A Newsnight report on ‘Fracking’, will our politicians take notice.
BBC News – Fracking: Concerns over gas extraction regulations.
The problem is not just isolated to the USA, as an ABC programme shows: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20110221/gas/default.htm
In Australia, it involves coal-seam methane extraction, which a company wanted to start on Chat Moss, Salford.
I once thought the Canadians were above reproach, unlike their US counter-parts. But with their abuse of the Cree Indian lands for the exploitation of ‘Tar-sands’ and now the revelation of other abuses by other Canadian companies, how can any Canadian look themselves in the mirror.
Guatemalan lawsuits to continue against HudBay, says lawyer.
Unfortunately, UK companies are not better with the likes of Shell and BP causing widespread pollution from their operations.
Reading the article below, Michael Baxter does state the obvious about Britain’s transport infrastructure. But why do are politicians, Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats not able to see this?
But here are some observations. It is well known that transport systems across most of the developed world are more efficient than those in the UK. You only need to spend a short while on French or German or, indeed, Japanese, railways to see the difference. A couple of years ago, I drove through France – from one end to the other – and didn’t get stuck in a single traffic jam, not one.
Part of the explanation lies with geography. Britain, especially England, is crowded. That explains – at least in part – why it is so much quicker driving through France than through Britain. (But then Japan is pretty crowded too.) But there is another difference. Across much of the developed world there is just an acceptance that infrastructure needs to be subsidised. And the main reason why the transport infrastructure is so superior across much of the developed world is because more money is spent on it. Japanese and French trains do not run faster and more punctually because of some inherent quality. They spend more money, plain and simple. And, on the whole, these obviously superior infrastructures are not outsourced to a coterie of private contractors, either.
A report about the adverse health affects of incineration. In the first part of the report, people may find some of the photographs very disturbing. They also state there is a lack of enforce and punishment, something I have tried to highlight: http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/05/05/bolton-incinerator-should-close-whistleblower/
The Environmental Agency, insists there is not a problem.
Yesterday there was a demonstration in Central London against the NHS bill. You may not have heard about this, because the media completely failed to report it.
It started as several hundred people attending a rally outside the Department of Health. Statically they stood there, listening to speeches with an air of Waiting For Something To Happen. The rally had not been well-publicised, but those who attended were the ones who felt like something–anything–had to happen, that we could not let this bill pass without event.
Finally, something did happen. A man cycled into the middle of the road, with a colourful trailer attached to his bicycle. He shouted something into a megaphone. Maybe he called for the demonstrators to join him in the middle of Whitehall, or maybe he said something else. I don’t know. Nonetheless, they joined hands and formed a chain across Whitehall then sat down on…
View original post 780 more words
If the Governments risk assessment, indicated there were no risks associated with their privatisation of the NHS, why do they not make it public?
In an article on the Share Centre web-site, they mentioned Jonathon Porritt’s article in the Guardian, which they add a further argument against new nuclear:
Admittedly he is a tad biased, but Jonathon Porritt has written a good piece arguing against a new programme of building nuclear power stations. See: How the UK is handing control of its energy future to France One of the bits of information presented in the piece you may want to make note of is that the four previous nuclear power stations built by the company that will probably be responsible for the UK stations took an average of 17.5 years to construct. There is an important point here that Mr Porritt did not actually mention in his article, which is surprising because it supports his case. The energy industry is currently subject to considerable innovation. Technology used for renewables is becoming more efficient every year. In 17.5 years’ time, wind, solar, tide and hydro-electric power will be much more efficient than it is today, perhaps more efficient than traditional fossil fuels. (Although, probably never enough to fulfil all of the UK’s needs). And yet in making the case for building a nuclear power station that will take one and half decades to build, the nuclear power supporters look at the current cost of renewables.
But this all begs the question, is the UK media fit for purpose? Let’s face it some publications can be ever so slightly biased.
There is a superb ad for the ‘Guardian’ out there at the moment, forming a part of its open journalism campaign. See: ‘Guardian’ open journalism: Three Little Pigs advert – video .
The ad takes a news story, in this case the arrest of three little pigs, who are accused of killing a wolf that they claimed tried to blow their house down. And the ad focuses on different aspects of the story: the rights of owners to protect their home, the revelation that the wolf had asthma, and thus could not possibly have posed a threat, and the further revelation that the pigs were in fact instigating an insurance fraud, and finally that they were driven to desperation by the unreasonable behaviour of their bank.
Alas, the ad tells a story about the media, which may or may not be appropriate when applied to the ‘Guardian’, but it is far from an accurate portrayal of the wider media.
The purpose of good media should be to inform, illuminate ideas and stimulate the mind. For much of the UK’s media, the priority seems to be to promote hate, exaggerate bias, aggravate intolerance and to titillate our baser instincts.
An article from the Share Centre about the UK’s media.
An article for those looking to answer the critics of organic farming methods, in the face of the hype from agrochemical companies. Organic farming practice is the only sustainable way to produce food for the World. Not reliant on fossil fuels for its’ fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, fungicides and large agricultural machinery. Organic farming looks after the soil, biodiversity and valuable natural resources.
Drought tolerance critical, say DuPont and Monsanto. We couldn’t agree more. | Rodale Institute.
patricktsudlow 