Don’t support traffic stopping demos

We all want to do something sensible about earth warming and stop global carbon emissions. Yet the traffic stopping demonstrations that Extinction Rebellions lays on, do exactly the opposite from what we are trying to achieve.

Those demos stop traffic and make cars spew out more exhaust fumes as they otherwise would.

Research has totally unquestionably proven that flowing traffic causes less damage to our air than standing traffic does.

A recent survey carried out in Milton Keynes for example shows that cities with roundabouts create less emission than those without. We can follow on that stopping traffic at classic junctions cause the problem.

“The Milton Keynes roundabouts do two things – they reduce stop-start driving which reduces production of pollution, and they make space to help the pollution dilute and mix away,” said Prof Mackenzie. “The biggest effect green spaces have on air pollution in urban areas is to provide space for that pollution to disperse.”

Whilst many support Great Thunberg and Save Our Planet initiatives, we should not support the show-stopping demonstrations of Extinction Rebellion, which ruin our air quality. We do not stop earth warming by making traffic even more dangerous than it already is.

Avoid the demo in Bethnal Green on 22. February as it will create enormous traffic tail backs as we get a lot of through traffic from the West End to the M25 and all going East and North street traffic.

Cynically the demo in Tower Hamlets is going to be called ‘Enough is enough’. We should tell Extinction Rebellion that their ancient methods do not help develop a better society, they just make our air dirtier than it already is.

 

 

TUC – neutrality

  • Thought poverty
  • Unilateralism
  • Compartmentalisation

The three ingredients to conflict and distraction.

I don’t just look at what I want to see and don’t just read what I want to hear. I get myself a selection of books from major influencers and compare their thoughts.

Presently it’s

  • Greta Thunberg
  • Donald Trump
  • Mike Berners-Lee

I must confess I only bought the Berners-Lee book because the name reminds me of Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the Internet and I thought, that everybody with the name of Berners-Lee must know what they are talking about.

Greta, a girl with Aspergers, she is a definite proof of thought poverty and unilateralism and so is Donald Trump. Though because Donald Trump is on the powerful side of life, what he says is good and what Greta says is dangerous.

The clash of ideologies here is not much different from all other clashes in the history of man. For example when Britain invaded the colonies and all those invading repressed the natives. Though now we know that the natives had and still have important knowledge and methology. Probably more knowledge in some stuff than our newly taught engieners and scientists have.

That brings me to compartmentalisation. Nowadays everybody has to specialise fairly early on in life. So a guy like Boris Johnson wouldn’t understand what climate change is all about. He is just a happy go lucky chap who wants to make things happening and with a good sense of humour in a smiling way.

Donald Trump – I am still not through the first book of his – has only profit margins at heart. Very dangerously though, he wants to separate the Social Security budget from the rest of the financial world. He hardly ever talks about standard of living and security of housing, he talks about saving and interest rates.

It’s clear that if you are in power, whatever you say is good. From your point of view, you are the money maker, the law maker and the standard bearer of all things great and small.

Of course radicalisaton of strategy only works for those in power. Those against become criminals in any event.

Now comes Mike Berners-Lee as the go-between Great Thunberg and Donald Trump, the man who also pleases Boris Johnson’s desire to widen the British Empire and international trade relations of Britain with the rest of the world. Mike simply declares that the amount of carbon produced by transport is nothing compared with natural carbons produced by animals and rice production or fermentation for example.

There are now so many statistics available on earth warming and what percentage of what produces most dangerous carbons, that the mind literally boggles.

But if energy production produces 70% of damaging carbons then it doesn’t really matter if that is through transport or animal farming or fermentation. It is just including everything that uses energy.

Unfortunately those at the top are unable to just analyse and change tac, the politicians have to please the sponsors of parties and those sponsors are the ones who run business and those are the makers of our world today.

Perhaps we need to look at another way of shifting power to those who are not dependant on any financial support from business leaders. We need neutral observers and decision makers.

same lies

Whilst President Trump explains in his state of the Union speech that there is now record employment, also amongst the multi-cultural population in the US, the BBC reports that there is record child-homelessness in the US.

How does this all work out?

Obviously the wonderful world of high-yield economy should work for the people and not just for the employers.

The same strategy gets used in the UK. One of the most used arguments in parliamentary debate is, to rebuff Labour, yes, but the unemployment rate is very low.

Whether that creates the highest number of working poor and other problems does not seem to be the problem for the governments on either side of the oceans.

The standard of living is very important and voters really have to stop creating poverty for children.

Bound to the land

The United Kingdom has and always had the Islander psychology. It affects how a person thinks and feel, how big the landmass is, that they are standing on.

I watched Ed Balls travels to Europe and can see a distinct difference in attitude towards racial and human rights issues. The bigger the landmass the higher is the leaning towards a surpemacy of some kind.

Which one is all dependant on the region.

Whilst Boris Johnson, in his speech this morning, asks for science driven trade deals, he still fails to address distance.  Distance and travel causes huge carbon footprints.

I think the whole dilemma rests on the Islander psychology of the Brits, who live on the Isle of Great Britain, that they think differently towards other land masses and see themselves as something special and as in-betweeners the rest of the world.

Apparently the part where Ed Balls interviews the German Right-wing voters in a German village, reminds of my own village relatives. The German villages do not have any social provision, there is no council housing, no sponsored provision of any kind. In those regions you own a house and pay for what is happening around you. Hence people are feeling left out and feel forgotten. They don’t have immigrants settling there either.

I remember we had to rent a car and travel extensively just to reach the village my relatives live and work in as transport is very difficult or non existent. No wonder that all types of weird ideologies fester.

Britain in contrast is a small country with a huge influx of all sorts of races and ethnicities and they all have to share the ground that is government supported via social provisions throughout.

Britain also has the luck to be well connected to other world-wide nations through the British Commonwealth and that was only possible because the UK is in dire need of international relations to keep the trade going.

Countries with a bigger land-mass like Germany or France lost most of their overseas territories because the psychology of those countries are relying on their bigger landmass and is different.

I don’t think science hasn’t reached to come to those conclusions about how the landmass we live on forms our and influences how we think and feel.

It was the fear of running out of space that brought Britains to conquer other lands, with more or less repressive methods. Yet Britain is most successful in keeping many nations because they are more needy because the main British landspace provided by the United Kingdom is quite small. So Brits are more diplomatic and pleasing towards other cultures.

That’s why Britain has developed in such a powerful international peace maker and setter of standards. Britain needs to spread their wings whilst other bigger nations can just withdraw from international negotiations because they can live largely on their own products.

 

brainwashed

artists audience band blue

Photo by Jacob Morch on Pexels.com

Greta Thunberg has been told to get an economics degree to be taken serious. Yet, going through years of some education may brainwash you into believing that the only way to do business is the old one.

There are sciences, which are pure and do not relate to current affairs but those decisions that need to be made in relation to climate change are actually not calculated on pure science but on the greed of those wanting to make profits.

Having listened to the Grenfell discussion on ‘politics live’ this morning, we’ve heard that some tower blocks are not so dangerous as they have night patrols. The answer was that many leaseholders cannot afford to pay for it.

Private ownership again hinders progress being made. Of course owning something privately means you rely entirely on your own resources. The smaller the building the less economical can it be to share and spread costs and if a private building owner has to replace a load of cladding on a building it becomes unaffordable.

Nobobdy questions the principle of private ownership, they question why the government hasn’t yet introduced laws to force owners to change the cladding. But this is a Conservative government, a government that supports private ownership.

Question the logic of this.

I don’t think there is a pure state in existance today that has a properly installed community government.

  • North Korea, is a kind of family tyranny, that starves it’s population but which tries to blow our planet apart with constant nuclear testing
  • China, a half-capitialist government, which is unelectable and relies on trade with capitalist countries
  • Russia, a pseudo communist country that charges a flat tax rate to all, regardless of income. Nothing is being shared around there.

This planet is being run into the ground by large money accumulators who run business and produce goods that keep us in employment, the economy moving and make them richer.

The poor have no choice but to work in jobs being offered as they have to work to be part of an acceptable community, which relies on taxes.

Round and round and round it goes.

People ask again and again why didn’t the German’s stop Hitler, ask yourself, why does nobody stop the destruction of the environment.

 

Creeping NHS care privatisation

doctor pointing x ray result beside man wearing black suit

Photo by LinkedIn Sales Navigator on Pexels.com

I totally oppose privatisation of health services. Even my NHS GP, service from within a purely run NHS practise and NHS funded, advised me, during a visit that NHS services have to adopt the American model to even be able to serve the patients.

I can now book appointments via Patient Access, an online GP connected health platform. But there are now hardly any GP appointments available. On offer are plenty of paid-for services, anything from physio to Pharmacist appointments.

Interestingly not even my local pharmacy stocks the cheap Paracetamol and Ibuprofen tablets. Only large supermarkets and Poundland does.

My dentist practise has a large NHS sign over the front door but my NHS dentist is there only 2 days per week. My NHS dentist advises me to pay for teeth cleaning at £52 a go, when I can get it for free on the NHS once my teeth have reached plague stage 4.

The rest of my dental practise offers cosmetic services. I suppose all those Love Island contestants and a lot of TV presenters and public speakers use cosmetic dental services but for someone on an average income the prices are just staggering.

I completely oppose a privatisation of health services if this means the better off get better treatment.

Those methods seem to phase out those with a conscience as those with a conscience find it the hardest to make money these days. The less money you make, the less health treatment you can afford.

People like David Attenborough and Chris Packham are exceptions and I understand Chris Packham gets a lot of threats. Jamie Oliver is the savior of the school nutrition league and suffers large commercial losses. Victoria Derbyshire makes a social program that is now being stopped.

People should refuse private treatment as an option if there is a service available on the NHS that they are entitled to.

Even if this means that we have to unavailable for work or voluntary work. Try to buy things from environmentally and people friendly people.

 

 

Bad debate – bad result

alternative auto automobile battery

Photo by Mike on Pexels.com

I’ve now spent months watching politcal debate in Britain and it has occurred to me that this democracy is a mock-democracy.

A lot of words are being used to spew out the same thoughts again and again with no results whatsoever. In terms of the environment, Brexit is only important as to the production of extra Carbon Emissions because transporting goods further away will cause more.

The unilateral thinking always centres around plain numbers with little quality attached.

  • The level of poverty
  • the number of food banks
  • the level of crime
  • the level of employment
  • the referendum and numbers voted

In short it’s just a plain and simple numbers game around tax revenue.

Britain is s mock-democracy because there is no quality argument.

Instead of lamenting poverty, the opposition could ask questions around the quality of employment opportunities in Britain. Of course Johnson would come back with employment numbers but people would start thinking about whether it is feasable to employ people in making

  • single use plastics
  • exploit fossil fuels
  • producing alcohol
  • making cigarettes
  • making fuel guzzling cars
  • produce carbon rich products

The government is as good as the opposition allows them to be and in this ‘mock-democracy’ there is little quality opposition.

Not even the strong-sounding Scottish opposition has much to offer because much of the Scottish produce, they are so proud of is plain and simply Whiskey.

I tried some again yesterday and I am about to empty the bottle into the sink. My son once got at as Christmas gift at work and it just tastes awful. So why be proud of making something that has little health effect on people or the environment?

The one Green MP asks a few questions around the Green agenda but the Labour Party makes no difference because they do not question the investment in fossil fuels and the production of bad products and the people used employed therein.

Economics is sadly just about numbers. But the only numbers important to us should be how affordable healthy and low carbon living can be made for us. The majority of people are poor and purchase what is cheapest for them to buy.

Yet politicians only support the highest tax payers and those are the established industries who are based on fossil fuel exploitation.

Considering the

  • steel industry contributes 8 % of all global emissions,
  • energy makes up 72% of global emission.
  • Agriculture 11% of global emissions.

We should rationalise all arguments.

Because it does not help to switch car production from fossil to electric as electric cars will push up the 72% rate of global emissions even further.

 

Bad primal answers

The answer is always the same

  • less unemployment
  • better economy

Yet, the employment never gets compared to what type of jobs those in employment actually do in relation to the carbon footprint that their jobs actually achieve.

planet earth

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

To reduce our carbon foot print we need to change the things we produce and that will take more effort and cost than this government has failed to address.

Prime Minister’s questions has had only one question about reducing carbon foot print and that is about heating systems.

Yet all those answers relating to employment statistics are merely that. Number of people who do some job. That may be

  • producing single use plastic
  • working in coal mines
  • making goods that have a large carbon foot print.

There is absolutely no conscience about changes needed. Those changes may not allow a seamless transition with profit margins not dipping. It may not be possible to continue running the country on private finance only.

Even though Trump yesterday mentioned that he does not want to believe in the doom and gloom and that 3 billion trees worldwide will solve all our problems. But that is more than naive.

These profit oriented leaders only think about the clink and clank of profit in the tills. They make so much money they probably think, if it comes to the worst, they can buy their way out with a rocket to Mars.

That’s the only reason they keep the economy going as it is, so that they can make enough money to invest in space travel because once they ruined this planet, they think they can just move on to another one.

So what the Prime Minister should do at Prime Minister’s Question time, when he answers questions by saying how good employment rates are, he should state how much of those jobs are environmentally friendly.

Determining human evolution

New viruses like the one in China, currently threatening humanity, can be man-made and used as a terrorist tool. I got this idea from the Trump book, I’m currently reading when I’m waiting in doctors’ wating rooms for my appointments.

Terrorism is not depndant on the size of the country or their resources it depends on their ability to innovate.

Threats like viruses are the hardest to detect, prevent, determine and stop.

But then humanity right now channels human evolutions into the have’s and have-nots and those able to afford medical treatments get the chance to carry their human genes into the next generation, whilst the poor bastards are left to die.

That is what the current system implies in brash terms.

Governments have to invest in general happiness and not in productivity. Where democratic processes are prevented either through outright repression or monetary pressures, the danger of niche terrorism becomes louder.

 

 

Not so free after all

Having watched Charles I: the killing of a King, I got a sharp reminder how unfree Britain really is. Remember Extinction Rebellion have been listed as terrorist organisation and ‘order, order’ is the most important value Britain has.

I grew up in the 70s in Germany, the time of the student revolt. Despite never having even taking part in anyone of the many student demos, I was arrested and locked up for 3 months just because the security services felt like it. Of course they eventually came round to admitting that it was all a mistake.

My arrest came about because I was sofa-surfing and one address I stayed at for a few days was under the watchful eyes of the security services.

So, any individual can become over-scrutinised if a national security situation becomes frightful through activities such as XR these days do. Thankfully, XR has not committed any terrorist offences yet.

I saw it coming and I mentioned previously, do not get involved in those street demos of XR or XR as they will suffer the same fate.

Of course I am not certain whether they will eventually grow into a radical movement just as German students did with the Baader-Meinhof gang but the radical ideology is not dissimilar. Yet XR is funded by Western Billionaires and Baader-Meinhof were German rich kids too who gotten trained by Gaddafi and the like.

It shows ‘the being in 2 minds uncertainty’ Western power figures are. On one hand they are really powerful and on the other they want to throw it all over.

So what is the point in having even a monarchy. Either you have a monarch, who is a real ruler with all the power that comes with it or you don’t. Monarchs tend to be despots with no regard for the rights of their subjects. They just rule and abuse.

Today’s monarch seems more like a display of puppets who do a function, which looks good but has little power.

In fact looking at the reality of it, they can’t do much at all without being constantly watched, criticised and controlled.

Some would call it stalking. Yet, it is their job to be stalked and written about and having their photos taken and being discussed. If that was a private individual, they would have better rights.

Who is really pulling the strings in Britain. It can’t be the monarch, who despite having use of an impressive real estate portfolio has very little actual power but a mere ceremonial function.

Boris Johnson seems to have been selected into post only because of his personality. He comes across as somber and believable. You can hardly resist his voice. When he is together and has his suit on, on TV, Boris is a great actor.

The people of Britain are tightly controlled. Made to work all hours. Kids are taken from their parents at the earliest opportunity and stuck into schools for about 8 hours a day, making the influence parents actually have over their children negligible.

There is really no other way of making it in the public domain other than through kinky affiliations or by being a useful tool and doing what you are told by the ruling elite. And who are they?

I think Britain has a superb publicity machinery, which gives the impression that there is an actual democratic process but if you really look at it, its all talk and no input.

I won’t even go into how proper elections are but think people have not much real choice who to vote for. The public broadcasters and the press are all set to promote private ownership at present.

Whilst that is the mood of the moment, remember please once they stop making a profit from their businesses, we are on our own.

Whilst Labour with a nationalisation strategy gets ridiculed by the press, it seems the only viable solution to guarantee continuation of services when the going gets tough.

There is a general consensus, I would always support that we do like our basic strategy of personal freedom, and liberty of individuals, we should always defend it, that we do not enslave women and that we allow people the right to choose whether to have a religion or not but what seems the complicated part is how our life-styles affect our planet and those questions will rule our minds for some time to come.

We do need an army to defend ourselves from freakish countries like Iran and Northern Korea or Daesh because they are real dictatorships.

Yet so much relies on how our societies are run. Personal freedom often is only possible because we have the luxury of relying on services being available.

One always has to look at the greater scheme of things.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,457 hits