Ignorance is a bliss we can’t afford

There are some subjects which we humans like to avoid knowing about. For many of us our own health is one of them – if we really knew what all those nights out in the pub have done to us, we might come to enjoy the next one a little less. The same thing goes for what we eat, what we breath, whether we exercise, and so on. Ignorance is bliss.

This ostrich approach also applies to environmental problems, especially those we cause when we’re having fun. The availability of cheap energy has let people discover the world, keep nice toasty homes and air conditioned offices, throw away the things we’re bored with and buy new, consuming like there’s no tomorrow. The last thing most of us want to know is that we’re responsible for the death and destruction which will follow as climate change kicks in.

My own “inner ostrich” had its head yanked out of the sand this month when I attended a discussion on climate change at the Edinburgh Book Festival. The star turn was Mayer Hillman, whose recent book has the modest title How we can save the planet. At times he spoke like an evangelising preacher, condemning the sinners and promising hellfire. But perhaps a stronger comparison was with Churchill, predicting war and demanding readiness while the government appeased the Nazis. Hillman made stark predictions about the impact climate change will have and argued that anyone who understands the reality of climate science should accept that rationing will be the only response which can bring our consumption down to sustainable levels without creating unacceptable suffering for those who cannot afford ever higher prices for basic commodities.

In Hillman’s scheme though, it would not be the commodities themselves which are rationed as in wartime, but the carbon emissions associated with things like energy consumption and travel. Each individual’s carbon ration would reduce as their consumption went up, and those with an excess could sell it on to others. The total ration would be reduced over time, to allow people time to adapt their homes and lifestyles to a new low-carbon existence.

This might seem like a draconian solution, but at least Hillman is taking the issue seriously. The approach taken by the current governments at both Westminster and Holyrood is more akin to appeasement. Even ambitious targets on renewable energy may look good on paper, but emissions of greenhouse gases are reducing by only a fraction. Fine sounding words about energy efficiency belie the fact that we continue to treat energy like a cheap commodity. Rhetoric is spouted about sustainable development, while the country’s economy continues to develop as it always did – burning more oil as it goes.

Not content with the current road-building programme, work is underway to expand aviation too. The current consultation on the expansion of Glasgow Airport sets out a plan for a dramatic increase in the number of flights, as the airport aims to grow from 8.6 million passengers a year to 13 or even 15 million within ten years. Beyond that, even more growth is promised with the prospect of a new runway to cope with it.

The consultation document for the plan (available at www.glasgowairport.com) makes commitments to sustainability which could come straight out of the mouth of a Labour or LibDem transport minister, and are hurriedly followed by excited words about the contribution to economic growth which will come from increased aviation. Yes folks, it’s business as usual over at BAA.

What a nerve we humans have, spreading unfounded rumours about the ostrich. If any species is guilty of sticking its head in the sand, look no further than us.

NEWS RELEASE - City’s recycling rate is rubbish again

MSP CONDEMNS GLASGOW’S RUBBISH RECYCLING RATE

Yes, OK, I apologise for the pun.

Green MSP Patrick Harvie has expressed anger at official figures released today that show Glasgow once again has the worst domestic recycling levels of any city in Scotland [1].

Figures released by SEPA reveal that in the past year, the Glasgow City Council has increased the percentage of waste it recycles by only 3%. Mr Harvie condemned the figures as a dismal failure, and offered to bet the leader of the Council a pint that national targets on recycling would not be met next year.

Mr Harvie said: “The amount of waste Glasgow City Council recycles is only 9.4%, trailing behind every other city in the country. Other local authorities, such as Clackmannanshire, are recycling over 38% of their waste. It is disgraceful that Glasgow still has the worst level of recycling out of any city in Scotland.”

“The Scottish Executive has set local authorities the target of increasing the amount of waste to be recycled or composted to 25% by 2006. I will happily buy Stephen Purcell, the leader of our Council, a pint of beer if Glasgow can meet this target next year. But it seems pretty far-fetched to me.”

“Opinion polls have repeatedly shown us that most people in Scotland want to recycle more of their waste but lack the facilities to do so easily. Only last year Glasgow City Council admitted that they did not intend to introduce kerbside collection for tenement dwellers – even though tenements comprise 60 per cent of Glasgow’s housing!”

“I have actually had to battle with the Council to replace recycling facilities where they had removed them. All of the feedback I have had from constituents on their perception of the Council’s performance on recycling has been entirely negative. The Council must now stop talking trash and start tackling it by making recycling facilities and services freely available to all households.”

For more information contact Green MSPs Press Office on 0131 348 6376, Mob: 0790 99 33 074

[1] Go to:

www.sepa.org.uk

For last year’s figures see Audit Scotland’s report on Environmental & regulatory services - Performance Indicators 2003/04 at:

www.audit-scotland.gov.uk

“Intelligent design” is NOT science

Most of us must have joked at one time or another about starting our own religion. Very few actually get around to it, but I was delighted this week to read about one recent bid finally to define the one true faith.

At www.venganza.org you can read about the faith of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, creator of the Universe and the source of wisdom so often ignored by silly scientists around the world who believe that the world is full of “evidence” for so-called “evolution”.

Adherents of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism assert that their religion offers wonderful benefits to those who are willing to convert, including “flimsy moral standards”, and answers to problems like climate change and natural disasters. Oh, and apparently there’s a beer volcano in heaven. Nice.

None of this is being done to mock other religions. Or at least that’s not the only reason. At the venganza website you can read a letter to the Kansas State Board of Education, which decided back in 1999 to remove evolution from the school curriculum, in response to a growing movement called Intelligent Design.

ID’s advocates insist that it is a scientific theory which challenges the work of Darwin and his successors. Rather than openly proposing the biblical version of six-day creation, ID states that evolution may have taken place but that it was not a natural process, rather it was deliberately guided by an intelligence. A few ID supporters are open to the possibility of alien intelligence as the designer, but most look no further than God.

Philosophical debates about the existence or otherwise of God have gone on for thousands of years, and they may continue for thousands more. But ID is something different. ID is a religious movement whose aim is to have its ideas taught not in religious education but in science classes, and thereby quite deliberately undermine science education.

The founder of the ID movement, Phillip E Johnson, is not a scientist but a lawyer. His lack of any training in biological science does not prevent him from launching direct attacks against it, either by campaigning against evolution or when promoting the bizarre view that HIV does not cause AIDS. He said of Intelligent Design that “the objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to the truth of the Bible and then the question of sin and finally introduced to Jesus.” To debate these concepts in the context of comparative religion is one thing, but to demand that it’s taught in school science lessons is quite another.

Which brings us back to Kansas. The original decision to remove evolution, the age of the Earth, and the origins of the Universe from the state curriculum was highly contraversial, and the intervention by the Flying Spaghetti Monsterists was only one small example of the nationwide debate which was sparked off. Two years later the decision was reversed, though has now resurfaced. ID is also on the education agenda in a number of other US states. A shocking 45% of Americans do not believe in evolution at all, accepting the notion that human beings were created our current form less than 10,000 years ago. But it now seems that the movement is beginning to spread beyond America.

Open-minded religious and philosophical education is perfectly valid. Rationalism and science are too, and there need be no contradiction. But ID is an attempt to blur the line between the two, and for this reason there should be no more space for it in our schools than for spaghetti monsters.

The future’s wide open

Growing up, the idea that computers were going to change the world seemed to be prevailing wisdom. Few stopped to ask how, or whether they would change the things we really wanted changed. We simply knew that the future would be a foreign country, and that we would do things with computers there.

I’ve always been a bit of a dupe for futurism, and to be honest I still am. But it’s clear now that despite the benefits which our ingenious and sophisticated technologies have brought, some aspects of society which we might have thought worth changing have in fact been reinforced.

Though millions of people have far greater access to information – and to each other – than ever before, in most areas of life the ‘expert’ is still firmly in charge. Sometimes that’s as it should be – I have no urge to suggest democratic brain surgery for instance. But there are many activities which have long served our society through institutions of one sort or another but which could now use technology to initiate a far more open, participative way of working.

One excellent example is Wikipedia. Once upon a time an encyclopedia was a simple thing – a source of knowledge and information collated by experts and brought together on the page. Wikipedia calls into question the future of that concept. In just a few short years, it has become one of the essential reference works on the Web, with over a million and a half entries, editions in 200 languages and 60 million hits per day. It has done all this in a unique way. Displacing the notion of expert contributors writing entries for readers to read, all users are free to become instant contributors and editors.

This public collaboration opens Wikipedia to some criticisms. But it also brings many strengths which conventional reference works do not possess, and it has been part of a technology-driven movement with the potential to enshrine knowledge as a common good in society, rather than as another commodity to be controlled by the powerful and disseminated only on their terms.

Open source programming and ‘copyleft’ licencing are part of this movement, and it’s a movement which can hold its own in a market environment too, as the creation of the Linux operating system has shown, an open source product which now runs over a quarter of the servers in the world.

These new forms of commercial and creative organisation have largely remained in the realm of the IT specialist. But speculation is beginning about how to apply the lessons to other aspects of society and the economy.

Political parties for example can learn much from the organisations and movements which have helped to form, rather than simply adapted to, this new age of participation. Other parts of society could benefit too. In a recent report about the potential of open methods, Demos proposed that an ‘open source media commission’ could allow citizens far more than the very limited interaction they have with print and broadcast media, and also suggested applications of these methods in law, health, finance, education and the arts.

Much of this is still in the realms of futurism… but only just. It’s well past time that open source projects and open learning tools were widespread in our schools. Once we thought computer literacy was what we’d need to keep up with the times. But literacy comes into its own when people have something meaningful to say, and in a technology-driven world open systems can help create a shared sense that we all have a right to speak and be heard.

The Demos report ‘Wide Open’ is available under open licence at http://www.demos.co.uk/catalogue/wideopen/

Civil partnership ceremonies - a correction

On Wednesday I commented on the reports that East Dunbartonshire Council have decided not to conduct ceremonies for couples who are taking part in a civil partnership registration.

At the time, I checked the accuracy of the press reports with East Dunbartonshire Council themselves before lodging a parliamentary motion and writing to the press about it. However I have now been contacted by the Council and told that this is not the case - their earlier confirmation was wrong and no decision has in fact been taken.

I am therefore happy to withdraw my earlier comments about this, and apologise to East Dunbartonshire Council.

I am still concerned to ensure that couples attending their local registry offices throughout Scotland for civil partnership should recieve the same level of service as is provided for civil marriage, so I have kept my original motion on this ‘live’, with a slight re-wording to remove the East Dunbartonshire reference.

I still hope that the Scottish Executive will be willing to accept an amendment to the Family Law Bill to make it clear that Councils are expected to offer these ceremonies to all couples who want them.

Ministers publish new policy on Greenbelt

The Scottish Executive has today published a new Scottish Planning Policy on Greenbelt land.

The new policy is designed to make sure that greenbelts get more effective protection, and if it achieves that it will be very welcome, if overdue.

However the policy seems to put a great deal of emphasis on the need for a more planned, strategic approach to greenbelt development, and not enough to measures aimed at preventing the need for such development in the first place. It seems to me that if we value our Greenbelt and want to protect it, we should be placing tough regulations to make developers prove that no brownfield sites exist which could be used instead.

No number of ‘guidance’ notes have stopped the demise of Green Belt land in the past and I am not so sure that this one will make it that much more difficult for developers proposing inappropriate development. We will of course be coming back to this issue at the Communities Committe, both in examining this new policy and in our discussions about the Planning Bill, which is expected by the end of the year.

We must also make sure that limits on development in greenbelt areas on the edges of towns and cities doesn’t lead to ever greater pressure to swallow up the urban green spaces like small parks and playing fields, far too many of which are under threat. There is brownfield land lying unused, and development must prioritise these areas instead.

NEAS RELEASE - Home Office admits overselling ID Cards

ID CARDS: GREENS REPEAT CALL FOR PROPOSALS TO BE SCRAPPED

Greens have repeated their call for the proposed national ID card scheme to be scrapped following an admission by the minister responsible for the project that the government “oversold” the benefits. (1)

Tony McNulty is reported as having said that the advantages of the scheme were in effect exaggerated, in particular the potential for the scheme to contribute towards tackling identity fraud, benefit fraud and terrorism. Greens led a vote in the Scottish Parliament earlier this year against the scheme and calling for an Executive statement on the use of the identity database. Today Green MSP Patrick Harvie is calling for cross party support from MSPs for a motion urging again that the scheme be scrapped. (2)

Patrick Harvie MSP said, “Whether you consider this scheme on the grounds of infringing civil liberties, the cost to the public purse, or the fact that it is likely to be ineffective and hugely bureaucratic, there is no escaping the fact that this is an unworkable proposal that will leave the law-abiding citizen out of pocket and subject to draconian invasion of privacy and erosion of basic rights.

“The minister today admitted he “oversold” the benefits of the scheme which begs the question, are there ANY advantages and what other aspects of the scheme have been exaggerated to make it more palatable? The majority of MSPs clearly have concerns about the scheme and public support for it has fallen dramatically - enough time has been wasted debating the scheme, let’s scrap it and move on.”

ENDS

For further information call the Green MSP press office on 0771 761 8771.

1. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4744153.stm

2. Motion lodged in parliament by Patrick Harvie - Title: Identity Cards oversold by Home Office
That the Parliament welcomes the acknowledgement by UK Minister Tony McNulty that the Home Office has exaggerated and oversold the advantages of an identity card and national identity register; believes that the Identity Cards Bill offers an ineffective response to problems of security and fraud, and poses an unacceptable threat to civil liberties; recognises concern that ID cards could worsen harassment of minority groups by providing another pretext for stop-and-search, often directed at ethnic minorities; notes the falling public support for this impractical, unworkable and costly scheme, which has dropped from 78% to 45% in two years; further notes that any ceiling placed upon the cost of an individual card will not lessen the overall cost of the scheme to the public purse and repeats it call for the UK Government to drop its proposals for an identity card scheme.

3. Greens argue that ID cards will:

• Be costly and impractical: There is scepticism about the cost and operability of the scheme (up to £19 billion according to the LSE), as well as the government’s ability to manage the technology. Large government IT projects are renowned for cost over-runs and technical hitches. This will be the most ambitious such project in history.

• Lead to loss of privacy: There will be a massive database containing an unprecedented amount of personal information on people.

• Worsen harassment of minority groups: They’ll provide another pretext for stop-and-search, often directed at ethnic minorities

• Have little impact on counter-terrorism: Terrorist networks would soon be able to produce counterfeit cards or papers enabling people to get legitimate cards. While former Home Secretary, David Blunkett admitted that it would be possible to register for a card using a false identity, but was satisfied that a person would then “be stuck with it for life”.

• Have little effect on illegal working: Employers who are already willing to break the law won’t be put off by identity cards.

• Be subject to ‘function creep’: The functions of the card will grow over time as it stores more personal information. More agencies will demand to see it, effectively making it necessary for people to carry one.

Campaign for a Fairer Planning System

Scottish Environment LINK and the Association of Community Councils are campaigning for a fairer planning system - in the face of the Labour / LibDem proposals which will fail to give real rights to communities.

You can read more about the issue here:
www.everyonecan.org and here news.bbc.co.uk

You could also email your MSPs to urge them to sign the following motion which raises the same issues:

S2M-03138 - Campaign for a Fairer Planning System
That the Parliament congratulates Scottish Environment LINK (LINK) and the Association of Scottish Community Councils (ASCC) for their work in campaigning for a fairer planning system; recognises that public support for community rights in the planning system has been clearly demonstrated, for example in the Executive’s consultation on rights of appeal in planning; acknowledges that the issues raised by LINK and the ASCC in their e-petition on the forthcoming Planning (Scotland) Bill are serious and valid concerns, and urges the Executive to consider the importance of community rights and public scrutiny in the planning system.

But most importantly, if you are supportive please sign the LINK e-petition, and help to circulate it to your contacts, so that they can add their names.

Mean-spirited attitude to civil partnership

Please see the later entry, ‘Civil Partnership ceremonies - a correction’ for an update to this story.

It was reported today that at least one Scottish local council will be following the Tory lead by refusing to offer ceremonies for civil partnership. Instead they will provide the bare minimum service, fulfilling the technical requirements of the law but falling well short of equality with civil marriage.

In response to the report in the Herald, I’ve written the following letter. Below that is the text of a motion which I’ve lodged in Parliament - I hope this can lead to amendments in the Family Law Bill to make it clear that councils must act on a basis of equality.

LETTER TO HERALD:

I had hoped that the mean-spirited attitude of Bromley councillors in refusing to let their registrars carry out Civil Partnership ceremonies would not be reproduced in Scotland. After listening to various Tory backbenchers in both houses at Westminster speak on the issue, one would expect such petty acts of bigotry from their councillors. But to think that Scottish councils such as LibDem-led East Dunbartonshire would contemplate taking the same position is shocking. (”Registrars snub gay ‘wedding’ ceremonies”, August 3rd)
This is petty mindedness at its worst - undermining the big day for couples who just want to tie the knot in style. These councillors should remember that they and the public officials they employ work for all taxpayers, not just the heterosexual ones. I am pleased to say that most local authorities have no problem with conducting celebrations, but if a few don’t seem to understand their obligations to equality then the Scottish Executive should step in immediately and make it clear that ceremonies should be allowed for civil partnerships and civil marriages alike. These events should be joyful celebrations of loving committed relationships. To try to reduce them to mere paperwork is a disgrace.

Patrick Harvie MSP
Scottish Parliament

MOTION S2M-03139 - Civil Partnership Ceremonies

That the Parliament notes with concern the decision by East Dunbartonshire Council and indications from some other Scottish local authorities that they intend to deny couples registering their civil partnership a ceremony to mark the occasion; notes that under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 local authorities have a duty to provide a registration service but no such duty to offer a ceremony; notes that ceremonies are also discretionary for civil marriage but that no local authority in Scotland has refused to offer them; considers that a partnership or marriage ceremony is an important and meaningful act for many couples; believes that local authorities which allow such ceremonies for civil marriage but refuse them for civil partnership may be in breach of their duty under the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 to discharge their functions in a manner which encourages equal opportunities, and calls on the Scottish Executive to amend the Family Law (Scotland) Bill to place a clear requirement on local authorities to offer a ceremony both for civil marriages and for civil partnerships, according to the General Register Office for Scotland’s recommended form of words, unless the couple wish to agree a different form of words with the local registrar.