‘Climategate’-gate part two

It makes me sad that politics can stand in the way of science. Take for example the science behind drugs and drug use. Perhaps take as a better example the politicialisation and purely political motives of climate change sceptics.

It is sad because there actually is a scientific consensus about climate change. Of course it is still a theory, but then so is gravity, so is eating fruit to have a healthy life style – the only thing you can really say is proof nowadays is that i am currently sitting in my room whilst writing this – oh wait, unless i was one of those people who believes that everything is just a figment of my imagination, then even that becomes a theory!

The point is, the huge majority of scientists recognise that climate change is happening and within that huge majority there is another huge majority that agree that humans do have an influence.

The sceptics would claim that this is one big conspiracy to ensure that these scientists continue to get funding from governments because the governments want to prove that theory. Just think about that – it is a ridiculous notion. There is arguably a much greater demand for climate change sceptics with higher rewards on offer – the demand comes from the coal industry, logging industries, oil companies, Republicans (American), Conservatives (Britain); and not surprisingly, the biggest climate change sceptics ARE funded by these industries. With the huge number of scientists in agreement that climate change is happening, then the rewards on offer for studying climate change and not denying it are a lot smaller. Simple economics!

But the debate has been taken over by politics and by conspiracy theorists. Or on the other side by egotistical people like Al Gore (although it is debatable whether An Inconvenient Truth would of got as much coverage if fronted by a scientist).

It’s just as bad as the Vatican’s treatment of people like Galileo. It’s like an anti-science crusade! But have you heard, Galileo’s crazy idea that the Earth is not the center of the Universe and we instead go round the Sun is not as crazy as first thought!

The scientists and study/research their respective areas everyday do so for a reason – because they are the experts!

Credible science should dictate all politics and climate change science is credible (as has not been proven otherwise). But instead of the current trend of various political parties (both sceptical and agree-ers) twisting the science to suit their policies, the policies should directly deal with the science and the issues in the best way possible to also help/benefit the population.

But i fear there is instead a dumbing down of politics by those who want to push their own interests.

In regards to ‘Cliamtegate’, here is another interesting and informative YouTube video:

Until the time when science has its day, perhaps we should not gather our scientific opinions from newspapers (including the Guardian and the Independent) and instead either speak directly to the scientists or read academic scientific journals instead. That includes me, don’t read anything i write or take anything i say as being the absolute truth on climate change because i am not a scientist – go read the actual scientific journals if you want an opinion.

The Earth is Not Flat.

‘Climategate’-gate

Today i went on The Wave climate match in central London. There were around 20,000+ people there, all civil, having fun and peacefully protesting on something that matters to them. Even some police officers were willing to join in after members of the Portsmouth Climate Action Network group asked one to join in in a Mexican Wave outside the Houses of Parliament.

One of the more interesting sights though was that on two seperate occassions a very small number of people (very small, two or three) were holding banners at the side of the march that said things like ‘Climategate’ and ‘Don’t be duped’. The charge being that recently hacked emails from UEA ’showed’ that scientists deliberatly manipulated climate data to try and show that humans are having a negative effect on the environment.

Well;

I doubt most people who have been swayed in anyway whatsoever after ‘climategate’ read anything other than that reported in newspapers and the news.

Just something to ponder. And to reiterate a point made in the video – at least the official investigations into ‘Climategate’ will not be done by idiots.

More shame for Reading Buses

Some more embarrassment today for Reading Buses, where it has turned out that instead of running their number 17 route buses on sugar beet waste from Norfolk, they are actually running on wood pulp from Sweden…

The song ‘it’s not easy being green’ comes to mind.

How they can confuse wood pulp imported from Sweden with sugar beet from Norfolk goes beyond belief. The fact that Reading Buses used the number 17 route with this apparent unique quality as their flagship service makes even more of a mockery of Reading Buses. Which is a shame. Personally, i love to champion the use of buses, even if they are run purely on petrol.

The main problem with Reading Buses however, is that they appear to have the idea that to make more money they need to raise prices. So a few months ago, to make up for the £40,000 they were reportedly losing per week they cut services and raised prices. Now, i know i only did economics at A-Level, but i am sure  even those more experienced with economic matters would agree with me that if prices were to fall, then it would entice more people onto the buses and therefore lead to a price rise… Maybe this would still not stop services being cut, but perhaps the increased demand would give Reading Buses more room for improvement…?

Power to the People

So it has been a relatively fantastic few weeks for the environmental movement, not just on a national level, but also on a local level.

Nationally, BAA have announced that they are scraping plans for a new runway at Heathrow and E.ON are throwing their plans for Kingsnorth power station away (at least for the time being).

This is fantastic news, as although blame has been put on the ‘credit crunch’, in reality, these are two projects that have drawn immense protest from the environmental movement, and it would be ridiculous to suggest that opposition to these projects did not play its part in their scrapping – although also ridiculous to suggest that other issues did not also influence the decision.

In Reading, after a 13 year struggle by campaign groups, Reading Borough Council have rejected current plans to build new homes on the Bath Road Reservoir. Elsewhere in Reading, groups campaigning to stop development on King’s Meadow have also recently enjoyed success.

In both these cases it previously looked as though Reading Borough Council were to give in to the developers, and although there is still a long way to go with both of these campaigns, their recent successes can only encourage fellow campaigners and local people in Reading that people power can win through. Exemplified further by BAA’s and E.ON’s recent news nationally.

So next stop is a campaign surrounding the future of Pincent’s Hill in Reading that i have previously written about (here, here, here and here). Blue Living, have recently put in a planning proposal, and the Save Pincent’s Hill campaign are working hard to ensure that as many letters of objection to this proposal are sent to West Berks as possible. Even Reading Borough Council are putting in a letter of protest to the plans.

Although i admit that my last few months in Reading i have been a bit lax in this campaign, i do know that there are some fantastic and committed people working hard to stop these developments in Pincent’s Hill, and i would ask everyone reading this to visit their websites, to send in letters of protest to West Berks Council (you don’t have to live in the area to do so) and to send messages of support to the group.

Let’s build on recent successes and really show what people power can achieve.

Is that a cow?

So today I gowned a green paper suit, put around 5 bucket loads of disinfectant on my boots and was told that I should behave because I am representing the government. That’s right. I went on a farm visit.

I could talk about my professional feelings towards the visit- but that is best kept for when I am at work behind my desk. Instead I would just like to say a few things from my own personal standpoint. [Note, these are not the views of RPA, Defra or HM Government :@].

I firstly would like to say I really enjoyed the trip. I gained valuable insights into agriculture that you just can not appreciate when you are stuck behind a desk reading about EU subsidies!

Part of the trip meant we were able to see the lifecycle of the milking process (the farming side of the farm we went to had a rather large daily element). We started off by viewing some Heifers and other pregnant cows. Before I carry on I would like to say that the farm manager who was showing us around explained to us that everything is consumer driven, he also explained that for the majority of farms in the UK, animal health and wellbeing is of utmost importance, firstly because the supermarkets have strict standards (consumer demand…) and secondly because of regulations placed upon farms to abide by strict animal health procedures with the penalty of non-compliance a reduction in subsidy payment.

Anyway, back to the pregnant Heifers. As the farm primarily dealt with producing milk as this was most profitable for them (but not very) then females cows were important to them. The life of a female cow ranges from growing up (year) to pregnancy (artificial insemination or from a suitable bull if AI is unsuccessful), then when the calf is born after a few weeks it is taken away, this female cow then goes into producing milk- which is collected, after a few months the female is impregnated again, starting the whole cycle over again. One cycle occurs between every 1 and a half to 2 years and each female cow goes through around 3 or 4 cycles (depending on the cow and this is specific to this farm) through it’s life (even though cows can live to around 15).

When the Heifer/female cow has given birth the fate of the calf is dependant upon its sex (and if there are any diseases).  Female calves are obviously starting life in the milking cycle. Male calves are dependent on two things. The first is whether there is enough meat on them at birth. If it is possible to tell in the early stages of life that this calf will grow big and strong then it is sold on in market for consideration for the dinner plate. Weaker looking calves essentially have no purpose in the milk or food chain. In some circumstances they are put down because economically they have no use. However, this farm does note that there is a moral side and it is not all about economics. They are therefore more reluctant to kill the calf straight off and are likely to try and sell these calves on albeit at a very low price. Within this context we were taken to see such calves, some of which were only 4 days old, others 10 weeks old. We were told that this is the side of things consumers tend to miss when they buy or demand cheap milk. If you want your milk cheap then only the most productive animal is of economic use, those with no economic benefit are essentially useless.

We were taken to the main housing shed for the cows. This was a large open area, regularly cleaned- in fact it was being cleaned while we were there. It was not overcrowded and there was plenty of room for the cows to move and over the course of an hour I watched as cows had the freedom of movement of the length of the shed.

Finally on our trip we were taken to two different fields so we could assess things such as set-aside land, arable land, environmental stewardship and cross compliance (good agricultural and environmental condition). It should be pointed out that farmers only get subsidy payments without penalty if they keep their land in good environmental condition; there are also extra subsidy payments available for farmers who take part in environmental schemes such as countryside stewardship and planting hedgerows (for example). One of the amazing things that occurred to me was that the first field we were taken to was around 5 and a half hectares. Everyday at work I come across farmers who have fields about 5 times the size of this (and this is only one of their fields/parcels!).  But I thought this field I was in was huge. It made me appreciate how much land some farmers had (this is not the case when it comes to tenant farmers of course). Anyway, the farm manager explained that a lot of the field around Berkshire is of poor soil quality but one of the most popular crops to grow in this soil is corn. This is not the kind of corn that you have a dash of butter on top for dinner. No. The main purpose of this corn was to feed animals- such as those cows on his farm. Now I have heard of the statistic that around 60% of grown food crops in America go towards feeding animals involved in diary/meat farming,but you don’t appreciate how many crops are grown just for animal feed. I only started appreciating this whilst standing in the middle of a 5 hectare field.

I have to admit that despite being a vegetarian on moral and ethical grounds I now feel even guiltier for not being a vegan. It appears that it is pointless to say you will become vegetarian because you disagree with treatment of animals or the effect upon the environment that animal farming causes. If you were really serious about these issues then you’d become a vegan. But can I make this step? Vegetarianism is really easy for me; I have not been tempted to try meat once in over 2 years. But soya milk? I don’t know :-S

***   ***

There are two other points I picked up from the visit. Apparently, there are farms (rather big ones) who are still being screwed over by the larger supermarkets. This is because a contract can be made between the farmer and supermarket, the farmer will then fulfil his side of the agreement but then the supermarket turn around and say “Great, but we are going to pay you £15,000 less”. The farmer has no power in these circumstances. Of course what the supermarket is doing is illegal and of course the farmer does have the National Farmers Union to go to, but then that farmer will lose that supermarket’s contract. Therefore the farmer has no choice but to accept the new terms imposed by the supermarket.

This is not the first time I have seen this kind of undercutting. When I worked on building sites the way things are generally done is that the main builders will contract out jobs to other companies’ i.e. electrical work, plumbing etc. These companies will bid for the work; the lowest price for the quickest work plan will win. However, for a few of the electrical companies I have worked for after they had won the contract and signed the deal the builder has turned around and have said that the electrical company will need to cut their price by 5%. The electrical company (depending on its size) will not walk away because it needs that contract. Therefore two things happen. The first is that the quality of materials used will fall because money is tighter. This may not sound like a lot but the quality of the material can severely affect the quality and speed of the work. Secondly, and most importantly, the wages on offer falls. Most companies do things on price. This means that there is no fixed wage but the amount you take home at the end of the week depends on the work you do. The theory is that the incentive to you is to work quicker and faster in order to make more money. However if after you start working for the builders they ask you to lower your price then you can see situations where a first fix (putting in all the wires and cables whilst the house is being built- a second fix is when the walls and ceilings are up and you put the covers on switches etc) originally was say £500 and took 3 days to do, would now be £450 but still take 3 days to do, or because the quality of the materials falls can take 3 and a half days.

I’m digressing.

The final point I was pondering from my visit was the future of farming in England. We were told that the average age of a farmer was 59/60. We were told that there is a high illiteracy rate amongst farmers and many still didn’t (and refused) to have the internet. Some farms apparently are still running without electricity. Regardless of all this there are enormous pressures placed upon the farming community when it comes to inspections and paper work. A lot of farmers who went into farming straight from school years ago went into an industry that was purely manually based. Now because of the pressures imposed by the capitalist model and especially supermarkets, many farmers are hardly making a profit. The more efficient farms turn out to be those that are bigger. These bigger farms are able to claim bigger subsidy as well (SPS is based on potential land that can be used- the more you have the more money you get).

In the context of the average age of farmers, their illiteracy and the idea of it being purely manual labour, the pressures placed upon smaller farms in terms of the bureaucracy involved with farming (not all bad in terms of environmental care, animal health and food quality) means that many of these farmers may not get the full subsidy they are entitled to because they don’t fill out the relevant forms or make a mistake. On top of all this you have to remember that for a variety of reasons there is not an influx of younger farmers in the industry. Younger farmers would be more open to technology and bureaucracy because that is what the more recent generations have grown up with. But farming is not attractive to a huge majority of youngsters, even to those from a farming background because there is not enough money in it for the amount of work you have to put in.

Therefore could the future of farming be a few large companies? This would be of serious detriment to tradition and raise the entry levels for new farmers, but on the flipside larger farms can employ people to deal with the bureaucracy and then employ people to work on the farm. Could this help save farming? It would provide well paid farming jobs, but then what would be the result of this? Would animal health go down? Well larger farms would be able to experiment with new techniques and use the newest technology. They would also continue to be at the mercy of government regulation which ensures quality. The bad taste left in the mouths of the ethical consumer when it comes to market dominance of companies such as Tescos and Primark may not necessarily reflect if the same was to happen to farming. With Primark for example, they buy their clothes from a producer, they do not operate at the bottom of the chain, only buy from it. Farming would essentially be at the bottom of the chain- control this and you control the quality of the chain (in theory).

The idea of a larger more monopolised farming industry would still create problems. If one company was to collapse this would have a huge impact upon food prices and supply- this would be the same if these companies started demanding more for their product (because there is less competition)- food prices would go up. Finally there is still the problem of entry into the farming industry being higher and those small independent farmers whose families have been farming for generations will be wiped out- do we really want to do this?

Ecosocialist

I am unashamedly an eco-socialist, and I would like to share with you two pieces that make interesting reading and which help frame my mind set. Saying that, my political mind set is a hectic place, so over the next few weeks I will hopefully show you what I specifically belief in and what I would do if I had the power on the page ‘Mattism’. Enjoy.

The Ecosocialist Manifesto

By Joel Kovel and Michael Lowy (September 2001)

The twenty-first century opens on a catastrophic note, with an unprecedented degree of ecological breakdown and a chaotic world order beset with terror and clusters of low-grade, disintegrative warfare that spread like gangrene across great swathes of the planet—viz., central Africa, the Middle East, Northwestern South America—and reverberate throughout the nations. In our view, the crises of ecology and those of societal breakdown are profoundly interrelated and should be seen as different manifestati

ons of the same structural forces.

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*

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.”