Protest as a fashion accessory

Just as I didn’t know what to watch after Wallace and Gromit, I switched to the remainder of the Liberal hustings to hear the end of the discussion. It went like this:

Question: “Do you think we should curb internal flights?”

[Answer: “I don’t think that is feasible at the moment, we need to invest in transport infrastructure. But I went to protest with my  5-year old with Extinction Rebellion over the weekend”]

Policitians who make decisions about this climate emergency have no fear of delaying immediate action to stop environmentally unfriendly behaviour and most likely commute a lot by car and plane but do go to Extinction Rebellion demos, block traffic for others, to have a bit of fun on the weekend.

So I do not bother going to those demos to say there is a climate emergency. I rather live environmentally friendly, it is not a weekend fashion for me, it is important.

What really should be done by our politicians, they should immediately make the money available to build the infrastructure and not think of investing in the future at some point in the future.

Climate change is happening now, a dangerous heatwave is hitting the US, lakes are drying out, we need to change now.

We won’t find any entrepreneurs putting money into saving the environment, it has to come from governments spending money on saving the environment everywhere.

Advertisements

It’s all about the money, money

Whilst the Taxpayers Alliance stimulates people to vote Tory to avoid higher taxes, tax payers are taken to the cleaners by private finance initiatives like ‘buying council flats’, which cost them loads more money than paying a little more tax. Many people have been defrauded by crooks exploiting vulnerabilities of private investors.

I am trying to keep out of current affairs, yet today’s politicians don’t seem to look further than just in front of their noses. There are no long-term goals indicated in policies.

It’s out of the EU, free trade deals with the US but no longer-term plans on how to avoid incremental costs with all those extra risk factors that are accumulated through trade deals with far-away countries.

There are talks about reducing carbon rich activities, but how does bulk trade with far-away countries reduce the amount of carbon that is generated through transport. How do we avoid bad-weather disturbances of container ship transports?

Unfortunately today’s politics do not ask people to look at the basics, but their minds get fixed on ideologically tinted ideologies.

It were American manufacturers who supplied most of that faulty cladding that adornes our tower blocks and which cost a fortune to leaseholders to remove. They also manufactured the faulty tumble dryers.

Leaving the EU in favour of American trade deals will be very expensive according to this social media profile: @BarnabyEdwards

Costs broken down per day, per person:

  • EU membership £ 0.35 per person per day.
  • Cost of Brexit since 2016: £ 0.91 per person per day
  • Est. cost of Brexit: £ $.15 per person per day
  • Est. cost of No-deal Brexit: £ 5.81 per person per day
  • Nigel Farage’s earning from publicity since 2016: £ 541.10 per day.

Whilst our current government constantly claims to deliver the cheapest options, I am not so sure that those following all the advice, especially including private ownershp of council homes, actually make much money out of it.

I think it would be much more sensible if the Americans (US) concentrate on improving relationships with their neighbours (like Mexico) instead of constantly building walls and the same should be said about every other geographical region. If all continents make strong relations within themselves, we will all have better chances of getting a better life.

We do need world-peace and will not achieve it if we cannot make peace with our neighbours.

It’s like a desease that everywhere we look there are these pockets of aggressive conflict and it seems to be catching like a virus.

Nothing compares

A lot of things are trying to compare something to Malala Yousafzai. Yet Malala is completely unique. She is unique in her quest to establish better girls education because she comes from a country that is notorious trying to prevent girls from getting to grip with any kind of academic concept. Malala has become a world-wide ambassador for better girls education.

Malala was almost killed by Taleban fighters, shot in the head, but luckily survived to be a great role model for girls around the world.

That fact, that girls need education is true for every culture in the world. However, since people’s mix and move and mingle in other geographical locations, secular principles are a good idea. I support it that countries forbid their civil servants, including teachers to wear religious symbols at work. Every person, girl or boy has the right to a great education and if everybody gets the same treatment, we all have the same chances.

That should not stop churches or relgions to run schools, anybody with the correct qualifications can run a school and educate pupils. We are attending a local Church of England school and we love that the school is not too pragmatic and doesn’t enforce stereo-typical relgious practises. Some churches, have too much dogma and cannot successfully run their schools in a multi-cultural environment.

Of course most countries, have developed certain holidays around relgious beliefs that had been held over centuries but even that  phases out gradually, the more pople mix. Many people still are accustomed to practises they were taught as children and carry on through families, and it will take a long time to ease out of this.

Most schools now educate on a variety of religions, during religious education classes, which could be further enriched with Humanist content.

We are more tolerant generally in western countries and allow people time to neutralise their relgious belief; the Chinese however actively re-educate and tear people away from their familar surroundings in tailor-made camps. The tactic to take children away from families now becomes more popular and is even practised in the USA to deal with immigrants. Yet the Chinese seem to treat the children better than the US.

The Chinese have the space and resources to build such huge camps, we in smaller countries would never have the space to do so. We slowly integrate. We develop methods like having to speak the host country language and making people work in jobs their religion would normally forbid. We establish laws that contradict some relgions and enforce them on the whole population.

We out-lawed forced marriage, domestic violence, genital mutilation and our laws force all children into education.

 

 

 

 

 

Enlightenment

I love a book full of statistics. It saves me compiling them and luckily there are always plenty of published number crunches to relate to.

When I started reading Steven Pinker’s book Enlightenment Now, I started to feel, he was a little too simplistic and tries to make a case that the rich make the live of the poor easier and better.

I do however like the slant on Humanism in the under-title. And whilst I am now on the Environment chapter, I am starting to get interested.

Frightening though the samples Steven Pinker gives by quoting Paul Watson who wants to radically reduce humanity to fewer than one billion.

sand desert blue sky egypt

Photo by David McEachan on Pexels.com

I think that is a very dangerous approach. I belief that the Egyptian Pharaoh culture simply died because the Egyptians spent too many of their scarce resources  on building the pyramids. With the technology available at the time, most of the human labour available must have gone into shaping those stones and putting them into the triangular shapes that built the Pyramids. People didn’t have enough time to spend on planting, harvest and dealing with environmental emergencies or attacks from other forces. Nor did they have the time to develop better technogies.

If we reduce humanity to the bare existence level, we will suffer similar consequences by not being able to sustain technology, which was only able to develop because we have gotten so much spare resources laying around.

Our lifestyles now are becoming increasingly inflexible. We rely more and more on the same habits to do all things each day. We regulate every spare niche of our lives with increasingly complicated laws. This inflexibility in itself is a major hindrance on making real progress. We cannot possibly maintain all that technology with few people.

person holding save our planet sign

Photo by Markus Spiske temporausch.com on Pexels.com

We cannot possibly change our world by leaving it the way it is and try to reduce our carbon foot prints alone.

The fact that Amazon rainforest countries demand the right to develop their lands puts a big dampener on our enthusiams, which rely on the existence of the rainforest.

We need to come to an international agreement that we either re-settle all peoples who reside in current rain forest regions and settle them in other nations. Or another possibility is forcing all nations to have a certain amount of forest areas within each country.

The latter option will require a lot of loss of sovereignity of each nation on the planet. Whilst we cannot even cope with Europe at present, how are we going to enter world-wide agreements?

One major source of pollution is travel and air travel causes more air pollution than previously thought.

We need to radically change values and the calculation of wealth from purely being a plus in the bank acount to being a whollistic view on positive contribution to global wealth including the health of the planet.

Humanism is the best way to achieve this because we cannot continually kick each other’s backsides but believing that God loves us all whilst we destroy each other and the planet. For what, a better afterlife? The Egyptians beliefed in a great afterlife.

 

Can’t invade the rainforest

Just to follow on my previous post about the rainforest, I want to specialise in particular on how education forms the brain and is responsible for the thought processes taught in school.

I am not saying I hate those who have been misled but I am saying change the way we educate our children to stop that specialisation in short-term profit thinking.

It was perfectly possible to invade Iraq, Afthanistan, Germany and any other similar countries to stop genocide and war but it is not possible to invade the rainforest to stop deforestation. We cannot drop bombs onto trees to save the trees, the way we can drop bombs onto buildings and people to stop murderous regimes.

What human evolution sees at present is a part-time brain development, which sees people specialise in certain subjects.

We see people specialising only in their region and making as much profit as possible within and for their region without taking into account that the whole planet needs to function to make regional development sustainable.

Yet, education in developed countries hasn’t even touched what is required to maintain our planet.

Private education stupefies students to think about making profit, lead a country to obtain certain political goals, which are mainly profit related whilst state education or social education concentrates on wider issues like social responsibility.

I am a vehement opponent of private versus state education systems. I am in total favour of only one education system teaching all.

If we teach social and planetary responsibility in schools we will very soon get to the point that currently only each country that has rainforest within actually owns this rainforest.

That is simply how our legal minds work these days, you need to own and if you own you have total power over what you own.

British elite political thinking currently wants to turn away from collective responsibiliy by leaving the EU. But it doesn’t stop at the EU, it stops at the point where the whole earths’ ecosystem is in danger because we do not own the rainforest together as a collectively important earth environment.

There is no other way as creating earth collective ownership if we want to preserver any type of natural self-regulation on the planet. Even as EU states we all need to work towards earths preservation with rules that apply to all nations.

We need to get away from our indivindualistic profit making mentality and work together as human beings who have only one planet to live on.

the rainforest

Is without question one of the most importent assets of our planet. It is concentrated on various geographical locations. Lets take Brazil here as an example.

green leafed trees under blue sky

The typical British countrydise, cleared of forest, ready for farming. Photo by Lisa Fotios on Pexels.com

Of course us developed nations we have already cleared a lot of our forests and developed our lands. We in Britain even talk about becoming self-sufficient farming-wise to justify us leaving the EU without a deal.

For that of course we need to farm the land and clear probably even more forest.

We really do love to rely on the rain forest. The untouched and virgin rain forest, that same rain forest that saves our planet.

But what about those nationas that are couched within the rainforest areas. Nations like Brazil. Do their citizens not have the right to farm, to develp the land, to get skills-based jobs that are based within their national borders.

scenic view of rainforest

Rainforst    Photo by Arnie Chou on Pexels.com

Whilst we here in Britain demand that we can become independent of others, we do expect nations within the rainforest regions to leave that forest and just not devleop, to depend on others, help others, so that we developed countries can stay developing ourselves.

What are the nationals within the rainforest countries supposed to be doing?

Nobody has thought about this and I think that just shows how stupid our privately educated politicians and business leaders are because all they can think of is themselves.

It is an international problem and it needs nations to work together. But of course our political leaders only think about Brexit and becoming indendent from Europe and use the resources of other nations to bolster our own wealth.

The rainforest? The rainforest is depended upon that it stays as it is. So what about putting that thinking cap on?

Europe is going round and round – til the end of civilisation

As soon as Rory thinks he can get a majority in parliament for the deal that Theresa May has negotiated, the Labour Party seems to want to go for a second referendum in any case.

This means it is a no brainer that the Europe question cannot be resolved in the short term because if Labour doesn’t support the deal and wants a second referendum, then there will not be a majority for the existing deal.

Interestingly on the Victoria Derbyshire program the idea was mentioned that if Europe refuses a further extension, this would lead to parliament approving the deal but not if Europe keeps on giving extensions.

What really is important is that these questions affect different people in different ways.

There are

the farmers who say they cannot sell their products to Europe without a deal

the Irish who do not want a hard border

The manufacturers who move out of Britain because of disturbed trading with Europe

the self-employed businesses who have a large European customer base

the politicians who favour a strong monarchy rather than being ruled by a largely republican democracy

the Scots and Welsh who want to remain in Europe

the problem of not finding a solution is that on both sides, e.g. the Remainers and the leavers people vote for different motives.

Also, within the UK political parties want to get the majority in government so come up with political tactics that gets them the majority in parliament.

It seems to be a bit of a lock down.

Obviously the most agreed on part of politics is the Unity of Britain. Unfortunately, not even the so sensible Rory Stewart has mentioned the problems his deal causes for Wales or Scotland. That wasn’t discussed at all in the debate yesterday either.

I don’t think that Britain will leave Europe anytime soon, never mind what they all promise.

The unity of England, Scotland, Wales is the most important consideration that politicians will have and is most likely to down the Conservatives because they do not put the sentiments of the Scottish and Welsh or Irish voters first.

Scotland has already lined up a new independence referendum and has started their own negotiations with Europe on membership.

What I do not quite understand is why Labour keeps Jeremy Corbyn as their leader when he obviously quite strongly upsets the Conservative thinkers on all levels the latest has to do with his pro-Iranian views.

Obviously, Jeremy Corbyn is the one person that stops Labour from getting the middle ground to vote for the party. This of course has helped the Liberals to gain more support again. Greens also gained a lot on environmental issues.

Forget about political parties, vote for policies instead. Political parties ultimately hinder any kind of progress because as well as wanting to keep the absolute power, they do tactics that keep them in power and not policies which are necessarily best.

History has shown time and time again that the majority of people doesn’t always realise and or isn’t powerful enough to change a political course.

For example people should be allowed to vote on policies for instance

Vote for or against renewable energy

Vote for or against using plastics

Vote for or against having political relations with countries who are human rights abusers

rather than vote for a party that can have policies, which are unsustainable.

There are quite a few articles online, whereby scientists predict that civilisation will end in 30 years.

Weather will deteriorate, harvests will be disturbed, travel will be interrupted, communications may be bad.

I don’t think that our basic infrastructure will change much within areas that won’t be flooded but our government does very little to prepare for flood area predictions and keeps on planning like nothing is going to happen.

How are they planning to cope with those future earth warming immigrants, those who have to vacate their current land because it is flooded and seek safer shelter? Where will those move within Britain who will get flooded?

Europe is our nearest neighbour and transport to our nearest neighbour is always easiest. We do not know how viable the Euro tunnel will be in worsening weather conditions, but we need to ensure that we have reasonable relations with our nearest neighbours.

We cannot rely on the rich to help the masses because the rich can always go wherever they want; it’s us poor people who cannot escape we need to make the best of what we’ve got.

Conservative leadership debacle

What we should really look at is self-critical analysis of what appeals to us the most and how this can be used to play tricks on our minds into believing what we are being told.

Obviously the most experienced persons, e.g. Johnson, and other ministers are very well trained how to speak, be precise, say impressive soundbites with sincere voices.

And this goes down a treat, even if what they say is totally meaningless.

Then there was poor little Rory who has not gotten the speaking technique and his thoughts did not fit into one little sentence and he almost seemed to stammer at times.

I would feel exactly the same as him.

At this stage it is all impressing the masses and let the deep voice and looks play their part.

As after the initial selection, the two women and the one openly gay bloke were not selected, that left those on stage, which are the accepted chosen few by the party.

I simply do not believe the show any longer. I want to listen to the message, hear what it really means and Rory at least tried to express what the situation is for real. Yet there wasn’t really time to say anything of substance because this question time was all about fast sound bites. Nobody gave any proper answers to any questions. No yes or nos.

I am not sure whether reality would actually spring a chord with the Conservative membership.

Conservative members obviously only want to back the winner for the next election but since the general dissatisfaction is very large with either not delivering Brexit or the lack of social care policies, those who just make a no-hope promise will fail at the next hurdle.

I watch the debates and it has been said now thousands of times that the EU won’t re-negotiate, yet those supporting Johnson keep on saying that he will renegotiate the deal.

I think the whole EU system should be changed, the EU should make an endless membership into a fixed term membership and member states would have to renew their membership every ten years, and so make the membership actually a choice rather than push states into it just to make it impossible to leave afterwards.

The EU needs to be a democratic organisation.

But, it is amazing that none of the British politicians ever suggested such an idea, that the EU needs changing so that membership becomes easier rather than more doctrines being put upon us.

Yet those who argue that a new deal with Europe about this Brexit should be negotiated are the can kickers.

As we live in a democracy we constantly re-elect our government, that happens every 5 years. We would not argue that because we voted in one government that this is the will of the people and we could not change the government.

Yet this argument is held by the Brexit voters. They say, that because 51 % voted for Brexit in June 2016, which was now 3 years ago, we need to do it.

Unfortunately the referendum did not specify any Brexit conditions so that is what causes the problem.

Yet the EU itself tries to make leaving impossible and at the same time tries to tighten up the organisational ties between member states, with some leading nations being mainly in charge.

There are only two ways around that, either construct an US style amalgamation of states or make the EU a loose geographical alliance, which allows members options to leave very easily.

The hinges of Brexit

There are several dimensions to this

  • Political independence
  • Commercial autonomy
  • Environmental concerns

Historically there were during

  • the 1600 – 95% of war between European nations
  • the 1700 – 75% of war …..
  • the 1800 – 45 % of war
  • 2000 – 0% conflict so far

Considering that the UK government pledged to cut Greenhouse gas emmission to zero by 2050, it seems illogical to leave the EU now.

Leaving the EU and having trade deals with further away countries, would mean considerably more transport of goods, more travel.

The UK is a water logged country and relies on either planes or boats for travel. There is only one land (under-water, tunnel) form of transport that doesn’t rely on flying or boats and that is via the Euro tunnel.

With increasing weather instability, transport by container ships will be endangered. There will also be a reduction of flights because it is very unlikely that the air travel industry will come up with a distinct change in airplane design that is more environmentally friendly.

Yet Britain relies for a large part on air travel. There are now calls to stop inland air travel but the train fares are too expensive to make that affordable.

Whilst I do not suggest that we should have to put up with any political system in Europe, just to get our trade, we need to seriously consider the implication of a break from Europe from the points of environmental change.

London_waterlevels

Flooding predictions for London for around 2080

What voters deserve is a clear planning procedure to include the worsening weather conditions, the increased demands on immigration because unstable political systems in Asian and African countries as well as increased flooding of large areas will decrease landmass available for people in those countries and they all will attempt to emigrate to saver regions.

Whilst our own coastlines suffer from erosion and raising sea levels will eventually encroach on our land.

A strong European council will be an assurance that political systems in European countries will not break down and revert to undemocratic methods.

Leaving Europe now without a deal makes us very vulnerable as we will be more dependant on trade deals with distant nations, when the transport of goods may be disturbed by worsening weather.

Being an influencer in Europe and remain as such will do us more favour than just leaving without a deal.

Whilst large swathes of English land owners want to break off from Europe because they have got the land to support themselves, the rest of us including London, Wales and Scotland feel very uneasy.

Of course theoretically the UK could manage on its own but the right-wing nationalists have a strong history of violent racism and that is what makes it an impossible thought to even embrace. The Jo Cox murder proved what right-wing terrorists are capable of.

I would say that the threat of war from an unstable future Europe together with worsening weather conditions would definitely threaten the future of our civilisation. Our armies would be severely hampered by the weather and our domestic situation would become severely unstable too. Further away allies may not be able to reach. Even D-Day had to be delayed because of bad weather and weather is going to be much worse. So we have to be very sensible and build alliances whilst it is possible to do so and prevent a shift to the right and into facism.

For these reasons I sincerly hope that a new Conservative Prime minister will be stopped from suspending parliament to push through a no deal Brexit.

 

The rainforest fund

top view photo of forest

Photo by Tom Fisk on Pexels.com

Woke up this morning thinking that all the nations who have a foreign aid budget should also have a rainforest fund. Our efforts to reduce deforestation must increase and it has to become a lawfully required activity to save nature.

I searched the Internet and such organisations do exist, predominantly trying to help save the rainforest. Yet whilst countries, around rainforests make illegal logging a criminal offence, it is impossible to police and enforce the laws.

Programs like ‘‘I bought a rainforest’‘, Planet Earth, highlighted the problems, which make poor inhabitants of the rainforest regions fell trees to sell, just to be able to survive. Large swathes of rainforest get chopped down for wood to make furniture, planting of Palmoil, farming fruits for sale etc.

Higher earnings and a world-wide decreasing of poverty doesn’t ensure that people earn that money with environmentally friendly activities.

There is no environmental value how GDP is achieved, it is just GDP. As our governments are proud to provide full employment, they also do not care 100 % what products those workers make, whether they help destroy natural and vitally important resources or not. Capitalism is not valued by earth friendliness, it is valued by profits achieved, whatever it is they sell.

photography of factory

Photo by Chris LeBoutillier on Pexels.com

When we reduce our carbon footprint inland, we still deal with other countries who have a huge one. OK, we no longer strive to produce polluting goods in Britain, but we have them imported from China. Pollution is a world-wide problem, not a local one.

We need to start giving each product and service a carbon footprint value just as we give foods a calorific value.

I don’t support Esther McVey’s call to reduce the Foreign Aid, that Britain gives, instead this Foreign Aid could be diverted to Rainforest preservation. Each time foreign aid gets reduced, we increase the chance of troubles brewing up abroad, which then will need to be solved by wars. Wars have a huge carbon footprint.

Neither do I support Boris Johnson’s promise of further tax cuts for the rich as people simply do not want to invest in Britain because of Brexit. Tax cuts do not prevent Brexit. It just proofs how poorly configured Conservative Brains are, all they can think of is ‘less tax will solve all problems’.

I’ll make another post about Brexit.

 

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,705 hits