Bus station plan ditched!

Good news – Buchanan Galleries have scrapped their ambition to build a multi-storey carpark on top of Buchanan Bus Station – a victory for common sense, though perhaps one motivated more by the financial climate than a sudden conversion to the value of public transport over private interests.

In my meetings with Scotland’s major bus operators over the last year to discuss the plans, it was made very clear that the enclosed environment that would have been created would have been deeply damaging to the service for bus passengers – and that’s before you even think about the two years of congestion chaos that that would have clogged up the city centre during construction work.

Buchanan Galleries are now looking to build their new car-park on Cathedral Street which is far preferable to the original scheme. However, I am still very concerned about other aspects of the plans – not least of which are the plans to scrap the Royal Concert Hall steps and replace these with a new “entrance feature” in the form of a “focal point” entranceway to the shopping centre and Concert Hall.

While the Royal Concert Hall steps would benefit from better maintenance and improved accessibility, I believe the steps are popular, and even beloved, by many Glaswegians. They form a civic space that the people have made their own. A rare space to sit and watch the world go by, to eat your pieces in peace and to rest your legs without having to pay £3 for a cup of coffee!

I will be looking carefully at any revised plans for this major development. I will also continue to call on the Council to “Save Our Steps!”

If you’d like to help out the campaign or to be kept in the loop, get in touch – patrick.harvie.msp@scottish.parliament.uk or join me on Facebook.

No we can’t

My week in Washington has coincided with an important time for climate policy. A year after the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill) everyone working on climate change in US politics has been waiting for Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to announce the next step – a bill in the Senate. Even if passed this would then need to be amalgamated with the ACES Act, but it would have been a big step toward a legal framework for greenhouse gas emissions. Many environmentalists complained that the Cap and Trade proposals were nowhere near ambitious enough – and while this is certainly true in policy terms the fact is that any legislation would have been the first real achievement in terms of the politics.

But this morning the newspapers are reporting that the attempt has been dropped. A simple calculation was made – Reid judged that there was no hope of reaching the 60 votes necessary to bring the bill forward, and decided not to try. Some will blame the Obama administration for not throwing its weight behind the proposal. Others will blame the right wing media’s campaign of disinformation. Others still point to the immediate self interest of the Republicans ahead of the mid-term elections in November. But in reality a huge range of factors have brought the climate change debate to this impasse, including the very structure of US democracy. Time to set out some of my first week’s observations…

In the UK we’re all too familiar with the anti-science agenda of a handful of right wing bloggers who comprise the denialist movement. But their political traction is very slight indeed – only the far right parties and a handful of figures on the right of the Conservative Party give them any credence at all. There is overwhelming political agreement on the fundamental questions – the status of climate science, the role of human activity in causing the problem, and the long term actions which are required of us in response. We disagree about many of the policy options of course (from roadbuilding and airport expansions to wind turbines and nuclear power… from the values of consumerism to the nature of economic growth) but no serious political party doubts the importance of the issue.

Why have we reached this view, while the US has not? The science is no less clear on this side of the Atlantic. The consequences will be no less profound. The desire to ensure that children can grow up to have a decent life is no less strong.

There are geographic factors of course – the ‘farm states’ and the ‘coal states’ have been outright opponents of climate action. But these areas should also see climate change itself as a threat to their own agricultural livelihoods, or see renewable energy as a huge job-creating opportunity. The threats and opportunities are little different in the US than elsewhere. Besides, even the traditionally more progressive regions on the east and west coasts seem to expect fuel to burn and low bills for everything, so the philosophical gulf between the regions can’t be seen as the only issue.

The broadcast media here is far more partial and sensationalist, which doesn’t lend itself to thoughtful analysis of scientific questions. Many ‘news’ channels with very high ratings are little more than 24 hour diatribes, and this is fertile ground for the disinformation and junk science which the ideological opponents of climate action are using.

There’s the political lean to the right of course – America saw communism as its great enemy for much of the late 20th century, and it remains true that left wing politics are demonised here. The term ‘far right’ is just seen as a normal part of the political landscape, unlike the UK. The almost unchallengeable emphasis on free market economics seems to reinforce a “what’s in it for me?” voting pattern. While a clear majority of the US population do seem to share some degree of concern about climate change, they are voting on the basis of their taxes, their bills and their local jobs rather than taking account of the shared wellbeing of the world, or even of US society as a whole.

But perhaps the biggest stumbling block facing those trying to make the US as a whole sign up to the action needed on climate change is the structure of the country’s government. Since the founding of the nation, there has been an ongoing tension over the authority of state and federal government. In the eyes of some, this is more than just tension – it’s the continuation of the civil war itself. ‘Government of the people, by the people, for the people’ isn’t just a resolution against tyranny. For many here it’s a resolution against a significant role for any government, even a democratically elected one. It tends toward unregulated capitalism. It tends toward an entrepreneurial spirit. It tends toward reliance on philanthropy instead of taxation. It certainly tends against co-operative internationalism, and it tends very strongly against ‘imposed’ solutions to any problem from healthcare reform to anti-discrimination law to environmental protection.

Whether or not we admire this aspect of US politics (I personally see its strengths as well as its many weaknesses) it can’t be wished away. The constitutional locks against an increase in federal power without the consent of the states are strong, and if any climate change policy can be achieved which commits the US as a whole to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions it will need to be supported at state level, not just by a President or even by Congress.

I’ve met with a huge range of people to discuss these issues in DC, from the White House Office of Science and Technology to the campaigning NGOs, and from the National Academy of Science to Congressman Markey’s office. At one level it’s frustrating to see so many people accepting defeat for the time being, or striving so hard for a measure which they know is inadequate. Those who understand the science seem afraid to express the genuine alarm they feel, for fear of alienating the unworried mainstream. But there is also the chance of progress, even in this disappointing week. Without legislation, the Environmental Protection Agency still has the power, as confirmed in court in 2007, to take forward a regulatory approach. That would be even less palatable to some of those who have been working against the Cap and Trade approach, and if the regulatory power can be defended against further attacks it might just be enough to persuade them that they need to come up with something positive instead of saying no to everything.

Tomorrow I leave Washington for Chicago, the first opportunity to explore these issues from the state-level perspective. Watch this space!

An “Economic Justification”?

Development and Regeneration Services at the Council inform me that “detailed negotiations” continue with Buchanan Partnership Ltd. Together, they’re working on an “economic justification” for the way that they want to fund the expansion plan that would cause huge disruption to traffic in the town centre and demolish one of our most beloved public spaces, the Royal Concert Hall steps.

The economic justification is expected to be ready in late summer this year. When it is, they’ll put it to a meeting of the full Council to decide what to do next.

I’ll be ready to scrutinise in detail the business case for risking £80 million of tax payer’s money on this misguided development. As a Glasgow MSP, I will do all I can to let city-dwellers know about the plans for their town centre and to hold ruling Councillors and council officials to account.

Holyrood to take defining climate decision

At 5pm tonight the Green MSPs will vote against the Scottish Government’s revised annual climate change targets under the Climate Change (Scotland) 2009 Act. The Act requires these targets to be set by Monday 1 June, (1) just four days away, and Ministers’ initial proposals were rejected nine days ago by the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. (2)

Those original proposals would have seen a target for no change at all this year, followed by just 0.5% reductions for 2011 and 2012. Ministers have come back with an increase of 0.5% in 2012, taking that year’s target to 1.0%. Scottish Ministers will also make this small improvement not through new action to tackle climate change, but simply by accounting differently for existing peatland restoration plans.

These targets also go against a clear pledge made by the SNP in their 2007 Holyrood manifesto, which promised “mandatory carbon reduction targets of 3% per annum”. (3)

Patrick Harvie MSP said:

“The Scottish Government has now definitively failed the climate test, and at 5pm it will therefore be up to Parliament to sort out Ministers’ mess. It is intensely disappointing for Holyrood to find itself in this position. Many at home and abroad were impressed last year by Scotland’s Climate Change Act and the promise it held out that strong clear emissions targets would be set.

“This is a difficult position for us to find ourselves in. The Act is important for the environmental movement more widely, and we never wanted to have to vote against the first ever annual emissions targets set under it. However, there will be an enormous price to pay if Parliament accepts a flatline target this year and little better for the years after. Members would be accepting a vacuum where there should be a vision, and giving this SNP administration licence to carry on with their failed business-as-usual policies. In this context, a vote rejecting the SNP proposals at 5pm would be a direct instruction from Parliament to Ministers to go back and return with something more meaningful.”

Notes

1. See the Act, Part 1, section 4 (2) (a)

2. See item 3 in the Committee’s minutes.

3. Page 29 of the SNP manifesto stated: “In government we will introduce a Climate Change Bill with mandatory carbon reduction targets of 3% per annum and also set a long-term target of cutting emissions by a minimum of 80% by 2050 ? above the UK target of 60%.”

NEWS RELEASE – Taser pilot should be scrapped

Today’s revelations from Amnesty International that the decision by Strathclyde police to issue tasers to untrained officers is potentially illegal (1) should lead to an immediate halt to the programme, Greens argued. Amnesty International has received legal advice that the pilot scheme has failed to secure proper Ministerial authorisation for the arming of non-specialist officers, given that tasers are covered by the same legislation as other firearms.

Patrick Harvie MSP said:

“We accept that there are situations where armed police must be deployed, but this pilot scheme for regular officers in Strathclyde to have tasers is both inappropriate and potentially illegal. As the legal opinion obtained by Amnesty International shows, tasers are firearms, and as such can only be bought with Ministers’ explicit approval, a safety check which has not been sought by Strathclyde Police.

“The public have a right to know that armed police can be called upon in extreme circumstances, but they must also know that firearms are only being used lawfully and by properly trained officers. These are potentially lethal weapons, and must be managed responsibly. It is now time for this pilot to be halted, and for Ministers to accept that a fully armed police force would be a step in the wrong direction. The future use of tasers in Scotland must be kept within proper control.”

Notes

1. For more information on this, including a summary of the legal opinion obtained, please contact Amnesty International on 0131 313 7010

Greens reject bankers’ scaremongering

The Scottish Greens today condemned city traders’ plans to open futures trading at 1am on Friday, and bankers’ warnings about the consequences of a balanced Parliament. (1) The majority of European countries use fairer electoral systems, and there is no evidence that coalition government leads to worse economic management. Basic democratic principles mean a diverse electorate should be represented by a diverse Parliament, not an over-powerful majority administration elected with a minority of the vote. (2)

Patrick Harvie MSP said:

“This is frankly a pathetic attempt to intimidate the public, the very people who are already paying the price for a failure of historic proportion by the so-called talent in the city. It’s the norm in most European countries to have balanced parliaments, and for David Cameron’s old school chums in the city to threaten to do even more damage to the economy if the public have the nerve to vote for what they believe in is simply disgraceful.

“Every voter who remembers the contempt these selfish bankers showed for the public will refuse to be bullied by them now. It’s time to tax the speculation they rely on, and to pull the plug on the casino banking model that got us into this mess. We won’t see this country’s building societies, co-operatives or credit unions spending all night trying to undermine democracy, and the bankers should think twice before doing so in the wee small hours of Friday morning.”

Notes

1. The LIFFE announcement is here:
www.euronext.com

2. In 2005 Labour won 55% of the seats with just 35% of the votes. See:
www.electoral-reform.org.uk

Funny financing

Still no sign of a detailed planning application for the Buchanan Galleries expansion as the developer and Glasgow City Council try to figure out how to pay for it in the depressed financial climate.

Their hoped for answer?  Tax Increment Financing.

In simple terms, the Council would borrow £80 million to pay for the development, with the intention that this be repaid by Buchanan Partnership Ltd over time, from the rental of the newly created commercial space. This would amount to the Council taking out a commercial loan to bankroll a private development and securing the massive debt on the city’s hard-pressed tax payers. This absurd financing method is quite common in the USA but has not been used in Scotland to date.

Last month, I questioned John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth about this form of financing.  I asked him what criteria the Scottish Government would use for the approval or rejection of local authority proposals to employ TIF.  Mr Swinney replied that “any decision on local authority proposals to use tax increment financing will be made on a value for money basis. Scottish Futures Trust have been asked to develop a set of criteria to inform this assessment process.”

I also tried to persuade him that this scheme is wildly irresponsible, since it essentially gambles public money (which should be spent on protecting public services) on the developer’s ability to fill the new shopping space with paying tenants – while shops are lying empty across the city centre and many local shopping areas. If the Council wants to support genuine local businesses and strong communities across Glasgow it shouldn’t start with another new ‘mall’ in the city centre.

I look forward, with a slightly sinking feeling, to finding out whether the business case bring put together by council officials will be enough to persuade ruling councillors and the Scottish Government that an £80 million bank loan, that would further increase Glasgow’s dependency on the multinational retail giants, can be made to look the least bit sensible.

Video – Newsnight Scotland interview

Here’s my interview from Monday’s Newsnight Scotland. Try as we might, the audio won’t stay in sync, so you’ll have to bear with it.

Oh, and don’t be worried by the logo in the background in the first few seconds – I haven’t jumped ship! This is a stange election, but not that strange!

Video – Manifesto launch

On Tuesday this week we launched our manifesto for the 2010 UK election, which you can read on our lovely new website! Here’s the interview I gave to the BBC on the day:

NEWS RELEASE – Ministers fail crucial climate test

The Green MSPs slammed SNP Ministers for their plans, published today, to implement the Climate Change Act passed last year. (1) The Scottish Government have proposed annual targets of just 0.5% for the next two years, far below the 3-4.5% required by the science. The 2020 target of 42% reductions remains, but Ministers have decided not to act to achieve this legal target, instead making it the responsibility of the next Scottish Government.

Patrick Harvie MSP said:

“Parliament unanimously passed tough climate change legislation just last year, but the SNP have wasted no time in trying to undermine it. SNP Ministers have today clearly failed this crucial climate test. The opposition parties must now come together again and reject these hopeless proposals.

“This administration talks a lot about tackling climate change, but their policies across the board could have been explicitly designed to make things worse. Their plans for new coal power were rejected by Parliament last month, and their motorway plans would put the Thatcher administration to shame. What they forget is that early action on climate change will also cut household bills, improve people’s journeys to work and boost jobs.

“Approving their proposals would allow this Scottish Government to make virtually no change whatsoever, with all the work postponed for the next administration. As things stand, anyone who wants real action on climate change must therefore also want a change of Government next year.”

Notes

1. For information about the Climate Change Act, see:
http://scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/climatechange/scotlands-action/climatechangeact