Green New Year's Resolutions

Have you made a new year's resolution this year? If so, is it one that will benefit the environment as well as yourself?

There's no reason why you couldn't make a late one now if you haven't got round to it yet...

How about one of the following?

Transport

• Fly less, or not at all if you can help it. Flying is the most polluting activity a person can take and not doing it will make more impact on reducing your carbon footprint than anything else. The reason why it is only a small proportion of the UK's carbon emissions is because relatively few people do it still.

 

• Drive less. Per mile, driving can also have very high CO2 emissions (although people don't tend to drive as far as they fly). It also has a negative impact on the area in which you live in terms of congestion, air pollution, noise pollution and creating a dangerous environment for pedestrians and cyclists. If you can cycle, walk or take the bus/train, please do. It's good for your health and can also mean lower stress levels than driving in the rush hour.

 
Waste and Resource Use

• Think about buying things with less packaging. Plastic bags are an environmental problem, but then so is the packaging that most food (and other products) is encased in. If you buy fresh fruit and veg to cook from scratch, it almost always has less packaging and you could also make a point by unwrapping things in the shop and leaving the retailer to deal with the waste - they might re-think what they stock then.

• Try to find ways to re-use as many things as possible rather than throwing them away or putting them in the recycling. It can be fun to think of new uses for things. 

 
Food

• Buy local. Use local independently owned shops/market stalls as much as possible and try to find products that are produced locally, too. The smaller the distance between where things are produced and bought, the better for the environment, generally speaking. Also, eat less meat and dairy, as these foods have a bigger environmental impact.

  
Energy

• Ensure electrical devices are turned off when not in use, both at home and at in the work/study places you go to. Also, make sure you don't leave doors/windows open when the heating's on.

 
Campaign

• Get involved with Birmingham Friends of the Earth and help us to campaign for change and a better environment.

Do you have any other ideas you'd like to share?

HS2 - select committee findings

Somehow the transport select committee today gave support for the government's High Speed Rail plans, yet with such caveats that you wonder quite how the overall report they provide can come to that conclusion.

Almost everyone accepts that capacity on the rail network needs to be dealt with and that many rail services across the country fall well the below the standards we would like. What is baffling, however, is that whilst saying;

"A high-speed line operating at less than 250mph may offer greater opportunities for mitigation, as well as an opportunity to follow existing transport corridors.

"We are concerned the decision to build a 250mph line prematurely ruled out other route options."

they still gave the HS2 plan support. Why could they not say "We cannot support it at this design speed and until the issues over the country's transport strategy are resolved"?

I was on the radio this morning and spoke after Louise Ellman (chair of the select committee), who was quite clear that there are no environmental benefits of the scheme and that it will not cut carbon. The report says;

"It is not clear that even the Y-network will substantially reduce demand for domestic aviation.

"HS2 should not be promoted as a carbon-reduction scheme."

yet at this time when we desperately need to be cutting CO2 emissions from transport, they still approved it. Why not say "We cannot support it unless it is part of an overall strategy to cut carbon emissions from transport"?

Friends of the Earth are signed up to the Right Lines Charter along with many other environmental NGOs and this report does seem to endorse a lot of what that says about what the plan should do in order to be a good plan for High Speed Rail, yet it doesn't go far enough.

We need a transport system that is fit for a low carbon future of scarce resources and that means a much better plan than currently exists. I'm glad the the select committee have identified so many the flaws in the government's plan, but wish they had gone further with their recommendations and recognised the value in protecting the environment above the rather dubious job-creation claims.

Joe Peacock

6-lane M42 the alternative! So HS2 does make sense!

The standard of debate around the HS2 plan has been pretty poor and overly sensationalist a lot of the time. Both sides are really avoiding a proper examination of what the UK's transport system is like now and what we should be aiming for over the next 15 years.

What we have been left with is a very polarised battle over one badly designed route that doesn't fit into any kind of integrated transport strategy, seems more intent on linking up airports and promoting speed at any cost rather than dealing with promoting alternatives to the car or plane and is unlikely to be more affordable than the current over-priced rail system.

This is why our points are less likely to hit the headlines, but deserve a lot more attention. They are concerned with the need for a proper strategy to deal with reducing the UK's carbon emissions from transport, as well as a future where there will be a lack of oil, which should be the first step and then High Speed Rail plans fit into that, rather than the other way round.

Lately, the pro-HS2 lobby have been getting more and more active on twitter, jumping on any remotely negative post and accusing people like ourselves as being anti-public transport. The latest one from @AntiAntiHS2 read “@Bham_FOE I despair of FOE NO HS2 4 extra lanes on M40 both sides Wishing and idealism gets U nowhere.” and this is not the first time I have had such responses.

Now this is just so ridiculous. Although there was a stupid suggestion in the Birmingham Post today that the government should spend over a billion pounds buying up the M6 toll and making it free for everyone to use!!! Generally, there is more acceptance now that just building more motorway capacity is not the way forward and has not solved problems, but just caused more over the past 50 years of following such a strategy.

The price of oil is only going one way (up) and electric cars are good for shorter journeys, but not able to take over the burden of transporting people over long distances yet. It would be lunacy of the highest order to be basing a transport strategy on cheap oil and continued use of private motor vehicles now.

If the government is saying there is £2bn a year to spend on transport, we should not be arguing over the cost of HS2 and saying we can't afford to spend the money, we should be arguing for the best possible use of that money to transform our transport system and future-proof it and our economy.

See these articles on our website for more details on our views:

http://birminghamfoe.org.uk/transport-news/is-hs2-the-way-to-create-sustainable-transport-and-jobs

http://birminghamfoe.org.uk/transport-news/should-we-spend-30bn-on-high-speed-rail

and the problems we foresee with HS2 specifically as a rail plan are outlined in the Right Lines charter that FoE is signed up to:

http://www.cpre.org.uk/what-we-do/transport/rail/update/item/1683-a-charter-for-high-speed-rail

So, should we support HS2, just because it's currently the only public transport scheme being proposed for the £2bn a year? No, we should continue our campaigns for the best possible deal for everyone and the highest possible standards of sustainability in the government's transport plans.

Will this lead to more motorways being built or a better transport system to benefit the country and the planet? That's up to the democratic processes of the country, but we'll fight for the latter every step of the way.

Joe Peacock

Beyond Rubbish?

I spent Easter weekend with some residents of South Cambridgeshire District Council, which includes the city of Cambridge. Their district has ‘Beacon status’ being one of the top 3 for recycling – it recycles 80% of domestic waste, compared to Birmingham’s 32%. They told me how it all works.

The council has invested in 3 bins for each household. All waste is in bins. I didn’t notice any rubbish or litter in Cambridge.

1. All cooked and uncooked food, along with garden waste and other compostables goes in the green bin, which is collected fortnightly. It is all composted outdoors in huge boxes, sieved and sold to residents as garden compost. The high temperatures 90 C, inside the heaps kills all the bugs that might make smells or disease. No bin bags are produced or left around. The Council has found that the rats and vermin problem has declined hugely since they did this, reports my friend who is a vet.

2. All dry paper, plastic, glass, metal etc goes into the blue bin. There is a compartment within to keep paper separate for recycling. A company called Donarbon Ltd has a plant that mechanically sorts all of this for recycling. There is an education centre where you can visit, watch and learn.

3. The black bin is for residual waste i.e. the remaining 20% by weight. This is only collected fortnightly, but my friends say they actually only need to put it out every few weeks, as it is inert and non smelly.

There is no incineration of waste. Carbon is being locked up in the composting process, so the carbon footprint must be really low. The residual waste goes to landfill, As they are successful in persuading people not to put food in the black bin, methane emissions will reduce.

Their website states: “The Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) MBT plant, which cost just over £41Million to build and equip, is the centrepiece of the 28-year PFI waste management contract between Cambridgeshire County Council and Donarbon, whereby Donarbon will be responsible for treating the majority of household waste from Cambridgeshire and ensuring that councils meet their recycling and landfill diversion targets.”

Imagine if Birmingham had an 80% recycling rate and a hugely reduced rat population, how much nicer would the city be? There would be no more sights like these:

Websites for further information;

http://www.scambs.gov.uk/Environment/Wasteandrecycling/Recycling

http://www.donarbon.com/

John Newson

HS2 Debate Questions

We had a few of the questions that were submitted in advance answered by the panel at our debate yesterday, but didn't have time for all of them, so I promised to post some of them online today. Here they are and if anyone would like to answer them, then please do so in the comments section:

1) "HS2 is being developed after the main LTP plans have been agreed regionally. What will be the impact of HS2 be on local planning and on funding which could have been used instead to support local transport networks; particularly in the more deprived North of Solihull Borough where its inadequacies are a much greater economic and social barrier to the local economy than the need for a very expensive rail HS2 line?"

2) "223 mph (360km/h) trains use more than twice the power of 124 mph (200km/h) trains, add this to the emissions from construction and the increase in air traffic at Birmingham Airport as a result of HS2 and this will actually result in a substantial increase the UKs carbon emissions over the next 60 years. Should we be spending 34 billion on a transport project that does nothing to help the UK reduce CO2 emissions?"

3) "Why is the Government continuing to promote HS2 when there is a greener alternative, Rail Package 2, that will provide all the forecast capacity needs more quickly and at significantly lower cost?"

4) "The HS2 prospectus tells us that some 40 million passenger journeys into London per year will be slowed down or scrapped as a result of HS2. Will nobody spare a thought for the long suffering rail commuter (I am one of them) and consider upgrading our existing rail network at a fraction of the cost of HS2, so that ALL working class people can have access to a faster train service, rather than enabling a few executives to get from Birmingham to London 10 minutes quicker than they can already?"

5) "Why do we not go for a new line which runs at a slower speed and can therefore avoid damaging environmentally sensitive areas as it won't have to run in a straight line?"

6) "Instead of going to Euston station and disrupting the West Coast Mainline, why doesn't the line go into Stratford and onto HS1 there? Surely that's the way to really get people off planes."

The balance here isn't quite the same as it was in the audience, as there were more people there who were pro-HS2, but they didn't submit written questions. There have been a lot of positive comments about the debate, but many people feel that more evidence is needed to back up the claims by both sides. If you would like to contribute to this, please do.

Joe Peacock

2 Men Inhabiting Different Worlds

On Tuesday I attended 2 events organised by the city council. Firstly there was the Birmingham transport summit where we had many flashy presentations on Birmingham's future connectivity and the importance of international links to bring inward investment. Then, in the evening I went along to receive an award for the green community work we'd done through our Faith and Climate Change project and also heard a talk by Rob Hopkins of the transition towns initiative on how we need to re-localise our supply chains and move away from a dependence on oil.

At the transport summit we had a new cabinet member for transport leading it, in councillor Huxtable, and there was a marked change from the previous incumbent. Cycling was mentioned far more times than last year and there was more of an emphasis on walking, too, but still the main overarching obsessions are with large-scale vanity projects, such as HS2, the airport runway and the new “gateway” station at New Street. It is a bizarre world that the leader of the council, Mike Whitby, lives in when he talks about the need for consistency and there not being contradictions in their policy, yet can talk about cutting CO2 emissions and sustainability and doubling the number of passengers at the airport by bringing in more people from the South East in one breath.

I asked a question in the second part of the event (after Councillor Whitby had left, unfortunately) about the rise in oil prices due to the problems with supply and the unsustainable nature of planning to use motor cars and planes in the (relatively near) future. Cllr Huxtable passed this question on to an officer who had been to Abu Dhabi recently and I was surprised by his frankness when he said that supplies are likely to run out in 2040 or 2045 and that although there are other ways of powering motor vehicles, planes are much more difficult. How any sensible leadership can put all their eggs in a basket that is going to be empty in less than 30 years seems incredible – what legacy are they leaving behind them?

The quote that they put up about leaving the city a more beautiful place than they had found it felt rather like a sick joke in this context.

In the evening Rob Hopkins spoke eloquently about the transition movement and the projects springing up all over the country where people are trying to re-connect with their local areas and that, as much as being an environmental movement, this is a social movement too, as people who've done it talk more about the friends they've made than the carbon they've saved. Once again we saw figures about how quickly oil is going to run out and some reminders of the ridiculousness of how our economy works at the moment with the same goods travelling back and forth from country to country needlessly, wasting precious resources and disconnecting consumers from the producers.

There certainly are some impressive things being done with local currency schemes, energy generation ventures and food growing initiatives, although he admits that it's only a small part of what needs to be done. He also spoke of his admiration of the work being done by Localise West Midlands in promoting real policy solutions on the economic changes that are needed. On how to fight the power of supermarkets, I found his answer a little unconvincing, as at the moment there seems to be no stopping them and getting people to change habits when their local shops have already gone is very hard indeed.

In the question and answer session I once again got my question in, this time about the need for campaigning when it comes to trying to stop politicians doing the stupid things that they are prone to, such as those mentioned above. He admitted that this was very much needed too, but he had become burned out after doing this for a few years himself, so different types of activities are all needed.

So, are we doing the hard stuff here at BFoE and leaving the nice fun stuff to the transition groups? We used to do a lot of practical things, too (and still do in places), but when covering a city the size of Birmingham, cannot keep such a focus on small areas as a transition group for Kings Heath or Sutton can. It is a real challenge to get people involved in campaigning and policy work as it's not as glamorous, nor are the results as immediate, but it really is a crucial area of work, so we appreciate all the volunteers who get involved with our group to help it happen.

We also got an award on the night for our work in being a green community organisation. Here's a picture of me getting it from Rob Hopkins:

When the leader of your council lives in such a state of denial as ours and his deputy (who was there to introduce the event with Rob Hopkins, but didn't stay to hear what he said) claims to be a champion of climate change and sustainability, but goes along with all those policies too, you need a strong campaigns group with a positive alternative vision of the future. The difference we can make depends on the support we get, so please come along and get involved if you can, or if you are unable to contribute your time and expertise, become a financial supporter instead.

Joe Peacock

Aviation Biofuels – Better in Theory Than in Practice?

The use of biofuels in the Aviation industry seems to be a hot topic right now. So why use biofuels in commercial aircraft? And is there an assumption that using biofuels will have less of a detrimental environmental impact than conventional fuels?

The Aviation industry accounts for almost three percent of greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. In light of this there is an ever present need to reduce emissions, particularly reducing fossil fuel use. With Aviation’s output of greenhouse gas emissions set to grow due to airport expansion and travel service increases, it is argued that biofuels provide an answer to reducing these emissions. The reason biofuels are being pushed through so fast is the industry’s need for ‘zero carbon growth’. Effectively, biofuels are seen by the industry as their best means of achieving sustainability in carbon emissions yet still allowing for expansion and growth.

But is this true? Well firstly the Aviation industry is aided by the fact that all biofuels are classed as carbon-neutral despite any environmental impacts. While greenhouse gas savings are assumed by using biofuel as opposed to fossil fuels, Almuth Ernsting of BiofuelWatch for Airport Watch argues this not to be the case, pointing out that many scientific studies have shown that the full climate impacts of biofuels have in some cases been even worse than the fossil fuels they look to replace.

While Airlines are looking into a variety of different biofuel feedstocks, there are still large technical hurdles, and even with the mass planting of Jatropha, commercial yields are hard to produce. Plus when we take into account that its mass planting over 4 years has forced the eviction of many farmers and indigenous communities, with no commercial scale yields produced, it is hard to argue in favour of it.

All other feedstocks are in the research and development stages, and a long way from any commercial value. In light of this it seems set that for the foreseeable future, palm oil is the best source for commercial yields as it is not only the cheapest feedstock, but also the one most capable of higher yields. But still to produce commercial yields will take hectares upon hectares of land, and while aviation companies and biofuel producers talk of palm oil as being temporary until other feedstock sources can be fully developed, it still does not reverse the environmental damage done to rainforest and peatland, and indigenous communities, all of which will be destroyed for palm oil.

As of March 2011 we will begin to see the first passenger flights using biofuels. As Rainforest Rescue note, Lufthansa Germany has recently published plans to provide the world’s first commercial flights using a biofuel blend that includes palm oil. Neste Oil will be the providers from their Singapore biodiesel refinery, which is the world’s largest, and runs exclusively on palm oil. As Ernsting notes, their main supplier is the Malaysian IOI Corporation, who is responsible for large-scale destruction of rainforests, peatlands and fields being cultivated by local farmers in large parts of South East Asia, such as Sarawak and Kalimantan.

IOI is one of the main companies investing in a 1 million hectare oil palm expansion programme that was recently announced by the Government of Sarawak and which will primarily convert forests which belong to indigenous peoples. And so the damage risks are large in terms of the displacement of peoples, deforestation and destruction of grasslands. This will hurt not only indigenous communities, but also inhabiting species. In fact, Biofuel Watch note that if just one British airline, Ryanair, was to replace all kerosene with biofuels, they would require at least 407,500 hectares of oil palm plantations – or 1.25 million hectares of camelina ones.

The environmental damage from such a move would be immense for reasons I have stated. On face value biofuels may seem like a good idea, but right now with palm oil the only possible source, the environmental impacts outweigh any benefits.

FoE has campaigned against Biofuels targets without proper research into the effects and has shown that they actually increase carbon emissions: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/biofuels_double_carbon_emissions_15042009.html

Rainforest Rescue has begun an email action against the Lufthansa plans, if you would like to get involved please visit: http://www.rainforest-rescue.org.

Tom Hulme

Low Cost and Low Carbon Transport session at the Conservative party conference fringe

Yesterday I went along to the Climate Clinic at Baskerville House to hear the secretary of state for transport, Philip Hammond, answering questions on how we can deliver low carbon transport at low cost (the age of austerity is mentioned everywhere at the moment).

I was hoping to hear something about what's happening to transport funding ahead of the Comprehensive Spending Review to give us an indication of what to expect and how the government will achieve cost savings and to be able to put a question the Philip Hammond myself, but neither of those happened.

I was pleased that the transport secretary does make all the right statements about the need to reduce carbon emissions, even if he doesn't seem to get all the issues, just yet. What I would definitely disagree with him on, is the idea of economic growth and carbon savings not being incompatible. Consumption seems to be so linked to economic growth and consumption = using levels of resources which are environmentally unsustainable on the whole. Also, the government has someone looking at reducing the need to travel as their remit, but this doesn't seem to be in evidence from a lot of the schemes that are going ahead; regional airport expansion, High Speed Rail etc. There still seems to be too much of a feeling that large transport schemes that encourage people to travel more are essential to a good economy.

Philip Hammond is very careful to say that he is “not anti-car, but anti-carbon” and sensibly said some things about which mode of transport was more suitable for which journeys. We agree that in rural areas, there is not always an alternative to the car and it would be very difficult to create an affordable one with such a lack of dense housing. However, there needs to be a lot more ambition in getting people out of cars for those journeys in urban areas, such as Birmingham, where the roads are totally clogged up and many areas have so many cars parked all over the pavements that it makes it hard for pedestrians to walk along them.

He stressed the importance of “greening the grid” for electric vehicles to play a full role as low carbon vehicles, but did admit that we can't make the change quickly enough with technology alone. Quite how he plans to go about achieving the necessary level of behaviour change is still unclear, though.

On land use planning, he said that we need to ensure that we build the homes people want (ones with gardens), not loads of 2-bed flats which nobody wants to live in, as has been the case. Doing this intelligently, and “without restricting people” is part of the solution according to Mr Hammond.

He also spoke about buses needing to change their image (and the people who introduced the meeting had stuff about marketing them for the greener journeys campaign), smart-ticketing across different transport modes and the need for innovative local solutions that are suitable for each area, rather than nationally decided policy.

The other speakers then had a turn – Sir Moir Lockhead from First Group talked more about buses and how they are friends with cars and want to have space for them in the roads, too. He also patted the industry on the back for offering 1million free tickets to people as part of a drive getting people onto buses. No mention was made of the potential cuts to the Bus Service Operators Grant and whether that will stay.

Next up was Edmund King of the AA, who was actually very sensible in what he was saying and quite positive and gave some good stats. He said that 90% of motorists said they would take steps to reduce their environmental impact, 70% of the people who lift-share say they do it for environmental reasons, but more people want incentives for doing it, such as exclusive parking spaces for lift-sharers. He also said that the scrappage scheme had meant 90% of the people switching to smaller, cleaner cars – is that true? He also emphasised the benefits of eco-driving which can reduce the amount of fuel used by 20% and gave the fact that 86% of journeys in the UK are made by car at the moment – another one I'm not sure of – is that true?

Doug Parr from Greenpeace was next and he said that transport is fundamentally different from other forms of carbon reduction because people really feel it in their everyday activity, unlike insulation, changing light bulbs, energy generation etc. he also spoke about oil and the dangers of extracting deep sea oil, as we've seen from the Gulf, and that we should be leaving it in the ground now to avert more environmental catastrophes in colder waters, such as the Arctic and off the coast of Scotland. Another good statistic that he gave is that there is £19 of benefit for every pound spent on walking and cycling initiatives – unrivalled by any other transport investment. I wanted to ask a question of Philip Hammond on this and why the government didn't invest more in it in that case, but wasn't able to do so.

Questions from the floor were asked on various issues while Mr Hammond was still there, including ones on biofuels, hydrogen vehicles, freight facilities for rail and nuclear power. I really wanted to get a question in on HS2 before Philip Hammond left, but the chair, just wouldn't come to me. He left at 7pm, after which there was time for my question, which was “If this is all about low carbon and low cost, why is everyone still talking about building high speed rail, which will not save any carbon and will cost a huge amount of money?”. The chair said “oh controversial question”, yet none of the panel who were left disagreed with me, so it doesn't seem that anyone but top politicians and a few business people really think it's a good idea.

Edmund King said he couldn't understand the reasoning behind it (maybe they'd rashly promised it when rejecting Heathrow) and spoke to me afterwards saying how convenient and easy he found the train for travelling between cities with no need for it to be any faster. Doug Parr was reluctant to rule it out but all the reservations that he gave are ones that the current plans do not meet and where on earth the funding for the transport infrastructure to link in other modes of transport as well as building HS2 is going to come from, nobody seems to have the answer.

Unless we are making the power supply truly green and the rest of the transport system geared to getting people door-to-door, we cannot support HS2 taking people between interchange stations based at airports – that is not low carbon or low cost.

Joe Peacock

True Costs

Public transport is always being hit by the government when they need to save money and now is no exception, but if we think of the true costs of this over the past century, all those alleged savings from not keeping railways or bus services going would surely be cancelled out if we calculated the what the alternatives have cost the country.

Let's just think of a few things that are attributable to increased car use over walking, cycling or using public transport:

Congestion

It is hard to argue that our roads would be congested without lots of people each driving their own private vehicle. According to CBT, "the total cost of congestion is usually estimated at £20 billion a year".

Road accidents

Whilst some proportion of the accidents on our roads may involved buses, the vast majority are caused by cars. Again from CBT's 2008 report, "Last year there were 260,000 casualties on our roads, including 3,172 fatalities [1]. Using Government figures, the cost to the economy of these accidents was £12 billion."

Road-building

According to the Transport Select Committee, "Government spending on roads has almost doubled in real terms since 1999–2000." In 2005/6 it was £6.6 billion and we know that with all the damage caused by the freezing weather this winter many councils are struggling to keep roads repaired and in decent condition. With fewer cars, we could scrap all new road-building schemes and ensure that those we have suit the needs of buses, cyclists and pedestrians better.

Carbon Emissions

Passenger cars emitted 76.8 million tonnes of CO2 (or 20.9 million tonnes of carbon) in 2007, according to DEFRA. Using Stern’s figure of £190 per tonne of carbon, the carbon caused by these cars cost nearly £4 billion.

Obesity

The modern disease caused by sedentary lifestyles and over-eating costs the NHS £14 billion a year. It would be unfair to blame all of this on car use over more active forms of transport, but promoting walking and cycling could certainly help to fight it and reduce these costs.

In times when we are being told to look for ways of saving money, we should certainly not see spending money on public transport as anything other than a saving to the country as a whole when we see the costs of ever more cars on the road. It looks as if the distances that people are travelling have now peaked and are no longer going to keep on rising exponentially along with economic growth (although whether that will happen is also up for debate). To save money we need to invest in safer roads for cyclists and pedestrians and taking road space away from cars to make public transport work better. The benefits in savings and quality of life for all could be huge.

Let's start with showing how many cars we can take off the road for In Town Without My Car Day 2010.

Joe Peacock

[1] From Transport Statistics Great Britain 2007, published by the Department for Transport, November 2007

Section Eight, Transport Accidents and Casualties: Table 8.1

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/tsgb/2007edition/sectioneighttransportacciden.pdf

A Weekend of Cycling Events

I have now gone from being a critical mass virgin to doing 2 in a weekend and then a charity bike ride on Sunday, too. I was hardly out of the saddle, although the three were quite different.

On Friday evening at 6pm I turned up at St Phillips Square for my first Critical Mass ride ever. The Birmingham event has been going (on and off) for a couple of decades now (first Friday of the month) and I have been intending to do it for a while, but always seem to forget or have something else on. The weather was fine this week, though, and there was a good turnout of happy, positive people. We wheeled around the normally intimidating big roads which are usually dominated by cars and lorries with our message that we are traffic too.

There were around 20 of us at the Friday night critical mass and lots of them said they would be out the next day for the ride to the airport, so I left very optimistic. There were no major incidents of drivers getting overly aggressive (which I'm told can happen) and it was a good chance to meet some other cyclists, although I didn't stick around for the post-ride pint, as I was hungry for tea.

They have a facebook group if you want to see what's going on and an email list if you want to receive information.

Saturday was the Ride Down the Road and the weather was foul. Almost as cold and wet as you could think of the weather being in May. I suspect that largely due to this the numbers were not as high as we were hoping they would be. The people travelling in to Brum were already committed and so all turned up, but the more local people saw the rain and understandably had second thoughts. Look at the aviation section of the Birmingham Friends of the Earth website for more information on why we were doing this and what the council is doing to prop up Birmingham International Airport.

Even so, it went pretty well, despite the more aggressive nature of some of the drivers along the A45. After a while, we went down to just the one lane to ensure nothing unpleasant happened. A report of the day and picture can be found on the bfoe website. Plane Stupid, Indy Media and the University of Warwick Students' paper all did reports, too.

On Sunday a friend of mine was doing a charity bike ride to mark the anniversary of a horrific crash she had when cycling that left her with a broken back and needing a lot of care from a specialist spinal injuries clinic. The weather for this was almost perfect and we rode from Canon Hill park along the Rea valley cycle route to Kings Norton and back. Over 120 people took part and it was great to see so many people on bikes having a good time and supporting a good cause at the same time.

If we could get the same number of people who came along on Sunday to do a critical mass and show that we want cyclists to be treated better on the roads, that'd be truly great, so anyone who can, please come along to the next one on the first Friday of next month. Also, support our 20's plenty campaign to make the roads safer all over the city.

Aviation is not the way forward for our nation

We've recently had to step up our aviation campaigning as the issue has stormed back into the headlines.

We ran a high-profile campaign against the runway extension at BIA called flyagra which highlighted the many problems with extending the runway, while trying to use an amusing comparison with the type of dodgy extensions one is often suggested may be a good idea in spam emails. Unfortunately, the planning application was approved by Solihull Council, so until recent events it looked like there was nothing more we could do.

Firstly, there was the high court ruling on Heathrow's 3rd runway stating that the aviation white paper from 2003 is now obsolete (which we've been arguing to be true for a long time).

Then came the scandalous news that BIA are asking for state aid from the local councils to get the A45 moved and make the runway extension possible after AWM pulled out of financing it.

It emerged that Birmingham City Council and Solihull MBC are planning to stump up £16m each at a time of cuts in public expenditure and job losses, especially in Birmingham. However, after seeing that we and the local press are looking at the legality of such a move, the council has made all reports on the matter and all discussions private. Yesterday I attended the cabinet meeting where the ridiculous decision to fund this was approved, but members of the public were excluded from hearing any of the debate around it or seeing any documentation about the route of the road, which we understand will not now be in a tunnel under the runway, but going around the perimeter of the runway.

Obviously, the council are concerned about public scrutiny of this decision as they feel they are on shaky ground so we now need to look into the legality of it, especially when taxpayers in the West Midlands could be getting so much better value for money by the council investing money in more low-carbon job creation schemes that would help tackle fuel poverty, meet climate change targets and improve the area's economy.

We've alway argued that the economic forecasts for the expansion of aviation are flawed and this has been borne out by more recent reports on the loss to the economy potentially resulting from building Heathrow's 3rd runway. There are very well-researched figures showing the tourism deficit from aviation to be very substantial indeed and if the industry's projections of continued growth are correct will lead to £41bn being lost from the West Midlands economy from 2004-2020.

The volcano currently erupting in Iceland has given many people a different view on aviation, even if it is causing problems to many. We should not mess with Mother Nature, as she'll always win and the fragility of our plans involving flying people and good across the planet as the default system for doing business, leisure activities or feeding ourselves has been shown and this cannot be the best way forward.

I agree with this blog post arguing that we can largely live without flying so planning ever-expanding aviation is wrong for everyone. It is essential that we keep up the pressure to ensure that this carbon-hungry white elephant of a scheme is not given the go-ahead.

Press release on BIA's announcement on delaying the runway extension

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AIRPORT SHOULD COME CLEAN OVER EXPANSION ASPIRATIONS

Environmental campaigners have welcomed this morning's announcement by BIA chief executive Paul Kehoe that the runway extension will not be built for at least 5 years, but are calling for more clarity over what work is to be completed and who will pay for it.

Recently both Birmingham and Solihull councils have offered to put in £16 million of “state aid” to allow the runway extension to go ahead by paying for work to move the A45, but the details of this have remained private. Birmingham FoE is now calling for all relevant documents to be made available for public scrutiny and for the case to be completely reviewed with regards to the legislation now in place.

Friends of the Earth won huge public support for the 2008 Climate Change Act which has made the aviation white paper of 2003 (on which all runway plans were based) obsolete, and they are now calling for more transparency and a complete review of the plans for expanding aviation in this country.

Joe Peacock from Birmingham Friends of the Earth stated “We now know that aviation expansion plans do not add up for the planet or the people of the West Midlands. New government guidance due next year must take into account the science of climate change that is recognised in law and this will mean expanding aviation can no longer be justified.”

“The airport should now tell the public exactly what their plans are and stop asking for state subsidies for damaging work to be carried out on the greenbelt.”

“Birmingham City Council have recently announced some green measures to get the economy moving, so these should be the focus of investment from the public purse, as the financial return for the area will be far higher.”

ENDS

Notes to Editors

1) Birmingham City Council recently passed the Climate change action plan to cut its £1.5 billion energy bill and generate investment in green jobs http://birminghamnewsroom.com/?p=8336

http://www.birminghampost.net/birmingham-business/birmingham-business-news/environmental-and-sustainable-industry/2010/03/30/climate-change-action-plan-aims-to-slash-1bn-off-birmingham-s-fuel-bills-65233-26134021/

2) The Big Ask Campaign resulted in the climate change act 2008 http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/big_ask/

3) Lord Justice Carnwath ruled that the 2003 Air Transport White Paper – the foundation of aiport expansion plans across the country - is obsolete because it is inconsistent with the Climate Change Act 2008. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/626.html

4) Birmingham Friends of the Earth campaigns on many environmental issues, including the promotion of sustainable transport.

For more information contact: Joe Peacock (Birmingham Friends of the Earth)

Birmingham Transport Summit 2010 – Len Gregory's last one!

A couple of weeks ago I attended the Transport Summit at the council house in Birmingham. Whilst it wasn't quite so full of middle-aged businessmen in suits as the High Speed Rail conference the week before, it still seemed a case of style over substance and trying to impress everyone with big flashy projects, rather than local transport improvements on the ground.

Councillor Gregory was first up and did make some of the right noises about low carbon transport, but there was an insistence that this was a “carrot not stick” approach. To me this misses the point, as he is not offering a carrot to cyclists, as there is a lack of safety for them on the roads of Birmingham, to public transport users whose buses get snarled up in the congested roads of the city without being given priority or to pedestrians for whom the pavements are often in a shocking state of repair, aren't gritted and are often expected to cross busy roads without proper crossings or enforcement of speed limits to make it safer. Even though there is a pedestrian taskforce and I have heard good things of the meetings, there is little evidence of improvements on the ground.

Also notable was that he did not once mention cycling in the time he was speaking until a question was asked by John from Pushbikes at which stage he gave an answer that they had invested over a million pounds in cycling – really? I still remain convinced that he would rather bikes were kept off the agenda as much as possible, though.

There was much talk of the Camp Hill line and re-opening the stations that we have been campaigning for, which was encouraging in terms of the fact that we are listened to when public opinion is so strongly in favour, but short on substance of how quickly it can be done. With all the fervour about HS2 and “the opportunities” this brings (when it won't open for another 16 years at least), I would really like some more urgency on getting rail sorted locally in the short term, not in another 10 years' time. Unfortunately, he'd rather focus on glamorous projects like the “Gateway” project at New St, the new coach station (Mike Whitby called this the Selfridges of coach stations!) and HS2.

On buses, Councillor Gregory suggested that “the bus network works well”, which will be news to many people who suffer unreliable services and are unable to reach anywhere but the city centre with any ease. He instead blamed Birmingham's climate and the fact that it rains here, which prevents people from walking to a bus stop apparently, for the fact that people still choose car over bus. Well, in my experience, it's the waiting times and lack of reliable information at bus stops, anti-social behaviour on buses and fact that they get snarled up in traffic (making reliable journey times impossible) that puts most people off. Many people do use the bus, so obviously it's not always that bad, but I'm not sure everyone would agree that perception matches Gregory's claim that the safety record has improved dramatically and the operation to do this has been “highly successful”.

What he seemed to be most proud of was the PFI for the highway network, which he claims will bring in huge amounts of investment into this infrastructure, sort out all the problems with pavements and potholes. Generally, PFIs fall well short of what is promised, so we'll have to wait and see on this one and I don't see any point in commenting further at this stage.

There was also mention of a freight hub for distribution of good throughout the city and using canals for freight with waste carried along them too, as facilities are next to them. Promising projects, but there was not enough detail on those for BfoE to comment at this stage.

Len Gregory admitted that he would not be missed by many when he leaves his post during this speech and I for one will be looking for much more ambition from the next cabinet member for transport, to take Birmingham towards a low carbon transport future.

Eco-teams training day

As an environmental outreach officer for Birmingham Friends of the Earth I recently attended a workshop/training day through Eco-Teams, which was an interesting event as where I made some good contacts. I met Phil Beardmore of Birmingham Sustainable Energy Partnership, John Boyle of the Midlands Co-op and of the staff who helped facilitate the event itself.


The Venue was the Birmingham & Midland Institute, which was very nice, but didn’t have any signs to the event in the building. To cut a long story short, there were two events on that day and I ended up in the wrong one to start with. After I realised this I eventually found the location of the event and I was welcomed, despite being somewhat late.

The event was slightly rushed, which was a major pitfall, in my opinion, as it created a chaotic environment. Although the miniature classes/workshops were very basic in terms of the main issues of climate change, more time would have been appreciated. However, the material used was informative and made me think about how I waste energy on a domestic level. There was a lot of group work involved in the activities and it was led by table facilitators, so we were never left to our own devices.

I think the way they organised it was interesting as there were about six or seven tables, each with a facilitator. They all had separate topics to cover and at the end of each lesson/workshop, we did a brief presentation on what was covered to all the groups, which was a very effective way to cover many topics related to climate change quickly. Although my reflections on the day may seem negative, the overall agenda of the event was admirable and people without much knowledge could learn and do something practical.

The main point of the event was to inspire people to lead their own Eco-teams. This could be done on an independent basis or as a group. Eco-teams have an array of support on their site, from activities to lesson plans and ideas to use in your projects. Each person has a five-month period to complete their project, but if they have someone else in their group who wants to, they can take over the role of leader and continue the project.

I would generally suggest that this is a great project for people who want to take it on and environmental organisations should work together to provide support for it.

Karl Whale

HS2 - the big day!

Rather than write another long piece about our opinions on the whole HS2 debate, this post will just round up a few of the articles that have been published on it.

I have been on the radio twice commenting on it. The first appearance was on the Ed Doolan show on Radio WM along with Paul Kehoe from Birmingham International airport (or London Elmdon as it seems to want to become), who was obviously loving the fact that the route takes people direct to his airport so they can fly more and not happy that anyone was being critical of the plans. He wondered "what planet Friends of the Earth are on" - umm that'll be the one in the name, you know, the one with dwindling supplies of fossil fuels and an urgent need to reduce carbon emissions. I also recorded a few comments for Smooth Radio and sent out press releases to other media folk. A copy of the one from the day before is on our website.

If you like reading the whole long detailed reports on the scheme, then this is the place to go. A few key things I drew out of the section on HS2 and climate change in the appraisal on sustainability were that the carbon reductions are not dependant on this scheme, but many other factors in government policy and investment outside it. Reductions in flying are the only thing that will make significant carbon savings - and then only if slots for domestic flights freed up at crowded airports aren't replaced by more international ones. Also, power generation is key to its success and so far the government's record on getting renewables onto the grid isn't great, so we'll either be reliant on a lot of nuclear, which is also extremely problematic, or more polluting power stations to run these trains.

Advantage West Midlands have been talking about key transport projects (HS2 being one of them), but then also talk about the extension of the runway at BIA and more capacity on the motorways, yet still talk about tackling climate change. Talk about mixed messages.

Passenger groups and CBT were given their say in one article in the Birmingham Post, which was again fairly positive apart from CBT stating "Fares must be cheaper than flying and driving and HSR must be an alternative to new motorways and airports."with which I agree.

The Tories responded by rubbishing Labour's plans because they don't go to Heathrow! I agree that their plans are flawed, but so are most and more airport stations aren't the answer.

The business people had their say about how wonderful it all is, although where they got the time of over 2hrs for the average journey to London now, when it's easy to do it in under 1hr 20 if you want to pay Virgin prices I don't know. Lord Adonis gave the game away a bit with one quote in his official statement "As we grow wealthier as a nation, so we travel more and move more freight." he said, which is a problem if we are looking to reduce resource use, localise and build a more sustainable and resilient economy.

The stirrer's article asked "will Brum become a North London suburb?", which is a line that concerns us in this debate. How do we stop it from just being part of the commuter belt with people buying property here and taking the train to London to work. Will this whole scheme just suck money out of the region as it's easier to travel away, rather than bringing it in?

Much more has been written, but that gives a bit of a round up for this day. See last week's post on my reflections after the summit for more opinion.

HS2 Conference Reflections

I have previously written about our views on High Speed Rail, but we seem to be in a real minority of people with anything to say other than what a great opportunity it is.

Last week I attended a conference where people who were mainly enthusiasts for the project were being encouraged by Mike Whitby and other interested parties in becoming even more dedicated to the cause. There was almost universal acceptance of the claims that HS2 will bring huge amounts of money into the West Midlands economy and that this was some panacea to cure all our economic and transport ills.

The phrase that everyone kept repeating was that we've been given the ball and it's ours to drop, as though we're being given the most wonderful present. This ignores many previous transport schemes which show that new transport infrastrcuture into deprived areas tends to suck people and money out as they can travel away from the area to work, rather than bringing investment in. We don't want Birmingham to be turned into a distant commuter city for the South East with a rise in house prices, but no real improvement in local connectivity and employment.

One question was asked by Kevin Chapman of Campaign for Better Transport about whether this incredibly expensive high profile scheme will take all the money that can be invested in transport infrastructure away from local projects, especially in such difficult economic times. The answer came back in the room that this was not the case and that the money, as with HS1 and the eurostar route, comes from "a different pot". However, as this article shows, projects to get traditional rail improvements done are already struggling to get funding. Also, in the Birmingham Post last week, Jerry Blackett tells of a very poignant encounter with a young person from a disadvantaged area of Birmingham who can't believe £250 million is being spent on making Chilterns journeys to London 20 minutes quicker when there are people in this city who don't even have a home to live in. How many people are really going to benefit from HS2 compared to the amount of money spent? Is it not just going to be the business elite who rake in some lucrative contracts, while most ordinary people in Birmingham and especially the rest of the West Midlands gain no benefit whatsoever?

It was claimed that HS2 will increase capacity for providing improved local services by taking trains off the mainline and yet not affect the standard of provision on routes from places like Coventry and Wolverhampton (concern over this was raised by Gerald Kells from CPRE). Is it just me who can't see how that works? Either they take faster trains off the lines feeding other towns in the area and make those slower and less frequent, or there won't be any extra capacity, surely.

I really found all the figures given in this conference as unbelievable as those the airport bandies around about the wealth and jobs that would be created by expanding their activities, extending the runway etc. Here is the article published in the local press which says that 42 000 jobs could be created. It is not actually as outrageous as some of the airport's claims, but still, as one of the people there confessed, job creation figures cannot be believed as there would have been zero unemployment long ago if they were true just from projects completed over the last decade.

BIA are desperate for HS2 to call at Birmingham International as well as the city centre, but this would once again go against all the claims of creating emploment opportunities in the most environmentally beneficial areas (i.e. city centres). What we would get is a parkway station causing more pressure to develop greenbelt and attracting more traffic to this already crowded road system.

It also makes the idea of our airport becoming "London Elmdon" more likely as BIA takes the strain from the South East's airport's (45 minutes from central London) and local people are subject to more air and noise pollution as air travel is allowed to grow unchecked.

The claims of HS2 reducing CO2 emissions are extremely optimistic at best. The loading ratio predicted, based on Eurostar services, which would allow them to operate only using the same amount of energy per passenger as slower trains is very unlikely as it would require large numbers of people travelling on these routes who are prepared to pay higher prices. Then, there is the carbon involved in building and maintaining the network, which is also considerably higher than for traditional trains. The savings only really stack up on the longer routes to Scotland over a long period, whereas we really need urgent action to cut CO2 now and this means the opposite will be true.

Surely, it's better to encourage people to travel less or reduce the need to travel, as this is the most benefical policy carbon-wise. I asked this question at the conference, but nobody wanted to answer it, instead concentrating on tokenistic ways of conserving energy and generating green energy.

I have a lot of reservations over whether building HS2 is really going to benefit the people who need to benefit from improved public transport. They are the ones who have no access to a car and suffer from poor provision locally, whose streets are clogged up with too many cars and those whose livelihoods are threatened by climate change all over the world and who need us to make urgent cuts in CO2 emissions now. Unless that is the case, I can't see why we are planning to throw billions of pounds at this scheme, when there are better ways of spending money to improve everyone's lives.

The Moseley Swap Shop

One man's trash is another man's treasure!

At The Moseley Swap Shop

Have u got anything you don't want? Or do you just fancy some new stuff for FREE? Then the Moseley Swap Shop is the place for you! Brought to Moseley by FOEcycle and REUSED. Don't miss first Swap Shop February the 27^th, at the Prince of Wales. It'll open at 12pm and finish around 5pm and will be appearing at The Prince of Wales every 4^th Saturday of the month!

Come along maybe after a visit to the Moseley Farmers Market, pop in to The Prince of Wales to get out of the cold and there you will find books, clothes, kitchen stuff, DVDs, Computer games, Ornaments, and anything you bring along to add! All for FREE This stall is entirely dependant on you getting involved, so come down and participate! Based on the online yahoo group Freecycle (now Freegle). www.IloveFreegle.org which allows you to place ads to get rid of things you don't need and respond to ads to get things you do, without money getting involved, well worth a look. The Moseley Swap Shop is your local alternative!

We all know about the 3R's, Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle, this is a great way to achieve all 3 of them on a Saturday afternoon in the pub and leave with some nice stuff! The stall will also be taking donations for Birmingham Friends Of The Earth and have promotional information available about the activities of BFOE in Birmingham, and other information about what Green alternative stuff is going on in Birmingham and how you can get involved if you're interested.

So don't miss out on the 27th of Feb because you won't be disappointed!

If you have any inquires please email me at fisher_woman@live.co.uk

Airmiles Allowance : time for some blue skies thinking?

‘Airmiles’ is still taken by most people to refer to be a good thing : vouchers for extra ‘free’ air travel, as a reward for having paid for previous flights. With growing awareness of global warming, however, some individuals have begun to restrict their personal air travel, to limit the damage they do.
The airline industry plays down its greenhouse impact, of course – but as far as it does recognise a need to limit, for example, CO2 emissions, it directs attention overwhelmingly to improvements in the fuel efficiency of planes, per mile flown, rather than reduce the number of miles flown. And indeed, if a ‘zero carbon airline’ could exist, then “the sky’s the limit” might ring truer!


As we’re nowhere near fuel efficient flight, however, perhaps we do have to ask ourselves : How many miles per year can we sustainably travel by air?

We can arrive at a figure, but this will be based on certain assumptions, as well as firmer information.
First, let’s for the sake of argument suppose that each mile travelled by air will continue to have the same greenhouse impact as now. Then, let’s remind ourselves that global greenhouse emissions must be reduced by 80% by the year 2050 after the Climate Change Act was passed last year. Let’s therefore assume that the contribution from airmiles must reduce by that amount too.

So, what is our current air mileage? According to IATA (2009), a global total of 2.218 trillion miles (3.578 trillion kilometres) were flown on scheduled flights in 2008. They only have figures for scheduled flights, but estimate that this accounts for 95% of commercial air traffic (for the purpose of this discussion, let’s ignore military and private mileage). So, 100% of these current flights would be about 2.335 trillion miles.


Most of the world’s 7 billion population have never flown, of course, and our current airmiles are flown by perhaps just the richest 10%. So, ‘rich world’ citizens seem to be averaging about 3340 miles each per year (with most intensive use being made by people such as frequent business fliers).

In keeping with the principle of ‘Contraction & Convergence’, however, whatever amount of fossil fuels etc that we use in future, we can only do so sustainably if it is shared out equally amongst all the world’s citizens (greenhouse pollution to date has, of course, come overwhelmingly from the ‘rich minority’).
So, an equal allocation of our airmiles would mean that on average each global citizen’s share would currently be 334 miles per year (something that most of the world might dream of).
Furthermore, if we give an extra allowance to members of migrant diaspora communities (in order that they can occasionally visit their family/heritage home overseas), and people living in isolated areas, this would reduce most citizens’ allowance further, to maybe 300 miles.

Finally, recalling that we must also make allowance for essential (hopefully greatly reduced) military & other state use, this would further reduce most citizens’ allowance to perhaps 280 miles in 2009. By 2050, this would reduce to just 56 miles per year per person (2% per year on average over these next 40 years).

In the meantime, what does this mean for us in the ‘rich minority’? Anybody currently exceeding 280 airmiles per year might be accused of ‘carbon theft’, ie. taking more than our fair share. In reality, most of the world’s citizen’s are not going to make use of their share in the next 40 years – this might be taken to mean we have some ‘elbow room’, to steadily and drastically reduce our consumption, without eliminating it overnight. The financial cost of air travel will clearly have to increase drastically, however, partly to compensate the majority who don’t fly, but require investment in other areas of their social development.

So, perhaps we could start by saying that :

Most individuals in the ‘rich minority’ should at least not exceed the current average of 3340 miles in the next year.


In keeping with the ’10:10’ campaign (run by Franny Armstrong, the director of Age of Stupid and aiming for people to cut their cO2 emissions by 10% in 2010), our personal allowance should be reduced to no more than 3000 miles by the end of next year.
The personal allowance should further reduce by at least 70 miles per year for the next 40 years, to bring us down to the global average allowance.

… Unless by some miracle (don’t hold your breath!) air travel becomes carbon-neutral, or following other less unlikely changes, in which case we recalculate again.

Comments are invited, eg on the assumptions I’ve made, or alternative figures we might use.

A workshop activity could be run on this, part of which could include participants working out their own actual airmile total for last 12 months, and what the 10:10 reduction would mean for their immediate future.

Please reply directly by email to aldomussi@hotmail.com

Aldo Mussi December 2009

Bees - the new canaries

Over the years a few different animals and plants have been termed the new canaries in the coal mine for climate change and the ecological problems facing the world. Amphibians are at terrible risk of being wiped out, which could lead to huge increases in the numbers of insects and other problems. Coral-bleaching shows how much the oceans are warming and there is also evidence of how acidic they are becoming, with the real possibility that they could lose their ability to store carbon. Now though, it is the turn of the bees to become the symbol of environmental problems with a new film vanishing bees looking at the reasons for colony collapse disorder and warning of the consequences if nothing is done to save them.

On Wednesday a few of us from Birmingham Friends of the Earth went along to see the film at The Electric cinema and all of us certainly did come out thinking we wanted to do something - maybe put a hive on the roof of the Warehouse? Well, no that's probably not feasible, but definitely plant some bee-friendly stuff in the garden and maybe chuck a few seed bombs into the disused bulldozed sites of Digbeth.

While not as bleak as the Age of Stupid, the picture given in this film in the no-action-being-taken scenario, is also pretty worrying. The arguments for the importance of bees for all of us are pretty stark and cannot be ignored. The trouble is that neither this film nor any scientific study has provided conclusive proof of what is causing the bees to disappear. If you go expecting to get that, you'll be disappointed.

As a film, the vanishing of the bees has been described as "earnest", so I wasn't expecting it to be much more than informative, but there certainly were some interesting characters in the film and a few shocking facts - for example, the USA is now flying in bees from Australia to pollinate certain crops!!! It was also nice that there was a woman called Bee and a man called Dr Pollan in there who obviously belonged in their field.

The culprits are gradually revealed in the course of the documentary through interviews with bee-keepers, scientists and farmers. As an environmentalist they are pretty much what you'd expect; the use of certain pesticides, the use of intensive farming methods that have created huge monocultures rather than the biodiversity of mixed organic farming systems, loss of habitat and probably some of it is due to the industrialisation of bee-keeping itself. Many of these are also drivers of climate change and other problems associated with the ecology of our planet, so although the fate of bees is not necessarily directly linked to climate change, if we deal with one we will be helping to deal with the other, too.


I hadn't realised quite how much The Vanishing of the Bees would be about the USA, but that was primarily the focus, with only a minor mention of the UK. The fact is that we are the two countries mentioned who have not banned a certain Bayer pesticide with nicotinoids, which has been banned all over Europe where bee-keepers showed conclusive proof of what it was doing to bees (even Germany has banned it and Bayer is a German company!). I very much liked the French bee-keepers who took on the industrial giant and won, describing themselves as hippies who had been underestimated.

The American bee-keepers were interesting characters, but most of them work on such a massive industrial scale, taking their bees back and forth across the USA on lorries, that I kind of want that way of working to fail. There were a few small-scale bee-keepers and the ones who work locally with crops that flower at different times of the year seem to be doing much better.

Overall, it was certainly worth going to see, but the film was a bit over-long and could have been a bit bolder. For someone who didn't know about the topic at all, it would be very revealing, but for those with a reasonable amount of knowledge already, it did sometimes come over as a little patronising.

What is clear after seeing The Vanishing of the Bees, is that we must do something to change the destructive farming practices and have a new green revolution. This will help with food security both in terms of contributing fewer of the greenhouse gases that are causing climate change and in helping to protect bees who are vital for so much of the food we eat. This all ties in very well with our Fix the Food Chain campaign, so look here to see how you can help with that in Birmingham this weekend.

Joe Peacock

High Speed Rail - Our Position After Monday's Discussion

The topic of High Speed Rail has been much in the media recently and this Monday a group of Birmingham Friends of the Earth's campaigners got together to have a wide-ranging discussion on this issue. We looked at the advantages, disadvantages, possible routes and alternatives to creating a network of High Speed Rail lines in the UK.


In the media the impression is being given that HSR is undoubtedly the greenest option for getting people around quickly and that by building this network we will be saving huge amounts of carbon from flights. Green groups have generally given qualified support to plans, but in most of the articles I've seen in the press, there hasn't been much real discussion of certain aspects of the plan that should be key.

In terms of carbon emissions (reducing them is often given as a major reason for building HSR), there should be a full independent analysis of the impact of building and running this network compared to other scenarios before it is given the go-ahead. If this doesn't show an overall cut in greenhouse gases emitted as a result of having High Speed Rail, there is no point in spending all that money and using all that carbon doing it.

We must ensure that we use the most energy efficient models possible. Apparently, the Japanese bullet trains have the same energy efficiency as Pendolinos, but travel twice as quickly. Speed should not be seen as the only factor in what choices people make when they travel. This can be seen in the numbers of people who currently take coach or slower trains to London rather than the 85-minute Virgin service, which is prohibitively expensive for many.

In terms of social and environmental justice, we must ensure that when public money is invested, it is beneficial for all members of society, not just the affluent few and that those who live in areas near the proposed sites of the lines will also not suffer. Just because it is a rail rather than a road-building project doesn't mean we will apply any less rigour in assessing its environmental impact.

£50 billion is an awful lot of money to spend when there are many other projects that could make a significant difference to the everyday lives of people in their travelling to and from work, study or social events. Currently the carbon costs of transport are not properly reflected in what the consumer has to pay, with large increases in rail and bus fares, but decreases in the costs of air fares and driving in real terms. This should be addressed and would possibly have just as big an impact on the choices of transport modes people make.


As you can see from this map, Europe has some good coverage by High Speed Rail and getting people to these destinations by rail rather than air should be the main focus. That means having a hub that connects the UK to the continent easily and conveniently (London Stratford was designed for this) and not stations at Heathrow or other airports. A station at Birmingham International would also put more pressure on greenbelt land being used for development in the M42 corridor rather than encouraging regeneration of areas in central Birmingham.

In the UK the biggest carbon savings could be made from longer routes, such as up to Scotland, where air has the largest market share. However, all development of transport should be done as part of an integrated strategy, not as a stand-alone project. If we do not consider door-to-door journeys, people will still either travel by car to stations or be forced to rely on unreliable public transport (which rather defeats the object of High Speed Rail) and stations without proper cycling facilities.

Overall, we should be encouraging less travel (as it all uses carbon) not more, so HSR should only be used to shift people from more polluting modes, not create new journeys. That means we also need to encourage more investment in economic development of places outside the South East, so that less commuting is necessary. Providing jobs in places such as the Black Country, Stoke and the more deprived areas of Birmingham through economic development and planning measures would ensure that existing infrastructure can be utilised more effectively and local transport networks will work more efficiently and profitably. Video conferencing should be the preferred option to travelling whenever possible as it has a much lower carbon footprint.



There is an existing network that is being and can be further improved, so there must be conclusive proof of the need for new lines over and above what is already available. Also, if new conventional rather than high speed lines are built, will this not result in just as much benefit at a much lower cost.

So, while High Speed Rail has been shown to work well in reducing the need for air travel on the continent, we have many reservations as to whether it is the best use of resources now. All of the above points need to be looked at very carefully before committing to such a scheme.