Posted on by Patrick Sudlow

A select few Moss Side residents are invited by Manchester City Council to put forward the reasons they are against the council’s decimation of 250 trees in Alexandra Park. As has, been pointed out to the council, they are failing in their duties to protect the natural environment. And it is time, academics stopped making the case in their writings, that Manchester City Council is ‘Green’.

manchesterclimatemonthly's avatarmanchester climate monthly

An interesting presentation about the concerns of local residents around the City Council’s basically unannounced plans to chop down a lot of trees in Alexandra Park. (We linked to the initial petition here, and published “another view” as well – the latter is probably our most commented upon post ever).  This Dilbert cartoon may be relevant…

engaged

Alexandra Park -­‐ restoration plan concerns — meeting with Manchester City Council.

Today we met with Manchester City Council to express our concerns about the Alexandra Park restoration plan. Present at this meeting (which was invitation only at request of Manchester City Council) was:
Rionne Avis, Nadine Andrews, Jenny Trigg – local residents
Richard Sharland, Manchester City Council
Eamonn O’Rourke, Manchester City Council
Eddie Flanagan, Manchester City Council
Eunice Long, Manchester City Council
Sara Hilton, Head of Heritage Lottery Fund NW
Ten members of our group collaborated to compile a presentation…

View original post 34 more words

Justice for Licensees – News – Exclusive:

Posted on by Patrick Sudlow

A sorry story about our public house heritage and the immoral actions of family brewers and public house companies in the UK and the slow process of justice.

Justice for Licensees – News – Exclusive:.

Police urged to investigate fraud allegations against Osborne

Posted on by Patrick Sudlow

Whilst our politicians and media keep persecuting the less unfortunate in our society.  Our politicians themselves keep flaunting the law and enriching themselves at the expense of us.  It was time there was a full and determined investigation of all our politicians.  After our MPs, then Manchester City Councillors.

Police urged to investigate fraud allegations against Osborne.

Posted on by Patrick Sudlow

The continuing sad story of the Britain returning to the ‘Dark Days’ of the Industrial Revolution, where workers found their wages continually cut. Plunging even working families into dire poverty, welcome to 21st Century Britain and the end of a National Health Service.  What is also sad, despite Miliband’s rhetoric, is that Labour will not vote against the Benefits Bill.  Ed Miliband to wage war on George Osborne’s welfare.  

‘Senior Labour figures stopped short of confirming that Labour would vote against the cuts in the Commons in January. But it is understood that unless fundamental changes are made to the coming welfare uprating bill, Miliband will be prepared to give the order.

One senior Labour figure said there were still tensions inside the party, with a caucus of “new Labour” figures believing it will be politically suicidal to leave the party open to charges that it sides with “scroungers” and is in denial over the need to cut the benefits bill’.

Another journalist summed up the situation as Osborne’s war on the poor and the vile stupidity of his workers-vs-shirkers narrative.   Unfortunately as the Guardian hints at, there are millionaire members in the Labour Party who believe in this same rhetoric.  That is why people need to realise they have to vote, to rid us of these two obscene political parties.

SKWAWKBOX's avatarSKWAWKBOX

I’ve spent the last few days looking through the oral testimony given to the Commons Health Select Committee on 13 November, as well as through the lengthy written testimony given to the committee ahead of the hearing by various organisations, on ‘public expenditure’ – basically the state of NHS finances and the progress toward achieving the ‘Nicholson Challenge’ of £20 billion in savings over the period from 2011-2015.

I was initially drawn to this evidentiary session because, among the witnesses, was Tony Spotswood – the CEO of Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch NHS Trust. Spotswood, as revealed in an email exchange I was able to publish for the first time recently, discussed a ‘coup’ plan to bring down the ‘NHS Employers’ organisation (NHSE) with Chris Bown, CEO of the neighbouring Poole NHS Trust.

NHSE is responsible for national negotiations with unions on the pay and conditions of the UK’s 1.7 million…

View original post 2,513 more words

Sarah Lyall – 4 reasons why the benefit freeze makes no sense | the new economics foundation

Posted on by Patrick Sudlow

An article about today’s Autumn budget, which is another attack on the vulnerable in our society.  It is also a budget which promotes more gas-powered power stations, road building, increased dependence on fossil fuels and advocates the exploitation of shale-gas (fracking).  All of which will have a further detrimental impact on the vulnerable and help accelerate climate change.

Sarah Lyall – 4 reasons why the benefit freeze makes no sense | the new economics foundation.

Posted on by Patrick Sudlow

How Islington has ‘greened’ it’s estates, with an opposite approach to that of Manchester City Council, who have felled hundreds of trees and concreted over green spaces.

Green Alliance blog's avatarInside track

EC1 Fluid building 2011 copy_2This is a guest post by Liz Kessler who developed a strategy to improve the EC1 area of south Islington, London. 

This project features as one of the inspirational examples in Green Alliance’s new report Towering ambitions, which will be launched at the Greening towers event tomorrow.

Since 2004 much of the EC1 area of south Islington, London, has been changed from a place that felt bleak, unsafe and colourless into one that feels safer, more attractive, neighbourly and vibrant.

View original post 718 more words

Is biomass really dirtier than coal? – Response from the Initiat

Posted on by Patrick Sudlow

I thought I would post Andrew Llanwarne’s letter in response to iCARBS press release against the FoE, Greenpeace and RSPB report on Biomass: Dirtier than Coal? Any form of incineration produces CO, CO2, NOx and particulates, and is an old technology.  But the UK Government keeps trying to push incineration, biomass and waste, as the answer to our energy problems.  It also does not have the strict regulations, standards and enforcement that the rest of the EU has.  It is time the UK Government rethinks it’s strategy towards renewable energy and adopts a strategy fit for the 21st Century and not it’s 19th Century one.

Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:17 am (PST) . Posted by:

“Andrew Llanwarne” andrew.llanwarne

The Biomass Energy Centre report referred to below challenges the findings in the Dirtier than Coal report, based largely on the practices and pricing structure in the UK timber market, with only a passing reference to overseas markets which would be the primary sources of timber for major UK biomass power stations. There is reference at the end to the “extensive work” of the British Govt with industry and NGOs in ensuring overseas supplies will be sustainable, but there is plenty of evidence elsewhere to show that these standards are not assured by assessors paid by the developers. These sources do not seem to take into account the very poor efficiency standards which push up emissions relative to output when timber is used for electricity generation. Locally based CHP or heat-only is the best way to use biomass for energy, where it can make use of locally-sourced waste materials and surplus timber. This is the Scottish Government’s stated policy, but its proposals for future allocation of ROCs are directly contrary to the policy. Although Scottish Government proposes to limit subsidies for electricity-

only plants to 10MW, there is a loophole for biomass power stations of any capacity with a token heat production such as those proposed by Forth Energy (SSE and Forth Ports joint venture). These Scottish plants will only have to meet the DECC “good quality” efficiency standard of 35%, which is only half the 70% efficiency requirement from the EU for CHP production. A second loophole has been left for converting coal-fired power stations to biomass, in the belief that this will result in reduced emissions. The RSPB report undermines that belief.
The overall plea from ICARB is for more careful analysis and peer review, which is a reasonable request, but decisions are being made now on large-scale biomass for electricity developments across the UK, Europe and elsewhere. These will tie us in to reliance on a massive scale of overseas timber production for at least the next 25 years, dramatically increase demand on world markets and ensure that, even if some companies manage to secure relatively “sustainable” supplies, others will have few scruples over social and environmental standards if their investments are at risk. The EU Biofuels Directive has demonstrated what happens to communities and ecosystems when there is a sudden increase in demand for different commercial crops. Any assessment really has to look at the systemic consequences of UK policies on a global scale. The findings would be unlikely to support the large-scale use of imported biomass to generate electricity. Andrew Andrew Llanwarne
IDEAction
8 Glasclune Way
Broughty Ferry
Dundee DD5 3TJ
Tel: 01382 732457
Mob: 0791 294 5325
E-mail: andyllanwarne@hotmail.com
Web: http://www.ideaction.co.uk
and: http://www.walkingstories.com
Sustainable Solutions….Working with Knowledge….Exploring the FutureTo: localsustuk@yahoogroups.com
From: taliesin@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:56:29 +0000
Subject: [localsustuk] Is biomass really dirtier than coal? – Response from the Initiative for Carbon (ICARB)Hi all,

Please see the press release below and please forward to others.

For those of you who don’t know about us I should stress that it’s highly unusual for us to decide to go to the press.

Cheers and thanks,

Keith

28 November 2012 – PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Is biomass really dirtier than coal?

Contact Prof Susan Roaf / Dr Keith Baker 0788 412 5540 / enquiries@icarb.org

Is biomass really dirtier than coal? This is what is being claimed in a new report by RSPB, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth [1].

However the report, called ‘Dirtier Than Coal’, is based largely on a new paper by Tim Searchinger of Princeton University [2] that has yet to be peer-reviewed.

ICARB [3] questions why the authors of the ‘Dirtier Than Coal’ do not appear to have consulted the UK-based experts whose peer-reviewed work is referenced by Searchinger.

The Biomass Energy Centre has issued a critical response to the report [4] and ICARB welcomes further submissions from those named in the reports.

We have previously raised concerns over carbon accounting-based claims for biomass because of a lack of transparency and peer-review. In this case ICARB wants to raise that Searchinger’s understanding of practices specific to the UK has been questioned by at least one of the

authoritative sources he references.

ICARB is not commenting on specific aspects of these reports but we do call for a more balanced coverage of the work.

Notes
[1] The report, published by RSPB, Greenpeace (UK), and Friends of the Earth (England, Wales

and Northern Ireland), is available at: http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/biomass_report_tcm9-326672.pdf
[2] https://www.princeton.edu/~tsearchi/writings.html

[3] The Initiative for Carbon Accounting (ICARB) exists to advance the field of carbon accounting to facilitate the reductions in carbon emissions necessary for a sustainable society. We are an independent expert group supported by Heriot-Watt University, Glasgow Caledonian University, the Crichton Carbon Centre, and the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation, and funded by the Scottish Government. Website: http://www.icarb.org

An army of benefit scroungers? The evidence just doesn’t stack up | Matt Barnes | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Posted on by Patrick Sudlow

The working-class, not the scroungers, the media and politicians try and portray them as.  These people have been failed by successive Governments, Labour and Conservatives who have pushed a broken economic model, based on ‘growth at any cost’.  They have allowed multi-nationals to strip this country of almost everything, whilst lining their enormous pockets.  In the meantime, the ordinary people have suffered along with the environment.

An army of benefit scroungers? The evidence just doesn’t stack up | Matt Barnes | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk.