Who pays for 'cheap' supermarket food??

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

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

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

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

More on Action Aid and their campaign.

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

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

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

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

For more on slavery today.

Organic (ie low additive) food is healthier

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

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

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

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

Academies: education/child focussed or a business deal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anita Roddick: Great leader and role model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My household ecological footprint (approx!)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More like mean test than 'means' test: meet the essential needs of the vulnerable free

‘Bristol is one of the few councils in the country whose Adult Community Care service currently provides the alarm for free’ said Annie Hudson, Director of Adult Community Care, Bristol City Council, about the lifeline alarm service (Bristol Evening Post, Soapbox, ‘City Council wants your views on alarm charging’, 4 Sept).

But she doesn’t say this proud of the fact that our city in this case takes the lead in providing a service to meet an essential need, free at the point of use – a principal at the heart of the NHS for instance which millions of us want to guard. She instead cites it as a reason for bringing in a means tested charge for the alarm, making us more like other councils. More like mean test, than means test if you ask me.

Frankly I feel its other councils who should be moving in our direction not us in theirs, in this case.

Other reasons she gives backing a charge are inadequate. To charge is wrong in principle and in practice. Such essential needs of the vulnerable should be provided. Some of the income from any charge would simply be eaten up by the costs of administration.

Ms Hudson states that ‘the idea was agreed in principle by the city council as part of this year's budget’ but also says ‘We are consulting widely, and are eager to hear people's views about whether charging is appropriate and how it can be made as fair as possible’. Does this mean that the council is willing to reverse its decision on the principle, or is it another one of those council decisions which ‘consultation’ will have absolutely no significant effects on?

‘No final decisions have yet been made’ she says. I hope not, but have very serious doubts. She has after all, already argued very strongly and publicly in one direction only. Central government wants it, other councils do it, some already pay for a similar service (perhaps they shouldn’t!), there are (vulnerable) people who can afford to pay, our population is getting older (and older peoples needs and rights get trodden on left, right and centre)…so we ‘must’ have it! Shame on the ‘Labour’ Group in particular if this charge is introduced.

Hengrove Park Regeneration Project: how green will the planning/development process be from now?

Today I received an A5 envelope in the post addressed to The Occupier (very likely along with many others in South Bristol). It contained an A4 full colour, 8 page brochure detailing the Hengrove Park Regeneration Project, (http://www.hengrovepark.com/) 'a joint public and private sector initiative to redevelop a large former airfield' (actually much, much more like a park for many years, thus Hengrove Park [!], if you ask locals and look at the glossy picture at the top of the brochure). I'm particularly interested in how the development will be 'Built to meet the highest level of design and sustainability standards'. Bristol City Council Leader Helen Holland says the development is '...potentially the jewel in the crown for South Bristol...'.

Planning permission has already been given for redevelopment. The brochure outlines the plans for a Healthplex with pool, leisure facilities and all sorts, Hospital, Skills Academy, Computershare HQ and more...(note: house building is briefly mentioned only) and invites peoples views. I will certainly be sharing my views, not least because of my involvement in trying to save Jubilee Pool from closure (see numerous posts on this blog), which is interlinked with the Hengrove development. In fact Lib Dem Councillor Simon Cook (then 'in charge') responded as shown in bold below to my campaign to save a locally available, quality of life enhancing facility (whose closure in 2010/11, I'd been told, is due to the pool at Hengrove Park opening). Extract from blog entry of March 19:
____________________________________________________________________

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, [closing my local pool also results in raised carbon emissions from additional travel impacts] 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.

____________________________________________________________________
Anyhow, whilst its no longer Cllr Cook I will be tracking I will still be most interested to see how integral to the regeneration process and designs sustainability will be from now. All I could do today was send the email below (watch this space for more on this issue):

Please could you inform me whenever the Hengrove Park website (www.hengrovepark.com) is updated - just visited it to find it has little on it as yet!

What I'm particularly interested in is any info relating to 'the highest level of design and sustainability standards' referred to in the (not very environmentally friendly) glossy brochure I received in the post today.

More of what our bodies do need and less of what they dont: organic food

Over the weekend I've been involved in a debate on the Bristol Blogger site about the merits of organic food, or lack of. I got involved because I felt that the benefits of organic food were being swept aside and massive problems with intensive farming, to which organic farming is in my view a partial solution, were not acknowledged. I based my first comment on my blog entry of January 9 2007 but was then asked for sources...I spent a fair bit of time putting together the response below - if anyone knows of better examples/arguments please send them to the Bristol Blogger! http://thebristolblogger.wordpress.com/


... I referred to research that was widely reported in my first comment as well as giving a reasoned case that no-one has disputed the sense of. Blogger cant simply throw it all out by throwing mud at the Soil Assoc. [http://www.soilassociation.org/]

Its not a substantial argument from Blogger to accuse me of being scared of technology and attacking all technology in farming (organic farmers eg use plenty of it!). This is just stereotyping on his part and is a feature of the way he argues.

Its also not credible for Blogger to argue that there is no connection between intensive farming practices and BSE, foot and mouth and bird flu. Cases of BSE in cows born and raised organically are zero for instance.

My general point is that organic food is healthier because it has both more of what we do need and less of what we don’t need for our wellbeing. I acknowledge that the debate is of course ongoing as more research is done but the body of evidence in favour of organics is now mounting rapidly. Go to this report for example: http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/Arun/Feeding%20Trials.pdf .

I guess the big and politically influential multinational companies involved in agrochemical manufacture have not been keen on research into organics to say the least. Now, if you want to look at the reports of the research I referred to in the media...

Evidence for more omega 3 fatty acids, vitamin C, E and A, and anti-oxidants like flavinoids is very strong in certain foods. Evidence of negative health impacts from contaminants of various kinds is stronger if anything.

For reports on organics having less of what we don’t need, go to:

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/chem/general/en/index.html for a start.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/449303.stm


For reports on organics having more of what we do need:

More vitamin C:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/04/norg04.xml

More phytonutrients such as anti-oxidants called flavinoids:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/healthy_eating/article2028701.ece

and

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/jafcau/asap/pdf/jf070344+.pdf

More omega 3 fatty acids in milk:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/3513691.stm

More vitamin E and vitamin A in milk:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/aug/27/foodtech.food

One Soil Association briefing leaflet (available via their website ) dealing with how organic food has more nutrients, like vitamins and minerals, as well as less contaminants like artificial pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and anti-biotics, uses these sources: The King’s Fund, an independent medical charity; Professor Vyvyan Howard, University of Liverpool; the British Medical Association; the World Health Organisation; the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine; and a range of academic papers – a list pretty strong on that vital property of evidence quality - provenance - I’d say.

On other issues - I do think that a lot of organic food is very overpriced (and imported) and I agree this cant be addressed through the law of supply and demand alone, so...has a point. Our society effectively subsidises the mass production of chemical and energy intensive food, making it superficially 'cheap' because the costs of poorer health and environmental pollution are not a private but certainly are a social cost, for now and for future generations. What we need to do if we are to subsidise at all is to switch favour to the greener, healthier options.

Now, also raised was the issue of whether we can produce enough food for a large population by organic methods alone. [Note: I'd earlier in the debate argued that a low meat diet would free up land, making feeding larger numbers without imports easier]. I'm not arguing for all production to be organic, though I'd like to see chemical farming get a lot smarter and more frugal in its operation (through science and technology!). I'd also like to see a lower population in the long run but thats another big debate...and at the moment I'm writing more of Bloggers site than he is!!

Speed kills, speed cameras save (destroying cameras = more road deaths)

I must respond to the story ‘The Toughest Speed Camera in the World’ (Bristol EveningPost, 30 Aug) detailing the large number of cameras in Avon and Somerset that are damaged/destroyed and also to the several people who commented online on this story on the Posts website, condoning, excusing and/or failing to condemn this gross irresponsibilty. Compare and contrast the website of those celebrating destruction http://www.speedcam.co.uk/index2.htm (Motorists Against Detection really are MAD in more ways than one) with those wanting cameras for road safety (http://www.roadpeace.org/index.shtml).

‘On average, nine people are killed and 85 injured each day on the UK's roads. This figure would probably be higher if safety cameras were not used. By reducing speeding and making the roads safer, they save about 100 lives a year.’ (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/TrafficManagement/DG_10025598).

All those who deliberately damage speed cameras (better called safety cameras) show great insensitivity as they are often put up at locations of death and injury. ‘Safety cameras are generally installed on roads: with a history of road traffic collisions; where there is evidence of a speeding problem; or where there is local community concern. The Police may also use cameras to enforce speed limits.’ Why don’t these extremely anti-social people acknowledge the thousands killed and and tens of thousands injured on UK roads each year? http://www.roadpeace.org/index.shtml

Safety cameras are practical memorials where people have been killed. Every time someone vandalises a camera, they are showing their contempt for the people whose death may well have led to the camera being there in the first place. Presumeably they don’t care about the individual stories of pain and tragedy which these cameras are trying to stop from being repeated. Speed should not come before life and metal should not come before before flesh. Personally, I find it shocking that our society has often waited until there are deaths to take action, instead of being more proactive and preventive. It is a logic which we would never accept to the same extent for other modes of travel.

Road casualties should not be the forgotten victims in society. Road violence should not be a forgotten crime. There are far more road deaths than murders in a major city, yet the law on speeding is very weak indeed. Cars driven dangerously are potential killing machines, yet the police spend far too little time dealing with dangerous driving. Horrendous road deaths and injuries are not simply twists of fate, but preventable acts of social neglect.

Brown's target's will mean the disappearance of more open, green spaces

Does the government really value open, green spaces?? The governments own words confirm what I have feared all along about house building targets.

A story in yesterdays Bristol Evening Post described how the government will have to build houses at a faster rate than local authorities want if Gordon Brown’s target of 3 million homes by 2020 is to be met (‘Green belt is under threat from Brown’, Bristol Evening Post, 30 Aug.).

Apparently treating green belt land as ‘inviolate’ and ruling out development ‘cannot be consistent with government policy’, according to a government-appointed inspectors report on housing in the south-east.

Funny that – what is green belt for if it’s not to rule out development in certain places!!

Lib Dem zero carbon plan is pure 'greenspeak'

A report in today’s Bristol Evening Post, strangely (since its mostly about a national Lib Dem document), entitled ‘Councils’ key role in climate control’ starts by saying,

‘Individuals, households and communities all have a crucial role in tackling climate change, according to a new blueprint for cutting down on carbon emissions. Ideas have been proposed in a 50-page document called Zero Carbon Britain, an ambitious blueprint outlined by the national Liberal Democrat leadership this week. It lays out in-depth details of ways in which governments, individuals, businesses, industry, energy providers and developing nations can tackle the issue…’

This is pure ‘greenspeak’. Such environmental policies are completely inconsistent with what Lib Dems have been doing around the country in practice. Green MEP Caroline Lucas (http://www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk/) put the point very well when she said,

‘…their record in power at all levels is one of supporting both airport expansion and more road-building, …The truth is that we can't cut emissions sufficiently by tinkering around the edges of society. We will only reach a zero carbon society - as we must if we are to avert the worst impacts of climate change - by changing the very ways we do business, live our lives and measure progress: now that would be a truly radical proposition. As long as the other parties remain committed to economic growth at all costs and ever-freer international trade, this necessary radicalism seems far from their thinking, whatever their leaders are saying this week.
Only the Green Party recognises that if policies to address climate change require a different economic paradigm, then that's to be welcomed, since the kind of materialism that is currently driven by contemporary consumer capitalism is leaving people unfulfilled as well as destroying the planet. Far from being a sacrifice, a zero-carbon society will be a healthier, happier, society, with warmer homes, better public transport, stronger local communities, more green jobs - and more free time. Put simply, the policies we need to live good lives are precisely the policies we need to tackle climate change - and that is what we need to articulate if we are to have any chance of achieving a zero-carbon Britain’

Praise the milkman!

Following recent letters in the local press on the recycling of plastic milk bottles/cartons I’d like to sing the praises for my local milk delivery. Ok the milk costs a bit more but the service is great, other food/drink can also be delivered and the glass milk bottles are reused dozens of times – by far the most environmentally friendly option. Go to
http://www.milkdeliveries.co.uk/doorstep/ for more. We must not get over-hooked, as the council and government often are, on the idea of recycling as the greenest option.

Sam Weston’s letter to the Bristol Evening Post (‘Where can I recycle plastic milk cartons?’) first drew an editors comment and then several letters (‘Recycling’, Bristol Evening Post Soapbox, August 28) including from Janet Peacock, Mrs M Brannigan, and City Councillor Judith Price, who is the Executive Member for Neighbourhoods and thus has responsibility for waste management. All gave useful comments on plastic recycling but not one person pointed to the delivery of milk in reuseable glass bottles as the best option – Cllr Price in particular would have performed a good public service if she had pointed this out. Shifting to having milk delivered cuts down on plastic bottles massively. The council should be doing a lot more to promote waste reduction and reuse as the two best options.

I acknowledge that many things come in plastic bottles and other plastic containers or wrappers however. Its best to try to avoid these as far as possible (not always easy I know!) and the government should be doing more, legislating as required, to cut the use of plastic in short-life ways down to a minimum right at the source. This reduction approach is by far the best environmental option compared to going to the financial and environmental costs of collecting light, high volume plastics for recycling. However, since this is just not happening on a sufficient scale, the council could be doing more on plastic recycling as the next best option.

Renewed focus on environmental education is needed

One of my current activities brings together three interests - science, the environment and education. I currently have a petition on the Bristol City Council website
( http://www.bristol.gov.uk/item/epetitionview.html?PetitionID=191 ) which is about enhancing environmental education and awareness through school/college environmental charters. I've written and used environmental charters in several of the places I've taught and they can work well.

My petition says:

The petitioner requests that, consistent with objective 10 in the Bristol 'Green Capital' pledge list to 'enhance environmental education and awareness', Bristol City Council circulates a 'Model Environmental Charter' to all Bristol schools and colleges, accompanied by a letter to governors urging them to adapt the model charter to suit, adopt it asap and agree to annually review progress related to it.

The model charter referred to goes like this:

The students, staff, governors and all friends of ...school/college will work to make annual improvements in:

* developing and improving grounds and buildings in a green way (like ponds, wildflower areas, tree planting, vegetable plots...)
* keeping the school and grounds clear of litter
* saving energy for example by sensible use of heating and lighting
* reducing waste, reusing and recycling
* using healthier, environmentally kinder products
* using recycled products and locally produced products
* efficient use of all resources, such as water, food, paper...
* travelling to and from school in low impact ways, like walking, cycling and public transport
* teaching care and responsibility for the environment, people and community, guided by a clear environmental education policy dealing with education about, education in and education for the environment

My experience tells me that schools and colleges need a focus for their environmental education work. Adopting an environmental charter can provide this focus in a school/college. It also takes forward the Bristol 'Green Capital' objective of 'Enhanced environmental education and awareness'.

Environmental education's profile surely needs to be substantially raised in all schools and colleges given that we all need to live more sustainably. In my view all of Bristol's schools/colleges should carry out environmental education: in and through the environment as a resource; about the environment by imparting knowledge; and for the environment by encouraging students to formulate caring values, attitudes and practical actions in their environment; and by developing the skills needed to study the environment in students.

One interesting development is that my petition has drawn a response from Kate Campion, Program Director, Children and Young Peoples Services, Bristol City Council, who wrote this in the discussion section of my petition:

All schools are expected to include environmental education as part of their citizenship agenda. Curriculum coverage is monitored by OfSTED inspections. The LA promotes environmental education through the work of a consultant, working with schools to develop the curriculum to ensure learning is about the environment, in different environments and through the environment, about 'real world' learning. Bristol City Council also provides support for schools to become Eco Schools and the Council has made a pledge to support the 'Learning Outside the Classroom Manifesto'. An Outdoor Learning Policy and strategy is currently in draft format. Within our new secondary school building programme, the council is seeking every opportunity to ensure environmental standards are being met and that the building programmes and the subsequent maintenance of sites can be used as a tool to support learning. We are also promoting school travel plans. Over 90 schools now have a travel plan that highlights the benefits of environmental awareness and positive action towards environmentally friendly options. Much of this work is also promoted through the Healthy Schools programme, for which BCC holds 'Beacon' status. We agree that all schools should be encouraged to be environmentally friendly, promote environmental education and ensure learning is of high quality. To this end we work with schools to promote the agenda. Each school must make a decision about how this work is undertaken, by becoming an Eco School, a bespoke charter is created which directly relates to a particular school. We think this is the best way of promoting and sustaining environmental education and practice.

This is a very interesting contribution which I will shortly be discussing with her. From what I know about getting eco-school status a school applying would need something similar to an environmental charter (or some other sort of statement of environmental intent at least) in order to be successful in their application (http://www.eco-schools.org.uk/). I thus hope that the council will agree to circulate a model charter, consistent with their policy of supporting schools to become eco-schools, encouraging schools to be environmentally friendly and promoting environmental education.

I do agree very much that each school must make its decision on how environmental education work is undertaken. Its important that each school, or in fact any team or organisation has ownership of its policies and action plans. This is why the petition says that schools/governors use the model charter as a basis, adapting it to suit them...

On the other hand by circulating a model charter I think the council would be signalling that they want schools to develop a renewed focus for their environmental education efforts, saying that they should have some sort of overarching statement on the environment. Some local schools will have an environmental charter or equivalent statement, sometimes a fully developed and operating specific environmental education policy (including one school and one college where I have worked as a science teacher).

I think all schools should be in this position however, and hope the council agrees, because of the critical importance of environmental issues. Why shouldn't all schools become eco-schools of their own design? In fact the model environmental charter could easily be adapted for all sorts of organisations.

Booze ban would enhance the quality of life

Alcohol consumption should be banned from Redcatch Park and areas near Broadwalk Shopping Centre in Knowle. Lib Dem Councillor Chris Davies proposal (‘Lets call time on boozing in the park’, Bristol Evening Post, August 22) is an excellent one that would enhance the quality of life locally.

On this occasion I also agree strongly with what RL Smith said in his letter supporting Cllr Davies idea (‘Police should support public-spirited initiative’, Bristol Evening Post letters, August 25). The comments from the police failing to wholeheartedly back the ban were, for me, a little feeble. Large benefits to the area would result from a ban compared to disbenefits that would be tiny, as statistics on the governments crime reduction website illustrate very well.

‘…40% of violent crime; 78% of assaults and 88% of criminal damage cases are committed while the offender is under the influence of alcohol.’ www.crimereduction.gov.uk/toolkits/ar020101.htm.

The website reports that 70% of people surveyed thought street drinking was a problem and 80% support a ban on drinking in some public areas. There could be ban enforcement problems but even so I don’t see why the police should be so hesitant here. These kind of problems require firm, rapid and decisive action.

Who is living in the real world?

I've just done a head to head debate on Bristol's Star Radio with Knowle Lib Dem Cllr Gary Hopkins about whether corn starch plastic bags should be introduced for use in the brown bin food recycling system.

Its noteable that he had no answer to my description of the environmental impact of the bags themselves, particularly set against re-using newspaper. He made no comment on whether land should be used to grow food instead of crops to make plastic bags. He had no reply to my point about even low waste paper households such as my own having sufficient unwanted paper to wrap up a bit of food waste. He did not respond to my point about recycling only being the third best option in the waste management hierarchy - reduce, and re-use first.

His main genuine argument seemed to be based on the idea of increased support for the brown bin system if bags are introduced. Whether there would be increased take up is debateable. Its a maybe - something we would not know for sure until we did it. In some places support rates rise but there is evidence that this is not always so. Its missing the point anyway because there is no way that recycling could increase enough to compensate for the increased environmental impacts produced by manufacturing the bags!

The point of recycling is to cut environmental impacts but food waste recycling with corn starch bag use would have a higher environmental impact than without them - somewhat defeating the object. If he's unsure about this point then why doesn't he, and in fact the council itself, agree to do a full environmental audit of the system with and without plastic bags. If it can be shown that total impact is lower with the bags I'll even sign his petition on them - to date the poor chap still has just three signatures, and one of those is his own!

His jibe during the debate about greens/me not addressing the 'real world' presumeably means his 'real world' where its better to grow crops to make plastic bags than food for the hungry!

Inquiry to be conducted into bungling council's tree management

So, Knowle's Poplar trees are certain for the chop next week. The report by independent contractors, Silvanus Services Ltd, published on the Bristol City Council website, clearly makes the expert observations that arm Greens to point the finger of blame at the council for this.

It seem highly likely that the council's tree care and management will be heavily criticised and required to change due to the inquiry that has now been launched ('Inquiry as trees face axe', Bristol Evening Post, 17 August) headed by Knowle Lib Dem Cllr Gary Hopkins.

At least some good for Bristol's other trees may come out of this sorry situation. The Poplar tree felling will leave locals with a major negative change in their local environment for years, instead of properly managed, gradual change as the trees came to the end of their life

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.