Change We Can't Believe In

So David Cameron has gone with the slogan "Year for Change" the day after The Times exposed just how little change [pdf link] there was in his list of candidates.

Yesterday it was revealed that of 167 candidates questioned by The Times 83 gave their idea of a political hero, 32 of which chose Margaret Thatcher. Indeed Mo Mowlam with 4 was double the number who had suggested the new 'change' hero of the party David Cameron was their hero. Of course the Cameron/Osborne urge to cut the deficit quickly and bugger the consequences to the workers is right up there with Thatcherite thinking at the start of her time of 'change'.

There was also a Populus poll of 36 sitting MPs and 34 prospective candidates, which did show that the new guard may have some hope, but the problem is that they will be backbenchers to the sitting MPs filling the cabinet spots if they form a Government. 16% of the MPs believed multiculturalism was a good thing whereas 52% of the PPCs did. That is better but only over half, and therefore hardly a sign of total change for our multicultural Britain. On gay couples having equal rights there was 35% of the sitting MPs in favour to 65% of the PPCs. However, on cllimate change it was the sitting MPs who were more in line with public opinion 27% of them believed it was man-made only 9% of the potential new members.

So the new intake will be less opposed to multiculturalism (but still the majority will think it isn't all good), less homophobic, but bigger climate change deniers than the Tories currently are.

There is change but not the seismic shift that Cameron tells us has happened. It's also hardly change that many should be believing in

Copenhagen in Sporting Imagery

Cartoon by Martin Rowson
in the Guardian 19 December 2009

Well the world came, they talked, they didn't really agree anything.

The sportsman in me knows that you have to set a goal a target to aim for. Sometimes you end up reaching that goal, I have won two Irish Junior cups at bowls as well as several other titles. Sometimes you miss, I didn't make the 1992 Olympics for example. But they were both goals that were set and they were both something that I strived for.

What has come out of Copenhagen is a non-binding accord to limit temperature increases to no more than 2C, but has not set any targets on how to do so. For me as a athlete that would be like saying I'm going to run a sub 4 minute mile (which I have done in the past) but have no clear way of how I'm going to train to do so, nor any idea of how I'm going to run the race to do so.

So how would I go about running that race to get to sub four without a plan. I could set off as fast as I could. Yeah I could run the first 100m in about 11 seconds. If I do that 16 and a little bit more times I'd run a mile in under three minutes. Easy. Err no.

Ok I'd set off then at a gentle jog and start to really run after the first three minutes are up. Only after the first three minutes I have only run a quarter mile, and I have to run the other three quarters of a mile in one minute. Something not even Usain could run at that required pace for.

After two years of planning to get to this summit in the final hours the issues of emissions cuts, monitoring of emissions and the legal nature of the deal all re-emerged in the final hours of negotiations. Taking a different sporting metaphor this is like getting to the final minutes of a game of football only to realise that the size of the net, selection of a referee and the rules of the game are contended by each of the players on the park and several of the fans. We wouldn't stand that in our sports following, how come we are to accept it for something as important as the future of our planet.

Yesterday there were rumours that the worlds leaders were going to be asked to stay in Copenhagen until they came to a substantive and target based agreement. It would be better than the hogswash of a document that they did.

Barack Obama says:

"This progress is not enough. We have come a long way, but we have much further to go."

Gordon Brown says:

"This is the first step we are taking towards a green and low-carbon future for the world, steps we are taking together. But like all first steps, the steps are difficult and they are hard.

"I know what we really need is a legally binding treaty as quickly as possible."

Only thing is Prime Minister this isn't the first step, this is a vital step along the way. This step may well have been like one an Olympic diver takes on the platform before the dive. The end result is either to soar to success or miss the end of the board and fall to a horrible mess. Sadly the second is a lot closer to the step that has been taken.

As Martin Rowson illustrates above it is like the World Leaders have washed their hands of their responsibility like Pontius Pilate. They should have been kept at the negotiations until they really did have a deal to help the world.

World Leaders to Pull an All Nighter in Copenhagen

Recently reading my student friend's updates on Facebook or Twitter I've seen numerous of them stating that they were pulling "all-nighters" to get the end of term essays finished. The latest news from Copenhagen is that the Danes are telling the world leaders not to go anywhere just yet on what is meant to be the last day of the Climate Change Summit.

Of course all nighters at the end of a period of discussion can get a result. The Northern Irish Agreement was meant to have been concluded on Maundy Thursday, it was only as a result of an all-nighter that the Agreement was made and the far more friendly Good Friday Agreement came into being.

President Obama sat down for an hour with the Chinese leader Wen Jiabao for an hour earlier in a head to head of what many correspondents see as the two key players in getting a global agreement settled. However, BBC News has just stated that President Obama is on his way to the airport and Air Force One to head to his Christmas vacation on Hawaii. He had earlier said he had come "not to talk, but to act". Whereas the Chinese Premier said:

"To meet the climate change challenge, the international community must strengthen confidence, build consensus, make vigorous efforts and enhance co-operation."

Apparently the major stumbling block at the moment is the American $100bn a year fund to help the developing countries business to develop in a green way. The Americans are wanting assurances that this is what the money will be going towards, the Chinese who are heading up the G77 of the developing nations is urging the USA to trust them to make sure this is what happens.

There are still poles of difference between these two major players, but it may be down to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to move the issue onwards if an agreement is to be made before the world heads away from Copenhagen. President Sarkozy of France however is saying that the Chinese are the ones currently holding up the talks.

UPDATE: Within half an hour of me first hearing this the BBC are now stating that the UN Secretary General's office is denying that such an edict to world leaders has been issued. However, I'm saying why not?

What Bank Ki Moon's office is saying is that they are still hoping to reach an agreement in a few hours, without the need for overnight discussions. Although it may no longer be a Treaty but an Accord that is signed and that a deadline (2010) to sign up for a legally binding agreement may be omitted from the final text.

FURTHER UPDATE: Latest Facebook update at 16:15 from Lib Dem MEP for Scotland George Lyon does not make for good reading.

Time for the Rich to Heed Africa

The African countries have walked out of the Copenhagen talks because of the lack of movement from the industrialised countries to take responsible action now, beyond the Kyoto measures. The formal talks are currently therefore in suspension.

The African nations are amongst those that are liable to feel the first major effects of any catastrophic climatic change. That is if they are already not suffering from this. Around 200 activists in the hall started to shout "We Stand for Africa - Kyoto Targets now" when news of the African unrest that the Danes hosting the summit were about t0 sideline an extension of emission cuts under Kyoto.

The EU and other developed countries were discussing a new agreement out of Copenhagen, but the African countries were fearful that the gains made under Kyoto in 1997 would be swept aside as a result. The US commitment to 3% under its 1990 level while a big move from where they currently are is one of the prime examples of a behind Kyoto agreed levels. As this has come from one of the biggest producers of CO2 the need for change here is at its most critical. In the eyes of Africa the rich and greedy nations of the world are not doing enough to help alleviate their painful future.

Africa is speaking up because their survival is most at risk by the dolittle's of the industrialised nations. They know the need of radical reform first hand, they are now crying out for it. They are no longer prepared to be walked over as a great price of what is at stake is known to them, it is not just a mild irritating increase in temperature to them, but a real danger that they will never be able to feed their own people as a result.

Sarah Palin Carry On Delusioned

Sarah Palin is writing in the Guardian today about why the man who kept out of the VP's office should not attend Copenhagen. As you would expect from a climate change denier such as the former Governor of Alaska it is full of holes.

She talks about the 'serious cuts' that America is making, countering it with the increase being allowed by China and India. There is one issue here the cuts that Obama is making is only going to take the US down 3% on 1990 levels, which is actually behind where most of the rest of the developed world already is beyond. The thing is that America wasn't allowed to increase it carbon emissions the way that it did under Bush and republican lead houses that batted away attempts by Clinton to bring about a change. If anything the serious cuts from America are long overdue and too little at this time.

She also goes on to say that carrying out the proposed cuts will put America at an economic and competitive disadvantage. Well she is clearly ignoring the economic and competitive advantage that the USA has benefited from by ignoring the directives of Kyoto while others of us have pushed for reductions. Indeed instead of job losses it has seen more inventiveness and jobs moving in other directions. Indeed when I was studying environmental economics 20 years ago at University it was of the considerations that we addressed. There where several major difference that had to be made.

• The things that were produced
• What they were produced from (i.e. recycling rather than finite raw material)
• How we went about producing them
• How the workers environment changed to meet the challenge (this was mainly the home working model)

So if twenty years ago we were aware of the issue what happened in East Anglia after that is one thing that will have no impact. As someone who isn't a johnny come lately to the argument but spent a good part of my University years studying this and the economic impacts and been a keen follower of developments since I can say that Sarah once again has shown her ignorance of the facts.

However, she does speak a few lines of sense in her Comment is Free piece. One of the them is:

"Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental
policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits."

She is right. But from ready her article she makes the very basic economic mistake in thinking that all costs and benefits are measured in GDP. In the real world our social, environmental and sustainability costs and benefits are all to be taken into consideration. If we didn't we'd all be working 25/7/365 because the financial costs are of such a great boon.

Today the World Speaks as One

With all eyes turning to Copenhagen this morning the world is hoping for a result that the planet can live with coming out of the Climate talks. 56 papers in 45 countries covering 20 languages (incudung Chinese, Russian and Arabic) including our own Guardian have taken the unprecedented step of carrying a common editorial, many have also moved it to their front page.

I'll let you read it for yourself, but I'll also direct you to the story of how this project came about.

The Wave That Flooded Glasgow #TheWave

Pictures by James Harrison

I'm sitting on the bus heading back home after the Wave in Glasgow. You may be asking why so late but at Kelvingrove Park the use of my laptop was requested by LYS for use of the secretary at their exec meeting held afterwards, which is the end was not in fact used.

Anyway this was the driest Wave I have ever been in the middle of, I have have been in some big Atlantic rollers at the strands in Portrush or Portstewart when we holidayed when I was a child. The Glasgow weather was mercifully dry while we were on the march, showers however, did give us a light soaking as we headed off to find somewhere to eat.

First off no sooner had I arrived at Ibrox underground station where the Lib Dems had agreed to congregate than I was greeted by the vision of the Linlithgow Climate Challenge team arriving with their banner. It was good to see them here as well.

George Lyon MEP, Robert Brown MSP and Alison McInnes MSP along with Glasgow North PPC Katy Gordon were prominent Lib Dems who were on the march. We formed up at Bellahouston Park before winding our way towards and over the Cylde. I also for quite a bit of the march was walking alongside or close to Green MSP Patrick Harvie. It actually felt good to be part of a Scottish Lib Dem contingent at a march and actually be one of those responsible for raising the average age.

Yes Liberal Youth Scotland were out in force and indeed it was their posters that you can see all of us carrying in the picture above. They have had a busy weekend yesterday they flashmobbed the Student Loan's Company in Glasgow*, then they headed off to help Ashai Ghay the Lib Dem candidate in next Thursday's Bearsden South by election, then The Wave and an exec meeting today.

There was quite a crowd there and just across the bridge next to the SECC we formed a big loop just off Finnieston Street. Here we all grouped up and did a a couple of Mexican waves down the whole march and then headed off to Kelvingrove Park, for the rally at the end of the march.


The official even photographer asked us to come over for a group picture behind the events official sign and as he levelled us all up he did say this is "big group".

Now we must hope that the message that the people in Glasgow and elsewhere have sent to the delegates heading to Copenhagen has a real impact. Hope they have listened to and seen us and the coverage we have had across the news and know that now is the time to take action.

PS I have lost the scarf in Wave colours that you can see above. Which is wierd as I distinctly remember having it at the QMU and remembering to pick it up as we were leaving.

PPS I tweeted about the absence of certain political presence at the Glasgow Wave while on the move. The absence of any grassroots support for this issue by these two really is a worry for the future.



*This led to representation coming down to discuss with them their issues on the doorstep.

The Wave #TheWave

As you may well be aware there are mass demonstrations in London and Glasgow ahead of next week's Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen. As I will be out and about on the streets of Glasgow here is a feel for the event from the hastags and some of the Twitter accounts that I follow of people who will be there at either location.

I'm a Bit Disappointed with Nick Clegg

Bet that headline has shocked some of you.

Yeah I know I can hear the Nats saying "Nick? Don't you mean Tavish?". I can hear certain Labourites going blah about time. I can also sense certain Lib Dems are working out how to do me in. But bear with me and let me tell you why.

Nick has just sent an email to all the Lib Dem supporters asking "What are you doing tomorrow?". Well I have a very good answer, do you? He then goes on to invite me to join him and Simon Hughes. I'd love to, I haven't spoken to either of them since Bournemouth and would love to catch up. However, he also tells me this is my last chance to take action.

What I'm disappointed with is that Nick seems to think that I can only take that action in London at the Copenhagen - The Wave demo in London. Well I'm not going to fly down there to take part in a Climate Change demonstration.

What I am doing tomorrow though is getting on a bus and heading to Glasgow. No I'll not be shopping in Buchannan Gallery or at the Fort or anywhere. I'll be marching through the streets of Glasgow as part of the The Wave march north of the border, see you don't have to be in London to make your voice heard.

If you are not able to get the London though here is Simon Hughes who you won't see in Glasgow telling you how important tomorrow is.



So therefore as you can imagine I'm only a bit disappointed with Nick, thankfully many of his colleagues are giving equal billing to both marches.

How Green are Our Copenhagen Delegates?

I see that Prince Charles is to 'attend' the Copenhagen conference on Climate Change. I say attend, he has been invited to make an address during the opening of the conference, in total he will be in the Danish capital for all of four hours.

Which asks the question how will he be getting to conference? Is this a flying visit in both the literal and figurative senses? Indeed how will anyone be getting there? Obviously some of the long haul delegates will have to fly, but with High Speed Rail links across Europe surely the Europeans should be making every effort to get there by using less CO2 and letting the train take the strain?

That is just what George Lyon Scotland's Lib Dem MEP and Simon Hughes representing the party at UK level are doing. Of the 38 UK delegates 19 of the 38 have so far confirmed that they will be flying. Why? Simon Hughes says his train ticket cost him £398, the cost so far claimed for travel with not all travel costs claimed by the delegation is £17,500 averaging £420. So no only is it costing the planet more in CO2 it is costing the taxpayer more as well.

Indeed it is estimated that the total CO2 cost of the conference will come to 41,000 tons, approximately the annual emissions of Morocco. Surely we should expect more of our own delegation. Indeed Eurostar give advise on how to get to Copenhagen by train. It is no more arduous that some trips made by Scottish MPs on a weekly basis for work. Yet somehow when we have a chance to do something practical as well as merely talking about it half our delegation at least are not looking into greener options.

As an aside I know that Prince Charles does his best to carbon offset his travel emissions, but how many of the other delegates will be doing so?

Postcard From Cumbria

I've just recieved an email from Westmorland's MP Tim Farron which I am going to share with you all.

This is what the weather's been like in my constituency in Cumbria this last week:

I'm sure you've heard about the floods which have forced hundreds of families out of their homes. A life has been lost and repairs could cost hundreds of millions of pounds.

Sadly, as the climate changes over the coming years, events like those of the last week will grow more and more frequent. The cost to society, both here and all over the world, will continue to grow. That is why I need your help to tackle climate change.

There is a big demonstration planned in London next Saturday, December 5, to help persuade the Government to go further in cutting carbon emissions.

It comes ahead of the vital United Nations climate change talks in Copenhagen the following week.

Hundreds of Liberal Democrats have already signed up to come on the march. If you haven't yet said you will come - I would love you to join us. If you're one of the many who are coming along, please bring your friends as well, helping provide a real show of force and a fantastic message to both the Government and the public.

You can let us know you're coming here.

All the details of the day can be found on Act, our new social action network. On Act, you can sign up to the event - as well as talk about how to tackle climate change with other Lib Dem supporters, and much more.

Hope you can make it next Saturday.

Best wishes,

Tim Farron MP
Lib Dem Shadow Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

While I won't be making it all the way down to London for a Climate Change Rally, I'd have to fly to make all my committments and make it in time. I am attending the simultaneous one in Glasgow from Bellahouston Park to Kelvingrove Park, details can be found on Facebook. If you're Scottish based and you care see you there.

Deal or Too Slow Deal

I've just seen Gordon Brown's response to Nick Clegg's questioning in PMQs about the Copenhagen summit and raising the issue that Labour is doing too little (I'd add too late) on the Climate Change.

Brown replied that ALL parties should campaign together for a deal at Copenhagen. Strangely that only last week all parties bar one, plus Sammy Wilson of the DUP, did vote positively for their own responsibility, agreeing to vote for Parliament signing up to 10:10. Of course we know the one that was largely against was Brown's own party. Ed Milliband tried to explain this anomaly in talk and action away by saying (my comments in red):

"10:10 is a campaign which Labour supports: all Cabinet ministers have signed up to try to reduce their CO2 emissions by 10% in 2010. It's a great motivator of public action to cut carbon emissions through individual and collective behaviour change and I hope it helps to build public support for action by governments to agree an ambitious, effective and fair deal at Copenhagen. This is a great opening paragraph one I cannot fault.

"It's also true that signing up can be an important step to sustaining long term emissions cuts. That's why Labour-run councils and Labour groups are signing up to 10:10; we want local authorities to have local carbon budgets, and signing up to 10:10 is an important step towards that goal. Again bravo!

"But Oops! as a government we have a much bigger too big to take personal action?, long term goal that we set out in the framework of the Climate Change Act last year. Five months ago we put flesh on that framework when we agreed - with the support of the Lib Dems and the official ouch! Opposition things have changed in five months – the first three carbon budgets for this country. Those budgets are 3 five year cycles moving from last year to 2022. The problem of course is that the whole thrust of the 10:10 campaign is that we no longer appear to have the luxury of waiting until 2022 hence the need for drastic acceleration starting NOW!


"So every government department is committed to a long term reduction in carbon emissions – not just in 2009, not just in 2010, but through to 2022 and beyond failing to recognise the fact that 10:10 also believes these need cutting beyond as well. The public sector has already reduced its emissions by a third between 1990 and 2007 this has shot up from 21% or 18% from last week circa one fifth. Impressive or lies? and the Government is on track to meet and exceed its carbon emissions target of 12.5% as I said last week that is inclusive of carbon trading actually 8.5% reductions from across its estate by 2010-11.

"We're now allocating £20 million pounds to cut CO2 emissions from both the government estate and its transport to achieve those goals." Again while it looks impressive spending to save the planet but isn't really that much especially when but beside the £1.5trillion to save the banks.

So I think that Nick's question was very well justified, and Gordon should really have taken his own answer to heart only last week, instead of playing a political game of football.

Rudduck: She's Not a Perfect (or Complete) 10:10

One of the most cited reasons from the Labour benches in yesterday's Climate Change (Political Response) debate was how well the Government had done since 1990. Indeed the Minister Joan Ruddock said:

"Since 1990, greenhouse gas emissions in the UK have reduced by 18 per cent., or 21 per cent. if we add in the reductions made through the European Union emissions trading scheme, but we are in no way complacent."

Hardly a confusion as she is using both figures as pointed out in today's Telegraph. It wouldn't have been such a big deal if a few lines later she said:

"The Government are already on track to meet and exceed their carbon emissions target—I ask hon. Members to listen to this—of 12.5 per cent. reductions across their estate by 2010-11. We have already put that in place and we are already on track."

What she did moments later was to only publicly state one figure whereas earlier she had pointed out both. Why? Well, as Sir Michael Scholar, chairman of the UK Statistics Authority pointed out if offsets from international carbon trading are not included carbon dioxide emissions fell by 8.5 per cent. Headline grabbing to try and appease Labour over 10% but underlying far short.

As Robin Oakley, Head of Climate Change for Greenpeace said:

"If we are going to tackle climate change we have to do it for real, not just fiddle the figures."

Sadly this is what Labour attempted to do last night. They are negating their responsibility.

Worse still is that the Government figures are even double counting the professional insulation installations and sales of loft lagging from DIY shops when the two are for the one outcome.

For the record the Scottish MPs who fell for this line of figure fiddling rhetoric rather than voting for real action were

Douglas Alexander Paisley and Refrewshire South
Gordon Banks Ochil and South Perthshire
Anne Begg Aberdeen South
Des Browne Kilmarnock and Loudoun
David Cairns Inverclyde
Tom Clarke Coatbridge, Chyston & Bellshill
Michael Connarty Linlithgow and Falkirk East
Alistair Darling Edinburgh South West
Ian Davidson Glasgow South West
Brian Donohoe Central Ayrshire
Nigel Griffiths Edinburgh South
David Hamilton Midlothian
Tom Harris Glasgow South
Jim Hood Lanark and Hamilton East
Eric Joyce Falkirk
Mark Lazarowicz Edinburgh North and Leith
John McFall West Dumbartonshire
Jim McGovern Dundee West
Ann McKechin Glasgow North
Rosemary McKenna Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintillock East
Sandra Osborne Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock
John Robertson Glasgow North West
Frank Roy Motherwell and Wishaw
Lindsay Roy Glenrothes
Mohammad Sarwar Glasgow Central
Jim Sheridan Paisley and Refrewshire North

Labour's Failure by Ommission #1010

I've already written that I couldn't see details of the Labour amendment to the Lib Dem motion on

Here is what Joan Ruddock moved as the alternative to the Lib Dem motion which Labour voted down earlier:

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Joan Ruddock): I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

"welcomes the 10:10 campaign as a motivator of public action to cut carbon dioxide emissions through individual and collective behaviour change; recognises the value of such campaigns to build public support for action by governments to agree an ambitious, effective and fair deal at Copenhagen; further recognises the significant effort made by individuals and organisations to cut their emissions through the 10:10 campaign; supports the Climate Change Act introduced by this Government, the first such legislation in the world, and the system of carbon budgets that enables Britain to set itself on a low carbon pathway; notes that carbon budgets ensure active policies by Whitehall departments and the public sector that deliver long-term sustained emissions reductions not just in 2010 but through to 2022 and beyond; further supports the efforts of local councils to move towards local carbon budgets by signing up to the 10:10 campaign; further welcomes the allocation of up to £20 million for central Government departments to enable them to reduce further and faster carbon dioxide emissions from their operations, estate and transport; and further welcomes the cross-cutting Public Value Programme review of the low carbon potential of the public sector, which will focus on how the sector can achieve transformational financial savings through value-for-money carbon reductions."

Now there is one thing that the Lib Dem motion didn't do. It didn't supercede the relevance and importance of the Climate Change Act. Nor did it over-ride the operations of Central Government departments to reduce their own omissions.

What the Labour amendment didn't do was to include the House itself.

As Don Foster asked Ms Ruddock:

"Can [the Minister of State] explain why the amendment praises everybody else for signing up to the 10:10 campaign, and yet it refuses to allow this House to join in with it?"

Well in her response I think I found the answer:

"We know that action is required at all levels, which is why we applaud the efforts of the 10:10 campaign and encourage greater ambition and getting ordinary people involved. We also agree with 10:10 that the public sector must lead, and have put in place a raft of mechanisms to make that happen. The Liberal Democrat motion calls for all the public sector to reduce its emissions by 10 per cent. in 2010 and for the Government to produce a delivery plan by the end of this year. I regret to say that that is typical Liberal Democrat posturing. Only a party that never expects to be in government could propose a motion for a totally uncosted, unthought-through programme for a single year cut, as opposed to the sustained actions already under way to meet our carbon budgets—carbon budgets that are designed to deliver three times as much, and that were proposed by us in Committee on 18 May and agreed by the Liberal Democrats."

Wow! I just hope Lembit never has to bring to the House news that he was wrong and that a meteorite will destroy the planet earlier. I'd hate to see a similar response while a big ball hurtles through space at us quicker than anticipated.

In replying to an intervention by Jo Swinson it got even more bizarre.

"Regrettably, the hon. Lady has not been listening to what I have said. I have been making it very clear what is already under way and why signing up to the 10:10 campaign does not make sense—[HON. MEMBERS: "This House."] This House can choose to do what this House wants to do, but the Government are clearly not committing the public sector as a whole—this is what the motion seeks—to the 10:10 campaign."

Now forgive me here for looking confused here, but didn't the amendment she moved say "that carbon budgets ensure active policies by Whitehall departments and the public sector that deliver long-term sustained emissions reductions not just in 2010 but through to 2022 and beyond"? Doesn't that mean that they can influence the public sector as a whole? And didn't her motion also omit the House of Commons itself from 10:10?

So therefore the power that she wanted to claim in her opening words is now not a power she professes to not have less than 15 minutes* later. Yet the one piece of central Government she cannot possibly argue she doesn't have jurisdiction over she has chosen to omit. Maybe this is what Linda Gilfoy means by a "stronger amendment" but many people out there are shaking their heads in disbelief.

In a separate paragraph of his letter to me last night Michael Connarty wrote:

"[This motion] reminds me of the Militant in the Labour Party in the 1980's, who didn't want an improvement or progress, but only to score points against the Party for not being 'Socialist' enough. Obviously if the Opposition Motion is couched in a manner that attacks the Labour Government, which has actually done so much to prioritise reversal of Climate Change, I will vote against such a motion, even if is attempting to hijack the 10:10 campaign."

Now forgive me Michael for again looking confused. From reading and watching the debate the only way the motion was couched as an attack on the Labour Government appeared to be by the Labour Government. I'm sure my MP knows me well enough to know that I have actively looked for improvement and progress on Climate Change including being in at the outset of Linlithgow Climate Challenge. Rather than hijacking the 10:10 campaign the motion was seeking to endorse it an expand its reach.

Having seen the result I'm sure Michael stood in the No lobby (I await confirmation from Hansard). But I hope that when he stood there 'point scoring' that he was working out how to face the many who have already made great steps across the constituency to combat their personal and civic carbon footprint whom he has let down today.

PS Ironically one Labour group in Westminster is not scared to commit themselves to 10:10 today.

UPDATE: No confirmed that Michael Connarty voted no. As did three of Labour's Edinburgh MPs Alistair Darling, Nigel Griffiths and Mark Lazarowicz, plus Falkirk's Eric Joyce.

* I'll get more detailed timing when the official full record is reported tomorrow.

Just who is playing party politics with climate change

I wasn't going to post the contents of the email I got back from Michael Connarty last night until I heard the same refrain from elsewhere. Here is the motion I asked him to back:

"That this House believes it is vital that the UK demonstrates political leadership at all levels in response to the climate crisis, and that this is particularly important ahead of the United Nations Climate Change summit in Copenhagen if there is to be an international agreement which will avert the worst effects of catastrophic climate change; further believes that immediate practical responses to the crisis should include a massive expansion of renewable energy and energy efficiency and a commitment for all homes in Britain to be warm homes within ten years; acknowledges that action taken now to tackle the climate crisis will cost less than action taken in the future; notes the declared support of Labour and Conservative frontbenchers to the objective of the 10:10 campaign which calls for 10 per cent greenhouse gas emission reductions by the end of 2010; agrees that the House will sign up to the 10:10 campaign; calls on Her Majesty’s government and all public sector bodies now to make it their policy to achieve a 10 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the end of 2010; and further calls on the government to bring a delivery plan before this House by the end of 2009 on how these objectives will be achieved."

Looks pretty much like what the Lib Dems called for at our Autumn conference. However, Michael's opening salvo in his email back to me was:

"I support the 10:10 proposal, but sadly the Lib Dems in the UK parliament have decided to make it a point scoring exercise rather than getting cross party support on a useful target to try to set public authorities, councils and Quangos. I have spoken to your Scottish MPs about their Party's sillyness."

But surely I read in the above 'calls on Her Majesty’s government and all public sector bodies now to make it their policy to achieve a 10 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the end of 2010'. So Michael do you support 10:10 or not? I merely ask as that is the core of the message in a nutshell and is what Government can legislate for. If not what useful target do you want to set public authorities, councils and Quangos? Be careful how you answer that as even I recognise that the 10% is going to have to be achieved through tough measures. So higher seems unlikely, therefore I'm guessing based on the past 12 years experience you'll be asking less.

There's even acknowledgement that both the other major parties front bench teams have given their backing to the objective of 10:10. The fact that they have and have yet to talk about, let alone bring a delivery plan to be is an issue that needs to be addressed.

What draws me back to the subject I blogged about earlier was that Labour Internet Tsar Kerry McCarthy MP tweeted about a stronger Labour amendment that she would be backing. She's not alone, Plymouth MP Linda Gilroy used surprising similar language to that of Michael Connarty and Kerry. Indeed she says:

"I think the Lib Dems are playing politics with something that should be above politics.

"I would hope to be in a position to vote for a strong motion as amended by the Government to reflect the leadership role it continues to play. We were the first country in the world to put into law such a comprehensive framework."

So let me get this right as the motion may not reflect the strong leadership (see the graphs from earlier folks) that Labour have given they will not be backing a 10% reduction in public sector CO2 emissions in the next 14 months. The reason I stumbled across Mrs Gilroy's comments was of course trying to find the wording of the Labour amendment. Silly me after yesterday's I should have guessed that was a vain hope.

Piecing two and two together, it would appear that the amendment will be looking for a useful target to be set. By that I'm guessing they'll not impose 10% by the next year, maybe even leave it up to individual departments to come to their own figure. It will praise the Labour Government for setting targets, buying carbon credits, holding off doing much constructively until near the target dates. After all a landing on the magic figure however it is achieved is better than not setting the targets at all, right? Wrong.

The longer we put off reducing our emissions on target for the final deadline the closer the unfortunate deadlines move forward too. Those unfortunate deadlines include the earth's temperature rising, climate being irreversibly changed and weather patterns being distorted. The irony for the UK is that global warming is liable to lead to a UK cooling and the Atlantic Drift Current diverts away from our shores.

I look forward to seeing the wording of the Government amendment I doubt it is as clearly put as the Lib Dem motion and therein lies the crux of just who is playing party politics with the climate. Are Labour really above politics in this issue themselves, or are they just wanting to count up past points ignoring demerits in their own achievements?

10:10 Chance for Parliament to Lead by Example

Today the Lib Dems have secured an opposition day motion to call on Parliament to commit to 10:10 cutting Parliaments carbon emissions by 10% in 2010.

It will be a real test of the greenery of the Tory party. while their front bench have signed up to the premise the rest of the party are lurching forward less keenly. Unlike the Lib Dems who passed a motion at conference calling for Parliament, councils and individuals to sign up, and Labour who followed as a party down in Brighton. Only last week the Tory members down the river at the London Assembly walked out of the discussion on signing up to 10:10 and left the meeting inquorate. Of the 41 councils to sign up or are waiting to do so only two are Tory-led councils, Stroud and East Sussex which considering they have the majority is shockingly poor.

But even Labour are hedging somewhat. From talking to friends last night some Labour MPs are being non-committal, while other are accusing the Lib Dems of playing party politics with the issue and threatening to vote against if Labour are attacked in the debate. There does seem to be some pre-emptive ground work going on in some Labour camps to excuse saying no. Is there some whipping agenda afoot?

While Labour have set targets for carbon reduction they are leaving much of the work to the end rather than a steady reduction. The real effect of their slumbering towards climate targets is shown below.

However, 10:10 is a real effort to shift that balance and make a real impart in a short term, to get us ahead of the curve, show us what is doable. Indeed worryingly if you look at the split by industry you will see that the biggest contributors to CO2 emissions our power stations have actually increased their emissions over the last 10 years and only just started to come back down but are still over 20 Megatonnes over their 1999 low point.



Worryingly today it may well be that party politics gets played with the future of our planet. But if it is it will be from the tired old Labour party trying to look like they won't be pushed and the Tories who will be revealed for who they really are. There is still time to visit the 38 Degrees Website and get an email off to your MP before he goes through the lobbies this afternoon click here for an easy way to let your MP know the importance of this issue today.

We May All End Up Veggie

There is bad news ahead it seems for all the carnivores in the UK, i.e. those that cannot survive without meat with every meal. Both the Scotsman and the Times are running with the warning from the Food Security plan that rationing and vegetarianism may become a way of life for the UK in the decades ahead.

The reasons for this shift and warning despite the UK being 70% self sufficient in food at the moment are growing world population, climate change brining extreme weather conditions, higher fuel costs and crops being grown for bio-fuels and not food. The food security plan has also considered disease to animal stocks, disruption to power supplies, trade disputes and interruptions to shipping and at ports as with increased need more piracy may lead to hazards with importing supplies.

But the British people may not need to worry too much about a meat free diet the most extreme result if the UK had to feed itself may well lead to that level. It would occur if the cereals we currently grow to feed livestock had to be shifted towards human consumption. However, rationing is likely to come in first. We currently have an average intake of 2,800 calories per day compared with 2,100 in the 1960s.

But things may well have to change if climate change leads to reduced water availability how we grow our crops will have to be reconsidered. If trade with a few trading partners Argentina and Brazil dries up for whatever reason our level of meat and poultry would be reduced. Hilary Benn the environment minister said:

"We need a radical rethink in how we produce and consume food. Globally we need to cut emissions and adapt to the changing climate that will alter what we can grow and where we can grow it. We must maintain the natural resources — soils, water and biodiversity — on which food production depends."

"And because we live in an interconnected world — where the price of soya in Brazil affects the price of steak at the local supermarket — we need to look at global issues that affect food security here. That’s why we need to consider what food systems should look like in 20 years and what must happen to get there."

So although the news isn't of immediate concern the fact is that we may all need to start to rethink our eating habits. Having stayed the weekend with friends and eaten some of the produce of their back garden like I did a great deal in the 70s from my parents' vegetable patch this sort of thing may become more of a reality in the years ahead, for a lot more people.

However, the report those show the international co-dependency of the food chain and that there are a few cogs that the UK has little to no control over and that if it were to cease up we'll need to look at alternatives. So although I'm well prepared for a vegetarian diet the rest of you will not have to jump that far, just yet.

Is Recession Going to Suffocate Earth?

The news that Iberdrola Renewables are to slash their investment in Britain by more than 40 per cent, or £300 million, is possibly a worrying sign that the financial mess we have got into may have more damaging effects to our world than merely in its pocket.

Iberdrola are one of the world's largest investors in wind farms, BP and Shell have also shelved of pulled out of projects in recent months including the Thames Estuary porject. But the economic downturn compounded with problems of access to the grid and planning delays is making the UK a place that the international leaders are shying away from investing in.

Xabier Viteri, chief of Iberdrola Renewables, whose Spanish parent owns ScottishPower, blamed the economic crisis for the move but added that problems in Britain could force his company to consider investing elsewhere.

However, fair play to Ed Milliband in part. The energy minister earlier this week equated opposition to wind farms as "socially unacceptable . . . like not wearing your seatbelt or driving past a zebra crossing". I say only in part as the Minister has picked up the Labour myopia when it comes to renewables and focuses only on wind and not on developing a balanced portfolio of renewable energy sources, both to cover outages and to spread the load. He also tends to look at large micro projects to the disregard or micro generation or small scale projects to assist the effort against climate change.

Sammy Wilson an Insidious Propaganda Machine

Back in the summer of 1987 I had a temporary Economics teacherat Regent House. At the time he was a Belfast City Councillor and press officer for the DUP. We would occasionally have our classed broken my his phone and early mobile going off in the the storeroom where it was inevitably on charge.

We had a propaganda machine in our classroom. That early mobile would feed one sides argument to the BBC, UTV or the printed press.

That propaganda machine's user is now the Northern Irish Environment Minister Sammy Wilson MP, MLA. Not everyone, certainly not the majorities, ideal choice of environment minister as he is a climate change denier. He hasn't got of to a good start with many of his pronouncements thus far.

Well he has truly but his foot in it this time. The UK Department of Energy and Climate Change was to run a advertisement campaign in all parts of the UK except Scotland. Scotland were excused because the Scottish executive was planning its own campaign on the same lines. Sammy has said NO! to showing the ad in Northern Ireland. He called it an "insidious propaganda machine".

Now the ad it right out there how it can be working or spreading any message harmfully in a subtle or stealthy manner to make it insidious is beyond me. Maybe one of the lads he taught that summer in 1987, who went on to take Economics at University and took two specialist courses in environmental and energy economics could give his old teacher a lesson on the subject of his brief. That is something I may get around to later today.

In the meantime there are obviously calls for the resignation of a Minister who doesn't have the best insterests of the electorate for his brief to the forefront of his actions.

Linlithgow Awarded Climate Challenge Funds

Linlithgow Climate Change have secured £93,845 in the third round of funding from the Climate Challenge Fund which was announced today. The group has issued the following statement.

Linlithgow Climate Challenge (LCC) have been granted £93,845 from the
Climate Challenge Fund to reduce the carbon footprint of Linlithgow through
co-ordination and administration of a suite of projects geared to engage the
community of Linlithgow. LCC aim to engage a diverse spectrum of
local community groups, individuals & businesses with several projects to
find the most suitable ecological engagement. Some may prefer simple advice on
energy saving through insulation, while others may require more support and
education to grow local food. Businesses may wish to adopt more sustainable
business practices and supply chains. Whatever the local needs, LLC will offer
assistance to guide our community towards effective solutions towards a carbon
footprint reduction for the town.

As a not-for-profit organisation, we will remain guided by
general community consensus and will position voluntary and funded resources to
support more complex projects such as renewables research, transport improvement
and waste/recycling initiatives. LCC have already worked successfully with the
Energy Saving Scotland advice centres on a number of projects and it is expected
that close partnerships with existing organisations will continue. An earlier
funded Survey is due for printing and distribution to over 5700 households in
January to canvas local public opinion on Climate Change and effective local
measures that could be developed.

Having been involved with the group at the early stages I'm delighted to see this funding come the way of this project. Many of those involved have great enthusiasm and a wide range of concerns, skills and attributes in move Linlithgow forward to a greener more sustainable future.

This will be a great asset to the community of Linlithgow and will be wisely earmarked to projects that will led on to more and greater greening of the historic town. I also hope that this example will lead to other towns in West Lothian rising the challenge of what they can do too.