The British public have been losing faith in Public Inquiries for some time, this just reinforces people’s mistrust of those in power:
Inquiry behind NHS scandal omitted crucial data – Public Sector IT.
And another blog worth reading about South Stafford NHS and the Francis Inquiry Report:
Media Jarman claim 20k avoidable NHS deaths – Why its nonsense
The list of changes to benefits and public services listed below, staying at home and not voting, is not an option.
Will the government’s benefit raid turn us all into April Fools?.
An interesting article in the New York Times about a report into the possibility of New York being energy efficient without fossil fuels and nuclear energy “Examining the Feasibility of Converting New York State’s All-Purpose Energy Infrastructure to One Using Wind, Water and Sunlight,”: . The author of the article did call into question
– Does New York State need — for its own sake or the environment’s — to be an energy island? A lot of economists, and environmental analysts, would say no.
Yes it does need to be an energy island, on economic and environmental grounds, something environmentalists have been calling for. A move away from large centralised power stations, fossil fuelled or nuclear, and to more smaller, localised power sources: Sustainable_community_energy_system. Case studies of Sustainable Woking can be found at: Sustainable Woking case studies. It took just one council official to drive this initiative through back in 1991 and yet Manchester – A Certain Future since its fanfare launch in 2009, has achieved exactly, nothing! It is amazing what can be achieved with some effort and enthusiasm.
Can Wind, Water and Sunlight Power New York by 2050? – NYTimes.com.
Many of us knew from the out-set, that Manchester – A Certain Future, was nothing but utter ‘Greenwash’, purely wasting tax-payers money. Those of us, who have said as much, have been described as the ‘usual greens’, who cannot see that the council is doing something. The author of this article, as a ‘fresh set of eyes’, puts quite nicely. He did forget to mention, Nottingham and the East Midlands have been doing it since 2000. Whilst Woking since the 1990s, and as was mentioned last week at the launch of Greater Manchester’s Hydrogen Hub, cut the energy consumption by 70%. Where is Manchester City Council’s proof, that they have saved any energy, other than through shutting down front-line services, severely impacting those in need.
We just got this amazing comment from a local businessman, who has been involved in the “Manchester A Certain Future” process since last year. We at Manchester Climate Monthly have been asking questions about democracy and “process.” He is asking hard-headed questions about effectiveness.
“As something of an outsider, and having first been invited to attend the “refresh meetings” last summer, I wonder whether a fresh pair of eyes is worth anything? If they’re not, then don’t read on, but if anyone would like the view from the SME installer side of renewable energy and energy-efficiency technologies (insulation, building fabric measures, plus the usual PV bling) who comes to MACF as a novice of its history, then I’d say this: Last summer, at the first meeting I attended, the comments and facial expressions I received from those around the table when I said “I don’t know anyone in the…
View original post 755 more words
Unfortunately, it is too easy for bullies and perverts to hi-jack social media sites.
A sad day for Venezuela.
Unfortunately in the case of Manchester, the council keeps experimenting with demolishing perfectly sound council properties to build ‘homes-to-buy’, no one can afford to buy. This has uprooted communities across the City and fragmenting them. The new build ‘homes-to-buy’, are very shoddily built and energy inefficient. And the council trumpets it’s ‘Manchester – A Certain Future’, nothing has really moved on since 2009. Unlike Nottingham and the East Midlands who implemented their plans in 2000; http://www.climate-em.org.uk/projects/east-midlands-carbon-management-programme/
Chris Guenther, research director at SustainAbility, argues that cities offer the best hope for rapidly developing and replicating sustainability solutions.
A longer version of this article will appear in the spring issue of Green Alliance’s journal Inside Track.
View original post 918 more words
The privatisation of the National Health Service will be a very backward step with dire consequences. welcome to Edwardian Britain, a hundred years on.
It’s been announced this afternoon that Monitor, the regulatory body for NHS Trusts, has begun the process of putting Mid Staffs NHS Foundation Trust (MSFT) into administration. Once this process is approved, which may only take a couple of weeks, the administrators of the Trust will have 150 days to come up with proposals from a range of options including the complete closure of the Trust. One option that is not included, however, is the continuation of MSFT in its current form.
Reports on the decision focus on the Trust’s financial struggles and Monitor‘s statement that MSNHS needs to cut costs by 7% in order to be financially viable.
Sounds like a serious situation, doesn’t it? But as its Annual Report almost a year ago showed, Mid Staffs was already embarked on a Cost Improvement Programme (CIP) to save 6-7% a year – and had achieved…
View original post 957 more words
Another report from the European Environmental Agency highlighting the health costs of exhaust from diesel goods vehicles. Manchester is one of the areas highlighted by the report, as having a serious problem with diesel exhausts. This will be exasperated by Manchester City Council’s decision to expand Manchester Airports freight terminal. In fact the Aviation white-paper did not mention expanding freight terminals but, of the need to improve port and rail terminals to handle freight. The matter will be worsen for the people of South Manchester by the council’s plans to also build the Stockport to South Manchester by-pass. This is to be built despite the fact there is already an existing motorway connection from the airport and Stockport. Richard Leese, leader of Labour controlled Manchester City Council, was claimed he wanted to turn Manchester into another Barcelona. It could get his wish, as Manchester is not far behind Barcelona on diesel exhaust pollution.
The UK has continually dragged its feet on implementing EU environmental and employment legislation. It is normally implemented in a ‘watered down’ form, employing the cheapest techniques instead of ‘Best Available Technology’. Also, it is reliant on self-regulation (like the banks and look where that got us) and an arms length regulators who only act after a major incident. As long as a process can not be directly identified as being a problem, it is allowed to continue, as opposed to taking a precautionary approach. The UK is still the Dirty Man of Europe.
This is a guest post by Caroline Jackson, former MEP and chairman of the European Parliament environment committee from 1999-2004.
“We need to examine whether the balance is right in so many areas where the European Union has legislated, including on the environment, social affairs and crime”
Thus said David Cameron in his recent “key speech” on Europe – and he sent an immediate shudder through the ranks of British environmentalists. What did he mean? Which bits of EU environmental policy is Britain going to raise in Brussels (when Owen Paterson has stopped worrying about horse/beef burgers)? What are the chances of getting anything changed anyway in existing legislation which it has been a pain to negotiate? Given that reform is needed in the EU approach to legislation (as I believe it is) is he going for the right targets?
View original post 687 more words
