http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/labours-lost-generation-one-in-six-young-people-do-nothing-1773805.html
Views about our real wealth - the natural and social world, the source of our resources and the basis of our lives - and how it can and should be sustained for generations.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Significant stat (1): 16% of 16-24 yr olds not in education, training or employment
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/labours-lost-generation-one-in-six-young-people-do-nothing-1773805.html
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Support the petition asking the Prime Minister to apologize for the prosecution of Alan Turing for being gay that led to his untimely death
Alan Turing was the greatest computer scientist ever born in Britain. He laid the foundations of computing, helped break the Nazi Enigma code and told us how to tell whether a machine could think.
He was also gay. He was prosecuted for being gay, chemically castrated as a 'cure', and took his own life, aged 41.
The British Government should apologize to Alan Turing for his treatment and recognize that his work created much of the world we live in and saved us from Nazi Germany. And an apology would recognize the tragic consequences of prejudice that ended this man's life and career.
Bristol Schumacher Conference 2009: From the ashes of the crash - Rebuilding with the new economics
Following on from the success of last year's Bristol Schumacher Conference, LESS IS MORE Can We Really Live Better By Consuming Less? chaired byJonathon Porritt, this year we are partnering with the New Economics Foundation (nef) and keeping a similar format - three lectures and 2x four workshops.
The Conference will take place at the Council House on Saturday 17 October 2009 - some details are below.
It is advisable to book in advance as last year was sold out before the day.
We would be most grateful if you could forward this email and attached leaflet to any contacts you think might be interested.
We do hope you will join us for an inspiring day of lectures and workshopswith such leading edge speakers on such a timely subject.
Laura Hamilton
Schumacher Society marketing volunteer
-------------------------------
The Schumacher Society
The Create Environment Centre
Smeaton Road
Bristol
BS1 6XN
Tel: 0117 9031081
admin@schumacher.org.uk
www.schumacher.org.uk
******************************
Bristol Schumacher Conference 2009
FROM THE ASHES OF THE CRASH - Rebuilding with the new economics
Saturday 17 October 2009 Council House, Bristol, BS1 5TR
CHAIR Stewart Wallis - nef Executive Director
LECTURES
Dr. Jayati Ghosh - Professor of Economics, New Delhi
THE MARKET THAT FAILED
Andrew Simms - nef Policy Director
THE TERRIBLE FREEDOM BEFORE DUSK
Stacy Mitchell - Researcher with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, USA
A NEW DEAL FOR LOCAL ECONOMIES
WORKSHOPS
a. David Boyle (editor, Radical Economics)
Reinventing money
b.. John Christensen (Tax Justice Network uk)
The attack on democracy: tax havens as the engines of chaos
c. Liz Cox (nef) & Ciaran Mundy (Transition Bristol)
Transition to a low carbon high well being future
d. Nick Robins (HSBC), James Vaccaro (Triodos) & Mark Mansley (Rathbone Greenbank Investments)
Investing in a low carbon economy
Guest Artist Rory McLeod
****************
The Schumacher Society in partnership with nef (new economics foundation)
Sponsors Rathbone Greenbank Investments & Triodos Bank
FFI & tickets
www.schumacher.org.uk
Tel 0117 903 1081
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Who supports a new BCFC stadium if funded by selling Ashton Gate to Tesco??
view(s) those who are silent hold !!!
Bearing in mind that there are many people who dont want our green belt built over, good numbers may still support a new stadium for Bristol City - but not at the cost of having a Tesco at Aston Gate!! My supporting evidence? Number who have to date signed the petition against Tesco at Ashton Gate 772 - number who have signed the petition in support of Tesco at Ashton gate 105.
If there is a 'silent majority' in favour of or against anything, anywhere I'd urge them to get as involved as they possibly can, getting together with like-minded people where appropriate -politicians and other decision makers at all levels have been left to get on with things far too much and would benefit greatly from high levels of public scrutiny and participation.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Bristol's green belt: protected? Or disappearing under mass house building, another major road, a new football stadium and an expanded airport?
C2. Glenn Vowles to ask Jon Rogers Executive Member for Transport and Sustainability
Development on green belt land
Q1. Should large scale development be permitted on green belt land around Bristol, whether the development impinges on green belt in whole or part?
C2.Q1 Reply:
The issue of use of Green Belt is a complex one. My colleagues and I have campaigned and won in the recent election with a pledge to “fight the loss of Green Belt” and that remains our policy.
We are also considering the Multi-Area Agreement MAA at the meeting today, and you will see our heavily caveated concerns about the possible imposition of a Regional Spatial Strategy RSS, requiring development with which we would not agree. In particular, the housing targets in the draft RSS from the Secretary of State do not appear to be backed by evidence. These are concerns shared with our neighbouring authorities, and we need to be very mindful that such decisions could be taken out of our control.
We have repeatedly stated that we wish to develop urban sites and brownfield sites and avoid development on Green Belt. All developments need to be of the best sustainable design and infrastructure.
It is also important that the Bristol Development Framework BDF gets approved (which it'll only do if it articulates with the RSS) as without it, we have 12 year old development control policies which say nothing about sustainability.
Officers have asked that I point out that development on the Green Belt is guided by national, regional and local policy. Regional planning guidance sets the framework for Green Belt policy, including the direction of long term development. Government guidance set out in PPG2: Green Belts considers that once the general extent of Green Belt has been approved it should only be altered in exceptional circumstances.
The Council is producing a series of planning documents known as the Bristol Development Framework which will guide development over the next 20 years. The Core Strategy is the first of these documents and it must be in conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). The RSS proposes urban extensions within the Green Belt to the south east and south west of Bristol to help meet the housing requirements of the sub region. These proposals include allocations of 1,500 dwellings within the City boundaries as part of the wider extensions. Therefore, the City Council has to plan for these areas in the Core Strategy.
If the requirement for urban extensions remains in the final version of the RSS then the land required to accommodate the urban extensions will be removed from the Green Belt. The specific areas of Green Belt required to accommodate the urban extensions will be identified on the proposals map accompanying the Site Allocations Development Plan Document. The remaining areas will be protected in the Core Strategy Green Belt policy from inappropriate development (as defined in Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts). The acceptability of development within the Green Belt will depend on the use and form of the proposal as assessed in relation to policy.
Sounds very much like a lot of our green belt will be built over and degraded if national and regional govt get their way.
C2.Q2 Reply:
Yes. Where development in the green belt is found to be acceptable in principle, it will be required to meet the standards of the development plan. The emerging policies set out in the Core Strategy will require development to be built to high environmental standards, maximising energy efficiency and contributing to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Any negative impacts associated with development will require mitigation in accordance with policy requirements.
Its noteworthy that this second answer applies a different - and much lower - standard than the one I refer to in my question. Compensating as much as is practically possible is most certainly not what would result from meeting the standards of the development plan or Core Strategy!!
Friday, August 14, 2009
Invest in stronger regions and local communities rather than subsidise Bristol Airport expansion
The forecasting process that is behind the planning application to expand Bristol International Airport (ref 09/P/1020/OT2) is highly inaccurate and in any case the wrong approach to take. Projections of passenger numbers look increasingly ridiculous in the light of both economic and environmental contexts. Government is in denial as they persist with their forecast figures for more flying, modified only slightly. Generally the air travel industry is, in contrast, more realistic: in the last year or so numbers using UK airports fell by 6.4 million (13%) according to Civil Aviation Authority figures; the head of easyJet, Andy Harrison, told journalist and campaigner George Monbiot that ‘there was no point in expanding airports outside the south-east because the demand wouldn’t materialise’.
The forecasting process and plans for airport expansion are hopelessly out of tune with environmental targets. In the Climate Change Act the UK sets a target of reducing carbon emissions from 1990 levels by at least 80% by 2050 – this reduction cannot be achieved if we keep expanding air travel. Such legislation, if it is to mean anything in practice, means we should be backcasting instead of forecasting, that is plan out how to achieve the scenario that is necessary and desirable by working back to determine the actions we need to take from now. Bristol airport flights already produce a ‘city scale’ half a millions tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions which we should be reducing eg by refusing planning permission to expand airport capacity.
Bristol International Airport already has significant negative impacts on people, the economy and the environment. Noise levels and noise event frequency should be cut from current levels. Parking in the green belt for cars is already significant, money lost to the region is high as many more people take their money abroad to spend than arrive here to spend (£700 million per yr is lost in UK as a whole), traffic levels on local roads are already at far too high a level. All of this points to refusing planning permission for airport expansion and moving to a different, green pattern of economic and social development focussed on building strong regions and local communities.
Many in the industry feel the 13% drop in numbers using UK airports is not just a short term trend and that expansion plans are thus not viable. Airport operator BAA has delayed its plans for a second runway at Stansted for example. British Airways, easyJet and Ryanair want BAA reduce the £900m Gatwick upgrade because they have serious doubts about the business case. National and regional government has been attempting to accelerate any natural trend for people to fly more despite its warm words on fighting climate change. In the past ten years government agencies have spent £80m on helping private enterprise to increase the number of flights. The South West Regional Development Agency has spent £19m on extending the airport terminals at Bristol and Bournemouth, aircraft parking at Exeter and airport works at Plymouth and Newquay. This has encouraged people to fly – and at the same time government have allowed train travel to become far too expensive and lacking in the most efficient technology. Its time this pattern of subsidy for air travel is reversed and with the South West Regional development Agency saying ‘The relationship between high growth sectors in the region and air travel appears to be weak’ and with their board agreeing not ‘to make any further investment in airports for the purpose of increased passenger capacity’ perhaps they are on board for another, greener pattern of development now.
The forecasting process and plans for airport expansion are hopelessly out of tune with environmental targets. In the Climate Change Act the UK sets a target of reducing carbon emissions from 1990 levels by at least 80% by 2050 – this reduction cannot be achieved if we keep expanding air travel. Such legislation, if it is to mean anything in practice, means we should be backcasting instead of forecasting, that is plan out how to achieve the scenario that is necessary and desirable by working back to determine the actions we need to take from now. Bristol airport flights already produce a ‘city scale’ half a millions tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions which we should be reducing eg by refusing planning permission to expand airport capacity.
Bristol International Airport already has significant negative impacts on people, the economy and the environment. Noise levels and noise event frequency should be cut from current levels. Parking in the green belt for cars is already significant, money lost to the region is high as many more people take their money abroad to spend than arrive here to spend (£700 million per yr is lost in UK as a whole), traffic levels on local roads are already at far too high a level. All of this points to refusing planning permission for airport expansion and moving to a different, green pattern of economic and social development focussed on building strong regions and local communities.
Many in the industry feel the 13% drop in numbers using UK airports is not just a short term trend and that expansion plans are thus not viable. Airport operator BAA has delayed its plans for a second runway at Stansted for example. British Airways, easyJet and Ryanair want BAA reduce the £900m Gatwick upgrade because they have serious doubts about the business case. National and regional government has been attempting to accelerate any natural trend for people to fly more despite its warm words on fighting climate change. In the past ten years government agencies have spent £80m on helping private enterprise to increase the number of flights. The South West Regional Development Agency has spent £19m on extending the airport terminals at Bristol and Bournemouth, aircraft parking at Exeter and airport works at Plymouth and Newquay. This has encouraged people to fly – and at the same time government have allowed train travel to become far too expensive and lacking in the most efficient technology. Its time this pattern of subsidy for air travel is reversed and with the South West Regional development Agency saying ‘The relationship between high growth sectors in the region and air travel appears to be weak’ and with their board agreeing not ‘to make any further investment in airports for the purpose of increased passenger capacity’ perhaps they are on board for another, greener pattern of development now.
The economics of expanding air travel are dubious eg in 2007, before the airline crisis began, total air transport turnover in the UK was £20bn. Aviation accounted for 0.78% of total business turnover, a smaller proportion than the machinery rental sector, according to government statistics!! The chief executive of the International Air Transport Association was quoted in The Guardian as saying, “Business habits are changing and corporate travel budgets have been slashed. Video conferencing is now a stronger competitor.” This comment is in tune with building a more sustainable future – be part of this by refusing the application to expand Bristol International Airport.
Safer Medicines Campaign: scientifically compare animal experimentation against human biology-based tests
Please sign EDM 569, which calls for an unprecedented comparison of currently required animal tests with a set of human biology-based tests, to see which is more predictive of safety for patients.
EDM 569 does not seek to ban any animal tests but merely to assess them scientifically.
A million Britons are hospitalised by prescription medicines every year, costing the NHS £2 billion (Sarah Boseley, The Guardian, 3 April 2008). These figures must be improved. There is evidence that human biology-based technologies may be more predictive of safety for humans: hence the need for a scientific comparison.
The End of the Line: major film on the impact of overfishing
MUST SEE FILM 2009
"THE END OF THE LINE" - NO FISH after 2048 ?
@ THE WATERSHED 3pm SATURDAY 15th & SUNDAY 16th AUGUST
£3:50p Box Office: 0117 927 5100
Rupert Murray UK '09 Ihr 26mins Imagine an ocean without fish. The first major feature documentary film revealing the impact of overfishing, The End of the Line examines the imminent extinction of bluefin tuna brought on by increasing Western demand for sushi, the impact on marine life resulting in huge overpopulation of jellyfish, and the profound implications of a future world with no fish which could come as soon as 2048.
Filmed across the world - from the Straits of Gibraltar to the coasts of Senegal and Alaska to the Tokyo fish market -featuring top scientists, indigenous fishermen and fisheries enforcement officials, this disturbing and powerful film is a wake-up call to the world. Introduced by Wilf Mound, Chair of Bristol Greenpeace group.
nohiggsboson@hotmail.co.uk T= 0117 927 6322
PLEASE ONLY eat sustainably caught fish
CALL on politicians to respect the science* and cut the fishing fleets
JOIN the campaign for Marine Reserves and responsible fishing
SEE : www.greenpeace.org/oceans
"THE END OF THE LINE" film amplifies the GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL campaign for MARINE RESERVES.
The Ocean's resources can no longer be regarded as limitless –
THERE ARE NOT PLENTY MORE FISH IN THE SEA !!!
"THE END OF THE LINE" examines what we are doing in our relentless technology-efficient quest to catch some fish, and points the finger at the politicians, corporations & chefs who are to blame.
*eg: Boris WORM et al "Impacts of Biodiversity loss on Ocean Ecosystem services" [SCIENCE V314 No 5800 pp787-790 3rd NOV 2006];
& GRAHAM, EVANS & RUSS "The effects of marine reserve protection on the trophic relationships of reef fishes on the Great Barrier Reef [Environmental Conservation (2003) 30:200-208 Cambridge University Press ].
Monday, August 10, 2009
20's Plenty for Us: new blog site
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Loss of quality of life in Redcatch Rd/Axbridge Rd/Friendship Rd neighbourhood
Here we are again. A whole range of people in very large numbers have expressed concern and opposition. Council strategies state the aim of improving neighbourhood quality of life and building a greener city but this plan, which would worsen both, could be given permission! You can ensure this does not happen by refusing permission.
Here we go again in a period when people want real and proper democracy (government by the people for the people) after expenses scandals that have brought politics in general to an even lower ebb than usual. Really listen to the people and you do your bit to boost politics. Really listen to the people and you'd reject this plan.
I note that members of the public dont get equal time and facilities when responding to planning applications compared to councillors and officers. I note that very often developers get lots of time and access to officers and councillors about their plans (including in this case, where inferior plans went back and forth between the council and Tesco) - this should give this committee all the more reason to give real weight to the number and range of people opposed to this plan from the public.
The councillors on the committee did not listen to the people - those from Labour (Sean Beynon and Colin Smith) gave particular support to Tesco's plans . Planning rules are truly out of date and badly out of tune with council policies, especially on quality of life and sustainability. The committee made their decision on a very narrow basis indeed, paying little or no heed to the context of the application and implications of giving permission. Another neighbourhood will lose quality of life and green character as a result and Knowle's local shopping will be disrpted by a giant supermarket chain with an anti-competitive attitude. It may not end here because several local people are wondering what plans Tesco might have for that part of the pub garden that wont be covered by the car park (room for expansion? room for a petrol station? room for...?).
Monday, August 03, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
Sustainable Communities Act successes
Dear Ms White and Mr Vowles,
I'm writing to let you know that following decision at the Council's Cabinet meeting last night. I am pleased to say your joint proposal regarding reducing commercial and industrial waste and the seprate one submitted by you individally Mr Vowles on statutory biodiversity/ecofootprint data in planning applications have been submitted to the Local Government Association Selector Panel today.
We would like to thank you for your input to this process so far and will let you know as soon as we have further information from the LGA on the progress of these and other proposals the Council has submitted.
Kind regards,
Deborah
Deborah Kinghorn
Policy Officer
Deputy Chief Executive's Unit
Bristol City Council
0117 92 22792
Policy Officer
Deputy Chief Executive's Unit
Bristol City Council
0117 92 22792
1.The proposal is to establish statutory biodiversity/eco footprint data in planning applications.
Submission of ‘before and after’ biodiversity and eco-footprint data to be a compulsory part of all planning applications – the data to be a statutory consideration for all planning committees.
The proposal would improve the eco-footprint of new development. In theory it should lead to an increase in resource supporting biodiversity, reduce the contribution new development has on climate change, might boost the local economy through local supply, improve the resource efficiency of the development.
People submitting planning applications for new development would need guidance on how to undertake this and what would be required. Therefore Officers and Members of the Council would also need training and guidance in order to implement this proposal successfully.
It would require a change in legislation to become mandatory.
2.Reduce commercial and industrial waste.
Give local authorities the responsibility for managing all commercial and industrial waste to ensure that the principles of reduce, reuse and recycle can be applied to commercial and industrial waste as well as municipal waste.
If local authorities are given this responsibility, establish a national indicator for waste minimisation that covers commercial and municipal sectors.
Municipal waste only accounts for 15% waste and Commercial and Industrial accounts for 39% with construction and demolition 46%. (WEP Joint waste strategy paper)
There is currently little influence on the commercial and industrial sector to minimise waste through the three Rs , reduce, reuse, and recycle. The main influence is the financial cost which is not prohibitive enough to encourage minimisation of waste to landfill.
If local authorities are responsible for the whole waste stream, it will enable waste to be tackled in a more joined up way and with more regard for the environment. Commercial and Industrial waste tends to have fewer waste streams and can often be easily recycled.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Save St Peter's Hospice in Knowle: online version of petition
You can now sign the St Peter's Hospice petition online by clicking the link below:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-our-hospice/
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-our-hospice/
Monday, July 27, 2009
St Peter's Hospice, Knowle: petition opposing closure
We, the undersigned, believe that the decision to close the hospice in South Bristol with the loss of ten beds in September will result in many terminally ill people being denied a specialist in-patient pain relief service and being left to die on busy hospital wards. We cannot understand why there has been no emergency appeal to save this essential service.
We call upon St Peter’s Hospice, Bristol Primary Care Trust and United Bristol Hospital Trust to consult the people of South Bristol about these plans and to work together to ensure that a full hospice service remains available in South Bristol.
If you are signing this petition, please tick if you want to help with this campaign. Please return the completed form to: Save Our Hospice, 15 Addison Rd, Victoria Park, Bristol BS3 4QH. To contact us, phone 07929 897149 or email: saveourhospice@hotmail.co.uk
We call upon St Peter’s Hospice, Bristol Primary Care Trust and United Bristol Hospital Trust to consult the people of South Bristol about these plans and to work together to ensure that a full hospice service remains available in South Bristol.
If you are signing this petition, please tick if you want to help with this campaign. Please return the completed form to: Save Our Hospice, 15 Addison Rd, Victoria Park, Bristol BS3 4QH. To contact us, phone 07929 897149 or email: saveourhospice@hotmail.co.uk
Monday, July 13, 2009
World Cup games in Bristol: case against
And of course there is the environmental case against: loss of green belt land to build the BCFC stadium that is essential to staging World Cup football in the city; stimulus to further loss of green belt land as development fills in much of the space in and around the new stadium and roads; large carbon footprint and other environmental impacts in constructing and operating the new stadium (neither BCFC not the council have fully committed themselves to the principle of any development fully compensating for total impacts); large increase in Bristol’s eco-footprint from developments that follow the new stadium. Many people in Ashton Vale and Long Ashton will be seriously impacted by a new stadium.
Can someone demonstrate net economic and environmental benefits to me?? I’d need to see this before I can support the World Cup bid. Several statements by local politicians and others would seem to presume that a new stadium for BCFC at Long Ashton is automatically highly likely and desirable. It isn’t. Has it been forgotten that building on green belt land is not really supposed to happen at all, unless circumstances are exceptional. Is it the view of all the big political parties in Bristol that the circumstances are exceptional?
Have BCFC come up with a new stadium design and construction process that is truly innovative and green (efficient, renewably powered, carbon neutral…and more), so much so that it can be quantitatively shown that most aspects of environmental impact have been fully compensated for?? Did they exhaust the options for redeveloping Ashton Gate, a ground with so much heritage value??
These are the considerations that I’ve had in mind for some time. Any administration running Bristol that considers itself green should have these considerations in mind. Have we forgotten our green capital ambitions?? Since the start of the new stadium process greens have contributed to the BCFC consultation, urging the use of green designs, processes and technologies – we will continue to make such points throughout the planning process.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Use and abuse of computer generated images of the proposed new Bristol City ground
This post is about the use and potential/actual abuse of pictures of proposed developments. Developers can and do use pictures to mislead people about the apparent nature and impacts of what they plan.

New plans will involve drawings and pictures and/or three dimensional models, these days often computer generated. The plans for a new Bristol City stadium are no exception to this (see aerial view left) - many have been featured very prominently and repeatedly in the local press (eg here) as well as in the architects report (here) and on the Bristol City FC website (here). Pictures are familiar and require little specialist training to interpret, making them a powerful communications tool (which developers, planners, councils and the media are of course well aware of).
Pictures are useful - but the viewer should consider both what is shown and what is not shown. Viewers need to weigh up how representative and realistic what someone has chosen to present to them for their chosen purpose, not necessarily the viewers purpose, truly is. People usually see things from the ground yet we are often given aerial views (as above) and not shown the view from residents back gardens (as is the case with the computer-generated pictures of the proposed Bristol City stadium the Evening Post has prominently featured).
New plans will involve drawings and pictures and/or three dimensional models, these days often computer generated. The plans for a new Bristol City stadium are no exception to this (see aerial view left) - many have been featured very prominently and repeatedly in the local press (eg here) as well as in the architects report (here) and on the Bristol City FC website (here). Pictures are familiar and require little specialist training to interpret, making them a powerful communications tool (which developers, planners, councils and the media are of course well aware of).
Many images we are presented with are shown in isolation or with the visual context that those producing the pictures want to give. The picture above shows one approach to the proposed Bristol City stadium which includes: a) very large, mature trees that would take years to grow b) a couple with the children just behind them. None of the images of the proposed stadium I've seen show any traffic or crowds whatsoever. Its not that the images we are presented with are 'wrong' its that they are partial and are selected to show what a narrow range of people want us to see!!
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
How green is the proposed new Bristol City stadium design?
____________________________________________________
Thanks for this - I'll look over the attached information asap. I'd be grateful if you could establish which of the following you feel are a part of the BCFC new stadium plans:
*abiding by the concept of compensation for loss of green space in the green belt;
Thanks for this - I'll look over the attached information asap. I'd be grateful if you could establish which of the following you feel are a part of the BCFC new stadium plans:
*abiding by the concept of compensation for loss of green space in the green belt;
* a thorough ecological assessment of the whole area, at various times of the year;
*walking, cycling and light rail transport links;
*an unobtrusive external colour;
*use of ecological footprinting to measure impacts;
*permanently protected nature reserves around the stadium, designed to maximise biodiversity;
*aiming to be a carbon neutral stadium;
*avoiding any 'sprawl' in design;
*being an example of sustainable design (see examples below) - promoting sustainable economic activity, the latest energy efficiency, renewable energy and sustainable transport technologies.
Examples of football clubs who have used or attempted to use green principles, designs and technologies (this would fit well with Bristol's green capital ambitions and compensate to a degree for the loss of green space):
Dartford FC – living grass roof, solar electricity and heating, rainwater collection and low noise and light pollution design.
Ipswich Town – carbon neutral scheme.
Renewables in football clubs information.
Middlesborough – solar roof and wind turbines project.
Man City – community involvement, transport and waste initiatives (wind turbines were planned but sadly now abandoned).
Many thanks for your help.
Yours sincerely
Glenn Vowles
Bedminster Residents Against Tesco's Expansion Into Ashton Gate: petition and newsletter
BEDMINSTER RESIDENTS AGAINST TESCO’S EXPANSION INTO ASHTON GATE.
NEWS
5th July 2009
Greater Bedminster Residents meet to form “No-Superstore” Campaign Group
More than 70 people from Greater Bedminster packed into a meeting room at the Southville Centre on Friday night, to hear more about the proposed Tesco superstore development at Ashton Gate Stadium.
Local residents, Chris Uttley and Tom Griffin, who organised the meeting said, “Whilst we are seeing plenty of information about the supposed benefits, there has been no opportunity for public discussion about the massive increase in traffic, noise, air pollution and disruption created by a store that opens 7 days a week for virtually all day.
“We wanted to give all residents and traders an opportunity to voice their concerns without the stage-managed atmosphere of the Public Relations devised consultation they have had so far”
Traders from North Street, people who live in close proximity to the stadium and residents from throughout the area, including many Bristol City Football Club supporters, heard more about the plans and were given an opportunity to voice their concerns.
Many people at the meeting commented on how inappropriate the proposal seems. Abigail Stollar, a Southville resident said, “ I shop all the time on North Street. What’s being proposed will contribute very little to the local community and will have a massive impact on the existing shops and businesses. I like the fact I can walk round the corner with my kids to buy virtually everything I need”.
Some residents highlighted the rushed manner in which they were being consulted and the ad-hoc way in which information is being released. In many cases, people who live very close to the stadium had not been consulted at all. Only 3 people raised their hands when asked how many had been approached directly for their views.
People were particularly angry at the way this development has been linked with plans for a new stadium and the Bristol World Cup bid and the attempt to brand those who oppose a new superstore as anti-World cup and anti-Bristol City. Many people said this was “cynical”, “ill-judged” and “divisive”.
George Ferguson, owner of the Tobacco Factory, summed up the feeling from the meeting saying, “There is nothing like a major threat to its future to galvanise a community. This is an appalling proposal – another giant shopping shed set in a massive sea of car parking. The potential economic and environmental damage to this area is immense. I fully recognise the importance of Bristol City’s success but it is quite wrong to imply that a new supermarket is something to do with the new stadium or the World Cup – the two issues have to be de-coupled. It is inappropriate and legally dubious to consider the applications for the new stadium and the new supermarket simultaneously”.
The proposal to create a group to fight the proposal was welcomed by all those who attended and many volunteered to be directly involved. BERATE has now begun a petition against the superstore and will continue to oppose the plans and gauge the response of a larger cross-section of the community towards the development.
For further Information:
Contact details: berate_ashtongate@hotmail.com
Or Chris Uttley on 07920 797110
Or Tom Griffin on 07772289718
NEWS
5th July 2009
Greater Bedminster Residents meet to form “No-Superstore” Campaign Group
More than 70 people from Greater Bedminster packed into a meeting room at the Southville Centre on Friday night, to hear more about the proposed Tesco superstore development at Ashton Gate Stadium.
Local residents, Chris Uttley and Tom Griffin, who organised the meeting said, “Whilst we are seeing plenty of information about the supposed benefits, there has been no opportunity for public discussion about the massive increase in traffic, noise, air pollution and disruption created by a store that opens 7 days a week for virtually all day.
“We wanted to give all residents and traders an opportunity to voice their concerns without the stage-managed atmosphere of the Public Relations devised consultation they have had so far”
Traders from North Street, people who live in close proximity to the stadium and residents from throughout the area, including many Bristol City Football Club supporters, heard more about the plans and were given an opportunity to voice their concerns.
Many people at the meeting commented on how inappropriate the proposal seems. Abigail Stollar, a Southville resident said, “ I shop all the time on North Street. What’s being proposed will contribute very little to the local community and will have a massive impact on the existing shops and businesses. I like the fact I can walk round the corner with my kids to buy virtually everything I need”.
Some residents highlighted the rushed manner in which they were being consulted and the ad-hoc way in which information is being released. In many cases, people who live very close to the stadium had not been consulted at all. Only 3 people raised their hands when asked how many had been approached directly for their views.
People were particularly angry at the way this development has been linked with plans for a new stadium and the Bristol World Cup bid and the attempt to brand those who oppose a new superstore as anti-World cup and anti-Bristol City. Many people said this was “cynical”, “ill-judged” and “divisive”.
George Ferguson, owner of the Tobacco Factory, summed up the feeling from the meeting saying, “There is nothing like a major threat to its future to galvanise a community. This is an appalling proposal – another giant shopping shed set in a massive sea of car parking. The potential economic and environmental damage to this area is immense. I fully recognise the importance of Bristol City’s success but it is quite wrong to imply that a new supermarket is something to do with the new stadium or the World Cup – the two issues have to be de-coupled. It is inappropriate and legally dubious to consider the applications for the new stadium and the new supermarket simultaneously”.
The proposal to create a group to fight the proposal was welcomed by all those who attended and many volunteered to be directly involved. BERATE has now begun a petition against the superstore and will continue to oppose the plans and gauge the response of a larger cross-section of the community towards the development.
For further Information:
Contact details: berate_ashtongate@hotmail.com
Or Chris Uttley on 07920 797110
Or Tom Griffin on 07772289718
Friday, July 03, 2009
'Answers' to questions on sale of Bristol to Bath Railway Path land
________________________________________________________
C1. Glenn Vowles to ask Gary Hopkins, Executive Member for Environment and Community Safety and Jon Rogers Executive Member for Transport and Sustainability
Hedgerow loss due to Cycle Houses
Plans for the development of ‘cycle houses’ on the former Elizabeth Shaw Chocolate Factory site have been granted planning permission. The development would, unless modified, mean the destruction of approximately 150 metres of mature hawthorn hedgerow. Hedgerows are of high landscape and conservation value. They add diversity to and are a traditional feature of the landscape. They provide foraging, roosting and nesting sites for birds. They are rich in animal and plant species (around 500 vascular plant species are found in UK hedgerows). They are home to many types of insect, mollusc, spider and small animal. They act as wildlife corridors allowing flora and fauna, including birds, foxes, badgers, mice and other small mammals, beetles and molluscs, routes for dispersal from remnant islands of habitat through an increasingly hostile landscape.
Q1. Can you confirm that Bristol City Council has sold to the developers a plot of land on/adjacent to the Bristol to Bath Railway Path that includes the 150 metre (approx) hedgerow referred to and that the Liberal Democrat administration authorised this sale?
C1.Q1 Reply:
No land has yet been sold. The Cabinet believe that, on balance, the redevelopment of the derelict Chocolate Factory site will bring substantial benefits. This will inevitably have consequences for the land adjacent to the Railway Path. However, we are not persuaded that the design solution currently proposed represents the best balance between regeneration, environment and use of the Railway Path, and we are therefore seeking the public's views as to the respective merits of shared or individual access from the 'cycle houses' to the path.
This administration is also concerned that there remain aspirations for Bus Rapid Transit along the Railway Path. We are therefore also reviewing the terms of the access arrangements between the Railway Path and the Chocolate Factory development to protect the Path.
Q2. Did the Bristol Liberal Democratic Party at any time in the last year appeal to the developers to modify their cycle house plans so that hedgerow loss was avoided?
C1.Q2 Reply:
Yes. Liberal Democrats (and others) have raised concerns about the placing of the cycle houses so close to the Railway Path and the consequent loss of hedgerow. These concerns were raised as part of the planning process and in earlier consultation.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Cuts proposed in the 52 bus service
______________________________________________________________
It is with considerable dismay that I learned of the proposed cut in the 52 bus service, both as a Knowle resident and user of this service and as a keen green urging more, better and cheaper public transport. The council is minded to withdraw this bus service for Monday to Saturday evenings and all day on Sundays and Public Holidays despite having a policy of trying to encourage the public onto public transport! Government policy is also to encourage people onto public transport! If we are to have more people using buses (and trains) the council and government must put their money where their mouth is!
It is with considerable dismay that I learned of the proposed cut in the 52 bus service, both as a Knowle resident and user of this service and as a keen green urging more, better and cheaper public transport. The council is minded to withdraw this bus service for Monday to Saturday evenings and all day on Sundays and Public Holidays despite having a policy of trying to encourage the public onto public transport! Government policy is also to encourage people onto public transport! If we are to have more people using buses (and trains) the council and government must put their money where their mouth is!
Its very hard indeed to square the use of the term 'service...withdrawn' with 'minimising hardship' on the consultation leaflet. The leaflet itself acknowledges that to access alternative services people would have to walk further. This is a disincentive on bus use of course but the picture is worse that just that. I have family and friends, including children, who would have the pattern of their lives disrupted and made less safe. They dont feel safe walking through certain areas at certain times yet they would be forced to do so if the changes happen in order to get a bus when they normally do. With lifts in a car unavailable some would at times be put-off going out altogether.
If the 52 bus service is cut, travelling back from town to Knowle is likely to take longer, with more waiting around. Friends and family currently travelling together but living in different parts of Knowle would, at times, no longer be able to catch the same bus - a service common to both would be gone.
The proposal to direct some 52 bus users to the Bristol Dial-a-Ride in the event of a service cut is inadequate. This would not cover all bus users as Dial-a-Ride is for those with mobility impairment. Those with mobility impairment would still experience service loss on Saturdays and Sundays when the 52 is currently available but Dial-a-Ride is not.
This bus service cut proposal is entirely inconsistent with the apparent drive to promote and encourage bus use in central Bristol, such as via a circular route or 'hub'. If we are to make significant overall progress in getting people onto public transport we must have properly coordinated improvements in services across the city.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Update on my Sustainable Communities Act suggestions - 14 out of 22 deemed eligible for Cabinet consideration!!
very, very pleased with this of course - and I'm hopeful that the Cabinet will include some of my suggestions on the shortlist it will send to the Local Govt Association.
Dear Mr Vowles
I am writing to thank you for participating in the Sustainable Communities Act process. We had a fantastic response, with 151 suggestions being submitted.
Suggestions made to the Council under the Act have now passed through the first stages of the Council’s evaluation process.
The Council’s Legal Services department has evaluated the suggestion(s) you submitted in order to identify whether they met the requirements of the Sustainable Communities Act, in that:
I am writing to thank you for participating in the Sustainable Communities Act process. We had a fantastic response, with 151 suggestions being submitted.
Suggestions made to the Council under the Act have now passed through the first stages of the Council’s evaluation process.
The Council’s Legal Services department has evaluated the suggestion(s) you submitted in order to identify whether they met the requirements of the Sustainable Communities Act, in that:
*It would need a change in legislation to be implemented
*It would contribute towards sustainability as defined in the Act
Your suggestion(s) listed here were deemed eligible under the terms of the act.
*Reduce commercial and industrial waste: give LA's responsibility for commercial waste; introduce NI for waste minimisation [this one submitted jointly with another person]
*20 mph default speed limit
*Carbon budgets and carbon trading for all
*Statutory biodiversity/eco footprint data in planning applications
*Government to assess capabilities of all technologies prior to implementation
*Ecological compensation for greenfield development
*Prioritising cycling and walking via a review of national and local transport policy and practice
*Immigration and emigration zero balance
*Broadening range of statutory planning considerations
*Criteria of fairness, openness and balance for government public consultations
*Transport costs to reflect total costs of travel
*Financial accounts to be accompanied by social and environmental accounting
*Councils to publish total ecological footprint
*Welfare or well-being index
75 suggestions overall were eligible to go forward and these have also been considered by the following:
Officer Panel – senior Council officers with appropriate expertise added factual comment where necessary. This panel did not recommend or exclude suggestions.
Local Panel - Bristol City Council commissioned VOSCUR (an independent organisation set up to support voluntary and community action in Bristol) to convene a panel including representatives from neighbourhood partnerships, equalities groups and councillors. This panel prioritised the suggestions prior to forwarding their views onto Cabinet Member, Councillor Jon Rogers.
Cabinet Member – all suggestions have been sent to Cabinet member, Councillor Jon Rogers. Recent guidance from the LGA has set out what sort of information will be needed to support a suggestion. Councillor Rogers will now use this guidance to review all the suggestions and comments made by the Local Panel and recommend a shortlist of the strongest and most feasible ideas to be worked up for submission to the Local Government Association. This shortlist and all other relevant information will be available on our website www.bristol.gov.uk/sca shortly.
The Council’s Cabinet will decide which suggestions the Council will adopt as its formal proposals. These will be forwarded to the Government via the Local Government Association (LGA).
The final decision will be made by Cabinet on Thursday 30th July at 6pm in the Council House. Cabinet meetings are open to the public, and any members of the public may present a statement or question. Statements must be submitted by 12.00 noon the day before the meeting, and questions by 5 pm 3 clear working days before (Friday 24th July). These should be sent to Ian Hird, ian.hird@bristol.gov.uk, tel. 0117 922 2384. Papers for the Cabinet meeting should be posted on the Council’s website on Thursday 23rd July.
The Council recognises the value of all suggestions received and appreciates the time that has gone into producing them. If your suggestion does not go forward, we will forward your ideas to the relevant council department for further consideration and respond to you in writing.
If you need any further information about this process, please contact Deborah Kinghorn, Policy Officer, on 0117 922 2792 or email Deborah.kinghorn@bristol.gov.uk or visit our Sustainable Communities Act page on our website www.bristol.gov.uk/sca
Yours sincerely
Deborah Kinghorn
Policy and Scrutiny Team
Deputy Chief Executive’s Office
Monday, June 29, 2009
Bristol 24-7 new online newspaper now live
This is what Chris Brown, Editor of Bristol 24-7 told me about his new online newspaper:
Available and updated 24 hours a day, seven days a week, Bristol24-7 will publish original news, sport, opinion and comment on all areas of city life - as well as promoting the best coverage of Bristol affairs from every available source on the web.
As the website develops, new sections will be added so that Bristol24-7 becomes the first port of call for residents and visitors looking for information and ideas to make the most of their life in the city.
The business side of the operation will come from a digital marketing service called 'Beyond the Ad', which will offer individuals, businesses and organisations everything from new websites, to email marketing to harnessing social networking to promote themselves and/or their products. Its premise is that, unlike a newspaper, my business will offer real solutions to marketing needs - rather than the hit-and-hope offer of space to advertise in a newspaper.
I am a journalist with 11 years' experience at national and regional newspapers. Originally from Somerset, I started my career at The Independent in London in 1998 spending three years in the news and features departments, before returning to the West Country. I joined the Western Daily Press in 2002, becoming deputy chief sub-editor. I volunteered for redundancy in April this year so that I could make my dream of starting a new online newspaper for Bristol come true.
While I may be running a small company without the resources of a large media organisation, I can assure you that I am very serious in my aim to produce high-quality journalism within a trusted product people will want to access on a daily basis.
I hope you visit my site from June 29 on and give me any constructive criticism you have. You can also follow me on Twitter at @bristol247.
--
Christopher Brown
Editor, Bristol24-7
---------------------------
PO Box 2930, Bristol BS6 9FJ
Tel: 0117 2309 247
Mob: 07766 752422
Skype: bristol247
Email: chris@bristol247.com
Friday, June 26, 2009
Strong-willed, independent-minded MPs - yes please!
Ms McCarthy, 44, who won her Bristol seat in 2005, said: "When you get elected, you ask the older hands what you do and they were quite adamant that you should claim for this or that because that's what you were entitled to."
*
For me these words illustrate the point I'm making very well. Do we really want to elect people who cant find their own way and dont make up their own mind? Kerry seems to think it perfectly acceptable to go along with the crowd without thinking and questioning (Either that or she is giving us lame excuses for the choices she made). Surely we need our key decision-makers to have more character than this?? Mind you maybe the the qualities Ms McCarthy has are the reason she has become a junior whip.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Councillor Brown made "racial slur" and "breached code of conduct" but no sanction is required!?!
"I am of the view that Councillor Brown breached the code of conduct for members in that she failed to treat a fellow councillor with respect by using a racial slur during the full council debate on February 24."
But goes on to say,
"If I am asked to recommend a sanction then I would say that no further action is required given that Councillor Brown apologised for her comments."
Rules for behaviour mean little or nothing if they are not enforced - ask any parent, teacher, lawyer...We need to expect and demand more from people elected to represent us, whether its over expenses, behaviour and language use in debates, behaviour that is reasonably consistent with policies they are advocating for the rest of us, or whatever.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Lib Dem fix for Bristol???
To give them credit, Bristol’s Liberal Democrats have performed extremely well in order to get into this position. They know how to fight elections very well indeed. They took four seats from Labour in the recent local elections in addition to successfully defending all eleven of the seats they previously held, including a threat to their Ashley seat from the Green Party. They were helped by the very poor Labour performance – they lost eight out of the ten seats they defended (four to Tories, four to the Lib Dems) and only narrowly held on to the two seats they won. Thus ended years of a ‘hung’ council where no party had overall control, which featured see-saw politics and two parties always ganging up on the other through unholy alliance – this is a very good opportunity to give Bristol some firm direction and leadership.
There are some tough problems to solve. The Lib Dems have said they want to ‘Cut congestion and get better transport for all’ (including backing suburban rail; more money for road safety, pedestrians and cyclists; introducing a cashless ‘Oyster Card’ for Bristol buses). Under the transport heading issues like residents parking and air quality wont go away. The key benchmark of progress here is congestion.
Lib Dem policy two is ‘A clean and green city’ (which includes more money for street cleaning, getting tough on flytipping; a ‘parkie’ in every major park and more play areas for children; fighting the green belt grab and preserving our green spaces). It will be very interesting indeed to see the extent to which the Lib Dems oppose building on Bristol’s green belt, particularly since Bristol City Football Club propose to build a new stadium on green land in Ashton Vale, where many houses are also proposed and at least part of which is green belt. All party leaders except the Greens have given public and enthusiastic support to the proposed new City stadium in principle and they are backing a bid to bring World Cup football to Bristol, which a new stadium would be necessary for. Amount of green belt and other green space built on is a key indicator here. I’d also add that the total carbon emissions of the city are a key indicator because everyone recognises that low carbon emissions are a key feature of being green – and the connection with cutting congestion is obvious.
‘Boost Bristol’s Bobbies’ says policy three (including a fair share of police; campaign against ID cards; new crime reduction schemes on repeat offenders and violent partners). Police and Community Support Officer numbers are easily counted and tracked but this does not necessarily mean more peaceful, orderly, lower crime neighbourhoods, so the benchmark is not so straightforward. Real, effective leadership would give us less crime and more peace and order.
*
The Lib Dems get very specific about policy 4, which promises ‘Three new libraries, a new school [North Bristol] and a new pool [East Bristol]’. This policy includes a promise to ‘fix Labours school places mess’. This year saw chaos for parents and pupils trying to find the school place they need and want for their child and so this pledge to ensure that 2010 sees no repeat of the previous fiasco. The local press has described this as a poisoned chalice!! We will all be able to see whether the various facilities are built and whether school places – but there is no promise on an overall improvement in the quality of education and it looks like the Lib Dems will implement most if not all of the plans to create bigger primary schools which wont be popular in many places and is seen by some as going against the quality of the educational experience. Real, effective leadership would improve the quality of education, not that this is straightforward to assess!
The pledges in policy five ‘Beat Gordon Brown’s recession in Bristol’ (including keeping the council tax as low as possible and campaigning for it to be scrapped; extra help on debt for small businesses and individuals; investment in training and apprenticeships) are more nebulous and designed to pick up votes during a time of recession. We all know that the council cannot make Bristol a recession-free zone and everybody would subscribe to the other policies under this heading the way they are worded!
Policy six ‘50% recycling by 2010 and no incinerator’ (which includes switching from a large, dirty incinerator to clean and cheap new technology; free corn starch brown bin liner bags; reversing the recycling rate drop under Labour) really should be under the ‘clean and green city’ heading. Mass incineration has already been abandoned, though putting alternative approaches into practice within a decent budget is doable but not straightforward. ‘Free’ corn starch bags will need to show that they can more than make up for the carbon cost of producing and consuming them and for their financial cost to the council but its uncertain that all the required data to make the assessments was sought by the council beforehand. Improving Labour’s recycling record wont be difficult because their work on this was poor – achieving a 50% [household waste] recycling rate by 2010 would be great (and a target with a timescale makes a change!). We still need to push on a lot from there if we are to have a low waste city though and someone (central govt??) needs to get a grip on total waste, most of which is not generated in households of course.
Council Leader Janke backs new stadium and world cup bid
Lib Dem Council Leader Barbara Janke is not the person who grants planning permission to BCFC. Permission is given or denied by the relevant planning committee following input from officers and members of the public etc. Planning committees are statutory not political in nature, at least they are supposed to be!! Whilst I hope that councillors also use their good sense when making judegments on planning applications they have to apply certain criteria - and world cup or premiership football aspirations are not amongst these (and in any case they are transient, uncertain factors).
Monday, June 22, 2009
Fairly assessing the proposed new Bristol City stadium
I agree with a lot of what Andy, Tony and Rob said (below), commenting on the Post story. Tony's blog is well worth a read (http://simplysouthville.blogspot.com/).
It is not the stadium plan that is the most contentious thing here; it is the way in which the local people and the council are being hoodwinked and pressurised into giving it a green light.The constant press releases from the football club, and the incessant white noise in the evening post serve to crank the pressure to approve the scheme. The England world cup bid could easily fail; the Bristol bid (dependent on the stadium) could also easily fail: then the football club will have landed their only real prize, and the rest of Bristol will be left with a vague sense of having been duped.Evening Post - wake up to yourselves, it is not your job to campaign for Bristol City Football Club, or Tesco. How about being impartial for a change?????
Andy, Bristol
The article says: "The council's local plan has Ashton Gate earmarked for housing. But times have changed since the plan was written."The times may have changed but the need for affordable family housing hasn't. One thing does remain and that is we don't need another supermarket in this area of Bristol.Are the powers that be really going to rush through a planning application that could damage the area forever, for the sake of two or three potential World Cup games in nine years time. Let's do it right. A development at Ashton Gate that will benefit the local community and a new stadium for City that it can afford. Tesco a 'white knight'? More like the Grim Reaper for Southville and Ashton.
A large car park, a supermarket in a tin shed and a petrol filling station - is that the best anyone at Bristol City can come up with for their old ground?It would be a complete waste of a great opportunity. OK the World Cup in Bristol would be great, but it will only last for four weeks. We will be stuck with the consequences for a lot longer.
Rob, Crews Hole Report
Anne Widdecombe for Speaker !!
Friday, June 19, 2009
'Redacted Dawn' Primarolo's week
On Thursday Dawn was again under pressure about her expenses when the Daily Telegraph reported that 'Dawn Primarolo claimed on second home in Bristol. In 2004, switched to London flat and claimed mortgage interest payments'.
*
Scrutiny of everything MPs do is great for democracy, whether by the media, unions or whoever. My concern about some of the proposals emanating from Gordon Brown is that they consist of more layers of bureaucracy which over time might turn out to be little better than than current House of Commons authorities. I'd like scrutiny and accountability to be much more direct to voters.
__________________________________________________
Asides:
Unison has done some very good green work, see http://www.unison.org.uk/green/ .
Further information on the work of the Green Party Trade Union Group,
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Questions to Council's Cabinet on: hedgerow loss; green belt; environmental decision making
*Hedgerow loss due to Cycle Houses
Plans for the development of ‘cycle houses’ on the former Elizabeth Shaw Chocolate Factory site have been granted planning permission. The development would, unless modified, mean the destruction of approximately 150 metres of mature hawthorn hedgerow. Hedgerows are of high landscape and conservation value. They add diversity to and are a traditional feature of the landscape. They provide foraging, roosting and nesting sites for birds. They are rich in animal and plant species (around 500 vascular plant species are found in UK hedgerows). They are home to many types of insect, mollusc, spider and small animal. They act as wildlife corridors allowing flora and fauna, including birds, foxes, badgers, mice and other small mammals, beetles and molluscs, routes for dispersal from remnant islands of habitat through an increasingly hostile landscape.
1.Can you confirm that Bristol City Council has sold to the developers a plot of land on/adjacent to the Bristol to Bath Railway Path that includes the 150 metre (approx) hedgerow referred to and that the Liberal Democrat administration authorised this sale?
2. Did the Bristol Liberal Democratic Party at any time in the last year appeal to the developers to modify their cycle house plans so that hedgerow loss was avoided?
*Development on green belt land
1.Should large scale development be permitted on green belt land around Bristol, whether the development impinges on green belt in whole or part?
2.If development is permitted on green belt land should the developers plans and designs be required to compensate as much as is practically possible for all the environmental impacts they cause eg through maximising the use of green design, green technology and green schemes?
*Environmental decision making and corn starch bags
In a debate on Cllr Bolton’s blog I said ‘…the decision on the [corn starch] bags has been taken without full information being sought! This is irrational. Environmental decision making should be put on a firm evidence-based process. This has not been done by any party running the council…’ to which you Cllr Hopkins replied ‘I do not base my judgements on guesses but on evidence’. My subsequent request for data on the total environmental impacts of the corn starch bags in this debate was not replied to and so I doubt that full information has in fact been sought.
1. What figures does the council have for the carbon footprint of these corn starch bags, in order to assess whether they more than make up for their carbon cost?
2. What figures does the council have for any other environmental costs the corn starch bags may have eg water footprint, land take, biodiversity impacts...?
3.Can you outline if/how you intend to quantitatively and fully assess the net effects of corn starch bag introduction: on the environment; on the economics of waste management for Bristol?
Met Office climate change projections: serious consequences for us all
Medium emissions scenario
*Under medium emissions, the central estimate of increase in winter mean temperature is 2.8ºC; it is very unlikely to be less than 1.6ºC and is very unlikely to be more than 4.3ºC.
*Under medium emissions, the central estimate of increase in summer mean temperature is 3.9ºC; it is very unlikely to be less than 2.1ºC and is very unlikely to be more than 6.4ºC.
*Under medium emissions, the central estimate of change in winter mean precipitation is 23%; it is very unlikely to be less than 6% and is very unlikely to be more than 54%.
*Under medium emissions, the central estimate of change in summer mean precipitation is –23%; it is very unlikely to be less than –49% and is very unlikely to be more than 6%.
The consequences for us all and for our society and economy are very serious due to more floods, droughts, heat waves, storms, impacts on health and public services like rail travel, impacts on food production....The costs of inaction on tackling climate change far exceed the costs of taking effective action now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)