Vote Cock!

Are you feeling the Tory blues? Do New Labour make you turn red? Are the yellows way too mellow? Do the Greens make you queasy and do the BNP and UKIP actually make you spew? Well, have you ever considered writing ‘COCK’ across your European Election ballot paper?

With too many parties not representing what you believe and politicians becoming more distrustful by the day, it is an attractive option not to cast your democratic vote and to throw it into the bin out of a matter of protest.

But have you considered the damage you are doing to society?

Imagine today’s political landscape with New Labour in power and the Tories waiting outside Number 10 with a sledgehammer, the LibDems are far behind, with the Greens and ‘the others’ lurking nearby. You feel that none of these parties represent you, so you refuse to vote, or you feel a party like the Greens does, but you refuse to vote because ‘they are never going to get into power’. Well a refusal to vote is only going to strengthen the New Labour/Tory dominance of government and they will never ever represent you or do things in your interest. Why, I hear you ask.

Look at the situation like this, in this example there are 210 voters in total:

Party A have 100 diehard voters who will always vote for them.

Party B have 80 diehard voters who will always vote for them.

There are 30 voters who don’t know who to vote for, or are thinking of not voting.

Who are the party’s going to target policies towards? That’s right, the 30 voters. If parties already have their diehard voters then they are much more willing to create policies for the other 30 voters to encourage them to vote for them, either to get into power (Party B) or to consolidate power (Party A).

Now if the 30 didn’t vote at all because they didn’t like any of the parties or felt the party they wanted never will get into power then Party A will create policies that benefit their own diehard voters and Party B will have more policies like Party A in order to attract Party A’s voters and get into power. They become the same, and politics/democracy becomes diluted.

Let’s now say for example that Party A and Party B are both right-wing, both still with 100 diehards and 80 diehards respectively. A new party, Party C, comes along who are left-wing, and those 30 turn to Party C because they are different to Party A and B. In an attempt to win back those 30 votes, Party A and B will create a few more left-wing policies in order to turn those 30 towards them, but still keep policies that are right-wing in order to keep their diehards voting for them instead of switching between Parties A and B (because they are the same). There is therefore a lot more choice and parties are becoming more representative.

That is why it is important to vote.

But still you may argue there is no party that represents me!

That maybe true, but did you know that in the UK spoilt ballot papers are still considered as part of the voting turnout. That means if 100 people vote and a Party has 20 votes (diehards or not) that Party will look at winning over the other 80 voters- even if those 80 put in spoilt ballot papers because it is shown that 100 people will vote.

Party’s will only direct policies at those who do vote. Why should they worry about those who don’t vote, especially when things like SCOPA stop you protesting.

So even if there isn’t a party that tickles your fancy still cast your vote, but just make sure across the ballot paper in big bold letters you write ‘THE BNP ARE SICK DISGUSTING RACIST COCKS’

Reading Buses to increase prices again

In those high fuel price days of October/November 2008 where the price of fuel went up around 44%, you couldn’t blame Reading Buses on raising the cost of their tickets. Even though they proudly boast that their premier number 17 route runs on sugar waste- you couldn’t really blame them, the recession was hitting most companies in some way or another.

So, the current prices are £1.70 adult single journey, £3.20 for an adult ‘Busabout’ (means unlimited travel in one day in one zone) and £10 for a west Reading weekly bus pass.

But now the price of fuel has fallen drastically, you’d expect Reading Buses to pop along and say “hey, we have gotten through a period of high fuel prices, let’s reward you for your patience and lower our ticket costs to reflect this fall”.

Nah, not at chance.

It has now been announced that prices are in fact going to rise even more. The reason? Well they say they have lost £100,000 in single fares these last couple of months. Face of it, that sounds reasonable, but i want  to know more.

For example, who much money did they make on Busabouts and Weekly Passes? Do the maths quickly, and it makes much more economic sense to buy a Busabout than a single fare, so of course they are going to lose money on single fares, especially when people use buses more.

So perhaps it is greed? That was the charge levied at them when they rose the prices in November- but i gave them the benefit of the doubt, but now, now i am not so sure.

I would like to say as a user of the buses to get to and from work everyday i am generally pleased with them. After experiencing the services on offer in other towns and cities and the conditions on the bus, i think Reading Buses rank right up there with the best. But this price rise to me stinks- there is something fishy going on.

Plus, what good is it going to do for the transport problems there already are in Reading? There are way too many cars. The rise in bus fares is only going to put more people in cars. We are meant to be going green! The buses and other such public transport are meant to be one of the vanguards in reducing mans impact on the environment, yet price rise after price rise is only going to weaken this.

Finally, i wonder what makes better economic sense; raising the prices even higher to make more money (you hit those reliant on buses hardest while others move into cars) or lowing the prices to encourage more people to use the buses (especially during quieter spells and routes) and increase profit that way?

Do we really have to ponder that?

How to do it bad, how to do it good

What is obvious from the ‘credit crunch’, the attack on privacy and now the MP’s expenses saga is that in the upcoming European Elections the minority partys are going to drastically increase their electorial strength.

So it has come as a bit of a surprise to see the (New) Labour Party Election broadcast focus entirely on David Cameron, and what Cameron’s policies would do to the country. I would have to say that i agree with them on every single point, however as an European Election Broadcast it is pretty poor.

Not once does it talk about their own policies. Granted, they are the ones in power and we can see the shambles of some of their policies, but still, come on, you got to have some sort of manifesto.

Secondly, (New) Labour have 19 MEP’s. Why didn’t the broadcast focus upon the work they have been doing?

Finally, talking about how bad Cameron is is all well and good- i generally support it, but, this is a European election, not a local election. Of course the results of these elections go someway to showing what will happen at the next general election and results going either way is either going to strengthen or weaken either side, but still, this is a European election!

Here is a much better party election broadcast:

Note a few things from this: they talk about the great work they have been doing, they talk about themselves and not other parties, they tell you they are not a one issue party as a lot of people like to suggest, they talk about what they will do, they say that going green is not something you should be nagged into doing but that it is up to the government to help you, and finally, they are not a racist facist party.

I’m voting Green

********************

Here’s another Green Party broadcast from 1999

To abstain or not to abstain, that is the question

It’s only fair that in a debate or argument that both sides should be able to put their point of view across or defend their position or to hit back at other people’s claims. In this spirit, i would like to post here the response by Cllr Emma Webster to reports that she abstained. This is her comment on an article on a popular local blog site:

Please note I did not abstain from the vote, I was unable to participate because the company that I work for are promoting another site being considered as part of the consultation.

After taking legal advice I was advised that it would be inappropriate for me to be involved in the vote and I therefore removed myself from the meeting and the vote. I did not as you have reported abstain.

I am in the process of taking further advice so that I am in a position to be able to speak against the proposal when it comes before a later meeting.

Okay, so didn’t abstain… and still didn’t vote, or amend, or propose, or voice opposition. Let’s see what direction her campaigning over Pincents Hill will take- or will a conflict of interests plague her at very attempt to stop this development taking shape?

I have just noticed that on the Reading Chronicle Website the article about the Tory councillors being accused of bottling it has been removed. It was posted on the website on 30 April 2009, whereas other articles about Pincents Hill going back to 28 August 2008 can all still be accessed. What? I’m not hinting at conspiracy! *rings lawyers*

How can i gain the respect of the local community with a dirty moat?

A couple of things strike me about the MP’s expenses ’saga’:

1) What do MP’s actually spend their wages on?

2) Why are leaders of parties and key politicans now coming out and apologising for what has happened? Acting as if this is a disgusting habit they pretend they did not know about that needs to be stopped now. Why were they so quiet before? Is it perhaps because we now know the full extent of what MP’s can claim? What else don’t we know about?

I honestly don’t really care how MP’s waste our money on their own lives, what i do care much more about is the amount of taxpayers money they are throwing away on stupid things like replacing Trident.

Anyway, i say get rid of all this second home nonsense (if you want a second home buy one) and build a huge halls of residence for travelling MP’s to lounge about in instead. Alongside this give MP’s an essential work expenses budget of something like £100 a week.

Good to see though my two local MP’s not claiming any second home allowance at all.

What do they need expenses for anyway? Oh yes sorry, to clean their moats.

Tory Pincents Hill Bulls***

I wrote a very short while ago about how the local Tories have betrayed the community by allowing the Local Development Framework to be voted through with Pincent’s Hill as one of the proposed sites to build on. Well now i dirtied myself by stumbling through the West Reading Conservative website where i found this.

There are two quick points i want to make. The first is the results of the survey they put round the local area about building on Pincent’s Hill, i think the results are pretty conclusive:

87% of respondents felt that the Government’s housing target of a minimum of 10,500 homes between 2006-2026 for West Berkshire was not reasonable nor acceptable to existing local residents
A massive 85% of respondents want NO development at all on the Pincents Hill Site
96% of the respondents are concerned about the impact of traffic from any development
87% are concerned about the loss of a green space
86% are concerned about the pressure on local public services such as education
82% are worried about the impact of development on the environment and wildlife

The second point is the comments by Birch Copse ward Tory Cllr Emma Webster. Before reading it remember that she abstained from the vote for the Local Development Framework because of a ‘conflict of interests’.

“I very much hope that Pincents Hill is not included as a preferred site in West Berkshire’s Local Development Framework plans (LDF) and the feedback from 896 local people clearly demonstrates the strong level of local feeling about this issue.  The battle to save the Pincents Hill site from development is one which we must win.”

Is free market economics to blame for swine flu?

Two of the main characteristics of free-market economics, or should I say capitalism, is the need to produce a product at the smallest possible cost, and to then increase it’s sales as much as possible.

When it comes to capitalism and food, especially meat, these ideas are played out by breeding, growing and culling the most animals at the smallest cost so to keep the price of their meat down in order to sell a lot of it.

It is this philosophy that leads to intensive farming. In these conditions animals, in this case pigs, are crammed together, force fed nutrient less food and injected with unknown quantities of antibiotics. In these conditions they have limited movement, hardly see sunlight and can in no way healthily develop as a free range pig would.

With the outbreak in swine flu, it is these farming conditions that have come under further attack.

One of the reported sources of the outbreak of the swine flu virus is Perote in Veracruz,  Mexico. In Perote there is a huge industrial pig farm which contains around 950,000 pigs. Nearby there is another pig farm called Xaltepec where 15,000 pigs are housed in 18 warehouses.  Both of these farms are owned by Smithfield the world’s largest pork supplier (worth around $1.4 billion). An outbreak of swine flu at one of Smithfield’s farms in Romania cost the company $13 million in 2007.

Johann Hari has written about this issue and has quoted Dr Ellen Silbergeld, Professor of Environmental Health Sciences at Johns Hopkins University, as saying about intensive pig farms as allowing viruses “thousands and thousands of spins [of the roulette wheel], for no extra cost [which] drives the evolution of new diseases.” The ‘roulette wheel’ in this case refers to the fact that there are hundreds and thousands of pigs crammed into the same enclosure that allows viruses to spread from one to the other easily, giving it a chance to evolve into something stronger.

Alongside the problems of cramming so many pigs together is the issue of pumping the animals full of vaccines and other drugs.

Hari has looked at the warnings from Sir Liam Donaldson, the British government’s Chief Scientist, who says “Every inappropriate use in animals or agriculture [of antibiotics] is potentially a death warrant for a future patient.” (also see here)

When you combine the idea of and the techniques used in intensive farming, Dr Michael Greger, director of Public Health and Animal Agriculture at the Humane Society of the United States, concludes that “all this together… you have a perfect storm environment for these super-strains. If you wanted to create global pandemics, you’d build as many of these factory farms as possible.”

Caroline Lucas, Green Party leader and one of the South East’s MEP’s, wrote an article that also cites Dr Greger, this time suggesting that a human/pig/bird virus (like the H1N1 swine flu virus we are currently seeing) was first seen in 1998 at a North Carolina pig farm. This farm had a pig population of 10million and Lucas notes that at this time hog farms [a bit more free range] were decreasing in the area. (More information on the first recognised outbreak of this human/avian/swine flu in 1998 can be found here)

The owner of the pig farms in question, Smithfield, understandably denies any wrong doing suggesting they routinely test their pigs for illness and regularly vaccinate their animals.

However, Lucas has called for a more indepth investigation into the outbreak of the virus and it’s possible connection with intensive pig farming.

Despite Smithfield’s assurances, another potential source of the outbreak has been revealed as La Gloria also in Veracruz, where pig manure pools have been singled out for blame. Problems with pig manure fields come from the smell which attract flies and which help spread diseases further afield, and from water contamination. Funnily enough in 1997 Smithfield were fined $12.6 million for violating the federal Clean Water Act. Concerns that La Gloria is the centre of the outbreak and that pig waste is to blame have been raised by Mexico’s national public health authority.

What is interesting to point out is that the first reported case of swine flu does come from this region, a four year old who has survived. Yet despite this, and despite “residents of La Gloria have long complained about the clouds of flies that are drawn the so-called “manure lagoons” created by such [intensive farming] mega-farms” it has been claimed by Mexican local government (possibly trying to protect industry and tourism is the area) that many of the people ill in this region were only suffering influenza despite these ‘influenza’ outbreaks being the first with unusual spreading patterns in Mexico.

Local residents in La Gloria are still adamant that the outbreak started here though. One report says that a 34 year old local resident called Jose Luis Martinez said “When we saw it on the television we said to ourselves, ‘This is what we had,”‘ he said. “It all came from here. The symptoms they are suffering are the same that we had here.””

Suspicions have also been raised of the inspections taken place in the town and the pig farms, with one source suggesting that none of the inspectors so far have been from the Mexican government.

Regardless, what we do know is that the swine flu outbreak is not the first that has been directly linked with intensive animal farming. Caroline Lucas wrote a report 3 years ago about how avian flu developed in the world’s poultry farms. This report can be accessed here.  There have also been stories of intensive pig farms being responsible for some MRSA outbreaks in the USA.

If the current outbreak can be directly attributed to intensive pig farming, then it is another thing we can blame Thatcher for. It would be capitalisms fault. But as capitalism keeps imploding upon itself as we have seen this past year with the ‘credit crunch’, then this is another classic case of capitalism being it’s own worst enemy; remember the economic destruction caused in Mexico by swine flu- borders shut down, hotels, tourism, schools, businesses shut and collapsing.

Although I could just be jumping ahead of myself here, as Joseph Luter III, Smithfield’s chairman, once said; vegetarians are “neurotic”.

***   ***

I need to become a proper scientist to be able to assess the true threat of swine flu, but on the face of it, I don’t think there is much to worry about… yet.

For example consider the death map , where at the time of writing there has only been only 2 deaths outside Mexico, one of which was a Mexican boy in USA on 29 April 2009 and the other, also in the USA, was a woman in her 30’s who “had chronic underlying health conditions”. Mexico have now admitted that they may have over-reacted to the number of deaths caused by swine flu. The deaths that there have been in Mexico have been attributed to the poor healthcare system when compared with other countries, although a point I am surprised more media sources have not picked up upon is the seemingly slow down in the rate of deaths. As more countries and people become aware of the problem cases can be treated more urgently. A speedy diagnosis and treatment is the first step to recovery.

There are also reports that this virus is at present only a mild strain and a suggestion from Chris Olsen, a professor of public health and head of the Olsen Laboratory, that older people are more immune to this virus than younger people is because they are more likely to have encountered this type of viruses before and have built up a stronger immunity.

But the most concluding statement I have read on the swine flu outbreak and which focuses a lot on the media attention behind swine flu is this one:

“Swine flu is notable because it’s an exceptional event, something above the everyday toll of deaths caused by infectious diseases. A pandemic similar to that of 1918-19, which killed at least 50 million people, would be a catastrophic event because it would double annual worldwide mortality. However, I think the chances of a repeat of 1918-19 are very small. What swine flu, and the media reaction to it, does highlight is our willingness to accept the “routine” toll of infectious diseases with little apparent concern. However, “Mother dies of TB in Zambia and infects her three children” is not a headline that sells many papers.” John McConnell who is Editor of The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal.

***   ***

Avaaz’s most recent internet action is on this very topic, and they have created an online petition which can be found here to put pressure on the WHO to investigate the link of swine flu with intensive pig farming.

For those who do not get Avaaz’s email updates and actions, here are some links they have referenced for further information on the topic:

Biosurveillance report tracing the disease to the Smithfields farm: http://biosurveillance.typepad.com/biosurveillance/2009/04/swine-flu-in-mexico-timeline-of-events.html

Reports on the link between the Mexican factory farm and the flu:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/for-la-gloria-the-stench-of-blame-is-from-pig-factories-1675809.html

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-fg-mexico-flu28-2009apr28,0,1701782.story

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=can-swine-flu-be-blamed-on-industri-09-05-01

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227063.800-swine-flu-the-predictable-pandemic.html?full=true

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/swine-flu-outbreak—-nat_b_191408.html

WHO pandemic information
http://www.euro.who.int/influenza/20080618_19

FAO, EC and CDC reports on the risks of industrial farming on public health
FAO and CIWF and http://www.cdc.gov/cafos/about.htm

CIWF and PETA video reports of the disgusting conditions for animals in factory farms and the disease ridden manure swamps:
CIWF and PETA

Reports on Smithfield’s animal welfare and environmental damage
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/for-la-gloria-the-stench-of-blame-is-from-pig-factories-1675809.html

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/press/releases/new-report-highlights-the-trouble-with-smithfield-article03132008

http://avaazimages.s3.amazonaws.com/SmithfieldJan08.pdf

Reports on UK tax payers subsidising factory farms http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/farming/5225298/Taxpayers-forking-out-700-million-for-factory-farming-in-England.html

You can never trust a Tory

Just over a week ago, West Berkshire Council voted through the Local Development Framework core strategy that lists potential sites for housing development in West Berkshire- including Pincent’s Hill.

Without digressing, here’s a picture to absorb:

From left to right; West Berkshire Tory Cllr Emma Webster, West Berkshire Tory MP candidate Alok Sharma, West Berkshire Tory Cllr Joe Mooney and West Berkshire Tory Cllr Tony Linden.

These three councillors represent all the seats in the Birch Copse Ward (my local ward- in fact Cllr Joe Mooney lives literally just round the corner from me).

Over the last few months i have received several leaflets through the post detailing how West Berkshire Conservatives are against the proposed housing development at Pincent’s Hill. In November they organised a local meeting at Little Heath School (attended by around 300 people) where they once again voiced their opposition to the development.

Now consider their voting actions during the voting for the Local Development Framework:

• Cllr Emma Webster- abstained
• Cllr Joe Mooney- voted for the LDF without amendment
• Cllr Tony Linden- did not turn up

The following reasons where given for these positions. Emma Webster holds a conflict of interests as she works for a company bidding to build another development in West Berkshire. Tony Linden was away on other council duty, and as he is not a member of the executive he couldn’t vote on this anyway. Joe Mooney pointed out that “the vote taking place is for this to go out to consultation, and not on any specific sites mentioned. That will take place when it goes to planning.”

A few things. One, don’t voice opposition to a proposal and hold public meetings to oppose something if you have a conflict of interests in the first place. Two, even if you can’t vote you can still turn up and voice your opinion and opposition if you indeed feel strongly about it. Three, if you are opposed to the development, you should do what you can to stop it happening- such as working to remove the site completely from the Local Development Framework.

What this comes down to really is that these councillors are only voicing in public what their Tory overlords require of them. It is indeed the New Labour government that is enforcing local councils and West Berkshire in particular to build 10,500 new homes, and because of this the council need to find places for these. Nationally the Torys, as you would expect them to do, oppose this New Labour idea. [So do i]. Our local councillors need to show that they support what the Tory headquarters says. Whether they put it into practise or not is irrelevant as long as you get the message out that your party is united.

The local Tory opposition has now been exposed as a front for national Tory opposition to New Labour’s national housing policy. These councillors don’t care about what their constituents think, instead they are turning this issue into a political issue in an attempt to mobilise their constituents against New Labour and for the Tories.

Local New Labour MP Martin Salter is opposed to the Pincent’s Hill development (despite his government’s housing plans) and has said “They [the Tories] had the perfect opportunity to deter the developers once and for all by deleting this site from the preferred list, but they have bottled it.” I would go further- i don’t think you can trust a Tory (not even David Davis in his crusade for civil liberty). I think it is obvious that the West Berkshire Conservatives are deliberately leading people in the local area on- opposition to the development is understandably widespread in the area- if the local Tories were not seen to be with the majority public, then god forbid they may lose their seats at the next election.

In simular vein to a local political blogsite, click here and here for good analysis of some of the political goings on surrounding the development. And carrying on the tradition of my last post on the topic, please sign the petition against building on Pincent’s Hill here, visit the local campaign website here and the facebook group here.

For those who wish to take the fight further and directly voice your disappointment to those councillor ‘betrayers’ then here are their emails: jmooney@westberks.gov.uk ewebster@westberks.gov.uk and tlinden@westberks.gov.uk

Further from the email i sent to West Berkshire Planning department you can view near the bottom of this blog post, i have received the following reply:

Thank you for your e-mail objecting to potential housing development at Pincents Hill.

The Council is currently preparing the Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework, which will set out the strategic vision for the development of the district to 2026. As part of this work we need to identify a number of strategic housing sites which can help deliver the housing that will be needed over the next 17 years. The Council have recognised throughout the preparation of the Core Strategy that some greenfield land will be needed to meet the housing requirements of the district.

The site at Pincents Hill has been brought forward for consideration, along with a number of other large sites, and we have carried out assessments of the sites, including sustainability appraisal covering analysis of the social, economic and environmental issues.

The Council is intending to carry out extensive consultation on the options for the Core Strategy shortly. If you wish to receive notification of the consultation you can register on our consultation database at www.westberks.gov.uk/ldfconsultation . Alternatively you can e-mail planningpolicy@westberks.gov.uk or contact the planning policy team by post or phone with your details.

Digressing from the email but not the topic, one thing i will be looking into concerning Pincent’s Hill is what precisely the large trench is for that has been dug from the site of the proposed development down through the park and which stops just before the A4 Bath Road. Looks suspiciously like water/sewage supply. Now i don’t want to initiate a conspiracy here, and it is probably something completely innocent, but, perhaps the council have decided that this development is going to happen regardless- so they feel they may as well get everything in place beforehand? No, no that must not be right- surely local government wouldn’t try and pass one over the residents like that…. would they?

Using the word ‘green’ does not make you green

We all know that many companies and politicians like to jump on the populist bandwagon, none more so than when it is about being green; you only have to look at the irony of BP rebranding itself ‘Beyond Petroleum’ to realise this.

And we all know that looking at the government you can see the biggest populists of them all. In the latest budget it was announced that £1billion was to be put into reducing our carbon emissions, with £525million being directed at off-shore wind farms.

This is of no surprise. In Europe Britain has the largest potential energy input from utilising wind energy. The European Wind Energy Association  predict that “developing less than 5% of the North Sea surface area would enable offshore wind to supply roughly one-quarter of the EU’s current electricity needs”.

Forgetting political arguments, wind energy seems like a safe bet to secure Britain’s energy future. Unfortunately, despite the £525million being put into wind energies, it is the politicans who are letting this industry down.

One of the biggest suppliers of wind turbine technology to Britain is Vestas, whose operations in the UK are based on the Isle of Wight. On 29 April 2009, just over a week after the budget announcement, Vestas announced that they “have seen different developments over the last number of months which unfortunately have meant we have to reduce our staff and investments in the Denmark and the UK” they will be duly axing 600 local jobs. 

Vestas’s Chief Executive Ditlev Engel admitted during a press conference that this is down to a “lack of political initiatives”.  He mainly blames the planning process and the lack of support from local politicans for energy from wind development. With this Vestas have “lost our [sic] faith in sufficient demand from the North European markets in the coming periods”. Things have to be serious for Vestas to announce this when you consider the wind speeds around Europe below:

www.offshorewindenergy.org/ca-owee/indexpages/downloads/Brussels01_Resources.pdf

So despite the potential that the North Sea area has for wind energy, despite the promise of how much money the government appears to direct towards energy from wind development, despite the calls for reductions in our carbon emissions, despite the current economic climate that is calling for job protection and despite the need for Britain to sort out it’s energy future, it appears the government, especially local, have betrayed not only the British population, but have also dealt a huge blow to the global fight against climate change. If now was not a perfect time to create jobs, expand what should be a thriving energy industry and fight climate change then i do not know when is.

As is the growing theme of my blog posts, please sign this petition calling on the government to intervene and help, and please spread news of this announcement, more people need to see how it appears we are being betrayed by those pretending to be ‘green’.

More information can be found here.