www.everythingsgonegreen.co.uk

Last night I went to a climate change consultation with my local Rushmoor Borough Council.

40 local residents were invited down to Aldershot on a cold February night to discuss the borough’s policy and, arranged into small groups, we brainstormed Rushmoor BC’s plans for the environment and the future.

Of course, the number one topic raised was the issue of climate change itself. Currently, if you spend a lot of time in the media, the subject of climate change seems to be getting a real kicking. The Climategate affair, involving the leak of data from the University of East Anglia on the eve of the Copenhagen summit, followed by the controversy over the predictions of retreating Himalayan ice and now Sir David King’s attack on the IPCC mean that a lot of scepticism is creeping in and, last night, a few dissenting voices were heard in the room.

The important consensus though was that climate change is happening. It’s not just global warming or global cooling, but variations in “local” climate all over the world and, whether it’s man-made or natural, it’s best to prepare for it.

So, that first hurdle over, Rushmoor BC presented their plans for the next 20 years. The big issue locally is the Aldershot Urban Extension, meaning that our neighbouring town of Aldershot is to be the subject of a 4,500 home expansion. Whilst brownfield sites are preferable for new builds, it seems inevitable that so many more homes will be needed and the council will have to develop a new “town” of so many houses.

This will surely impact upon on our small Borough which is already a busy commuter area (with great links to London and the south coast via train and motorway). The plans are to lessen the impact of any new development, and Rushmoor BC made bold statements to meet and exceed environmental building standards by an additional 15%.

That prompted questions of “are the current environmental standards stringent enough?” meaning that beating them by 15% is a fairly easy task plus that age old question of “the council says it will meet & beat standards but will it actually do it?”

Many ideas were bandied around in our group with a lot of focus on restoring localisation, creating closer community, water run-off into the River Blackwater etc. Plus there was great interest in the proposed new power plant, powered, presumably, by local waste and providing heat & energy. The notion of creating an “eco town” was popular with the notion that Rushmoor could be as well-regarded as the city of Brighton which is always thought of as one of Britain’s greenest urban places.

The usual topics of individual wind & solar power arose with ground-heat pumps and green roofs being thrown in for good measure.

Overall, a wealth of ideas were explored and there seems to be a consensus that the majority of people were in favour of bold steps in order to make the borough a greener place in terms of planning over the next 20 years or so.

The Natural Environment

The second part of the night revolved around Rushmoor’s natural environment. Surrounded by military land, we are blessed with a fairly natural environment that is protected by its ownership under the MOD.

The consensus was that we should not only protect every single piece of green environment that we have around here but that we should also restore and improve upon it. Natural and man-made attrition of the trees in the borough is something close to my heart as I’ve seen numerous trees come down locally over the years, never to be replaced. Do we get an organisation like the Woodland Trust involved to help us re-green Rushmoor?

Cycle paths were mentioned again as local citizens expressed a desire to expand cycle routes and to encourage more use of cycles in the borough. One resident even complained that where he locked up his cycle in the North Camp part of town they had removed the cycle racks and never replaced them!

Conclusion

There was a very healthy discourse over the evening and a number of people felt as though this was just the first of many discussions regarding the environment in Rushmoor. The many notes that were made were taken away to be digested by the council and they will have much food for thought.

Some great ideas came out of the meeting and, for starters, I would like to see the replacement and replanting of more trees, an extension of cycle tracks and a push to get more people cycling, loft insulation for all, better buses and routes and a green roof initiative.

Every piece of green and MOD land must be fought for and preserved and the inevitable expansion of Aldershot MUST be sustainable, green and a benefit to current residents not a detriment.

Finally, I’d like to see flights to Farnborough Airport capped as they are. I’ve seen no major benefit to the local economy from the planes flying in and, working near the airfield, the avgas fumes are unpleasant and unhealthy, not to mention the M3 motorway and the ridiculous “sound barrier” erected for residents who brought houses right next to the M3 but complained it was too noisy! (irony?) Thanks to them the sound bounces off the wooden fences and pollutes an even greater area.

Let’s hope Rushmoor Borough can only get safer, greener and cleaner.

When I switched my Sky box on the other day (at the wall socket, of course) I was greeted with a message screen that I had not seen before.

The vivid green screen that turns to red with the glassy Sky logo and a chameleon perched atop it is accompanied by the narrative:

We can all do our bit to be greener.

By switching your Sky box to standby, together, we can save enough energy to light all the homes in Birmingham for a whole year.

Remember, go red, be greener.

Switching to standby, aye? I thought that standby was the problem because it still uses electricity whereas the really green option is to just switch off at the wall.

All I can find regarding Sky being greener is an article that says a software update last year, rolled out to 9 million customers, could switch off the Sky box during the day, supposedly when not in use. I’ve seen the Sky box tell me it was going to switch off after 2 hours of inactivity and Sky reckon it saves their customers £20 Million a year – that’s about £2 per customer.

Now, if Sky could go just that little bit further and totally switch the whole box off that would be even better

Why buy organic? What is organic? Why isn’t everything organic if it’s so much better? Why is organic more expensive?

If you know the answers to these questions then you’ll be happy to see this wonderful little movie from The Soil Association. If you have friends that need convincing that organic food is actually better than intensively farmed food then, again, you’ll like this.

We like the “public service broadcast” style because, in essence, it is a public service to understand and remind people why organic food is better for the food itself, us, the consumer, and the land and for nature.

(In particular we like the Jack Drummond tone of the film, but that’s another story, especially as we’re reading The Vitamin Murders at the moment. Green book review coming soon)

And if you like this film feel free to pass it on

As if you didn’t already know it, big oil are against safeguarding the environment.

Is that alarmist? Propagandist? Or is it just another big lie because all of us environmentalists “hate cars” and are suckered by “peak oil” which is all a big scam to give governments more control over our lives?

Actually, big oil railing against the environment is totally true, and here’s the proof:

In a communication to lobbyists, Jack Gerard, the President of the American Petroleum Institute, wants to “move aggressively” to counter any efforts at climate change legislation.

The oil industry aims to turn public opinion against limitations on environmental destruction by exaggerating the figures that environmental reforms will cost. Big oil and the industries that continue to consume oil and damage the environment are quite happy to disseminate lies in order to derail important environmental protection legislation.

This is all quite disconcerting when the big oil companies are already greenwashing public opinion in to believing that they are the way forward in the future of renewable energy whilst actually stifling investment and innovation in such areas.

The main point is that legislation in the United States will pave the way for positive action s to protect the environment and combat climate change at the Copenhagen climate change summit in December 2009.

Back in March, Gerard said:

I have no doubt that as the new administration and new Congress take office, energy policy will be a topic of renewed and even more intense debate. It is up to us to lead the way in forging a new path forward.

Reading between the lines, the oil industry is concerned that it will lose power as oil reserves decline, even though oil prices would rise for an ever-more scarce natural resource. The “new path forward” is that it wishes to control energy in the future too.

Our challenges will be great, but I strongly believe that this is the time for us to create an effective partnership involving industry, government and consumers to nurture and sustain sound energy policies for our country’s future.

The challenges are the loss of revenue and loss of control with the “partnership” being a cynical attempt to hoodwink consumers into believing the oil companies are the future, even if they currently oppose anything that will threaten or damage their present near-monopoly.

Watch out for the rallies, apparently planned to “exert maximum pressure on Democrats in conservative areas”.

A few weeks ago I went to the local Army Show in Aldershot, The Home of the British Army. I posted a quick tweet on twitter to say I was there and one friend made an interesting comment;

kind of feel being green and supporting an army event is a little wrong?

I’d not really thought of that, as considerate and conscientious as I normally am about all matters. It was a fair point. What is not green about the British Army? Well, there’s the use of depleted-uranium warheads, armoured vehicles are not renowned for their fuel-economy, natural and human resources are used to research & develop ever more effective ways of killing people defending the nation. We could stray well into the world of ethics here in many ways, but Dave had a point.

However, apart from those simple issues that come to mind, and there could well be many more, there’s no reason not to support the British Army from a green point of view. Let me explain;

I live within 50 yards of a forest with a lake in the middle of it. When you look at the aerial view of the forest and my neighbourhood you can see that my road comes to an abrupt halt at the edge of the forest. That forest, Hawley Woods, appears like a great green lung, a carbon sink, on the outskirts of my town.

The swathe of forest at the end of my road is a perfect place into which to extend the small estate where I live and build more houses. It’s a very real threat as I used to live in nearby Fleet & Church Crookham in Hampshire. In this small town & village conurbation the erosion of green land has been constant – Ancells Farm, Zebon Copse, Elvetham Heath and now the Hitches Lane development. The march of “progress” has been relentless as fields have disappeared to make way for more tightly-packed modern housing estates.

Back in the Fox Lane region of Farnborough, the last remaining suburban farm down the road has made way for around 50 new houses. Yet because there are army barracks across the other side of Hawley Woods the land all belongs to the Ministry of Defence (M.O.D.) and nobody else can build on that land. The main reason for living in my current property, apart from the convenience of being between London and the south coast, easy access to rail and road links, good job prospects, relatively affluent part of the country etc is the proximity of the woodland. If the M.O.D. ever moved or closed Gibraltar Barracks, e.g. for efficiency, streamlining and cost-cutting reasons, then there is a huge likelihood that the forest would make way for housing.

So is being green and supporting the British Army at a local event wrong? Consider that Aldershot has declined socially and economically as troops have been moved away from the area to other Barracks (the Paras to Colchester, for instance) and the once-excellent Louise Margaret/Cambridge Military Hospital has been all but killed off (apart from some minor outpatient services to Frimley Park Hospital). Nearby Church Crookham lost Queen Elizabeth Barracks, home of the Ghurka Rifles, and that is now to be a housing estate where it was once the country’s last wooden billet barracks and green fields.

The modernisation of the British Army has had a huge negative social & economic impact as the military has slowly left its traditional and spiritual home town of Aldershot. If the Army can treat their main home this way then what level of conservationism is there for retaining an interest in land that is “less” important?

So, is it a little wrong to support the British Army when you’re a green? Very probably yes. But there is also an overwhelmingly positive aspect to the fact to the side that the Army occupy a lot of land that is often unfarmed, untouched by the public or by private interests.

If you look at the Green Party’s own Peace & Defence Policy there is very little there from a green & environmental angle as most of the subjects regarding the peace & defence policy are primarily from social and ethical viewpoints. Yes, there are secondary environmental considerations there and, whilst the policy talks of simply cutting military spending you have to question all the practicalities of simply & ruthlessly executing the terms of the manifesto.

I replied to my friend with

The M.O.D. own a LOT of land ’round here. Turn my back on the forces & the land here gets built on. So no problem

The very same day the BBC’s Countryfile TV Show had a small piece on the Castlemartin range in Pembrokeshire where the British Army test live ammunition from their tanks. Whilst the forces might be shooting explosive rounds from 50-ton machines and doing 4 MPG, the land has never been farmed and remains one of the country’s largest wild grasslands. Castlemartin is home to many rare breeds of flora & fauna and the restricted public access has maintained the green status of the place.

So were we still a little wrong? Maybe, but also a lot of right too.

Friends, Britons, countrymen… lend me your ears.

Today, Friday 10th July 2009, is supposedly Green Britain Day. The concept has been thought up by French nuclear energy giants EDF.

However, as has been said , this whole concept is a complete sham because:

1. EDF are French not British.
2. EDF are not green because they are the world’s biggest corporate producer of nuclear waste.
3. The green union flag has been stolen from British wind-power generators Ecotricity.

So really it’s not Green Britain Day but rather Greenwash Day. Do not be fooled by the company that:

1. Has Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s brother, Andrew Brown, as their Media Director (funny that, aye?)
2. Has spent a reported £50 million in advertising revenue on the campaign.
3. Brought Britain’s nuclear energy generator, British Energy, for some £25 billion.

Dale Vince, CEO of Ecotricity, is right in saying that this could be the biggest greenwash in corporate history, so shame on EDF for these bully-boy tactics.

You drive your car less, you cycle more, recycle more, use less packaging, re-use your grocery bags, use low-powered bulbs, switch to wind-powered electricity and remember to switch everything off when you go to bed or leave the house.

You use both sides of the paper, you only ever wash at 30°c or 40°c, you use biodegradeable washing liquid or eco balls, you let nature dry things and the tumble dryer gather dust, you walk wherever possible, buy local goods from local people, you shower rather than bath and turn your thermostat down. The gas is turned down to a minimum, the loft is lagged, you used hemp insulation, and the DIY was done with only FSC timber.

Everything is natural where possible and you donate to good causes, you go green, you vote green and environmental, you think ecological, you’re efficient, you’re kind and considerate, your books are second-hand and you prefer the packaging when it has been reused… preferably not just once but twice… or more!

You care and you like to see that quality in others, you learn and you share and you wish that the world would be better place and you pay a slight premium to have food without chemicals and meat without steroids, compassion in world farming and fair trade on your table.

Ethics, sustainability, care and attention. Down with obsessive consumerism, up community projects. At one with nature, respect it and the planet.

And then someone says… that’s Eco Fascism.

---

I was only entering the book A Blueprint for Survival into my Facebook page when I spied the mere two star rating and a short review;

My copy dates from 1972, interesting to revisit over thirty years on, we are all still here! My note on the inside back cover still stands, ECO FASCISTS.

Well, I’ve not read the whole book yet as I’ve only just started. I shall make a judgement at the end as to whether I think they are “Eco Fascists” and whether I, a green and a moderate, might also be an “Eco Fascist” and I shall make more than a 2-line judgement or review as I think the subject deserves better than that.

Ministers will apparently give the go-ahead for the controversial third runway at London’s Heathrow Airport later today according to the BBC.

Despite open opposition from around 50 of the Government’s own MPs, opposition MPs, environmental groups, concerned citizens and residents of the houses in the path of the runway, the announcement will be made today under the provision that the expansion is within strict environmental parameters.

The promise of quieter and more fuel-efficient planes seems to be the key to a near-doubling of the amount of air traffic expected at Heathrow. With almost twice as many aircraft and an alleged 55% increase in fuel efficiency, it doesn’t take a genius to work out that pollution would be at similar levels to today. This totally contradicts the government’s targets to reduce emissions by 80%.

Either the government is simply nodding its head to the pro-expansion camp who only have to promise to meet strict environmental criteria in order to get its way, or the government knows that this cannot be achieved and is arrogantly forging ahead anyway or the airline industry gets concessions where other sectors, industrial or public, would have to cut their carbon emissions by even greater levels to meet the targets. The former seems more probable as this government has an increasing propensity to trample over public opinion, after all, and let’s not forget the fact that this country’s leader was never democratically elected.

The government has caved in to the lobbying of big business and industrialists with money and influence. They get their own way and the people are treated with utter contempt. The “jobs and prosperity” that are supposed to be handed out to the immediate area is a travesty because 2000 locals will see their homes demolished and be forced to move elsewhere.

As for meeting the stringent criteria, the pro-expansionists would say that wouldn’t they? Who will be held accountable when we all realise that we’ve been lied to in order that a select few will squeeze a profit out of this “obvious” money spinner? Does nobody have the brains to realise that there’s a huge green industry that’s just waiting to be tapped? Does nobody have the balls to get involved in green initiatives? In America Barack Obama is promising to create “nearly half a million jobs by investing in clean energy”… where’s the British equivalent? Focusing job creation and transport in Heathrow is asking for trouble. At least a green initiative would be “all over the country”.

Once again, if the third runway and sixth terminal are completed, that will be ten years away. The short-term job promises will mean those labourers are laid off after completing their unpopular work. Who knows what will happen in the next decade but I don’t expect oil prices to go down and air travel, already on a knife edge, is hardly in a position to boom. This whole expansion is timely to “create jobs” in a recession but is ultimately based on a lie.

On Monday 8th December protesters from the anti-aviation activists, Plane Stupid, broke through the perimeter barriers of Stansted Airport in Essex, England, to make a point against the proposed building of a second runway at London’s third biggest airport. (Heathrow & Gatwick are London’s two top airports)

All the protesters were arrested and are mainly being charged with aggravated trespass. Ryanair cancelled over 50 flights, leaving passengers stranded at Stansted Airport and on the continent (Europe).

Arguments For the Protesters

Firstly, I disagree with the building of a second runway at Stansted because I believe the thinking behind the expansion is deeply flawed. The basis for the second runway is an assumed, continuous expansion of air traffic with an ever-steady “demand” from market forces. I believe this “projection” to be grossly optimistic and overtly simplistic.

In the last few years oil prices have shot up! Demand from emerging economies like China & India forced demand for, and the consumption of oil to record highs. This in turn affected the developed world with many countries hurting from high fuel prices. Drivers of 15 MPG SUVs had to reconsider their consumption. Car manufacturers saw a drop in demand for gas-guzzlers and the whole US car industry is now “on the edge”. Other countries’ car industries are feeling the affects too, but no to quite the extent of the US, showing that their industrial/economic model was unsustainable. Profits at airlines have been eroded by sky-high fuel costs and the aviation industry has gone through a phase of failures and consolidations.

Of course oil prices have plummeted again but, coupled with the worldwide economic crisis, these are certainly not the conditions for a resurgence in air travel. Indeed, most economic predictions point to a continued period of effective global recession before growth returns at far-reduced, more realistic levels.

This totally blows away the notion I saw presented by some guy on TV who stated something along the lines of

“currently 50% of the British population fly, so what happens when the other 50% of the population wish to fly?”

This hollow argument was supposed to justify the expansion of Stansted with its proposed second runway. That the other half of Britain’s population would be able to fly is pretty moot against a backdrop of rising unemployment, record national & personal debt and the biggest factor of all that I think has been completely overlooked… Peak Oil.

As we know, oil is a finite resource. Peak oil production figures predict that we a) have already hit peak oil production or b) will hit it by 2020. Whether you take the optimistic view or the pessimistic angle, a decline in oil availability will be upon us fairly soon, so what is the use in expansion of an industry that looks like it will then decline quickly?

A lot of economic projections, policy and decisions seem to be made on some very precarious forecasts. Growth in air travel seems to be just another industry built on some very shaky foundations.

Arguments Against the Protesters

Despite claims of “heavy hearts” at their action and apologies for disrupting individual journeys, Plane Stupid made a point, got on the news, got arrested and pissed a lot of people off. I should know, I was there.

I was in Germany to see my mother for the first time in a few months and, despite being a green, I flew in to the tiny little Zweibrücken Airport with Ryanair. The protest at Stansted on Monday morning affected my return flight. We were watching the news before we left for the airport and were well aware of the situation but Ryanair made no changes prior to our departure for Zweibrücken. Upon reaching the airport, despite the fact that the protesters had already been moved, Ryanair made a blanket policy of cancelling all their flights to and from Stansted.

There were no delays, no later flights, no rescheduling. I blame Ryanair for having to take another flight on the next day rather than risk the 2 hour drive to another German airport with the potential of landing at a different airport in the UK. But ultimately there were a lot of extremely unhappy people in the tiny little Zweibrücken airport and they all blamed the protesters.

I was lucky to have somewhere to stay at no cost but I did have a completely wasted car journey. My pointless eighty mile round trip must have used at least 2 or 3 gallons of fuel. I also had to take another day off work, forcing me to use a day of holiday when I didn’t need to and taking me away from the small business I work at. Upon getting back to England I even had to pay another £9 for a day’s worth of unanticipated parking.

As I say, I was lucky. I was just one passenger on one flight and 50+ flights were cancelled. Multiply the waste from my situation by the number of passengers that were affected. There were plenty more travellers left stranded who were really angry and risked driving further afield.

Verdict

I believe that the direct action by Plane Stupid may have done more harm than good to their cause, particularly amongst Joe Public, and it will take a lot of hard work to undo the damage to the public perception, which is a shame, because it would be better if more effort was put into publicly promoting transparency of the facts & figures of the economy, aviation and fuel than having to rebuild their “brand”.

However, they have certainly raised the issue to the public domain this week, but how long will it stay there? What will it take to keep the debate going so that all the facts and figures are understood and not spun by those who stand to gain from short-term? Of course a second runway will generate jobs whilst the construction is under way and public spending is just the sort of economic stimulus that is needed in an economic downturn. But isn’t the government being short-sighted by continually coming up with “the same old chestnut” of public spending on roads, public spending on airports when there’s a distinct possibility that the fuel for all the machines that use these “public works” will dry up and the whole reason for the original construction effectively becomes obsolete?

We face some tough challenges ahead with the current economic situation and with the threats posed by climate change. If the government thinks we can “get back on track” to the levels of economic “prosperity” we’ve experienced over the last decade or so, then I think they are sorely misguided, short-sighted and their interests are being distorted by the lobbyists with the greatest clout (money, position and influence – something that environmentalists are unfortunate not to have so much of at this point in time).

The sooner the British government actually “goes green” and actually puts some major effort into genuinely becoming the leaders of green issues in Europe and the world, like it keeps harping on about, then it can change public works spending from roads, airports and nuclear power stations to wind, wave, solar and geothermal projects. It’s not hard to understand but the sooner they get their thick heads ’round the notion, then we should be able to go in the right direction.