Will New Waste Sites Will Make A Bad Situation Worse?

The consultation on the West London Waste Strategy which will see new waste facilities in West London ended on Friday.  This is Brent Green Party's submission:

1. The consultation suffers from a major weakness in that it  concentrates on selection of sites and not on the processes that will  take place on them. We submit that the type of process is a major aspect of the choice of sites, especially if some form of incineration is planned. We are being sold a pig in a poke.
2. A further weakness is the separation of the process of site selection  from the SA Objective to 'minimise the production of waste and increase  reuse, recycling, composting and recovery rates' . Urgent action on this
objective as a priority must surely have an impact on the need for sites and the type of processes that will take place on them.
3. There is already a concentration of waste facilities in the Park Royal (Ealing/Brent) area and the new sites suggested will increase this concentration and associated traffic.
4. The Sustainability Assessment shows that Brent is already the most densely populated West London borough (6,278 people per square kilometre against the London average of 4,779 and Hillingdon's 2,161) - yet new waste facilities are to be sited in the borough or on its borders. The SA states,  rather obviously,  that 'In general terms it can be expected that the greater the population density, the more people that are likely
to be affected by the waste facility'.  We are against choosing sites that will have a potentially detrimental impact on larger numbers of people.
5. Brent is ranked as the most deprived borough in West London and is in the 20% of the most deprived boroughs in England. Will the quality of life of its inhabitants be improved by more waste facilities, and will the trade-off of increased employment opportunities be sufficient to make up for the negative impact on health and the local environment?
6. Brent has the lowest average age of all the West London boroughs and has a growing child population as demonstrated by the increased demand for school places. Young bodies are much more susceptible to damage caused by pollutants and poor air-quality. There is a danger that more waste sites with increased levels of heavy traffic, alongside as yet unknown emissions from as yet undecided processes, could severely damage young people's health.
7.  In conclusion although the  Sustainability Appraisal report admits, 'Waste facilities have the potential to negatively impact on human health through increased noise or worsened air quality'  the proposed sites are in an area of high population density with large numbers of young people, and with a population already suffering from the poor health and other problems associated with economic deprivation. Siting the facilities here has the potential to make what is already bad, worse.

Scenes from Saturday's Demonstration

Gardiner: Brent children's services could be restored at less than the cost of one day's action in Libya

Barry Gardiner MP spoke again about Libya during the Budget debate making the link with cuts:

I did not support the Government in the Lobby on Monday night in the vote on military action in Libya. I pay tribute to our armed services, and to their valour and the work they do, but I cannot support the cost of the military escapade taking place in Libya, and I look to what could have been achieved if the funds being expended there were instead being expended around the rest of our country.

                       

One Tomahawk missile costs £350,000, and 140 of them were launched in the first 48 hours of the attack, which amounts to a cost of £50 million. It is estimated that the cost of prosecuting this military conflict is £6 million each day. The cost of one day of action in Libya could restore in its entirety the £2.25 million of cuts in children's services forced on my community in Brent by this Liberal-Conservative coalition Government. One month in Libya could protect children's services across the whole of London. Nine months in Libya could protect children's services across the entire UK. Aneurin Bevan once said that priorities is the language of socialism. Those are my priorities and that is why I will oppose this Budget.

Top 10 Tips for Saturday's March

The TUC's top ten tips for first-time marchers – old hands may also find useful - are:

Ø Tell everyone about it! Bring along your family, friends and colleagues to share the day. Having good company along always makes for a fun day out, and spreading the word will really boost the size of the march. How many people can you bring with you?

Ø Wear comfortable shoes. The route from Embankment to Hyde Park is nearly three miles long - and if it's been raining, Hyde Park can get very muddy - so wear flat shoes, trainers or boots.

Ø Be prepared for the weather. It will be quite a long day and March weather can be unpredictable. You might need a coat, jumper, hat, gloves, umbrella -or even sunscreen and sunglasses! If you are a public servant and normally wear a uniform wear that on the day, unless that will get you into trouble!

Ø Keep hydrated. You might not always be near a shop or newsagents, so bring a bottle of water and other soft drinks to keep you refreshed. Cafes and kiosks in Hyde Park will be open as usual but with thousands expected to attend, it may be some time before you see the Park gates.

Ø Don't go hungry. Bring a packed lunch and snacks as the march and rally take place over lunch time - and if you're marching near towards the back, it may be nearer tea time before you get to the rally.

Ø Bring a rucksack. A rucksack or a bag you can wear across your body are useful for carrying things easily - and leave your hands free for flags! Don't forget to pack any inhalers or medicine you usually take.

Ø Enjoy the sights. The route will take you from the Embankment, up Whitehall and past Trafalgar Square, along Piccadilly and into Hyde Park. It's an opportunity to see London in a different way without the traffic. Don't worry about getting lost if you don't know London. It'll be very obvious where the march is going, and there will be stewards every few hundred metres to help out.

Ø Share the moment.If you have a camera, why not take some pictures of the day that you can send to your local paper? If you've a smartphone, why not share pictures and updates online as it happens? Twitter users can follow @March26March, and there's even a special phone App for the march, that you can get from the march website www.marchforthealternative.org.uk

Ø Look after other people. Treat everyone with respect and look out for anyone who needs help or assistance on the way round. If you want to help others even more, why not volunteer to be a steward?

Ø Arrive on time and know your way home. Be patient - with more than 100,000 marchers the march will be leaving the assembly point from 12noon to well after 2 pm and possibly later. If you're coming by public transport think about coming later rather than early, and try to join the march from the rear - think of tube stations like Mansion House and Southwark. If you're coming on a coach make sure you know where the pick-up point is and what time the coach will be leaving. Check your route back to underground and overground train stations from Hyde Park. Ask the police or march stewards if you're unsure.

Park Royal: West London's Waste Land

Consultation closes on Friday on the draft Waste London Waste Plan. The consultation has hardly caused a ripple in Brent with only a handful of members of the public, as distinct from potential contractors, turning up at the consultation at Bridge Park.  However the Plan may have big consequences for Brent with unknown new processes taking place in the borough and a potential increase in heavy lorries transporting waste through the borough from the other boroughs as you can see from the map above.

Brent already has waste sites at Abbey Road and Veolia's transfer station in Marsh Road but additional sites are being considered in Park Royal in both the Brent and Ealing sectors. Additional facilities in Marsh Road seemed to be a favoured option in conversation with officials at the consultation meeting.

The most troubling aspect of the plan is that the choosing of sites has been separated from the processes that will take place on them.  The processes will form part of later planning applications so we are being asked to comment about sites without knowing the repercussions in terms of emissions, health and safety and traffic.

A member of Richmond Green Party comments:

When I asked the consultants about a missing table, describing possible waste technologies that could be deployed at the sites in question (a lot around Park Royal and none in Richmond, in fact) they repeated the mantra about the consultation being technology neutral, and have removed the reference to the table altogether in the online version now.

But they didn't deny that incineration could be deployed at these sites.

In contrast with Brent there was a well attended meeting in Ealing (Park Royal) where residents were horrified by the concentration of sites in the area.  Some residents were already upset about the 'stink' on the border with Hammersmith and Fulham from the Powerday facility.

Consultation ends on Friday March 25th at 5pm: To comment follow this LINK
Follow this LINK for an independent blog about the West London Waste Authority

Sign the Petition for One Million Climate Jobs

 The national petition for "One Million Climate Jobs" has now been launched ahead of Saturday's TUC demonstration.

The petition is endorsed by John McDonnell MP, Caroline Lucas MP, Linda Riordan MP, Kelvin Hopkins MP and Sally Hunt, General Secretary UCU.

We aim to increase the pressure on the government to solve the economic and environmental crises through the urgent creation of One Million Climate Jobs.

Please sign the petition and encourage your friends, colleagues, fellow trade unionists and other campaigners to add their name. There is a PDF version available for download from the site which you can use on transport to the demonstration on Saturday.

This is what the petition says:

We the undersigned call on the Government to give urgent and serious consideration to the recommendations of the One Million Climate Jobs report including:

1. We face a global climate crisis. If we do not halt the increase in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 the “prospects for the people on the planet are looking pretty bleak” (The Secretary of State for the Environment, reported 24.11.10)
2. Britain faces a global economic crisis, with rising youth unemployment and the predicted loss of over a million jobs due to austerity measures.
3. We need the Government to take urgent steps to address both these crises through the creation of a million climate jobs aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing energy efficiency, developing renewable and environmentally friendly sources of energy, and training workers in the “green skills” necessary for a sustainable low carbon economy.
4. Given the urgency and enormity of this task, we want the Government to employ staff directly in secure jobs, to do the necessary work through a National Climate Service.
5. We call for an immediate, fully government-funded programme to promote energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy in existing and new buildings.
6. We call for Government funding for free or low fare public transport services and the expansion and integration of public transport networks to reduce the use of private cars; for major investment in extending the rail network and introducing faster and more efficient trains; and the phasing-out of domestic airline flights as soon as practicable
7. We call for direct intervention by the proposed Climate Service to create new industries, and convert existing and declining industries, to conduct the research, development, manufacture and installation of alternative technologies for generating electricity from renewable sources.
8. We call on the Government to finance free programmes of “Green Skills” training through Further Education.
9. Such proposals can be met at a net cost well within the scale of recent Government spending on the financial sector and would be far less costly than the possible alternative – catastrophic climate change.
10. By adopting such a programme Britain would set a standard for the rest of the world, especially the developed world responsible for the crisis, in taking the decisive action necessary to limit global warming and ensure that future generations are left an inhabitable planet.

You can sign the petition HERE

Gardiner: Those made redundant will ask, 'What has this (Libyan intervention) got to do with Britain?'

With reporting of parliamentary debates often reduced to 'sketch writing' it is often hard to know exactly what our MPs have said without resorting to Hansard. For the record here is what Barry Gardiner MP for Brent North said in yesterday's debate on the Libya intervention:

I hope that, in a few weeks, the House will be able to rejoice that Gaddafi has gone. Few dictators have committed so many acts of psychopathic wickedness over such a long period of time. Many hon. Members will know of his atrocity at Abu Salim prison in Tripoli, where he marched 1,270 prisoners into a compound, locked the gate and instructed his soldiers to open fire from the courtyard rooftops. The gunfire and grenades rained down for more than two hours until all 1,270 people were dead. But that was in the dying days of John Major's Government in June 1996, and Britain took no action.

I welcome resolution 1973. To take action now is right, but it would be disingenuous to claim that action was not possible without Britain's military participation, involving just three planes. The question is not whether action against Gaddafi is right but whether it is we who have the primary duty and responsibility to take it. It is the families of many of those slain 15 years ago at Abu Salim who began this revolution in Libya, inspired by others across the region who had dared to rise up and demand justice and dignity from their leaders. I praise their courage, but I recognise that this is a civil war in Libya. In that respect, it is categorically different from other conflicts involving ethnic cleansing and religious domination by one faith over another. This is neither Bosnia nor Rwanda. UN resolution 1973 has authorised international interference in a civil war in which there has been no genocide and no ethnic cleansing: no Halabja there.

The resolution purports to allow no more than the humanitarian protection of civilians, but all acknowledge that the Libyan population will not be secure from harm until the country is rid of Gaddafi. Coalition leaders, when asked whether Gaddafi was a legitimate target, have been equivocal in their response. In such circumstances, the rose of humanitarian protection begins to smell of regime change, and by that name it is not so sweet. This became apparent to Amr Moussa over the weekend when he said:

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians".

Perhaps the Arab League was too optimistic, because that is precisely what is likely to happen, if not by British and coalition missiles then by the rebels. It is naive to think that we can stop one side fighting in a civil war and not expect the other to take advantage. In a civil war, the tragedy is precisely that civilians are killed, if not by one side, then by the other. I do not believe that the international coalition will be even-handed in stopping rebel forces advancing in the same way.

The Prime Minister said in his statement on Friday that if we will the ends, we must also will the means. To will the means, however, does not entail the proposition that we must be the means. Many people in the UK are asking, "Why does Britain always have to get involved?" In two days, we will hear the Budget and the Chancellor will explain to the country why it is necessary to cut thousands of jobs to tackle the deficit. Those men and women who have been made redundant will no doubt sympathise with the Libyan people, but they will ask, "What has this got to do with Britain?" North Africa is not on our borders. It is not in our direct sphere of influence. Libya poses no direct threat to the UK, and we have no historical responsibility as the former colonial power, so why are we spending millions of pounds on cruise missiles, and endangering the lives of British soldiers to implement the resolution. It is ironic that many people asking these questions will be among the 17,000 military personnel who were judged to be surplus to requirements in last October's defence review, when the Government cut £4 billion from the defence budget.

There is no contradiction in welcoming the enabling authority given by UN resolution 1973, which allows those who have a direct interest or who have historical responsibilities as the former colonial power to act in Libya and, at the same time, to insist that we have no such direct interest or responsibility. Today, we are debating this after the event-we have taken that responsibility before a vote in the House, yet no one in government has sought to explain the policy of the rebels, on whose side we now find ourselves. We know that they are against Gaddafi, and that is a good start, but we certainly have no knowledge that they intend to replace him with an open, tolerant, liberal democracy. The whole of north Africa and the middle east are changing more rapidly than at any time since Suez. Shi'a minorities in Yemen and Bahrain have been shot or silenced by an invasion from Saudi Arabia. Iran is known to be eager to get involved. Egypt and Tunisia have effected home-grown revolutions and even Syria is experiencing serious internal tension.

In that extraordinary context, the Government have judged it right and in Britain's interest to involve our forces in military action. I pray that in a week's time Gaddafi is gone, and I pay tribute to the valour of our armed forces, but I believe that the Government were wrong to ask this-

The speaker interrupted at this point to enable another MP to speak.

Caroline Lucas Reveals 'Green Budget' Wish List

On the eve of the Budget, and after the announcement of further diminution of the Green Investment Bank, Caroline Lucas discusses what a Green budget would look like. Follow this LINK