Archive for the ‘pollution’ Category


It has been proposed that the UK should have a cross party commission to plan for proper infrastructure investment and implementation. The idea seems to be to have an overall plan to ensure the renewal and improvement of infrastructure. In addition plans would be considered for new technology to be used for the benefit of the population and to ensure that the countries infrastructure does not wear out.

It seems that the Victorians were the last people to seriously plan in this way. What a sensible idea one might think. If the countries infrastructure is overseen by a cross party commission general elections would have no effect on the continuity of thinking. No need to start from scratch every four years or so. There will be implications from every election of course but the strategic overview would be in the hands of people who are involved for the long haul. People who could leave a lasting legacy to the future generations.

This sounds too good to be true. That’s because it is. Instead of seeing the grander picture the Tories immediately tried to score petty political points by blaming labour for the current state of the country. Now that may or may not be true, who knows. But is it not better to look forward rather than harking back to Mr Brown, or whoever. What is done is done. Parliament should be able to rise above squabbling about the past and plan to resolve the problems of tomorrow. Mistakes have been made on both sides of the house, they continue to be made on both sides of the house. Is it not better to try and resolve the big issues together?

Children will always want to chant ‘My team is better than yours’ but can this not be saved for the little arguments, not matters that effect the entire population? Of course, such common sense is unlikely to bear fruit. Infrastructure is not sexy, no names to be made just the quiet satisfaction of serving ones country. The Victorians would see this as reward enough but today the only desire appears to be for fame, publicity and as much money as can be garnered in a lifetime.

Put aside petty politics all you servants of the people in Westminster, actually come together and serve the country rather than your own self interest. There is no real difference between your parties just varying shades of grey. Accept this and work for a brighter future for this nation, not the US or any other part of the planet. When this broken land is restored to health then can we hold our head up and help those who are less fortunate than ourselves.

I am not a religious man, but our leaders purport to be. They feel the need to be seen at church and supporting the Christian myth. They should remember the actions of Jesus in the Temple when he confronted the traders and moneylenders. His attitude to wealth would be a lesson for our leaders. They should not forget that charity begins at home.

Advertisements

The silence weeps oozing into the days
Stretching out into weeks and months
The frackers come, smug, oily hands rub
The expectation of profit flows from there very pores
The nature recoils, trees sigh with sadness
The earth made to heave itself skywards
In shafts of despair

A yellow flowering on the trees and fences
A splash of joy and hope unleashed
Strange people garbed in hues both bright and somber
A gathering of ordinary minds joined as one
One purpose many minds power exponentially multiplied
The pawns of the state used to suppress freedom
A bad law misapplied a legacy of Thatcher

A week or two pass our masters gaze distracted
The people remain with their black clad chaperone
Cameron is diverted he smells oil in the air
Petty politics rises with votes to beat him
His cabinet wail at lost trips oe’er the pond
They have no clue of plebeian muses
Mutterings in corners not seen by the great

The drones are restless things fall apart
Money is worthless life beyond our means
The devil strides the world disguised corporate
Gekko the model, greed is the king
You fanfare destruction our green earth is dying
Small steps derided economy ignored
The way forward is spend buy and store.


I see that Bill Gates is spending a fortune of supporting scientific work into alternate toilets.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19271061

I quote:

‘The project challenged inventors to come up with a toilet that operated without running water, electricity or a septic system. It needed to operate at a cost of no more than five cents (3p) a day and would ideally capture energy or other resources.’

Er what about composting toilets, they don’t cost anything to run, in real terms. They are undemanding of resources do not use water electric or septic systems, can be made out of almost anything and capture compost which helps build soil fertility. No techy solution difficult to repair or obtain replacement parts produced at a cost of CO2.

I strongly believe in the KISS principle. If you want alternate energy, install solar or wind, use your poo to grow food.

 


I understand that a new phase of drilling has found evidence that 53 million years ago during the Eocene period there were palm trees, macadamia and baobab growing in Antartica. I can’t wait to see how the nay sayers hijack this. Apparently the scientists have also found Archaea which is a single celled organism that can indicate temperature at the time of their demise.

This is fascinating stuff and shows that life can go on. The investigation concludes that the mean winter temperature in Antartica was ten degrees centigrade, daily summer temperatures were in the 20’s. At the time of the eocene, CO2 levels were, apparently, almost double those recorded today. So in theory if the entire world population were to move to the continental Antartic we could live quite happily, like penguins standing huddled together. Not because it is a way of keeping warm, because there would be no room. The entire world would also have to become pescatorian as it is unlikely there would be much if any land capable of growing food. Who knows how long it would take for the seas to run dry of anything edible.

Furthermore, the Eocene period did not arise, in geological terms, overnight. There was a long period allowing creatures (no humans about then) to adapt to the changing climate. With the rapid increase of CO2 currently being experienced, there is little time for the diversity of creatures necessary to sustain mutually supportive guilds to adapt.  To take just a few examples, plants need to adapt to changed environments, but still need to produce pollen and seed. Bees are needed to pollinate the plants, they need to adapt and the bee population is already stressed by human attack and climate change. Mammals and birds eat fruit and scatter seed in their dung, they too will need to adapt, any one failure leads to a gap in the cycle of nature and, potentially, a failing of the system. These examples are of necessity over simplistic but usefully illustrate the point.

Of course the planet will regenerate, perhaps. But it will do so without people. The ultimate smack in the face from an abused planet.

Think about this, the Eocene was 53 million years ago. Homo Sapiens developed anatomical modernity about 200,000 years ago. The sun has about 5.5 billion years worth of hydrogen left, give or take. It is conceivable that in the time from our demise another civilisation could rise. They will probably use the carbon, stored by the earth from our bodies to fuel their vehicles cause climate change and repeat the sad cycle again.

The earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago, she has run about half of her life, assuming dependence on the sun. Multicellular life is believed to have formed around 580 million years ago. I can’t do the sums but that is about 3.9 billion years for life to even start.

Six million years ago our ancestoral line diverged from that of chimpanzees. The earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago and the planet existed quite happily for 4.4998 billion years before we pitched up 200,000 years ago. For 5800000 years the planet suffered no lasting consequences of our ancestors existence. It would seem that in what the beat of a gnats wing Homo Sapiens have managed to despoil our planet almost to the point of no return.

There is an expression used in these parts, ‘You don’t shit on your own doorstep’. Well, it seems we do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19077439


I stumbled accross this tosay. I am not guilty of reading CNN very often but I am glad I shuffled over there today, maybe I will go more often.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/12/world/renewables-finance-unep/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

Now while I am not convinced that the media are renowned for their impartiality on many topics, it seems on this topic CNN concede that the US is not a world leader, albeit still performing above many smaller regions. It heralds Europe as a world leader and China as being in second spot.

The commentary is interesting in that it demonstrates how governments have not supported the march toward renewables but have left the majority of work in this field to private enterprise, while continuing to subsidise fossil fuels.

Surely if profiteers can recognise that fossil fuels have had their day governments should be able to see it too? Do politicians not dine with business, do they not leap into every available corporate bed to feather their own nest? Or is it this closeness that prevents the subsidy. If government invest in the next big thing rather than the dinosaur that is dying they would be able to benefit from the profit that would flow from a successful launch of renewable energy worldwide. This would deprive their corporate chums of cash they would otherwise receive. I actually think I am being a little harsh on governments worldwide, as well as the corporations investing in the new tech. I think world governments are just too myopic to take advantage. Too busy partying with the established oil hungry industries to pay any attention to the new upstarts.


The whole of Europe appears to be descending into poverty, Greece we all know about, Spain appears to be borrowing money to sort out it’s position. There is talk of Italy being next. Will Britain be far behind?

This is obviously bad news for everyone but, when viewed against the dangers of climate change and world environmental degradation they pale into insignificance. The media appear to have lost any interest in these topics though. Am I alone in thinking that a recession has caused people to conveniently put these problems to one side?

The politicians and their big business buddies must be pleased there is financial chaos. It won’t put a dent in their income like it does for everyone else, they may lose the odd 100,000 but hey, they have Harry Enfields ‘Loadsa dosh’ stashed away. But it does divert interest from things that may dent, terminally, their ability to irresponsibly profit from the rest of us at the expense of this dying planet.

News is concentrated on the economy, Syria and that other vitally important event, … football. Now, I don’t mind people enjoying the spectacle of 22 grown men chasing a pigs bladder, but is it so important that hours of media should be devoted to it? It would be more interesting if the players had their wages reduced to the national average, (along with bankers politicians etc) and there was actually some benefit to mankind from what they are doing. At least the employment of the brain dead in this way prevents the unemployment figures expanding even further. Poor old Wayne, if he couldn’t kick a ball he would probably be something really worthwhile like a road sweeper. The lads and lassies who look after our refuse deserve more plaudits that overpaid footballers. What benefit has football really given to mankind? Thuggery, violence, and misbehaviour of every kind.

At least today the sun is shining and I won’t get wet on my way to the pen today.


I have just read today’s BBC news concerning the state’s repression of the freedom of speech and action concerning GM. It appears that the government arranged for the closure of public footpaths, the deployment of large numbers of Police Officers (taking them away from other functions no doubt.

What were the protesters, the villains of the piece demonstrating against? A grain crop that actively discourages aphids. Now as a gardner I am not fond of aphids. They do spoil my gooseberry bushes. They infect my cherry tree and anything else they fancy. However, aphids are part of the food chain. The government are aware of the depletion of bird species. They appear to approve of labelling insect friendly seed to encourage us in the gardens of our homes to increase insect populations for the good of bio diversity. Then along comes the aphid killing grain.

The anonymous spokesperson (best be politically correct) for the site stated that the genetically engineered destroyer of nature’s bounty is:

“just one tool in the toolbox to create more sustainable food”.

On what level is it sustainable? How much has been spent on producing enough grain to sow this field? What price does that make a bushel come out at to the retail trade. How is the grain propogated in future, and am I really supposed to believe that the food scientist is a philanthropist who will not expect a vast financial return for taking something freely available to all (essentially grass seed) and turned it into a cash cow. I have seen no figures published to show the ammount of noxious emissions released into the atmosphere of our beleagured planet as a result of the creation of this teenage mutant ninja seed. The oil cost of it’s production and the heat and power wasted are not quantified by anyone.

Perhaps the money would have been better spent converting the sterile field environment into self sustaining food forests. That is what I call sustainable food, not something that requires human input to bring the seed into existence where it may destroy the green and pleasant land it was planted in.

Professor John Pickett, a principal investigator at Rochester Research, told BBC News there was “a very, very remote chance that anything should get out”.

“All it would mean was that some other plant – if it ever did miraculously transfer into another plant – was making a smell like the aphid.”

Is that not the point. There is tacit acceptance that there MAY be some cross contamination and make another plant smell like an aphid thereby depriving the much maligned creature of another chance to breed. This breaks the food chain Professor Pickett. A depletion in aphid numbers = less food for their predators being less food for the predators predators etc etc an nauseum. Result less food for US.

 

And why are the government supporting the profligate waste of a bankrupt industry. Farming has caused untold damage to the environment sterilising the soil to the point where nothing grows without massive pertro chemical inputs. Oh, of course Dave’s chums need to make a profit to buy another Ferrari, own more houses than they can live in and swill at the trough in a glutonous manner.