Barrage: more reports needed after the...er...report has been completed

This story is a great illustration of why huge civil engineering projects like the Severn Barrage can probably never be an effective and efficient way to tackle climate change or our energy security needs (Barrage - 'we need yet more research', Bristol Evening Post, 23 Jan 08). They are extremely expensive, complex, and time-consuming - and the expenditure of money and time begins with the compilation of report after report, after report...which in the end may lead us, at great expense, nowhere, as it has in the past. Why aren't we focussing in big-time on the most cost-effective and prompt option - energy efficiency and conservation - since the waste of energy is currently even worse than the waste of water through leaks and poor habits!!

Cadbury's blatant 'greenwash' and 'greenspeak'

Blatant 'greenwash' and 'greenspeak' from Cadbury's by signing up to find where the carbon emissions are in their supply chain (see 'Cadbury is not green - its ghastly, says union', Bristol Evening Post, 23 Jan 08). WE ALL KNOW what's about to happen to their emissions and where! They are about to hugely increase them by closing the Keynsham factory and shifting production to Poland, only to ship chocolate back here to be sold to our large market. Dont buy the stuff!!

Sadly for us all, business and political leaders 'greenspeak' and 'greenwash' is about par for the course these days (and has been for yrs) - give the impression of concern and action but in reality its mostly business as usual.

Developers and their political friends are living in the past by favouring carbon-intensive plans

Developers and their political friends are still living in the past (see: Green belt plan will 'help airport grow', Bristol Evening Post, 23 Jan). Best science tells us that it is very bad for our society and economy to continue with carbon-intensive developments like airport expansion. Developing greenbelt and expanding the Bristol Airport is a double whammy because it both cuts the land's ability to absorb pollution as well as emitting more pollution into the air. Have they not seen the cuts basics like power and safe water supplies in the region caused by recent floods, made more frequent by climate change? And all the associated loss of business and family/community distress?

The police deserve a fair pay deal and a fair mechanism for deciding on future pay

Just heard on The Daily Politics show that 18,000 police are marching in London today for a fair pay deal (and that they have been joined by former Bristol MP Tony Benn - he loves his marches!!!). Very impressive numbers, with feelings obviously being very strong indeed. The government has treated the police grossly unfairly this time and they deserve much better (the issue is outlined very clearly by local Chief Inspector Andy Bennett's Police Blog). Just compare the very small amount of money 'saved' by not backdating the police pay rise to the tens of billions being poured into the Northern Rock bank !! If the police in Scotland could be given the pay backdated then why not here??

More details on the police march here and here.

Bikes are 50 times more energy efficient than buses - so why displace bikes with buses??

Copy of a letter sent to the Bristol Evening Post's letters page tonight (all figures in it come from the Open University course 'Working with our Environment: Technology for a Sustainable Future'):

Dear Open Lines

Given the recently announced plans to turn the most popular cycle route in the UK (from Bristol to Bath), with 2.4 million journeys per yr, into a major bus route, its well worth reminding ourselves of just how ultra-efficient, healthy and green that great piece of technology - the bicycle - is.

Primary energy use in cycling amounts to just 0.03 megajoules per kilometre, nearly 50 times less than a single decker bus! Even walking, which consumes 0.14 megajoules, is not this efficient. The average for a car with average occupancy is 2.1 megajoules per passenger kilometre whilst domestic air travel is also 2.1 due to its higher occupancy rates.

Public transport fares better with figures of 1.1 per passenger kilometre for the average rail (about the same as a double decker bus) and 1.4 for a single decker bus, depending on occupancy rates. The most efficient forms of public transport, such as London Underground trains or certain forms of tram might achieve figures as low as 0.2 megajoules when fully occupied - still no match for the bicycle.

This makes the bicycle 70 times more energy efficient than the average car and 6 or 7 times more efficient than even the very best forms of public transport running under the most efficient conditions. So, in terms of efficiency its vital to invest much more in cycling and try much harder to create a cycling culture.

More is also needed for public transport but not at the expense of cycling - the plans to turn the Bristol to Bath cyclepath into a bus route simultaneously cut the capacity for cycling and walking there as well as destroying a large amount of pleasant, quiet and wildlife-rich green space.

We need a cycling culture for our health as well as our environment - a 10% increase in the number of people riding a bike regularly would lead to a 4% reduction in people with heart disease, saving hundreds of millions a year in healthcare. And it would create a more pleasant, greener environment.

Yours sincerely

Glenn Vowles

Gloomy days for building a greener society

I'm feeling particularly gloomy about the prospects for building a greener society at the moment. There are so many reports around that clearly demonstrate that we dont have the right plans and we are not moving in the right direction (mind you there are times where you only have to look out of your window or walk down the road to realise this!).

Here are some examples, all taken from one single copy of the Bristol Evening Post on Friday 18 Jan :

*plans to turn the Bristol to Bath cyclepath into a major bus route - even though cycling is arguably even greener than walking as a transport mode, it is the most popular cyclepath in the UK and has 2.4 million journeys per yr (see the Bristol Cycling Campaign site to sign a petition opposing this)...

*political factors (ie different councils unable to work together in the common interest) still stand in the way of the establishment of a transport authority for the Greater Bristol area - a vital step if we are to have proper integrated and sustainable transport...

*yet more flood warnings given by the Environment Agency, especially to the South West and the Midlands, though the sw regional masterplan felt unable to comment on future flooding impacts here (!!!) from rivers or on the coast beyond appreciating local authority and Environment Agency work...

*waste to energy firm Compact Power, based in Avonmouth, called in administrators due to a cash crisis (buyers have since moved in though I believe)...

*the South Bristol ring road moved a step closer, with the regional masterplan approving the idea...

*over a hundred thousand more houses are planned in the Greater Bristol area...

*Bristol International Airport expansion plans moved a step closer due to regional masterplan approval...

*the region is highly likely to miss its 2010 target for renewable energy generation (35 to 52 MW of generating capacity in Greater Bristol)...

*the prospect of a Severn Barrage (or other methods of generating energy from the tides in the estuary) is not even mentioned in the regional development masterplan...

*a letter clearly contradicts the governments two main reasons for favouring more nuclear power stations, showing that nuclear does not help us fight climate change...

*locals express their views in letters opposing the confirmed decision to close Cadbury's at Keynsham, meaning that chocolate for the very large local market wont be produced locally (instead it will be produced in Poland and transported back here for sale, at great carbon and thus climate change cost)...

*Bristol Parks Forum express the belief that Bristol City Council have plans to sell off double the amount of parkland originally reported (ie more like 400 acres than 200 acres)...

*traffic levels in the Greater Bristol area have risen by 15% in the last ten yrs (higher than the 12% national average)...

*PM Gordon Brown said no to government funding for the proposal to reopen the Portisheaad railway line...

*my green friend and colleague Stephen Petter illustrates how the 'improvements' in education standards as shown by school test results is illusory (there is plenty of academic research to back up his good sense and reasoning, and I argued this point myself at length back in Nov 07 on the Bristol Blogger site,VowlestheGreen // November 28, 2007 at 7:00 pm)...

*an Ofsted report concluded that many pupils drop Geography (a subject that deals with many of today's vital issues and is very important in delivering environmental education) at age 14...

Yet this was only one newspaper, in one city, on one day. As for compensating 'good green news' - there wasn't any on this occasion.

Ongoing inspiration from Martin Luther King Jr

Today is Martin Luther King Jr day in the US, marking his birthday on 15 Jan.. King, imperfections and all, continues to inspire action on justice, civil rights, civil disobedience and non-violence, not least in the Greens ,with non-violence being one of our core values...

We look for non-violent solutions to conflict situations, which take into account the interests of minorities and future generations in order to achieve lasting settlements.

And also:

Electoral politics is not the only way to achieve change in society, and we will use a variety of methods to help effect change, providing those methods do not conflict with our other core principles.

I would be considerably challenged in attempting to live up to some aspects of the pledge below (and it does have a distinctly religious feel to it in places that I'm not comfortable with) and so I'm sure does American society as a whole - its a pretty violent place.

PLEDGE OF NONVIOLENCE IN HONOR OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.

IN HONOR OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.’S LIFE AND WORK,

I pledge to do everything that I can to make America and the world a place where equality and justice, freedom and peace will grow and flourish.

I PLEDGE TO MAKE NONVIOLENCE A WAY OF LIFE in my dealings with all people.

I WILL REJECT all forms of hatred, bigotry and prejudice, and I will embrace the values of unconditional, universal love, truthfulness, courage, compassion, and dedication that empowered Dr. King.

I WILL DEDICATE my life to creating the Beloved Community of Dr. King’s dream, where all people can live together as sisters and brothers.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=k04KzgYRKrE - this U2 song about King is one I've played a good deal for some time now.

Support the Planning and Energy Bill - for efficient and renewable local developments

Today sent the letter below to my MP (with a similar version sent to Housing Minister Yvette Cooper). Its really important that local decisions on the nature of developments can be taken to boost energy efficiency and small scale use of green and renewable technologies.

Dear Kerry McCarthy MP

I'm writing to ask you to support the Planning and Energy Bill being promoted by Michael Fallon MP. To do so you would need to be present in Parliament on Friday 25 January. If you cannot be present then I hope you will agree to support the Bill at other opportunities.

The Planning and Energy Bill is important because, in the spirit of the Sustainable Communities Bill which is now law, it enables local decision-making for new developments to:

* set high energy efficiency standards

* require local, on-site energy generation by green methods such as solar and photovoltaic panels, heat pumps and small-scale combined heat and power plants

This would be a great move for cutting carbon dioxide emissions, cutting fuel bills, creating jobs in neighbourhoods and building local sustainability.

I hope you will agree to support the Bill, am very interested in your views on it and look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely

Glenn Vowles


Further information from the Association for the Conservation of Energy (though today on their website they wrongly call Michael Fallon a Labour MP!!) and also the Micropower Council.

On knowledge, known and unknown!

I love the Woody Allen quote '...some drink deeply from the river of knowledge, but others only gargle...' in the article 'Ignorance is not blissful' in todays Bristol Evening Post. Woody's quote brings to mind many of Bristol's barely gargling City Councillors!!

The article was a very entertaining read, and the end - 'Knowledge is a strange thing. You now know what I know, and what we know is that much of what everyone thinks they know isn't worth knowing.' - was reminiscent of former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Remember when Rumsfeld said 'There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.'

Interesting thing is that the Evening Post article was written by the Reverend Henry Thomas, whose work is based on faith not knowledge.

Ban those with power from using jargon to blind us !!

We'd all be a bit more empowered if people in power at all levels were required not to try to blind us with jargon. Recent reports therefore give an interesting and very important angle on the Heathrow Airport expansion consultations. They are indeed using excessive and unrequired jargon such as "periodic emissions cost assessment", "net present value terms", "mixed mode operations" and "external climate change costs".

Use of jargon in this way is a well known unfair technique of presentation and argument. It is commonplace in politics, local and central government operations and elsewhere in our society (not least advertising/marketing attempts at persuading us to consume more than we need). Its no surprise that the Plain English Campaign are up in arms about the consultation documents.

Great to see Lib Dem MP Susan Kramer putting a very good question on this to Gordon Brown at this week's Prime Minister's Questions. Brown's response was patronising instead of plain however, much to his discredit.

Sustainable Communities Bill now law - excellent!!

Great news that the Sustainable Communities Bill has finally become law!! Councils now have a legal duty to set up citizens panels made up from all sections of the community and try to reach agreement with them on community suggestions about improving local quality of life. Central Government then has a legal duty to try to reach agreement with councils on action it will take on locally agreed suggestions. Suggestions for change come from communities and go to central Government instead of the usual other way around. I'd like more radical decentralisation but this movement is certainly in the right direction! The Unlock Democracy organisation are now putting money and staff into getting the new law used at local level (go to their website for guidance, link below).

Its excellent work by Local Works campaigners like Ron Bailey and Stephen Shaw (Local works now based at Unlock Democracy). They were assisted by the very many people who have persistently lobbied Government and their MP (see my previous postings supporting the Bill). The Government and some of its 'loyal' MPs dragged their feet on supporting the Bill, including my MP Kerry McCarthy. Campaigning achieved very large cross-party support however, and with some concessions (reducing the radical nature of the original Bill somewhat) it gained Government support.

Most coucillors just dont cut the mustard: The real state of the city

Remember Chooseday? The campaign to encourage the 'smart choice' of
leaving the car at home on a Tuesday, and walking, cycling, or taking the
bus instead. It was launched just a few weeks ago, with the enthusiastic
support of Bristol City Council.

Fast forward to the City Council's much hyped 'State of the City' debate
this last Tuesday. Lots of talk about transport, of course. Then
Councillor Barbara Lewis dared to talk about 'smart choices', asking all
those members who'd come to this 2pm weekday meeting in the centre of
town on foot, by bike, or by bus to identify themselves.

A smattering of hands went up, but most councillors just looked
embarrassed.

That probably said more about the real state of the city than any of the
fine words in hours of debate.

climatespace.org

Interesting and useful climate change website for all concerned and wanting to do something: http://www.climatespace.org/ Take a look!!

Why am I against nuclear power??

So, Gordon Brown's Labour Government have given the final go ahead for more nuclear power. Apparently '... Britain must build new nuclear plants to help meet its climate change goals and to avoid overdependence on imported energy amid dwindling North Sea oil and gas supplies.' (Guardian). Both these main points are easily contradicted, making the government's decision a very bad one.

For a start the uranium oxide from which nuclear fuel for power stations is made comes from abroad. 'In 2005, seventeen countries produced concentrated uranium oxides, with Canada (27.9% of world production) and Australia (22.8%) being the largest producers and Kazakhstan (10.5%), Russia (8.0%), Namibia (7.5%), Niger (7.4%), Uzbekistan (5.5%), the United States (2.5%), Ukraine (1.9%) and China (1.7%) also producing significant amounts.' (wikipedia) which means we would be dependent on imports from other countries for our nuclear fuel - so much for reducing energy imports.

As for more nuclear power to help fight climate change, in short its very slow and ineffective, with the Government's own advisors at the Sustainable Development Commission producing figures to show that even 10 new reactors would cut the UK's carbon emissions by only about 4% some time after 2025. This low figure makes great deal of sense because it takes quite some time to approve, build and get nuclear stations into full operation. In the meantime there is a high carbon cost in construction and also in the whole nuclear fuel cycle (in particular mining the ore, transporting it thousands of miles across the world and then manufacturing the fuel...). Plus of course the nuclear electricity generated cant directly replace most of the fossil fuel used eg in gas central heating systems and petrol/diesel from oil used in cars. So much for fighting climate change. And there are many more arguments against nuclear power and for much better energy options.

It is several times cheaper to save energy through efficiency and conservation than it is to generate it by any means. This is also the most rapid and effective way to cut carbon emissions, fight climate change, and reduce our dependence on imported fuels. Even though the Government claims to be green (who doesn't make this claim these days!) they are still thinking in terms of generating more and more energy - yet a sustainable society requires the establishment of a low energy culture. Government needs to be determined to help shape this future but currently is still stuck in the past.

There has always been a lot of talk from Gordon Brown about an enterprise economy, built by entrepreneurs. But is nuclear technology the kind that can be tinkered with, adapted and developed by small and medium-sized businesses and individuals? Self-evidently its not. Yet energy efficiency, energy conservation and renewable energy technologies are amenable and are rapidly developing - the future is clearly with these and we should be ensuring billions are invested in them.

Nuclear power does not fit well with the basic engineering criterion of economy of means, that is doing tasks with the minimum of energy supplied in the most effective way. In short, why go to the trouble of splitting the atom to boil a kettle of water?? In any case for how long will the source of the atoms split in the nuclear fuel be economically available? Goldsmith et al, in their 1990 book 5000 Days to Save the Planet say ' As more uranium ore is mined and the quality of the ore falls, so the energy cost goes up. A mass nuclear power program would exhaust high quality ores so quickly that, within a generation, the uranium being mined would provide no more energy for each tonne of rock than would mined coal.'.

Everyone acknowledges the very high capital costs of nuclear power (and nobody yet knows for sure what decommissioning costs will finally be). Several billion is needed to build each station. This is a very large drain on resources that we should be investing in renewable energy generation methods, which as the only sustainable option we must develop at some point anyway. There's no time like the present to do this.

We dont assess our technological options properly. Nuclear does not come out well if technical capabilities and limitations, total cost-effectiveness, socio-economic effects such as efficiency of job creation and the ability to keep safe and accurate records of nuclear waste disposal for thousands of yrs, and environmental impacts are all fairly considered. Yet this would not be where assessment of the technology should end, since we should progressively widen the domain of issues to be considered, introducing more factors and interactions - like the ripple effect of throwing a stone into a still lake. Nuclear certainly does not fit in with building a sustainable society (though all the big political parties claim to be green these days) because no-one disputes that it leaves ongoing problems for future generations (and of course the uranium fuel is finite and depletable - it will run down in supply and run out at some point).

Plutonium, with a natural occurence on the planet of virtually zero, is lethal (highly toxic as well as radioactive). An evenly distributed 500 kg could kill the Earth's human population approx 90 times (at one microgram per person). Yet when I visited Sellafield, the site of the UK's first nuclear station and where nuclear waste is reprocessed, some yrs ago, the tour guide said that approx 500kg of plutonium had been emitted to the Irish Sea over the sites lifetime. There are huge nuclear waste handling, storage and disposal problems and there is no scientific consensus on the best way to do it, for existing waste let alone the extra produced from more nuclear stations. In a report of the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment on radioactive waste Sir Hugh Rossi said 'With waste that can be active for thousands of yrs, guaranteeing that the institutions would be stable beyond periods which have so far proved to be whole lifetimes of civilisations would be impossible.'

There are also a whole range of safety and security issues for nuclear stations: learning lessons from major accidents like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Windscale; attempting to predict and 'eliminate' (!) human error in the design, construction, operation and decommissioning; establishing 'safe' (!) levels of radioactivity; 'safely' transporting nuclear waste by road and rail (eg as happens frequently through Bristol) for 'safe' disposal for thousands of yrs; planning what it is best to do in the event of a serious incident/accident; whether we can effectively prevent terrorist attacks eg by flying planes into stations, driving cars/lorries loaded to be bombs etc... .

Then there are the major ethical issues involved in reprocessing some nuclear waste and providing material for the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction....

Bristol City Council are having us on with their 'green capital' nonsense

This story 'Threat to City Parks' in today's Bristol Evening Post shows just how little Bristol City Council really cares about the environment here. Green space is one of the main assets we have and one of the key reasons why there is any credibility at all in any 'green city' claims. Clearly the plans to flog off hundreds of acres of green space show that the City Council is having us on with its 'UK's green capital' ambition.

If I'd beaten Obama and Clinton and won the Democrat nomination for US President...

I’m finding the US electoral process really interesting. It seems to have some real life in it these days. I’m a fairly regular listener to Simon Mayo’s program on Radio Five Live. The show’s session today on religion and US politics was fascinating. It revealed of course that it plays a significant role.

Assuming I'd won the Democrat nomination for US President against the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and others (!!) and was generally as well qualified as my Republican opponent, 5 in 10 voters, according to polls, would then not vote for me because I don’t believe in god. Many more US voters would desert me than would desert a candidate because they were a woman, or black, a Mormon, Catholic, Jew or homosexual. No real surprise to me but it says a great deal about US people and politics.

Bristol 'UK green capital' would plan to sustain the total amount of open, green space not flog off millions of square metres

Great comment on loss of Bristol's green spaces by Bluebaldee on the Bristol Blogger site - I agree with every word. The figures he quotes in this passage are very striking:

Bristolians are lucky enough to enjoy 38 square meters per capita of green space. The Bristol Quantity Standard proposes that Bristolians could get by with 27.8 sq m of green space - which allows a collossal 10 sq m per capita to be disposed of. My maths makes this: Population 400,000 x 10 sq m = 4 million sq m of land that could be sold for development.

I remember running wild in ‘low quality’ green space eg where Callington Rd and the Brislington Tesco now is, when I was a kid. There are a few other places within a few miles of me that were open/green but are now built over.

It seems that the council does not see sustaining the total amount of open, green space available as one key indicator of progress towards their ambition of being the ‘UK’s green capital’. So what does this ambition mean??

More praise for Pete Goodwin, Stockwood's excellent Green Campaigner

I believe people of all political colours who really got to know Pete would agree with this posting made by the Bristol Blogger. Stockwood’s Pete Goodwin is indeed an excellent campaigner by any standard.

He has been asking questions of excellent quality on a wide range of extremely important topics for some time now and I have learned a lot from working with him. He deserves to be elected to the council where he would be in an even better position to keep this rotten, hypocritical council under pressure to do a better job.

He stood in Stockwood in 2007 and substantially raised the green vote to 20.49%, gaining second place ahead of the Lab and Lib candidates. This is a remarkable achievement given that before 2006 the Stockwood green vote was just 2.6%!!

Good work from Kerry McCarthy MP but Govt policies on rail are inadquate

Good work from my MP Kerry McCarthy putting the spotlight on the need for much better rail services. We need more of this more often from all our MPs.

I'm afraid the current Labour Govt are not likely to adopt the policies or make the investments needed to achieve the vast improvement I'd like to see however. The last ten yrs have seen significant real terms increases in the cost of rail travel just when we need it to become cheaper, to help get people out of their cars much more.

History homework help: lessons to learn from Native American experiences...

Yesterday I was looking over what my daughter had been set for History GCSE homework. She has just started the American West and had homework on Native Americans (or call them American Indians, Indians, Amerindians, Amerinds, or Indigenous, Aboriginal or Original Americans if you wish, since there is quite a debate on the name to use). Very interesting stuff. It reminded me of what I'd read in Clive Ponting's excellent book A Green History of the World on this topic eg how in 1500 an indigenous population of around a million, with widely varied cultures and ways of life had been virtually wiped out within four hundred years, including many forced removals costing thousands of lives (see Trail of Tears for instance). It also brought to mind the words, reputedly of Chief Seathl, that have long been an inspiration to me (great words, whether actually Chief Seathl's or not, that say a lot about Native American beliefs and attitudes). We'd today call such forced displacement 'ethnic cleansing' or genocide. Some would of course argue that the US Govt isn't that much better today.

We should protect life in all its diversity - here's my description of why

This story outlining the discovery of three new species of amphibian in a Costa Rican forest reserve caught my eye today (both on the BBC News and Natural History Museum websites and also on p65 of today's Bristol Evening Post). No doubt there are still very large numbers of undiscovered species of many types all over the world, especially in the enormously diverse rainforest and coral reef ecosystems. Given the very rapid rate of destruction of these ecosystems (eg millions of hectares of net loss of forest every yr, an area equal in size to a country like Panama, or approx 2% net loss every ten yrs) undiscovered species are likely to be made extinct or threatened with extinction before we even know about them!


Why protect biodiversity? Its worth reminding ourselves of the reasons, which are not often enough clearly and fully stated - even if you search around a bit you dont find that much that is reasonably plain. So here's my effort... Forms of life are beautiful and diversity itself is beautiful. It is morally right to protect species. The complex web of interactions in nature is harmed if we dont conserve species and we need the interactions. Nature is the source of the resources and services we use to build our economy and so biodiversity is needed to meet our needs, trade, do business and make a profit (depending on how you want to define economics). The variety of life is of very important educational value and is a source of leisure and recreation. It is very important for both our physical, social and mental health and wellbeing - a diminishing gene pool is for instance damaging, dangerous and impoverishing.

Expand, expand, expand = policy on airports

News from Greens in the South West further illustrating the hypocrisy of warm words on fighting climate change not matched by action. With proposals to expand many airports here (Bristol, Staverton (Glos), Hurn (Bournemouth), Exeter, Plymouth, and Newquay - not that many then !!) region-wide campaign events may well be the order of the day for 2008. All the expansions proposed have campaigns against them. Those interested should look over the South West Air Action Group website which has just started up (opportunities to information share, discuss issues, coordinate and plan actions).

Those who've caused most should do most to sort it out

This is a great On the level posting. The per capita cumulative emissions graph is a very, very telling. Those who indusrialised earliest, fastest and most heavily have the biggest share of the responsibility for causing climate change and should do most to help sort it out.

On the Bible as a work of literature and as a source of and guide to morality

We should all gain knowledge of the Bible in 2008 advocates Richard Benson in a letter today. He says '...atheist Richard Dawkins believes that children should grow up with a knowledge of the Bible.'

For a more complete and accurate picture it should be noted that Dawkins view on the Bible, as expressed in his book The God Delusion, is that '...the main reason the English Bible needs to be part of our education is that it is a major source book for literary culture. The same applies to the legends of the Greek and Roman gods and we learn about them without being asked to believe in them.'

As for the Bible and what Richard Benson's letter refers to as 'the beliefs and values that underpin much of our history and culture', Richard Dawkins says in The God Delusion that '...the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unkown to each other, spanning nine centuries...unfortunately it is this same weird volume that religious zealots hold up to us as the inerrant source of our morals and rules for living.'

Its clear that whilst Dawkins does feel that some parts of the King James Bible of 1611 (Authorized Version) have considerable literary merit and should thus be studied so that people can better appreciate English literature, he is certainly not holding it up as a source of or guide to morality!!

Please let me know if I spout gibberish and nonsense!

Co-writer of the enormously funny and entertaining Yes, Minister TV series Anthony Jay, concluded an article he wote recently by saying:

Voters no longer believe anything they hear from our leaders and mass apathy is the result.

I think he certainly has a point. The whole article is well worth a read. Please comment often and with great vigour if I ever spout gibberish and nonsense on this site!! I've done my best to be clear and straightforward up to now and will endeavour to continue this in the future.

Poetry, poison and politics

I've been listening to some of William Blake's poetry on a CD over the holiday period. This one always brings politics at its worst into my mind (especially the 'soft deceitful wiles' part).

A Poison Tree by William Blake

I was angry with my friend:
I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe:
I told it not, my wrath did grow.

And I watered it in fears
Night and morning with my tears,
And I sunned it with smiles
And with soft deceitful wiles.

And it grew both day and night,
Till it bore an apple bright,
And my foe beheld it shine,
And he knew that it was mine,

And into my garden stole
When the night had veiled the pole;
In the morning, glad, I see
My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

Jeremy Clarkson talks yet more tripe!! Not really news is it.

That lovely man (!) Jeremy Clarkson features in my local paper's 'Quotes of the day' today as saying:

Please have a wonderful Christmas. Drink too much. Eat too much. Dont feel guilty about the presents you give or those that you receive. Care not about your carbon footprint or the impact of your naked consumerism. Be happy. And remember, you are having a much better time than Gordon Brown because he has no friends and you've lots.

The man is, in short, talking tripe (though I would admit he can often be entertaining, and the quote gives a useful summary of issues we should give a lot of thought to!). No wonder the Wikipedia entry on him has a quote saying that he is 'Not a man given to considered opinion.' !! Many of the posts on this blog point out the contradiction inherent in the above quote - our consumer society, well illustrated by what happens at Christmas, is certainly not making people happier, it is in fact making us more prone to depression, anxiety and addictions. We should be pursuing our needs rather than our wants if we are to secure our own wellbeing and that of the world. Clarkson should read clinical psychologist Oliver James' book Affluenza.

Who designed the designer? People made God not God people...

I found this piece in the local paper quite interesting. It seems (shock, horror!) that much about Christmas is made up and of often disputed origin. For me religion itself is likewise. Yes, there is certainly a challenge to explain life. It looks like it was ‘designed’, thus implying the existence of a designer (God). But who or what designed the designer?

The occurrence of life on Earth is highly improbable but the existence of a designer (God) very much more so. Even so, people like US President George W Bush favour the teaching of ‘intelligent design’ as a scientific theory competing with evolutionary theories. As with climate science Bush and his administration again cant tell what is and what is not accepted science, despite what the scientific community tell him.

Evolution by natural selection (championed very vigorously by people like Richard Dawkins) is a pretty good explanation of how complex life with the appearance of design developed stepwise from basic building blocks. Human explanation of the rest of the universe continues to develop and we are further improving our understanding of evolution.

People created God not God people. So, why have religion (it does seem to be everywhere) ? Looking at the world it does not seem to be doing a very good job of consoling people! Or of getting them to live good lives!

William Blake

I love the work of William Blake. It reminds me of the enormous value of imagination, inspiration and individuality. Many will know about Jerusalem and The Tyger. I thought I'd include a few Blake poems that I really like but that are a bit less well known:

Riches

The countless gold of a merry heart,
The rubies and pearls of a loving eye,
The indolent can never bring to the mart,
Nor the secret hoard up in his treasury.



Auguries of Innocence (first four lines)

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour


Nov 28th this year was the 250th anniversary of his birth, yet his exact grave is still not marked out properly - go to here to sign the petition in favour of erecting an appropriate monument on the exact burial spot. You can also find a lot of interesting information about Blake on this site. There is also a BBC poll about having a monument/memorial you can vote in and a useful article to read if interested.

Blake's words set to music here on this MySpace are great (I found The School Boy especially moving). More about his life and art here too (there loads out there to find - take a look!).

Singing the praises of both Tesco and Julie Burchill - WHYYYY????

Yet again that Bristol Blogger has gone a step too far. He's sung the praises of Tesco before (he's addicted to the pesticide residue on the 'value' carrots I think) and this time he's also saying nice things about Julie Burchill, who shares his admiration for them it seems.

They are both dead wrong. Tesco and other big supermarkets represent a very large amount of power in the hands of a very few. They should be subject to at least the following to avoid the worst injustices and to provide a much more genuine choice to shoppers (see http://www.tescopoly.org/ ).

*a legally binding code of practice

*an independent watchdog overseeing the grocery market

* a block on any new take-overs by Tesco or other major supermarkets.

*real support for local shops from local authorities and government

*internationally-recognized workers' rights throughout supermarket supply chains.

To maximise or minimise, that is the question..

Its surely a sign that we have not moved too far in a genuinely green direction to see that a proposal for mass incineration of household waste in the Bristol area is even being seriously considered. It seems we have yet to take fully on board low waste or even zero waste thinking, which is in the end the only sustainable solution. Any giant incinerator would demand to be fed with many thousands of tonnes of waste for decades - what would be the point of building one otherwise? This is the very waste we are supposed to be trying to minimise to make waste management cheaper and more environmentally friendly!! No to waste MAXIMISATION and no to any mass burn incinerator I say. My fellow green campaigner Peter Goodwin is doing a lot of good work on this - lets hope he is successful!

The price of food: all things are connected

All things are connected is one rule of ecology and a principle behind Green policies. More concern about rising food prices, this time from the UN, illustrates the economy-environment connection very well. Droughts and floods caused by climate change are held partly to blame for the price increases. The rapidly growing consumer-society and rising affluence with consequent changing diets in China eg the rise in demand for (grain fed) beef, is also key. Also a significant factor in higher food prices is the use of food crops to manufacture so-called 'environmentally friendly' biofuels. In fact the use of food crops to make anything other than food itself has this effect, since food supplies are reduced, pushing prices up. And the local connection? Bristol City Council is of course dead keen on making biodegradable plastic bags available for people to use in their brown bin recycling - plastics made from....corn!! The ignorance and stupidity of the push for these bags, adding to the problem I've described, as well as having its own high environmental impact, from people like Knowle Lib Dem Councillor Gary Hopkins, is staggering.

Green Ideas film by Digital Fish Film Club

Great piece of film called 'Green Ideas' produced by the young people at Digital Fish Film Club in Knowle West - go on, take a look, the humour is great:

http://www.electricdecember.org/07/calendar/17/

Animation and artwork by the Digital Fish Film Club: Connor, Michael, Mike, Michael & Hayleigh. Music & Voices: Mike, Chip, Michael, Connor, Leighton, Emily. Some great work too by animator Joff Winterhart and Knowle West Media Centre's Environmental Officer Emily Nicholson.

When your political opponent pressurises you in a debate...just completely fabricate a situation (ie lie!)

This blog entry is to record here the end part of one debate I've been involved in this month on the Bristol Blogger's site. After a large number of comments on the original Blogger posting, Lib Dem Councillor for Knowle Gary Hopkins ends up lying about me and then failing to withdraw his lie (he now has another chance to do so after this entry - so keep an eye on any comments posted if you are interested). I've copied relevant comments below (adding bold and italics of my own). Who do you think has gone over the top and become hysterical?


Gary Hopkins // December 13, 2007 at 12:49 am
Remind me and any others reading, Mr Vowles where is it you put yourself forward as a saviour of the people. I seem to remember that it was Knowle ward where you have managed to come a consistent 4th against My Colleage Chris Davies and myself. Prior to standing for the greens you were a ” helper” for the Brislington West” liberal democrats but they had to dump you because when any real work like delivering a few leaflets,as opposed to pontificating, was concerned you disapeared.Try not to get too hysterical about things, I am quite happy to trust the voters opinion are you?


VowlestheGreen // December 13, 2007 at 3:12 pm
No, Gary Hopkins. There are very few facts in what you say and you resort lying about my former link to the Lib Dems.

For the record, since you dont deal in facts much: the Green vote in Knowle has risen rapidly in recent yrs: in 2003 we got just 5.46%, but in 2007 polled 15.62% (up 10 points). Your Lib Dems got 59.58% in 2003, and 45.41% in 2007 (down 14 points) - where is ‘your’ vote going (here and in fact in other parts of Bristol)?? Greens will continue to increase their vote in Knowle.

Also for the record: I’ve never been a ‘helper’ for the Lib Dems and in fact ended a very brief membership in the early 1990’s (over ten yrs ago!), attending just a few meetings, because I found them to be very disappointing and in fact unethical in their approach to politics . The Lib Dems did not ‘dump’ me, since this would indicate that they ended my membership by throwing me out. In fact I simply ceased being a member, disillusioned greatly by the ability of Liberal democracy to be truly green, having tried it out first hand. It is a lie to say ‘they had to dump you’ and Mr Hopkins you should withdraw this comment or you will be providing direct evidence of your personal lack of ethics in your political campaigning.

By the way whatever happened to the bloke who was my local Lib Dem councillor in the early 1990’s when I flirted with you, Barry Clarke??

I’ve has a few breaks from from Green Party membership since joining them 25 yrs ago and had very brief ‘flirtations’ with both Lib Dems and Labour. I found out through these two great mistakes just how bad they are and just how much both my head and heart are Green, as it always was and always will be.

VowlestheGreen // December 14, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Sorry to post again on this now old story but I think it should be noted that Lib Dem Cllr for Knowle Gary Hopkins has failed as yet to reply to withdraw his lie. Gary…..are you there??

Just one little indication of the unethical nature of this particular beast I suppose.

It wont win me votes but...I dont like Christmas!!

This may not win me many votes if/when I stand in an election again but I have to admit that I dont like Christmas !! Perhaps I have just a touch of Oliver Cromwell in me.

For a start it seems to begin earlier every year, with adverts galore and reminders of how many days we all have left to overspend in the shops! Any 'specialness' in the brief period that even I might find is immediately devalued.

It does not help of course that not only am I not a Christian but being a very firm sceptic I dont have any substantial belief that there is any kind of god(s) at all, including pagan ones, (the existence of he/she/it is extremely unlikely). Anyhow, its clear that a case can be made that much about the way we currently celebrate Christmas is nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity !!

Food and alcohol consumption go through the roof. Energy useage for lighting likewise. Excessive spending on goods of many sorts from all over the world too. Far from being happier people's behaviour often deteriorates. Christmas just does not seem to be about loving and giving but is all about more, more, more.

Peak Oil Subvert

Have a look at this film about our addiction to oil, likening it to drug addiction:

http://www.electricdecember.org/07/calendar/13/

Very creative work from 18 yr old director Luke Martin, working with producer Denzil Monk, reported in todays local paper. More on peak oil here.

Greens vote for having a leader!!

Jim Jepps, Cambridge Green Party and Electoral Returning Officer, has today announced: The leadership motion has been passed by more than the 2/3rd majority required. Votes against 27%. Votes for 73% !! This is excellent news, as I've previously said its long been my view that the Greens need a leader. All Greens now need to work together to elect the right leader and deputy leader (or co-leaders) and help them to set a fine leadership example: democratic, ethical, effective, participative, empowering, collegiate, inspirational and motivating in style, consistent with all green principles. The leader and deputy still, of course, need to be the right people, working on the right things in the right way. I'm confident that with people of the calibre of 'politician of the year' Caroline Lucas MEP likely to be in the frame for the role, the focus, direction, organisation and public profile of the Green Party will improve a good deal.

When will we have real care for the elderly? Proper mandatory training for all people having contact with people who have dementia is vital.

I very strongly support the call for mandatory dementia training for all home care staff made today by the Alzheimer's Society. In fact I'd like this training to cover all those who will have contact with those with dementia, including those in the NHS and elsewhere. The current situation of people with dementia is tragic, apalling and totally lacking in justice. In recent months I've had direct personal experience of how the NHS treats the elderly, with a death followed by a very significant illness in close family. Its been extremely upsetting to see first hand how the health and social systems (or lack of them) handle people with dementia, and elderly people in general. There just does not seem to be any real care for the affected people, except for a few notable individuals who stand out as unusual when you see and hear them at work. Its good to see the call for mandatory training widely reported.

Brown's 'green' policy = talk, talk, talk...

Gordon Brown's recent speech on the environment is, for me, pretty well assessed by this article. The talk is there (as it was with Tony Blair) but the record of environmental achievements is poor eg UK carbon dioxide emissions higher now than ten yrs ago, eco targets missed or abandoned and as for real money and radical policies for key green developments like a mix renewable energies, energy efficiency, public transport in cities like Bristol...we have none!!

As for Brown apparently throwing his weight behind the campaign to get rid of plastic carrier bags doesn't the man realise he is the Prime Minister ? Why not just have them banned Gordon? Mind you I would not put the banning of these bags that high up my list of environmental action priorities would you? The media seemed to catch on to the idea, presumeably just what he wanted I suppose. Best to focus in the main on really tackling areas having the biggest impacts (thus the biggest potential for the large, rapid improvements we need in the next ten yrs according to best science) namely transport and energy.

Five words to sum up what makes us 'great'

I've just come from listening to Radio Five Live's very amusing discussion on five words that sum up what makes Britain/the UK 'great' (apparently PM Gordon Brown is looking for a five word motto). What caught my attention first was this suggestion: Dipso, Fatso, Bingo, Asbo, Tesco ! In the bit I listened to they weren't getting many positive suggestions from listeners, though I did like - We gave you The Beatles!

Just for a bit of fun I quickly came up with these ideas

*Conquered much of the world

*Oi! 1966 and all that

*Could have surrendered after Dunkirk

*The dirty man of Europe

*Our green and pleasant land

*Lets build Jerusalem here now

*Two rugby world cup finals

Some are more original than others obviously. Some are more positive and closer to the truth than others. Several are in fact more about England rather than Britain/UK of course. Some perhaps reveal the patriot/nationalist in me (dont know if I should I be worried about this).

I think the Dunkirk one is my best effort.

Comments and suggestions welcomed.

Sustainability: reconciling the economy with our environment and shifting from a consumer to a conserver society. Necessary, desirable and inevitable.

This blog site is now about a year old. If I had to pick out a single word that the site is all about I’d go for: sustainability. What do I mean by this though? I’ve always thought of sustainability as the reconciliation of our economy with our environment – because unless they are harmonised and made compatible problems, like climate change and global poverty, will build and ultimately we wont be able to keep human societies going. We need to change our consumer society into a conserver society, to deliver quality of life for all within nature’s means: protecting natural assets; keeping ecosystems healthy; maintaining nature’s capacity to deliver goods and services; keeping wastes and pollutants below environmental capacity; dealing with risks and costs now, not passing them on to people in the future; building social equality; seeking ever higher efficiencies; basing socio-economic activity substantially on renewable resources, managed so that use rate is less than the rate of replenishment.

Our economy clearly exists as a system within and dependent upon the natural environment, drawing its resources from it and emitting its wastes to it. As we’ve seen with floods, hurricanes, droughts and forest fires, here and around the globe, the natural world can devastate human life and activity – human power is puny in comparison. It is desirable for us to achieve sustainability because human health, wellbeing and quality of life would be greatly improved and the stability and security of our world would be much enhanced. Science is clearly telling us that it is necessary to achieve sustainability, most notably with respect to climate change at the moment, and previously with respect to ozone layer depletion. Since many of the resources we currently rely on to sustain us and grow our economy are finite it seems pretty inevitable to me that we will at some stage have to achieve sustainability, if human life as we know it is to go on and improve, and the sooner we make progress the more successful we will be in our efforts.

People often use the terms sustainability and sustainable development interchangeably. I’m not that happy with this, at least not without spelling out what I mean by development. Gro Harlem Brundtland, in her hugely important book ‘Our Common Future’, produced by the World Commission on Environment and Development following United Nations appeals, gives the most widely used definition of sustainable development:
‘… development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’. Its hard to disagree with this but it is a very broad, brief, ethically and not operationally focussed definition! Brundtland goes on to explain that by needs she meant particularly the needs of the poor, though the definition does not say how needs should be prioritised. Also the idea of environmental limits is implied in the definition rather than explicitly spelt out – you cant meet human needs, especially of the poor, on into the future if environmental limits are exceeded on an ongoing basis.

Whilst the Brundtland definition certainly involves environmental concerns, it suggests that economic growth, the way we currently develop, is not incompatible with environmental protection, a very contentious idea for Greens though not for the bigger political parties. The pursuit of economic growth as the key goal of governments - equating growth with progress - has certainly to date been a part of the problem. To become sustainable we need to achieve a set of economic and social goals that is not centred primarily on economic growth. Growth in the economy needs to meet conditions and be selective ie be of the right sort, in the right places, so that we attain and maintain economic stability and security.

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 (another way of defining sustainability). 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; 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.

There is a great deal more that could be discussed. Greens have built a whole manifesto, covering all sorts of aspects of life, centred on building a sustainable society. If you are inclined to find out more the links below aren’t a bad start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability

http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/what/index.htm

http://www.forumforthefuture.org.uk/what-is-sd

Drive safely (unlike senior police officers and government ministers!)

The 5-11 Nov is road safety week. I'd urge all drivers to sign up to the Brake pledge to drive safely.

Belt Up - front and back and ensure children are correctly restrained
Slow Up - abide by limits and only overtake if totally safe
Wake Up - never drive tired and take breaks every two hours on long journeys
Sober Up - 'just say no' to alcohol and drugs if driving
Look Up - look out for people on bikes, horses and foot
Wise Up - if it's night, bright, or bad weather, go slower
Buck Up - calm yourself before driving if stressed, angry or excited
Move Up - adjust head restraints so the top is level with the top of your head to help prevent whiplash
Sharpen Up - wear glasses or lenses if you need them
Shut Up - switch your phone to voicemail
Back Up - from the vehicle in front - it's your braking space in a crisis
Check Up - check brakes, tyres, lights mirrors and windows

Its shameful that recently both a government minister and a very senior police officer have not followed road safety charity Brake's advice. What hypocrites these individuals are. Remember these news items?

First, the speeding Chief Constable...

A senior police officer in charge of road policy for Britain's chief constables is facing prosecution for exceeding a 60mph speed limit.

Meredydd Hughes, chief constable of the South Yorkshire force, was allegedly clocked by cameras driving along the A5 near Chirk in north Wales.
He has been summoned to appear before Wrexham magistrates on 21 November. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7069289.stm

And the Chief Constable has a history of speeding...

Mr Hughes has two previous speeding offences, but they were much less serious and, because they were committed more than three years ago, the six penalty points have been removed from his licence. http://www.naffedoff.com/2007/11/01/why-sy-police-chief-constable-should-receive-a-custodial-service/

Plus the government minister who used his mobile phone whilst driving...

The Government's immigration minister, Liam Byrne, has been fined and had points put on his licence after admitting using his mobile phone while driving.Byrne, who has been a Home Office minister since 2006, was fined £100, ordered to pay £35 costs and given three points on his licence by Sutton Coldfield Magistrates' Court. http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=228986

I dont think magistrates were tough enough on the government minister. I hope that the Chief Constable gets a ban if found guilty, because of his history of speeding and because he of all people should be setting an example and so has particularly badly let the side down. I'd like penalties for driving offences generally to be toughened because of numbers killed and seriously injured on a daily basis on the roads.

The Green Party needs a leader....

Received all the details of the Green Party referendum on whether the two current 'Principal Speakers' should be replaced with an elected Leader and Deputy Leader, or Co-leaders, today in the post. Green Party policies have to me always shown true realism and leadership. However, the party itself has certainly not had great direction, organisation and public image (all vital if you are to demonstrate leadership, win elections and run things like councils !). Its long been my view that the Green Party should have a leader and so I had no hesitation in voting yes in the referendum, to change the current situation, and supporting the case for a leader made by that most excellent Green Caroline Lucas MEP (and also Jean Lambert MEP and the current female Principal Speaker and candidate for London Mayor Sian Berry).

Surely more time studying = better performance at school ??

My daughter's school had three staff development/training days added on to the recent school break, giving her a full two weeks off school in October. Towards the end of the recent school break I received a letter from the school stating that the next 'learning review day' is November 14 and reminding me that students dont attend school on that day. I dont need my twenty yrs experience of teaching 11-18 yr olds to conclude that my child would be far better off going to school for an extra four days this term ! The 'learning review' has never 'reviewed current performance and set targets for improvement' effectively and with real impact and should be completely integrated into day to day teaching and learning anyway. All staff developement should be organised in a way that allows children to continue attending school. Good sense tells me that, within reason, if students spend more time studying they will do better at school!

No major issues from twenty yrs ago are currently forecast to get better: the evidence.

Just in case you still dont think there is enough clear evidence of serious and urgent environmental problems interrelated with socio-economic (and therefore political) ones go to the major report: GEO-4. It says that no major issues raised twenty yrs ago are currently forecast to get any better!!

'... the latest in UNEP's series of flagship reports, assesses the current state of the global atmosphere, land, water and biodiversity, describes the changes since 1987, and identifies priorities for action. GEO-4 is the most comprehensive UN report on the environment, prepared by about 390 experts and reviewed by more than 1 000 others across the world.
It salutes the world's progress in tackling some relatively straightforward problems, with the environment now much closer to mainstream politics everywhere. But despite these advances, there remain the harder-to-manage issues, the "persistent" problems. Here, GEO-4 says: "There are no major issues raised in Our Common Future for which the foreseeable trends are favourable."...'

Great green building design in Knowle West

Just back from a week's break in Cornwall and today had a go at playing the green building design game on the kwmc site. See if you can establish what all the environmentally friendly features of the Knowle West Media Centre's new building design are by playing this game: http://www.kwmc.org.uk/game/

Walking: a highly effective health, transport and environment policy all rolled into one!

Today I stumbled upon a copy of a letter I'd written to the Bristol Evening Post back in June 2004. It could have been written yesterday! Where is a proper, effective and well funded strategy for walking?

10 June 2004, Bristol Evening Post Open Lines, Soapbox: Growing obesity problem demands a full strategy -

Obesity is a growing problem and the government must have proper strategy to address it, so I have a lot of sympathy for the views of C Gay and Mrs KM Borek concerning food and supermarkets ('Government must address obesity', Open Lines, June 4).

However, I would add that obesity is not just to do with the amount and types of food we put into our bodies. There is also the level and type of activity to consider.

Take the way we move around for example. About 100 yrs ago the average distance travelled per person in the UK was approximately 1,600 miles per year. Of these 1,300 miles were travelled on foot.

In contrast today we travel 10 times further, approximately 16,000 miles per year, but of this distance only 300 miles by foot.

The healthiest, most efficient and pollution-free way of travelling is on foot - but most car journeys made are less than five miles. More kids should be walking to school and more people should be walking to work.

Also, more goods and services should be available within easy walking distance.

A national walking strategy is needed to make this happen, though no political party, the Greens aside, has taken this remotely seriously, despite the fact that it would be a highly effective health, transport and environment policy rolled into one.

Restorative justice in South Bristol

Restorative justice is something Greens are very keen on. Green Party policy on it currently says:

CJ114 We will introduce the principle of "restorative justice", which while denouncing the crime, deals constructively with both the victim and the offender. The primary aim will be to restore and, if necessary, improve the position of the victim and the community; the offender will be required to make amends. (Manifesto for a Sustainable Society)

I posted the question below about it on Chief Inspector Andy Bennett's blog in Sept.

What is your view on work being done by the community in Knowle West on restorative justice? Can you give us some background and rationale on it?

At the time he asked me to 'watch this space' because it would be the subject of a future blog. This blog has now been posted and responds fully to my question. The work being done and being planned on restorative justice in South Bristol, as described by Andy Bennett, sounds excellent. I'm keenly interested in justice and its adminstration and will follow this development closely - I hope money for the work is forthcoming so that next yr plans are put into practice.

Further background on restorative justice from the home office.

Vital, valuable work of the United Nations

Wednesday 24 October is United Nations (UN) Day. If we are to solve global problems a strong and effective, well respected UN is vital. The UN Association UK will be lobbying on UN day , to 'promote dialogue between voters and MPs about the UK ’s contribution to the UN’s work in maintaining international peace and security, protecting human rights and promoting sustainable development' - very valuable work indeed.

The focus of the lobby this year is:

• Achieving the Millennium Development Goals
  
• Ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
  
• Banning cluster munitions
  
• Combating climate change
  
• Implementing the responsibility to protect

A Green society would be much healthier - our current lifestyle is damaging both people and the environment. But obesity is not like climate change!!

Government Ministers do say some weird things at times. Labour's Health Secretary Alan Johnson has for instance said recently that obesity is a "potential crisis on the scale of climate change". Now, certainly obesity is a big and (literally) growing problem as recent reports show and its not just in the UK. I'm not underestimating the issue. However, I really dont get the comparison with climate change and have heard commentators on the radio today who share my sentiments. The two issues are so different as to make the comparison pretty meaningless. In both quantitative and qualitative term obesity and climate change are not in fact alike!!

There are links between the obesity and climate issues though. We drive too much, overeat and eat unbalanced, low fruit/veg, high meat diets. Its a feature of affluence it seems. Our current environmentally damaging approach to food and transport is also damaging people. A Green society would be healthier because the quality of food, air, water and the general environment would be much, much better. The opportunities for exercise would be better as open spaces would be protected properly. Walking and cycling would be much safer and far more extensively facilitated. So who says that going Green to tackle climate change involves only sacrifices??

Award winning climate change photo exhibition in Bristol soon - shows climate change happening here, now...

Preview some fantastic photos (here) from the climate change communication award winning National Trust photo exhibition. Exposed: Climate Change in Britain's Backyard will be at the Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery, Nov 10th to Dec 9th 2007. Judging by the preview the exhibition of around 90 photos, showing climate change affecting us now, is well worth seeing.

The International Visual Communications Association, who gave the award this yr, said of the exhibition, produced by The National Trust, with Magnum Photos and True Design:

'Beauty, sophistication, innovation and impact are what make this well conceived and implemented initiative a worthy winner. By applying the fine art of photography to illustrate how a global challenge is having a damaging local impact, the National Trust not only brings climate change to life for its own visitors and members but also to a wider arts community.'

If you cant get to the exhibition of photos there is also a poster show in many National Trust properties.

Easy Jet; the law of supply and demand; and the real truth on carbon offsetting

Yesterday my blog focus was on Ryanair's boss Michael O'Leary. Writing that blog entry reminded me of a poster I'd seen recently whilst walking to work to deliver a tutorial (ironically about climate change and ecological footprints). Near the junction of St Lukes Rd and York Rd I saw a large orange poster advertising an easy Jet offer 'Bristol to Madeira from only £24.99'. This sends out exactly the opposite message of the one I would want and I dont see it as ethical. Flying is not in fact even remotely like a low cost activity (see here for an excellent description of why by George Monbiot - who is speaking in Bristol soon) and therefore should not be priced as such or facilitated by expanding airports.

By the law of supply and demand offering flights at very low cost means that demand for them is likely to be very high (exactly what we are seeing), unless some other powerful factor is in operation to deter people. Easy Jet's website has an environment page detailing things like being efficient on the gound, efficient in the air, carbon offsetting, aircraft design and its Corportate Social Responsibility report. The trouble is that the factors they describe are, in terms of environmental effects, completely outweighed by the company's main aim of getting vast numbers of people to fly more and more often !

Easy Jet might respond by saying that people can offset their carbon emissions but planes emit more than carbon (eg water vapour, nitrogen oxides, particulates...) and there are many problems with offsetting, as I've discussed previously. According to the easy Jet carbon calculator flying Bristol to Madeira emits, per person, 195kg of carbon dioxide and that the
offsetting cost per person is £2.54. If only tackling carbon emissions was that straightforward!!

Government advice to business and individuals is 'that carbon offsetting is not a substitute for reducing emissions at source but is: the ‘next best’ solution for mitigating remaining emissions from essential activities after all practical steps have been taken to reduce them' I tried extremely hard to find comments like this on the easy Jet site , looking at all the pages, following links to other pages and documents, but could not find anything like them at all - no surprise really.

Easy Jet want to give the impression that carbon offsetting is a better, much more environmentlly friendly and effective option than it really is of course. They simply aren't going to tell people that they should take 'all practical steps' to cut emissions before considering offsetting the rest - because this would mean not flying at all or flying fewer miles or on fewer occasions!!

The good, the bad and the ugly - comparing and contrasting concerns about climate change

That great advocate of the meeting needs not greeds, and the ethics of future generations, Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary (!!) flew into Bristol International Airport by private jet to front the announcement of new routes last week. In the process he told people campaigning against the expansion of Bristol Airport to 'get a life'. He went on to say, of campaigners against more flying, 'They badger us and bang on about how the end of the world is nigh because of global warming - but its not....' . Well, thanks for those highly responsible personal actions and warm words of informed and concerned social responsibility Mr O'leary. He is of course a person with no vested interest in airport expansion and the current very rapid increase in flying, much to the detriment of our climate. I'm genuinely sure Mr O'Leary's business degree and experience of amassing huge amounts of money qualify him very well for assessing climate change dismissively as no real problem. I wonder why the UN went to the trouble of assembling the world's foremost expertise on climate (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, this yr joint winners of the Nobel Peace Prize) when they could instead, probably for a fee though, have gone to Ryanair's boss??

Contrast the views of Ryanair's Michael O'Leary, a man who has 'proudly declared that Ryanair intended to increase its emissions of carbon dioxide' with those of former US Vice President and joint winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his work on raising climate change awareness and concern, Al Gore, and with those of UK primary age children, who according to a recent report are said to be 'deeply anxious' about issues such as climate change, and you get my message.

Al Gore and the IPCC were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change".

The report describing children's anxieties says children themselves expressed a sense of "deep pessimism about the future", the study showed, with worries about climate change, the gap between rich and poor, and terrorism topping the list.
They were also anxious about issues closer to home such as traffic, graffiti, violence and gang culture. Some also said they were worried about 'what you hear on the news'.

The work of Al Gore and the IPCC in spreading the truth is good. The evidence says that unless we act decisively and soon the future looks bad (and our children, who obviously have a big interest in the future !, sense this). The views, behaviour and attitude of Ryanair's Michael O'Leary are rather ugly.

Twentieth anniversary of 'great storm' of 1987; science backs the Green case

Oct 16th is the twentieth anniversary of the 'great storm' of 1987. I'm sure there will be some focus on this in the Bristol/regional media in the coming days- Countryfile reported on it today and has some interesting links on its website. This storm may have happened even if climate change was not happening at all of course, but it certainly fits the predicted pattern of more weather extremes caused by the climate change we have caused. Its an event particularly marked in my mind especially because I'd just stood for the first time (age 25 yrs !!) in a general election, campaigning to cut pollution levels harming our climate, amongst other things.

Ewen McCallum, Chief Meterologist at the Met Office has said that only “flat-Earthers” refused to believe that the world was in the grip of climate change and that global warming would mean more stormy weather. This is very interesting statement, indicating that science backs the Green case (which has always been my view), when in the past Greens have themselves been accused of being anti-science and technology. This accusation was always something I found both odd and not entirely fair, especially as a Green with science degrees and a higher degree, as well as a science teaching qualification, 20 yrs science teaching experience and 6yrs experience of working in laboratories in industry!

Green solutions: better for individuals, communities and the globe.

Schumacher UK say it exists to challenge corporate power and economic globalisation to the detriment of local democratic self-determination, ecosystems, economies and communities. I agree with this aim - coporate power and economic globalisation have to be challenged successfully in order to improve to quality of individual lives, community wellbeing and global sustainability.

They describe the Bristol Schumacher Lectures as ‘Britain’s premier environmental gathering’. They have been taking place for some time here (29 yrs this yr) and do have a pretty impressive list of past speakers, including for example Jonathon Porritt, currently Chair of the Sustainable Development Commission, advising the Government, and George Monbiot, Guardian journalist, author, academic and activist.

This weekend’s event saw lectures from: Mark Lynas; Dr Vala Ragnarsdottir; Nicky Gavron; and Herbert Giradet. The points made by Mark Lynas are particularly strong. I agree with him that ‘changing our carbon-addicted lifestyles would actually be better for ourselves, as well as the planet’.

Really enact the principles: needs; and future generations - for our children, and theirs...

Yet more evidence that children are not being well served by the kind of society we have in the UK and the kind of world we live in. According to a major report children are deeply anxious about all sorts of things, from climate change, poverty and terrorism, to traffic, violence and gangs. The report gives even more weight to views I have previously commented on (a number of times in fact). All generations of children have their different problems of course, but many of the worries of children are well within our control to tackle if our priorities were different. The UK was found to be bottom of a Unicef league table for child well-being across 21 industrialised countries earlier this yr - its a position I hope we dont find ourselves in again in future.

C.diff and an NHS unresponsive to the people it serves: massive health issues. Lets address health, properly defined, in all its dimensions.

C. difficile is a massive problem for the NHS. At the same time the culture of the NHS is such that it is not responsive to the people it serves. The facts show this very clearly - and I, like many others, have recent, direct, personal experience of both C. difficile in a family member resulting in death, and poor responsiveness from the service. Technical capabilities in the NHS are often fantastic (though technical matters have 'gone astray' in places - overuse/misuse/abuse of antibiotics being the root cause of superbugs like C. diff and MRSA). Some very caring and committed people work in the NHS - BUT the emphasis on CARE as well as on prevention is in my view poor, especially for the elderly.

I want an NHS that pays as much attention to social and mental needs as it does physical ones, and medical/technical capabilities (it wont actually be adressing health, properly defined, if it does not do this, since health is about having a good physical, mental, social balance). I want it to be much more focussed on prevention of health problems than it is. I want services to be available to people locally. I want funding to enable all these things to be of a high standard and am willing to pay more in taxes, as required, to get it as well as being willing to advocate this politically. My view is that if people see the tax as fair and necessary and see that the income is used well they are willing to pay it.