Eco Dimension Day

Blog entries seem to be a little scarce of late, so I thought I'd do a quick report on an Eco Dimension Day I went along to on behalf of BFoE last week at Washwood Heath Technology College.

The Eco Dimension Day was the brainchild of Corinne Campbell, and the aim of the day was to raise awareness about environmental issues, such as recycling and sustainability, amongst the 11-13 year olds who attend the school. There were loads of activities lined up for the day, including re-using items to make clothes, cooking demonstrations and workshops, and animation classes. Before I arrived at the school I had no idea in which area Corinne wanted me to help out, and to be honest I was a little apprehensive, mainly as I didn't want to appear to not know my stuff in front of people half my age! After nervously sitting through an assembly (for the first time in about 10 years!), I was last to be assigned a task for the day. Luckily for me the group I was working with were looking at two of my favourite things: environmental issues and Lego. I was helping out a class who were given the difficult task of designing an "Eco Village".

The day kicked off with the students watching a few topical videos to get them thinking about what sort of ideas would need to be incorporated into the village to make it environmentally friendly and sustainable. They were then split into four groups and asked to brainstorm ideas for their village (on a side note, brainstorming these days is referred to as mind mapping, I'm so out of touch!). I was then asked to give a demonstration on renewable energy sources using a clever little model which incorporated wind, solar and hydroelectric power. It was then break time, and an exciting opportunity for me to see inside the staff room! Needless to say, once you're an adult the mysteries of the staff room are slightly less romantic than when I was a child. It in fact resembled the staff room of most places I've worked at, although they were giving out free tea, and by this point I was gasping.

After break, the students had until lunch time to design and make a model village out of Lego using the ideas they'd been discussing all morning. At first, most of the pupils set about making an ultimate village, with little regard for the environment, not believing their luck that they were allowed to play with Lego during school hours! After experiencing similar excitement, I thought I'd best interject and encourage them to think about practical issues, such as energy sources, food, farmland, and transport. Many of the pupils had areas set aside for wind farms and areas to grow fruit and vegetables. They also organised their village so everything was close by to reduce the need to use cars, and had various ideas to encourage cycling. Other ideas were not so green (one village had an enormous block of flats in the centre, possibly a first for a village?!), but the exercise certainly achieved its aim of getting the children to think about the way they live.

Next came lunch. I was unaware, but one of the perks of being a teacher is that you can push to the front of the line for a hot school dinner, so I was straight in with my healthy pizza and chips option to relive my school days further. The rest of the afternoon was taken up with an assembly where the pupils had the opportunity to display and talk about what they had been doing that day. All in all, the day was a huge success, and got everyone, both staff and students, thinking about environmental issues.

I was alarmed at how many of the students got a lift to school, even though some of them lived a mere ten minute walk away. In their defense, if offered a lift to school on a cold morning, I'm sure it's hard to refuse. However, this outlined to me that the onus lies on the parents in educating their children on the importance of being what is frequently termed "eco-friendly". The majority of the students had no idea why making short trips in a car was bad for the environment, and similarly why they should recycle and shouldn't be leaving electrical items on when not in use, to name but three. That's why this day was so important. Children need to be aware that their actions, however small, will make a difference, whether positively or negatively. So hopefully at the very least the pupils involved in the event will think about their actions and their lifestyle, as at the end of the day it will be them who will benefit from a green lifestyle in the future.

Grow Sites Update

Winter has now well and truly set in across Birmingham, but last week I braved the cold and went along to the third meeting of the Tenby Cottages Community Garden Group, or rather the Poplar Community Growing Space as it has now been renamed.

Preparations for the site, based in Lozells, are coming along in leaps and bounds, with the majority of the planned 20 raised beds now in place. CSV Environment, the organisation responsible for setting up the grow site, are hoping to have it completed before Christmas. I went along for a look myself today and took a few photos to give you a better idea of what the site is all about.



As you can see, despite the graffiti (which the organisers are looking into getting removed), this is a nice, well sized site, which will be perfect for the residents currently on the waiting list for a bed. The residents have been very organised in setting up the group, and have appointed people as Chair, Secretary and Treasurer already, so once the site is completed and the funding has arrived they will be ready to go.

All that is left to do is to secure a water supply, and install benches and a shed for communal tools. I for one am very excited to see the site in March at the start of the growing season, and hopefully I'll get to sample some of the produce at the end of the summer! Watch this space for further updates...

Elsewhere in food related news, there is seed swap at the Northfield Eco Centre on Thursday December 9th which is open to anyone interested in sharing, or indeed acquiring, all sorts of seeds. If you are interested be sure to book a place now with this link.

Ding Dong Definitely Don't Buy

Well, the holiday season is almost upon us. It's nearly time to drag the tree (complete with a bonus 12 months-worth of dust) out of the loft and to listen to the delightful chorus of... your significant other and your dad cursing between one another, as they search in vain for the faulty bulb in the fairy lights which is preventing them from switching on. I suspect that the cynics amongst you will say 'But Erica, there's another month to go until we can experience those simple joys!' On the contrary my friends; now is precisely the time to start thinking creatively about Christmas.

Did you know that every single Boxing Day, us Brits throw away an estimated 83 square kilometres of wrapping paper, and that 1 billion of those cards that you carefully picked out and hand-wrote end up in the bin? Yes, that's right. Your auntie Sue threw away your carefully chosen holographic, so-shiny-its-seizure-inducing Christmas card practically as soon as it came through her letterbox. Collectively, we produce an estimated 3 million tonnes of waste over the holidays. But there is a better way! There are a number of ways you can keep Christmas fun (in fact, make it even more fun) and make it healthier for the environment (as well as your pocket). All it requires is a bit of creativity. So, here are three fun, eco-friendly solutions to your Christmas woes.

1. Handmade Christmas
The Objective: Make your Christmas presents from scratch. You could paint a picture for a friend who's just moved house, or knit an iPod cozy for your significant other. If you think creatively about what your loved ones might want, you can get their present just right. You can also make your gifts out of recycled materials, such as a patchwork quilt constructed from much-loved but now too-worn to wear t-shirts. Handmade Christmas is the best way to give your friends and family something unique, personal and made just for them! What could be more heart-warming and Christmassy than that?

Pros: Making things is fun and the gift you give will be totally one-of-a-kind.
Cons: It takes TIME, so start thinking and then get crafty ASAP!

2. Charity Christmas
The Objective: All gifts bought must come from a charity shop. Ideally there should be some sort of price limit set (£5 per gift is usually about right), but how you set that is up to you. In my family, my mom gives a prize-present for the best (most funny, perfect or unique) gift given. When she let slip that this year's prize was going to be a goat I dimly asked “Ooh, could we have chickens instead? Free free-range eggs!”. It turns out that she meant a goat to be given to an African family, which is much more fitting for Christmas which is, after all, about caring for each other.

Pros: The money you spend will go to charity, it will cost you less and requires ingenuity.
Cons: Charity Christmas is becoming more and more popular, so make sure you start browsing early. You don't want to start looking on Christmas Eve when all of the good stuff will already be sitting, wrapped, under someone else's tree.

3. Recycled Christmas
The Objective: All gift-wrapping must be done with creatively collected recycled (and preferably recyclable) materials. I don't mean buying new rolls of paper made from recycled material, I mean ribbon made from pairs of laddered tights or newspaper upon which you've stamped, drawn or painted a pretty, festive design. It doesn't matter if the wrapping doesn't sit flush or isn't immaculately folded; you can really get creative with wrapping presents this way and your household clutter will be getting a final hurrah. All in all, you will lose far less waste and gain a free-reign to get creative this Christmas.

Pros: You're creating less rubbish and having more fun with your gift-wrapping (and opening)!
Cons: Make sure you don't go cutting up your mom's curtains for ribbon; she won't thank you for that.

It seems that every year there is an increasing number of people bemoaning the degeneration of Christmas. Along with the festive joy there is a feeling of sadness, that it has become something only worthy of celebration for those in the retail industry. Richard Wilkinson, co-author of the book 'The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better' thinks that materialism is not about the gifts that we buy and give, but more about what those things say about us to the person receiving. Wilkinson explains that “It's not material self-interest, it's that we're so sensitive. We experience ourselves through each other's eyes - and that's the reason for the labels and the clothes and the cars”. The fact is that those who love you don't care how much money you have to spend on their gift; what matters to them is what that gift means. Handmade, Charity and Recycled Christmas are all things which bring Christmas back to the people; where we can stop frivolously spending and consuming (often beyond our means) and really show our loved-ones how much they mean to us.

References:

“Cutting Down on Christmas Waste”:

http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/ChristmasRecycling.htm

“Throwing Away Christmas Rubbish will cost 78m”:
http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=6946019

“Equality and the Good Life: Interview with Richard Wilkinson”

http://www.yesmagazine.org/happiness/want-the-good-life-your-neighbors-need-it-too

Take Action! (Here's some inspiration to get you started):
“A Community for Crafts and DIY Projects”
http://www.craftster.org/

“Sew, cast, carve, solder, sketch, cut, go!”

http://www.folksy.com/making

“Recycle Now: Furoshiki Japanese Wrapping”

http://www.recyclenow.com/what_can_i_do_today/furoshiki_japanese_w.html

Erica Bromage

What the Green Movement Gets Right

It is of course no surprise to anyone in the environmental movement when Channel 4 gets things wrong about us – after previous inflammatory documentaries like Against Nature and The Great Global Warming Swindle, very few can have expected much from What the Green Movement Got Wrong (shown last Thursday, and available online here). We weren't disappointed, and while it sometimes feels a bit like beating your head against a brick wall, it's worth discussing some of the problems with the positions taken in the film.

The main target of my ire was the section on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which seemed to be based on two questionable assumptions – firstly, that we need genetically modified food to feed the world; and secondly, that the environmentalist argument against GMOs is simply the 'precautionary principle' – that if there's even a slight amount of unknowability about the consequences of GMOs, we shouldn't go ahead with them. The programme's conclusion was that 'the greens' should simply grow up and accept the risks involved in using new technology to provide food for the world's population.

In reality, much of the opposition to GMOs today comes not from a fear of what might go wrong, so much as a knowledge of what does go wrong when GM crops are introduced, taken from the experience of those countries that have invested heavily in GMOs – most notably the US and South American states like Brazil and Argentina. The US is by far the world's biggest producer of GM crops by volume, while almost half the crops grown in Argentina are genetically modified, and a similar amount is grown in Brazil (all of these details can be found in the 2009 version of Friends of the Earth's excellent annual report Who Benefits From GM Crops?). These countries, which have already plunged into the GM experiment, provide numerous examples of why environmentalists are really so anti-GM.

From a climate justice perspective the problem is not just one of uncertain science, but of corporate power and the rights of the poor, the powerless, and the indigenous. A full list of the social and environmental problems caused by GMOs would take up far more space than a single blog post, but a quick run-down would have to include:

• Genetically modified food technologies are concentrated almost entirely in the hands of five multinational corporations, and of those, Monsanto is responsible for 80% of the total area of farmland planted with GM crops worldwide. Giving this much power over the control of our food supply to just a few companies would be misguided even if the likes of Monsanto were model corporate citizens. But they're not. Like other corporations, Monsanto and their biotech colleagues care exclusively about profit, which is why they have been accused of developing 'terminator' GM technology to ensure the seeds they sell are sterile – this means that farmers are unable to save seeds from the crops they grow, and have to go back to Monsanto on a yearly basis to buy more.

• GM crops encourage intensive pesticide use, as they are often genetically modified to be highly resistant to herbicides and pesticides. They can then be machine sprayed (taking away pest and weed control jobs that would otherwise have been performed by local farmers) indiscriminately with these chemicals, which are often produced by the same biotech companies, further strengthening their oligopoly on the market. As well as the health issues for people living near to large GM plantations, this is encouraging resistance to herbicides amongst the very plants it is supposed to kill (Who Benefits From GM Crops 2009, pp. 25-27).

• They also lead to deforestation and land grabbing in South America, where 200,000 hectares of native forest are disappearing in Argentina each year, and social movements like La Via Campesina have documented the struggles of peasant and indigenous communities who have been displaced from their land and persecuted for resisting the encroachment of GM crops (Who Benefits From GM Crops 2010, p. 23).

• GM crops are not even being used primarily for the noble purpose of feeding the starving, because it remains much more profitable to sell them as biofuels or animal feed for the benefit of the wealthy and well-fed. Significant amounts of existing GM crops are being grown as animal feed or biofuels – up to 90% in the case of GM soya beans – while there are no commercially available GM varieties of crops like rice, wheat, potatoes and fruit and veg that could feed people rather than animals and engines. Research into these strains of GMOs is simply not profitable enough for the companies in control. (Who Benefits From GM Crops 2010, p. 6)

Perhaps the most important thing though, is that the film's supposedly 'eco-pragmatist' thesis – that regardless of all the other problems they cause, we need to support GMOs if we are to feed the world – is faulty in itself. We are already capable of growing and distributing enough food to feed all the people on this planet, without the need for technological 'miracles' like GMOs – the EU itself is famous for the huge amounts of surplus food its agricultural subsidies have created. What we need is the political will to grow food rather than feed, and to put people before profit. It's this that environmentalists and other social movements around the world are calling for under the banner of social and climate justice, whatever Channel 4 thinks.

Dream scheme Longbridge?

Confused by the big roadworks scheme on Bristol Road South A38 at Longbridge ? Birmingham City Council planning application explains all. Documents in 2008/02787/PA explain how the vision of a new Longbridge, a process in which public involvement was invited, is translated into bulldozers on the ground.

One drawing in the pack, ‘Proposed Highway Works Phasing’, helpfully explains the land ownership serving the Longbridge site. Serving the site, or cutting through it, is a railway formation that from Longbridge Station to Bristol Road South is owned by English, Welsh, and Scottish Railway (owner of a fleet of freight trains). The railway, that would in some cases be seen as an asset, is part of the Longbridge to Frankley railway. The potential railway sits alongside the construction training college as assets earmarked for removal.

The gain from the pain is planned to be a better road alignment; a smooth curve with traffic signals at the junction rather than the current roundabout that has sent many a visiting motorist towards Lickey Hills rather than the M5. The planned new junction sets up the start of the Longbridge to M42 route (a route that has failed to gain approval) and firmly places the Longbridge Vision as one where continuing and expanding road transport is a given.

The scheme, in its enthusiasm, bypasses itself by having a new two-ended road to and from Bristol Road South; one end lies opposite the much widened Longbridge Lane.

Developer of the site, St Modwen, are going through a stormy time with Birmingham City Council. In May, City Planning Committee chairman, Councillor Peter Douglas Osborn, accused St Modwen of behaving in a cavalier fashion when trying to force through the ‘Longbridge Tombway’, an underground access to the proposed shopping centre. The Tombway was described by city planners as off-putting to pedestrians. Stung by criticism St Modwen grudgingly dropped the idea (Birmingham Post May 20^th).

Ripping on with the project in a changed economic environment might raise the hackles of the Taxpayers Alliance. From the money spent, there might be a good outcome in the fantasy tarmac league, but a physical asset that is worthless or even a liability. The Longbridge site, given breathing space, might be devalued by having a road across it whereas it might otherwise be a new manufacturing site or a new home for Pinewood Studios.

To top and tail the sorry story, the developer had been expected to pay some of the infrastructure costs (a £35m contribution) but opted out (Property Week, 31 March 2009). The public foots the bill.

This then is the reality of Birmingham: an authority laying off staff and struggling for money, relentlessly pushing ahead with a project that may well be obsolete. The elected and employed people making up Birmingham City Council have a great deal of talent and that is needed now – Longbridge needs a rethink.

John Hall

One Week (and One Day) To Go!

I thought I'd post just a quick (gentle) reminder to anyone who hasn't contacted their local MP yet regarding next Friday's Sustainable Livestock Bill. For those of you who are unaware of the bill, which calls for the improvement in sustainability of all processes associated with livestock, more information can be found here.

Basically, we need you to get in contact with your MP and get them to commit to attending Parliament on the 12th of November to vote for the bill. There are three ways to do this. Firstly, you can write to your MP. Friends of the Earth have created a draft letter which you can email, post or fax to your MP after entering a few details of your own, and this can be accessed here.

Secondly, you can call your MP. Once again, Friends of the Earth have created a video to guide you through what to say, and that can be seen here.

Finally, you can request a face to face meeting with your local MP, which is a great way to ensure you will speak to them directly (and to use your best powers of persuasion!).

I will be reporting back after next Friday on whether the bill was successful or not, so that leaves a week to get your MP to commit to attending! I'll be keeping my fingers crossed...

Don't forget to Join the Moovement!

Cancun Calling

The latest round of climate talks, held in Tianjin in northern China at the beginning of October, ended in as much disarray as a group of diplomats and bureaucrats could realistically achieve. The same arguments that have previously plagued climate negotiations reared their heads again, with the US pointing the finger at China for not accepting binding emissions targets, while others claimed that slow US action on clean energy and emissions reductions is more to blame. Things went so badly that scheduled talks on deforestation didn't even begin, and some of the diplomats in attendance “openly wondered whether continuing the UNFCCC process was even politically worthwhile.”

This is all part of the build up to the big event of the year – the 16^th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or, as it's more snappily known, COP16. COP15, held last year in Copenhagen, was widely reported on at the time due to the host of famous faces that made appearances during the negotiations – including Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao – and, of course, the huge demonstrations from climate activists that accompanied them. But by the end of the two weeks, little had been achieved beyond the huge emissions of all the delegates flying to Denmark, and those of us concerned with climate justice went home disappointed.

This year's event, taking place between 29^th November and 10^th December, has so far proved a lot more low-key, not least because of the difficulties of campaigners getting to, and demonstrating in, Mexico, where the event will be held in the glamorous seaside resort of Cancun. Nevertheless, campaigners around the world, including Birmingham Friends of the Earth will be continuing to make demands of their own governments and world leaders.

Our demands include, of course, serious reductions in domestic emissions. There is an increasing view that global temperature rises need to be kept below 1.5 degrees if we are to save the Pacific islands, and other low-lying nations, from catastrophic flooding. The EU is currently committed to just 20% emissions reductions – this needs to rise to at least 40%, and preferably more. Equally important, however, is that these reductions must be made domestically, rather than through 'outsourcing' our emissions reductions to poorer nations.

By paying for cuts in poorer nations and claiming them as our own we are replicating the pattern of power that our polluting, industrial societies are based on – that poor nations, peoples and lands exist primarily for the use of rich ones. This also puts the responsibility for solving climate change on the nations which have the least responsibility for causing it. We need to face up to the consequences of our huge historic emissions and make real cuts in our own country.

Big emissions reductions would not actually be too difficult for our energy-wasting society, and Friends of the Earth and the Stockholm Environment Institute have shown how 40% cuts in Europe's CO2 emissions could be made quickly and (relatively) easily. The only thing missing is the political will to put these ideas into practice.

A second issue is that governments in the rich world need to provide real help to poor countries to adapt to the effects of climate change and develop their own clean, green economies. Friends of the Earth is calling for a Global Climate Fund to be set up which will be under the control of the UNFCCC, while developed nations would like to see the fund run by the discredited World Bank. The World Bank has a long history of imposing damaging neoliberal 'shock doctrine' policies on developing nations as conditions for receiving loans, and to put it in charge of climate funds would not inspire any confidence in those who have been damaged by its past actions.

Finally, the developed nations need to help developing nations address the huge emissions caused by deforestation and forest degradation, while also ensuring that the rights of local communities and indigenous people are respected. Existing forest policies have often ignored the ways in which indigenous people and small communities use forests sustainably, for food, medicine and fuel, and this needs to be addressed to ensure that these people are not locked out of using their own lands, which they have looked after for centuries, or even millennia.

In the past few months David Cameron has talked about how his new government will be 'the greenest ever'. It's time for him to live up to those words by making the UK negotiating team show real leadership in Cancun.