http://www.theecologist.org/green_green_living/out_and_about/932947/the_solar_tunnel_a_greener_future_for_our_railways.html

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/06/08/shale-gas-a-bigger-polluter-than-coal-and-oil-says-study-91466-28839730/#sitelife-commentsWidget-bottom

Incidentally, our old friend Nick ‘Greedy’ Grealy is first to comment on the article. He must be beginning to see the fortune he hoped to make slipping through his fingers. It will interesting see how desperate he gets.

MPs are beginning to wise up to the inadequacies of the Tim Yeo led Shale Gas Report. The tide is beginning to run strongly in our favour in this fight:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/mps-call-for-inquiry-into-shale-gas-drilling-after-earthquakes-2294389.html

The Co-operative are also delivering on their promises of support, so watch this space for news of a high profile event in Bridgend before too long.

It is getting personal now! The frackers start in my sisters backyard near Blackpool; then they turn their attention to my patch here in Bridgend. Now the very same Bridgend frackers (Coastal Oil & Gas) want to plunder my birthplace in Kent!! Andy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-13666638

Dear Prime Minister,

This letter is a direct request for your intervention in the Ministry of Justice’s plans for the future of legal aid entitled Proposals for Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales. At present, the proposals on how to make savings with cuts to Legal Aid are ill-conceived, unfair and will have a detrimental effect on justice in the UK.

We believe that the Government is undertaking these cuts in full knowledge of how disastrous they will be. The Government’s own equality impact assessment has warned that the risks presented by these proposals will include “reduced social cohesion, increased criminality and costs to other government departments.”

We’d like your assistance in obtaining an explanation for these proposals and why suggestions for positive reform – that will make greater savings without compromising on care – have been ignored. We urge you now to review the proposals for positive reform. One of the biggest savings made with these alternative reforms is an efficiency drive, which is very much in line with Government aims.

We are asking you to acknowledge that vulnerable families, children, pensioners, the infirm and the unemployed will all be affected by the MoJ proposals, which contradict your recent statement that the vulnerable will not be left behind.

What the MoJ is currently proposing means that entire categories of problems faced by more than 500,000 people every year will no longer be eligible for legal aid. All cases to resolve problems caused by medical negligence; difficulties with employment, schooling, housing, debt and welfare; and most family and child access cases will be excluded.

If your child goes into hospital for a routine operation and becomes a victim of medical malpractice, you will no longer have access to Legal Aid to seek an appropriate degree of compensation.

If your child has special educational needs but the local authority is not meeting its legal obligations or denying you a place at a suitable school, you will have no right to legal help or representation.

If you live in rented accommodation and your landlord raises the rent despite what had previously been agreed, you’re on your own.

If you’re a divorced father wandering the emotional minefield of child access and you feel you are not getting enough contact with your children, your access to them and to justice is of no concern to the Government.

In all these situations vulnerable people who need help – people the Government should be protecting – will all effectively be silenced with no legal voice to contest their circumstances.

These proposals are also discriminatory and will entrench women’s inequality; women are more likely to be unable to pay for legal advice, as a result they will be disproportionately affected by these reforms.

We find it hard to imagine a more insensitive proposal than one that removes aid from the most vulnerable members of society. However, we do understand that your government is committed to dealing with the deficit and that savings need to be made.

Therefore, we have an alternative proposal for reform that will not only make savings in excess of £380million (the MoJ proposal saves £350million) but do not effect an individual’s access to justice.

The Government should know what the wider cost implications are should the legal aid service be compromised. The Lord Chief Justice has said he expects the courts will not be able to cope with the number of claimants who conduct their own cases without a lawyer.

The House of Commons Justice Select Committee said: “We are surprised that the Government is proposing to make such changes without assessing their likely impact on spending from the public purse, and we call on them to do so before taking a final decision on implementation.”

This is why we are proposing alternative reforms that make the savings your Government so desperately requires while safeguarding civil legal aid and access to justice in the UK.

SIGN THE LETTER NOW

• Although deforestation continues at an alarming pace, the forest themselves seem to be fighting back. Woodland density is going up in most countries of the world to sufficient degree to be ameliorating, to a degree, the climate change consequences of deforestation.
• The cost of producing solar power is falling rapidly, and as on schedule to become cheaper than fossil fuels in the EU by 2017.
• 21% of global packaging is now from sustainable sources and should reach 32% by 2014.
• Venture investment in clean technologies rose by over £1 billion in 2010.
• Switzerland has followed Germany in scrapping all plans for future nuclear reactors.
• Boris Johnson has announced plans to install 1300 electric vehicle charging points in London by 2013.
• A solar powered plane, capable of day and night flight has just completed a maiden international flight.
• Land used for organic farming has increased 150% worldwide in the last 10 years.
• More and more countries are seeing sense and banning ‘fracking’ – France, South Africa, parts of Germany and the USA
• Renewable energy used in electricity has increased 183% in the UK in the last decade.

So it is not all doom and gloom, and there are even one or two glimmers of hope here in the UK. I would never have expected Boris to figure in a list of this sort for a start!

It is a pity that World Environment Day passes by un-noticed, for the most part, in this country. I almost missed it myself. It is a huge, high profile affair in some countries, such as India. You can find out more about it here: http://www.unep.org/wed/

That forests feature so heavily in the UNEP programme should be no surprise. Having deforested these islands centuries ago, we have, perhaps, lost sight of just what a fundamental role they play to life on earth and human activity. For a quick synopsis, check out this 3 minute UNEP video, narrated by the one and only David Attenborough: http://www.unep.org/flvPlayer/share/default.asp?id=1314&l=en

Happy WED!
Andy

Why have they stopped fracking? After all, it is supposed to be safe according to the Government’s own Shale Gas Inquiry, chaired by Tim ‘Hot Air’ Yeo.

There are suspicions, from the British Geological Survey that the fracking may have induced the earthquake. But Yeo’s committee knew the Blackpool site was prone to earthquakes after the bigger 2.3 quake on April 1st, before they published their conclusions, was dismissed as inconsequential. They must similar know that all shale gas and coal bed methane areas (potential fracking areas) are similarly prone to minor tremors too. So is Yeo on the phone to Cuadrilla to re-assure them that there is nothing worry about and ‘crack on’ with the fracking? I would not not be surprised.

Credit to Cuadrilla for being a little more circumspect. But then they know the truth of the risks they are taking. They know that their concrete lined bore holes are of dubious integrity at best, and cannot be guaranteed to not be damaged by even tiny tremors. We have all seen concrete crack from imperceptible movements, have we not?

Unfortunately, the front page headline, MAJOR SHOCK FOR UK’S ENERGY POLICY, is well wide of the mark. Yeo’s committee knew all this and more. They knew that France, Germany, South Africa and many US states have fracking moratoria or bans in place. But they are so beholden to the fossil fuel lobby that despite the mountains of evidence and numerous unanswered questions, Yeo’s committee decided that the modest step of a temporary moratoria had no merit and the opposition amounted to mere ‘hot air’.

To be honest, I disappointed, but not surprised by this stance. There is form – some old and some new – reported elsewhere in the Independent today.

Take page 3, for example: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/pollution-fears-as-uk-blocks-european-ban-on-fuel-from-tar-sands-2291598.html

“Britain is one of just two major European nations opposing efforts to prohibit sales of petrol and diesel obtained from the Canadian tar sands. Canada’s tar sands contain the world’s largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia, but extracting the oil can release up to three times more greenhouse gases.”
In essence, in supporting the exploitation of these resources, we would be destroying any chance of meeting global emissions targets and
“exploiting Canada’s tar sands reserves alone would be sufficient to take the world to the brink of runaway climate change”.

“To date, the UK and the Netherlands, two nations with the strongest connections to oil giants BP and Shell, are the only two states wishing to remove reference to tar sands from the draft proposal, according to the coalition of green groups working on the directive.”

“Charlie Kronick, a climate adviser at Greenpeace, said the power of large companies like BP should not be “underestimated” when it comes to the Government’s decision-making. “The UK is measuring up environmental interests and business interests and, as ever, when a nation is struggling to come out of a recession, the business case gets a strong push,” he said.”

(For evidence, check out what BP have been up to in terms of political lobbying in the USA: http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/05/how-bp-money-spends-on-lobbying-and-campaign-contributions-pays-off/ ; and here in the UK : (Resolution 21 – announced last month) http://www.investegate.co.uk/article.aspx?id=201104151800560553F )

So at least this coalition government is being consistent – fossil fuels are the future whatever any body else tells them. Despite having the greatest potential for renewable energies in the entire world, we are not likely to see this government follow Germany’s lead and ditch nuclear either.
(See Independent Viewspaper pg4: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/hamish-mcrae/hamish-mcrae-a-nuclear-rejection-that-invites-others-to-follow-2291363.html )

And just for good measure, the Business pages serve up a reminder that going to extraordinary lengths to secure even the long term possibility of a bit more oils or gas is not at all new policy. (see pg 34: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/desire-petroleum-back-on-the-trail-of-falklands-oil-2291481.html )

Did anyone really fall for Thatcher’s spin on the Falkland’s War (nearly thirty years ago) being about the self-determination of British subjects? The thin tissue of lies back then got me into politics in order to fight for truth and the protection of things of true value. Similar deceits were spun by Blair over the Iraq War.

The only thing we trust UK Governments to do is to remain true to the path they have been on for decades – both Tory and Labour administrations. A new direction will require radically different leadership, with radically different values. So far, only Brighton seems to have grasped this fact.