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.
Tuesday 22 February 2011
Thursday 10 February 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday 9 February 2011
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)
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)
Tuesday 1 February 2011
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".
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".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)