Who's with stupid?

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

Its just hot air

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.

Climate change kills

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.

Food for thought

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...

Welcome to Airstrip One

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