Courageous, consistent and persistent Peter Tatchell deserves Liberal award

Well done to Green and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell for being voted Liberal Voice of the Year. See the details as reported by Greens (here) and by Liberal Democrats (here). I very strongly agree with Peter's comments in response to winning this vote...

Peter Tatchell said:

"Wow! What an honour. I’m chuffed. Thanks to everyone who voted for me."I am honoured, but quite surprised, to win Liberal Voice of the Year, given that I'm a left-wing Green. It shows that Liberal Democrat Voice readers are non-sectarian and inclusive, putting values and principles above narrow party interests, which is how it should be. There are progressive people in all parties, apart from the BNP and possibly UKIP. We should work together more, focusing on what we have in common rather than on what divides us. In Britain, the combined supporters of liberal, green and left values constitute the majority. If people from these three political strands cooperated more closely, and if we had had a fair voting system, Britain need never again suffer a Conservative government. We could move the country forward on a progressive agenda for social justice, democratic reform, civil liberties and environmental renewal.At the international level, it has been a real privilege to write and campaign in support of the freedom struggles in Iran, Russia, Balochistan, Uganda, Iraq, Somaliland, West Papua, Sudan, Palestine and Saudi Arabia. The democracy activists in these countries are truly heroic and inspirational. I crawl in their shadows. One of the things I have learned from my 43 years of human rights campaigning is that no matter how small and weak we may feel, we can all help make a difference. I do my bit for human rights, as do millions of others. Together, cumulatively and collectively, slowly but surely, we are shaping a better world."

Bristol to Bath Railway Path damage

Copy of email sent to Cllr Jon Rogers this afternoon: You may have seen this post, with photos, on Chris Hutt's blog detailing damage to greenery on the railway path.

http://greenbristolblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/overkill.html

I'm very concerned about this - particularly the tree losses. They seem very over the top (and not the first time in council tree management history!).

Please look into this and let me know whether what's being done is absolutely necessary, is best practice and if so what kind of restoration work is planned.

___________________________________________________

Many thanks to Chris Hutt for bringing this to my attention and that of others.

___________________________________________________

Cllr Rogers posted this reply (below in bold italic*) on Chris Hutt's blog - do we buy all that the officer's say?? I dont agree with the 'low ecological value' statement for a start - they seem to have a very different view of the terms ecology and value to mine! All the techniques and processes used should be reviewed.

*

I have had the following officer response,

"We were aware of the sensitivity regarding the railway path and the potential negative impact on trees or vegetation. As such we have tried throughout the whole design process to limit this impact. Right at the start of this project we commissioned an Ecological survey. The survey identified that the habitats along the route were of low ecological value but that it was an important corridor of virtually continuous vegetation from the open countryside to highly urban parts of inner Bristol. It therefore enhances the ecology of a large part of Bristol by allowing species access to spaces such as gardens and parks. It is also of significant importance in providing a large number of people an opportunity to come into contact with wildlife.

*

"The dominant vegetation is secondary woodland dominated by ash and sycamore. We have worked in partnership with aboricultural colleagues in Parks to assess the quality of trees and the impact of the works on this and licences were granted by the Forestry Commission for felling. "There are two reasons for the felling the first being that the excavation of trenches ( into which lighting cables are to be laid) would require the cutting of tree roots. The root protection zone of a tree is generally 24 times the diameter of the tree stem. As a visual representation the roots underground generally mirror the extents of a trees canopy.

*

"The advice from colleagues in Parks is that trees do not survive if their roots are cut and the roots closest to the surface are the most important. The position of such trees could be remote from the line of the trench and to the general public could be seen as excessive clearance. The second reason for tree felling is to promote biodiversity within the corridor and this has taken place on the southern bank. A thick tree canopy prevents sun light to the ground flora limiting the number of species which then limits the quality of the habitat for fauna. The ecological diversity created retaining some of the cut back tree stumps and shrubs on a coppice cycle of regular cutting back can for example create more nesting sites for birds. The extra light that is let onto the ground will encourage more wild flowers, birds and butterflies and the additional insects using the space will also provide a richer feeding ground for bats.

*

"As mitigation we are planting new trees, which are native species unlike many of the self seeded trees. This planting was carried out in winter 2009 and more trees will be planted next week. During the informal consultation, carried out in June and July 2009 and throughout the planning process we attempted to explain that tree removal would be carried out and that new planting would take place.

*

"I trust this explains the approach we have taken and the reasons why."

*

I am deeply unhappy that the first that Gary and I hear about this is from emails and your blog. We have already asked that any Cycling City developments that affect mature and substantial trees should be discussed with us as Executive Members.This is a wonderful linear park and wildlife corridor, which we are determined to conserve and enhance as was confirmed by the motion we attempted to get through council in April 2008.

Rights and wrongs and animals

Copy of the press release sent out this afternoon by Vote Cruelty Free is below. Kerry McCarthy and I have signed up for respect for animals - so what about the Tory, Lib Dem and English Democrat candidates - will they be signing up too?

A second Bristol East candidate to Vote Cruelty Free, 19th January 2010

Green Party candidate, Glenn Vowles, has pledged his support for Vote Cruelty Free, a new non-partisan coalition of animal protection organisations working to put animals on the political agenda. He is the second candidate in Bristol East to back the coalition, following sitting MP Kerry McCarthy.

The alliance has sent its manifesto to all candidates announced for the next General Election and asked them to show their support for the issues raised. So far more than 170 candidates have pledged their support.

Glenn Vowles said, “I'm for high respect for animals and for the natural world of which people are a part. We should change the way we run our society and economy and the way we live our lives to practice true and genuine respect - in the interest of animals, of the natural world and of people.”

A Vote Cruelty Free spokesperson said, “Animal protection is an issue close to the UK public’s heart but this is often not reflected in current political debate. It is fantastic that Glenn Vowles has shown he believes in animal protection issues as much as his potential future constituents in Bristol East; we are calling on all candidates to follow his lead by pledging their support for Vote Cruelty Free.”

Vote Cruelty Free comprises the BUAV, Compassion in World Farming, IFAW in Action, League Against Cruel Sports and Respect for Animals. It covers a broad range of animal welfare issues including wild and marine animals, animal experimentation, cruel sports, the fur trade and farming.

Vote Cruelty Free is urging all candidates to pledge their support for the initiative. Voters can track candidates who have signed up by visiting the website at www.votecrueltyfree.org.

Two new web resources for biofuels & incineration...

From Jane Stevenson: The new "Action for Sustainable Energy in Bristol" campaign site has background info on the proposed biofuel plant in Bristol, and details of how to object to its planning application:

http://www.acseb.co.uk/

The hearing for the biofuel plant application has been moved to 24 February, so there is still some time to register your objections.

Avonmouth is under seige from a raft of planning applications - 2 biomass power stations, 1 biofuel power plant and 2 incinerators. While both incinerators are planned for Avonmouth, one falls in the Bristol authority area, and the other in South Gloucestershire. Either of them, ON THEIR OWN, would delivery more additional waste capacity in the region, than we need to process our own waste - and that's leaving aside the fact that incineration is grossly inefficient in terms of recovering the maximum amount of energy from our waste. The applications seem designed to bring imported waste into the region, from areas where they haven't got their recycling act together.

Deadlines for objections are now quite tight, and seem to be a bit of a moving target. Current advice is to get your objections registered in January.
http://www.bambi-network.org.uk/pages/youdo.php

Why vote Green? Part Two...

Elected Greens are making a vital difference – impacting well above party size. Voting in another Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative person means the status quo, politics as usual, big party domination or sometimes one party monopoly. Greens improve democracy and accountability. Current electoral law unfortunately makes no provision for Cllrs and MPs to be sacked (recalled) by their voters. Greens standing in Bristol in 2010 have thus decided to do it for themselves and give voters this power where they are elected. As reported in today’s Bristol Evening Post ('Greens will give 'power' to the people') all Bristol’s Green candidates have committed themselves to abiding by a recall system, giving their voters the ability to sack them if enough sign a petition. Green Cllr Charlie Bolton’s motion to Bristol City Council to set up a recall system locally was rejected by the big three parties.


This post is the second of a series giving positive reasons to vote Green in the run up to this years local elections and general election.

Same old Tories...

Excellent post on Dr Richard Lawson's blog. The Tory leopard has not changed its spots - its still very much a party that puts profit for a few before people's wellbeing. As for being genuinely green, well, that was always a joke.

http://greenerblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/tory-poll-of-candidates-still-nasty.html

Haiti Earthquake Appeal

Please consider making a donation to the Disasters Emergency Committee Haiti Earthquake Appeal: http://www.dec.org.uk/

The Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) was formed in 1963. We are an umbrella organisation for 13 humanitarian aid agencies. At times of overseas emergency, the DEC brings together a unique alliance of the UK's aid, corporate, public and broadcasting sectors to rally the nation's compassion, and ensure that funds raised go to DEC agencies best placed to deliver effective and timely relief to people most in need.

The DEC's remit is to unite agency efforts in times of disaster - such as flood, earthquake or famine - wherever it happens in the world. The way we at DEC approach our work is to maximise funds raised and ensure they are spent in an effective and fully accountable way.

'Knowledge' newsletter contributions

Been writing a series of brief articles on 'saving money, living healthily and going green' for Knowle West's 'Knowledge' newsletter for some time now. Thought I'd highlight them. There has always been a link to each article published in the right hand column of this blog - scroll down until you get to 'Green Scene: save money, live healthily, go green' and you'll see a list of links. The latest article (just sent to the editor), on 'technology' is copied below and other topics I've covered so far are:

water, waste, transport, measuring impacts, homes, holidays, gardens, food, Christmas, at work

______________________________________________________

Green Scene: ‘Technology’

Ideas for being green, efficient and thrifty!

* if away from your computer for over an hour switch it to sleep mode or turn it off, a computer monitor left on overnight wastes enough energy to print hundreds of A4 pages

* get your old computers and phones reused or recycled, various charities are available, 7 litres of crude oil are used just to make the plastic in one computer system

* look for the energy rating system when buying electrical equipment and buy more efficient models

When will bankers like this get their comeuppance?

Many people who saw or heard about the evidence given by Stephen Hester, Royal Bank of Scotland Chief Executive (pictured), to the Treasury Select Committe recently will share my anger I'm sure. There is no reasonable justification to award a £10 million pay package to this man - huge sums of public money had to be used to prop up the banking system! Its obscene, when there is so much need around, for anyone to be paid so much, whether banker, footballer or movie star. There is no way this is truly earned. Why have our politicians allowed such an unjust, unequal situation to develop?

We certainly need to redesign our financial system. It needs to serve the ‘real' economy that deals with goods, services, resources and the satisfaction of wants and needs. The big banks need breaking up. The ‘too big to fail' idea is seriously flawed. Banks need to be people and local community focussed. We also need a huge clampdown on tax avoidance - £10 billion in revenue can be generated, providing funds for investing in a secure and stable future.

For more Green views on banking go here and here.

Just to make it even worse for a Green, banker Stephen Hester and his partner are very keen foxhunters...

Green lead in Brighton...

From The Independent: The Green Party is on course to make a historic electoral breakthrough
by winning the Labour-held seat of Brighton Pavilion at the
forthcoming general election.

A poll of voting intentions carried out by ICM Research shows that the
Greens, who had their best-ever result in the constituency in 2005,
hold an eight-point lead over their nearest rivals, the Conservatives,
with the Greens on 35 per cent, the Tories on 27, Labour on 25 and the
Liberal Democrats on 11 per cent.

If repeated at the general election, the result would see the Greens
snatch the seat from Labour with a majority of 3,500 over the
Conservatives. The Green candidate, Caroline Lucas, the party leader
who is already an MEP, would take her seat at Westminster in a key
political advance for the British environmental movement. The UK
remains the only major European country which has never had Greens in
its national legislature.

Several developments boost the chance of Britain's first Green MP. The
first is that Brighton Pavilion's incumbent Labour member, David
Lepper, is standing down. Mr Lepper is a popular local figure. A key
factor in his holding on to the seat last time around was that he had
voted against the Iraq war.

The Greens' 2005 candidate there, Keith Taylor, scooped 22 per cent of
the vote, beating the Liberal Democrats for third place and coming
within 1,000 votes of pipping the Tories to second. That was the
party's best general election performance.

Another is that dissatisfaction with the Government of Gordon Brown
does not, in radical Brighton – perhaps Britain's most "alternative"
city – translate into automatic support for the Conservatives. If Ms
Lucas is seen as a credible "keep the Tories out" candidate, she will
likely attract considerable support.

But the most significant development is the candidature of Caroline
Lucas herself, Britain's most accomplished Green politician.
Articulate, passionate, radical without seeming threatening, the
former Oxfam adviser has been MEP for South-east England for 10 years,
and is a world away from the old image of the Green party activist as
someone who lived in a tepee eating brown rice.

She presides over a party which has shifted from its purely ecological
roots to an identity which might be described as radical social
democrat; although still with the most demanding agenda for fighting
climate change, and resolutely anti-nuclear, the Greens are now
equally concerned with job creation in the recession and defending the
NHS.

Besides a solid record of high-profile activism in the European
Parliament, Ms Lucas's achievement has been the modernising of her
party, by getting it to elect a single leader. For 20 years grassroots
Green activists rejected the "cult of leadership", condemning the
party to have several figures speaking for it at once, which meant
that the focus was hopelessly split and the Greens were consigned to
the political wilderness.

The Greens now have their best and highest-profile politician
standing, with no diversions of focus, for their most winnable
parliamentary seat.

The party has 126 councillors in 43 local authorities across Britain
as well as two MEPs, Caroline Lucas and Jean Lambert. It intends to
field a "half slate" of just under 300 candidates in the forthcoming
election, likely to be held in May.

But in what some may see as another sign of its political coming of
age, it is concentrating its efforts in just three target seats:
Brighton Pavilion, Lewisham Deptford and Norwich South.
In Norwich South, the party's deputy leader, Adrian Ramsay, is
standing against the former Labour cabinet minister (and leading
critic of Gordon Brown) Charles Clarke. The Greens have 13 councillors
in Norwich, making them the official opposition, and came first in the
city in last year's Euro elections.

In Lewisham Deptford they will field Darren Johnson, local councillor
and chair of the London Assembly, against Joan Ruddock, the minister
for Energy and Climate Change; they have six Green councillors in
Lewisham and in the most recent local elections polled 27 per cent.
But Brighton Pavilion represents their best chance of all, where Ms
Lucas may be part of the first all-woman slate in a British general
election.

Her Labour opponent is Nancy Platts, a former policy adviser and
campaigner in the trade union movement and the voluntary sector; their
Tory rival is Charlotte Vere, a businesswoman who is chief executive
of an online support network for the emotionally troubled, Big White
Wall. The Liberal Democrats have yet to adopt a candidate.

The Greens' hope is that in Brighton Pavilion, they, and not the
Tories, will benefit from Labour voters' disenchantment. The ICM poll
– at present – bears this out. For not only do the Greens have the
greatest support, with 35 per cent; what excites the party campaigners
is the large number of centre-left voters, Labour and Liberal
Democrats, likely to switch their vote to Green if the party is best
placed to stop a Tory win.

Almost two-thirds (63 per cent) of Labour and Liberal Democrat voters
polled indicated they would switch, with 37 per cent saying they were
"very likely" and 26 per cent saying they were "quite likely" to
switch in that situation.

Although the headline on the website of the Labour candidate, Nancy
Platts, asserts that "Voting Green Will Mean A Tory MP For Brighton" –
by splitting the Labour vote – it is clear that some Brighton Pavilion
electors take the opposite view, and consider that voting Green may
keep the Conservatives out – with historic consequences.

By Michael McCarthy, Environmental Editor
Monday, 11 January 2010

No proper systems thinking in transport

This story 'Bristol rail link could be scrapped in favour of bendy buses' (Post, 13 Jan) and the ensuing online debate shows that we dont yet seem capable of building a properly integrated transport system which makes the best use of the most appropriate technologies. Rational assessment of transport needs? Comparing and contrasting rail vs bendy-bus [and other]technologies? I think not. Some faceless person, somewhere decided long ago to favour bendy buses in Bristol and the surrounding areas and proper assessment has gone out of the window.

There is fair bit of argy bargy (though not in the same sense as in a rugby union match!) between cycling and rail enthusiasts on the Post's website. There has also been argy bargy between the various councils in the West of England who have not been able to work together effectively to develop a proper integrated transport system run by an area transport authority as a proper public service. Where is the cooperation and joined up thinking ie systems thinking?? Where is the full and proper technology assessment?

I'm not a big fan of bendy buses/bus rapid transit (BRT) and its a shame that for the moment its the only game in town with serious money available. For me it is of very limited ambition. The sums involved are too small. The coordination is rubbish - and as for genuinely participative planning using social, economic and environmental information made available in a early, timely and effective way just forget it!!

I've been to many public meetings about BRT, especially about proposals in/near Knowle. I've put questions about the cost-benefit analysis they say they go through: what techniques are used for assessing non-market costs and benefits eg health, social changes? Why/how is a money value assigned? Is the net present value of each course/option assessed? What discount rate is used - and if the discount rate is fairly high does this mean a low value is assigned to the longer term? Does the 'currency' used in cost-benefit have to be money eg why not energy?? Often I'm fobbed off or only get a partial answer and I'm always given the impression that there are very large scale accuracy [more like inaccuracy!] issues which mean that you can choose to get the outcome politically chosen as opposed to objectively decided.

Bristol East Parliamentary Candidate

Copy of press release issued today: The Green Party has chosen Glenn Vowles to contest the Bristol East seat in this year’s general election.

Glenn Vowles, 48, who teaches Environmental Decision Making and Environmental Studies with the Open University has been a general election candidate on two previous occasions. He is also their lead campaigner in Knowle where he has helped to triple the Green vote to over 15% in recent years. He contested the Eastville seat in the 2009 local elections, raising to green vote there to 14%. His Vowles the Green blog is very well known and he writes regularly in the local press.

"I’m very excited to be contesting this seat for the Greens. Our current politicians and the systems they have created are self-serving and inadequate. I think voters should empowered with the ability to recall, effectively sack, MPs who break rules. This has been a longstanding Green Party policy and there is no better time for it than now.”

"There is very little to choose between the ‘big three’ parties and voting for them will fundamentally change nothing " Vowles said.

"The Green Party is about thinking afresh about the kind of economy, society and politics that is ethical and can sustain us and future generations. "

“The Government has become pretty unpopular and this is likely to increase those voting Green in Bristol East.”

Following a review by the Boundary Commission, Easton and Lawrence Hill wards have been moved from Bristol East (to Bristol West) and the electoral wards that now make up the Bristol East constituency are Brislington East, Brislington West, Eastville, Frome Vale, Hillfields, St George East, St George West, Stockwood.

[Picture, top left, shows all prospective candidates so far confirmed: Kerry McCarthy, Labour, centre; and going clockwise from top left are Conservative Adeela Shafi; English Democrat Scott Wright; the Greens Glenn Vowles; Liberal Democrat Mike Popham]

Highlighted by snow and ice...

The snow and sub-zero temperatures have certainly revealed the power of nature – to produce both problems, such as safely transporting goods and people over distances, and opportunities, such as for local shops and the UK skiing industry.

The cold/snowy period has revealed our energy insecurity, with gas supplies running much lower than they should be allowed to, surely even more clearly making the case for Government action to insulate all homes to a high standard, free of charge, beginning with the poorest and most inefficient. This also makes the case for much greater diversity in our energy supplies.

To our shame this period has shown that councils and govt can plan to spread grit to keep the motorways open and keep the economy going but gritting in and around elderly peoples homes and our kids schools is not a priority.

On a more positive note recent days have shown us the value of neighbours and community spirit, with stories of people checking on their older neighbours, helping out those who’ve become stuck, and clearing areas for themselves because the council cant/wont get there to do it (surely highlighting the case for giving people more power and resources to do more things for themselves locally…).

Why vote Green? Part One...

Fresh, innovative thinking and action is being initiated all over the country and further afield by hundreds of Greens elected as Members of the European Parliament, Members of the Scottish Parliament, London Assembly Members, and Councillors such as the large groups in Brighton and Norwich... Greens ask questions, propose ways of approaching problems and opportunities and put forward solutions that other parties certainly do not. Dont let Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives continue to get away with the mess they've made through the self-serving political system they've created - they want you to think that a green vote is a wasted one because they want the status quo and to stop you getting what you want ie change!!

Loads of examples of green action from these sites:

http://www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk/

http://www.greenmeps.org.uk/

http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/site/5

http://robinharper.wordpress.com/

http://www.patrickharviemsp.com/

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/members/jonesj.jsp

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/members/johnsond.jsp

http://www.brightonhovegreens.org/localsites/bh/city-councillors.html

http://www.norwichgreenparty.org/

This post is the first of a series giving positive reasons to vote Green in the run up to this years local elections and general election.

The 2010 General Election...or should that be horse race?

The media have become very excited at the prospect of a general election and the big parties are reported as having begun their campaigns already!! I doubt that the public are relishing 5 or 6 months of the usual spin and drivel we get from the big three parties!! There are questions that need to be addressed about current electoral law and processes however. Is fair and broad debate facilitated? Does media coverage and access serve the public need and interest? Is the electoral system the most democratic? Have we got the law on party funding right?

In my view the process of an election is important as well as the outcome and it should be treated as such. Yet the media persistently talk of elections as merely a kind of horse race – both the local paper and BBC Newsnight's Michael Crick basing recent general election reports around betting odds ('Place your bets now for Bristol's 10 seats in the 2010 General Election', Post, Dec 31 '09 for instance) . This does not help us have full, fair and proper debate.

Past elections I’ve contested have been particularly uninspiring and lifeless, so its no wonder that younger people, women and various ethnic groups aren’t encouraged to get involved as candidates, spokespersons, interviewers…Debates, present and future agendas and learning processes are very important – not everyone fights every general election seat to win this time around, some may not fight to win at all.

Greens will certainly be fighting to win in several parts of the country. A poll conducted mid Dec 2009 in Brighton Pavillion showed a 10 point Green lead over Labour and an 8 point lead over the Conservatives in this target constituency. Prospects in Norwich South and in Lewisham Deptford are also good. In other parts of the country Greens will seek and expect to build their support, influence debates and agendas and contribute to social learning.

The narrowness of the debate amongst the ‘big three’ parties is part of the problem. There is a large measure of agreement between them – they are all consumer capitalists and all have plans to cut vital services!! Debate at the general election is likely to centre on tax and spending differences of less than 1% of national wealth. All the big parties make claims to be radical, all claim to be committed to sustainable development – but none of them have taken action to make any fundamental changes! I’ve recently taken a look back at my general election leaflets from 1987 (see the rather tired leaflet below) and 2001 (pictured top left) and issues of reconciling our economy and society with the environment then raised by Greens like me are now very much more serious and urgent.

Agreement between parties could be taken to mean that things are pretty much ok – but look around you!! There are many fundamental problems, for future generations and in other parts of the globe in particular. Thus Greens like me contest elections to: offer voters a radical option; demonstrate that to genuinely solve problems the interconnections and interrelationships between economic, social, political and environmental factors must be addressed; raise the really big issues like the gap between rich and poor here and globally, caring for the elderly, climate change and our energy-hungry lifestyles, global justice, democracy and the EU, how we can live our lives now so that future generations can also lead decent lives with real choices.

*

Provision of environmental information and for public participation all too often late, inadequate, ineffective

For someone who often professes firm belief in public participation the response of Lib Dem Cllr Jon Rogers to my recent question to the Bristol City Council Cabinet is utterly dismissive eg zero response is given to my question on what actions he proposes and when, even though there is acknowledgement that full compliance with the convention/directives is not currently being achieved...

QUESTION A 6 - Questions from Glenn Vowles

Public participation and environmental information

During 1998 the UN Economic Commission for Europe prepared a Convention on Access
to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in
Environmental Matters (The Aarhus Convention). In 2003 the European Commission
developed two Directives to implement the provisions of the Aarhus Convention. Article 6.2
of the convention states, ‘The public shall be informed, either by public notice or
individually as appropriate, early in an environmental decision-making procedure, and in
an adequate, timely and effective manner, inter alia, of…the fact that the activity is subject
to…environmental impact procedure.’ (UNECE, 1998).

Q. Is the member completely satisfied that all significant developments in Bristol, such
as the South Bristol Link or the many proposals for dealing with waste or for energy
generation in Avonmouth, like the biofuel power station, or Bus Rapid Transit plans
or developments on green belt land such as the BCFC stadium…involve provision
of environmental information and for public participation that is in full accord with the
Aarhus Convention and associated EU Directives ie that it is early, adequate,
timely and effective? If not satisfied, what actions does he propose and when?

A. I am satisfied that the council is endeavouring to meet these obligations fully
when progressing its major schemes.

Waffle, banal generalities and avoidance in answer to specific questions

Received this inadequate response to specific questions about making the meaning of sustainable economic growth explicit in key council documents. The answer is waffle which repeats the error of not spelling out exactly what is meant by sustainable economic growth, instead talking in rather banal and and over-used generalities. Once again I've been pawned off with one response to several questions - they dont want to respond to specifics.

QUESTION A 5 - Questions from Glenn Vowles

Sustainability - Core Strategy

Q. The current draft version of the recently developed BDF Core Strategy contains this
statement, ‘ambitious and sustainable economic growth…maintaining the economic growth of Bristol above the regional and national level…’

1. Would the member recognise that this statement requires very heavy qualification to
make it remotely logical or possible on into the future given environmental, social
and indeed economic realities?

2. Would he agree with me that this statement should be qualified using the
concepts: efficiency; environmental limits; renewability; both local and global justice,
now and on into the future; health, wellbeing and quality of life, given that these are
the key features of development that makes it sustainable?

3. Would he agree with me that unless we make full and proper use of the term
sustainable in key documents, especially when paired with economic growth, the
way is open for ‘business as usual’ developments which will maintain or worsen
environmental and social sustainability here and around the globe?

A. The Core Strategy contains 11 Objectives to deliver the Council's spatial vision
for Bristol in 2026. The statement identified in the question is taken from Objective 3
of the Core Strategy. The first of these objectives is 'Ensuring a sustainable future
for Bristol'. The objectives, and the policies of the Core Strategy, are designed to
work together to bring the spatial vision into reality.

Sustainable development encompasses the community's social, economic and
environmental well being. The Core Strategy is right to aim for ambitious and
sustainable economic growth which will provide jobs and opportunity for our
residents. The Core Strategy is also right to promote health and well-being and to
make Bristol a leader in mitigating and adapting to climate change, implementing
low-carbon approaches to development.

The Core Strategy sets out bold aspirations for the city and will be a key driver of
sustainable development. Its policies will deliver flexible and adaptable new
buildings and a pattern of development which makes efficient use of resources. It
will also help to facilitate the growth and development of Bristol's diverse economic
sectors, including the new environmental technology sectors which will be at the
heart of tomorrow's economy.

This is not business as usual. The Core Strategy is a positive response to local and
global issues which will help bring about beneficial change.

Newquay Rd playing fields...latest

Reporting back on submitting my e-petition on Saving Newquay Rd Playing Fields to the December BCC Cabinet meeting along with the question shown below. Whilst I welcome the recognition of the value of the open space I note that future plans for developing on them are not ruled out - and I dont welcome the amalgamation of the primary schools or the continued uncertainty surrounding what may happen as a result.

QUESTION A 1 Question from Glenn Vowles

Ilminster Avenue and Connaught Primary Schools / Newquay Road green space

What is the latest information on the [formerly?] proposed merger of Ilminster Ave and
Connaught Primary schools and what is the future of the associated playing fields/green
space off Newquay Rd given regeneration planning for the area?

Answer
On the 25th September 2008, Cabinet (CAB 21.9/08) approved a number of
recommendations concerning primary school provision within Bristol. Within the Extended
School Partnership (ESP) area S2, the amalgamation of Connaught Primary School and
Illminster Avenue Primary School in Phase 2 at two forms of entry was approved as a
Phase 2 project (2010-2013). The project was to be referred to the Knowle West
regeneration group to confirm preferred location and the impact on the wider regeneration
scheme.

A report has been commissioned from Cambridge Education Ltd to explore the options
available in light of the Knowle West regeneration consultation proposals. We are still
awaiting the report. Any possible merger of the Ilminster Avenue and Connaught primary
schools has been deferred pending the review by the specialist consultant. The
educational and developmental needs of local children will be paramount when it comes to
making a decision.

The Council have no plans to dispose of, or develop upon, the Newquay Rd playing fields
or adjacent children's playground. This open space is a valuable facility providing for play
and recreation for local people.

The 'Knowle West' area of South Bristol, in which these facilities are located, is expected
to benefit from substantial regeneration investment in future years as a result of the
'Knowle West Regeneration Framework' which is being put together with the help of local
people. This investment will improve local facilities and opportunities.

Update on Sustainable Communities Act proposals made

I submitted a long list of suggestions to Bristol City Council's Sustainable Communities Act process (see here and here). Two proposals, one joint (on waste reduction) and one individual (on biodiversity/eco-footprinting in planning), have got through for consideration by the Secretary of State according to the email, below, I received today:

Dear Ms White and Mr Vowles,

Just a quick update to say that the LGA Selector Panel have now met and agreed the final shortlist for submission to the Secretary of State. I'm pleased to say seven of Bristol's eight suggestions have made it through, including both of your shortlisted suggestions as highlighted below.

I do not yet know why there has been a change in decision regarding biodiversity data suggestion, but it is recorded as going through to the Secretary of State, which is excellent.

For further information, please see our updated webpage www.bristol.gov.uk/sca

The LGA have advised they will be in contact in the New Year to advise on the next steps, so once I know more I will let you know.

Kind regards,

Deborah

Deborah Kinghorn
Policy Officer
Bristol City Council
Deputy Chief Executive's department
Room 404
Council House
College Green
Bristol

Biofuel power station impacts 'not significant' say council

Very recent email sent to city council planners (*below). Apparently the biofuel power station planned for Avonmouth is considered too small at 50MW to make providing an environmental impact statement mandatory (it would need to be 300MW or more for this). A statement could still be prepared as the power station plan falls into the optional category but city planners dont think its impacts are 'significant' enough to make a statement a requirement - such is the state of environmental regulation at present!

*Many thanks for your reply and attached document received before Christmas.
I'm both surprised and rather shocked that a city with green ambitions is
saying that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required in this
instance. It appears you have concluded that there can be no significant
impacts. In my personal and professional view this cannot be right. The
city should be insisting that all power station developments add to
efficiency, renewability, health and wellbeing and stay within
environmental limits - if it is to live up to its ambitions.

Leaving aside the enormously significant fact that you dont take a whole
system view (eg not considering the total impacts of obtaining the fuels
to be burned...) surely the impact on local air quality is significant in
a crucial sense. Air quality in Avonmouth is already poor and many other
developments in Avonmouth are underway or in the pipeline, therefore if
this biofuel power station cannot meet the very strictest emission to air
standards (which current figures suggest it cannot) then its operation
would worsen air quality still further.

It may well be that the Environment Agency would not give the station a
license to operate due to its air pollution. Could you please take what
I've said fully into account and check with your contacts at Natural
England and the Environment Agency (I'd appreciate it if you could give me
the direct contact details for both these organisations so that I too can
discuss the issue with them).

I'd also appreciate an update on when/where the plans will go to the
planning committee when you have such information.

Leaders election debate: undemocratic if restricted to three

‘Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Tory leader David Cameron and the Lib Dems' Nick Clegg agreed to election debates, on the BBC, ITV and Sky.
It is the first time in British political history that the main party leaders have agreed to take part in a televised debate.’ , says the BBC website. But these people lead the political status quo – and that is more discredited now than it has ever been!! Can any of them say that they are proud of the political system they have created and are a part of?

The truth is that there is very little difference between them in practice and it certainly suits their political agenda to exclude others. People surely have a right to see and hear a broad range of political leaders, including the Greens, Scottish and Welsh Nationalists, UKIP, Respect? After all in the recent local and European elections the interest in parties other than Labour the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats was higher than ever – in Bristol the Green Euro vote was higher than Labour for instance. Why not conduct a poll and see which parties the public want represented in the leaders election debate?

Climate denial: what is the truth?

How is anyone supposed to take seriously Eddie Smith’s letter (‘Any damage done to our climate was done long ago’, Post, December 8)? In attempting to debunk human- caused climate change he is of the view that the world’s climate scientists either don’t understand or have forgotten Archimedes Principle for goodness sake! Its not hard to find many such examples* - the nature and enormity of the problem is causing many people to search around for reasons not to believe it and to wait for someone else to act rather than take their share of personal responsibility. We see angry outright denial, scapegoat seeking, deliberate boasts about wastefulness, projection of anxiety onto something more manageable, or most common of all – people shutting out all information and just not thinking about the problem.

People are being helped to find reasons not to believe by very poor leadership from politicians who for decades have talked a lot, done nothing and now failed in Copenhagen. They’ve also been helped by the poor state of communication between scientists, politicians and the public. However, none of this changes the basic bio-physical facts. Climate change is an inconvenient truth – and we all have to face up to it. We’ve gone beyond the stage of fundamental dispute about the core science and entered a phase of finding out what it takes for us all to accept both the truth of climate change and most of all - its implications.
__________________________________________________

*Eddie also: mixes up toxic smogs with climate change – they have features in common but are distinct issues; talks of a warm period in the middle ages as if the whole globe was involved – it wasn’t, medieval warming was only regional; says the temperature has not risen for ten years – but the last decade has been the warmest in human history according to organisations like the Met Office and NASA and its trends over time that are correct climate science; compares the scientific reports on climate change to the Iraq ‘dodgy dossier’ – the scientific reports are peer reviewed, are many and varied, have appeared over many years, featuring stronger and stronger evidence as time has passed.
__________________________________________________

The picture above is taken from a You Tube clip that features David Attenborough and Prof Peter Cox on natural vs human-caused climate change. The red line shows the measured temperature trend, the green line the model prediction using only natural factors and the yellow line the model prediction using human and natural factors. You can see the clip in less than 3 minutes here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

Reclaim Power action today, Copenhagen summit

Here's my guest post on today's Reclaim Power action at COP15. Thanks v much, Catherine, Camp for Climate Action

Today grassroots activists from all over the world marched on the COP15 summit with the aim of taking over the conference for one day and transforming it into a People’s Assembly. The Reclaim Power action was intended to give a voice to those who are not being heard, to be an opportunity to change the agenda, to discuss the real solutions, to send a clear message to the world calling for climate justice.

After mass arrests of protestors and street medics who gathered at the meeting point, over 1000 people made their way to the Bella Center, many crossing the police tape and trying to run into the conference space. After being forced back by police batons, dogs and pepper spray, some tried to sneak in over an inflatable bridge!

Indigenous delegates led the group who marched out from the Bella Centre to attempt to join the activists. Police reportedly used batons on delegates inside the centre trying to get out – [http://indymedia.dk/action_timelines/16th-dec] However despite heavy repression, 500-600 people attended a People’s Assembly, while two activists got into the conference centre and disrupted the plenary.
[See photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/21552129@N03/]

Before the action many NGOs including Friends of the Earth and Via Campesina were barred from the talks that day while corporate lobbyists such as BMW were allowed in. However, there are billions of people globally who (unlike the NGOs) were never invited and don’t have a voice. These elitist and undemocratic talks are part of a political and economic system that puts corporate profits before the needs of people. The market based solutions being pushed in the UN Climate talks lead to ‘climate colonialism’ through land grabbing and accelerating the transfer of wealth from the exploited to an elite.

This action is about recognizing the power we have to change things when we work together. Throughout history changes have been made by ordinary people doing extraordinary things, from the suffragettes to the civil rights movement to indigenous groups reclaiming their land from multinational corporations.

This economic system is driving climate change – the pursuit of infinite economic growth is an impossible dream on a planet with finite resources. The pursuit of profit at any cost is detrimental to life. We need system change, not climate change - come and join those creating and fighting for a world which is both just and sustainable.

News from campaigners in Copenhagen...

From Catherine, Camp for Climate Action, Copenhagen: Thanks for reacting so promptly to our email earlier! Here's some of our best footage from the streets of Copenhagen for the past couple of days.

Tens of thousands marching for climate justice: http://blip.tv/file/2967354 Contains an eyewitness account of the mass arrests of peaceful demonstrators that made headlines yesterday.

And some more raw from-the-street footage from a climate camper http://qik.com/video/3906448

Here's a soundclip that traveled around Twitter today of climate camper Amelia Gregory escaping the mass arrests http://ipad.io/DKQ

An interview with a spoof carbon trader http://indymedia.dk/videos/1678

We are also pooling pictures from the protests at http://www.flickr.com/groups/climatecampcopenhagen2009/ Feel free to get in touch if you're looking for a specific protest-related image.

A lot of people at the first big demo hoped for a global, fair and legally binding deal... but what now, after many third world countries have walked out on the negotiations after being excluded by the rich world? We will continue going out on the streets to expose the flaws in the talks and will be in touch again soon.

I could write a guest post before the Climate Justice Action march on the 16th

20 mph areas cut road casualties by over 40%...

Good to see that ‘Bristol's 20mph zones move step closer’ (Post, Dec 11), at least in chunks of south and east Bristol. The council should have brought in 20 mph as the default speed in residential areas yrs ago though – and its arguable (or maybe its my impatience with slow change?) that they could be moving faster now (the proposals have gone out for consultation so no implementation yet!). Another thing is why just chunks of south and east Bristol? Why not cover the whole of residential Bristol? After all we know it saves lives – research on the effects of London’s 20 mph zones just published in the British Medical Journal, widely reported today, says ‘The introduction of 20 mph zones was associated with a 41.9% …reduction in road casualties…’

The BMJ goes on, ‘The percentage reduction was greatest in younger children and greater for the category of killed or seriously injured casualties than for minor injuries. There was no evidence of casualty migration to areas adjacent to 20 mph zones, where casualties also fell slightly by an average of 8.0% (4.4% to 11.5%).

Conclusions 20 mph zones are effective measures for reducing road injuries and deaths.’

Grow some fruit trees in your garden...give a tree as a Christmas present...

A few yrs ago I planted dwarf apple, cherry and fig trees in our back garden, to accompany the plum tree (a gift from my father in law) I planted nearly 20 yrs ago. The plum always produces loads of fruit and this yr we've had good amounts from the others too - for very little effort! Very happy to pass on this message I've received from Clare Hawtins of GROFUN:

Buy a Fruit Tree! Growing an apple, pear, plum or cherry tree is easy, requires very little work, little space and yields delicious home-grown fruit year after year. Why not treat yourself or someone else to a life long Christmas present?

Eastside Roots are taking orders now for deliveries in late January 2010. Trees are £15 and all profits go to Eastside Roots Community Garden Centre and support its ongoing work. Closing date for orders is 18/01/2010

Visit the website for easy and secure online ordering.
http://www.eastsideroots.org.uk/fruittreeorder09

_______________

Eastside Roots is on a mission… to encourage everyone in Bristol to grow a fruit tree in their garden, allotment, school or community space. They aim to improve access to fresh fruit, reduce food miles, increase biodiversity and turn Bristol into a ‘virtual orchard.’

Earlier this year saw the launch of this campaign with several hundred fruit trees being distributed to local residents who have joined the scheme. Eastside Roots continue this initiative in the hope that hundreds more trees will be planted across the city and more people can enjoy the benefits of growing their own.

The '...zombie economy that inhabits a netherworld between life and death' (The Cuts Wont Work)

I agree very strongly with the second report of the Green New Deal group entitled 'The Cuts Wont Work' (extract below from the Executive Summary) available from the New Economics Foundation when they assert that their Green New Deal will reduce the public debt, cut carbon emissions, increase energy security and reduce fuel poverty:

*

The notion that the most acute financial crisis since the Great Depression is now a thing of the past sounds unerringly like the politicians who, in August 1914, promised that the Great War would be all over by Christmas. Instead, it was the start of a 30-year crisis that embraced two world wars, an economic slump unrivalled since the dawn of the industrial age, and the rise of brutal totalitarian governments. Just as in 1914, the global balance of power is changing, with China threatening America’s hegemony in the way that America and Germany rivalled Britain a century ago. Just as in 1914, an established economic order has been uprooted. Then it was the Gold Standard, free trade and unrestricted capital flows. Today it is the dollar, free trade and unrestricted capital flows.

Add in the new ingredients – the battle for control over resources and global warming – and everything is in place for a prolonged period of upheaval. There will be periods, similar to that in the middle to late 1920s, when the global economy goes through a benign patch, but the respite will be brief. Even feeble economies show occasional signs of health if they are provided with enough support. But make no mistake: what we have now is a zombie economy that inhabits a netherworld between life and death.

When is a resource renewable?

Its wrong to say that the oils extracted from palm and jatropha that would be used to power the biofuel plant proposed for Avonmouth are renewable (‘Renewable Fuel, But How Green Is it?’, Post Dec 5). Plant oils can be renewable in principle but in practice are only renewable resources if they are sustainably managed and subject to widely accepted, independently verified certification. The fact that the plan is to use imported, non-recycled oils, from plants intensively grown as a monoculture using artificial fertilisers, in very poor, increasingly deforested countries, automatically counts against them for a start!

We should be learning from our experience with other resources, such as soil, wood or fish. We’ve made some progress here. These are, in principle, renewable but certainly are not if taken from the environment at a rate greater than they are produced or if they are are managed in an irresponsible way. We know that the Soil Association organic certification means good, responsible soil management – and we have the Forestry Stewardship Council certification for sustainable wood and Marine Stewardship Council certification for more responsible fishing.

In contrast to the progress with soil, wood and fish there is no proper certification for oil from jatropha plants – and the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil has been very strongly criticized for certifying palm oil from companies responsible for deforestation and peatland destruction, for decimating biodiversity (including orangutan populations) and for violating the rights of communities, including indigenous peoples (details). Surely a city with genuine green ambitions would not permit a power station that uses these oils??

Avonmouth imported biofuel power station plan: no environmental impact assessment conducted!!

Been looking closely at the planning application to build a biofuel power station in Avonmouth. Seems to me that there are several flaws in the application itself let alone all the surrounding local impacts and global environmental justice and human rights issues previously outlined. Most notably there is no environmental impact statement – and no indication that any kind of environmental impact assessment procedure has been or will be conducted. Under the European Council Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment, 97/11/EC, an environmental impact assessment is mandatory for ‘Thermal power stations and other combustion installations…’ (EC EIA Directive Annex I projects).

To make matters worse, from a personal involvement viewpoint, I called the Bristol Council Case Officer dealing with this application on Monday of this week and left a message with detailed queries – and called again the following day, leaving my details on his answerphone, because although there was a promise of a return call it did not materialise. It’s the end of the week now and I’ve still not had my calls returned!! As a consequence I’ve been unable to ask why there is no environmental impact assessment and whether one will be conducted at some point soon. Yet this city claims its green credentials are good!!

The EIA Directive (EU legislation) on Environmental Impact Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment was introduced in 1985 and was amended in 1997. Member States have to transpose the amended EIA Directive by 14 March 1999 at the latest.

The EIA procedure ensures that environmental consequences of projects are identified and assessed before authorisation is given. The public can give its opinion and all results are taken into account in the authorisation procedure of the project. The public is informed of the decision afterwards.

The EIA Directive outlines which project categories shall be made subject to an EIA, which procedure shall be followed and the content of the assessment.

Following the signature of the Aarhus Convention by the Community on 25 June 1998, the Community adopted in May 2003 Directive 2003/35/EC amending amongst others the EIA Directive. This Directive intends to align the provisions on public participation in accordance with the Aarhus Convention on public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters.

Climate change debate and action - in a nutshell

From One Hundred Months: Dear Friend, In just seven days the world meets in Copenhagen, to do the deal for our climate.

World leaders, including Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and President Barack Obama, are going.

OneHundredMonths friend, Dr Rajendra Pachauri - Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says we have just months to take large scale action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Unless we act now, climate scientists say we are on our way to six degrees of global warming. Disaster.

So let's take action, watch and share the information ...

Start or join a Vigil for Survival.

Make The Wave.

Deeply uncool.

Vote with The Angry Mermaid.

Tell the President of Indonesia to crack down on deforestation.

It's raining polar bears (Warning - contains gore. Not Al Gore. Just gore.)

The winners of OneMinuteToSaveTheWorld.

Al Gore rap.

In Copenhagen.

And finally, here's a vision.

Let's make this month count.

Many thanks for all you do.

The OneHundredMonths Crew


Tell your friends to come together for OneHundredMonths

Be our friend on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Be a partner - send your logo to contact@onehundredmonths.org

Read more in our monthly blog.

Tree O'Clock world record attempt

Heard about this whilst watching Autumnwatch on the BBC: As part of national tree week, Tree O'Clock is a world record attempt to plant the most trees in one hour. Saturday, 5th December, 11am - 12 noon.

Click here to get more info on why plant a tree and other faqs.

If you want to get involved through an organisation, school or community group, or if you want to plant more than 5 trees, see the Tree O'Clock Partner page.

Biofuels for Bristol (??): Public Meeting this Thursday, 7pm, Arnolfini

Despite serious concerns about the impacts of biofuels in general and vegetable oils like palm oil in particular on the climate, on forests and other ecosystems and on communities in the global South, as well as concerns over air pollution and public health in nearby areas biofuel (sometimes called Agrofuel) power station planning applications are springing up from a number of companies in several parts of the UK, including Bristol (more details on other parts of the UK from Food Not Fuel.

W4B Energy announced plans in April 2009 to build a 20MW power station at Balaclava Bay, Portland, Dorset. They were refused planning permission by Weymouth and Portland Council in September 2009 but have now submitted plans for a 50MW power station in Bristol at Avonmouth Docks, (application number 09/03235/F) as well as re-submitting plans in Portland. The Avonmouth plans are now being considered by Bristol City Council and a decision is expected as early as January 2010 (documents relating to the plans are here).

W4B are openly planning to use imported palm oil - Portland and Bristol are well suited to taking oil deliveries directly off tankers. The proposed power station would burn 90,000 tonnes of vegetable oil, most likely palm oil, every year.They have also put forward jatropha as a possible fuel - yet jatropha is not yet commercially available, many plantings are failing and thousands of people have already lost their land and livelihood for jatropha plantations to feed Europe’s biofuel market. A May 2009 report from Friends of the Earth demolishes the claims that jatropha can be sustainable because its grown on marginal lands with little need for water and fertiliser.

Unsustainable economics, unsustainable standards

Under the UK Government Renewables Obligation, companies producing electricity from renewable sources like solar, wind, hydro get a subsidy. This subsidy is also available for electricity generated in biofuel power stations. The allocation of this subsidy as 'Renewable Obligation Certificates' (ROCs) is the responsibility of OFGEM. Just as with biofuels used for transport, UK taxpayers are subsidising a false climate change solution – we just don’t have adequate standards and systems set up to guarantee socially and environmentally sustainable biofuel production at present.

At the moment, the only ‘internationally recognised certification scheme’ for imported biofuel feedstock is the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). This has been strongly criticized for certifying palm oil from companies responsible for deforestation and peatland destruction, for decimating biodiversity (including orangutan populations) and for violating the rights of communities, including indigenous peoples. According to Greenpeace: “deforestation, deep
peat conversion, land disputes and illegal practices continue to occur in the plantation estates owned by a company that is RSPO certified for part of its operations.” Walhi, Friends of the Earth Indonesia, has warned: "RSPO is designed to legitimate the continuous expansion of the palm oil industry, but any model that includes the conversion of natural habitats into largescale monoculture plantations will never be sustainable." and a declaration signed by 256 organisations condemns the RSPO for “greenwashing” inherently unsustainable oil palm plantations and practices by palm oil palm oil companies. Certification schemes for soya and other feedstocks are also being developed, and have been criticised on the same grounds.

The Royal Society report Sustainable Biofuels: prospects and challenges, Jan 2008, expressed serious concerns about unsustainable practices, lost opportunities, the need for proper sustainability criteria, the need for land use to be given greater priority and large scale uncertainty about current estimates of impacts, as this extract from the report conclusion shows

‘The dangers of producing biofuels in unsustainable ways have been highlighted, and it is taken as given that unsustainable practices will not be ‘exported’ by the UK through its import policies….However, there is a unique opportunity internationally, not only to avoid such problems, but to produce biofuels in ways that would help to restore degraded farmlands, woodlands, forests and watersheds. In order to facilitate this, the development of sustainability criteria for biofuels and land use need to be given greater priority and momentum in international negotiations. Furthermore effective mechanisms need to be put in place to facilitate technology transfer….Elsewhere in the report, we also highlight the significant uncertainty in the estimates of the impacts (environmental, social and economic) of biofuels.’

Unsustainable land use

The relatively small amount of electricity generated consumes a very large quantity of biofuel. In turn this requires an extremely large area of land to grow the crops, whether in the UK or abroad – land which already has many pressures upon it eg to grow sufficient food of good quality, to maintain varied animal and plant populations, to maintain the ability of land to process carbon, various nutrients and water, to provide healthy leisure, educational and recreational opportunities for people, for housing, roads and so on. Food Not Fuel go through the figures here, stating ‘Ten power stations would be using 67,000 hectares - a land area that could feed a city the size of Belfast!’

Unsustainable climate impacts

Campaigners are very concerned that when full and proper carbon equivalent accounting is done burning vegetable oils emits up to 70% more greenhouse gas emissions than diesel oil - even if it is grown in the UK. A 2007 study by chemistry Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen and others suggested that the use of rapeseed biodiesel was associated with 70% more greenhouse gas emissions than the use of equivalent amounts of mineral diesel, due to nitrous oxide emissions from synthetic fertilizer use. Nitrous oxide is nearly 300 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.

Peat expert Professor Siegert of Munich University has said about palm oil power stations in Germany: "We were able to prove that the making of these plantations and the burning of the rainforests and peat areas emits many thousands of times as much CO2 as we then are able to prevent by using palm oil. And that is a disastrous balance for the climate."

Unsustainable social and health impacts

The environmental and social impacts of using imported vegetable oil, typically palm oil, are worse. This Biofuelwatch paper explains clearly why the UK agrofuel power industry is likely to import at least some of its fuel, and why this is more damaging.

Burning vegetable oil in power stations, whether grown in the UK or imported, results in high emissions of nitrogen-oxide gases, which can cause or worsen asthma and other lung diseases. It could also cause more emissions of tiny air-borne particles (known as PM 2.5) linked to premature deaths from heart and lung diseases and possibly cause more cot deaths in babies. The Blue NG power stations in Beckton and Southall are both in urban areas with crowded streets and road traffic congestion, and close to airports, where air quality is already not good – as is the case with Avonmouth!

The ravenous need for crops, such as palm, to create the oil required for these stations, often results in violent evictions of indigenous peoples and peasant farmers who receive no compensation, and have no where else to go. With them, thousands of species are threatened with extinction, including the orangutan, and Sumatran tigers and elephants.

In a world where one in six people are in hunger, ie one billion, industrial scale biofuels, which mean that more and more land is used for fuel, rather than for food, are condemned as a "crime against humanity" by the UN’s Jean Zeigler (see here for details).

These stations are planned around the country including Avonmouth, Bristol with minimal or no public consultation. The provision of environmental information is often very poor, making effective participation difficult eg there is still no environmental impact statement available for the proposed Avonmouth power station.

It will make world food prices higher as vegetable oil will be used for electricity instead of food. People in other areas of the world, like South-east Asia and South America could be displaced from their homes to allow the necessary vegetable oil plants to be grown.