|
Have some fun with Google StreetView |
| Newsletter | July 2001 |
Climate Chaos Global Warming Carbon Economy Rising Sea Levels Kyoto Bush
Thanks for all the kind comments. We are pleased to learn that we have become a very useful campaign tool. We have only had one adverse comment and that seemed to be general bitchiness.
Locally there is only one important issue - Farnborough Airport.
Globally there are three important issues - globalisation, global warming and genetic engineering. These are the three worst threats to the planet and the ones that need to be addressed. Locally there may be immediate problems that need attention such as Farnborough Airport or the Guildford incinerator.
Often local and global issues are intimately linked, aviation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases, Farnborough Airport as the 'business hub for Europe' is a key component of globalisation, Farnborough Airport is being imposed on the local community by a foreign operator. We should not neglect local issues as we are the only ones on the spot available to tackle them, but at the same time we should remain focused on how local issues and global issues interact and how our local issue may be part of a wider global problem. For example the need for Farnborough Airport is part of the process of globalisation, the use of Farnborough Airport generates greenhouse gases.
There are of course other issues - pollution, environmental destruction, loss of species and habitats, human rights, animal rights, agricultural policy, arms exports, democratic accountability. For example a corrupt local authority enables unwanted development to take place.
We are often asked why we have such a broad remit. It is not why us, the question should be why not others? We campaign on social justice, sustainability. All these issues are intimately interconnected, you can't have one without the other, it is artificial and counter-productive to attempt to separate.
In this issue we focus on global warming and climate chaos to tie in with the Bonn talks (COP6.5) taking place this month. The first time we have brought out a special issue.
The climate change treaty is becoming more of an economic treaty than an environment treaty, and countries are looking for a competitive advantage. -- Frank Maisano, Global Climate Coalition
The fundamental success of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations was the decision to employ market-based mechanisms as a primary means of achieving greenhouse gas emissions reductions. -- International Climate Change Partnership, an international big business lobby group
We have been saying all along sinks are important, sinks are important, sinks are important. The administration seems to be coming our way. -- Frank Maisano, Global Climate Coalition
The failure to finalise the Kyoto agreement at The Hague last year, and George W Bush putting the boot in may be no bad thing as the Kyoto Protocol was fundamentally flawed.
Kyoto arose out of the Earth Summit in Rio a decade ago. It was pushed onto the agenda by environmentalists. Man has always despoiled the environment around him, but the amount of greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere now threatens the whole planet. Kyoto was a feeble attempt to address the problem.
Kyoto calls for a 5.2% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Nowhere near enough. We need as minimum an immediate cut of 60-70% with a 90% cut in the longer term. Post-Rio, Kyoto has been hijacked by big business. The solutions are to be had in market-based mechanisms - emissions trading, carbon credits and other fixes.
Originally big business was opposed to Kyoto, fearing regulation, carbon and energy taxes. Now it is seen as business as usual with the opportunity of new markets opening up. Carbon trading is expected to be a trillion dollar business.
Where a country exceeds its greenhouse reductions it will be able to sell its unfulfilled quota to other countries. Through emissions trading the US expects not to have to reduce its emissions and still meet its Kyoto targets.
Big business will be able to gain carbon credits for funding carbon reduction schemes in the Third World. For example the funding of a wind farm in South Africa.
Another means of obtaining credits would be through carbon sinks. Fund expansion of forestry and gain carbon credits. Forestry only acts as a sink whilst it is accumulating biomass, ignores the socio-environmental impacts of large scale forestry.
Canada is trying to claim carbon credits for its existing forests (even though the carbon sequestration would have happened anyway), aluminium producers on the tenuous claim that the use of aluminium in cars is lower weight (ignoring that aluminium smelters are one of the heaviest users of energy), the nuclear industry on the grounds that it is a clean form of energy (even if we ignore the risks and the economic costs we would have to consider the energy used for fuel extraction, mining etc), even Monsanto has jumped on the bandwagon claiming carbon credits for the use of Roundup and GM trees.
The net impact will be far from a piddling 5.2% reduction, a more likely 7% increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
The International Chamber of Commerce and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development had over 100 and 200 lobbyists respectively at The Hague. Shell had 40 lobbyists present. Far from being an environmental treaty, Kyoto is part of the WTO neo-liberal agenda, fully backed by big business.
Few NGOs seem to have woken up to the fact that Kyoto has been hijacked by big business, that we have have moved from 'the polluter shall pay' to 'the polluter shall profit'. Some NGOs, such as WWF, have even jumped into bed with big business and are promoting emissions trading and the other scams as the solution.
Kyoto should be scrapped. A new agreement is needed which has at its heart climate justice, that recognises the need to move away from a carbon based economy and the need to follow a soft energy path, that recognises globalisation as the root cause of the problem and moves towards a locally based economy.
Had the US proposals at The Hague been agreed to, far from a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions we would have seen an increase. The way forward is that which led to the adoption of the anti-personnel landmines treaty. A group of like-minded countries got together to finalise the treaty, the others were then forced to follow suit.
[see BVEJ newsletters passim for information on global warming and the disastrous talks last year at The Hague]
Greenhouse Market Mania, Corporate Europe Observatory, November 2000
Flexible mechanisms, or let industry solve the problems, are so flexible that what we are likely to see is an increase in greenhouse emissions. At all cost the polluters want no controls, or fudged controls, on greenhouse gas emissions. Market-based mechanisms have turned Kyoto from an environmental treaty into a trade treaty. The largest grouping at the various Kyoto talks, especially the failed talks at The Hague, were emission traders. The atmosphere is now a trillion dollar market, a commodity waiting to be traded.
Under CDM the industrial countries will be able to invest in carbon-reduction technologies in the developing world. The carbon saved can be claimed as credits against emissions in the North. By making these investments abroad the rich countries can avoid having to make any reductions at home.
These carbon reductions gained should be welcome additions, not used to negate reductions elsewhere. If at some time in the near future developing countries are required to meet emissions targets, they will find that all the easy, cheap options have already been taken by the West.
The nuclear industry is trying to claim that it is a CDM!
The collapse of the former Soviet bloc means they are already at much lower carbon emissions. They can sell these as carbon credits to the richer countries. The US could meet its entire carbon reduction in this manner, and has already indicated it expects to hit 75% of its target through this route.
No real carbon reductions will have taken place.
Forests sequester carbon. By how much is unknown and virtually impossible to measure. Only new growth forests, and those where there is an increase in biomass, would be acting as carbon sinks. There is no guarantee the forests would remain.
The addition of sinks would enable countries to avoid any emission reductions. The US expects to achieve half of its target via this route. Canada wants to not only count all of its forested areas as sinks, but also wood in furniture and buildings, and even paper in landfill sites! Inclusion of sinks would effectively give the green light to an increase in carbon emissions.
Industrial forests have widespread social and environmental impacts.
Millions of years ago the earth was much hotter and contained higher levels of CO2. This was sucked down forming today's coal, oil and gas reserves. Pre-industrial the concentration of atmospheric CO2 was 280 ppm, now it is around 368 ppm (1999) and rising. Preliminary figure for 2000, 369 ppm.
Well over half the human release of carbon comes from burning fossil fuels. Around a quarter comes from poor forestry and agricultural practises.
A switch from oil and coal to natural gas (seen only as an interim fuel) and renewables would cut by one-half to three-quarters the amount of fossil-fuel carbon in each unit of primary energy. Increasing the conversion efficiency of primary to secondary energy could easily be improved by a factor of two. These two added together would give a 4- to 6-fold improvement in carbon emissions. Better agricultural practices would build up the soil not destroy it, turning it into a carbon sink. Reafforestation, a ban on clear-cutting, biomass fuel supplies, adds further significant savings.
In the US, power stations, mainly coal-fired, on average generate 32% electricity and throw away 66% waste heat, equal to the entire energy demand of Japan. Denmark, in contrast, gets two-fifths of its electricity from co-generation. Trigeneration can improve the US electricity supply system by about 2.8-fold, turning the input fuel into useful energy at a 90% or better efficiency. Standard off-the-shelf turbines are available from Trigen. This one innovation alone would reduce total US CO2 emissions by 23%. The solution proposed by George W Bush to the artificial energy crisis, is to build 1,900, mainly coal-fired, power plants over the next ten years.
Mankind is pumping out something like 6 Gigatonnes of carbon a year. Locked up in the Arctic tundra is several hundred Gigatonnes of carbon, 14% of the carbon stored in the world's soils. The tundra used to stay frozen all year round. It is now melting during the summer, and as the frozen vegetation decomposes carbon is released.
We need to stabilise the rate of temperature rise to less than 0.1 degree centigrade per decade, and limit the maximum temperature rise to less than 1 degree. Beyond this we will have unpredictable non-linear events, ie our feedback loops are fucked. At current fossil-fuel burn rates, CO2 levels will double by 2060. A doubling of CO2 levels will lead to a 1.5 to 4.5 degree rise. As more information becomes available these figures go up, the latest upper limit on 'business as usual' is around 6 degrees. To keep the long-term rise to around 1 degree, we will have to stabilise CO2 at 350 ppm, ie less than it is today. This limits the total amount of fossil-fuel burn to around 225 billion tonnes (if deforestation is taken into account this would drop to around 145 billion tonnes), current known carbon reserves are around four times this figure. If we wish to avoid total climate catastrophe, we cannot use our known carbon reserves, so why are we looking for more?
Between the signing of the Climate Convention in 1992 and the creation of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, BP added 60 million tonnes of carbon to its reserves as oil. BP, aside from the greenwash designed to dupe the gullible, is spending 1% of its fossil-fuel budget on renewables. BP expects its oil production to increase at the rate of 4-5% a year, gas output to rise fivefold by 2002. Investment in fossil fuel exploration and production to double to $8 billion a year.
122 state and private companies are responsible for nearly 80% of CO2 emissions. The US with 4% of the world's population is responsible for 24% of global greenhouse emissions. 80% of all CO2 emitted since 1850 has come from the North.
A cut in CO2 emissions of 60% would still leave atmospheric levels of CO2 at twice pre-industrial levels.
The idea that developing countries like India and China must share the blame for heating up the earth and destabilising its climate ... is an excellent example of environmental colonialisation. -- Centre for Science and Development, India
In the developed world only two people ride in a car and you want us to give up riding the bus. -- Zhong Shukong, leader China delegation, Kyoto
Industrialisation was built on the backs of the colonies. Cities like Liverpool and Bristol acquired their wealth from a three-way trade: manufactured goods to Africa, slaves to the West Indies, sugar to England.
The latter day disbenefits of industrialisation, global warming, are falling disproportionately on the poor. The poor, already marginalised, lack the infrastructure, health care systems or insurance to survive.
Carbon credits, emission trading, flexible mechanisms, or whatever we choose to call it, is a continuation of the neo-liberal, WTO, free trade agenda which is exploiting the poor. Industrial forests for carbon sequestration, located in the South, will destroy farmland, tropical forests, pollute water courses and ground water, and further marginalise the poor.
In 1981, Dow Chemicals instigated an energy saving programme at its Louisiana plant, a site employing 2,400 people. A shop-floor competition was established for projects that returned at least 50% annual return on investment. The first 27 projects averaged 127% ROI. This was thought to be a fluke, however 32 projects the following year averaged 173% ROI. Twelve years, and almost 900 projects later, the scheme has achieved 340% ROI (on the 575 projects subject to audit). Far from the savings going down, as might be expected, the experience gained has enabled greater savings. In later years the returns and savings were increasing, in the last three years the average payback fell from six months to only four months. By 1993, the entire suit of projects was saving Dow $110 million a year.
The chances of catastrophic climate change in this century - resulting from a five degree centigrade temperature rise - are some 700,000 times greater than the odds you will win the jackpot on the Saturday lottery. -- Caspar Henderson
It's no longer a case of whether the earth's climate will change but rather when, where and by how much. -- Robert T Watson, chairman IPCC
A one degree rise in average global temperature may not seem a lot, but that is a huge amount of extra energy being pumped into the atmosphere. The more energy we pump into the atmosphere the more unstable the climate.
Catastrophic events that only used to occur a few every decade are now occurring with the same frequency annually. The 1990s were the hottest decade on record.
Average temperatures can be misleading. As the icecaps melt the high albedo drops leading to a positive feedback loop. Tundra and pine forest warms up much quicker. This leads to decomposition of the acidic bogs, releasing more greenhouse gases. The average Arctic rise is expected to be more like ten degrees.
As glaciers and landmass ice caps melt the oceans rise leading to a 1 metre rise in sea level. This is sufficient to wipe out New York, London, and many other major coastal cities. 30% of prime agricultural land would be wiped out with a 1 metre rise. Rotting vegetation in the flooded areas (1 metre rise equates to 3% land loss) would release methane and CO2. Were the Western Antarctic ice sheet to come adrift (and it is already showing signs of cracking), we can expect a 6 metre rise in sea level. Were the entire Antarctic ice sheets to melt, sea levels would rise by 70 metres.
The Greenland ice sheet is melting at an annual rate of 51 billion cubic metres of water, equivalent to the current flow of the River Nile. Were the ice sheet to melt in its entirety, it alone would rise global sea levels by 7 metres.
In the mid-1990s, the Larsen-A ice-shelf in the Antarctic cracked and broke away. In 1998 a huge crack appeared in Larsen-B.
July 2000, a Russian icebreaker made it to the North Pole. To the surprise of the crew they found an expanse of open water. In the 91 years since man first reached the North Pole on foot, this is the first time open water has been found. Submarines have detected a 46% reduction in the thickness of the ice since the 1950s. Norwegian researchers expect the Arctic to have ice-free summers by 2050. The last time the pole was completely free of ice was 50 million years ago.
Winter 1999-2000 was the warmest US winter on record. The third winter in a row that records had been broken.
As oceans warm up they change from carbon sinks to carbon sources releasing dissolved CO2. Warmer seas would stratify, killing off phytoplankton, a major carbon sink.
In the UK we have seen the wettest winter on record. If we look at May just passed we can see unstable weather patterns. Early May we experienced a heat wave. London was several degrees warmer than the Eastern Mediterranean which was unseasonable low. The heat wave was followed by temperatures only a few degrees above freezing, colder than a typical winter, meanwhile the Eastern Mediterranean was hit by a heat wave with temperatures into the upper 30s. Southern England then experienced a second heatwave at the end of May. As May turned into June, the weather turned unseasonably wintry.
The commonly held view is that southern England will experience a Mediterranean climate as things hot up, hot dry summers, warm wet winters. This is highly unlikely. England is further north than Montreal but we do not experience Montreal's winters. This is due to the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream has almost turned off. It is driven by thermohaline pumps in the Arctic. It will take only a little more meltwater in this region to turn off the pumps.
A sample of extreme climatic events over a one year period in North America and the Caribbean.
September 1998 Northern Mexico, floods follow worst drought in 70 years.
October 1998 Caribbean, Hurricane Mitch kills over 11,000, three-quarters of Honduran crops destroyed. Losses $7 billion, insured $150 million.
January 1999 Toronto experiences worst ever recorded snowfall.
January 1999, Western-USA, 169 tornadoes in one month, previous record 52.
July-August 1999 Mid-America, heat wave kills 271 people, $7.4 billion aid to farmers.
May 1999 Southern Mexico, worst drought in living memory, 1.5 million tons of grain lost.
September 1999 Mosquito borne encephalitis hits New York, following a wet spring and hot summer.
Carbon dioxide is the best known of the greenhouses gases but it is by no means the most potent or long-lasting.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) Current levels in the atmosphere are at the highest levels of concentration for 200,000 years. CO2 persists for around 200 years. Current carbon sinks, oceans, forests, could turn into carbon sources as temperatures rise.
Methane (CH4) Twenty times more potent than CO2, hangs around for around 12 years. Arises from rotting vegetation and decomposition, also produced by cattle ranching and rice production. Vast stores of methane are locked away in the Arctic that could be released by global warming.
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 200 times more potent than CO2, stays in the atmosphere for 120 years. Major source the use of nitrogen-based fertilisers by agribusiness.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, CFC11 and CFC12) Used in refrigeration, persists in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Phased out due to damage to ozone layer, fluorocarbons now being used in refrigeration are just as bad.
Incoming solar radiation passes through the atmosphere and warms up the surface of the earth. The earth then re-radiates at low-frequency infra-red, just the right frequency to be absorbed by greenhouse gases. The energy is then re-radiated and bounces back and forth between the earth and the atmosphere. The result is an additional 47% of energy arriving back at the surface of the earth. It is this 'greenhouse' effect that raises the surface temperature, without which the average temperature would be minus eighteen centigrade.
An estimated 70 trillion tonnes of carbon are either located in or flow between the atmosphere, biosphere and oceans. The flux has remained fairly constant and is one of the Gaian feedback loops that maintains life on earth. That is until 1751, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, since when there has been growing carbon-fuel emissions of carbon into the atmosphere and a consequential rise in global temperates.
The 1990s were the warmest decade of the last thousand years, the 20th century the hottest century.
Seven of the ten warmest years on record were in the 1990s, 1998 the hottest year in the last millennium. The others were the hottest since 1983. The fourteen hottest years on record have occurred since 1980.
1998, apart from being the hottest year of the millennium, also holds the record for climate related disasters.
Non-linear chaotic systems can change very rapidly, flipping suddenly from one state to another. Such changes are essentially unpredictable. We are currently in an interglacial, only a few degrees separate us from the last Ice Age. Around 14,600 years ago a jump of five degrees centigrade occurred in just three years.
Spring arrives three weeks earlier in the US.
In Britain 20 species of bird nest on average nine days earlier.
In the past 30 years in Britain, the arrival of autumn has been delayed by 2 days per decade, spring has arrived 6 days earlier each decade.
Trees and small animal species are migrating northwards in Canada.
In southern England the Marsham family have kept records of 'the indications of spring' since 1736. The four earliest dates for oaks to come into leaf have all occurred in the 1990s.
The shortening of the Arctic winter is causing polar bears to starve. Cubs are dying because they are getting insufficient food during the winter.
Kyoto committed the signatories to a 5.2% reduction in greenhouse gases, far too little, far too late. Average figures can be misleading and it masks vast differences.
Australia +8 Canada -6 EU -8 Iceland +10 Japan -6 New Zealand 0 USA -7
Even within Europe there are large differences, Portugal is allowed an increase.
Base line is 1990. To date the old Soviet bloc are down 33.2%, US up 13%.
There are no limits on developing countries. Developing countries can jump directly to clean technology, therefore there is no reason why they should be allowed an increase, and with better fuel use efficiency should be decreasing their greenhouse emissions.
Globally carbon emissions have been falling over the last three years.
Ice core samples at Vostok show carbon levels in the atmosphere to be the highest for 420,000 years, they also show strong correlation between carbon levels and global temperature.
Twelve of the last fourteen disasters that Christian Aid and its partners have responded to have been caused by extreme weather events:
In the future over the next twenty years (2000-2010) we can expect:
Global warming, unnatural disasters and the world's poor, Christian Aid, November 2000
There would surely be a great migration of population away from the areas of the world liable to flooding, and from areas of declining rainfall and therefore of spreading desert. Those people will be crying out not for oil wells but for water. -- Margaret Thatcher, May 1990
The number of environmental refugees is expected to increase 6-fold over the next 50 years, from 25 million to 150 million. Already the number of environmental refugees exceeds those displaced by war.
Poor people are already living on the edge, it will take very little to drive them over the edge.
In China, the government places the number of environmental refugees at 30 million, others believe the figure is nearer 72 million. A one metre rise in sea level would flood all of Shanghai, plus 96% of the surrounding province. The population of Shanghai is over 12 million, expected to reach 27 million by 2030.
Glaciers in the Himalayas feed the major rivers in India. These in turn irrigate the 'bread basket of India' feeding one billion people. By 2040 the glaciers will have melted. All that will feed the rivers, with no melt water, will be the monsoons, if they come.
On the eastern edge of the Tibetan plateau a new desert is forming. Once productive grassland is being inundated by sand dunes. A decade of drier weather, three years of drought, accelerated by overgrazing, and millions of herdsmen and farmers are now being displaced.
A one metre rise in sea level would wipe out 30% of productive crop land. Changing weather would cause stress for crops in other areas, irrigation to fail, notwithstanding crops destroyed by drought, floods, and extremes of temperature.
A one metre rise in sea level would hit most of the world's major cities.
Europe already cannot cope with the influx of refugees. In the future, a new iron curtain, machine gun posts every hundred metres, gunning down any refugees who approach?
Rainforests are one of the world's most important ecosystems for regulation of the global environment.
The Amazon produces the warm wet westerlies that bathe the UK and help moderate the climate. The cloud cover produced by the Amazon rainforest helps change the earth's albedo. Without the cloud cover reflecting the heat of the direct sun, the area covered by the Amazon rainforest would be hot, arid desert.
The heavy rainfall that falls in the Amazon and helps maintain and nourish the forest is produced by the forest itself. As the forest shrinks and becomes drier there is less rainfall to maintain the remaining rainforest, eventually the rainforest collapses. At present rate of destruction the Amazon rainforest will have disappeared in a couple of decades.
Rainforests are host to a diverse range of species. In Indonesia the rainforests are being clear cut for paper production.
Indonesian rainforests are host to 12% of the world's mammal species, and a fifth of bird species. More than 70% of Indonesia's rainforests have already been destroyed, the remainder is being destroyed at the rate of of 2 million hectares a year, an area the size of Belgium. Loss of Indonesian rainforest will drive into extinction in the wild Sumatran rhinoceros, Sumatran tiger and the orang-utan. By 2020 all of Indonesia's rainforests will have been destroyed.
The company mainly responsible for the destruction in Indonesia is Asia Pulp and Paper. Paper from APP is flooding into the UK. NatWest is financing APP.
Calculating the ecological footprints of various energy sources is one measure of their sustainability. Units: ha-year per GW-hour.
natural gas 45 fuel oil 59 fuel wood 95 LPG (bottled) 51
coal 198 oil 150 gas 94 wind 6 photovoltaics 24 biomass - woody 27-46 hydro 10-75
Nicky Chambers, Craig Simmons & Mathis Wackernagel, Sharing Nature's Interests: Ecological Footprints as an indicator of sustainability, Earthscan, 2000
BP, who claim to be on the side of the climate, are actually doing everything they can to perpetuate climate change. -- Stephanie Tunmore, Greenpeace activist
However virtuous BP and Shell may be relative to their competitors, they have other agendas.... What is desperately needed is for civil society to reclaim management of the climate problem, and to wrest control of the issue from the corporations. -- Greg Muttitt & James Marriott
After years of aggressive denial, Shell and BP have finally admitted that global warming does exist, but corporate hype aside that is as far as they have gone. Their advertising showing their cute little projects to save the planet cost more than the projects. Their global advertising costs more than their investment in solar energy. Both are expanding their oil and gas flows (Shell by 5% per year, BP between 5.5 and 7%). Shell is drilling in sensitive areas in Pakistan and Bangladesh, BP wants to open up the Arctic and North Atlantic frontier. Both are part of the new gas exploration in Saudi Arabia. The cuts BP and Shell are promising in carbon emissions are only within their own business operations, they are only too happy to maintain the flow of carbon fuels for other people's emissions. BP and Shell are not only strong proponents of CDM, but have CDM projects in the pipeline (Shell eight projects, BP four projects). Shell and BP are investing in industrial forests to use as carbon sinks.
Shell claims that it never moves into sensitive areas without wide consultation! Oil spills due to neglect or sabotage are reported a couple of times a week in the Nigerian press, several thousand people have been killed, pools of stinking oil everywhere, thousands of hectares of forest destroyed. In 1999, Shell spent £22 million cleaning up its image, money that would have been better spent cleaning up in Nigeria.
BP is the most important minority investor in PetroChina (subsidiary of CNPC). As an investor, BP is implicated in human rights violations in Sudan (indirectly via CNPC) and in Tibet. In Sudan the army clears the land of people, the oil companies then move in. It is oil that is financing the civil war, every dollar earned by oil is a dollar spent on the civil war. PetroChina is exploring for oil and gas in Chinese occupied Tibet. [BVEJ newsletters #0003 August 2000, #0005 October 2000 & #0009 February 2001]
FoE and Greenpeace have recently launched boycotts of Exxon. But why Exxon, there are more than sufficient grounds to include every other oil company: Shell (fragile areas, human rights abuses), BP (fragile areas, human rights), Premier Oil (Burma), Occidental (Columbia) and so the list goes on. [BVEJ newsletters passim]
BP and Shell may have pulled out of the Global Climate Coalition (an unholy alliance of coal and oil producers that denies the existence of climate change and makes it appear as some Commie plot against capitalism), but they are still active members of the American Petroleum Institute and the Business Roundtable both of which are just as aggressive in lobbying for no cuts in carbon emissions and spreading disinformation. BP and Shell remain members of industry coalitions which are Global Climate Coalition members thus remain de facto GCC members. BP has regularly over several years made financial contributions to US Congressmen who oppose any environmental policies, and in particular oppose US ratification of Kyoto. The recent BP AGM showed exactly where BP stood (BVEJ newsletter #0012 May 2001). Prior to this year's AGM BP met with 30 fund managers to ask them not to support ethical resolutions that would force it away from its core oil and gas business and to heed human rights, three resolutions never even made it onto the agenda.
ExxonMobil came in at number 11 ($1.2 million) in the Top 30 Republican donors, BP Amoco came in at number 15 ($950,000).
Both Shell and BP are members of the International Chamber of Commerce and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. ICC and WBCSD had over 100 and 200 lobbyists respectively at The Hague. ICC and WBCSD have lobbied hard to make Kyoto as business friendly as possible, market-based solutions are to prevail, with no mandatory curbs on greenhouse gas emissions. ICC is the driving force behind globalisation and the WTO. WBCSD helped to establish the International Emission Trading Association, which includes BP and Shell as its members. ICC and WBCSD hijacked the Rio Earth Summit and ensured regulation of big business was off the agenda. That one act alone set back the environment and Third World development by decades.
Read The Carbon War by Jeremy Leggett for an account of the activities of the Global Climate Coalition and other big business lobby groups.
It is depressing that so many environmental groups and individuals who should know better are taken in by corporate spin and bullshit. Exxon is no worse or better than the other oil companies. The only difference is that Exxon are forthright in their views, whereas the others produce a smoke-screen of greenwash behind which it is business as usual. None have changed course and moved away from the carbon economy. Shell and BP may have said they believe in global warming but they are still seeking to expand their oil and gas reserves, increase production. It is rather like Robin Cook who talked of an ethical foreign policy and continued selling arms to repressive regimes.
At the end of the day it is up to us. The oil companies can only increase their production because there is a market, because we keep on buying the stuff. We are leading, they are only following our lead. If we wish to cut oil production then it is for us to wean ourselves off the filthy stuff. Anything less and we are as guilty of hypocrisy as the oil companies. Worse still are those who are duped by the oil companies' greenwash as they are acting as willing dupes to dupe everyone else.
Read: Greg Muttitt & James Marriott, Cynics or Saviours?, The Ecologist, July/August 2001
Monsanto the corporate polluter, the producer of GM seeds is well known, but the climate saviour! Monsanto is offering its herbicide Roundup and GM trees as the solution to global warming.
Monsanto is promoting zero-tillage farming. Farmers do not plough the soil, instead they plant Monsanto Roundup resistant GM crops and clear the weeds with Roundup. Monsanto claim that this alone would soak up 30% of the US carbon reduction targets. Good soil husbandry and old-fashioned traditional farming methods would achieve the same ends but don't make profits for Monsanto.
Monsanto are also promoting GM grow-faster trees, and GM crops that absorb more carbon.
There is every danger of the fossil fuel or nuclear power debate turning into a paper cup versus plastic cup confrontation which avoids the real issue - they are both as bad as each other. -- Nicky Chambers, Craig Simmons & Mathis Wackernagel
The nuclear industry is promoting itself as the clean energy of the future, it sees Kyoto as its last gasp for life. The industry sees climate change, 'as the best friend we have had in the past 40 years.'
Even if we set aside the disposal of waste and other associated hazards, even if we ignore the dire economics, nuclear has no future.
The nuclear industry is putting itself forward as a zero emissions industry. This is as big a lie as previous lies, electricity too cheap to meter, no harmful radiation. The industry conveniently neglects to mention that through its energy-intensive activities, it is a massive generator of CO2 - construction and decommissioning of reactors, storage and processing of waste, mining and processing of fuel, transport etc.
If the nuclear industry were able to claim carbon credits under the Clean Development Mechanism, it could reduce the construction costs of new reactors by 40% or more.
The strongest opponents of this inclusion of nuclear energy under CDM are the Association of Small Island States, who at first hand not only are seeing the dangers of rising sea levels but have in the past suffered nuclear tests in their waters.
New Labour are minded to expand nuclear power in the UK. Pro-nuke energy minister Brian Wilson has a nuclear plant in his constituency. It is owned by British Energy (Nuclear Energy would be too much of a give away) who have seen their profits fall by 95%.
And no, large scale dam hydro schemes, even if we ignore the environmental and social impacts, are not clean sources. The rotting vegetation releases as much greenhouse emissions as the equivalent coal-fired power plant. [BVEJ newsletter #0004 September 2000]
The American public can register their opinions at the ballot box, but for the rest of the world, all we can do is register our opinions via the marketplace. -- Gerd Leipold, Greenpeace International Executive Director
Esso ... could be brought to its knees by an alliance of environmentalists in the most profound British demonstration of consumer activism since Barclay's Bank was forced to pull out of South Africa. -- The Observer, 6 May 2001
If transnational companies think they can successfully bribe our politicians, then it is for us to punish those same companies in the marketplace. -- Keith Parkins
Our call to bushwhack Bush (BVEJ newsletter #0009 February 2001 and later issues) has now been taken up big time. Several web sites now exist echoing our call. Some of the sites are a little naive. A call to boycott Exxon, but not Shell. Why? Exxon may have financed Bush, but Shell are drilling in fragile areas (Kirthar National Park, Pakistan, BVEJ newsletters #0010 March 2001 & #0011 April 2001) as are BP Amoco (Arctic area in Alaska, BVEJ newsletters passim), both Shell and BP Amoco are part of the consortium headed by Exxon invited to open up a new gas field the size of Ireland in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a repressive regime no better than Turkey or Iraq.
At $36 million, George W Bush came cheap. One good reason for boycotting the corporations that supported Bush is as punishment for supporting Bush. Another good reason for bushwhacking Bush is that it is bloody good fun!
We are sure George W Bush would love to hear your views:
A recent survey in the US has half of those questioned seeing Bush as a menace to the environment, 58% take a dim view of the way Bush is handling the energy crisis.
Phil Thornhill has done sterling work with his lonely vigil outside the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square, every Saturday afternoon (BVEJ newsletter #0011 April 2001). Slowly, slowly others have joined in and it has even got coast to coast TV coverage in the US. Phil is now planning a mass march from Exxon HQ in Kingsway (Aldwych) to the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square (Bond Street Stn) followed by a rally outside the embassy, followed by a party and picnic in Hyde Park (Sat 28 July 2001). Further details from Phil 020 8533 7274 <philthornhill@yahoo.com> or in the Blackwater Valley area contact Ruth <ruth@jarman101.freeserve.co.uk>.
Charges have been filed in the US against Exxon for human rights abuses in Indonesia.
Ironically George W Bush may have done us all a favour by consigning the Kyoto treaty to the dustbin of history. It grants the opportunity to draft a new environmental treaty to address the issues of global warming.
Read special feature, Boycotting Bush, Ethical Consumer, June/July 2001.
It is more than 20 years since our country developed a comprehensive energy policy. It is important for President Bush and Congress to take another look at this important issue, but not based on misleading statements made lately by high administration officials. -- Jimmy Carter
When I was inaugurated, American vehicles were averaging only 12 miles per gallon. Today, new cars reach more than twice this gas mileage, which would be much higher except for the failure to maintain the efficiency standards, beginning in the Reagan years. -- Jimmy Carter
Those who advocate drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to meet current needs are careful to conceal the facts that almost none of electricity in energy-troubled California is generated from oil ... -- Jimmy Carter
Former US president Jimmy Carter has slammed Bush for his handling of the energy crisis.
Two Middle East Oil Crises and the soaring price of oil on the world market forced Jimmy Carter to implement a crash energy programme, this included energy efficiency, solar and renewables. When Reagan came in the programmes had their funding cut.
Had the Carter programme been followed through there would be no energy crisis in the US. In the last five years vehicle efficiency has gone down.
What Bush and his industrial paymasters claim to be an energy crisis is as nought to what was faced by Carter in 1973 and 1979. There is plenty of oil on the market, oil prices are historically low, there are no queues at the filling stations.
In the 20 years since Carter signed the energy bills in 1980, US GNP has increased by 90%, energy consumption by 26%, gasoline prices have fallen by 41% in real terms. In reality there is no energy crisis, only an attempt to rig the figures on behalf of vested interests to give an excuse to open up environmentally sensitive areas.
A consortium headed by Exxon and including Shell, BP and Phillips is to participate in the exploration and development of three gas fields in Saudi Arabia. The largest project is a $15 billion development of gas reserves in South Ghawar, the largest oil field in the world, covering an area bigger than Ireland. Shell will lead the development of the much smaller Shaybah gas project. In total the projects are worth $25 billion.
In addition to possessing the world's largest oil reserves, Saudi Arabia has proven natural gas reserves of 6.6 trillion cubic metres.
Saudi Arabia is one of the world's worst pariah states. This is the first time in 25 years that western oil companies have been invited back into Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia nationalised its oil fields in 1975. The oil companies hope the projects will lead to the even bigger prize of oil exploration.
Worldwide pressure by environmentalists (including BVEJ) has forced Shell to abandon drilling in Kirthar National Park, Pakistan (BVEJ newsletters #0010 March 2001 & #0011 April 2001). But, Shell is carrying out exploration in the mangrove swamps in a large area bordering India and Bangladesh.
The Shell operation in Pakistan was a joint venture with Premier Oil, who intend to carry on. Premier is a pariah even amongst oil companies for its complicity in human rights violations in Burma. Premier was heavily criticised at its AGM in May for its involvement in Burma (environmental degradation and human rights violations).
Shell has been granted exploration and drilling rights in Sundarbans, a vast coastal mangrove forest in Bangladesh that extends across the border into eastern India. The area, home to around 350 Royal Bengal tigers, rhinos, spotted swamp deer, water buffalo, birds and reptiles, is designated by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site and is also designated as an important wetland site.
When the pumping began, the war began ... Oil has brought death. -- Chief Malony Kolang, Western Upper Nile
Sudan's oil revenues have been used for the purchase of weapon's used for killing and displacing people in the oil areas. -- Sudanese Council of Churches
One of the hidden costs of the carbon econmy, especially oil, is human rights abuses. Abuses that few people hear of, to which the Western powers in their lust for oil turn a convenient blind eye. Saudi Arabia has one of the world's worst human rights records, a record that puts it on a par with pariah states like Turkey and China, a record that is getting worse. What masquerades as government in Saudi Arabia is a brutal feudal monarchy using the Koran as a makeshift constitution. Kuwait is little better than Saudi Arabia.
Oil is fuelling a Middle East arms race. The Al Yamamaha contract for Saudi Arabia, prime contractor BAe (Beyond All ethics: Still arming repressive regimes), is still one of the world's biggest arms contracts. Arms to Saudi Arabia hikes up the weapons budgets in all neighbouring countries, as other pariah states such as Turkey are drawn in, this in turn fuels an Aegean arms race with Greece and an Eastern Mediterranean arms race with Cyprus.
In Columbia the U'wa tribe are threatening mass suicide if oil exploration moves on to their sacred lands. For the U'wa people, to be separated from the place where the spirits of their ancient ancestors reside is a fate worse than death. In the Niger Delta of Nigeria, oil companies have been aiding and abetting attacks by the military on local people campaigning against pollution. In Sudan it is oil that is financing the brutal civil war, a war that is in part being fought over access to oil.
The civil war that is raging in Sudan, the repressive brutal Arab Islamic north versus the African Christian south, is in part over the Bentiu oil fields. Troops, tanks, helicopter gunships, aerial bombardments are being used to massacre non-Arabs and drive them from the oil fields. The New Sudan Council of Churches has accused the north of genocide. It is the proceeds from the oil fields that are financing the war.
The oil is controlled by the Greater Nile Oil Project. BP Amoco holds the largest stake (40%). BP Amoco is also a large stake holder in PetroChina, another major player in the Sudan oil fields.
Burma has one of the world's worst records on human rights. Premier Oil are part of a consortium involved in exploring oil development in the Andaman Sea. The project involves the construction of a major pipeline through Burma stretching to the Thai border. Part of the oil development programme is the construction of a railway, a railway constructed with slave labour using children as young as ten. Labourers are forcibly taken from villages through which the railway passes, refusing to take part is not an option and if a whole village refuses then the head man is publicly beaten to set an example. Substandard work is punished by torture and death. Human rights observers estimate that 60,000 people a day are forced to work on the railway, and that every 18 months around 300 die.
Unocal are another company with a poor human rights record in Burma. They are currently in partnership with NATELCO to build an 11-berth port in India. The port will destroy fertile farm land, and sensitive coastal breeding grounds. This will add to the problem of mangrove destruction to support fish farms. Many self-sufficient farmers and fisherman will lose their livelihood. Protests by local villagers were brutally put down by the local police. Not content with beating and tear-gassing the villagers, the police then went on the rampage and destroyed their villages. Lawyers who acted for the villagers were also beaten up by the police.
[adopted from Carbon Wars by Keith Parkins]
Sweden is noted for its advanced energy, environmental and social policies.
In 1986, a study by the State Power Board, found that by fully implementing mid-1980s efficiency technologies it could save half of its electricity at an average cost of 78% of generating more. By adopting this strategy, and switching to less carbon-intensive fuels and switching to the least carbon-intensive power stations Sweden could also achieve:
If a country like Sweden, in a cold northern latitude, already energy efficient, using old 80s technologies, can make such impressive savings, what can gas guzzling, carbon producing Brits and Yanks achieve?
A similar study to the Swedish study a year later in the Indian state of Karnataka found that simple efficiency improvements, small hydroelectric plants, co-generation of electricity from sugar cane waste, methane gas production from other bio-waste, a small amount of natural gas, and solar water heaters, could achieve far greater and earlier progress than the state fossil-fuelled plan. The non-state plan would require two-fifths less electricity, cost two-thirds less and generate 95% less fossil-fuel CO2.
The Indian study exposes the lie that the poor South will have to increase its carbon emissions to improve living standards. Another point to note is that the small-scale systems can diffuse into society much more quickly, with far lower environmental and societal impacts and at much lower capital cost.
One of the main uses of electricity is the pumping of fluids (gases and liquids). Increasing the pipe diameter reduces the friction (an inverse function to the fifth power), as does reducing bends, removing valves and other obstructions. We can then use smaller pumps, which require less energy.
A major use of pumping is in air-conditioning. Better designed buildings leads to smaller air-conditioning plants or their elimination.
In the US, electric motors account for three-quarter of industry's use of electricity, slightly more primary energy than highway vehicles. Make an impact on motor efficiency and we impact on electricity generation.
Compact fluorescent lamps (aka energy saving bulbs) came onto the commercial market in the early 1980s, the market is now ten times what it was in 1988. In 1999, 432 million units were sold. It is estimated that more than 1 billion are in use today. The electricity saved is equivalent to 28 medium sized coal-fired power plants.
In the US, the number of energy saving lamps in use is avoiding 3.5 million tons of carbon emissions per annum. In Denmark, at a cost of $4 dollars, and running 4 hours a day, the payback time is 6 months. Over the 10,000 hours life of the lamp a saving of 12 times purchase cost.
Michael Scholand, Compact fluorescents light up the globe {in Vital Signs 2000-2001, Earthscan, 2000}
Given only a slight increase in the scope for windstorms, drought-related wildfires, and floods, the $2 trillion insurance industry would be in danger of global collapse, with knock-on economic consequences which are completely ignored in most analyses of climate change. -- Jeremy Leggett
If sunbeams were weapons of war we would have had solar power long ago. -- George Porter
Opponents of deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions always focus on the cost as an excuse for doing nothing, but conveniently ignore the costs of doing nothing. As this was being written, Houston, Texas, was hit by a tropical downpour, around a metre of rain fell, causing an estimated $1 billion of damage for one climatic event. Many areas, indeed entire regions, are no longer able to obtain insurance cover.
Hurricane Andrew (USA, August 1992) losses $22 billion, insured $16 billion, deaths 52.
Hurricane Mitch (Nicaragua and Honduras, October 1998) losses $7 billion, insured $150 million, deaths over 11,000.
Munich Re (German insurance company) has estimated that the rate of natural disasters is doubling in frequency every decade. In the US, the annual cost of extreme weather events has risen from $100 million in the 1950s to $6 billion in the 1990s. The 1992 Hurricane Andrew drove 11 insurance companies into bankruptcy, and it missed Miami.
The real cost is the cost of doing nothing. It is also questionable whether there are any net costs in reducing carbon emissions, as most reductions lead to net cost savings. There will be some industries which will suffer disproportionately, but as these will only be paying their externalised costs and we wish to shut them down anyway there is no great loss.
OECD has conservatively estimated global losses from economic damage and climate chaos at $970 billion. As the losses mount we are facing global economic collapse.
Munich Re has calculated that the costs of dealing with climatic events are more expensive than prevention:
A number of attempts have been made in recent times to estimate the cost of anthropogenic climate change worldwide. The results of these analyses are unmistakable: in the long term the cost of preventive strategies is much lower than the losses to be expected as a result of climate change.
In the US, reducing emissions by 2010 by 10% below 1990 levels (through expansion of public transport, renewable energy and energy efficiency) would generate 773,000 new jobs and cut the average household energy bill by $350 a year.
An electricity company in Sacramento found it cheaper to connect street lights to solar cells than to hook into the existing power cables. Most electricity utilities could use solar and other renewables in many locations at zero net cost with improved reliability and achieve 97% cut in their carbon emissions.
The Rocky Mountain Institute, 7,100 feet up in the Rockies, in the depth of winter, requires no space heating system, delivers surplus electricity to the grid. The Darmstadt Passivhaus needs 90% less heat and 75% less electricity than an equivalent German house of the same size, but offers superior comfort. The engineering block of De Montfort University in Leicester (an attractive building for a modern design) is naturally cooled and ventilated, uses 25-50% less energy than a typical building of this size, but cost less to build. Jeremy Leggett's retrofitted terraced house in Richmond, Surrey, with amorphous silicon photovoltaic imitation slates, delivers a surplus of electricity to the grid.
Demand side investment is very productive and cost effective. Building factories to produce superwindows and energy efficient lamps rather than power stations and transmission equipment is a far better use of capital. Something like a thousandfold decrease in capital investment for the same creature comforts, considerably more labour intensive, with a payback on investment about ten times as fast, effectively reducing the capital needs by about ten thousandfold. By comparison, a nuclear power plant, even assuming it were desirable, would absorb capital that would be more productive when invested elsewhere.
Globally fossil fuel subsidies amount to $120 billion a year, with natural gas receiving the least support.
Money is needed for conversion, grants and pump priming but this is easily found. A Tobin Tax on international speculative currency flows (trillions of dollars whiz round the globe every day) would at a rate of 0.25% raise several billion dollars, and have the added bonus of being grit in the speculative flow (BVEJ newsletter #0005 October 2000). A curb in the arms trade would also raise billions. The money spent on the Gulf War would have been better spent on energy efficiency measures and renewables as this would have eliminated Western dependence on Middle East oil. Third World Debt could be rewritten off, on the condition that the money went on renewables and energy efficiency. Real carbon cuts, with heavy financial penalties for no-compliance would be another source of money. In the UK, overseas soft loans and other corporate socialism is funding the arms trade, coal-fired power stations and large-scale dam projects, to the exclusion of renewables and energy efficiency. The World Bank, and other country's export credit agencies, are doing their best not to be outdone by the UK. On the other hand Denmark bans the export of coal-fired power plants to India.
Following the failure of COP6 in The Hague last November, COP6.5 is being held in Bonn this month.
Many are hoping to go to Bonn to have the fun on the streets as they did in The Hague. Many more cannot afford the luxury: commitments of work, family, can't afford it. Should we being indulging ourselves, especially if we fly out to Bonn?
Rising Tide are proposing a week of local action during the first week of Bonn (14-21 July 2001). A shut down of Farnborough Airport for the week would not only cut greenhouse gas emissions, it would give the local community a much needed respite from the noise and improve local air quality.
BVFoE may be planning action during Bonn, either locally or on the streets of Bonn. Julie Kimber 01252 510424 julie@bvfoe.freeserve.co.uk
Forget your Network Railcard, Young Persons Railcard, Old Folks Railcard, with their measly 1/3 off, and then only at off-peak times. Get a Rising Tide Railcard that demands a full 90% off at any time of day. That's right, a full 90% off, you only pay 10% of the fare. And the Rising Tide Railcard is free, well almost free (100 railcards for 3-50). Such is the bargain of the Rising Tide Railcard that you can afford to get them and give to your friends, hand them out to your fellow rail passengers on your next train journey.
Are they valid for travel? Get the card, show the guard, then you will find out.
Timed to coincide with the first day of talks in Bonn, 16 July 2001 is national day of action on climate change. Why not hand out Rising Tide Railcards at your local station? Or why not go on a group trip to the seaside all grasping your Rising Tide Railcards? That way you can link together 90% cut in carbon emissions, with a 90% cut in rail fares, with rising sea levels.
Rising Tide Railcards (cheques payable to 'Rising Tide') are available from (3-50 for 100):
90% for 90% c/o Manchester EF! Box 29 29a Beswick Street Manchester M4 7HS
Rising Tide Railcards and further information will also be available from the Rising Tide stall at the Guildford Green Ambient Picnic.
The fuel of the future is hydrogen, both in transit systems and for local electricity supply. Hydrogen is a 'clean burn' fuel, the only output being hot water and electricity.
Vehicles can be driven by hybrid-electric systems or fuel cells. Hybrid systems, an interim solution, use conventional internal combustion engines, sterling engines or gas turbines to power electric motors that directly drive the wheels. These are highly efficient as the motors run under optimum loads, and more reliable as few moving parts. For braking, the motors turn into generators, not wasting heat via friction brakes.
Better still are fuel-cell powered vehicles. The fuel cell is silent, solid state, very reliable and efficient. The input is oxygen (taken from the air) and hydrogen, the waste output is hot water. Private vehicles are little used, they spend most of their time sitting idle at known locations (shops, home, work, etc). At these locations the vehicles could be used as small mobile power plants delivering power to the grid.
DaimlerChrysler expects to have a fleet of fuel cell powered buses operational in Europe next year. Two years later it expects to have fuel cell cars rolling off the production lines. During this period both Honda and Toyota expect to have fuel cell cars in production.
The first use of fuel cells is likely not to be in vehicles, apart from a few public vehicles, but in the home and office as off-the-shelf power plants. Hooked into the gas supply, with an intermediate gas to hydrogen converter. The output is hot water (for space heating) and electricity (any surplus supplied to the grid). Surplus hydrogen can be used for vehicles. A distributed power system supplying usable clean energy at the site of demand. In any new development (probably also true for retrofit) it would pay utilities to install for free, as less cost than providing additional generation and distribution. The distribution system would be used primarily for load balancing, not supply.
The existing fuel infrastructure would supply the supply points for fuelling vehicles (as it is now doing for LPG). In addition, larger gas to fuel cell CHP systems could, with their surplus hydrogen, also be supply points. Hydrogen can be supplied from biomass, using existing waste, and from well head conversion at gas fields, the CO2 produced injected back into the field, improving extraction yield and lessening the need to open up new fields, from renewable systems using the electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.
All renewable electricity power plants, even when located at the point of demand, have a problem, variability of supply and storage of electricity. The grid can be used to help smooth out the peaks and troughs. Hydrogen is ideal as a high energy storage medium. When providing a surplus the surplus electricity can be used to produce hydrogen.
In Iceland it is official government policy to implement a hydrogen economy and Iceland is expected to be the first country with a hydrogen economy. After the Second World War Iceland moved away from fossil fuels for heating, relying instead on abundant geothermal energy. The second phase is to move away from fossil fuels for transport. To meet this aim a consortium, Icelandic New Energy, including DaimlerChrysler, Shell and Norsk Hydro, has been formed.
California is the second contender for a carbon-free hydrogen economy. Pushed by the zero-emissions car legislation, a partnership, the California Fuel Cell Partnership, has been formed which includes all the major players in the oil and automobile industries.
Mobility is a curse, one person's mobility is another's jam. Even ancient Rome had chariot jams.
Fuel costs are only minor costs and on present trends fuel costs are dropping, especially measured as the cost of fuel in real terms, both in unit cost and efficiency, but as each person's individual costs drop, the cost to society rise as more individuals become mobile.
In the US fuel is cheaper than bottled water. The cost (in normalised 1986 dollars) of driving 25 miles in 1929 was $4, 1949 $3, 1969 $2, 1989 $1. Extrapolation, which is used to justify all 'business-as-usual' scenarios (we must have more roads, airports etc cos that's what the graph tells us), gives us $0 in 2009!
Were the automobile to be classed as disease (and it is a major killer) there would be a mass eradication programme. In the case of the car, social interactions are reduced to road rage.
Car users have to pay the real cost of their mobility and space consumption. Scarce resources are usually priced to maximise their frugal use, but for motoring (and other road use) the usual economics are overturned, car parking is provided free, or almost free, lack of road space is solved by allocation of more free road space. All this does as with the provision of other 'free' goods (ie pollution of air sea and water) is to maximise their use. Office and other developments try to maximise their car parking areas. If the users were charged, the need would drop. Charging for the real cost of out-of-town park-and-shop would eliminate by non-economic viability. Office workers could be charged by their companies the real cost of allocation, then given this as part of a salary supplement. The workers could then decide on how to use their supplements, either on parking or alternative travel. A legal requirement in parts of smoggy California for companies of 50-plus workers. High road pricing, permits to enter city centres. The permit would serve as a free pass for public transport, the cost of the permit paying for the public transport system. The Road Tax disc should be a permit to travel on the road reflecting the real cost of occupying road space, when the vehicle is not in use, ie off the road, the disc could function as a public transport pass (thanks to Tony Benn for that one).
The car should be a little used accessory, not the dominant feature around which our entire society is structured.
Mass-transit systems should only be seen as interim solutions. What we need are not better public transport systems (though we need better than what we have now) but better neighbourhoods, where we can work, shop, live, play and relax all within 5 minutes walk of each other. Natural organic developments have this feature. It is not only a feature of small prehistoric settlements. It was also once true of a city like London, each neighbourhood self-contained, no need to travel outside except for special reasons.
Eastern and Central Europe stand at the crossroads. State railways, inherited from the Soviet era, are crumbling through lack of investment. Money that is pouring into the country is for long-distance routes under TENs (BVEJ newsletter #0006 November 2000), whilst local routes serving local communities are neglected.
Monitor our own personal energy consumption. Grants and advice are often available from local authorities. Turn off unwanted lights, insulate, if re-roofing, use photovoltaics to cover the roof surface. Minimise waste, recycle, buy local, demand local organically grown produce, support farmers markets, walk, cycle, use public transport, oppose globalisation.
Demand energy efficiency and waste minimisation in the work place. Are you producing products and services that are of use and benefit society? Are your products recyclable and reusable and contain no toxic chemicals?
When replacing household appliances, choose energy efficient models. If not labelled, ask why not.
No development should be permitted that does not provide a net carbon reduction for the community in which it is based of at least 90% Buildings should be super-efficient, rely upon natural light and cooling, passive space heating, net contributors to the national grid.
Decarbonising the economy is what we mean by 60-70% cuts in greenhouse gases, leading to 90% cuts. Decarbonising the economy is what is being resisted under Kyoto. All Kyoto does is shuffle around the globe carbon emissions whilst at the same time pretending real cuts are taking place.
Decarbonising the economy is nothing new. Once we realise this it will be easier to move to a carbon free economy. Since man first rubbed two sticks together we have gone through several phases of carbon reduction. The last phase will be when we move from the carbon economy and enter the hydrogen economy.
Carbon economy phase I Man, or humanoids, discovered fire hundreds of thousands of years ago. The carbon source was wood, 10-1 carbon to hydrogen atoms.
Carbon economy phase II The industrial revolution kicked off in England, coal became king, one or two carbon molecules to each hydrogen.
Carbon economy phase III The 20th century rise of oil through the rise of the car. Oil surpasses coal in the 1960s. One molecule of carbon to every two of hydrogen.
Carbon economy phase IV Natural gas burns cleaner and more efficiently than oil, can easily be distributed by pipeline. The cleanest of the fossil fuels. The fuel of the late 20th century. One molecule of carbon to four of hydrogen.
Hydrogen economy Natural gas is only a bridging fuel to usher in the hydrogen economy. Hydrogen the clean fuel of the 21st century.
Seth Dunn, Decarbonising the Energy Economy {in Lester R Brown et al, State of the World 2001, Earthscan, 2001}
Soft energy paths are based on a hydrogen/renewable energy economy where energy supply is matched in scale, suitability and geographical location to use, where energy distribution is equitable.
[BVEJ newsletter #0012 May 2001]
Rising Tide toured the country during May and early June - Brighton (40-50 people), Farnborough (a mere handful turned up), then on and upwards to Edinburgh (around 50), then back down to Reading (20-30) and finally Oxford (50). Farnborough was the big disappointment of the tour, especially as there was the link with aviation (BVEJ newsletter #0013 June 2001). Oxford was the grand finale. During the day 20 people were trained as speakers to help spread the word, the night ended with a bang, with a gig by the group Seize the Day to which a couple of hundred people turned up.
Rising Tide were formed last year in Holland where they successfully stormed the conference centre and generated a lot of publicity. They have since gone from strength to strength. They have done more and achieved more than all the mainstream environmental groups put together. There is a twin focus to their aims - to raise awareness of climate chaos and the part we play and to get people to do something about it. Governments have failed to act to cut greenhouse gases and being in the pocket of big business are unlikely to act, therefore if we wish to see a cut in greenhouse gases it is up to us.
There will be a Rising Tide stall at the Guildford Ambient Green Picnic (Sunday 8 July 2001 down by the river). Volunteers are wanted to run the stall.
No issue will be more contentious than the need to control emissions of carbon dioxide ... We can't just do nothing... Each country has to contribute, and those countries who are industrialised must do more than those who are not. -- Margaret Thatcher, November 1989
Those who are currently disenfranchised and worst affected by climate chaos must be heard at the conference table. Big business is the problem not the solution and must have no place at the conference table.
An immediate cut of 60 to 70% in carbon emissions, with a long-term move to a carbon free economy.
An end to further fossil fuel exploration.
A shift to a soft energy path.
Reduction in energy consumption.
Delinking of wellbeing from consumerism.
A factor ten improvement in resource use is perfectly feasible and would lead to cost savings, as would a move away from a carbon-based energy policy.
A move away from globalisation to localisation.
Phase-out of nuclear power.
No flexible mechanisms, carbon credits, emission trading or carbon sinks as fraudulent solutions to climate chaos.
Mandatory reductions, ie no voluntary cuts, in carbon emissions, with hefty financial penalties for non-compliance. The money raised to be administered by the Alliance of Small Island States for implementation of soft energy paths in developing countries.
Cancellation of Third World Debt, the money to to be invested in the same countries for implementation of soft energy paths.
Carbon and energy taxes (levied on primary energy) in rich countries.
Tobin Tax, to slow speculative money flows, the money raised to go on helping the poor.
Dismantling of the WTO.
McDonalds once again demonstrated their (lack of) compassion recently in South Africa. Despite regular muggings and rapes, McDonalds employees are not entitled to transport when they finish work late, often after 2am. One waitress was gang raped in February, and is now so terrified of going home after work that she spends her nights hiding in the local mall and leaves after sunrise. Despite an unsuccessful appeal to Mucky D's for help to buy anti-retroviral drugs, the megacorp did offer her a short-term loan. She declined the offer, knowing she wouldn't be able to pay it back, but help finally arrived when she contacted a community-based anti-rape organisation. The woman, who is too afraid to be named, said, 'If I do end up getting HIV, McDonald's will have helped sign my death warrant.' McDonald's still has not provided the trauma counselling it promises employees, and has not even offered the waitress the option of day shifts.
[purloined from SchNEWS 307]
Globalisation is in many ways nothing new, what is new is the aggressive manner of its promotion. Twenty years or more ago Third World countries were persuaded to move away from self-sufficiency and to grow more cash crops. Persuade is too soft a word, it was a condition of aid and soft loans. One of those cash crops was coffee. Commodities are trading at record lows, coffee is no exception. Coffee is trading at a twenty year low, coffee is being stockpiled in a failed attempt to force up the price. Not that consumers have noticed any fall in the retail price of coffee.
GM coffee beans are now being forced on the growers.
Coffee beans do not naturally ripen all at once. ITCL, a US company, is developing a GM coffee bean where all the beans will ripen at once. The GM beans will have a genetic switch that can be turned on when sprayed with a chemical forcing all the beans to ripen simultaneously.
For the small grower having the beans ripen over a period is ideal as it is easier to harvest. Sudden gluts only force down the local price. Simultaneous ripening is ideally suited to large mechanised plantations. Spray the beans, then send in the machines.
If GM beans are adopted by large scale plantations we are likely to see 60 million people pushed further into poverty. 70% of coffee is grown by small farmers.
It is for us, the consumer to say NO. We have to put pressure on the supermarkets and coffee retailers now to say there will be no market for GM coffee. They in turn can tell their buyers who will pass the word down to the growers. Grow GM coffee and you will have no market.
Campaign material is available from ActionAid. 01460 23 8000
ActionAid, Robbing Coffee's Cradle: GM coffee and its threat to poor farmers
Oxfam, Bitter Coffee: How the poor are paying for the slump in coffee prices
Hugh Warwick, Trouble Brewing, The Ecologist, July/August, 2001
When Jose Bove first came to world attention after the symbolic dismantling of a McDonald's in Millau, the action was widely misrepresented as anti-American and protectionist, or simply as French food snobbery. Less than two years later, Jose Bove and Francois Dufour are at the forefront of an international pro-democracy movement. -- Naomi Klein
As doubts deepen about the viability of industrial agriculture and fast food, Jose Bove and Francois Dufour have come to stand for a way of life in which our relationship to food and nature is grounded in respect. -- Naomi Klein
Jose Bove refused to pay bail to escape going to jail, and his fellow prisoners gave him an ovation. In the end, it was supporters from around the world who sent cheques by the thousand to set him free. Once he was out of prison, the struggle had moved beyond a local dispute in southwest France. It was no longer a fight against unfair Custom duties, or even against bad food. It had become a massive campaign against the murky dealings of international trade. -- Gilles Luneau
Our World is Not for Sale was the title of an anti-globalisation meeting held in London last month, organised by Global Resistance and co-hosted by Verso, to launch a book by Jose Bove and Francois Dufour of similar title, The World is Not for Sale. Main speakers were Francois Dufour and Jose Bove with warm-up acts by Tony Benn and George Monbiot.
Both Tony Benn and George Monbiot talked of the lack of a mandate for the Blair government and its privatisation, globalisation, big business agenda. The low turnout reflected not satisfaction and contentment by the electorate, nor apathy, but disgust with what was on offer, two parties vying for the right to represent big business. Tony Benn highlighted how direct action was the only political force that had ever achieved anything, that Jose Bove was here before us today because he had dismantled a McDonald's, had stood up for what he believed in, been put in prison for his actions and as a result become a national and international hero and helped to focus attention on the evils of globalisation. Tony Benn drew attention to what was happening under Nafta, where development had been opposed by local communities, business was suing for 'lost profits'. George Monbiot told the audience that much as the government and the media tried to marginalise us, the anti-globalisation movement was now the biggest and fastest growing movement in human history, that those in the mainstream political parties were now on the margins and it was about time they started to listen.
Francois Dufour talked of the history of their farmers movement in France and what they were campaigning for: sustainable farming, fair trade not neo-liberal trade, a ban on GMOs.
Jose Bove talked of some of the actions he and his friends had been involved in. Contrary to the media reporting, they carefully dismantled McDonald's and did not trash it and cause millions of francs worth of damage. This was done in a festive mood with young and old, children, farmers, workers all joining in the action. The pieces were loaded on to trailers and hauled to the town hall. McDonald's was targeted as a symbol of globalisation and industrial agriculture. The reason for the action was the WTO ruling that Europe must import unwanted hormone contaminated beef, and gave US leave to impose hefty import duties on European imports. On the one hand a tax imposed on high quality French cheese produced on small family farms, on the other American junk food. Jose stressed that the action was not anti-American nor was his argument with the American people or American farmers. To emphasise the point he told of how when he refused to stand bail, money poured in from all over the world including from American small farmers. Before joining the protesters on the streets in Seattle for the WTO meeting he and Francois Dufour did a tour of the States meeting small farmers.
Other actions Jose touched upon was the trashing of GM crops and seed (in France it is the farmers who are taking the lead against GMOs), seizure of computer disks from the Customs to identify what was in imported animal feed.
Unlike the NFU, and especially Ben Gill who represents agribusiness, Jose and his colleagues were representing small farmers, arguing for the protection of the environment and for a halt to globalisation.
Throughout Jose was puffing on a pipe, which according to George Monbiot had been presented to him by Comandante Marcos.
Several hundred people attended the meeting and book launch, only limited by the size of the venue.
Earlier in the day Jose and Francois joined a group of anti-McDonald's protesters outside McDonald's opposite Kings Cross Station.
The World is Not for Sale (published by Verso) is well worth reading and we hope to have a review in a forthcoming newsletter.
The message that went out loud and clear from the meeting was that Our World is Not for Sale.
Congratulations are due to McDonald's for being awarded by BBC Radio 4 Food Programme at their annual award ceremony the Mouldy Pork Pie Award. Sour grapes on behalf of McDonald's who refused to turn up to collect the award, instead sending in a pathetic written statement which claimed their food was 'authentic' and that they are supporting British agriculture.
Please take the trouble to drop into McDonald's and congratulate them on their award of the Mouldy Pork Pie Award, it would appear modesty prevents them from proclaiming their most recent award. And remember kids, next time you see that clown Ronald McDonald, ask him what he has done with his Mouldy Pork Pie Award. Maybe he has stuffed it in the same place as we would tell him to stuff his burgers, and no we were not thinking of his mouth.
For the first time in their history, they have cancelled one of their meetings because of the prospect of people rising up against them. -- Barcelona Co-ordinating Commission
We can still party in the streets of Barcelona and have more fun .... They can run, but they cannot hide. -- Globalise Resistance
If the Bank wants contributions to this conference from around the world then they could regret this. -- Roger Higman, FoE
You may not have noticed that the World Bank summit in Barcelona was shut down last month. Missed it? Well not to worry, you did not actually miss it, it never took place as the World Bank decided it was too risky as it would only get shut down. [SchNEWS 306 Friday 25 May 2001]
Unlike the EU summit in the southern Swedish city of Gothenburg which did take place to an accompaniment of thousands of protesters on the streets.
The World Bank was forced to withdraw and hold a virtual summit on the net instead, then found it had a virtual sit-in.
World Bank or no World Bank, the street protests and counter-conference went ahead as planned. At least 20,000 protesters were on the streets. The festivities were marred by violence. There appears to have been agent provocateurs (extremely common in the UK). A fight broke out between masked thugs in a park. When the baton-wielding police moved in, striking anyone in their path, the thugs passed through the police lines unhindered (hands up all those who have witnessed similar scenes in the UK). The violence then escalated.
The next big summit is the G8 meeting in Genoa (20-23 July 2001). Action on the street is expected to be bigger than even Seattle, 5,000 people are expected to travel from the UK. 020 8980 3005 office@resist.org.uk
The pro-EU (or so we have been led to believe) Irish have thrown the spanner in the EU works by voting NO (54:46) to the Treaty of Nice. The political establishment lied and claimed the treaty is only about enlargement, it is not.
The Irish realise that if more members are admitted their own little gravy train will grind to a halt (the only benefit they get), they will also lose their treasured Irish neutrality. The Irish, as members of the euro, have been able to see at first hand what closer integration means. Membership of the euro has totally fucked up their economy and they have been left completely powerless to do anything about it.
It is very rare the ordinary citizens of Europe are ever given the chance to vote against any aspects of EU policy. When they do they invariably say NO. The Danish are the only people given the opportunity to vote on the euro, they said NO. The Irish are the only people allowed to vote on the Treaty of Nice, they said NO.
At the EU summit, the Irish were dismissed, as were the Danish last year. It requires ALL member countries to ratify the treaty.
[BVEJ newsletters passim, but especially BVEJ newsletter #0006 November 2000 and BVEJ newsletter #0007 December 2000]
Opposing free trade is misguided. The fact is that world trade is good for people's jobs and living standards. And actually, what the poorest countries in the world need is more world trade and access to the richest countries' markets, not a destruction of world trade. -- Tony Blair
This effectively is an anarchists' travelling circus that goes from summit to summit with the sole purpose of causing as much mayhem as possible. -- Tony Blair
Such protest must not and will not disrupt the proper workings of democratic organisations. -- Tony Blair
It is very unfortunate when serious demonstrators cannot stage their protest because of a small group of violent people. -- Anna Lindh, Swedish foreign minister
It's grotesque to compare the petty amount of violence here to the unbelievable mass murder of global capitalism. -- street protester
Grass roots protest at summits is becoming something of a tradition. -- BBC correspondent
In Gothenburg Tony Blair insisted that protesters 'must not and will not disrupt the proper workings of democratic organisations.' That role has been reserved for corporations. -- George Monbiot
A familiar sight at any of these global gatherings of the dark forces of globalisation, tens of thousands of protesters on the streets and our so-called democratic representatives hiding behind a ring of steel and police barricades. The Battle of Gothenburg, where EU and protesters clashed was no exception (14-16 June 2001).
On the first day the police raided a protest HQ which helped raise the temperature. On the second day anger and frustration boiled over into rioting on the streets. On the third day calm restored and a peaceful protest took place.
Such gatherings are being hijacked by a fringe thug element which is masking the anti-globalisation message. The media does not help by focusing on the violence and ignoring the message. A point recognised by the BBC's James Cox (Radio 4 lunchtime news, Sunday 17 June 2001) who referred to a tiny minority, a couple of hundred engaged in violence for the cameras, and the Swedish foreign minister who recognised the importance of engaging with the majority on the street and listening to what they had to say. When thousands take to the streets in Belgrade they have an important message to deliver, when they take to the streets in the West they are described by Blair as 'an anarchists' travelling circus', who must be ignored. The only travelling circus is Blair and his slimy hangers-on.
Thousands of people are turning up to these meetings because they want to see an end to neo-liberal free trade. Neo-liberal free trade does not help the poor as Blair tried to claim, a point at long last recognised even by the World Bank. Nor does Blair have a democratic mandate to pursue these policies as he is now trying to claim.
The only response of the EU is to form a working group to contain the violence at future summits. Such containment will not work. How soon before we have something akin to the football hooligan legislation banning protesters from travelling abroad?
Unlike arrogant Blair with his contempt for the people, some EU leaders have recognised the disconnection between themselves and the people, but their solutions, better communications and bringing the people on board are wrong. What is needed, as the Swedish foreign minister has recognised, is dialogue, to listen to the people and give them what they want. What we want is a dismantling of this rich mans big business club and in its place a loose grouping of sovereign states.
The EU is not able to take NO for an answer. The Danish have said NO, the Irish have said NO, the British would like to say NO if only given the chance, the protesters have said NO. We clearly have something wrong with the people.
What we are seeing today is something as momentous as the Vietnam protests of the late 60s and early 70s. Even the late President Nixon was forced to admit in his memoirs, he denied it whilst in office, that he was forced out of Vietnam by the street protests. It is what governments fear and hate most, hence the ever growing body of draconian legislation and demonising of protesters. In 1968, the French government almost collapsed, the British government admitted many years later that they feared losing control. The dark reactionary forces seized control and have been in control ever since, with Blair as the true heir to Thatcher. These reactionary forces are once again coming under attack. People are no longer willing to accept the status quo.
The protests on the street were organised by Gothenburg Action 2001, a loose coalition of green-red-black groups. The next big action will be at Genoa for the G8 summit, with parallel action at the COP6.5 climate change summit in Bonn.
In advance of the summit Genoa is gradually being sealed off: the station closed, motorways closed, and Genoa Airport closed. 18,000 Italian police and troops to seal off the city. The meeting may end up being held on a warship offshore.
The most important item on the agenda for the people on the street is Third World Debt. Despite numerous promises at previous conferences (BVEJ newsletters passim) G8 have still not written off Third World debt.
Drop the Debt are organising a massive demonstration on the streets of Genoa on Saturday 21 July 2001. Global Resistance have chartered a train to Genoa. 020 8980 3005 office@resist.org.uk
100,000 protesters are expected to converge on Genoa for the G8 summit (21-23 July 2001), 5,000 from the UK alone.
Once again we expect to find our democratic leaders cowering behind razor wire, protected by police brutality and barricades, unable to face the people or pay heed to their demands. If the democratic leaders care to peer over their barricades at the people on the streets they will find that the real world has rejected them.
Brazil provides free HIV drugs to 80% of Aids sufferers in Brazil. By doing so it is one of the few success stories in the developing world in the battle against Aids. Brazil is able to provide this service as it manufactures its own generic drugs.
Brazil is now facing the wrath of the US at the WTO because US pharmaceutical companies, as in South Africa, cannot bear the thought of not being able to rip-off the Third World poor.
A joint statement by Third World countries has condemned the narrow WTO interpretation of patents and called for a more liberal interpretation.
As we were going to press we learnt the good news that the US had dropped the case. Also that Brazil has given warning to the Swiss multinational la Roche, that if they didn't drop the price of their drugs, generic copies would be made.
[BVEJ newsletters #0010 March 2001, #0011 April 2001 & #0012 May 2001]
Guildford Farmers Market last month was the best to date. A marked improvement on recent markets, plenty of good quality basic food produce, lots more stalls. Had the market not improved and got its act together it would have died a slow death.
Mushrooms, cheeses, radishes, tomatoes, cucumbers, these were all tried and the taste, flavour and texture were far superior to anything found in local supermarkets. Not all were organic, but they were fresh and had not travelled far. Anyone who does not believe, local, fresh, minimum input food is not superior, should try it.
Guildford Farmers Market is held on the first Tuesday of every month. Other nearby markets are at Aldershot, and Milford (Secretts Farm) and Farnham (fourth Sunday of the month). Further away there are farmers markets at Winchester and Dorking.
It has taken three years in coming, but local producers have got together to brand their produce under the label Surrey Hills Produce. Surrey Hills Produce should be in your local shops, if not ask why not.
FoE have produced a Farmers Market Briefing, on the economic and environmental grounds for farmers markets.
Movements at the airport, which TAG aims to develop into Europe's 'premier' business aviation hub, have increased from 13,000 in 1999 to a projected 17,500 this year. -- Flight International
Movements are already up by 20% and we expect to reach our ceiling of 28,000 movements in 2005. -- Len Rayment, TAG director
TAG is keen to raise movement ceilings ... -- Flight International
We don't like to say we told you so, but ....
The number of movements this year is expected to reach 17,500, up 20% on last year. TAG expect to hit the ceiling of 28,000 by 2005, ie in only four years time, and expect to be granted permission for further expansion.
TAG are to move to Phase II of the airfield expansion, construction of hangers etc. Full planning permission has yet to be granted but then when has TAG been bothered by something as trivial as planning permission when the current flying is unlawful and no enforcement notice has ever been served.
The impact of the airfield is the most important thing affecting the local community, but the elections were fought as though it did not exist. Funny that.
FARA (local residents association) are out with their begging bowl in the hope of attracting funding for a human rights case in Strasbourg. With no track record of opposing the airport, they could have made the airfield an election issue but chose not to, FARA are going to find it hard going to attract any funding. Their level of competence, they failed to follow through legal advice on opposing the planning, then left it too late, had all the available evidence last October, then left it until late April to seek opinion from barristers on a human rights case, does little to inspire confidence. FARA were invited to support the Rising Tide tour which would have helped kick start the stalled airfield campaign, but failed to take up the offer, didn't bother to turn up, did not even trouble to inform their own members (BVEJ newsletter #0013 June 2001).
Anyone who had any remaining doubts as to where Farnborough College of Technology stands on the airport will have noticed the large banner in the college grounds promoting the TAG sponsored concert in the park.
Large freight aircraft (TNT, FedEx, UPS) have been observed at various times flying into Farnborough Airport. Freight is not permitted for Farnborough. Everyone seems to be turning a convenient blind eye. Why?
An extremely noisy turbo-prop aircraft flies daily in and out of Farnborough. It is used to ferry passengers around the country on behalf of BAE Systems (the bastards who make money out of killing people). Why is it carrying more passengers than it is licensed for, why are no proper records kept, why is a blind eye being turned?
FARA spent two hours chatting up intrepid Farnborough News reporter Greg Box. Who spiked the story?
TAG are sponsoring the Concert in the Park, George V Playing Fields, Farnborough (Sunday 1 July 2001). Gates open 18:00, concert starts 19:45. Local residents will be mounting a picket outside the main entrance, The Grove (top end of park, opp bowling green) to object to TAG's sponsorship. TAG payed out £6,500 in blood money, meanwhile the local community pay with their lives - lives made hell every day by the noise, pollution and risk of a crash.
TAG are wanting to extend the runway to 2,000 metres. This will lead to more tree destruction in Farnborough and pave the way for heavier planes. News to you. It was news to us too. Now don't be silly, you don't expect to be consulted do you?
A third runway is being mooted for Heathrow. This would run alongside the M4 and involve the demolition of more than 100 houses. The rationale for a third runway is to move all the short-haul flights off the two main runways (and to provide passengers for Terminal 5). The alternative would be to push this traffic out to Farnborough once it got its CAA licence. We wonder how soon it will be before we see passenger flights at Farnborough (we are already seeing freight aircraft).
FARA are suggesting the TAG business operation should move to Odiham. One thing you never ever do, is suggest your environmental problem is dumped on someone else. Not that is unless you wish to be seen as a bunch of whinging selfish NIMBies who wish to alienate everyone else. Whilst we would agree that Farnborough is wholly unsuitable as an expanding business airport, that is not the same as wishing the problem on anyone else. [Farnborough Mail, Tuesday 26 May 2001]
According to TAG and their camp followers, crashes don't occur at airshows. Try telling that to the people of Biggin Hill. At the Biggin Hill Airshow, first weekend in June, three crashes occurred over the weekend. In two of the crashes the aircrew were killed. Crashes have occurred in the past at Farnborough, a slight oversight that TAG hopes nobody will notice, and certainly not likely to be raised by a docile local press.
According to TAG and their camp followers, crashes don't occur at airports. Last year Heathrow narrowly missed one of the worst ever air crashes. An aircraft was cleared for takeoff at the same time as another plane was coming into land on the same runway. At the last moment, the aircraft cleared for takeoff was told not to takeoff and the incoming aircraft told to abort its landing. The incoming aircraft came within seconds and 100 feet of landing on the aircraft on the runway.
The day after the report of the official investigation was published, a maintenance crew on the north runway at Heathrow, which was closed for maintenance, looked in the rear-view mirror and found an approaching aircraft was closing in fast as it came in to land on the wrong runway.
Air traffic controllers are increasingly finding that they are unable to cope with the growing workload.
Contrary to the lies told by TAG, there have been several crashes at and within the vicinity of Farnborough Airport.
The Spaniards drained a series of lakes to enable the building of Mexico City. One reason why the city is now sinking. In recent years a successful attempt has been made at lake restoration. This is now threatened by a new airport for Mexico City.
Over a period of 30 years five lakes have been restored, 30 million trees planted, creating a valuable wetland for migratory birds. Between 100,000 to 300,000 birds of 150 different species either visit or nest in the wetlands, including the least bittern, American widgeon, short-eared owl, blue-winged teal and Wilson's phalarope.
A large new airport is now planned for the wetlands. It will be a massive freight terminal for the expanding Nafta trade. A trade that has worsening environmental and human rights conditions for Mexicans and lowered real wages and living standards for US workers.
Please write to Mexican president Vicente Fox (former Coca-Cola executive), objecting to the airport.
Presidente Vicente Fox Palacio Nacional Mexico City Mexico
A detailed study by a team of psychologists from London University into the impact on the health and education of schoolchildren located near Heathrow Airport has shown that they are severely damaged by aircraft noise. The study was commissioned by the Department of Health as part of a submission for the Heathrow Terminal 5 Public Inquiry, but the results were never made public.
The report confirms the findings of previous studies which have shown children to lag behind others in reading ability and to suffer anxiety symptoms.
Farnborough College of Technology is facing declining student numbers as they vote with feet and choose not to study in a noisy death trap. Young children in a kindergarten on the corner of Albert Road and Alexander Road, immediately under the flight path, are terrified every time a plane flies over, some parents have been forced to withdraw their children.
The Rotten Borough of Rushmoor was made aware of previous studies into the effects of noise on education and health but chose to ignore those findings when approving the Local Plan and granting planning permission for Farnborough Airport. [BVEJ newsletters passim]
By Christmas, by Easter, the last pronouncement was by the time of the new timetables issued end of May. It is now July and still Railtrack has not completed the track work started at the time of the Hatfield crash. [BVEJ newsletters passim]
The share price of Railtrack is facing meltdown following a scramble out of the stock by institutional investors. Many see the shares as worth less than nothing.
The rail companies employ around 300 people to argue among themselves who is responsible if anything goes wrong.
Due to staff shortages the Arriva bus company will not be providing free transport to this year's free Green Ambient Picnic in Guildford (Sunday 8 July 2001). The picnic, Shalford Park by the River Wey, is about 10-15 mins walk from Guildford Station.
Plans for a local tram system for the Blackwater Valley may have been quietly shelved, but a tram system for Guildford is now being resurrected.
Violence on the Blackwater Valley line between Guildford and Reading (Thames Trains) is getting worse. At Guildford on a Friday Night a couple of hundred drunken yobs run riot, sooner or later someone is going to get killed or seriously injured. The situation at Reading is even worse, punchups on the last train from Reading are a regular occurrence. During the day thugs masquerading as revenue collectors harass decent travellers, at night they are not to be seen. The rail companies have a duty of care to their passengers and staff, they are failing in that duty of care. The rail companies are also failing to enforce their own conditions of carriage which forbid entry onto the station to anyone in an intoxicated condition or otherwise in an unfit state to travel.
A late night bus now runs from Reading to Gatwick via North Camp and Guildford. A late bus also runs from Oxford to Reading, then onwards to London. Both services are run by Thames Trains.
Privatisation of the Tube will lead to new trains with Business Class (carpets, club-class seats, attendants, refreshments) for business executives and Cattle Class (no seats to maximise numbers standing and easier hosing down) for the rest of us.
The Cullen Report into the Paddington rail crash has described Railtrack as operating under 'institutional paralysis'. Drivers had regularly reported problems with signal 109, it was repeatedly passed at red, but no action by Railtrack. Reports from previous crashes and the recommendations had been ignored. The signalmen who observed the doomed Thames Train pass the red signal, failed to act, reflecting their poor training. Thames Trains was criticised for its poor driver training. What we have is a catalogue of criminal neglect. Criminal proceedings should be brought against Railtrack executives. Railtrack have shown themselves to be unfit to run a rail network.
To date Railtrack have not given their condolences or expressed any regrets to the families of those killed in the Paddington crash. The £1.4 million to the disgraced former Railtrack boss Gerald Corbett can only be described as obscene. Corbett is now boss of Woolworth's, remember that when next out shopping. The head of the rail safety inspectorate has admitted that they have in the past been too soft and that they now intend to get tough on rail safety. Railtrack are to seek approval from their shareholders to spend £250,000 on entertaining politicians.
Websites: Big multinational drug companies have declared war on the Third World poor by denying them access to cheap generic drugs and using them as guinea pigs in poorly-regulated drug trials.
Independent nuclear experts now believe that if plans proceed, Plymouth is destined to become the South's answer to Sellafield, where the chances of contracting cancer are 10 times the national average. -- Zac Goldsmith
It is ironic that the army is behind these devastating plans. What good is an army if it fails to protect the nation? Could a foreign enemy do more than poison our food and water, plunder our countryside, release untested genetic freaks into our ecology, and dose the population with cancer-causing radiation? The truth is, we are already under siege. -- Zac Goldsmith
Early this year we briefly mentioned the problems of nuclear submarine decommissioning in Plymouth and the risks this was posing to the locality (BVEJ newsletter #0008 January 2001). We are pleased to report that it has now been picked up by The Ecologist (July/August 2001).
Following a letter from a reader The Ecologist decided to investigate further. What they found was that large amounts of tritium (H3, a radioactive form of hydrogen) are to be released into the River Tamar.
Devenport Management Ltd (subsidiary of Texas-based Haliburton Company) has a contract to refurbish Britain's ageing nuclear submarine fleet. To avoid detection at sea, the submarines no longer discharge tritium at sea, meaning it has to be disposed of back home at base. DML intend to dump the tritium in the Tamar, increasing the discharge by 500%.
Minimal consultation has taken place with the local community, but worse was to come.
Zac Goldsmith (editor of The Ecologist) drew up a plan to inform local people of the dangers and to ask them to demand a public inquiry. Postcards were to be delivered by a local newspaper. At the last moment the newspaper pulled out, claiming they were unhappy with the claim that tritium is 'a dangerous and invisible substance believed by experts to cause cancer and birth defects.' The Royal Society has stated the methodology used to justify the dumping was flawed. Zac turned to other possible distributors, but got the same response.
Press self-censorship, pressure from big business, MoD and a rotten local authority - a situation all too familiar to the local community in Farnborough.
Please join the call for a full public inquiry. Please write to CANSAR, demanding an inquiry. They will pass on your demand.
CANSAR FREEPOST LON17462 Plymouth PL2 2ZZ
[The Ecologist, July/August 2001]
Skateboarders in Farnborough beware. In Birmingham the City Fathers have issued an edict that any skateboarder caught skate boarding in the city centre will be subject to arrest and a possible £50 fine.
This crass action has only served to radicalise the skateboarders who are now joining forces in actions against GAP the sweatshop shop.
Messages of solidarity will be passed on by Birmingham S26 s26brum@hotmail.com
Take a walk along the North Downs Way between Farnham and Guildford this time of year. What you will find growing is oil seed rape. It wasn't planted there, it has escaped from previous sowing or harvesting, but officially this never happens.
In Canada oil seed rape is known as canola. An epidemic of canola super-weeds has hit Canada. Canola escapees have escaped, interbred, and formed resistance to nearly all herbicides. Three types of GM canola each resistant to a specific herbicide have gained genes for multiple resistance. This wasn't supposed to happen. Canada is now facing an infestation of canola in wheat fields and other areas where farmers don't want them. Far from making it easier to remove weeds, the GM canola have become super-weeds themselves. Canola is highly promiscuous. Farmers are having to resort to broad-spectrum herbicides, eg 2,4-D. Err wasn't it to avoid the use of these nasty chemicals that GM canola was developed in the first place?
The summer season, the season of traditional country sports such as GM crop trashing, is now upon us.
This summer the world's first genetically modified insects are scheduled to be released in the US. A jellyfish gene has been inserted into a moth, to destroy the pink bollworm, a major cotton pest. Assurances have been given that the moths will not escape into the wild and breed. Now where have we heard that before?
Percy Schmeiser, the farmer sued by Monsanto for having his crops contaminated (BVEJ newsletter #0012 May 2001) has raised enough money for an appeal.
Swindon FoE are seeking help to oppose a GM crop site at Hinton Waldrist (between Oxford and Swindon on the A420). A vigil was held on Sat 9 June and a National Day of Action is planned for Sat 30 June. If enough people turn up we can repeat the success of the Battle of Watlington two years ago. 01793 783040 foeswindon@hotmail.com
Seven protesters dressed as the grim reaper have been acquitted of aggravated trespass by magistrates in Devon. This is thought to have been the first GM acquittal by magistrates. On hearing of the good news another site near Weymouth was trashed, no one was arrested. Those arrested and subsequently acquitted, were part of a group of about 100 who trashed Aventis GM maize at Tolbridge Farm, near Sherborne last July.
At the current rate of trashing there will soon be no GM trial crops left.
Farnborough is the birthplace of British aviation and as the first pilot to represent Farnborough I am extremely proud. I now represent everybody and I have always sought to do my best to represent everybody where we can find common ground. -- Gerald Howarth, Member for Aldershot
Well at least that load of boring crap is over for the next 4-5 years, now we can return to real politics.
Very much as we predicted the turnout was down, down 12% from last year to less than 60%, the lowest general election since 1918 (and that election was affected by special circumstances). The turnout was not low because of apathy, or as New Labour spin tried to pretend, voter contentment, it was down because of total disgust with the jerks on offer, big business poodles under party labels. Boris Johnstone, former editor of The boring Spectator and now in Heseltine's old seat of Henley got it about right when he spoke of revulsion.
In Liverpool, a low last time of around 50%, dropped to 32%.
In Aldershot at 58% the turnout was similar to the national average. Gerald Howarth got in with a slightly lowered majority (down 27 votes). With his stance on the airfield he should not have got in at al