Climate Change and the Decisions that Matter

The Acid Test - Government Policy Decisions on Climate Change

Before proceeding with this article it is best to state at the outset that the issues are qualified to some extent by prevailing uncertainty regarding Climate Change being man made/anthropocentric. Dripping glaciers and collapsing ice floes make the national and indeed global headlines with alarming - perhaps to some tedious - regularity. Two very recent examples were headline news recently, where the increased rate of melting glaciers was “bettered” by a gloomy prognosis on the decrease of even stable ice continents, that are not supposed to be so susceptible to fluctuations in temperature.

Seemingly, there is also little doubt that the consequences of climate change could be considerable in political, economic and ultimately human terms, hence the urgent need felt by many to “do something” to avert this crisis – i.e. promote the Nuclear Industry. Hence also the globe trotting Al Gore - hopefully not contributing too significantly to aviation emissions - and the Stern report, which being economic in its consequences tends to be treated seriously.

Climate Change a Natural Cycle or Man Made?

However one impediment to “doing anything” is the argument that the crisis is not of our making, and the author feels this viewpoint needs to be acknowledged. It is a minority viewpoint, apparently the scientific majority of around 80% see a significant correlation between human activity and the crisis, but it is a view that is held in some parts. Indeed nature columnists in certain local newspapers, who rub shoulders with such luminaries as David Attenborough and might be considered as having some influence, have quite recently expressed the view that climate change is simply part of a natural cycle. A natural cycle unfortunate perhaps in its consequences, but for which the blame should not be laid at our door, and seemingly one we can do nothing about.

Until such time as columnists adduce some evidence to support such views however, this article will follow the scientific consensus, in assuming that the scientific majority are right, though we append a useful link on the topic below. Overall also we will make the assumption that not all such scientists blaming mankind are likely to have been hired by vested interests to play a particular tune. It is possible of course, but the opposite influence of traditional vested interests, such as the aviation and automobile industries seems more likely, and the wish to continue enjoying such transport will drive such views.

Key Government Policy Decisions on Climate Change

Moving on to the central topic we wish to briefly examine the substance of government actions with regard to climate change and local and influential decision making.

The concerning fact is that whilst we have a large national budget being targeted towards the area, and we seek to promote the UK global trailblazers in the diminishing emissions, the actual behaviour on the ground is different. Two recent decisions by the government, both made by theSecretary of State for Communities & Local Government, Hazel Blears, alert us to this worrying discrepancy.

The Thames Gateway Bridge Public Inquiry took Global Warming very seriously. On this occasion the Inspector even recommended that the Gateway proposal should, on this very count of adverse climactic impact, be refused. However, despite the Thames areas being particularly susceptible to heavy flood damage, the Secretary of State thought otherwise, and ordered a review of the decision.

At Lancaster, the Heysham M6 Link Road Bypass scored very badly on Global Warming, and again the Inspector Mr Tipping (Cantab) had little choice but to record this fact. The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector that the increase in greenhouse gases resulting from the scheme, including an increase in CO2 emissions, would be a significant adverse impact of the road scheme IR8.3.37” (Para 31 of Inspectors Report). However, significantly she claimed that there were no alternatives, something that opponents of the scheme hotly dispute as they assiduously compiled a package of alternatives. The Inspector did not allow the CO2 consideration to get in the way of rubber stamping another “business as usual” road scheme. Would it have mattered if he had? Perhaps not greatly, we might at best have expected another review of the decision, but in fact the relevant Secretary of State was only too pleased to endorse his decision.

What does this tell us?

Whilstl it is tempting to allow the reader to draw their own conclusion, without spelling it out, what seems clear is that the UK policy on global warming and climate change is one thing, but practice is another. Where policy can be hidden behind small print budget mechanisms it allows for giving the “impression of doing something”. In fact it may only be serving to add to government coffers, a fact which is often seized on by the cynical road lobby. The real decisions, that is to say those which are not simply obscure pricing mechanisms, but exist in the tangible world of results and action, tell another story.

When it comes to stark decisions, that will have to be taken if the challenge is going to be even remotely met , the record so far begins to look a little indefensible. The story so far seems to be “business as usual” and no change.

As long as climactic human calamity is far off, as with Bangladesh awash in melting the Himalayan glaciers, this will probably remain the likely course of events, perhaps until it is too late. Despite the many warnings, sadly it may require things to come home to roost even more clearly than the recent floods in the Midlands, to usher in the cold, if necessary, wind of change.

Woolley Bridge Floods

This week's floods in the Glossop area have again been big news, with articles in both the Advertiser & Chronicle.

But the only hint of a wider view of this problem came in the Advertiser, with a quote from a resident of Woolley Lane:

"We told the council when a new house was built next door two years ago that this area was a flood plain"

Indeed. There's a new housing development being built not far from the flooded area, as well as a Hotel/Travelodge as we reported previously (and whose previously blocked planning proposal is being resurrected - a report will come soon).

So it'll be really interesting to see what happens if the Glossop Spur is built, because the river Etherow tends to burst its banks all along the area where the roundabout from the A57 will be. The picture above gives a projected view of what the possible road signs will need to indicate, because this is the third time major flooding has occurred here this century...

Climate Camp - report

Representatives from our campaign attended the Camp for Climate Action two weeks ago after accepting an invitation from the organisers to facilitate a workshop on 'Roads and Climate Change'.

We delivered the workshop alongside fellow campaigners from the 'No Widening M1' campaign to an enthusiastic audience who included members of other campaigns such as Protect our Woodlands (Save Titnore Woods). We talked about our respective campaigns, as well as the history of road construction in the UK, what and whose purposes it serves and discussed methods we can use to fight road expansion in future.

Contrary to the portrayal in the mainstream media, the Camp was a hugely positive place with a vibrant atmosphere, making huge efforts to be environmentally sustainable. The reaction of the government, police and corporations like BAA to this event tells us we are doing something right - that the future does not mean 'business as usual' because 'business as usual' is a threat to our continued existence.

If you missed the mainstream media coverage, and want to view this alongside videos produced by activists (free of corporate bias, lies and disinformation), visit our YouTube channel.

Climate Camp 2007

The news has been full of the protest camp at this year's Camp for Climate Action. We wholeheartedly support the camp, and believe it is an increasingly important forum for debate and action to highlight the threat posed by climate change.

For those who want to learn more, the Climate Camp homepage is the best place to start. Indymedia also have a page with links to multimedia about the camp and events from a underground & independent viewpoint.

A page of YouTube videos - from activists and mainstream media reports - is featured here.

The Guardian's live newsblog for day one of the camp is here, and their Environment page live blog for Tuesday is here.

Watch this space for more info later in the week...

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}.