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.

 

Advertisements

A new twist to earth warming

The sun will get hotter, it will burn earth and water from earth will evaporate quicker to build a mirror for even higher rays from the sun.

That brings a new twist to earth warming, which has nothing to do with human activity or is it that the two work hand in hand, like a natural instinctive behaviour of humans that is programmed within their DNA?

This science article is frightening reading and should not be ignored.

Freedom of Expression

The latest scandals about the Brexit propaganda has upset very many residents in Britain and abroad alike. The Freedom of Expression has assisted those who produced white and even whiter lies to mislead the public.

Voters are told to expect bent truths and put up with it. Of course it’s the comprehensive Freedom of Expression, which does NOT require concrete proof of statements made, that enables the political lying to go on and on and on.

I think that each and every statement about political promises, economic outlooks, should contain a minimum of analysis that explain why that argument has been made.

Say you promise that nuclear energy helps us to produce cheaper electricity, explain how this is beneficial and how Hinckley Point, unsuitably placed right near the coast is a decade long investment, that may be swallowed up by floods due to our ever increasing earth warming.

Political planning should always be required to include several outlooks:

  • economic
  • social
  • political
  • environmental

But thanks to the fact that our politicians remain in office just for a short while, we have to put up with short promises.

Look at David Cameron resigning, his premiership and his MP position once his work was done. We have to live with his decisions but he can just move on and earn more money. It’s like politicians are just in the job nowadays to press a point, then resign and “Nach mir die Sintflut”.

The government however is very concerned when the Freedom tends to preach hate against our system and Prevention of Terrorism Acts produce articles to help the state lock up those who wish to eradicate our political system altogether.  That is pointed mainly against those who wish to maim and kill.

Looking back at my own litigation, I thought their publications where aimed to whip up frantic extremism. Yet the government now only prevents open calls for murder and mass fraternities.

Yet the law is slowly changing, looking at Women’s rights, cat-calling gets criminalised and the political and hateful BANTER I had to put up with can now be prosecuted when it comes to sexual harassment.

Earth warming in 2013

The latest round of public Earth Warming consultation through the IPCC Climate conference, showed that the results are widely published here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615

The findings are nothing new and do not change a lot from the Sunday newspapers revelations already published in my blog a few years back.

Then the Chinese were shown as a prime example of bad policies. In fact the world uses China to get cheap goods and little was thought either in China or the world about the impact this has on the worldwide environment.

Until now the Chinese delegate spoke of the bad impact it has when the Chinese also have 5 cars per family as the Americans do.

It is just a sign of people’s inability to practise what they preach. Government still hails new car manufacturing jobs to keep the workers happy, they forget that the production of steel and more and more cars and burning of fossil fuels is the cause for our demise.

The government wants to extract more oil, more gas. The IPCC suggests a price on carbon, that means live will become unaffordable for the poor.

Once land becomes more scarce the poor are going to be perched into camps, and he rich will take all good land.

Women do benefit from employment and if jobs were to go from manufacturing then women would feel the brunt. Government should change living habits to more environmentally friendly instead of investing in fossil fuel based industries.

 

Universal credit will slowly eradicate humanity

Universal credit, if applied around the globe would result in the eradication of the human race as it will severely affect people’s ability to have children. But whilst I previously argued that over-population is one important factor in earth warming, it is only so because we burn fossil fuels.

There is no point in shutting down humanity to stop global warming at all. We need to ensure that people can have children, even if there are no jobs. What this government is doing is a crime on humanity as it blames locals for the fact that no jobs are available and I think this government is paid probably by foreign forces to slow the multiplication of westernised individuals.

A lot of jobs have been out-sourced to eastern countries and they are the only people to benefit from economic growth.

I think this government should be tried for treason.

A very good and sensible tax

Why didn’t David Cameron think of this. He loves taxing people, he should take a good example from Northern Ireland and copy the plastic bag tax from them. We desperately need to reduce the amount of plastics we use with a levy on such goods. I don’t want tax on butter, or such sensible products, I want a reduction and tax on plastic products instead please.

Plastics do immense damage to our environment. Recently a lot of plastic gel balls rained down from the sky into the garden of a person who scooped them up. Plastic fibres also do a lot of environmental damage through washing, when they get into the ground water and then into the food chain.

Of course the damage that plastic bags do to the sea is well known by now.

So in conclusion governments should do much more to stop plastic pollution instead of bickering about a tax on butter.

UK in breach of EU pollution rules since 2005

It of course does put the accusation of the Greens, during the last mayoral elections, in which they accused Boris of not caring for families, into a realistic context. Reading that the UK does not care about pollution levels, which causes a big health issue, hurts. I quote from the article “There are no air quality actions for Defra or the Department for Transport in their departmental business plans,”  and few government departments “appear to understand the importance of the issue”.

What is happening is that a few cycle lanes have been built, which are dangerous and already cost lives because recently 2 cyclists got killed within a week on those so-called safe cycling lanes in Bow.

The whole traffic infra-structure is not changing at all. The roads are made for cars and the congestion is still the same. I would not want to walk or jog near a busy road in London, which is chock-a-block with cars and lorries at most hours of the day.

The rule that parents should walk their kids to school is not enforced at all. Parents are allowed to park illegally outside of schools to drop off their children. Just in my locality cars are parked illegally every time there is a big event in York Hall. Traffic wardens could make a fortune for the borough if they towed away and ticketed all the illegally parked cars and so discourage them from coming on roads to the venue, but they don’t because if they come by car they come to York Hall.

There is no effort to effectively reduce car traffic in London at all.

It would be much better if traffic would change by reducing the amount of road space for cars and increasing cycle lanes to make them wider, therefore squeezing out car traffic because there is no proper indication that environmentally friendly cars are to be sold en mass.

Of course changing the road traffic structure would cost major investment and that is money the government doesn’t want to spend as cycling traffic doesn’t make much money and politicians do want their wages from tax payers. Politicians are the most selfish breed of employee I know.

government stalls subsidy on localised solar electricity

I thought it was an excellent idea to stimulate house owners to install solar panels on their roofs and allow them to sell on the extra electricity created for a profit. The principle is the best solution for a planet that suffers from severe energy problems and has problems generating naturally produced and healthy energy. Instead the government wants to bank our future on more nuclear reactors. There are many natural energy producers around the country, who produce energy in a variety of ways. That may be from waste, water generators, wind turbines, etc. All the surplus energy can be sold to energy companies who in turn sell on the energy to consumers who subscribe to green energy schemes or larger companies who sell it on as part of their general energy supply.

People are paid to generate their own electricity with solar panels and that seems an ideal solution to make people bear the cost of installation.

Apparently Friends of the Earth argue that the government stops subsidising an industry that is beneficial for the environment and creates jobs. It also helps create energy independence. I suppose it is this aspect that governments dislike in general, that people can live locally without needing a centralised mechanism to keep going.

The argument is that renewable energy has created 39.000 jobs and with the cutting of the subsidies Britain has fallen from 3rd to 13th place in the world’s renewable producer rankings.  I said it many times already that it was the most disappointing thing for me about this government that they abandon renewable energy production and instead want to revert to nuclear energy. We are told it is not so dangerous and risks are low. We have seen what an earth quake did in Japan. With the Iran nuclear program we are constantly reminded how dangerous nuclear energy is, yet here in our own country, the government is suddenly very keen on it.

I think what we need is transparency who financially supports our governing parties and if necessary put an end to political corruption, which arises out of the fact that political parties rely on sponsorships from commercial companies. There comes a point when profits and production methods are only partly important because the environment does not care about any of it. Of course for some companies large centralised operations are profitable and it is easier to account with large scale supply mechanisms, but that is not always a good solution to pressing environmental problems.

What jobs the future holds

Having just read the latest report about the biggest ozone hole yet over the Arctic, I wonder what type of job creation David Cameron has in mind when he promises to stimulate the economy. How long-term are David Cameron’s plans. Is he thinking further away or just till the end of his current term in office. I always thought that building houses is something that people do for generations, so that a house is not just for life but for the longer future.

What I really miss in any of David Cameron’s latest speeches, is a relevance to our future, in respect of earth warming and how rising water levels affect the type of homes we can built and where we can built them.

Of course I do not try to be pessimistic, it is always nicer to look ahead with fresh ideas and full of enthusiasm. That though needs a certain amount of realism, which is something I miss on all the major parties, in office today. They all talk about deficit reduction but fail to understand the basic principles of European law because the current government has decided to enter a Europe-denial phase in the hope that things work out against Europe at a later stage,whenever that may be. Whilst Labour, the Conservative and Liber-Democrats all play roughly the same trumpet, with only tiny little variations, we see all their followers follow suit with tiny upheavals here and there.

It is like it is described beautifully in this article, that all those party members suffer from the herd mentality. All comments and political behaviours follow suit as not to wake up the nation with some critical thinking. If anybody still remembers what it meant to learn about it at uni.

So what house-building would be sustainable for the future generations in the plural. It would have to be determined by doing some research how earth warming and rising water tables would affect our geography. Then of course future jobs would be determined by the fact that rising water levels would destroy much of our coast line and people would have to move north and start building new settlements on higher grounds. But I have not heard one high-profile politicians at the moment even mention the stark realities of our future to come.

 

Al Gore, 24-hours climate change reality publicity

On 14 September will screen a 24-hour reality TV show around the globe to highlight the devastating effects climate change has on our planet and on all of us. I strongly support Al Gore in this endeavor and wish we’d all do more sensible things to try to live more sensible with regards to climate change problems so that we produce less carbon.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,687 hits