Sunday, 2 May 2010
Green Police
Yesterday I was at the third of five Save the World Club training days in preparation for the Glastonbury Festival 2010. Every year I take around 175 mainly young people, to the festival as walkabout and ecological enforcers, famous now as "The Green Police".
Newcomers, especially those who have never been to a festival before, have to mentally and physically prepare themselves for the sensory overload that at this, the biggest cultural music festival in the world. It is not only a five day twenty four hour festival with 50,000 staff and volunteers and another 175,000 members of the public. The festival represents a cultural spectacle of mind blowing significance. For 40 years, the event has overshadowed all others for millions of free thinking visitors.
The young at heart and youth present however need to be reminded of the rules of the festival, especially regarding ecological etiquette so to speak.
Green Police have the right to perform a "citizens arrest" on any person caught peeing and especially peeing in the river. The Environment Agency test the water every hour so great is the risk to the river system. Green Police are on hand to run to any area deemed at risk while the festival is on.
We also manage the litter education which is a lot harder. The aim for the past few years is to educate people about not dropping litter, but especially cigarette butts. The butts are toxic, each one contaminating 8 litres of water. Every single one has to get picked up by the litter pickers otherwise they get eaten by the cows.
One tiny action like urinating or dropping a tiny butt, has a big effect on the site farm and surrounding countryside. It reminds me how fragile and interconnected everything really is.
I consider it a successful festival if the 170 or so volunteers wake up a little themselves as to the mess and damage that we cause around us on a daily basis. Most ordinary people aren't bothered, but the Green Police are in a unique position to observe human sloppyness and to try and change the hearts and minds of other young people in the process.
June is always an interesting month!
Newcomers, especially those who have never been to a festival before, have to mentally and physically prepare themselves for the sensory overload that at this, the biggest cultural music festival in the world. It is not only a five day twenty four hour festival with 50,000 staff and volunteers and another 175,000 members of the public. The festival represents a cultural spectacle of mind blowing significance. For 40 years, the event has overshadowed all others for millions of free thinking visitors.
The young at heart and youth present however need to be reminded of the rules of the festival, especially regarding ecological etiquette so to speak.
Green Police have the right to perform a "citizens arrest" on any person caught peeing and especially peeing in the river. The Environment Agency test the water every hour so great is the risk to the river system. Green Police are on hand to run to any area deemed at risk while the festival is on.
We also manage the litter education which is a lot harder. The aim for the past few years is to educate people about not dropping litter, but especially cigarette butts. The butts are toxic, each one contaminating 8 litres of water. Every single one has to get picked up by the litter pickers otherwise they get eaten by the cows.
One tiny action like urinating or dropping a tiny butt, has a big effect on the site farm and surrounding countryside. It reminds me how fragile and interconnected everything really is.
I consider it a successful festival if the 170 or so volunteers wake up a little themselves as to the mess and damage that we cause around us on a daily basis. Most ordinary people aren't bothered, but the Green Police are in a unique position to observe human sloppyness and to try and change the hearts and minds of other young people in the process.
June is always an interesting month!
Sunday, 11 April 2010
Women's Representation in Politics & Policy
This week saw the first all women NASA space shuttle journey when Naoko Yamazaki, Stephanie Wilson and Dorothy Metcalf-Lindenburger made history into herstory in Florida.
But elsewhere it has not been a good week for women. With just 19% women in parliament we now wait to see how many will be re-elected and how representative the government will be. Based on the last weeks performance from the top parties they will be woefully inadequate, in all the coverage I failed to see any key women speaking about their politics other than the Green Party leader, Caroline Lucas MEP who is standing for MP in Brighton.
It really does matter if more women are elected. Female political representation means women's interests are more likely to taken into account at a leadership level. Steps have to be taken in political decision making forums to address problems in a gender sensitive way and when they so often are not, men are not necessarily there remembering we exist. In fact there is evidence that without women, policies are introduced that are unhelpful to women, increasing our workload, exacerbating gender discrimination and widening inequalities.
There is evidence that developed countries with higher levels of female political representation have been most successful in reducing their carbon dioxide levels overall. In fact of the 16 countries ranked by the UNDP as having high human development which had reduced CO2 emissions between 1990 and 2004, 13 had a higher proportion of female politicians.
Strong evidence also exists over a number of years, that women tend to be more concerned about environmental issues than men. It has also been shown that when they are allowed in the negotiations, they influence the outcome with female policy-makers tending to favour education and behaviour change methods over technological solutions.
The world economic system is patriarchal and women statistically hold few positions f power globally. Men dominate decision making in the most polluting industries too, which have failed to prioritise climate change. In fact, the Women's Environmental Network report Gender and the Climate Change Agenda, shows that of those companies responsible for 67% of the FTSE 100 emissions had 100% male chief executives, and of the 42 combined committee members, only 6 were female.
In fact women represent only 17% of FTSE boardroom appointments, and constitute only 19% of scientists and engineers. The Norwegian government took a risk in 2003 when they made a law stating boardrooms had to have 40% females. Business was furious and resisted but from just 6% representation the target was met ahead of schedule. Research highlighted the fact that the policy had improved the quality of the debate and the financial performance.
But equal representation between men and women in politics is right and just because it is our right as human beings, not because of environmental gains that may be possible. There are so many reasons why we need to have an equal and just world, being inclusive seems to me to be one of the very fundamentals.
Women's Environmental Network report available to download free: www.wen.org/resources
But elsewhere it has not been a good week for women. With just 19% women in parliament we now wait to see how many will be re-elected and how representative the government will be. Based on the last weeks performance from the top parties they will be woefully inadequate, in all the coverage I failed to see any key women speaking about their politics other than the Green Party leader, Caroline Lucas MEP who is standing for MP in Brighton.
It really does matter if more women are elected. Female political representation means women's interests are more likely to taken into account at a leadership level. Steps have to be taken in political decision making forums to address problems in a gender sensitive way and when they so often are not, men are not necessarily there remembering we exist. In fact there is evidence that without women, policies are introduced that are unhelpful to women, increasing our workload, exacerbating gender discrimination and widening inequalities.
There is evidence that developed countries with higher levels of female political representation have been most successful in reducing their carbon dioxide levels overall. In fact of the 16 countries ranked by the UNDP as having high human development which had reduced CO2 emissions between 1990 and 2004, 13 had a higher proportion of female politicians.
Strong evidence also exists over a number of years, that women tend to be more concerned about environmental issues than men. It has also been shown that when they are allowed in the negotiations, they influence the outcome with female policy-makers tending to favour education and behaviour change methods over technological solutions.
The world economic system is patriarchal and women statistically hold few positions f power globally. Men dominate decision making in the most polluting industries too, which have failed to prioritise climate change. In fact, the Women's Environmental Network report Gender and the Climate Change Agenda, shows that of those companies responsible for 67% of the FTSE 100 emissions had 100% male chief executives, and of the 42 combined committee members, only 6 were female.
In fact women represent only 17% of FTSE boardroom appointments, and constitute only 19% of scientists and engineers. The Norwegian government took a risk in 2003 when they made a law stating boardrooms had to have 40% females. Business was furious and resisted but from just 6% representation the target was met ahead of schedule. Research highlighted the fact that the policy had improved the quality of the debate and the financial performance.
But equal representation between men and women in politics is right and just because it is our right as human beings, not because of environmental gains that may be possible. There are so many reasons why we need to have an equal and just world, being inclusive seems to me to be one of the very fundamentals.
Women's Environmental Network report available to download free: www.wen.org/resources
Saturday, 10 April 2010
Media Manipulation
I’ve recently been ill and managed to watch lots of online news, magazines, newspapers and television and social media while I recuperate. After many years of avoiding too much television I’m utterly under-whelmed but it has been an interesting social exercise nonetheless. I admire the quality of a few special programmes but most I found vacuous, feeding only the desire for egocentric celebrity and celebrity culture.
One interesting investigative documentary programme, StarSeekers, set out to prove how the entire television, movie and media industry creates a cycle of celebrity to fill the news pages, to sell the product endorsements, to spin stories and make money. This, they clearly show in relation to Disney and similar global brands, starts when children are very young.
I’ve seen studies that show children as young as three being able to recognise brands and respond to advertising stimulus later in supermarkets.
Some years ago I saw my own three year old asking for a branded product in the yogurt aisle at our local store and I realised myself how simple the jingle and the happy faces entice our children into early consumptive and often compulsive behaviours. Television is especially powerful in hypnotising people into accepting all sorts of messages. I went on a hypnosis course at the time to find out how to use it positively for healing, and realised that every single person is vulnerable to mass hypnosis, especially through mass media. Paul McKenna is amongst those who believe the same and he produced an excellent documentary for Channel Four himself on the issue that’s definitely worth watching.
That’s when I decided to get rid of the television once and for all and both my wonderful children have never looked back. We have more time to cook, enjoy food, learning, reading, computers, films, park, allotment and life in general.
~We’re not totally against it. We saw Masterchef final and Dr Who together on my bed on a laptop and enjoyed the experience. But we don’t have a television as the centrepiece of a room for several years now and I for
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Recycling and Downsizing
One set of statistics announced last month that didn't get any publicity are the recycling rates for councils around the country. I doubt very much if they will figure at all in national elections, but they will matter very much for local authorities who generally will spent the largest part of their environmental budget on waste management.
From the 394 councils in England whose data was taken from Defras Municipal Waste Statistics 2008/9 the top recycler was Staffordshire Moorlands District Council with a staggering 61.58% of all waste recycled and Cotswold District Council close on their heels with 60.83%.
My own council, Kingston upon Thames, the smallest of the Greater London boroughs, came in at number 214 with a "could-do-better" 35.36%. This is despite the introduction of fortnightly waste collections and weekly doorstep recycling collections including compost. If this hadn't been promoted they might have ended up as LB Newham with an abysmal 15.40% and at the very bottom of the league tables.
A step in the right direction for Kingston, but research has highlighted that the recent economic slump is the biggest single factor when it comes to the reduction in our rubbish amounts.
The recession has changed peoples shopping habits. This single act has measurably reduced our rubbish and according to Dr Adam Read, waste management specialist, councils should be re-enforcing positive behaviours now, before we try to shop till we drop again.
In last months Journal for Waste & Resource Management Professionals, the industry feebly attempted to plead innocence when it came to the environmental impacts of packaging and the cost and effect on councils. Jane Bickerstaffe, INCPEN Director, reminds us of course that the product has to be delivered safely, undamaged and with "an ever increasing amount of information". Fair enough so far. She goes on to remind us that there are areas "where there is no room for change" since "enormous reductions have already been made over the last 30 years."
But the job of the packaging industry is to sell the product to the buyer, and when that product is of high value it normally includes high value packaging. High value packaging means more rubbish. Waste that is complex, involving layers of plastics and papers can be more difficult to open and recycle. But the more the seller can make the product look expensive and of high value, the more likely the buyer will be to purchase the product.
That is the job of packaging. That is the job of advertising, media, marketing and promotion. The dilemma is that there is no longer a hiding place from the effects of waste on costs, pollution, industry.
Has it really taken Jane Bickerstaffe 20 years to work out that local councils waste management pays for and sorts out all the mess at the end? She admits now that "Councils cannot dictate what shoppers buy but, because they are responsible for collecting and dealing with discarded materials, they need to minimise both goods and packaging and to optimise the potential for recycling to help them reach their landfill diversion targets."
But other than wanting to talk now with councils, she doesn't fully accept responsibility for her industries actions. The achievements of the last 30 years, and those hard won campaigns including the Waste Minimisation Act, championed by Women's Environmental Network (www.wen.org) some years ago, challenged at a fundamental level the work of INCPEN and others. But the public have paid, through local taxes, as their waste has risen, the cost has risen.
Billions of pounds spent sorting and dealing with what I believe to be unnecessary waste, created by a blinkered industry. The Polluter Pays Principle has never been more pertinent and important and government centrally has to take centre stage. Local authorities
The manufacturing, consumer and packaging industry has spent the last thirty years creating a consumer society that is itself blinkered, shopping not thinking and having no say whatever on the product or process other than to be rewarded for purchasing in increasing amounts: free gifts; two-for-one; re-purchasing vouchers; free memberships; loyalty cards; free credit.
Don't forget that the packaging industry is a carbon polluter and accounts for at least 6% of our nations energy use.
The Polluter Pays Principle needs to be discussed carefully and fairly but it should alongside agreements on fair trade, sustainability indexes, carbon, water and energy use and waste minimisation in order to achieve One Planet Living, as defined by the Surrey based BioRegional Development Group. The entire production loop must be closed, cleaned and sustainable, and paid for and that means everthing.
Their policy is clear - Zero Waste
"Waste from discarded products and packaging creates disposal problems and squanders valuable resources" They also join up the dots regarding fair trade and equality with ten excellent principles for one planet living.
This is still a huge conversation for the likes of INCPEN who are unlikely to act in anything other than self interest, as they have for years already. Any legally binding solution will probably have to be forced on industry by central government in order to have a powerful tax and cost benefit for local authorities.
OK, here is the political parties response to this issue, or what they relate on their websites:-
The Labour Party:
"We believe that the green agenda is fundamentally rooted in Labour values. Labour’s environment, energy and climate change policies are about securing fairness, creating jobs and building strong communities as well as tackling carbon emissions and improving the quality of life. By taking the action we need to tackle climate change and reduce waste we can drive economic growth, make Britain more energy independent, and make it easier for people to live in greener ways." The Conservatives: Britain is struggling to cope with mountains of waste. We will introduce a new approach, one which minimises waste and promotes recycling. A Conservative government will introduce a Responsibility Deal on waste – a voluntary arrangement among producers to cut back on the production of waste and improve its disposal. We will put a floor under landfill tax until 2020 to give businesses long term certainty to invest in new forms of waste disposal and we will encourage councils to adopt a scheme which gives incentives to families that recycle."
The Liberal Democrats: No waste policy, but they do have an interesting policy paper on the Liberal Democrat domestic responses to globalisation.
It will be a brave politician who starts to discuss waste and consumption properly, holistically, at this election. Because they know and we all know, that we must reduce our consumption massively in order to start living within our means and the means of planet earth. At the moment the citizens of Kingston upon Thames, and most of the UK where I live are responsible for using three planets worth of resources to feed our consumer lifestyle. Only those people living close to poverty with meagre incomes, are living within the One Planet Living (www.oneplanetliving.org).
There are no realistic alternatives to this reduction of purchasing when it comes to sustainability. We need to learn to live within our means. One way or another.
Om shanti!
From the 394 councils in England whose data was taken from Defras Municipal Waste Statistics 2008/9 the top recycler was Staffordshire Moorlands District Council with a staggering 61.58% of all waste recycled and Cotswold District Council close on their heels with 60.83%.
My own council, Kingston upon Thames, the smallest of the Greater London boroughs, came in at number 214 with a "could-do-better" 35.36%. This is despite the introduction of fortnightly waste collections and weekly doorstep recycling collections including compost. If this hadn't been promoted they might have ended up as LB Newham with an abysmal 15.40% and at the very bottom of the league tables.
A step in the right direction for Kingston, but research has highlighted that the recent economic slump is the biggest single factor when it comes to the reduction in our rubbish amounts.
The recession has changed peoples shopping habits. This single act has measurably reduced our rubbish and according to Dr Adam Read, waste management specialist, councils should be re-enforcing positive behaviours now, before we try to shop till we drop again.
In last months Journal for Waste & Resource Management Professionals, the industry feebly attempted to plead innocence when it came to the environmental impacts of packaging and the cost and effect on councils. Jane Bickerstaffe, INCPEN Director, reminds us of course that the product has to be delivered safely, undamaged and with "an ever increasing amount of information". Fair enough so far. She goes on to remind us that there are areas "where there is no room for change" since "enormous reductions have already been made over the last 30 years."
But the job of the packaging industry is to sell the product to the buyer, and when that product is of high value it normally includes high value packaging. High value packaging means more rubbish. Waste that is complex, involving layers of plastics and papers can be more difficult to open and recycle. But the more the seller can make the product look expensive and of high value, the more likely the buyer will be to purchase the product.
That is the job of packaging. That is the job of advertising, media, marketing and promotion. The dilemma is that there is no longer a hiding place from the effects of waste on costs, pollution, industry.
Has it really taken Jane Bickerstaffe 20 years to work out that local councils waste management pays for and sorts out all the mess at the end? She admits now that "Councils cannot dictate what shoppers buy but, because they are responsible for collecting and dealing with discarded materials, they need to minimise both goods and packaging and to optimise the potential for recycling to help them reach their landfill diversion targets."
But other than wanting to talk now with councils, she doesn't fully accept responsibility for her industries actions. The achievements of the last 30 years, and those hard won campaigns including the Waste Minimisation Act, championed by Women's Environmental Network (www.wen.org) some years ago, challenged at a fundamental level the work of INCPEN and others. But the public have paid, through local taxes, as their waste has risen, the cost has risen.
Billions of pounds spent sorting and dealing with what I believe to be unnecessary waste, created by a blinkered industry. The Polluter Pays Principle has never been more pertinent and important and government centrally has to take centre stage. Local authorities
The manufacturing, consumer and packaging industry has spent the last thirty years creating a consumer society that is itself blinkered, shopping not thinking and having no say whatever on the product or process other than to be rewarded for purchasing in increasing amounts: free gifts; two-for-one; re-purchasing vouchers; free memberships; loyalty cards; free credit.
Don't forget that the packaging industry is a carbon polluter and accounts for at least 6% of our nations energy use.
The Polluter Pays Principle needs to be discussed carefully and fairly but it should alongside agreements on fair trade, sustainability indexes, carbon, water and energy use and waste minimisation in order to achieve One Planet Living, as defined by the Surrey based BioRegional Development Group. The entire production loop must be closed, cleaned and sustainable, and paid for and that means everthing.
Their policy is clear - Zero Waste
"Waste from discarded products and packaging creates disposal problems and squanders valuable resources" They also join up the dots regarding fair trade and equality with ten excellent principles for one planet living.
This is still a huge conversation for the likes of INCPEN who are unlikely to act in anything other than self interest, as they have for years already. Any legally binding solution will probably have to be forced on industry by central government in order to have a powerful tax and cost benefit for local authorities.
OK, here is the political parties response to this issue, or what they relate on their websites:-
The Labour Party:
"We believe that the green agenda is fundamentally rooted in Labour values. Labour’s environment, energy and climate change policies are about securing fairness, creating jobs and building strong communities as well as tackling carbon emissions and improving the quality of life. By taking the action we need to tackle climate change and reduce waste we can drive economic growth, make Britain more energy independent, and make it easier for people to live in greener ways." The Conservatives: Britain is struggling to cope with mountains of waste. We will introduce a new approach, one which minimises waste and promotes recycling. A Conservative government will introduce a Responsibility Deal on waste – a voluntary arrangement among producers to cut back on the production of waste and improve its disposal. We will put a floor under landfill tax until 2020 to give businesses long term certainty to invest in new forms of waste disposal and we will encourage councils to adopt a scheme which gives incentives to families that recycle."
The Liberal Democrats: No waste policy, but they do have an interesting policy paper on the Liberal Democrat domestic responses to globalisation.
"Globalisation has brought enormous benefits to the UK, but we also recognise its challenges: from an unbalanced economy over-reliant on particular industries, for example, or to regions suffering from foreign competition, or to communities facing a sudden influx of migrant labour. Unless government develops effective solutions to these challenges, many people may come to see globalisation as a threat, rather than the opportunity that it should be – particularly in the midst of a major recession.
The below policy paper therefore sets out the Liberal Democrat response to the impact of globalisation on the British economy and society.
Our key proposals are:
- Working to make the UK economy competitive and well placed to respond to the challenges of globalisation, ensuring that the UK workforce is as skilled, innovative and adaptable as possible, and promoting greater diversification of the economy.
- Welcoming and managing immigration, and protecting the wages and employment conditions of migrant (and non-migrant) labour.
- Ensuring that moves towards environmental sustainability are not achieved simply by exporting polluting industries offshore."
The Green Party:
- Adopt a Zero Waste strategy, to minimise waste and maximise recycling.
- Ensure all households get comprehensive weekly doorstep recycling and compost collections.
- Introduce a law banning new waste incinerators and setting the earliest practicable date for phasing out any existing incinerators.
- Invest in new sustainable waste technology to create renewable energy.
- Support the recycling industry and create new green jobs.
- Eliminate the use of free, throwaway carrier bags.
- Promote business recycling.
- Implement a law requiring local authorities to set and meet targets towards zero waste.
There are many economic advantages of a zero waste strategy and recycling. It is not just environmental organisations and waste swamped local authorities that are adopting zero waste strategies, many authorities are beginning to realise the benefits as well. Businesses of all sizes have used Zero Waste to improve productivity and increase profits.
Reusing waste is usually better than recycling, in terms of conserving energy and avoiding pollution, but can also generate economic benefits such as a creation of more jobs.
Recycling is a huge economic benefit as it saves lots of money. Taxes on landfill sites are rising continuously in order to reflect the scarcity of the land."
It will be a brave politician who starts to discuss waste and consumption properly, holistically, at this election. Because they know and we all know, that we must reduce our consumption massively in order to start living within our means and the means of planet earth. At the moment the citizens of Kingston upon Thames, and most of the UK where I live are responsible for using three planets worth of resources to feed our consumer lifestyle. Only those people living close to poverty with meagre incomes, are living within the One Planet Living (www.oneplanetliving.org).
There are no realistic alternatives to this reduction of purchasing when it comes to sustainability. We need to learn to live within our means. One way or another.
Om shanti!
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
Greedy Econmics
The General Election has been called and I couldn't be more depressed about politics in the UK. There is an agreement that the country, no the world, is in a mess.
The economics of profit - a powerful, cleverly disguised legitimisation of greed, rules around the world. The majority of business decisions are made for the purpose of acquiring and concentrating profits. That's what drives most of our society, to get rich.
An economic policy that centres around profit at all costs, has a karmic return. Global unrest, millions of people out of work, and a mistrust of business is the rebalancing. Unfortunately I think this is just the start. UK business leaders pay themselves tens of millions of pounds and moan that a 1% National Insurance increase will destroy them. I can't help thinking that they protest too much.
Businesses have destroyed and polluted the planet, used its natural resources, expecting profit, profit, profit. Business has shaped the world, and politics has allowed their greed to become the dominant paradigm.
I want politics to discuss real alternatives to profit at the heart of our society. Our future depends on us waking up and replacing greed with a moral and spiritual imperative. Only then can we address our environmental emergency and get on with the job of living a fulfilling and sustainable life as global citizens.
The economics of profit - a powerful, cleverly disguised legitimisation of greed, rules around the world. The majority of business decisions are made for the purpose of acquiring and concentrating profits. That's what drives most of our society, to get rich.
An economic policy that centres around profit at all costs, has a karmic return. Global unrest, millions of people out of work, and a mistrust of business is the rebalancing. Unfortunately I think this is just the start. UK business leaders pay themselves tens of millions of pounds and moan that a 1% National Insurance increase will destroy them. I can't help thinking that they protest too much.
Businesses have destroyed and polluted the planet, used its natural resources, expecting profit, profit, profit. Business has shaped the world, and politics has allowed their greed to become the dominant paradigm.
I want politics to discuss real alternatives to profit at the heart of our society. Our future depends on us waking up and replacing greed with a moral and spiritual imperative. Only then can we address our environmental emergency and get on with the job of living a fulfilling and sustainable life as global citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
