fast movers

red bus on road near big ben in london

Photo by Daria Shevtsova on Pexels.com

The urban myth that you need a car in London to get around, is really a myth. Scientific examination of transport has proven the following:

The following numbers came up or moving people around town:

  • 22.000 people using trains
  • 19.000 people walking
  • 14.000 people cycling
  • 9.000 people using buses
  • 2.000 people using private cares.

Read about all the details on New Scientist from where I gotten those numbers.

I had a dad who worked just down the road and needed to take his car to drive there. So that car dependence is just a little bit of an addiction.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan will let us have a car-free day on 22. September 2019. I love the idea, better than the whinging Boris Johnson always did talk about needing large family saloons all the time.

Apparently Talk London is consulting on having car-free days once a month. Bring it on.

London Transport is amazing, with Central Line trains running every minute.

 

 

Advertisements

kicking cans

If the promise to leave the EU is as strong as the promise to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2050 are of the same strenght, then we can assume that this government is just a promise but no action government.

What we get are sincere, deep voices, manly promises, but nothing changes, really.

Greenpeace thought of getting the grey cells of some politicians into motion but that didn’t have any effect, other than being pushed out of the event.

Action speaks louder than words but words are all what some people can come up with. The dinners, the speeches, the outfits, the glamour.

I am not certain that our politicians these days have the mental capacity or even flexibility to actually change anything that moves them out of their current comfort zones.

I don’t care whether we get Brexit or not, but what I care about is that our quality of life increases.

And I don’t believe those who say they are so totally Green because they all use medications and modern technology that was borne out of dirty production methods and using fossil fuels. They all have cars and use flights.

We need to start somewhere and how about changing the way we fund and perceive our schools?

Why not make sure that all schools are enabling our pupils and future generations to breathe in clean air? That all our pupils get plenty of palying fields and green spaces?

If we really want to change our lives, we need to change the way we calculate profits, taxes and distribution of wealth, ownership. In fact we need to redefine the meaning of wealth to include

  • health
  • environment

You cannot sell a walk in the forest for profit, you cannot sell the rainforest because it needs to be wild and just as it is. You cannot sell the ocean because it needs to stay and we cannot sell the north or south pole because we need it just as it is.

Yet there are two things, which are wars and space exploration, which create more carbon emission than a lot of other items. Also the production of white goods and anything that uses metals is highly contageous. Calculate your carbon footprint here.

Lets think about that for a while.

Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere using machines is simply not creating the bio diversity we need to keep the environment healthy and evacuating from earth to another planet is nothing but wishful dreaming.

I must admit, I just love living in our civilisation, the freedom that women can have would be not even half as good in a primitive low carbon society.

Yet there is still the possibility of an educated low carbon society, something we probably all dream about. Articles 25 and 26 of the Universal Human Rights deal with health and education whilst the vast majority of paragraphs deal with legal definitions of personal freedoms.

Perhaps that declaration of Human Rights, should include taking care of our planet as an obligation and right for all of us.

Health first

action activity adult athletes

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The best part about being a human is being as healthy as possible. At least that is what we are striving for.

Here in Tower Hamlets, school children are thought to have 10% less lung capacity, compared to children in rural areas.

Tower Hamlets schools are normally encoached in busy traffic areas, with roads, right, left and centre.

For example Bishop Challoner School is unfortunately a good example of a school being in a totally traffic polluted area. The school is judged ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted because of exam results only. The school is siutated in Commercial Road.

For Ofsted good results are everything, they do not consider other health considerations when they judge a school, which I think is very sad indeed.

On the other hand, Raine’s Foundation school, is a secondary school situated near Victoria Park, an area classified as almost suburban, with leafy streets, access to Victoria Park for PE and much less traffic, as roads around the building are one lane only.

Raine’s Foundation school is classified as ‘in need of improvement’ by Ofsted and because of this, parents won’t apply to send their kids there.

Parents as well as Ofsted only care about exam results.

Tower Hamlets Council  now wants to close Raine’s Foundation school because of the poor exam results, poor in comparison to national results.

Why does nobody care about the children’s health? Isn’t it better to run a school in a healthy area because the kids will be better off throughout their life, if their lungs breathe healthy air?

I personally want to fight to keep the school open just to give children the chance to attend a healthy school. Because sacrificing health in exchange for good exam results will have long-lasting effects on the children’s health.

Access to green spaces, a nice playground, a nearby park will have a great effect not only on children’s mental health but also the physical health.

I want everybody to write to their MP to ask for support to change the classification criteria for schools in respect of a healthy environment.

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.

 

Dinosaurs blew up the earth

It was long my theory that Dinosaurs created so much methane through their huge farts that it all became so concentrated one day that it ignited and literally blew up the earth and all Dinosaurs with it. I don’t belief that it was a huge comet, just the methane would do.

A story from Germany proves that cow methane in a shed of 90 cows blew up the shed when the methane became concentrated and was set off by static electricity. Just imagine if cows can create that much gas how much gas the much bigger Dinosaurs created around the globe.

(t(rain)ed) under

It is heartbreaking to read about the disruptions the weather causes to people and transport of goods. train lines are rained under throughout Britain and even electrical fires have broken out. Yet it is just part of the normal earth warming patterns that we see increased rains, more flooding and all the problems that come with it.

Yet I do wonder whether people in our government planning departments are plain stupid or just try to ignore the warnings.

I think that the Mayan calendar marked the change in the environment correctly in that it predicted it as a known pattern to occur on earth. Perhaps earth warming is always caused by some type of over population of a species that happens to be pre-dominant on earth at that time, whether its dinosaurs or humans.

Yet we see plenty of more plans to build high speed train lines between London and Birmingham, built Crossrail in London and all just because men like to play with trains. It is quite and totally predictable that Crossrail will suffer immense flooding with rising seawater levels and that train lines in the centre of Britain are likely to suffer increased flooding due to higher rain and groundwater levels.

Yet the government feels fit to announce that they plan to spend billions on new high speed train lines. Estuary airports are likely to be built but what when tsunami style waves hit it, what if water levels rise generally, how much can the whole airport rise with it and what are defences for storms?

Simultaneously the government has announced they want to have less critical thinking in universities instead of more.

I think Britain is an excellent example how jobs for the boys help to bring decision-making processes to stupid dimensions. It’s not just boys, its also the whole network of company and personal relations that brings silly decision making processes about. It is definitely wrong to accuse any particular individual of Cronyism and lose follow on libel battles at High Court level because the practise goes through society like a mesh generally and one simply cannot point out single individuals who are involved in it.

Has anybody seriously considered better water based transport services *like boats? Obviously the cargo industry has catched up with new demand and developed huge container ships. Many more human travels could be switched to boats and house building could change to floating homes for example. There could be new industries like plumbing points for house boats for example or homes that could float and stand on firm ground.

Obviously life has to slow down in some respects to avert away from air based fast travel to more slow but manageable sea based transport. Also what does the rising of sea levels do to the value of land deeds?

*This content was added on 23/12/12

London is full of it – aeroplanes

I sat at my local playground yesterday and was realising that up above in the sky there were many aeroplanes ascending and descending. By the size of the planes and direction, I could determine which ones came from London City airport and could probably guess, which ones came and went to Gatwick or Heathrow. Quite a lot of aeroplanes went overhead. In fact I think that the whole of London now has become a fly zone as there are several airports in and around London.

Looking overhead at times I could see 2 planes crossing paths and I started to think what would I do if I saw a crash overhead. Luckily the crossing paths were from planes who were above and underneath each other and not on the same height.

Yet it startles me to think that there would be even more air traffic above and that with an increase in volume also the risk of accident would increase with it. I can only compliment Boris Johnson for his strict opposition on a third runway for Heathrow.

The row on air traffic continue but is it not possible to ask people to change their commuting and communication habits rather than built more and more airports?

I saw only 1 helicopter in the space of 2 hours but plenty of very large passenger air planes that seem to be carrying people rather than goods. Why do people have to fly around so much and how can we avoid it. Of course there are attempts to build green planes but still the volume of traffic means that more and constant alertness to avoid collisions is needed and that is the more immediate serious danger that always arises through high volume traffic, we see it on our roads.

I feel I am entitled to be concerned because as a resident in East London I am directly underneath the fly path of several airports.

Greens want pollution masks for school children

I completely agree with the Greens, that children need protection from pollution. London can become a bit of a dangerous place healthwise for growing children as they are in danger of getting serious lung disease, not only from pollution but also from TB.

 

Pleasing tax-payer politics

The motion to reduce petrol prices is a typical voter-friendly political strategy. Of course people are fed up having to pay those high petrol prices because they need the car to get to work and do the shopping. But it is the lifestyle that is forced upon them by the way our society is set up. Our society is not set up to be friendly to the environment and avoid use of fossil fuel, it is set up to use lots of fossil fuel and as much as possible and to use cars to burn it.

Society could be organised differently in that we are employed locally or business is not concentrated in out–of-town shopping centres, but that is just not the way it is. There is going to be a clash because we are already not complying to the EU clean air and environmental goals and might have to pay heavy fines for busting our allocated limits on pollution whilst at the same time the car drivers want cheaper petrol prices. It is not possible to achieve both because cars still burn fossil fuels and industry is not fast enough churning out different models of cars. Even if they were, people would not have the ready cash to buy them quickly anyhow.

Shows that we are slow and hard to change quickly with changing demands. The way our society is set up, is so rickety, that it takes over 100 years to make a structural change, that is not long enough to please the current environmental requirements. Industry still beliefs it is best to use as much fossil fuel as possible and to rely on it to make a quick buck. Yet the long-term damage that the sucking up of fossil fuels causes to the planet have not yet even come out, they create lots of cavity and that creates lots of earthquakes.

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.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,687 hits