Jo Abbess » Social Change

Living Life and LOAFing It

Jo — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:21:21 +0000

CHRISTIAN ECOLOGY LINK
PRESS RELEASE

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.

CEL have launched a new colour leaflet on the LOAF programme principles in time for Shrove Tuesday (Mardi Gras), or Pancake Day, on 21st February 2012.

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

Advent Joy : Christmas Rose

Jo — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 23:16:18 +0000

Audete, Gaudete !
Christus est natus
Ex Maria Virgine,
Gaudete !

Tempus adest gratiae,
Hoc quod optabamus;
Carmina laetitiae,
Devote reddamus.

Deus homo factus est,
Natura mirante;
Mundus renovatus est
A Christo regnante…

Welcome, little Christmas rose, into a big and troubled world. We are so happy you’ve made your journey safely, we could sing heartily.

The world is no closer to a binding, enactable accord on preventing catastrophic climate change, but at least the Durban United Nations conference is over, and many are therefore sleepily rejoicing.

…Ezechielis porta
Clausa pertransitur;
Unde lux est orta
Salus invenitur.

Ergo nostra concio,
Psallat iam in lustro;
Benedicat Domino:
Salus Regi nostro.

Audete, Gaudete !
Christus est natus
Ex Maria Virgine,
Gaudete !

Clicking with Climate

Jo — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 12:13:22 +0000

Image Credit : University of California at Berkeley

Human beings have two brains. The first is a self-centred workhorse of pragmatic decision-making, interested in social engagement in order to further individual interests – whether those interests are purely for personal enrichment or for the reward of the social group more widely.

The second human brain is a relativistic engine, constantly comparing, reflecting, analysing. We are concerned about other peoples’ emotional response, wondering what other people think about us, responding to peer group pressure.

Are we more successful, popular than others ? Do people listen to us more than others ? We know we’re right, but do they ? We need to pitch ourselves in the right way. We jostle for pole position, for a place on the platform, hoping not to make too many opponents, whilst making more converts to our point of view.

Personally, I don’t listen to my second brain very often. As a social animal, I hope I’m tolerant, and my priorities in interpersonal engagement are mutual empowerment, transparent collaboration and inclusion. In my public projection, I’m not trying to vaunt myself over others, or massage my image for approval, or put up a fake facade. You get me, you get direct.

But I can’t avoid the second human brain entirely – as it is the reason for a lot of fuzziness in our view of the world around us. It’s too easy to stir doubt, falsehoods and bad ideas into the collective cake mix of society, where it fizzes into a bubbling mess. In matters of climate change science and energy engineering, there are no grey areas for me. But for a number of people I know, these are subjects of much confusion, denial and disinformation.

People hold on to the totem of what other people think. And so you have even very intelligent social commentators reciting from paid-for public relations by companies and business pressure groups. Journalists often do not appear to understand the difference between pseudo-science and real live science. There are too many people selling unrealistic, unworkable technological “solutions”, particularly in energy, so it’s hard to know what to accept and what to dismiss.

Yet it is critical to know what rock, what branch to keep a hold of in the flood of information that could sweep us away. The social construction of climate change is an important edifice, a safe house in an information world at war with itself. What high wind can sweep away the grubby pages of non-science from the Daily Mail ? What rising sea can cleanse the Daily Telegraph of its climate change denial columnists ? What can stop the so-called Global Warming Policy Foundation from infecting the Internet with their contrarian position ? What can make us accept the reality and urgency of global warming ? How can we learn to click with climate change ?

Three significant academic thinkers on the social significance of climate change are launching new works at the British Library in London, on 16th January 2012. The British Sociological Association have invited Mike Hulme, John Urry and Gordon Walker to discuss chapters from their recent books which address the question – where next for society and climate change ?

In the words of Chris Shaw at the University of Sussex, “they pull no punches in their analyses, and their approach is based on years of research into the social dimensions of the climate change debate. This is an essential opportunity for all those interested in bringing climate change into the democratic sphere, to help understand the issues involved in such a transition. It is also a chance to discuss the ideas with the authors and other delegates.”

For more information, see here and here.

Daily Mail : Editorial Schizophrenia

Jo — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 22:18:29 +0000

I was in my local cafe diner, screening for neighbourhood gossip and genning up on the Daily Mail’s latest scandal and outrage. Several stories were told from different angles throughout the grubby pages of the well-thumbed copy I was sifting through. “You know”, I mused, “I think they might actually want their readers to become schizophrenic.”

On the front page the headline “RESTORE ELITISM TO OUR SCHOOLS“. The editorial line seemed to be aimed at persuading the readers to find Michael Gove’s speech just as “extraordinary” as the writer did – “extraordinary” as in “bad”. This, after all, is a newspaper that often seems to want to portray itself as succour for the common man.

On page 7, however, the same story took on a nanny-ish tone “We must demand more of our teachers… and our children : And here’s why it matters: for the first time 1m [million] youngsters are not in work or education.” So, presumably, the writer of this piece was having a dig at teachers and their performance. Plus it was also having a swipe at out-of-work out-of-the-classroom “scrounger” teenagers.

Where, I asked myself, was the analysis of why so many young people were without a role in life, without prospects ? Where are the jobs, work placements and apprenticeships for “youngsters” ? The statistics show that there are not enough openings for every NEET.

So it’s not the fault of the young people, or their teachers, that they are left unemployed. It’s certainly not the fault of immigrant workers, “coming over here, taking our jobs“, a common Daily Mail theme, it seems, without any foundation. And a streamed education system won’t make the situation any better – in fact, it might make it worse, as a small elite could create a larger dispossessed underclass.

It seems the Daily Mail will stand up for virtuous individuals fighting against the tide of joblessness, but can’t bring itself to question the causes of mass unemployment and underemployment, and instead points the finger of blame at the jobless themselves. You would need to have your inner world split in two to accept that young people are both entitled and not entitled to take part in the economy.

And this same schizophrenia is in evidence in the same newspaper regarding developments in global warming and climate change.

On page 5, the Daily Mail asks alliteratively, “Is November warmest yet ? It is more sultry in Sussex than in Syria“. They can’t quite bring themselves to say the cause is changes in the long-term weather patterns, but at least they faithfully report the exceptional temperature for the time of year.

And then on page 19, it states categorically “Climate change fears ‘have been exaggerated’“.

This piece bears some analysis. “Risk is ‘not imminent’ say scientists”. But actually, they do. “The authors stress the results do not mean threat from human-induced climate change should be treated any less seriously, explained palaeoclimatologist Antoni Rosell-Mele from the Autonomous University of Barcelona, who is a member of the team that came up with the new estimates…”At least, given that no one is doing very much around the planet [about] mitigating CO2 emissions, we have a bit more time,” he remarked…” It’s this little word “bit” that’s important. The scientist doesn’t mean that climate change isn’t happening already, just that the thresholds that people think matter might not be crossed as soon as people have been thinking. On the other hand, the probability of imminent extreme change is still not zero :-

“…these results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.”

The summary is that extreme climate change could appear imminently, but is less likely to. We can’t breathe a sigh of relief just yet, then.

So, the Daily Mail appears to have mis-interpreted the science team’s remarks. That’s not unusual in the mainstream media, and could do with a correction. What’s more annoying and worrying is that in the same newspaper it has given two views on climate change. This is extremely unhelpful. What are its readership supposed to conclude ?

Everyone’s Entitled to their Opinion

Jo — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:26:16 +0000

Yes, indeed they are. Everyone is entitled to hold their own particular opinion. In this democracy of ideas, every longshot, wingnut, bonehead, rogue, charlatan, conspiracy theorist, crank, crony and astroturfer should be permitted access to the microphone on the stage. If we hold a public meeting about immigration, we should, of course, invite a white supremicist, a member of the British National Party, and a Daily Mail journalist to offer us their wise words. If we hold a sociological symposium on the Second World War, we should of course invite a Holocaust-denier. If an engineering conference, a cold fusion-in-a-test-tube enthusiast. Of course we should provide balance, as much balance as possible, and offer wisdom, insight and rant from all ends of all spectra. It’s only reasonable.

It therefore goes without question that somebody from the Global Warming Policy Foundation “think tank”, so copiously and generously sponsored by a person or persons unknown, should be invited to speak on the platform, or in a panel, at a well-funded quasi-establishment meeting on Climate Change. Regardless of a complete lack of training in atmospheric physics, or even knowledge of the span of the last five years in the science of global warming, naturally, a GWPF man must be invited by GovToday to a presitigious conference to be held on 29th November 2011 in the City of London grandly entitled “2011 Carbon Reduction : The Transition to a Low Carbon Economy”.

Jennifer Elson telephoned me on 18th November 2011, to proudly inform me that she could offer a funded place at this conference, and that GovToday was keen to reach senior decision makers in my network. GovToday, she assured me, has access to the Carbon Trust (cue the name-dropping), the UK Government Department of Energy and Climate Cange and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She excitedly offered the GovToday strategy – to build long-term strategic relationships, from Ministerial level right through to the Third Sector. My goodness, in the last few days, literally, she had been talking to organisations about hydropower, local produce, timber framing – a third of the cost of building with brick. Was I not impressed ?

Yes, on 29th November, 2011 Carbon Reduction would be chaired and ably facilitated by Krishnan Guru Murthy. “Ah”, I said, “Channel 4″, realising finally that this was to be a media-friendly event. Stefaan Vergote, she said, would be there – big in Europe he is, and they would also have Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

“What gives him the right to speak at this event ?”, I asked, incredulous. “He has no relevant academic expertise”. The young thing on the other end of the phone was a tad flummoxed. “I’m relatively new to this organisation”, she rushed, “his view is controversial. There are a minority who share his opinion. We want to get everyone’s perspective.”

“You’re putting him on a platform”, I said. “Everyone’s entitled to their view”, she reasoned. “You need research to back it up”, I replied.

“He’s very passionate”, she claimed. “But does he know anything ?”, I countered. “The GWPF do not have the credentials, according to a large number of experts. I find it absolutely astonishing that you should invite him.”

“We’re putting him on the panel to question the policymakers”, she offered, “…cause a bit of controversy. Without someone posing these sorts of questions [there would be no debate]. He’s the voice of the sceptics.”

“Why should he be there ?” I asked. “It’s important that all views be represented”, she responded. I started to pick up my voluminous carpet bag of umbrage, “Not all views are important. Not all views are relevant. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but everyone is not entitled to their own facts. Opinions are different from academic [and practical] expertise…”

She sounded miffed, “We have many people attending with expertise.” “But apparently he doesn’t”, I asserted, “why do you need to offer a balance when it’s a minority view and he doesn’t possess a relevant academic or professional qualification ? I mean, would you have to invite a member of the English Defence League to a public debate on border controls ?”

At this, she put me on to her line manager, the ebullient Ron Pusey, Head of Delegates. He was truculent, “You haven’t got an argument.” Au contraire, Ronny boy, “The events we put forward are balanced. To balance the argument we must include climate change denial. The Global Warming Policy Foundation have a [track record]. The worst thing would be a political vacuum – where [there's only one point of view expressed]…”, he rattled on, probably not quite believing what he was spewing.

“You’re welcome to put forward who you like”, he offered, and I thought, my network doesn’t have the kind of funding and available staff to take on climate change deniers in public debate.

“Why do you respect that organisation ?” I asked. “I respect their right to get involved”, he replied, which would have actually been quite a fair argument, had the playing field been level, “I would restrict some people…[but it's] essential that people be able to express themselves.” Yeah, right, it would be great if more people could get to express themselves in public debate, but not everybody has the time, funding or presentational skills.

Ronny challenged me to come out from hiding behind the telephone. “You’ve got an opportunity to get engaged”, he raised. “I’m not going to waste my time”, I volunteered. I mean, if they are going to invite Benny Peiser to speak at a climate change meeting, they clearly have no idea about the issue.

The real frontline, the significant debates in climate change, are not about whether it’s happening (it is), or even how bad it’s going to get (it will). And the technologies to mitigate climate change are the same as they ever were – no debate required : energy conservation, carbon displacement and renewable energy. The central debate, in actual fact, is about whether policy sticks or policy carrots will have the greatest effect. Most people seem to think that carbon taxation, carbon pricing, carbon trading and carbon penalties are the way to go. Others think that paying for the things we want is more productive than charging for the things we don’t want.

“We’ve spent an extra quarter of a million pounds in putting on events”, he levelled. Clearly, the money has not been well-spent, when they cannot even collect the know-how together to work out who is best to invite to a climate change policy event.

I said I wasn’t interested in joining in with a fixed fight. He should know, but perhaps he doesn’t, that climate change deniers use public debating methods like the Gish Gallop, basically filibustering people with nonsense. “You can’t bring 200 years of science to a 15 minute debate”, I said. You can’t even properly present two “sides” in an hour-long panel discussion. “It’s an artificial debate that you have set up. Why should I get involved in your event when you invite Benny Peiser to the platform ? You’re on the wrong track.”

Ron tried one last fake conciliatory gesture, “It’s really lovely that you care enough…”. I interrupted, “If you knew more you wouldn’t invite unhelpful participants. You don’t care. Do you have a public relations background ?”

Ron did not. He said he had worked in media, and been a volunteer on a carbon project, building stuff out in Sri Lanka. Then he got huffy. “You’re an academic, right ? What do you know about actually doing stuff ?” and he threw the phone down.

Ron, Ron, Ron. Academics are the people who have been collecting your global warming and climate change data. They are the people who really know what’s happening, not some pseudo-experts with undeclared financing.

Renewable Gas : Balanced Power

Jo — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 12:11:58 +0000

People who know very little about renewable and sustainable energy continue to buzz like flies in the popular media. They don’t believe wind power economics can work. They don’t believe solar power can provide a genuine contribution to grid capacity. They don’t think marine power can achieve. They would rather have nuclear power. They would rather have environmentally-destructive new oil and gas drilling. They have friends and influence in Government. They have financial clout that enables them to keep disseminating their inaccuracies.

It’s time to ditch the pundits, innuendo artists and insinuators and consult the engineers.

Renewable Gas can stand in the gap – when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine and the grid is not sufficiently widespread and interconnected enough to be able to call on other wind or solar elsewhere.

Renewable Gas is the storing of biologically-derived and renewably-created gases, and the improving of the gases, so that they can be used on-demand in a number of applications.

This field of chemical engineering is so old, yet so new, it doesn’t have a fixed language yet.

However, the basic chemistry, apart from dealing with contaminants, is very straight-forward.

When demand for grid electricity is low, renewable electricity can be used to make renewable hydrogen, from water via electrolysis, and in other ways. Underused grid capacity can also be used to methanate carbon-rich biologically-derived gas feedstocks – raising its stored energy.

Then when demand for grid electricity is high, renewable gas can be used to generate power, to fill the gap. And the flue gases from this combustion can be fed back into the gas storage.

Renewable gas can also be biorefined into vehicle fuels and other useful chemicals. This application is likely to be the most important in the short term.

In the medium-term, the power generation balance that renewable gas can offer is likely to be the most important application.

Researchers are working on optimising all aspects of renewable gas and biorefinery, and businesses are already starting to push towards production.

We can have a fully renewable energy future, and we will.

The Revolution Is Here

Jo — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:42:21 +0000

Sorry to say, but I think the people camping on the streets at @OccupyLSX and other places are not the real revolution. The real revolution is in energy. Democratisation of energy is the future – distributed, multi-level production systems, integrated pan-continental networks.

What ? Power to the people ? This is why the energy companies don’t like it so much, and why the corporate masters of the developed countries, and their shareholders, don’t want to have people believe in renewable and sustainable energy.

This is why the newspapers are full of people disparaging renewable energy – journalists and commentators who know nothing about energy, who are not engineers and who don’t know who thought their ideas for them first. Wake up, media people, the future of energy will be zero carbon and fully of the people.

A little unauthrorised translation of what I could pick up from the trailer of a 2010 film (sorry, my German listening comprehension is very rusty) : “We are awash in energy. We are dependent on energy. How much energy is left for us ? Have we enough energy for a revolution ? How much must we pay for power ? Why must California nearly use as much electrical power as Africa ? (French) “We have this enormous potential – with the youth, the riches of Nature, the trees, the biomass, agriculture…but there is no progress…the catalyst is not there. And that’s electricity”. Do we need the big energy companies ? (German) “…energy concerns will become democratic…” The fourth revolution. Energy Autonomy.”

Occupy your mind #7

Jo — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:32:07 +0000

Image Credit : The Diocese of London

So, after rumours and quashings of rumours, Giles Fraser has resigned as canon chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral, “resigned in protest at plans to forcibly remove demonstrators from its steps, saying he could not support the possibility of “violence in the name of the church”…Fraser, a leading leftwing voice in the Church of England, would resign because he could not sanction the use of police or bailiffs against the hundreds of activists who have set up camp in the grounds of the cathedral in the last fortnight.”

But just why did Giles Fraser resign ? What has it achieved ? What could it possibly achieve ? Now he’s no longer in the Cathedral organisation he cannot influence what happens. What pressures has he had to endure behind the scenes that gave him no option but to jump ?

Somebody I know has been praying that there would be heavy rain in London, just so the conditions would be impossible for the Occupyer camp to continue; that they would have to pack up and go home.

What on Earth is this @OccupyLSX protest for ? A camp of principle, to defend the right to protest ? A camp of demands, pursuing a just economics and a just society ? A camp of non-violence, when it deliberately provokes a stand-off between demonstrators and police forces ? How can the Occupyers claim to be peaceful when they know their actions have a fragmentation bomb-like effect on the society around them ? How can the Cathedral Campers evidence their intentions for a juster, saner, economic system, when the net effect of their actions is likely to be a huge law court struggle at taxpayer expense ? It’s not a revolution, it’s an irritation – or at least that is the way that it will continue to be viewed by the governing authorities.

Somebody on the inside track of campaigning in London has told me that the Occupy protest is destined to transmogrify into a Climate Refugee tent city in late November, early December. If it survives that long, then at least it can claim to be a piece of living art reflecting what is happening around the world because of climate change disasters.

Unless and until the Occupyers can take on relevance, everybody with even just a slightly-left-of-centre agenda will attempt to co-opt the Occupy London camp for their own purposes.

Remember, dear Occupyers, you are not “rising up” like the people in Libya – they were supplied with arms from around the world, forces overt and covert from Qatar, Europe and quite possibly America, and fed into a huge psychological operations narrative, ably supported by the media.

The Libyan conflict wasn’t about Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, may he rest in peace. The information management of the North African and Middle Eastern unrest shows that mass propaganda still works, and that media consumers continue to fall for the same fabrications, time after time.

The European Union Question #2

Jo — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 21:07:37 +0000

Image Credit : Debbie Portwood

Unbelievably, yesterday, people in the British Government sacrificed their careers rather than vote with David Cameron’s three line whip against a Referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union. I say “unbelievably”, but I know full well why it happened. Democracy is broken in Britain, and there is every reason to point the finger of blame and accusation at the media, for their continued massacre of the issues in political debate. They should be observers and reporters; but instead they are influencers and arbiters.

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.

The European Union Question

Jo — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:04:01 +0000

David Cameron was on one screen, and CBeebies was on another. I was on the treadmill at the gym, interval training, pacing at the same rhythm as the blaring RnB, and reading the teletext translation of the Parliamentary debate.

I smiled at Ed Miliband’s nasally-charged bluster. I rolled my eyes at the interventions from the Conservative dinosaurs.

The Tories are the living example of the Bad Apple Theory, I thought to myself. One bad apple, or in their case, a clutch of Eurosceptics, spoils the crop.

The Conservative Party of the United Kingdom harbours a number of corporatists and the stooge friends of corporatists, and this is their basic argument – deregulate and private companies will be more productive and save the economy from implosion. It’s the same argument that nursed the financial services market that went ahead and created derivatives of risk, and produced toxic credit progeny in abundance and caused the collapse of the banks which caused the current economic doldrums. Great job !

We’ve got the Coalition Government’s Red Tape (Cutting Of) initiative in full-swing, as well as the Eurosceptics. Their argument is – the European Union is a hyperquagmire and over-regulates and stifles business and innovation, so the United Kingdom should secede. What they fail to acknowledge is that European Union legislation and regulation have created excellent conditions for trade, unifying the standards of production across the Common Market, and drawing on skillsets and technologies from across the region, has advanced productivity and standards of living for all.

The United Kingdom is actually a major contributor to the development of the European Union, including social and economic progress, and it would be unhelpful to pull back from wielding that kind of influence – we could lost out if we don’t have a say in European-level policy development.

There’s no valid reason for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. Europe as a zone is the largest trade partner with the United Kingdom, for example. In, or out, the United Kingdom and the Eurozone depend on each other.

The die-hard Eurosceptics are also frequently against renewable energy. Their argument is that European Union rules on increasing the levels of renewable energy are putting a strain on energy companies, and ruining the economy. Actually, I think the casino banking ruined the economy. But renewable energy can only secure it.

Renewable energy is why we need Europe. With a pan-European supergrid, making use of all renewable electricity generation, the United Kingdom can both contribute and receive benefit. When our wind stops blowing, we will need Spain’s solar juice, for example.

But there’s another key reason why the United Kingdom needs Europe. Trees. Or more precisely, usable fuelwood, energy crops and agroforestry waste. Biomass is going to play an extremely important role in the future of energy, and that’s not because of the European Union renewable energy targets.

With North Sea oil and gas production taking a dive, and no clear picture on if this can be offset in any way, the United Kingdom will be forced to increase the proportion of renewable energy in our economy, target or no target. And that’s because of the cost of importing fossil fuels.

In the near future, there may well be global energy price controls placed on Natural Gas because it’s such an important fuel, particularly as we are at Peak Oil. But even if Natural Gas prices stay level, or even level-ish, since we will have to import progressively more Natural Gas, the country will start to feel a big fat pinch. We will start to feel penniless without a biomass energy strategy – and that means trade with Europe – because we haven’t been growing enough of our own trees lately.

It’s true that oil and gas companies and coal-burning power stations will lose out from increasing renewable energy penetration into the United Kingdom’s energy sector, but they are not the businesses of the future. If their shareholders are worried, they should jump ship to wind power and solar power investment.

Somebody has to tell the Conservative Eurosceptics to quit whingeing and accept the inevitable – European and renewable, or poor. And while we’re at it, we should join the Euro.