China Goes Green

Well, cough cough, in a few days time, cough cough, the Olympics start in Beijing, cough cough splutter. I sincerely hope that the pollution and poor air quality does not harm any of the participants. While personally, if I were an athlete I would not be prepared to attend the games in a repressive country. However, it has the be a matter of personal concious.

Though the image of me as an athlete though is the most absurd image anyone could conjour as when I had Athletes Foot, I asked for a second opinion!

However, being serious, while china is very heavily pouted as a result of the rapid industrialisation in the country, China is however taking the issue of climate change seriously. While China has the right to develop economical, they have done so thus far by copying the mistakes of the west.

When electricity for lighting first appeared, it was in fact the loss of power through resistance that meant that we have power in our homes of 240 volts. I know there are variations around the world, but the principal is the same. It was the problem of getting power from the power station to the home or end user that lead to a standard of 240 volts in Britain and Europe.

However, had we gone for power for lighting and small appliances of just 12 volts then the system could have incorporated a storage system. Yes even at the beginning of the previous century that would have been possible, using lead acid batteries just as are still used in many cars. When I had my allotment I used a solar panel to charge a battery that lit the shed and chicken house. I know that two people followed my lead and did the same. It only cost me seventy five pounds to do it. It was cheaper for others as they were able to get old batteries, I had bought new. I even thought about doing this at my home, as while lighting is not my largest electricity cost, I could see that recouping the cost would take only a couple of years. Additionally, when I looked further into the issue, I discovered that there were many appliances that are manufactured that run on 12 volts for boats and caravans. For about two thousand pounds I could run a TV a DVD player, Fridge and Freezer even a computer all from solar power. That would have included the cost of the appliances.

This is something that is happening in many developing countries. As solar lighting reaches places that are far away from the “National Grid” (as we in the UK call our electricity infrastructure), it is even cheaper than a 240 volt system as it costs millions to install the infrastructure, the power lines and power stations. However, these systems are mainly installed in the homes of the poor. For example in India where kerosene is still the main source of lighting, these solar systems are installed as part of health programs as the kerosene causes breathing difficulties. The fact that is also environmentally friendly is an added bonus. Incidentally, in India alone fifty thousand tones of CO2 are released annually just from kerosene lamps.

Now I know that my reader is wondering what this has to do with China? As China develops its electricity infrastructure, they are making the same mistakes that we in the west made, large centralised power stations and cables carrying the power from the source of generation to the user. By following this model they are tying themselves into the addiction of power usage. If they went for small scale solar then the lighting and small appliance needs of the entire population could be met at the same cost of five coal fired power stations. Further, it would have the effect of closing down fifteen 1000 mega what stations. That is using current technology.

China is developing green technologies and last year invested twelve billion dollars (US equivalent) in renewables only just behind the world leader, Germany who invested fourteen billion dollars. While the US government hides its inaction on climate change behind the myth that China is doing nothing to combat climate change, the reality is that China spends more as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) on renewables than the US and Canada does combined.

Now don't think that I am saying that China is wonderfully environmentally friendly, but they have recognised the problem and are trying to tackle the problem. And they are doing it in ways that are not damaging their economy, in fact they have recognised the economic advantages. The countries that do the most now to develop renewables will have a grater economical advantages in the years to come. While I know that the price of oil has dropped and the price of petrol is now falling, the cost of fossil fuels is going to rise.

Therefore any country that has true renewable energy generation will not have their economies damaged by the wild fluctuations that will continue to happen.

While I do find the Chinese government a distasteful one, I do have the hope that with the eyes on China during the Olympics they (the Chinese Government) can learn from the spirit of freedom that is supposed to be at the heart of the games. Equally, I hope that we can learn that China is trying to be green.

More on the Chinese renewables

Wind Turbines good for the Marine Environment

When the British government announced that there would be an expansion of off shore wind power generation, I personally gave the announcement a cautious welcome. The aspect that I was worried about was would the locating of the turbines damage habitat.

As I did not know, I decided to look into the matter and find out. What added to my concerns was that fishermen and the fishing industry were opposed to this. While I have to say that many fishermen are far from conservation minded, was this a matter where the people closest to that environment were being ignored?

The point where any turbine is located will cause some damage to the sea bed, but as has been proven time and again, building any structure out at sea actually attracts creatures. Ask any diver and wrecks are great places to find a whole range of marine wildlife. Further, artificial reefs have been created in British waters by sinking old vessels and by dropping crushed cars in the sea. All previously cleaned up so they don't create pollution it should be added. This is exactly what has happened around the the locations of existing off shore wind farms. In fact the additional habitat created by these projects are increasingly becoming important conservation areas. Therefore, my one major concern that there was a risk of damaging the marine environment is allayed as these structures enhance rather then damage marine ecology.

So why are the fishermen objecting? Well the main reason is that they would be excluded from fishing in the areas where these wind farms will be located. As each tower is spaced at five hundred metres apart, while there is room to manoeuvre a boat, any towed fishing gear would be in danger of getting snagged. Towed gear is not just simply nets, its the weights and dredges that are the greatest threat.

Here locally at Blyth where the British off shore wind industry started, the original test turbines are no longer generating electricity because the cable connecting the turbines to the shore was damaged by such fishing methods. Therefore with lessons learnt, fishing has to be excluded from the areas where these wind farms are situated and from the areas where the cables run. It should also be noted that the industrial fishing methods that will be excluded from these areas are the ones that have been most damaging to the marine environment.

The real problem with the fishing industry is that almost all the fishing methods are unsustainable. Fishermen are harvesting from the diminishing breeding population and are also taking fish and marine creatures that have not yet reached sexual maturity. Hence fishermen are and will cry foul of anything that restricts their activities. But just as happened to deep mining here in the UK, there comes a point when the industry has to end. With mining while there was still coal there, it was becoming increasingly dangerous to dig that coal out. However, with fishing unless we stop fishing now, the fishermen themselves will kill their own industry.

The fishing industry is in fact being very short sighted, as one of the advantages of the installation of all these off shore wind turbines will be to create undisturbed breeding and feeding grounds for an extensive variety of marine species. This will in time provide the solution to the collapse of marine animals that are used for food.

While I don't think that wind turbines are the whole solution to climate change, all of the incidental benefits of these off shore wind farms will make them vital for providing energy in the future.

One of the interesting things that I have discovered, Denmark have suffered much less than most nations with the hike in energy prices that has been occurring in recent years. Not least, because of the investment that they made in wind turbines in the past. While we in Britain are playing catch up on this, in ten years time we will actually have the buffer against the price rises that will happen in years to come. Equally once all these turbines are installed we will have done more to protect the marine environment than has ever happened in any part of our planet.

Climate Statement by the G8

Here is the full unabridged text to the statement on Climate issued by sixteen countries at the G8

We, the leaders of Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States met as the world's major economies in Tokyo, Hokkaido, Japan, on 9 July, 2008, and declare as follows:

1. Climate change is one of the great global challenges of our time. Conscious of our leadership role in meeting such challenges, we, the leaders of the world's major economies, both developed and developing, commit to combat climate change in accordance with our common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and confront the interlinked challenges of sustainable development, including energy and food security, and human health.

We have come together to contribute to efforts under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the global forum for climate negotiations. Our contribution and cooperation are rooted in the objective, provisions, and principles of the Convention.

2. We welcome decisions taken by the international community in Bali, including to launch a comprehensive process to enable the full, effective, and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term co-operative action, now, up to, and beyond 2012, in order to reach an agreed outcome in December 2009

Recognising the scale and urgency of the challenge, we will continue working together to strengthen implementation of the Convention and to ensure that the agreed outcome maximises the efforts of all nations and contributes to achieving the ultimate objective in Article 2 of the Convention, which should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

3. The Major Economies Meetings constructively contribute to the Bali process in several ways:

First, our dialogue at political, policy, and technical levels has built confidence among our nations and deepened mutual understanding of the many challenges confronting the world community as we consider next steps under the Convention and continue to mobilise political will to combat global climate change.

Second, without prejudging outcomes or the views of other nations, we believe that the common understandings in this Declaration will help advance the work of the international community so it is possible to reach an agreed outcome by the end of 2009

Third, recognising the need for urgent action and the Bali Action Plan's directive for enhanced implementation of the Convention between now and 2012, we commit to taking the actions in paragraph 10 without delay.

4. We support a shared vision for long-term cooperative action, including a long-term global goal for emission reductions, that assures growth, prosperity, and other aspects of sustainable development, including major efforts towards sustainable consumption and production, all aimed at achieving a low carbon society.

Taking account of the science, we recognise that deep cuts in global emissions will be necessary to achieve the Convention's ultimate objective, and that adaptation will play a correspondingly vital role. We believe that it would be desirable for the Parties to adopt in the negotiations under the Convention a long-term global goal for reducing global emissions, taking into account the principle of equity.

We urge that serious consideration be given in particular to ambitious IPCC scenarios. Significant progress toward a long-term global goal will be made by increasing financing of the broad deployment of existing technologies and best practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build climate resilience. However, our ability ultimately to achieve a long-term global goal will also depend on affordable, new, more advanced, and innovative technologies, infrastructure, and practices that transform the way we live, produce and use energy, and manage land.

5. Taking into account assessments of science, technology, and economics, we recognise the essential importance of enhanced greenhouse gas mitigation that is ambitious, realistic, and achievable. We will do more. We will continue to improve our policies and our performance while meeting other priority objectives, in keeping with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Achieving our long-term global goal requires respective mid-term goals, commitments and actions, to be reflected in the agreed outcome of the Bali Action Plan, taking into account differences in social and economic conditions, energy mix, demographics, and infrastructure among other factors, and the above IPCC scenarios.
In this regard, the developed major economies will implement, consistent with international obligations, economy-wide mid-term goals and take corresponding actions in order to achieve absolute emission reductions and, where applicable, first stop the growth of emissions as soon as possible, reflecting comparable efforts among them. At the same time, the developing major economies will pursue, in the context of sustainable development, nationally appropriate mitigation actions, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, with a view to achieving a deviation from business as usual emissions.

6. We recognise that actions to reduce emissions, including from deforestation and forest degradation, and to increase removals by sinks in the land use, land use change, and forestry sector, including cooperation on tackling forest fires, can make a contribution to stabilising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These actions also reduce climate change impacts and can have significant co-benefits by maintaining multiple economic goods and ecological services. Our nations will continue to cooperate on capacity-building and demonstration activities; on innovative solutions, including financing, to reduce emissions and increase removals by sinks; and on methodological issues. We also stress the need to improve forest-related governance and cooperative actions at all levels.

7. We recognise that adaptation is vital to addressing the effects of inevitable climate change and that the adverse impacts of climate change are likely to affect developing countries disproportionately. We will work together in accordance with our Convention commitments to strengthen the ability of developing countries, particularly the most vulnerable ones, to adapt to climate change. This includes the development and dissemination of tools and methodologies to improve vulnerability and adaptation assessments, the integration of climate change adaptation into overall development strategies, increased implementation of adaptation strategies, increased emphasis on adaptation technologies, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability, and consideration of means to stimulate investment and increased availability of financial and technical assistance.

8. We affirm the critical role of technology and the need for technological breakthroughs in meeting the interlinked global challenges of energy security and climate change. In the near term, broader deployment of many existing technologies will be vital for both mitigation and adaptation. In particular, energy conservation, energy efficiency, disaster reduction, and water and natural resource management technologies are important.

We will promote the uptake and use of such technologies including renewables, cleaner and low-carbon technologies, and, for those of us interested, nuclear power. Technology cooperation with and transfer to developing countries are also vital in this effort, as is promoting capacity building.
For the longer term, research, development, demonstration, deployment, and transfer of innovative technologies will be crucial, and we acknowledge the need to enhance our investment and collaboration in these areas. Mindful of the important role of a range of alternative energy technologies, we recognise, in particular, the need for research, development, and large-scale demonstration of and cooperation on carbon capture and storage. We also note the value of technology roadmaps as tools to promote continuous investment and cooperation in clean energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment.

9. We recognise that tackling climate change will require greater mobilization of financial resources, both domestically and internationally. There is an urgent need to scale up financial flows, particularly financial support to developing countries; to create positive incentives for actions; to finance the incremental costs of cleaner and low-carbon technologies; to make more efficient use of funds directed toward climate change; to realise the full potential of appropriate market mechanisms that can provide pricing signals and economic incentives to the private sector; to promote public sector investment; to create enabling environments that promote private investment that is commercially viable; to develop innovative approaches; and to lower costs by creating appropriate incentives for and reducing and eliminating obstacles to technology transfer relevant to both mitigation and adaptation.

10. To enable the full, effective, and sustained implementation of the Convention between now and 2012, we will:

Work together on mitigation-related technology cooperation strategies in specific economic sectors, promote the exchange of mitigation information and analysis on sectoral efficiency, the identification of national technology needs and voluntary, action-oriented international cooperation, and consider the role of cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions, consistent with the Convention;

Direct our trade officials responsible for WTO issues to advance with a sense of urgency their discussions on issues relevant to promoting our cooperation on climate change;

Accelerate enhanced action on technology development, transfer, financing, and capacity building to support mitigation and adaptation efforts;

Support implementation of the Nairobi Work Programme on impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation to climate change;

Improve significantly energy efficiency, a low-cost way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance energy security;

Continue to promote actions under the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer for the benefit of the global climate system;

And Intensify our efforts without delay within existing fora to improve effective greenhouse gas measurement.

11. Our nations will continue to work constructively together to promote the success of the Copenhagen climate change conference in 2009.

Oil Prices, Climate Change and Food

Yesterday saw lorry drivers in Britain lobbying Parliament over the price of fuel. While from an economic prospective, I can understand that people are feeling the pain of the increase in the price of oil, but there is actually nothing that government can do.

I have watched the situation carefully, trying to understand what is really going on. What was perplexing was simply that when the price of oil started reaching new and record highs, it was the forward price that was rising. That meant oil for delivery in six weeks was at $120 to 130 per barrel, this price for immediate delivery stayed at $75-80 per barrel. While this has now changed upwards, the oil companies profited from this for over eight weeks selling petrol at the price it would be in six weeks time, while they were only paying for it at the $75-80 per barrel mark.

While this profiteering by the oil companies was a factor driving this it could not explain the whole of what was driving the market. The other aspect that doesn't make sense is that while the current global use is close to the current output, there is still more production than use. On the classic supply and demand principals of economics there is no logic to this.

There is a new factor that has come into play, that of the speculators. While there has always been some speculation in the commodity markets, with the rich and the super rich no longer making money from property vast sums are being ploughed into commodities like oil and wheat. However, while this is an important aspect that is driving the price, it is not the only factor. If it were then they will get their finger burnt when this bubble bursts. As it will.

The real difficulty is that of politics and the lack of political will to tackle climate change. Part of the political factors is the Iran question. While I personally don't like the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons, the rhetoric that the US government is using, is making the oil producing states and the emerging economy of China very nervous as they fear that Bush could suddenly rack this up to war.

While I personally doubt that even Bush could be that stupid, I can understand the rest of the globe becoming wary about this and the effect upon oil supplies. Thus some nations are increasing their stocks of petroleum.

The other political aspect is the lack of action regarding Climate change. This is the part that really makes my head hurt trying to understand the logic here.

There is a lack of investment in refining capacity, and the oil companies don't want to make that investment because they are worried about immanent sea level rise. They don't want to build on or at the coast where refineries have traditionally been constructed, as they would be lost when the seas rise. Nor do they want to build inland at a greater elevation, as that would mean the oil industry is acknowledging the reality of dangerous Climate Change.

Even looking at all these factors together still only provides an incomplete picture. But before we look at the other factors, I want to deal with three issues, not least the price of Diesel. The truck drivers protest and lobbying of parliament has provided a useful hook to examine the problem of rising oil costs. But the price of diesel is actually a symptom and not the problem. The reality is that there are to many trucks on the road. That's not a political or environmental statement but an economic one. There are twenty five percent more trucks than there are loads to carry. Even if the fuel costs were stable or even falling, there still would be businesses failing. The difficulty is that the price diesel is accelerating the failure of businesses that are failing anyway. It is painful, that I understand, but nothing can or should be done to keep lorries on the road.

The other area where the price of diesel is hastening the end of a moribund industry, is fishing.

For the last twenty years in Europe, we have continued taking fish from the breeding populations of the fish we use for food. It has also been happening all around the world, but here in Europe we actually have good data that shows what needs to be done. As during the Second world war when fishing was not possible particularly in the North Sea, fish stocks recovered and when fishing resumed fish was abundant. The only way of ensuring a fishing industry in the future is to stop fishing now. Not reduce the catch but a complete cessation to fishing and that has to be for ten years.

Fishermen will wail in protest at that, but if not there will be no fish to catch in ten to fifteen years as we are currently harvesting the breeding stock. The increase in diesel costs means that the boats can no longer afford to travel the great distances searching for the fish. They are having to search for fish that are not there. When they do catch fish, they are smaller, often not even having reached sexual maturity. Again this increase in the price of diesel is not the problem it is and has been the industrial scale harvesting of the seas that has eliminated the fish stocks. There are also additional factors such as warming seas driving the remnants of the fish populations further north, but the longer that fishing continues the faster the fishermen will kill their industry.

The last point regarding oil prices is that of speculation. The immorality of the rich gambling on the price of oil and foods, beggars belief. They are making money off poor and vulnerable people. Here in the UK the price of heating oil will be around £1200 ($2000) per delivery this winter at current prices. In many rural areas where there is no gas, that will mean the poor, the elderly will suffer, as in cold weather that delivery would only last four to six weeks. I fear that people will end up dyeing from cold this winter. I am saying this now as I will rage when it happens.
However, the speculation on the oil price is only part of the picture as it is the speculation on foods that is really what is driving the up the coast of oil. I can see the puzzled looks from here, but as the value of crops like wheat and maize go up, more farmers are planting them. That means there is and will be, a greater demand for diesel to power the tractors.

It doesn't end there, as our chemical based farming is reliant upon fertilizers that are made from oil. It is in fact this factor that is what is really driving up the price of oil.

We obviously do need to feed the world, but we have become so fixated upon the chemical inputs to grow crops that we are failing to utilise the traditional methods of feeding the soil.

This is why we are all having to pay more for oil and food.

It is a complex picture, and it has taken a while to unravel what is really happening, but this is all the result of our addiction to oil.

Chickens and the power of Big Business

This week saw the AGM of Tesco's the largest retailer in the UK. What is worth remarking on is that they receive eight out of every ten pounds of the retail spend in Britain. That is not just of the food spend, but of all of the retail spend.

Therefore it was not that surprising that the TV chef, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall attempt to get Tesco to raise the welfare standards for the chickens they sell, failed.

By becoming a shareholder in Tesco, he was able to get a motion tabled that called upon Tesco to raise the welfare standards for the chickens sold as food. Tesco made this as difficult for him as possible, forcing him to pay eighty thousand pounds on the literature to contact all the shareholders regarding the motion. As anyone who has heard the news he got support from ten percent of the shareholders, but the motion was ultimately defeated.

While other supermarkets need to shoulder their share of responsibility in the way that animal welfare is abused to bring cheap food to the supermarket shelf, as the largest retail in the UK, Tesco should have provided a moral lead here. But they have shown it is profits at any costs that is their motivation not quality or welfare.

In tests in a food laboratories it has been shown that the so called Standard Chicken has more than one hundred grams of fat per kilo than does a free range bird. Further, free range birds have a higher proportion of Omega 3 fatty acids, the good fats that we need, than do barn reared birds.

With a epidemic of health problems related to obesity, the standard chickens that the supermarkets are offering are far from the healthy food that we are being deliberately misled, to believe them to be.

Tesco make as profit about seventy pence ($1.30) per standard chicken sold, the farmer makes only three pence (5c), from a retail price of £2.50 ($4.75). The difficulty that most people overlook at the checkout is that for anything to be so cheap someone must be loosing out somewhere. Here it is the farmer, and ultimately the chicken. This callous disregard for the welfare of the animals we choose to eat, lessens us as people.

Additionally the intensive keeping of animals for food has a serious environmental impact, as the volume of manure produced becomes a problem. In the past with the less intensive production of meat animals, the manure was a benefit that fed the land. Now it harms it.

However, the real threat from intensive animal production is that any disease problems quickly become an epidemic. In history it was only when there was a realisation that overcrowding, sewage, clean water and hygiene that were key to solving the problems of public health, that many of the diseases of the past were finally overcome. Yet we seem to have forgotten that lesson when it comes to animal health and welfare.

With an increase in the prevalence of campylobacter in chickens, we could be paying for our cheap food with the costs of treating food poisoning. Just as we made some dumb decisions that lead to BSE, who knows what problems will emerge from this.

While I do appreciate that food prices are increasing and that this effects poor people much more than it does the more affluent, but there is a hidden cost to cheap food and with Tesco's posting record profits, it clear that they are profiting from the backs of the poor.

Newcastle Green Festival

This weekend was the Green Festival in Newcastle. I had planed going along yesterday, but I made the mistake of accepting a lift. However to explain what happened I need to give you some background. Back when I lived near the coast, I became acquainted with a woman who visited the pub that I regularly drank in. While a friendship was formed, her life was far to complicated for me to become involved with her, even though it was something that appeared to be occurring. Further, as she had a young daughter, I was cautious while this woman had split up from her partner, I could see that it could be potentially damaging for the child if I had allowed anything more than a friendship develop. As it turned out by the time I moved away it looked as though I had been right to be cautious as the woman's partner was back in her life.

While I kept in touch with them as a family, by letter and later email, I had not seen them for ages. Therefore I was rather surprised when he contacted me and asked if I was going to the Green Festival. Especially as he was rather anti environment, but the woman and her daughter had been excited by the environment especially after I took them to see a Bottle Nose Dolphin that started to come into the mouth of the River Tyne.

When I first heard one had been spotted I had done some reading to try and understand the behaviour and realised it was likely to be the turning of the tide that drew the mammal in following the fish. Thus, we actually had better viewing successes than almost everyone else who were looking at random times.

Therefore I agreed to accepting a lift to the festival, ignorant of the fact that I was entering a war zone.

He turned up a little late, but there was still plenty of time to get there. But, to make matters even more complicated he wanted to drive down to Peterlee to collect his new girlfriend. At that point I should have refused the lift and made my own way there. But the mother and daughter persuaded me that I should stay.

Well, when we got to the new girlfriends home and I saw her, even I was shocked as the new girlfriend looked to be only a little older than the daughter. I was begging to realise why they wanted me there. Both the mother gave me a look that spoke volumes. I was not sure if the journey into Newcastle was going to be full of pained silence but the daughter started talking to me of her plans to go to university to study ecology, and this conversation kept the mood much lighter than I expected.

However, that was only the start of the drama. As he approached the motorway the engine died. He had run out of Petrol. To make matters worse, he not only did not have a petrol can but no money. It is best described as let battle begin. Fortunately I did have cash and my Bank card so I went off with the mother and daughter to find a petrol station. We found one, but they had no petrol cans. So it was a long walk to find a shop that sold a petrol can... Well you can fill in the blanks. Some two hours later we were back and filling the tank. But that was not the end of it as he was in a huff he slammed the door shut, with the keys in the ignition... It took another three hour wait for a friend to come down with another set of keys to get us in again. I would have just gone home but my cameras were locked in the car.

Therefore I missed the whole of yesterdays festival. However, for me it showed that I was right not to get involved in anything more than a friendship here. While it had its annoying aspects, it was rather amusing in some ways too. By the time we were able to head back home the daughter and I had instigated a phrase of; “Parents” and we were falling about laughing with just a look and mouthing of the word.

Today I saw the daughter at the festival, free of her parents, where she told me that her Dads new GF had dumped him. He had lied about his age, the daughter had pointed out that her dad would have been eleven when she was born had that been his age. It was great to see that she has become such a mature and sensible young adult, especially as her parents are so childish. Something she acknowledges herself.

We also talked about relationships, and she doesn't want one at the moment as to many of the lads she knows are far to immature (she also said like her father). I explained that I too would prefer to stay single than get involved with the wrong person.

Then as we walking round the park we noticed something that was so funny. One young woman was sunbathing. She had removed her top and this she was using to ensure that no one could look up her very short skirt. But what made it funny was that she was sunbathing topless.

The festival its self was its usual mixture of crafts, ethnic clothing, complementarity healing, and all the usual political organisations. One thing that I was glad to see since I last attended was that it was in danger of becoming overwhelmed by music. And club music at that, witch was pumping out at high volume. Now the festival doesn't allow generators to be used at the festival thus excluding the people that are just there to take over the event and don't care about the ethics of the event.

All this means that the exhibitors that needed power were using solar power predominantly but there was one wind turbine there too. Had I had the spare cash I would have bought a solar battery charger for my camera batteries, but I didn't have the money as I paid for all the petrol yesterday. But at least I know where I can get one in the future.

There were some useful contacts that I made there, and I learned some new things and you will get to read more later, but for now I want to do some more research to match the efforts that some of the organisations put into their displays and the information they provided.

Well, I need to go and feed myself now, as the with the cat feed and me now newly bathed, I am starving. And that reminds me, one of the other things that I may be doing is joining an Organic Box Service again. I have tried them in the past but often the quality was not good enough. But if the standard of the produce can match what was on display at the festival then I may have found a good one.

A Red Kite Day

Today has been a rather unusual day for me as I had an appointment with a Dentist. As my reader in the UK will know, here in Britain there is a serious shortage of dentists. There are plenty in private practice, but finding one that will accept NHS (National Health Service) patients is dam near impossible. I have been on several waiting lists for all of this century.

Anyway, on Monday I had an initial appointment and because I needed a filling and the Dentist had a cancellation I had this appointment today. On Monday while waiting for the bus early in the morning I could see a Kestrel hovering just over the gardens of the houses bordering the road. If ever I needed something to take my mind off something this was it.

Then Today as I walked down to the bus stop, a pair of Red Kites came wheeling over head. As I stood waiting they were criss crossing the whole expanse of sky, quartering the open ground around the houses of the village. The sight of them put a smile on the face of even the most miserable folk.

It stopped me thinking of Laurence Olivier in the film Marathon Man.

The Dentist was fantastic, for me a test of a good dentist is if he doesn't try to hold a conversation with his fingers poking around in my mouth. I even told him an old joke:

A new patent goes to the dentist after being sat in the chair, the patent grabs hold of the dentists testicles and says “We are not going to hurt each other now, are we?”

With the treatment over I had the best part of a hour to wait for the bus home. Therefore I went and got some shopping. Having just spent the last few days doing my washing, I needed to get some Washing Liquid. As I use the brand Ecover, an environmentally friendly one, I have to make the effort to obtain it. It was as I bought it that someone else from the village saw me and commented on me using this. I don't know what it is about our current culture but people seem to want to us all to be some kind of homogeneous mass?

Even after getting my shopping I still had time on my hands, so I went to a really nice friendly café and indulged in the wonderful home made cake they have and some real coffee. It is something that puzzles me why so few cafés will make the effort to make decent coffee or even decent tea?

When I got back home I went straight out to see if I could film the Red Kites. While they were still about they were up at altitude. They really did seem to be just enjoying the freedom of the open sky. I don't know if it was the dentist or the kites that improved my smile more.

Fuel Efficient Cars, Not in America.

Following my critique of the media, it seems appropriate that I should now praise parts of the media. About a week ago on the radio they were reporting on the fact that American tax payers will soon be getting their tax rebate cheques as part of President Bush's plan to inject billions into the US economy. However the same day, was a comment regarding Ford who have decided that the fuel efficient model Ka, will not be made in or sold to the American market.

The report on the US tax rebates showed that most people were just going to spend this money to pay off bills or fill up on gasoline. All this will do is boost the profits of the oil companies. What make you think hat Bush is an oil man at heart?

While I am fully aware that rising energy costs are hurting Americans, the US people need to acknowledge that they have had incredibly cheap oil for far to long. Had Americans had to pay anywhere close to the costs that the rest of the world pays for petrol, they would not have the problem of everyone driving around in fuel hungry cars and trucks.

This interweaves the other story that Ford are not going to sell or make the fuel efficient model Ka in the US as they don't think Americans will buy them. As they can provide forty five miles per gallon, it makes me wonder what the thinking is behind this decision. Here at the Dagenham plant where Ford makes the car for the European market, they are at full stretch.

This prompted me to start digging. While I was aware that cars in America are marketed upon how macho they are, I had not realised just how deeply this culture was embedded. However, the real scandal is the way that the automotive industry has resisted change. By changing to the much more efficient models made for other markets, companies like ford could cut in half the CO2 emissions from cars immediately. Further, if the US Government were to force the automotive industry to seriously reduce CO2 emissions, this would boost US industry, create jobs and start the US on the road to cooperating with the rest of the world.

The US needs the boost that greening the Economy would bring. All it needs is leadership as well as inventive and creative thinking. What is so stupid about the current US governments approach is that if the US doesn't take action now, the already weak economy will suffer as Oil prices will continue to rise. Therefore, soon people will not be able to afford to buy gasoline at all to fill and drive there cars that will only do nine or ten miles per gallon.

The US government seems determined to support the oil industry by all and any means, even when that support is and will destroy the US economy.

UK Government buys Fifty Billion Pounds of Bad Debt

Last week in the Guardian was a quote from the banking industry that said:

“The banks will now only lend to people who can repay the loan”

That's like saying that the banks will only employ people that know the difference their Elbow from there... well you know the rest of the phrase!

No other business, industry could, or would, expect the government to bail it out when it made a loss. Further while the banks keep all of their profits when they make them, it will be the tax payer that picks up the tab for all these losses. The UK government has just knowingly bought fifty billion pounds worth of bad debts from the banks. So it is the tax payer that will have to pay for this stupid and reckless lending.

There will be some people that disagree with me, but providing a mortgage of 125% of the value of a property is reckless. While for people struggling to afford to buy a home a loan that allowed the buyer to obtain the property and furnish it may have seemed like a blessing. But that thinking is based upon the assumption that house prices would only go up. While looking at the historical data many people could be forgiven for thinking that was the case, however looking at all the other data should have alerted people to the fact that house prices were artificially high.

There has been direct and deliberate manipulation of the housing market. Builders who have been providing false price and sales data to the Land Registry. Estate Agents who have been manipulating prices by not passing on details of lower offers. Charted Surveyors, the valuers that are not given work unless they provide valuations that match the asking price. All reported in the media over the past five years, but no one wanted to take notice. Thus the value of property has been kept artificially high by direct and deliberate price manipulation add to that the irresponsible gambling by the banks all added to the artificially inflated value of properties.

Then there is the role of the government, for the last ten years and more, the economy has only been growing by promoting consumer spending via borrowing. This has lead to the average person owing more than twenty thousand pounds in personal debt. Yet like any borrowing it now has to be paid back.

While this situation is far from ideal, it is far from a crisis. While it will be difficult for some people, and people don't need to panic. While the paper value of your home has fallen and it will continue to fall, as long as you keep up repayments you will not loose your home. Again while it will be hard, pay off those credit cards and only spend the spare income you have. Look at not replacing all the toys and gadgets that litter your home. Unless a vehicle is vital for work, if you can use public transport or cycle to work, sell the car or cars.

Eventually, once those debts are cleared you will be better off not only financially, but you will have developed a real sense of value of the chattels you own.

This is all part of a change that I have been foreseeing for years. The endless growth of the economy, in the way that it has been occurring, had to end. Where growth will happen now will be in rebuilding of the infrastructure that really matters.

These events are the start of the real green revolution the planet has been waiting for. With the increases in the cost of living that is happening and will continue, the need for people to tighten their belts, will reduce the spending on environmentally damaging activities, such as the rampant consumerism and flippant global travel. With less money to spend on luxury goods like TVs or iPods or any number of manufactured items, we will see less damage to the environment occurring. It will not happen over night, but these events are the start of us humans being re-educated about what really matters.

While events yet to happen will still show us that we need to work with the environment and not against it, the people that start to adapt now will have a head start. This includes using your spare time to grow at least some of your own food. Be this some salad crops in pots on the window seal or two or three neighbours sharing an allotment, you will need to grow at least some of your own food. Food prices are going up and quite soon, this year or next, growing some of your own food will become vital.

The cost of energy will continue to rise, especially petrol (Gas). So learning to do away with the car will become essential. Not having a car will save you at least two thousand five hundred pounds per year, and that excludes the cost of using it. While this is not going to be realistic for everyone, it will be the people that can give up their cars that will cope with the changes that are coming.

There will be people who read this and think this is mostly a lot of nonsense, but weather events will seriously impact food and energy over the next ten to twenty years. This will seriously and adversely effect the conventional economy. Further, the sudden influx of seawater from rising sea levels will disrupt our ability to travel.

The choices we all make now will effect how well we as individuals, our families cope with the changes that have already started.

Food and Population Follow up - Plan A? Or Plan B?

Following my posting about Food shortages and Population growth, a rather interesting comment was made. Sometimes when I am writing about something I feel so passionately about, I can occasionally say something that is not as clear as intended. Often as I am writing a stream of conciousness, although many of my readers may say that is more a stream of unconsciousness, I don't always provide the clarity that I aim for.

Additionally, I do try to hard to be diplomatic at times. This posting and the comment are a classic example. Personally, I think that as a result of Climate Change, there will not be the projected increase in the global population. In fact I we will soon start to see population decline. That will be as a direct result of food shortages giving rise to famine and to put it bluntly, people starving to death. This is not alarmist as it is already happening. This occurs not from lack of food, but from poverty. As I stated in my previous posting, eight hundred and fifty million people will not get enough food today. That is nearly three times the population of the USA, or over fourteen time the population of the UK. The reason for choosing these two countries as examples is that in both enough food per day is thrown away that would feed the underfed the under nourished and the starving. I thank my contact in the UN for clarify the situation in the US.

Now if we cant feed the world now, how can we hope to feed the a growing population? Add in to that the difficulties of a changing climate and the whole concept of a population reaching nine billion looks impossible.

Put quite simply without the political will to distribute food fairly now, the population will not grow as fast as projections estimate. In the natural world food and water is the limiting factor regarding population size. Therefore without the food or the capacity to grow the food the human population will never reach the projected twelve billion humans on the planet. Personally, the way that we in the west are dealing with the problem will result in the global population falling. In nature, no population like ours can be sustained. Further in biology, any cell or group of cells that grows out of control is called a cancer. Is that the way humanity wants to be remembered, as a cancer on the planet?

That brings me on to the main are that I need to provide clarification on. Currently in the developing world there is a crisis brought about by HIV/AIDS. So many of the solutions that the western developed world has proposed or has been prepared to fund, involve preaching abstinence. I use the word preaching quite deliberately, as while intellectually I can see that if we got the whole world to stop having sex would stop HIV/AIDS, it is just not going to happen. Via this naïve and frankly ridiculous policy, inspired by religious morality, it has condemned millions in Africa alone to grow up with out parents. In some parts of Africa the HIV+ rate is as high as forty percent of the adult population. Had the religious busy bodies kept their noses out, we would have seen twenty years of good family planing, far lower rates of infection not just of HIV+ but of other STD and lower birth rates.

While I am not saying that family planning is the only solution here, for the last twenty years the interference from religious groups has done more harm than good in providing development to the countries of Africa. Yet where non judgemental healthcare and education has occurred, in Africa and Asia, it has not only helped stem the spread of HIV infections it has helped reduce the birth rate.

The one aspect that all of the NGOs (Non Governmental Organisations) agree on though is that educating women really helps. Even organisations like Oxfam, the UN Food and Health programmes and many others don't fully understand why, but it seems that by even teaching women something as basic as the ability to read and write, helps empower women to access information regarding women's health issues and in particular information regarding family planning. That helps reduce the size of the families. Put simply the fewer children the families have the lower the financial cost. Further, there is also lower child mortality rates in the families where the woman has been educated.

We in the Western developed world just don't realise just how easy we have it, and just how difficult it is in other parts of our planet. However the real point is, that had we not tried to impose our morality upon other people and cultures, it is possible that we would not now be facing the projected growth of planets population to such unsustainable levels.

While I am not advocating any form of forced population control, if people in the developing world were provided with the education and choice, most would use family planning as they see it as the most sustainable way out of poverty there is.

The trouble is so far we have not even tried plan A so no one has thought of a Plan B.

Global Food System Must Change Population and Food

Here is a mind boggling fact;

There are more human beings alive on the planet today then have ever lived in the whole of human existence.

Human population is the elephant in the room when it comes to climate change and the environment. Not least in the moral abhorrent image of genocide sparked by raising the issue. Thus, very few governments, will actually even discuss the issue. Or when they do they only talk about it in economic terms, such as the so called demographic time bomb. That's where with an ageing population, there are fears that we will not have enough new workers entering the job market to pay the taxes that will enable a government to pay for the health and social services. Even then it is only in terms of increasing the population further.


This prospective of only seeing people as economic units, consumers and or as producers is very short sighted. As quite simply a constantly growing population requires more resources: Food, Water, Shelter and Warmth. These are the basics of life, no matter if you live in the developed world or in the developing world. The problem is that at a global population of six and a half billion we cant get this right, so how are we going to cope with nine billion? Or even the twelve billion that is the expected peek?

I have constantly tried to write a posting on this topic of population growth, but I kept on getting sidetracked. I now understand why, it is simply that I can not see it happening. It is not that I can envisage that many people on the planet, but that I can not see how the this can happen without the already stressed natural systems breaking down.

Even if you take out of the equation the likely effects of a changing climate, the two key elements are food and water. Water and food poverty are already serious issues around the planet. People are already starving, 850 million people will not have enough food to eat today. With another two or three billion mouths to feed, how will we grow that food?

Already the over use of non organic chemical fertilisers has created a run off into the oceans creating dead zones. Therefore, if we expand yields by this method, it will only work in the short term. Add to that the very real problem of expanding deserts, water scarcity and degraded soils, then that too will prevent the planet from expanding its food production to meet this growing population. Further, the way we are polluting the seas, as well as over fishing them, we will lose that resource as a means of feeding people too.

Now if you then add in the effects of global warming, an already mind numbing situation starts to look like a disaster. Even if we only add in the most conservative effects of Climate Change, drought from the loss of the mountain glaciers, coastal flooding causing salinity of the farming land around the worlds coasts, and hotter dryer summers combined with sudden flood events, the problem of water becomes obvious.

Already, there are problems with food shortages. The effects of Climate Change are reducing yields of important food crops already. Wheat, Corn and Rice. This is provoking food riots among the poor around the world. This is happening now, so how much worse will it be if we have a population of nine billion?

Quite simply we will face refugees fleeing famine.

This is why I can not see that level of population ever occurring. We are just to selfish and wasteful to provide an equitable distribution food around the world today, so how can we feed another three billion people?

Here is another fact that should shock people. Here in the UK every day eight million pounds worth of food is thrown out. Exclude the environmental cost of shipping in and then throwing out all that food, and you still have enough food discarded to feed all of the under nourished around the world.

The one key fact that I have learnt about providing good development is that education is vital. Further, educating women is the cornerstone of good development policy. As well as the simple fact that women in most of the world are the food growers and providers, but educating women empowers them to have greater control of their bodies. Put quite simply educated women have fewer children. Additionally, providing an education to women has been proven by the Non Government Agencies, charities providers of aid and education, is the most effective route out of poverty for most families. However, there is another factor in this equation that of religious and social taboos regarding sex. This became most apparent in the fight to stop the spread of AIDS/HIV.

Rather than enable the use of Condoms, religious leaders would advocate abstinence. While that may sound a reasonable way forward to many people, it actually ignores the reality of cultural differences and the way that women are still treated as property.

I have spoken before of my repugnance of the policy of people like Bush who will not fund any development project that enables the use of Condoms or provides education regarding family planning. However it is not just George W, there are almost all the religious leaders; Christian, Muslim etc., who are promoting this form of keeping women oppressed and keeping people in poverty

If we are to even start tackling this crisis of over population then we really need to start tackling poverty head on.

I don't see the future as a desperate one. We can make the future better for all, what is needed is the political will.

Global Food System Must Change

The Credit Crunch

As my regular reader may remember, when I had to move home several months ago, I railed about the obscenely inflated prices that people were asking for as rent. Back then long before the “Credit Crunch” occurred, I was forewarning of that impending situation.

Here in the UK our whole economy has been driven by a perceived, paper, rise in the value of property. When in fact house and property prices were at their peek more than five years ago. This has meant that in the UK millions of people have borrowed money against the perceived value of their home to live the high life. Now the proverbial chickens are coming home to roost.

Now I don't blame the individuals for this, the fault lays with the banks who have been fuelling the perceived rise in house prices by giving 125% mortgages. The estate agents who earn more money by keeping the markets artificially high. But the biggest villain here is the government who has fuelled the housing market by constantly saying that there is a shortage of houses.

As all this talk of a shortage boosted house prices, and created the illusion that here in the UK we had more money in the British economy, this enabled the government and politicians to create the illusion of an ever expanding economy.

Firstly we need to nail the myth that there is a shortage of housing, there is NOT! Even in London and the South East where the pressures are greatest, twenty five percent of the homes are unoccupied. In other parts of the country its as much as forty percent. The difficulty is one of price, one of value. With the perception of property values rising, as well as a perceived shortage, landlords and letting agents would hold out for much higher rents. Sometimes they got them, but more often than not the landlords who jumped into the Buy to Let market only made any money when they sold the property. However the important aspect here is that because of the difficulty of finding affordable accommodation it energised the myth of a shortage of homes.

Even some banks could see the reality of the situation and nearly three years ago the Santana Group who owns Abbey National stopped lending on some types of property citing market manipulation. Meaning that properties were be sold at inflated prices.

Therefore this whole situation was foreseeable and predictable. Further the majority of the banks were involved in this nonsensical lending. If any bank or financial institution lends at more than one hundred percent of the value of an asset, it risks getting burnt. And while much of this has been blamed on the American Sub Prime market, here in the UK we need to take our share of the blame for what we have done.

In the UK personal debt stands at over one trillion pounds. That is one trillion pounds of future earnings or income that has been spent on a consumer driven spending spree. While some people will have borrowed money to invest on assets, the majority has been been wasted on; Clothes, Holidays, Electronic gadgets, Drinking, the list could go on. While this consumer binge may have kept the money circulating in the economy, like any over indulgence, the price now needs to be paid.

The majority of house prices will halve, and the sooner this happens the better as then we can start to house all the people who need accommodation and we can start to get the economy rebuilt.

While it will be difficult for many people, this situation could enable so many people to learn to be less wasteful and to value what they have, not to keep on dreaming of the latest fashionable must have.

Pleasing My Bank Manager by being Green

When I was a vegetarian, a diet that I had for twenty-five years, when people discovered this the inevitable question was what do you eat came next. Initially I would always try to enlighten people that a vegetarian diet was very varied and interesting. However, I quickly realised that what they were really trying to discover was if I was some sort of hypocrite. Did I wear leather? Did I eat fish? And all that. Those that were genuinely interested, I found it far easier to cook them a meal and share good food with them to show that vegetarian food was far from boring or bland.

I expected others to be that honest with me when I planed on opening an Organic food shop. While I needed to make a living from it, I also wanted to show that Organic produce need not be that expensive. In fact I matched the prices of non organic produce in the supermarkets most of the time. However, I soon discovered that most of the people who were saying they would buy Organic if they could get it cheaper, were full of hot air. It was never the price that stops them its the effort they need to put into washing the mud of a few carrots that really was the issue.

Further, most of these avowed environmentalists would happily drive several miles to a store where the seller was flogging cheap imported, short dated chemically enhanced food. I know as I went there and saw twenty of my customers there stocking up on the very produce the said they wanted to avoid.

That experience allows me to understand why it is that here I get criticised for advocating saving energy, yet embracing technology. While it is true that all the electronic gadgets I use do rely on energy, electricity, I have also chosen well.

My Computer is reasonably energy efficient, also I turn it off when its not in use. That includes turning off the plugs at the mains. Also, my digital cameras rely on batteries. I use rechargeable batteries, that greatly reduces waste and means that using them has a lower carbon footprint than would the case if I were using disposable batteries.

Equally the equipment I have bought is predominantly second hand, thus reducing the environmental impact of its manufacture and helping reduce the amount of waste going off to landfill.

So while I am used to being criticised by the ignorant, this week I had proof that my efforts were working. I received my energy bill for the winter quarter. I will point out that I had paid more than I needed on the previous bill, but even I was pleased to see that it was only Forty pounds and thirty pence.

While I am careful about what energy I do use, I don't skimp on my creature comforts either. I keep my home warm, I don't scrabble around in the dark, well not in the house. One of the things that I always find surprising is just how hot people have their houses in winter. Often their homes are hotter than outdoor summer temperatures. Now I know that because I am often out in the cold, my personal tolerance for the cold is higher than most people, but I am sure that most people could halve their energy bills by simple conservation measures.

Well I at least know that I have done my best to reduce my environmental impact, and it has made my bank manager happy too.

Not A Green Budget

While there were a couple of measures in the Budget that could be seen as “Green”, these measures are more about raising revenue than attempting to benefit the environment. The greatest obstacle is this obsession with growth.

The growth of an economy by measuring the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a seriously blunt instrument. Further, even most economists don't understand how or what elements of the economy go towards making up this measure. Put simply, it measures the total earnings of all individuals, the businesses and the government in the country. Now if we were just talking about people, businesses and government departments just buying goods and services then as a measure it would be useful. However as it also measures many negative aspects of life that money get spent on, it fails to show the real state of any economy.

The problem is that if there is a spate of arson, the cost of rebuilding the properties gets measured as does the increase in insurance premiums. This all makes it look as though the economy is growing, as if you lose everything in a house fire say you then have to spend more on refurnishing your new abode. However the GDP fails to measure the losses of the original property.

Looking at an environmental prospective; even shutting down an industry that was heavily polluting adds a paper benefit to the economy as the costs of clearing up the pollution gets seen as a benefit to the economy.

The economists have the same mindset as the people I challenge for dropping litter. The people who toss rubbish in the street, will often say that they are keeping the road cleaners employed.

Therefore the economists and politicians see growth as useful measure but fail to see that a shrinking economy can be equally as good if not better. If the shrinking was due to high unemployment then that would be bad. But if there was a downturn that was caused by the majority of office workers working from home, utilising the internet and telecommunications to do the same work and no longer having to travel to a place of work, the losses would occur in the daily cost of travel for those individuals. While there would be less money spent on petrol that would impact the oil companies and allied businesses, the benefits will also be less congestion delaying the essential journeys, less pollution to cause breathing problems and expenditure on health care.

All this could happen using existing technology, and that shrinking of the GDP would benefit all but a few vested interests.

This is just one example of where a shrinking could be a real benefit to the overall economy. If everyone who can grew their own vegetables, that would mean that there was less money spent in the supermarkets as well as the reduction in the cost of health care from improved diet and better exercise. The trouble is that activities like this, in the eyes of the economists, are not seen to benefit the economy in ways that can be measured.

Staying with the environment, growth in personal transport is seen as good for the economy. As well as greater volume in car sales benefiting manufacturing and the suppliers of the fuel, the conventional economists prospective fails to take account of the costs that go with this. Like congestion extending the time required to travel anywhere, or the effects of pollution on health. In fact these extra costs are seen as benefiting the GDP as more money is spent on these.

It is this drive for growth that is damaging the environment and stopping any real growth in the quality of life.

This method of only looking at the world purely in terms of its monetary value is at the core of most of the problems we have today. Environmentally where the worlds forests are only valued in terms of the economic earnings from the timber, and not in the way that these forests hold back rainwater, preventing flooding and providing drinking water.

Additionally this fixation on growth of GDP means that important tasks in our societies become undervalued. Here in the UK while the cost of childcare is expensive the wages for the people who work in childcare is very low. This leads to people who would be the best people to care for children, will move on to better paid jobs. Yet caring for the next generation should be one of the most valued tasks in life. Yet people who trade in financial derivatives get paid small fortunes even for doing their job badly.

Equally there needs to be a change to fair trade. While the concept of free trade may sound the right way to carry out commerce, free trade is in fact exploitation. It is based upon paying the least you can for any resource and selling it for the maximum price you can get. While that may earn businesses or individuals good profits, it also creates volatility in the market. That is why crude oil has hit record highs yet again. At the time of writing oil is 110 US dollars per barrel while it only costs 20 US dollars to produce. Yet the free market also means that livestock farmers in the UK and the US are struggling to make any profits as it is cheaper to ship in meat from halfway around the world. Even excluding the environmental cost, this free trading creates the situation where the UK and the US are placing themselves at risk of being held hostage over food supplies. If we loose the ability to feed ourselves we are venerable to any number of situations that could disrupt international transport.

Fair trade has the effect of ensuring a stable price, for the farmer and prevents inflation. While it does prevent spectacular profits, it stops the exploitation. Further, by stabilising supply there is less risk of starvation occurring.

Fair trade not only applies to food, when applied to all areas of commerce the consumer gets a better standard of product that's safer and lasts longer. The manufactures also get a better price, leading to better wages and less environmental impacts. Less resources wasted, Less energy used, fewer good transported around the world.

We need to start looking for alternative economic solutions. For example if everyone who is unemployed were provided with an allotment to grow some of their own food, we would reduce the cost of unemployment. However, I am a realist and know that most of the unemployed would not make the effort.

Just as I know that no government will really start to tackle climate change until we have the levels of the seas rising.

Climate Change not to blame for Summer Flooding - Who are you trying to kid

In the summer during 2007 parts of the UK suffered from flooding in what a new report from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) were the result of record breaking rainfall.

Now I wonder if they were assisted by the University of the Bleeding Obvious!

This whole report is pure propaganda to down play the effects of climate change. While not totally ruling out climate change, they say that we have not had enough extreme events to say if climate change is the cause.

Now as I sit here writing this we in the UK are facing another storm with winds of eighty miles an hour, the third in a row and only days after the last one, I am left wondering what it will take to convince people of the reality of what we have done to our planet. Yes winter storms happen, but this is supposed to be Spring. Wet summers do happen but as summer floods are supposed to be once in fifty year events, we can see no more summer flooding for next half a millennium can we?

We have, under Gordon Brown, a prime minister who pays lip service to the environment, but follows policies that will further damage the environment and our climate. The economic damage of not tackling this problem will be even greater than the investment in the solutions.

But we need to pull our heads out of the sand and see what is really happening.

The News Story

Local Wind Turbines - Not In My Back Yard

Tuesday night I had to go down the local pub. I say had to; (its a difficult life here) as I had to collect my eggs from a local man who keeps chickens and this ensures I get fresh free range eggs. As I was still excited by my observation of the Red Kites courting flight, I was able to share my enthusiasm for this.

While I realise that I do risk being seen as the Pub Bore, I try to be careful that I don't alienate people. Recently a good friend asked if I see peoples eyes glaze over at the mention of Climate Change, well as my eyes glaze over if I have to mention it... I just cant understand why people don't get it. So while I told a couple of people, I was surprised that many people then started to come over and ask about the Kites. Locally, people are really proud of the Red Kites and their success.

However, something happened that surprised me, one of my local readers, told me he could fix my other video camera. He described exactly how the fault manifests its self, so that gives me confidence. When I took the camera to get repaired previously I had been told it would cost a small fortune. However, it could be that it will be relatively cheep to fix. So I am considering the offer.

One of the other things that occurred was that I was furnished with some useful information about some local wildlife. While I can find the local wildlife myself, good local knowledge can save a lot of wasted effort.

I also got the chance to have a look at the local paper, there was a report about the possibility of four wind turbines being constructed locally. However much of the report was about opposition to the proposal. What appalled me was that all of the reasons that the opposition were putting forward were nonsense. It was a real NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) attitude.

In the past this area was built on Iron and Steel, Consett was a steel town and my village of Chopwell was created by the Consett Iron company purely to mine coal to make coke for smelting Iron and Steel. When the blast furnaces were closed in the 1980s it caused a lot of financial deprivation. However it really boosted the environment. The River Derwent is only as clean as it is because of the fact that these industries are now gone.

So for the NIMBYs to claim that four turbines is a return to industrialisation is nonsense. While some impact will occur, it will not be polluting. The other main objection was that it will effect the Red Kites who are nesting. While the Red Kites do venture to that area occasionally, none of the Red Kites are nesting anywhere near the site of the proposed turbines. They are at least five miles away.

While I feel that turbines need to be sited sensitively so that they don't cause environmental damage, we need the power they generate. I doubt that any of these NIMBYs will be willing to give up their cars or are prepared to suffer power cuts.

While I know that four turbines will not in themselves solve climate change, it is the accumulative effect of many small local projects that will have the greatest impact.

A failure to reduce CO2

Just after the new year I calculated my carbon footprint, and I came out as producing up to five and half tonnes of carbon dioxide. I say up to as it depended upon what site I visited and it ranged from two and half tonnes to four and half tonnes using these sites. However I did my own calculations and included all the hidden CO2 that these sites often exclude and five and half tonnes is a figure that I would say is most accurate.

That is more than half of the average in Britain and nearly a fifth of the average American who emits a whopping twenty-five tonnes of CO2 per year.

Therefore I know that I am doing as much as I can to use only what I need. If I had more money I know I could do more. There are no convenient outlets to buy local food for me. Those that are around require me to travel there adding to my travel and carbon costs. Add to that often the price of produce at the Farmers markets etc is extortionate. While I am prepared to pay for quality, the prices are not reflective of any fair trade. The farmers criticise the supermarkets for excessive profits and can have mark ups of four or five hundred percent upon the price that the farmer gets paid. So why then is it right for farmers to then try charging, in some cases, double the price the supermarkets charge?

Equally I am trying really hard to not use plastic bags or any plastic packaging at all. But it is nearly impossible to buy goods without loads of plastic. As one of the shops in the UK, Marks & Spencer's announces that its going to start charging for plastic bags as a way of reducing the 1700,000,000 that we in the UK use each year, it makes me realise just how far we have to move to stop the effects of pollution and climate change.

Therefore, it did not surprise me that the big switch off day produced no noticeable effect. Those people like me who take climate change seriously are already doing what they can. And while locally I have helped a small number of people towards reducing their energy bills, I know that none of them would have done anything if it had not been for a hike in gas and electricity costs here. Further not one of them really cares about the environment.

Even many of the people who say they care about the environment and global warming still drive cars and must have their holidays in the sun, taking flights, as well as consuming all the latest gadgets. These people loose their concern for our planet as soon as it starts to impact upon their way of life or their freedom to pollute.

Then there is the hard core majority that don't care at all. Or delude themselves that some technological fix will come along and we can do all the things we have always done, and us environmentalists are just doom and gloom merchants.

While I am a pragmatist and realise that we do need lighting heat and power, there is so much that we could be doing. Take plastic bags as one example; around the globe we use one point two trillion of these per year. If we stopped using plastic bags that would save the equivalent of twelve million flights from Heathrow London to JFK New York. That's 12,000,000 all those zeros. That simple action alone would save well over four hundred million tonnes of CO2 per year.

Recently I have been talking to a tree about Low energy light bulbs. She posted on her Blog about mercury vapour in the bulbs. I pointed out that the amount was minuscule and there is no real danger from them, yet products like these need to be recycled and disposed of properly. However, the real point is we all need light and as these bulbs are much more energy efficient we should all be using them. As well as turning off lights that are not needed.

It will not be until we clearly see the effects of Climate Change that the majority of people will even start to take action. By then it will be to late. Sir David King the former chief scientist in the UK said that Global Warming was a greater threat than Terrorism, on that he was spot on.
The reality is that unless we all stop polluting we will all suffer. Not only that we will make our children suffer. While there are many projects that are aimed at reducing CO2 emissions, we all need to reduce our CO2 emissions by changing our behaviour.

Further reading on the switch off day

Japanese Whaling

Even before the Japanese started their latest round of so called “Scientific” whaling, I wanted to post something about it. However, in the back of my memory I recalled a fact that seemed to be overlooked in all the reports on whaling. Back in 1988 there was in fact no moratorium on whaling, I repeat there was no moratorium agreed. What in fact happened was that a quota of zero was agreed.

While this may appear to be a pedantic point, in terms of the legal validity of what the Japanese are and have been doing it is quite important. This was the aspect that I wanted to check, as while I am seen just as a blogger, I feel that its important that I, as a citizen journalist, apply the same rigorous standards to my postings as would any other publication. Therefore it took me some time to confirm what was actually agreed. While the effect of a zero quota has effectively been to stop commercial whaling, it did leave the back door open to the farce that is “Scientific” whaling.

The actions of the Japanese though, will finally close that loophole.

Even in the pro whaling nations like Norway and Iceland, while there is a macho nationalistic view in favour of still being allowed to kill whales, there is in fact no market for whale meat. Changing tastes and markets mean that in Norway and Iceland, the boats that are doing their “Scientific” whaling cant do it commercially. What that means is there is no market for the meat from the whales they catch scientifically. I told you it was a farce! Even the Norwegian fisheries minister agreed last year in an interview that fact.

Therefore we can all be grateful to the Australian government who filmed the barbaric killing of a mother and calf minke whale. This footage will be used in a legal challenge to the Japanese, and we all hope will stop whaling once and for all.

The irony is that had Japan not gone off and hunted whales in the Internationally protected area of Antarctica, then it was likely that a vote by the IWC (International Whaling Commission) would have restarted commercial whaling in coastal and territorial waters. The actions of the Japanese have now turned the world against them and commercial whaling.

Photo courtesy of Greenpeace

Processed Food Is Causing Tropical Deforestation

While the link to quality food, supermarkets processed foods, deforestation and climate change is not in the forefront of many peoples minds, the link is a direct one.

The food industry will always use the cheapest ingredients it can source. While there is the obvious link regarding the miles that food travels, however the more damaging problem is in fact regarding the use of palm oil in almost all processed foods. The economics are simple, palm oil, freshly processed from Indonesia sells for less than .09 pence (20 cents US) per kilo. Thus as would any business, the food industry uses palm oil by the tonne (many million tonnes), as a way of maximising profits. Something that all businesses are legally required to do for the benefit of shareholders.

While all the talk in the media has been about palm oil as a bio-fuel, an alternative to petrol and diesel. What people are failing to recognise is that there already is a very high demand for palm oil from the food industry. Also it has to be said, most soap is made with palm oil. The brand Palmolive takes his name quite simply from the fact that it is made from 90per cent Palm Oil and ten percent Olive Oil. I am not singling out that particular brand as almost all soap is made using Palm Oil.

Therefore, in relation to climate change, the bio-fuel industry will have a tough time sourcing enough palm oil. While this commodity pressure should be good prices, the reverse is actually the reality. This is because vast areas of rain forest is being felled and replanted with palm oil. In Borneo half of the rain forest has been lost in the last fifteen years. While some NGOs are saying that this has happened in the last ten years, but I am quoting and relying on official figures here.
While the governments of Borneo and Papa New Guinea, are trying to stop this happening the planters are getting in the illegal loggers and clearing the land. It has also happened by burning down the forest, but as the timber can be sold even as illegally felled timber, the companies that create the plantations are creating clear land. The governments then agree to this now cleared land being planted with palm oil.

This is creating an oversupply, that is depressing the price of the palm oil. Additionally because of the loss of government revenues from managed and sustainable logging that the illegal logging, it is no wonder that the governments agree to these new plantations being established. These are developing countries who do not have the resources to replant the forests.

There are other financial and social impacts from the use of palm oil by the western food industry. As many of the peoples that live on and around the land where the plantations are established are predominantly creating and deriving their livelihoods from the forests, they loose their means of existence. Often these indigenous peoples are not earning money or generating monies by this hunting and gathering, their needs are ignored. However, without their traditional lives, they then become a burden on the state as they become jobless even homeless.

This is the reality of our so called cheap food in the UK and the west. Furthermore we already have many other fats and oils that could be used in manufacturing these processed foods are available. Olive oil, Grape seed oil are but two and they are considered beneficial for health. They are not used not because they are drastically more expensive but because they can not be manipulated to greatly extend shelf life. That also raises a question about how fresh our food really is, but I may tackle that at a later date. However, with all the problems of obesity that we face in the western world, in my mind at least it makes me wonder if the prolific use of palm oil in our foods is part of the problem? That said what is clear is that precessed food is a significant contributing factor in deforestation.

While this posting has focused upon the unknown or ignored aspects of why our food industry and our eating habits are significantly adding to deforestation, and our changing climate, as in Borneo deforestation is placing the Orang-utan at serious risk of extinction. All this as a direct result of our demand for palm oil. Climate change affects us all, in ways that most people don't understand or realise, from the poor displaced peoples in Indonesia to the rise in obesity in the west. That is why conservation is really important for all our futures.

As climate change is a reality we all need to send signals to the food industry and stop them supporting, indirectly, illegal logging and directly other unethical business practises.