Where does gummer's decision to stand down leave Cameron's Green policies ?

Whilst it may have seemed fairly minor news when it was announced that John Selwyn-Gummer is to stand down as MP for Suffolk Coastal at the next general election, it does raise some questions about the Tories Green credentials and the future of Cameron's claims that the Tories can be trusted on the Green agenda.

Gummer is standing down to be a a campaigner on environmental matters, very noble. But when only 40 of David Cameron's MPs even voted to support the climate change bill, and with many of the possible new intake of Tory hopefuls being even more ardent global warming deniers, it must be ablow to Cameron that one of the few Tories who would support Camerons greener policies is to go.

Eco Town Con

The quiet Norfolk village of Rackheath is to be turned in to a town (or eco-town as the government insist on calling it). It wouldn't be so bad if the town was actually going to be an eco town. However, the standard of eco friendliness required for building the houses is a lower standard than those standards expect of all new homes by 2016, and by 2016 none of the new houses will be built. So in effect the government has dumped 4000 new homes on prime farmland which will not be built to a higher standard than any other house in Norfolk or the UK.

Labour like to talk up the environmental credentials, but in reality it all a con. Roll on the General Election.

When being eco friendly becomes a scam to make money

There is no surer way to put people of caring for the environment that to feel that a scam is going on to rob consumers of money so that big business and make bigger profits.

That. sadly, is what I feel is happening at a local shop near to me, at least from my experience today.

Budgens have a franchised shop in Drayton (near Norwich) which told me, when I had done rather a lot of shopping today, at the till, that they no longer have normal plastic bags. They told me that I could pay 10 pence for a plastic "Bag for life" or I could pay £1 for a hessian style limited addition bag.

Now I don't mind the principle of paying a few pence, like they do in Ireland for a bag, as long as I have some sort of warning and don't feel like I am being ripped off. But this store had no signs up advising me of this new policy, so I had no warning that I could have bought some old plastic bags from home. So in no way has Budgens actions made me any more environmentally friendly. I used no less bags than normal, instead I was charged 10 pence for the privilege.

Surely the principles of charging for bags is to encourage the re-use of old bags, and this can only work if people are reminded that they need to do this, not given an ultimatum at the till where they have to pay too much for an expensive bag. I think Budgens are not fooling anyone if they think plastic bags cost 10 pence each to produce.

So what am I moaning about ? I've only spent 10 pence extra. But have I helped the environment ? No. All I've helped is Budgens to get richer, and for doing that I feel ripped off.

If caring for the environment means customers getting scammed by big business then nobody will take the necessary action to ensure future generations have a planet left to protect.

Tory Environment Spokeman who drives a sports car ?

How on earth can someone chosen to encourage us all to be more environmentally friendly drive a sports car ? That's the question Suffolk Tories should be asking after it was revealed that their spokesman on environmental matters drives a 3.5 litre sports car.

It might not be so bad were it not for the fact that he claims he gets 30mpg from the car (I note from one website that the best he could expect from his car is actually 30.7 mpg (and that would mean he would be driving at a pretty constant 56mph the whole time). Coupled with the fact that he 424 round trip to Leeds in relation to his role as a councillor and did not use the train, its a sorry state of affairs when Suffolk County Council seem to work on the principle of "Do as we say, not as we do"

A climate deal, of sorts, which fails to tackle the issues

You have to have some sympathy for some of the negotiators at the Bali UN climate conference. They have to sit and look at the smug faces of the American delegation knowing that the US under George Bush really does not give a damn about the environment, and if they are going to get any sort of agreement it will be a watered down waste of time, and that, it appears, is what we have got.

Some might argue that any deal is better than no deal. Perhaps this is true, but what we have got after the so called "US U-turn" is an agreement with a lack of firm targets for reducing emissions. it also now commits the UN to two years of discussions before anything is to be done, which is just what the planet could do without right now.

I heard one environmental campaigner make the point yesterday that it would have been better to sign a deal without the US. Then, with the US and the Republicans looking intransigent on the issue, the climate would have become more of an issue in the elections in the US, as it was in Australia just a few weeks ago. This would have then forced the Republicans in to a corner and would have seen the Democrats, who are far more friendly to the environment, pushing even harder on this issue.

So whilst some will be pleased that a watered down deal was signed with the US involved, personally I don't think it would have been better to get most nations to sign up to a good deal that works, even if that does not include America.

More wind turbines has to be good news

I fully support proposals to have dozens more winds farms offshore around the UK, but i wonder what objectors will say.

In Norfolk recently objectors have used the excuse that the RAF claim wind farms create problems for their radar stations. Personally I feel this is all a load of old tosh as if they RAF are having problems picking up something just two miles away fro the shoreline, I would want to know why they didn't detect them hundreds of miles away where there are no wind farms at all.
With more and more fears about the stability of Russia and our dependence on Russian gas, anything that provides us with alternatives to fossil fuels has got to be good. Still, I guess it wont stop protesters complaining about it spoiling their views.

I remember when I was a councillor in North Norfolk being phoned up by a resident of a nearby village who asked my opinion on wind turbines. He asked if I would be happy to have one near where I lived. I said I would have no problem and preferred a wind turbine to a power station. He could not see the relationship between the two as he opposed wind farms full stop. We know we are terrible NIMBY's in this country, so surely having wind farms offshore is a sensible solution to the problem ?

Biased BBC reporting undermines Lib Dem success

The odd headline showed above is the way the BBC reported that the Lib Dems got three stars for the party's environmental policies in the Green Standard report.

What the report showed was that the Labour Party got just one star and the Tories zero. I'll repeat that for the hard of reading, the Tory got nothing, zilch, a big fat nought.

So let's get this right, the BBC are equating the Lib Dems three stars, and if you read the repot, they are issued on a trafffic light system of red, amber and green, which gets you a star, with the zero stars that the Tories got. Indeed, in only one are did the Lib Dems even receive a red light, with three green lights indicating the three stars) and two amber.

If somebody with an ounce of fairness was righting the BBC headline they would have acknowledged that the Lib Dems three out of six is eqaul to a half and is also 50% more than the Tories 0%.

Praise for the Tories - Who says I am not "fair" or "open minded" ?

Well done to the Tories for proposing something from one of their policy groups that is sensible, achievable, and isn't all about trying to give well of people tax cuts.

The Tories have proposed getting rid of the functionality that allows your TV to sit in your living room on "standby", with it often using as much as 60% of the electricity it would use even if it were turned on.

It seems crazy that standby can not be got rid of completely. I saw on BBC2's Dragon's Den last year two people who had invented a simple device that would allow the "Standby" button to be replaced with something that would turn off the device completely, but due to the sort of red tape problems that were involved patents and copyrights, the device never got the launch the entrepreneurs on the show wanted, and so the product has never hit them market.

It needs government to have a real desire to legislate to get rid of standby. With 2.25% of this country's electricity use being TV's, videos, DVD's and set top boxes on standby, in effect, not being used, the Tories are right to propose the banning of "standby".

I read the Jock Coats, another Lib Dem blogger has criticised the Tories for announcing this policy as their own because the government made similar statements about Standby buttons 13 months ago. The problem is, as I see it, that like much of Labour's policy announcements, this has been ignored. Hopefully the Tories agreeing with Labour on this and taking some of the limelight, it might encourage Labour to actually do something about it.

The BBC will not save the world after all

The BBC has axed plans to save the world, or at least halted spending millions of pounds of license fee payers money on a special day of programming that was to be called Planet Relief.

Now I am not a climate change sceptic. I firmly believe that man is accelerating the rate of change in the planet's temperature and I also believe that we need to do more to lead the way in this country to reduce our carbon emissions. the excuse "it does not matter because of China and India" does not wash. Bit for the BBC to patronise us for a whole day, spend an absolute fortune, no doubt give Fearne Cotton another presenting jobs and give another chance to groups of comedians to patronise us and then fly around the world filming short films to be shown every 10 minutes would just be too much for me.

So the BBC was right to scrap the idea. They should stick to their remit and should not start lecture us.

Doh - Scientists in obvious statement shocker !!!

Scientists have discovered that global warming's worst effects will be felt in the Africa. So let's get this right, Africa, the hottest part of the world, will suffer most from the world getting hotter.

Forgive me for not being surprised, but my class of eight year olds could have worked that out.

Whatever next. Will they tell us that the areas that are lowest will suffer worst from rising sea levels ? Or perhaps an exclusive, bears DO shit in the woods !

How to disarm a Friends of the Earth activist trying get you to sign a direct debit in the street

Walking through Norwich this afternoon, pushing my son's pram, I thought I might be seen as a more unlikely target for the brigade of Direct Debit hustlers near the market who try to persuade you to fill in direct debit forms for various causes. I was wrong, but I had an answer.

The Friends of the Earth girl said to me very politely

"If I was to say to you that there is something you can to personally that will help save the planet, what would your answer be ?"

My reply, "I would say yes, I know there is, because I am an active member of a political party that has pledged a carbon neutral future for the country by 2050"

"Which party is that", she asked.

"The Liberal Democrats", I replied, and I then told her about our new policies as well as the Green Tax switch.

Her response was simply "Well you're doing your bit, that's really good to hear the Lib Dems are doing this"

No Direct Debit form was produced, no more asking of questions, and I almost felt a pat on the back. So there you have it, if a environmental campaigner asks you for money, tell them you are a Lib Dem. It works for me.

"The Cat's Out Of The Bag" - Heathrow protesters e-mail shows they do plan trouble

After saying clearly and categorically that they would do nothing to disrupt passengers or the safe working of Heathrow Airport, Sky News reports that an e-mail from the protest groups shows they plan very much the opposite.

Telling people to bring uniforms, so as to be able to impersonate airport staff is possibly the most dangerous of all the things they plan, showing a flagrant disregard for the safety issues and anti terrorist measures now in place. Other measures include plans to being business clothes in order for them to be able to get in to the airport to cause further disruption.

The fact that protesters are now turning up in what appears to be riot gear (witness the picture on Sky News website) shows that this protest appears to be under the control already of the same old angry mob who will travel the length and breadth of the country in order to pick a fight with the police.

Anyone thinking of going ought to wonder why they are joining a march where people are turning up in gas masks ???

Perhaps the biggest question for me though is why are ITV and the BBC not reporting this e-mail ?

How much CO2 are the Heathrow protesters putting out ?

Just how much CO2 is being emitted by protesters going to Heathrow to protest against people getting on planes that emit CO2 ?

How much CO2 is being thrown out of the back of police cars and extra security staff's vehicles to make sure that Heathrow is protected ?

It reminds me of back in 1996 or 1997 when a group called something like "Reclaim the Streets" has a march against the car in Coventry when I was at University there. Thousands of people marched through with anti car banners. A lovely principle were it not for the fact that the car park was full of very inefficient old Campervans with CND stickers on and a range of other old gas guzzlers painted in an array of psychedelic colours. It appears that virtually all the anti car protesters turned up by car !

So will the action at Heathrow change anything ? No, of course not. but it will allow a large number of middle class lefties the chance to live in a tent for a weekend, not wash and let their clothes get filthy before going home to mummy and daddy to tell everyone that they are changing the world.

Update - Small Town Scribbles appears to have thought along similar lines too.

Labour Minister Malcolm Wicks makes prat of himself on Radio Five Live

Malcolm Wicks, Minister for Science and Innovation just made a right prat of himself on Radio Five Live.

Being interviewed by Peter Allen, he was asked if Britain would reach its target, that Tony Blair signed up to, to reduce emissions by 20%. He said it was Europe's target and that we were working towards our share. When asked what our share was, he was unable to answer, reiterating that we would make our contribution. So Peter Allen asked him "Would Britain achieve a 20% reduction - yes or no", his response was, again, that it was Europe's target.

The rest of the interview became sidelined as the interviewer asked repeatedly if Britain would achieve 20% or not, to which Malcolm Wicks refused to give a straight answer. At one point he became particularly condescending when asked why he wouldn't give a simple yes or no answer, he said he was giving an "Intelligent answer".

I suppose it was too much to ask for, as straight answer from a Labour Minister. Still, the interviewer made him look silly, it made the government's commitment to the environment look poor and we got the answer by his refusal to answer. In short, Britain will not achieve the 20% reduction Tony Blair signed up to and instead we are relying on our European allies to make larger cuts in order for Europe to hit its targets.

Update - More background on the story about the UK missin gits 20% target can be found HERE.

Pretending to care for the environment

A House of Commons Committee has criticised British Airways for the pathetic way it has marketed and promoted a carbon offset scheme on the same day as an all party group of MP's has claimed that Britain's own carbon reduction targets are not adequate and do not meet the criteria needed to ensure Britain is playing any significant part in helping the environment.

In the same way as British Airways have told the press that they are the first airline to introduce a carbon offset scheme, and no doubt they include this in marketing material, letters to shareholders and in environmental brochures, the British government too likes to tell foreign countries, particularly those countries like India and China who make all the items that we consume, how much we are doing for the environment. But in reality, the British Government and British Airways commitment are as half hearted as each other.

British Airways, is has been revealed, have only offset enough CO2 to cover four transatlantic flights. The British Government, various reports show, has not even met its own limited targets on CO2.

So what is the difference ? Are British Airways and the Government just pretending to care about the environment ? When will the UK government look at some of the bold ideas other parties have, in particular the Lib Dems Green tax switch proposals. Only when such schemes are taken on will this government actually be able to take any credit from claiming that it has environmental credentials.

Are the Lib Dems targeting air con ?

Dizzy has an interesting analysis of written questions being asked by Norman Baker and Chris Huhne about government use of portable air conditioning units and asks is the party planning an extra tax on air conditioning units in the home ?

I would suggest that such a policy would possibly have a negative impact on our poll ratings and would, inevitably raise questions about raising tax on cars too as 75% of cars now produced have air con as standard. Such a policy could open a real can of worms.

Of course we have to do our part for the environment but is taxing home air con being considered by the party ?

Government hypocrisy over Eco Villages

Although it is good news that the government are now supporting the principle of ecologically friendly eco villages, it does seem, yet again, to smack of absolute hypocrisy given the government's record of support for such schemes in the recent past.

In North Norfolk, with the closure many years ago of RAF West Raynham, dozens of RAF houses were left to rot for many years. In this time, North Norfolk District Council with others offered to take over these homes, buy them if necessary for a decent rate, and turn the site in to an environmentally friendly model of a community. In all this time, the government didn't seem to care one little bit about that the council's proposal.

Any meetings held at the time centred on Defence Estates, who managed the site, getting as much money for as little effort as possible, without reference or care to the community in the future or its economic or environmental impact on the community at any point.

The fact is that government has a role to play in not just telling people to build eco-villages, but also managing its own land and resources in order to help these things come to fruition. but whilst Defences Estates and other government agencies have "Make as much money as you can" as their primary objective, this may never happen. Shame.

"The end of the world isn't nigh"- Say eco campaigners

It was welcoming today to read some serious academics who have been researching climate change since the 1970's and not simply taking other academics work out of context (as "The Great Global Warming Swindle" did) produce some evidence that people are being turned off doing things that can benefit the fight against climate change because of the "Hollywoodisation" of the arguments and the tone used by doom merchants.

Hardly a week goes by without us hearing about the earth reaching "the tipping point" of "it's already too late" or "the end of modern civilisation" in arguments about global climate change. this, the academics argue, means that many people believe it is too late to do anything or that their contribution, however, big, is pointless and will make no difference.

I agree with the academics views on this. Personally it matters little what I do about recycling because my carbon footprint compared to that of a new Chinese coal fired power station is tiny. however, if climate change can be sold to people in the basis of saving householders money, helping your own local environment and at the same time all this making a small contribution to reducing your carbon footprint, then it will mean that more people will be keener to become eco friendly.

Leaves fall off Tories Green credentials

A Friends of the Earth survey shows the Scottish Conservatives to be bottom of the league when it comes to their environmental policies, according to The Scotsman.

The findings shouldn't really surprise anyone as everyone knows their Tories "caring for the environment" campaign is nothing more than a thin veneer, extolled by a leader who cycles to work, but has his official car follow him and whose party on the ground does everything it can to oppose environmentally friendly ideas. This was clear to me through my own experiences of the Tories. When it came to introducing a recycling scheme in North Norfolk, they opposed it.

The Friends of the Earth message for Dave ?

"Bottom of the class, must talk less and work harder"

Cameron uses private jet for 90 mile journey

The BBC reports that David Cameron has used a private jet for a 90 mile journey from Oxfordshire to Hereford.

This comes just a few days after Dave told everyone that they should be more responsible about how they travel and that people will be taxed more for taking flights.

Astonishingly though, in this case, Dave was only travelling 90 miles. Let's all do the COuntdown conundrum to re-arrange the letters to describe Mr Cameron.

E H T Y P I R C O