|
Home / Letters Page |
|
Letters Page |
|
On this page there is a selection of recent letters to the local and national press from Norwich Green Party councillors and members. |
|
UEA car park 9 August 2007 Dear Editor, We write today both as Greens and as members of the University of East Anglia academic community. We would like to be 100% roud of the University in which we teach and study; but that is not possible, so long as UEA continues periodically to act in decidedly unenvironmental ways. We are dismayed by the Norwich City Council Planning Committee's recent decision to allow the UEA, a university with a worldwide reputation in the science of dangerous climate change, to expand its planned multi-storey carpark even further. The university plans to create the largest carpark in the whole of Norfolk, at a time when the risks of manmade climate change are becoming more and more apparent, and ordinary people are working to reduce their carbon emissions. Yet the university's huge car park project requiring over £13 million will increase substantially the number of parking spaces on campus, when it could be investing in sustainable alternatives. It is a sad irony that this was approved at the same time as a laudable biomass plant and seems to demonstrate a hypocrisy on the part of the UEA administration whose reputation is so closely linked to its ground-breaking climate-change- science units. Rather than spending vast sums of money on a new carpark, the university should be investing far more in its environmental travel plan to make other forms of travel a real possibility for staff and students. Free bussing and large-scale subsidisation of cycling would reduce greatly the need for parking spaces. Instead, by building a multi-storey car park the university is encouraging car travel to and from the UEA, which will only worsen the existing traffic problems in the local community. This short-sighted car park proposal is widely condemned by many staff, students and local residents. If built, it will create an unsightly and unnecessary building which would hugely worsen the traffic problems in the west Norwich area, and would turn the UEA carbon reduction (CRed) aims into a farce. It must be some solace to climate-change-sceptics everywhere that, while the University’s scientists have demolished their arguments, the University administration is still acting half the time as though they are right. Ruth Makoff, Chair UEA Greens |
|
Greens In First Place In Norwich South 17 May 2007 Dear Editor, Simon Wright highlights that Labour finished behind the LibDems in terms of votes cast in the Norwich South Westminster constituency in the 3rd May local elections (Evening News, 8th May). However, Mr. Wright does not mention that the LibDems finished second and the Green Party first. In other words, if everyone in Norwich South votes the same way at the next General Election as they did in this month's local elections then Charles Clarke will lose his seat to the Green Party. Whilst the numbers were close and no-one can take anything for granted it is clear that Norwich voters have a chance to make history at the next General Election and elect a Green Member of Parliament. The Green Party has consistently made progress in local elections in Norwich in recent years and the Green Councillors now form a large opposition group at City Hall. However, many of the social and environmental issues that residents ask us to pursue are ones that require national policy changes. It is essential that we gain a strong Green voice at Westminster at the next General Election and Norwich electors are in a strong position to make this happen. Councillor Adrian Ramsay |
Setting The Record Straight 25 April 2007 Dear Editor, Deliberate attempts to mislead voters in LibDem election leaflets are disappointing and I would like to put the record straight. The LibDems claim that Labour is running the council's administration because of the Greens. This is untrue. Labour is running a minority administration because it is the biggest party, in the same way that the LibDems ran a minority administration when they were the biggest party. The Greens have chosen to play a productive role in cross-party discussions in order to influence council policy where we can. This does not mean we are in coalition with any other party. We have not voted in a way that is contrary to our policies at any stage. We took the same approach when there was a LibDem administration. Last year we worked with the LibDems on a joint amendment to remove some of the worst cuts proposed for the budget. Although Labour didn't support this amendment, no-one claimed that we were in coalition with the LibDems. The LibDems are pretending that they opposed the recent 4.7% council tax increase. They did not. They abstained on the vote and the only amendment they proposed was for additional spending. The Evening News report of the meeting made it clear that both myself and LibDem leader Hereward Cooke had reluctantly accepted the need for a 4.7% council tax increase. The only way for the council tax increase to be lower would have been for key council services to be cut. None of the group leaders involved in the budget discussions were willing to allow such cuts and the LibDems have not put forward proposals that would have resulted in a lower increase. It should also be remembered that the financial difficulties facing the council were brought about by the overspend in the 2005/06 financial year presided over by the then LibDem administration. It would be much better for the democratic process if parties concentrated on honestly promoting their own record and policies rather than spreading false rumours about other parties. Councillor Adrian Ramsay |
Great Yarmouth Casino 4 April 2007 Dear Editor, The article in the Norwich Evening News on 28th March entitled "Yarmouth casino in jeopardy" – suggests that the Lord's rejection of Government plans for new casinos puts Gt. Yarmouth's future regeneration plans at risk. However as Helena Kennedy QC pointed out - the reason the Lords rejected the plans was in large part because of the crime problems casinos bring including vice and money laundering. Add to this the problems of petty crime that ordinary people caught in gambling addiction get into - and you have regeneration based on a growth in crime. A far better regeneration policy would to be to focus on delivering warmer homes and local renewable energy production by creating the demand for local light industry involved in energy conservation, solar, wind and combined heat and power production. A strategy based on Green Party policies would create local sustainable industries around local renewables - delivering secure local jobs and include creation of green space and sporting activities as part of the regeneration package. A truly sustainable strategy that helps people and the planet in the long term, would be a welcome alternative to a short term growth explosion based on gambling that creates more crime and misery in the local community. Adrian Holmes |
Conned By A Swindle 30 March 2007 Dear Editor, Quite a few people like Arnold Spelman (letters, March 28th) have been conned by the recent, but widely discredited, Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. For readers who want to know the facts, N2C3 have put up a webpage with a summary of weblinks that dispute and disprove all the claims in the program at http://tinyurl.com/3awhk6. As to these claims - climate scientists acknowledge that the sun does influence climate, but this influence is very small compared with the much larger and well understood effects of increased greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. There is also a clear scientific reason for the decline in northern hemisphere mean temperatures from 1940 to 1970 mentioned in the program. Industrial pollution in the atmosphere acted as a sun-shield, preventing some heat from the sun reaching the ground - this hid the growing effects of greenhouse gas warming for a few decades. Kofi Annan has said the climate scepticism, peddled by the C4 documentary and elsewhere, is "out of step, out of arguments, out of time". In February over 3000 scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its comprehensive Fourth Assessment concluding that Climate Change is real, it's happening, and it's caused by human activity. The real danger of programmes like this is that it promotes the idea that we can simply carry on polluting the earth without any concern for the future - it is a recipe for the privileged and wealthy to carry on with impunity, while the poor suffer the effects through flooding, drought, and deforestation, etc. To wait for every climate sceptic to agree the now proven scientific consensus before Governments take action, as Mr Spelman suggests, would be very dangerous. By then, we will have already left it so late that we may not have enough time to take urgent enough action to avoid catastrophic, runaway climate change. Councillor Andrew Boswell |
Ban Ki-moon And The Battle With Climate Change 1 January 2007 To Letters Editor, The Independent Sir: Your January 1st leading articles focus on the challenges for new UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and the battle to come with climate change. How bizarre that you treat these issues as completely unconnected. The UN Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the only established international mechanism at which all countries can participate – it gave birth to the only international climate treaty so far, Kyoto. A new "with teeth" long term climate stabilisation treaty is urgently needed, yet as you correctly point out the recent UNFCCC meeting in Nairobi "achieved nothing" towards negotiating a successor to the Kyoto. At Nairobi, UNFCCC decided to "review" Kyoto at next year's meeting in Bali which means that any meaningful negotiations are currently stalled until the subsequent UNFCCC meeting in late 2008. The Stern report indicates that we have less than 10 years to act, and that Kyoto targets are no longer strong enough. Rather than this bureaucratic crawl towards a post-Kyoto treaty, the UN process should be sprinting towards superseding Kyoto before its current 2012 timeout. Mandatory and deep emission cuts are needed now - these should be internationally agreed and based on a Contraction and Convergence framework that sets out a path for long-term climate stabilisation based on a safe and globally equitable per-capita level of individual emissions. It is a major failure of the UN process that post-Kyoto talks are delayed for two more years when they are needed now. Mr Ban has many challenges, but re-engaging the UN as a key mover in future international solutions on climate change is one of the most important. A great start to his term of office would be to convene a special UNFCCC meeting to start post-Kyoto negotiations immediately. Councillor Andrew Boswell |
Biofuels: A Disaster For The Environment 11 December 2006 To Letters Editor, The Independent Sir: Your business section report that "Dependence on foreign oil to rise 'eightfold' by 2030" (8 December) wrongly states that a Greenpeace-commissioned study advocates upping the level of biofuel in the fuel mix to between 30 and 50 per cent by 2030. The study, published by the Institute for European Environmental Policy, actually warns of serious environmental harm caused by unsustainable biofuel production. The current European Biofuels Directive is driving a huge expansion of biofuels exports from rainforest nations like Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia. Millions of hectares of rainforest are being destroyed to grow fuel for our cars. The greenhouse-gas emissions from the deforestation and peat destruction linked to those biofuels are almost certainly far higher than any savings we can make from using less petrol or diesel. Far from reducing emissions, current EU policy is exporting them to developing nations. Thousands of species are at risk of extinction as some of the last remaining rainforests and grasslands are destroyed, and human-rights abuses are common on and around many of the biofuel plantations. This week, the European Parliament will discuss whether to reform the Biofuel Directive. They should remember the Stern report's warning that tackling deforestation must be one of the top priorities if we want to have any chance of avoiding the worst impacts of global warming. There is enough evidence that the EU Biofuel Directive is leading to more deforestation to justify a moratorium on it while establishing a working group to revise it. Imports of biofuels linked to serious environmental destruction should be immediately banned. The Greenpeace briefing rightly calls for a basket of policies which would really reduce our transport emissions: reduction in road and air traffic; compulsory fuel-efficiency and emissions-reduction targets for vehicle manufacturers; and investment in public transport. Councillor Andrew Boswell, Norwich Green Party |
Norwich: The Greenest City 14 November 2006 To Letters Editor, The Independent, Headline news that Norwich is rated the most eco-friendly place to live in England (Independent,13 November) comes as no surprise - for our city has more Green Councillors than anywhere else in the U.K. Bringing to bear a powerful Green voice on the Council, we have been crucial in, amongst other things: a significant increase in recycling facilities, and leading the so-far-successful campaign to block a proposed incinerator that was planned for construction on the outskirts of Norwich - promoting instead sustainable methods of dealing with waste, such as a 'resource recovery park' and small-scale anaerobic digestion plants - and we are currently leading the opposition to the planned Northern Distributor Road, a costly and climate-dangerous 'bypass' scheme sadly still supported by all three of the other Parties. This year's local elections saw our numbers on the City Council leap from 5 to 9, roughly in line with the general pattern across the country: Greens made a net increase of 25% in their numbers of Council seats, this May. With more awareness of the dangers posed by an over-heating climate, and every johnny-come lately politician paying lip service to the environment, people are increasingly realising that there is only one real Green voice. There is no gulf between what we say and what we do. At every level, in Europe, on councils (such as Lancaster, Kirklees, Oxford and Brighton), in Scotland and on the London Assembly, Green Party representatives are the ones reliably driving forward the green agenda. Norwich Green Party Councillors |
Post-16 Transport Cuts 15 October 2006 To Letters Editor, EDP, As councillors, in the Green group at County Hall, we wish to strongly condemn the Cabinet decision to increase the cost of student transport by 50pc ("Demo fails to prevent college bus fare rise", October 10). In this rural County it is difficult enough for students to properly access further education with many travelling large distances to achieve their ambitions and take up their places as responsible and active citizens. This cut now changes the horizons for some young Norfolk people irrevocably. Some students from lower income families will inevitably be unable to enrol for college courses, and others who do, may not be able to continue due to the increased cost of travel. There will be a negative impact to our further education colleges that have to work hard in an increasingly market-driven climate to deliver the right courses at the right time. This market-driven shift has also meant that many courses, especially those that attract European Social Funding, are 'output linked' in their funding. If colleges fail to attract students in the first place, or they lose greater numbers mid-stream, this decision may well impact their future funding. Many students and their families will question the Conservative Cabinet's priorities especially given its zeal in searching for large sums of money to fund the Northern Distributor Road - an outdated and unsustainable answer to current transport problems that may well never be built. They are likely to conclude that if just some of the energy and money being spent in planning this scheme was saved by abandoning it then this cut essential transport support would not need to be made. Councillor Andrew Boswell and Councillor Chris Hull, |
Cost Cutting In PFI Schools Project Wastes Energy 29 September 2006 To Letters Editor, EDP, In the Norfolk schools PFI project ("Controversy over schools PFI deal", September 27th) new school buildings are being built without any renewable energy provision. This is absurd short-termism at a time when nationally we have an "energy crisis" and renewable energy businesses are springing up, and farmers in Norfolk trying to develop a biomass renewable energy and heat industry. The problem is, once again, the private companies involved are seeking only to maximise their short term profits. Renewable energy design is cut from their developments to provide immediate gratification for shareholders. This shows too how under PFI with its lack of transparency Councils lose control over projects and their implementation, and so the tax payer does not get the best solution. In Norfolk, we should be requiring that renewable energy including biomass combined heat and power (CHP) is built into all new housing, hospitals and schools as standard which will bring a long-term benefit to the County. Norfolk's councils could take a lead to ensure that developers have to do better by setting renewable energy targets for buildings but a recent survey of the Town and Country Planning Association shows they are not. Of Norfolk councils only Norwich and North Norfolk are drafting policies for renewable energy in buildings. All Norfolk's councils must take the opportunity offered in preparing their Local Development Frameworks to move beyond vague aspirations for "renewable energy" for "sustainable development", and develop targetted renewable energy policies, such as pioneered by the "Merton rule". By setting such targets, councils could insist today that new school builds should meet standards which in Sweden and Denmark are quite standard now and will be here in 10 years time. Councillor Andrew Boswell, |
Biotech Fat Cat Out Of The Bag 4 September 2006 To Letters Editor, The Independent, The NFU's Peter Kendell points out that GM crops are not being grown in England (Letters, Sept 4th); this is a real victory that we in the green movement and all sensible people who believe in 'the precautionary principle' have achieved. The Labour / LibDem Scottish Executive threat to bring GM crops into Scotland remains deeply worrying. But Kendell then lets the fat cat out of the bag – the agro-chemical-biotech industries' desire to force GM biofuels on us, across Britain, if they can't make us eat GM food. The British public have squarely rejected GM foods, but Mr Kendell omits to mention the crucial fact that a large scale biofuel industry using GM will inevitably contaminate our food chain through spillage and through the intentional or unintentional mixing of conventional and GM seeds. What will his customers, who he claims in his letter are his "number one priority", think then? Councillors Andrew Boswell and Rupert Read, |
Greens Furious At Undemocratic Decision To Block Wind Farm 20 August 2006 To The Editor, Eastern Daily Press, Your report on the Norfolk County Council's objection to the proposed Sheringham Shoal Wind farm was very misleading ("Wind farm idea leads to a storm", August 19th). The article states that the "committee voted to object" from which your readers would gain the impression that a majority of councillors on the committee supported the objection. In fact, there was no vote and the majority view was for the windfarm. The Planning and Highways Delegation Committee has a formal membership of only two, both of whom sit on the Council cabinet. Only one, Councillor Gunson, was present at the meeting, the remainder of the committee (the "panel") are members from the Planning Committee who have no voting rights. So the decision to lodge a strategic planning objection to the wind farm was actually made, without vote, by the only formal member of the committee, Councillor Gunson. There was a lengthy debate during which I and several other councillors spoke in favour of the Wind farm proposal. It was clear from the discussion that a majority by 3 of the 5 panel members supported raising no strategic planning objection as long as the government consider the impact to local fishing (including compensation) and the turbines are coloured to minimise visual impact. It is very regrettable that this decision was in fact taken on the Council's behalf by just one Councillor. The deplorable legality of this committee’s configuration is essentially a "loophole" under the Cabinet system of Local Government introduced by the Local Government Act 2000. This decision was undemocratic, as it was made against the views of the majority of the Panel members and also against the recommendation of the Council officers. This wind farm development is of crucial importance to our national objectives of meeting the government's target for renewables of 20% by 2020, as it would provide about half of Norfolk's domestic electricity, about 1% of the UK total from carbon free sources. The wind farm will be 17-23km from the coast, a distance only rarely visible. In my view, as a lover of the Norfolk coast and frequent beach walker, they will not detract from our coastline. The anti-aircraft lights will, again, be visible infrequently, whilst the lights from shipping, seen by anyone who has been on our beaches at night, are already continually visible. Councillor Andrew Boswell, |
Incineration Not Eliminated At Costessey 30 July 2006 To The Editor, Eastern Evening News & Eastern Daily Press, The County Council decision to revoke the incineration bid at Costessey provides a great opportunity to open up the process and look at more sustainable options for Waste Management. Norfolk has seen a vibrant discussion about this recently, much of it on your pages, and there would be great value in pausing now to consider all options and choose the best economic and environmental solutions for our County over the next 30 years. This opportunity is currently not being taken as negotiations have just been switched to a new preferred bidder - SRM. Their proposal will still bring a large scale plant to Costessey with heavy traffic flows, and produces pellets which have to be incinerated - just moving the incineration problem elsewhere, possibly in Norfolk. Green County Councillors have written to the Waste project board urging them to grasp this opportunity to do better and, in particular, evaluate Resource Reclamation Parks. These have produced very high recycling levels in some Australian and US cities and save valuable resources by creating a high revenue stream from them. We have local expertise in their development in Suffolk. Smaller scale anaerobic digestion plants, such as those in Sweden, should also be considered. These don't entail downstream incineration and produce energy for local homes. These might be on the scale of a fifth to a third of the size of the Costessey plant. Being smaller they cause less disruption to local communities in traffic loads etc, create less transport miles in moving waste around the County, produce energy for (more) local communities and would create more jobs spread across Norfolk. There is no reason why a smaller scale plant could not be built at Costessey and other sites be based on or close to existing Waste Transfer Depots. The Green Party urges that the Waste Project Board should halt current negotiations, have presentations from experts in these fields, and re-evaluate their procurement of Residual Waste contracts. Councillor Andrew Boswell, |
Why Is Poverty Not Yet History? 6 July 2006 To The Letters Editor, Eastern Daily Press, Tara Greaves (report, June 30, EDP), asks why poverty is not yet history. Caroline Lucas, a Member of the European Parliament for the Green Party for the South-East of England, has offered a powerful answer to this question: She says that the trade and globalisation policies of the G8 countries are in fact "making poverty inevitable". The G8 deal on Africa last year was in reality nothing to do with making poverty history -- it was about opening up African markets to rapacious multi-national corporations. To make poverty history would require a re-localisation of economies. That is what the Green Party believes in. And that is why each and all of the Norwich Green Party City Councillors who last year voted at City Hall to support the 'Make Poverty History' campaign have given significant donations -- the equivalent of a day's Councillor's allowance -- to the 'Make Poverty History' campaign. It would be interesting to know whether the other Parties on the Council can say as much. Councillor Rupert Read, |
Green Transport Policy Includes Car Use 27 May 2006 To The Letters Editor, Eastern Evening News, Mr P.Bradfield claims that the Green Party wants to stop private car use (Letter, May 22). This claim is simply false. Our 'Alternative Transport Strategy' document for the Norwich area is available for viewing [here] and makes it clear that the Norwich Green Party has policies for greater investment in walking, cycling and public transport precisely so that those who often need to drive (e.g. large families with small children, the infirm, the disabled, people moving around large and heavy goods) can do so on roads free of congestion. Cars are very useful machines - many people's daily lives depend on them. Our policies endorse their safe, efficient and moderate use. Thus, we also encourage people to purchase cars which are more environmentally friendly - newer low emissions vehicles, hybrid models etc. It was recently reported that Norwich is one of the best cities in the country in limiting household greenhouse gas emissions. We could also lead the way in reducing dangerous greenhouse gas emissions from our private road vehicles and their use by implementing a green transport policy for the city. County Councillor Andrew Boswell, |
No and Yes 25 May 2006 To The Letters Editor, Eastern Evening News, Sir, Peter Bradfield (Letters, 22 May) wants the Green Party to stop saying "No" to things. Presumably then, he welcomes (for instance) the incinerator that other Parties are willing to see built at Costessey? We say "No" to incineration because we say "Yes" to more recycling and recourse-recovery. We say "No" to more Tescos because we say "Yes" to small shops and places with local character, "Yes" to market-traders and farmers' markets, and "Yes" to organic box schemes. We say "No" to climate change because we say "Yes" to renewable energy -- and "Yes" to a liveable future for our grandchildren. We believe that climate change can and must be stopped – and that individuals and Councils alike can and must play their part in making this happen. What part of those "No's" – and what part of these "Yes's" – doesn't Mr. Bradfield understand? Councillor Rupert Read |
Policy On Drug Use 8 May 2006 To The Letters Editor, Eastern Evening News, Sir - In reply to Paul Holmes's letter of May 1, in which he asks me to clarify the Green Party's policy on drugs: we believe first and foremost in tackling the underlying causes of drug-taking, such as the lack of good community facilities, facilities which would enable young people etc. to find ways of spending their time pleasurably without having to resort to potentially-harmful substances. We believe also in the graduated decriminalisation of drugs, because it is crime associated with the selling of drugs, as opposed to harm caused by drugs themselves, which tends to do the most harm to communities as a whole. Drug-users are frequently harming themselves; but it is better for drugs like alcohol, nicotine and marijuana to be regulated and taxed in a legal framework than to rely on gangsters to distribute them, which is what happens under prohibition. Moreover, the very substantial sums of money that can be garnered from taxing drugs could then be used to fund rehab centres and so forth, which at present are (in some cases) insufficiently funded and (in others) a drain on the public purse. Mr. Holmes's letter questions whether the Green Party is a "seriously electable Party representing the people of Norwich". In reply, may I simply point out the Evening News frontpage headline on May 5, the day after the local elections: "Norwich goes Green". The voters who last week elected our record-breaking nine Councillors, giving us an unprecedented 28% of the vote across the Norwich South constituency, clearly are not in any doubt of the answer to Mr. Holmes’s question. Councillor Rupert Read, |
Greens slam lack of consultation on new dredging 3 February 2006 Sirs, It has emerged in the last few days that dredging could resume off the East Anglian coast without any consultation. Councillor Hull said: "Marinet has pointed out that Areas 202 and 436 are just 4 kilometres from this delicate and vulnerable piece of shoreline, off Caistor and Great Yarmouth, parts of which are already eroding. The dredging is for aggregate, sand, shingle and small stones – the very materials which naturally protect Norfolk’s shoreline from erosion. When these materials are systematically removed by dredging, there is a high risk of very rapid beach draw down which then undermines the natural sea defences that protect many hundreds of people in this area. Meanwhile, the Government is not responding with either a robust Shoreline Management Plan or a compensation scheme for people who may loose their homes." Following pressure from the Green Councillors, Norfolk County Council has written to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) expressing concern at the continuing dredging. There has been no substantive response from ODPM. Norfolk Green Party is calling for a moratorium on the issuing of Dredging licences by the ODPM. Said Green County Councillor Andrew Boswell, "A moratorium is urgently required so that a full and impartial scientific enquiry into coastal dredging and its effect on coastal erosion can be carried out. The extension-licence currently being applied for, by subterfuge, should be the first one put on hold under such a moratorium. It is scandalous that this dredging could happen without there being any conslutation on it at all! We also urgently need the Government to promote alternatives to dredging for building materials, such as greater recycling of materials within the industry." Yours Sincerely, Councillors Andrew Boswell, Chris Hull and Rupert Read |
Money for roads or children and voluntary organisations? 30 January 2006 To the Editor, Eastern Daily Press, Your report on the Norfolk County Council scrutiny of the Thickthorn overspend (Thickthorn: Highways Agency 'bullying', 25 January 2006) didn't report the level of concern on the committee that the risks, first identified in summer 2003, were not reported to the Cabinet or Council for two years. Transparent risk reporting should have been part of the political monitoring of this project, and must improve for future schemes. Council-tax-payers will rightly ask why they have just been consulted on which critical services are to be cut after the Council has allowed a 52% road building overrun to occur. Thickthorn should sound a warning bell for larger schemes. It was suggested to the committee that the Thickthorn fiasco is part of a wider national pattern in which the Highway's Agency and their consultants cause unexpected costs and delays in road schemes. Budgets for 40 of the country’s most ambitious road projects were recently reported as rising by two thirds at a cost of £1.5 billion. It has also become apparent that the Northern Distributor Road valued at £85 million in September is now costed at £95 million, an astounding per annum increase of 30%. If that road is ever built, similar inability to manage risk and "bullying" by the Highway's Agency would leave Council Tax payers with additional bills of over £50 million to pick up -- on top of the £95m and rising basic cost of the road – that is an astronomic, final total of close to £150m. The Green group have great concern that large sums of money are being held to fund the Northern Distributor Road - an outdated and unsustainable answer to current transport problems. Thankfully, funding for voluntary organisations has been saved this year. We will lobby that tax-payers' money is spent, now and in future years, on the real priorities – our children, pensioners, public transport, and voluntary organisations that do so much valued and cost effective work. Yours Sincerely, Councillors Andrew Boswell and Chris Hull |
Greens act to stop new Government assault on the railways: Sheringham line at risk 30 January 2006 Sirs, Green Councillors across Britain have been deeply disturbed by the revelation that the Blair-Brown 'New Labour' government is planning to slash Britain's rail network (see The Independent Online, 31st Jan 2006). The Green response is to insist that money currently slated for use in road-building and airport expansion be diverted to ensure proper investment in the British rail network, instead. And Green Councillors are bringing the topic to next month's national Green Party Conference, in an emergency motion, launched by Councillor Andy D'Agorne of York and signed also by Councillor Rupert Read, of Norwich. Said Councillor Read, Transport Spokesperson for Norwich Green Party, "Branch lines such as that to Sheringham are a vital part of a full national railway network. Britain's railways are hugely in demand from passengers, and are far better in keeping green-house-gas emissions and local pollution down than car and air transport. We will stand firm against this unwelcome change in government policy, so that Britain, like France, Germany and Japan, can have a 21st century transport system. Besides 'Respect', the Green Party remains the only Party committed to renationalisation of the railways." Yours Sincerely, Councillor Rupert Read |
Nuclear power? Britain says: No thanks! 23 January 2006 To the editor, Eastern Daily Press, Your report on 17 January, concerning public attitudes to the question of how we should stop climate change failed to emphasise the central finding of the UEA Environmental Science-run opinion poll in question. Your report stressed that a sizeable number of respondents said that they would be willing to tolerate nuclear power, as a truly last resort, if renewables and energy efficiency improvements could not satisfy our energy needs (fortunately, they can satisfy those needs, so the nuclear option needn't actually be seriously considered). But what you did not highlight is that, even so, only 34% of Britons actually favour more nuclear power stations, while 42% oppose any new nuclear build. In other words: the poll does not show that Britain supports nuclear power: far from it! The Guardian's headline, on the same day, in reporting the same poll data, sums up the situation accurately: "Nuclear power 'cannot tackle climate change' ". The quoted remark is from Kevin Anderson, one of the scientists who helped organise the polling research. The bottom line is that the British people are still saying "No" to nuclear; and a good thing too, because nuclear power cannot solve the climate change crisis. It is simply too slow to implement, too expensive, too dangerous, and not inter-subsitutable for oil in cars and planes, etc. If the New Labour government ride roughshod over these facts, they will surely be deserted by many voters, the majority of whom want green power (e.g. small-scale wind and solar) for the future -- not deadly nuclear power. In light of the government's beginning an energy 'consultation' on Monday January 23rd, a consultation that they seem to have loaded from the start in favour of the nuclear option, it is more vital than ever that the anti-nuclear majority make their voices heard. Yours Sincerely, Councillor Rupert Read (click here for link to a new Greenpeace video highlighting some of the dangers of nuclear power) |
Listen to sense on waste incinerators 22 January 2006 Sir, Tara Greaves's article (‘Listen to sense on waste incinerators’, Eastern Daily Press, 19 January 2006) on local criticisms of Tory-controlled Norfolk County Council's plans to build an incinerator in Costessey, and on the government's plans for a huge increase in incineration across Britain hit the mark. Labour and the Conservatives are trying to tackle the very real problem that space in landfill sites, for burying rubbish, is running out. But the Norwich Greens believe that incineration does not provide a long-term environmentally or economically sound route. There are huge concerns about the potential impact on health and the environment of emissions from incinerators. And the ash that is left after burning the waste is about a third of the mass of the original waste. This ash still needs to be disposed of in a landfil site - but it is so toxic that there is only one landfill site in the country where it can be disposed of. The County Council is now starting to talk about maybe building a further three incinerators elsewhere in Norfolk: the full lifecycle costs of four such incinerators in Norfolk would be £2-4 billion over 25 years – how much recycling could be achieved with that kind of money?! The only environmentally-friendly ways of tackling the waste problem are reducing the amount of waste we produce, to massively increase recycling levels, and to back an increase in 'anaerobic digestion' (in effect, large-scale composting), which is also a very effective alternative to incineration. Building an incinerator would seriously undermine these objectives as the contract would tie the County Council into feeding the incinerator with 150,000 tonnes of rubbish each year. To increase recycling levels, we need much better local recycling facilities. Because the Green Party holds the balance of power at City Hall in Norwich, we were able to secure funding for some improvements to the recycling scheme in this year's budget. One subsequent improvement is that there are now plastic bottle recycling banks in Norwich for the first time. However, we urgently need major investment from the City Council in further improvements to recycling facilities to reduce the amount of waste going into landfill and to undermine the arguments for incineration. The Green Councillors are committed to making this a priority for the 2006/7 budget, which the council will agree next month. We very much hope the other parties will be willing to make it a priority too. Yours Sincerely, Councillors Adrian Ramsay and Rupert Read |