Peter Cranie is a contender for the Green Party leadership contest which will follow the standing down of Caroline Lucas in September (the Green Party is the only political party in the UK that has a policy of rotating its leader).
Peter was really instrumental here in Halton in our achieving our best results when we nearly took seats off Labour and Lib Dems(Halton View ward (130 votes short) and Kingsway ward (114 votes short).
It's going to be quite a challenge for the next leader of the Green Party to follow Caroline Lucas's act but I consider Peter is up to it.
He is a down to earth, genuine person who has the gift of being able to put people at their ease. But also he has the political acumen to deal with the challenges he's likely to face and the vision and strength to see the party through its current developmental stage.
And it won't be such a bad thing, if he is successful, to have as a leader someone who has their roots in the north west here.
I wish him all the best in the contest.
Friday, 8 June 2012
Thursday, 27 October 2011
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".
Saturday, 16 July 2011
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 572298By direct transfer to our Bank:-
Nat West, 53 High Street, Runcorn, WA7 1AW
Payee Halton Action Group Against The IncineratorSort 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
THE FIGHT IS FAR FROM OVER
Tuesday, 26 April 2011
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.
"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.
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
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)
"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)
Tuesday, 22 March 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, 20 March 2011
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.
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.
Friday, 4 March 2011
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
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
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.
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.
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".
Friday, 28 January 2011
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
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
Saturday, 15 January 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, 28 December 2010
The New Year - going away until the next time?
My internet connection has been down on and off for the last 3 weeks and I've had to go through the rigmarole of speaking to numerous technical advisers.
I'm with BT which is fortunate in one way as when your router is not working, for instance because of an exchange problem, you can re-route via BT's 'open space'. But one of the problems with BT, like all other providers, is that it's privatised with competition rampant and profit the god at which all worship (or so it seems) and this can cause real difficulties.
In the 'good old days' when BT was a state concern service to the consumer via accountability was the key. So the issue which I'm confronted with now probably wouldn't have occurred then.(Although maybe the developments that have occurred in the last 20 or so years couldn't have happened without companies like BT not going private but that's another issue!)
My problem according to a BT engineer (who's been out to see me) is primarily an exchange one. A card at the exchange which my service is routed through needs to be replaced (?) owing to the volume of traffic. But such replacement will costs thousands of pounds. So its a waiting game. When the volume of complaints reaches a certain height then change cometh I get a better service...until the next time. (Shades here of a problem we have in this region related to local railways ie overcrowded trains!!)
OK you might say I could change my provider but I'm told by my BT adviser they'd probably be using the same equipment so no change!
It brings to mind the global quest for development growth at all cost with profit the driving force. The difference between this macro situation and mine is that my short term problems will probably clear up until the next time. However in the global context there's a massive danger if unsustainable development (notwithstanding economic cycles) continues - it'll create difficulties for us all which will be catastrophic for our children and grandchildren which won't go away - until the next time!
I'm hoping to highlight international hotspots related to these problems that are a real cause for concern in this blog next year.
I wish all readers a happy and peaceful new year - thanks for reading. And hopefully this year more and more of us will be questioning the viability of the sort of global economic development that charges along with profit as the prime mover without much care for our precious humankind and other species.
I'm with BT which is fortunate in one way as when your router is not working, for instance because of an exchange problem, you can re-route via BT's 'open space'. But one of the problems with BT, like all other providers, is that it's privatised with competition rampant and profit the god at which all worship (or so it seems) and this can cause real difficulties.
In the 'good old days' when BT was a state concern service to the consumer via accountability was the key. So the issue which I'm confronted with now probably wouldn't have occurred then.(Although maybe the developments that have occurred in the last 20 or so years couldn't have happened without companies like BT not going private but that's another issue!)
My problem according to a BT engineer (who's been out to see me) is primarily an exchange one. A card at the exchange which my service is routed through needs to be replaced (?) owing to the volume of traffic. But such replacement will costs thousands of pounds. So its a waiting game. When the volume of complaints reaches a certain height then change cometh I get a better service...until the next time. (Shades here of a problem we have in this region related to local railways ie overcrowded trains!!)
OK you might say I could change my provider but I'm told by my BT adviser they'd probably be using the same equipment so no change!
It brings to mind the global quest for development growth at all cost with profit the driving force. The difference between this macro situation and mine is that my short term problems will probably clear up until the next time. However in the global context there's a massive danger if unsustainable development (notwithstanding economic cycles) continues - it'll create difficulties for us all which will be catastrophic for our children and grandchildren which won't go away - until the next time!
I'm hoping to highlight international hotspots related to these problems that are a real cause for concern in this blog next year.
I wish all readers a happy and peaceful new year - thanks for reading. And hopefully this year more and more of us will be questioning the viability of the sort of global economic development that charges along with profit as the prime mover without much care for our precious humankind and other species.
Saturday, 20 November 2010
Headteacher top of the league!
I recently read in the local press about the response of a headteacher of a local primary school following the school being placed in the top 100 primary schools in the country.
She said that of course she was pleased with the achievement but questioned the value of such standardised testing and suggested that schools offer children so much more than the ability of the individual child to move from one standard level to another.
Her concern was optimising the individual child's positive accomplishments and experiences. Such attainments are not easy to discern in league table results.
Am not sure about the reaction of the local education authority to her comments but I say what a person of integrity and common sense.
There are so many variables in how one school performs against another not least the catchment areas children come from. A good school is one that caters fully to bring on the whole child not some narrow yardstick that can be misleading and open to manipulation.
She said that of course she was pleased with the achievement but questioned the value of such standardised testing and suggested that schools offer children so much more than the ability of the individual child to move from one standard level to another.
Her concern was optimising the individual child's positive accomplishments and experiences. Such attainments are not easy to discern in league table results.
Am not sure about the reaction of the local education authority to her comments but I say what a person of integrity and common sense.
There are so many variables in how one school performs against another not least the catchment areas children come from. A good school is one that caters fully to bring on the whole child not some narrow yardstick that can be misleading and open to manipulation.
Monday, 8 November 2010
Lorry Watch - latest
At the last Lorry Watch session we observed 5 possible infringements of HGVs using Barrows Green lane and Moorfield Rd. These were passed on to the police and they have sent the following response:
"I have spoken to Jamie Simmons and he is following up the companies involved with these incidents. He will keep an eye on the situation and also ask our Roads Policing officers to pay attention to the area when they have the opportunity".
Although we are only able to provide cover for a minimal amount of time a week our experience has been that it does seem to have an effect on the number of infringements - presumably word gets round.
However in this vein we are still short of volunteers to help so if you are able to spare an hour or two a week please get in contact.
"I have spoken to Jamie Simmons and he is following up the companies involved with these incidents. He will keep an eye on the situation and also ask our Roads Policing officers to pay attention to the area when they have the opportunity".
Although we are only able to provide cover for a minimal amount of time a week our experience has been that it does seem to have an effect on the number of infringements - presumably word gets round.
However in this vein we are still short of volunteers to help so if you are able to spare an hour or two a week please get in contact.
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Green Campaigning - the Future
We're all stuck in the middle of the big cuts phenomenen. Its impossible to get away from it - we're all going to be affected. Given the coming shocks particularly to the poorest and most vulnerable, which we obviously must be very concerned about, what chance for continuing to keeping our eye on the ball of the biggest threat to future generations including our children and grandchildren - climate change.
Caroline Lucas MP has some interesting things to say,
" This is a challenging time for progressives. We have a coalition not only introducing savage cuts, but seeming to enjoy wielding the axe.
And that enthusiasm - with George Osborne and Danny Alexander competing to give the best impression of Freddie Kruger - gives the lie to the idea that these cuts are necessary because of the current recession.
We can see that they are ideologically driven. Many Tories, and some Liberal Democrats, want a smaller state and will use the financial crisis as the excuse to achieve it - even at the risk of plunging us back into recession.
And even at the risk of making the much greater environmental crisis that we face even worse, by slashing spending on green technology, on incentives for renewable, on the potential to create hundreds of thousands of green jobs.
I don't often find myself quoting Tim Yeo, but his comments over the weekend about this were spot on, when he pointed out that despite the national debt, spending on defence went up by 125% between 1930 and 1939. In the run up to the 2WW, we were running an even bigger deficit than today, but would never have won the battle of Britain if spending on defence had been sacrificed.
The point he's making, of course, is that we won't win the battle against climate change if we slash spending on it now.
And we need to make the case that not only are these cuts socially divisive, and environmentally disastrous, they are also economically completely illiterate.
The Ed Balls Bloomberg speech is something around which many progressives can unify - the speech where Balls made the case that it's through getting people back to work that we stand the best chance of addressing the deficit, through keeping people paying their taxes, rather than seeing tax revenue drain out of the economy, followed by redundancy payments and benefits payments.
But there's almost no discussion about the kind of work we envisage them doing, no debate about the kind of growth we need to see.
Yesterday, I spoke at a TUC conference which was entitled, without irony, Alliances for Green Growth.
Something about the alliteration seems to trick people into thinking the two ideas are compatible - green growth - it's like trade ministers talking about "free and fair trade", with no apparent recognition that just because free and fair start with the same letter, they're not the same things. Most free trade certainly isn't fair.
And if there is a form of growth which is genuinely green, genuinely sustainable, I'm not sure we know what it looks like yet.
So I think the challenge for progressives when it comes to the environment is to accept that our current economic system is economically and morally unsustainable. In other words, it only works by cheating future generations out of their birthright and by exploiting the vulnerable here and abroad.
So when we talk of a green recovery, we're not talking about a traditional economic recovery boosted by selling some home insulation or building some windmills.
We're not talking about business as usual, with a few green trimmings.
It's not about finding new products to sell, and sticking a green label on them.
We're talking about a recovery based on green principles and insights; one that is rooted in social justice and which balances our needs, against those of the developing world, the natural world, and those of future generations.
There's a lot of talk about fairness at the moment. Not just by the coalition government, who have stretched it to mind-boggling new limits, but now by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and their new report.
Yet there's very little debate about intergenerational fairness.
I'd argue that one of the fundamental challenges for progressive politics in the opening years of the twenty first century is that we haven't not yet come to terms with the full meaning of equality.
We have not properly thought through what it means, or how we can make it a reality.
And the reason for this is the way we have gone about forging a progressive consensus for the last 2 centuries.
Progressive politics have depended on ever rising economic growth and prosperity in order to bring about a redistribution of power.
And as the economy has grown, so elites have been persuaded to give up a little bit of their wealth and power.
They have accepted a little more taxation and redistribution; they have allowed political power to be spread a little more thinly.
That's not surprising. It's easier to ask people to take a smaller percentage of an ever growing cake.
But it has two consequences.
First, it gives the illusion of greater equality, while allowing for greater concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few.
And so Britain can, after 13 years of a Labour government, be more unequal than before they came to power.
Second, the prosperity itself may be built on rotten foundations. Already, we in Britain consume three times more than the world can sustain on an equitable basis.
The growth that has paid for our welfare state is built on the exploitation of natural resources and on the exploitation of people here and around the world.
And so often with the best intentions, the pursuit of increased national economic growth and wealth as a means to promote equality carries with it the seeds of its own failure.
The heart of the problem is a failure of imagination.
We are all equal.
And equality does not stop at the borders of the UK. Nor does it stop with the present generation.
And those whose world we are destroying, whose precious resources we are burning up, whose species we are making extinct, whose seas we are poisoning, and whose beauty and tranquillity we are sacrificing - those who are yet to be born - we owe them just as much as those around us today.
In business terms, we are treating our capital as income.
We use up our resources and say we are better off.
In the real world, if a business does this, it will go bust. In the parallel world of economics, we are supposed to carry on like this forever.
We haven't considered that by any rational measure, we are becoming not richer, but poorer. That economic growth is becoming uneconomic.
We don't think of the consequences of our actions in years to come.
This is seen most clearly in the approach to climate change.
And here I get to the crux of what I want to say.
The challenge for progressive politicians is to grasp that an incremental approach to tackling climate change is doomed to fail.
That the next 8-10 years are going to be absolutely critical in terms of getting our emissions in the industrialised world to peak, and start to come down, and that if we don't act within that briefest of windows of opportunity, then the chances of avoiding the worst of the climate crisis get very much slimmer.
And that means fundamentally challenging our current growth model.
Yet the number of politicians or civil society organisations focused primarily on the implications of today's growth model remains tiny. Worse, millions of environmental campaigners seem to seriously believe that we can address climate change, slow the loss of threatened species and habitats, manage chronic water and resource shortages and put an end to over fishing and continuing soil erosion, whilst pursuing pretty much the same kind of economic growth that brought these natural systems to the edge of collapse in the first place.
In other words, the trade off appears to be to ignore the inevitable long-term consequences of business-as-usual growth in order to help to protect short term organisational effectiveness. It may make sense from a tactical point of view, but strategically it's unsustainable.
So how do we make this shift from incremental change to systemic reform?
How do we build that public and political momentum for change fast enough?
What chances are there for civil society organisations to coalesce around the challenge to make the case for a very different kind of economic model?
And what role for progressive politicians?
I look forward to the debate".
Caroline Lucas MP has some interesting things to say,
" This is a challenging time for progressives. We have a coalition not only introducing savage cuts, but seeming to enjoy wielding the axe.
And that enthusiasm - with George Osborne and Danny Alexander competing to give the best impression of Freddie Kruger - gives the lie to the idea that these cuts are necessary because of the current recession.
We can see that they are ideologically driven. Many Tories, and some Liberal Democrats, want a smaller state and will use the financial crisis as the excuse to achieve it - even at the risk of plunging us back into recession.
And even at the risk of making the much greater environmental crisis that we face even worse, by slashing spending on green technology, on incentives for renewable, on the potential to create hundreds of thousands of green jobs.
I don't often find myself quoting Tim Yeo, but his comments over the weekend about this were spot on, when he pointed out that despite the national debt, spending on defence went up by 125% between 1930 and 1939. In the run up to the 2WW, we were running an even bigger deficit than today, but would never have won the battle of Britain if spending on defence had been sacrificed.
The point he's making, of course, is that we won't win the battle against climate change if we slash spending on it now.
And we need to make the case that not only are these cuts socially divisive, and environmentally disastrous, they are also economically completely illiterate.
The Ed Balls Bloomberg speech is something around which many progressives can unify - the speech where Balls made the case that it's through getting people back to work that we stand the best chance of addressing the deficit, through keeping people paying their taxes, rather than seeing tax revenue drain out of the economy, followed by redundancy payments and benefits payments.
But there's almost no discussion about the kind of work we envisage them doing, no debate about the kind of growth we need to see.
Yesterday, I spoke at a TUC conference which was entitled, without irony, Alliances for Green Growth.
Something about the alliteration seems to trick people into thinking the two ideas are compatible - green growth - it's like trade ministers talking about "free and fair trade", with no apparent recognition that just because free and fair start with the same letter, they're not the same things. Most free trade certainly isn't fair.
And if there is a form of growth which is genuinely green, genuinely sustainable, I'm not sure we know what it looks like yet.
So I think the challenge for progressives when it comes to the environment is to accept that our current economic system is economically and morally unsustainable. In other words, it only works by cheating future generations out of their birthright and by exploiting the vulnerable here and abroad.
So when we talk of a green recovery, we're not talking about a traditional economic recovery boosted by selling some home insulation or building some windmills.
We're not talking about business as usual, with a few green trimmings.
It's not about finding new products to sell, and sticking a green label on them.
We're talking about a recovery based on green principles and insights; one that is rooted in social justice and which balances our needs, against those of the developing world, the natural world, and those of future generations.
There's a lot of talk about fairness at the moment. Not just by the coalition government, who have stretched it to mind-boggling new limits, but now by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and their new report.
Yet there's very little debate about intergenerational fairness.
I'd argue that one of the fundamental challenges for progressive politics in the opening years of the twenty first century is that we haven't not yet come to terms with the full meaning of equality.
We have not properly thought through what it means, or how we can make it a reality.
And the reason for this is the way we have gone about forging a progressive consensus for the last 2 centuries.
Progressive politics have depended on ever rising economic growth and prosperity in order to bring about a redistribution of power.
And as the economy has grown, so elites have been persuaded to give up a little bit of their wealth and power.
They have accepted a little more taxation and redistribution; they have allowed political power to be spread a little more thinly.
That's not surprising. It's easier to ask people to take a smaller percentage of an ever growing cake.
But it has two consequences.
First, it gives the illusion of greater equality, while allowing for greater concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few.
And so Britain can, after 13 years of a Labour government, be more unequal than before they came to power.
Second, the prosperity itself may be built on rotten foundations. Already, we in Britain consume three times more than the world can sustain on an equitable basis.
The growth that has paid for our welfare state is built on the exploitation of natural resources and on the exploitation of people here and around the world.
And so often with the best intentions, the pursuit of increased national economic growth and wealth as a means to promote equality carries with it the seeds of its own failure.
The heart of the problem is a failure of imagination.
We are all equal.
And equality does not stop at the borders of the UK. Nor does it stop with the present generation.
And those whose world we are destroying, whose precious resources we are burning up, whose species we are making extinct, whose seas we are poisoning, and whose beauty and tranquillity we are sacrificing - those who are yet to be born - we owe them just as much as those around us today.
In business terms, we are treating our capital as income.
We use up our resources and say we are better off.
In the real world, if a business does this, it will go bust. In the parallel world of economics, we are supposed to carry on like this forever.
We haven't considered that by any rational measure, we are becoming not richer, but poorer. That economic growth is becoming uneconomic.
We don't think of the consequences of our actions in years to come.
This is seen most clearly in the approach to climate change.
And here I get to the crux of what I want to say.
The challenge for progressive politicians is to grasp that an incremental approach to tackling climate change is doomed to fail.
That the next 8-10 years are going to be absolutely critical in terms of getting our emissions in the industrialised world to peak, and start to come down, and that if we don't act within that briefest of windows of opportunity, then the chances of avoiding the worst of the climate crisis get very much slimmer.
And that means fundamentally challenging our current growth model.
Yet the number of politicians or civil society organisations focused primarily on the implications of today's growth model remains tiny. Worse, millions of environmental campaigners seem to seriously believe that we can address climate change, slow the loss of threatened species and habitats, manage chronic water and resource shortages and put an end to over fishing and continuing soil erosion, whilst pursuing pretty much the same kind of economic growth that brought these natural systems to the edge of collapse in the first place.
In other words, the trade off appears to be to ignore the inevitable long-term consequences of business-as-usual growth in order to help to protect short term organisational effectiveness. It may make sense from a tactical point of view, but strategically it's unsustainable.
So how do we make this shift from incremental change to systemic reform?
How do we build that public and political momentum for change fast enough?
What chances are there for civil society organisations to coalesce around the challenge to make the case for a very different kind of economic model?
And what role for progressive politicians?
I look forward to the debate".
Sunday, 17 October 2010
Second Crossing Gets the Go Ahead!
Well the Mersey Gateway finally has been given the green light. I don't think anyone will be surprised and of course it's the Tory Party's beneficiaries that will be gaining the most ie big business.
I believe that we should be investing to create jobs in infrastructure but not of this variety. Whatever anyone says it will increase air borne pollution in the long term. Pollution that will contribute to climate change. Climate Change is the biggest challenge we face. The monies being spent on a second crossing should be being spent on industries that are likely to counter climate change directly.
Speaking selfishly and locally the majority of Halton's residents will not benefit at all from a second crossing. There will undoubtedly be costs - tolls on the new bridge which will have to reflect the likely soaring costs, tolls on the existing bridge and many environmental negatives.
But in this blog I'd like to highlight local health. We are blighted here by much higher than average rates of morbidity and mortality. No doubt lifestyle factors come into this and also that the borough has some areas of high social and economic deprivation.
Against this background the council is forging ahead (no doubt with the good intention of attracting industry here) of making Halton THE Freight Distribution hub of the north west. (See other blog material in archive regading this subject). The second crossing would seem to be an integral part of these plans.
According to council figures if all the planned freight distribution projects in the pipeline come to fruition there will be an increase in HGV traffic on Halton's roads of at least 500 vehicles every 24 hour cycle. This is a very conservative estimate. My calculations suggest double this amount. Now keep these figures in your head and consider the following.
Earlier this year (February 2010) the House of Commons Environmental Audit cttee considered research evidence that looked at what the most recent studies were indicating about the effects of increasing levels of traffic diesel emissions in the UK. (see 23.3.10 blog for further information on this research). It suggested that we have completely underestimated the health consequences of these emissions
Incidences of cardiovascular and lung disease related to mainly traffic emissions has increased dramatically in the UK. Of specific concern is the increase in childhood lung disease and complications in pregnancy in areas where there is high exposure near (within 500 metres of) major roads. According to research this applies to 12 million homes in England alone.
Giving evidence Prof Frank Kelly, Kings College stated,
“that the govt …and local councils had to act decisively in the same way as they had over obesity and smoking…we need to reduce the number of diesel vehicles on roads by 20 – 30%".
The second crossing, which is very much the cornerstone of the council's economic development plans for Halton, is certainly not going to be of assistance in tackling this particular problem here in Halton.
I believe that we should be investing to create jobs in infrastructure but not of this variety. Whatever anyone says it will increase air borne pollution in the long term. Pollution that will contribute to climate change. Climate Change is the biggest challenge we face. The monies being spent on a second crossing should be being spent on industries that are likely to counter climate change directly.
Speaking selfishly and locally the majority of Halton's residents will not benefit at all from a second crossing. There will undoubtedly be costs - tolls on the new bridge which will have to reflect the likely soaring costs, tolls on the existing bridge and many environmental negatives.
But in this blog I'd like to highlight local health. We are blighted here by much higher than average rates of morbidity and mortality. No doubt lifestyle factors come into this and also that the borough has some areas of high social and economic deprivation.
Against this background the council is forging ahead (no doubt with the good intention of attracting industry here) of making Halton THE Freight Distribution hub of the north west. (See other blog material in archive regading this subject). The second crossing would seem to be an integral part of these plans.
According to council figures if all the planned freight distribution projects in the pipeline come to fruition there will be an increase in HGV traffic on Halton's roads of at least 500 vehicles every 24 hour cycle. This is a very conservative estimate. My calculations suggest double this amount. Now keep these figures in your head and consider the following.
Earlier this year (February 2010) the House of Commons Environmental Audit cttee considered research evidence that looked at what the most recent studies were indicating about the effects of increasing levels of traffic diesel emissions in the UK. (see 23.3.10 blog for further information on this research). It suggested that we have completely underestimated the health consequences of these emissions
Incidences of cardiovascular and lung disease related to mainly traffic emissions has increased dramatically in the UK. Of specific concern is the increase in childhood lung disease and complications in pregnancy in areas where there is high exposure near (within 500 metres of) major roads. According to research this applies to 12 million homes in England alone.
Giving evidence Prof Frank Kelly, Kings College stated,
“that the govt …and local councils had to act decisively in the same way as they had over obesity and smoking…we need to reduce the number of diesel vehicles on roads by 20 – 30%".
The second crossing, which is very much the cornerstone of the council's economic development plans for Halton, is certainly not going to be of assistance in tackling this particular problem here in Halton.
Friday, 15 October 2010
Lorry Watch Coming Up...!
Been rather busy of late with one thing and another. The nicest bit of the busy- ness has been the birth of our fourth grandchild a boy on 13th October - Name maybe Alex or Jake not yet confirmed. Now we're one short of a five a side team!!
This and other happenings have stalled our planned Lorry watch campaign for September. Hopefully in the next few weeks we can do a limited watch. It does have an effect as the word swiftly passes round to HGV drivers about the observations.
Initially we had been contacting the HGV companies ourselves but it turned out to be more effective passing them on directly to the police who have cooperated very well.
Watch this space...
This and other happenings have stalled our planned Lorry watch campaign for September. Hopefully in the next few weeks we can do a limited watch. It does have an effect as the word swiftly passes round to HGV drivers about the observations.
Initially we had been contacting the HGV companies ourselves but it turned out to be more effective passing them on directly to the police who have cooperated very well.
Watch this space...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)