Vote Green, not Brown (1)

The Vestas saga (New Labour duplicity on the low carbon economy) may have some consequences:
1) Union members will demand that many of their compromised leaders change tack and press for an industrial revival based partly on manufacturing renewables
2) We convince them about our vision of a low carbon economy placing industry in the centre – jobs, high technology and low emissions.
3) Among many Labour voters, the credibility of New Labour is terminally shattered as they are found out to be obsessed in kow-towing to carbon-trading multinationals and to Nuclear.

What I would like to see is now:
a) a continuing protest to force the government to step in and save Vestas
b) a practical Green vision of a series of wind turbine plants up and down the country. For example, setting up clean manufacturing in the Thames Gateway and other sites in London – how many Mega watts, how many jobs, and in which locality.

The Green New Deal gave a broad outline. Since then, we have had additions, for example, by Sean Thompson, on embedding that initial document with reducing inequality and wealth mal-distribution, with a firmer commitment towards nationalisation.

I would now like us to draw a picture of what a green industrial renewable landscape actually looks like by region.
For example, if we had the per capita wind energy capacity of Denmark or Germany, how many jobs would we create and how many factories would we have?
Would it ten or twenty Vestas plants in England and Wales?

Farid Bakht

Vedanta shies away from bad publicity

British-listed Miner Vedanta is under the spotlight today. There will be a protest at their AGM this afternoon at 2pm at Lincoln Inn Centre, 18 Lincoln Inn Fields. Bianca Jagger is set to make an appearance.
The issue: Vedanta’s callous approach to tribal people and their livelihoods just so that Vedanta and its Indian billionaire, Anil Aggarwall can set up an open-case bauxite mine.
The actions of British based companies have some unintended consequences.
The rise of the Maoist rebellion in the forgotten eastern half of India is fuelled by the anger and despair of tribal and poor rural people, seeing their livelihoods destroyed as Delhi & Mumbai insist on unbridled free-market industrialisation.

Ed and Mandy aren’t talking

Germany has 250,000 working in their renewable energy sector. The UK? Less than 10,000.
Minus 600 more if this government allows Vestas to pack up their wind turbine factory, on the Isle of Wight.
Even then, those turbines were not being sold here, despite the hot air of nuclear-friendly New Labour, they failed to create demand for wind turbines.
Let’s get this straight. The other day, Ed Miliband tells us about his plans for ‘low carbon Britain’.
At the same time, the boss (Lord Mandelson) decides he cannot be bothered with Vestas. He has got his hands full trying to save TATA’s Jaguar….. and more car factories.

In a few months, in Copenhagen, we will hear more hot air from Brown and the rest as they tell us how they really, really do care about the world and climate change……
By the end of the next decade, Germany will have a million people plus working in a sector both high tech and job friendly.
Meanwhile, Cameron and Brown will sweep us towards a nuclear future – hardly any jobs, a decade late and hugely over-budget.

Welcome to low carbon – high unemployment Britain.

Farid Bakht

Energy efficiency grants in Tower Hamlets

This is today’s information on the council website.

East End Energy Savers
A grant from the Energy Saving Trust has enabled the setting up of a loan fund to assist residents in financing the installation of energy efficient measures in their homes.

The fund offers interest-free loans with repayment periods to suit your individual circumstances.

In addition the unit has negotiated discount rates with reputable energy efficiency installers, which are only available through the East End Energy Savers scheme.

We can also access grants for insulation and solar water heating.

Warm Front Scheme
The Warm Front Scheme is a government funded scheme which provides grants up to £2000 to make your home warmer, more energy efficient and more secure.

To be eligible for the scheme, you must be in receipt of a qualifying benefit and be a private sector resident (i.e. not housing association or council tenant).

The grant focuses on households with the greatest health risks. Older people, families with children under the age of 16 years and people who are disabled get priority.

MRA Energy Efficiency Scheme (for council tenants only)
This scheme provides loft insulation and draught sealing for council tenants in receipt of a qualifying benefit, or over 65.

London Warm Zone
The Warm Zone scheme is an East London Renewal partnership programme which provides grants to make your home warmer and more energy efficient.

To be eligible for the scheme, you must be in receipt of a qualifying benefit and be a private sector resident (i.e. not Housing Association or Council tenant).

The grant focuses on households with the greatest health risks. Older people, families with children under the age of 16 years and people who are disabled get priority.

How to contact us
For more information contact:

Private Housing Improvement Team (PHIT)
Development and Renewal
London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Mulberry Place (AH)
PO Box 55739
5 Clove Crescent
London
E14 1BY

Tel: 020 7364 2521
Fax: 020 7364 2533

Email: energy.services@towerhamlets.gov.uk

Open: Mon to Fri 9am to 5pm

India dams Bangladesh

Bengalis in the UK, mainly from the district of Sylhet, and growing numbers of the middle class in Bangladesh are becoming seriously concerned about a dam that India has started constructing.
When finished in three years, it will affect 8% of the country’s water supply – a disaster waiting to happen for rice growing farmers.
Bangladesh, a delta nation, is absolutely dependent on adequate and timely supply of water. The majority of the population is reliant on the rural economy.
Indian diplomats have imperiously waved aside media objections, ignoring international treaties which safeguard the right of downstream countries.
For decades, another water obstacle, the Farakka barage, has caused resentment against India.
The environment is a live political issue.
There has been little international notice, as the Dhaka government, has been slow to react. Its elite are keen not to upset the regional superpower, India, and possibly feel it can import some of the 1,500MW of electricity to be produced one kilometre from its border, by the world’s largest rock fall dam.
The opposition, Bangladesh Nationalist Party, is making political capital – forgetting its inactivity when the dam was mooted in 2003.
I remember marching against a humongous River-linking project cooked up by India with Soviet style mega dams and canals. Then, none of the political parties wanted to know.
For them, the concerns of farmers and rural labourers are far from their minds.
This is a harbinger of things to come. India (along with the US and Israel) is one of three states constructing a fence to keep out neighbours.
But it is hardly likely to stop Bengalis crossing over if their livelihoods are being destroyed by climate change, poverty and next-door’s environmental vandalism.

Farid Bakht

London’s air quality is deadlier than H1N1 flu

Over the Bank Holiday I was out leafleting for the forthcoming European elections in Old Ford Road when an irate resident approached me brandishing the rolled up newspaper I had put through his letter box. (no plug included) It is the moment all politicians dread. I need not have worried.
“Air quality”, he said, what are you going to do about it. Old Ford Road, he said, is a rat run for cars that turn off Cambridge Heath Road. I could see the problem as we tried to talk whilst a bus manoeuvred its way along the narrow roadway.
It is unfortunately that the swine flu virus has dominated the headlines over the past few weeks as it has overshadowed the release of a report by the London Assembly t that will be of more concern to Londoners and in particular to places like Old Ford Road
Just as the swine flue is carried in the air, air quality is affected by pollutant particles called PM10 and inhaled by people. Yet everyday in London people are breathing in polluted particles that the report believes kill an estimated 3,000 Londoners a year, in particular people who suffer from asthma, as well as heart and lung disease.
The report by the London Assembly’s Environment Committee states that London air quality, already among the worst in the country as well as the rest of Europe, is having a costly effect on the National Health Service.
Government figures estimate air-quality related health costs for the UK to be up to £20 billion a year.

Emissions from diesel vehicles contribute to a range of health problems, from coughing and sneezing to more serious illnesses, requiring hospitals. Children and the elderly are worst effected. Among the worst affected areas is the City of London and surrounding boroughs.
London’s air quality is well below the targets set by the European Union. Despite this, the Labour government just before the report was released submitted an application for a further delay on current EU air quality targets – targets that the government was meant to meet in 2005!
The Committee in its report calls upon Boris Johnson to act upon the recommendations of the report.
They include forcing motorists to fit particulate filters to reduce emissions by 90 per cent. To reconsider his rejection of the introduction of stage three of the low emission zone which would have taken 90,000 of the most polluting vehicles off London’s road.
Londoners should not hold their breath, so to speak, upon the Mayor taking such action.
Despite his election pledge to “take action to make London the greenest city in the world his decisions in office show that he, or his advisors, has sided with the ‘dirty white van man’ than the interests of the health of Londoners.
Whilst he himself cycles he has cut the cycling budget by half. He has also halved the number of people in the environment team at City Hall. As a result of the Mayor’s decision not to ban polluting heavy goods the UK is facing the prospect of a heavy fine from the EU in the region of £300 million. That is the price Londoners will pay for poor air quality and something for not only the man in Old Ford Road to think about then they vote on June 4 in the European elections.

Terry McGrenera, Coordinator, Tower Hamlets Green Party.

Electric cars to run on dirty electricity. Wow.

There’s no point running clean electric cars on dirty electricity.

This ‘initiative’ isn’t clean or green. Not if New Labour insists on running these cars on electricity produced by coal, oil or gas.

They will then insist on rewarding US and French muiltinationals in producing incredibly expensive nuclear electricity, rather than much more effective wind turbines.

One final point: what about people without cars?
Why not first make public transport go electric and then increase buses and trains to make them regular/timely AND make them cheap enough?

Electric cars on their own makes no change to reducing carbon emissions and says nothing about how the inequality between rich and the majority is reduced.

Farid Bakht

Skin deep Tory ideas on climate change

The Greens have scrupulously analysed the Conservatives’ green paper number 8 on de-carbonising Britain, which was published in January and which forms the basis of current thinking at the top of the Conservative Party, if not necessarily amongst Tory MPs and councillors.

A communique from the Green Party said: “A few of the Tories’ new ideas closely mirror pre-existing Green Party policies – except that despite all experience, the Tories have preserved their somewhat naive faith in the market – while some of their ideas are frankly stupid, like building more nuclear power stations.

“Nuclear power is not and never will be green. It can’t deliver CO2 reductions as fast as we need them. It does nothing to help the green recovery we urgently need to tackle the recession. Nuclear sustains far fewer jobs per megawatt than renewables, so it will create too few jobs far too late.”

The communique continued:

“But the more closely you examine the Tory green paper, the more flaws and shortcomings appear.”

“They wholeheartedly back so-called ‘clean coal,’ even while they admit the technology isn’t yet proven and might not even be economical. But anyway, unlike renewables, carbon capture isn’t even zero-carbon, and it can’t deliver emissions reductions fast enough, because it doesn’t yet work. Also it will create far fewer jobs per megawatt than renewables.”

“They want high-speed rail links to replace some internal flights, but they won’t end the massive tax-breaks that make flying artificially cheap and attractive to consumers.”

“They misunderstand the issue of biofuels.”

“They speak warmly of offshore wind energy, but references to onshore wind in their green paper are few and potentially hostile.”

“They talk about ‘internalising externalities,’ the hidden costs including the bill for climate damage, but they haven’t even begun to
understand what that means.”

Flaws and inconsistencies

A forthcoming Green Party review of Tory policy will say the Conservatives’ tenuous grasp of climate change policy and of Green economics has resulted in some blatant inconsistencies in the Conservative approach. For example:

The Tories say: “Our gas dependency is particularly worrying. Gas represents more than a third of our energy mix today, up from 10 per cent in 1970.” Yet elsewhere in the same document they congratulate themselves on bringing about the “dash for gas” in the 1990s. So they themselves, through the privatisation and liberalisation of the UK’s energy industry, helped bring about the situation they now call “worrying.”

The Tories say: “This new dependence on foreign fossil fuels means that the UK is now more exposed to … major national security risks” (1) Yet they would have the UK rely to a large extent on imported coal, and of course they’ll also rely on imported uranium for the nuclear industry, the Green critique will say.

Labour shows its true colours over Heathrow

Before the credit crunch, Labour quickly donned a green suit. Now, they are giving up the pretence and going back to grey.

Of course,  they are vainly putting a green gloss over the inexcusable decision to allow a third runway. By diverting us on the pledge for a high speed hub around Heathrow, they are only fooling themselves.

This, after BAA embarassingly admitted that passenger numbers are 1.4% down as the recession (and sterling’s collapse) bites.

Even the Conservatives are against the third runway, though they spoil it by looking for increases in other airports (which shows flexible Cameron is an opportunist green and sees this as helpful to soften the harsher edges of an unreconstructed right wing party).

From a local perspective, there is more than enough runway capacity for the residents of Tower Hamlets to fly to Sylhet, in case you wondered. That’s not the point.

It’s short haul flights to Spain and the other tourist destinations that’s the critical problem.

Rather than wasting billions on a third runway, the Labour government should have used that money to invest in a publicly owned railway network – modern, cheaper and lower in carbon emissions.

Look at Europe to see how high speed travel can be in government hands and still be modern, punctual and cheap.

They used to say Labour was beholden to the Unions. New Labour is beholden to the lobbies of Big Business.

Incidently, by running roughshod over local residents, New Labour will ensure that some of its brighter, more honest MPs such as John McDonnell, lose their seats.

As for some of the Unions, comments made about exaggerated numbers of jobs and how ‘vital’ it is for the busiest airport in Europe to become even more of a monster, reveal that some Trade Union leaders see their function as cheerleaders of ‘their’ government.

Farid Bakht

Leading the way to oblivion

 On Saturday, I joined several thousand people on the climate change march from outside the US embassy to parliament square.

It was a good humoured affair in spite of the seriousness of the issue, timed to coincide with re talks in Potsdam. The media found other things to focus on that day – football, Greek riots and Xmas shopping statistics.
What they missed was a curious political phenomenon.

Two leaders were present at re rally. One came across well, projecting her voice.
She was on familiar territory – this was after all a core party issue. Caroline Lucas, the green party’s recently elected leader, had relaunched the party with the Green New Deal. This mini manifesto was a populist document, more palatable to the media, is still the best roadmap out there – though it is not clear how it sits with the real party manifesto.
Easy to understand, it is meant to allow GP activists to engage with re public on serous issues.
and show the Party has a plan for jobs and the wider economy.

It can be criticized for trying to save existing capitalism and its backdrop of Roosevelt and Churchill quotes from an imperial era. Pre-Lehman Brothers it seemed very radical early September. Now as even Cameron acknowledges, the world has changed.
Whatever its merits, the eager beavers expecting a media blitz with a New Green party will be chastened by the damp squib of a campaign since September.
It seems the media feel the environment can be discarded as we worry about the Great Recession 1.
The Greens face an uphill task to be heard in 2009. No change there, then.

The real story on Saturday was about the other leader.
Nick Clegg had sent out a clarion call to LIb Dem activists to turn out in large numbers
After a week of build up in the Independent, this was to be his bid for leadership of the green movement – at least the so-called Middle England voters. In a way, one could say he was suggesting there was no need to vote Green, when the Lib-Dems (a more ‘serious’ party!) was available. Reminiscent of the Ken vs anonymous Green Party mayoral candidate charade earlier this year.

What a fiasco for Clegg.

In a sea of green, there was hardly a yellow banner or badge to be seen.
The Lib Dems snubbed Clegg and the grassroots probably now realize they have elected the wrong leader. He has moved the party to the right in one of the worst political blunders this decade. His timing was atrocious.
In reality, the cult of the leader might have been appropriate for the anodyne politics in the era of the credit boom. Politics was bunched up in the Right, though we called it the centre-ground. The only differentiation was presentation and ‘personality’.
The electorate is now polarizing – to Left and Right. Times are tough.
The last thing they want is another Blairite chief executive, focusing on marginal seats and searching for the holy grail of the Centre.
The world has indeed changed.
Will the courtiers to all leaders understand that fact quickly enough?

Farid Bakht