Bragging on: love, music, hate, racism...

Really enjoyed seeing Billy Bragg in concert at the Colston Hall last night. I'm a long time listener to and admirer of his music and share his liking for the work of people like Woody Guthrie.

I agree with many (though not all) of his political views, not least opposition to fascism, racism, bigotry, sexism and homophobia. He has many interesting things to say about reform of the House of Lords, Independence for Scotland (which he, and I, favour), a Bill of Rights (great idea!)and national identity...

He of course had plenty to say during the concert (!), including outlining how he'd been supporting teachers in their recent strike action (they do have a point in my view - we need to ensure we are able to recruit sufficient, well qualified people to teach), the alternative St Georges Day concert and plugging the Love Music Hate Racism 30th Anniversary Carnival due to take place this Sunday, 27 April in Victoria Park, London (more details on the carnival here).

More on Billy Bragg and his work here.

Here comes the...solar power??

Had a message from Friends of the Earth's Christian Graham the other day saying that 'Germany has 200 times more solar power than England'. Quite a stat!

The message explained that this is because 'German households and businesses get paid a renewable energy reward for the solar power they generate. This is known as the 'feed-in tariff' and has helped make Germany a world leader in renewable energy'.

Why cant we have the same here? We should be told!! http://www.solarplayoff.org/

More on this issue:

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/feedin_tariff.pdf

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/renewable_energy_tariff.pdf

I was very happy to lobby my MP Kerry McCarthy on this issue by sending the email message suggested by Friends of the Earth (below):

The UK's record on renewable energy is a national disgrace. Germany has more than 200 times more solar power and ten times more wind power installed than the UK. Germany has a quarter of a million people employed in their renewables industry. We have only 7,000 in the UK.

One of the reasons Germany is so far ahead is their adoption of a feed in tariff policy which pays consumers and businesses a long term, guaranteed, premium price for the renewable energy they generate. It is a renewable energy reward (sometimes also known as a feed-in tariff).

Please support New Clause 4 to the Energy Bill, to be debated in Parliament on 30th April. This would introduce a renewable energy reward into the UK. Failure to do so could delay the adoption of this transformative energy policy by three years.

We are near the bottom of the EU renewable energy league table. No further delays are acceptable in adopting the policies which will deliver a dynamic low carbon economy.

A day in the life of an excellent MEP

Its well worth a look at this short film on the work of excellent Green MEP Caroline Lucas here:

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/3384

She certainly covers ground and demonstrates her committment and leadership through work on a wide range of issues. It seems to me that when you elect a Green at any level of government you get really great value for your vote!!

More on Green MEPs here:

http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/default/rubrik/6/6270.greensefa_org@en.htm

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

http://www.jeanlambertmep.org.uk/

No Chinese weapons for Zimbabwe: petition...

Just signed a petition calling for a to stop the Chinese weapons shipment to Zimbabwe. At this delicate time, the international community must rally to bring democracy and stability--not weapons--to Zimbabwe.

The more people sign the petition, the more powerful the international call will be--so please forward this link to friends:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/no_arms_for_zimbabwe/98.php/?CLICK_TF_TRACK

Thanks!

'Save Our Caretakers' - lets hope Labour live up to their fine words in practice as city reviews caretaking

Credit to Cllr Charlie Bolton for opposing the potential loss of residential caretakers and firmly backing residents in flats (see his blog entry here, published as the lead letter in the Bristol Evening Post on Saturday 19 April 2008) - and indeed unions, tenants...who have already very clearly made a stand to protect their security, wellbeing and quality of life. My great worry is that Labour wont live up in practice to what they (eg Dawn Primarolo MP and Southville Cllr Sean Beynon) have said in the very recent past about 'saving our caretakers' - the text quotes below are from the local Labour website. Lets hope Labour (and their current Tory friends and allies on Bristol City Council) remember the fine words below as the city review of caretaking proceeds.

Labour campaigns to protect 'essential service' for residents, 2 Feb 2007

Dawn Primarolo, Labour MP for Bristol South, today joined with local people to protest against Lib Dem plans which threaten the position of resident caretakers across the city. Labour's councillor for Southville, Linda Salter, and local activist Sean Beynon were also there to launch Labour's petition against the proposals.

Dawn met with residents at Chalcroft House in Ashton to assure them that Labour was on their side. Afterwards, she said:

"Caretakers provide an absolutely essential service for people living in blocks of flats across Bristol. We fear this Lib Dem policy is a sneaky first step towards getting rid of caretakers altogether. These City Council proposals seriously affect the terms and conditions of new employees, and even those staff who have given many years of loyal service will only be protected from the Lib Dem axe for a limited time".

Frank Baker, Chairman of Chalcroft House Residents Association, agreed:

"Lots of people in Chalcroft House gave up three bedroom houses in return for a promise from the City Council that we would have safe and secure flats. If we lose our resident caretaker, then the security of every resident will be compromised. There is also no way that off-site contractors could keept the communal areas of the block so clean and tidy. We are very lucky here to have a fantastic caretaker and we aren't going to give up without a fight".

Commenting, Linda Salter, who is also Labour's Spokesperson for housing in Bristol, said:

"The council's plan was rejected by trade unions, and tenants have shown overwhelming support for their caretakers. It's a shame that the Lib Dems teamed up with their Tory friends on the council to pass this policy, but residents and caretakers know that Labour will stand up for them".

Sean Beynon concludes:

"The council wants to carry out a shake-up of the whole system next year, so it's vital that we act now. We will keep up the pressure on the council, and have started to distribute petitions and 'Save Our Caretakers' posters to residents in flats across Bristol".

and

Labour condemns 'backdoor privatisation', March 2007

Hundreds of residents have joined Labour's Sean Beynon and Linda Salter in fighting the Lib Dem City Council's attack on resident caretakers in blocks of flats across Southville and Ashton.

"We're very concerned that this drastic cut in the benefits available to new employees is actually a sneaky first step in getting rid of the caretakers and replacing them with the lowest bidding off-site private contractor", Sean explains. "We don't believe these agencies would be able to provide the service that residents rightly expect, which is why we are fighting these plans".

Over two hundred flat dwellers have already signed Labour's petition calling on the Lib Dems to reconsider their plan to cut caretakers' employment conditions. "Most of these residents are older people who really value the caretaking service", Linda says. "But they can't fight the Lib Dems on their own. We're doing our bit to back them, but we need everyone else in the area to rally round and show their support as well".

If you agree with us and think the Lib Dem City Council should urgently think again, text* 'Save Our Caretakers', together with your name and postcode, to 07835 751538.

* charged at your standard network rate

Great Knowle biodiversity asset

Great article about Arnos Vale Cemetry in the local paper ('New life among the gravestones', Bristol Evening Post, Saturday 19 April). What an asset to the biodiversity of Bristol (and Knowle!) this site is. Excellent work by Mary Wood and the Friends of Arnos Vale Cemetry, Arnos Vale Trust and others in the Wildlife Trust and at the City Council.

Want to know more? Contact Sarah van der Meer, telephone 07814 337766 or at
sarah_vandermeer@hotmail.com and Mary Wood, telephone 0117 972 1079 (evenings only) or at mailto:marywood@talktalk.net.

Gross unfairness in removing the 10p tax band: a tax grab from poorer people to give to richer people!!

Labour's Chancellor Alistair Darling said today that it would be irresponsible to unravel or rewrite the budget, in response to what I see as very valid criticism from many in his own party and beyond due to the removal of the 10p tax band. Yet this is exactly what Labour have done: they brought in the 10p tax band and have now removed it! Is this not unravelling and rewriting??

Its clearly unfair and unjust to tax the lowest earners more to pay for a tax cut for higher earners . This disadvantages millions of people who are already likely to be disadvantaged by being on a low income. Good on those 'rebel' Labour MPs (might be more accurate to say real Labour MPs) and others who are opposing this and fighting for a reversal of the policy and/or some package which compensates people. If anyone is to pay more in income tax it should be people earning more than £50,000 per yr.

Gwyneth Dunwoody's example

Gwyneth Dunwoody, longest serving female MP, born 12 Dec 1930, died 17 April 2008, was for me a very fine model for an elected representative: very independent-minded; a vigorous questioner and keen thinker; strong opponent of waffle and self-importance; a straight-talker; challenger of authority; active and outspoken; champion of UK parliamentary democracy; loyal to her party roots; highly respected by all parties and a very wide range of MPs; great specialist knowledge and experience on key issues, especially public transport.

See also the following from: the Independent ; the BBC ; the Guardian.

On that great democrat (!) Robert Mugabe

Enjoyed this poem on that great democrat (!) Robert Mugabe today’s local paper:

MUGABE'S FINAL WORD ON ZIMBABWE VOTE

18 April 2008, Bristol Evening Post


Now look, we don't like these numbers!
I think you must count them again,
Zimbabwe will not have such blunders,
Now go back and count them again.

Don’t talk about hyper-inflation,
Leave all the inflation to me,
If you want to avoid aggravation
Make sure that your vote is for me.

I'm giving the land to my cronies,
I'm taking away their past pain,
My opponents are all fakes and phonies,
They have driven me insane.

The problems are not of my making,
The British created the frame,
My enemies' boots are all quaking,
I'm dictating the rules of the game.

Now go back and recount the numbers
I don't want to tell you again,
Zimbabwe will not have these blunders!
I will not repeat this again!!

By Trevor Carter, (the Bard of Windmill Hill), Bristol.

Attorney General should not be given the power to override UK law when dealing with enquiries into corruption

A great decision by the High Court which has '...declared that the Government broke the law by cutting short a corruption investigation into BAE's Saudi arms deals ...' - vital defence of the rule of law in fact (details here). We are in signifiicant trouble when those that advocate and propose new law (our Government) are also acting to undermine it! Excellent letter (copied below) from Prof Paul Dunne and Graham Davey, Campaign Against the Arms Trade, Bristol Group, in yesterday's local paper, describing the issue really well:

Soapbox: BAE Systems Enquiry (Bristol Evening Post, 15 April, 08)

The decision of the High Court judges to declare unlawful the halting of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) enquiry into corruption charges against BAE Systems is clearly a triumph for common sense and the rule of law.

BAE Systems, a major local employer, has been under suspicion for many years of paying bribes to secure arms exports.

One of the arguments for stopping the enquiry was that the case would not succeed in court. In fact, the enquiry was about to gain important information about secret Swiss bank accounts, and this caused the Saudis to threaten to withhold information about potential terrorists unless the enquiry was immediately stopped.

This gave Tony Blair the excuse to cite "national security" for his intervention in the legal process, though it is more than likely that economic reasons were paramount - the possibility of the Saudis buying French aircraft, rather than the hugely expensive Eurofighter Typhoon that BAE Systems is involved in producing. This was despite the fact that in 1997, Britain had signed up to the OECD Anti-bribery Convention, article five of which specifically excludes national interest and economic considerations as justifying the termination of an enquiry.

Following the decision of Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan to assert that the Government is not above the law, the need now is to press for the SFO enquiry to be restarted. BAE Systems has given assurances of its full co-operation, and 125 MPs signed an Early Day Motion calling for the Saudi Arabian enquiry to be reinstated alongside the six other ongoing enquiries involving BAE.

Remarkably, the Government has now introduced draft legislation that would give the Attorney General authority to override UK law when dealing with enquiries into corruption. This must be resisted.


Excellent legal challenge by the Corner House NGO, and the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, whose priorities are well worth supporting: end government subsidies and support for arms exports; end exports to oppressive regimes; end exports to countries involved in an armed conflict or region of tension; end exports to countries whose social welfare is threatened by military spending; support measures, both in the UK and internationally, which will regulate and reduce the arms trade and lead to its eventual end.

The public's concerns make the green case

From the Green Party website, the following comments about the latest local election broadcast:

'...real people were invited to discuss their concerns, making a compelling argument for Green solutions for a more affordable and fairer society...'

Great broadcast!! Can be viewed here: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/3381 . Take a look!!

Incinerators propagate the waste problem not solve it!

According to the Environment Agency the UK currently produces 330 million tonnes of waste each year, a quarter of which is from households and businesses (construction, demolition, sewage sludge, farm waste, spoils from mines and dredging of rivers makes up the rest).That’s the weight equivalent of tens of millions of double-decker buses that, end to end, would stretch around the Earth many times. Its about 5.5 tonnes for every single individual living here, including hundreds of thousands of tonnes from West Country households and its literally a huge problem.

Thankfully there is a very useful concept which, if we can apply it properly and consistently, will tackle this waste mountain and so the multiple problems that go with it. The waste management hierarchy is a ranking of waste management options in order of efficiency and effectiveness.

Priority one is the prevention of waste through reduction/minimisation strategies. After reduction comes object reuse so that they do not enter the waste stream eg refilling containers. It is not until one gets down to the third level in the hierarchy that one gets to recycling and composting, which still give significant benefits particularly in terms of energy saving . The recovery of energy from waste by a whole range of methods (some much more environmentally friendly than others) is fourth in the list, just above waste disposal. Waste disposal is at the bottom of the hierarchy and includes final disposal to landfill and the incineration of waste without recovering the energy.

Given the clear message from the waste management hierarchy and the amount of talk we get these days about being green one would think that our local councils would be ready, willing and able to focus in on the top three options as a priority. Not so I’m afraid. The West of England Joint Residual Municipal Waste Strategy recommends that we build a so-called "energy from waste" plant (a mere fourth out of five in the ranking list) to process our residual waste from 2015 onwards. Moreover, it’s a huge plant that incinerates waste on a mass scale that is proposed, (albeit with electricity being produced). Such a monstrosity would, over the life of contracts lasting decades, demand to be fed huge amounts of waste when we are supposed to be heading in the opposite direction!! It’s a clear sign that we have so far failed to even approach the issue of waste properly and that its still waste maximisation that rules. To find out more visit the Bristol Against Mass Burn Incineration (BAMBI) website:
http://www.bambi-network.org.uk/index.php . To sign the petition against go to: http://epetitions.bristol.gov.uk/petition.php?id=180

Bristol International Airport expansion - just who is it that is ignoring the crucial facts??

Its more than a touch rich for Bristol International Airport's James Gore to talk about facts being ignored, by anti-airport expansion campaigner Jeremy Birch, in his letter in today's Bristol Evening Post('Airport Campaigner gave only one side of the story', 3 April). After all, in the world James Gore and others who favour yet more airport expansion inhabit, this expansion apparently wont make climate change worse - despite what expert, nobel prize winning work by independent UN scientists says!! He needs to get real.

Another green motion wrecked by an amendment: council fails to rule out running buses down the Railway/Cyclepath

Surprise, surprise!! Labour and the Tories on Bristol City Council have again used an amendment to wreck a truly green motion that would have stopped a bus route being built down the Bristol to Bath Railway Path, used by thousands of cyclists and walkers and a haven for wildlife.

The amended motion clearly leaves open the option of using the path for buses (details/comment here and here). They should be warned that they have ignored the very, very strong feelings expressed by campaigners (who will fight on for clarity I'm very sure, see here) and many thousands who signed the petition - very likely this will affect votes in the ballot box for Labour and Tories alike as the petition has been signed by a significant % of Bristols population (nearly 10,000 when I looked today).

The council has done this before eg with a green motion opposing airport expansion (as well as also wrecking green budget initiatives) . Such compromise at crunch points by councils and governments has resulted in the poor state of the environment that we currently experience and at this rate our children and grandchildren will experience a worse environment - thanks to them and their unethical politics. Pity we dont have elections to Bristol City Council this year (would they have dared to amend/wreck in this way at this time of the year then??).

For more on cycling in Bristol issues see here.

Great example of the impacts of a strong group of Green councillors on a city council - Bristol needs this!!

The strong group of ten Green councillors in the city of Norwich have had quite an impact. See the video clip here briefly outlining their work. We need a group of Green councillors like this on Bristol City Council!! Interesting to see the similarity of the issues that are topical and that they have successfully opposed the building of a waste incinerator for instance (something currently on the agenda here).

When is feeling for one's country genuine and valuable? How does it relate to happiness?

I'm afraid Bristol's Deputy Lord Mayor, Councillor Peter Abraham shows he is very seriously out of touch with both young people and the evidence by saying that getting children to swear allegiance to Crown and country could help combat unhappiness amongst them ('Children should swear allegiance', Bristol Evening Post, 12 May 2008). Yes there is clear evidence that children in our country are more unhappy than those in many other countries as the unicef table of childhood wellbeing demonstrates (see previous post here). The causes of this unhappiness seem to be many, varied and complex however and according to what children themselves say, relate to wide-ranging issues like climate change, terrorism, violence, poverty, traffic and gangs. The links to allegiance to Crown and country are tenuous at best and in any case unhappiness has roots that originate long before age 16 or 17, when Cllr Abraham wants allegiance sworn. So, does he know what he is talking about here??

There's also the issue of willingness to swear allegiance. What if people dont want to swear allegiance to the Crown because they are republicans?? Do people proposing this idea intend it to be compulsory? Those willing to swear allegiance are 'loyal' anyway, whilst those who are not willing but who are required to swear cannot be regarded as 'loyal' simply because they have said a few words or signed a piece of paper. And if those not willing to swear allegiance are given the choice to opt out should our society regard them as lesser citizens?? What is the value of feeling for one's country if its not one that has developed freely and naturally??

Strong view expressed on this issue in the comments following this newsblog. More on the issue here.

International Women's Day 2008

I agree with Jean, who sent me the link http://www.saynotoviolence.org/ , that this is just right for International Women's Day. Please click on the link and support the call for global action to end violence against women.

Making green food/shopping choices: not as straightforward as it may sometimes seem

Whether or not crops grown further away are less green or not can be a pretty complex question (see the points made in the article ''Crops from far away may be greener', Bristol Evening Post, 4 March). I'd certainly err on the side of local generally being greener, though I'd agree that its often not just food miles that count. Its most often not possible to make a fully informed choice because the total carbon emissions involved are not currently marked on products. A lot of rough guessing on impacts is thus involved for anyone who takes an interest. There is also the question of whether its just carbon we should take into account (we are, understandably in these times of climate change, very carbon focussed these days). There are other significant resources (social and environmental) involved too. Take the example of growing roses in Kenya used in the article I cited above (seen as more carbon efficient than growing in Holland even after taking air transport into account) - this requires massive water use from a country whose people are often desperately short of it. When exporting flowers Kenya is effectively also exporting its water (see virtual, embedded, embodied, hidden water or water footprint information here and here). Growing roses also takes up land which it might be argued Kenya could better use to grow food for its people and for neighbouring countries - there has long been desperate need in that area of the globe.

You may be interested in the Fairtrade Foundation website.

Factors affecting the price of a bacon butty

Well done to the government's new chief scientific advisor Professor John Beddington for today pointing out that in the coming decades the evidence currently shows that demand for food will outstrip our ability to supply it (see here). This issue has been increasingly reported on of late (including the article 'Prices give food for thought' in the Bristol Evening Post, March 6) and I have blogged on it before. Rising world population, rapid consumption, problems of current patterns of economic growth, speculation by investors, growing world meat consumption, climate change cutting crop yields, use of land to grow plants for biofuels and bioplastics...instead of food...are all cited as key factors.

Chaos and instability in Bristol South secondary schools: is no-one being held to account??

What utter chaos and instability we have in some secondary schools in Bristol South. First Hengrove axes GCSE courses after students started them (see here) and now they are closing the sixth form part way through the year ('Anger as sixth form is closed', Bristol Evening Post, 5 March 2008)!! Is no-one going to be held to account for this apalling organisation which is sure to significantly disrupt the education and lives of young people?

We need 'wartime spirit' to fight climate change and build a greener society

Interesting to see that Prince Charles has likened the fight against climate change to fighting a war, and not for the first time (see here and here). All the way back in 1989 I made a very similar point in a chapter of the book 'Something About Bristol' (Redcliffe Press), after taking part in a Bristol Evening Post writing competition to mark the publication locally of the fiftieth book about Bristol. I've copied my chapter 'Wartime Spirit, without war' below. I could write something very similar today. Problems of: rapid and inappropriate development; how to deal with history; apathy, cynicism and materialism; division and inequality; local community breakdown and lack of self-determination; industries shutting down and using people; poverty; housing everyone; pollution and traffic congestion; happiness and the quality of life, are still very much with us about 20 yrs on. And I'm still here arguing for reconciliation: between society and economy and our environment; between people within and across communities here and around the world. I'm sure you will spot the references to a few things that certainly have changed though...


Wartime spirit, without war (from 'Something About Bristol', 1989)

Bristol is a city steeped in history. There are many developments which are rapidly changing its face, like its fast growing influence as a financial centre, that also bring frustratingly difficult problems. So while historic achievements, people and events should not be dismissed, history should not bind us. To adapt to accelerating change we should all look forward, but learn from the past.

During wartime and deprivation great comradeship existed. Now apathy, cynicism and materialism are surely destroying more than all the bombs that have fallen on Bristol. Indeed we may be bound by history. Divisions between black and white, rich and poor, are evident. People are physically separated by a road system which ignores community life.

The community spirit and friendliness found in the St Philips Marsh area up to its break-up in the late 1950s gives us much to emulate. The closeness is needed, without the poverty, clannish suspicion of outsiders and the sexism of the times. Perhaps we need wartime spirit without war.

Elements found in the old St Philips Marsh – the shops in every street, local small businesses and self-employed chimney sweeps, blacksmiths, wet fish sellers – should be recreated. The principle of self-contained, but not isolated communities, with local people providing themselves with goods and services, is good.

Working and living environments have changed. We now have fairly clean, though not perfect, drinking water whereas in the 12th century when Bristol was a major wine port the poor quality of the water was cited as a reason for drinking wine! In St Philips developing industry brought jobs, housing and so people. Industry also brought its foul smells, river pollution and noise. Indeed, eventually the people were squeezed out, used then disposed, by growing industry.

The community there was crushed. Future Bristol must have industry to meet people’s needs not people that service industry, only to be moved ‘out of town’.

Housing in Bristol has moved from the contrast of huge, plush Victorian places with small, cramped and basic utility housing, to council estates and flats sadly lacking in open space. The plush housing is still there, the housing problems are different, if not worse, people now at the mercy of ‘mysterious’ market forces. Lack of self determination in local areas, or even lack of any say at all, needs putting right. This would avoid the breakdown of communities and shed light on the needs and problems of areas, like housing and open space needs.

To this day Bristol’s notorious but profitable role in the slave trade (white slavery since the time of the Norman conquest, then later black slavery up to the 1800s) influences the view many have of the present, even the future. People said that slavery was intimately entwined with the economy of Bristol. Indeed, much money was involved but slavery was abolished. Bristol’s present South African trade links via the port are profitable too. Will this last as slavery did?

Bristol’s economy has been served by people. Sherry, tobacco and chocolate firms run by God-fearing families employed thousands and still do. The wealth divisions evident from history still exist today. Compare house prices North and South of the river. Wealthy merchants had the legal advice and protection of Latchams, Montague and Niblett, Britain’s longest surviving law firm. They bought jewels from Bristol Bridge and sent for fresh meat from Temple Gate. Brooks dyed ostrich feathers for Bristol ladies. Exploitation today has some historic roots, even if different situations are involved.

Bristol’s future economy should be built on the theme of reconciliation. Small firms, with work self-contained and flexible, would reconcile material needs with creative needs if local people produced for their own needs. A strong element of worker and community control with local reinvestment and recirculation of resources is the more just and equal Bristol I want. Elements of this future can be found in the past but never all the required features.

Reconciliation of the need for economic activity and a clean and pleasant environment to live in is a must. Pollution from industry in St Philips Marsh in the past and at Avonmouth today shows that ecological concerns have still to be considered of primary importance.

Cars in today’s Bristol bring pollution, stress and disfigurement to historic buildings like St Mary Redcliffe Church. Who today wants this magnificent building encircled by crowded, hostile roads? Do we want to go on hearing of ‘lots of traffic chaos due to temporary lights at Whitchurch Lane. Wells Road and Bath Road very busy and flowing slowly’ on local radio every day.

Its not for reasons of nostalgia that I like the idea of trams, or something like them, returning to Bristol. The Metro idea is a good one. If properly planned with local people it will provide a great service. It should be integrated with a bus and rail system. Park-and-ride schemes, more cycle-ways and more pedestrian-only should prosper too. The car rules many lives, when we should rule the car.

Future Bristol will I hope reconcile people with each other and their surroundings. Its people will be aware of Bristol as a whole from within their own diverse self-reliant communities. Bristol’s interdependence within Britain and the World should be recognised. People will, I hope, be happier and use leisure wisely. Others, too, will enjoy the quality of Bristol, historic city.

Technology: best to take a broad view and account for interactions

For many Greens applying knowledge to useful ends is a pretty good definition of technology. Contrary to what some would have you believe, most greens are not generally anti-technology (think of modern wind turbines, photovoltaic panels, effiency and pollution control systems, electric trams...). Take this report ‘Robots could reduce animal tests’ on a technology whose ‘ultimate goal is to develop non-animal based testing methods that are rigorous enough to be submitted for regulatory approval’ in the news today for example – Greens are likely to welcome such a development, subject to applying a process of technological assessment to it (see later description).

I hold to a particular view of technology though – and it does not accord with the widely-held view, expressed in any dictionary, that technology is the application of science, in particular to industry or commerce (a view which became firmly established during nineteenth century industrialisation and the development of capitalism and consumer societies). The dictionary definition only tells part of the story, for there is a lot more to technology than applied science or technical considerations – in addition to the hardware (scientific, technical, machines, tools) there is also software (people - and some other animals, organisation, social processes)! In any case technology (eg as ‘tool use’ or all practical knowledge) clearly predates science by a very, very long way (think of a chimp catching termites with a stick!).

My view is broader and focussed on interactions, a key consideration for Greens. It is not centred on any one type of knowledge, even though scientific knowledge is of course of great value. The broad approach to technology is much more likely to achieve lasting and appropriate solutions to problems because it tries to account for responses to technical change - it does not just argue for a technofix but considers the network of linkages between all the relevant factors: technical; economic; social; psychological; environmental… The scale and social context of technical change are very important. My definition of technology acknowledges the role of science but also acknowledges that key technological processes and concepts such as design, systems, modelling and management, involve craft and people skills. To apply knowledge practically requires people to be organised as well as machines to be used.

This broad approach does mean always trying to take account of subjective human beings and their values! This means a thorough, comprehensive approach to assessing technology: its technical capabilities and limitations; its current and future cost-effectiveness; its impact on the quantity and quality of work; its impact on the natural environment and various systems environments, and other relevant dimensions, as well as the interactions between these factors. We should not simply ‘surrender’ unconditionally to inventions and ‘novelties’ just because they are offered but should instead direct and control technological change towards justly and rationally determined social goals. We have to do this if we are to achieve a sustainable society in any case.

A purely technical ‘solution’ may often result in changes in other key factors which reduce, undermine or reverse any progress made. Examples: increasing fuel efficiency of vehicles means less fuel used, saving people money, which they may then spend on travelling further, consuming more fuel.; installing low energy lighting may mean people are happy to leave them on for longer; cars with many safety features may be driven faster…it’s a kind of rebound effect. Taking a broad view of technology and assessing it in the round, may predict potential behavioural (and indeed ecological) changes and allow a better solution to be designed. Any solution is highly likely to have both advantages and disadvantages in varying proportions, what some call the dual nature of technology. Fitting catalytic converters to cars cuts emissions of toxic gases like nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide, but all else being equal results in higher fuel consumption due to lower efficiency, and along with it higher emissions of carbon dioxide – massive growth in car use (perhaps encouraged a bit by making cars less toxic) has in any case severely cut the benefits of the catalytic converter!

Some technologies may have inherent qualities which make them inconsistent with building a sustainable society. Nuclear technologies would be put in this category by many Greens, due to fact that future generations continue to have to keep watch over its wastes. Even then one could argue (though I would not) for short term use of it as a minority in the green movement have.

Bigger schools? Isn't a more human scale better both for children, the community and the environment?

Greens have long fought for 'human-scale' approaches to life, not least in education and thus my concern when I read the details of the so-called 'shake-up' of Bristol's primary schools ('Primary schools closure plan', Bristol Evening Post, 15 Feb 2008). Closures, mergers and cuts are likely to be proposed, especially since Councillor Derek Pickup, cabinet councillor for children has said,

"There is a case for a smaller number of schools, each serving larger numbers of children...'

This is a very worrying statement. There is a danger of pupil-adult relationships, vital to learning, suffering in a more impersonal environment. And what about the role played by schools in local community life? And what of the environmental impacts and the road safety aspects of having to travel further to more remote schools, if they are set up? I suspect there are very dubious motives behind wanting to build fewer, bigger schools. Credit to Bristol's first Green Councillor, Southville's Charlie Bolton for questioning the need for and value of bigger schools.

The former head teacher of two large secondary schools, including Cotham, James Wetz, now a researcher and visiting fellow at the University of Bristol's Graduate School of Education, is carrying out a feasibility study on the concept of 'Urban Village Schools'. He was recently quoted in the Evening Post ('School system is failing our children', Feb 11 2008) as saying this of secondary schools,

"If big schools are such a good idea, why are private schools comparatively small in size and why don't they expand - it's because they realise that smaller schools are better."

The same argument certainly applies to primary schools, possibly more so. I dont agree that often with Tory pronouncements on education but on this occasion I think the Conservative Parliamentry Candidate for Bristol North West, Charlotte Leslie, is spot on in her letter 'Super-sized schools are failing our children..' (Bristol Evening Post, Feedback, 15 Feb 2008). Its worth quoting some of it. She says,

'The Government talks a lot about personalised learning. But at the same time, its intent on building supr-size schools which dwarf the individual. And worryingly Bristol City Council wants to make primary schools larger. If we really are to personalise learning we must make schools small enough to be manageable.'

Could not have put it better myself!

Ongoing and secure funding for neighbourhood projects in Bristol is needed for effectiveness Chancellor

It cant be very often that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be found in Knowle West but here he is ('Chancellor visits Knowle West', Bristol Evening Post, 14 Feb 2008). Mr Darling talked about making effective use of funding in response to the fact that Neighbourhood Renewal Funds for Bristol are being phased out and will not be replaced with money from the new source. Withdrawl of funds is potentially very destabilising as its far from certain that money will now come from regional or arts sources . For example, if the Knowle West Media Centre he visited cant rely on funds being available year to year (it has a £50,000 shortfall at present according to media reports) is this not making it harder for the project to be effective? He needs to acknowledge that there is fully justified need here, and elsewhere in Bristol, and account for the fact that there are very big wealth differences between different areas of the city.

Unwanted and undesirable sounds and their health impact

That we need a noise strategy for Bristol and the surrounding area is backed by scientific research reported on the Science Daily site today that aircraft noise raises blood pressure even while people are sleeping. There have been very good arguments in favour of a local noise strategy for quite some time now, as I described last April when calling for one. Traffic growth, night flying and the rapid growth in flying, and intense development pressures cutting our open, green spaces all tend to worsen noise pollution problems, so something must be done.

Interesting links to more on noise and health from this BBC report.

'Valentine card' for my MP

I'm a supporter of the I Count campaign of the Stop Climate Chaos coalition that is calling on the government to:

*Take a lead on the global stage, working for an international agreement to cut climate pollution.
World-wide this must be in decline by 2015.

*Cut the UK's emissions by at least 3% year on year.

*Help the poorest countries get access to clean energy, help them cut out poverty and deal with the climate disasters they are already facing.

Periodically I take part in an activity they suggest. Today I sent the 'Valentine card' I Count put together to my MP (see below). Cheesy it may be - but our MPs cant be given enough reminders to strengthen the Climate Change Bill now going through Parliament.

A message from the heart

Hello ,

The time has come to make a commitment and call for emissions cuts of at least 80% now - 60% will be too little, too late. Don't make me wait, be my hero and save our planet from climate chaos.

Call me a flirt but I'd also like you to vote for annual milestones to keep us on track, and ensure aviation and shipping emissions are included in the Climate Change Bill targets too.

Please show your commitment to stopping climate chaos by signing EDM 736 (opens in a new window) now.

Thank you

Bristol's green and pleasant spaces and the council plans to flog them to developers

A Green’s view on the value of open, green spaces -
Many locals have lived in Bristol for a long time and have valued its open, green spaces very highly. Many have experienced the disappearance of areas they and their friends and family once roamed around and played in. There are self-evident leisure, tourism, recreational, entertainment, sporting and health benefits in open, green spaces. Green spaces also help attract and keep businesses and help them to attract and retain the staff they need. To these can be added key ecological and environmental function benefits. There is storm water drainage and thus flood protection, as the land soaks up, temporarily stores and then gradually releases rain. Green spaces take carbon dioxide from the air and thus help fight climate change (losing open space is thus as good as adding carbon to the air!). There is the provision of wildlife habitat and food supply, which aids biodiversity. This is by no means an exhaustive list.

In an urban area open, green spaces are vital to the quality of our lives, offering relief from the all too common congestion and other negative effects of development. They are a way of connecting with and appreciating the natural world – vital to wellbeing and to encouraging respect for nature. We sorely need this respect in order to build the green attitudes needed to fight extremely serious environmental (and thus security) threats. We would do well to remember that even the scrubbiest, scruffiest bit of land (called poor quality, low productivity, marginal or ‘surplus’ by Bristol City Council) will absorb, store and gradually release rain, absorb carbon and other pollutants, grow wildflowers, provide a perch and perhaps some food for birds, and provide people with a feeling of space.

Council spin on land classification -
How convenient for an organisation that wants to flog off 90 acres (2.4%) of our city’s green spaces to decide now, to describe the land that would be lost forever under developers concrete and tarmac as ‘marginal’, ‘surplus’ and of ‘low recreational value’. This is the, very highly subjective, view of Bristol City Council. The real truth here is not the type of land involved - that’s just the city council spin – it is that when land is, so say, ‘needed’ for development it is then made available! We would do well to remember that there is green belt land in Greater Bristol that is being made available to developers too by a number of councils run by different political parties. All are of course being pushed along by the Government's, and their unelected quango friends, policies. To sign the e-petition opposing the loss of acre after acre of green space in Bristol go to: http://epetitions.bristol.gov.uk/petition.php?id=166

Which land will be flogged? -
Bristol City Council has not yet given any idea which particular areas of green space and parkland will be flogged, so we are all unable to decide for ourselves, by direct consideration, whether we’d agree with their classification of it. The council have decided, so presumably they must know the candidate areas – so why don’t they tell us where they are so that we can look at it square metre by square metre? I suspect the earmarked land wont be in the wealthier parts of Bristol! If they don’t know the areas then how can they have made even the highly subjective classification?

The fact that discussions between the city council and the Bristol Parks Forum resulted in a drop in green space to be flogged is a clear indication of the rather arbitrary nature of the ‘low value’ classification. Originally it was reported that 200 acres would be sold, which dropped to 90 acres after talks, so did 110 acres of land suddenly ‘improve’ in value via negotiations ? If it has not improved in quality then what is the basis of this decision?

Judging by past reports and councillor pronouncements its likely that South Bristol’s open spaces are the most threatened. For instance the large Evening Post report ‘There’s room for hope in the south’ (March 17 2006) described how large areas of South Bristol are ripe for growth and development, including thousands of houses plus associated roads and infrastructure. The then Liberal Democrat Bristol City Council Cabinet member Councillor Anne White was quoted as saying ‘We have lots of open spaces in South Bristol which are not of great benefit to the local community…’. What a depressing lack of appreciation of the value of open spaces this comment shows. Are they of ‘benefit only when covered with brick, concrete and tarmac? What does the term ‘sustainable communities’, frequently used by Government and councils, mean in the face of what seems to be unbridled development pressure?

Council’s own words on the value of green spaces! -
We should not forget that land the council has now chosen to portray as ‘low value’ was until recently all counted as part of what the city website itself boastfully but correctly described as ‘450 parks and green spaces totaling over 1300 hectares, proportionately more than any other English city. 24 million visits are made to the city's parks and green spaces annually and, according to the city council's Citizens Panel, they are the third best thing about living in Bristol.’ The parks and open spaces section of the council website rightly waxes lyrical about the value of green spaces, saying ‘Parks are places to relax and enjoy the natural environment away from the stresses of city life. They are the ideal setting for healthy exercise, play, sport and recreation, and for enjoying the city's renowned events programme. You can also join in lots of fun outdoor activities to help you stay fit and healthy all year round!’ Fine council words, but not backed by actions as they hypocritically plan to cut the amount of what they praise.

Thin end of the wedge -
The original figure of 200 acres of green space loss seems to have gone down to 90 acres. Many will welcome the reduction, if it turns out to be actual as time passes, but it cannot be considered a U-turn as was reported because that would have to be a reversal of direction, that is, no loss. It’s more of an apparent and politically expedient slow down in loss. Still, there goes our ‘90 acres’ unless we act. The thin end of the wedge argument springs to mind – and the wedge is well and truly in, as the city continues the pattern of year on year loss of open space established in the past.

It would not surprise me to be told in the not-so-distant future that there is an unexpected funding shortfall meaning more parkland (or should I say more marginal/low recreational value/surplus land !) therefore needs to be sold. All this is clearly not the mark of an aspiring ‘UK green capital’.


How much green space might ultimately be lost? -
We just cant go on flogging Bristol’s green spaces to raise money and accommodate developers, though figures from the recent consultation documents sadly hint otherwise. So how much land could ultimately be flogged in the coming century if we don’t stop the year on year loss – what is the maximum scope? Bristolians have on average 38 square meters per person of green space, though the distribution is of course not uniform. Despite this relatively high average the council itself states that Bristol falls short of the National Playing Fields Association figure of 2.4 hectares per 1000 people of playing fields (Bristol has 1.6 hectares per 1000 people). The ‘Bristol Quantity Standard’ states that 27.8 sq m of green space would be sufficient. So the arithmetic shows that around 10 sq m per person could ultimately be made available to developers. With Bristol’s population currently at 411,000 this means 4.11 million sq m of land that could ultimately be flogged to developers. That’s 1015 acres or 411 hectares!

Land is of course needed if we are to build a sustainable society and so not all types of green space development under all circumstances should be opposed. Greens are much more likely to support and sometimes advocate, the development of land if that development clearly contributes to building the quality of life and sustainability of our neighbourhoods, communities and society (such as everything needed for local energy generation, food production, reuse, recycling, composting, skills development and small-scale local manufacturing). New green spaces should created to compensate for those taken and the land take should be relatively small-scale. There is growing evidence to show that having more green spaces is the best economic policy since it heavily influences crucial investment, productivity and organisational effectiveness issues such as whether businesses can attract and retain the best staff. We should for many, many reasons, therefore, try to avoid net loss of green space and indeed make the city greener if possible.

Nice to have such a local Conservative candidate??

Are you local? I dont want to sound like someone out of the League of gentlemen but this is in fact just the right question to ask of Dr Mark Lloyd Davies the newly selected Conservative Candidate for the Bristol South constituency at the next general election ('Tory pair prepare for election bid', Bristol Evening Post, 9 Feb 2008). The answer to my question is a very big NO - the 32 yr old lives in south west London and works in Surrey!! As far as I can gather the nearest he gets to local knowledge and connection is the fact that he went to school in Somerset (according to the Evening Post at least). Even on the 'independent but supportive of the Conservative Party' website Conservative Home one person (Amand H) commented thus after the selection was announced:

Here we have another career politician being "shoehorned" into a seat. What does someone from Guildford know about Bristol?

I would have liked to see Dawn Parry take on Dawn Primarola - A New Dawn!

We need local people who understand local issues to represent Bristol at Westminster.

Why is it that people who work at Westminster or live in the SE have carte blanche to apply for seats anywhere in the country and yet local candidates can only apply in their area? This skews the system against local candidates and towards political types who have no understanding of the real world of work.

There is more that interests me about Dr Davies: his scientific background and interests; the importance of religion to his life and politics; how on Earth he squares his scientific training with his religion (there being no evidence that there is or ever has been a god); and his work for a major multi-national pharmaceuticals company and interest in climate change. How do I know these things? Helpfully, the Conservative Christian Fellowship website contains this biography (links to his PhD and employer added by me):

Mark Lloyd Davies is Government Affairs Manager for Europe’s largest pharmaceutical company sanofi-aventis. Previously, Mark was the Conservative Research Department Health Policy Advisor (2004 to 2006). In addition to Health, Mark has interests in climate change (PhD Glacial Geology, Universiteit van Amsterdam), post-modernism and rugby where he serves as co-president of Egham Hollowegians RFC. Mark worships at St Stephen’s Church, Twickenham and in his spare time enjoys fine food and wine, rugby and the company of friends and family.

I wondered what the Conservative Christian Fellowship was all about, thinking that this would shed some light on Dr Davies views. The following phrases come direct from their website's About page:

The Conservative Christian Fellowship…exists to be a vibrant Christian witness within the Conservative Party… to follow Christ with our hearts, souls, strength and minds; playing our part in the redemption of culture and individual lives…to train, equip and support our members…a relational bridge with the Conservative Party…is a fellowship founded on prayer…when parliament is sitting…holds a prayer meeting to pray together for the Fellowship, parliament and the nation….denominational diversity…has been hosted within Conservative Campaign Headquarters…aim to be the best servants of Christ and the party.

I hope to get the chance to debate all sorts of issues with Dr Davies and the other Bristol South constituency candidates (Labour's Dawn Primarolo, the Greens Cath Slade, and the Lib Dems Dr Mark Wright, so far, all with strong local connections!) as we approach and go through the general election campaign. The role of mulitnational companies in causing and in solving climate change is one issue that springs to mind (his employer sanofi-aventis has a website on sustainable development which I'll look over). The role of evidence in what we believe to be the truth (whether it is climate change, or the effectiveness of various approaches to health, or indeed god...) also springs to mind!

More on the Conservative Christian Fellowship here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Christian_Fellowship
and on sanofi-aventis here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanofi-aventis.

Empower local communities - dont 'streamline/modernise/speed-away' democracy

Had a reply today from my MP Kerry McCarthy. I wrote to her on Jan 19 asking her to support the Planning and Energy Private Members Bill (see this previous post). She said '...I am not minded to support the Planning and Energy Bill. I believe the Government's Planning Reform Bill...which will streamline, modernise and speed up the planning system will address the concerns itself.' This is a great pity but does indicate a pattern in both my MP and the Labour Government, both of whom resisted the Sustainable Communities Bill - they do not seem to want to truly empower local communities!

The Planning and Energy Private Members Bill enables local decision-making for new developments eg allowing: the setting of high energy efficiency standards; and enabling requirement of local, on-site energy generation by green methods such as solar and photovoltaic panels, heat pumps and small-scale combined heat and power plants - really needed for cutting carbon dioxide emissions, cutting fuel bills, creating jobs in neighbourhoods and building local sustainability.

A further concern is her support for the Government's Planning Reform Bill. For a start this Bill is not aimed at local community empowerment, quite the opposite in fact (its those words, streamline, modernise and speed up the planning system that give it away, for they mean take away some democracy). Avon Wildlife Trust recently expressed real concerns about the Bill ('We must protect birds and wildife', Bristol Evening Post, 7 Feb 2008) Greens have expressed strong concerns about it too, saying:

"The current proposals for a separate planning system for major infrastructure projects mean undermining democracy in favour of an increasingly centralised and authoritarian government.

"The Green Party believes that a healthy democracy should encourage public participation in decision making."

"Consulting with local people for disruptive, polluting projects like airports is essential, and any attempt to 'streamline' these processes to save money, or to hand them over to appointed yes-men is a scandalous affront to the rights of ordinary people ..."

Allotment and sensory garden vs housing development

I wish good luck to Fishponds Local Action Group and all those campaigning for the proposed allotment and sensory garden site and against plans to build houses on the land instead (see 'Homes blow for sensory garden site', Bristol Evening Post, 8 February, 2008). I fear that the city council has far too little appreciation of the true value of all open, green spaces (which this site now is, due to all the work the community there has done) and may not take enough notice of the campaigners. Its shameful that the council who previously handed over the site to locals to work on, dont see the social and educational value of the non-housing use. The council change of mind after yrs of work has been done is particularly galling, and they have not even suggested a compromise (perhaps a 50:50 use of the site?). This council action is a sign of things to come though, now that they have decided to sell off 90 acres of city green space.

Still a long way to go on equality, justice and democracy for women

Really interesting photos and associated notes on the Guardian site entitled: Suffragettes: 90th anniversary of right to vote (on 6 February 2008)...though wikipedia describes how then there was certainly no male-female equality on voting and we were very far from voting justice for both men and women :

Representation of the People Act 1918 - the consequences of World War I convinced the government to expand the right to vote, not only for the many men who fought in the war who were disenfranchised, but also for the women who helped in the factories and elsewhere as part of the war effort. Property restrictions for voting were lifted for men, who could vote at 21; however women's votes were given with these property restrictions, and were limited to those over 30 years old. This raised the electorate from 7.7 million to 21.4 million with women making up 40% of the electorate. Seven percent of the electorate had more than one vote. The first election with this system was the United Kingdom general election, 1918
Representation of the People Act 1928 - this made women's voting rights equal with men, with voting possible at 21 with no property restrictions

The pay gap between men and women is still very large in the UK and too little is being done. Discrimination and sexism is still rife here and around the world. Men in all key positions of power and influence far outweigh numbers of women. Violence against women is all too common....the list goes on. There is still a very long way to go on equality, justice and democracy for women. See this list of Green work on this issue.

Dont develop green spaces by covering them in houses, invest in them and create more because its best economics

Really interesting post by Nick Harrison, who amongst many other things is on the steering group of Transition Bristol (http://www.transitionbristol.org/), on the Bristol Sustainability Network site, copied below:

EVIDENCE THAT INVESTING IN GREENSPACE IS BETTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY

Counter to the now (very dated) approach to economic development which demands land be made available for housing and commercial development above all other needs, there is now a burgeoning evidence base that investing more in greenspaces and quality landscape design is a crucial factor influencing inward investment decision-making. See: www.environment-investment.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view...

The benefits of quality greenspace to the attractiveness of an area has been shown repeatedly to influence crucial investment, productivity and organisational effectiveness issues such as whether businesses can attract and retain the best staff.

If Bristol is to attract and retain the best businesses and employees then investing in good quality urban landscape and greenspace doesn't 'hamper' economic development (as those who stand to make ££ from developing such land would have you believe), far from it, the evidence now suggests that far from being an obstacle, it is an essential pre-requisite for strong, sustainable economic growth.

Mind you ideas like the 'best businesses and employees' and 'sustainable economic growth' deserve some examination, and possibly qualification, to remain consistent with sustainability thinking. And there is an issue with regard to the source(s) of funds to invest in green spaces of course (though to raise funds, as is now planned in Bristol, by flogging green space to invest - only partly - in green space, seems seems bizarre given Nick Harrison's words and of course the ineffective, inefficient spending of Bristol City Council).

Evidence shows then that 'greening up' Bristol, rather than cutting green space, is best economics.

Launch of my pledge to create a local group called the Campaign for Achievement of a Sustainable Knowle (CASK)

Readers living locally may be interested in my pledge to 'start a group called the Campaign for the Achievement of a Sustainable Knowle (CASK) in my area of Bristol'.

Simply by clicking http://www.pledgebank.com/yesCASK (or texting ‘pledge yesCASK’ to 60022 - UK only - or by signing this pledge in Facebook ) you can show that you're ready to start making a difference, along with other like-minded people. My pledge will close on 6th February 2009 and it only needs the support of 10 people before it succeeds and goes into action.

More details on what the group is all about:

CASK would aim to assess the local area and establish exactly what changes are needed to make Knowle environmentally and socially sustainable. It would then campaign to find effective and practical ways to achieve those changes in the interest of the security, stability and quality of life. Lobbying for far better, cheaper public transport; much better cycling and pedestrian provision; protecting, enhancing and if possible increasing Knowle's open, green, natural spaces; pushing for the retention and improvement of locally available facilities, services, and jobs; education for sustainable living; promoting local energy saving and the micro-generation of energy; arguing for more local, ethical and organic food availability; encouraging home and allotment grown food; people taking personal responsibility to be more environmentally-friendly; and promoting broad based public participation in community life, are all likely areas of work.

http://www.pledgebank.com/ is a site set up to give power to YOU, by allowing you to ensure that others will support your actions. If you have ever wanted to make a difference, but haven't known where to start and who will join you, visit PledgeBank now: http://www.pledgebank.com/

Thank you for your support!

Citizen Focussed Policing

I recommend reading this blog entry from Chief Inspector Andy Bennett about Citizen Focussed Policing:

http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/newsroom/blog/Display.aspx?bid=42

He defines it so:

Citizen Focus is: ‘A way of working in which an in-depth understanding of the needs and expectations of individuals and local communities is routinely reflected in the decision making, service delivery and practice.’

This quote equally applies to all public services including our local council, local education and NHS.

In policing terms what does it really mean?

It is a style of policing whereby there is active collaboration between the police, our partners and the public when delivering our service. We have to move away from always ‘doing policing to people’ where there is little or no choice and create an environment where local communities have some genuine opportunities to shape and contribute towards local policing.

This is more like the kind of approach we need. I like the sound of it and will watch with interest to see what happens with regard to putting it into practice.

Tory Eddy tries to face in two directions on green spaces

Leader of the Tories on Bristol City Council, Cllr Richard Eddy, like the Tory Party as a whole these days, tries to face in two directions on the sale of Bristol's green spaces. In his letter in today's Bristol Evening Post ('U-turn on Bristol's Parks', Open Lines, 4 Feb 2008) he tries to portray himself as green by using fine phrases like 'custodians of the city's green heritage' and 'owe it to future generations'. Yet he says he is in favour of 100 acres of city open, green space being flogged to developers where it will be lost forever under tarmac and concrete! What hypocrisy!

Lib Dem position on Bristol's green spaces is not green!! And the council's position is even less green!!

No, no to Lib Dem Councillors Tim Kent and Neil Harrison (‘The future of Bristol’s park’s’, Bristol Evening Post Open Lines, 31 Jan 2008). Their position on green spaces is far from green! The Lib Dems were clearly in favour of flogging off a big chunk of Castle Park’s green space when they ran the city just last year, until public opinion stopped them via a huge petition (see previous post here)! They seem to have conveniently short memories. If they were running the city they would now be selling off a significant portion of Bristol’s green spaces too. In fact Knowle Lib Dem Councillor Gary Hopkins fails to outright condemn and oppose the loss of 90 acres, 2.4%, which now seems to be agreed with the Parks Forum, whilst trying to give the impression he would be happier with losing 40 acres, 1.1% (‘Parks saved by council U -turn’, Post, 31 Jan 2008) – either represents a significant loss (note that the Evening Post story title should say Some Parks saved... to be considered accurate)!! Far from losing green space, any ‘UK green capital’ should be greening up our city! Everyone will appreciate that it is not news the Greens like me want more green space in our city!!

All the big parties are out of tune with what Bristol’s public wants and what our city needs. Just take a look at the comments on the petition opposing the sell off of acre after acre of green space on the city council website http://epetitions.bristol.gov.uk/signatures.php?id=166 . You will find comment after comment from people saying that green spaces are extremely valuable, for our health, wellbeing, climate, wildlife, and security from floods, and they don’t want to lose any, let alone 90 acres (2.4%) or indeed 40 acres (1.1%). Allowing such a loss would simply continue the pattern of previous year on year eating away at what is often impossible to replace once its gone. This is an ongoing pattern - when will it end?

Which land would be flogged off - city council should come clean

Great post by the Bristol Blogger on the fact that green space and parkland worth £200 million will indeed be flogged off for development if they get their way. The council should come clean on which land would be sold. I've commented on the Blogger post as below:

You’ll be interested to know that the council’s website would not accept my e-petition (see below) with the the figures ‘200 acres’ and ‘poss 400 acres’ of land to be flogged. Neither would they allow me to use the phrase ‘flog green space on a mass scale’. They said these were factually incorrect and misleading, so I had to redraft slightly before gaining approval…
http://epetitions.bristol.gov.uk/petition.php?id=166
Please sign up and spread the word to others to sign.

What a great local and e-democracy we have (NOT!). My view is that I had not used any insulting or illegal language in my original e-petition draft, which was clearly written and presented, and that what constitutes 'mass scale' is a matter of opinion. Is it not up to people to decide on the value and accuracy of a petition when they are considering signing?

Sign my new petition: Protect and enhance green spaces instead of flogging them to developers

Well said Geoff Collard, writing in todays Bristol Evening Post (Feedback: 'The Threat to Bristol's Green Spaces') !! We should be protecting and enhancing green spaces not flogging them off for development. You can sign my e-petition against the plans on the city council website (approved today), here:http://epetitions.bristol.gov.uk/petition.php?id=166 (see details below).


Petition
The Petitioner....wants Bristol City Council to be genuine about its 'UK green capital' ambition and abandon any plans to sell off hundreds of acres of green space and parkland, instead adopting a policy of protecting and enhancing them.

Background Information
Its recently been very widely reported in the local media and elsewhere (see http://vowlesthegreen.blogspot.com/2008/01/bristol-city-council-are-having-us-on.html )that there are plans to sell off acre after acre of green space and parkland to developers. It is the view of some that the figure could end up being even more than the reports in local papers suggest!! This intention to flog off green space acre after acre is completely inconsistent with the ambition to be the 'UK green capital' and many pronouncements on tackling climate change, enhancing human health and wellbeing, protecting wildlife and biodiversity, and making the city better able to cope with heavy rainfall causing serious flood risk. The plans are also at odds with what Bristol's people want, and expected, from the council following recent consultations.

Cycling needs a lot more investment - this pot is very small in comparison to other transport spending

We certainly need a lot more investment in cycling - a lot more than is in this particular pot ('City chance to share in £140m bike boost', Bristol Evening Post, 28 Jan 08) if we are to have genuinely sustainable travel. The possibility of being able to share in £140 million over three yrs with others in the South West is very small relative to spending on cars, lorries and roads. At the moment however the best way to promote cycling would be for all the local council reps involved in the West of England Partnership plans to turn the Bristol to Bath cyclepath (the most popular cyclepath in the country, with 2.4 million journeys per yr) into a bus route, to come to their senses and put the bus route on the roads instead. Putting the bus route on the roads would displace cars, which are far less green, rather than bikes, which are far more green than buses.

See the vigorous reaction to the plans from Bristol East Green Party, Sustrans and the Bristol Cycling Campaign - all raise excellent and extremely challenging questions. Just consider these points from Sustrans for starters:

1. Has there been an evaluation of alternative on-road options to the current proposed route to Emersons Green? If so did this take into account net carbon benefits, economic cost benefit ratios, health impacts, impact on congestion and impacts on air pollution?

2. Why has the option of running the bus route along the A432 identified just a couple of years ago in the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study been discarded?

3. Has there been an evaluation of the loss of the very high levels of walking and cycling on the route, taking into account the already existing net carbon, health, congestion and air pollution benefits and how does this impact on the economic cost benefit ratio?

4. Have you modelled the benefits in terms of reduced car use if you invested the funding proposed for the BRT in improved walking and cycling infrastructure Bristol-wide, onroad provision of buses, and other smarter choices which, in combination, may bring about greater benefits. Attached, by way of example, is a proposal showing just how a small amount of the money currently proposed for the BRT wisely invested in improvements to the Bristol and Bath Path would significantly improve access for local people to the benefit of their health and our environment.

Councils tree (stump?) policy

Yet more evidence that Bristol City Council just doesn't care about and prioritise our environment (as if flogging off allotments and parklands, considering plans to mass incinerate waste, atrocious air quality, tremendous congestion and a very poor public transport system... aren't already enough)! Bristol Street Trees campaigners show how the council is cutting down large numbers of big trees and is often not then planting replacements - see the 'stumps' slideshow/photos on their website and you may recognise a stump near you! We know from past actions that they have not got their act together: http://vowlesthegreen.blogspot.com/search/label/trees

Adult learning services well worth the money: dont cut funding!

Concerns about loss of funding for the Bristol Adult Learning Service are certainly justified. I see that Green Cllr Charlie Bolton has received an appeal to oppose loss of funding and is minded to put in a budget amendment:

http://charlie-boltons-southville-blog.blogspot.com/2008/01/adult-education.html

I certainly hope he can and does do this. Services in Knowle will be one the big losers if there is loss of money. The activities undertaken are really important for personal development and family and neighbourhood life.

Gamblers and 'market forces'

I make no apologies for reproducing below the whole of Tony Probert's letter 'Our economic future in the hands of gamblers' from the Bristol Evening Post, Friday 25 Jan. I've done it because I share his view exactly and have considered posting on it several times. What is going on in Davos (and in particular in France at bank Societe Generale) at present provides ample evidence to back what he says.

What a bizarre economic system we live under. Our very livelihoods depend upon the reactions of "the market", as though it were a supernatural entity hovering somewhere in an ethereal vacuum untouched or influenced by mankind.Let's get it straight - "the market" consists of "human" gamblers who wager vast amounts of money in their quest to make a quick buck.When they get cold feet, they withdraw their money by selling their holdings back to "the market" - very much like a poker player throwing in his hand.Their withdrawals are rapidly matched by their fellow gamblers, and very quickly panic sets in and the bottom falls out of "the market".This has been happening over the past month or two, and the effects are now being felt around the world. with the word "recession" being repeatedly heard.The media have been talking up a recession since the sub-prime mortgage problems emerged in America last September, and now their prophesies have borne fruit with the world's stock markets plummeting as more and more "gamblers" pull out.The upshot of all this is that millions and millions of people who have never gambled in this way are subjected to what is euphemistically called "market forces", and lose their jobs as the share price of their companies falls to such an extent as to make trading impossible.Meanwhile, until a warm feeling seeps back into the gamblers' bones and they start gambling again, the taxpayer gets stung to the tune of billions of pounds as governments use their money to subsidise the gamblers' losses in an attempt to lure them back to gamble their money once more.Margaret Thatcher once said, "you can't buck the markets", and this situation will continue until governments acknowledge that they have been elected to look after the interests of all of the people, and not just those who - through their reckless urge for riches - dictate economic policy across the world.

Tony Probert,Locking,near Weston-super-Mare.

Attenborough: broadcaster who has done more to encourage respect for the natural world than anyone

Great respect, even reverence, for the natural world is of course a cornerstone of being green and no broadcaster has done more to encourage this in people than David Attenborough. The interview with him conducted by Jeremy Paxman in this week's Radio Times is fascinating. What a life and career he's having - certainly an inspiration to me (and I'm sure to very many others), especially when I was 17 yrs old and avidly watching Life on Earth in 1979. The interview of course covered his new series Life in Cold Blood, which I shall certainly watch regularly. He was also asked about life, death, consciousness and a Creator - and responded powerfully, supporting naturalism and not supernaturalism:

You wonder what a life spent marvelling at the world about us has taught him about life. Is there - the only big question - a purpose? "None whatsoever!" he exclaims, leaning forward and banging the table.

On not crediting a Creator when commenting on wonderful pictures of hummingbirds:

He has drafted a standard reply [to letters], which asks why it is that people who suggest he should give credit to a Creator Lord always cite hummingbirds, butterflies or roses.

"On the other hand, I tend to think of an innocent little child sitting on the bank of a river in Africa, who's got a worm boring through his eye that can render him blind before he is eight. Now, presumably you think this Lord created this worm, just as he created the hummingbird. I find that rather tricky."

On death:

But what does he imagine will happen to him when he dies? "Oh nothing." So he's with Bertrand Russell, who said 'I believe that when I die my body will rot'? "Absolutely." Does that trouble him? "Not at all."

On whether consciousness distinguishes humans from other species (and on vegetarianism):

...he doesn't even accept the distinction, asking how we can prove that monkeys dont have it. In that case, why isn't he a vegetarian? "Because I'm designed to be an omnivore. I have teeth for chewing and the length of my gut is quite clearly not that of a vegetarian. But as a sentient human I ought to make sure that what I eat has been raised in a 'humane' way." Why? "Because its unfitting that you should dictate the living conditions of another sentient organism."

Well said David!! Certainly couldn't have put it better myself!!

Dont displace bikes and walkers with buses, displace cars

Turning the Bristol to Bath cyclepath into a major bus route is basically a proposal to build a road (see BB). Bikes, like walking are very easily above buses in the hierarchy of sustainable transport. So, if buses are to displace anything they should displace modes of transport lower in the hierarchy, like cars. Will they be planning to displace those nasty pedestrians, walking on all those pavements all over the city, with buses next?

Good posting on the Bristol Greengage site on this topic.

Targets in the Climate Change Bill are too low and dont match with the best scientific evidence

Just sent this request:

Dear Kerry McCarthy MP

Please add your name to a new Early Day Motion (EDM 736) that has been tabled by Nigel Griffiths MP on the Climate Change Bill.

The introduction of a legal framework for tackling climate change is a step in the right direction. The current targets in the Bill mean it will not lead to the cuts in carbon emissions scientists say are needed, which is a great worry though. We need to cut emissions by a factor of ten to adequately tackle climate change according to best science.

A United Nations report mentioned in EDM 736 says much the same thing. Recently leading scientists, including current and former heads of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, have signed a letter making it clear they agree too. This was published in newspapers. Even Gordon Brown has implied that the evidence is now that we need larger cuts than the targets in the Bill.

In opposition to the evidence the Bill as currently drafted has targets that are too low. Worse still a loophole in the Bill means emissions from international aviation and shipping will not be included – clearly its not that these don’t cause climate change is it?

I urge you to sign EDM 736. Press for changes to be made to the Bill, so that it is consistent with the evidence provided by the best available science. This would then be a Bill to be much admired.