The Big Society

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The coalition government in Britain under the Cameron-Clegg leadership is talking about the “Big Society” all the time ever since they formed the government after the general election in 2010.

I do not say that they were elected to govern as neither of the parties got a real workable majority, but that is a different issue.

Talk about the “Big Society” is increasing more and more in the beginning of 2011 as the government is cutting is cutting back services on a national and local level due to spending cuts and the attempt of tackling the deficit in the national coffers. The Cameron-Clegg coalition hopes that volunteers will step into the breach here where government services will no longer provide. And this in a country where successive governments have always treated the people as imbeciles and children.

Successive British governments have always detested empowering the people of the country, be this in creating their own habitats and homes or in running their own affairs. And on top of that all comes that the inherent secrecy culture in the UK governed by the Official Secrets Act 1911 Section 2 which is used as a blanket to cover everything possible that should never have been included.

So, what am I saying, you ask?

Personally I will have to be really convinced that what I am hearing David Cameron, the Prime Minister, say on this matter is also what he actually thinks and means. Britain just has a bad track record of empowering the grassroots regardless of what party has been in power. This is why I am so very sceptic here as far as this “Big Society” idea of his goes.

I am also concerned that it will be (i) done in a rather top down approach of “we need you to do this” and (ii) that those volunteers will be, intended, primarily, to run charity versions of what were government services.

Not that, probably, there is anything wrong with the latter in some fields, say in citizen advice, after school facilities for kids, and such. In fact, there are, more than likely, masses of services that would be better run by charities and volunteers, in both care, etc., and value for money.

Volunteers are, in general, enthusiastic as regards to what they do and highly motivated and care for the task; not something that could be said of every government worker in general. Many of the latter are just there, it would seem, to draw their salary and that's it. Clock in in the morning and out at night and home.

I am not saying that the “Big Society” idea and concept is bad. On the contrary! I think it is more than time that the people did get away from the notion that the government has to do everything for them.

In the centuries past when government was far away people did just that and they also looked out for one another. That's what community was and is all about. Over the last century or so, however, government has become ever bigger and ever more pervasive and invasive and people abdicated responsibility to the governments, local and central for this and that, in the same way that the abdicated and delegated the upbringing of their children to the state in the form of the school system. People have come to look to the state to do for everything short of wiping their behinds.

When a neighborhood is, say, full of litter residents immediately complain to the council and demand that that is immediately cleaned and cleared. This litter is down to everyone who live in that neighborhood and thus should be the responsibility of the residents but such a thought would, in today's society, never enter their minds. “That's what we pay our taxes for,” is the usual outcry.

The grass verges in our roads needs cutting, they say, never even even considering that all they'd need to to is to take their mower to the verge in the front of their homes when they cut the lawn. Some do, I admit, but the great majority just scream at the council.

It is these little things that anyone could do, and would do, if but someone would start is and set the ball rolling that make a neighborhood a community.

The one thing that bothers me with David Cameron's “Big Society” idea is that it is government putting it forwards and it was not conceived at the grassroots level of society and could, therefore, be seen as a means for government to band aid the cuts.

What worries me, aside from the afore, is that despite all the rhetoric from Cameron and Clegg, the “Big Society” will not really empower communities and individuals to do things in their way and to do the things that are neede where the people live.

Real empowerment of people is something the British government has always been afraid of as it would mean people actually doing and being able to do things for themselves without government having the control.

If this is going to happen and they really want it then I guess the fires have gone out in hell and winter has arrived down there. I find that about as likely as Silvio Berlusconi becoming a communist.

Can you just imagine the people of the UK running their own affairs. This is a total anathema to the modern state and is something that politicians detest because it undermines their power and control over the people.

It would be really nice if we could reduce the state and its interference in our lives to what it really only should be but I am not about to hold my breath. Blue may suit me by way of color for clothing and such but not in face.

In addition to the state relinquishing the power that should not be its I am hard pressed to see the majority of the subjects of Her Majesty to actually do things for themselves, even if they had the “right” to do so, and for their community and for society as a whole.

Most are way too much in this “entitlement society” mode believing that they are entitled to this and that as a right and that they have to do nothing for themselves. After all, they say, we pay our taxes so therefore we are entitled to this all.

The idea of the “Big Society” – I just wish Cameron & Co had chosen a better term – have been implemented for years already in “alternative” communities up and down the country and around the globe and in so-called Transition Towns. It can be done but it cannot be decreed from the top like the “solidarity” idea in former Soviet Russia and the former German Democratic Republic (East Germany), for instance, though, to a great degree it did work, the “solidarity” thing, I mean. Many people of the former German Democratic Republic hunger back to that now.

Despite the Ministry of State Security (Stasi), etc., the GDR had a sense of community, it would seem, in most places, even in blocks of housing, and people looked after each other. I put this also down to the fact that there was no “keeping up with the Joneses” going on as things were, basically, all the same, and theoretically, everyone only could have the basic stuff that could be bought. Not that that always worked and was thus but... I digressed.

While, as I have said, I do like the very concept of the “Big Society” of empowering the people I have serious reservations that (i) this is going to work by having Whitehall tell us and (ii) that people believe that the state is there to do everything for them and that it is what they pay taxes for.

The point is that we should be (allowed to be) doing things for ourselves and not expect the state to do everything for us. But there are two sides here as well in that government has been telling us all the time to look to the “authorities” to do everything for us and the other one that, as I have said already, because they pay taxes, they are entitled to have everything done for them by the state.

The idea of the “Big Society”, sorry about the name, I didn't coin it, and the things it is supposed to achieve, I think, is good and the aims are great but I am not sure as to, and that is what I have been trying to say here, whether the government can get the people enthused about it.

If it would have been something that had originated in a broad demand from grassroots level then my scepticism would be less to nonexistent but as it comes, more or less from the top down and seen to primarily address the existing charities and such, I do not think that the people will follow. I hope I am wrong, but...

© 2011

Post Title

→

The Big Society

Post URL

→

https://national-grid-news.blogspot.com/2011/02/big-society.html

Visit National-grid-news for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

The United Kingdom admits that it will miss its 2010 CO2 target

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The British Government has admitted it will miss its own target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent from 1990 levels by 2010 by a large margin.

New projections from the Department of the Environment (DEFRA) put CO2 emissions in 2010 at only 15.5 per cent below 1990 levels, and note the target had always been intended to be stretching.

The UK Climate Change Program annual report to parliament said it expected emissions of CO2, thought by many, though not by me, and even experts of the highest caliber, to be the main culprit in global warming, the latter which has stopped and plateaued out about 7 years ago and has not moved since, to be 26 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.

"The Government has clearly failed to take the action needed to meet its own targets for cutting the UK's carbon dioxide emissions," Friends of the Earth spokesman Martyn Williams said.

"This unhappy situation is made even worse by the fact that these targets are out of date and massively underestimate the overall level of cuts that is needed."

However, all eyes are screwed to “CO2” emissions and reduction of same in order to stop and reverse the effect that they once referred to as “Global Warming” and now, probably because they all know very well but are still misleading the public, as “Climate Change”.

Yes, the climate is, probably, changing and the Earth is going through cycles of this every so often. There is enough evidence of this in records alone over the last 2000 years let alone further than that. We cannot, of that I am certain, stop it or reverse it. What we must do it to learn to live with it and then live with it.

The Government has prided itself in taking a global leadership role in combating climate change, taking strong measures at home and keeping the issue in the forefront of international negotiations.

But its Climate Change Bill that will set a legal target of cutting national CO2 emissions by at least 60 per cent by 2050 is well behind schedule in the parliamentary process and recent reports have shown the Government slipping from its own agenda.

The Government has even admitted that it has been badly underestimating national emissions, noting that if carbon embedded in imports from China were included then far from falling they would actually have risen sharply.

A report issued by DEFRA ahead of last week's G8 summit in Japan said CO2 emissions fell by 5 per cent between 1992 and 2004.

But it said they actually rose by 115 million tonnes or 18 per cent over the same period when the carbon emissions linked to imported goods were included in the calculation.

Way too much energy – pardon the pun – is being expended on the effort to reduce CO2 emissions; something which is not go to stop nor reverse climate change. The change is happening and it is continuing to happen and it is very doubtful that we can do anything about stopping it.

Having said this, however, I do agree with the fact that we must get away from fossil fuels and the reason is manifold. Not the least being, obviously, the general pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels. In addition to that there is the simple fact that oil, natural gas and coal are running out or have run out, depending where one looks.

So, we are right to look at alternative energy and recycling and all what we are doing and we must intensify that. But, we must stop the stupid notion of CO2 or the reduction of it can stop and/or even reverse climate change. Instead we must look at how we can live with it, for learning to live with it we must. We have no other choice.

We must also reduce our impact on the environment and this not in any way as and effort in regards to reversing climate change for we have just established that it is happening and it is natural and there is probably nothing that we can do against it.

So, we have to learn new ways. New ways of growing things, new ways – and some are not even new at all – of transportation, from personal to the transportation of goods and people, etc. Which also means that we MUST manufacture goods at home again instead of importing them long distances from places such as China; countries with dubious records on standards and labor laws.

Time for a real change...

© M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008

Post Title

→

The United Kingdom admits that it will miss its 2010 CO2 target

Post URL

→

https://national-grid-news.blogspot.com/2008/07/united-kingdom-admits-that-it-will-miss.html

Visit National-grid-news for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

British Prime Minister unveiled new renewable energy plan

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

London, Friday June 27, 2008 – Only last week the Renewables Advisory Board (RAB) have warned that the nation is going to miss its renewable energy targets under current government policy and that even with 100bn investment that the very best that the UK could realistically hope for is to generate 14% of its energy from sustainable sources by 2020. The EU, however, has set Britain a target of 15% renewable energy generation by then.

While other countries will easily achieve such targets, such as Germany, for instance, so it is said, Britain, as per usual, is lagging behind, often due to the fact that there just is not the political will there to implement technology that was not invented and thought of in this country. The UK seems to be struck with this colonial mindset still that, unless it was invented in the UK, it cannot be any good.

Despite, however, the Renewables Advisory Board announcement that the nation is going to miss its renewable energy targets under current government policy Gordon Brown in a speech at the Low Carbon Energy Summit, announced yesterday a £100 billion plan which he says is “the most dramatic change in energy policy since the advent of nuclear power.”

In his speech at the Tate Modern museum Brown said that the North Sea has passed peak for oil and natural gas and will be now turned into “the equivalent for wind power of what the Gulf of Arabia is for oil.” Mr Brown added, “And this is the biggest prize of all: the chance to seize the economic future—securing our prosperity as a nation by reaping the benefits of the global transition to a low carbon economy.”

£100 billion investment to generate 30-35% from renewables, and this in spite of the experts' findings that it cannot be done.

Under the new proposals, which will include a new public advertising campaign to educate people about ways they can reduce their energy and fuel bills, the UK will generate 30-35% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020. An estimated 160,000 new renewable energy jobs will be created directly as a result of the program.

This is a dream and it would appear as if our Prime Minister, as per usual, is not living on this planet but in cloud cuckoo land. Experts that the government itself employed, basically, tell him it ain't gonna work and he ploughs ahead still claiming that it will. Much more is required to do that. We are in 2008, and in the very middle of it and we are going to miss the target for 2020 by miles for it is doubtful if even the 14% can be achieved but he still thinks that we can have one third of all our energy needs – energy needs for electricity, that is – met by wind, wave and solar, with a few small CHP generating plants thrown in? Someone get this PM a rather large alarm clock or strike a big gong.

The Think Tank says 100bn ain't gonna cut it Gordon and he carries on regardless. But then, that is what we have become to expect of this PM with the “I know best” attitude. Not that his predecessor was any better in that.

Mind you, in order to achieve this he is going to send along the “carbon police” and will force householders to reduce their bills through energy-saving incentives due to be announced later this summer, said Brown. Within a decade he said he wanted every householder able to do so to fit loft or cavity wall insulation, install low-energy light bulbs, and use low-energy consumer goods.

Dear Mr Brown, how do you think this is going to work. Especially not with those on the poorer income level, as I wrote in a previous article. They cannot afford to purchase the low-energy consumer goods, such as fridges, freezers and washing machine with the “Energy Star” markings, who all seem to be one third at least more in cost than the “ordinary” ones.

Our biggest and fundamental problem in this country is that Brown doesn't do 'green'. Instead he would rather urge oil producers to extract more oil than invest in technologies that will actually save CO2 emissions now. At the same time he is also playing with the nuclear lobby.

While, and I have written about this before too, fission is not a real option, simply because of the nuclear contaminated waste, we should invest, and indeed should have long ago, into research and development of fusion reactors. The Soviet Union announced well before its collapse that they had succeeded with nuclear fusion reactors. Well, time to take a look at that as, apparently, there is said to be not contaminated waste material.

The truth is that we have never looked at fusion is simply that lack of contaminated waste. No reprocessable spent fuel rods to play with for the military and therefore no interest.

Greenpeace described the new strategy as "visionary", but the environment group warned that ministers had promised much before and had so far failed to deliver.

John Sauven, the group's executive director, said: "If the government actually means it this time, then Britain will become a better, safer and more prosperous country. We could create jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and use less gas, and in the long run our power bills will come down. But it won't happen without real government action."

Philip Wolfe, the executive director of the Renewable Energy Association, said: "Government have produced an energy strategy, not just an electricity strategy. This shows a new maturity in approach, getting away from the soundbite policy-making of the past and looking carefully at the role of renewables in buildings, heat, and transport.

"The key missing factor is a greater sense of urgency. We have only 12 years left and government still wants to use two of those talking about it."

Martin Temple, the chairman of the Engineering Employers' Federation, said: "Moving to a low-carbon economy will create significant business opportunities for the UK, but we will need to move quickly and decisively. Businesses around the world are alive to the massive opportunities and a number of governments are making their exploitation a national priority."

© M Smith (Veshengro), June 2008

Post Title

→

British Prime Minister unveiled new renewable energy plan

Post URL

→

https://national-grid-news.blogspot.com/2008/06/british-prime-minister-unveiled-new.html

Visit National-grid-news for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

Act now to save our natural environment or our country's biodiversity will be lost forever

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

England's green and pleasant land is in catastrophic decline, so we are told, with some of its most precious wildlife at risk of disappearing for ever. This is what the first comprehensive report into the nation's natural life has shown.

In a landmark study into every aspect of the environment, the government advisory body Natural England has compiled research from all corners of the countryside, from woodland and wetland to marine life and salt marsh. Its findings make for bleak reading. Under siege from climate change, development, pollution and aggressive new farming methods, the country's biodiversity is already significantly less rich than it was 50 years ago, “The State of The Environment” report said.

Just 3 per cent of grassland is rich in native plants and a fifth of the countryside is already showing visible signs of neglect, it reported. The collapse of this habitat is having such a devastating effect on native species, including the red squirrel, the turtle dove, the bumblebee and the adder.

"If we don't act now, there's a real danger some of our most precious wildlife will be lost for ever and our lives will be poorer for it", said Helen Phillips, chief executive of Natural England.

Conservation charities echoed her appeal, saying they hoped the report would be a springboard for government action. "This is a timely and hard-hitting call which the Government must heed and act upon," said Sue Armstrong Brown, the RSPB's head of countryside conservation. "We are now seeing the consequences of decades of ignoring environmental limits. Now, with the climate changing and wildlife crashing worldwide, it is time for a new green leadership. There has never been a time when human action has put so much wildlife in peril. The Government should support Natural England's plans and allocate enough money to put them into place."

The report makes clear that, with government commitment, the gradual decline could be combated and even reversed. Its authors are urging action on a series of recommendations which they say could save the natural environment from destruction. "England needs a new approach to conservation if we are to effectively tackle the modern pressures on land created by climate change and development," said Ms Phillips. "We need to find ways to manage our landscape to create a mosaic of uses so that we can help our wildlife survive – be it through new 'national park' around the length of England's coastline, better use of the green belt or improved use of public funding for farmers to deliver a better natural environment."

There are already signs that, with the right level of focus and funding, these schemes can work, with the notable success stories of reintroduced species such as the red kite, the large blue butterfly and the pool frog cited as evidence for the merit of long-term projects.

Numbers of native woodland butterflies species have declined by 50 per cent in 10 years, and their demise is all the more worrying as they are an indicator group – meaning that, as they respond quickly to changes in their environment, they act as a litmus test for the health of the natural world. Natural England has suggested that a return to traditional woodland management might tackle the fall in numbers. By using coppicing – the regular culling of smaller trees – the flowering plants they rely upon will be given the chance to thrive again.

So, the remedy suggested here is to bring back traditional coppicing, regular felling of smaller trees to create open ground for flowers that butterflies rely on.

I can only say that I find it amazing that why the likes of this author and one or two other lone voices have, for the last decades, advocated the return to coppicing the old coppice woodlands in this country which, by the way, is the great majority of the often called “ancient woodlands”, no one wanted to listen, not even the likes of those that are now involved with this report and all claimed that, no, the woodlands had to be left untouched for the betterment of the environment. Well, looks like the old foresters were right after all and those that suggested the bringing back of coppicing.

The management of wetlands and salt marshes has also been analysed in the report, where native species are suffering similarly catastrophic falls. A major decline in wading birds native to unprotected wetlands has been identified, with, for example, the number of snipes down by 90 per cent. Agricultural and urban development has drained the soil in some areas, leaving it too dry for them to survive. However, by preventing further drainage, and reinstating raised water levels, this trend can be reversed.

Natural England has drawn up a manifesto of measures that it believes can change the fate of the countryside. It has put tackling climate change at the top of its spending agenda for the £2.9bn of public money allocated to its cause. To carry this out, it plans to prioritise locking-in carbon, absorbing excess rainwater to prevent flooding and connecting wildlife sites. It will also be helping the Government find space for renewable energy by publishing a map of suitable locations for onshore wind farms.

Another key element of its carbon plan is improved maintenance of upland areas, 29 per cent of which are now in an unfavourable condition. Peat – indigenous to such areas – absorbs more than half of the UK's carbon. But its properties are lost when it dries out, so Natural England has suggested avoiding upland draining and over-grazing in the regions to which it is native.

The Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, said he believed the right measures, such as the planned investment of £2.9bn in agri-environment schemes over the next five years, could make a difference. "We also now recognise that climate change is presenting us with a new challenge in conserving biodiversity and managing our landscapes," he said. "We need new approaches to conservation, and we are working closely with Natural England to develop these."

But this has done little to reassure environmental campaign groups such as Friends of the Earth, who want a more fundamental overhaul of government policy. The group's campaigns co-ordinator, Paul de Zylva, said: "The Government must do more to safeguard our future. Green speeches are not enough – we need urgent action.

"Ministers must put the environment at the heart of all their policies – including transport, the economy, housing and planning – and invest in clean, green solutions that would make Britain a world leader in developing a low-carbon economy."

Post Title

→

Act now to save our natural environment or our country's biodiversity will be lost forever

Post URL

→

https://national-grid-news.blogspot.com/2008/05/act-now-to-save-our-natural-environment.html

Visit National-grid-news for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection