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.

The Wave in London, on Saturday, seemed to be a great success. It started with a train ride up to Waterloo and a tube trip to Bond Street where I stepped out into the busy London streets filled with Christmas shoppers.

Grosvenor Square was the starting point of the march where crowds gathered to see guest speakers on the stage from a number of organisations with the crazy beatbox style of Beardyman to gee the crowds up.

Organised by the Stop Climate Chaos Coalition over 50,000 people gathered to make their voices heard and everybody wore blue to create a wave as they marched to and surrounded Parliament. Ed Milliband, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and Peter Mandelson were  in attendance for a short while and Gordon Brown even invited 24 people in at the end of the march for a discussion.

For me it was good to be part of a great bunch of people all aiming for the same thing – to get some action on climate change rather than the meagre proposals that timid governments are currently putting forward. It’s big business and shareholders that are the problem here , thinking that their profit is more important than using some of their gains to reduce emissions, cut carbon, stop pollution and quit destroying the environment. The obvious question for big business here is where will their profit come from once they’ve depleted the planet?

But I digress. The Wave was great, everyone was friendly and the police did a good job, even the scowling chief officers keeping a watchful eye on the photographers. The Hare Krishnas, complete with mobile drumkit, bass and electric mandolin (all amped up) put a smile on many people’s faces, as did the guy dressed as a polar bear protesting at the tar sands extraction outside the Canadian Embassy on the rout of the march.

Here are all the photos from The Wave on flickr and here are my photos.

Less than 1% of funds spent to prop up financial system could help prevent future global food crises

Many millions of people in poor countries will go hungry when future global food crises strike unless the world’s half a billion small-scale farms receive urgent funding and support from the UK and other governments, says development agency Progressio on the first day of a crucial global food security summit in Rome (Nov 16th-18th).

In a new report, Fertile Ground, Progressio warns that decades of neglect by governments of small scale farmers who feed 2 billion people worldwide, a third of  humanity, have stretched poor farming communities to breaking point, requiring urgent action. The report notes that last year’s global food crisis:

• Added 44 million people to those already undernourished
• Drove 110 million more people into poverty
• Pushed up the price of some commodities by 200%

States Fertile Ground:

“Our global food system is in crisis. The number of hungry people on our planet is rising steadily and for the first time in history has now passed the 1 billion mark… Governments must face the facts and take action now in order to be confident of feeding the estimated 9.2 billion people who will share our planet by 2050.”

Fertile Ground reports a dramatic decline in the amount of aid spent on agriculture, which has fallen by 83% in the past 30 years, as government and other donors favoured intensive, large-scale solutions to the modern challenges of food production. In the process, small-scale farmers have been left behind. The report cites many threats and trials facing small-scale farmers:

• Climate change will leave 40 per cent of sub-Saharan African countries facing the risk of significant declines in crop and pasture production
• 2.6 billion people are already affected by significant levels of land degradation
• 80% of farmers in Africa and 40% in Latin America and Asia still rely on their own labour and hand tools. Many lack access to technical expertise which could help boost production.

Says Petra Kjell, Progressio’s Environment Policy Officer:

“The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) suggests that governments spend $44 billion per year in support of agriculture, which is less than 1 per cent of what they spent to prop up the global financial system. If a significant proportion of that investment went towards assisting small-scale farmers around the world, then a vital step will have been taken to cushion the impact of future food crises.”

The report, which is informed by Progressio’s work with small-scale farmers in countries like Malawi and Ecuador, states that for centuries small-scale farmers have provided a food security buffer against outside shocks, supplying poor communities with local food at local prices. By growing produce in harmony with the environment – or ‘agroecologically’ – farmers are also able to better protect their land and crops from erratic weather linked to climate change, the report notes. It calls for urgent action by governments and policy-makers to ensure these practices continue, through:

• More investment and support for small-scale farmers through international aid and national budgets
• A greater voice for small-scale farmers in national and global decision-making processes which affect the way they live and work

The Rome Food Summit, which is being hosted by the FAO, will bring together leaders and high-ranking officials from around the world. Its main purpose is to address mechanisms to tackle the rising threat of global hunger.

Petra Kjell concludes:

“Small-scale farmers make a huge contribution to our planet. Yet they have been hopelessly under-supported for decades. Unless they are now prioritised by governments, future food crises will be much worse, with dire consequences for millions of people. We must act now to make sure small-scale farmers receive the support they so desperately need.”

A one-day climate summit in New York yesterday saw about 100 world leaders attend ahead of the crucial Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December.

China, now the world’s biggest polluter, taking the shameful crown from the United States, seemed to make the biggest commitment with President Hu Jintao saying that the country would cut carbon emissions by a “notable margin” by 2020.

The United States’ climate change envoy, Todd Stern, was reported to have said that China’s stance was helpful but that they needed to “provide figures”.

US President Barack Obama didn’t provide any figures for his own country nor did he say anything ground-breaking or commital, prompting criticism that the US, producing around 20% of world pollution, is taking too long to act.

Britain’s own Gordon Brown had said, two days before the summit, that the Copenhagen Conference is in danger of collapse if world leaders neither attended nor made committments towards a low-carbon world economy and was understood to have been trying to convince other world leaders to attend Copenhagen. Brown was the first world leader to commit to Copenhagenyet he has been accused of failing to provide strong leadership in Britain’s own green initiatives.

Whilst China stole the headlines, Japan’s new Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama, announced the “Hatoyama Initiative”, pledging to cut Japan’s carbon output by 25% by 2020 (compared t 1990 levels).

UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, said the talks had privded fresh impetus for Copenhagen whilst formwr US vice-president and environmental activist Al Gore praised China for its loose committment.

The countdown now ticks until the 7th December although France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy has called for leaders to meet again in mid November. It remains to be seen whether our leaders are prepared to make any tough decisions.

A report today from Britain’s Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) has tipped “Cleantech and renewables… to become two of the most important sectors of the economy.”

The encouraging news comes from a survey of British business leaders who have also tipped technology and media to be growth sectors in the UK over the next decade.

43% of the business leaders questioned considered that cleantech will grow at the fastest pace by 2020, followed by science & technology (20%) then media & entertainment (15%).

Whilst the UK government is mainly interested in the economic aspect that new growth areas will have on the country, in order to pull us out of recession and keep us competitive in the world marketplace, it’s very encouraging for the population at large; if Britain is to see growth in cleantech & renewables then there will be investment in green research and green jobs will be created. Although why the Vestas wind turbine plant in the Isle of Wight was allowed to close with a loss of around 700 jobs still remains a mystery (and a crying shame) when Number 10 are touting the benefits of a green future for this country.

The government have also recently launched their iawards competition for British companies to compete in, demonstrating their skills and innovations. Aswell as combating aspects such as terrorism and an ageing population, the green aspects of the iawards include

Preserving finite natural resources in the face of population growth and climate change

So let’s hope that the government puts its money where its mouth is and pushes the green agenda so that we can go to Cop 15, the United Nations Climate Change Conference (7-18 December 2009) with a genuinely green direction that can contribute to cutting carbon emissions. 80% by 2030? Let’s hope so!

Lobbying firm sends ant-climate change bill letters from “old peole’s homes”.

After last week’s news that big oil are against a better environment it seems that the lobbyists who oppose any moves to limit climate change (incase it dents the profits of big business) have stooped to a new low point.

The Guardian reports that a U.S. Congressional hearing has uncovered over a dozen forged letters to members of congress opposing the climate change bill. The house select committee on energy independence and global warming has confirmed 13 forged letters and is still investigating a further 45 written correspondences.

Bonner & Associates, a lobbying firm, was hired to fight against the climate bill proposed by President Barack Obama. The bill, if passed, aims to reduce America’s carbon emissions by 17% by 2020 and by as much as 83% by 2050. That’s an aggressive and staggeringly brilliant cut in CO2 if it can be accomplished but Bonner & Associates and their paymasters, PR firm Hawthorn Group in turn bankrolled by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, are against cuts in emissions.

The forged letters so far have supposedly been sent from ethnic groups and even old people’s homes.

If America put all its heart & soul into renewal energy and green technology then it would be able to create new job opportunities in these environmental industries. But as long as the corporations are short-sighted enough to fail to see beyond the current status quo then they will attempt to derail any attempts forAmerica to go green.

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”.

It was interesting to hear Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, saying yesterday that we need a “radical rethink” on food policy in this country.

For many years those who think green have identified the world’s population growth, habit & climate change and a loss of biodiversity, to name a few, as the factors that would affect food production.

Coupled with the fact that British are not entirely self-sufficient when it comes to food production, the future of the country’s “food security” is as important as the nation’s insistence on foreign powers to provide our energy needs.

Hilary Benn identified that whilst our food supply is currently secure climate change and growing world population are indeed a threat to the security of what we eat, how much of it we get, what we pay for it and where it comes from.

Anyone who has read A Blueprint for Survival, the book that was the basis of the (now) Green Party’s manifesto back in 1973, would be right in saying that this is nearly 40 years too late. Why are the government only thinking and speaking now?

Over the past few years we’ve seen changes in the price of oil and people have had to think very seriously about what they drive; big macho gas-guzzler or economic city car?

Food too has been affected by price variations such as the diversion of grain from being a food source to being an alternative bio-fuel to pour into the tanks of gas-guzzlers in an attempt to “go green” yet causing the “Tortilla riots” in Mexico as the price of flour has risen.

The droughts in Australia last year too have also been attributed as a factor in the rise in the price of grain and the consequent hike in the price of bread in the UK.

With these factors in mind the Environment Secretary has called these signs a “wake up call” even though the government has been hitting “snooze” since the 1970s.

Although nearly 4 decades too late, matters seem to be more pressing as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) launches a last minute consultation into Britain’s food security future.

DEFRA’s current assessment of Britain’s food supply is that whilst we have a diversity of food suppliers worldwide and the supply chain is in a favourable position, the impact of global resources in the future will mean that other countries will need to feed their own growing populations rather than export to the UK and we will see our food imports fall, scarcity in some products rise and prices in those areas will increase. It’s a very simple case of supply & demand.

Hilary Benn’s “radical rethink” is therefore looking in the direction of what we can do to secure a healthy, abundant & diverse source of home-grown foods. I’ve noticed a lot of my friends are growing their own veg these days but that can hardly feed the whole nation.

DEFRA’s

The Sustainable Development Commission released a report in July Stop the Decline in UK Food Production saying that the current system was a problem due to it being a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and that current evaluations of food provision being a “success” failed to count the affects on soil & water from the intensive use of pesticides etc. (think “Blueprint” again!)

The British Retail Consortium want food issues to focus around the consumer, according to the BBC, saying that only with “their buy-in” will food policy be fairly shaped.

The harsh reallity is that everybody needs to wake up, the government should stop fannying around and we should all understand that things aren’t going to be as cheap or as easy as they have been. People should consume less, eat better, only buy what they need and not allow food to be wasted.

In addition, what the Environment Secretary believes, is that food production should be more efficient. One example was that English strawberries can be grown to use less water to achieve the same yields and retain their taste & character.

You can read about DEFRA’s consultation, Food 2030, and watch Hilary Benn speaking about the challenges of a secure food future. Don’t forget to leave your comments there too; green voices should be heard in this matter and we’ll definitely be taking time to make our voice heard on the issues of GM crops (No, thank you), sustainability, organic farming, maintaining biodiversity etc.

Make your voices heard, comment on Food 2030!

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.