Scientists Warn Against Over-consumption

If we in the wealthy countries don't reduce our over-consumption, the world as a whole will suffer in the long run. That was the basic message from the Royal Society a few weeks ago. See here for more.

They warned that a growing world population combined with widespread over-consumption was going to have severe economic, socio-political, and environmental consequences.

We're talking increased demand for commodities leading to raised prices of raw materials, fuel, and food; Water shortages causing international tensions; failed crops due to freak weather; and a whole host of other problems.

The basic problem underlying all of this is that we're living beyond our planet's ability to support us.

To illustrate the point, this article says that Americans alone spend $1.2 trillion a year on stuff they don't need. I'm sure the rest of us are pretty close behind ourselves.

We are all dupes of advertisers who tell us we absolutely have to have their product, and we believe them. You call it exercising freedom of choice. I call it brainwashing.

European Parliament Screws Up Carbon Trading

As you may know, the EU supposedly leads the world in carbon cutting measures.

Lately though, they've had a series of set-backs: Increasing the levels of biofuels in our petrol tanks have actually increased carbon emissions (See here); They tried to make carbon cuts more ambitious but the plans were scuppered by Poland; and the carbon trading scheme (ETS) has lost it's teeth because it now costs just 5 Euros per tonne of carbon.

The EU wanted to put the last issue right by bringing in measures that would push up the cost of carbon to a more realistic level, thereby forcng polluters to cut their emissions. Unfortunately they had to put it to a vote in the European Parliament. The changes were narrowly defeated, effectively rendering the ETS not fit for purpose. See here for more.

Had the UK Conservative MEPs followed their own government's support for carbon trading, the measures would have been passed, instead they let their own hatred of the EU colour their judgement. Shame on them and everyone who voted with them.

Nightingales Vs. Developers

With an ever increasing population in Britain (up by 3 million from 59m just 10 years ago), it seems inevitable* that there will be times when local decisions need to be made: New houses or green spaces?

[*: Actually it's not inevitable but our government has no imagination]

How do you make that decision? Especially where rare, endangered, or declining species are in the mix.

There is a broad spectrum of choice here from 'preserving all things natural whatever the cost' through to 'everything is up for grabs'.

The current UK government has been busy relaxing planning laws lately, so whether they intend it that way or not, they're pushing towards the latter end of the spectrum. All that seems to stand in the way of large swathes of the country disappearing under the bulldozers, is land that is specifically earmarked for protection (e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI's) and nature reserves).

Which brings me to the subject of nightingales. These plain little birds with a beautiful song are at the centre of political storm here in the south-east of England......

There is patch of land in Kent called Lodge Hill. It's a former Ministry of Defence training ground consisting of some 325 hectares (a hectare is 10,000 square metres) of ancient woodland and scrub. The local council (Medway) want to build 5000 new homes. Unfortunately, the country's largest population of nightingales already call it home.

Their numbers have gone into serious decline in Britain, losing 90% of their numbers in the last 40 years. It's a worrying trend and scientists believe nightingales may become extinct within another 30 years.

So the organisation charged with protecting England's natural environment, Natural England, felt compelled to make the land an SSSI.

The conservative Medway council didn't like that and will be appealing against the decision, describing Natural England as a 'quango', a particularly dirty word for Tories, and probably calculated to stir up right-wing feelings at a national level. Sure enough, PM David Cameron has told his environment minister to fix the problem.

Already, bioversity offsetting has been mentioned as a possible solution. Just about the most ridiculous idea I've heard from this useless government. Just another tool for making way for the developers.

It's ironic really, Conservative back-benchers have been whining about wind turbines spoiling the British countryside, and yet, what good is the countryside without wildlife?

Many of our most cherished species are in rapid decline. We need to stop the rot, and we need to do that right now.


More background here and here.