Like evolution deniers who comically cannot even agree on which fossils are ape and which are human, those who deny global warming use contradictory arguments.
Tell me if there is anyone out there who denies global warming without one day denying warming is happening then the next day when confronted with the news that 2010 is the hottest year on record globally, argue warming is happening but is natural because the dinosaur era was tropical, then flit back to the first argument again about warming not happening the day after. Sometimes they even put both contradictory arguments in the same post using the cold northern hemispere weather these last few winters and the snow in particular as 'proof' that warming cannot be happening. These contradictions should at least make you 'anthro-glo-warm' deniers pause for thought.
It isn't really that difficult to comprehend - CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases and human activity is pumping these gases into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate causing 'the speed of global warming' to be without precedent and human activity the only reasonable answer to why that is happening so quickly. The distant past may have been hotter but the 'rate' of warming was slower so any sunspot activity would have had a much more gradual effect. That's it, a simple school chemistry lesson that was delivered long before the global warming debate.
So why the snow in the UK? Well if we actually believe our geography lessons at school were not also part of 'the great conspiracy of the global warming swindle', then the temperate climate of the UK is because despite being as far north as Moscow, we have predominantly south west winds off the atlantic, a gulf stream of water from the carribean that hits our coast and a smaller land mass which means we are cooled in the summer and heated in the winter keeping our climate temperate, i.e. without the extremes seem in Moscow and elsewhere on our latitude. In the past when the earth was cooler, the UK south westerlies could still be cold enough for snow, now only north winds bring snow but crucially it seems that maybe north winds are becoming more common. The jury is out on that, but it could be that the UK could lose its south westerlies and gulf stream and potentially its temperate climate. You see global temperatures are rising despite the colder UK winters. This means of course that elsewhere is baking. Ask Australians?
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
22 December 2010
06 August 2009
High Speed Rail Is The Answer.
The Tory press would love us to believe that 'all the parties are the same'. This 'anti-politics' feeds perfectly to the acceptance of a Tory government elected by only a small minority - 'it makes no difference if we have a Tory government' syndrome. But when free bus travel for pensioners is scrapped or diluted, when the minimum wage is frozen, and when Sure Start centres are closed and benefits reduced, we will all know 'the difference' between the Tories and admittedly a poor Labour government. When we think back we will realise that nearly all New Labour failures were as a result of copying Tory policies from PFIs to scrapping regulation of financial services, from Iraq to building more prisons - following the Daily Mail agenda has made New Labour unpopular, not popular. This is why it is so refreshing to see a Minister take them on, well done Harriet!
Anyway, I digress. High speed rail will only happen if government invests. Both the Tories and Labour have said nice words about it, but with every other European country investing vast sums in expanding their network, our complete lack of building plans is pathetic.
I would love to see a consensus on this between Labour and the Tories, but realistically, the Tories will always want to cut public services - it is in their DNA. Labour could really take the lead here with concrete proposals and now, despite what the Tories claim, is the perfect time to spend - we can do the cutbacks when growth has taken off. We shall see what Labour do - I am pessimistic.
Anyway, I digress. High speed rail will only happen if government invests. Both the Tories and Labour have said nice words about it, but with every other European country investing vast sums in expanding their network, our complete lack of building plans is pathetic.
I would love to see a consensus on this between Labour and the Tories, but realistically, the Tories will always want to cut public services - it is in their DNA. Labour could really take the lead here with concrete proposals and now, despite what the Tories claim, is the perfect time to spend - we can do the cutbacks when growth has taken off. We shall see what Labour do - I am pessimistic.
29 June 2009
Better Ways To Recycle?
If only we could recycle how we used to do in the 70s or how they still do abroad. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying our current way of recycling is useless, just very wasteful. I am not convinced in the big scheme of things it is much more than just filling the desire to asuage middle class angst. In Ethical Man on Newsnight, a reporter did everything an individual could possibly do to be environmental friendly - they recycled everything, cut down on energy use, insulated their property, composted, got rid of their car, cycled and even became vegans. The result? - a not very impressive 20% cut in emissions - far short of the 60% we are aiming for for 2050. This can only be achieved through government action.Remember how we used to do it? I remember growing up where every glass bottle had a sizeable deposit on it and you would take it back to the shop and it would be washed and re-used. This is still how they do it in most of continental Europe. Compare that to the effort it takes to grind up the smashed bottles at bottle banks. I doubt they are re-used for anything other than filling in the tarmac on the roads. The only way we can go back to those days, is if government overide the cheap-skate tactics of companies that will always put the bottom line above the environment. We cannot afford to let that happen, we need a whole raft of environmental laws to encourage companies to recycle not just glass bottles, but repackaging. And on top of that, not use the packaging in the first place. To encourage people to think carefully about what they buy - do they REALLY need it. To cut down on car and energy use - to produce locally. All of these things need government to lay down the law. The individual can only make a dent in what needs to be done.
25 June 2009
The Economic Wars We Face
I don't write much about war, because strangely enough it doesn't interest me. I also don't know that much about the mechanics of war. (Arguably I don't know that much about most of what I write, but I do try to be accurate and I do try to write about higher politics rather than tittle-tattle, which I am sure cannot be said for some bloggers out there - Guido and Dale are you listening?) I sometimes descend as all bloggers do, into under-researched rant and get bogged down in detail but I do try my best within my time constraints and energy, I promise you that. (You might have guessed this is going to be a reflective post)
Anyway, back on topic, what I do know about war is that essentially it is about the battle for resources - in other words it stems from economics. This is one reason why the EU (and institutions like it - the UN perhaps?) is so important, if we put aside the undemocratic nature of the appointed Commission (appointed at the insistence of nation states), it is essentially a body to sort economic disputes and stop the outbreak of trade wars and military hostilities within Europe - particurlarly involving Germany. In that sense it has been a great success and as the environment and international conflict becomes more difficult we will need the EU and other bodies more and more.
When we look at the environmental problems we face in the future, a lot of time is spent talking about climate change. The Right will rubbish it and the left will talk serious about emissions, energy production and consumption but do very little. I believe climate change is real (not least because I remember as a teenager being knee deep in snow - I don't need an expert to tell me it doesn't snow anymore and that this has happened in just 25 years), but in a way I think we are missing the real environmental problems ahead - that is enviromental degradation caused by over-use of resources rather than a hotter climate. We waste huge amounts of resources - we are literally using up the planet and food stocks from fish to crops are falling. Couple this with the drop in underground fresh water and we can see we are heading for big problems. The 20th century was about wars over oil and energy supplies, the 21st century wars will be about water and food - a far more frightening prospect.
It will start in the developing world with mass starvation - billions will die. The developed world will not be immune to deaths - but generally prices for food and water will soar but remain affordable as we cut back on all our luxury goods. None of this is going to be pretty. But my prediction is that the world population has to come down to about 1 billion from the 9 billion predicted for 2020. We either move to the Left and manage this decline sensibly by redistributing resources or we take the Right-wing view point and scramble for everything we can get. Sadly it seems in times of crisis the Right do quite well. The Left-wing perspective requires long-term thinking, the Right-wing perspective just requires the bigger guns. We will see what happens. I am not optimistic.
Anyway, back on topic, what I do know about war is that essentially it is about the battle for resources - in other words it stems from economics. This is one reason why the EU (and institutions like it - the UN perhaps?) is so important, if we put aside the undemocratic nature of the appointed Commission (appointed at the insistence of nation states), it is essentially a body to sort economic disputes and stop the outbreak of trade wars and military hostilities within Europe - particurlarly involving Germany. In that sense it has been a great success and as the environment and international conflict becomes more difficult we will need the EU and other bodies more and more.
When we look at the environmental problems we face in the future, a lot of time is spent talking about climate change. The Right will rubbish it and the left will talk serious about emissions, energy production and consumption but do very little. I believe climate change is real (not least because I remember as a teenager being knee deep in snow - I don't need an expert to tell me it doesn't snow anymore and that this has happened in just 25 years), but in a way I think we are missing the real environmental problems ahead - that is enviromental degradation caused by over-use of resources rather than a hotter climate. We waste huge amounts of resources - we are literally using up the planet and food stocks from fish to crops are falling. Couple this with the drop in underground fresh water and we can see we are heading for big problems. The 20th century was about wars over oil and energy supplies, the 21st century wars will be about water and food - a far more frightening prospect.
It will start in the developing world with mass starvation - billions will die. The developed world will not be immune to deaths - but generally prices for food and water will soar but remain affordable as we cut back on all our luxury goods. None of this is going to be pretty. But my prediction is that the world population has to come down to about 1 billion from the 9 billion predicted for 2020. We either move to the Left and manage this decline sensibly by redistributing resources or we take the Right-wing view point and scramble for everything we can get. Sadly it seems in times of crisis the Right do quite well. The Left-wing perspective requires long-term thinking, the Right-wing perspective just requires the bigger guns. We will see what happens. I am not optimistic.
17 May 2009
Do The Tories Really Deserve A 152 Seat Majority Over ALL Other Parties When They Have Had Their Fingers In The Till Just As Much (If Not More)?
Thirty something percent of the vote, less than 1 in 5 of the electorate and the Tories are heading for over 60% of the seats.
No wonder the Tories love the present system of electing MPs. Who needs to attract majority support when all you have to do is split the opposition.
It seems Labour voters are more disgusted by this expenses scandal - probably because most Labour voters have never been able to claim them. Tory voters in contrast are probably much more sympathetic having accountants to flip their earnings to avoid tax and spicing up their expenses claims is a part of their lives too.
If you really want to show MPs of all parties on June 4th, we need you Tories to vote UKIP - you will get a nice right-wing MEP and as a bonus one who probably shares your hatred of the EU. Come on, us Labour supporters are deserting Labour, we need you Tory supporters to show you hate piggy cash troughing MPs as well. Otherwise we can assume you only want to save taxpayers money when it is spent on the working classes. Show us you care.
No wonder the Tories love the present system of electing MPs. Who needs to attract majority support when all you have to do is split the opposition.
It seems Labour voters are more disgusted by this expenses scandal - probably because most Labour voters have never been able to claim them. Tory voters in contrast are probably much more sympathetic having accountants to flip their earnings to avoid tax and spicing up their expenses claims is a part of their lives too.
If you really want to show MPs of all parties on June 4th, we need you Tories to vote UKIP - you will get a nice right-wing MEP and as a bonus one who probably shares your hatred of the EU. Come on, us Labour supporters are deserting Labour, we need you Tory supporters to show you hate piggy cash troughing MPs as well. Otherwise we can assume you only want to save taxpayers money when it is spent on the working classes. Show us you care.
02 May 2009
12 December 2008
Mancunians Say No To Congestion Charge
Update:- Results Here.
Unfortunate, but in the present climate of recession and the propaganda in the press against the government that any taxes raised would not go on public transport, it was always going to be difficult to make the case.
There are 2 alternatives I can see - if rationing by tax is rejected (and this was always going to be the best way to pay for public transport), then we either leave things to get intolerably congested (even if we covered greater Manchester with more roads) or we ration in some other way.
We will have to see what happens.
Unfortunate, but in the present climate of recession and the propaganda in the press against the government that any taxes raised would not go on public transport, it was always going to be difficult to make the case.
There are 2 alternatives I can see - if rationing by tax is rejected (and this was always going to be the best way to pay for public transport), then we either leave things to get intolerably congested (even if we covered greater Manchester with more roads) or we ration in some other way.
We will have to see what happens.
07 August 2008
Politically Incorrect Means Lying Tories.
If Labour owned all the local and national press and used them as...
party political freesheets - as the Tories do, the opinion polls would be very different.
Boris had all the press telling us about Ken's cronies - the truth, even a kangaroo court of Tories (costing £500,000) found nothing corrupt and Boris then goes and starts wasting money left, right and centre - giving £7m to Venezuala to scrap the half price travel for the poor, giving£125,000 to a 'headhunting' agency when Boris is supposed to do the recruiting, giving £400,000 to Porsche, £1.2m to employees sacked for no good reason, £120,000 jobs to a host of dodgy deputies he has to immediately sack (no doubt on good severance terms) and £126,000 jobs to people who donated to his political campaign (and still Tory Brian Coleman continues to run up £10,000 taxi bills). Of course none of this is reported as cronyism!
So it comes as no surprise that the LDA, which was cross party under Livingstone, becomes completely Tory under Boris, with no Labour representation. Just to prove how Orwellian the Tories are, Boris rewrites history by deleting 'the first hundred days of Ken' entry on the Mayor website (because it looks too good compared to his own poor record). So the Tories can happily turn a 21% decrease in traffic since the congestion charge started 6 years ago (including a 14% drop in the 1 year Western extension) into a headline in the papers of 'congestion charge doesn't reduce congestion', you know that honesty is not going to be part of the Tory governing way. They will make Labour spin look virtuous by comparison.
Livingstone used the drop in car traffic to improve the quality of life of Londoners. Livingstone rightly prioritised Thames Water fixing leaks that cost Londoners millions and gave other road users more time and space. So pedestrians were given more time to cross and cyclists giving more room and buses more dedicated lanes. All this saved lives, but Boris says he will scrap it all to favour car drivers alone. So the congestion charge that saved lives and allowed other road users more time and space is blamed for congestion - when the reality is that London is heading for a choked future and drop in living standards under Boris. Oh hum!
Boris had all the press telling us about Ken's cronies - the truth, even a kangaroo court of Tories (costing £500,000) found nothing corrupt and Boris then goes and starts wasting money left, right and centre - giving £7m to Venezuala to scrap the half price travel for the poor, giving£125,000 to a 'headhunting' agency when Boris is supposed to do the recruiting, giving £400,000 to Porsche, £1.2m to employees sacked for no good reason, £120,000 jobs to a host of dodgy deputies he has to immediately sack (no doubt on good severance terms) and £126,000 jobs to people who donated to his political campaign (and still Tory Brian Coleman continues to run up £10,000 taxi bills). Of course none of this is reported as cronyism!
So it comes as no surprise that the LDA, which was cross party under Livingstone, becomes completely Tory under Boris, with no Labour representation. Just to prove how Orwellian the Tories are, Boris rewrites history by deleting 'the first hundred days of Ken' entry on the Mayor website (because it looks too good compared to his own poor record). So the Tories can happily turn a 21% decrease in traffic since the congestion charge started 6 years ago (including a 14% drop in the 1 year Western extension) into a headline in the papers of 'congestion charge doesn't reduce congestion', you know that honesty is not going to be part of the Tory governing way. They will make Labour spin look virtuous by comparison.
Livingstone used the drop in car traffic to improve the quality of life of Londoners. Livingstone rightly prioritised Thames Water fixing leaks that cost Londoners millions and gave other road users more time and space. So pedestrians were given more time to cross and cyclists giving more room and buses more dedicated lanes. All this saved lives, but Boris says he will scrap it all to favour car drivers alone. So the congestion charge that saved lives and allowed other road users more time and space is blamed for congestion - when the reality is that London is heading for a choked future and drop in living standards under Boris. Oh hum!
25 June 2008
Vote Green In Haltemprice & Howden By-election.
As Labour are too chicken, the Libertarian Party are a joke who cannot even field a candidate in a by-election specifically on liberty issues and the Lib Dems back a hang 'em, flog 'em, opposer of gay rights Tory candidate called David Davis, then that only leaves one national party who are standing on a true-ish liberal platform - and that is the Green party. Vote Green if you want to make a point on detention with charge - even one day is too many - remember David Davis supports 28 days detention without charge.
More here from pickled politics.
More here from pickled politics.
06 April 2008
Some Stats From VoteMatch.
You might be wondering why another post about London, as I live in Brighton. Well London is only a short journey from here, I go there quite often, Ken Livingstone is a bit of a hero of mine and I think what happens to our capital city is of the utmost importance to all of us in the UK. So thats that answered!
LondonVoteMatch is drawing positive attention from across the political spectrum, which I think shows it has a reasonable balance.
Of the 25 questions, I wonder why the...
LondonVoteMatch is drawing positive attention from across the political spectrum, which I think shows it has a reasonable balance.
Of the 25 questions, I wonder why the...
Low Emissions Zone, Cycle Super Highways and the proposed retro-fitting of all public buildings don't get a specific mention, as these seem quite big issues and there would be a clear divide between the candidates (especially Boris and Ken).
Some right wingers have hinted they wanted a question like 'Is Ken Livingstone wasting our money?' to be included, (which rather ignores the fact that this site is supposed to be about issues not personalities and certainly not right-wing unfounded accusations in the Evening Standard. I could equally argue that there is no question about Boris Johnson's competence for the job. And anyway financial prudence is covered by the council tax, Olympics and bendy bus questions, amongst others).
Obviously some of the issues are more complex than yes and no answers and maybe this could mean some of the responses given are misleading. Also some of the questions do seem to be cumbersomely worded with weird use of negatives etc, which could fool a few people into giving answers they didn't mean (I am sure there is a reason for this - maybe the candidates all had an input on the wording and choice of issues).
But what is useful about the site is that all the candidates have given specific answers to all the questions, either 'agree', 'disagree' or 'neither'.
This allows us a direct way to compare candidate objectives and their similarities to each other by pairing their answers off. So starting off with the answers of Richard Barnbrook (BNP) compared to everyone else.
Richard Barnbrook (BNP)
1. Gerrard Batten (UKIP) 16/25
2. Winston Mckenzie (IND) 15/25
3. Boris Johnson (TORY) 14/25
4. Matt O'Connor (ENG DEM) 12/25
5. Alan Craig (CHRIST) 12/25
6. Lindsay German (LEFT) 11/25
7. Brian Paddick (LIB DEM) 9/25
8. Sian Berry (GREEN) 4/25
9. Ken Livingstone (LAB) 3/25
Now for Boris;
Boris Johnson (TORY)
1. Alan Craig (CHRIST) 15/25
2. Richard Barnbrook (BNP) 14/25
3. Lindsay German (LEFT) 14/25
4. Winston Mckenzie (IND) 14/25
5. Brian Paddick (LIB DEM) 12/25
6. Matt O'Connor (ENG DEMS) 12/25
7. Gerrard Batten (UKIP) 12/25
8. Sian Berry (GREEN) 11/25
9. Ken Livingstone (LAB) 9/25
I think this nails the Tory lie that the BNP are a left-wing party. UKIP and the Tories are the closest to them (and it is no surprise that the Independent and Christian candidates are right-wing - they usually are).
Considering Boris sat on the fence by putting 'neither' for 5 of his answers, he only actually disagreed with the BNP on 6 questions (see 'ditherers' below). No wonder the BNP ask their supporters to back Boris! So onto the Lib Dems;
Brian Paddick (LIB DEM)
1. Ken Livingstone (LAB) 16/25
2. Lindsay German (LEFT) 14/25
3. Gerrard Batten (UKIP) 13/25
4. Boris Johnson (TORY) 12/25
5. Winston Mckenzie (IND) 12/25
6. Alan Craig (CHRIST) 12/25
7. Matt O'Connor (ENG DEMS) 11/25
8. Sian Berry (GREEN) 10/25
9. Richard Barnbrook (BNP) 9/25
Clearly Lib Dems who want Brian Paddick's policies should put Ken as their second preference. Sian of the Greens has come out for Ken and is horrified by the prospect of Boris, but who is closest in policy?
Sian Berry (GREEN)
1. Lindsay German (LEFT) 16/25
2. Ken Livingstone (LAB) 15/25
3. Boris Johnson (TORY) 11/25
4. Alan Craig (CHRIST) 11/25
5. Brian Paddick (LIB DEM) 10/25
6. Matt O'Connor (ENG DEMS) 9/25
7. Winston Mckenzie (IND) 8/25
8. Gerrard Batten (UKIP) 6/25
9. Richard Barnbrook (BNP) 4/25
Since Lindsay German has got no chance of being in the top two, Greens would waste their second preference by voting for her. Therefore it does make sense to put a second preference for Ken, as Sian suggests.
Boris's third place has little to do with his environmental policies and much to do with the fact that Sian and Boris are the biggest 'ditherers' - putting 'neither' the most, see below where I entered 'neither' for every answer.
"Neither"
1. Matt O'Connor (ENG DEMS) 6/25
2. Sian Berry (GREENS) 6/25
3. Boris Johnson (TORY) 5/25
4. Alan Craig (CHRIST) 4/25
5. Gerrard Batten (UKIP) 2/25
6. Richard Barnbrook (BNP) 1/25
7. Lindsay German (LEFT) 1/25
8. Ken Livingstone (LAB) 1/25
9 Brian Paddick (LIB DEM) 1/25
10. Winston Mckenzie (IND) 0/25
Of course there can be legitimate reasons for putting 'neither'. Maybe you feel the subject is too complex for simple yes or no answers, maybe you consider it outside your remit or have no opinion either way so would prefer the status quo.
However there could be more sinister reasons. Maybe you need to obscure your real opinion because it would be unpopular, maybe you are ignorant of an issue that is of real importance to people, maybe you just can't make up your mind!
If we look at the issues Boris declined to answer; council tax, London airport capacity, unemployment, cannabis possession - these are some of the biggest issues Londoners have highlighted. In contrast, the one 'neither' Ken gave to 'closing the London airport' is low on voters list of priorities. This tends to suggest that, like the many hustings and broadcast debates Boris is dodging, he is trying to obscure his views and con the public, just like his extra-marital affairs, sackings for lying, racist language, u-turns on climate change and on his drugs use and the inaccurate misleading statistics he keeps quoting and especially his agreeing to have a journalist beaten up - this all suggests he is a nasty charlatan and not a 'nice harmless guy' that Lynton Crosby and the Tory propaganda machine would have us believe. They even have the cheek to try and spin that the guy is being picked on, because people keep quoting 'his own writings'. People will believe anything if they believe that is dirty tricks - especially with the nasty smears they are printing about Livingstone. Lets hope people see through this Tory charade.
Some right wingers have hinted they wanted a question like 'Is Ken Livingstone wasting our money?' to be included, (which rather ignores the fact that this site is supposed to be about issues not personalities and certainly not right-wing unfounded accusations in the Evening Standard. I could equally argue that there is no question about Boris Johnson's competence for the job. And anyway financial prudence is covered by the council tax, Olympics and bendy bus questions, amongst others).
Obviously some of the issues are more complex than yes and no answers and maybe this could mean some of the responses given are misleading. Also some of the questions do seem to be cumbersomely worded with weird use of negatives etc, which could fool a few people into giving answers they didn't mean (I am sure there is a reason for this - maybe the candidates all had an input on the wording and choice of issues).
But what is useful about the site is that all the candidates have given specific answers to all the questions, either 'agree', 'disagree' or 'neither'.
This allows us a direct way to compare candidate objectives and their similarities to each other by pairing their answers off. So starting off with the answers of Richard Barnbrook (BNP) compared to everyone else.
Richard Barnbrook (BNP)
1. Gerrard Batten (UKIP) 16/25
2. Winston Mckenzie (IND) 15/25
3. Boris Johnson (TORY) 14/25
4. Matt O'Connor (ENG DEM) 12/25
5. Alan Craig (CHRIST) 12/25
6. Lindsay German (LEFT) 11/25
7. Brian Paddick (LIB DEM) 9/25
8. Sian Berry (GREEN) 4/25
9. Ken Livingstone (LAB) 3/25
Now for Boris;
Boris Johnson (TORY)
1. Alan Craig (CHRIST) 15/25
2. Richard Barnbrook (BNP) 14/25
3. Lindsay German (LEFT) 14/25
4. Winston Mckenzie (IND) 14/25
5. Brian Paddick (LIB DEM) 12/25
6. Matt O'Connor (ENG DEMS) 12/25
7. Gerrard Batten (UKIP) 12/25
8. Sian Berry (GREEN) 11/25
9. Ken Livingstone (LAB) 9/25
I think this nails the Tory lie that the BNP are a left-wing party. UKIP and the Tories are the closest to them (and it is no surprise that the Independent and Christian candidates are right-wing - they usually are).
Considering Boris sat on the fence by putting 'neither' for 5 of his answers, he only actually disagreed with the BNP on 6 questions (see 'ditherers' below). No wonder the BNP ask their supporters to back Boris! So onto the Lib Dems;
Brian Paddick (LIB DEM)
1. Ken Livingstone (LAB) 16/25
2. Lindsay German (LEFT) 14/25
3. Gerrard Batten (UKIP) 13/25
4. Boris Johnson (TORY) 12/25
5. Winston Mckenzie (IND) 12/25
6. Alan Craig (CHRIST) 12/25
7. Matt O'Connor (ENG DEMS) 11/25
8. Sian Berry (GREEN) 10/25
9. Richard Barnbrook (BNP) 9/25
Clearly Lib Dems who want Brian Paddick's policies should put Ken as their second preference. Sian of the Greens has come out for Ken and is horrified by the prospect of Boris, but who is closest in policy?
Sian Berry (GREEN)
1. Lindsay German (LEFT) 16/25
2. Ken Livingstone (LAB) 15/25
3. Boris Johnson (TORY) 11/25
4. Alan Craig (CHRIST) 11/25
5. Brian Paddick (LIB DEM) 10/25
6. Matt O'Connor (ENG DEMS) 9/25
7. Winston Mckenzie (IND) 8/25
8. Gerrard Batten (UKIP) 6/25
9. Richard Barnbrook (BNP) 4/25
Since Lindsay German has got no chance of being in the top two, Greens would waste their second preference by voting for her. Therefore it does make sense to put a second preference for Ken, as Sian suggests.
Boris's third place has little to do with his environmental policies and much to do with the fact that Sian and Boris are the biggest 'ditherers' - putting 'neither' the most, see below where I entered 'neither' for every answer.
"Neither"
1. Matt O'Connor (ENG DEMS) 6/25
2. Sian Berry (GREENS) 6/25
3. Boris Johnson (TORY) 5/25
4. Alan Craig (CHRIST) 4/25
5. Gerrard Batten (UKIP) 2/25
6. Richard Barnbrook (BNP) 1/25
7. Lindsay German (LEFT) 1/25
8. Ken Livingstone (LAB) 1/25
9 Brian Paddick (LIB DEM) 1/25
10. Winston Mckenzie (IND) 0/25
Of course there can be legitimate reasons for putting 'neither'. Maybe you feel the subject is too complex for simple yes or no answers, maybe you consider it outside your remit or have no opinion either way so would prefer the status quo.
However there could be more sinister reasons. Maybe you need to obscure your real opinion because it would be unpopular, maybe you are ignorant of an issue that is of real importance to people, maybe you just can't make up your mind!
If we look at the issues Boris declined to answer; council tax, London airport capacity, unemployment, cannabis possession - these are some of the biggest issues Londoners have highlighted. In contrast, the one 'neither' Ken gave to 'closing the London airport' is low on voters list of priorities. This tends to suggest that, like the many hustings and broadcast debates Boris is dodging, he is trying to obscure his views and con the public, just like his extra-marital affairs, sackings for lying, racist language, u-turns on climate change and on his drugs use and the inaccurate misleading statistics he keeps quoting and especially his agreeing to have a journalist beaten up - this all suggests he is a nasty charlatan and not a 'nice harmless guy' that Lynton Crosby and the Tory propaganda machine would have us believe. They even have the cheek to try and spin that the guy is being picked on, because people keep quoting 'his own writings'. People will believe anything if they believe that is dirty tricks - especially with the nasty smears they are printing about Livingstone. Lets hope people see through this Tory charade.
27 March 2008
Lib Dems Need to Vote Ken To Stop Boris.
If you want to keep London moving and keep it going green, then cast either your first or second preference for Ken to stop Boris. Ken has proved his competence, even the Tories have tacitly admitted Boris is not up to the job. Whereas Ken has delivered:-• 90p single bus fare in London, compared to £1.70 in Brighton (more elsewhere in UK).
• Free bus and tram travel for under 18s and half price for those on income support.
• Free tube travel for under 11s.
• An extra 1,000 buses, all 8,000 buses are modern, low floor & wheelchair accessible.
• An extra 2 million passenger trips per day in London. Bus use is falling across UK.
• Faster ticketing with Oyster.
• Night time buses up from 57 routes to over 100.
• CCTV on all buses and offenders losing oyster cards and free travel.
• London Overground introduced improving service and safety in outer London.
• 30 London Underground stations refurbished and renovated.
• Pedestrian and cycling friendly re-phasing of traffic lights.
• 40% reduction in deaths on roads. 58% reduction in child road deaths - saving 500 children a year.
• River service passengers increased by 80%.
• 40,000 new cycle parking spaces. Five-fold increase in cycle lanes. Cycling up 83%.
• Free 'dial a ride' for older and disabled people.
• Congestion charge, Oyster card & new services all delivered on time and in budget.
• 70,000 less cars in centre of London (congestion charge area).
• Defended and extended Freedom Pass for pensioners against Tory opposition.
The next stage of...
£39bn of improvements are even more challenging and need someone with a proven track record - Ken is the man to deliver:-
• Start constructing Crossrail, linking Heathrow to the West End, the City
and Canary Wharf and the Thames Gateway
• New trains on the Victoria Line with better accessibility, audio
announcements and ventilation and an increased service on the line
• Air conditioning on new trains on the Circle, District, Metropolitan,
Hammersmith and City lines, and air cooling on the Piccadilly line
• Refurbished District Line trains with enhanced CCTV and better information
• 30% addition to capacity on the Jubilee Line with higher service frequencies
• New seventh car to increase capacity on all Hammersmith and City trains
• 25 per cent of stations to have step free access
• Major schemes to provide more space for passengers at Kings Cross St
Pancras, Paddington, West Ham, and Shepherds Bush, with work underway
at Highbury and Islington, Finsbury Park, Tottenham Court Road, Bank,
Vauxhall, Bond Street and Victoria.
• New Olympic station at Stratford Regional, and new station at
Wood Lane.
• All new buses to be hybrid by 2012 reducing CO2 emissions by 40%.
• Double the number of Countdown signs from 2000 to 4000, with a
new state of the art GPS vehicle location system, giving passengers accurate
second-by-second information at bus stops, on buses, and to mobile phones.
• Overground stations will be refurbished, fitted with high quality CCTV and better
lighting and staffed throughout the hours of operation
• All stations and services will be covered by dedicated transport policing
• There will be new high quality trains running from 2008/9
• All trains will be lengthened to at least 4-cars by 2010
• Service frequencies will be doubled and hours of operation extended to
be consistent with London Underground.
• Deliver a 30% increase in capacity on suburban services, with 900 new train
carriages, such as 10-car trains to serve Waterloo and Victoria.
• Expand Oyster to National Rail.
• Take over Croydon tramlink.
• Extend Freedom Pass to 24 hours.
• £25 charge on gas guzzlers.
• Instant Payment Debit for Congestion Charge, so no more fines for forgeting to pay.
• Free bike hire - 6,000 bikes, all 300 metres apart.
• All residential roads to have 20mph speed limits.
• 200 paved over streets for pedestrians.
All these details and much more here in Ken's transport manifesto (pdf).
The advantage Boris has over Ken, is that he doesn't have to tell the truth and has even claimed some of the above policies as his own. He got caught out lying over his routemaster figures to the tune of £100m. Boris was over 1000% inaccurate in his figures - can you imagine this incompetent in charge of the £16bn Crossrail project?
The truth is Boris is a Tory, has spoke against Ken on virtually all these measures and Tories on the assembly have fought Ken tooth and nail and will fight tooth and nail to stop all these measures. If Boris is elected he will have enough support from Tory members on the assembly to mess up all of Ken's good work and future innovation. Who do you trust to deliver all these massive changes? Someone with a proven track record of success or a proven incompetent?
Also, as the Greens point out, you might want to change your first preferences as well, Brian Paddick may be a celebrity candidate but he makes a very anti-environment Lib Dem.
• He wants to scrap the Low Emissions Zone.
• Privatise the Tube.
• Cancel the £25 charge to gas guzzlers.
In short, he isn't much different to Boris.
25 March 2008
Cameron, Cycling And Electoral Reform.
Just want to point out two excellent articles in the Independent in the last few days, this one on Cameron's cycling antics and this one on electoral reform. The only criticism I would make of Cameron breaking the highway code, is that as an elected politician he should know that being a lawbreaker will not endear him as a future lawmaker. I suspect however that the brownie points earned by him making the effort to cycle at all, probably outweighs his lawbreaking (even amongst the motorists who hate cycling altogether).
On electoral reform, Steve Richards makes...
similar points to what I wrote here. Brown could use electoral reform to his advantage if he comes out in favour soon, and gives us a referendum. I suggested it be held simultaneous with the next election, Richards proposes after it. The only problem with Richard's suggestion, is that with Labour's past record of broken promises on referenda, would anyone believe Brown when he promised another?
19 March 2008
Green Party Says 'Vote For Ken'.
I was wondering how long it would be before Sian Berry - the Green Party Mayor Candidate and the London Green Party overall would state the bleeding obvious - that Ken has the best environmental policies (after themselves of course). The Greens have asked all their supporters to give Ken their second preference and Ken has done likewise asking Labour supporters to give Sian their second preference.
This election is...
going to be close and all those who want to see someone elected Mayor who actually believes that climate change is serious and needs addressing, needs to put Ken as either their first or second preference.
My biggest fear is that the bogus Evening Standard charges of corruption against Ken will put progressive people off voting altogether (lower turnout will help the BNP achieve 5%) or that environmental progressives will vote for Sian Berry and Brian Paddick and end up with reactionary 'Kyoto opposing' Boris as Mayor.
If you think Ken is better than Boris on the environment then you have to vote for Ken to ensure Boris doesn't win. Only a vote for Ken will see the £25 'gas guzzlers' charge introduced and the resulting £500m revenue raised spent on cycling and walking.
Boris is incompetent and has not costed his policies - he admits so himself. Boris supports the model of public transport that has decimated bus use in Manchester, the West Midlands and other urban conurbations. Boris supported Metronet and the PPP. Boris frankly hasn't a clue how to improve London.
As Ken says, this matters more than Celebrity Big Brother. It is the continued growth and imnprovement of public transport in London, the building of more affordable housing, and continued improvement of the London environment as a place to live and work that is important, not Boris's media celebrity.
My biggest fear is that the bogus Evening Standard charges of corruption against Ken will put progressive people off voting altogether (lower turnout will help the BNP achieve 5%) or that environmental progressives will vote for Sian Berry and Brian Paddick and end up with reactionary 'Kyoto opposing' Boris as Mayor.
If you think Ken is better than Boris on the environment then you have to vote for Ken to ensure Boris doesn't win. Only a vote for Ken will see the £25 'gas guzzlers' charge introduced and the resulting £500m revenue raised spent on cycling and walking.
Boris is incompetent and has not costed his policies - he admits so himself. Boris supports the model of public transport that has decimated bus use in Manchester, the West Midlands and other urban conurbations. Boris supported Metronet and the PPP. Boris frankly hasn't a clue how to improve London.
As Ken says, this matters more than Celebrity Big Brother. It is the continued growth and imnprovement of public transport in London, the building of more affordable housing, and continued improvement of the London environment as a place to live and work that is important, not Boris's media celebrity.
07 February 2008
What Makes A 'Green' Lifestyle?
In a word - poverty. The most poverty stricken people of the world are usually the most ecologically friendly. It is our...
current consumer lifestyle that is destroying the planet. Is it possible to change this through 'individual responsibility' as those on the right claim (including David Cameron)?
Well obviously proper education of the dangers of climate change and playing to people's conscience can have some effect, but lets be honest - billions of people across the world could be frying to death and Mr 40k Tory in the shires would still not give up his Jag. Even if for instance, every car driver did change to a Toyota Prius it would still not be enough.
We have to fundamentally re-evalue what is important. The good news is, the quality of life of most people could actually be improved if we stopped trying to be happy by having more and more consumer goods. We should be reducing pollution, congestion and energy wastage on its own merits even if we don't believe in man-made climate change (as some of those in denial are still desperately clinging to).
The biggest benefactors of these changes would be the poorest whose quality of life suffers the most by other's greediness and anti-social waste of resources. Individualism will just not work. Even the Tories are liable to return to socialism when it suits them. I had to laugh when I learned that part of the reason for the sheer size of the Labour victories in 1997, 2001 and 2005 was the lack of co-operation amongst Tory MPs during the previous boundary review in the mid 1990s. Each individual Tory MP was more concerned about enlarging their own majorities, than drawing boundaries that would maximise their numbers, Labour sensibly did the opposite and reaped the benefits. This time the Tories have learned their lesson and co-operated amongst each other.
It is going to take a revelation of mammoth proportions amongst Tory MPs to reveal to them the scale of the climate change mountain we have to climb. During the war, the Tories recognised that the usual petty selfish squabbles over resources were going to be a detriment to the war effort. They recognised they needed to bring fairness into distribution of resources if society was to be in any position to fight off the Germans - which is why they brought the Labour party into government and gave them free reign over domestic policy. The climate change emergency we face is going to require the same amount of determination and effort as the war effort did.
At the moment, Cameron and others are in denial about what is needed, but tinkering at the edges with silly expensive windmills on his house may look good superficially but do nothing to change the predicament we are in.
We need strong government to move people out of cars and onto public transport (like Ken has done in London). We need to invest in infrastructure, efficiency and make sure that energy usage is reduced and renewable. But above all we need to share resources more fairly to ensure that the difficult challenges ahead are not disproportionately placed on the poorest.
These things are still anathema to the Tories but they are core values for Labour - if only we can find the courage to voice them. When it comes to environmental policy we need a strong government on the Left to ensure Green lifestyles are followed. It is going to mean tough challenges - not least in controlling population growth, but the Right have no answers and Labour are the only party on the Left who can make that difference. If you want to save the planet, then vote Labour, indeed join Labour - we need you to make these natural policies of Labour a reality.
Well obviously proper education of the dangers of climate change and playing to people's conscience can have some effect, but lets be honest - billions of people across the world could be frying to death and Mr 40k Tory in the shires would still not give up his Jag. Even if for instance, every car driver did change to a Toyota Prius it would still not be enough.
We have to fundamentally re-evalue what is important. The good news is, the quality of life of most people could actually be improved if we stopped trying to be happy by having more and more consumer goods. We should be reducing pollution, congestion and energy wastage on its own merits even if we don't believe in man-made climate change (as some of those in denial are still desperately clinging to).
The biggest benefactors of these changes would be the poorest whose quality of life suffers the most by other's greediness and anti-social waste of resources. Individualism will just not work. Even the Tories are liable to return to socialism when it suits them. I had to laugh when I learned that part of the reason for the sheer size of the Labour victories in 1997, 2001 and 2005 was the lack of co-operation amongst Tory MPs during the previous boundary review in the mid 1990s. Each individual Tory MP was more concerned about enlarging their own majorities, than drawing boundaries that would maximise their numbers, Labour sensibly did the opposite and reaped the benefits. This time the Tories have learned their lesson and co-operated amongst each other.
It is going to take a revelation of mammoth proportions amongst Tory MPs to reveal to them the scale of the climate change mountain we have to climb. During the war, the Tories recognised that the usual petty selfish squabbles over resources were going to be a detriment to the war effort. They recognised they needed to bring fairness into distribution of resources if society was to be in any position to fight off the Germans - which is why they brought the Labour party into government and gave them free reign over domestic policy. The climate change emergency we face is going to require the same amount of determination and effort as the war effort did.
At the moment, Cameron and others are in denial about what is needed, but tinkering at the edges with silly expensive windmills on his house may look good superficially but do nothing to change the predicament we are in.
We need strong government to move people out of cars and onto public transport (like Ken has done in London). We need to invest in infrastructure, efficiency and make sure that energy usage is reduced and renewable. But above all we need to share resources more fairly to ensure that the difficult challenges ahead are not disproportionately placed on the poorest.
These things are still anathema to the Tories but they are core values for Labour - if only we can find the courage to voice them. When it comes to environmental policy we need a strong government on the Left to ensure Green lifestyles are followed. It is going to mean tough challenges - not least in controlling population growth, but the Right have no answers and Labour are the only party on the Left who can make that difference. If you want to save the planet, then vote Labour, indeed join Labour - we need you to make these natural policies of Labour a reality.
02 December 2007
Greens decide to have one principal speaker.
Apart from splitting the left vote and making a Tory government more likely...
, my problem with the Greens is that as they chase the mainstream vote, they will lose their biggest selling point - their radical edge.
Until we have proportional representation, any minor party on the left is just weakening the Labour party electorally and the more that radical people on the left turn their back on the Labour party, the more they lessen the only real chance we have of getting electoral reform and other radical change. Sad as it is, the apathetic, the alienated, the Greens, Respect and Lib Dems are all helping the forces of conservatism at the moment by removing the radical edge from the Labour party - the only party on the left that can lead a government under this system.
The more of you that join or rejoin the Labour party, the more likely we are to have a party on the left that governs from the left.
This latest change to the Green constitution is a sign of their political bankrupcy that will move them away from their courageous anti-hierarchical stance. If the Greens became the largest party on the left - do we now imagine they would be any more radical than new Labour on this evidence?
This rule change - this backward step, gives us a clue as to their direction. Hey, the Greens are useful in campaigning mode and it is not their fault (directly) that the electoral system is so dysfunctional, but if they want real change they have to join the Labour party. Come on all you middle class white people that dominate the Greens and Lib Dems, I know your parents were Tories, but your natural home is in the Labour party. The more of you that join, the more likely we are to get electoral reform and then we can do more than just campaign for the real radical policies we on the left want - we would actually have a chance to implement them.
Until we have proportional representation, any minor party on the left is just weakening the Labour party electorally and the more that radical people on the left turn their back on the Labour party, the more they lessen the only real chance we have of getting electoral reform and other radical change. Sad as it is, the apathetic, the alienated, the Greens, Respect and Lib Dems are all helping the forces of conservatism at the moment by removing the radical edge from the Labour party - the only party on the left that can lead a government under this system.
The more of you that join or rejoin the Labour party, the more likely we are to have a party on the left that governs from the left.
This latest change to the Green constitution is a sign of their political bankrupcy that will move them away from their courageous anti-hierarchical stance. If the Greens became the largest party on the left - do we now imagine they would be any more radical than new Labour on this evidence?
This rule change - this backward step, gives us a clue as to their direction. Hey, the Greens are useful in campaigning mode and it is not their fault (directly) that the electoral system is so dysfunctional, but if they want real change they have to join the Labour party. Come on all you middle class white people that dominate the Greens and Lib Dems, I know your parents were Tories, but your natural home is in the Labour party. The more of you that join, the more likely we are to get electoral reform and then we can do more than just campaign for the real radical policies we on the left want - we would actually have a chance to implement them.
03 October 2007
Boris puts Henley before London.
Oh joy! Now we know how confident Boris Johnson is of becoming Mayor. This talk of an early election has finally flushed him out. There is no way he is going to give up his seat in Henley. With that sort of commitment and confidence we can see how weak a Mayor he would be if he (and his PR press team) did manage to con enough people to vote for him. London needs someone with...
a proven record of making things better and they need Ken Livingstone more than ever. Now that from next year he will have more powers over housing as well as his main transport and planning responsibilities. London needs Ken to address the housing shortage in the same innovative way he has introduced the congestion charge (the first in the world and it was desperately opposed by the Tories and their press friends including Boris).
London now has free bus travel for under 18s, the oyster card which has speeded up journeys so the buses now run on time which has in turn led to a third more passengers (in contrast to declining bus use nationwide). The Tories bitterly oppose the free tube, bus and train travel for those over 60 or disabled. That is their commitment to alleviating poverty, i.e. no commitment at all. Tory voters do not rely on public transport as the poor do. Ken realises how important public transport is to the poorest Londoners, Boris does not.
I have used the few routes where 'bendy buses' are used and yes they are not perfect but for people with disabilities or with prams or shopping - it is a lifeline. Much more easy to get on and off and much less crowded. In other words they are practical. As for Boris's complaint that they are cyclist killers, since when did the opponent of the congestion charge care about London's cyclists (the reduction in central London traffic has been the biggest boon for cycling). Ken has invested real money in improving cycle paths, is considering introducing the Paris style scheme of rented bycycles at tube stations. Ken has overseen the biggest growth in cycling in London's history.
Would bumbling Boris have won the Olympics, had the courage to implement a congestion charge, defend and expand public transport, oppose the energy wasting water salination plant, look to innovative ways to increase housing density and lessen the housing shortage, have ambitious carbon reduction targets (and mean them)? The short answer is no, Boris is not the right person to be responsible for a budget of around £11bn. It would be no joke to elect Boris.
These are just a few reasons why Ken will win in London. Here is my list of 34 (and counting) reasons not to vote for Boris. I will soon put up a list of Ken's achievements as Mayor. Watch this space.
London now has free bus travel for under 18s, the oyster card which has speeded up journeys so the buses now run on time which has in turn led to a third more passengers (in contrast to declining bus use nationwide). The Tories bitterly oppose the free tube, bus and train travel for those over 60 or disabled. That is their commitment to alleviating poverty, i.e. no commitment at all. Tory voters do not rely on public transport as the poor do. Ken realises how important public transport is to the poorest Londoners, Boris does not.
I have used the few routes where 'bendy buses' are used and yes they are not perfect but for people with disabilities or with prams or shopping - it is a lifeline. Much more easy to get on and off and much less crowded. In other words they are practical. As for Boris's complaint that they are cyclist killers, since when did the opponent of the congestion charge care about London's cyclists (the reduction in central London traffic has been the biggest boon for cycling). Ken has invested real money in improving cycle paths, is considering introducing the Paris style scheme of rented bycycles at tube stations. Ken has overseen the biggest growth in cycling in London's history.
Would bumbling Boris have won the Olympics, had the courage to implement a congestion charge, defend and expand public transport, oppose the energy wasting water salination plant, look to innovative ways to increase housing density and lessen the housing shortage, have ambitious carbon reduction targets (and mean them)? The short answer is no, Boris is not the right person to be responsible for a budget of around £11bn. It would be no joke to elect Boris.
These are just a few reasons why Ken will win in London. Here is my list of 34 (and counting) reasons not to vote for Boris. I will soon put up a list of Ken's achievements as Mayor. Watch this space.
13 July 2007
Having Children is bad for the environment.
I knew that someone would agree with me sooner or later, we have to reverse population growth (especially in the developed world where per capita emissions are so much higher) if we are to seriously tackle our environmental problems...
And that means more than just climate change. We need to improve the environment for its own sake - to improve our quality of life. And inequality is also a factor, I don't think the present levels of inequality can be sustained if we are serious about reducing emissions - the richer you are the more environmentally damaging you are.
All this middle class ownership of hybrid cars, recycling and careful shopping is all very good but their higher consumption overall has to be tackled if it is not just to be window dressing - like Cameron - good PR but no substance. So far people have not got serious about climate change, some people of course just deny it exists at all. Even if they were right (and they are not right) we should still reduce consumption and lessen inequality as the best way to improve quality of life.
In the war years we had rationing and people had less possessions. Yet more equality had a strange effect - it improved everyone's happiness. People said they were much happier then, their health improved dramatically (admittedly from a very low base) - but isn't this more important than just chasing more and more products that we are persuaded we need when we don't. We cannot afford to ignore the environmental costs of things anymore - I do think we can get round this - but it will need carbon rationing not just 'green taxes'. In fact in some ways we are less green now than we have ever been (For example, I remember how glass bottles were valued and recycled in the past - milk floats colleting them and getting a deposit to take them back to the shop),
The easiest way to reduce carbon emissions is to reduce the population.
It does make me laugh when the same people on the 'right' who voice their concerns about overcrowding and immigration are usually the same ones who oppose abortion and call for 'English' people to have more children. They quite obviously are just closet (or not so closet) racists. Their policies would mean more overcrowding and lower quality of life as inequality widens (they even oppose house building despite growing demand that will leave many homeless or in squalid conditions. Where is their laissez faire capitalist ideas when they drag their feet over planning applications or call for tighter immigration or for that matter where are their morals when they stop people having a home?)
What we reallly need is abortion on demand. Making women jump through bureaucratic hoops to get an abortion is currently helping no-one. It justs mean more late abortions, more unwanted children with poor quality of life, more crime and more distress and unneccesary guilt placed on women by religion and vindictive moralising right wingers.
Then there is immigration. Firstly yes an admittance that immigrants in this country will consume more and emit more carbon than if they stop home - but they will also send home remittances that reduce poverty, inequality and ultimately slow population growth which have a much bigger impact in the opposite direction. Basically, education of women is the key and this is something the developed world needs to grasp. We also need to promote contraception (yes promote) in the same way Mcdonalds promotes hamburgers and that means educating children BEFORE they are likely to have sex - not afterwards. We need more sex education not less and as Holland shows this actually is likely to increase the age when people first have sex. At the moment the market (through films and some other media (usually the same media that bemoans a drop in morality) promotes sex rather than contraception. There needs to be direct graphic examples of people with sexual diseases - people should be shown horrific images of people suffering such diseases, be given the probabilities of catching them and the problems they cause. They also need to be shown directly the responsibilities and difficulties of having children - financial, social etc. Sex education can put people off sex and especially unsafe sex. We need a campaign as high profile as drink driving (if not higher profile). The sooner we get away from stigmatising and moralising people the better - the right-wing media and parties and religions have a lot to answer for. As well as destroying people's lives they could also be destroying future human chances of remaining on this planet. I suppose given the religious proficies, some of them are quite looking forward to the end of the world, nutters the lot of them!
All this middle class ownership of hybrid cars, recycling and careful shopping is all very good but their higher consumption overall has to be tackled if it is not just to be window dressing - like Cameron - good PR but no substance. So far people have not got serious about climate change, some people of course just deny it exists at all. Even if they were right (and they are not right) we should still reduce consumption and lessen inequality as the best way to improve quality of life.
In the war years we had rationing and people had less possessions. Yet more equality had a strange effect - it improved everyone's happiness. People said they were much happier then, their health improved dramatically (admittedly from a very low base) - but isn't this more important than just chasing more and more products that we are persuaded we need when we don't. We cannot afford to ignore the environmental costs of things anymore - I do think we can get round this - but it will need carbon rationing not just 'green taxes'. In fact in some ways we are less green now than we have ever been (For example, I remember how glass bottles were valued and recycled in the past - milk floats colleting them and getting a deposit to take them back to the shop),
The easiest way to reduce carbon emissions is to reduce the population.
It does make me laugh when the same people on the 'right' who voice their concerns about overcrowding and immigration are usually the same ones who oppose abortion and call for 'English' people to have more children. They quite obviously are just closet (or not so closet) racists. Their policies would mean more overcrowding and lower quality of life as inequality widens (they even oppose house building despite growing demand that will leave many homeless or in squalid conditions. Where is their laissez faire capitalist ideas when they drag their feet over planning applications or call for tighter immigration or for that matter where are their morals when they stop people having a home?)
What we reallly need is abortion on demand. Making women jump through bureaucratic hoops to get an abortion is currently helping no-one. It justs mean more late abortions, more unwanted children with poor quality of life, more crime and more distress and unneccesary guilt placed on women by religion and vindictive moralising right wingers.
Then there is immigration. Firstly yes an admittance that immigrants in this country will consume more and emit more carbon than if they stop home - but they will also send home remittances that reduce poverty, inequality and ultimately slow population growth which have a much bigger impact in the opposite direction. Basically, education of women is the key and this is something the developed world needs to grasp. We also need to promote contraception (yes promote) in the same way Mcdonalds promotes hamburgers and that means educating children BEFORE they are likely to have sex - not afterwards. We need more sex education not less and as Holland shows this actually is likely to increase the age when people first have sex. At the moment the market (through films and some other media (usually the same media that bemoans a drop in morality) promotes sex rather than contraception. There needs to be direct graphic examples of people with sexual diseases - people should be shown horrific images of people suffering such diseases, be given the probabilities of catching them and the problems they cause. They also need to be shown directly the responsibilities and difficulties of having children - financial, social etc. Sex education can put people off sex and especially unsafe sex. We need a campaign as high profile as drink driving (if not higher profile). The sooner we get away from stigmatising and moralising people the better - the right-wing media and parties and religions have a lot to answer for. As well as destroying people's lives they could also be destroying future human chances of remaining on this planet. I suppose given the religious proficies, some of them are quite looking forward to the end of the world, nutters the lot of them!
02 June 2007
Cutting carbon emissions will give immediate benefits.
Success in a capitalist world is effectively measured by the size of your carbon footprint. The richer you are - the higher your carbon emissions. Until we factor in these environmental costs into the prices people pay then nothing much will change.
While Peter Wilby (see also here) is right to say that we are doing far too little, far too late to stop global warming, he is wrong to say it is short-termism that is the problem.
The problem is, that the majority of people who would benefit from a reduction in emissions are being kept from power (by undemocratic means - media propaganda, distortive electoral systems and corruption)- it is the poorest sectors of society that suffer the most from a poisoned environment (has anyone ever wondered why most of the affluent regions in the UK are in the south-west of conurbations? Think of the predominant wind direction). We should be improving our environment for its own sake - not because of some possible future armaggeddon.
In fact global warming is a bit of a distraction when it comes to improving the environment. This concentration on the issue of global warming is because this is the only issue that can make the wealthy sit up and listen. And it is the wealthy who have all the power to make the changes necessary. The problem is not that the benefits of reducing emissions are too far in the future, the problem is, that to really reduce emissions requires a more equitable distribution of resources and quality of life - the rich who are in power find this most unpalatable.
The single biggest problem in reducing emissions is population growth (countries with falling populations should celebrate), the the best way to reduce this growth is to have more equitable societies with supportive welfare states - the poor have less children the better educated they become and the more they feel financially secure.
One way or another there is going to be a dramatic reduction in population - we either try to manage it with massive redistribution of resources or we take the chaos of migration and mass starvation that will ensue. It seems the rich and powerful have taken the decision to go for the latter option (and hope for the best).
While Peter Wilby (see also here) is right to say that we are doing far too little, far too late to stop global warming, he is wrong to say it is short-termism that is the problem.
The problem is, that the majority of people who would benefit from a reduction in emissions are being kept from power (by undemocratic means - media propaganda, distortive electoral systems and corruption)- it is the poorest sectors of society that suffer the most from a poisoned environment (has anyone ever wondered why most of the affluent regions in the UK are in the south-west of conurbations? Think of the predominant wind direction). We should be improving our environment for its own sake - not because of some possible future armaggeddon.
In fact global warming is a bit of a distraction when it comes to improving the environment. This concentration on the issue of global warming is because this is the only issue that can make the wealthy sit up and listen. And it is the wealthy who have all the power to make the changes necessary. The problem is not that the benefits of reducing emissions are too far in the future, the problem is, that to really reduce emissions requires a more equitable distribution of resources and quality of life - the rich who are in power find this most unpalatable.
The single biggest problem in reducing emissions is population growth (countries with falling populations should celebrate), the the best way to reduce this growth is to have more equitable societies with supportive welfare states - the poor have less children the better educated they become and the more they feel financially secure.
One way or another there is going to be a dramatic reduction in population - we either try to manage it with massive redistribution of resources or we take the chaos of migration and mass starvation that will ensue. It seems the rich and powerful have taken the decision to go for the latter option (and hope for the best).
16 March 2007
Manmade Warming Or Not: Inequality, the Environment and Quality Of Life Are Linked And Only The Left Are Serious About Reducing Inequality.
Peter Hitchens, like the paper he writes for, is wrong on almost everything and like my opinion of the Tories sincerity, I doubt he believes what he says half the time, but he did get one thing right tonight on Question Time. He stated that we should be environmentally conscious regardless of whether climate change is manmade. This is a crucial point. There has been so much emphasis on climate change we have forgotten about how our environment improves our quality of life.
There has been heightened debate on the importance of manmade CO2 emissions since Channel Four aired its 'global warming swindle' conspiracy theory programme, which presented old and largely discredited 'evidence' as if it was fact (the director Martin Durkin has form). Paul Flynn MP raised an EDM over the outrageousness of the presentation but of course like any scientific theory if you focus an 80 minute programme on all the negatives and use misrepresented evidence then of course the 'facts' can be compelling.
We know global temperatures were higher millions of years ago, this programme claimed the speed of change in temperature was just as rapid then and that higher temperatures preceded higher CO2 levels-citing ice core evidence in support. This has been discredited.
Nobody doubts 'something' is causing the global temperature to rise and just like smoking causes cancer, we all know CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas' (think of Venus), so it seems reasonable to assume that pumping an extra 8-10% CO2 into the atmosphere has 'some' warming effect (even if this could be more than cancelled out by other factors). How much of a total effect is debatable.
Those who argue not to worry, say it is a negligible effect and that the costs of reducing emissions (especially unilaterally) are a waste of economic potential that harm the poor the most and there is nothing we can do to make any difference to climate change anyway.
Whether the naysayers are right or not (and I believe in this case that they are wrong), I would still like to see less congestion, safer roads, less pollution, less waste, more efficient energy use, better public transport and less car friendly, pedestrian and cyclist unfriendly sprawl. These will always be good aims.
Finally, with the top earners in this country responsible for the majority of emissions, the 'friends of the rich' Tories will never have the stomach to sanction the reduction in inequality needed to tackle climate change. The big question is; as Anthony Giddens and Jenni Russell ask, will the next leader of the Labour party have the courage to be a proud egalitarian - it is the only way to be truly Green.
There has been heightened debate on the importance of manmade CO2 emissions since Channel Four aired its 'global warming swindle' conspiracy theory programme, which presented old and largely discredited 'evidence' as if it was fact (the director Martin Durkin has form). Paul Flynn MP raised an EDM over the outrageousness of the presentation but of course like any scientific theory if you focus an 80 minute programme on all the negatives and use misrepresented evidence then of course the 'facts' can be compelling.
We know global temperatures were higher millions of years ago, this programme claimed the speed of change in temperature was just as rapid then and that higher temperatures preceded higher CO2 levels-citing ice core evidence in support. This has been discredited.
Nobody doubts 'something' is causing the global temperature to rise and just like smoking causes cancer, we all know CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas' (think of Venus), so it seems reasonable to assume that pumping an extra 8-10% CO2 into the atmosphere has 'some' warming effect (even if this could be more than cancelled out by other factors). How much of a total effect is debatable.
Those who argue not to worry, say it is a negligible effect and that the costs of reducing emissions (especially unilaterally) are a waste of economic potential that harm the poor the most and there is nothing we can do to make any difference to climate change anyway.
Whether the naysayers are right or not (and I believe in this case that they are wrong), I would still like to see less congestion, safer roads, less pollution, less waste, more efficient energy use, better public transport and less car friendly, pedestrian and cyclist unfriendly sprawl. These will always be good aims.
Finally, with the top earners in this country responsible for the majority of emissions, the 'friends of the rich' Tories will never have the stomach to sanction the reduction in inequality needed to tackle climate change. The big question is; as Anthony Giddens and Jenni Russell ask, will the next leader of the Labour party have the courage to be a proud egalitarian - it is the only way to be truly Green.
04 March 2007
54% Support For Road Pricing.
The latest YouGov poll shows people support road pricing as long as the extra revenue is spent on public transport and reducing road tax. The problem is 72% don't believe the extra revenue would be spent in this way. Once again this is a 'we don't trust the government issue'. What a sad state our democracy is in and what a victory for the right-wing media!
"Suppose some way could be found to guarantee that ALL the money raised was
used to improve public transport and to reduce the cost of the road fund licence
(‘tax disc’), would you support or oppose the introduction of ‘pay-as-you-drivemotoring’?"
Support 54
Oppose 24
Don’t know 22
"Whichever party is in power, do you think the introduction of some form of road
pricing is inevitable? In other words, is it going to happen sooner or later
whether we like it or not?"
Yes, road pricing will come in sooner or later 65
No, it won’t 16
Don’t know 20
"Suppose some way could be found to guarantee that ALL the money raised was
used to improve public transport and to reduce the cost of the road fund licence
(‘tax disc’), would you support or oppose the introduction of ‘pay-as-you-drivemotoring’?"
Support 54
Oppose 24
Don’t know 22
"Whichever party is in power, do you think the introduction of some form of road
pricing is inevitable? In other words, is it going to happen sooner or later
whether we like it or not?"
Yes, road pricing will come in sooner or later 65
No, it won’t 16
Don’t know 20
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)