This is my favourite – truly inspiring: http://www.ted.com/talks/justin_hall_tipping_freeing_energy_from_the_grid.html?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2011-10-19&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email

Given my state of mental fatigue, I may not be in the best of minds to rationalise what has just gone on, but I feel obliged to post something before endeavouring to forget about the whole issue for a while at least.

Having previously gone on record as praising the Vale Planning Committee for their courage in taking a historic decision in rejecting the application (https://bridgendgreens.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/historic-decision-by-vale-council-to-reject-shle-gas-test-drilling/) it now pains me and saddens me that they have so completely mishandled the matter that they felt the need to totally capitulate at the Public Inquiry.

This is what appears to have happened:

Through the Scrutiny Committee Meeting and loads of written representations, a comprehensive case against the test drilling application led to the unanimous verdicts of both Scrutiny and Planning Committees against the proposal. However, presumably on the guidance of their Planning Officers – who had recommended approving the application – they couched their rejection as being purely on the basis of the evidence of Welsh Water’s expressed concerns over possible groundwater contamination. This was their big mistake. There were, indeed still are, plenty of other material considerations, many of which I have consistently suggested are more telling than this groundwater issue, which could, and should have been included as additional grounds for refusal. It was immediately obvious that there would be an appeal put in. Had it been more thoroughly rejected, it is possible, given the overwhelming public opposition, that Coastal Oil & Gas may have at least thought twice about appealing.

What happened next really put the cat amongst the pigeons. Welsh Water, after some ‘dialogue’ with Coastal Oil & Gas, withdrew their opposition and declared that they would not participate in the Public Inquiry (Appeal). I again presume that the Planning Officers were instrumental in advising the Planning Committee how to respond to this development. Their line of thinking appears to have been that, given that the only cited grounds for rejection had melted away, they could be on very dodgey ground with the Planning Inspector, and possibly at risk of facing a large costs bill from the appellants. With an election for their seats imminent, the Planning Committee appear to have bottled sticking to their convictions in favour of ‘defending the budget’ and adopting a damage limitation strategy. In these times of budget cuts all over the place, I guess I can understand how this may have seemed like acting in their ‘constituents best interests’ (in other words, serving in their own best interests in terms of getting re-elected).

In essence, they moved away from a decision based on participatory democracy at its best (local heroes), to a politically expedient decision based on purely financial considerations (‘merchant bankers’!).

Their opening statement to the Public Inquiry ripped my guts out. Not only were they not going to defend their original decision, but they were now saying that, subject to conditions, they were now prepared to approve the application and come to an arrangement over costs. At that point in time it seemed like the whole thing was going to be a fait accompli and we would be done by lunchtime.

However, chinks of light in the gathering gloom soon started to appear. Inspector Emyr Jones made it clear that he was still prepared to listen to the quite extensive list of witnesses that had come prepared for the fray. I sought, and got, assurances from him that it was still within his power to uphold the original decision to reject the application, and it was game on.

I do not propose to give a blow by blow account of events, but save to say I think it would be fair to say the following:

• Coastal Oil & Gas’ two ‘expert’ witnesses’ testimony was riddled with errors, inconsistencies, and thinly veiled deceits
• Their motives, and thereby the value of their assurances about anything, are, at the very least, questionable
• Their noise survey was fundamentally flawed
• Their ecological survey was held in contempt by several witnesses including Friend of the Earth Cymru and myself
• Their citing of a handful of convenient clauses in Development Plans and Planning Policies was overwhelming outweighed by dozens of such clauses that support the decision to reject the application – allied to the complete lack of any reference to this fundamentally new type of industry (for the Vale) in the Development Plans
• Although the Planning Committee may have capitulated, all other sources of opposition have remained firm – meaning the overwhelming public will in the Vale of Glamorgan remains for this industry to have absolutely no role in their vision of the Vale’s future.

But will all this be enough to sway the Inspector’s verdict our way?

I simply don’t know. I feel pretty sure that he came into this Public Inquiry thinking it was a pretty straightforward case. Given the chief protagonists opening positions, it was bound to go the appellant’s way, I suspect he thought. Two day’s later, I think we have at least succeeded in giving him serious pause for thought. In actual fact, I don’t envy him his task one little bit. There are going to be far reaching ramifications whatever he decides – and I doubt he expected that when he took this case on. It is always easy to be cynical about politically appointed Inquiry chairs, especially after their verdicts. So let me say here and now that he conducted the Inquiry impeccably and I believe his verdict will be properly considered and have to be accepted which ever way it falls.

What happens next?
The Public Inquiry is not quite complete yet. There will be a site visit on MONDAY 11th JUNE at 1.30pm.
This is open to the public to attend – but not to submit additional evidence. The purpose is to allow those of us that have given evidence the opportunity to show him things we referred to in our evidence to date.
He has until the end of JULY to issue his verdict, but has declared that he does not envisage having to take anywhere near that long. It is still going to be weeks rather than days.

Of course, whatever the verdict, whether the battle is won or lost, the war goes on. We will prevail sooner or later – there is no other option. Keep the faith!

(The above video is part of a great collection found here: http://falseeconomy.org.uk/filmclub)

Towards the end of the wonderfully succinct summary of where the world economy is today, David Harvey states (from 9:15):

“Any sensible person right now would join an anti-capitalist organisation. You have to, because otherwise we are going to have this continuation… Of all sorts of negative aspects.”

Welcome to the Green Left: http://greenleftblog.blogspot.co.uk/ and

http://thewatermelon.wordpress.com/

I am more confident than ever of a successful outcome.

A 2 day public inquiry will be held in:

The Board Room
Vale of Glamorgan Council Docks Office
Barry

See here: http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/living/transport/transport_contacts.aspx

Starting on Tuesday 22 May 2012 at 10:00am

We urge all of you who have opposed the application at Llandow to attend and show your continued opposition!

You can see the full details of the inquiry at

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2167112&coid=2097472

Hope to see you all there!!

History is made by those who show up Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli

PS > Reminder – Bridgend Green Party meetings are now on LAST Thursday of the month – i.e. 31st May (last day of month happens to fall on a Thursday)

Why this is important

Ecocide is the extensive destruction of ecosystems and environments which has severe consequences for people as well as the environment.

To world leaders:

As concerned citizens of a fragile planet, we call on you to back an international law of Ecocide at the Rio+20 Earth Summit in June this year. We call on you to make ecocide the 5th International Crime Against Peace. Life on Earth as it is now cannot survive if we continue to treat our environment as we are currently doing. Take this opportunity to back strong measures to make ecocide a crime, to protect humanity and the Earth.

Life on Earth is under threat. Damage to the Earth is being caused at an alarming rate and there is no legal framework to prevent this. But next month in June, leaders from around the globe will be at the RIO+20 Earth Summit discussing the Earths future – we can make them put people and planet above profit.

As it currently stands there is no international law against ecocide. Making ecocide the 5th International Crime Against Peace will protect our environment and make those who destroy it criminally liable. Our leaders have the chance to fundamentally change the way our Earth is protected.

This crucial summit provides us with a once-in-a-generation opportunity. We can make our leaders listen to our demands for change. Lets show them that ecocide is a grave crime and that this must be put into international law. Sign this petition and share it with all your friends!

CLICK HERE: http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/NOW_IS_OUR_CHANCE_TO_END_ECOCIDE/?fKMfsab&pv=15

97% Owned is a new documentary that reveals how money is at the root of our current social and economic crisis. Featuring frank interviews and commentary from economists, campaigners and former bankers, it exposes the privatised, debt-based monetary system that gives banks the power to create money, shape the economy, cause crises and push house prices out of reach. Fact-based and clearly explained, in just 60 minutes it shows how the power to create money is the piece of the puzzle that economists were missing when they failed to predict the crisis.

Produced by Queuepolitely and featuring Ben Dyson of Positive Money, Josh Ryan-Collins of The New Economics Foundation, Ann Pettifor, the “HBOS Whistleblower” Paul Moore, Simon Dixon of Bank to the Future and Nick Dearden from the Jubliee Debt Campaign, this is the first documentary to tackle this issue from a UK-perspective, and can be watched online now.

97% Owned – Positive Money Directors Cut (1hr)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d3mfkD6Ky5o#!
Full version (2hr 10min)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XcGh1Dex4Yo

Among other things, this video illustrates the power of self-serving capitalist interests to diminish all our lives by inhibiting positive developments that threaten their grip on the fundamentals of life.

I have highlighted this many times before (e.g. https://bridgendgreens.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/industries-of-the-future/). There is an appalling myth that it takes capitalism to provide the capital to bring all of these life enhancing inventions to the masses. The truth is that under a capitalist system, those that hold the capital dictate what we end up having to put up with (VHS instead of Betamax etc), by not just dictating which projects get funded (fossil fuels instead of renewables), but also by controlling the media/advertising (Murdoch, Omnicom) and buying off potential competitors and Governments.

The other big myths perpetuated by capitalists is that prosperity can only be measured in monetary terms and we can progress through economic growth.

The sorts of developments illustrated in these videos would help provide energy, water and good food without the need for big business at all. No wonder they are running scared and sabotaging such things.

It is reminiscent of the Dark Ages and the Inquisition, when lives were controlled by the all powerful forces of religion. Intellectual challenges that threatened their status had to be forcibly suppressed (Galileo, Copernicus, Giordano Bruno).

We need a new Age of Enlightenment to herald in the positive changes that free us from the shackles of capitalism and corporate greed.

Ecosocialism offers such a way forward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism

Just stumbled across this data for views of this blog in the last 10 weeks:

Top Views by Country:

Country	Views
United Kingdom	1,428
United States	229
Canada	49
Australia	27
India	27
Germany	17
Spain	17
France	16
Indonesia	14
Philippines	13
Netherlands	12
Brazil	9
Malaysia	8
Denmark	6
New Zealand	6
South Africa	5
Taiwan	5
Thailand	5
Singapore	5
Albania	4
Hong Kong	4
Belgium	4
Sweden	3
Switzerland	3
United Arab Emirates	3
Ireland	3
Russian Federation	3
Argentina	3
Japan	2
Finland	2
Republic of Korea	2
Zimbabwe	1
Bahamas	1
Hungary	1
Yemen	1
Senegal	1
Poland	1
Viet Nam	1
Botswana	1
Pakistan	1
Egypt	1
Sri Lanka	1
Colombia	1
Armenia	1
Venezuela	1
Turkey	1
Norway	1
Afghanistan	1
Italy	1
Iceland	1
Lithuania	1
Algeria	1
Nigeria	1
Saudi Arabia	1
Ecuador	1
Peru	1

1. The Catholic Education Service, which I understand acts for Catholic bishops in England and Wales, is reported to have contacted 385 Catholic secondary schools to highlight a letter read in parish churches last month, entitled A letter on Marriage. Was your school one of these 385 contacted by the CES regarding this letter?
2. If YES, has this letter been highlighted with pupils, as requested by the CES.
3. The CES also asked schools to draw pupils attention to the petition being organised by the Coalition for Marriage, a Christian campaign which has attracted more than 466,000 signatures to date. Has this petition been drawn to the attention of any pupils in your school?
4. Have you sanctioned, or is there any possibility of you sanctioning, the promotion of this petition with any pupils in your school?
5. To the best of your knowledge, are there any copies of the pamphlet entitled “Pure Manhood: How to become the man God wants you to be” in your school?
6. Have you sanctioned, or is there any possibility of you sanctioning, the use of this pamphlet with any pupils in your school, as it has been in some parts of England?
7. Finally, just a number rather than a yes/no, what percentage of your current roll is deemed to belong to the Roman Catholic Church?

Many thanks in anticipation of your response,

Yours sincerely,

Andy Chyba

THE RESPONSE:

Dear Dr Mangan