Living Life and LOAFing It – Green Christians ask churches to “Use your LOAF !” on sourcing sustainable food

In the run up to Easter, Christian Ecology Link is asking supporters to think and act on how they source food for their church communities, with the aim of reducing the impact of unsustainable agriculture on their local area, and the wider world.

The key LOAF principles are that food should where possible be sourced Locally, grown and reared Organically, be Animal-friendly and Fairly traded.

There is an action letter that can be downloaded from the website, urging church leaders to adopt the LOAF principles at community facilities.

CEL’s Web Editor Judith Allinson said, “We hope that our members and friends will take the opportunity to join in sending a letter to their church leaders asking that their community LOAF during Lent, and then carry on LOAFing throughout the following year.”

Green Christians are being encouraged to order free copies of the new LOAF leaflet to distribute during Fair Trade Fortnight, which runs from 27th February to 11th March 2012, by sending an e-mail to : jill-publications@christian-ecology.org.uk

The new all-colour leaflet can also be downloaded from : http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk/use-your-loaf.pdf or http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/loafUseYourLoaf.pdf

CEL members and friends are being asked to submit LOAF-themed recipes which will be uploaded to the new website : http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/archives/category/food/recipes

CEL’s Secretary, Barbara Echlin said, “Start the LOAF ball rolling in your own church by serving pancakes on Shrove Tuesday and make them with local free range eggs, organic milk and Fair Trade sugar. Ample food for all !”

Guidance for LOAF campaigners includes the suggestion to send the campaign letter to local church leaders and regional church administrators; and asking cathedrals, conference centres, educational venues and large churches with a refectory or cafe to take part.

CEL’s Information and Analysis Officer, Jo Abbess said “Good food is holy food – and good food comes from well-treated plants, animals and workers too. It’s not enough to choose organic over intensively-farmed – we need to choose co-operative food growers over convenience store profits.”

ENDS

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. The LOAF principles were developed several years ago by Christian Ecology Link, and the new all-colour leaflet has been produced to accompany the launch of a letter-writing campaign – asking leaders and managers of all Christian venues to “Use their LOAF !”

2. LOAF stands for : Locally produced, Organically grown, Animal friendly, Fairly traded.

3. The full text of the LOAF letter is below. Members and supporters are asked to modify it as they wish, or print it as it is from the website.

Dear

As a supporter of Christian Ecology Link (CEL), I feel that many present aspects of food production imperil the wellbeing of Creation. This is why I am writing to tell you about CEL’s food campaign – LOAF – and to ask you to consider following these guidelines.

CEL is asking churches, cathedrals, districts, diocese offices, and Christian holiday, retreat and conference centres, schools and colleges to try to source food which is :-

* Locally produced

Supporting local and national farmers and producers strengthens local economies and communities, and lowers carbon emissions. We need to combat the nonsensical policy of importing food which could be, and indeed is, grown and produced here only for export.

* Organically grown

Subsidised industrialisation of agriculture leads to severe biodiversity losses, to soil depletion, water pollution and agrochemical resistance. Organic farming is key to the recovery of interdependent ecosystems. Supporting organic production is also central to the struggle against GM biotechnology, which poses threats to other crops (via cross-pollination) and biodiversity.

* Animal friendly

UK animal welfare standards are higher than many countries. But shops still sell produce from hens caged, beak-trimmed and bred for unnaturally fast growth rates; pigs confined to barren sheds, teeth clipped and tails docked, many pregnant sows in farrowing crates; turkeys in dark, dirty sheds where they develop lameness and burns. The wellbeing of animals is entrusted to us. Will you consider sourcing only free-range eggs and free-range, organic or outdoor reared meat ? Also, a shift to a much higher proportion of vegetarian/vegan cooking is also vital as meat and dairy production requires far more land and water and is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions.

* Fairly traded

In a world where trade justice seems to recede and trade policies assist large producers rather than small producers, a commitment to serve only Fairtrade tea and coffee, for example, would signal support for the one certification guaranteeing minimum remuneration and community investment.

I feel that we are called to renew, heal and restore God’s creation: an immense commission only to be realised by infinitesimal everyday acts – in His grace.

Please find enclosed CEL’s new LOAF leaflet. More may be downloaded free from : http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/resources/loaf

I look forward to your response.

Yours

The Climate Change talks that have just taken place in Durban, South Africa, were exemplary of a peculiar kind of collective madness that has resulted from trying to navigate and massage endless special interests, national jostling, brinkmanship, unworkable and inappropriate proposals from economists, communications failures and corporate interference in governance.

The right people with real decisionmaking powers are not at the negotiating table. The organisations with most to contribute are still acting in opposition – that’s the energy industry, to be explicit. And the individual national governments are still not concerned enough about climate change, even though it impacts strongly on the things they do consider to be priorities – economic health, trade and political superiority.

Over 20 years ago, the debate on what to do to tackle global warming and still maintain good international relations was already won, by the commonsense approach of Contraction and Convergence – fair shares for all. Each country should count on their fair share of carbon emissions based on their population – and we would get there by starting from where we are now and agreeing mutual cuts. The big emitters would agree to steeper cuts than the lower emitters – and after some time, everybody in the world would have the same, safe emissions rights.

What has prevented this logical approach from being implemented ? Well, we have had the so-called “flexible mechanisms” pushed on us – such as the Clean Development Mechanism which essentially boils down to the idea that the richer high-emitting countries can offset their carbon by paying for poorer low emissions countries to cut their carbon instead. Some have been attempting to make the CDM carbon credits into a commercial product for the Carbon Trading market. Some may contest it, but the CDM and carbon trading haven’t really been working very well, and anyway, the CDM doesn’t aim for emissions reductions, just offsets.

Other carbon trade has been implemented, such as the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which doesn’t appear to have caused high emissions industries to diversify out of carbon, or created a viable price for carbon dioxide, so its usefulness is questionable.

Many people have put forward the idea of straight carbon pricing, mostly by taxation. The trouble with this idea should be obvious, but rarely is. Over four-fifths of the world’s energy is fossil fuel based. Taxing carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels would just make everything, everywhere, more expensive. It wouldn’t necessarily create new lower carbon energy resources, as the taxes would probably be put into a giant climate change adaptation fund – a financial institution proposed by several people including Oliver Tickell and Nicholas Stern, although in Stern’s case, he is calling for direct grants from countries to keep the fund topped up.

On the policy front, there has been a continuing, futile attempt to force the historially high-emitting countries to accept very radical carbon cuts, as a sign of accountability. This “grandfathering” of emissions responsibilities is something that no sane person in government in the richer nations could ever agree with, not even when being smothered with ethical guilt. One of the forms of this proposal is “Greenhouse Development Rights“, essentially allowing countries like China to continue growing their emissions in order to grow their economies to guarantee development. The emissions cuts required by countries like the United States of America would be impossible to achieve, not even if their economy completely toppled.

Sadly, a number of charities, aid and development agencies and other non-governmental organisations with concern for the world’s poor, have signed up to Greenhouse Development Rights not realising it is completely untenable.

The only approach that can work, that both high- and low-emitting countries can ever possibly be made to agree on, is a system of population-proportional shares of the global carbon pie. And the way to get there has to be based on relative current emissions, ignoring the emissions of the past – your cuts should be larger if your current emissions are large. And it should be based on the relative size of the population, and their individual emissions rates, rather than taking a country as a whole. Yes, there will be room for a little carbon trade between nations, to enable the transfer of low carbon technologies from wealthy nations to un-resourced nations. Yes, there will be space for enterprise, as corporations have to face regulation to cut emissions, and will need innovation in technology to divest themselves of fossil fuel production and consumption.

This is Contraction and Convergence – and you ignore it at our peril.

A few suggestions for further reading :-

“Contraction and Convergence The Global Solution to Climate Change” by Aubrey Meyer. Schumacher Briefings, Green Books, December 2000. ISBN-13: 978-1870098946

The Greenhouse Effect : Science and Policy” by Professor Stephen H. Schneider, Science, Volume 243, Issue 4892, Pages 771 – 781, DOI: 10.1126/science.243.4892.771, 10 February 1989.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/243/4892/771.abstract
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/Publications.html

“Climate Change : Science and Policy“, edited by Stephen H. Schneider, Armin Rosencranz, Michael D. Mastrandea and Kristin Kuntz-Duriseti. Island Press, 10 February 2010. ISBN-13: 978-1597265669

“The Greenhouse Effect : Negotiating Targets” by Professor Michael Grubb, published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in London, 1990.

“Equity, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Global Common Resources” by Paul Baer, Chapter 15 in “Climate Change Policy : A Survey” by Stephen H. Schneider, Armin Rosencranz and John O. Niles, Island Press, 2002. ISBN-10: 1-55963-881-8 (Paper), ISBN-13: 978-1-55963-881-4 (Paper)

“Kyoto 2 : How to Manage the Global Greenhouse” by Oliver Tickell, ISBN-13: 978-1848130258, Zed Books Ltd, 25 July 2008
http://www.kyoto2.org/
http://www.kyoto2.org/docs/the_land_1.pdf

And that’s when I realised, that, sadly, even after the lessons of decades of poorly planned infrastructure development, concrete still always seems to win over common sense.

But I’m more concerned about his sudden conversion to Keynesianism. He seems to want to create lots of construction jobs, widening roads and motorways, laying foundations for nuclear power reactors, and perhaps throwing Portland cement over large parts of the Essex coast for a new “hub” airport.

Yes, this would create economic growth of a kind. Productivity would rise, employment would rise, income tax revenue would rise. But it would be the equivalent of sending a team of workpeople to dig a trench for no reason whatsoever, and sending another team to fill it in the next day.

What this country needs is assets, not liabilities. We need to build infrastructure that will enable economic productivity and social wellbeing and not place a long-term drain on society and the public purse. Roads, nuclear power plants and airports are all potential liabilities. Here’s just a few reasons why :-

1. We don’t need more or wider roads

The health disbenefits of building roads are documented. Besides the air quality problems that increased traffic produces, more people driving is bad for the obesity statistics. There is, in fact, a direct correlation between how much more we’ve been driving and how much fatter we are. The fat epidemic may not be down to peoples’ diets – it may be down to their drive time. Centralised employment and social services has been behind a lot of extra road miles, so you could say that cutting local hospitals, Post Offices and shops is directly responsible for jammed roads and bulging waistlines.

With Peak Oil here, or just around the corner, nobody can guarantee that car ownership or car use will increase as it has in the past. No matter that George Osborne has prevented a rise in fuel duty, if global oil markets continue their crawl upwards in a scenario of impending scarcity, people will have to pay more to keep driving for retail, work, education, health and administration needs. It could be that fuel costs start to enforce re-localisation of public amenities. And so, if vehicles become too expensive to run, will the roads start to empty ? If we build more roads now, will we actually need them in 15 years’ time ?

And what about the valuable land that gets covered in tarmacadam ? At what point do we need to start removing roads to increase food production ?

2. Nuclear power plants are a lead necklace

Despite the worldwide public relations lobbying for the benefits of a nuclear power renaissance (which the Iranians seemed to actually believe for some reason), nuclear power remains expensive and can often turn out to be unreliable. It’s costly to operate nuclear reactors with a certain amount of flexibility, which is what we would need to backup wind and solar power, so most operators want to run them all the time at full capacity. The United Kingdom still hasn’t resolved the issue of where we put all the radioactive waste from 50 years of civilian nuclear power generation, which is going to cost lots of money whichever way it’s handled. And there is no guarantee that nuclear power projects will see completion in the turbulent economic framework in which we find ourselves.

The behind-the-scenes discussions between the UK Government and the nuclear power industry have almost certainly included promises that the public purse will put up the money for risk insurance, guaranteeing a long-term price for the nuclear electricity generated (which will affect our bills), and decommissioning the reactors at the end of their safe working lives. There is even a possibility that nuclear power operators will get a competitive edge if a “carbon floor price” is introduced. Despite these sweeteners, the nuclear power industry does not appear willing or capable to make firm plans for more than two new nuclear facilities, one at Hinckley and other at Wylfa.

All in all, it seems that the underlying economics of nuclear power, and all the publicly-financed costs at the start and at the end of reactor lives, means that atomic energy is a lead necklace on society.

So, putting people to work to build the concrete foundations for new nuclear reactors may seem like growth, but it isn’t.

3. We don’t need no new airport capacity

Whether or not there is a comprehensive policy on restricting the growth of air travel, or taxing aviation fuel, which could naturally slow down expansion, there is every reason to suspect that volumes of flights will reduce, simply because of economic conditions.

We don’t need a new airport in England. We certainly don’t need to pour some runways over large areas of Essex marshland. The increase in road traffic between a new hub airport and the centre of London could in itself wreck targets on congestion and air quality, I expect. Plus, if air travel does start to plummet because of economic constraints on globalised trade and passenger movements, we wouldn’t need this white elephant.

Yes, George Osborne, put people to work pouring concrete and hail some temporary economic growth. But in 10 years’ time, watch out for these liabilities to weigh heavily on the neck of the British people. The construction industry, in the doldrums because you won’t subsidise zero carbon social housebuilding, solar power or energy renovations, they’ll leap at any chance to do some work, however short-term it is. But not everybody will come on board with your concrete plans.

Dr Roger Bentley, author of a seminal 2002 paper on the subject, research that spawned hundreds of related learned articles, will be speaking.

But the event organisers have also invited one Dr Matt Ridley, the self-styled “rational optimist”, and member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and this, I’m afraid, prevents me from attending.

He has been captured speaking at a TEDx event pouring scorn on “environmental” scare stories of the past, but not bothering to delve or dig into how mankind has actually gone out of its way to act on past crises and prevent catastrophes.

And now he’s thrown in his lot with the shale gas miracle men, writing a report with a foreword by Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s most balanced individuals.

How much uncorroborated optimism can one man contain ?

You have to be prepared to dodge flying nuclear trolls, but apart from that you too can contribute, as long as you have an in-depth knowledge of the price of everything in the UK electricity generation network.

Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,

Do you think it’s possible that nobody is immune to emotional reactions to the fate of the solar power industry ? For example, you say, “I find it most frustrating that others do not even attempt to contest the factual statements or assertions I make on the basis of evidence, but simply revert to the emotive and subjective.” And yet in the very preceding paragraph you say, “…the religious diatribe of the PV industry”, which some could validly claim is an emotive and subjective statement.

You seem to be quite married to the idea that the sole focus of assessing the solar PV industry should be the differential pricing between installed cost and module cost. I’m not going to argue numbers with you, but let’s take a look at money questions, if that is your sole concern.

You do not appear to take into account peripheral costs, such as the cost of the electronics necessary to hook a home solar system into the grid, nor the employment costs, nor practical details such as the cost of scaffolding.

More importantly you do not appear to have a recognition of the “externalities” – the costs to the whole electricity network of centralised generation and transmission losses. Can you offer an estimate of the value of unloading the local area of a grid in the neighbourhood of the solar PV system ? Can you offer an estimate of the added efficiency of having some local, distributed generation, so that the high voltage network does not have to transform power down to the local area ? Have you an idea of the carbon displacement value from having zero-emissions generation in the local grids ?

XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX mentioned that there needs to be additional grid management and reconfiguring of cabling if small scale solar generation is taking place on a wide scale. But how does the cost of that compare to having to put up major new cabling for bringing new wind power south to England from Scotland ?

There are people who have looked at these questions of costings. Over the last few years I have read a few things on this, but the references are not uppermost in my mind, sorry to say.

The electricity generation industry are showing extreme reluctance over new investments – partly due to fluctuations in Government policy, partly due to continued risks from carbon pricing being imposed (which I am against), partly due to the volatility in the global energy commodity markets, partly due to stress from the economic volatility and the lack of credit.

True more than ever before is the pragmatic fact that all new energy deployment will require state subsidy.

In the face of all this nothing-doing, the two things that have continued to accelerate have been wind power and micro-solar.

Greg Barker MP keeps uttering “867 million” as if that’s a larger number than the several billion committed to Carbon Capture and Storage and new nuclear subsidies. We won’t see any real benefits from CCS or nuclear for at least a decade. Why should we spend money now on these things ? If you look at it carefully, you can see that the “867 million” in the Feed-in Tariff budget is producing more real benefits in the current moment than any of the other proposed reforms of the electricity “market”.

I reckon he should be allowed to double the feed in tariff budget. Naturally, he should start slowly ramping down the tariff amounts guaranteed to new solar PV installations. It makes sense as the module prices are reducing (although other costs are not). It doesn’t make sense to kill the industry off with this sudden, early 50% reduction in state support.

I think that rooftop solar has to be part of the “energy mix”, and that we cannot afford nuclear power and carbon captured-coal (or CCS in general).

I have taken an approach with my individual energy use that matches the way I feel my country should behave. I have taken actions to reduce my personal energy use and increase the amount of renewable energy that I use, and hopefully, I shall have some microsolar very soon, despite Greg Barker MP’s unwise intervention in the functioning of the industry. If it all goes according to plan I will be using very little gas and exporting electricity on a net annual basis. That will make me one of the nation’s electricity generators – and decentralised power will be working.

For the record I am neither a member of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth or the Green Party and I don’t own any shares in the solar power industry.

Regards,

Image Credit : Debbie Portwood

Here’s how it goes : the Daily Mail, to take just one example, raises the outrage level, and repeats arguments that have little substance. People act on the basis of what they read in the papers and see on TV, and they develop poor reasoning, and do things like sign an ePetition. The thing gets publicly debated, partly in the media of course. And then finally the democratic representatives, the Members of Parliament, have to make a choice to stand with the stirred-up outrage or instead, vote with sanity.

A vote on Europe would be a disaster. The wording would be over-simplistic and hide the true agenda. It would be too easy to sway people to vote for the worst option.

Remember the Referendum on the Alternative Vote ? It was the only thing that could have broken the stranglehold of First-Past-the-Post politics. Instead, seats are going to stay safe – the party that holds an area’s vote will continue to take the vote. Democratic contests cannot happen in safe Constituencies, particularly if the boundary lines are changed to fit the demographics. The First-Past-the-Post system in easy-to-hold political wards – that’s one way in which democracy has been killed. If a seat is safe, no will in the world can create a political debate in a Constituency.

But why did people vote against the Alternative Vote ? Because of the media-assisted rubbishing of the idea.

David Cameron makes the point that a third of the population, if asked, would ditch the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union. They would have very little foundation for doing so, but they would vote for it, just like they demanded weekly refuse collections, and immigration controls, and an 80 miles an hour speed limit, because the newspapers and the television and the radio told them to.

The people have been manipulated, so democracy doesn’t work.

Every mechanism for enabling democracy appears to have withered away.

Campaign organisations and charities are usually given the task of convincing the public to vote with their ethics, with knowledge and with empathy. But with the recession, grants have dried up, so there are not the funds, the staff or the resources to get good things done.

Demonstrations and protests and marches are routinely blacked out of media presentations of political activity.

Writing letters to your democratic representative can be like shouting into an empty well.

Signing online petitions is useless. Signing real petitions is doubly useless.

What forums do people have to debate issues with real information at their fingertips ? What channels do groups of well-informed citizens have to take their well-considered and researched demands to their democratic representatives in sufficient strength to justify their MPs taking the issues on to the Parliament and raising them in the House (of Commons) ?

What ways can citizens use to do politics in their local town ? With Councillors bowled over with insane levels of trivia, can they be expected to engage with genuine informed citizen concerns ?

The news is awash with some inexplicable language :-

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/86398,news-comment,news-politics,eu-debate-exposes-camerons-cack-handed-leadership-
“The eurozone crisis may eventually call for a new treaty, and in that case a referendum is already a legal requirement. It would make sense at that moment to repatriate powers to Britain.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053011/EU-referendum-David-Cameron-shows-strain-biggest-Tory-mutiny-Europe.html
“‘We’re not going away’ say rebels as PM insists UK will have to wait years to claw back powers from Brussels”

What sovereign powers are these people talking about ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15425256
“Education Secretary Michael Gove insisted on Tuesday that the time was not right for a referendum to take place. He told the BBC: “The most important thing is to make sure we get powers back, so we take more decisions here about employment, about growth, about jobs. These are critical issues. “At the moment David Cameron is battling in Europe in order to make sure that we can have those decisions taken here. It may be that in the future as a result of the battle David Cameron is fighting for Britain that a referendum may be needed, but my judgement is that we need to get those powers back.”"

What on Earth could he possibly mean ? Employment Law ? The right for businesses to make everybody into serfs by increasing working hours at will, reducing wages at will, and demanding high flexibility of the workfoce ? Or maybe Human Rights ? Denying people their human rights so they can be deported or put in inhumane private prisons ?

The right to abandon renewable energy targets, just when we need to seriously develop sustainable power as the North Sea oil and gas are in firm decline ? The right to abandon environmental regulation ? The right to set taxes too low for the rich and too high for the poor ? The right to deny people a living wage and a roof over their head because they can’t work, because there are no jobs for them to slave away at ?

Is it all about banking, then ? Or industrial policy ? I seriously don’t know what Michael Gove’s real agenda is, but I suspect it has something to do with continuing with the neoliberal privatisation agenda – putting all social goods into private hands for profit.

What has Europe ever done for us ? Britain’s involvement in the European Union project has been right at the centre, in agreeing excellent labour law, human rights, technological performance, business accountability, renewable energy. The European project is a British project. Why would anybody want to leave ?

In my humble view, the Conservative Party should expel the Eurosceptic rebels. They do no good to the Coalition Government, and they offer no progress in democratic advancement.

And, I would suggest, the Conservative Party ask the media to inject some reality and pragmatism into their presentation of European Union issues. It’s not the 1970s or the 1980s any more, Mr Newspaper Editor. Like it or not, the European Common Market and its safety and success are in the British national interest.

We’re never going to solve environmental problems like climate change without working hand-in-hand with Europe. And we are definitely not going to address the energy crisis without staying in the Common Market.

It’s time for David Cameron to ditch the dinosaurs.