Cambridgeshire guided bus scheme given money by central government (permanent blog link)
The Cambridge Evening News says:
The Government has agreed to fund Cambridgeshire's 21st Century guided bus scheme with a £92.5 million grant.
The Department for Transport will hand over the cash to get the project up and running.
And developers building homes which will be served by the buses are being asked to stump up the remaining £23.7 million, making a total of £116.2 million.
Passengers could be hopping aboard the futuristic network, the longest of its kind in the world, by the end of 2008.
...
Bob Menzies, head of delivery for the project, told the News: "It's great news. It means we can now push ahead, and we expect that construction will start at the beginning of next year."
...
In 2002, the estimate was £73 million, but this had increased to £86 million just 18 months later.The overall price tag now, £116.2 million, is the result of general inflation and rising construction costs, Mr Menzies said. "In addition, we have added to the original scheme to make it more efficient and more environmentfriendly," he said.
...
Mr Menzies added: "It's important for people to realise that the money we are getting from the Government is a 100 per cent grant.With the additional money that developers will be contributing, it means that none of the costs will be coming out of people's Council Tax.
...
THE County Council says the guided bus passenger figures could be as high as 20,000 a day within eight years of it starting.
Time will tell whether this is a complete white elephant or not. In particular, the upfront costs (equating to 6000 pounds per the alleged daily passenger total) are being completely subsidised, and the question is whether the operational costs will also be subsidised. Menzies is being disingenous in claiming that "none of the costs will be coming out of people's Council Tax", since the fact that a large chunk of the money is coming from developers means less money from them for other projects, which means (potentially) higher council tax, even ignoring that the council tax payer might have to subsidise the operational costs. And the old railway line is currently a wildlife haven (since it is completely neglected) so the guided bus will wreck that. If the A14 was properly widened (which allegedly some day it will be) then having this alternate parallel route, which only one mode of transport can use, is not a brilliant concept.
Cycling pressure group whines that not enough money is going to cycling (permanent blog link)
The Cambridge Evening News says:
THE Government is pledging an extra £15 million for cycling facilities in the UK but Cambridge campaigners say it is not enough.
Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander announced the extra cash will be spent over the next three years on the Cycling England initiative.
He is promising the money as part of a drive to encourage schoolchildren to get on their bike, but the Cambridge Cycling Campaign says the money is just a drop in the ocean.
James Woodburn, for the campaign, said: "We welcome this as a step in the right direction, but we think it is far too little.
"The amount spent on cycling locally and nationally is very small, and tiny in comparison to Holland, Denmark and north Germany. If we are to get serious we need to spend much more.
"We need to invest a proper amount in facilities if we are going to boost cycling in the way that is happening abroad."
...
The Cambridge Cycling Campaign promotes cycling in and around Cambridge and campaigns for the rights of cyclists.Mr Woodburn said: "At the moment 0.6 per cent of the road budget is spent on cycling facilities and that is a far, far too small amount.
"The £15 million isn't going to make many cycling improvements."
Well cyclists contribute 0 percent to the annual road tax, so the fact that (allegedly) 0.6 percent is spent on cycling facilities already means they are being over-subsidised by motorists. Of course the Cambridge Cycling Campaign is just like any other special interest pressure group. They think that their special interest should indeed be subsidised by the rest of the country. And the reason most people do not cycle has nothing to do with the alleged lack of cycle facilities. It is all about distance and comfort.
Sustainable Development commission produces more hot air (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Nuclear power alone cannot solve the UK's energy inefficiencies, the government's environment advisers warn.
An energy review, due next month, is expected to call for additional nuclear power stations to be built as replacements for older plants.
The Sustainable Development Commission said the nuclear option "won't get us anywhere near tackling the UK's energy and climate change crisis".
Its chairman called for more efficient homes and less wasted power.
"The government has been so busy trying to make the case for nuclear power it risks overlooking the much bigger challenges facing the UK today," Jonathan Porritt said.
"Even if the UK's nuclear capacity is doubled, that would still leave 84% of total energy consumption unaccounted for."
The commission recommended the country's "wasteful electricity network" be upgraded, with a greater emphasis on local power grids to reduce the proportion of supplies which were lost before reaching households.
It also suggested "smart energy meters" and "sensible billing", with the intention that less energy was sold in the future.
It said the annual road tax should be reconsidered to penalise transport users with the least environmentally-friendly vehicles, and for "radical" building standards so new houses no longer need heating by 2010.
"Even if nuclear gets the 'green light'," Mr Porritt said, "it won't get us anywhere near tackling the UK's energy and climate change crises, hence the crucial importance of getting it right on efficiency, renewables, heat and microgeneration."
The Sustainable Development Commission is just another useless quango which should be disbanded. Nobody ever claimed that nuclear power was the solution to all of the energy problems of the UK. Nothing is, including the alternatives that Porritt mentions. A complex problem requires complex solutions, not hand waving by a bunch of worthies. And does anyone seriously think that building standards can be changed so that "new houses no longer need heating by 2010"? And petrol tax, not road tax, is the tax which should (and does) "penalise transport users with the least environmentally-friendly vehicles". A bit sad that this is the best these people can come up with. We need technocrats, not babblecrats.
Efficient lighting systems could greatly reduce carbon emissions (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
A global switch to efficient lighting systems would trim the world's electricity bill by nearly one-tenth.
That is the conclusion of a study from the International Energy Agency (IEA), which it says is the first global survey of lighting uses and costs.
The carbon dioxide emissions saved by such a switch would, it concludes, dwarf cuts so far achieved by adopting wind and solar power.
Better building regulations would boost uptake of efficient lighting, it says.
"Lighting is a major source of electricity consumption," said Paul Waide, a senior policy analyst with the IEA and one of the report's authors.
"19% of global electricity generation is taken for lighting - that's more than is produced by hydro or nuclear stations, and about the same that's produced from natural gas," he told the BBC News website.
The carbon dioxide produced by generating all of this electricity amounts to 70% of global emissions from passenger vehicles, and is three times more than emissions from aviation, the IEA says.
Some interesting statistics. Of course no mention is made of the cost of the proposed switch to more efficient lighting systems. This cost represents an upfront (direct and indirect) consumption of energy, so it should not be ignored. With economies of scale it might be reduced to an insignificant level. In any case it ought to be offset in the long run by the reduced operational consumption of energy. And as well as more efficient lights we ought to have more intelligent light usage, in particular not leaving the lights on in office buildings over night (this can be accomplished either via control systems or via human intervention, but the latter can be tricky because it's not always obvious if you are the last person at work). (Of course city skylines at night look good exactly because so many lights are left on.)
US Supreme Court rules against Bush over Guantanamo (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Bush administration does not have the authority to try terrorism suspects by military tribunal.
In a landmark decision, justices upheld the challenge by Osama Bin Laden's ex-driver to his trial at Guantanamo.
The court's ruling that the proceedings violated Geneva Conventions is seen as a major blow to the administration.
President George W Bush said he would respect the decision but also protect the American people from "killers".
The Cuba-based facility currently holds about 460 inmates, mostly without charge, whom the US suspects of links to al-Qaeda or the Taleban.
Osama Bin Laden's ex-driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, is one of 10 Guantanamo inmates facing a military tribunal.
He launched the proceedings demanding to be tried by a civilian tribunal or court martial, where the prosecution would face more obstacles.
In its ruling, the court said: "We conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate" agreements on prisoners of war, as well as US military rules.
The ruling does not demand the release of prisoners held at Guantanamo but gives the administration an opportunity to come up with another way of trying those held.
The BBC's Nick Miles in Washington says the implications of the decision are profound, as the tribunals already in place will now be ended and 60 others planned will not go ahead.
Five of the nine justices of the US Supreme Court supported the ruling. Three voted against.
Chief Justice John Roberts did not vote because he had judged the case at an earlier stage before joining the Supreme Court.
One small victory for the world against the continual extreme abuse of power by the Bush administration.
Court rules against the government's "control orders" (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
A key plank of the government's policy to combat terrorism has been thrown out by the High Court.
A senior judge has ruled that control orders made against six men are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
They are imposed on people suspected of terrorism but where there is not enough evidence to go to court.
Under the orders, suspects can be tagged, confined to their homes, and banned from communicating with others.
Home secretary In April, the same judge, Mr Justice Sullivan, ruled against the Act under which control orders are made, saying that those subjected to them had not received a fair hearing.
He said control orders were incompatible with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which outlaws indefinite detention without trial.
He said it followed that the home secretary did not have the power to make the orders, "and they must therefore all be quashed".
Appeals against both judgements are expected to be heard next Monday.
The six men, thought to be a Briton and five Iraqis, will remain subject to the restrictions until then.
The government's terror law adviser, Lord Carlile, said the government would "undoubtedly" appeal the ruling.
No doubt Blair and the current Home Secretary Reid will throw a temper tantrum over this. How dare the courts try and restrain them from their dictatorial powers. Alas the (generally weak) courts are the only protection the citizens of Britain have against this dreadful government.
Government gives itself powers to steal houses from private owners (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Property owners who leave their homes unoccupied for more than six months could from 6 July have them taken over by their local council to rent out for social housing.
The Empty Dwelling Management Order was introduced as part of the 2004 Housing Act.
Any council which wants to take over a property must go first to the Residential Property Tribunal Service for a ruling.
The tribunal will weigh up the interests of the owners and the benefit renting it out would bring, before coming to a decision.
Many properties will be exempt, for example those where someone has gone temporarily abroad or is in hospital; where it's a holiday home, or within six months of probate being granted where the home owner has died.
If none of these exemptions apply and the tribunal rules in favour of the council, it could take control of the property for seven years.
The owner would receive the rental minus the council's costs and benefit from any repairs when they retake control.
Siobhan McGrath, senior president for the Residential Property Tribunal Service explained the criteria for granting an order: "We have to be satisfied that the dwelling has been unoccupied for six months.
"The local authority has to give details of the efforts they've made to notify the relevant proprietor that they are considering making an EDMO."
Councils already have strong powers to deal with properties which represent a hazard through Compulsory Purchase Orders.
The Empty Dwelling Management Orders will target properties generally in a better condition.
Another difference is owners will have to justify what they intend to do with an empty property after a relatively short time.
Henry Stuart, head of property at the City law firm Withers, said these new powers represent a significant change in the law: "It introduces the concept that property should be used and if it isn't that the local authority has a say in bringing it back into use. That is a new departure."
Out and out theft by the State. The payment of "rental minus the council's costs" and the alleged "benefit from any repairs" is a joke. The council will rack up costs, and by the time the house has been completely trashed by the council tenants the owner will almost certainly be left seriously out of pocket. And six months is nothing. It can take that long to sell a house. Perhaps the government should sort out its own appalling housing record (including long-term empty houses) before engaging in this blatant form of theft.
Germany allegedly to set lax carbon emission targets (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
The German government is about to trigger a new crisis in Europe's flagship climate policy, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
BBC News understands the German cabinet is likely to agree a deal that will reduce carbon emissions from industry by only 0.6% between 2004 and 2012.
The decision is likely to influence other EU countries, including the UK, which still have to set their own caps.
Environmental groups describe the target as "pathetic and shameful".
...
The news will offer comfort to US climate sceptics who predicted that Europe would talk big on climate change but fail to impose large carbon cuts on its own industries.
There is something wrong with an emissions trading scheme where governments can arbitrarily decide what the targets are from year to year. Of course it is also economically suicidal for Europe to reduce carbon emissions if the rest of the industrialised world does not do the same.
Three bankers to be extradited to America with no evidence (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Three British bankers wanted in the US over the Enron scandal have failed in their final attempt to appeal against their extradition.
The European Court of Human Rights has rejected the request to postpone the extradition of the three former bankers from NatWest.
David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Darby are likely to be flown to the US by mid-July.
The men have said they are innocent and should be tried by a UK jury.
The decision came after the House of Lords decided last week to throw out the three men's request to appeal against an earlier court decision which had made it possible for the men to face trial in the US.
The men are now expected to be tried in Houston, Texas - the home of the bankrupt energy giant Enron, which collapsed in 2001 after admitting inflating profits and hiding debts.
Mr Bermingham of Goring in Oxfordshire, Mr Mulgrew, of Sible Hedingham in Essex, and Mr Darby, of Lower South Wraxall in Wiltshire, have been accused of seven counts of "wire fraud" by the US.
The three men are alleged to have conspired with former Enron executives over the sale of part of the company in 2000, earning them a total of $7.3m (£4m).
The case has prompted criticism over extradition laws that do not require the US to provide "prima facie" or solid evidence of wrongdoing to extradite a UK citizen.
Britain however must still provide the US with evidence of "probable cause" if it wishes to extradite someone from the US.
The extradition has been possible under the UK's 2003 Extradition Act, which was established in the wake of the 11 September attacks in 2001, to accelerate the extradition of terror suspects.
One of the many dreadful legacies of the Tony Blair regime. They use terror laws to stop 80-year olds heckling at Labour Party conferences and to extradite bankers to America based on charges backed up with no evidence. Who needs terrorists when you have Tony Blair wrecking havoc upon the country.
The countryside allegedly prospers if superstores not allowed (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Shops, employment and the countryside in England all flourish if plans for superstores are refused, a report says.
The findings by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and the Plunkett Foundation are based on the area around Saxmundham in East Suffolk.
Planning permission for an outside town superstore there was refused in 1997.
The report found greengrocers, butchers and bakers have since prospered but a retailers' organisation cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions.
The British Retail Consortium, which represents stores of all sizes, said consumers are influenced by a range of factors.
"We are delighted that these shops seem to be thriving, but the link between this and the rejection of planning permission is far from clear," a spokesman said.
The report's authors argue the benefits of rejecting the supermarket included small stores doing well, an increase in farm shops and markets, more firms adding choice and value and local stores helping to keep communities alive.
It also ensured local countryside was well managed and served the community.
In the area around Saxmundham, the number of food suppliers rose from 300, in 1997, to 370.
And the number of shops - 81 - had remained constant, bucking the national trend.
Another piece of completely misleading "research". Even assuming their figures are accurate, they prove nothing, because they have not controlled for the zillion and one other possible factors, and they use an extremely narrow definition of what is (allegedly) good and what is (allegedly) bad. Of course the CPRE, like most of the comfortable middle class, hates big business, and that by itself makes the report suspect. On the local television news tonight they found plenty of people (not a random sample of course) in Saxmundham who did much of their shopping at the nearest Tescos (just one not located in Saxmundham itself). And it should be up to the people, not up to the comfortable middle class, whether or not they shop at Tescos (or any other superstore). The CPRE unfortunately is one organisation that does much harm to the countryside, because they try to preserve it as it was back in 1950, and unfortunately it is now the 21st century.
People allegedly willing to pay more for PCs containing fewer chemicals (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Consumers are willing to pay up to an extra £108 ($197) for a PC containing fewer chemicals, a survey has found.
People also feel manufacturers should take responsibility for the disposal of old machines, the research shows.
So-called e-waste is a growing global problem, with 30 million PCs being dumped each year in the US alone.
The study by Ipsos-Mori for Greenpeace coincides with an announcement by PC maker Dell to phase out a number of toxic chemicals in its products.
The nine-nation research found that UK computer users were willing to pay an extra £64 ($117), while people in China were prepared for spend up to £108 ($197) for a more environmentally sound PC.
Yet another meaningless survey, put out by a special interest pressure group to try and further their special interest. You can get any answer you want from a survey, you just slant the questions (see here for a good example).
Further, people are always willing to claim they are socially responsible in surveys because in fact it costs them nothing. Words are free. (Back in 1992, Labour won the UK general election according to surveys, and of course they did not.)
The fact that people in China were allegedly willing to pay almost twice as much extra as people in the UK is a good an indication as any that the people responding to this study were not a random sample. There are probably over a billion people in China who have never used computer and would be happy to have the opportunity to use one at any price.
And we have no indication in the article what it would actually cost to make a "more environmentally sound PC". Of course the sky could be the limit here, and no doubt Greenpeace would be happy if nobody (except themselves of course) had a PC. After all, PCs use electricity and therefore contribute to global warming, and we can't possibly have that.
The one sensible idea (not mentioned here) is that people should perhaps pay up-front for the later cost of disposal of their PCs. (Otherwise if there is a cost at disposal then many people would just dump their PCs somewhere random.) It should not really be manufacturers who "should take responsibility for the disposal of old machines". They are manufacturers, not waste disposal experts. Far better would be for PCs to have to be handed over at government-approved waste sites (and funded by the up-front waste disposal tax).
British public allegedly want longer shopping hours on Sunday (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
More than half of consumers want shops to open for longer on Sundays, research suggests.
The findings come from a YouGov poll carried out for the My Sunday My Choice campaign, which wants the Sunday trading laws to be deregulated.
The government is currently reviewing the restrictions on trading, which let shops open for six hours on a Sunday.
A rival campaign called Keep Sunday Special says it wants to see the day return to a family day of rest.
It's amazing how often the BBC gives publicity to surveys carried out on behalf of special interest pressure groups, with the surveys miraculously showing that the British public allegedly support the goals of the special interest pressure groups. Of course the result of this particular survey might be accurate, but the BBC should be a bit more critical about what it publishes.
Human activity has had negative impact on other species (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Human activity has had a devastating effect on coasts since Roman times, research suggests.
More than 90% of coastal life has declined and there is widespread degradation of water quality.
Scientists studied 12 estuarine and coastal regions in Europe, North America and Australia from the onset of human settlement until today.
Their findings, reported in Science, suggest that 20th Century conservation efforts have had only limited success.
A team from nine research centres in the US, Canada, Australia and Panama used archaeological, historical and ecological records to study the human footprint on coasts and estuaries over the past 2,500 years.
The group found that depletion of natural resources began during Roman times, then accelerated in Medieval times and in the wake of European settlement in North America and Australia.
Many of the biggest declines were seen from 1900 to 1950 and 1950 to 2000 as populations grew and industry boomed.
What a surprise, who would have thought this. And obviously (but no doubt this is another research project) the same holds for non-coastal areas. Any species as successful as homo sapiens is bound to have a negative impact on other species. We do not need scientists to figure that one out. (Of course the detailed analysis might provide some interesting facts.)
Lib Dem leaflet on "affordable" housing and car-sharing club (permanent blog link)
The latest Lib Dem propaganda drops through the letter box. Of course it is full of the usual Lib Dem boasting about how few Tory councillors there are in Cambridge (none, but who cares).
More seriously, some government inspector recently decided that a requirement for 50% "affordable" housing in new developments was too high, and that 40% was more reasonable. It seems the Lib Dems are unhappy about this. The current developments have 30% "affordable" housing as the target. Of course the higher you make the target the less likely is the development to happen in the first place (developers have to make a profit) and so pushing a high target is one way to prevent new housing being built.
A high target for "affordable" housing is also one way of making sure we are building the slums of tomorrow today. And "affordable" housing is mostly reserved for politically correct categories of workers (in particular, government workers). In Cambridge this is particularly insidious. There are many (in particular young) people who work for the university who cannot afford the extortionate housing prices in Cambridge, and these people are just as deserving of cheap housing as anyone else, but they will not get a look in. The answer, as always, is not to require silly targets but to ensure that enough (high quality) housing is built by making sure that enough development land is available, so that housing supply matches demand. Unfortunately the Lib Dem propaganda does not address any of the real issues, it just complains about the government inspector.
In the only other news in the leaflet, it is claimed that "a car-sharing club could be set up in north Arbury if enough residents are interested". Apparently there will be "a survey of residents living north of Roseford Road and west of Mere Way" about this. Well, why just that area? Who knows. But the Lib Dem councillor (Tim Ward) says "if car clubs seem popular then they might help to ease some of Cambridge's parking problems". That last point at least is not completely crackpot. However the number one problem in this part of Cambridge is not the quantity of parking, it is the quantity of traffic and the fact that the Lib Dem council is forever making it more and more difficult for people on this side of the Cam just to get into town (there are four river crossings and they have already closed one except tidally during rush hour, and are threatening to close another).
As it happens, the people behind the car-sharing club have also had an email circulated around the university. This said:
You may be aware that Cambridge City Council, Cambridgeshire County Council and South Cambridgeshire District Councils are working on a project to assess the scope of a potential car club in Cambridge City and the wider county. Carplus is conducting the research as the UK independent charity promoting a national network of car clubs and responsible car use.
Car clubs offer access to a vehicle when it is needed without the hassle of owning one. Cars are parked close to where people live and work and can be booked at short notice for periods as brief as thirty minutes.
There are significant benefits from a car club scheme including reductions in carbon dioxide and other vehicle emissions. They are useful for enhancing a work place travel plan and - when used by a business - can reduce the costs of maintaining a pool fleet or paying mileage allowances for private car use.
This email does not make any claims about easing Cambridge's "parking problems". It also does not make the obvious claim that car clubs might be socially useful, since it might give more people access to cars (and hence able to go where once they could not). Instead they opt for the claim that car clubs will lead to "reductions in carbon dioxide and other vehicle emissions". Is this true?
There are two groups of people who will use the car club. The first group are people who currently do not own cars (for whatever reason) but who will now use one (perhaps just occasionally). For this first group there will definitely be an increase in vehicle emissions.
The second group are people who currently own a car but will now get rid of it and instead use the car club. Although the email mentions that people who use the car club are avoiding "the hassle of owning" a car, it fails to mention the flip side that using the car club by itself is a big hassle. You have to book the car (none might be available), you have to get to the place where the car is, afterwards you have to get back. If this hassle factor is low enough then this second group of people will use cars just as much as they used to. But if this hassle factor is high enough (and it almost certainly will be) then this second group of people will use their cars less frequently, and hence emissions will be reduced.
So the claim in the email that vehicle emissions will be reduced means they are counting on the service being a hassle to use, and they are hoping that the reduction then provided by people from the second group outweighs the increase from people from the first group.
Recycling glass allegedly a net negative to the environment (permanent blog link)
The Financial Times says (subscription service):
Recycling some materials can do more harm than good to the environment, a report has found.
Recycling materials such as glass can consume more energy than disposing of them in landfill sites, thereby increasing the production of greenhouse gases, according to a report on the waste management business published this week by Grant Thornton, the accountancy firm.
The report is strongly critical of the government's recycling targets, which focus on increasing the amount of rubbish that is recycled by weight, rather than by any other measure.
This ignores the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, which are widely regarded as the most important environmental concern because of their contribution to climate change, and because of the government's obligation to reduce such emissions under the Kyoto protocol.
Nigel Mattravers, senior manager at Grant Thornton, said: "The UK's waste policy has not addressed the impact on carbon dioxide levels and climate change."
Grant Thornton found the government's target of recycling 60 per cent of glass would be achieved by encouraging the grinding of the product, in order to manufacture a substitute for the sand used for architectural and filtration purposes.
But it said: "This energy-intensive recycling process generates more carbon dioxide than if the glass was sent to landfill."
The glass could be turned into bottles instead but is not because the supply of new green glass outweighs demand. The report found that if more alcoholic beverages were bottled in the UK rather than abroad this would change the balance, and the remainder of the excess bottles could be shipped abroad for re-melting.
It concluded: "[The current adverse] outcomes occur because financial instruments and policy interventions have been designed to encourage tonnage diversion from landfill, regardless of the carbon dioxide implications."
Hmmm, Grant Thornton would not normally be considered to be experts on any of this, but the (largely middle class) pro-recycling fanatics never provide any sums to justify the alleged advantages of recycling, so at least here we have one study. And it would be nice if more (unbiased) people looked into this. In Cambridge there is a special recycling pick-up just for plastic bottles, which are then shipped to China, and it's hard to believe the net benefit to the planet is positive here, given how much fuel has to be consumed just picking the stuff up. Of course the middle class (including so-called environmentalists) love recycling (rather than waste) targets, because it means they can continue to create huge amounts of waste and still pretend they are "saving the world".
Blair thinks suspects should have no rights (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
There is a huge and growing gap between the criminal justice system and what the public expects from it, Tony Blair has said in a speech in Bristol.
In the wake of controversy over prison sentences, the prime minister said the rights of suspects must not "outweigh" those of the "law-abiding majority".
Tony Blair, the most dangerous man in Britain. Nobody would argue that the rights of the "law-abiding majority" should outweigh those of criminals, but only a complete nutter would claim they should outweigh those of suspects. Blair fails to remember the first lesson of the criminal justice system: you are innocent until proven guilty. Of course Blair wants to be dictator, where he can lock people up just because he thinks they ought to be locked up, and this speech is just another indication of that. The sooner we get rid of Blair the better.
Antarctica being invaded by foreign species (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Scientists are calling for action to prevent foreign species from taking hold in Antarctica and wrecking the continent's unique ecosystems.
Despite Antarctica's inhospitable environment, non-native species introduced by tourists, scientists and explorers are gaining a foothold.
Species can hitch a ride on ships and planes carrying visitors and supplies.
A paper on the matter tabled at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Edinburgh met with "good agreement".
"Antarctica has long been considered as an isolated continent with a harsh environment. So the general perception has been that we don't need to worry about non-native species. We know better now," Dr Gilbert, environmental manager at Antarctica New Zealand, told BBC News.
It's amazing anyone can say something like that, especially anyone who is a scientist. Plants and animals have been hitching rides with humans as long as humans have been migrating around the world, and you would have to be pretty naive to think anywhere was immune. Although the scientists will blame everyone else (especially the tourists) and no doubt will some day try and prevent anyone else from going to the Antarctic (there is nothing worse than allowing commoners to have access to such things), they themselves are a big part of the problem. Perhaps Antarctica should just be off limits to everyone, period.
White-tailed eagles getting killed by Norwegian wind farm (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Wind farm turbine blades are killing a key population of Europe's largest bird of prey, UK wildlife campaigners warn.
The RSPB says nine white-tailed eagles have been killed on the Smola islands off the Norwegian coast in 10 months, including all of last year's chicks.
Chick numbers at the species' former stronghold have plummeted since the wind farm was built, with breeding pairs at the site down from 19 to one.
Scientists fear wind farms planned elsewhere could also harm birds.
And there are fears Britain's small population of the birds could be adversely affected.
...
The RSPB says it supports renewable energy, including wind farms, as a way of tackling climate change, which it sees as the biggest threat to wildlife.But it is urging developers and governments to take the potential impact on wildlife such as eagles properly into consideration when planning new wind farms in future.
It was only a matter of time before this kind of story hit the headlines. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
MPs do not think much of current system of parking enforcement (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Parking enforcement is inconsistent, confused and a mess, MPs have said.
A Commons transport committee report branded it "absurd" that some parking offenders were dealt with by the police and others by local authorities.
And the committee's report said incentive regimes based on the number of tickets issued were "misguided".
The Conservatives said enforcement of fines was "over-zealous" in some areas. Transport minister Gillian Merron conceded the system could be fairer.
...
Responding to the report, Ms Merron called for a "more open, fairer system that the motorist knows how to use and how to work within".She said: "Parking enforcement should not be about raising money but in fact should be about keeping traffic moving."
We hardly need a group of MPs to tell us this. It's all just part of ripoff Britain. As everyone knows, the government is the biggest ripoff artist of them all.
Gordon Brown wants to waste more money on nuclear weapons (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Gordon Brown has signalled that he wants to keep and renew Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.
The Trident missile system and the Vanguard submarines which carry them need replacing by 2024 and a decision is set to be taken in the next year.
Estimates of the cost vary from £10bn to £25bn, depending on what type of new missiles or submarines are chosen.
Mr Brown's intervention has enraged critics, who say Trident has no use now the Soviet Cold War threat is over.
A complete and utter waste of money. But of course this "independent" nuclear deterrent is dependent on American technology, and the vast amount of money spent on it is really just the UK contributing to the global protection racket run by America.
More idiotic Cambridge transport planning (permanent blog link)
The Cambridge Evening News says:
Bikes, buses and feet are leading the way in plans for new transport links for the development of north-west Cambridge.
Consultants WS Atkins have begun working out how people will get around the new developments between Madingley Road and Huntingdon Road and how they will link in with plans for the NIAB site.
Ideas include a new orbital route to take pressure off Histon Road, Huntingdon Road and Madingley Road. This could be for cyclists and public transport only. North-facing slip roads at the M11/A1303 interchange are also being considered.
...
Coun Sian Reid, the city council's executive councillor for planning and transport, said: "We are looking at transport first and than we can go on to look at some of the other issues in the light of the transport questions which haven't been answered yet."The consultants said the thing to do is predict, promote and provide cycling, public transport and walking. We really want to manage the car. We're very much going to be focused towards what we can do to really facilitate public transport and cycling and try to tame the car a bit.
More stupidity from the Cambridge ruling elite. This alleged new orbital route is supposed to "take pressure off Histon Road, Huntingdon Road and Madingley Road". Of course it would do no such thing, because the "pressure" on those roads is due almost entirely to cars, and they are the one mode of transport that will be forbidden from this route. Indeed the traffic on all three roads is going to get worse, because they are building thousands of new homes with no increase in road capacity. Thank god for the geniuses who run Cambridge. Reid lives on Millington Road, which is the domain of millionaires, and that road seems to have no shortage of cars. But of course it's ok for the rich to have cars, it's just everyone else that should be forced not to have cars.
Catholic church wants abortion limit reduced (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
The head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales has reopened the abortion debate by urging the government to change the law.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor has called on ministers to lower the 24-week abortion limit at a private meeting at the Department of Health.
He wants a joint committee of both houses of parliament to review the 1967 Abortion Act.
The government said there were no plans to alter the regulations.
However, 31 MPs have signed a Commons motion calling for a review of the law.
The Catholic church is against abortion altogether, but would welcome a lowering of the 24-week limit as a start.
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor argues that technological advances mean the abortion laws are outdated.
Modern medicine can now ensure the survival of some foetuses born before 24 weeks gestation.
Of course the Catholic church "would welcome a lowering of the 24-week limit". It is just part of the game plan of anti-abortionists everywhere, chip away at the right until they make it as difficult as possible for anyone to get an abortion. One of the reasons late abortions happen in the UK is because you need to get approval by control freaks (i.e. doctors) in order to have one. So if the church is allegedly so concerned specifically about late abortions then they should perhaps campaign to make it easier to have an abortion in the first place.
UK beetles allegedly in danger of dying out (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Many species of beetles in the UK are in danger of dying out, a conservation charity has warned.
Buglife, which campaigns to protect endangered insects, says 250 of the UK's 4,000 species of beetle have not been seen since the 1970s.
The charity says it is vital for other animals that the variety of beetle-life is maintained, and "imperative" that action is taken now to protect them.
It warns that habitat decline means many species may already be extinct.
Conservationists say beetles play a unique and vital role in the planet's ecosystems, including burying the corpses of dead animals and pollinating flowers.
Substitute "beetle" with your favourite animal/plant and no doubt you could and would claim exactly the same. Name a single special interest pressure group (not just so-called conservation ones) which doesn't believe and claim that it is "imperative that action is taken now".
Residents of Horningsea and Fen Ditton do not want sewage works (permanent blog link)
The Cambridge Evening News says:
Residents are demanding that plans to relocate sewage works to greenbelt land are thrown out.
The group of residents from Horningsea and Fen Ditton are campaigning against Cambridgeshire County Council plans to relocate Milton sewage works to Honey Hill - a picturesque "green lung" tucked behind Horningsea.
...
The sewage works in Milton are within an area known as the northern fringe - an area earmarked for regeneration to meet Government-imposed housing quotas.The Local Plan has made provision for the construction of 2,300 homes in the area - 600 of which would be built on the current sewage works in Milton.
...
Anglian Water said it would cost £130-£160 million to relocate the sewage works.
What a surprise. The NIMBYs of Cambridge want the sewage works moved from their backyard and the NIMBYs of Horningsea and Fen Ditton do not want it moved to their backyard. And you have to have entire sympathy with the latter. Why should they have their lives blighted (with no recompense) so that the rich residents of Cambridge can dump their sewage on someone else. And the estimated cost equates to around a thousand pounds for every resident of Cambridge. Obviously they expect someone else to pick up the bill (most likely the new residents of that area of Cambridge), but how many people in Cambridge would be willing to pay a thousand pounds in order for this move to happen? Hardly any, perhaps the few who would directly benefit through increased house prices.
IVF allegedly good for the UK economy (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
The cost of funding IVF treatment is vastly outweighed by the economic contribution the resulting child can make, according to experts.
UK researchers calculated that, while it costs £13,000 to create a baby using IVF, each child contributes £147,000 in taxes and insurance to the UK economy.
They argue the data gives weight to the argument that the NHS should fund three cycles of IVF, as clinicians recommend.
That would result in 10,000 more IVF babies over two to three years.
...
Researchers from the independent think-tank Rand Europe, said assisted reproduction should be used as a way of boosting the population.At the moment, migration is often relied on as a way of bolstering populations, but the researchers say this simply delays the costs of looking after people in their old age.
Professor Ledger said: "Funding infertility treatment is not just a benefit for the family, but also for society.
"It is a false economy not to fund it."
A bizarre argument. We might as well instead allow in millions of migrants every year, since they are all going to give a great boost to the economy without requiring this upfront cost. The fundamental problem contradicting this brilliant research is that there are far too many people on the planet and encouraging people to have children is irresponsible beyond belief. Every new child means another lifetime of environmental degradation. The alleged economic boost is a small part of the global picture.
Environmental impact of rural and urban life (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Apart from a few lower members of the animal kingdom, no-one other than human beings build cities.
They are totally artificial constructs and in them we live artificial lives. We travel differently, eat different food, receive water and energy through pipes and wires, live in different kinds of buildings, do different jobs.
All of these things come with an environmental price-tag. Given that the world's urban population is expanding at such a rate, it is worth asking what are the numbers on that price-tag, and whether they are higher or lower than the environmental cost of living a rural life.
Does a person produce more or less carbon dioxide on moving from the countryside to the city? If the answer is "less", how should that be offset against a bigger contribution to urban smog? Is trash piling up on a street corner better or worse than excess fertiliser running from farmland into the water supply?
How far does a city's environmental footprint extend beyond its boundaries - to the natural resources which feed it with water and food, or to the other side of the planet which feels its greenhouse gas emissions?
There is no simple answer.
Of course there is no simple answer because it is looking at the wrong question. To calculate your environmental impact on the planet it does not matter so much where you live as how much you earn (since that determines how much energy you can consume directly and indirectly), and secondarily whether you have children (since they continue your environmental impact potentially out to infinity).
Soft focus rhetoric from Cameron on the family (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Conservative leader David Cameron is to encourage fathers to be there for the "magic moment" of their child's birth.
Mr Cameron, 39, will say in a speech on Tuesday that childbirth can be a key bonding moment or a "missed opportunity which leaves a couple drifting apart".
He will propose a policy review group looks at how to help new parents.
Mr Cameron will also reportedly say gay partners who have had a civil ceremony should enjoy the same tax breaks as heterosexual married couples.
Mr Cameron, a father of three, will say "making sure both parents are really engaged at the moment of birth is therefore important".
"Our policy review will be looking to learn lessons from successful projects around the world addressing this specific aspect of the couple relationship," he will tell the National Parenting Institute.
One option might include "family relationship centres", like those seen in Australia, which offer support for couples.
According to previews of the speech Mr Cameron, who told the Sunday Times that his family was more important to him than being prime minister, will also warn against trying to force people into conventional lifestyles.
Dear, oh dear, fathers being at the birth of their children as the solution to all social problems on the planet. Does anybody in the Tory party believe this stuff?
Of course if he was really against "trying to force people into conventional lifestyles" then he would be taking all tax breaks (in particular with regard to capital gains and inheritance tax) away from married people instead of giving them in addition to gays in civil partnerships. Why should any of these people be given tax breaks, are they somehow morally superior to the rest of the country? (No, they are just in the majority so think that the minority should subsidise their lifestyle.)
Norway starts work on new global seed bank (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Norway is starting construction on a "doomsday vault" in the Arctic which is designed to house all known varieties of the world's crops.
Dug into a frozen mountainside on the island of Svalbard, it is hoped the project will safeguard crop diversity in the event of a global catastrophe.
More than 100 countries have backed the vault, which will store seeds, packaged in foil, at sub-zero temperatures.
...
Norway's Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg told the Norwegian news agency NTB: "The vault is of international importance. It will be the only one of its kind; all the other gene banks are of a commercial nature."
...
At temperatures of minus 18C (minus 0.4F), the seeds could last hundreds, even thousands, of years. Even if all cooling systems failed, explained Mr Riis-Johansen, the temperature in the frozen mountain would never rise above freezing due to the permafrost on the mountainside.The Global Crop Diversity Trust, founded in 2004, will help run the vault, which is planned to open and start accepting seeds from around the world in September 2007. The bank is eventually expected to house some three million seeds.
...
While Norway will own the vault itself, countries sending seeds will own the material they deposit - much as with a bank safe-deposit box. The Global Crop Diversity Trust will help developing countries pay the cost of preparing and sending seeds.
Norway does something useful for the world. Ideally it will not be needed (often) for the intended purpose, but it should also allow researchers in future to compare seeds from different eras.
Butterfly species created in the lab from two other species (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Two butterfly species have been bred in the lab to make a third distinct species, the journal Nature reports.
In a species, individuals need to be capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring.
The study demonstrates that two animal species can evolve to form one, instead of the more common scenario where one species diverges to form two.
...
Hybrid speciation is thought to be rare or absent in animals where, it has been argued, hybrid offspring would be less likely to survive and breed than the parent species.This is because genes from different species are sometimes "incompatible".
A well known example is the mule - a sterile hybrid between the donkey and the horse. It is useful for carrying heavy loads but is a reproductive dead-end.
A team of researchers from Panama, Colombia and the UK managed to recreate Heliconius heurippa in the laboratory by crossing two other species of butterfly; Heliconius cydno and Heliconius melpomene.
...
The wing patterns of H. heurippa individuals make them undesirable as mates for members of their parent species, but attractive to each other - reinforcing patterns of mating that lead to a new species.
Interesting, and the last paragraph provides a plausible explanation of how this kind of speciation can occur.
Australia to present "proof" that whaling is cruel (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Australia is to present what it says is proof that Japan's scientific whaling programme is cruel to the meeting of the International Whaling Commission.
Environmentalists who filmed Japanese boats whaling in the Antarctic say that some animals took 30 minutes to die; Japan says these cases are exceptions.
Caribbean nations have criticised the West for a "colonial" attitude.
...
The footage has now been analysed by scientists working with another conservation group, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw)."We found that for one whale the time to death was over half an hour, we found that the average time to death was 10 minutes," said Ifaw's Vassili Papastavrou, "and in two out of the 16 occasions, asphyxiation was the likely form of death."
The whales were asphyxiated, he said, because harpoons entered their bodies near the tail and the animals were held upside down in the water.
"Back in the 1950s it was recognised that whaling was inhumane, and really nothing very much has changed since then," Mr Papastavrou told BBC News.
...
Australia's environment minister Ian Campbell described the footage as "absolutely inhumane and quite disgusting."It is a horrendous thing ... it is absolutely abysmal, it is wrong and it has to stop," he told reporters.
Japan's deputy whaling commissioner Joji Morishita countered by pinpointing Australia's annual cull of millions of kangaroos.
"I just wonder if the minister knows how long it will take for kangaroos to die in his country?" he said.
Ifaw is correct that "nothing very much has changed" since the 1950s on this score, so this "proof" is nothing new. And as the Japanese whaling commissioner pointed out, Australia, and all the other anti-whaling nations, also commit their fair share of cruel behaviour, so this is all pantomime rather than a serious debate.
Van Gogh and Britain: Pioneer Collectors (permanent blog link)
The Compton Verney gallery in Warwickshire is just finishing an exhibition about the "Pioneer Collectors" of Van Gogh in Britain. (It now moves to Edinburgh, where it will be at the Dean Gallery from 7 July to 24 September 2006.) Getting to Compton Verney involves driving via pleasant enough back roads you would not otherwise visit. The gallery is located in a typical 18th century mansion (by Robert Adam) on an estate consisting of 120 acres of rolling countryside with grounds and a large lake designed by Capability Brown. The interior of the mansion is in typical gallery style, with few original features left (at least on show).
Being located in the middle of nowhere, you do not get the crush you would have had at an equivalent exhibition in London. Of course on the last weekend, with good weather, it was busier than it would have been earlier on in the exhibition. But even so most people were just showing up and getting tickets for almost immediate entry. And unlike London mega-exhibitions, where entry is usually timed to 10 minutes these days, here they gave you a window of an hour. And people were not stacked three deep trying to see the paintings.
There were fewer than three dozen works of art in the exhibition, but even so, with Van Gogh you cannot really go wrong. As well as showing works of art, the exhibition also documented the history of the few British collectors who bought (and sold) the works. You have to pity the descendents of the people who sold works by Van Gogh before he became the world's favourite painter. Talk about losing out both on an investment and on great art.
The main point of going to these kinds of exhibitions is to see work one might not otherwise ever get to see. Most of the works on display are in British museums, but there was a wonderful head of a man now in a museum in Melbourne, Australia, and a few other paintings from American museums.
Bill Gates stepping aside (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Bill Gates has announced he will end his day-to-day role as head of software giant Microsoft by July 2008.
Mr Gates said the move would allow him to spend more time on health and education work at his charity, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
The beginning of the end of Microsoft, and none too soon. And who would want to work for Microsoft patching millions of lines of rubbish code when there is much more interesting work around the corner at Google (already at half the market capitalisation of Microsoft).
World's oceans allegedly in trouble (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Urgent action is needed to protect the world's oceans from human exploitation, according to conservationists.
They say over-fishing, pollution and climate change are pushing marine areas to the point of no return.
The warning comes from the United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) and World Conservation Union (IUCN).
In a report launched on Friday in New York, they are calling for new marine protected areas to be set up in deep seas and open oceans.
Yet another end-of-the-world report, and perhaps all true, but has there been any time in the last twenty or thirty years where the so-called conservationists haven't said the same thing? Of course if you repeat a scare story often enough then sooner or later some disaster you predict will come true. The fundamental problem (which most so-called environmentalists ignore) is that there are too many humans on the planet, and none of them are volunteering to leave. More seriously, there is the issue of policing marine reserves in open ocean. Are we going to get a UN navy or does the UN expect individual countries to take it upon themselves to police reserves as they see fit?
Artic sea level allegedly falling (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Arctic sea level has been falling by a little over 2mm a year - a movement that sets the region against the global trend of rising waters.
A Dutch-UK team made the discovery after analysing radar altimetry data gathered by Europe's ERS-2 satellite.
It is well known that the world's oceans do not share a uniform height; but even so, the scientists are somewhat puzzled by their results.
Global sea level is expected to keep on climbing as the Earth's climate warms.
To find the Arctic out of step, even temporarily, emphasises the great need for more research in the region, the team says.
Interesting, but as they admit, without more research (in particular validation by other teams) then it is not clear what this all means.
Night flights allegedly more damaging to the environment (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Night flights by aircraft are much more damaging to the environment than air travel during the day, a study shows.
The reason, says a UK team, is that vapour trails from aircraft have a greater warming effect during darkness.
Writing in the journal Nature, they say cutting night flights could help minimise the climate impact of the aviation industry.
Winter flights have a bigger effect on global warming than flights during the rest of the year, they add.
The warming effect is due to condensation trails (contrails) created by aircraft. They have two opposing influences on the climate; warming from trapping heat leaving the Earth like a blanket, and cooling from reflecting sunlight back into space.
Although these two factors are balanced out during daylight to a certain extent, on average the warming (greenhouse) effect slightly exceeds the cooling effect, contributing a small amount to global warming as a whole.
However, at night the cooling effect does not apply, producing a bigger contribution to global warming.
"During the night-time, we don't have the Sun out and so the greenhouse warming effect is no longer balanced," said principal researcher Nicola Stuber of the University of Reading.
"That's the reason why night-time flights have such a large contribution to the daily warming effect."
Take this with a pinch of salt. It's only one study and based on results from one location, and with a small effect. Most night flights are not there for frivolous reasons but because they make sense from a time point of view (e.g. most flights from North America to Europe).
Bush creates large marine reserve in Hawaii (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
US President George W Bush has designated a swathe of Hawaiian islands as a US national monument, making them the world's largest marine sanctuary.
He signed a law on Thursday which will give the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands the highest protected status in US law.
The area, nearly as big as California, supports more than 7,000 species, a quarter of which occur nowhere else.
Environmental groups welcomed the decision, although fishing industry bodies have raised concerns.
The designated site - more than 140,000 square miles (362,000 square kilometres) of reefs, atolls and shallow seas - is just larger than the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia, previously the world's largest protected marine area.
Amazing that Bush would do this. Obviously the affected fishermen have not donated enough money to the Republican Party.
Houses in England and Wales will be given energy rating (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Every house sold in England and Wales will be given an energy efficiency rating like those found on electrical goods, the government will announce.
The Energy Performance Certificate will be part of the new Home Information Packs being introduced next June.
The reports, prepared by an independent inspector, will give houses an A to G rating, with A being the best.
They will show energy efficiency and the impact of a house on the environment in terms of carbon dioxide.
Homes use about a third of the UK's total energy requirements and scientists say that must be reduced significantly to help avoid climate change.
A good idea in theory but you can pretty much guarantee the government will mess it up in practise. In particular, how good and thorough are these inspectors going to be? If they do the job properly they will be very expensive, and if not the information will be next to worthless.
Bush blathers more on Iraq (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
US President George W Bush has pledged to do "what it takes" to help the new Iraqi government to succeed.
His comments came in a news conference following a surprise trip to Baghdad on Tuesday, where he met new Prime Minister Nouri Maliki.
"I saw first-hand the strength of his character and his deep determination to succeed," Mr Bush told reporters.
He also announced details of tough new measures in Baghdad in an effort to win back control of the city's streets.
Some 40,000 Iraqi and US troops were put on the streets just after dawn as part of a crackdown ordered by Mr Maliki.
What a joker Mr Bush is. He starts a war for no good reason and by sheer incompetence and arbitrary dogma proceeds to let the world's largest military force get bogged down for years on end in a place they don't belong.
A new proposed Research Assessment Exercise for universities (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
University departments will be allocated research funding based on how much they get in grants from business, under government plans.
The Research Assessment Exercise, where an academic's work is judged by their peers, would be replaced with a more figures-based system from 2009/10.
It would also look at the number of researchers in a department and the number of publications.
The government said the planned system would reduce "red tape".
The RAE assesses the quality of research in UK universities and gives the biggest grants to the highest-rated departments.
The next RAE, in 2008, will be the last. Until then, it will run in tandem with an experimental "metrics" system, based on statistics.
It is intended that the metrics system will take over in 2009/10, especially for mathematical and scientific subjects.
Humanities and languages departments are expected to retain a greater element of peer review.
No matter what system they come up with it will be arbitrary and lead to stupidities and unfairness. The current system means that universities are desperate to hire new lecturers just before every RAE review so that they can claim those people's papers as their own (papers are counted for the department where you are located when the RAE is done, not for the department where the work was done). Indeed right now you will find departments all over Cambridge, and no doubt all over the UK, are hiring like mad.
And there has never been a government initiative which reduced red tape, so you can guarantee this one will not either. And with any new assessment methodology the universities will take a bit of time to figure out how to play the system, and then they will sensibly do that.
Lib Dems take their ball and go home (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
The Lib Dems are pulling out of a deal to work jointly with the Conservatives on the issue of climate change.
Sir Menzies Campbell said co-operation required "urgent agreement on specific measures" but claimed the Tories were not able to provide that agreement.
He added that they would be prepared to work with David Cameron when he had some specific ideas to discuss.
The plan to work together had a rocky start in May with the Tories accusing the Lib Dems of playing politics.
Sir Menzies said: "The whole idea of the cross-party approach was to allow all parties to be braver in putting forward new ideas, but the Conservatives are unable to commit.
"Nuclear power, fuel duty, vehicle excise duty and the climate change levy are all areas where we believe we have to make a judgement now."
...
Environment spokesman Chris Huhne said: "We could not even get the Conservatives to agree that green taxes should rise as a percentage of national income, even though the leading countries in this field all levy more than we do as a way of changing behaviour.
Huhne does say some daft things sometimes. "Countries that lead the way lead the way". Thanks, we didn't know that. And the Lib Dems know full well that vehicle excise duty has nothing to do with carbon emissions since it is a tax on ownership, not use. So-called green taxes should at least be logical, and not just arbitrary and vindictive taxes against activities considered politically incorrect by the chattering classes. And so-called green taxes should be proportionate to the environmental damage (allegedly) caused. Fuel duty is a real environmental tax, only its rate is much higher than any believable environmental assessment would give. If the Lib Dems want to be treated seriously they should treat the public as adults and give real arguments instead of waffle. (Not that the Tories are any better.)
World Heritage sites and climate change (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Five metres (15ft) below the clear green water of the western Caribbean lie the fractured remains of a coral dome hundreds of years old.
Local scientists say it's now so badly damaged that another hurricane would simply sweep it away.
But they don't primarily blame hurricanes for the damage to the coral here on the Belize Barrier Reef; they blame climate change.
And they are backing a petition pressing the United Nations World Heritage Sites Committee to acknowledge that climate change is already damaging world heritage sites.
The five sites are the Belize Barrier reef, at 321km (200 miles) long, the biggest in the western hemisphere; the Australian barrier reef; and glacier parks in Nepal, Peru and the Rockies where glaciers are disappearing as the climate warms.
The World Heritage Sites Treaty stipulates that listed sites should not be damaged by signatories to the treaty, but it was mainly designed to protect the world's treasures in the event of wars.
The stakes are high because if the UN accepts the case, it might lead to poor countries attempting to sue rich countries for damages for the greenhouse gases they've emitted.
...
[ The UN campaigners ] will face, though, determined resistance on the World Heritage Committee from the US. Objections to the petition include:
- There is no conclusive proof that that the reef are being damaged by greenhouse gas emissions
- Any damage to the reef is accidental, so it does not breach the World Heritage Sites Treaty.
- Accepting the petition on a controversial issue such as climate change would spoil the harmonious relations of the World Heritage Committee.
The petition will be heard when the committee meets between 8 and 16 July.
The coral reefs of the world are almost certainly being damaged by climate change, so the US argument on that score is disingenuous. But reefs are also being damaged by other human activities (e.g. fishing and tourism). And the US is correct that the petitioners are perverting what the original intent of World Heritage status was supposed to be. And if for some reason the UN accepts this petition then it would almost certainly spell end of support for the World Heritage Sites Treaty by the rich countries of the world.
Someone else wants to kill grey squirrels (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Bounties should be paid for the shooting or trapping of grey squirrels, according to a Conservative MSP.
Murdo Fraser said consideration must be given to such measures to preserve numbers of native red squirrels.
The party's deputy leader said that only suitably qualified people with shotgun licences, like gamekeepers, would get the money.
However, an animal protection group said the proposal would lead to "carnage in the countryside".
Scotland is reported to be home to more than 75% of the UK's red squirrel population, however, they have been under threat of being displaced by the non-native grey.
Grey squirrels compete for food with the red squirrels and can carry a virus which kills them.
...
Ross Minett, director of Advocates for Animals, said: "This is an absolutely ridiculous idea and it would lead to carnage in the countryside with every man and his dog out to raise cash from the killing of squirrels."Mr Fraser obviously hasn't studied ecology because if he had he would realise that the grey squirrel is here to stay and killing them in vast numbers is not going to remove them.
"It would be a complete waste of time and taxpayers' money."
It's amazing how many people think that being "pro" nature involves killing some species or other. Less than a hundred years ago red squirrels were considered pests. Now grey ones are. And no doubt if grey squirrels ever went into decline we would get some half-baked effort trying to preserve them. If these people want to spend their own money on their own land on this extermination effort then so be it, but of course they want taxpayers' money to fund this scheme.
Bush official thinks suicides are a PR exercise (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
A top US official has described the suicides of three detainees at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a "good PR move to draw attention".
Colleen Graffy told the BBC the deaths were part of a strategy and "a tactic to further the jihadi cause", but taking their own lives was unnecessary.
You couldn't make this stuff up. Bush is definitely in the running for the worst president of all time. And the unbelievable idiots he has hired to run his administration are symptomatic of the problem. The standing of America in the world sinks ever lower.
Another International Whaling Commission vote coming up (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Pro-whaling nations look set to command a majority of the votes when the International Whaling Commission (IWC) annual meeting begins on Friday.
Several countries which appear likely to vote with the pro-whaling bloc have joined the body in recent weeks.
UK marine affairs minister Ben Bradshaw said he is "very concerned".
A pro-whaling majority could lead to the scrapping of conservation and welfare programmes, though not a return to full-scale commercial whaling.
That would need three-quarters of the delegates to vote in favour, which is extremely unlikely.
But a simple majority would be enough to end IWC work on issues which Japan believes to be outside its remit, such as welfare and killing methods, whale-watching and anything concerning small cetaceans such as dolphins.
...
Formed in 1946, the IWC's original purpose was to regulate commercial whaling; and after it became obvious that some species were being depleted to the verge of extinction, that regulation took the most robust form possible: a global moratorium.Norway made a formal objection to the ban and has continued to hunt, though catching radically fewer numbers than a century ago. Japan, and more recently Iceland, hunt under an IWC ruling which allows nations to catch whales for "scientific research".
Both have stepped up the size of their annual hunts in recent years, with the 2006 catch on target to exceed 2,000, the largest take since the introduction of the moratorium in 1986.
Pro-whaling nations insist that a limited return to commercial hunting is possible; stocks of some species are high enough, they maintain, charging that the IWC has become an organisation dedicated to preventing whaling, contrary to its purpose.
At the IWC's foundation is supposed to be sound science; arguments such as which stocks are sufficiently robust to hunt are in theory answered on a strict scientific basis.
But there are huge variations in estimates of minke whales, the species currently most hunted, which makes it almost impossible to set global catch limits.
The scientific process has also become mired in politics, with decade-long discussions on a mechanism called the Revised Management Scheme, designed to facilitate a return to limited commercial whaling, breaking down earlier this year.
...
Whatever the moral rights and wrongs, it seems like that after years of trying the pro-whaling bloc may have built itself a working majority this time.The run-up to each IWC meeting sees the opposing groups of nations trying to bring supportive new members into the organisation.
The Marshall Islands, Guatemala and Cambodia have reportedly joined in recent weeks at Japan's behest.
But an accurate tally will only be possible when the Commission convenes on Friday in St Kitts; only then will it become clear which countries have sent delegates and paid their subscriptions, entitling them to vote.
"[The pro-whaling nations] had a majority last year on paper," said Ben Bradshaw, "but because some of their allies failed to turn up or pay their dues we won all the votes - but one of them by only one vote."
Whaling is one of those issues where common sense and tolerance have long since been removed from the argument. The pro-whalers want to hunt, and the anti-whalers want to stop it, both more for "religious" than for "scientific" reasons.
Gordon Brown seems to support nuclear power (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Chancellor Gordon Brown has given a clear signal that he supports the building of new nuclear power stations.
In an article in the Times, he said the government was set to demonstrate its flexibility in key policy areas such as energy - "including new nuclear".
The government's energy review is due by the end of July but Tony Blair has already said he favours new plants.
The anti-nuclear lobby and some Labour MPs had hoped the expected next party leader would take a different view.
The UK generates about 20% of its electricity from nuclear power.
...
For the Tories, meanwhile, shadow trade and industry secretary Alan Duncan has said he opposes subsidies or price guarantees for nuclear firms.The comments appear to make cross-party consensus on building a new generation of nuclear power plants unlikely.
The Liberal Democrats have already voiced their opposition to new stations.
Well that's one for the books. Everybody knew that Blair was now pro-nuclear, but that was irrelevant since he's (allegedly) departing office "real soon now". So what really matters on this score is what Brown thinks, and this is the first indication that he might opt for nuclear as one part of the energy mix. Of course the other parties (seemingly) oppose this so if Labour loses the next election (a distinct possibility) then nuclear could be shelved.
World Cup 2006 campaign starts for England (permanent blog link)
If only England played in the World Cup every day. The roads were unbelievably quiet. Even Coldham's Lane in Cambridge, normally a complete disaster Saturday afternoon, was next to empty. And everybody went home happy, as England (barely) won, 1-0, against Paraguay.
Royal Academy Summer Show 2006 (permanent blog link)
The Royal Academy's annual Summer Show opens to the public on Monday (12 June) but has already been open a couple of days to members and "serious" buyers. A fair fraction of the work was already sold, which is good news for the Academy and the artists.
The Academy forecourt normally has a few works on display. This year it was dominated by a large bronze ("The Virgin Mother") by Damien Hirst. Hirst is vastly overrated but this was a pretty good piece. (And it was "not for sale" but it must be six or seven figures.) Alongside was a large (but small in comparison with the bronze) sculpted granite work by Peter Randall-Page, a mere snip at £94000. (And one other work, but that is not worth a mention.)
The most interesting sale rooms are normally the large and small Weston Rooms, and this year was no exception. Mark Clark has three pieces (the maximum number for a non-Academician) here, all nudes (that seems to be what he does), with the best one being the first ("Standing Nude (Torso)"). Perhaps a future Academician. And there was a wonderful portrait by Nicola Jarvis ("The Metamorphosis of Nikki Jarvis") in graphite, which incredibly had not yet sold (although only £295).
Other work worth mentioning is "Rock Study II, The Isles of Scilly" by John Howard (also in graphite) and "Richmond Park" by Charles Sanderson (in pencil). Amongst the Academicians, Donald Hamilton Fraser stands out as usual.
Most years the architecture room is the best thing about the show, and this year is no exception. There was a part model of a bridge in Bergen (presumably Norway), by Spence Associates/Techniker, which was quite good. And there was an interesting shop on the Ginza in Tokyo, by Toyo Ito and Associates. But stealing the show again this year was Eva Jiricna, with a wonderful private residence in Prague.
Two alleged terrorists released without charge (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Two men arrested after a raid on a house in east London have been released without charge, Scotland Yard said.
Police questioned two brothers, one of whom was shot during the raid, on suspicion of terrorism involvement.
Mohammed Abdul Kahar, 23, and Abul Koyair, 20, both denied the allegations. They were held after a major raid in Forest Gate last Friday.
Police are now said to continuing their search for chemical materials elsewhere after finding nothing at their house.
The men, who had been held under the Terrorism Act 2000, were released shortly before 2030 BST on Friday.
As the men were released, police confirmed officers had completed their search of the raided property in Lansdown Road.
A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "We appreciate the police operation has caused inconvenience and disruption to the occupants of the house.
"We will be contacting the owners to make appropriate arrangements for the property to be handed back to them.
"We will also be undertaking appropriate restoration work in consultation with the owners."
Such wonderful British understatement: "We appreciate the police operation has caused inconvenience and disruption to the occupants of the house." How about a public apology? And is there any consequence for the person or persons who gave the police this intelligence?
al-Zarqawi killed in Iraq (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
The US and UK have hailed news that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, has died in a US air strike.
Zarqawi died when US planes dropped two 500lb bombs on an isolated site near the city of Baquba. He was identified by fingerprints, tattoos and scars.
The US struck after receiving specific tip-offs from within Zarqawi's organisation, officials said.
US President George W Bush described the news as a severe blow to al-Qaeda and "justice" for Zarqawi.
British PM Tony Blair described it as "very good news", but both leaders said Zarqawi's death would not end violence.
Well for once Bush and Blair have said something about Iraq that is not grounded in fantasy or lies: Zarqawi's death is indeed unlikely to change much in Iraq. And although Zarqawi was from all accounts a hooligan, he was responsible for far fewer deaths than either Bush or Blair.
Ming Campbell marks 100 days as leader with a poor speech (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Sir Menzies Campbell has unveiled a radical shift in the Lib Dems' approach to tax with a 2p cut in the basic rate.
The £20bn cost of the cut would be partially met by a £7bn increase in "green" taxes on cars and flights.
The other £13bn would come from the "very wealthy" via capital gains tax changes on second homes and shares.
Tony Blair attacked the plans as "completely unrealistic" and said airlines would simply avoid the new taxes by re-routing flights.
...
The party wants to introduce income tax cuts for everybody - 2p off the basic rate, and two million of the lowest paid will be lifted out of income tax altogether.The new environmental taxes would mean hitting airlines and people who drive "gas guzzlers" - with road tax likely to rise to over £2,000 for the most polluting new cars.
Sir Menzies said: "My aim is to cut the burden of direct taxes on the low paid and Middle Britain and pay for it by raising taxes on those who pollute the environment and on the very wealthy."
But it is not yet clear what the party means by "very wealthy", nor is there a figure of just how many people would be affected by the plans, although it is understood to be "hundreds of thousands rather than millions".
In part that would involve ending capital gains tax breaks for people who have second homes or large share portfolios.
Robert Chote, of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, warned that environmental taxes were difficult to manage.
"One dilemma they face here is that the more successful environmental taxes are in getting people to pollute less and getting people to drive less, obviously the less revenue you get in," he told BBC News.
If this is the best the Lib Dems can do they should pack up and go home. There is nothing wrong with environmental taxes but they should be based on two principles: the tax should be proportional to the (alleged) damage done to the environment; and everything should be so taxed. Otherwise the tax is unfair.
The Lib Dem proposals are short on detail, probably because there is little detail backing up the announcement. But the specific proposal mentioned to charge £2000 annual road tax for "the most polluting new cars" fails miserably on the first principle, and since there is no mention of charging environmental tax on electricity and gas used to heat houses, the second principle is also lacking. So the Lib Dems are just posturing in the usual comfortable middle class way, putting style above substance.
The reason the road tax proposal fails on the first principle is that it is based on car ownership which bears little (or no) relationship to environmental damage. So whether you drive your car 50000 miles in one year (so causing a lot of environmental damage) or 5000 miles (so causing a lot less) you pay the same amount. The only real environmental tax when it comes to cars is fuel duty. (Indeed that is the only substantive environmental tax currently existing in the UK.)
And although Campbell does not mention it specifically here, the other day his environment spokesperson suggested that airline flights should be taxed. This also fails the first principle. It should be airline fuel that is taxed, not airline flights. Otherwise airlines that have fuel inefficient airplanes pay the same amount as airlines that have fuel efficient ones, which is stupid.
Europe probably colluded with America in "secret" torture flights (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Fourteen European states colluded with the CIA in secret US flights for terror suspects, a report concludes.
The report comes from Europe's human rights watchdog, the Council of Europe.
It says there is evidence to back suspicions secret prisons are or were located in Poland and Romania - allegations both countries deny.
Under the CIA policy of rendition, prisoners are moved to third countries for interrogation. There have been allegations some were tortured.
The US admits to picking up terrorism suspects but denies sending them to nations to face torture.
The report by Swiss Senator Dick Marty follows a seven-month inquiry.
...
Mr Marty has drawn on air traffic logs, satellite photos and accounts of prisoners who say they were abducted.In an interim report in January, Mr Marty said European governments were almost certainly aware of the CIA's secret prisoner flights via European airspace or airports.
The new report says: "It is now clear - although we are still far from having established the truth - that authorities in several European countries actively participated with the CIA in these unlawful activities.
"Other countries ignored them knowingly, or did not want to know."
Spain, Turkey, Germany and Cyprus provided "staging posts" for rendition operations, while the UK, Portugal, Ireland and Greece were "stop-off points", the report says.
It says Italy, Sweden, Macedonia and Bosnia allowed the abduction of residents from their soil.
The most serious charges are levelled at Poland and Romania, where Mr Marty says there is enough evidence to support suspicions that CIA secret prisons were established.
Although the Swiss senator says the US must bear responsibility for the flights, he says the programme could operate only with "the intentional or grossly negligent collusion of the European partners".
The "spider's web" of US rendition flights is based on an "utterly alien" approach that breaches human rights, he concludes.
Well of course we will never really know the truth. But the current US government has re-defined torture so as to not include many interrogation techniques which are torture, and they are happy to send abducted people to other countries with worse human rights records, so it is pretty obvious that they are up to no good. Shame on European governments for colluding.
Some coral reefs might be able to adapt to rising temperatures (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Some coral reefs may be able to adapt to rising ocean temperatures, a consequence of global climate change.
Coral live in close partnership with algae, but lose the algae when temperatures rise, causing death.
Australian scientists have discovered that coral may be able to exchange their algae for varieties which can survive at higher temperatures.
They say this provides a "nugget of hope" for some reefs threatened by climate change.
"While this is likely to be of huge ecological benefit," write Ray Berkelmans and Madeleine van Oppen, "it may not be enough to help these populations cope with the predicted increases in average tropical sea temperatures over the next 100 years.
"It may, though, be enough to buy time while measures are put in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
Well most species can adapt to a changing environment, the question is whether they can adapt fast enough to a quickly changing environment, as it seems we have now.
Portugal to build world's largest solar power station (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Construction work has begun in southern Portugal on what is set to be the world's largest solar power station. The 58m euro (£40m) plant near Serpa, 200km (125 miles) south of Lisbon, will produce enough electricity for 8,000 homes when it starts next January. The 11-megawatt solar power plant, to be made up of 52,000 photovoltaic modules, will cover a 60-hectare (150-acre) southern-facing hillside.
If solar power cannot be made to work in Portugal there is little hope for it as a technology, so this is a useful test. Presumably the £40m cost is just for its construction (including transmission lines?) and of course there is also the operating cost which needs to be considered. If it produces electricity for 8000 homes then just that £40m by itself works out to £5000 per household. With a discount factor of 5% over 30 years that works out to over £300 per household per year just to cover the build cost. (And it is not "carbon free" because presumably a lot of that £40m represents the cost of oil used, directly or indirectly, to make the plant in the first place.)
Some UK business leaders want "tough" action on climate change (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Thirteen business leaders are set to meet Prime Minister Tony Blair to urge tougher action on climate change.
The group, including Shell, Tesco and Vodafone executives, will urge more curbs on carbon dioxide emissions.
They believe this would encourage innovation that would give British business an edge with new technology.
Other business lobby groups have argued against stricter targets in the past, saying they would damage the competitiveness of Britain.
The delegation, which will visit 10 Downing Street, warns that developing countries will never take climate change seriously unless countries like Britain show how it can be tackled.
This is just stage-managed theatre. Blair wants business leaders to say this so that he can use them as a stick to beat up on recalcitrant ministers and civil servants. On the other hand, these executives would be a bit more credible if they didn't year on year insist on whacking great pay rises which means that they are the country's biggest consumers and so are personally responsible for far, far more greenhouse gas emissions than the average British citizen. Let them take the first step and accept an immediate 50% cut in pay and benefits (that would still leave them filthy rich).
Cambridge business leader wants southern bypass (permanent blog link)
The Cambridge Evening News says:
The thoughts of Michael Wiseman certainly matter when it comes to the future of Cambridge's shops.
Mr Wiseman is the chairman of the Cambridge Retail and Commercial Association (CRACA) as well as director of The Grafton centre.
And according to Mr Wiseman a bypass - not congestion charging - would solve all of Cambridge's problems.
Mr Wiseman said: "If the Government wants to improve access to Cambridge then it should speed up the improvements to the A14; provide the finance for the guided bus, without delay, and accept more radical solutions to the area's traffic problems like building a southern bypass for Cambridge - what's good enough for Baldock is good enough for Cambridge."
The debate over congestion charging has gathered momentum since Cambridgeshire County Council looked into charging motorists £4 a day to enter the city.
Mr Wiseman said: "CRACA accepts that with projected growth 'to do nothing is not an option' but we must see improvements to the speed and quality of bus services before we look at more radical solutions like congestion charging.
Without this, congestion charging will merely send more of our customers to competing towns and cities, causing local independent businesses to fail and even more cars blocking up the A14 and other trunk routes, increasing damage to the environment.
"CRACA is keen to work with Cambridgeshire County Council to find ways of overcoming the increased access problems that the planned growth will bring to Cambridge but does not believe that congestion charging is the right solution at this time."
Cambridgeshire Chamber of Commerce is also concerned by a possible introduction of congestion charging.
John Bridge, chamber chief executive, is planning to stage meetings of city businesses to collectively oppose any potential change.
He said: "This is an indication of how seriously we see the challenge of congestion charging to the prosperity of business in Cambridge.
"In London, there is a proper public transport system in place. There is nothing of the sort in Cambridge. Surrounding cities are rubbing their hands with glee because they know people will just not go to Cambridge."
Wiseman must be an optimist. You can name several sensible road projects but most of them will never get built because the Cambridge ruling elite hate cars. The "NIAB" site bordered by Histon Road and Huntingdon Road and the Cambridge city boundary is soon to get between a thousand and two thousand homes dumped on it. (So the current land owners will become instant millionaires, and the lead developer as well.) One logical piece of infrastructure would be a road along the edge of the development connecting Histon Road to Hungtingdon Road. But that is the one thing that is not going to happen.
The last major road built in Cambridge was Elizabeth Way, around 35 years ago. We will allegedly soon get a link road from the M11/A10 to Addenbrookes, but no doubt that will be badly designed and implemented because the Cambridge ruling elite hate cars.
If Bar Hill had a decent exit off the A14 (instead of the laughable road junction that now exists) and if they expanded their shopping area to have more than just Tesco, then they would clean up. Lots of Cambridge people who live on the west/north side of town would just get in their cars and drive out of town up the A14 to go shopping. (This already happens to some extent but Tesco is but one shop.)
Police start to waffle about "terrorism" raid in London (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Police had "no choice" but to raid a house in east London after being told a chemical device might be found there, a senior Met officer has said.
Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman said they got "specific intelligence" about a reported chemical device, but nothing has yet been found in the search.
Police are waiting to speak to Mohammed Abdul Kahar, 23, shot in Friday's raid.
He and his brother Abul Koyair, 20, were arrested and have both denied any involvement in terrorism.
Police said they have resumed a search for a device which intelligence suggested might be at the terraced house in Lansdown Road, Forest Gate, which could take until the end of the week.
Mr Hayman, head of the Met's Specialist Operations, said police had not yet found what they were looking for, but documents and computers had been taken away for analysis.
He refused to go into details about the information police received prior to the raid.
"We were left with no choice but to act upon that intelligence," he said.
"Public safety was our top priority."
If you take what they say at face value, then certainly the police had "no choice" but to conduct the raid. On the other hand, that doesn't mean they needed to shoot someone. And it's a bit unbelievable that they need a week to find evidence in a small house in London of an alleged massive and imminent terrorist threat. If these two men turn out to be innocent (and it is looking that way right now) then hopefully the police will apologise to them profusely and in public. In the media today the police have also implied that London has never been under a greater threat. If so this operation is even more unfortunate since it seems to have done absolutely nothing to reduce that threat and indeed by diverting police resource might allow the alleged real threat to go unprevented.
The world's desert ecosystems are allegedly in trouble (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Climate change, high water demand and even tourism are putting unprecedented pressures on the world's desert ecosystems, according to a report.
The Global Deserts Outlook, produced by the UN's Environment Programme, is described as the first comprehensive look at the Earth's driest regions.
It highlights the problems - and also the potential - in arid areas.
The authors call for more careful use of scarce water resources to safeguard the futures of desert populations.
...
Population growth and inefficient water use are, by 2050, set to move some countries with deserts into water stress, or even worse, water scarcity, the report says. Examples include Chad, Iraq, Niger and Syria.Renewable supplies of water which are fed to deserts by large rivers are also expected to be threatened, in some cases severely, by 2025.
Examples include the Gariep River in southern Africa; the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers in North America; the Tigris and Euphrates in south-western Asia and the Amu Darya and Indus Rivers in central Asia.
...
However, the report concludes that although some trends are worrying, other changes likely to occur in the next 50 years could be positive.There are new economic opportunities, it says, such as shrimp and fish farms in Arizona in the US and in the Negev Desert in Israel, offering environmentally friendly livelihoods for local people.
Desert plants and animals are being seen as positive sources of new drugs and crops.
Nipa, a salt grass harvested in the Sonoran desert of north western Mexico at the delta of the Colorado River by the Cocopahs people, thrives on pure seawater, producing large grain yields similar to wheat.
"It is a strong candidate for a major global food crop and could become this desert's greatest gift to the world," the report says.
Even the problems of global warming could be tackled by better use of deserts: some experts say that an area of the Sahara 800km by 800km (500 miles by 500 miles) could capture enough solar energy to meet the entire world's electricity needs.
Well this siren song is all very familiar (name a single major ecosystem which is not suffering "unprecedented pressures"). But it's still worth having experts quantify these things. On the other hand, some of the so-called positive changes are a bit dubious. Fish farms cause plenty of their own environmental problems. And although the Sahara is more than big enough to produce all the world's electricity via solar energy, this is largely irrelevant because it is ignoring the gigantic problem of transmission (from the generating location to the user).
Cambridge business leaders don't want "congestion" charge (permanent blog link)
The Cambridge Evening News says:
Business leaders fear congestion charging could have a devastating effect on Cambridge traders.
A new study to ease Cambridge's congestion crisis has looked at charging £4 a day to enter the city. The charge may have good intentions of encouraging drivers to turn to public transport, but businessmen and women are concerned about the impact it could have on them.
Bob Jackson, chief executive of Cambridge Building Society, which is based in Newmarket Road, Cambridge, said: "Anything that might put people off coming into Cambridge can only be a bad thing for business - particularly retailers.
...
Derek Langley has sold black and white photographs on Cambridge's All Saints Garden market for more than 20 years. He fears for its future if congestion-charging ever came in.He said: "I am quite concerned by it and fear the market would be adversely affected by charges. A lot of people who come to the market are visitors to the city and I think a lot of the locals use their cars too. We rely heavily on people who use Park Street car park."
Well this is a no-brainer. But the people who run Cambridge don't really care about business. The Cambridge ruling elite hate cars and that seems to be their prime motivation in all their policies, and to heck with any other consideration.
And if the All Saints market traders are relying on people who use the Park Street car park they are in serious trouble even before this so-called congestion charge (which is really just an access charge) comes in. The Cambridge ruling elite want to shut down Victoria Avenue during the day. Less than a decade ago someone coming up Huntingdon Road (say from the A14) who wanted to park at the Park Street car park just continued up Bridge Street and turned left up Round Church Street into the car park. If and when Victoria Avenue is closed the same journey would instead involve going down Victoria Road, then up Chesterton Road, then up Elizabeth Way, then up Maid's Causeway, then up Jesus Lane, then right turn onto Park Street and into the car park. That's an extra two miles or so. The Park Street car park already has a large section just for bicycles (so it qualifies as the world's most expensive cycle shed) because it is already so difficult to get to via car. Closing Victoria Avenue will make the situation much worse.
White male chosen as Tory by-election candidate (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
London Assembly Tory leader Bob Neill has been picked to fight the Bromley and Chislehurst by-election.
Mr Neill beat off a challenge from two candidates from Tory leader David Cameron's controversial "A-list" - Julia Manning and MEP Syed Kamall.
Mr Cameron said Mr Neill would be "an outstanding champion" for a constituency he knew "extremely well".
...
The party interviewed 10 people for the Kent by-election, but did not have to pick from the A-list - criticised for putting "beautiful people" ahead of local campaigners.The A-list, which includes former soap star Adam Rickitt and author Louise Bagshawe, came under attack from some Tories angry at what they claimed was discrimination against local campaigners.
Mr Cameron has defended his initiative, under which candidates for the party's safest seats at the next general election will have to be selected from the approved pool - designed to make the Tory party more representative of society.
The problem with these policies of reverse discrimination is that the people who have directly benefitted from the discrimination in the past are not the people who are paying the price. Cameron is the perfect example. He's an old Etonian toff, a very typical white male Tory MP. Yet he is not offering to resign to allow a woman or non-white male take over his seat, in order to make the Tories more representative. He is instead insisting that today's prospective white male Tory MPs are those who should suffer.
Ikea to start charging for plastic bags in the UK (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Ikea is to become the UK's first major retailer to regularly charge customers for plastic bags, to try and tackle waste and environmental damage.
The Swedish firm will charge shoppers 5p for every bag with immediate effect, rising to 10p in September.
It believes the move - accompanied by a switch to biodegradable bags and lower prices for reusable bags - will cut total bag use by 20 million next year.
The Environment Agency praised the move as a "great example" to other firms.
Retailers are under growing pressure to curb plastic bag giveaways to reduce litter and encourage energy efficiency.
Most of the estimated 17 billion bags given away each year are only used once and then thrown away.
Well why not? But why stop there? The vast majority of the environmental damage incurred when visiting any store does not arise because of using a plastic bag. In a supermarket, for example, all the other wrapping is far worse. And customers of Ikea in particular can do much more for the environment by not shopping at Ikea in the first place and instead re-using existing furniture. (For example, the people of Cambridge can visit Emmaus in Landbeach and buy perfectly good second-hand furniture from them.) So all in all this just looks like more posturing by the comfortable middle class, the victory of style over substance. Today's pet hatred is the plastic bag, tomorrow's pet hatred will be something else equally symbolic which misses the bigger picture.
Civil service trade unionist whines about the government blaming them (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Ministers are trying to shift the blame for failing policies on to civil servants, the leader of the union for top Whitehall officials has said.
In a BBC interview, Jonathan Baume, general Secretary of the First Division Association, cited recent problems with immigration and foreign prisoners.
Ministers' behaviour had been "unfair" and "cowardly", he said elsewhere.
In an interview for BBC Radio 4's Westminster Hour, to be broadcast on Sunday, Mr Baume criticised the government's handling of the Home Office situation.
In a separate statement, he said: "Some recent criticism of the civil service looks like an ill-disguised attempt by some politicians and commentators to make excuses, and shift responsibility for struggling policies from ministers to the staff who serve them."
He called it "absolute nonsense" to suggest officials were not accountable for their actions.
Mr Baume also said: "The civil service must take it on the chin when it fails, and some criticism is justified. Nor should we shy away from debate on difficult issues.
Has anyone of any seniority in the civil service ever "taken it on the chin" for the many disasters the civil service has been responsible for (most notably failed and over-budget computer systems)? Of course ministers are responsible for some disasters, and they rarely "take it on the chin" for that either. But at least the voters can throw out the government at the next election, with the civil service it's difficult to sack anyone.
Some Tory policy group proposes allowing left turn at red lights (permanent blog link)
The BBC says:
Drivers should be able to turn left at red lights in a bid to ease congestion, the Conservatives have proposed.
The Tories' economic competitiveness policy group has put forward the idea as part of a 10-point transport plan.
Other schemes include new carriageways and underpasses, removing "dangerous" cycle paths and widening junctions and lanes around large roundabouts.
The Tories stress the proposals by the group, one of several set up by leader David Cameron, are not party policy.
The traffic light idea is based on practice in some states in the US where motorists are allowed to turn right at red signals.
The group also suggests rephasing traffic lights to give priority to main roads, putting cycle lanes on pavements where there is room, letting taxis and motorbikes use bus lanes, providing more pedestrian footbridges and underpasses, and reviewing speed limits.
...
But Andrew Evans, professor of Transport Risk Management at Imperial College, said he had reservations about the ideas."I would expect that the system as a whole would be somewhat less safe for pedestrians and cyclists," he said.
"But I think more generally it would make the environment for pedestrians a lot less friendly than it is now, and that's not what we wish to encourage.
"We wish to encourage more pedestrian activity, particularly for short journeys, rather than cars."
Pretty much all the transport planners in the UK hate cars, which is a sad state of affairs given that most journeys in the UK are made by car. In the world of business if you hated your number one customer you would not survive very long, but of course these people are paid for by the taxpayer so do not have to care what their customers think.
Left turn on red makes some sense, but of course it is not going to solve the general problem of congestion by itself. To pacify the car haters, one could easily decide that only turns where safety is not seriously compromised (however the car haters wish to define that) would be allowed on red. People do make most short journeys by foot, and people do not make longer journeys by foot or bicycle because a car is just much more convenient. It has very little to do with safety (in certain cases it might have to do with perceived safety, since the media has drilled it into people that the world is a dangerous place, and the car haters happily latch onto that).
Lib Dems want to extort car drivers further (permanent blog link)
Liberal Democrat Shadow Environment Secretary Chris Huhne in the BBC says:
The Liberal Democrats have always placed the environment at the heart of our thinking.
Climate change presents the greatest challenge of our time to policy makers, not only in the UK, but internationally.
We recognise that to tackle climate change we must cut our carbon emissions and provide international leadership.
However, at the moment, the government is failing to achieve either of these goals.
A significant change in behaviour is required if we are to cut our carbon emissions and ensure we reach the target of a 60% reduction by 2050.
Emissions from road transport and aviation are growing at an unsustainable rate and it is essential that we tackle the gross inefficiency of electricity generation.
We have proposed a fundamental change of approach that would see the government tackle the problem head on, rather than relying on grand rhetoric and international publicity stunts.
The Liberal Democrats are the only party to have grasped that providing financial incentives will encourage sustainable behaviour.
CO2 emissions in the UK have been rising as green taxes have been falling as a proportion of GDP.
We have proposed a "Green Tax Switch" which would see taxes shifted from activities we should support, such as employment and work, to unsustainable polluting behaviour.
The Liberal Democrats would combine cuts in personal taxation with increases in Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) so that gas-guzzling vehicles would pay significantly more than smaller vehicles with low emissions.
This policy would introduce a top rate of VED of £2,000 for heavily polluting, newly purchase