|
Newsletter
|
| Home
Newsletters |
Contents |
No legally binding targets were set to improve the environment, reduce poverty or make the use of resources more sustainable for the world's burgeoning population. Government leaders should have adopted an enforceable international treaty to make global companies accountable for the damage they do to the environment and society. And they didn't.
With
diligent campaigning FoE, other green groups and some governments managed
to get the USA's footnote excluded from the general agreement on corporate
accountability, thus obliging the US to make a unilateral statement reinterpreting
corporate accountability into no accountability at all. Because other governments
strongly opposed the US interpretation, there is scope for the agreement
to be strengthened at a later date. FoE International is now working to
get a UN conference on corporate accountability by the end of 2003, an
objective advanced by the draft Political Declaration produced by the South
African Government which seeks to place the issue before the UN General
Assembly. FOEI will also take its campaign for corporate accountability
and for the primacy of environmental protection and social solidarity over
free market ideology to the Cancun WTO Conference.
One minor triumph of the Jo'burg summit was the decision by Canada and Russia to join the Kyoto Protocol to combat climate change, thus enabling the treaty to come into force probably later this year. Before the summit opened an Indian delegate commenting on the decision of President George W Bush not to attend, said that the USA had to learn that globalisation did not mean Americanisation. I wonder if George W heard or understood.
The present economics of global companies is unsustainable. Shining success stories, Enron, Worldcom and others, have amply demonstrated the corruption and hollowness of that success. Their demise leaves serious unresolved problems for people deprived of jobs, pensions and services, not to mention world stock markets in turmoil at the fear of more to come. Even so, governments and some environmentalists vaunted the "partnership" agreements between global companies and governments for promoting third world development as one of the main achievements of the Earth Summit. The corporations will no doubt use the agreements as a platform to extend their power and reduce that of elected governments. The mantra of "free trade" (which of course is not free at all), as well as return on investment and fat profits for fat companies, was held out as the answer to the problems of economic development. Fair trade for the third world, ie the corporations paying decent money for minerals and agricultural products, was brushed aside.
The role model for successful economic development is still roughly that of the USA, the most polluting and wasteful country on the planet, as well as the richest, the most powerful, and the most insular. There are millions of Americans excluded from that wealth and well-being. More recent economic success stories in Asia and Latin America, although not exactly on the US model, have experienced a remarkable rise in average prosperity at huge expense to the environment and large sections of the population who are left out. Ironically the US can look to China as one its strongest allies in pollution and the lack of corporate accountability.
As
long as the profit motive reigns, any unprofitable activity or section
of society will be neglected. The neglect includes most of Africa, but
we can see it here with Railtrack, the Post Office, NHS, schools, our inner
cities and countless other examples. Why is fat-catism so seductive when
it leaves us short-changed on essential services?
The problem of water was not addressed by the summit, mainly because the rich world has enough for at least one clothes washing machine load a day per home, several baths and showers, sprinklers for the lawn, hoses for the cars, cooking and drinking, not to mention industrial use. The USA robs Canadian rivers of water, but the Canadians have enough for now. How long will that last? In drier climates with climate change disrupting monsoon and other natural cycles, lack of water leads to famine. But the Earth Summit didn't care enough to set a strategy for managing this vital resource. Its sop was to agree to halve the number of people without access to basic sanitation by 2015.
Another weak target agreed was to establish marine protected networks by 2012. Another aim was that by 2020 dangerous chemicals should be produced in ways to minimise significant adverse effects on human health. No target was agreed for renewable energy as the USA, OPEC and Japan scuppered the Brazilian-led proposal of 10% of primary energy from renewables by 2010.
So what should we do when the world's governments cease to govern and hand control to their paymasters? It begins with lifestyle. The market economics of the global companies requires growth of demand, constant cancerous growth which has no regard for the well-being of consumers or the planet. When the demand is not there, large companies create it through their advertising. And they go further, seeking to establish an identity between consumers and labelled products. They create waste in this way, and we allow ourselves to be led. For many it is a badge of wealth to waste perfectly usable items or to pay too much for hyped designer goods or services, which we somehow feel give us status. Everyone in your acquaintance whom you encourage to value items and not to waste them, and particularly every child, will contribute to a better world, will help reduce the profits of the large corporations and maybe redirect their activities on a more positive course. They depend on us as consumers and investors for their money.
Each
of us has the power to take better care of the resources within our grasp.
And when we invest in a pension plan, unit trusts, mortgage or even stack
up money in the bank for future use, we should know exactly which company
stocks our hard-earned cash is supporting. I tried to find ethical investments
earlier this year and discovered the financial definition of "ethical"
included pharmaceutical companies. These firms used Africans to test anti-AIDS
drugs, then withdrew the drugs for the rich western market, once they were
proven safe. The argument was that they needed to recover their R&D
investment costs in markets that could pay. So why not test the product
in markets that could pay? Because of the risk of something going wrong
and hard-nosed teams of no-win, no-fee lawyers extracting compensation.
No ethics there.
But there has been a significant increase in ethical investing in recent years. We need to increase this, to get the finance companies to exclude pharmaceutical firms and any other such rotten eggs, and again spread the word to everyone we know. If governments will not make corporations accountable, we can. Stock markets are particularly sensitive to confidence or lack of it and to new trends in investment.
We can also demand from our government that it spends its third world aid budget (our taxes) on developing cooperatives and not-for-profit local companies in the poorest communities so that any project continues to produce services there and is owned by the local people. Our taxes should not be used to fatten the profits of fat global companies.
We can encourage B&NES to make Bath a Fair Trade City. We should encourage B&NES to become a GM-free area.
Susan Traill
On 5th September, UK company British Energy announced that it was facing insolvency. It was then given a £410 million loan by the Government. With a market value of just £404 million and existing debts of around £850 million it should have been allowed to go into administration. Furthermore, a £300 million fuel-reprocessing contract ties British Energy to the other UK nuclear company, state-owned BNFL, which itself is already bankrupt.
FoE is urging the government to put the company into administration which would see the phased decommissioning of the remaining 15 operational nuclear power stations, two of which are indefinitely inactive' due to technical difficulties. This nuclear energy fiasco comes the day after the close of the Jo'burg Earth Summit, at which almost nothing was achieved as far as the topic of energy production was concerned.
As it happens
the UK government is currently holding a public consultation on UK Energy
Policy, in which it asks us what role we would like to see nuclear power
serve, if any, in future energy production. We ask that you respond to
the consultation by filling in a simple online questionnaire which you
can find at: www.dti.gov.uk/energy/developep/energyquestionnaire.html The
deadline for submissions is Friday 13th September, but whether or not you
meet the deadline, you can also voice your views on nuclear power by writing
to Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt MP,
who will decide on the fate of British Energy. Email: mpst.hewitt@dti.gsi.gov.uk
Urge Ms. Hewitt to put the company into administration rather than spend
your tax money on an unsafe, unsustainable and uneconomic technology.
At the start of the Government's current energy review Norman Askew, BNFL's Chief Executive, said that the new plants he wanted to see would be built at existing nuclear sites as they are linked up to the National Grid. He said local people would support a new generation of nuclear power stations because of the benefits the plants brought to their communities. Local opinion polls indicate that the opposite is true.
At Chipping Sodbury, S. Glos (10 miles from Oldbury power station) on 24th August, 295 people voted. 252 (85.4%) responded 'NO' to the question 'Should the Government allow new nuclear power stations to be built at Oldbury and Berkeley?'
At Thornbury, S. Glos (2 miles from Oldbury) on 31st August, 432 people voted. 319 (73.9%) responded 'NO'.
Earlier poll results from towns near Hinkley Point and Oldbury, January 2002. Question: "Do you favour a new nuclear power station at Oldbury / Hinkley Point?"
Chris
Wind-generated
power is now commercially competitive with coal- and nuclear-generated
power. Of course windpower is far cheaper if one also factors the sustainable,
environmental and safety costs involved.
The UK now has 75 commercial onshore windfarms, and a further 9 will be online by the end of this year. We have just one offshore windfarm at present, with another 13 on the way. More exciting still, Greenpeace and power giant TXU recently submitted a plan for a number of windfarms to be built off the East Anglian coast, collectively known as Sea Wind East. This project alone would generate 30GW of electricity or a quarter of the UK's current power demand, which is equivalent to 30 nuclear power stations. The project would also create an estimated 60,000 jobs, which compares well with the 5,000 jobs associated with the UK's 15 operational nuclear power stations.
How does the UK windpower industry compare with the rest of the world? The UK has a capacity in excess of 500MW (0.35MW/GNP.bn.$). Germany however is the world leader, with a capacity of around 9000MW (4.21MW/GNP). Believe it or not, the USA is second-placed with over 4300MW ( but at only 0.49MW/GNP). Spain is running third with over 3300MW (5.94MW/GNP), and Denmark fourth with over 2500MW (at a marvellous 14.53MW/GNP).
Chris
In June of this year, Esso filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace in France for misusing the Esso brand name. Esso claimed that the substituted $$ dollar signs implanted an association between the company and the Nazi SS' in the minds of the general public. An atrocious argument on the part of Esso!
Many Esso shareholders are making interesting noises. At the company's AGM in May, 20% of them, representing over $55 billion of stock, voted for a resolution in favour of investing in a renewable energy resources plan.
In the meantime, please continue to support the now global Greenpeace/People&Planet/FoE StopEsso campaign by boycotting all Esso products. The next day of action is pencilled in for Saturday 2nd November. Watch this space for details of planned action in Bath.
For more information visit www.stopesso.com
Chris.
PS A Mori poll has shown the number of drivers who said they bought petrol from Esso fell seven percentage points to 19% in the year to August 2002. The poll also suggested one in 20 drivers already boycotted Esso service stations,
England only recycling a paltry 12 per cent of household waste. It shows that the Government has failed to deliver on promises made at the Rio Earth Summit 10 years ago. At the last Earth Summit the UK promised to:
The top performing
and worst performing local authorities are listed below. B&NES Council
comes in at No 9. Friends of the Earth is campaigning for a Recycling Bill
to mandate all local authorities to provide every household with a high
quality doorstep recycling and composting service, with more government
money for councils to provide such schemes.
The 10 best performing authorities are: (Recyling per cent)
Terry
The Parliament voted for all GM food and feed products to be labelled and to be traceable irrespective of whether they contain DNA/protein or not. Unauthorised GMOs or GM materials may not be present in any food or feed, in the Parliament's view. The
Commission proposed a threshold of 1% which was rejected. The labelling threshold applies only to GMO derivatives (such as sugar, starch, tomato paste) accidentally present in conventional food/ feed only, and shall be 0.5% maximum, and this threshold shall be reviewed as and when science and technology allow. This is a great improvement on the original proposal.
However, this vote was only the first reading of the proposal. It will now go to Member State governments for their position, and will come back to the Parliament for a second reading. While the outcome this time round was positive, it was only won with a narrow majority so the pressure needs to be kept up, especially on Labour and Conservative MEPs.
Terry
A. PFA/cement
B. Stowing with Limestone chippings
C. Foam concrete wih limestone dust D. Foam concrete with PFA
E. Sand/china clay
At all the consultation meetings I attended I was assured categorically that although present in the options being consulted on, PFA would not be used. A combination of options B & C was declared as the currently preferred infill option which would be put forward in the planning application scheduled for October this year.
At the final workshop at Combe Down on 15th Aug. it was stated that English Partnership/ Treasury were now separately evaluating the project, using consultants DTZ-Pieda, and that they were considering all stabilisation options, including:-
1. "do nothing", ie other than the enabling and emergency works now
actually being undertaken and
2. targeted options, ie based on distinguishing different levels of
hazard/risk across Combe Down.
Targeted options, in addressing the areas in need of remedial work where the risk justifies the cost, may be more beneficial in avoiding the many environmental risks and limiting resource use. Risks include the dangers from the infill materials chosen (such as cement or PFA). the danger and inconvenience associated over many years (minimum 3, possibly 6+) with the works site (working 24hours, 5 1/2 days per week) and the associated lorry movements. Traffic routes have not yet been established but lorry movements would affect wider communities as well as Combe Down..
It is understood that a cost-benefit evaluation will be produced when English Partnerships submits a formal proposal for funding to the government. The relevant information, which would include a full Environmental Impact Assessment and spacial risk assessment, should then be available to enable a full set of options to be judged.
The project will shortly be producing a CDSM Newsletter detailing progress and planning application proposals. This will include details of the work undertaken and cost to date. eg as at 31 July, 12.4% of high hazard areas had been wholly or part stabilised at a cost of something less than two million pounds. The current estimated cost of the preferred infill options is fifty million pounds.
Residents who live above the mines will be asked to give permission to undertake works. The project will explain in writing to householders the practicalities of "ring fencing" under their properties should they withhold permission for stabilisation. Householders would be individually responsible for assessing the legal consequences of their withholding permission.
Terry
Dear Executive.I am writing to confirm that Bath Friends Of the Earth strongly supports retention of the Northgate Street "bus gate".
We believe that the new city centre traffic measures have greatly improved the city centre for public transport, pedestrians and cyclists. Traffic, noise and air pollution, and the associated contribution to Climate Change have been significantly reduced.. The pedestrian count in the city is reported as having increased by 10% over the last year. In Milsom Street there is de facto, if not de jure, pedestrianisation as pedestrians have effectively reclaimed the street for much of the day. Cycling is reported to have increased by 36%.
At the public meeting on the bus gate Monday 29th July it was reported that 177 responses had been received from the public - 70 supported the bus gate and 107 were against. The spokesman for small businesses, was quoted in the Bath Chronicle as saying "95% of the 500 small businesses I represent say their trade has been directly affected by the bus gate". The effect on their trade has not apparently been sufficient for most of them to have felt it necessary to register their individual concern with the Council. The bus gate monitoring report states that the average downturn in trade of shops across the range was only 2.8%. This was based on 35 retail businesses (out of 500 plus) not randomly selected but provided by the Bath Chamber of Commerce. The effect on trade cannot be attributed solely to the bus gate as its trialling coincided with the foot and mouth episode, the general downturn in the economy, Sept 11th and the introduction of local residents parking schemes, all of which are likely to have had some affect on trade in the city.
Experience from other towns with restrictions on the car in their centres is that trade will benefit over time. Comparisons with other cities which have tackled the problem of through traffic is that closing off through routes across city centres does not result in businesses closing down or moving out. In fact, these towns visibly prosper as more attractive shopping environments are created. It is no coincidence that Bath's highest shop rentals are charged in the pedestrianised area in Union Street.
Some traders argue that traffic is their lifeblood, bringing shoppers to their door. Stop the traffic, they say and the shoppers will go elsewhere. There is little evidence for this argument, especially as 70% of the traffic using Walcot and Milsom Streets has hitherto been through traffic. 36% of adults in Bath could not drive in to town even if they wished to as they have no access to a car. Only 48% of Bath's workforce travel to work by car. The rest walk, cycle or use public transport. 32% of Bath's car commuters travel less than 1 km to their place of work.
With traffic projected to increase by 33-55% over the next 20 years something needed to be done. The bus gate together with the 20 mph zone and package of other traffic calming measures has done much to reduce city centre traffic and improve the environment there for citizens of Bath and visitors. Seven years ago, 10,000 people signed a petition opposing the Pulteney Bridge 'bus gate'. Now practically everyone admits that it has been a success.
Yours sincerely
Terry Coulson,
Coordinator
Bath Friends of the Earth