Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Bypass - or bypass? That is the question...

The Real Bypass: the only bypass that we, the flooded, thirsty, hungry, tired and dejected need is a heart-bypass operation. At least that is the only type of bypass this government should be considering funding. I have seen my sweet little Brother's adopted town. namely Tenbury Wells totally wrecked: smashed cottages, broken hearts, and tears. No, not the rivers of blood we were emphatically told would be flowing by the early dawn of the 21st century. Rivers of sewage, pieces of peoples lives washed away, misery, and fear etched into the faces of people whose tales tell of their dreams and aspirations being washed away in a torrent - not of class or racial hatred, but in a swirling, snarling monster that was once the River Teme. Was this the same gentle meandering river I stood watching my young son shouting excitedly "I've caught one, I've caught one!"?

What is the point of my inane ramblings? Well, it's really quite simple. Whilst I hot-footed to and fro, up and down the A49, I realised that my time was now being spent not fighting as a volunteer against road schemes that contributed to the causes of Global warming. I was dealing with the consequences of not doing enough to stop the onslaught that we refer to as climate change . There is always the counter-argument: yes, I could be wrong and all of this could be a weather blip, wretched bad luck. I, for one, am the eternal pessimist and would urge all of those with vested interest in the survival of humanity to maybe err on the side of caution. If anyone can get word to Gordon, the same treatment he recently dished out to the Manchester Casino may be the masterstroke that catapults him into the stuff of legends. All in all, I don't think Gordon has a done badly in the limited time he's been in the job. So go on Gordon, make my day , do us all a favour and and let's have a period of reflection. Where we can evaluate in the present political climate (no pun intended) whether or not it is wise and discerning to be contemplating building on the Glossop flood plain. I am, of course, referring to the Glossop Spur.

Now, to get back to why I was screaming up and down the A49 . Well, it's really quite simple. While most of the middle England and the south of our beloved 'Land of dope and curry' was swimming, paddling in their own waste, I was making haste, beating a retreat. To assist my mother in her daily pilgrimage (twice daily) of trying to negotiate that other masterstroke of the Highways Agency's lunacy, namely the M60. And the reason? I was taking her to visit my Father, who happened to be residing in Wythenshawe hospital, having just undergone open heart surgery. Mum's confidence being severely tested by the harrowing experience that is the M60, it was left to yours truly to do the honours. Picking up the mantle of ferrying my mother to and fro, I got to thinking when Uncle Roy 'I want mi name up in brass lad' Oldham and the other magnificent seven have tendered their bid, that in all eventuality could lead to the introduction and implementation of congestion charging. What would be the cost to pensioners be? On my calculation, it would have cost my mother £140 to have visited twice a day at £5 pound per entry to and from the inner ring-road levy (this seems to be the the price fixing level that is being bandied around). Now excuse me for raising this point, it seems to me we have got it all wrong here. Is it morally right to expect the poorest members of our green and pleasant land, to subsidise years of transport and infrastructure mismanagement and under-development? It really beggars belief that Labour-controlled councils want Casinos, & road-charging schemes, that will force the poorest in society to pay for their and the Tories years of flagrant abuse, underfunding and 'fast dollar' over-development of our shared occupation of this country.

When-o-when will the numb skulls realise the game's up we've got to deal with the cards we've been dealt? The lowering of C02 emissions involves all of society - the rich and the wealthy will, by the virtue of their wealth, be more than able to buy the right to carry on polluting in just the same manner as they do now. I am not suggesting for one minute that all wealth-creation is necessarily a bad thing: indeed the opposite can be argued with more than an element of success. However, are these the same members of the Labour Party who kept carping on about the inequality of the USA and its ability to buy its way out of its global responsibility? I am, of course, referring to that more than corrupt idea of carbon trading. So what is the difference? Well, there is none. The responsibility for our shared occupancy of this planet started the day you were conceived - personal or collective wealth should have little or no bearing. We must show the poorest members of the world community that you cannot buy your way out of your shared responsibility and obligations to help deal with the worrying phenomenon that is global warming. If you don't believe me, ask all the recent victims of the wretched flooding whether they believe global warming exists. At least the recent weather had the integrity to wreak its havoc and destruction in equal proportions on rich and poor. A lesson that our so-called leaders could do well to learn from.

And so it is within the present climate (again, no pun intended) that I urge J P Watson and the supporters of the proposed bypass scheme (especially the HIGHWAYS AGENCY) to be brave and to think hard and long about the outcome of the present Public Inquiry. If we can all be brave, then surely now is the time, within the spirit of the moment, that we can at least
afford ourselves a moment to pause and reflect upon our greater responsibility. I am of course talking about our obligation to the planet and humanity. If we are to learn to live and cope with the demands that global warming will sweep upon our planet, then we need a period of national reflection , when all future development - including road schemes - needs to be brought to question. Thanks for reading {Green an' common}.

1 comment:

kirtlegreen said...

I endorse the thrust of this article in the main, and it is clearly built on heart felt experience.

However I do not agree with the particular comments here, or on this blog generally, re "congestion charging". I am not trying to be provocative - but this stuff about "it is the poor who it will hit hardest" is something I have been hearing for some time now and I am not sure I quite buy it.

I think it is just a bit of a well worn excuse for resisting much needed change, and a a mask for trying to maintain business as usual.

Get out of those cars folks, they are damaging the world and your health.

(I will run for cover now!)