Green's Position on EU Referendum

Thought this might be of interest - a recent statement made by Caroline Lucas Green MP in the recent debate on the EU and holding a referundum:-

"My starting point is that there are good democratic reasons for those in favour of our continued membership of the EU, albeit a reformed EU, to support a referendum. I believe that it is precisely the refusal to give people a say on the EU that is leading to greater public disillusionment with it. It is precisely that that leads people to think that the EU is an elitist project which is done to them and which is not in the interests of the majority. I do not agree with that position, but I think it right that it should be debated.

I believe that the EU has enormous potential to spread peace, freedom and security, to promote and protect democracy and human rights—at home and throughout the world. It has the potential to be a true pioneer in the transition to low-carbon economies and living more rightly on the planet. I believe that to fulfil that potential, however, it has to change direction and put greater democracy and greater sustainability at the heart of its objectives. I think having a referendum would enable us to debate the end-goal or purpose of the EU. At the moment we have lots of debates about whether we want more or less EU without answering the question, “To what purpose the EU?”

For many Conservative Members, the answer will be that they want the EU, if they want it at all, to have far more of a free trade focus. For my party, we think it has too much of a free trade focus, but that is not the issue. The issue here is the right of the people to say what they want, the right to have that debate and the right for us to differ, as necessary, but none the less to have that debate about the advantages and, indeed, some disadvantages of the EU.

In my experience, many of today’s European citizens are simply no longer sure what the EU is for. In my view, the ambitious free trade project at the heart of its original treatise has become an end in itself. Debates about the future of the EU have been dominated by the idea that the overriding goals of European integration are economic and that the progress of the EU should be judged in terms of economic growth and the removal of market barriers alone. As a result, the EU has failed to address fundamental questions of political culture and strategic purpose and has therefore also failed to inspire the mass of citizens with a sense of enthusiasm and common cause, thus calling into question its own legitimacy.

In order to tackle the new threats and challenges we face today and to deliver a fair, sustainable and peaceful Europe into the 21st century and beyond, the EU must undergo radical reform. It must become more democratic and accountable, less bureaucratic and remote. It also needs to have a more compelling vision of its role and purpose, and a referendum would provide an opportunity to debate precisely those issues. To try to shut down that opportunity is, I think, very dangerous. It is possible to be pro a reformed EU and in favour of a referendum.

I agree that there are plenty of areas where the EU needs reform. The common agricultural policy is in many respects an environmental disaster. The common fisheries policy ends up with enormous over-fishing and the scandal of discards. Unaccountable corporate influence over decision making skews the outcome of many decisions. There is an extraordinary arrogance, for example, in dressing up the Lisbon treaty as something different from the repackaging of the constitution that it really was.

I believe that, more urgently than ever, we need the EU to fulfil its potential for strong environmental policy and for securing energy policy and energy security into the future. If it is to do that, however, it must have the consent of the British people. We need to make the case for a reformed EU. We should not be afraid of making that case. I believe that if we make it strongly, we will win it, which is why I support tonight’s proposal for a referendum".

Help the fight against the incinerator!

Sorry that this is such a long meandering blog but it is important so please bear with us. 

The proposed INEOS incinerator development at Runcorn is now coming to a head. If the Application to vary Condition 57 is accepted it will not just mean an increase in the dangerous emissions that will affect the local area but also a boost to the numbers of HGV's operating in Halton.

All of us in Widnes and Runcorn will be affected. This is of course in an area which has the highest tonnage and widest range of chemicals emitted to the atmosphere. And with the council's plans to make Halton one of the largest distributive hubs in the region the present proposals are going to mean a substantial increase to the numbers of HGV's on Halton's roads already in the pipeline. None of the other political parties are making any fuss about the health dangers inherent in the current schemes. Take a look at the 1/02/11 blog here for a background to the dangers of HGV particulate emissions.

Currently the main group campaigning about the issue HAGATI have recently begun legal proceedings. Jeff Meehan one of the campaigners has recently sent me a couple of e-mails related to the situation.

Jeff says,

"As you will be aware the decision to decide on the Application by Ineos to vary Condition 57 has been deferred until the 15th August, we are working hard to try and hopefully put together a compelling case for the Councillors to refuse the application.

The current major issue is that INEOS have applied for a variation on Condition 57 which Halton Borough Council laid down to ensure the protection and safety of residents. INEOS now want to increase the amount of waste being delivered by road, from 85,000 tonnes per year to a whopping 480,000 tonnes per year. This will result in 384 Heavy Goods Vehicle movements per day to and from the INEOS site alone, (not to mention the traffic for their personnel) contributing to the exceptionally high amount of traffic using the Runcorn Expressway, Westfield Interchange, and the Silver Jubilee Bridge not only affecting congestion and nuisance, but will increase the very high levels of traffic pollution.

It beggars belief that the Widnes Councillors now see this as a purely parochial problem for Weston Point residents. If any of your members could lobby the Widnes Councillors, if only to remind them that the 384 lorries a day, if they are bringing waste from Warrington or anywhere North of the Mersey will in fact pass through Widnes and will certainly not make the situation on the Silver Jubilee Bridge any better, it would be a great help".

THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

HAGATI NEEDS YOUR HELP

HAGATI has now begun legal proceedings

and we need everyone's financial help

PLEASE SUPPORT HAGATI

by donating £5 towards our legal battle against the Incinerator

The Environmental Law Foundation (ELF) to which we have previously referred, has agreed to take on our case. Our QC, Mr Stephen Tromans, one of the most distinguished men in his area of specialization is acting on our behalf together with solicitors Richard Buxton. Obviously, we cannot reveal the full details but we can tell you that we and our legal team are confident that our case will be heard favourably.

Legal proceedings do not come cheap, and although we are subject to some legal aid, we have to make a contribution towards the costs. The amount required to initiate proceedings is reachable if everyone who is supportive of our aim contributes at least £5. If you can give more to substitute those who are less able, then please do so. Any amount will help tremendously but please act quickly – we have a deadline to meet !

You can donate in different ways:-

            By cash:-

                                    Telephone a Committee Member and we will collect

                                     Jeff Meehan             - Chairman            01928 581171

                                     Sue Bowden            - Secretary            01928 572311

            By cheque / postal order (made payable to HAGATI) to:-

                                    Alan Gorry, Treasurer, 81 Moughland Lane, Runcorn, WA7 4SG

                                    Tel:- -01928 572298

            By direct transfer to our Bank:-

                                     Nat West, 53 High Street, Runcorn, WA7 1AW

                                    Payee             Halton Action Group Against The Incinerator
                                    Sort Code 60-18-06
                                   Account             15547809

This may be the last chance to save Runcorn from this terrible mistake

                           Help keep the environment clean for our children

                         Thank you in anticipation of your financial support

THE FIGHT IS FAR FROM OVER

 

 

 

 

The Alternative Vote - why YES!

I thought Peter Cranie's  views on AV ought to be given an airing here:

"This is a choice between a deeply unfair and disproportionate system where you can vote once, and a deeply unfair and disproportionate system where you can express your preferences. The latter is preferable in my opinion, and I will be voting in favour of the change. I think the outlook for an increase on our single MP in the next parliament will be increased by the switch to AV, but my reason for voting in favour will be to keep pushing the door for genuine reform.

AV will show that increasingly people want to cast their vote for parties other than Labour and the Conservatives. In the face of this evidence, further electoral reform will follow. Under FPTP, preferences will remain masked by tactical voting considerations and instead of further reform, the failure of this referendum will be used by Labour and Conservative politicians alike to keep reform off the agenda for another generation. I believe it will be a very close vote and that it will be narrowly won by those arguing in favour of reform, but we shall see".

Please consider voting YES next week.

Budget is "betrayal of our future"

Caroline Lucas's response to todays budget:

"In his determination to balance the nation's finances, George Osborne has forgotten that living within our means is also about natural resources. This budget is an attempt to return us to the failed policies of the past - unsustainable growth based on dwindling and ever-more expensive resources.

"The Chancellor had five opportunities to deliver a budget for the future, that could have turned the growing crisis over energy resources and climate change into a catalyst for creating much-needed jobs and wealth in new energy efficiency and renewable industries."

The Green Party, with leading environmental and conservation groups, had identified five key areas where the Chancellor could act to help tackle climate change and boost jobs and sustainable growth.

* The Green Investment Bank: this should have been the key to unlocking the £450 billion in finance for renewable energy needed in the next fifteen years. Instead, by creating a bank that cannot borrow, its impact will be limited to the original £3 billion funding.

* Carbon Floor Prices: at £30 a ton, the new levy on carbon will not be high enough to promote low-carbon energy. But it will give nuclear power companies a windfall subsidy of anything from £1.3 billion to £3 billion - paid for by the "hard-pressed families" George Osborne claims to want to help.(1)

* Transport: taxing the excess profits of North Sea oil companies is welcome; but it would have been better spent on protecting rural bus services, which are even more crucial to isolated communities and the poorest in society than the cost of fuel. Instead, by cutting fuel duty the Government is pretending that high fuel prices are temporary, rather than an inevitable consequence of dwindling supplies and unchecked demand.

* Environmental taxes: though George Osborne claims the proportion of revenue raised from green taxes will rise, the decision to postpone the rise in the Aggregates Levy and to scrap the planned rise in Air Passenger Duty will reduce revenue from environmental taxes by £160 million. It will also encourage more people to holiday abroad, hitting UK resorts.

* Zero Carbon Homes: property developers were expecting to have to contribute towards community renewable energy generation in order to offset the remainder of the emissions from new homes, which, from 2016, have to be zero carbon. In the budget, the Chancellor has changed the rules to exclude emissions from appliances, which means that supposedly ‘zero-carbon' homes would in fact create carbon emissions for years to come. It will also undermine many community energy schemes.(2)

In addition, the Chancellor announced a weakening in the protection for the countryside and green space with changes to the planning system, putting precious landscapes and habitats in even greater risk. Caroline said:

"In Opposition, George Osborne pledged that "If I become Chancellor, the Treasury will become a green ally, not a foe."(1). Now he is power, we see the reality. This budget contains nothing to shift us away from our dependency on oil and gas, nothing to take advantage of the potential of new technologies such as wind, wave and tide, and precious little to encourage investment in renewable industries.

"Instead, he has gone for the gesture of a penny off fuel duty. It gives drivers the false comfort that as fuel prices rise, the government will cut fuel duty. The reality is that petrol is a dwindling resource and we need to help people with alternatives, such as public transport. But while Osborne could find £2 billion for petrol, there was not a penny today for buses or trains.

"The depressing truth is that, rather than being the greenest government ever, this Conservative-led coalition is less green that John Major's administration, who introduced the fuel duty escalator, boosted energy efficiency and protection for threatened habitats. That this should be a coalition with the Liberal Democrats is doubly shocking."

NOTES

1) The Government's own analysis (by Redpoint for HMT and DECC) is that the subsidy will be £1.33 billion; WWF estimate it at £3 billion.



2) http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_growth.pdf (p.117)

Will Libya be Cameron's Shot in the Arm?

I’m pleased Caroline Lucas, our one and only Green MP, voted against continuing Britain's military involvement in Libya.

There are so many valid arguments for not getting involved in the conflict even when it’s just about protecting innocent civilians i.e. hypocrisy,what about similar situations in other countries; the costs of involvement at a time when we’re all tightening our belts; the possible opened ended nature of the involvement; the tricky nature of the tasks involved, and so on.

Also the majority of us see regime change as the ultimate goal. Here I think caution needs to be exercised. For the simple reason that Gaddafi, irrespective of the tyrannical figure he presents, probably has a lot more support in Libya than we want to believe.

A couple of years ago I had some contact with a Libyan family who were staying in Widnes as the father was on a technical course at Halton College (now Riverside). The family had a meal with us and during our conversation I talked to them about Gaddafi and what they thought about his regime.

They seemed to accept the status quo in Libya – as long as they didn’t step out of line they were OK. They had community meetings were any problems they had could be thrashed out in a communal way. They were not particularly pro Gaddafi and were aware of his many faults but they were doing all right - no reason to rock the boat.

Being an extreme liberal with socialist and Green tendencies I found this incredible. But their calm response was that it was an imbedded cultural phenomenon. They kept saying that people were reasonably well off in Libya and Gaddafi was canny enough to exploit this.

A couple of issues – first, revolutions that are successful have to be overwhelmingly popular – is this the case with this revolution? I don’t know. Second - a population which presumes itself to be under assault from foreign forces, even though it might not be particularly supportive of its ruler, will rally to his call in such circumstances.

Anyway, Maggie Thatcher had her Falklands in the early 1980’s to provide her with a new lease of life - will Libya be David Cameron’s and the coalitions shot in the arm given its current stormy passage, or not? Only time will tell.

Halton's Poor Position on Microgeneration.

Halton has come third from bottom out of 38 council areas in the north west in relation to the amount of energy microgeneration produced in its locality. Microgeneration is energy generated from solar and wind sources (including domestically) linked to the feed in tariff scheme.  Have a look at Ofgem data on the  'AEA Energy Consultants' website  here for further details:  http://www.aeat.com/microgenerationindex/ .

Like in all the other areas in the region Halton's residents have not recieved much help in such endeavours in the form of government grants compared with other European countries ( we're near the bottom of the European  league here) from the previous Labour government and I wouldn't hold your breath about what the Coalition is going to do about microgeneration but perhaps I'll be proved wrong. It's a shame really there would be many advantages.

For instance Halton could emulate a scheme that Green councillors championed in Huddersfield (Kirklees) that enabled residents to obtain financial help in the form of loans to assist people in purchasing solar energy panels. This stimulated the local green economy and lowered energy bills for residents in the longer term and helped lower the carbon footprint of the area.

Think Bus!

There’s just nothing that could drag me from my car onto public transport – my car’s just too convenient. Is this you? Are you one of the vast majority of us who just switch off when we hear about getting out of our cars and trying new ways of getting around.

There are many reasons, apart from the obvious ‘green’ one, to consider if we use the bus rather than travel by car. It means there’s less traffic on our overfull roads, makes for more relaxed travel, it can be healthier (you have to walk to and from the bus stop) and it extends your social contacts as opposed to being stuck in your cocoon of steel and glass normally on your own.

But perhaps more importantly and certainly of great relevance in today’s economic climate it can save you masses of money, particularly if you commute, as oil prices continue to rise and rise with no end in sight.

What masses of money - well ‘Stage Coach’ carried out some research a couple of years ago in relation to commuting to work and came up with a figure of up to £3500 per year! This amount would pay for the typical UK household’s main bills such as council tax, gas, electricity, water, fixed line telephones, home insurance and TV licence (This 2008 figure was calculated by the Citizens Advice Bureau).

Such savings could be achieved just simply by leaving the car at home – the ‘up to £3500’ figure was just related to cost of fuel and car parking charges. Interestingly have a look here at 'Arriva’s' bang up to date fuel calculator on http://www.arrivabus.co.uk./fuel/ It enables you to find out your individual costs of commuting by car to your place of work and comparing this with using the bus for the same journey and also how much your carbon footprint is reduced.

But what about the efficiency and comfort of travelling by bus? Most of you probably feel like I did, that is before my eyes were opened after spending a day last year bussing it to raise funds, that buses are not fit for purpose being inefficient and uncomfortable. This was clearly not my experience.

On major routes travelling to 9 towns in the same number of hours all buses were on time and there were no hold ups. Although the older buses didn’t like the potholes the newer buses took everything in their stride and provided more leg room as well. (see this blog 7/04/2010)

So if you want to save money, potentially improve your health and well being and do a bit more for the environment - think Bus

Death and Climate Change

Two issues made me move over to the Green Party in 2003 - one local and one massively global with local implications.

The first was health. I was concerned about the health of Halton’s residents. Research was indicating that we had one of the highest mortality rates in England and Wales and a feature of this mortality was disease related to chest conditions and/or cancer.

The council, to their credit, in response to this had initiated a limited research project by Lancaster University. Its conclusions indicated that poor health, as in so many other geographical areas, was linked to lifestyle.

No significant associations were discovered between  high mortality and the high levels of pollutants present in the area. Halton has the largest tonnage and widest range of pollutants released to the atmosphere than any other comparative area in England and Wales. However they did suggest caution in relation to developments in the area that might increase levels of atmospheric pollution.

The other issue was climate change and the linked globalisation and economic growth at all costs mantra of most governments and political parties. This issue pushed me the way of the Green Party as I couldn’t see any of the other parties having the political will to grapple with this important issue.

As time has gone on media interest in climate change and its consequences for us all has fluctuated from a high level in the mid 2000’s to a lower level currently. Factors I suppose such as media exposure, apparent debunking of the science and more pressing economic problems has added to this waning.

To me our attitude to climate change is similar to our attitude to death. When we are confronted with death directly it normally has a dramatic affect on us and remains but lessens over time.

It can have the effect of pushing us to live ‘life’ to the full – to get as much out of life particularly materially that we are able to and b****r the consequences. We can be running away from the greatest insecurity promoting factor in our lives - our death.

Also in the sort of lives we live in our small family units our contacts with our extended family particularly our older members are reduced. Death and the process of dying tends to be made remote and sanitised. Culturally we wish to avoid the subject at all costs.

With climate change there are similarities. When it's experienced (ie the media presents examples) some of us are moved to at least recognise it for a time and then its resonance diminishes. It doesn’t affect us, (especially with some saying it won’t even happen) we don’t have to bother. Is this some sort of adaptive evolutionary process to get on with the hectic lives we lead at all costs? 

The problem with climate change, as I understand it, is that our adaptive capabilities might be out of synch. with the process of climate change. We haven't the time to respond naturally. We haven’t faced such potentially extinction threatening natural events since the last ice age.

I hope I’ve not depressed you too much. I think facing up to our own death properly can be liberating it puts life and how we ought to be living it into perspective. Equally spending some time considering what is happening globally in relation to climate change can have the same affect on us. It makes us realise more fully our responsibilities to our children and grandchildren, poor third world countries and the planet generally. And last but not least how we might start enjoying the simple things in life that really matter the most.

Stations, and real priorities

A couple of weeks ago the Widnes Weekly News approached me about a blog I’d written prior to last year’s council elections about Halton Green Party’s interest in looking at the possibility of reinstating and opening new railway stations in Halton.

Rather than being interviewed I sent a statement about the fact that if a candidate had been elected in last Mays elections, with some caveats, that we might have pursued this course of action. This statement is below,

“The extra railway stations issue in Halton is not a new idea. It's been around for some time but there doesn't appear to have been the political will to follow this up to any significant degree.

We had such a strategy as part of our 2010 local election campaign promises but of course because of the squeeze on small parties and owing to the special nature of the general election and of that election being held on the same day we did not obtain seats locally. If we had it would have been one of the things we would have been trying to follow up.

Obviously it's easy to talk about what a particular grouping would attempt to do (and what it realistically could do) if it won seats and so a caveat would be necessary in that we couldn't promise anything but we would certainly be pursuing the matter as much as we could and perhaps in the process encouraging more public debate.

Climate change continues to be the biggest threat we face and it’s important we all try to reduce our carbon footprint for the sake of future generations. In my opinion the second mersey crossing will not in the longer term reduce carbon emissions, the building of extra roads and bridges doesn't reduce motor vehicle usage in fact research shows the opposite to be the case. The sort of project that would have the potential to decrease road usage would be the reinstatement and opening of stations at Beechwood, Ditton, Widnes South. Upton Rocks and Barrows Green.

The Green Party is opposed to the severity of the Coalition cuts that are on the cards at the moment. It argues that we must be concentrating on investment in such things as improving a more sustainable and less polluting transport infrastructure. So any proposals for developing locally sustainable transport would be a great plus in terms of helping the local economy and making some inroads into reducing carbon emissions.

You can view such plans for reinstated and new stations in Halton's 2009 "Core Strategy - preferred options" p172 'Preferred policy option CS28 encouraging sustainable transport'. See also related Green Party policy 'jobs and living wage' section at www.greenparty.org.uk/policies"


The article was published in the paper last week. It didn’t include in the write up that it was part of council policy (albeit given low priority) to look into the possibilities of opening stations, there was also no mention of  the caveats included in the statement to the paper, and it didn't include the section on Green Party national policy.

In today’s ‘Widnes Weekly News’ there appeared a letter headed “Stations Idea is Off the Rails” from a T.M. in Runcorn. It ridiculed the proposed sites one by one including the Barrows Green Lane proposal where T.M. stated that it,’… would bring traffic to the area when residents were trying to keep traffic away from their houses and you would want to increase it.’ My response to this would be that the stations we would be promoting would be locally focussed and the expectation would be that residents would walk.

Obviously factors such as potential demand and suitability in terms of infrastructure build would need to be properly considered. The essential ingredient would be that such stations would be really local request stops. As usage would be seen as primarily local, car parking would be limited. This would have various benefits, healthier lifestyle, less traffic and congestion etc.

Certainly from my position Halton’s Labour Party development schemes of building bridges which ultimately increases the volume of traffic, creating a Widnes town centre that’s one mega sized cark park, and promoting Halton as the HGV hub of the north west is not what our real priorities in relation to climate change, sustainability and health should be.

Its important that we consider what our real priorities ought to be. Improving public transport has a role to play here. There are obvious advantages as mentioned above. Climate change hasn’t gone away and we need to be doing everything we can to combat it.

Climate Change - latest

Last year tied for the warmest since data started in 1880, capping a decade of record high temperatures that shows mankind's greenhouse gas emissions are heating the planet, two U.S. agencies said.


Global surface temperatures in 2010 were 1.12 degrees Fahrenheit (0.62 Celsius) above the 20th century average, tying the record set in 2005, the National Climatic Data Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said on Wednesday.

"These results show that the climate is continuing to show the influence of greenhouse gases. It's showing evidence of warming," David Easterling, the chief of the scientific services division at the NCDC, told reporters in a teleconference.

Many places, such as Russia and Pakistan, suffered from heat waves and floods that killed thousands, scorched crops and inundated countless farm acres. Those events, caused in part by a shifted jet stream in the atmosphere, helped lead to record global food prices and threaten to lead to food riots like those seen in 2008.

It's not possible to directly link global warming as the cause of one weather event. But the trend of rising temperatures since 2000 increases the possibility of extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts and floods, Easterling said. Every year since 2000 has ranked as one of the 15 warmest years on record, he said.

Last year was also the wettest on record and a warmer atmosphere holds more water, which in general can result in more floods, he said.

FUTURE

The report did not predict weather in the future. But the U.N. climate science panel says weather is likely to be more extreme this century because of a build up of gases released by burning fossil fuels and forest destruction.

James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said "if the warming trend continues, as is expected, if greenhouse gases continue to increase, the 2010 record will not stand for long." His office also released a report on Wednesday that said 2010 was tied for the warmest year on record with 2005.

Jay Gulledge, the senior scientist at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said farmers and others can adjust to expected warmer temperatures, but preparing for extreme weather is harder. "We've got really immense potential right now to have even bigger impacts from the direct effects of extreme events," he said.

As the weather warmed, the world did not do enough to prevent future climate change, scientists said.

At U.N. climate talks in Cancun late last year nearly 200 countries agreed to set a target of limiting a rise in average world temperatures to below 2 degrees C (3.6 F) over pre-industrial times.

But promised emissions curbs by big polluters such as China and the United States are not enough to achieve that goal and tougher actions are needed, climate scientists said.

NOAA's and NASA's reports were the first of four major ones on global 2010 temperatures. The UK Met Office's Hadley Center and the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization are expected to issue reports later this month.

PARADOX

Frigid winters in parts of Europe and the United States in 2010 may be a paradoxical side effect of climate change, some scientists said. Rising temperatures mean a shrinking of sea ice in the Arctic, heating the region and pushing cold air southwards during the winter, according to a study last month in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Warming of the air over the Barents and Kara seas, for instance, seems to bring cold winter winds to Europe.

"This is not what one would expect," said Vladimir Petoukhov, lead author of the study and climate scientist at Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. "Whoever thinks that the shrinking of some far away sea-ice won't bother him could be wrong."

The release of the NOAA report itself was delayed one day by an unusually hard snowstorm in North Carolina.

"These anomalies could triple the probability of cold winter extremes in Europe and northern Asia," he said. "Recent severe winters like last year's ... do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it."

(Additional reporting by Alister Doyle in Oslo; graphic by Emily Stephenson)

(Editing by Marguerita Choy and Lisa Shumaker)

HGV's - Urgent action needed

Ineos have applied for a variation in conditions regarding the planned incinerator in Runcorn which according to Halton Action Group against the Incinerator (HAGATI) will have the potential to significantly increase HGV movements in the borough.

Ineos, as I understand it, are now requesting an increase in waste moved on Haltons roads from 85,000 tonnes to 480,000 tonnes annually. This will, according to HAGATI, involve a total of 384 HGV's movements  per 24 hour cycle on the roads in the borough.

This will mean that the estimated (mine from figures provided by the council) 800 HGV's increase per 24 hour cycle on Halton's roads in the next 10 years related to other projects will now stand at over 1100 HGV's every day and counting.

Halton is in an area of high incidence of chest disease and comes at a time when a select committee in the House of Commons last year received research evidence that suggested we ought to be reducing such movements by up to a third in pollution hotspots.

I'd urge people to consider objecting to this variation in the application. Below is a copy of the email I received from HAGATI with relevant information.

"Hi everyone. Yes HAGATI does still exist. In fact, we have been working so hard since INEOS received their Planning Permission by the Secretary of State we have not had time to keep everyone up to date and our old Web Site has expired. We believe that, although INEOS won the first battle, they have definately not yet won the war. INEOS have NOT got their Environmental Permit to run yet and there are a lot of reasons why they should have it refused, so if we stay positive, with all the evidence we have now collected, HAGATI still believes that the gamble INEOS took by starting all the work will backfire on them.




The current major issue is that INEOS have applied for a variation on Condition 57 which Halton Borough Council laid down to ensure the protection and safety of residents. INEOS now want to increase the amount of waste being delivered by road, (they got their sums wrong in their calculations as to how much could come by rail and canal) from 85,000 tonnes per year to a whopping 480,000 tonnes per year. This will result in 384 Heavy Goods Vehicle movements per day to and from the INEO site alone, (not to mention the traffic for their personnell) contributing to the exceptionally high amount of traffic using the Runcorn Expressway, Westfield Interchange, not only affecting congestion and nuisance, but will increase the very high levels of traffic pollution.



HAGATI believe that, if permission for a variation to Condition 57 is agreed in this instance, it will not only add to the existing problems mentioned above, but will set a precedent to further applications for variations being made to these most crucial Conditions by INEOS, therefore removing the limited protection to residents which Halton Borough Council insisted upon.



At the least, if you agree with us that permission should not be granted, write to Halton Borough Council letting them know. Email dev.control@halton.gov.uk or write to Environment and Regulatory Services, Rutland House, Haton Lea, Runcorn, WA7 2DR. You must do this to be received by them before 3 February 2011 if possible although we suspect that later letters will be accepted. I have attached a copy of the letter from Halton Borough Council for your information, as this Application will affect more than the amount of people who received it".

Green Party founder member orbituary

David Fleming was a founder of the Green Party and chairman of the Soil Association, but may come to be remembered as one of the first whistleblowers to highlight the dangers of “peak oil” — the idea that oil supplies will (perhaps soon) enter terminal decline, and humankind revert to some kind of pre-industrial way of life.

Writing in Prospect magazine in 1999, Fleming argued that the International Energy Agency’s most recent report represented a coded warning of an impending energy crunch. Soon afterwards the future chief economist of the IEA, Fateh Birol, suggested a meeting and told Fleming: “You are right ... There are maybe six people in the world who understand this.”

The encounter gave renewed impetus to Fleming’s idea of a personal carbon allowance, or Tradable Energy Quota (as he called it). The British Government funded a pre-feasibility study into quotas in 2008; next year will see the publication of a further report by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil.

Peak oil also largely explained Fleming’s personal commitment to a frugal life in a modest flat, and his enthusiastic participation in grassroots initiatives to prepare for a future with fewer resources, such as the ever-growing Transition Town movement. His commitment to localism was absolute. “Localisation stands, at best, at the limits of practical possibility,” he often said. “But it has the decisive argument in its favour that there will be no alternative.”

David Fleming was born in 1940 at Chiddingfold, Surrey, to Norman Bell Beatie Fleming, a Harley Street eye surgeon, and Joan Margaret Fleming, an award-winning crime writer. He had three sisters, of whom the second would die as a toddler.

He grew up in Gloucestershire and Hampstead, where he was still living when he died. His recollections of the communal gardens and orchards that flourished abundantly behind Belsize Park Tube station were an inspiration in recent years to groups trying to reestablish food-growing in urban North London.

After reading history at Trinity College, Oxford, from 1959 to 1963, he worked in manufacturing, marketing and financial public relations before earning an MBA from Cranfield University in 1968.

In the 1970s Fleming was one of the founders of the Ecology Party, which later became the Green Party, and served in the late 1970s as its economics spokesman and press secretary. But his radicalism was balanced by a profound conservative streak that puzzled many people, especially when he told them he always voted Tory.

He urged friends in the green movement to learn the language and concepts of economics in order to confound the arguments of their opponents; and did so himself, completing his PhD at Birkbeck College, London, in 1988. With his close friend Jonathon Porritt, Fleming established “The Other Economic Summit” (TOES) to coincide with a meeting of the G7 countries in London. This and subsequent TOES events would lead to the establishment of a new think-tank, the New Economics Foundation.

But Fleming’s real passion was community, and its basis in tradition and ceremony. This was not merely an academic interest: Fleming was a lifelong, active member of groups as diverse as the English Song and Dance Society, his local church in Hampstead, the Oxford and Cambridge Club, and the ancient guild The Worshipful Company of Fishmongers. He was a passionate advocate of the critical importance of pubs, and when once asked how best to improve the resilience of one’s local community, he replied: “Join the choir”.

In conversations and in public talks, Fleming spoke rapidly and eruditely on a broad range of subjects, at once enlightening, bewildering and side-splitting. He could be blunt with people who disagreed with him, and did fall out with some, but was a remarkably attentive listener and willing to change his mind.

He was always polite, sometimes elaborately so. His lengthy, goodhumoured letters of thanks were celebrated, and despite being frugal on his own account — he never looked as if he ate enough — when it came to others he was generous beyond his budget. Family and friends remember him giving a case of wine when a single bottle would have sufficed.

He enjoyed the company of children but never had any himself. In later years he formed a strong attachment to Miriam Polunin, a food writer, but lost her in tragic circumstances in 2005. She was visiting her elderly mother in Macclesfield when a man set fire to their house — with no motive, the courts later found. Miriam, 59, her mother and a carer all got out safely but Miriam went back inside to rescue a cat and was overcome with smoke, and died in hospital. She had a teenage son from a previous relationship.

In recent years Fleming was working on a book, Lean Logic, that pulls together the various strands of his thinking. His perfectionism led to numerous delays, but he was making final preparations for publication before his death and the book will be published posthumously.

David Fleming, ecologist, was born on January 2, 1940. He died on November 29, 2010, aged 70

Published in The Times on the 30th December 2010

Climate change action, second mersey crossing and the need for precaution.

In 2008 Jim Hansen one of the world's leading climatologists said that we had but four years to act on climate change. Pretty heavy stuff especially from a leading world scientist. Where's the caveats, the objectivity?

A clue is that, according to Robin McKie (Observer science editor),on Hansen's office wall which is devoid of any other personal matter are ten A4 size pictures of his grandchildren, Sophie, Connor and Jake.

Over the past couple of years doubts have been cast on computer predictivity regarding the rapidity of global warming and its effects. Computer modelling is of course not an exact science. The response to this is that the uncertainties make things really scary. (Take a look at BBC's Richard Blake's blog) We could be underestimating. So it partially comes down to how cautious should we be - how far do we go?

It was interesting looking at the public inquiry report on the second mersey crossing in this respect. Climate change as an issue in its own right as the inspectors report suggests currently is not a consideration in major infrastructure projects. This is obviously partly related to the inexactness of climate science in relation to global warming. This is on the surface a reasonable response but we are dealing with a not so straight forward phenomenon.

The comment from Jim Hansen back in 2008 was,"We have only four years left to act on climate change - America has to lead". One year left then - with Obamas problems and the lack of significant progress at the Cancun talks - a pretty tall order.

For the sake of our Sophies, Connors and Jakes we mustn't put this issue on the backburner.