Incompetent city council brings forward tree demise

Bristol City Council deserves condemnation for allowing a situation to develop where approx 30 Poplar trees on the former Imperial Sports Ground in Knowle now have to be urgently removed for safety reasons. http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/content/press-releases/2007/aug/dangerous-poplars.en

Its no longer disputable that the trees are unsafe. Why are the trees now in a dangerous state?

The council has allowed developers to work in such a way inside the sports ground that they have significantly changed soil levels and conducted excavations that have damaged tree feeding roots. This, combined with a lack of good council maintenance and past heavy pruning has brought the demise of these trees forward by several years.

The report by independent contractors, Silvanus Services Ltd, today published on the city website clearly makes the expert observations this condemnation is based on, see the extracts below:

Redevelopment works in progress, with highly significant changes being made to soil levels in the rooting environment of all of these trees.
Excavations have damaged many of the feeding roots throughout the group, which were evident during our visit.
5 No. specimens had suffered complete stem failure at around 6 – 8m, with remnants of the failed stems in evidence within surrounding scrub.
A number of fungal brackets (probably Polyporus squamosus and Perenniporia fraxinea) were observed growing on several specimens. NB: Control or eradication measures are not available with such fungal colonisations.
With evidence of past (heavy) pruning works, these specimens exhibit many failed truncated major limbs and stems, with such dysfunctional tissue affecting major unions.
At approximately 90 years of age, these specimens must now be considered to be over-mature, with over extended major limbs that overhang both the sports field and the Wells Road. This, combined with the hazardous conditions noted
in the list above, presents an unacceptable level of risk.

This group of trees undoubtedly represent a major hazard and an unacceptable risk to both the users of the athletic field and the adjacent major trunk road(s) and pavements/public walkways.
As many of the hazards observed during our inspections have arisen as a direct result of past (heavy) pruning operations, it is inadvisable to continue with further (even heavier) pruning works as this would result in an increased level of major wounds (and resultant decay entry points) throughout the crowns of these specimens. Given the presence of the bracket fungi, the altered soil levels within the rooting environment and the extensive root damage, it is our recommendation that these trees be removed as soon as possible and replaced once the ground works have been completed.

Carbon sums of Bristol International Airport dont add up!!

Spokesman for Bristol International Airport James Gore (one assumes no relation Al Gore!) might have a stronger case for airport expansion and more flying if his carbon sums added up but they don’t (‘Flight path to a greener future or flying in the face of climate change?’, Bristol Evening Post, 14 August).

The beneficial effect of the doubling of aircraft fuel efficiency he refers to is far outweighed by the massive growth in numbers of flights, passengers and goods carried, and total distance travelled. Growth in air travel is exponential, thus total fuel consumption and consequent carbon emissions wont be kept down without addressing this growth. This is clearly demonstrable in figures.

I have been annually calculating my three person household’s ecological footprint, along with my students, for the past seven years. This year the figure was 10,400 square metres of land, with no flights taken. If we flew on just one 10,000 km round trip holiday from Bristol Airport (a common travelling distance), this footprint would rise, according to the EcoCal computer model used, to 14,400 square metres – a 38% increase. The single round trip would then be the biggest contributor to our footprint at 28% of the total, approx the same as all household heating and lighting for a year and slightly more than the impact of household travel by all other methods.

Any carbon savings that might result from people travelling shorter distances to their regional airport as opposed to going to London are trifling. After all people are travelling tens or hundreds of kilometres to the airport but are then getting on a plane to travel thousands or tens of thousands of miles. Its obvious that to tackle climate change one should first address the issue of encouraging the travelling of the greatest distances.

The same argument also applies to any carbon savings made from the various environmental plans and targets to do with airport buildings, renewable energy, and aircraft operational procedures. I don’t dismiss these and we should save all carbon emissions where we can - best, of course, to start by prioritising the biggest emissions sources first ie ever more flying!

EasyJet spokeswoman Sara Pritchard feels that low cost airlines are not more polluting, citing the use of newer, cleaner planes, and a code of environmental conduct. She is backed, not surprisingly by BIAs spokesman James Gore who states that the ‘low-cost mode is inherently greener’. I’m not against cleaner planes, however, both James and Sara fail to mention the effect of a very key factor – cost. The law of supply and demand says that the lower the cost of a product the higher the demand. Since EasyJet offers very low cost air travel then it stimulates very high demand! This is obviously neither low pollution or inherently green since we need to lower demand to achieve these ends.

Statements in favour of expanding airports and more flying are uncontradicted in unbalanced report

I'm very disturbed at the lack of balance in the story ‘Flight path to a greener future or flying in the face of climate change?’ published in todays Evening Post

No-one from Stop Bristol Airport Expansion, http://www.nobristolairportexpansion.co.uk/ or others against more flying like the Green Party or Friends of the Earth is quoted. Statements in favour of expanding flying such as from Bristol Airport Spokesman James Gore (obviously no relation to Al Gore!) remain uncontradicted by anyone - but on all counts he and others quoted from the airlines are wrong, as best science and good sense economics easily shows. Why are no balancing quotes included?

The UN have gathered together the best expertise the world has on climate change (The IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch/) and they find that it is real, serious, urgent - and we are the cause, not least our habit of flying more and more. Denial of reality or not caring is getting us all into deep trouble. Just look at the people of Gloucestershire last month for one.

Air pollution killing over 100 Bristolians each year

I’ve just posted an online comment on a story in todays Bristol Evening Post (‘Pollution Hot Spot’) about Bristol being in the UK top ten for most polluted air. As it is to many others so the story is no surprise to me (and I suppose its no surprise that I have responded to it – I’ve been highlighting the issue and proposing solutions for over 20 yrs now!).

Comment:

Bristol's extremely polluted air has been known about for decades but nothing has been done to sort it out. I've been expressing concern in Knowle about traffic pollution from the congested Wells Rd and Bath Rd for some time, as people can see from my blog (numerous entries).

For Greens like me part of the solution is a congestion charge/road pricing. This would raise money which should be ringfenced to invest in public transport, walking and cycling, thus cutting pollution. Not to have the charge is costing lives - 24,000 people nationally equates to over 100 deaths a year within Bristol.

Land to grow food? Or land to grow crops to make plastic bags?

It turns out that the Bristol Blogger prioritises growing corn to make plastic bags over using the land to grow food for the hungry. Blogger likes the plastics and associated petrochemical and agrochemical industry enough to be in favour of making corn starch biodegradable plastic bags available to contain food waste in Bristol’s brown bin recycling system. This much is revealed by the debate on his site:
http://thebristolblogger.wordpress.com/2007/08/11/greener-than-thou/

Blogger has taken quite a panning in the blog comments following his posting criticising me and Southville’s Green Councillor Charlie Bolton http://charlie-boltons-southville-blog.blogspot.com/ for wanting people to wrap their food waste in the already available newspaper, or indeed other waste paper that finds its way into your house whether you like it or not.

Blogger has yet to be joined by anyone else to defend making the plastic bags available – a position just like Knowle Lib-Dem Councillor Gary Hopkins whose one week old e-petition favouring the introduction of these bags http://www.bristol.gov.uk/item/epetitionview.html?PetitionID=190 has to date just one signature on it – his own!! And the only positive discussion comment to date is Cllr Hopkins' alone, with several negative ones.

Neither the Bristol Blogger or Cllr Hopkins (or Bristol City Council itself) seems to have properly weighed up the additional environmental impacts that will result from the introduction of these bags. This impact is very well hinted at by one of the discussion comments (copied below) on Cllr Hopkins e-petition, posted by Josie McLellan:

I can't help thinking it is a little irresponsible to promote the use of these bags without a full audit of their environmental impact. This would have to to take into account: 1. The resources used in the production and transportation of the bags, esp. water for irrigation, the oil used in fertiliser manufacture, production and shipping, and the chemicals used to stabilise the plastic. 2. The decrease in food production caused by growing the corn to make the bags. 3. Potential biodiversity losses involved in growing large quantities of corn. 4. Whether or not the corn used to produce the bags is GM free. 5. What, if any, by-products are given off as the bags biodegrade. 6. Any extra expense involved in composting waste wrapped in these bags. E.g. would the machinery have to be adjusted? It is hard to imagine that the environmental impact of these bags would compare favourably to using unwanted newspaper (e.g. the Bristol Observer) to wrap food

If the bags are introduced and people use them instead of or as well as the newspaper/other waste paper already in their homes, then the impact of the bags is added to that of the paper.
What we really need to do to be truly green with our food waste is to reduce then eventually remove the need for a collection system altogether (no lorries and no newspaper or plastic bags to contain waste) by building up household and neighbourhood composting. We are currently a long way from this yet however, with a vocal minority, yes minority (including the Bristol Blogger), having a go at the brown bin system and sometimes recycling itself – these people are hardly likely to be inclined to take full responsibility for their own food waste by composting it.

The value of trees in our city...signs that the council may be forced to back down on felling all poplar trees

Knowle's Dennis Stuckey is absolutely right to put the council straight on the issue of the 30 poplar trees threatened with felling ('Trees should never have been felled', Bristol Evening Post Soapbox, Aug 9). The council position on the poplars and city trees generally is poor.

Bristol City Council is: removing trees rapidly; does not discuss and consult with the public on trees well; has no proper strategy for city trees - points well made by Vassili Papastavrou from Bristol Street Trees http://www.bristolstreettrees.org/ . One Green Party member has reported an instance when it was requested that two obviously dead trees should be removed from the front of a sheltered housing scheme but the council then removed a further nine despite no signs of disease! This was a very hasty reaction indeed, perhaps due to a misplaced fear of insurance claims.

Thanks to the work of people like Dennis and Vassili pressure is being applied to protect and promote the value of trees in cities. They cool cities, save energy by up to 10% by moderating climate around buildings, shade people, act like air conditioners and pollution filters, divert storm water, and add to our mental as well as physical wellbeing, as well providing wildlife habitats (see http://www.kew.org/ and http://www.treesforcities.org/default.asp ). We need a strategy for more trees here, especially forest shade ones like oaks, planes and limes, which can withstand the harsh conditions and are long lived.

In the case of the threatened poplars it looks like the council may have to think again about cutting them all down ('Popular poplars may avoid axe', Evening Post, Aug 9). The Green Party will continue joining others to watch that the council gets its assessment of these trees right - no healthy trees should get the chop.

Also: see the recent report of the London Assembly Environment Committee on tree loss at -
http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/environment/chainsaw-massacre.pdf

Newspaper or Corn Starch Bags in Bristol's Brown Recycling Bins?

Newspaper or corn starch compostable plastic bags in Bristol's brown recycling bins? Seems like a straightforward choice to me - newspaper clearly wins and so I'd urge people not to sign Knowle Lib-Dem Councillor Gary Hopkins petition on the matter, on both environmental and economic grounds.

http://www.bristol.gov.uk/item/epetitionview.html?PetitionID=190 - go to this address and post a discussion comment if you agree with my comments below.

Where is the sense in manufacturing something (like corn starch plastic bags) specially to throw away - even if its biodegradable? Apparently the bags often end up in landfill rather than being composted because they dont shred up well and have to be separated out. It just does not add up at a time when we are supposed to act green. Think of the land, energy and money needed to do this? Is this environmentally and economically appropriate?

It makes even less sense when we already have a widely available and suitable product for containing the waste we put into our brown bins for composting - its called newspaper and its there in quantity in our homes ready for reuse.

If people carefully wrap their brown bin waste up properly each day to make newspaper parcels, ensuring several layers are used and that there are no leaks in the parcels, then there should be few problems. Its what I've been doing and I've not seen a single maggot since the start of the system. To be double sure people could even line their bin with newspaper before putting in their waste parcels.

Is this significantly more effort than using a corn starch plastic bag? Better to appeal to people to use newspaper properly and to give out plenty of environmental information and educational material than to go for these bags.

Our lifestyles here affect those far away

For a first hand, eye witness account of the effects of climate change, and thus our lifestyles here, on the Arctic I strongly recommend watching Inuit Leader Aqqaluk Lynge's message:

http://www.nobristolairportexpansion.co.uk/aqqaluk-lynge

Does a tree preservation order mean anything?

Locals just outside the Knowle Ward have received a letter from the City Council describing plans to chop down around 30 Poplar trees inside what I still call the Imperial Sports Ground just off Wells Rd/Callington Rd on 'health and safety grounds' (there is at the same time some development happening on the sports ground - just coincidence or is there a connection?).

The planning application number is 07/03351/VP (Council Officer involved the case is John Bowm, tel 9223545). The trees have a preservation order on them (number 669).

No surprise that this has caused a bit of a stir, with locals getting media interest and quickly organising a decent sized gathering of people expressing concern. Good for them! What is the meaning of a tree preservation order if the trees are not protected, instead being cut down en masse!! The council needs to look very closely at each and every threatened tree to assess its health.

The Evening Post, BBC and HTV were today at the gathering of concerned people, including myself, other Greens and quite a few locals, including councillors from wards in the area. Coverage in the next few days should be good and help to apply pressure to decision makers.

To express concern call the council's John Bowm on 9223545.

Housing and road development threat to Bristol's open, green spaces

Great to see a celebration of Bristol's fantastic open,green spaces ('City with natural charm', Bristol Evening Post feature article, August 4). We need to keep our city green - in fact there are many reasons to create more green spaces and plant more trees, not least to protect ourselves from heavy rainfall and its effects.

I'm entirely unconvinced however, by the reassurance given at the end of the article by the city's parks manager that we wont lose some open, green spaces to housing developments. We are after all talking about many thousands of houses. And housing is not the only threat - how could the proposed South Bristol Ring Road be built without destroying spaces valuable for our health, climate, security from flooding and our wildlife?

Authorities not good at environmental information and education

Why has no-one from the local council’s who’ve introduced new recycling systems replied to Rob Ashbee’s perceptive questions and observations about waste (‘Household waste disposal’, Bristol Evening Post Soapbox, July 21)? I can only conclude from this and from what Rob said, that the authorities simply aren’t trying hard enough, or performing adequately enough, to communicate the full benefits and reasons for the new recycling systems, which are substantial, as detailed below.

Rob said ‘To help me decide on the real value of recycling in the list priorities of actions….I would love to see a summation of the benefits to our planet…Somebody please provide this to help convince me.’. The information required to answer his request is easily available and is fully accepted science but he got a deafening silence instead. This totally ignores the immense value we would get from good quality environmental information and education.

Rob is right to say that government and councils are not doing enough to tackle waste at source. Waste reduction and minimisation should be top priority and is the most environmentally friendly option (reuse of objects is second and recycling third priority). He is right to say that household waste is a relatively small proportion of total waste – in fact its less than half the 20% he suggests and not enough is being done about industrial and commercial waste. He is also right to say that if we were all genuinely concerned we would focus our efforts first on the most environmentally damaging activities, correctly listing driving and flying as examples, to which I would add the type and source of the food we eat. Contrary to popular conceptions in a recent opinion poll whilst recycling does help fight climate change quite well its not the most effective action one can take. A truly green approach would do all that Rob suggests but then we only have token green action or ‘greenwash’ at present.

Rob is wrong to suggest that burying waste in landfill sites and burning waste in incinerators may not be such a bad option after all (environmentally these are bottom of the waste management priority list). One can see why some reach this conclusion if environmental information is not regularly and effectively communicated though.

Having said that recycling is third in the waste priority list and not the most environmentally friendly option, it is still most definitely one we need to take because of the clear and substantial benefits, especially in comparison to landfilling and incineration. Recycling massively conserves energy and water resources, thus cutting air and water pollution. Figures in Kevin Byrnes book ‘Environmental Science’ (2001), state a 90–97% reduction in energy use and air/water pollution for aluminium recycling. There are cuts in energy/water use and air/water pollution of 47-85% for steel, 23-74% for paper, and 4-50% for glass. There is also a 97% cut in mining waste by recycling steel and an 80% cut in mining waste by recycling glass.

Recycling materials makes ‘virgin’ resources last longer and reduces UK reliance on resources from other countries. It cuts waste disposal costs and thus the council tax and creates jobs in a developing sector of the economy. Participation by everyone raises environmental awareness and responsibility for waste production.

There are practical issues with the recycling systems to work on certainly, and we don’t yet have a genuinely green and coherent approach to resources, but the overall benefits of recycling are undeniable. Come on local council’s – why aren’t you writing this!!

World statistics updated in real time

There are some absolutely staggering stats on this website, updated in real time:

http://www.worldometers.info/

Its well worth a visit and a ponder.

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