The first thing to say is that the party in government is always at a disadvantage. I have been able to provide some analysis of action as opposed to policy for the other parties based on their performance in European and local government however that is very different from being in power at Westminster, where it is apparent when policy commitments are translated into practice.

Labour's performance regarding this agenda has been ambivalent to say the least.

The Green Standard Report 'How Green are our parties?' published in September 2007 was very useful in producing this post, it sums up labours position very well;

• "Labour deserves much credit for its international leadership on climate change. Very few other countries have done as much as the UK. But a change in prime minister has not changed the significant disconnect between this and domestic action on climate change. The Labour government, despite displaying international leadership on climate change, is failing on its carbon emission reduction and renewables targets. And it has not taken a consistently positive or ambitious approach to the natural environment agenda, for example, so far failing to introduce a long-promised marine bill".

Regarding action on Climate change in the UK:

• The picture is mixed, the Climate Change Bill travelling through the House of Commons places legally binding targets to reduce emissions on the UK government. This is the first law of it's type in the world. This is postive, however it commits to reducing emissions by 60% by 2050 when scientific advice suggests a target of 80% is necessary. It also excludes aviation and shipping a major source climate changing emissions.
• The government has published the Renewable Energy Strategy in June 2007 about which Jonathon Porritt says; "Indeed, after a decade of incredibly damaging dithering, BERR Officials have at last begun to think through the reality of meeting energy security and low-carbon objectives through renewables. Part of that new-found purpose is based on the development and deployment of the technologies themselves – particularly offshore wind, which is where we can get the biggest bang for our renewable buck".

However at the same time this is critically undermined by;

• The government's apparent attempts to water down the European Renewables Directive.
• A resistance to promote micro-generation by establishing a clear framework for feed in tariffs.
• The re-emergence of commitments to coal fired power stations with no commitment to carbon capture and storage , this is not only causing civil unrest but is also drawing anxieties from US scientists that US commitment to a post-Kyoto agreement maybe undermined.
• The very costly return to Nuclear energy which is undermining the potential for a more distributed, locally sustainable system for power generation that people could have a real stake in.

Concerning international action on climate change

The UK has been leading the international debate on climate change, the Green Standard report states:

• "It has led the way in forging international agreements, and has played a key role in trying to keep the United States engaged and re-invigorating the UN process".
• However in these discussions it appears to be very resistant in accepting the changing scientific opinion that maximum levels of CO2 in the atmosphere to avoid dangerous climate change have been reduced from 450 - 550 ppm to 350ppm.

Green Living

The government has set clear standards about the built environment with a commitment to zero carbon homes by 2016. But serious questions remain about measures to address existing homes and homes built before this target. There is also a clear absence of leadership about sustainable transport. The commitment to continued road building and the governments support of the third runway at Heathrow undermine work in this area.

The natural environment

The government's progress in protecting wildlife, the countryside, and the seas together with developing and supporting adaptation strategies for eco-systems has been disappointing. There have been some developments such as the development of ecosystem action plans and the agri-environmental funding. There has also been the planning white paper that reduced the protection of the natural world afforded by the planning process, and also the failure to introduce the Marine Protection plan into the legislative programme.

Planning

Labours proposals for the reform of the planning process have placed their emphasis on economic development rather than the embedding of environmental sustainability within them. They are also undermining their democratic basis and transparency. this is a concern in that environmental factors maybe seen as a barrier to development rather than a measure of it's success.

Environmental Tax and Subsidies.

The government has not grasped the potential for green taxes. The overall proportion of revenue to the government from green taxation has fallen in real terms since the government came into office. Limited progress has been made with the landfill tax escalator, aviation tax and fuel duty however the real cost of transport does not reflect it's true environmental cost by a significant margin. The government supports a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy but this needs to be reformed to include a real commitment to the environment.

Setting and Meeting Targets

The think tank Policy Exchange published a report entitled Green Dreams: A Decade of Missed Targets in May 2008. It is an analysis of Labour's performance regarding the targets that it set itself concerning the environment. In this report it found that Labour was likely to miss over half the targets in set itself since 1997.

• It was most successful with waste where 67% of targets were likely to be met.
• It was least successful regarding measures concerning rural affairs and bio-diversity, 88% of these targets are likely to be missed.
• The report suggested that 66% of targets concerning climate change are likely to not be met.

It found that targets were most likely to be met where they were set well in advance and had a clear methodology for their success, or where there is a clear underpinning policy commitment.

This is probably at the heart of the problem with Labour environment policy, what is lacking is a clear embedded vision which places an environmentally sustainable future at the heart of it. A vision that is translated into a robust framework for action that fits into Labour's wider economic and social agenda, a coherent triple bottom line, of people, profit, and planet.

Without this environmental priorities spring up, and then wither when they are swamped by other more urgent issues. The problem is this becomes a vicious circle with the public focusing on these other urgent issues, thus reinforcing to the government that the environment is not an important issue for the electorate, the government shifts it's attention, proving to the electorate that the environment is not an urgent issue. The small problem with this is once the environment becomes sufficiently urgent and important to bring government and the public together it may very well be too late.

www.workofchange.co.uk

Source: Telegraph

Britain should set an example to the world by reversing its steeply-rising population growth and allowing no more people into the country than leave, the Government's chief "green" adviser has said.

This, from the 'Commission' that is pushing for the government to spend another £100 billion of YOUR money throwing up windfarms to 'hit reduced CO2 emissions' targets. The whole CO2 dialectic is just another scam designed to suppress freedom, impose more taxes and centralise the means of production.

I suggest this 'green' advisor join the growing campaign to leave the EU and cleanse our government of Socialists if he wants to control immigration. Much easier to just advocate for spending more money!

Mr Porritt, who is a patron of the charity, the Optimum Population Trust, warned that globally spending on family planning was "massively" lower than the £8 billion spent on HIV/Aids.

Yet it should be around £12.5 billion to £15 billion if the world was to avoid a population of more than 9 billion or more by 2050.

Ah yes, Aids: The Epidemic that never was. So this socialist 'greenie' is suggesting what? Spending of yet more taxpayers money in the hopes of convincing you that you should have even less children than you do now under the false goal (dialectic) of reducing world population. I guess no one told him that due to various factors, British people are not having enough children to keep the population stable as it is (you can thank feminism for that.) This is endemic throughout Europe. Still, this BBC article recognises that 'immigrants more than make up for it,' ignoring the damage such policies do to the country.

He goes on to mention;

...that in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, population trends were increasing "disastrously" because of low spending on family planning.

No, they are increasing because they are third world countries, mostly in poverty. Allowing them to industrialise would reduce their birth rate, as it what happens when a country's Quality of Life increases. But then they would represent competition to the Western banking cartels wouldn't they...

He then continues to try and scare everyone using the latest fads;

In fact, if one looked at the amount of carbon it would be possible to emit in 2050, without contributing to dangerous climate change, it was 10 billion tons of carbon, around one ton per person.

This should come as a surprise, considering that the Optimum Population Trust of which he is a patron, recently said this: Having large families ‘is an eco-crime.’ This illuminates the thinking of these people somewhat. Having x-number of children amounts to a Crime Against Mother Earth. The richer you are the more you can have of course. You are higher up the social scale and therefore your families are superior. Again, Carbon Dioxide is not a poison, it is an essential part of our eco-system and is part of the Carbon Cycle. I would like to add that this man believes he can control the climate by stopping people having babies. By reducing C02 levels. Which in totality, comprise about 38 parts per 100,000. But whatever works eh...

Around the world, he said, it was a universal truth that the longer girls remained in education, the fewer children they had. Mr Porritt said that the prevailing assumption of UN economists that population growth would fall as the world got richer was out of sync with the need for the human race to live within environmental limits.

So, although it is a FACT that birth rates fall as nations industrialise and develop, fraudulent claims regarding C02 mean that those FACTS just aren't good enough. Still, if he admitted that populations will grow and rise in response to their environment (like every other species) then he would be out of a job and the State would need another excuse for more regulations other the People.

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

[

The speech focused on the rising significant of food security, and the increased attention the concept is drawing in policy circles, a level of attention which would have been unimaginable 5 years ago. Referencing rising demand in China and India and the pressure placed on grain supplies by biofuels production, Porritt said that while rising arable prices might seem to represent boom time for farmers, but not for all, pointing out that benefits are not evenly distributed.

Continuing to discuss climate change, Porritt praised the Government for successfully incorporating climate change into political discourse, but criticised the current ability to transfer theory into action, stating:

"I honestly do not know how many people in government today, in the farming
community today, have internalised the reality of what that transition to a low carbon economy, and a low carbon food economy, really looks like."

Discussing GM crops, Porritt called for an end to polarized debate, which adopts either the "GM wonderful, organic awful" position or the opposite: "organic wonderful, GM awful", and called for a world in which we can "embrac[e] every potential solution that we
possibly can".

Porritt concluded with a series of constructive suggestions, summarized as follows:

1. "we have to read these signals [price rises, changing climate] for what they tell us. Do not go on ignoring them, do not go on underestimating them; see them for what they are.
2. "avoid the evangelists -- I hope I have not come across as one today, maybe some of you think I have [eg. pro-GM or anti-GM evangelists].
3. "re-centre food production at the heart of all land use strategies. Is it
   not amazing that only ten years ago people were sitting around questioning whether or not food production had anything to do with sustainable land use strategies for the UK, Europe and the world.
4. "get very good at climate change. Take the advice that is there. Work with those people who are already offering extraordinarily good advice into the sector."

And in reference to this last point, Porritt highlighted the report produced by the CLA, NFU and AIC (partnered by Forum for the Future) as an example of forward-thinking research which might start to shift UK farming in the right direction. The report is entitled Part of the Solution: Climate Change, Agriculture and Land Management and is available as a pdf.

[Jonathon Porritt's speech is available to download in full]

L’econatale ha coinvolto anche il plurimmortalato albero del Rockefeller center a Manhattan, illuminato per l’occasione da lampadine speciali a basso consumo.

I supermercati hanno sostituito le buste di plastica con quelle di carta e offrono come buoni spesa video e libri del nuovo indiscusso profeta, paladino insigne della pace del mondo: mr. Al Gore.

Gli americani dunque, dopo la guerra, rispolverano per le feste un più confacente impegno sociale “civile” in nome di un consumismo che si rinnova tingendosi di verde. La rivista ecologista Plenty riguardo al pranzo di natale raccomanda di evitare verdure trattate con pesticidi e carne con antibiotici.

Caccia quindi alle boutique alimentari che vendono cibo ecologico, non sicuramente più sano, ma certamente più caro. 

Ma c’è chi è andato oltre, subendo così profondamente l’influenza dei proclami catastrofisti di Al Gore da cambiare radicalmente stile di vita.
Ignorando la circostanza per cui l’annunciato prossimo presidente degli Stati Uniti ha consumato nel 2006 221,000 kWh per illuminare, riscaldare e abitare le 20 stanze della villa con piscina a Nashville, c’è chi, fulminato da Una scomoda verità, sceglie di tornare alla vita delle caverne.

I coniugi Beaven conducevano esistenza vita tranquilla nel lusso del loro appartamento nella celeberrima 5a strada di New York fino a quando, guardando il documentario di Gore, si sono sentiti così in colpa di appartenere al genere uomo-inquinatore che hanno deciso di cambiare vita.

Michelle racconta così la conversione: «Sono andata a vedere “An Inconvenient Truth” in un cinema con l’aria condizionata. È stata una chiamata alle armi. Mi sono accorta che tutto quel che stavo facendo nella mia vita contribuiva alla distruzione dell’ambiente. È stato allora che ho deciso di dire basta». Colin e Michelle, con la loro figlia Isabelle ed il cane Friskie, raccontano in un blog, scritto da un internet point vicino, un anno di vita senza prendere ascensori (pur abitando al nono piano), auto, senza tirare lo sciacquone, guardare la tv, senza lavastoviglie, forno, stufa elettrica, rasoio, computer, acquistando cibi biologici da fattorie biologiche, lavandosi i denti col bicarbonato, andando al lavoro in monopattino e convivendo con una colonia di vermi a cui viene data in pasto la propria spazzatura.

Ma non sono i soli. Un gruppo di San Francisco The Compact (sfcompact.blogspot.com), in omaggio al patto del Mayflower firmato dai Padri Pellegrini per fondare una colonia americana che aveva come scopo quello di promuovere il bene comune, sono riusciti ad asternersi per un anno intero dal fare acquisti. Così John Perry, quarantaduenne che lavora nell'IT nella Silicon Valley, spiega che la sua scelta: “significa essere consapevoli degli eccessi della cultura dei consumi e del fatto che stiamo affondando le nostre risorse e impoverendo la gente nel resto del mondo."

Sempre negli States ci si può imbattere nei Froogles, un gruppo di persone che vivono barattando beni di necessità e vestiti su internet.
Mentre sulla rete sono sorti siti  di non-shopping come freecycle.org e garbagescout.com , sono sempre più di moda le yard sales, i mercatini del proprio usato che gli americani amano organizzare nel proprio giardino di casa nelle belle giornate.
Chissà se l’ideale di vita di questi neo-eco-radical-chic-contestatori non sia proprio quello attuato dagli Amish della Pennsylvania. Le donne non si tagliano mai i capelli e gli uomini dopo il matrimonio si fanno crescere la barba. Non hanno elettricità e si sposano solo nei mesi di novembre e dicembre durante il periodo di pausa di lavoro nei campi.

Jonathon Porritt, noto ambientalista inglese insignito nel 2000 dalla regina del titolo CBE (Commander of the British Empire), già consigliere del governo Blair, ha dichiarato all’Observer: "Sono molte le grandi idee che nei secoli hanno dominato il pianeta, fascismo, comunismo, democrazia, religione. Ma solo una ha raggiunto la supremazia totale. Si tratta del consumismo. Se vogliamo salvare il pianeta, dobbiamo smettere di comprare".

Il paradosso è questo accanimento contro ogni tipo di acquisto si viene ad esasperare proprio nel momento in cui inizia finalmente a decollare il commercio equosolidale, ex cavallo di battaglia ambientalista, ora accantonato e aumentano prodotti legati alla campagna Product Red, cui parte dei proventi sono destinati alla lotto all'Aids in Africa.

The first question asked in the Independent (readers') interview is to me the most interesting. A reader asked Porritt

"Judging by your early writing, you used to be a real green radical. Have your beliefs mellowed over the years?"

and Porritt answered

Not really. I wrote Seeing Green in 1984, before the collapse of Communism, so my political criticism in those days was even-handed – "a plague on both your houses", communism and capitalism. If anything, I am now even more critical of contemporary capitalism, based as it is on short-term, planet trashing, people-crushing, profit maximisation in every corner of the world. But I have come to accept (as explained in my latest book, Capitalism As If The World Matters) that we have got no immediate solution other than to promote a radically different kind of capitalism – genuinely sustainable and equitable. I believe such a thing is, just about, possible if those who care about capitalism (and are its principal beneficiaries) realise the terrifying consequences of the entire system collapsing in the not too distant future, in the teeth of social implosion and ecological meltdown (Independent).

So Porritt's position is that the solution to contemporary problems lies with capitalism - but a radically altered capitalism, changed to fit the goals of the environmental and social justice movements. And later in the interview, the picture remains bleak, with the UK Government describes as lacking in political will, largely unable to imagine coherent alternatives to the current economic-growth-must-come-first paradigm, and held back by the Treasury.

In terms of local food networks, Porritt's contributions are focused around climate change, fossil fuel dependence and carbon emissions. In an article written for Green Futures (Forum for the Future's magazine), Porritt describes positively how the idea of a "low-carbon food economy" is entering the mainstream (even if only as an idea) and how the importance of adaptation to climate change has gained serious political currency in recent years. On the subject of adaptation of food networks he says

"The transformation of today’s food production and distribution systems will mean much more emphasis on the local and regional ... it is going to take a while for people to re-learn the basic fact that today’s food economy is almost 100% dependent on the use of fossil fuels" (Green Futures).

The press release introduces Forum for the Future's Farming Futures report describes some of the options for a future sustainable and capitalist food network in which foreign produce is grown in the UK in renewably-heated greenhouses, and contains examples of how supermarkets are working with producers to market local and regional food - detailed in the articles here. However the report's enthusiasm for Tesco's regional sourcing is clearly at odds with opinions of the success of UK supermarkets in improving the food network (discussed further here).

When reviewing unsustainable capitalism in his book Capitalism: As If The World Matters, Porritt describes how for many, the collapse of communism has meant that no serious alternative to a capitalist system can be considered, and how this has led many commentators to emphasise a capitalism somehow reduced in scale - citing the call for localization issued by Michael Woodin and Caroline Lucas in their book Green Alternatives to Capitalism. In these instances, localization of the market-based economy holds the key to formulating a viable, sustainable alternative form of capitalism, but Porritt stops short of advocating localization as an alternative to capitalism.

Radical enough, or not radical enough? These debates, and Porritt's position within them, form part of the broader backdrop against which the local food networks are developing. Whether environmental and social justice goals can be met by simply tinkering with capitalism and the market-economy or whether something different is needed is a key question. No conclusions here, I'm afraid.

[NB. Jonathon Porritt has posted a full list of his responses to Independent readers' questions on his blog here]

Let's start with some basics. Global Warming theory stipulates that increases of atmospheric CO2 due to human activities will cause dangerous climate change and threaten life as we know it. Most anthropogenic CO2 comes from coal-fired power stations and therefore we need to replace coal energy with CO2-free alternatives. At the moment we have only one serious alternative to coal and it is nuclear. Don't listen to tree-huggers with their solar and wind wet dreams. Neither of these technologies can produce stable baseload electricity to run our 24/7 industrial societies. We can cover our entire countries with wind turbines and solar panels, but this will not shut down a single coal power plant because they are needed for backup when the wind ain't blowin' or it gets dark.

So, if climate change really is the greatest threat facing humanity, nuclear energy should be seriously considered. Yes, there are serious drawbacks but overall they are much smaller than supposed dangers of Global Warming, otherwise Al Gore would be jetting around the world telling us nuclear energy is the greatest threat facing humanity.

Why then did UK's top green advisors slam nuclear power? Well, as we discussed earlier, environmentalism is not really about reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or saving whales. It is an anti-capitalist ideology masking behind fashionable environmental concern. This is quite clear from some of the comments made by these green advisors. For example Professor Tim Jackson, said the decision to opt for nuclear power was "a blatant failure of moral vision". Moral vision? CO2 is a gas, a chemical compound, where is morality here? If CO2 really is a problem, find the CO2-free alternatives and the case is closed.

Sir Jonathon Porritt, gives even better illustration of what environmentalism is all about:

"The government response [to climate change] should not be in technological fixes. It should be in transforming society.... decentralising and decarbonising the economy. The Labour government has very little interest in these approaches. Pulling a technological megafix, like nuclear power, out of the hat is easier from a political point of view but it misses the essence of climate change which is transforming people's lives."

Got it? It is not about reducing CO2 in the most efficient and cost-effective way, it is about transforming society into something Sir Jonathon Porritt and his Luddite mates would approve.

The cheeky buggers even dare to criticise nuclear power for needing public subsidies:

"Nuclear power will not survive on its own in the marketplace. The government will have to use voodoo economics to underwrite new capacity. The only beneficiaries of this decision are the handful of big energy companies,"

Blimey! Aren't we being told that we need to put a price on carbon, establish carbon trading and implement carbon taxes in order to make alternative energy like wind and solar viable? And where would that money come from if not the taxpayers? Would it grow on trees? Who is using voodoo economics here?

Let's get one thing clear, anthropogenic CO2 is either a serious problem or it is not. If it is, anything that can reduce CO2 is good. Even nuclear energy. But if UK's top advisors don't like modern industrial capitalism and want to transform society in accordance with their moral vision, they should state their aims explicitly instead of blocking realistic solutions to reduce CO2 emissions by pushing their preferred feel-good non-solutions.

Of these 272, 31 pertain directly to population growth. But the thing about this 11.4% that made them stick out so dramatically was the call by the Optimum Population Trust for each man, woman, or couple to have fewer children as a way to curb the toll we are exacting on our Earth’s natural resources.

Everything we manage to achieve for the natural environment is being wiped out by the nearly 80 million extra people each year who need to use up space and resources.

The most effective personal climate change strategy is limiting the number of children one has. The most effective national and global climate change strategy is limiting the size of the population. Population limitation should therefore be seen as the most cost-effective carbon offsetting strategy available to individuals and nations. – Population-Based Climate Strategy, Optimum Population Trust, May 2007

Ahhh yes, population control, but with an interesting spin.

To rip the phrasing of Jonathon Porritt, the essence of OPT’s campaign: Do your bit for addressing climate change by having fewer children – or even no children.

Let me be clear that Mr. Porritt expressed a “love” for the OPT campaign. I am making no assumptions as to the thoughts, world views, or underlying meanings that motivate his affinity. But consider that same campaign from a young couple’s perspective. Or as I am not married, from that of a young woman who hopes to one day marry and have her own family.

Is it humane to ask me to not have any children at all? Is it humane to ask me to have only one child? Forget about fairness, I’m talking about humanity. And what are the arguments you would use to convince me of such?  The ones that have already been made?

Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps we should control the population to ensure the survival of our environment. – Sir David Attenborough

It is environmental illiteracy and a complete lack of forward thinking to ignore the need to halt and then reverse population growth in the context of climate change, congestion, unaffordable housing, and resource depletion. – unattributable (2007)

...we owe it to the rest of the planet to stabilise our own population. Producing lots of extra Brits...is a selfish strategy both economically and environmentally. Not only will it increase overcrowding and congestion [it will] put huge extra strain on resources and...intensify our impact on the Earth’s ecosystems. – David Nicholson-Lord, research associate, Optimum Population Trust (2006)

Living in an orgy of unrestrained consumption and economic growth accompanied by population expansion that ignores the carrying capacity of local environments will lead to disaster. – unattributable

Each of these is limited to the impact on environmental resources, but does nothing to address my desire, what may even be my human need, for companionship, family, and love. What happens to me if I put these aside and “take one for the team”.

I don’t doubt that our Earth’s resources are rapidly deteriorating, but what’s the timeline? Will it cease to support my children during their lifetime? During their children’s lifetimes? And if I am passionately concerned about sustainability, could I not pass those values on to my children such that they continue the cause?

I ask all these questions, but what I really want to know is why those who speak about population control via birth rate control don’t couple their arguments with a pro-adoption campaign. Don’t tell me not to have children, but rather, tell me that we already have more children in this world than we care for. Share the story of those who need a home. And help me connect with a child who, just like me, needs family, companionship, and love.

Slightly belated - Applied Green conference 3rd October

Billed as a conference where the biggest names will tackle the biggest issue we face, I was fairly keen to see if all the marketing and greenecosociologicalistic luminaries could work out a way in which a socially influential industry such as our could have a real impact.

The day began with Jonathon Porritt introducing the 5th horseman of the apocolyse although it was tailored nicely towards media with the sting in the tail you’d expect from such a long time activist.

The standout for me was John Grant with his ability to get to the nuts of what’s needed from our industry, a memorable image, something consumers can grab onto and understand in a space where the language and message is at best confusing. John’s comparison to what the condom did for the AIDS crisis in the early 1980’s was compelling – listen to John’s talk here.

wearethoughtfull have a compendium of the best links from the day here.