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.

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.

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.

Copy cat

Rebecca Long-Bailey seems to latch onto Boris Johnson’s success with Northern voters. Her being a northern MP of course makes a case for winning back voters by promising extra commercial activity in the area, if they only choose her Socialist scheme instead of Boris’s.

It is true that an important MP will stimulate an area and them going away will deaden the town. Just look at Kirkcaldy, the home-turn of Gordon Brown, that city centre died down once Gordon Brown hung up his coat.

I think promising a reverse Britain policy is just another pipe dream and not realistic. Unfortunately capitalists have nothing to offer that looks beyond immediate profits. But, what this country needs is a long-term government strategy that takes account of climate change structures like the widening of mouth of the river Thames.

Boris Johnson seems to love to Parallelise,

East from West in London with the airport plans

North from South with civil servants re-allocations.

The river bank and the buildings need to be re-allocated around London. There is no case for abandoning London as commercial and political centre.

Quite clearly because Capitalism, which is completely inflexible and unable to make structurally sound but momentarily unprofitable decisions, will bring the downfall of this society if we do not snap out of it.

A government-led sound strategy is the only solution.

The UK is a small country, the land-mass is about only double the size of land that is currently occupied by the Australian bush fires. There is little space to experiment. What needs to happen is that the Capitol London gets re-structured, with a re-allocation of the River Thames shore line and all buildings around it need to be shifted outwards.

Unfortunately Cross-rail has been built in a very short-sighted way and will become obsolete within 50 years. But that should become a reason to abandon London and shift all activities northwards.

We need to preserve the Greenbelts, the farming areas for important reasons. Shifting London northwards will destroy large swathes of our countryside.

Yes abandon the current Houses of Parliaments, built new ones further away from the river Thames, make a wonderful modern building that is not stuffy.

Human evolution or putting earth first

Humanity has reached an important stage in its evolution and the marker is not whether people are meat-eaters or not it is how they related to the opposite or same gender. But all this has to be related to our environment too.

I think there is a rough split across the board, which can be distinct by the way women (child-bearing ones) are treated by the opposite sex.

The societies, which treat women as child-bearers, home-makers and dependants on the dominant male are distinct from the ones where this male domination is being phased out and in those societies the border between genders is also becoming less distinct.

Of course gender markers come hand in hand with religious beliefs and those soceities most religious also generally have the most distinct policies towards women in that women are not allowed to have their own choices, have to live to please dominant males and be either seen as child bearers or sexual objects.

This policy goes right across religions Muslim, Jew and Christians.

The least variation of female discrimination can be found in Muslim-type societies.

Obviously to me, that many religions have similar threads but where the gods are just claled different names but they all have been established at similar times in history, shows that the creation of those modern religions was a policy that had been developed at that point in time. I think leaders of history were much more coordinated as we are lead to believe.

Back to the point of gender policy. People tend to drift away from classical religion the more scientific understanding they have about the world. Obviously the relgious books, having been written over 2.000 or around 2.000 years ago has an impact on our understanding. We can no longer connect to the logic applied and in fact many bible stories are seen as unlawful these days if they are quoted as a remedy to today’s problems.

We now have civil partnerships instead of marriage, a very important marker of our evolution.

People can change gender if they wish and even parents can refuse to have a gender assigned to those babies born with both genders.

Just imagine we could self-fertilize if we stop to eradicate those humans born with both sex organs. Though I am not certain whether that would not lead to genetic mutilation.

What is certain that if we have any type of life-form that this life form will want to survive in the environment that it can live in.

Yet so many people today do not care about the environment any longer but only for the profit they can make for themselves.

We need to make a stark choice, to either curb those who just want to make profits and stash the cash or whether we want to promote choices that save our planet for us to live on.

Banking on finding another planet are pipe-dreams and very unrealistic. Those solutions are promoted by those who make all that money and rather spend it on looking at other planets or living in space, rather than make less money but save our planet.

To sum up, human evolution has to coincide with a clear choice. Those who simply see women as child-bearing and home-making instruments do nothing towards saving this planet and those who use women to support policies that enable distruction of our current planet help us neither.

People have to decide whatever our civil laws decide is right for our human rights, we need to decide whether we put this planet first.

There is total indecision whether the billionnaires of this world can continue to create huge carbon emissions on earth but are allowed to use all their resources for space exploration. Because that is what’s happening right now.

We’ve had political parties called

the Britain First group was a fascist club. But we do need a political movement that puts earth first. We always see our home as our castle, we need to see the earth as our home.

Earth First was founded in 1979 and I have never heard of them previously as our media does not push them, though there are many branches of that movement throughout the world now. I shall look into this as I have come across that by using pure logic and a thought stream that led me to finding out about them.

 

Spoil 2020

fireworks-2020Just wanted to start the year by spoinling people’s lust for fireworks. A friend posted this pic yesterday, a damming evidence of how fireworks are bad for the environment. Why do we ban old cars from London if we do these environmentally damaging events instead?

Thinking about the environment starts by stopping such fireworks displays.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,457 hits