Gaddafi and friends

Gaddafi and his friends Blair, Brown, Obama, Sarkozy, Assad, Putin, Rice, Van Rompuy, Berlusconi...

Click image to see a larger version.

BBC News - Poorest pupils '55 times less likely to go to Oxbridge'

No surprise at all that there is huge inequality and unfairness in our education system (and beyond) but this study puts figures on it. Shows the abject failure of the Blair and Brown Labour Governments, despite claims that their aim was a more equal society. Coalition Govt policies are likely to be inadequate and ineffective at tackling this issue despite claims of being 'radical' - they may even make the problem worse! Do you trust former members of the socially exclusive Oxford University student dining club* like PM David Cameron, London Mayor Boris Johnson and Chancellor George Osbourne to cut inequality? See the Bullingdon Club* photos - inequality goes right through to the Cabinet!

Pupils on free school meals are 55 times less likely to go to Cambridge or Oxford than those from private schools, the Sutton Trust has said.
The charity said it feared rising fees and the axing of a support programme would make it harder for poor students to get into England's top universities.
It also raised concerns about proposed measures to widen participation...

BBC News - Poorest pupils '55 times less likely to go to Oxbridge'

No to cuts in services

Just signed this 38 Degrees petition against premature cuts in public spending:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/dontriskrecovery#petition. Here's some background from their website:

In the Financial Times, over 50 senior economists have written a letter demanding that Alistair Darling, Chancellor of the Exchequer and George Osborne, Shadow Chancellor, do not make premature cuts to public spending. The world-class economists believe that the deficit should be financed until the economy is more stable and that if spending cuts are made at this point, the UK could spiral into a disastrous 'double-dip' recession.

The financial crisis has already terrible consequences for people all over the UK. Jobs have been lost, businesses closed and homes respossessed. Unemployment has risen to around 2.5 million and, as the letter-writers point out, the UK economy 'is not yet on a secure recovery path'.

It's vital that our leaders don't play politics with our recovery in an election year. 'Consolidation', or cuts in our public services, are too dangerous to be used as an election bargaining chip. Darling and Osborne should both publicly commit themselves to not making damanging cuts before its clear that the economy really has turned the corner towards recovery. Sign the petition to the Chancellor and Shadow Chancellor.
______________________________________________


Also see: http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/cuts-wont-work

Significant stat (4): richest 10% now 100 times better off than the poorest

Pretty damning news for the Labour Government (and the previous Tory one) on how unequal UK society is. Labour say a more equal society is a key aim for them but they seem far more focussed the amount of economic growth than on the nature of growth and how wealth from it is shared. Labour's Home Office Minister, Phil Woolas MP said on yesterday's Daily Politics* when asked about growing inequality 'the gap between rich and poor has widened , as it does in liberal, capitalist societies'. Not much commitment to a more equal (and just) society there then!! More interested in super-rich business, celebrity and banker friends perhaps??

A whole range of social, health and economic problems are caused or worsened by inequality so its very important to spread wealth fairly. Fair is worth fighting for. Government should change systems and rates of taxation and invest in free care for the elderly and free insulation for all homes, beginning with the poorest. These approaches help tackle inequality and at the same time boost quality of life.

A detailed and startling analysis of how unequal Britain has become offers a snapshot of an increasingly divided nation where the richest 10% of the population are more than 100 times as wealthy as the poorest 10% of society...says The Guardian today, which goes on,

...The report, An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK, scrutinises the degree to which the country has become more unequal over the past 30 years. Much of it will make uncomfortable reading for the Labour government, although the paper indicates that considerable responsibility lies with the Tories, who presided over the dramatic divisions of the 1980s and early 1990s.

Researchers analyse inequality according to a number of measures; one indicates that by 2007-8 Britain had reached the highest level of income inequality since soon after the second world war.

The new findings show that the household wealth of the top 10% of the population stands at £853,000 and more – over 100 times higher than the wealth of the poorest 10%, which is £8,800 or below (a sum including cars and other possessions).

When the highest-paid workers, such as bankers and chief executives, are put into the equation, the division in wealth is even more stark, with individuals in the top 1% of the population each possessing total household wealth of £2.6m or more...(click the link above to see the full Guardian report).

More equality issues from: http://www.equalities.gov.uk/national_equality_panel.aspx
http://www.ifs.org.uk/projects/259
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8481534.stm*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/01/is_inequality_iniquitous.html

The Impossible Hamster

Was today sent a link to this great hamster animation (below). I've written a lot on this topic before, saying for instance: 'Growing the economy in the way we have been, particularly its transport and energy intensive nature, is reducing our capacity to live without undermining the systems that support life ...Why? It is: decreasing the overall natural assets stock; damaging ecosystem regenerative capacity and their ability to supply goods and services; emitting wastes and pollutants into the environment at levels beyond its ability to safely process them; causing high levels of social inequality [NB - report published today states the inequality in the UK is large and deep rooted]; leaving generations to come with a build up of risks and costs; consistently undervaluing both humans and non-human species; not switching resource use from finite, non-renewable to renewable types on anything like a sufficient scale or at a sufficient rate; not efficiency focussed; consuming renewable resources like forests, soil or fish…at a faster rate than they are replenished due to poor management practices.'(more here). Was obviously happy to send the email on economic growth (see below) suggested by campaign group 38 Degrees to Gordon Brown - click here if you want to send one too.



Dear Gordon Brown,
You have said that the global economy is set to double in the next 20 years.
Yet as economic growth rises, we are pushing the planet ever closer to, and beyond, some very real environmental limits. In fact, every doubling in the global economy requires the equivalent in resources of all of the previous doublings combined.

Think of it like this. We have tended to think of growth as natural for economies, forgetting that in nature things grow only until maturity and then develop in other ways. A hamster, for example, doubles its weight each week between birth and puberty. But if it grew at the same rate until its first birthday, we’d be looking at a nine billion tonne hamster, which ate more than a year’s worth of world maize production every day. There are good reasons why things don’t grow indefinitely. As things are in nature, so sooner or later, they must be in the economy.

Endless growth is pushing the planet’s biosphere beyond its safe limits. The price is compromised world food security, climatic upheaval, economic instability and threats to social welfare. We urgently need to change our economy to live within its environmental budget because there is no global, environmental central bank to bail us out if we become ecologically bankrupt

I would like you to watch this short animation http://www.impossiblehamster.org/ and then tell me how you think economic growth can carry on for ever and ever and ever…

Yours sincerely,

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 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.

Copenhagen Climate Summit and Cumbria...

Excellent guide to and commentary on the soon to be held Copenhagen Climate Summit here produced by Greenpeace. It shows that the current draft treaty has no agreement on the key issues: the level and timings of carbon emissions cuts; financing of measures to adapt to climate change, transfer clean technologies around the globe, help poorer countries cut emissions and protect their forests. It also shows that there is as yet no agreement on how best to protect forests, whose destruction causes between a fifth and a quarter of all climate change.

In short, all the hard issues and real problems are currently being ducked!! See this very useful Greenpeace guide to where various world leaders (so called!) are letting us down, here - this is a snippett of what it says about our PM Gordon Brown:

...He’s failed to embrace renewable energy and quit coal putting him at odds with his own advisors on climate change. And because of wrangling over finance with the rest of the EU, the UK hasn’t been able to offer more than words to developing nations.

Gordon - have you truly seen the flooding in Cumbria and the other very serious flooding events in recent yrs or have you merely looked at them? This from the BBC website:

Five million people in England and Wales are now at risk from flooding every year,

Two million homes have been built in the natural floodplain of rivers or the coast and are vulnerable to flooding,

Scientists predict that climate change may lead to more frequent flooding in the future,

Property, land and assets to the value of £214 billion are at risk of flooding in England and Wales,

Since 1998, 28 people have died as a direct result of flooding, including children. Thousands have suffered shock, trauma and devastating damage to their homes and possessions,

Many families have still not moved back into their homes following the 2000 floods,

Six inches of fast flowing water will knock you off your feet; four inches of water will ruin your carpet, and two feet of water will float your car.

See details of the Foresight Future Flooding report, by Sir David King and 60 top scientists, here.

Green on Brown...

Responding to Gordon Brown's Labour conference speech, Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green Party, said: "Brown talked of Labour's onward march of fairness and justice - but we have a wider gap between rich and poor after 12 years of Labour. Labour has had 12 years to change the voting system, to restore the earnings link to pensions, 12 years to work for nuclear disarmament by axing Trident, to make the Post Office sustainable, and to provide fair wages for working people. And they have not."

"Brown talked of free education and expanded university places, but Labour has been the government to introduce tuition fees and rising student debt."

The Green Party welcomed Brown's aim for 250 000 new green jobs, and up to

10 000 green job placements for youth. But Caroline Lucas said that: "We cannot have a green economy with Labour promises of nuclear power and new coal plants at its core."

Lucas continued: "Unfortunately, Gordon Brown has a track record of grandly announcing projects that led nowhere -- whether it was midnight football, citizens' juries, or a NHS Constitution that ended up having no new enforceable rights."

Lucas also commented on the proposal that 16 and 17 year parents on public support would be sent to a new network of supervised homes: "We strongly object to the idea of forcing all 16 and 17 year-old parents on taxpayer support into a network of supervised homes. It would be a form of paternalistic, 21st-century workhouse. Teen parents flounder, as we've had 12 years of Labour without support for carers, and childcare provision that has been very patchy across the country. We need projects that encourage teen self-esteem and sex education, not punishment after the fact for teen mothers and fathers."

Unelected master of manipulation Mandelson is really running the country

Give him credit (and his full 37 word post-reshuffle title), the Right Honourable Baron Mandelson of Foy in the county of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the county of Durham, Lord President of the Council, First Secretary of State, and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, has not taken long since Gordon Brown brought him back from his unelected position within the European Union to become the unelected person who is really running the country.

We have been told by our politicians that they will change our discredited democracy to bring it closer to the people. In the new Brown Cabinet 7 members/attendees come from the unelected House of Lords: Mandelson (Business…plus kitchen sink!!), Adonis (Transport), Malloch-Brown (Foreign Office) , Drayson (Business, Innovation, Skills), Scotland (Attorney General), Royall (Lords Leader), Kinnock (Europe). This is a higher proportion than for many, many decades. Not a good start is it!!!

Petition calling for a general election now - please sign!!

People need and deserve and vote on which MPs should stay in the House of Commons. Please sign this petition urging the PM to call a general election now!

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/GoToCountryNow/

Government is missing key climate, energy and transport targets

Gordon Brown's actions do not match his words of promise. The UK Govt will fail to meet its climate change target because of continued reliance on coal and gas power stations, according to Cambridge Econometrics. It will also miss by a 'wide margin' its target for developing renewable energy, according to the UK Energy and Environment Report. The UK Energy Research Centre finds that the UK lags behind other countries in terms of sustainable travel like walking, cycling, car sharing. These things are hardly unconnected are they!!

Further information/background: here

Gordon Brown in Bristol: Yet more words with no actions to match!!

The PMs words:

Gordon Brown's speech at Filton College in Bristol on Saturday strongly emphasised the key importance of green development to get us out of recession. The new Labour policy document to accompany his speech calls for us '"to lead the world in building the low carbon society with a low carbon economy". Many economists are of course advocating a green economy as the best way out of our economic troubles.


The PMs actions:

Our country has to date invested only $2.1 bn (£1.5bn) in green economic stimulus, compared $7.2bn in France, $13.8bn in Germany and a massive $221.3bn in China! Just 6 per cent of Britain's stimulus packages is spent on such green developments as energy efficiency, renewable sources and public transport (its 13 per cent in Germany, 21 per cent in France, 38 per cent in China and 81 per cent in South Korea).The figures, published in the report 'A Climate for Recovery' a major study of green stimulii around the world by HSBC Bank show up Britain as seriously lagging behind other countries.

Conclusion:

Gordon Brown's current behaviour of not matching his words with actions continues perfectly consistently. Whatever the colour of the Govt all we've had about building a green economy and society is warm words - that's why we are where we are now with entwined environmental and economic crisis.

Further information:

The Independent

How my MP avoids answering my recent questions on this issue (here and here).

Update: water fluoridation for Bristol issue

Following my email (here) to NHS Bristol and the South West Regional Health Authority expressing concern on the issue of water fluoridation I have received a reply and have the permission of its author to reproduce it (below - I've emphasised some parts in bold type).

I dont agree with Dr Annett's judgement that it is a 'reasonable...means' and would much prefer that full consideration is given to the ethical issues involved right from the off as opposed to just looking at technical matters. Issues like this should be looked at as a whole, as all its various aspects interact.

It may just be inexact writing but I'm also somewhat concerned at this statement '...NHS Bristol will ensure that the public have every opportunity to understand why fluoridation could be an effective public health intervention...' because its far from sufficiently balanced by the words that follow '...and also learn of some of the concerns people may have.' - not the strong emphasis on looking at both sides without bias that I would advocate. Having said this I have since had a message from NHS Bristol which makes reference to presenting a balanced case for and against and asking me if I would be interested in featuring in this process (which I've said yes to).

Dear Mr Vowles,

Re: Fluoridation of Bristol’s Water Supply

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the potential fluoridation of Bristol’s water supply.

To avoid any confusion, I assume the release to which you are referring is titled: “Call for public consultation on fluoridation”. This release (or rather statement) was issued by the Department of Health on February 5 2008.

However, you are correct about NHS Bristol considering the fluoridation of Bristol’s drinking water. In recent months, NHS Bristol and our neighbouring PCTs have considered whether the fluoridation of drinking water could be a reasonable and cost-effective means of improving overall dental health and help reduce dental inequalities.

Dr Annett has concluded that it could, and he is recommending that the PCT request NHS South West to commission a technical feasibility study.

At this stage I would like to reassure you that no decisions have yet been made. Requesting a feasibility study is the first step in a process which may, or may not lead to a decision to fluoridate Bristol’s water.

If, and only if, the feasibility study supports fluoridation then the next stage of the process is a rigorous and transparent public consultation where we seek the views of as wide a representation of Bristol’s (and the surround areas) population before any decision is made.

We are committed to ensuring that the debate will be an open and transparent process ensuring the public have their say and will make final representations based upon the consensus of the views of the population. The consultation is externally regulated, and we are bound – by a legal and moral obligation – to ensure that we consult as widely and as completely as possible, and that it is the citizens of Bristol and potentially the wider neighbouring regions that make this important decision.

Throughout the process NHS Bristol will ensure that the public have every opportunity to understand why fluoridation could be an effective public health intervention and also learn of some of the concerns people may have.

If the feasibility study confirms that fluoridation is feasible and cost effective in treatment of water for Bristol, NHS Bristol’s opinion that the population – particularly those in deprived areas – would benefit from a combination of fluoridation of the water and the ongoing commitment to raising awareness of dental health issues which NHS Bristol demonstrates.

If implemented, the fluoridation of Bristol’s water supply will sit alongside a great deal of ongoing pro-active, community facing initiatives we have at improving dental health.

Interestingly, in the near future we are running a campaign aimed at filling NHS Dental entitlements at surgeries throughout Bristol – it may surprise you to note that a large number of surgeries struggle to attract enough NHS patients to their doors.

I appreciate you contacting me and hope that I have answered some of your questions and outlined more clearly the decision making process for fluoridation.

Yours faithfully,

NHS Bristol

You can contact NHS Bristol here info@bristolpct.nhs.uk , and the Strategic Health Authority via go@southwest.nhs.uk

Water fluoridation for Bristol??

In late January Bernard J Seward, a campaigner from the National Pure Water Association and the Safe Water Campaign for Avon, Gloucester and Wiltshire had a letter in the local paper about a possible public consultation in the Bristol area on putting fluoride in all our drinking water. It seems that there is a drive for more water fluoridation from central government. There are therefore understandable concerns that consultations on the issue would not be genuinely open as to the outcome.

I’ve spent a few days looking from all angles at as much information as I can on the issue. There are, however, significant problems obtaining a decent amount of high quality research showing that putting fluoride in drinking water safely and effectively does what it is supposed to do – reduce tooth decay. Available research is often categorised as of only moderate quality because bias and lack of control are evident and analysis is lacking. No clinical trials have been conducted. No license obtained for fluoridated water. Why not? Fluoridated water aims to create bodily changes to fight tooth decay does it not?

Other aspects of the issue defy good scientific practice too. The dose of fluoridated water received by each person depends on the amount of water we drink. Since we all drink different amounts the dose is highly variable – and will be received over a long period of time. Further, the people receiving the dose are highly variable too and unlike being prescribed a treatment by a GP, wont be seen beforehand and wont have their medical history checked. The whole scenario lacks control.

Most of Europe has seen falling rates of tooth decay for several decades – without a policy of widespread water fluoridation. Fluoride is available by choice in toothpaste. Salt containing fluoride could also be made widely available alongside non-fluoridated salt. Those who don’t want to consume fluoride, or have no need to, have a choice now but obviously cannot choose not to drink water and fluoridation is not essential to supplying safe water unlike chlorination to kill bacteria!! If all our drinking water was fluoridated they would therefore be consuming something designed to create bodily changes without their consent. It is the norm in our society to consent to treatment and we should stay consistent with this.

There is no substitute for regular dental check-ups where all sorts of medical issues can be covered. One wonders, given the difficulties people have experienced in recent years with getting an NHS dentist, whether the focus should be there and not with water fluoridation!!

The maximum concentration of fluoride currently allowed in our water is 1.5 mg/l. Any water fluoridation system would have to stay below this legal limit or perhaps an even lower limit would be set. There is always going to be debate over what ‘safe’ levels are. Its clear that the substances used to fluoridate water (sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate) are, as pure substances, most unpleasant to say the least. That fluorosilicic acid is a by-product from phosphate fertiliser manufacturing hardly adds to the case for its use! Overfeeding of such substances into drinking water has caused serious health problems, as at Hooper Bay in Alaska in the 1990’s, where equipment and human failure resulted in 1 death and 295 cases of fluoride poisoning(details here). Overfeed precautions and plans for defluoridation if limits are exceeded are of course not needed if you don’t fluoridate in the first place!

Key local and regional decision makers and further information:

http://www.southwest.nhs.uk/membersoftheboard.html

http://www.bristolpct.nhs.uk/thetrust/board/profiles.asp

http://www.dwi.gov.uk/

I've written to Dr Hugh Annett, Director of Public Health for NHS Bristol and Bristol City Council via info@bristolpct.nhs.uk , and the Strategic Health Authority via go@southwest.nhs.uk on this issue and hope others will too.

Gordon Brown's plans: definitely more brown than green!

Saw my MP Kerry McCarthy put this question to Gordon Brown at Prime Minister's Question Time today and its been reported on the local newspaper's website,

"Does he agree with me and the people of Bristol that green jobs and sustainable development are the way out of this economic downturn?"

The Prime Minister replied: "I look forward to visiting Bristol very soon. On the environment, she is absolutely right. I believe, coming out of this downturn, some of the triggers for further growth can be investment in the environment. We are going to invest in green jobs and environmental technologies."

I'd very much welcome a comprehensive and coherent plan to create a green economy. Growing numbers of economists eg the authors of the Green New Deal, and at the UN, are saying that investing heavily in efficiency, renewable energy, sustainable transport, reduction, reuse and recycling of waste, building stronger local economies and communities with local production for local needs, is by far the best way to direct our efforts. After all we currently have intimately entangled, mutually reinforcing economic and environmental crises.

However, there is no such plan available from Gordon Brown's Labour Govt.. Where is what should be top priority, a plan to insulate all homes free of charge for instance (its something that self-evidently pays for itself in saved energy and thus lowered bills)!?!?

The lack of a real green plan is surely no surprise to anyone given that Mr Brown spent over a decade as Chancellor before his period as PM and we're certainly no greener now than when he came to power!! By the Government's own figures carbon dioxide emissions are higher now than ten yrs ago for instance. Current Brown plans in favour of building more coal fired power stations, the expansion of airports, the building of hundreds of miles of new roads, more nuclear power stations cannot considered green (more here).

Looks like PM Gordon Brown's plans are pefectly consistent with his past actions as Chancellor doesn't it - definitely more Brown than green!

Darling, you need to do much more

Chancellor Alistair Darling's moves to help the economy eg homes under £175,000 exempt from 1% tax (for a year) are very unlikely help much, both in terms of numbers of people and the extent of help. The scale of his action is basically much too small and narrow. One article in The Guardian says,

'But if Gordon Brown and his beleaguered chancellor were hoping their £600m initiative would reinvigorate the moribund housing market - and kickstart Labour's much-trailed autumn economic "relaunch" - observers yesterday gave a muted response to the measure they predicted would have only a minimal impact on the housing crisis.'

I think he should look at all the proposals in the 'Green New Deal' and take on a much bolder and bigger approach, addressing the whole range of very pressing economic issues. This would eg include 'Reining in reckless aspects of the finance sector - but making low-cost capital available to fund the UK's green economic shift'.

Gordon Brown: talk to the nation on climate change...

Just signed the petition organised by the Let's Talk Gordon 'the campaign for the Prime Minister to make a televised address to the nation on climate change'. I hope you will sign up too. Its a big concern that Government have just not prioritised climate change and lead the way in engaging councils, businesses, and individual people about urgent, coordinated, coherent, large scale action.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/letstalk/

We dont have much time to get real and proper conversation going about what Government at all levels, businesses and individuals need to be (urgently) doing and on what scale:

http://www.onehundredmonths.org/

It would be great if you could complete this online energy survey too. You'd be supplying just the kind of information currently needed. 'Digital Environment Home Energy Management System... DEHEMs is looking to improve domestic energy efficiency and reduce household emissions by developing and testing an energy monitoring and display system for homes. The project partnership includes a mix of European Local Authorities, businesses and Universities. As part of the development process we would like to gain an understanding of what people are currently thinking and doing with regard to energy use.'

http://survey.dehems.org/index.php?sid=95613&lang=en

Huge Scottish Nationalist win over Gordon Brown's Labour

Well done you scots!!

(image from Lakelander's site)

While I'm using Lakelander's image of one Labour leader I must show you his very amusing Tony Blair/Radovan Karadzic combination in a post entitled 'Notorious war criminal to stand trial'.

Are govt green energy plans bunkum??

Big renewables and big nuclear are incompatible; we aren't doing anything like enough to solve climate change; Stern needs to go much further; we have to solve the problem of climate change because the costs of failure are without limit - these are the messages in three excellent letters relating to govt green energy plans in Saturday's Guardian . Funnily enough I dont read the Guardian and would have missed them normally (my partner passed the letters on to me). I've reproduced them below in full because they are a powerful and practical criticism of govt plans. They are also powerful backing for what I've said about renewables, nuclear power, climate change, the Stern Report into the economics of climate change and govt leadership/direction/consistency...(Good to see the Open University connection too!)


It is good to see bold targets being set for renewable energy (Cost of tackling global climate change has doubled, warns Stern, June 26). But it appears that there could be a conflict with the government's parallel commitment to greatly expanded nuclear power. UK "baseload" is about 20 gigawatts (GW), nearly a quarter of total UK generating capacity - this is kept available at all times and supplies all the electricity required at periods of low demand, like at night.

It is currently proposed that we build perhaps 20GW of new nuclear plant. In addition it is proposed that by 2020 we should have up to 30GW of offshore wind capacity and perhaps an 8.6GW tidal barrage on the Severn Estuary. Nuclear plants can't easily vary their power output to follow changing consumer demand patterns and are, in any case, usually kept running at full power in order to pay for their significant capital costs. At periods of low demand it would seem therefore that, in the absence of major electricity storage facilities, if wind or tidal energy inputs to the grid are available, the electricity from these, or any other renewables sources, could not actually be used.

Put simply, for much of the time, big renewables and big nuclear would be incompatible.

Professor David Elliott
Energy and environment research unit, Open University, Milton Keynes



Nicholas Stern's doubling from 1% to 2% of GDP the amount he thinks needs spending on mitigating climate change is welcome, but why hasn't he gone the whole hog and trebled it to the 3% identified in his original report, which may give us an evens chance of keeping within a two degrees temperature increase?

The answer I suspect is that which has vexed many non-politicians, namely how to make their analysis acceptable to politicians. The fact is, we haven't even spent anything like 1%, or £14bn per annum, since Stern's report was published, and every pound we don't spend in one year is carried forward to the next. Like an unmanageable credit card bill, we will eventually be drowned in interest payments, except in this case the "interest" is the carbon budget which we're spending like there's no tomorrow. Well before 2050, that budget will be exhausted.

The only rational response is to recognise that we cannot manage climate change with the old tools of government. We need a climate change cabinet, modelled on similar lines to Churchill's war cabinet; we need a climate change department which ends the absurd dichotomy in government between energy supply and demand; we need to emulate and surpass Germany's renewables energy investment strategy which recognises future global markets in green technologies and is somehow supporting R&D without breaking EU state aid rules; we need to stop believing that technologies like nuclear, which will not deliver a single extra watt of "green" electricity until around 2030, are part of the solution; and most urgently we need to recognise that early carbon reductions are the most important step, and that will only happen with rapid behavioural change, which means some form of carbon rationing.

In this last respect, for any minister or potential minister to say the time for personal carbon allowances has not yet come illustrates either deep cynicism, defeatism or complacency, or perhaps a combination of all three.

Colin Challen MP
Chair, all-party parliamentary climate change group



Stern joins UNDP's "emerging consensus" of halving global emissions by 2050, also stressing the "pragmatism" of the equalisation of per capita emissions globally by then. This is the global principle of contraction and convergence. It is now widely supported and with early day motion 1795, many of our MPs are urging the government to support the principle openly. They point out that contraction and convergence was clearly advocated to government in the royal commission on environmental pollution report on which the UK climate bill is based.

Doubling the spend of GDP to achieve this is neither here nor there. As the costs of failure are without limit, the only cost-benefit ratio relevant to this whole process results from understanding that we have to solve the problem of climate change faster than we are causing it.

Aubrey Meyer, London