A Wee Dram for the Road...

...well not literally as I don't want to be seen encouraging drink driving. No what I'm talking about is the fact that Scottish scientist have found a way to turn "pot ale" and "draff" into biofuel.

For those who have yet to go on a distillery tour the pot ale is the liquid from the cooper still and the draff is the spent grains. Therefore they are by products of the whisky industry, things that would otherwise just be disposed of.

The scientists from Napier University found they could make Butanol from the two main by-products at Glenkinchie Distillery*. There are copious amounts of both produced in the distilleries across Scotland, and cars do not need to adapt in any way to run on Butanol.

The main concern about some of the biofuels that are produced is that the organic material that is needed to produce this is a primary source and the planting of it takes up valuable arable land that could be being used to feed people. However, as the Napier scientists have discovered a use for otherwise thrown away products is the direction that biofuels should be looking. What organic waste is not going into either human or animal consumption anyway that could be used to this end? We can't start planting the developing world to grow crops for our fuel while they starve.

* Yes, I have toured this East Lothian distillery in my tasting travels.

Big GREEN Apple at Heart of the State of Empire

The news that the Empire State Building is to retrofit in an environmental way is great news and a great example. If the world's most iconic tall building can do this and produce 40% energy savings why can't the rest of the US and the World for that matter.

For the refit all 6,514 windows are to be stripped out, before being renovated with a insulating film and a mixture of inert gases. This will make them 4 times better at heat and coolness retention. At the high tech end the world largest wireless network will be set up allowing valves and vents to be controlled centrally. The four central chillers have been replaced with a smart air circulation systems installed.

The net effect of the 40% savings, which is what is being focused on for households on a smaller scale in the USA is 100,000 metric tonnes of carbon off their footprint over the next 15 years. The equivalent of taking 20,000 cars off the road. If this was replicated across just one fifth the large buildings in the USA it would amount to 2.3bn metric tonnes, or the amount of greenhouse gas pollution produced by the whole of Russia in a year.

Can it be done. Yes it can.

Green Britain Day

Today is Green Britain Day your day to start to do more for our environment.

Personally I left this house this morning turning all the appliances off except the fridge/freezer, then got on the train to come to work. (I'm currently taking the train because I'm leaving Edinburgh outwith the express buses home and it wasn't making economic sense to get a bus ticket and a rail ticket one way each day). Then it will be upstairs to turn on my work PC and monitor, throwing away any waste I have into the correct recycling bin on the office floor. A bus into the city this evening then home again for a vegetable curry made from loose bought veggies not pre-packaged ones. Eventually at some point turning on the long life light bulb for the first time today. It wasn't needed at 5 am when I got up.

All in all there is little room for improvement in my daily life. So what I need to do is get others to do the same and also be conscious of the occasional day when I find things easier to do which aren't necessarily greener. It is often a challenge when you lead a busy and hectic lifestyle like that of an aspirant politician to go for ease over ethics. I know being knackered isn't an excuse, but somebody did ask me when my last time off really was and I actually had difficulty thinking of it, even though I was home for a weekend last month it wasn't fully time off as there was preparation for what was coming up and what I am currently filling my free moments with.

Anyhow, as the above is an example of how your daily life can be greener, I'd like to encourage you after reading this to think of what more you can do. It may be a big project with long term effects and green savings. It may be a change of daily routine in either the way you travel or purchase your food, or even where your food is from. But I'd ask you today to please take a look and consider what more you can do.

I Have a Second Plot

At the start of 2009 I like many others acquired a plot of land near Heathrow Airport. At the recent general election the reason for us acquiring that plot suceeded, there is to be no third runway going over our little plot.

Therefore today I heard that another cause that has been close to my heart is also splitting up a plot. So I became 'one of Menie' (many) in putting my name to The Bunker that Donald Trump doesn't want to have as a hazard in his way to his golf course. Indeed it is a plot of land that his project cannot go ahead without access to.

Yeah this is one plot of land that essential to Donald Trump ripping up and controlling the greatest dune system in Scotland and affecting an area of special scientific interest.

No doubt Ruariadh Dobson will continue to say that I am "dead wrong", but at least I'm being consistant.

Miliband Anti-Politics Attack is Thin Edge of the Disappearing Wedge

So David Miliband thinks in today's Guardian it is anti-political to stand up against the social injustices, the political corruption, stand up for our planet, economy and children. That is in essence what he is saying erroneously "Nick Clegg is only clear what he is against." Anyone who has encountered the Liberal Democrat manifesto and it is clear that David Miliband will know that isn't true.

There are plenty of constructive, progressive policies in there. There is also a big thrust to sort out the regressive nature of things that the Labservatives between them have managed to mess up.

• The reversal since 1997 of the top 20% paying proportionately less of their income in tax than the bottom 20% can only be sorted out with the Liberal Democrats policy of fair taxation, even my SNP opponent agrees with me on that one.
• The many inroads into our civil liberties over the last 13 years of Labour rule are going to be dealt with though a comprehensive Freedom Bill.

However, we have constructive plans for better arrangement for mothers and fathers in caring for their children in the early years. For our young people to get the training, qualifications or apprenticeships that suit them, not aiming merely to get 50% into University. There are plans to make the recovery one powered by greening our production, which also greens our planet and helps combat climate change and meet our progressive energy targets making energy production carbon neutral by 2050.

Heck if Billy Bragg the reddest of Red Wedges from my youth (and the last election I couldn't vote in 1987) is turning to the Lib Dems maybe it'll be up to David Miliband to turn out the lights on the Labour party. Billy Bragg is not someone who is swung by the superficial he is all about substance. You know I think even Bragg is now saying maybe I wanted to change the world, I was looking for a new Britiain, and I've found it now in the Lib Dems, as opposed to his 22 year old self.

Miliband claims that Labour have taken on the "forces of inertia", you know he may be right (in the first couple of years of New Labour) but inertia has not only won, but overcome and is dragging them backwards now.

Where is the Labservative Substance this Week?

At the weekend both David Cameron and Gordon Brown said more or less the same thing this election is about substance not personality.

This morning Nick Clegg talked about radical reform in our schools, yesterday he talked about banking reform as well as fairness for rural Britain and on Monday he was talking about stimulating the green economy.

Now I may be wrong but all I've heard from the Labservatives is how they are all about change, or that they are the progressives. Unlike Nick they haven't been putting any substance behind those claims all week. Indeed the Labservatives have been talking about negative issues, usually part truths about the Lib Dems all week. Come on Gordon and Dave where is the substance? Or is that lacking because there isn't any real change, progressiveness or radicalism in what you have to offer?

Lib Dems to Expand the Rail Network

The Liberal Democrats were the party who fought for the current rail expansion that is going on in Scotland ahead of the 2003 election. Living as I do in Bathgate I get an almost daily update on the progress of one of those projects with the Bathgate to Airdrie extension. Today plans to shift £3bn from road to rail projects has been announced as part of the Lib Dem plans for a greener UK.

In what will be the biggest rail expansion since the Victorian era thousands of miles of tracks. Precise details of what will be opened will have to wait until they are tendered but here are some of the schemes that will be considered as priorities.

The electrification of lines from Manchester to Liverpool, Leeds and Preston; from Birmingham to Bristol and Basingstoke; and between Leeds and York. New or reopened stations could be funded in Ilkeston, Kidlington, Wantage, Corsham, Tavistock, Middlewich, Ashington, Blyth, Washington and Skelmersdale.

New lines could link Southport with Preston, Bournemouth with Ringwood and the Midlands main line with the Birmingham-Derby route. And track could be reopened between Exeter and Okehampton; Tavistock and Plymouth; Penrith and Keswick; and Galashiels and Carlisle.

The Galashiels to Carlisle link effectively completes the borders connection not just linking north to Edinburgh but also south to the mainline connections.

Lib Dem transport spokesman Norman Baker said:

"The Liberal Democrats will transform the railways with the biggest expansion since the Victorian age.

"Labour has allowed the railways to wither on the vine and punished passengers with huge fare hikes while more polluting forms of transport have got cheaper. All the while, the Tories have been sharpening the axe they will take to the transport budget.

"High speed rail is hugely important, but it is only part of the 21st-century rail network Britain needs. Our plans will reopen thousands of miles of track across the country and make our railway great again."

***Exclusive*** Tavish Scott Reaction to Nick Clegg's Speech #sldconf

I had been hoping to bring you an interview with Nick Clegg in a short while after he had dealt with some press commitment. But conferences being conferences not to mention the press taking more of Nick's time, something about a Fifer appearing before Chilcott, that was not to be.

Instead at very short notice I had to direct my questions to the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats Tavish Scott.

Stephen: What were your highlights of the speech Nick has just given?

Tavish: I think his utter commitment to the Scottish and UK values of fairness. The need to change our country to reflect that in the four ways he highlighted, fairer taxes, a fair start in life for our children, a fairer, green sustainable economy and a fairer politics.

Under the Lib Dems it has to be better and fairer future than what Brown and Blair before him have done. All that David Cameron offers is a different slick manager, but no real change.

Also on this day when Brown is facing Chilcott, it is good that Nick is here. To emphasise once again how our party offered a clear and absolute opposition to the illegal war on Iraq.

We now are going to have the Prime Ministerial debate's including Nick what could Alex Salmond possibly have to tell the rest of the UK? (Nick had mentioned in his speech that Salmond had "elevated independence to a one man fetish")

Well it is not just a one man man fetish, it is a one idea fetish. It is all that the SNP truly have left on the table. They have failed to deliver on so much of what they promised just 3 years ago.

They are out of ideas and out out of time, a lot like what has also happened with the Labour party. The only thing they have over Labour is that Alex is a better salesman.

Salesman? Wasn't that Cameron's phrase?

Quite. But Alex is only out to try and manage the decline in the economy. Nick in his speech has outlined ways to bring about the recovery. Admitting it is going to be tough, but bringing fresh ideas to table to turn us around.

One of those was the idea of utilising the ship yards of the Leith and the Clyde to produce off shore wind turbines. How can we take this further ever more?

It is a very positive message. It shows we're taking our commitment to a greener economy beyond the theoretical, into economic reality for job creation for people. In real ways, that make a real change and have a real impact.

Something that even the Greens fail often to do?

Indeed. But not only is it a commitment to our long term goals of sustainability, but showing ways that by achieving our aims we can also help the country out of the mess that Brown has got us into.

One of the areas that Nick commented on was a fairer education. Obviously that is a devolved issue and we have just had our own debate on "A fair start for all our children?". What does this mean for the future of Scotland?

Well again it is a positive message and one I will be touching on more in my own speech tomorrow. But again it highlights the unfairness of the mess we have got ourselves into. The other parties are not promising to protect key services making things worse. There is a danger they will even take away some of the little choice that they have now.

The Lib Dems will give them a real boost. There are hard choices in public expenditure, but the Lib Dems are committed to give a real choice for these people.

As time is running out I have one final question on a lighter note. It is rumoured in Liberal Youth Scotland circles that you didn't pay the entrance fee for you attendance at their quiz and debate night last year. Are going to be attending tonight and will you be paying double?

(laughs) I'm not aware that I didn't but I shall certainly be attending again tonight. But whether I did or I didn't I shall certainly be making a donation to this very worthwhile organisation.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you Stephen and good luck.

How Green are Your Tories?

The other day the Conservatives listed their 10 reasons to vote for them.

• 1. The NHS - our number one priority.
• 2. Dealing with Labour’s debt crisis.
• 3. Creating new jobs.
• 4. Protecting the poorest.
• 5. Supporting families.
• 6. Giving every child a good education.
• 7. Helping keep bills down and clamping down on consumer rip-offs.
• 8. Fairness for pensioners.
• 9. Fighting back against crime.
• 10. Building more affordable homes.

In 2006 David Cameron wrote:

"Since becoming leader of the Conservative Party I have sought to push the environment up to the top of the political agenda."

Now it doesn't even make the top ten. So much for Dave's promises to a pack of huskies.

If he can't be trusted over promises to Canis lupus familiaris how much more can us Homo Sapiens expect to trust his promises.

David Through the Looking Glass

The Mad Hatter was heading to city hall. The Cheshire Cat had been and left the stage for the Duchess to take over the most prestigious address in Wonderland trying to agree with everyone and find a moral in everything.

It was surprising therefore that young David having found himself in this position wanted a bit of every one of them. He wanted the power that the Mad Hatter, a school boy acquaintance, had achieved only more so. He wanted to smile for everyone like the Cheshire Cat yet to know that there was also a time for sincerity. As for the Duchess, well he wanted that house, he thought he had to be nice to everyone to do so. He'd enjoy the view from the inside if he succeeded of Tweedledum and Tweedledee working out which of them was the Duchess, or indeed the Cheshire Cat's, natural successor.

"I don't think we should invent differences where there aren't differences," said David.

But then he went on to invent similarities when they were tenuous, "A hung Parliament would be bad for Britain, would be bad for the sort of strong united determined leadership that we need, but we shouldn't invent differences where they don't exist."

Yes as you tell this isn't from the pen of Lewis Carroll but a look at the wonderland, befundleland more like, of the Conservative leadership. They really think:

"There are many more areas where Liberal Democrats and Conservatives agree and that's a good thing but we need to have a decisive election."

Now I'm all for agreeing with my political opponents when we do agree but Dave, on this one I must protest. Senior Tories have apparently saying the the Cameron 'love bomb' is aimed at Lib Dem voters not our MPs, candidates etc. Hence the comment about a hung parliament being a bad thing. You see the Tories are talking about change but don't want to have to move to accommodate some of another parties agenda if there was a hung parliament. As they are aiming that statement at Lib Dems it should be apparent that Dave doesn't want the change that we behind Nick Clegg are offering. If he was prepared to do the things the Lib Dems wanted a hung parliament would be good for Britain if that were the case.

Indeed lets look at the three key areas that they say they are targeting: green issues, decentralisation, and less state interference.

Green Issues: Looking around at Conservative councils and activists around the country I've yet to be convinced that there really is a green heart beating behind a blue Rosette. Iain Dale their uberblogger led a denial-lite blogging strand that stretched across a number of Tory blogs recently over Copenhagen. Indeed did anyone spot an activist led Tory presence at the Wave recently. I know I didn't see one in Glasgow (where the Greens, Labour and Lib Dems were out at activist level) and I've heard the same in absentia approach to the climate happened in London. More likely to see Tory activist marching with the Countryside or Tax(non)Payers Alliance that an alliance of environmental concerned groups.

I remember the struggles we had getting better environmental provision through when the Tories controlled Kingston council. From what I see beneath the rhetoric even their own shadow cabinet are fully on board the green agenda. The Lib Dems have a few exceptions, but by in large are on board. We don't deny climate change, but will heartily debate how best to go about it.

Decentralisation: Actually seeing Annabel Goldie reverse over the horizon about Calman and hearing all the cutting of Westminster powers promised from the Tories, what they are doing is just that. They are not decentralising power they are cutting the public's ability of have it accountable to them. The Tories rather than moving power from the centre to publicly elected bodies are looking to sell parts of it off to commercial interests. Therefore not for profit will not be an incentive to take over certain aspects but it will another way to make money of those who are poorest, to line the pockets of Dave and Gideon's friends, whether resident or non-domiciled in the UK.

Less state interference: See the above whereas the Tories actually want less state period, the Lib Dems want certain powers devolved down to a more local level areas of health, policing, education being prime examples. The Lib Dems also recognise that there are some issues that need to have more co-ordination, even outwith our borders. Yes that does mean some decisions being made at European level. But the Tories wanted to pull us out of the European Convention on Human Rights, out of the international policing arrangements, don't want us to join the Euro ever. So don't want to protect you rights, your security or your shopping prices in a sensible way all in the cause of less 'interference'. Yes there is a time and a place for freedom but with that freedom there is also a need for responsibility, the Tories are prepared to negate as much responsibility as they can get away with. You don't think so, you may be too young to remember the last Conservative period of power then.

So David Cameron may well be thinking he is looking though a looking glass when he looks at Lib Dem policies compared to his own. He's actually just standing on the street looking through the window at the real change that is on over in the shop window, but he's so vain all he sees is his own reflection and the door to number 10 over his shoulder. Indeed he is already taking the voters and his victory for granted, thinking that those who vote Lib Dem can't see through what he says about difference and similarity.

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.

Today's Feeding of the 5000

The charity Fairshare is going to demonstrate the food waste problem in Trafalgar Square at noon today. The food they are using has been grown by farmers but is considered too ugly to sit on the shelves by our supermarkets (maybe Jo Swinson and I should set up a campaign against our 'airbrushed' and discriminatory fresh produce aisles but I digress).

They will be providing soups and curries, as well as free groceries with the 6 tonnes of produce that have been turned down by the supermarkets. I can guarantee that nobody will be able to tell the difference from the homogeneous shaped siblings that they grew alongside. Having grown up in a family that grew and harvested our own crops in the back garden I long for the time I can have a little spot of land that I can grow some more of my own food. I will no throw out a potato that is not universally smooth for ease of peeling or a carrot than cannot stand straight at attention or whatever. I'll also only plant what I can personally use or give away any bumper crop to friends before it goes off.

There is a Slow Food Group in Linlithgow which is part of the town's major movement to make the town more environmentally friendly. The protest today fits very comfortably within the slow food ethos, in that is using food that has been grown as much as possible, to made good healthy food. Of course I'm not sure how the food has been grown, but the fact that it has means that it should be available to consumption first and foremost which is what today's demonstration is about.

So may I urge you next time you prepare to go to the supermarket, local greengrocer or farmers market, have you checked the larder? Have you planned what you want to eat around what is already available to you but is perishable? When you get there do you have a plan of what you need? If you cannot buy the quantity that you need but have to purchase more is there something else you could do with the excess before it perishes, even if you make extra and are able to freeze it for later?

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.

Is this Postal Strike Just an Excuse for a 3-Day Piss Up?

The reason I'm asking is because yesterday I passed the picket line at Sighthill depot and saw this on the right.

Today exactly 24 hours later I didn't see swarms of disgruntled postal workers looking for justice, fighting for their jobs, indeed I didn't even see one. No what I did see was this below.



Yeah an empty gazebo, a still warm oil drum the remains of their fire pictured in the main picture. But loads of empty beer and cider cans strewn across the whole area, not just at the entrance to the Royal Mail depot. Also startlingly there was not a sign of a single worker manning the picket line at the start of day 2.

Seeing as this is also the vehicle maintenance location for Edinburgh I suspect that even if the strike had of come to an end none of the workers would have been legally allowed to drive any of the vehicles anyway.

Therefore the question is rightly put, is this strike just an excuse for a 3-day piss up. Because I'm guessing there may be a few with hangovers this morning.

Trump Gains Right to Stabilise Nature

The European Policy for Coastal Dunes states:

"Management towards dynamic dunes should be promoted. A dynamic dune system is more resistant to erosion processes, is cheaper to maintain, has higher natural values and is more sustainable than fixated dunes."

Later today however work begins to stabilise part of the fifth largest dune system in the UK (pictured) after a decision by the Formantine area committee to give the green light to work to go ahead to stabilise them. When Donald Trump first saw the Menie Estate he thought:

"As soon as I saw it there was no question about it. I looked at 211 fantastic sites all over Europe, but here it is - the dune size and the ocean front. There is no piece of land that I have ever seen that is comparable to this."

Sadly soon not even Balmedie will be comparable with what he first saw. The prime example of a dynamic dune system cited after the above quote from EU policy is the Slowinski National Park in Poland (pictured right) which has had a dynamic dune system for thousands of years.

The Balmedie Dune system stretches for 14 miles and Trump's golf complex along 2.5 miles of that length will seriously affect the eco systems of the other, by removing the dynamacism of the dune system. It may even led to serious erosion and dame to the system in other locales. While the EU is aware of the need to protect dunes, the fact that from today work will start to lead to the loss of one of the few remaining dynamic dune systems in the EU is a sad day.

Aberdeenshire Council in Cahoots with Trump

Is it any wonder that Aberdeenshire Council have not been taken action to protect local residents from the threat of Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs)? As far back as April this year they have been preparing to help the billionaire property developer overcome the public outcry of such an action.

A letter from the council's senior planning officer Dr Christine Gore dated 7 April reads:

"In terms of public relations and management of the inevitable media interest, I would request that we be given at least a week’s notice of your intended submission date. Thereafter, close liaison will be required . . . in order that we can have a managed approach to what is inevitably going to be a difficult and emotive reaction."

So the council have for months been willing with Trump to pave the way for his use of compulsory purchase orders, rather that being neutral and yet to make a decision on the matter as recent events in chambers would have us believe.

The Glasgow based organisation spinwatch is accusing Aberdeenshire council of a "conflict of interests". Prof. David Miller professor of sociology at Strathclyde university and head of Spinwatch said of the discussions being discussed in this way three months before they became public:

"The question of probity and governance is raised by these documents. The council is supposed to protect the public interest, not the private interests of a major corporation. These documents suggest Aberdeenshire council is too close to the Trump Organisation."

The voters of Aberdeenshire Council deserve representatives that will look after their interests, but sadly appear to have a majority of their representatives that have fallen under th Trump spell, for whatever reason, and are ignoring those they are supposed to be representing.

This week work is expected to start on stabilising the dunes at Menie which could affect the area's site of special scientific interest (SSSI) status. RSPB Scotland and the Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT) have both lodged objections, but with the council appearing to have been largely at the beck and call of the Manhattan Billionaire it is doubtful that the go ahead for work to start will be blocked on Tuesday.

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?

Longannet Not Receiving CCS Development Funding....Yet

At the end of last week the EU were distributing £160m of funding to a number of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) facilities around Europe. One of the potential bidders for the funding was Longannet power station in Fife. This is one of the first coal power power stations to install the technology to reduce the amount of CO2 it uses while providing power.

One UK plant was amongst the successful bidders Hatfield in Yorkshire, which was one of the few pre-combustion projects in the running. But supporters of Longannet are not that disheartened as a pioneer in the field they are hopeful of future funding from a second trance of EU support coming next year to take the process further.

One such supported was Lib Dem MEP George Lyon whose Facebook update late last week read:

"Still waiting for CSS funding news for Scotland. So far Compostilla has won the Spanish bid and Vattenfall has the German CSS project."

I asked George what his view was now that the final news of the successful bids was out. He said:

"I launched my European election campaign at Longannet power station confident in the facilities available and the ambition to put Scotland at the forefront of carbon capture and storage technology. This decision has not changed my view and I remain confident that Longannet has a vital role to play in the development of CCS technology.

"Despite what the SNP claim, Scotland's oil wells are drying up. Through CCS technology we can look to the future and begin to fill them up again, this time with harmful gases. Developing nations like India and China are fuelling the growth of their economies with coal. I want Scotland to be in a position to take advantage of these emerging markets.

"Longannet's bid was a good one, and they have already taken steps towards introducing CCS technology. When the next round of funding comes round Longannet will be in a strong position and I will continue to work with Willie Rennie MP to see this pioneering technology in Fife."

Other supporters of the work going on at Longannet include Richard Dixon, director of WWF, whose organisation recently said it through the Scottish plant was the best option in the UK competition for funding. He said:

"It is disappointing Longannet has not been chosen this time around. We sincerely hope it will get some form of support to properly test this technology soon, whether it is from Europe or as a winner of the UK government's own CCS competition.

"The world urgently needs technology that will reduce our climate emissions and Scotland is well placed to take a global lead in this important field.

"The power sector is responsible for more than a third of Scotland's emissions, most of it from burning coal. CCS is a potentially important technology which could help reduce emissions around the world."

Here's to the future and further research in this way of cutting emissions at Longannet and other locations, especially in China who are building so many coal fired power stations we need them to utilize CCS on a large scale.

Fisking the Car Scrappage Extension

Cars and vans like all consumer products have built in obsolescence, in other words there is a time frame at which they are expected to run down. I don't know about many of the rest of you but I have successfully driven, looked after and nurtured cars that are over 10 years old.

The fact that Peter Mandelson announced government plans to extend the car scrappage scheme to an additional 100,000 cars and vans, may be good news to the car manufacturers, but not to environmentalists or young, poor, first-time motorists. The thing is seen as a greening up of the economy, but cars at 10 years old are only slightly more polluting than new vehicles, and the carbon cost of scrapping them offsets any advantage of taking them off the road.

The shortage of second hand cars as a result of the initial scheme has pushed second hand car prices up due to the scarcity of the remaining cars of a certain age. Its simple supply/demand economics. What the car scrappage scheme is doing is in essence pricing the lowest paid out of car ownership. They cannot afford to pay the price of a new car even with the scrappage payment and cannot afford the inflated price for the second hand market.

As for the environment by placing an arbitrary lifespan on vehicles of 10 years (and the motor industry actually wanted this lowered) the government is going contrary to the British culture of make do and mend. Young men who used to buy older cars to do them up, keep them running are no longer able to do so. Are finding newer cars which need less maintenance are all that is available.

So the only net gainers are the manufacturers and retailers of cars. The Government is paying out with our money, yet we and the environment are suffering. Of course Lord Mandelvort of Hartlepool and Foy's reputation is enhanced as a result, do his dark arts know no bounds.

The Liberal Moment

"Nick Clegg’s suggesting that his party can lead the Left seems presumptuous. Yet his is right to make it and has made it in the right way."

So says the lead editorial comment in this morning’s Times. It comes on the day that Nick launches his pamphlet The Liberal Moment with Demos as well as writing an article in the Times outlying his themes.

It opens with the questions:

"Are you one of the millions who turned to new Labour in 1997? Were you excited by the progressive promise? Did you believe that the ideals of fairness, social mobility, sustainability, civil rights and internationalism would finally have their day?"

Going on to say then:

"If so, you face a real dilemma. The choice between a fading exhausted Labour Government and the ideologically barred Conservatives."

The pamphlet and the article both look at the shifting sands of progressive politics. It was about a century ago that the Liberal party started to lose that all out progressive nature of British politics. The outcome was the emergence of the current Labour vs. Conservative struggle in the intervening years. Nick acknowledges that our predecessors then deserved to lose but then looks at the current situation.

The progressive party of the last 100 years, because no matter what the Tories try to paint over their past , progressive and conservative do not sit side by side in the same phrase, have been Labour. Yet look at them now.

"Labour's basic reflexes — central state activism, hoarding power at the centre, top-down government — are the wrong tools to meet the challenges of the modern world. We live in a society where people are no longer rigidly defined by class or place, no longer trapped by a culture of hierarchy….

"Labour have never fully reconciled itself to how power now flows down to individuals and communities that no longer accept a relationship of obeisance to central government. From frenzied target-setting in public service to the demolition of civil liberties, Labour has misread the demand for individual and grassroots empowerment in contemporary Britain."

Just as in the later part of the 19th and early 20th century the ideology battles for progressivism were battles being fought by Labour, long before they won the political battle, so now Nick thinks the battle to be the progressive party in thinking is ours. The battles on thinking are being won on the economy, environment, civil liberties, Iraq, Ghurkhas, and other issues we led the ideological crusade and others are latching on. The war to become the progressive force in politics in the country may take longer, but its day too may be coming.

Nick says:

"So the real choice at the next election is not the old red-blue/ blue-red pendulum of British politics. It is between yellow and blue. A choice between a liberal movement — led by the Liberal Democrats — that is attracting disaffected progressive voters from a Labour Party which will take years to recover, if at all; and a Conservative Party that parrots the language of change to maintain the status quo. In short, an opportunity for progressives to do something different, and finally change things for good."

So with that message ringing in my ears and Nicks vision set out before me, I'm really excited about heading off to Bournemouth for conference. Maybe the old adage is true. Maybe life truly does begin at 101000*.

*As Mark so kindly suggested this blog is now looking at using binary in light of my Total Politics rankings.