Smith's defence of his position on Knowle West. He feels it is acceptable to insult the area in one breath whilst in another he attempts to absolve himself with a 'caveat' ('Knowle West', Bristol Evening Post letters, June 28). The fact is that he has had little good to say about Knowle West and has had his view skewed by his personal bad experiences. This is unfair and clearly justifies me previously saying his views are unbalanced, unfounded and unjustifiable.

A balanced view would indicate problems caused by a small minority, like many areas around the country have, and also point to some of the excellent work being done by Knowle West's people such as the Knowle West Media Centre on eg green issues, those involved in 'community courts/justice', those campaigning against drugs and others - all regularly reported in the local papers.

Saving Planet Earth/Jet around the world - two sides of our society illustrated

It was nearly one o'clock on Sunday 17 June and I'd just finished watching 'The Politics Show'. A trailer for the new BBC 'Saving Planet Earth' season, with great images of polar bears, wolves, elephants.... really got my attention as it dealt with how what's happening to endangered species is telling us loud and clear that things are going very badly wrong and that we need to make urgent changes accordingly.

I was floored by the trailer that, almost seamlessly, followed - one about the National Lottery: Jet Set 2012, centring on the 'fantastic' prize of jetting around the world on a luxury trip! No mention of the environmental costs of course.

How ironic is that! Two very different sides of the BBC, and of our society, in the space of seconds! I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

Labelling of and prejudice about the area I was brought up in

Regular letter writer RL Smith's labelling of 'Knowle West' as an area with a reputation for crime and other problems ('Knowle West's location and name is no mystery', Bristol Evening Post letters, June 16) is unfounded, unbalanced and unjustifiable.

Its simply wrong to take the actions of a small number as representative of several thousand people. Its a clear sign of his prejudice that he has done so.

As a toddler I lived in Willinton Rd and then spent all my years in primary and secondary school living in Exmouth Rd and attending Ilminster Ave and Merrywood Boys' School, clearly in the area called Knowle West by many people, before living in Redcatch and then Somerset Rd in Knowle but outside Knowle West.

Having spent my formative years in the area labelled by RL Smith, by his logic I should be involved in crime in some way or be causing society some other problem, but I'm not. I've twice been a Green parliamentary candidate have two degrees and a higher degree and work as an academic for the Open University - just one of the many and varied people brought up in Knowle West.

Support the Sustainable Communities Bill

Today sent the letters below (from http://www.localworks.org/) , in support of the Sustainable Communities Bill, which has some success in making its way through the parliamentary process.

Dear Gordon Brown ,

I am writing to ask you, as future Prime Minister, to ensure the government stands by the assurances given by Minister Phil Woolas MP during the Sustainable Communities Bill committee stage that the government will support the Bill and not attempt to ‘water it down’ when it goes before the House for its Report and 3rd reading on the 15th of June.

This Bill is also very much in line with your personal vision of devolving power from the Centre which you expressed in your Labour Party Conference speech in 2006 when you said;

“People and communities should now take power from the state and that means a reinvention of the way we govern: the active citizen, the empowered community, open enabling government…local councils, not Whitehall, should have more power over things that matter to their community.”

You have made restoring trust a big issue in your Leadership campaign: The Sustainable Communities Bill offers a real opportunity to achieve this by actively engaging people in the local democratic process. It provides a mechanism for truly devolving power and building Sustainable Communities.

Phil Woolas made very positive comments about the Bill, and the mechanisms in it, in Committee. If, following these, the government tries to water down the Bill on 15th June then it will be no surprise if many people continue to distrust politicians.

So, once again I ask you to please ensure that the Sustainable Communities Bill is not watered down from being a Bill in which councils and communities, to use Phil Woolas’s words, ‘determine’ the policies, to one in which they are merely ‘consulted’ and all the decisions are taken centrally in Whitehall.

Yours Sincerely

Glenn Vowles
___________________________________________________________________

Dear Kerry McCarthy

I am writing to ask you write to communities Minister Phil Woolas MP urging him to stand by the very encouraging statements and pledges he made during the Sustainable Communities Bill Committee, that the government will support the Bill and not attempt to ‘water it down’, when it goes before the House for its Report and 3rd reading on the 15th of June.

Mr Woolas specifically assured the Committee that he agreed to the drawing up of a government action plan to help reverse community decline, with the contents of the plan being based on ‘co-operation’ between the government and councils (via the Local Government Association), and between councils and their communities (via citizens panels) (i.e. not consultation in which the decisions are taken at the centre: but co-operation in which decisions are taken together – a far more ‘bottom-up’ mechanism)

The Sustainable Communities Bill offers a real opportunity to actively engage people in the local democratic process and it provides a mechanism for truly devolving power and building Sustainable Communities. As a constituent and keen supporter of this Bill I urge you to take up this matter urgently with Mr Woolas and also to be present in the House on Friday the 15th of June to support the Bill

Your Sincerely

Glenn Vowles

Caroline Lucas, Green MEP - Politician of the Year!

The Green Party website today reported the following:

Caroline Lucas 'Politician of the Year'

GREEN Party Euro-MP Caroline Lucas has beaten Gordon Brown and David Cameron to be named 'politician of the year' in the 2nd Observer Ethical Awards in association with Ecover.
The MEP, who serves on the Parliament's Environment, International Trade and Climate Change committees, was chosen ahead of the other two shortlisted politicians by readers of the Observer.
She was presented with the award last night at a central London ceremony hosted by TV presenter Simon Amstell.

She got my vote in the contest! Caroline is a great role model for any aspiring green campaigner. Well done to her! Find out more about her work at: http://www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk/

'Any Questions?'; Brown...Green?; Factor 10 reductions?

I was in the audience of Radio 4's 'Any Questions?' broadcast live last night from Explore @Bristol, along with green friends and family. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/anyquestions.shtml?focuswin . I submitted a couple of questions (below) but many others were submitted, especially on climate change (according to presenter Jonathan Dimbleby) and neither of mine were selected to be put to the panel of public figures.

There was a great discussion following a question on George Bush's recent words on climate change, won hands down by panelist George Monbiot (who was generally very entertaining and crowd pleasing). Debate ranged widely, with questions also covering how to deal best with paedophiles; Catholic views on abortion; Conservative views on grammar schools; where panelists would go on a 'farewell tour' (a la Tony Blair)...

Q1
With carbon dioxide emissions now higher than in 1997, can we expect Brown to ever truly be Green?

I'm very sceptical about Gordon Brown's green credentials, as you might expect. There is a huge difference between the bigger parties warm words and their actions! I'd welcome others comments on this though.

Q2
With UN World Environment Day this Tues how would the panel assess the scale of progress made towards a sustainable society in the last 10 yrs?

In terms of practical action we have made little or no progress overall (UK carbon dioxide emissions are 1-2% higher now than in 1997 when our very concerned government came to power for instance). I find that most politicians lack a sense of scale when bandying the word sustainability around. The rough rule of thumb I use with my environmental science/technology students is 'factor 10' ie in resource use/pollution/waste production terms we need a tenfold reduction (90%) to approach sustainability in the UK. Of course you cant isolate the UK from the rest of the world but its still a useful rough guide.

UN World Environment Day - 5 June; Bristol Festival of Nature - 2 and 3 June

On 5th June each year its United Nations World Environment Day. This year the focus is on melting polar ice (due to our pollution changing the climate) and all its ramifications for people and wildlife. Find out more at: http://www.unep.org/wed/2007/english/

"We will not solve this problem if we do not each take our share of the responsibility for tackling it. Nobody can protect themselves from climate change unless we protect each other by building a global basis for climate security. To put it starkly, if we all try to free ride, we will all end up in free fall, with accelerating climate change the result of our collective failure to respond in time to this shared threat."
Margaret Becket Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Pity her words are not matched by actions - the Govt she speaks for has allowed a situation where UK carbon dioxide emissions are higher now than they were 10 yrs ago when they first came to power!

A very good way to get informed and involved in all sorts of environmental matters is to go to the Bristol Festival of Nature, taking place this Saturday and Sunday:
http://www.festivalofnature.org/

Try out OpenLearn

I know I'm biased because they employ me but much about the Open University is brilliant. I love its aim to be open as to people, places, methods....in their work

Take the project making a wide range of high quality learning materials available free of charge on the internet for instance - go to www.open.ac.uk/openlearn and sample some material to find out more.

With the environment currently a very hot topic eg the Severn Barrage/NuclearPower issues in our region, you could go to:

http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=1223

and find some very useful stuff on sustainable/renewable energy issues for example.

Response to Cllr Gary Hopkins criticism

Criticism of me from Cllr Gary Hopkins (below, with my reply underneath) in the Bristol Evening Post's letters page. It seems he feels that the Greens - an independent political party - should not contest Lib Dem seats because he (not us!) feels there has been environmental progress in Bristol due to them! Actually we dont agree (...Lib Dems support the South Bristol Ring Road and Airport Expansion plans as well as agreeing with Labour and the Tories on building many thousands of houses on open, green spaces...). Even if we felt that there had been environmental progress, there are other reasons to oppose Lib Dems, not least on social policy including the lack of social justice in Home Care privatisation (Gary, it seems, does not yet understand that there is much more to being green than environmentalism)


THE GREENS REALLY HAVE TO FACE REALITY - Councillor Gary Hopkins, Liberal Democrats, Knowle Ward

It is very understandable that the Green party candidate, Glenn Vowles, complains about the electoral system ("How voting system itself affects result", Open Lines, May 12). It distorts not only the result, but also the nature and style of politics, and we, the Liberal Democrats, have campaigned against it for years. It is, though, the reality imposed by the New Labour and Tory parties successively from Westminster, and it is noticeable that nationally, Labour got a sizeable parliamentary majority with 35 per cent of those who made the effort to vote.If the Greens had faced up to political reality - and the system - better, they would have deployed a little more precious resources into making sure they removed another environmentally-damaging Labour councillor, instead of futile attempts to unseat Lib Dems, who have actually made real environmental progress in Bristol. In other words, do something practical, don't just dream about it.

___________________________________________________________________


Dear Open Lines


Its touching that Lib Dem Councillor Gary Hopkins is so concerned that the Green Party should get its electoral strategy right ('The Greens have to face reality', Open Lines, May 23). However, given that his party have just lost two seats to Labour and has been replaced as the party running Bristol, I'm not inclined to trust his political judgement! He would be better off turning his attention to the strategy of his own party, not least on the issue of Home Care privatisation.


Greens, being as keen on social as ecological justice, have completely opposed Home Care privatisation from the start and, given the verdict of voters, feel that there is a democratic case for the end of the Lib Dem running of Bristol (Labour gained the largest share of the vote, with 29%, as well as gaining seats).


Lets not forget that Councillor Hopkins has obviously not been present at our meetings and so knows nothing of Green Party local election plans, intentions and resource availability. He is thus not in a good position to make judgements about our deployment of resources, though nevertheless he gives an - uninformed - opinion!


Just like the Lib Dems in general elections Greens have the dilemma of needing to target seats whilst at the same time wanting to give as many people as possible the option of voting for us and generally raising our share of the vote with a view to future election performance. Greens have no rich private backers or powerful union support. Given the small size of the party and its resources the fact that we came within 6 votes of winning in Southville, forcing Labour to pull out all the stops (including sending Environment Secretary David Milliband out canvassing!), and 110 votes of winning in Ashley,as well as raising our average share of the vote significantly, is a remarkable performance. Its a clear indication of the ongoing rise in popularity of Green ideas.

Tidal Energy from the Severn - Small is Beautiful

Its good to see the Severn Barrage issue covered in the Bristol Evening Post (‘Barrage Fans in Severn Heaven Now’, May 22) but why is the debate currently so narrowly focussed? I was disappointed to read about ‘the scheme’ discussed as if the only way to extract the energy is by going for the well publicised ten mile barrage.

Many agree that we have a fantastic natural, renewable resource here that we can and should harness energy from. However, its seems that we still have not acknowledged that the scale of a development is often a key feature of whether it is green or not. Have we forgotten that famous green book ‘Small is Beautiful’ by EF Schumacher?

The huge scale of the ten mile barrage means huge costs and significant potential for costs to spiral due to the unforeseen technical problems and time delays that so often arise on such projects. If we in the UK cant build Wembley Stadium on time and within budget can we expect to build a £14 billion, ten mile long barrage as originally intended?

Yes, a feasibility study into tidal energy from the Severn is a very good idea but it would be very short-sighted not to study other energy extraction methods such as tidal lagoons and tidal stream turbines (already being researched off the Devon Coast) at the same time. If we don’t get the technological assessment method right we could be missing out on the scheme that best combines effective and efficient energy generation with minimal environmental impacts.

All parties on the council should form an executive together

In breach of the law, the first meeting of the newly elected Bristol City Council on 15 May failed to select a council leader and appoint an executive.

The electorate in Bristol have voted such that there is no one party in overall control, requiring a cooperative approach from councillors instead of the squabbling and posturing that we've got instead.

Squabbling and posturing has long been a feature of Bristol City Council's members so what's happened so far is no surprise - last year we had no group running the council for seven weeks!
It is, sadly, a key characteristic of current mainstream politics.

Unless voters switch to parties who favour a different, more cooperative approach and/or the electoral system is changed it looks like we are stuck with a politics that brings itself into disrepute. This is not the best way to get problems solved, which is for me what politics should be about.

New measure of progress needed

My petition on the Prime Minister's website
(http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ISEW-not-GDP/) quickly gained 34 of the 100 signatures needed to guarantee a reply when first posted there but signing has since slowed up. I've today sent a letter to the Bristol Evening Post based on the text below, to try to get more people to sign.

Back in 1968 Robert F Kennedy said this about the way we measure progress in our industrialised societies ie assessing the size of our economy (GNP, or GDP) :

"The Gross National Product includes air pollution and advertising for cigarettes and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and jails for the people who break them. GNP includes the destruction of the redwoods and the death of Lake Superior. It grows with the production of napalm, missiles and nuclear warheads.

And if GNP includes all this, there is much that it does not comprehend. It does not allow for the health of our families, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It is indifferent to the decency of our factories and the safety of our streets alike. It does not include the beauty of our poetry, the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. GNP measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country…"

Like Robert F Kennedy my view is that 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. They are most unlike normal balance sheet accounts, which add income and subtract costs, in that they only add! 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, which more closely reflect the real quality of life.

If you agree with me then please sign my petition on the Prime Minister's website (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ISEW-not-GDP/), which states:

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.

Home Care - People before Profit

The biggest issue for the forthcoming first meeting of the new-look Bristol City Council is Home Care. Its possible that unless the Lib Dems change their policy of further privatising Home care, begun originally by a Labour-run council, they could be prevented from forming a minority administration to run the city (if the Labour and Conservative groups vote together that is).

From the start I've felt very strongly that there is and should be no place for private profit in Home Care. It was a mistake some years back for society to separate off meeting basic physical, social and care needs from health care and my ideal would be to see social and health care needs being dealt with in a fully integrated way within the NHS, with all services free at the point of use. We are some way off this position in England of course, not least because of the policies of the current UK Labour Govt.

My position for Bristol is that the Lib Dems must look again at their policy, consulting fully with all Home Care users and workers as well as all other political parties on the council, with a view to abandoning privatisation. This is important not only because of the general case made by the labour movement but also because opposition/doubt goes much wider than this, as the voting pattern at the local elections showed very clearly. Labour gained seats and the highest % of the vote and very clearly stated their opposition to Home Care privatisation.

The new Lib-Dem group has a new leadership and key members, if they really are democrats they should change their policy.

Unfair and unrepresentative electoral system, especially to Bristol's Greens

I've just had another look at Bristol's local election results from last week, which took place under our 'first past the post' voting system.

The Lib Dems obtained 27% of the vote but now have 44% of the councillors (31 of them).

Labour got 29% of the vote but have 36% of councillors (25 people).

The Conservatives gained 25% of the vote but have just 19% of councillors (13 individuals).

The Green Party gained 15% of the vote but have a mere 1.4% of councillors ( ie 1 Charlie Bolton).

The 'winner takes all' electoral system doesn't seem to be a fair one to me!! In Bristol this is especially true for the Greens, though other small parties and even the Conservatives lose out due to the system too.

With a strictly proportional voting system the council would look something like this (assuming an unlikely no change in voting habits and range of candidate choice of course): Labour 20 councillors; Lib Dems 19; Conservatives 18; Greens 11; others 2. Most alternative voting systems are not strictly proportional of course but this does give you some idea how different our local council could be but for our voting system.

Great Green result in Knowle local election (pretty good around Bristol too)

Many thanks to all those who voted for me yesterday in the Knowle local election. I obtained 465 votes, which is 15.6% of the total cast - the highest Green vote to date in this ward.

I wasn't far behind the Conservatives (17.4%) and Labour (21.6%), though Lib-Dem Chris Davies was a very clear winner with 45.4% of the vote. Congratulations to Chris Davies on his win.

The Green vote in Knowle is very much on the up now. Between 1995 and 2003 Greens achieved approx 4.5 to 5.5%, with the exception of 7.27% in 1999 (the last time I stood in Knowle). My fellow Green Graham Davey, who has often been the Knowle candidate, achieved a great 14.02% in 2006, tripling the % vote. I'm very glad to have added further to this with 15.6% and it is encouraging for future campaigning here.

I'm absolutely gutted and very upset that we extremely narrowly missed out on getting our second councillor elected in Southville however. I must admit to shedding tears, not something I've done about elections before, when I first heard the full result - Green candidate Tess Green lost by just 6 votes, despite her great efforts and those of her team. Labour lost in Southville in 2006 when my fellow Green, Charlie Bolton, become Bristol's first Green Councillor, winning by just 7 votes. What we did to them they have now done to us. Some might say this is poetic justice, though I think not given the nature of the campaign run against us by some.

On a positive note the number of votes cast for Greens in Southville went up and the % vote was almost the same as when we won in 2006. Across Bristol Greens came second in 4 wards (Ashley - only just over 100 votes from winning, Cabot, Southville - just six votes from winning, and Stockwood). Greens achieved over 20% of the vote in 5 wards, 15-20% in 6 wards and 10-15% in 3 wards. With an average vote of approx 15% where we put up candidates the achievement is very good, showing a strong upward trend in support.

Knowle Ward election coverage in Bristol Evening Post

Todays Bristol Evening Post reported on the local election in Knowle Ward where I am the Green candidate. Its a bit of a shame that the Post has not included brief statements from each of the candidates. Some of the election coverage has been bland and lifeless.

However, I was pleased to see that issues I have been very heavily involved in raising and promoting were featured in the report as matters of local note, namely the decision to close Jubilee Swimming Pool (which I have been vigorously opposing) and a local 'grot spot' on Wells Rd suffering vandalism, littering and grafitti (which I obtained local media coverage for - still not cleaned up despite the current owners promise in the press!).

As it happens the petition opposing the closure Jubilee and Bishopworth Pools, raised online by Colin Smith, is due to be handed in by 30 April and I am today delivering 630 signatures that I have organised the collection of to Bristol City Council.

Featured opposite the report on Knowle is one on the Hengrove Ward. Included there is the issue of New Oak School, saved from becoming part of the Oasis Trust Academy by a vigorous campaign by local people, which I was very actively involved in supporting by applying additional Green Party political pressure through the media.

Give much higher priority to transport issues in Bristol

Today received a letter from the Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance requesting the views of individual candidates on their work. My reply is below:

For the attention of Pip Sheard, Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance www.tfgb.org.uk

Many thanks for your letter asking me for my views on the Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance's Manifesto for Transport, which I received today.

I am a very strong supporter of a Transport Authority for Greater Bristol and signed the online petition you refer to in your letter a while ago. Transport issues of many kinds are very inadequately addressed currently, not least the funding levels for public transport.

I support all the main items in your manifesto and in fact feature transport and related issues a great deal in my election leaflet.

This is because of my leaflets focus on achieving a better quality of life and sustainability, the main obstacle to which in Bristol is the massive impact of current transport habits on air quality, noise, health, climate and open, green space.

I very much welcome all the good work you are doing and would do my best to advance the case for sustainable transport if elected to Bristol City Council.

Yours sincerely
Glenn Vowles
Green Party Candidate, Knowle Ward

You're never too old to rock and roll!!

Excellent broadcast on youtube - really entertaining and makes a great point. Thanks to Jean for sending me this link:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqfFrCUrEbY

Here's why you should vote Green: a policy summary

Local Council powers can be used to deliver the Green Party objectives of improving local neighbourhoods, enhancing local services, promoting health and protecting the wider environment - especially against climate change.

The task is becoming ever more urgent, and the time for action is now. So vote Green in these elections because:

1) Greens are the One Chance for Action on Climate Change

Greens are the One Chance for cheap and clean energy in your community. Greens will help you save money and combat climate change. Greens will help you to go Green locally, investing in small scale locally owned renewable energy
Greens will promote local shops and businesses so local people can provide local goods and services, saving energy, time and money
Greens will oppose devastating airport expansion and new, unnecessary roads, promoting new, cheap public transport instead
Greens will get rid of waste and aim for 100% recycling schemes

2) Health

Greens are the One Chance to keep the Health Service public
The Greens are the One Chance to let carers care
Greens want all vital local health services within walking distance or with easy public transport links for everyone. Greens will protect services from cuts, closure and creeping privatisation. Greens will oppose wasteful, financially damaging PFI health schemes. Greens will cut bureaucracy, top heavy management and distorting targets to let carers care.
Greens will build healthy living into our work and leisure by making cycling and walking easy and pleasant.

3) Education

The Greens are the One Chance to keep education open to all
The Greens are the One Chance to let teachers teach.
Greens want local schools within walking distance or with easy public transport links for everyone. Greens will protect schools from cuts, closure and creeping privatisation. Greens will oppose wasteful, financially damaging PFI education schemes. Greens will cut bureaucracy, top heavy management and distorting targets to let teachers teach.
Greens will campaign for the restoration of student grants and the abolition of fees.
Greens believe everyone should education be open to all, regardless of their background or financial status.

4) Housing

The Greens are the One Chance for decent housing for all
Greens want good housing for everyone. We will make sure that affordable housing is always part of new housing projects. We will push for new, high quality council and housing association flats and houses. We will also put money into housing cooperatives and self build schemes.
Council house repairs will be dealt with swiftly and empty properties brought back into use. ALMOs will be opposed and residents brought into management and control of housing stock.
Greens will help council and housing association tenants get low energy bills through putting in the best insulation, small wind turbines and solar panels. Greens will make sure planning laws do not get in the way of people who want to help combat climate change through installing their own small wind and solar energy panels.

5) Greens are your One Chance for councillors that make your voice heard

Green councillors will make your voice heard by
(i) standing up for the local community, providing proper value for money and listening to local people not big business
(ii) giving local neighbourhoods a direct say in the decisions that affect them - devolving powers to neighbourhood forums and parish councils
(iii) taking your complaints seriously - ensuring graffiti and fly-tipping is removed within 24 hours of it being reported.

One World. One Chance. Vote Green Party.

Greens and local elections: radical, principled but pragmatic and your one chance for real progress

At the Green Party's launch of its local election campaign there were things said that particularly struck me as important and I thought them worth reproducing here:

Caroline Lucas, Green MEP, said:

"The Greens are your One Chance for truth and action on climate change. The Greens are your One Chance for decent schools and housing. The Greens are your One Chance for councillors that make your voice heard.

On climate change, for example, we will oppose more devastating airport expansion and more new road building programmes - and promote affordable, efficient public transport instead.

On education, the Greens will protect schools from cuts, closure and creeping privatisation, and will oppose wasteful, financially damaging PFI schemes.

On housing, we'll make sure that affordable housing is always part of new housing projects, and we'll help ensure that council and housing association tenants get the best and micro-renewable energy and installations.

And we're committed to listening to local people, and involving people in the decisions that affect them. That's why our candidates and councillors are working tirelessly across the country - and we hope to see record gains in this election as a result!"

Derek Wall , one of the Green Party's two Principal Speakers said:

"Blair and Brown have dashed the hopes of a nation for real action on social justice and an end to erosion of our education and health services.

Instead, Britain has been governed by Tory Party Lite for the last decade.

That is why Green Party cllrs around the country are challenging the Blairite polices of council house sell offs, of piece-meal privatisation of education, and failure on climate change.

The time has come - we cannot afford another 10 years of broken promises and inaction.
Greens offer a real way forward, another way of doing things. Where people are put before profit, where long term sustainability matters more than tomorrow's headlines.

Here in Millbank spin governed politics. People were sold a lie, that Labour really meant to change things. They were never serious about real change. And that is why they have failed.

Green politicians are different:

We are not funded by big business
We are not a party driven by spin rather than substance
We are a radical, principled but pragmatic force

With rising emissions, sleazy politicians and public trust at an all time low, principled Green politicians are needed now more than ever.

We can answer the call for change.
Vote Green on May 3rd."

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?