Rupert's Read

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you all my readers who are supporters of the Green Party for your continued support and to reflect on all the successes the region has had this year. Having launched our European Elections campaign at the beginning of the year, the momentum has been building. Our members responded generously to our fundraising appeal, raising thousands of pounds. This increases significantly our ability to fight a strong and effective campaign. The local elections in May saw us increase the number of councillors in the region for the eighth year running, and the Green Party now sits on more district authorities in the East than in any other region in Britain. Many Green candidates were only a few votes away from being elected, and we look set to make further gains next May. So far our future looks promising, but we still have a lot of work ahead of us. Our continued success comes amidst fresh reports that the effects of manmade climate change could be...

On the second day of the ‘January’ sales, my girlfriend and I took the bus into the city. I was shocked and disgusted that it now costs £2 to get a single on First from where I live (just inside the Outer ring road) to the city centre. No wonder the bus was mostly empty. Cycling into town next morning, on the third day of the ‘January’ sales, I was struck by the even more dire traffic levels than there had been the day before. The entire central area of Norwich was gridlocked. It is desperately urgent that, with the coming of the long climate crisis, we sort out our transport system. We simply must find ways of encouraging people out of their cars, and onto buses and bikes. But this will obviously never happen while the bus system in cities like Norwich is run by profit-grabbing private companies. The appalling congestion that I have witnessed and that many many others have been caught up in, sometimes for hours, over the past few days, must be the last of its kind. This is why, in 20...

Here is my latest EASTERN DAILY PRESS column, which you can get in print in today's paper. This column was previewed in an earlier incarnation a couple of months ago on this blog. Quite timely, at the Christmas / New Yesar period, I think: http://oneworldcolumn.org/190.html

Goto http://futurefmplatform.podbean.com to listen to the podcast of my Book Review of Martin Bell's 'The truth that sticks' on Norwich's community radio station, 'Future radio'. [It is a little under half way through the programme on Dec. 23 2007]

Further to my posts below on Clegg, check out the letters in yesterday's _Indy_, at http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article3266532.ece , on the same topic. The first such letter, 'A bad time for Clegg's liberalism', by myself, takes up the same vein as my posts here and at 'Our Kingdom' (Open Democracy). A little further up in the letters, there is a lovely contrast between the radicalism of Caroline Lucas, Green MEP, and a degree of low horizons from Chris Davies, LibDem, on the question of whether we should move to coal, or alternatively press for lower energy demand, decentralisation of energy sourcing, and big growth in renewables.

Bruce Anderson (See his http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/bruce_anderson/article3258031.ece ‘The environmental debate…’, Mon. 17 Dec.) pretends to be a friend of cool dispassion, and spends a fair bit of his article repeatedly and distastefully making fun of the Dutch man at the heart of the UN climate change negotiations who cared so much about what he was trying to do that he broke down in tears while on the podium. He accuses us greens moreover of being devotees of a “fanatical cult”. But Mr. Anderson himself is a devotee of what truly is a fanatical unreasoning cult: the cult of economic growth. He never stops to ask the question why economic growth is presupposed by so many, including himself, to be ‘a good thing’. The answer to the question of whether economic growth actually is a good thing is: It is when it improves quality of life, and it is not when it does not. And the evidence is getting stronger all the time that since about 1970, economic growth in the West...

http://ourkingdom.opendemocracy.net/2007/12/18/cleggs-liberalism-is-not-the-opposition-we-need/

Sir; Your story (p.4, 17 Dec.) concerning Cameron's call for a 'progressive alliance' between Tories, LibDems and the Green Party reads strangely for a Green residing in East Anglia. Here in Norfolk, for example, the Tory County Council wants to build an incinerator, backs the expansion of Norwich airport, wants to throw hundreds of millions of pounds into building a new road on the north side of Norwich, backs nuclear power, and opposes wind energy planning applications at every opportunity. Such a Party has no Green credentials at all. David Cameron would have to utterly transform his utterly-anti-progressive Party, before his 'alliance' call had any credibility whatsoever. I can't see that ever happening. For, so far as I can see, the Tory Party, in reality, here in Norfolk is much like the Tory Party everywhere else in Britain -- the very opposite of progressive. As -- to be slightly cheeky -- the Letters pages of the _Telegraph_ itself q...

Nick Clegg has beaten Chris Huhne, by just 511 votes, in the LibDem Leadership contest. I knew and worked with Chris Huhne long ago, back as a student in Oxford in the 1980s, when we were both in the SDP there. He always impressed me, and he would have been a serious Leader for the LibDems. But as I detail at http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/voices/read.htm , I left the LibDems 8 years ago, terminally dismayed at their (lack of) direction. The critically important thing, from my perspective as a Green, was that the LibDems, like New Labour and like Cameron’s ‘New Tories’, became thoroughgoingly committed to neo-liberalism and to globalisation. That is why it didn’t really much matter to us whether Clegg or Huhne triumphed today. The differences between them in terms of underlying political economy are negligible. Clegg is marginally more right-wing, marginally less green, and marginally more vacuous – but the key word here is “marginally”. Similarly, that is why Camero...

Of COURSE Parties should be state-funded. If we want a proper democracy that gives fair play to smaller Parties such as the Greens, then we should be willing to pay a little bit in our taxes towards it. The alternative is to have politics dominated by the interests of wealthy individuals who want peerages...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7146705.stm David Cameron has just given the Green Party a lovely piece of free publicity.

Summary: More and more people are talking about how 'Transition Towns' (www.transitionculture.org) might change the world and save us from oil depletion and climate catastrophe. But there is I am afraid one critically important respect in which this bold hope could not possibly come true. It is this: The Transition Towns movement alone cannot save us, because, within the existing economic system, some communities reducing their use of fossil fuels is received by everyone else as a price signal that it is OK to use even more fossil fuels . I.e. For every litre of petrol that (say) Totnes does not use, everyone else in Britain is very slightly incentivised to use more petrol, by the price not going up as much as it otherwise would. Transition Towns alone can only function as demonstration projects. They show what is possible . But in order for them to be part of a movement of movements that actually reduces overall use of fossil fuels, legislation is needed. Leg...

One thing I plan to do if elected MEP for Eastern Region -- is give a substantial portion of my salary 'back', to the Green Party (the local, Regional and national party). THAT will really make a difference, to future generations etc. I don't need all that money -- I would like to help the Green Party's causes with much of my potential-salary, instead.

Further to my post below, about the Bali 'roadmap' toward serious action on dangerous climate change: Looking more closely at the small print, some serious problems emerge. The adaptation-to-dangerous-climate-change fund is generally good, and the call for "deep cuts" in emissions is genuinely groundbreaking -- though the numbers to be put back in, to turn the call for "deep cuts" into concrete and sufficient targets. But the measures to deal with deforestation, an urgent and pressing problem, turn out to be deeply inadequate. Here is what leading Environmental Consultant Deepak Rughani has to say about these: "Ten years after the Kyoto Protocol was agreed, the Bali roadmap ensures that...carbon trading schemes will be expanded which will further harm the climate, accelerate rainforest destruction, and undermine the human rights and land rights of indigenous peoples and other communities in the global South. ...[S]ome of the agreements reached wi...

I feel delight this morning at the news from Bali of agreement at the climate talks ( here ). Delegates have the for the first time ever agreed a 'roadmap' to a new treaty to replace the Kyoto protocol, a roadmap committing the U.S. and other developed countries to making "deep cuts" in their carbon emissions. This morning, there is real hope, for the first time in years, that humankind may pull back from the precipice of climate catastrophe. I am hugely relieved that the U.S. delegation at Bali has seen sense, and that at last all the world's nations are committed to the amount of greenhouse gases going into our atmosphere being deeply cut. This agreement needs to be greatly strengthened and fleshed out over the next 12-24 months, with real numbers attached to it. Our children desperately need us to get a climate agreement together that actually does force deep and fast cuts in emissions. What has happened last night is only a start. But it is, than...

My earlier post on this was obviously worthwhile... Hundreds of thousands of people, including many from East Anglia and from Norwich in particular -- including me --, have voted £50m of lottery cash to walking and cycling schemes across the country ... including £1m to help build a path from Norwich railway station to Whitlingham Country Park . I was really pleased today when I heard the news that the Sustrans Connect 2 scheme, which I have been pushing hard across East Anglia and especially in Norwich , was the victor in the vote. The public have certainly chosen well: this scheme is a brilliant way to get people fitter healthier and happier, and to cut carbon emissions. I am just delighted that everyone’s efforts to get this scheme voted through have been successful! This news makes it all the more vital that the rest of the money needed is now as firmly secured -- in order to build this path and bridge to Whitlingham. I look forward to the day when everyone can walk or cycl...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2225780,00.html My earlier posts (especially http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2007/10/who-will-lead-on-combatting-dangerous.html ) on the true scale of the UK's carbon emissions see some vindication here, in the lead letter. We are polluting the atmosphere heavily with CO2 -- it is just that we have cleverly exported that pollution to China and India, so that it is harder to see that we are doing it. Further down, see also my friend and fellow Green Councillor Andrew Boswell's excellent letter on the big 'biofools' scam.

Why do people love email so much? My theory is: that it enables them not to have to talk to people. It enables easy avoidance of the 'inconvenience' of actual human contact... Of course, this means that email is often used highly-inappropriately, where talking to someone directly woudl be much quicker / more efficient... "There's this amazing new form of email! It allows you to message the person you want to message _immediately_, and for them to message you back in real time too!! What's more, you can even hear their voice while you do it!" Yes ... The email of the future is here... It's called: the telephone...

Is the Green Party beyond the old ideologies of ‘left’ and ‘right’? The answer I think is complicated. A yes and no story: The most obvious example of an excellent Green idea in the traditional Right is the idea of conserving things. That is what I typically say to self-admitted Conservatives on the doorstep: If you believe in conserving things, then you should vote Green, because unfortunately the Conservative Party has given up on conserving things, and now believes mostly in tearing them up and converting them into trinkets etc. . Whereas the Green Party actually cares about conserving our countryside, our wildlife, our traditional ways of life, in the face of corporate profiteering. [For an intriguing account of some other respects in which the Right can foster genuinely Green thinking, see the always-intriguing John Gray’s book, ‘Beyond the New Right’.] But, speaking of corporate profiteering: To think that the Green Party is ‘beyond’ all left ideas, and that we can accommoda...

Martin Kettle ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2224278,00.html ) thinks the next decade might belong to the LibDems. He admits his evidence is fairly thin: It consists mainly of the fact that Labour has allegedly abandoned the ‘liberal tradition’ in British politics, thus opening up room for the LibDems. But, as several commenters here have pointed out, he does not define ‘the liberal tradition’. It seems to me that the liberal tradition consists of three components. One, political and juridical liberty, has indeed been massively eroded by Labour. A second, economic liberalism, has been massively embraced by New Labour. A third, the maintenance of other liberties of the person, has been eroded in some instances – e.g. via the ban on smoking in enclosed public places –, but it is only a dogmatic liberalism that would insist that economic liberalism and general liberties of the person must be maintained, no matter what the public good that they undercut. If the ban o...

Am I the only one to be fed up with the endless talismanic intonation that we should all be using low-energy lightbulbs? If the government were serious about leading on environmental issues, it would make low-energy lightbulbs compulsory and BAN high-energy lightbulbs ... rather than trying to foist the responsibility and the blame onto the rest of us.

It is Green Party policy to re-nationalise the railways and to build new freight lines. An example would be from the new Outer Harbour at Yarmouth running inland. Where inadequate rail infrastructure exists, adequate infrastructure should be created. If we want to stop monster 60 tonne trucks coming to this country, we are going to have to invest in alternatives. Rail is the most crucial of these. Ruth Kelly recently announced plans for spending £10billion on enhancing rail capacity in July's rail white paper. However, only £200 million was for freight. Whilst capacity enhancement for passengers is absolutely essential, freight must be given a higher priority than it is currently getting. In total, rail investment should be much greater, at least £20-30billion for the next 5 years. This investment could be made by halting the government's climate-dangerous road-building programme. It is worth adding that the monster trucks that they want to bring here [see my post ...

A political Party looks for power. If the Green Party had more power, then ordinary people would have more power. Power over their own lives. Power which turbo-charged neo-liberal capitalism deprives them of Political Parties and governments don't have a huge amount of power, in these globalised days. They -- we -- should strive to attain all and use of it that we can. And thus GENUINELY empower people. Such empowerment surely means people being empowered. Not just sitting around talking and giving themselves a fantasy of control over their own destinies. ACTUALLY having more such control and power. This recent Green Party referendum has created a Leader post. A Leader with more influence and more power -- e.g. votes on GPex, and hopefully more research and secretarial support than our Party can afford at present, as we fundraise on the back of this change that the Party has voted for -- than our Principal Speakers have been allowed. Our Leader being empowered by u...

Working as lead European candidate for the Greens here in Eastern Region Green Party is exhilarating, and it’s getting more so all the time. There are so many new local parties setting up all over the East of England and I’ve had the pleasure of meeting such a wide variety of people. All these people are driven by thought of bringing a real positive difference to their local area by having Green Party members elected to their parishes, councils and (crucially) even to Parliament(s). I’ve witnessed the number of Green councillors in the East of England grow ever year since 1999. That’s why I know we’re on the brink of something very special here, and I am proud to be a part of it. The excitement comes from knowing how quickly success can come when there are dedicated Green Party members, campaigning hard for the values they believe in. In Norwich , where I am a city councillor, the first two Green councillors were elected in 2002. Now, just five years later, we have 10 city councill...

60 tonne "Monster Trucks" may be coming to the roads of East Anglia... The European Parliament has considered a report on freight logistics which failed to rule out the use of 60 tonne trucks across EU borders and left open the possibility that this could happen without Member States giving consent for their borders to be crossed. As well as the obvious dangers to communities in East Anglia on recognised routes, the use of Sat. Nav. equipment and drivers not familiar with local roads will inevitably cause serious disruption when these huge and ultra-heavy trucks take a wrong turn and get stuck. Green MEP Caroline Lucas has warned that the failure of the EU Parliament to rule out the use of 60 tonne trucks could lead to them being used across the EU. In my view too, there can be no role for monster trucks thundering up and down our roads, guzzling fuel, damaging infrastructure as they do so. The question we need to ask ourselves is this: Do we really want these meg...

Readers of 'Rupert's read' have for the next few days a great opportunity to improve facilities for pedestrians and cyclists at no direct cost to themselves. All they -- all you -- have to do is to vote for the Sustrans Connect2 project in the Big Lottery Fund's £5 Million giveaway. The public is being asked to choose between four projects. All four are good, but one is somewhat influenced by the fact that only the Sustrans project will bring any direct benefit to Norfolk: specifically, through the construction of a path for cycling and walking to Whitlingham County Park, from Norwich train station. However, the Sustrans project is a national project, whereas the other three are each in one specific location. Furthermore, the Sustrans project is clearly the most green and sustainable of the four, and is particularly good in that it will support a large number of small projects around the country, rather than just being one mega-project. The Sustrans project...

http://ourkingdom.opendemocracy.net/2007/12/04/green-party-embraces-new-leadership-model/ My latest, post- the referendum.

Norwich rally for action to stop dangerous climate change! Come and join us at Pottergate on the pathway and the green outside St.Gregory’s Church, at Noon precisely, on Saturday 8 th December. Norwich Green Party is organising a rally in solidarity with people who are gathering on this day in London and in every major city around the world to call for governments to take serious action NOW to rein in dangerous manmade climate change. For those who would like to be in London on the big march there, but who for whatever reason cannot be, this is the perfect opportunity to make clear your thoughts and feelings on this issue. Bring banners or just bring yourselves to this short rally. There will be brief speeches from Cllr. Adrian Ramsay, Green Party Parliamentary candidate for Norwich South, and from Cllr. Rupert Read, lead Green MEP-candidate for East Anglia; and then an open mike. [Note: Norwich Green Party's annual Christmas Fair will this year be held at St G...

http://matthewsellwood.blogspot.com/ Check out Matt Sellwood's return to blogland one last time, calling for the Party to move on from the leadership issue, now that it has been settled. Amen!

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/rupert_read/2007/11/the_breakthrough_we_greens_nee.html My piece today in the _Guardian_ on the leadership win. Do register on the site and leave a comment!

You heard it here first...: The result of the referendum ballot inside the Green Party - to decide whether or not the party should have a recognisable Leadership team - has resulted in success for the ‘Yes’ message, with well over a 2/3rds majority. The final result is 73% to 27%, with almost exactly half of the membership turning out to vote. The members have spoken, in overwhelming numbers. South-East Euro-MP Caroline Lucas, one of the party's two Principal Speakers, said: "I'm delighted about this result. The party can now move forward together and onto the job in hand: we have an urgent green message to communicate, and many votes to win." Green London Assembly member Darren Johnson and outgoing ‘Yes’ Campaign Manager commented from Brussels , " This is a fantastic day for the Green Party and will help ensure we have a party that is understandable, recognisable and effective. But we now need to demonstrate to all our members, regardless of w...

City Council meeting this week was pretty lively. During the debate over congestion charging, I gently heckled Cllr. Antony Little of the Conservatives, who is vehemently opposed to congestion charging, pointing out to him that it was his own Party [at the County level] that was actually pushing congestion charging for Norwich. His response was most intriguing and amusing: “It may be my Party – but I’ve got a brain.” Was he perhaps meaning: As opposed to his County colleagues (one of whom was sitting immediately on his left as he spoke), who by implication do not?...!

Only a day to go now, thank goodness, before we know the result of the Leadership referendum in the Green Party. Darren Johnson, on behalf of the Green Yes campaign, in advance of the referendum result, said the following: Advance statement to the Party “Turnout has been very high by Green Party standards, perhaps well over 40%, which shows the interest our members have had in the future direction of the Party. “Win or lose, we will respect the verdict of the members. “We thank the supporters of the No Campaign for their help in organising and attending meetings and for providing a stimulating debate.”

The RED PEPPER debate is going strong... Here is my second (and probably final) letter, replying to Shahrar's article, replying to my original article (see link at left, or go down below at http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2007/11/red-pepper-debate-on-green-leadership.html): Dear Shahrar; Thanks for your thoughtful letter. Obviously, there is much that we have in common. But I think we are still going to disagree about this one… You doubt my claim that having a Leader and Deputy or Co-Leaders would enhance accountability. Perhaps then you would like to address the case of the Scots Green Party? See e.g. my letter in the _Guardian_ on this topic: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/comment/0,,2210036,00.html . Or see Mark Ballard’s and Patrick Harvie MSP’s comments, at http://www.greenyes.org/quotes.html . If the Scottish experience has been very clearly that formally-recognised Leadership enhances accountability, why should we doubt that it will in England and Wales too...

My new Wikipedia page is up and running! Take a look - any suggestions on how to add to it would be more than welcome.

I have two new books out this year, "Philosophy for Life" and "Applying Wittgenstein" . For anyone who has read them already, please feel free to post comments. If you haven't taken a look yet but are interested, both books are available on Amazon.co.uk (just follow the above links from each book). Check out Continuum for a more thorough description of "Applying Wittgenstein". For more details, or for an overview of other books I've published, visit my UEA website here .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_westminster_hour/7112259.stm HERE IS LAST NIGHT'S 'WESTMINSTER HOUR' READY TO LISTEN AGAIN : This features Jonathon Porritt arguing in favour of 'Yes' vote!

The fundamental problem, the underlying reason why we see more bad driving and bad cycling than we used to, is individualism (neo-liberalism, consumerism, materialism). People increasingly act selfishly unless they are forced to do otherwise, because our individualistic culture teaches them that it is acceptable to do so . This is the single biggest reason why many people cycle without lights, and on pavements, and why many drivers increasingly run red lights, block intersections, treat cyclists as scum, etc. Until we change the whole political and economic system, we will make limited progress in this matter. This is yet another reason why a new Greener Britain is so desperately needed.

Cycling on the pavement ain't right. But even so, do ask yourself when was the last time that you heard of a cyclist causing serious injury or death to someone? Whereas speeding and irresponsible and drunk etc drivers cause serious injuries or death roughly twice a week , in Norwich, for example. Cyclists should ride legally. But they should not be demonised when they do not do so -- because often they do not do so because of terrible road design, of feeling / being unsafe from cars, etc.; and because even when they do not do so they still pose very little risk of causing serious injury or death, compared to cars. Once again: I don't in the least condone anti-social cycling. But whenever I hear someone demonising cyclists, I have the sneaking suspicion that maybe, just maybe, they are thereby making themselves feel better about doing something more dangerous, themselves: namely, driving a car...

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/commentary/OneWorld.aspx "'Climate change' or climate crisis?"

Norfolk County Councillors have just raised their allowances by 28%. I agree that it is fishy that the County Council increased their own allowances massively when they are about to be abolished -- but in general, Council allowances ought to be higher. If you compute the hourly rate of pay that most Councillors (the ones who work hard -- which is most of us -- and the rest can always be voted out!) earn from their Council work, it probably comes to below minimum wage. In my case it certainly does -- I reckon that I work in effect about 60 hours a month on Council business, averged out over the year, for which I get paid a little over £300. Hardly a handsome sum. If Councillors' allowances are low, then the only people who do the job are pensioners, the rich, 'housewifes', etc. . Surely, we want our Councillors to represent the population at large, not just a fortunate minority?

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article702.html Me in RED PEPPER on why there is nothing remotely leftwing about being opposed to the Green Party having a Leader.

Here is my final post advocating a 'Yes' vote... Climate crisis is here [see my _Guardian_ piece on this, at http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/rupert_read/2007/11/emergency_talk.html ]. How to lead a way out of it? If we had 500 years, maybe we could afford to move at the current painfully-slow pace of political evolution. But we don’t have 500 years – we don’t even have 50. We must effect huge policy changes within the next decade. So for green politicians just being different just ain’t good enough – we need to make a difference. A very big difference – and fast. Global over-heat is of course a different sort of crisis – because its climax is in the future. Decisions now may create a better future -- but the full effects of those decisions, good or bad, won’t be known for a long time. A measure of our success will precisely be that people never knew quite how terrifying -- how devastated -- things could become. It’s a no-brainer that, in this situation, the...

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2215376,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=environment For the latest, in the _Guardian_, on the leadership issue... Just one week to go, now!

http://bookshop.blackwell.co.uk/jsp/id/Applying_Wittgenstein/9780826494504 [If you want an easier read, though, try my ‘Philosophy for Life’ in Local Links, below at left.]

http://www.facebook.com/pr ofile.php?id=14529760141 For those of you on Facebook, here is my 'public figure' Facebook page, if you want to go to it.

My letter http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/comment/0,,2210036,00.html Responses http://politics.guardian.co.uk/libdems/story/0,,2212602,00.html

One argument that the NO campaign have been making quite a bit in these last weeks of the referendum campaign is that they think that a good argument for not having a leader is that is that the media will FOCUS and pick on a leader like they would not pick on 'principal speakers'. This would concern their past conduct, current weaknesses, and if there any signs of inconsistency between what they say and how they actually conduct their life, etc. NO activists think that this would be more detrimental to the general situation than any bit of extra attention we would receive. Now I think three things about this argument: 1) It is simply false. Yes, the media would focus in on our leader, and look for problems; but given that they wouldn't FIND so many problems (Caroline e.g. would never have a Lexus drive behind her as she cycles!), we will PROFIT out of this extra scrutiny. 2) Even those who suffer from intense media scrutiny (e.g. Cameron) also profit by it. Look how Cameron...

A key reason why people stopped using the term ‘global warming’ is that ‘climate change’ is a ‘safe’ substitute for ‘global warming’, because of patchiness – the chaoticness, in fact… -- of the latter phenomenon. Because, for instance, as manmade climate change proceeds to over-heat the Earth, it will introduce some local cooling effects – most strikingly, if it yields Gulf Stream switch-off. That is of course no reason not to use the more humanly accurate terms (than ‘climate change’) that I propose in my posts below: climate chaos, climate emergency, etc. . But also, we need to recognise the other key reason, the reason detailed in Steven Poole’s book (see also http://www.newstatesman.com/200602200020 ), that I mention in my Guardian article [posted below]: that governmental pressure and business pressure impacted directly on IPCC, an intergovernmental body, not a group of scientists. It is naïve in the extreme – absurd, in fact -- to think that an intergovernmental group is imm...

Scientists can teach us all there is to know about facts. They can tell us what we need to know about changes-in-themselves; but not about values. Not about why those changes _matter_. Science is silent for instance about catastrophes, in the human sense of that word. If we are to take as a lesson from that that we ought not to talk at all using any value-laden terms, this would be a gross fallacy, a SCIENTISTIC error. Ought we to give up the term 'the _Holocaust_'? Ought we to refuse to speak of the fate of the Easter Islanders when their civilisation collapsed as _tragic_? Ought we to refuse to speak of the _chaos_ wrought by the Asian tsunami? [One could go even further: a rigorously scientistic thinker might argue that to speak (for instance) of macular degeneration is to speak in an inappropriately value-laden way. Perhaps we should speak instead of 'macular change' (or at most of 'significant macular change leading to altered macular functioning')...] From...

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/rupert_read/2007/11/emergency_talk.html Sad to see the many comments below the article from those many who are in one way or another in denial... [Join the conversation? But if you do so, I would urge you to try to exercise some respect and restraint towards those you disagree with in the conversation, even where that respect has not been shown to me...] ...Anyway, don't worry: this messenger isn't for shooting... ...The very real danger -- the likelihood , unless we make something very big happen, very fast -- of climate catastrophe within the lifetime of many of us, means that the insults and ignorance of certain vocal commenters [some of whom are the usual suspects, who will be known to some of you from other unpleasant virtual encounters] is no more than water off one's back... Here, for the keen, is the original unexpurgated article before it was edited down to standard Comment-is-free length by the _Guardian_ team: To speak of ‘cli...

I blogged several weeks ago [ http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2007/10/who-will-lead-on-combatting-dangerous.html ] on Britain's hidden dreadful record on CO2 emissions, including Britain's responsibility, indirectly, for much of the emissions from China, India etc. (through being their carbonemissions-heavy products, etc.). At the time, I had not picked up on the fact that Phil Woolas, Minister of Climate Change had in fact already admitted on 20 th September, in a speech, that things might be even slightly worse than I had claimed. Quoting now from Woolas: “ we see that as much as 15% of world carbon emissions are a direct result of UK economic activity both at home and abroad. “ Full context: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/ministers/speeches/phil-woolas/pw070920.htm ‘Many people regard any action taken by the UK in decreasing carbon emissions as insignificant. Indeed, this is the case if we look arithmetically only at emissions within the UK . However it is important to...

Time for a leader Leader article Monday November 12, 2007 The Guardian The tension between ideals and pragmatism is familiar to everyone with any experience of radical politics. The struggle to reconcile members' aspirations with the harsh demands of flawed reality has dominated the past of Labour and Liberal Democrats, and countless others around the world. Now, after nearly 10 years brewing, the Green party is finally to decide whether to abandon its brave experiment with a less hierarchical internal structure and bow to the conventional form of one party, one leader. The supporters of the latter, led by the MEP Caroline Lucas, and Prince Charles's favourite Green, Jonathan Porritt, succinctly argued in a letter to this paper on Tuesday that a single identifiable leader who people recognise and trust is the best way of engaging the voters. The hierarchy-lite tendency, who responded in the letters page on Thursday, believe equally passionately in the empowerm...

Interesting front page on yesterday's Norwich EVENING NEWS . Ward Councillor Roy Blower blowing his top against the appalling 'government' decision to sell off the Blackdale School playing fields. Funny thing was, you could read the whole article, and be forgiven for assuming that Cllr. Blower had nothing to do with the government... He didn't seem to want to show any awareness that it is HIS Party, HIS government that has sold off the playing fields -- and so so many more playing fields, all over the country... The Green Party meanwhile successfully defended the Hewett School playing fields in our Town Close ward. There is one Party to trust at local and national level to stand firm against any loss of vital green spaces for our young people and for our environment... and its name doesn't begin with an 'L'...

from Labourhome website: "While it's perhaps a bit rude to intrude upon a private grief, I would like to make a couple of points. Firstly, I think Britain needs a Green Party and I think it needs one that can win seats on councils and at the European and devolved administration levels. We need one because the issues that the party focusses on are really important and mainstream parties need to grapple with them and offer convincing solutions. To be taken seriously, I do think the Greens should have a leader and I quite like the idea of that leader having to seek re-election every two years as is proposed. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2205773,00.html Link to timely letter printed in today's _Guardian_... [Yes, I know that I am posting an awful lot on Green Leadership at the moment -- but these are the crucial days. Pretty soon, it [the referendum campaign] will all be over!]

From the Guardian Unlimited, 5 Nov. 07: 'A poll released today by the Yes campaign shows that five out of six voters believe the Green party should replace its "male and female principal speakers" with a leader. The party's fortunes are on the rise, with a higher tally of seats following this spring's local elections, and many within the party believe it is being held back because it lacks an identifiable face. The YouGov poll of more than 2,000 adults shows that, of the two-thirds of respondents expressing an opinion, 84% believed the party should have a single leader and 16% disagreed. The Yes campaign argues that shows the change would improve its electoral fortunes. Caroline Lucas, Green MEP, said: "It's about how we communicate more effectively with the public; our current structures are confusing. People relate to other people and I think it would be easier to get our ideas across if we had a figure the public was more familiar with an...

In answer, check out this remark, from a Lib Dem commenting on PoliticalBetting.com , last week: "I wouldn’t like to fight a GE leaderless, I think that would lead to slaughter, and that a “permanent leaderless” state, as in the Green Party, does lose support."

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/darren_johnson/2007/11/lets_follow_a_leader.html Check out Darren Johnson in the _Guardian_, on the leadership issue.

If we had 500 years, maybe we could afford to move at the currentpainfully-slow pace of political evolution. But we don’t have 500 years – we don’t even have 50. We must effect huge policy changes within the next decade. So for green politicians just being different just ain’t good enough – we need to make a difference. A very big difference – and fast. Global over-heat is a different sort of crisis – because its climax is in the future. Decisions now may create a better future -- but the full effects of those decisions, good or bad, won’t be known for a long time. A measure of our success will precisely be that people never knew quite how terrifying -- how devastated -- things could become. It’s a no-brainer that, in this situation, the Green Party is needed more than ever. We need to give people personal confidence that, as we all play our part in the big changes required to prevent climate catastrophe, and as the government regulates to make that possible, our lives will improve in ...