Conscious Comment

What to do with your votes tomorrow? Ask Bill Bailey

2009-06-03T10:04:00.000-07:00

European and EU elections tomorrow. All I shall do on this matter is refer you to three tweets from @RealBillBailey earlier today

#1 not keen on the Lab/Con/Lib Dem triumvirate of disappointment? check this out: http://tinyurl.com/pp272f

#2 or, if voting for any party doesn't appeal, instead of putting an X why not just draw a picture of a lovely horse...

#3 or draw a rabbit claiming mood lighting for it's second burrow

Make sure you follow that link before you start practicing your doodles though, it's a much better idea!

24-hour news streams and constant Twitter updates causing brain overload

2009-06-03T05:29:00.000-07:00

Very interesting article in The Telegraph this morning exploring whether exposure to constant information is damadging our intelligent emotional responses, which are linked to a slower moving part of the brain. Do we still have time to consider while processing so much information or does the amount of information we receive help us to perceive more?

Ironically, this got me thinking. Personally I find Twitter and Facebook a very useful way of handling and receiving a lot of information. It would be hard to have a response to something you didn't even know about. On the flipside, the internet allows people to become far more selective over the type of information they choose to receive. This allows us to mine to a deeper level on subjects of interest that may otherwise not be covered in a short news bulletin. It also means, however, that if we like, we can chose not to read about things which upset us.

All the same even when you read a paper or walk down the street you are selecting what you choose to see, hear and read. At least the internet, and blogs in particular, provides us with the space to actively analyse and comment about what we notice. It's worth taking the time to think about though!

Brown's PR nightmare

2009-06-03T05:07:00.000-07:00

Interesting article in the FT this morning that highlights how "Mr Brown’s allies admit it is proving impossible to shift the media off a “narrative” that his authority is shot and that Labour is heading for electoral oblivion."

It goes on to say that in light of this media narrative:

"The prime minister’s team is furious yet impotent. They point out that Alistair Darling, chancellor, and Geoff Hoon, the transport secretary, are pilloried in the press for repaying expenses claims but senior Conservatives seem to have escaped lightly. “The media have decided there is a crisis, but David Cameron and half of his front bench have had to pay back expenses – we don’t hear much about that,” said one Labour MP."

So how, as Labour media stratigist, would you deal with this?

Intriguingly the writer of this article also subscribes to this narrative:

"the vultures are circling over Mr Brown’s government. A sense of morbid despair hangs over conversations with Labour MP and ministers, their passion for politics sapped by more than a decade in power and the corrosive effect of the expenses scandal."

It's funny but for some time since Cameron came in and Blair left I've had the feeling that we're at one of those sea change moments in British politics, when the electorate has just had enough of the old and beleives that the answer is to elect in another party. It's a strange experience to see how such consensus gathers and builds in the media, starting in the world of PR and public affairs where agencies have been recruiting Tory favourites with access to Cameron's inner circle for the last few years.

The expenses scandal, however, has blown Cameron's confident Tories just as far off course, and likewise the Lib Dems, paving the way for what many are predicting will be a strong turn out for smaller parties and independents. It remains to be seen whether this sentiment still holds true when Brown finally does allow the election to take place at the very latest date possible. If he is still in the job by then, of course!

It will be interesting to see what Labour does now. They can hardly topple Brown and install a second PM 'without a mandate' in one term. They should have held the election the minute Blair left, but now their best bet must surely be to cling on and hope that Brown's new cabinet can somehow come up with some new ideas that, as Lord Falconer said on Radio 4 this morning, can demonstrate "a change of politics which doesn't require a change of leadership". This will be a very difficult job to communicate given the prevailing media picture of Brown as the bumbling and ineffective captain of an already sinking shop.

The Future of Capitalism?

2009-05-12T05:07:00.001-07:00

For those of you wondering where we go now, the FT has started a capitalismblog written by big names in such thinking such as Alan Greenspan and Sir Martin Sorrell. It's interesting to see how these 'great brains' of the economic world are dealing with the fact that, in the words of the Ft itself, their "free-market model that has dominated thinking for 30 years has been discredited".

On the whole they're not overly repentant, but it is interesing to see how such thought is developping (or perhaps more accurately, not developping) and it provides an interesting counter balance to new ideas emerging from other quarters.

I can also reccomend Paul Kennedy's hyposthesis as to what the 'four great economists' Robert Heilbroner, Karl Marx, Joseph Schumpeter and John Maynard Keynes would be making of all this (to be taken with a pinch of salt and a good prior knowledge/ quick wikki of each of these charachters).

These, as the saying goes, are interesting times...

Does it matter who makes art?

2009-04-09T07:36:00.000-07:00

Does it matter who has made a piece of art? Should an artwork be judged purely on it's aesthetic merits or does it matter who the person behind the picture is? Such questions have vexed the artworld for years with vast sums of money often changing hands for art reputed to be by a famous artist which later turns out to be a forgery. This conundrum is made all the more interesting when morals are mixed with our aesthetical value judgements as has recently been highlighted by the story below.

Every time I've been into the Royal Festival Hall lately I've been showing people this amazing paper sculpture. It's an entire orchestra of 3" men and women performing Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony - the sheet music of which they are made. It stands on the plinth which has a small plaque explaining that the work was done by a guest of Her Majesty who committed a serious offence.

A message from the artist states: “Without this opportunity to show our art, many of us would have no incentive, we would stay locked in ourselves as much as the walls that hold us.”

It's often struck me how creativity such as this can overcome our preconceptions and influence our judgement of character. How could someone that can produce something as beautiful as this be a bad person?

But how would you feel if they were a child sex murderer who raped and killed two schoolgirls, and is using his artistic talent and achievements in an attempt to win immediate release from a life sentence he received in 1988? Not only that but he's going to profit from the sale of his work to the RFH where it is admired on public display?

Well according to The Times yesterday, that's exactly what has happened with the fittingly named Colin Pitchfork revealed as the artist. What do you think now? Apparently the RFH didn't know before they bought the work for £600. Does this change anything though? Can creative talent be a signal of rehabilitation? And what about the families of the victims?

In this instance I feel that Mr Pitchfork has every right to have his work remain on display - it has been selected on the merits of the craft alone and is a beautiful object. Whether he should be let out any earlier though is a much more complex issue.

G20 - end of day 1

2009-04-01T15:31:00.000-07:00

Well it's all turned out rather predictable on the G20 front. First of all everyone panicked and businesses took precautions - it's a shame that as with anything it is the small businesses that will lose out most.

Most of the day appears to have gone peacefully, barring a few idiots smashing a RBS branch while kettled in by The Bank of England (the RBS knew they had it coming).. oh and the police doing their usual tactics of pushing people around in order to maintain control, thus sparking 'scuffles' which have left injured on both sides. I can sympathise with both - it can't be a lot of fun feeling outnumbered on the police frontline, but then it's not a lot of fun to be beaten with truncheons either.

The media coverage has been interesting and varied. Comment pages in London papers have been full of people annoyed at the inconvenience caused and idiots who have a tendency to go on about 'unwashed hippies' and 'unemployed layabouts' and obviously haven't read any of the in depth coverage that has taken place. On the other side of the coin many demonstrators have voiced some articulate explanations, although I'm sure not all who are out have a complex understanding of the reasons why they have lost their jobs or homes.

Stupid comment award goes to Daniel Finkenstein in The Times today for his failure to understand what many see as the problem with consumerism and corporate culture and instead tried to simplfy the issue as 'shopping.'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article6011314.ece

The same paper also wins my coverage of the morning award, not only with an excellent essay in response to a previous similarly stupid comment but also a hilarious eye spy game for all those in the city - 10 points for a banker or protester in disguise! There have also been some hilarious photos of afore said disguises.

On the photo front, The Guardian has some great shots of the more confrontational side of things:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2009/apr/01/g20-protest?picture=345344196
and also have very good coverage on the ground:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/01/g20-summit-protests

Don't forget to check Indymedia London for the latest:
http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/943

I'll leave you with this quote - my thoughts are with all at the Climate Camp kettle right now...

From indymedia:
19:15 - Climate Camp: Police have attacked on the South Side of the camp, indiscriminately beating people who are holding their hands up. Police claim it is to contain the camp as many parts of the city are out of control.

From Guardian:
Rebecca Pearse, of the Legal Observer Collective, who said they worked with police to provide a witness of events, said that until the police moved in "it had been all sunshine, smiles, cake , food and drums. Then it just escalated."

Ho hum

Police brewing trouble ahead of G20

2009-03-23T13:47:00.000-07:00

In the lead up to the G20 summit of 'world leaders' in London next week, two news stories, linked by a MET Police statement, are of particular interest.

First of all, on Thursday last week the Economist Intelligence Unit, a sister think-tank to the Economist magazine, released a register of "Where the risk is greatest that economic distress will foment social unrest". "So far only two elected governments, in Iceland and Latvia, have been ousted after popular protests", the report states, but be warned, "More regime changes, possibly less peaceful ones, may follow as economic conditions worsen". Britain apparently stands at moderate risk.

Then on Saturday, The Times newspaper reported that that "Scotland Yard have issued a stark warning of violent disorder in the City of London on the eve of the G20 summit, with the police stretched to their limit in the middle of an extraordinary week of public protest". Using words such as 'militants', 'hardcore' and a repetition of 'violence' (as well as pictures like the one below), the article and statement stand to justify the deployment of "2,500 uniformed police, many equipped with riot gear" to deal with "1,000 anti-capitalist demonstrators." Oh.. and it's going to cost £10m to 'protect' the Bank of England. The article ends with a para about the Economist report "Britain is not immune to the danger of serious social unrest and public disorder as a result of the economic crisis."

Whether you have read Naomi Klein's 'The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism' or not, you should be wondering at this point what the terrorism laws and police are being used to protect from the protesters: the UK people, or the symbols of a flawed system of free market liberalism which now risks global of public rejection? You should also be paying close attention to the language used to justify any police action, from either the police themselves, the media or those sympathetic to the concerns of the city. In this respect a quick comparison is helpful...

This all has echoes of the Climate Camp I attended in 2007 where at least 1,800 officers in riot gear were drafted in to deal with an almost entirely peaceful protest by around 1,000 unarmed people. It cost £7m to protect BAA's headquarters. The police were unnecessarily violent and used new anti-terror laws to intimidate peaceful protesters in a manner more familiar with Guantanamo guards than your local booby on the beat. The papers largely carried false reports of protester violence, fed to lazy journalists who weren't on the ground by the police. Predictably the Daily Mail blamed the protesters for the exorbitant cost, not the police.

After the Kingsnorth Climate Camp in 2008, Green party candidate Caroline Lucas wrote: "It's hard to see the police approach to this year's climate camp as anything other than a bid to provoke breaches of the peace." I would argue that the provocative police strategy of deploying fully armed riot police and hyping up the risk of 'clashes' in the newspapers ahead of the G20 is nothing short of the same.

It is with some interest then, that I read today's article in The Guardian about the joint Commons Committee on human rights who have published a 70-page report, after almost a year's inquiry, to say that "it [is] concerned by evidence of the use of the powers [by the police], under legislation including the Terrorism Act, against peaceful protesters".

The report says: "Whilst we recognise police officers should not be placed at risk of serious injury, the deployment of riot police can unnecessarily raise the temperature at protests." It adds that the experience of protests in Northern Ireland showed the use of riot police was unnecessary. Lawyers say the report also raises fundamental questions about the general approach of the authorities towards protest.

The report has probably not come in time to prevent the heavy handed policing already planned for next week, but don't let all this put you off. If you believe in a different way of doing things, if you want a new green deal, if you think the recession is an opportunity to 'put people first', don't let them scare you into not using your voice. Exercise your right to protest.

The Guardian have produced a summary of next week's G20 protest events. If you don't want to be clobbered round the head or penned into a circle of riot police for 8 hours, the TUC rally is the safe bet. After the event, be sure to check whether you are reading the police version of events or an actual eyewitness accounts. I strongly suggest you keep an eye on Indymedia for the latter.

Photographers protest against the Counter Terrorism Act

2009-02-18T08:41:00.000-08:00

ipod therefore I am

2009-01-27T05:20:00.001-08:00

Just read a very good thinkpiece by Peter Aspden in the FT about the democratisation and accesibility of culture. He muses on the differnces between the grand 'timeless' culture of times gone by, which we continue to elevate (or curate) to the status of high art, and the deluge of quick fire bites of modern culture that we swim through in today's media saturated environment (see below).

ipod therefore I am

This all stems, he tells us, from a podcast he listened to on the tube. He had downloaded it from the Philiosphy Bites blog, which offers 'podcasts of top philosophers interviewed on bite-sized topics' in 15 minute slots, just right for a tube journey.

I already subscribe to Radio 4's Thinking Allowed and In Our Time podcasts, which at 30 and 45 minutes often provide me with an easily digestible chunk of thought sandwich on the way to or from work, which I can chew on for the rest of my day.

It's a Material World

2009-01-19T05:37:00.000-08:00

This is quite an interesting video produced by the UK think tank, Demos, exploring how what we choose to value and preserve defines our culture, and by extension our mental environment. The video supports two recently published reports, Democratic Culture and It’s a Material World.

Found on The Attic, a blog by Museums studies pupils at the University of Leicester.

In the Shadow of the Moon

2008-12-20T15:07:00.000-08:00

I don't watch much TV but I've just seen two fantastic films on More4. The first, The Dish, was a touching dramatisation about the guys in Australia who beamed live TV footage of the moon landing into homes across the world. The second, In the Shadow of the Moon, was a documentary in which all the surviving astronauts from the Apollo missions are interviewed about their experience. It's one of the most profound things I've watched all year.

As someone born in 1983 I've always had a very post-modern view of the events that amazed the world on 20 July 1969. In some ways it's easy to take for granted the fact that men have set foot on the moon. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are two of the first celebrated names that I can remember so it's always been a kind of fact for me. Also there's plenty of other amazing things that we've accomplished in science, technology and medicine.

Sometimes when I stand and look up at the moon though, I find it absolutely impossible to believe that it could ever have happened, especially with the relatively rudimentary technology of 1969. Mixed with this are doubts fuelled by stories of mock ups in hangers. There's also a slight unease about the patriotic possessiveness implied by the symbolism involved and the knowledge that this was all part of the great arms race of the cold war.

These films cut through all of this and I think, for the first time really gave me a glimpse of the awe and wonder that people must have experienced when they watched these events for the first time. As Mike Collins (the third guy in Apollo 11) says in the later "My Father was born shortly after the Wright Brother's first flight but my son took it all for granted". It really makes you realise how amazingly fast things progressed during the 20th Century. What must it have been like to live through such times of change? Are the next 82 years going to be just as incredible?

The other amazing thing is what a universal achievement this was for the human race. While there were partisan and patriotic factors driving the mission, Buzz Aldrin recounts how when he travelled the world afterwards he was struck by how everyone said to him "We've done it".

Many of the most poignant words are at the end, when the astronauts discuss the spiritual and reflective side of the experience. In particular they all say that it made them realise how fragile the Earth is and how lucky we are to live on it. Something which we should all bear in mind given the current state of affairs.

All in all, a really thought provoking, awe inspiring documentary, with plenty of humour, quirky facts and incredible footage as well. Well worth watching if you get the chance (the preview below doesn't do it justice)!

Who's with stupid?

2008-12-09T15:18:00.000-08:00

I spent Saturday afternoon at the annual Campaign against Climate Change march in London. The rally in parliament square was attended by many and a number of speakers declared that we have reached the time for 'direct action' in response to the government's refusal to abandon plans for airport expansion - despite or perhaps because of the new climate change bill. Quite right I thought. In hindsight who can criticise the suffragettes?

On Monday morning Plane Stupid did just this and brought Stansted to a halt. Here a new runway has just been approved by the government. This overrules a democratic local planning decision to block the move which will flatten 9 listed buildings and disrupt a nearby ancient woodland. Heathrow and Skipton Village next.

One of the most interesting things to come out of this scenario, as usual, is an examination of the message of the protesters in light of the sentiment of the majority of news consumers i.e. the voting public (not that there's anything even remotely democratic about the government's decision here). So here we go:

"We sympathise with passengers, but any inconvenience caused is nothing in relation to that which will be caused by climate chaos" said Lily Kember, 21 Plane Stupid (rough quote from Today programme at 7am)

A BBC report based on interviews with those stranded by the direct action reveals an interesting range of views. Sadly, despite Lily Kember's eloquently put point, I fear that much of the population will side with the stranded passengers. While perhaps sympathetic to green concerns, and even secretly guilty about flying, the pain of these people 'like us' will resonate with many who have been stranded themselves at Heathrow etc.

"In the modern world we live in, people want to travel", says Vivienne Brinton, stranded passenger.

through reading comments expressed by like minded people, resonance is likely to turn media spectators against Plain Stupid's cause and re-enforce a belief that we are justified to fly. This belief, nurtured by expanding leisure, aviation and tourism industries decrees that flying to the sun is no longer a luxury, but in fact a necessity. Remember kids, we don't want to go back to the dark ages!

Shirin Memarizadeh, 27, from Manchester, said "I don't feel guilty about flying. It's the easiest way to get to see your family".

While I have a lot of sympathy for those travelling to see loved ones, I do wonder if one day people might accept that moving to the other side of the continent means that you might not see friends and family every five minutes. It is only through unsustainable 'magic' that the world has become a smaller place. Many of us live in this illusion fuelled by adverts, travel mags, TV holiday programmes and of course good old peer pressure. Where have you been on holiday lately? Anywhere nice?

Goncalo Souto, 22, from Portugal, said: "I don't agree with the protesters. Because low-cost flights are good for people to travel around the world and see new things."

Of course the trouble is that if all 6 billion of us flew because it's good for us to see the world, we be completely fucked. Ever heard of trains Goncalo? I wonder how people coped with life in the dark ages. And more to the point, who is it that currently benefits from this privilege? Rich Europeans or people in places like low lying countries with poor infrastructure like Bangladesh? And who stands to suffer worst from climate chaos?

Simon Harth a 24-year-old engineer said: "I do what I can at home for the environment, I car-share for instance. I've read the facts and air travel accounts for just 2% of carbon emissions. Climate change is going to affect everyone and we should be doing as much as we can, but this is not the right way to get the message across. It's made me bitter towards environmental action like this."

Simon is obviously a clever guy, but I wonder how much of what he reads has been couched in terms dictated by the aviation lobby and BAA's PR? And does he ask these questions? Facts are of course indisputable. Of course. Just like science. As an engineer he should know about the fact that emissions at high altitude are more damadging, and that if airport expansion is allowed aviation will soon account for 7 if not 15% of emissions. And that's before we try to make our 80% reduction. What would you rather cut - flying on holiday or heating in the winter? Somethings gotta give. Besides if Simon really gives a shit, what's he doing flying to Belfast?

It's all very well getting on my high horse about this though. One of my mates has just moved to OZ to get married. She wants me to go out. I can only go for two weeks. I can only fly. I haven't flown for 3 years now. I also have never been outside Europe. I've always seen Oz as once or twice in a lifetime if at all. Can I really justify it for 2 weeks?! Hmmm...

More comment:
Leo Hickman in the Guardian
David Millward - Telegraph

Giant green wooden horses

2008-07-09T13:12:00.000-07:00

I've just read an article in a local magazine bemoaning the level of 'Greening' that's taking place at the moment. 'Greenworld', it says, is being forced upon us by our government like some kind of nightmare communist diktat (their words not mine).

What upsets the writer most is that many things which are supposed to be eco-friendly actually have negative environmental consequences (wind farms chopping birds, biofuels, mercury in low energy light bulbs).

While I would dispute the tone of the article and the idea that government intervention is unnecessary, the writer has stumbled on an acute truth. Compounding our problems of navigating in the green jungle is the fact that whenever the government or a corporation want to sell us an idea, they now try to pass it off as eco-friendly.

Of course, some of this can be summed up by the performance of Kevin in the last series of the Apprentice.... is it any wonder people remain confused and sceptical?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL3033127420080430

I know what you're thinking, greenwash. But greenwash is an attempt to cover mal-practice through bad PR. What we are seeing are pro-active attempts by everyone to corner the green consumer market or force through unpopular measures with government backing. This is more like a phalanx of giant green wooden horses being driven through the gates of consumer democracy.

The most acute of these issues at the moment are biofuels and eco-towns. We want to keep driving everywhere the whole time because we've under invested in our countries public transport for the last 50 years and are too scared to see more fuel strikes? Biofuels will solve that. We'll wake up to no rainforest later. We want to build 3 million homes in the south east on green belt land? That's Ok, they'll be eco-towns. Forget the fact that they'll be in the middle of nowhere so there will be a dramatic increase in road traffic. You could also add poor plans by large energy companies for windfarms in marshland previously designated as sites of special scientific interest.

Since the world food crisis has deepened we have thankfully seen a bit of a turnaround in the government's attitude to the former. However, how many more projects like the Severn Barrage are gong to be forced through under new planning laws, a green mandate and heavy industry lobbying?

So, eco is being used to sell or force feed us things that are not truly sustainable. This causes massive problems for those things that really are helpful and only goes to fuel some people's perception of eco-nazis/commies going to spoil our fun. Such negative and frankly defeatist comments are popping up all over the place like mushrooms after heavy rain. While I can empathise with the feelings of the writer of - 'Spaggetti junction at the bottom of the green revolution' - this kind of tone is hardly going to improve the situation.

Here's a good article from Sian Berry about eco-towns:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/sian-berry/2007/06/eco-towns-brown-green-national

My other car is my feet: The joys of walking

2007-10-13T12:48:00.000-07:00

At the beginning of this year I did an approximation of my carbon footprint and found that my car use was probably the most significant part of it. The fact that I was in a job which required a lot of travelling did not help. With a change of job, I took the opportunity to ditch the car, enthusiastically snapped up by my sister, and get the train instead.

It's worked out really well so far. I've significantly cut my car use, and discovered two wonderful things.

1. If you get the train, you miss all the stress of driving and suddenly find that you have time to read all those books you never had time for before.

2. If you walk a lot (even just to the station) you notice a hell of a lot of stuff which you're missing as you float around in your isolated personal pollution bubble. You can hear birds sing (when such a vehicle isn't roaring past), see the seasons change, watch wildlife on the way to work and pick up on details of places you've always taken for granted as they zoom by in a blur. Not only that, but it keeps you uber fit as well!

You also start to detest cars. They're noisy, smelly and go far too fast. If it wasn't for all the idiots in cars on the roads, it might actually be safe to cycle on them.

My view on the way to work:

Hippy-crit

2007-09-15T13:41:00.000-07:00

Just to show how much of a hypocrite I am, and highlight the confusion I face over this whole PR career idea, I've gone and pulled off a PR "stunt"myself, similar to that I bemoaned in my last post. As what I was advertisng was a non-corporate charity project which I actually beleive in, and the props were positioned on non-descript roundabouts surrounded by ugly cars, I had no problem doing it. Not everybody was happy though.

Mr Smith was critical of the box, he said: “Placing this advertising contraption on the roundabout is like waving a red rag to a bull.

“Motorists regularly mount the roundabout, destroying the road signs and even disappearing deep into the foliage.

The advertising was also criticised for bad taste by one woman who spotted it while on her way to a funeral.

The woman, who did not want to be identified, noticed a coffin-shaped box on the Six Crossroads roundabout while travelling with family members. She was shocked it had been placed on one of the busiest routes to Woking Crematorium.

From the News & Mail ---> Gallery promo Causes a Stir

Why I orda....

2007-07-16T14:11:00.000-07:00

Much as I like the Simpsons, I find this kind of publicity disgusting. It's almost as bad as the Playstation 2 graffitti stencils. Not to be a snob, but I really do hate the way these stunts parasitically feed off genuine culture while defacing it in the process. Is nowhere safe from advertising!?

You know what makes it worse as well? I've gone and written about it and spread the filth further. Or at least i would have done if anyone read this blog. i hope someone finds this while doing post-mortem on their market strategy. Should give them a giggle.

Iconoclasm (the destruction of an image) is one thing in the name of art, politics or even just genuinely having a laugh, but as pre-determined strategically targeted publicity, it makes me sick. (Someone's getting paid a lot of money for the kind of idea that any 12 year old boy could have here) Andy Warhol has a lot to answer for, and yet, while he sold a lot of paintings, I love the way he did it. It's a fine line, and interesting one to look at.

If only I was still studying visual culture, I feel an essay coming on....

Brown not looking too Green

2007-07-15T13:43:00.000-07:00

The Marine Bill, which we saw a draft version of this year, is intended to set up wildlife reserves in the seas around Britain. This would give a space to recover for the many species with falling populations in our seas, including the harbour porpoise, common skate, long snouted seahorse, and basking shark. The bill would also help planning for offshore windfarms and tidal energy.

Unfortunately, Mr Brown has decided to leave this Bill off of his list of legilation for next year. This does not bode well for the other big piece of environmental legislation which has been included, the Climate Change Bill. So much for the Red/Green adgenda.

More from WWF on this issue.
Earlier worring evidence that Brown is not Green.

Its just hot air

2007-07-10T16:40:00.000-07:00

At last, an 'official' study which completely debunks Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen's 1991 theory that 'cosmic rays' from the sun are to blame for climate change, not man. Although their evidence has been proved to be flawed many times before, at least this should shut my mates up who continue to defend this idea....

Although it's still shocking how many people in the UK are still confused by the issue.

The Dark Arts

2007-07-09T06:01:00.000-07:00

One thing I've kept quiet about lately is that I'm currently trying to get a job in Political Communications, Public Affairs (i.e. lobbying), campaigns or Public Relations.

Since studying Art History - i.e the realtionship between cultural propaganda and power - I've spent a long time detesting PR and advertising, which I see as essentially interest led corporate/political propaganda that shapes the way people think, or at least interpret the world around them.

Now, the first thing that people usually say when I say this is that "people are not that stupid, you know." Quite right, but this article from De-Smog Blog has a great explanation of how this works.

So why would I want to go into this shady world?

A few reasons:
1. Know your enemy - I want to understand how this works and the best way to do that is from exprience.
2. Fight fire with fire - There are different kinds of public relations, and not all of them are bad. Every organisation needs communicators, including the ethical ones. I want to represent those causes/companies/organisations which benefit people and planet.
3. Be the change you want to see - I want to get involved with conscious communication (i.e. education) to counter act the un-conscious - not leading people by the nose but helping them think for themelves.
4. Nothing is black and white - There's people with good intentions in (almost) every company or organisation. It's important to work together to improve things rather than just complain about what other people do.
5. I wish to learn how to communicate rather than rant. It's much harder. ;)

So there you go.

Dear Mr Brown...

2007-07-05T08:56:00.000-07:00

Well with Tony gone, everyone suddenly wants Gordon Brown to do them a favour. The papers and magazines last week were full of full page adverts from pressure groups asking him to fulfil promises or make a bold policy break in a different direction.

It seems at first as if they were placed too. Gordon is keen to put as much ground between himself and Tony as possible, so is open to policies through which he might do so. That means he's listening to public opinion and may quite likely be swayed into things while he's still fresh in the job.

He's made some encouraging noises already. Keen to exit the shadow of Iraq, there has been talk of withdrawl soon. Keen to appear less authoritarian, the language has changed with regards to the 'law on terror' and Islam following the recent bungled attacks. Keen to appear less controlling and make a clean break from 'sofa politics', on Tuesday Brown announced greater powers for Parliament, relinquishing the 'Royal perogative' of the government to go to war without a vote, sign foreign treaties, recall or summon parliament. He also called for a public debate on the case for a British Bill of Rights or a written constitution.

So far so good. However, many of these changes, while welcome, are not particularly revolutionary and will see little complaint from opposition parties. More to the point is when he will address the looming issue of Lords Reform (not very popular with Cameron's lot), whether he will really involve people more in policy via a Citizen's convention (thus really relinquishing control), do something to limit airport expansion, do something about buy to let properties (not popular with lots of people who got rich in under Labour), tax private equity (not popular with Brown's mates in the city) or scrap the expensive and inefficient ID cards. The last one is especially unlikely to be as it would see Labour lose face to the Tories who have already made their U-turn.

With the Conservatives about to launch a major policy offensive following their extensive review though, it will be interesting to see what Mr Brown is holding back for later.

i po(n)d(er)

2007-06-26T08:02:00.000-07:00

Just come across this interesting article from Schnews about sweatshops for the electronics industry. Although fair trade is getting some recognition in the realms of food and coffee, we often don't consider the workforce that's powering the information/communications revolution. (I say this as I write on my girlfriend's Dad's new apple mac)

I appreciate that relinquishing all IT would be quite a silly move, but if you do want to get ethical Schnews has some good advice...

Direct Inaction. Do nothing. Don’t upgrade, if it ‘aint broke don’t fix it and if it is - get it repaired. Windows XP will be updated for several years, and as we said in SchNEWS 560, free ‘Open Source’ software - headed by the operating system of Linux, Open Office, Firefox and others - offers free, direct equivalents for the software Microsoft’s monopoly rides on.

For myself, I'm using my girlfriends old ipod instead of buying myself one (this comes after years of cassette players and one old mini disc) and I've only ever bought one PC 4 years ago. I run Firefox, although have yet to wean myself off Windows and MS office.

I wonder how long it will be before/if we ever we see fairtrade labels on all products?

Climate change kills

2007-06-23T14:48:00.000-07:00

A UN report released this week suggests that the war in the Sudan/Darfur is a direct result of global warming. Considering that we've still got the last 40 years of pollution to catch up with us, it's probably just the first of many. The developed world's shameful lack of response to the greatest genocide since Rwanda does not bode well for how we intend to deal with these situations in the future. I shall never let it happen again, said B-liar of Rwanda - before promptly wading knee deep into Iraq while the crisis in Darfur unfolded before the averted eyes of the world community.

We must do better than this. As a planet need to start thinking about the future impact of climate change and coming up with some coherent strategies to deal with it.

Away from you tube

2007-06-22T16:47:00.000-07:00

Isn't it a pain that the big adverts on the tube are completely inaccessible so you can't defile them even if you find them completely offensive? They probably pay much more to have them there, because not only are the spaces huge but you get a captive audience with no other option but to look. Why can't we have some other form of art up there which actually enriches the lives of Londoners?

I've started to appreciate the kooky tiling now instead...

Enough! - the (broken) promised land

2007-06-20T05:24:00.000-07:00

Last weekend I attended the Enough! - End the Occupation of Palestine rally in Trafalgar Square . Palestinians, Israleis, British and people from all over the world marked 40 years of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza with a protest against it. For a country which was complict in the problem, and directly affected by its consequences, from bus bombs to an illegal war, turnout was disapointingly low. I'm sure there are many more people who feel strongly about the issue that did not attend - standing around in Trafalgar Square is not my first choice of activity on a Sturday afternoon either - but I also wonder how many understand the significance of the issue in so much of Middle Eastern politics, British foreign policy and the so called 'war on terror'.

On the day, a Dutch woman stopped to ask me what the fuss was about. I told her what we were doing. She thought it commendable, but was unsure if peace in Palestine was ever likely to happen. In light of recent events in Northern Ireland, I replied that many in this country held a fresh optimism for resolution in the Middle East.

With the recent split between Fatah and Hamas, that wind has left our sails and a peaceful resolution has not seemed further away for some time. Israel, the US and the EU are all seeking to capitalise on developments through co-operting with the new Fatah government. This will only serve to isolate those in Gaza further and cause division and distrust among the Palestinian people. This suits Israel's divide and rule policy of occupation just fine, as they lean on the West to broker a quick deal in their interest. However, they also run the risk of undermining the moderate Fatah itself, uniting the whole of the Palestinian nation in extremism and violence. That this may happen has been proved by Isaeli policy again and again, first spawning the PLO and then Hamas itself.

The international community should not have diplomatically isolated the democratically elected Hamas government in the way that they did. The US and EU should stop pandering to the Israeli "we will not negotiate with terrorists" line, and begin considering the plight of the people of Palestine not blowing themselves up. Poor, battered and despirited, they are the long suffering victims of this mess.

Further reading:
http://www.fmep.org/reports/vol17/no3/01-40_years_of_occupation.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,2107029,00.html

Bad egg

2007-06-20T01:44:00.000-07:00

According to the BBC this morning, the Egg Information Service has been banned from showing a re-run of a 1950's advert featuring the slogan 'Go to work on an egg", on the basis that it "does not promote a balanced diet."

This recent regulation of food advertising has been brought about by fears of rising obesity levels and the subsequent strain on the healths service. The watershed of the campaign came last year, when stricter measures were introduced to control TV advertising for junk food targeting children - a very commendable move.

While it is important that we promote healthier diets, this latest decision seems to be taking things a little too far - especially since eggs are healthy, natural products which are not branded by one or two companies.

In this light, it is worth considering a comment made by the author Fay Weldon, who was involved in the project:

"When you think of what can be run and what is being run, like low-cost airlines and cars - cars kill, eggs aren't actually likely to do so"

She's got a point hasn't she? If you can't have an advert for eggs on health grounds, why shouldn't car adverts carry a health warning and include the CO2 emmission levels? It's certainly not the first time this idea has been put foward.

Now we've broken some taboos on advertising regulation, perhaps it is time to consider the negative health, social or environmental effects of some of the other un-contested propoganda which is pumped into our daily lives....

Food for thought

2007-06-12T14:18:00.000-07:00

As China announces a moratorium on bio fuel production due to the rising price of food ( Times ), the BBC has been investigating the rising cost of food in the UK ( Today programme ).

We take cheap food from the supermarket for granted in this country. On the Radio this morning I heard a statistic that whereas in 1980 something we used to somthing like 16-26% of our income on food, we now spend only 8%. With poorer crop yields worldwide due to extreme weather (droughts & floods), farmers in many countries switching to bio fuels (e.g. Brazil & US), an increase in demand from emergent economies such as China, and the continued growth of the world population, however, this situation may be about to change.

Commentators say that fluctuations in the food market historically quite common, with sudden peaks settling down as production rises to match demand. It was predicted as far back as the 18th Century that we would soon run out of food. This was abetted by the development of intensive agriculture and nitrogen fertilisers, without which we could only sustain about a third of the current world population. Now though, we are running out of land.

The problem is further compounded by climate change, already thought to be responsible for the weather damaging current production and set to get have a far greater impact as the carbon emissions of the last 40 years catch up with us. In a vicious cycle, lack of land could lead to further deforestation of the last remaining great forests in develop ping countries for food and fuel, causes even more climate chaos.

As with the looming energy/ peak oil crisis, some believe there is a magic solution in GM crops, the edible equivalent of nuclear power stations. Like nuclear power though, I believe that this 'comforting' thought is delusional. Even if we engineer plants which produce greater yields and are more disease resistant, we would need more resources grow them and new diseases would develop. Furthermore, the practice of mono cropping is an extremely destructive of delicate soil systems which are intricately linked into other ecosystems, essential to the sustenance of life on this planet. This leads to desertification.

So how about some pragmatic answers?

One thing which is imperative is that we need to avoid Climate Chaos at all costs.

Then, we may also need to accept that some of our disposable income may need to be redirected back to feeding ourselves.

Or better still...
Start growing your own food. What use is an ornamental garden? There's even a book you can buy call Food not Lawns. You can encourage bio-diversity through inter-cropping and more small scale localised food production. Permaculture is a good place to look for practical advice on how to become self sustainable while working in harmony with natural systems.

We could also try eating less meat. Not only is meat more expensive than vegetables, it takes up more resources and produces more carbon. According to The Vegan Society , 1/3 of the grain we grow is fed to farm animals. 25% of the world's surface is given over to grazing cattle. The fossil energy input needed to produce a day's food for a meat eater is about 34,000 calories. For a vegetarian it is only about 20,000 and for a Vegan only 10,000. In terms of water, the figures stand at 15,000, 5,000 and 1,500 respectively. Farm animals also produce large amounts of waste which pollute rivers and streams.

Now I'm not even a vegetarian, let alone vegan, but I have been cutting down on my meat consumption considerably in the last few years. I don't buy meat very often, hardly at all anymore. Speaking to a vegan at the weekend though, he pointed out that even allowing other people to feed you it encourages higher consumption. As for the vegetables, I started with a patch at the begging of this year and am considering an allotment next year if I'm still living here. I intend to design future projects with permaculture in mind. I could probably eat a bit less mind you, I am a bit of an eating machine...

Lunchtime lobbying

2007-06-06T06:04:00.000-07:00

Just got back from the Sunrise Celebration in Somerset where I got involved with workshops on climate change (with Kate Evans), sub-vertising and permaculture. Lots of inspiring stuff which I'll try and write up on in the future.

In the meantime though, here's an idea for you. Rather than spending those idle hours of work surfing blogs, reading celebrity gossip, checking out your mates on facebook and browsing on e-bay, why not use your time effictively and start filling out e-campaigns letters or petitions on charity websites for things you really care about?

If it didn't work, they wouldn't do it. Letters e-mailed or sent directly to politicians, companies or organisations often are the most effective way of making them take note of something. You can change the world from the comfort of your own office, either in your own breaks or on comapany time - I'll leave that to your discretion.

It only takes a minute and you can either use the form letter as given, edit it for your own particular message or write your own. You can usually find stuff to do under the "What you can do" section of a charity's website. You can search for charities if you don't know their website.

Recently I've been to:
Enough! - End 40 years of occupation in Palestine
Don't carve up the congo - Greenpeace
Tell the government to ban Illegal Timber
I'm in/ G8 - Oxfam
Make Trade Fair - Oxfam

By the way, if you're in London this weekend with time on your hands, you might want to consider:
FRI: Rising Tide G8 action
SAT: Enough! rally - End 40 years of occupation in Palestine
World Naked Bike Ride
The Compass Annual Conference

Now I'd best get back to work!

Welcome to Airstrip One

2007-05-29T12:30:00.001-07:00

I was horrified to open the Guardian last week (I bet that sentence has some people falling of their chairs in laughter already) to discover yet another Ryanair advert... this time offering 1 million free flights. Is there nothing this company will stop at to fly in the face of accepted climate change consensus? Are they in denial? Do they just not care?

What is the point of such a cocky, swaggering publicity stunt, I find myself asking? Winning people over to the cause of poor bullied little Ryanair? Spiting those lefty greens? Hoping to convey the message that they're so successful that they can afford to do this? Convincing people that more flights are needed by giving them a taste of what they could be missing?

The answer it appears is twofold. Firstly, with all the hidden charges, free flights is a bit of a misnomer. For a company which portrays Gordon Brown as a money grabbing stealth green taxer in half its adverts, this is a little bit rich.

Secondly, they were worried that as a result of a faltering in consumer demand, they were not going to fill up enough seats in the period on offer. "We wouldn't want to see empty seat wasted" they said, or words to that effect. (They're not the first)

Now, as Wednesday marks the start of a public review into the expansion of Stanstead Airport, this begs the question - why on earth are we expanding all our airports when we can't even fill all the seats on the flights we are running without giving them away?

As the Guardian points out today - air passenger numbers are predicted to more than double in the next 20 years to 465 million if current blueprints for airport expansion are to continue as planned. This is not compatible with the cuts which need to be made in emissions if we wish to avoid climate chaos. It is also incompatible with the government's own professed red/green agenda of reducing carbon emissions by 20%. You have to wonder really what kind of green they're really supporting.

Before I go any further though, I have to admit my own guilt. While I have been making an effort to cut down my own flight times in recent years (not once between 2002 and 2006), last year I flew 3 times in Europe. One business, two leisure. The trips were great, but I still feel bad about flying. Like everyone else my reasons for going by plane were limitations of money and time. It was a case of wanting to visit places and culture beyond the reach of a 16 hour coach journey. I had some money, but little time for longer journeys. You can't have your cake and eat it.

I have no plans to fly in the future, although I do not think that people need to stop flying altogether either. Travel is good and does not have to be for selfish reasons.

At the end of the day though, I think it comes down to this. Like so many other things we take for granted in the UK, air travel is a luxury. While it is one that more and more of us can afford in this country, the majority of the world cannot, either economically or environmentaly. And it is those people who cannot afford it least who will pay for it first.

Its something to think about before you decide to top up that tan in the sun, make that next cultural trip of personal enlightenment, or go searching for the perfect beach/wave/party - who's going to benefit and who's going to pick up the bill? Is it really nessecary? Is it really worth it? And who for?

If you don't want to see Britain become Airstrip One, click on the link below and lend your support. More info can be found at airportwatch. If you want to take matters into your own hands, the Camp for Climate Action takes places at Heathrow this year.

If you want to read the other side coin, try this. Personally, while I agree air travel needs to be more sustainable, I think it smacks of too much cake munching, and not enough thought for the consequences.

Guardian - Hope dries up for Nicaragua's Miskito
Guardian - Trees vs. Travel
Guardian - Greens angered by £1m flight giveaway
Guradian - Paridise Lost
Georges Monbiot - We are all killers

Conscious comment

2007-05-29T12:09:00.001-07:00

'True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing. ' - Socrates

Like most people who start a blog, for some time now I've been meaning to write something down in order to organise and channel my thoughts on the world as I perceive it and the things I reflect on from day to day. This could be it.

Whether I have anything to add to the multitude of voices that already colonise the world wide web is extremeley doubtful (the first 10-15 ideas I had for a blog name were already taken). Whether I post regularily will probably be down to how much time I have to put aside for such things. Considering how long it's taken me to even get started, it will probably be an uphill struggle. Whether anyone else ever reads this remains to be seen.

Whatever form this takes though, I hope that I will be able to provide something readable and thought provoking. If you wish to comment yourself on any of the posts I make please do. The only comment I will moderate will be that which is abusive or unpleasant. I wish to encourage those with views other than or contradictory to my own to challenge or enlighten me as they see fit. The most important part of learning about life is being able not only to see something through anothers eyes but to be able to accept that you may be wrong and they may be right.