2017: A short manifesto

A better world is possible. We owe it to our children and our neighbours. We even owe it to ourselves.

But we must start from what’s gone wrong. The UK faces a triple crisis:

• An environmental crisis of climate change, species loss and polluted air.
• A social crisis of an over-stretched NHS and growing poverty and inequality.
• A political crisis where the power of money and fake facts undermine democracy.

Only the Green Party sees that all these crises are serious and linked. So only the Green Party will address all of them.

The environmental crisis

The last 50 years have seen an extraordinary loss of wild things. The rate of species extinction is 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than that in previous periods. Global temperatures are rising at an accelerating pace and the loss of much of the Arctic Ice shows that we have become the major influence on the planet's climate, flora and fauna. Planetary scientists recognise this by calling this period the Anthropocene.

In the UK the Green Party has led on climate change and air pollution. If elected I will work for the transformation of our energy and transport systems so they no longer poison our air and trash our climate.

These changes will improve our health in the short-term and our safety in the long-term - provided we can mobilise the international community to do the things it has already agreed to - like the Paris Agreement.

The social crisis

The banking crisis of 2007 ended a period of unfettered growth and public confidence in 'the system' and its leadership. We can now see that this period was not as good as we thought since most of the benefits of growth went to the top 1% of society. 

The banking crisis (due to the recklessness, still unpunished, of bankers) gave us a Coalition government that preferred blaming its predecessors to solving our problems. Pretending that national accounts are just like domestic accounts - only bigger - the chancellor set out to balance the books by cutting expenditure.

The Green Party understands that the cuts are self-serving ideology, not good housekeeping. The Green Party stands with leading economists in confronting the ideology and with campaigners in resisting the cuts. If elected I will defend the NHS and schools and protect local people from a welfare system that no longer cares about people.

Our priorities here should be to bring people out of poverty and restore our social and health services. It will not be cheap. Fortunately the Tories's obsession with cutting taxes provides a new progressive government with some headroom, ie space to raise taxes without trashing the economy. And, of course, its proper to borrow for investments in our future. 

More radical change will be needed beyond that - a Universal Basic Income and major upskilling of our people, especially with vocational skills. And I would focus on the sectors we need for the future such as electric vehicles, renewable energy and energy efficient construction.

The political crisis

Our political system is corrupt and dysfunctional. Votes in marginal seats like Enfield North have much more influence than those in 'safe' seats like Southgate so the major parties concentrate on them. We need a new, proportional, system to address this.

As their membership has fallen the main parties have become increasingly dependent on gifts from the rich. The Green Party, like you, knows that he who pays the piper calls the tune. That's one reason why all three main parties are so keen to help 'The City' and keep the people who created the 2007 crash out of jail.

If elected I will work to reform party finance and our voting system. 

Another crisis

Last year the UK voted to leave the EU in a campaign notable for floods of 'alternative facts' (which used to be known as 'lies'). The Leavers were as surprised as the Remainers and have struggled to produce a negotiating position. I would summarise the government's current position as ignorant, arrogant and short-sighted. The EU27 will NOT give us better terms than we have now. If our next government continues Mrs May's policies they may not give us any deal!

Two years is an extraordinarily short time for a negotiation of unprecedented complexity and would be even is we had a full team of experienced negotiators - which we don't. 

The decision is taken and the process has begun but no-one can foresee the result. Last year the people of the UK signed up to a contract whose terms they did not know. This is a once in a generation decision so its only right that the British people should be given a final choice once the terms are known.

If elected I will work to give you a vote on whatever BREXIT deal the next government gets. And the option to stay in the EU.

Heathrow - Beyond belief!

Last year's airport decision and Caroline's intervention the House cause me to look for the first time at the report of the Airports Commission. The treatment of CO2 emissions is fascinating - and appalling.

The main point of the new runway is of course to increase the amount of flying and the Commission accept that this will increase CO2 emissions over the next 20 years. After that, it says, increasing fuel efficiency will reduce emissions so that by 2050 they will nearly, but not quite, be down to 2025 levels.

Now everyone (including the Committee on Climate Change and successive Labour, Coalition and Tory governments) says that UK emissions have to fall dramatically over the next 40 years so here is what the Commission's Sustainability Report says (para 16.8):

"... it is important to remember that an expanded Heathrow under a Heathrow Airport Northwest Runway scheme would still be producing .... a majority, of total UK carbon from aviation: in 2050 the carbon emissions from departing flights at Heathrow would represent 54.6% of the UK total."

So that's official. All other activities must reduce their emissions more so that we can fly more.

Dissappearing ice and gulls

The Arctic ice has now passed its annual minimum and scientists expect ice cover to increase as winter arrives. The minimum was 1.60 million square miles and ties with 2007 as the second lowest extent on record.

Last week Arctic scientist Peter Wadhams told New Scientist "... the trend is so strongly downwards that in one, two or three more years, I expect ... that there will be less than a million square kilometres of sea ice remaining in September ... in one, two or three more years." Of course, one million is just a number - further shrinkage is inevitable.

The effects are already apparent. The same issue of New Scientist reported the rapid decline in populations of Ivory Gulls off Greenland and Svalbard. According to Kyle Elliott at McGill University in Montreal. “... if the ice disappears – they’re not going to be able to survive.”

How Politics rules out Fracking

In March the UK Committee on Climate Change (CCC), a body established by Parliament, produced a report on fracking. The report - The compatibility of UK onshore petroleum with meeting the UK’s carbon budgets - is rather sceptical. (And it does not consider most of the objections to fracking, eg pollution of water supplies, since the CCC is not charged to do so.)

The main conclusion is that:

"exploiting shale gas by fracking on a significant scale is not compatible with UK climate targets unless three tests are met:

• Test 1: Well development, production and decommissioning emissions must be strictly limited. Emissions must be tightly regulated and closely monitored in order to ensure rapid action to address leaks.... Production should not be allowed in areas where it would entail significant CO2 emissions resulting from the change in land use (e.g. areas with deep peat soils); The regulatory regime must require proper decommissioning [and] ensure that the liability for emissions at this stage rests with the producer.
• Test 2: Consumption – gas consumption must remain in line with carbon budgets requirements. ....This means that UK shale gas production must displace imported gas rather than increasing domestic consumption.
• Test 3: ..... .Additional production emissions from shale gas wells will need to be offset through reductions elsewhere in the UK economy, such that overall effort to reduce emissions is sufficient to meet carbon budgets.

The obvious questions are whether these conditions can be met and, if so, whether they will be. The report is clear that the conditions can be met, but will they be?

Test 1
The government's obvious enthusiasm for fracking is based on US experience so its useful to look at that experience. In 2011 Robert Howarth of Cornell Uni. estimated that methane losses during fracking were so large that burning fracked gas was worse for the climate than burning coal! Of course, US regulation is notoriously lax and the UK would doubtless do better but is shows the vital importance of actually doing much better. The committee says that the 'minimum necessary regulation' should reduce methane emissions to 0.5% of gas produced. That's 4-20 times better than the US situation.

Since regulation increases costs and given that a mixture of political and geological factors is undermining the viability of large-scale fracking its obvious that the industry will resist strict regulation. The government's general approach to fracking which includes over-riding local opposition, makes it unlikely that it will be robust in this area.

Test 2
To ensure that fracked gas replaces imported gas would be easy for a government that was prepared to intervene in the economy in order to safeguard the climate. In 2015 the Cameron government backed away from a number of such commitments. It's possible that the May government will be different but early signs, and the inevitable emphasis on BREXIT and protecting the economy make this look unlikely.

And even this assumes that the UK is in track to meet its obligations - which it isn't.

Test 3
It's worth quoting the report directly here: "... accommodating additional emissions from shale gas production of 11 Mt/year may be possible, although it would require significant and potentially difficult offsetting effort elsewhere."

When an official body says "significant and difficult"it genesally means 'probably won't happen'.

Conclusion
The bottom line here is that the use of fracking is only compatible with the UK's carbon budgets if associated with resolute efforts by successive UK governments. Nothing in the recent behaviour of the UK government makes that seem likely.

So the conclusion is obvious and unoriginal - No fracking here!

A Lesson from Jellyfish

Jellyfish aren't really my thing. I'm not a biologist and on the now rare occasions when I'm in the sea I don't see them. I suppose they're interesting - they're certainly weird - and I'm willing to be concerned that their numbers are increasing as those of ordinary fish (those with backbones) are falling. So I read a recent New Scientist article with interest.

The article documents the growth in numbers and the problems they cause then looks at ways of controlling the numbers. (The increased numbers are due to human activities such as overfishing, run-off of agricultural chemicals and global warming.) Those ways include swarms of specialised robots (!) and manipulating their fertility with hormones but nothing seems to work well. And, given how little we know about them, a killing spree seems a bad idea.

And jellyfish, like everything else, are food for something. Probably the main predators include those very fish we've been removing by overfishing! So the right answer to the jellyfish problem is to restore the health of the oceans by stopping overfishing, over-use of agricultural chemicals and global warming; and possibly by releasing lots of little fish.

The Jellyfish lesson, then, is to show restraint and restore the balance of nature. A true ecological lesson.

World Biodiversity on the slide

A recent major report in Science magazine by 23 scientists shows that biodiversity has fallen to dangerously low levels across two-thirds of the Earth’s surface. By ‘dangerously’ they mean likely to undermine the natural services, such as food production and waste disposal, on which we depend. The loss of biodiversity is mainly due to changes in land use.  

They authors found that original species are more than 14% less abundant as before we started changing the land and are at least 10% less abundant – the accepted warning level – over 90% of the Earth’s surface.

The authors further show that this is true for that 58% of the planet on which 71% of people live; so this is not a small issue for our species. 

Should we panic?

Probably not. The loss of biodiversity does not imply the immediate collapse of world farming (though there are certainly risks) or the pollution of all ours rivers. 

But, it will make the ecosystems more vulnerable to shocks such as the droughts, floods, storms, etc. that climate change will make increasingly common and severe. Over and over we’ve seen how areas of original habitat are reduced to patches in which all the species seem present. But after shocks, or just lapse of time, key species disappear. Though we don’t know the tipping points we do knows that they are there.

The changes in land use have neither stopped nor slowed. Neither will they stop whilst our numbers and impacts grow. The extrapolation is obvious: Further loss of habitat and biodiversity.

So though we shouldn’t panic we should ACT. We need to adopt genuinely sustainable policies – as the Green Party has always said.

Reference:

·         Title: Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment

·         Author: Newbold, Tim, et al.

·         Ref:  Science  15 Jul 2016: Vol. 353, Issue 6296, pp. 288-291

·         DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf2201

The paper is behind a paywall but there’s a summary in ZME Science.

Why Sir Philip should break his silence

There's been a lot of criticism this week of Sir Philip Dilley, chairman of the Environment Agency, for basking in the Barbados sun whilst his staff fight the floods. Nor has public regard been enhanced by EA claims that he was at his London home.

But does it matter?  We don't expect the EA chairman to be filling sandbags, driving a rescue boat or even allocating staff to jobs. The EA doubtless employs skilled people to do all that. Sir Philip is only at fault if he's neglecting his duty. So what is his duty during this crisis?

I think it's two-fold. Firstly, he should act as a sounding board for the chief executive - the man who actually makes the key decisions. But second, and more importantly, he should seize the moment to explain to government, press and people why we keep facing "unprecedented" floods which are nothing of the kind and what needs to be done about it.

Of course there's no great secret about either matter. The causes are climate change, El Nino, foolish agricultural policies, building on flood plains and neglect of flood defences. The required actions follow directly - more rigorous support for climate change mitigation, changes in planning rules and the agricultural subsidy regime, more flood defences and a rethink about the real carrying capacity of our land.

It's not difficult to understand but it is hard to get a government committed to austerity and shrinking the state to listen. That's why we need a strong message from the chairman of the EA. And that's why he needs to be here - making the case and communicating the message.

His silence is a neglect of his duty to the public; and merits criticism

COP21: UN report shows that the national pledges are inadequate

You may have heard that the UN has produced a "synthesis report" on climate change. The report is 66 pages and very technical. There's a short overview - but key parts are almost unintelligible.

Here's what it probably meant to say:

• If global temperature reaches two degrees above the pre-industrial level (say, 1850) we'll be in bad, indeed catastrophic, trouble.
• If we can keep total greenhouse gas emissions to no more than 1,000 Gigatons of CO2, ever, then we have a 66% chance of keeping the temperature increase below two degrees.
• 119 countries have made pledges to reduce or reduce the growth in their greenhouse gas emissions.
• If all these countries keep their pledges and others follow their current trends then greenhouse gas emissions will keep rising until at least 2030. But they won't rise quite as much as they might have without the pledges.
• It's likely that by 2030 we will have emitted about 750 Gtons of CO2 and will be emitting about 57 Gtons per year.

But history will not stop in 2030. What follows?

• If emissions stop rising in 2030 and continue at the same rate we'll have emitted the whole 1,000 Gtons by 2035.
• If we start to reduce emissions in 2030 and do so by equal steps of 6 Gtons we'll have emitted the whole 1,000 Gtons by 2040.

But these cases are unreal for a mixture of technical, humanitarian and political reasons. For instance, the world cannot go from emissions growth to 10% pa reduction in one year. So all the practical scenarios (based on known technology) in which we keep the risk of catastrophic climate change below 66% require emissions to peak well before 2030. The earlier the peak the easier the transition.

The bottom line: The pledges are inadequate. Even if met they create a serious risk of catastrophic climate change.

Not just fossil fuels

Avaaz is a good thing, of course. An organisation that brings 42 million people together to oppose our leaders' follies and wickedness has to be good. But sometimes it could just be a bit smarter.

Today's Avaaz e-mail drew attention to the fires now sweeping across Indonesia which are "choking 40 million people in the smog, and forcing kids to be evacuated on warships. The fires were set deliberately, to clear land for plantations -- a small, but terrifying, example of the huge man-made climate disaster we’re creating every day!"

Avaaz goes on to link this with the Paris talks and the need for rich countries to switch funds from fossil fuel subsidies to providing poorer countries with "guaranteed long-term funds to prevent climate disasters." Both parts of that are clearly necessary and just. We should stop subsidising the actions that drive climate change and compensate the victims for the harm we've done.

But there's another issue here. The fires in Indonesia are set to clear land for palm oil plantations. The palm oil is sold to the developed countries where it's used in a thousand products - consumed by you and me. And the fires and deforestation make Indonesia the world's 3rd biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. That is not due to fossil fuel use.

Indonesia ought to take responsibility for this appalling performance. In fact its official data are distorted and its Paris commitments completely inadequate. It should set demanding targets and enforce its own laws.

But Indonesia is not acting in a vacuum. It would not be burning its rainforests were there not a strong demand for palm oil and large-scale indifference by buyers to the environmental costs. The developed countries need to work with Indonesia to enforce standards, stop deforestation and find alternatives. That will, of course, cost money.

That's not easy, merely essential.

Climate schizophrenia

The USA is a mighty strange place. It produces some of the world's best scientists and most effective technology entrepreneurs. It also produces a political culture dominated by money and fiercely hostile to anything that challenges the power of the ruling elite.

Only in the USA do we see so many powerful politicians in simple denial of the facts that world temperatures are rising and will continue to rise unless we active decisively. It's not because the USA is magically exempt from the consequences of climate change. Quite the contrary:

Sea-level rise:  A recent study by Princeton scientists has confirmed predictions that sea-level will rise 1 metre by 2100 and continue to rise thereafter. The land on which 30 million Americans live will ultimately be lost to the sea. Threatened cities include Boston, New York, Miami, New Orleans Long Beach and even Sacramento.

But all that's decades, even centuries, in the future. Is the problem a kind of short-sightedness?  Well not really. Here's what's under their noses.

Drought.  California is in the fourth year of a severe drought, the worst in its history. This has produced forest fires that have killed six people and destroyed 1,000 homes (New Scientist, 26/9/15, p5). The effect of climate change is easy to understand here. Apart from just drying out the vegetation it makes precipitation fall as rain, which runs off, not snow, which would replenish the underground aquifers.

Or is the USA still so obsessed with the Middle East that nothing else registers? Again no.

War.  Syria's civil war began with protests in cities like Homs and Hama in 2011. Conditions in these cities had been exacerbated by Syrians seeking refuge from the 2007-11 drought, the most severe on record. And the severity of that drought was due to - have you guessed? - climate change. Actually Syria's rainfall has been declining for about fifty years whilst its population has risen four or five fold in that same period.

Of course, it's never just climate change. Population growth, rising consumer demand, religious extremism, government policies - or the lack of them - and just bad luck are all part of the causal chain.

It's just that so many US leaders refuse to see the obvious for fear that they'd be obliged to support policies of restraint that would threaten their comfort and the profits of their corporate sponsors.

But you knew that, didn't you?

Clinton on Arctic drilling: Right answer. Wrong reason.

Last week Obama allowed Shell to drill in the Arctic and Hilary Clinton disagreed. She tweeted: "The Arctic is a unique treasure. Given what we know, it’s not worth the risk of drilling.”

That's the wrong reason. Of course drilling for oil does threaten the Arctic. As we saw in the Gulf of Mexico a bad spill can do huge damage that lasts for years. And  it would be worse in the Arctic.

But the key reason is that we DON'T NEED MORE OIL. Our fossil fuel reserves are already four or five times as much as we can ever burn if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. So, since we need to leave 80% of our oil reserves in the ground, money spent on finding more is money wasted. Money on which there must never be a return.

Obama's policy is like buying more salt when you already have a lifetime supply. Except that you or your heirs could sell the excess salt but there will be no buyers for excess oil.

How Cameron is destroying the climate

The Campaign Against Climate Change has summarised the government's recent changes in climate change policy. CACC has found 11 changes that encourage energy use, discourage energy efficiency and tilt the supply-side balance in favour of fossil fuels and against renewables. It's s systematic assault on the climate.

They are (and I quote):

Changes that encourage energy use

• Massive road-building plans - £15 billion road-building spree still going ahead amid austerity read more
• Planning an unnecessary new runway in the South East (and quietly ditching previous pledges on Heathrow) read more

Changes that discourage energy efficiency

• Scrapping the Green Deal for home insulation - What's worse than the weak Green Deal scheme? No support at all. read more
• Scrapping the Zero Carbon Homes target - supported by housebuilders as well as environmentalists read more
• Removing tax incentives to buy less-polluting cars read more

Changes that encourage fossil fuel extraction and use

• More planning changes to fast-track fracking - only 16 weeks allowed for councils or ministers step in read more
• New tax breaks for fossil fuels - £1.3 billion more announced in March - no cuts here! read more

Changes that discourage renewable energy  

• Removing onshore wind subsidies - support to end in April 2016 read more
• Cuts to solar subsidies - endangering the industry in order to save households just 50p-£1.20 a year on bills read more
• Making renewables pay the climate change levy - this was meant to encourage renewables: it will cost the industry  £3.9 billion read more
• Planning changes to block onshore wind - making it extremely difficult, even when communities support it. read more

Uganda's forests in terminal decline?

What's the state of African forests? 

A recent article in New Scientist gives a dismal answer for Uganda. 

First the numbers. Between 1990 and 2009 forest cover fell from 24% to 10% and is still falling. At that rate it's probably down to 6% already and will all be gone by 2025.

But that estimate may be too optimistic. Many forest reserves look OK from the outside but in the forest squatters have cleared land and built homes, schools and churches. Many are solid, brick-built structures. The squatters are not planning to move on.

There's a quality issue too. Loggers, legal and illegal, have concentrated on native African hardwoods but reforestation - where it's occurred at all - has usually been with faster-growing softwood species like eucalyptus and pine.

And all this affects the wildlife. Deforestation, loss of native species, hunting, human defence of crops and the breaking up of large areas into a patchwork of forests and fields all make the wildlife move away. Those animals that stay lack food and face conflicts with the squatters. Conflicts that the humans are bound to win.

There are clearly two causes. One is land hunger due to population growth and human conflicts in both Uganda and its neighbours. The other is inadequate policing due to the usual mixture of limited resources and local corruption. Climate change is probably involved as well.

According to Forestry Commissioner Margaret Adata Uganda aims to get the squatters out of the forest and return forest cover to 1990 levels. Wildlife, she thinks, will follow.

I wish her well but time is terribly short.

Does greed or need drive the planetary crisis?

The Green Party’s distinctive insight is that we must all live on planet Earth and that, in the long run, we must live within our planetary limits. Our species already grabs 40% of the Earth’s production. That’s morally indefensible – we are just one species yet we are driving the rest toward extinction.

It’s also unsustainable. Our impacts are ever increasing but we have only one planet. Once we’ve converted all the forests and grasslands to crops we’ll have nowhere to expand and the system of planetary exploitation we call consumer capitalism will have to stop expanding.

But that, of course, will be too late. Our increasing emissions of greenhouse gases put us on course for at least four, maybe six, degrees of warming. That will raise sea levels (by 20 meters if we can stay below four degrees) and reduce global food production. The combination of less food and more people can have no good outcome.

Pope Francis has blamed our environmental overshoot on greed whilst Mark Lynas and his fellow ‘ecomodernists’ see it as the result of trying to meet human needs. The Pope is closer to the truth.
The great expansion in fossil fuel burning in the 19th century was led by entrepreneurs. Though greed was one motive so was the desire (by some) to do good. That century produced new forms of philanthropy and Andrew Carnegie’s dictum that ‘the man who dies rich dies disgraced’ as well new forms of exploitation. Yet I believe that the simple desire to make a (big) difference was more significant than either greed or philanthropy.

Yet from these origins came a system that expected, in fact required, company directors to be greedy and which for the last 50 years has encouraged consumer greed through advertising. The system – consumer capitalism – is largely self-sustaining. It has created greedy consumers and promotes managers who are greedy for the growth and profits of their firms. It also rewards academics and commentators who encourage consumer greed (yes, I do mean you, fashion journos!) and who praise managers who increase profits – whatever the costs to other people and species.

And yet we do need some growth if we are to help the ‘bottom billion’ who go to bed hungry out of poverty. The challenge to the Green Party – indeed to everyone who cares about people and planet – is to find forms of development that relieve the worst poverty, bring greater well-being to ‘consumers’ and reduce our impacts on the rest of the planet’s ecosystems.

And to win the political battle of ideas for the new way.

Can I sell you a mountain?

Sure, sea level is rising, but it was only 1.7 mm/year in the 20th century. And it's only 3 mm/year now - 300 mm by 2100. That doesn't sound much, does it?

Though, of course, that assumes there's no further increase in the rate. In fact increasing greenhouse gas emissions make an increase almost certain so it might be 500 mm by 2100.

So how about the long-term?  If we keep the global temperature rise below two degrees we can expect 400 mm from loss of mountain glaciers, 800 mm from ocean expansion and 3.3 m from the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet. That's 4.5 m in total. That's the same as the largest tidal rise on the Essex coast and, obviously, it would add to the tidal rise.

These numbers are based on very cautious treatment of the melting of glaciers and the Antarctic ice. And that's a problem because we keep finding new mechanisms that allow the ice to melt much faster. For instance, the great Antarctic glaciers flow to the sea where they generate vast ice sheets. But the sheets are breaking up (which does not raise sea level) and this allows the glaciers to move much faster (which does).

There are a lot of uncertainties here but they aren't comforting ones. They boil down to two questions:

1. Have we already passed the points of no return for any of the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers?
2. How hot will the planet get? (We're currently on course for 4-6 degrees of warming.)
3. How fast will we reach maximum sea level?

New Scientist estimates that four degrees of warming would produce 20 m of sea level rise. 

How much do mountains cost these days?

Is Assam's teatime finally over?

We have imported tea from Assam, India, for many decades. In the 19th century the tea crop was so important that tea clippers like the Cutty Sark raced across the seas to bring the first crop to London.

Yet Asam's tea growing may not be sustainable. A New Scientist correspondent reports that temperatures are up, rainfall down and weather generally less predictable. Higher temperatures favour pests whilst reduced rainfall requires the expense of irrigation. In addition, the quality is worse.

The industry will adapt. New varieties and water conservation measures and some switchinmg from black to green and white tyea will maintain production. But its another industry that's being transformed by climate change.

Joan Ryan: The New Labour years

Every vote is a vote for a person as well as their party so it's fair to look at a candidate's track record. Joan Ryan, my Labour opponent, was an MP for 13 years before Nick de Bois defeated her and you can now see her key parts of her voting record online.

It's not a pretty sight.

Let's start with the good news. She voted for gay rights, higher alcohol prices and to ban hunting with hounds.

Now the rest.

The Iraq War
First and worst she voted for the Iraq war. That was a war for an unjust cause, fought without UN sanction and that was sold to the UN and to the British Parliament and people with lies; most notably the "dodgy dossier". Perhaps she believed the lies - though many of us saw through them even then. But if she believed them why did she not demand a full inquiry? In fact she voted against inquiries in both 2003 and 2009.

Of course government MPs are expected to vote for the government line whilst ministers, Ryan was a Parliamentary Private Secretary and then a whip, are required to. But a decision to authorise killing is above all a moral decision and this decision had extraordinary consequences for Iraq, Syria and the flow of migrants to Europe. If she had disagreed with the leadership she could, and should, have resigned. So I believe that she believed the lies.

And what can we conclude from this? Surely that her political judgement is poor and that she's too ready to follow her party's leaders into folly.

Strengthening the state
Ryan has voted repeatedly for measures that increase the power of the state over its citizens. They include:

• Identity cards - which help the state to track us.
• To allow GCHQ to retain data about phone calls, e-mails, etc.
• To allow ministers to intervene in inquests - to avoid embarrassment to the government.
• Various 'anti-terrorism' measures which undermine the rule of law.

 Ryan is no friend of civil liberties on matters where such liberties inconvenience the state.

Climate change
Ryan voted against various measures against climate change. For instance:

• In 2008 she voted against including climate change policies in the  National Policy Statement,
• and against government powers to set emissions targets for power stations.
• In 2009 she voted against the government's endorsing the 10:10 campaign.

New Labour did take action on climate change but these fall far short of what is needed to avoid catastrophe.


Of course she voted for and against many other measures but these illuminate her politics.

Some campaigns I support

Since becoming a candidate I have agreed to support the following causes (sorry for lack of detail!). I've also offered qualified support to a number of others:

• CND's opposition to replacing Trident.
• CAMRA's manifesto (beer and pubs)
• Crisis' No One Turned Away (homelessness)
• Cancer Research's Cross Cancer Out campaign
• Barnado's and others A Stitch in Time campaign
• The Royal Statistical Society;'s Data Manifesto
• The Public Service Users Bill
• Traidcraft
• The Frack Free promise (FoE and Greenpeace)
• The League Against Cruel Sports' five animal welfare calls.
• The Living Streets Manifesto
• Compassion in World Farming
• Breast Cancer Campaign
• The OneKind pledge
• The Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England's manifesto.
• The Local Goverbnm,ent Association's four points
• The RSPB's I'm Backing Bob campaign
• The Disability Benefits Consortium's 5 asks
• The CTC
• The Terrence Higgins Trust
• The Empty Homes Agency
• The LGBT Whip
• London Cycling Campaign's demand to remove TSRGD
• The Tibet Society's demand for human rights for Tibet.
• The ASI

The question of soil

After Friday's hustings someone asked me to explain the Party's policy on soil!

In fact it's a very good question. Good soil is obviously vital - 95% of our food comes from soil. Yet last December a senior UN official said that at current rates of degradation all of the world's top soil could be gone within 60 years.The official, Maria-Helena Semedo of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), blamed chemical-heavy farming techniques, deforestation which increases erosion, and global warming.

This is a key concern for Greens - it's one of the ways in which human activity is overloading the planet's carrying capacity. It's no accident that the Green Party of England and Wales is the only UK party led by someone with a degree in agricultural science!

[By the way, Cameron and Miliband both read Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) at Oxford. But I digress.]

So what is our policy on soil?

The whole food and farming policy is at here. Paras 630 to 639 are the most relevant.

In summary we would make a transition to a more sustainable agriculture, that is, an agriculture that does not depend on large inputs of fossil fuel energy and which improves, not degrades, soil fertility.  It's not really that new. The Norfolk Crop Rotation does exactly that and was invented in the 17th century!  Doubtless we can do better now.

In the UK we would:

• Support a rapid increase in the proportion of land designated as organic by providing advice and subsidies.
• Encourage a reduction in the use of synthetic fertilisers by taxing them and supporting alternative methods of retaining soil fertility, such as green manures and composting
• Support a shift towards farming systems based on perennial crops through targeted support and funding.
• Progressively remove some of the tax rebate on fuel for agricultural use. 
• Fund research into the best ways of making the transition.

Those policies address Semedo's "chemical-heavy farming and deforestation" in the UK and we also have energy and transport policies that would sharply reduce and then eliminate our contribution to climate change.

Looking beyond the UK we would encourage other countries to adopt similar policies and, especially, to halt the wave of deforestation and natural habitat destruction that is sweeping the tropics. Since much of that destruction is driven by our demand for the crops that replace old forests, notably oil palms, a complete solution requires all the developed countries to reduce their use of such products. That is also our policy and much more than an add-on to this one.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For more information about soil see the WWF view and Fred Pearce in New Scientist on losses from salt contamination and some US Soil data.

The triple crisis

Today we face a triple crisis.

• London is a rich city in a rich country, yet wages have fallen, work is insecure and many Londoners cannot afford decent homes. For the last 30 years the super-rich have taken most of the benefits of growth. And, horribly, a five mile drive across Enfield sees a ten year drop in life expectancy.
• Ever fewer people vote. While caring about their communities they are fed up with MPs who break their promises and seem powerless to solve their problems. Our political system no longer reflects the realities of Scottish devolution and the fractured nature of English politics. Worse, the major parties are afraid to upset the press barons and their friends in the City. They offer no real choice.
• Our industry and agriculture destroys more and more of the natural world. The World Wildlife Fund tells us that the numbers of birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish have declined 52% since 1970 whilst climate scientists warn us of catastrophe.

In short – we need fundamental change and have little time to achieve it.

The Green Party stands for a more equal society in which everyone can share the wealth (and pay their taxes!) We want to change our politics so that every vote counts and no-one can buy influence. And to stop trashing the planet we must abandon fossil fuels in favour of energy efficiency and renewables.

This will be hard. But it can be done if you, with me, vote Green.