Two things that happened today have genuinely uplifted me.
First, I’m sure like millions of others, I consider that the inauguration of Obama offers the world a new start in a shift from the old politics of seeking self interest to a new era of pushing for a more sharing and caring world.
But for me personally it’s also the emphasis that Obama placed in his inauguration speech on meeting the challenges of climate change. If he is able to stick to his prime goals in this area then the future security of the world, particularly of the poor of the third world, will be enhanced.
The other uplift came in the form of the success of Derby Road area residents in persuading a St Helens Planning committee meeting to turn down yet another proposal for the restart of quarrying and subsequent land filling at Bold Heath quarry.
Councillors at the meeting accepted the arguments put forward by residents that the development should not go ahead on health grounds and the increase of heavy goods road traffic in the area.
Tuesday, 20 January 2009
Saturday, 17 January 2009
London Airport Expansion - what a disaster!!
Caroline Lucas sums the decision up
'The Green Party said this evening that the decision to allow Heathrow to build a third runway was indefensible and
immediately put Britain in breach of European air quality guidelines.
Green Party leader Dr Caroline Lucas MEP said the announcement was "irresponsible, deceptive and environmentally disastrous."
Dr Lucas said: "This decision demonstrates a complete contempt for the environment, for the health of UK citizens and for our democratic processes.
"A third runway will have disastrous consequences for residents in my South East constituency - leading to serious environmental damage and social upheaval through increased pollution, and the destruction of local communities."
Dr Lucas warned that the Transport Secretary's proposals for Heathrow would condemn the UK to an unsustainable future of significantly higher noise and air pollution - and to accelerating climate change. "Any government which, on the one hand pledges to make a significant reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020, and on the other gives the green light to the greatest expansion of aviation in a generation, is guilty of either the most shameless hypocrisy, or the most unforgivable ignorance and stupidity," she said.
The MEP and long-standing campaigner against the expansion of the aviation industry added, "Despite the promises which were made to limit further expansion, this Government has persisted in a deceptive campaign for a third runway
which its own figures estimate will almost double the number of flights using Heathrow each year.
"Whichever way you look at the Government's proposals on aviation, they are a social and environmental disaster. What we need is a sustainable transport policy which incentivises train travel, makes aviation pay its true costs and restricts airport capacity."
The Tories and Lib Dems have quite rightly expressed their opposition to the announcement. It's a shame that locally they don't oppose in a similar the expansion of Liverpool airport if they are really serious about tackling climate change. Check out Peter Cranie's blog at www.petercranie.blogspot.com re further discussion.
'The Green Party said this evening that the decision to allow Heathrow to build a third runway was indefensible and
immediately put Britain in breach of European air quality guidelines.
Green Party leader Dr Caroline Lucas MEP said the announcement was "irresponsible, deceptive and environmentally disastrous."
Dr Lucas said: "This decision demonstrates a complete contempt for the environment, for the health of UK citizens and for our democratic processes.
"A third runway will have disastrous consequences for residents in my South East constituency - leading to serious environmental damage and social upheaval through increased pollution, and the destruction of local communities."
Dr Lucas warned that the Transport Secretary's proposals for Heathrow would condemn the UK to an unsustainable future of significantly higher noise and air pollution - and to accelerating climate change. "Any government which, on the one hand pledges to make a significant reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020, and on the other gives the green light to the greatest expansion of aviation in a generation, is guilty of either the most shameless hypocrisy, or the most unforgivable ignorance and stupidity," she said.
The MEP and long-standing campaigner against the expansion of the aviation industry added, "Despite the promises which were made to limit further expansion, this Government has persisted in a deceptive campaign for a third runway
which its own figures estimate will almost double the number of flights using Heathrow each year.
"Whichever way you look at the Government's proposals on aviation, they are a social and environmental disaster. What we need is a sustainable transport policy which incentivises train travel, makes aviation pay its true costs and restricts airport capacity."
The Tories and Lib Dems have quite rightly expressed their opposition to the announcement. It's a shame that locally they don't oppose in a similar the expansion of Liverpool airport if they are really serious about tackling climate change. Check out Peter Cranie's blog at www.petercranie.blogspot.com re further discussion.
Thursday, 8 January 2009
The Good, the Bad and the wake up call?
Happy New Year!
As life’s about positives and negatives, the negative first in these first few weeks of the new year.
Apart from the credit crunch, and what a fine mess some people have got us in, I was saddened to see the latest figures related to how the UK is doing in relation to reducing carbon emissions and the fact that, contrary to what the present government is suggesting, we are moving away from our Kyoto targets.
Check out “Measuring Progress towards Carbon Reduction in the UK” in “Britain in 2009”, an Economic and Social Research Council publication. Research featured in it suggests that we continue to miss our targets for Kyoto if we take into account emissions from aircraft and shipping and goods consumed here but produced elsewhere.
According to Kyoto reporting, UK carbon emissions have fallen by around 6% since 1990 If we include aviation and shipping emissions this 6% is wiped out. Furthermore if we look at figures linked to goods consumed here yet produced abroad the UK’s carbon emissions have risen by at least 8% since 1990. As the author comments, “Policy must consider all carbon emissions induced by UK consumption. Viewed in this way the UK’s task ahead is truly daunting”.
The positive - our children – Linda and I are blessed by having 3 beautiful grandchildren. Joe, now 3, is my soul mate and makes me think there could be something in reincarnation, he’s been here before! The other two Oliver and Oscar are now 9 months old and truly are quickly becoming themselves if that doesn’t sound too much like stating the obvious, but I think you know what I mean!
We spend a lot of time with them, it’s tiring but mostly very rewarding. It’s all that wonder of new discoveries and often this brings into dazzling focus the beautiful world we live in.(if we look for it in those terms).
If we put these negative and positive images together it’s surely a wake up call. It’s certainly the main reason I got involved with the Green movement 6 years ago and it continues to be the main motivation in my involvement with the Green Party. Climate change is bigger than the threat of terrorism and the credit crunch (easy to say I know if you’re not too effected) but we’re talking about all our children and grandchildren’s future safety and even possibly, given the worst scenario, their survival.
The more Green candidates that are elected at whatever level, the greater the pressure on governments here and abroad to recognize the fact that more and more people are waking up to the dangers of climate change and are prepared to alter their behaviour. This will further ensure the greater likelihood that Kyoto targets are met.
In June this year we’ll be voting in the European elections. Our Green MEP candidate for the north west is Peter Cranie (a new dad!). He lives in Liverpool and is aware of our local problems. Apart from being a new dad he is an experienced political activist and commentator. He has an academic and social work background and his professional and lifetime experiences have equipped him to be aware and sensitive to people's needs. His organisational abilities are first class I know personally as he helped us here in Halton with our successful 2008 campaign.
We have a chance to respond to this wake up call, by voting Green, by voting for Peter Cranie.
(If you want to know more about Peter's vision and views check out his blog at www.petercranie.blogspot.com - see bottom of this page for a link)
As life’s about positives and negatives, the negative first in these first few weeks of the new year.
Apart from the credit crunch, and what a fine mess some people have got us in, I was saddened to see the latest figures related to how the UK is doing in relation to reducing carbon emissions and the fact that, contrary to what the present government is suggesting, we are moving away from our Kyoto targets.
Check out “Measuring Progress towards Carbon Reduction in the UK” in “Britain in 2009”, an Economic and Social Research Council publication. Research featured in it suggests that we continue to miss our targets for Kyoto if we take into account emissions from aircraft and shipping and goods consumed here but produced elsewhere.
According to Kyoto reporting, UK carbon emissions have fallen by around 6% since 1990 If we include aviation and shipping emissions this 6% is wiped out. Furthermore if we look at figures linked to goods consumed here yet produced abroad the UK’s carbon emissions have risen by at least 8% since 1990. As the author comments, “Policy must consider all carbon emissions induced by UK consumption. Viewed in this way the UK’s task ahead is truly daunting”.
The positive - our children – Linda and I are blessed by having 3 beautiful grandchildren. Joe, now 3, is my soul mate and makes me think there could be something in reincarnation, he’s been here before! The other two Oliver and Oscar are now 9 months old and truly are quickly becoming themselves if that doesn’t sound too much like stating the obvious, but I think you know what I mean!
We spend a lot of time with them, it’s tiring but mostly very rewarding. It’s all that wonder of new discoveries and often this brings into dazzling focus the beautiful world we live in.(if we look for it in those terms).
If we put these negative and positive images together it’s surely a wake up call. It’s certainly the main reason I got involved with the Green movement 6 years ago and it continues to be the main motivation in my involvement with the Green Party. Climate change is bigger than the threat of terrorism and the credit crunch (easy to say I know if you’re not too effected) but we’re talking about all our children and grandchildren’s future safety and even possibly, given the worst scenario, their survival.
The more Green candidates that are elected at whatever level, the greater the pressure on governments here and abroad to recognize the fact that more and more people are waking up to the dangers of climate change and are prepared to alter their behaviour. This will further ensure the greater likelihood that Kyoto targets are met.
In June this year we’ll be voting in the European elections. Our Green MEP candidate for the north west is Peter Cranie (a new dad!). He lives in Liverpool and is aware of our local problems. Apart from being a new dad he is an experienced political activist and commentator. He has an academic and social work background and his professional and lifetime experiences have equipped him to be aware and sensitive to people's needs. His organisational abilities are first class I know personally as he helped us here in Halton with our successful 2008 campaign.
We have a chance to respond to this wake up call, by voting Green, by voting for Peter Cranie.
(If you want to know more about Peter's vision and views check out his blog at www.petercranie.blogspot.com - see bottom of this page for a link)
Wednesday, 17 December 2008
Bold Heath Quarry - update
I attended council planning meeting re Bold Quarry at St Helens last week along with members of Bold Heath Residents group.
The news isn't good as the scheme was not turned down on a majority vote as it was on the last occasion but councillors have opted for a site visit before making a decision.
The Bold Heath Residents group need to obtain professional consultancy advice if they're to be as effective as they are able to be in stopping the development. I don't think that St Helens council will consider an appeals route if it's not seen as being viable
I give a brief outline of what I think transpired at the meeting:
The developer has applied for planning permission several times in the past but has been turned down mainly on the grounds of ambiguities in the application details (ie insufficient infill material available during the time scale of operations) and on health grounds. The proposal includes the quarrying of sandstone to a certain depth and the infilling with waste building material. The developer has had previous permission to quarry on this site.
Opponents have argued on grounds of increase traffic, pollution noise and health issues (silicone dust) and water table problems in relation to the quarry being used as landfill site.
At other attempts in the past the developer has not been able to prove that there would be sufficient infill as mentioned above. However according to council officials advising the meeting the regional Waste DPD plan is indicating the need for more landfill space for inert material (do images of the second crossing come to mind!)
One of the main arguments used by opponents in the past has been the dust issue. There is a potential for crystaline silica dust, if unchecked, to be spread widely in the area. Inhalation of such dust can cause silicosis a health condition which is of course irreversible.
Ironically, officials argued that the provisions attached to the present permission that the developer had does not have the level of safety checks and enforcement re the dust that the current proposal has. Thus voting against the proposal would mean that the existing permission that the developers have would have fewer safegaurds than the proposal currently before the committee. (The quarry however has not been worked for some time)
In their arguments opponents discussed the situation in the local geographical area in relation to airborne pollutants and the relative poor health of residents in the wider St Helens and Halton communities although no direct causal inferences were expressed.
However recent reports had indicated the need for a precautionary approach with regard to any future activity which would increase the possibility of increased pollution. (e.g. a study of people's health in Halton 2001 suggested that,’… whilst monitored levels of pollutants meet national standards knowledge of impact of long term exposure to low levels of pollution from airborne and land contaminants is limited. Based on the precautionary principle it is sensible to both monitor pollution levels carefully and to seek cost effective ways to continue to reduce them to the lowest practicable levels”. Halton Health Study Lancaster University 2001p8)
Notwithstanding these arguments an officer from planning stated that the standards set by the St Helens authority re air quality in the Bold Heath area is not being exceeded!!
The argument in relation to seepage into the water table of toxins from landfilling material even inert material when mixed with existing contamination in adjacent agriculutural land was countered by officials who talked about the EA's ongoing monitoring of this problem.
At least one councillor wondered whether any 'health advice' could be provided regarding the particular issue of airborne pollution. This was not specifically responded to by officers.
If you are able to offer support to the Bold Residents Group in any way please let me know.
The news isn't good as the scheme was not turned down on a majority vote as it was on the last occasion but councillors have opted for a site visit before making a decision.
The Bold Heath Residents group need to obtain professional consultancy advice if they're to be as effective as they are able to be in stopping the development. I don't think that St Helens council will consider an appeals route if it's not seen as being viable
I give a brief outline of what I think transpired at the meeting:
The developer has applied for planning permission several times in the past but has been turned down mainly on the grounds of ambiguities in the application details (ie insufficient infill material available during the time scale of operations) and on health grounds. The proposal includes the quarrying of sandstone to a certain depth and the infilling with waste building material. The developer has had previous permission to quarry on this site.
Opponents have argued on grounds of increase traffic, pollution noise and health issues (silicone dust) and water table problems in relation to the quarry being used as landfill site.
At other attempts in the past the developer has not been able to prove that there would be sufficient infill as mentioned above. However according to council officials advising the meeting the regional Waste DPD plan is indicating the need for more landfill space for inert material (do images of the second crossing come to mind!)
One of the main arguments used by opponents in the past has been the dust issue. There is a potential for crystaline silica dust, if unchecked, to be spread widely in the area. Inhalation of such dust can cause silicosis a health condition which is of course irreversible.
Ironically, officials argued that the provisions attached to the present permission that the developer had does not have the level of safety checks and enforcement re the dust that the current proposal has. Thus voting against the proposal would mean that the existing permission that the developers have would have fewer safegaurds than the proposal currently before the committee. (The quarry however has not been worked for some time)
In their arguments opponents discussed the situation in the local geographical area in relation to airborne pollutants and the relative poor health of residents in the wider St Helens and Halton communities although no direct causal inferences were expressed.
However recent reports had indicated the need for a precautionary approach with regard to any future activity which would increase the possibility of increased pollution. (e.g. a study of people's health in Halton 2001 suggested that,’… whilst monitored levels of pollutants meet national standards knowledge of impact of long term exposure to low levels of pollution from airborne and land contaminants is limited. Based on the precautionary principle it is sensible to both monitor pollution levels carefully and to seek cost effective ways to continue to reduce them to the lowest practicable levels”. Halton Health Study Lancaster University 2001p8)
Notwithstanding these arguments an officer from planning stated that the standards set by the St Helens authority re air quality in the Bold Heath area is not being exceeded!!
The argument in relation to seepage into the water table of toxins from landfilling material even inert material when mixed with existing contamination in adjacent agriculutural land was countered by officials who talked about the EA's ongoing monitoring of this problem.
At least one councillor wondered whether any 'health advice' could be provided regarding the particular issue of airborne pollution. This was not specifically responded to by officers.
If you are able to offer support to the Bold Residents Group in any way please let me know.
Sunday, 7 December 2008
I Should Have Gone Yesterday!
I should have gone yesterday. It was the climate change demonstration in London although you would never have thought it had happened as far as media coverage is concerned. Climate change is the greatest challenge we have ever faced. It hasn't gone away, it's still with us even with a new apparantly green leaning US president.
The EU is currently discussing proposals regarding tackling the issue but it has faltered in a couple of vital areas mainly through member states self interest (see www.stopclimatechange.net)
The EU situation of course is reflected in the positions we take as individuals - what's important for us is today, next week, next month, next year and how are we going to exist financially as the credit crunch finally starts biting. And if we consume less what's going to happen to the economy?
But, and it's easy for me to say this as I'm relatively well off, it's possible to tackle the challenge at whatever level we are able to. The state has a massive role to play eg developing a 'green' economy but we as individuals can also do a lot. (See this blog 117/10/08) And the good thing is there are many positives in the process of individuals saving energy,saving money.
It's not just in the area of financial benefits though. The situation that we find ourselves in pushes us to reconsider our values. Is there a need to buy this, can we do that another way? In this new mindset there’s a possibility that we’re entering into a more creative style of living. We’re not being carried along by consumerist society so much as being more in control and reaping the benefits of self assertedness.
Are these living in a daydream grand words? We’re going to find it hard. Aren’t we comfortable in doing what we’re doing? Change can be painful but do we have a choice?
I should have gone yesterday!
The EU is currently discussing proposals regarding tackling the issue but it has faltered in a couple of vital areas mainly through member states self interest (see www.stopclimatechange.net)
The EU situation of course is reflected in the positions we take as individuals - what's important for us is today, next week, next month, next year and how are we going to exist financially as the credit crunch finally starts biting. And if we consume less what's going to happen to the economy?
But, and it's easy for me to say this as I'm relatively well off, it's possible to tackle the challenge at whatever level we are able to. The state has a massive role to play eg developing a 'green' economy but we as individuals can also do a lot. (See this blog 117/10/08) And the good thing is there are many positives in the process of individuals saving energy,saving money.
It's not just in the area of financial benefits though. The situation that we find ourselves in pushes us to reconsider our values. Is there a need to buy this, can we do that another way? In this new mindset there’s a possibility that we’re entering into a more creative style of living. We’re not being carried along by consumerist society so much as being more in control and reaping the benefits of self assertedness.
Are these living in a daydream grand words? We’re going to find it hard. Aren’t we comfortable in doing what we’re doing? Change can be painful but do we have a choice?
I should have gone yesterday!
Wednesday, 3 December 2008
Bennett's Lane Secure Unit given the go ahead!
The Dept for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Inspectors(?) has come down in favour of giving the go ahead to the mental health secure unit in Bennett's Lane Halton View Widnes.
Although this decision was anticipated it will still be a big disappointment for residents in the area who fought long and hard to have the project changed.
There is an obvious need for these units, although I wonder about private sector involvement, but I would question a unit being built in such close proximity to a residential area and also the way the developers went about pursuing the proposal.
The other issue is the apparant lack of scrutiny that all members of the three main parties on the development and planning committee seemed to exercise.
In hindsight it's difficult to know whether greater scrutiny would have achieved a different result although we know in other areas were similar projects were on the cards such scrutiny prevented some of these developments.
One of the plusses which has occurred over the past eighteen months or so in relation to this issue is how it has brought residents together. It has shown that, with determination ordinary people can question effectively developments which are considered to be impacting on their lives.
In this case unfortunately the odds were stacked up against Halton View residents although they did hold up the opening of the unit for over 12 months.
Now its important that with the unit up and running that residents can be assured that it is as secure as it needs to be.
Although this decision was anticipated it will still be a big disappointment for residents in the area who fought long and hard to have the project changed.
There is an obvious need for these units, although I wonder about private sector involvement, but I would question a unit being built in such close proximity to a residential area and also the way the developers went about pursuing the proposal.
The other issue is the apparant lack of scrutiny that all members of the three main parties on the development and planning committee seemed to exercise.
In hindsight it's difficult to know whether greater scrutiny would have achieved a different result although we know in other areas were similar projects were on the cards such scrutiny prevented some of these developments.
One of the plusses which has occurred over the past eighteen months or so in relation to this issue is how it has brought residents together. It has shown that, with determination ordinary people can question effectively developments which are considered to be impacting on their lives.
In this case unfortunately the odds were stacked up against Halton View residents although they did hold up the opening of the unit for over 12 months.
Now its important that with the unit up and running that residents can be assured that it is as secure as it needs to be.
Saturday, 29 November 2008
Fed Up With being Dumped On?
There's to be a meeting at St Helens Town Hall Victoria Sq St Helens to consider a planning application re a landfill site adjacent to Derby Rd on 9th December at 5.30pm Room 10.
Residents have successfully challenged this over the last few years but the developers have, once again, put in another proposal.
If it goes ahead not only will it mean all sorts of possible harmful emissions in the locality, possible effects on water table, dust and noise nuisance but also increase the number of HGV's in an area which is already inundated with such vehicles (see other blogs re this subject).
You can help by contacting the councillors on the planning committee in St Helens and letting them know of your objection. Also it would show local strength of feeling against the proposal if you could attend the committee meeting on the 9th.
With all the suspect developments taking place in this area residents have a perception that they are constantly being dumped on with proposals that very few communities would accept. This is not so much nimbyism but fudoism - fed up with being dumped on!
Don't just think it, do something about it!
If you are able to help in any way please let us know and amongst other things we can tell you which councillors to contact and sort out travelling arrangements if you can attend the meeting - phone Derek 0151 423 1692
Residents have successfully challenged this over the last few years but the developers have, once again, put in another proposal.
If it goes ahead not only will it mean all sorts of possible harmful emissions in the locality, possible effects on water table, dust and noise nuisance but also increase the number of HGV's in an area which is already inundated with such vehicles (see other blogs re this subject).
You can help by contacting the councillors on the planning committee in St Helens and letting them know of your objection. Also it would show local strength of feeling against the proposal if you could attend the committee meeting on the 9th.
With all the suspect developments taking place in this area residents have a perception that they are constantly being dumped on with proposals that very few communities would accept. This is not so much nimbyism but fudoism - fed up with being dumped on!
Don't just think it, do something about it!
If you are able to help in any way please let us know and amongst other things we can tell you which councillors to contact and sort out travelling arrangements if you can attend the meeting - phone Derek 0151 423 1692
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)