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.

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.

 

The power of the city

London used to be top city in 1895 with a population of 5,974,000 but has now sunk down well below others.

Whilst Bejing was the no 1 city in 1500 with a population of 672,000 with London not even reaching the top 10, it is now the leader with most growth with London being in 4th position. See the animation to see the development from 1500 to 2018.

London rose in the latter part of 1800 till the beginning of 1900 and then fell back sharply after world war II.

By 2100 London is not even expected to be in the top 20. However, caution has to be given to that list as it doesn’t include predicted sea-level rises by that time.

Whoever is in charge of policies in Britain today is not doing this country any favour by making policies, which will not lead to a growth either in size of our city or will help develop it.

 

Sectarianism

Sectarianism never works. It is, in my definition a violent pressure group, with specific cultural traits, that pressures an established government to allow those specific traits to prevail and if resisted fights for independence.

The Irish Sectarian movement have become clever and since they lost material support from the likes of Gaddafi they hush.

With the Kurds there is a peculiar problem, they have been used to fight Daesh – with US support – but now get hammered. But if the Kurds were clever, they would offer a truce to Turkey, let Turkey take over their land, occupied in Syria and then negotiate Syria’s Assad together with the Turks. Obviously the Russians wouldn’t support the Kurds because the Russians alrady support Assad. And fighting Syria and Russia v Turkey and the Kurds would attract international support, but as it is, the world just watches as Turkey hammers the Kurds. There have been escapes of Daesh prisoners already and it seems the previous problems are going to flare up again, which is quite unfortunate.

All Secterian movements are completely unflexible to other lifestyles. Of course that can be said about many cultures but what makes a group of people sectarian is, if they do not have the country to go with the lifestyle.

I suppose it is easy to manipulate any sectarian group anywhere in the world to cause trouble for the country or government they reside within. Any foreign power can supply the Resistance with weapons and get them to harrass the hated government.

I think it needs a world solution to this problem. With the ongoing climate change agenda, countries will need to learn to work together on that basis, perhaps they learn to put carbon footprints on the forefront of their thoughts, because wars are environmentally very damaging.

Perhaps we need a new world council, which decelerates wars. You can argue that nations have a right to defend themselves. This needs extraordinary amounts of weapons all around the globe. Weapons can be a deterrent but they also get used and inevitable cause immense destruction.

Here, we are back to sectarian groups who all think they have the right to be better and bigger.

 

London disruptions funded by billionnaires and philanthropists

There we have it, riches are concentrated among a small minority of elitists and once they realise that their previous business enrichment has been causing serious damange to the planet – because its the rich who are in charge of all business around the world – they simply finance a protest movement that aims to change things.

Those include:

  • Sir Christopher Hohn
  • Aileen Getty (oil heiress)
  • Radiohead (band)
  • Crowd funding (6.000 people donated £600.000 in a week)

But why concentrate the actions on London? The sponsors assume that no civil disobidience took place! Is that living in dream land?

The working people of London are unable to earn a living normally and they have to cope with triple the stress than normal!

Those donations should be used to pay for the extra policing effort it took to control those demonstrations. We need police to fight crime. We hear of stabbing every day and there is little police available to patrol our streets.

Perhaps those who lost out financially through the actions should take some steps to recover their monies. Now they know whom to ask.

So that is irresponsible.

Just heard that in Manchester a criminal has stabbed several people in a horrible incident. That is what we need our police for, not for making sure that those weird looking Extinction Rebellion demos are policed.

 

Good luck Greta

I feel much more relaxed about Greta Thunberg’s trip to the US, since I’ve heard on a news story that actually one of her parents will be on the boat. It is a 60 x 12 foot boat without a toilet and amenities we are just used to.

It can’t do any harm to keep the discussion about climate change warm by constantly reporting about that trip of Greta.

What also interests me is how much Greta may miss her luxury home comforts during the journey for the sake of fighting climate change.

Lets hope all goes well.

I also hope that it will be easy to follow the media reports.

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.

 

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?

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.

 

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,457 hits