NEWSLETTER MAY 2004
CLIMATE CHANGE
It's Getting Hot in Here
Climate change is back on the political agenda with a
vengeance. Last month, Tony Blair helped launch a new international organisation,
The Climate Group, with an impressive array of business leaders from both
sides of the Atlantic in support. Government caps on pollution from industry
have been announced so that carbon trading can finally begin and Tony Blair
has stated that he intends to make climate change, along with Africa, his
big project for chairmanship of the G8 group of leading industrial countries
next year. These events followed on from reports predicting that the UK was
facing catastrophic floods over the next 80 years. The big question is: Will
he maintain this stance in the face of pressure from the Confederation of
British Industry, who are already whinging that too strict caps on pollution
would damage competitiveness, and Big Brother George Bush. The attempted gagging
of Sir David King, the Prime Minister's chief scientist, after he made outspoken
comments about Bush's policy(!) on climate change suggest that the strings
are still being pulled from the other side of the Atlantic.The science of
Global Warming is no longer the obstacle in this campaign. Everyone , with
any credibility, agrees that gases such as Carbon Dioxide, Methane and oxides
of Nitrogen are trapping heat in the atmosphere. The problem, as ever, remains
co-ordinating the political will, or in some cases creating the political
will (take a bow George Bush), to prevent the current situation deteriorating
further and to cope with the problems we have already created. See inside
for the likely consequences for us if we carry on as we are at present and
what YOU can do to prevent them.
”Climate change presents serious challenges
for the South-East; many of the impacts on the UK will be most pronounced
in our region.”
Mark Goldthorpe
Programme Manager, South-East Climate Change Partnership.
GM CROPS
Going Round in (Crop) Circles
The government still intends to keep the GM door open.
But it has nowhere near resolved many thorny issues that individually or cumulatively
may trip it up, seriously delaying planting or making GM practically impossible
to grow.
1 The crop
The only crop in the British pipeline was Chardon LL
(Liberty Link) T25, a maize developed by GM company Bayer to be tolerant tobeing
sprayed with its best-selling herbicide, Liberty, and to be fed only to animals.
But Bayer have now decided to withdraw Chardon LL, claiming that the conditions
imposed by the government were too strict. This is ironic, considering the
lengths the UK government went to to approve the crop, with question marks
over the marketing consent Bayer received for the crop, based as they were
on only one feeding study on chickens with none carried out on cattle.
2 The politics
The government must persuade a sceptical Scottish executive
and a hostile Welsh assembly to accept GM crops. Both countries have the power
to block acceptance and are being lobbied fiercely by environmental groups
which argue that they stand to gain economically by remaining GM-free. Wales
has already voted overwhelmingly to be GM-free.
3 Insurance
No British company wants to cover the risk of GM crops
polluting non-GM crops - an inevitability, according to all scientific studies.
The risk of litigation is real, and not just from organic farmers who stand
to be put out of business. In the US, a GM maize called Starlink was approved
for animal feed, but made its way into tortillas. Courts made awards of over
$100m, including $6m to individuals who said they had suffered allergic reactions.
The National Farmers’ Union hopes insurers will offer lower premiums to non-GM
growers who take precautions. The government wants all farmers to take out
insurance, but the industry refuses to underwrite the risks. No farmer will
plant until this is resolved.
4 The distances
The biotech industry has voluntary guidelines setting
distances between GM and other crops but these are widely regarded as hopelessly
inadequate. Research shows that fodder maize can cross-pollinate plants up
to 800m away and that under certain conditions, can travel miles. The government
can, but does not have to, set statutory distances. Government advisers argue
that it should, but this would leave it financially and legally exposed if
pollination occurs beyond the recommended distances. Even 800m seems far too
small a distance when you consider that, under the right weather conditions,
much heavier grains of sand from as far away as the Sahara desert can be deposited
on the UK.
5 The law
Conservative MP Gregory Barker, supported by Friends
of the Earth, has introduced a Private Member’s GM Bill that would set stringent
separation distances to prevent cross-contamination, a strict liability code
and would force industry to compensate farmers affected. Many believe the
Bill would make it impractical to grow most GM crops. It will be debated in
Parliament next month but is unlikely to get government backing.
6 The retailers
The Chardon maize will feed cattle and will not be on
sale to the public, but supermarkets are coming under pressure to refuse to
sell dairy products from cows that are fed on GM products. Only Marks &
Spencer has agreed to this policy so far, but Greenpeace believes that if
just one more caves in, the rest will follow - rendering the crop ungrowable.
Last month, protesters, dressed as pantomime cows, invaded Sainsbury’s flagship
outlet in Greenwich, and promises were made that many others would be targeted.
7 The public
The government plans a major campaign to swing public
opinion, which is largely against GM products, and will be lobbying its friends
in the food and drink industry. The push could easily backfire as the anti-GM
lobby fights back.
8 Democracy
The government will have to counter the growing number
of regions applying direct to the EC to become GM-free zones. Some parts of
Austria applied last year but failed because they tried to get protection
under the Treaty of Rome. Legal advice for Friends of the Earth, however,
suggests that if regions apply under the Deliberate Release Directive ,they
are more likely to succeed. So far, 40 British counties, unitary authorites,
one national park and many district councils have voted to prevent GM being
grown on land that they control. Half of these are likely to go on to apply
for complete GM-free status. Hundreds of regions, communities and districts
in mainland Europe are also exploring ways to legally stop the crops being
grown and are exchanging information and strategies.
9 The anti-GM lobby
The first farmers who grow the crop will become targets
of the 2,500 activists who have pledged to destroy the crops or support those
who do. While there will be no public register of GM farms, protesters believe
it will not be hard to identify growers or to deter the vast majority.
Reproduced, with additions, from the Guardian 25/2/04
Recently, Monsanto announced that it would abandon plans
to develop genetically modified wheat anywhere in the world. This is
despite investing years and hundreds of millions of dollars into researching
and developing wheat to be resistant to its own Round-Up pesticide. Massive
consumer resistance to GM crops in Europe and Japan have meant that the Canadian
and American farmers growing the crop would have had very little export market
making the crop commercially unviable. Monsanto have also announced that
they are pulling out of developing GM oil seed rape in Australia and sugar
beet in Europe (with Syngenta). This is yet another massive blow for the GM
industry and comes hot on the heels of the Spanish government withdrawing
the consent for Syngentas Bt Corn, the only GM crop being commercially grown
in Europe, because of fears that it could lead to anti-biotic resistant super
bugs, and Bayer backing out of growing GM crops in Britain
(SchNEWS 448).
GM Campaign Achievements
Here’s a brief summary of the anti-GM campaign achievements over the last
12 months: At the government’s “GM public debate” last summer 86% of those
participating said they did not want GM foods. There were accusations of the
debate being hijacked by the W.I. (SIC!) (Paramilitary wing no doubt! Ed.).
A group of people who had not taken part and were neither pro or anti-GM were
found to have more and more reservations about GM the more they learnt about
it. The supermarkets are responding to consumers by extending their anti-GM
policies. The Co-op and Marks and Spencer have gone furthest in this. With
this newsletter you will receive a form to fill in and hand to your supermarket
manager (or customer services). Please ask them to forward it to their head
office. If you manage to never shop at supermarkets, good for you! If you
have no form, you should have already received one, hand delivered.
The US, Canada and Argentina are having a legal dispute
with the European Union through the World Trade Organisation over our ‘negative’
attitude to GM crops which they see as a barrier to their trade. They reckon
they’ve lost £1 billion over the last 6 years through the EU not importing
any of their tasty GM foods. They also think that the recently implemented
(18th April 2004) new EU GM labelling regulations are a barrier to trade and
are therefore illegal. The EU is fighting back at the legal level. Meanwhile
a citizen’s objection has been organised Europe-wide on-line and on paper.
Bayer (formerly Aventis) have just withdrawn the one GM crop to have received
commercial planting approval in the UK - Chardon LL fodder maize, so National
Friends of the Earth thinks that we will have no commercial planting in the
UK until 2008 at the earliest, but we must keep up the pressure! One of
the reasons for the withdrawal is probably the government’s refusal to keep
secret the locations of GM crop sites in spite of Bayer’s lobbying!
The FoE GM-Free Britain campaign now has 21 County Council
and Unitary Authorities signed up as GM Free Zones, including all of S.W.
England, plus 23 smaller councils. 14 million people live in these zones.
We have not had much success with Cambridgeshire County Council in spite of
your signatures and have still to lobby the City Council further and present
signatures to them. In Europe, Austria, Slovenia and Northern Italy have declared
themselves GM Free Zones, along with 1000 mayors of towns in France. Worldwide
Venezuela is banning GM crops in spite of US pressure. In Africa, Angola,
Sudan, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe have refused US food aid and
imports unless certified to be GM free - almost a practical impossibility.
If you would like any more information on the World Trade
Organisation, seed purity, the Third World and GM or any other technical aspects
of GM please contact Ursula on C. 840882 or ustubbings@hotmail.com as I have
some very good FoE briefing sheets.
Two very good GM websites are: www.gmwatch.org
and www.ngin.org.uk
Ursula
--------------------------------------
John Clark, is compiling a register of people growing
maize as part of the GM campaign, so please tell him if you are. A few plants
can even be grown in a window box.
For more details, he can be contacted at :
Cropton Mill,
Pickering,
N.Yorks.
Tel: 01751 417131
e-mail:
johnclark@gmfreeryedale.org.uk
----------------------------------------------------------
By the 2080s, in the South-East of England
Winter rainfall will be 30-35% higher
Summer rainfall will be 50-60% lower
Autumn and summer soil moisture content will be 40-50%
lower
Winter snowfall will be 90% lower
Winter daily average wind speeds will be 9-11% higher
Summer cloud cover will be 15-18% lower.
The distribution of a kilogram of apples from New Zealand
to the UK consumer results in one kilogram of carbon dioxide emissions, an
average of twenty times larger than if the apples were locally-sourced.
A car driven five miles releases 1kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and £1 spent
on electricity releases 10kg of CO2
Global warming or climate change is caused by the Greenhouse
effect. The earth's atmosphere allows shortwave radiation (UV) from the sun
through to it's surface without it warming the air to any degree. This shortwave
radiation from the sun heats up the earth's surface (land and water) which
then radiates longwave radiation which can warm the atmosphere. This heating
from the surface up explains why temperatures tend to decrease with an increase
in altitude in spite of increasing proximity to the sun. Some of this heat
added to the atmosphere by longwave radiation is ultimately radiated out
into space and some is trapped by 'greenhouse gases' such as carbon dioxide,
methane and oxides of nitrogen (of these, carbon dioxide is the most important
as it is present in the greatest quantities). In effect greenhosue gases act
like the glass in a greenhouse. The situation is confused slightly by the
fact that the greenhouse effect is essential to life on earth. In fact the
earth's surface would be permanently frozen without it trapping heat and raising
surface temperatures and life could not have evolved. However, human activities
have artificially increased the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide
by around 30% since the start of the industrial revolution. The overwhelming
cause of this increase has been the burning of fossil fuels such as coal,
oil and gas all of which contain carbon. This increase in CO2 levels has led
to an increase in the heat trapped by the atmosphere and a subsequent increase
in global average temperatures.
So what are the likely consequences for us if we carry on as we are at present?
Worldwide
The elevated energy of the climate system will give rise
to a higher incidence of extreme weather events, such as storms. The rise
in global temperatures will be enough to cause sea levels to rise as the water
in the oceans expands and the polar ice caps start to melt, leading to coastal
flooding and land loss. Tuvalu, a populated group of islands in the South
Pacific, is already in danger of becoming permanently submerged. Bangladesh
is likely to be the next in line, with much of its population living on river
deltas a few feet at most above sea level, causing millions to flee their
homes in a world where environmental disasters already create more refugees
than armed conflict.
1. There are various feedback mechanisms in the climate
system, which could accelerate the effects of global warming. For example,
massive amounts of carbon are believed to be stored in permafrost in the Arctic
ice cap, which is at risk of being released as CO2 if the permafrost starts
to melt.
2. Less Arctic sea ice means that less light is reflected
away during he spring, summer and autumn and more is absorbed by the , darker,
ice free sea further increasing the temperature of the oceans and atmosphere.
3. In addition, currently several hundred million tons
of methane leak into the atmosphere every year, most of which comes from poorly
maintained gas pipelines, rice paddies, cattle farming, the draining of wetlands
and the destruction of forests. Over the past 250 years, largely because of
human activities such as these, methanne concentrations in the atmosphere
have more than doubled to 1.72ppm (parts per million). It is now accumulating
in the atmosphere at a rate of approximately 1% per year. Weight for weight,
this potent green house gas is 20 times more effective as greenhouse gas over
a 100 year time span than CO2. Fortunately for our climate, most of the methane
produced is currently trapped a few hundred metres beneath the oceans as methane
hydrate, an ice-like water-methane compound. This methane store could amount
to as much as 10,000 billion tons of carbon. Where even 10% of this released,
perhaps by the effects of changing ocean circulation caused by climate change,
it’s impact on global warming would be more than 10 times greater than an
equivalent quantity of CO2.
United Kingdom
At first sight, global warming can be made to sound rather
attractive for the UK. Towards the end of this century in the UK, almost every
single year is expected to be as warm as the current warmest year on record.
Global temperatures are predicted to rise by up to 5.8 dgrees Celsius, which
conjures up images of the Uk acquiring a Mediterranean-style climate. The
reality, however, is somewhat different..... The increased temperatures will
lead to an increase in evaporation from the oceans. Warmer air can hold more
water vapour than colder air. This will lead to heavier and more frequent
rainfall on inland regions, with increases in local flooding. This is already
happening in the UK: Autumn 2000 was the wettest season since records began
over 200 years ago with widespread flooding. It is estimated that flooding
will be costing Britain £27 billion a year by the end of the century, a twentyfold
increase on current damage. The number of people who could be at risk from
river flooding and coastal errosion could increase from1.6 million today to
between 2.3 and 3.6 million by the 2080’s. In addition to the risk of flooding
from rivers and coasts, towns and cities will suffer from localised floods
due to old Victorian sewers and drains being overwhelmed. The World Health
Organisation has warned that global warming could lead to major increases
in insect-borne diseases in Britain, including malaria and encephalitis, as
non-native equatorial insects travel to higher latitudes as temperatures increase.
One probable consequence of wetter warmer conditions in the northern hemisphere
is the possible failure, or shift further south, of the Gulf Stream taking
it’s warmth with it. This could lead to temperatures in the UK, northern France
and Scandinavia falling to match those of other locations on the same latitude
as the UK, but without the benefit of the Gulf Stream, eg. Labrador in Northern
Canada. The Gulf Stream works the way it does because of the saltiness and
low temperature of surface waters in higher latitudes. The cold, salty water
becomes more dense than the water beneath and sinks towards the sea floor.
From there it flows back towards the equator and south towards Antarctica,
the return flow replacing the water in the higher latitudes carries heat from
the equator warming the UK and northern Europe. However, Global warming is
causing glaciers to melt in Greenland and Canada and increasing rainfall over
Siberia. As a result of this, the flow of fresh water into the Artic Circle
is diluting the salinity of the northern part of the Gulf Stream. At some
critical level there is the possibility that the surface waters will be neither
cool, nor salty enough to sink and a log jam of warm water from the equator
pushing up from behind will cause the system to stall.
Locally
The South-East is one of the most densely populated and
lowest lying regions of the UK. As a result, it can be expected to suffer
a higher frequency and severity of the predicted impacts, with a larger number
of people affected than any other region of the UK (apart from perhaps London).
It is likely that the region will bear a disproportionately large share of
the UK’s climate change problems. Due to the greater economic activity in
the South-East, CO2 emissions are significantly higher than the UK average
The UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) recently commissioned the Hadley
Centre of the UK Meteorological Office and the Climatic Research Unit at the
University of East Anglia, to produce a set of future national limate predictions.
The study, known as UKCIPO2, considered four different scenarios (low, medium-low,
medium-high and high) corresponding to future greenhouse gas emissions. The
results in the box on the right, for the region, are based on UKCIPO2 predictions
for the 2080s under the high emissions scenario, which seems increasingly
likely as there is little evidence that the world will take the necessary
steps to drastically reduce emissions.
1. Ratify and implement the Kyoto Protocol
2. Kick the fossil fuel habit
Governments should stop giving the £175 billion they
pay worldwide in subsidies each year for the exploration and development of
new oil, coal and gas projects. In addition, an end should be put to the public
financing of fossil fuel projects through export credit agencies and mulilateral
development banks. World Bank fossil fuel projects from 1992 onwards will
eventually contribute 38 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to the earth’s atmosphere.
That’s equal to 1.7 times the total emitted by all of the world’s countries
in 1996.
See: www.seem.org, www.bankwatch.org
or www.eca-watch.org
Governments should immediately start phasing out the
use of coal fired power stations. Together, electricity and heat production
constitute the world’s single largest source of carbon emissions (39%). Coal
fired power stations supply most of the world’s electricity (34%). Coal has
the highest carbon content of the fossil fuels and coal fired power stations
emit up to three times as much carbon dioxide per unit of output than the
most modern gas fired plants.
See: FoE report Carbon Dinosaurs at www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/carbon_dinosaurs.pdf
3. Rapidly phase in clean renewable energy sources.
See: www.greenpeace.org.uk/redirect2.cfm?PageParam=%20gp_wind_solar
4. Tax aviation fuel and actively discourage short haul
flights
Tell the Government to take real action on climate change
NOW!
In January 2005, the most significant piece of climate
legislation in the world so far will come into force - the EU Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Trading Directive. This means that all Member States have to set
limits on industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Each country has to submit
a plan that sets out how much each industry section must reduce their emissions
by. The UK's Environment Minster, Elliot Morley believes that the UKs plans
are strict enough. However the plan hands out very generous targets for virtually
all industrial sectors (such as the iron and steel sector), with the exception
of the power generating sector, allowing them to INCREASE emissions. This
means that the savingsmade in the power sector are all but wiped out and we
are unlikely to meet our domestic climate target of a 20% reduction in carbon
dioxide emissions by 2010. Since 1997 emissions in the UK have only fallen
by 0.2% and yet, over the next six years we need to reduce emissions by 12.5%.
So....
Write a letter to Elliot Morley and ask him to go for
tougher targets. Make sure you make the following points in your letter.
I want the UK to take the lead in the battle against
global warming. If we wish to retain our credibility as global leaders on
climate change we need to set an example with our emission limits that other
countries can follow.
I wish to see a stricter plan that ensures all industry
sectors are required to make a fair contribution to the reductions we need
in order to meet our domestic target of 20% by 2010 and that doesn't allow
any industry to increase their emissions.
I believe the current plans run counter to our domestic
climate and energy policies by allowing industries to substantially increase
emissions.
Address your letter to: Minister for the Environment Elliot Morley,
Or, email him on: emorleymp@aol.com
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
Nobel House,
17 Smith Square,
London. SW1P 3JR
Don’t leave climate change to our distracted government
, who can’t see the wood for the trees, distracted by war and pressure from
a swamp of self interested greed. It’s the most important issue affecting
us all and it’s only because of our silence that the carbon economy and it’s
acolytes remain so powerful. Don’t leave it to someone else. Speak out about
climate change. Grassroots, public pressure could be our only chance of saving
this planet, so.....
Contact:
Energy efficient installers (UK):
0845 727 7200
Energy efficient wall insulation and heating engineers:
0345 277 200
Energy Efficiency Advice Centres:
0800 512 012
For grants see:
www.est.org.uk/ee/common/cfm/grantsframeset.htm
The UK Energy Saving Trust:
www.est.org.uk
Centre for Alternative Technology:
www.cat.org.uk
Safe Climate Initiative:
www.safeclimate.net
UK power companies offering renewable electricity options:
Eastern Energy (Ecopower):
0845 6011 290
Npower (Evergreen):
0800 632 632
Powergen (Green Plan):
0500 240 500
Scottish and Southern Energy
(RSPB Energy):
0800 028 8522
Unit Enery Ltd (Unit[e]):
0845 601 1410
For Greenpeace’s ‘Juice’ electricity: 0800 316 2610
or see:
www.greenpeace.org.uk or www.npower.com/Juice
Friends of the Earth’s guide to green electricity suppliers:
www.foe.org.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/choose_green_energy/index.html
Boycotts:
www.stopesso.com
www.pressurepoint.org
Find out why ExxonMobil is the target for more than just
changing our climate:
www.fablimate.org
Don’t like George Bush’s climate politics, visit here
to change his mind:
www.foecanada.org
FoE Canada’s call to boycott Imperial Oil and its dirty
Esso brand.
Petitions:
www.legitgov.org/protests_SOP.html
Pro-democracy and environmental groups campaigning against
Bush’s environmental and energy policies.
www.greepeace.org
Lots of stuff you can take part in:
www.foei.org
Get the President of the World Bank Group to institute
a moratorium on new World Bank fossil fuel and mining investments.
www.bankwatch.org
Sign the NGO letter to multilateral development banks
and export credit agencies demanding a phasing out of fossil fuel investments
and encouragement of renewable energy projects.
www.eca-watch.org
A campaign to reform international export credit agencies.
Complete with action alerts.
www.choose-positive-energy.org
Greenpeace and The Bodyshop have joined forces to challenge
governments to provide access to renewable energy, for the approximately 2
billion people who live without any power, within 10 years. Log on to find
out how this can be achieved and to lend your support.
www.peopleandplanet.org
Lots of information and information on what YOU can do.
www.pirg.org/enviro/energy
A campaign for R.E.A.L energy - Renewable - Efficient
- Affordable
- Lasting
Greener Living:
www.cleancarcampaign.org
Need a car? Get a clean one.
www.climatesolutions.org
Great ideas and case studies.
www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/index.html
How to buy green energy and much more.
Shareholder pressure:
www.campaignexxonmobil.org
A shareholder initiative to compel ExxonMobil (Esso)
to take responsibility for its role in causing global warming and make a genuine
commitment to renewable energy.
Climate news and information:
www.ienearth.org/climate_lnk.html
An excellent source of news and campaigns on climate
change from indigenous people’s perspective.
www.climateark.org
Great research and campaign tool for anything to do with
climate change.
---------------------------------------
Cut energy usage:
Turn off lights when you leave a room
Use economy settings on domestic appliances.
Cook with lids on pots and use a pressure cooker.
Run washing machines and dishwashers with a full load
Wash clothes at 40 degrees C or less instead of 60 -
uses a third less energy than normally needed to heat the water for a hot
wash.
Use a washing line not a tumble drier.
Turn down your central heating. thermostat - every 1
degree C less can cut your heating bill by 10%.
Turn you refrigerator up a bit - keeping it just 1 degree
C warmer can save approximately 50kg of greenhouse gas a year.
Turn your TV and other appliances off at the wall rather
than leaving them on standby.
Visit the Energy Savings Trust website at: www.est.org.uk
Walk, cycle, take public transport or consider a car
pool
Reduce air travel.
Work from home if/when possible
Shop locally for locally grown organic food. The tonnage
of food shipped between countries over the last 40 years has increased fourfold.
A typical meal using local ingredients uses up to 17 times less petroleum
for transport than a meal brought from a supermarket. Also, if the food is
organic, it hasn’t been coated in petroleum-based pesticides or grown using
petroleum-based fertilizers.
Buy products with less packaging.
Avoid the products of companies such as Esso (Exxon)
that are obstructing solutions to the problems of climate change.
Invest carefully. The world’s 10 largest investment funds
are responsible for investing an estimated $11 trillion. If the 30 largest
funds were to divert 1% of their investments away from carbon-based industries
it would represent $100 billion not going into climate changing businesses.
Pointless trade
The rise in exports in and out of countries often involves the same products,
needlessly increasing greenhouse gas emissions. In the UK in 1997, 126 million
litres of liquid milk were imported into the UK, while 270 million litres
of milk were simultaneously exported. Similarly, the UK imported 240,000 tonnes
of pork and 125,000 tonnes of lamb, while it simultaneously exported 195,000
tonnes of pork and 102,000 tonnes of lamb. Stopping The Great Food Swap, Caroline
Lucas MEP, March 2001.
Concerns about global warming and climate change are
largely informed by the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), set up by the UN 12 years ago. The formation of the IPCC led to the
establishment of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and the realisation among most
industrialised countries, that human-derived greenhouse gas emissions must
be drastically reduced if the world is to avoid the consequences of global
warming. Though all industrialised countries agreed on the need to ratify
the Kyoto Protocol, the US and, for the time being Russia has since reneged
on that agreement. If either of these countries continues to opt out of the
protocol, it cannot officially come into force.
The attitude of the US administration (the US emits 25%
of the world's CO2) is best represented by the remarks of senator James Inhofe,
its negotiator at a UN conference on climate change in Milan on December 2003.
Inhofe told the conference: " I'm becoming more and more convinced as
time goes by and we look at the research, that global warming is the greatest
hoax ever perpetrated on the American people and the world."
For details of grants available to enable you to cut
energy usage and further advice try:
EEAC: 0800-512012
www.saveenergy.co.uk
The ‘Save the Lakes’ campaign needs to raise £20,000
to pay a barrister to argue the case against the Guided Bus going through
Fen Drayton Gravel Pits. They have produced a booklet giving details of 10
walks round the pits/lakes, which is for sale to raise funds for the campaign.
Anyone interested in joining the campaign, purchasing the book or who has
any ideas as to where the book can be sold can contact Julia Napier on:
jn1@napierj.freeserve.co.uk
Kate de Courcy
Cambridge Forum
Regular discussions on a variety of issues, often concerning
the environment
For details of Cambridge Forum meetings, please contact:
lgamlin@compuserve.com
A grassroots network of groups and individuals committed
to
taking action and building a movement against climate
change.
For more
information:
email:
info@risingtide.org.uk
Phone:
+44 (0)1865 241097
Address:
16b Cherwell Street, Oxford, OX4 1BG, UK
Web site: www.risingtide.org.uk
In early March a scandal around Shell's overstatement
of its oil reserves forced Chief Executive Phil Watts to resign, but you wouldnt
find any Shell top brass resigning over its overstating of green credentials.
Recent reports from Friends of the Earth and Christian Aid documents Shells
operations in the Niger Delta in Nigeria, that are still causing serious problems
for local communities, nine years after the execution of nine people who paid
the ultimate price for campaigning for the most basic of human rights: the
right to clean air, land and water. The alternative annual Shell report from
FoE states that The decades of pollution caused by Shell's rusting network
of pipes continue to blight daily life, ruining farmland, poisoning water
tables and creating the constant risk of serious fires. The Christian Aid
report also highlights that most of the community development projects presented
in various glossy Shell reports are in fact failing. Hospitals, schools and
water supply systems remain unfinished and new roads mainly help boost easy
movement of its oil production. Schnews again...
Anyone fancy re-establishing the famed CamFoe letter
writting group, getting together on a regular basis to fire off protest letters,
letters of support etc to anyone who deserves it?
If so, e-mail us on camfoe@telinco.co.uk or phone (and leave a message)
on C. 517509, saying when you'd be available and we'll try and arrange a suitable
date and time.
TODAY' programme, Rod Liddle, recently described John Prescott’s latest
housing aims for the south east, as more destructive than the Luftwaffe. Contrariwise,
an editorial voice on 'The Times' came to Prescott’s aid with the idea that
as only a fraction of farming land was now needed, green fields were just
the place for lots and lots of houses. Fiery words sound out on both sides
of the argument as the debate crackles on. What are we to believe? It is not
really that difficult if you look at those who will benefit from the action.
Government believes it wins votes for jobs, local authority purses bulge with
every new council tax payer, it is bliss for farmers whose fields rocket in
value overnight and jam for the construction industry and its shareholders.
Affordable housing, a worthy aim, is the rather thin plank on which rests
an argument that we know will turn itself into a great mass of executive housing
estates. By the nature of things, protectors of the countryside face the big
battalions. The scene, even at local level more than confirms this.
Cambridge University plans to build three new colleges on 57 green hectares
west of the present urban edge. It insists that it will “work closely” with
the local community to achieve an environmentally sensitive result. This reads
as if it is going to build something, whether or not. Does anyone really
suppose that the people of Cambridge have the yea or nay in the matter? As
ever, it will be the people who benefit who will decide. The Campaign to
Protect Rural England (CPRE) has complained about universities planning to
build on green-belt land “in order to boost their research income, the green-belt
policy is being trashed by academic institutions abusing their influence to
swallow up very large tracts of countryside, education is now a money-spinner
but local authorities can be mesmerised by the promise of greater economic
prosperity. Universities carry a lot of weight with local planners. They are
undermining regeneration efforts and promoting traffic growth.” Exactly. Notwithstanding
this incisive challenge, even if local councils were to reflect the opposition
of residents, central government can and probably will overrule them without
reference or compunction. Sadly, the final defeat of plans to build on Granchester
Meadows last year appears as an exception to the rule rather than a precedent:
the proposal that had originated from central government was so bizarre that
it was eventually mocked out of court. The alliance of interests in favour
of university expansion is a tougher proposition for its critics.
Countrywide, we know that the latest Prescott formula presents what is perhaps
the greatest menace ever to open English land. Even 'The Times', not known
for its green credentials, sees the Government attacking the countryside with
a ferocity not known in peacetime - “all land outside national parks is to
be made available for suburbia. There is nothing we will be able to do to
stop it”. These bewildering Government imperatives about housing needs, coming
blow after blow, show an inconsistent methodology. Six years ago we were told
of the need to build 5 million new houses by 2016. A year later Professor
Crow gave the target for the south east alone as about a million by 2016.
A year after this Professor Christine Whitehead upped this figure to 1.4 million.
Two years after that the target for the southeast was to be 43,000 and then
33,000 new houses a year. Now comes Gordon Brown’s latest analysis by economist
Kate Barker calling for 145,000 extra new homes to be built each year, in
addition to the 170,000 per year now being built. Is it a case of think of
a number, or think of a pundit? Whatever the outcome, it is now clear that
the old policy of predict-and-provide - thought to have been discredited -
is back here to stay. And these projections for house building never get smaller.
This time they are huge. It has brought formidable criticism, but will it
be heard in time? Rod Liddle’s graphic analogy of damage by the Luftwaffe
published in 'The Spectator' is adorned with a map of England showing a total
of 718,720 empty homes - enough, he says, to meet housing needs for the next
four years (the survey comes from The Empty Homes Agency, www.emptyhomes.com).
Surprisingly, 99,781 of these are in London and about the same in each of
the southeast and the eastern regions. So, according to this, at least 255,000
are situated in the so-called over-heated and underhoused southern sector.
Builders build on green fields, says Liddle, because it is cheaper and buyers
want to be in the country: talk of brown field sites as a priority is unreal
- costs are higher and there is VAT on renovations.
This last point gets emphasis from Henry Oliver, Head
of Planning at the CPRE, in a leading letter to The Times (May 6), in company
with other reactions to Prescott. Contrary to widespread belief, he writes,
there is no overall shortage of housing in England: there is a surplus of
housing over households in every English region, a surplus that increased
between the 1991 and 2001 Census. “It is simply not true that market housebuilding
has reached some sort of all-time low”. The output of houses for sale, he
says, has remained stable for decades. But there has been a collapse in social
housing provision since the 1970s. This and the right to buy rented council
houses have added to the rising shortage of affordable homes. In line with
Liddle’s figures, he shows that more than 40 per cent of empty homes are in
London and the prosperous southeast. Building on brownfield sites is disfavoured
by developers “because all the economic signals are in favour of greenfield
development.”
Lastly, Henry Oliver points out that although the basic demographic facts
are crucial to predictions of need, projections based on the 1991 Census ”assumed
that there were nearly a million more people in the UK than there actually
turned out to be in the 2001 Census”. If nothing else, this throws a telling
light on the accuracy of official statistics on which Prescott’s predictions
rely.
Patrick Forman
We believe that the economic function of the city of
Cambridge is under an unprecented threat. The proliferation of development,
mostly car-based, in the surrounding area, together with the widening of roads
into the city (A428 imminent, A14 and M11 planned), will increase traffic
congestion in the area and make it even harder for buses (including guided
buses) to provide a reliable alternative. As a result economic activity will
tend to relocate to sites more accessible by car. The consequent access problems
for cyclists, pedestrians and bus users will be ignored by developers who
don’t regard these modes as economically significant. Already the headquarters
of South Cambridgeshire District Council have relocated to Cambourne, which
is a complicated journey away for bus users from the vast majority of villages
within the district. And the University has announced plans to expand into
a new area close to the M11. Maybe eventually the centre of Cambridge will
have little left but those parts of the University that haven’t relocated,
facilities aimed at tourists, and the very limited amount of shopping that
those who live close by and have no choice can support. This would be no different
to the fate which has already been visited on many American cities. We believe
that the international renown of Cambridge opens up an opportunity for a high
profile campaign to alert people to the threat. It is important to do this
now because by the time businesses start to leave en masse it may be too late
for remedial action.
Is there anyone who would be interested in helping to
get such a campaign going ?
If so please contact Simon Norton at: 6 Hertford Street,
Cambridge CB4 3AG, telephone 01223 569623 (home), 764243 (office) or, email
simon@dpmms.cam.ac.uk
March, on BBC Radio 4's TODAY programme, a scientist
responsible for a survey of the environmental damage done to the upper atmosphere
by airliners, reported that this factor was now making the foremost contribution
to the causes of global warming. If the government’s forecast of an annual
4 per cent increase in air traffic to 2030 was accurate, the resulting pollution
would not only negate the government’s aimed reductions in harmful gases (as
required under international commitments) to a fraction of the stated
target, but would also “drive a coach and horses” through the sum total of
relatively minor measures being taken to reduce emissions. He added that jet
engine emissions contained chemical elements that “potentiate” with exhaust
gases and are thus more harmful than the effects of basic nitrogenous gases
by themselves. In sum, the message was that the government’s 4 percent annual
rise in traffic was logically unsustainable in terms of the accept decrease
in air pollution. And it is the 4 per cent growth figure, which predicates
the government’s call for 5 new runways and airport expansions.
Patrick Forman
Whilst Camfoe is unwilling to criticise any scheme that
has the potential to take traffic off the region’s crowded roads we have to
question both of the schemes proposed by the County Council (Guided Busway)
and CAST IRON (Light Railway).
The Guided Busway uses relatively untried technology
and will apparently have to join already crowded roads to actually enter the
city. Furthermore, it won’t be able to carry bicycles. The plans also suggests
that vast quantities of concrete (VERY unsustainable) will be required in
it’s construction and the environmental damage will be extended beyond it’s
immediate environment by the need to construct to balancing ponds to cope
with rainfall draining from the busway. Whilst this is unconfirmed, a query
from CAST IRON as to what would happen if it snowed and the busway filled
up with snow met with the reply that they would send out a man with a shovel....
Though CAST IRON are moving (pun intended) in the right direction, their relative
lack of funding means that possibly only a few of the scheduled trains will
run as far as Cambridge station and that trains will be replaced by buses
outside of working hours and at weekends. Why is the rebuilding of the existing
Cambridge-St Ives-Huntingdon line in it’s original form not being considered.
Presumably it was economically viable for most of it’s 140 years and even
if it wasn’t, why is there such a huge emphasis on the initial construction
costs and running costs? Congestion costs millions, but public transport
doesn’t have to be run at a profit to save these millions. Subsidy may be
a dirty word, but think of the savings in time, reduced accidents, increased
reliability of services that have to use the road etc etc. Drivers are subsidised
- they don’t pay the full costs of the environmental damage for a start, never
mind other costs such as maintenance and policing - so why not public transport?
The reconstruction of the Cambridge - St Ives - Huntingdon link is too important
to be left in the hands of an untried County council scheme or a small group
of concerned citizens, both of which will have to make a profit thereby compromising
their effectiveness. The A14 gets government funding, why not this transport
route. Public transport run privately doesn’t work effectively or in a coherent
fashion, that’s why the railways were nationalised in the first place. Centrally
funded transport is big and it can be clever....
Ian Ralls
Whilst any scheme that takes traffic off the region’s
roads has to be A Good Thing, aren’t we missing the point here? Surely the
best way to cut traffic is to remove the need for travel. If there was truly
affordable housing in Cambridge, wouldn’t this reduce the number of people
working in Cambridge who have to commute in from parts of the region with
cheaper housing? By affordable, I mean housing within reach of the vast army
of people in Cambridge working for £5-£7 an hour, not affordable in the sense
that two people, both earning £30,000 and mortgaged to the hilt can just about
‘afford’ the monthly repayments for a victorian terrace. Yes, realistically
affordable housing couldn’t be let for a ‘market rent’, but the market in
Cambridge is so divorced from reality that the majority of the working population
have no option but to commute. Maybe the time has come for the return of subsidised
social housing to save the vast costs of congestion on the regions roads.
Ian Ralls
Sam Beatson
It is with great sadness that we have to report the death
of Sam Beatson after a long battle with cancer. Sam was an active member with
Cambridge Friends of the Earth for several years, editing the newsletter,
campaigning and getting to grips with our computer system. His concern for
the environment and social justice in general was only matched by his sense
of humour, generosity and courage in the face of considerable adversity. He
will be greatly missed by all who knew him.
Goodbye and many thanks Sam.
Please, please, please can we have your e-mail address
if at all possible??
We'll be able to contact you more quickly -
We'll be able to contact you more often -
We'll be able to contact you more cheaply -
We'll be able to send you up to date information on meetings
and demonstrations.
Many thanks if you've already provided an e-mail address.
|
