Cambridge foe

While mistrust of the supposed need for 5 million new houses by 2016 has spread since last March's Newsletter (see below), events seem to have been going in the opposite direction. The gap between "say" and "do" in politics is wider than ever. After giving the nod to greenfield developments north of Stevenage, John Prescott's role as the new defender of the green countryside became further tarnished last July when he overturned West Sussex's claim in the High Court that the government target for the region was 25 per cent too high, with the result that 12,800 extra houses are now to be built there, and fears of similar treatment have been raised elsewhere. "Prescott's victory threatens rural England", thundered a Times leader. Seemingly, he now accepts the 4/5 million forecast as "the best one there is", in the words of the Environment and Transport Select Committee, despite his widely publicised rejection last January of the old policy of "predict and provide" -- the very policy that produced the enormous housing forecasts. Perplexing.

Equally perplexing to many of us is the amorphous meaning of the term "greenfield site". Oakington and Waterbeach airfields, two examples near at hand and among the 20 new town sites now threatened with development under local authority planning in England, are of course mainly wide open green spaces yet they are put under the heading of "brownfield sites". It may be a lot less objectionable to build over disused airfields than over farm fields, but the descriptive distinction is likely to be lost on the worms, beetles and birds that have inhabited the place since before Man set foot in England.

But the jargon is less worrying than the deluge of proposed new towns which, in the words of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England (CPRE), represents a disaster for the countryside and flies in the face of government pledges to protect it. Cambridgeshire County deserves credit for refusing to accept the government target for 71,000 new homes within 20 years and seeks to reduce it to between 35,000 and 50,000. The outcome to this challenge will be known next February.

The latest item on the list of proposed new towns is the expansion of Waterbeach to add 20,000 people: others include Cambourne, Oakington, Hampton, Ramsey and the notional "City of Anglia" composed of three "townships" between Cambridge and Huntingdon. As a measure of the scale of these combined concepts and the vast changes to the landscape that would follow, if they all came into being , they could accommodate 158,000 people or one and a half times the present city population of Cambridge. This might be seen to represent an historic upheaval only comparable to the Black Death, but in reverse. And whatever validity there may be in the demographic factors now being advanced to support the estimates of housing needs -- more elderly and single households and so forth -- it is interesting to note that the Office of National Statistics has just declared the present birth-rate as the lowest ever in the UK since records began 150 years ago. The trend points to shrinking families, and David Cook, chaplain and fellow of Green College, Oxford, commenting on the statistics, woefully declared that if it continues "we would all be wiped out". (Shame about those empty houses).

Most of us will have seen in the papers and media last month, the emergence of a local multi-millionaire, Peter Dawes, who with time on his hands, spends three days a week on his own plans to build 50,000 houses around his home in Oakington. Then there is Sir Peter Hall of the Town and Country Planning Association, the author of ideas for the City of Anglia cluster of new towns north of Cambridge. Everybody must be welcome to the debate on the future of our homes and land, but it seems a mite odd that these individuals are two of the most visible figures on the media scene at the moment, while the views of the thousands of inhabitants who are directly affected have so far not been heard, sought or reported. Inputs from other quarters might also have been expected -- CPRE, English Nature, The Countryside Commission and a score of others besides and -- dare we say it -- Friends of the Earth.

Perhaps these two entrants into the planning debate need not be taken too seriously. The customary manner of our governance being in the hands of the majority may yet prevail.

Meanwhile the government housing forecasts remain the chief stimulus behind these massive plans for urbanisation. But those who doubt them are gaining force. Last year, Tom Brake MP, Lib.Dem. spokesman on Land Use and Planning, faulted the figure of 4.4 million by pointing out a number of questionable assumptions behind the estimates and he declared it to be extremely important that the government re-examine them before allowing builders to embark on a massive development programme.

As it happens, I sit on an (non-environmental) advisory group with Tom Brake in the House of Commons, which gave me the chance to button-hole him on housing matters and relay FoE's similar doubts about the forecast figures and hopefully suggest that they might be aired in the Commons. Since then, he has sent me copies of his speech in the 22 October housing debate in which he called for a more open discussion of government forecasting methods. He went on to call for the quota of building on brownfield sites to be raised from 60 to 75 per cent and for a more real definition of the term. Abandoned airfields are, he said, mostly composed of green fields.

He also made a renewed call for a tax levy on greenfield sites -- an initiative that had been floated by the government, but since quietly dropped.

Patrick Forman

CAMFOE GROUP NEWS

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

In recent months several members of Cambridge FOE have been wondering about how we might get the group onto a more strategic footing. We are aware that the group usually reacts to external forces rather than having a clear understanding of where we want to go with our campaigns, or of our shared goals. The Transport and Planning campaigners are constantly on the go, as are the Biodiversity and Habitats campaigners.

With the best will in the world other things are pulled together on a more ad hoc and frequently last minute basis. This is neither sustainable nor recommended for happy, satisfied and successful campaigns or campaigners. There are also all the information requests from the public and schools which we cannot always respond to, which may affect our credibility in the wider community.

All of us have external pressures such as work, job-hunting, family and other responsibilities to attend to. Starting a new job, having a baby, or being ill can whisk anyone away from their commitments to FOE. This can be very disorientating for any other members unexpectedly plunged into the difficult position of having to fill in for an absent member.

The absent person too often holds too much vital information in their brain without a duplicate being available. Without them the campaign is weakened, other members are demotivated and ground gained can be lost.

Although extremely understandable when time is at such a premium, this campaigning exclusivity is very off-putting for new members. Although it can be tempting to think of a lone member as ‘the genetics campaigner’, this attitude is very unhelpful. The new or interested member feels overlooked and the existing campaigner does not get the chance of some help which would more than likely be warmly welcomed. ‘Training’ new campaigners is time consuming but local campaigner burn-out is the greatest problem faced by FOE Local Group members. Too often a campaigner carries the burden of a campaign on their shoulders alone. This is not good for anyone.

Another concern is the issue of accountability. Cambridge FOE, like most Local Groups operates a very open basic system of democracy. Members old and new are encouraged to get actively involved with campaigning.

However for some of us this may be neither desirable nor practical in the short or long term. Those of us who are active must be accountable to those who are not. And those who are not active must communicate their views to those of us who are actively representing our collective interests.

So, we have come up with a series of meetings to find out what we can do to improve our functioning as a group. We’re calling these meetings, ‘Where Do We Go From Here?’. With this newsletter you will find a yellow A4 ‘Where Do We Go From Here?’ questionnaire. Please take the time to complete and return it to the office by 31st January (see Diary). We need your opinions (which will be confidential) so if you have something to say please let us know. If you don’t tell us what you think we can’t include your ideas in our conclusions. You don’t have to give your name.

The techniques we will be using at these meetings are simple and straightforward. Using these processes can clarify our thinking and ensure that the Group goes in the right direction for at least the next five years.

With them we can set the right priorities and take full account of all the considerations detailed in the questionnaire responses. This process is not about getting bogged down in detail or designing a straight-jacket for the Group. It’s more about getting the real benefits from having stepped back from the routine operation of the Group and taking the wider view. The more members of the group who can be involved the better. Everyone’s view is valid and could produce some interesting perspectives and ideas that the more active members have not considered.

We hope to get some or all of the following benefits: reinvigorated active members; greater sense of direction and purpose; clearer understanding of the Group’s objectives; more breathing space to plan events; more time to concentrate on improving areas of concern, for example, fundraising, recruiting new members and improving people’s skills and confidence; better focussed, more effective campaigns; better focussed, less boring meetings; wider involvement from the rest of the Group; new ideas and perspectives; avoiding unnecessary diversions/cul de sacs; better use of people’s time and Group resources; a wider view of the Group’s role in the community; putting our work on a more strategic rather than reactive footing; no more ‘re-inventing the wheel’.

THE ULTIMATE AIM IS: ACCENTUATE THE POSITIVE; ELIMINATE THE NEGATIVE.

On Wednesday, 10th February (see diary) we will be holding the first ‘Where Do We Go From Here?’ meeting. Lucy Agate, (ex-Local Groups Development Officer for East Anglia) has offered to facilitate these meetings for us. If you have any questions about the meetings or questionnaire you can get in touch with her on Cambridge 562297 after 9.00pm.

Lucy Agate

REGIONAL CAMPAIGNS COORDINATOR POSITION VACENT

Lucy Agate has left her position as East Anglian Campaigns Coordinator. Although she now has a new full - time job, she will be dedicating her spare time and energy to Cambridge FOE, and in particular to the 'Where Do We Go From Here?' process (the function of which will be to plan the group's new strategy for the future; see 'Where Do We Go From Here?'). Lucy has had experience of planning long term strategies for other organisations, and she assures us that the exercise can be of considerable benefit to any organisation willing to undertake it.

It has just come to our attention (after the hard copy of the Newsletter was published) that, due to difficulties experienced in recruiting a replacement for Lucy, the vacency will not be filled until Easter at the earliest. You can find out about further developments in this area as they become known to us by contacting the office.

Note: (17/1/99) New Co-ordinator is now appointed. webeditor

James Murray

OTHER ISSUES

THE NECESSITY FOR SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT

In my professional capacity as an Independent Financial Advisor, I often come across people and other advisors who say to me 'Socially responsible investment is not for me. I don't care as long as I make plenty of money'. It is, of course, perfectly reasonable to expect your investments, pensions and endowment policies, to make a good return, but does it have to be at the expense of your principals? Indeed, I would argue that you cannot afford to invest in funds that do not have a socially reponsible philosophy to their investment policies. Why do I say this?

Firstly, I think that few would argue that humanity cannot go on abusing natural ecosystems in the way that it is doing at present and that the requirement to use our natural resources in a sustainable way is not an optional extra that we can choose whether to access.

It took 3.85 billion years to entrap the toxic gases and heavy metals that polluted the early atmosphere of this planet in the ground, so that we have an atmosphere fit to breathe and support life, but now we are engaged in mining out these self same pollutants and returning them to the air. In addition we are producing synthetic chemicals that cannot be broken down by natural processes and removing the green areas that do not appear to be economicaly productive. In other words we are destroying the components which support life. Sustainability is the future, other wise there is no future!

How as responsible citizens can we make a difference to this scenario? Well, firstly we can refuse to purchase the products of those companies who are continuing to destroy the planet. Secondly we can look to influence policy in the boardroom by judicious use of our investments. If you think that you have no money to invest, think again! Do you have a pension? How much do you and your employer pay in? Do you have an endowment policy or a savings policy with an insurance company? It starts to add up, doesn't it? Where is this money invested? Do you know? Although we may not make a big impact individually, collectively, we can have an impact.

The question is, how do you go about investing in a socially responsible manner and will it mean that you have to suffer a smaller pension or not having your mortgage paid off? Let's look at those questions separately. Firstly if you want to invest ethically, you could go to one of thirty plus funds identified by the Ethical Investment Research Service (EIRIS) but the problem is how do you know if the fund you are looking at meets your needs? Some are strong on animal rights, other on armaments or Third World exploitation. Where do your priorities lie?

Alternatively, to find out which investors specialise and have a thoruogh knowledge of the ethical investment market place, you could approach the United Kingdom Social Investment Forum for a list of member advisors, who specialise in sorting through the ethical fund maze to find out which one suits your needs.

As an adviser who specialises in this area I wil ask you what your concerns are, and then locate the fund which is strongest in that particular area. Even so, I hear you cry, surely princples and making money don't go together? Let's take a look at the performance of funds invested in a socially responsible manner against conventionally managed funds. I have selected well-known mainstream companies to compare the socially responsible funds against and the results may surprise you!

% Annual growth rate

Pension funds Endowment funds

5 yrs

10 yrs

5 yrs

10 yrs

Conventionally Managed funds

Abbey Life Managed

5.4

8.5

5.4

8.5

Legal & General Managed

8.1

10.9

6.8

9.3

Scottish Widows Mixed

7.7

9.8

6.6

8.2

Socially Responsible funds

Friends Provident Stewardship

9.6

11.9

7.5

8.3

Scottish Equitable Ethical

8.4

8.8

7.2

-

Scandia Ethical Managed

9.4

-

8.5

-

Please note: Past performance is no guarantee of future performance, and the price of units can fall as well as rise.

As you can see you don't need to sacrifice principles for profit. You just need to know where to look. I am looking into organizing a talk on the principles of Socially Responsible Investing in Cambridge in the near future. If you would like to come, let me know on the number below so that I can guage the level of interest. If you just want to know which fund suits your needs all you need to do is ring me.

Helpful addresses:

EIRIS, 504, Bondway Business Centre, 71 Bondway, London SW8 1 SQ.

UKSIF, Suite 308, 16, Baldwin Gardens, London EC1N 7RJ.

Mark Armstong Financial Services, 8, Elstow Close, Over, Cambridge, CB4 5LU. Tel & Fax 01954 231049

Mark Armstrong Financial Services is a member of the M & E Network Ltd, Greatminster House, Lister Hill, Horsforth, Leeds, LS18 5DL, Tel 0113 259 1717, which is regulated by the Personal Investment Authority.

Mark Armstrong

RELAUNCH OF CITY'S ENVIRONMENT AWARD

Cambridge City Council will be launching the third year of its Environment Award at 1.30pm on Friday 11 December 1998 at 122A Whitehill Road, Cambridge, when the Bosnian Refugee Action Group, which won one of these awards last year, will show their garden to Councillor Gill Richardson and the other judges and discuss how they were able to improve it with this grant.

The Environment Award is offering grants totalling £4,000 to increase the effectiveness of environmental activities among community based groups and encourage practical projects and ideas to improve the environment. It will be judged in March 1999 by Councillor Gill Richardson, Chair of the Environment Committee, Victoria Marshall of Cambridge Youth Action and Ian Ralls of Cambridge Friends of the Earth.

Councillor Richardson said, "Last year fourteen groups in Cambridge benefitted from this award and used the money to put a wide range of good ideas for improving the environment into action. We can see here at this garden how the Bosnian Refugee Action Group were able to make real improvements with their grant. This year we hope many people will hear about the award and see the possibilities for improving their environment by applying".

If you know of a group that could use some cash to carry out a practical project which would improve the environment in Cambridge, contact Sue Woodsford, Planning Department, the Guildhall, Cambridge City Council, on telephone number (01223) 457046 for more details about Cambridge City Council's Environment Award and ask for an application form. Cllr Gill Richardson can be contacted on telephone number (01223) 560070.

Ian Ralls

GREEN MUM

Imagine a continuum where at one end there are those who do enormous harm to the environment, closer to the middle are those that get on with their lives without a thought to the environment, further over are those that make efforts to lessen their environmental impact and at the far end are people living in harmony with nature. We are all somewhere on this continuum and I'm hoping to persuade you to move towards the greener end of the spectrum and give you some ideas of how to do it.

The Earth's resources can only support a finite global population. These resources are not distributed fairly amongst the world's people. A typical Westerner's impact on the environment is about 40 to 50 times greater than a typical individual's impact in the Third World. Population growth is therefore a prime concern and fewer children per family are desirable.

Disposable nappies make up about 4% of UK's domestic waste. Over 3.5 billion (3 million trees) are thrown away, most ending up in landfill sites. The chemicals in them prevent them from bio-degrading for 500 years. Disposables use 37% more water to manufacture than reusables do to wash. There is also extra packaging, extra energy used in manufacturing and pollution from transportation. There are many reusables to choose from now. They can be fitted nappies or terries which can be used for the next child or as floor cloths when they are worn out. Using an ecological washing powder like Ecover reduces pollution. They can be dried on the line (sunshine kills germs and bleaches them white) or on a clothes horse, thereby reucing the waste of electricity. Old bread bags are ideal as nappy sacks. There is also the Nappy Service which will wash, dry and deliver nappies to your door.

Baby wipes are unnecessary. They use tonnes of raw materials in production, contain man-made chemicals which are costly to manufacture and create waste for landfills. (Landfills leach pollution into the underground water supplies). Why not use a damp cloth, which can be washed, or cotton wool. Water is the best substance for a baby's delicate skin. Water and air are wonderful at preventing nappy rash.

Babies grow so fast that they grow out of new clothes before they are worn out. To buy everything your baby wears new would cost a fortune. Remember, the prime concern of the baby clothes industry is profit, not your baby's welfare. Politicians judge economic success by how fast the economy has grown ie. the increase in the production of manufactured goods, for example. This puts ever more strain on the earth's resources. You can get good clothes from friends, relatives, nearly new shops or jumble sales. And don't forget to pass on your old ones. This will mean we are producing less textiles from raw materials which is very energy intensive and polluting.

These days people are obsessed with cleanliness. Cleaning products are really harmful to the environment. Babies and young children don't sweat as much as adults do and only need a change of clothes if they have really got them dirty. Washing clothes unnecessarally damages them and pollutes water and the energy used contributes to global warming. Babies don't need bathing every day. To save water you can also use the old bath water to flush the loo.

The greenest way to feed a baby is obviously breast feeding. This helps build baby's immunity, lessening the need for medical resources and has no packaging! For bottle fed babies a lot of energy can be saved by using cold tap water. Babies don't need warm milk. Sterilising equipment and using cooled boiled water are unnecessary after about six months.

Over 2.5 billion pounds is spent on advertising toys for babies and children each year. The adverts claim they are essential for the welfare of your child and we feel guilty if we resist. Babies end up being surrounded by plastic toys all of the same texture and taste (research is being carried out into the long term effects of toxins leached from plastic toys when sucked). Very young babies are content playing with their own feet and hands and their parents' feet, hands and faces. You are the best thing for your child's education. No toys can come close to providing the language, sensitivity, comfort, support and socialising that a parent can but the adverts would have us believe differently. Babies don't know the difference between toys and other objects. Look around the house for safe objects that baby can shake, bang and feel. The simplest object is new and fascinating to a baby. Older children can make their own toys out of junk. The process of making is an educational experience, and becomes the joy of the toy and an end in itself. Papier mache and home made playdough are ideal for this purpose. Children also love to play with real things and be part of the adult world, for example helping with the cooking or washing up etc. Teach your children to respect resources and not to be wasteful. When you do buy toys think about how versatile they are. For example a plastic oven can only be an oven but a large box could be an oven or anything else your child can dream up. They can use their imagination and that is surely what we want. Buy toys that are adaptable to different ages and aid imagination. Wooden trolleys are useful as baby walkers or later as a boat, for example, or for storing toys. Buy strong repairable toys. With Christmas approaching you can think bout asking relatives to buy particular things. Toys can also be shared or swapped with friends or family. When your little one has outgrown his/her toys pass them on to friends, hospitals, play groups or toy libraries. By cutting down on the number of toys bought you are saving money, time in tidying up, oil and energy used in manufacture, air pollution in transportation and waste for the landfills.

Cars pollute the air causing asthma, cause deaths on the roads, separate us from other people and keep us unfit. It is easy to feel trapped at home with a young baby and a great luxury to be able to jump in the car and whizz off somewhere. But stop and think. Can you walk or cycle instead? There are bike trailers which can last for years, and child seats, on the market. Children learn so much about the real world around them from being walked in a pram or being carried on a bike. They will become more in touch with nature and the seasons. You'll get fit and the baby will have a wonderful ride. Getting the bus is a learning experience in itself. Fares to pay (learning about money), people to talk to (language and social skills), timetables to study (maths). And you also feel part of a community instead of being cut off in your car. The more we use the buses the better the service will become. The same is also true of trains.

I hope I have inspired you to be a little greener without sounding too self righteous. We urgently need to raise children that are aware of their dependence on the Earth and its resources and learn to respect it. It is up to us.

ARISE, AWAKE, REBEL, RECYCLE!

Helen McRobie

CAM FOE AT THE FOLK FESTIVAL

Cambridge FOE were at Cambridge Folk Festival as usual this summer. A team of FOE volunteers worked in rotas for two and a half days (including a couple of nocturnal sorties through a carpet of cans, bottles and chicken bones), collecting recyclable material, picking up litter, emptying bins and generally keeping the place as clean as we could. Everyone at the Folk Festival seemed to be highly appreciative of our efforts, although I feel this is at least partly because we made them feel guilty. For our labours we were permitted to have a stall on site for trading, promoting our campaigns, and collecting signatures for petitions. And those of us who were still hanging around late enough on Sunday night received several free jugs of beer from Eddie, the guy who provided the recyclable materials bins on site. We also received a cheque for 400 pounds from the City Council for our work.

The weather was variable, but overall, not too bad - mainly dry, which was good.

For all their efforts over that weekend, we would like to thank: Ken Richard for organising everything; Dave Bailey, Ian Ralls, Lucy Agate, James Murray, Tim Hunt, Richard Mauger, Sonia Mrowiec, Gill Shapland, Pete Mirchner and Carla Toyne for keeping the place clean; and Helen and Alan McRobie, Tandy Harrison, Christina Marshall, Sarah Forman and Lucy agate for running our stall. Everyone's help was greatly appreciated.

James Murray

NOTICEBOARD

AGM 1999

Cambridge FOE will be holding next year's AGM on Wednesday 31st March, at 7.30 in St. Michael's Church Hall. A speaker from National FOE will be giving a talk.

To all wannabe campaigners

If you want to get involved, or become more active, or help in any way in campaigns, but don't come to regular meetings for whatever reason, send your name into the office, along with all your contact details (address, phone, fax, e-mail etc), listed in order of the most suitable means for us to contact you.

New Cam FOE E-mail Address

Cambridge FOE have been using a new e-mail server for quite a while now. Our new e-mail address is: camfoe@ndirect.co.uk We are still using our Camnet server, but only as a back-up/emergency server. All our contact details (including our e-mail address) is on Page 2 of our new newsletter layout.

Free National FOE membership

Cambridge FOE membership application forms (available from the office, the Central Library, Arjuna, Mill Road, and Daily Bread Co-Op, Kilmarnock Road, off Kings Hedges Road), now include an application form for membership of National FOE. Joining the Cambridge group entitles you to free membership of National FOE for one year. Membership of National FOE includes a subscription to the quarterly magazine 'Earth Matters'.

Thanks very much!

Cambridge FOE would like to thank Ursula Stubbings and Sybil Mbuya from Tanzania, who raised 245 pounds for the group through the sale of Christmas cards. This sum was the lion's share of the total amount raised by Sybil to fund a project in her home region.

Dave Bailey, who spent an enormous amount of time and effort upgrading and overhauling our old, tired, office PC and its software, and making it work like a 486 should, also deserves our gratitude.

And finally, a special thank you to the authors who put time and effort into researching and writing articles for this year's Newletters. Thanks to everyone, and a Merry Christmas to you all.

Recycling of Christmas cards

If you wish to recycle your old Christmas cards, bring them to the office during the day when it is open, or bring them to a meeting.

Top



E-mail:camfoe@telinco.co.uk		comfybadger

Home