This is the song by Paolo Nutini that she sang movingly at her mum's funeral
And this is her latest beautiful song, written by Terra Naomi
Proceeds from sales go to researching cervical cancer - see http://www.debbiefund.org/
Thursday, 30 December 2010
Evo proposes a global referendum on real solutions for climate change
During his presentation at the UN Climate Conference, President Evo Morales Ayma of Bolivia proposed a global popular referendum that would tackle the root causes of climate change. Below are the questions he proposed.
1) Do you agree with re-establishing harmony with nature while recognizing the rights of Mother Earth?
2) Do you agree with changing this model of over-consumption and waste that the capitalist system represents?
3) Do you agree that developed countries reduce and re-absorb their domestic greenhouse gas emissions so that the temperature does not rise more than 1 degree Celsius?
4) Do you agree with transferring all that is spent in wars to protecting the planet and allocate a budget for climate change that is bigger than what is used for defence?
5) Do you agree with a Climate Justice Tribunal to judge those who destroy Mother Earth?
see http://portalmre.rree.gov.bo/cumbre/Referendum.aspx
1) Do you agree with re-establishing harmony with nature while recognizing the rights of Mother Earth?
2) Do you agree with changing this model of over-consumption and waste that the capitalist system represents?
3) Do you agree that developed countries reduce and re-absorb their domestic greenhouse gas emissions so that the temperature does not rise more than 1 degree Celsius?
4) Do you agree with transferring all that is spent in wars to protecting the planet and allocate a budget for climate change that is bigger than what is used for defence?
5) Do you agree with a Climate Justice Tribunal to judge those who destroy Mother Earth?
see http://portalmre.rree.gov.bo/cumbre/Referendum.aspx
Me, I'll stick to two wheels on the ground...
Cyclist Danny MacAskill on the streets, rails, fencing, architecture, etc of Edinburgh...
Environment Friendly
You can be:
Dog Friendly = friendly to dogs
Child Friendly = friendly to children
User Friendly = friendly to users
Customer Friendly = friendly to customers
Environmentally Friendly = Friendly to the Environmentally
Come off it! The phrase is 'Environment Friendly'.
Have a think about it on the loo...
Test your reactions...
Housing Crisis? What Housing Crisis?
Why do we need more houses in the UK? Why are house prices sky-high, and unaffordable by essential workers? Why do kids, old enough to move out, stay at home and spend their quite reasonable earnings on booze and cars? Why are more elderly people living on their own, necessitating carers to drive round in cars? Why are cars so necessary?
I'm sure if you add up all the bedrooms in the country, you'd find a surplus.
Surely, if people opted for sharing their homes, or move into shared homes, we could instantly get more accommodation. Young people can share, old people can share, mixed ages can share. Single households generate more waste per head. Single households need more heating energy per head. It's hard work maintaining a house on your own, especially if you need to work, or if you're elderly.
Government specs for new developments aim to cram them in - great for squeezing them onto brownfield sites, but pathetic for gardens, which are breathing spaces, places for drying clothes, composting waste, growing food, appreciating nature.
Shared housing shares burdens and costs, provides company, provides security, provides care when you're down. People in shared housing find they can afford to work part-time; they can downsize on their personal material comforts, upsize on their social and shared comforts.
Divorce is another issue - I blame lack of conversation in this busy-busy-busy lifestyle. The more you have, the more you have to look after - so cut it out. Axe telly-time, talk. And don't dream of winning the lottery - it won't happen, and any charity will benefit more by direct donation. If you've got a dream, work towards it - dreaming won't help!
In a large group, you can have babysitters, granny-sitters, dog-minders, specialists, and hearty entertainment - jam-sessions if you're musically minded! And how many cars do you need? Not many.
Comments:
http://quosac.blogspot.com/2007/07/housing-crisis-what-housing-crisis.html#comments
I'm sure if you add up all the bedrooms in the country, you'd find a surplus.
Surely, if people opted for sharing their homes, or move into shared homes, we could instantly get more accommodation. Young people can share, old people can share, mixed ages can share. Single households generate more waste per head. Single households need more heating energy per head. It's hard work maintaining a house on your own, especially if you need to work, or if you're elderly.
Government specs for new developments aim to cram them in - great for squeezing them onto brownfield sites, but pathetic for gardens, which are breathing spaces, places for drying clothes, composting waste, growing food, appreciating nature.
Shared housing shares burdens and costs, provides company, provides security, provides care when you're down. People in shared housing find they can afford to work part-time; they can downsize on their personal material comforts, upsize on their social and shared comforts.
Divorce is another issue - I blame lack of conversation in this busy-busy-busy lifestyle. The more you have, the more you have to look after - so cut it out. Axe telly-time, talk. And don't dream of winning the lottery - it won't happen, and any charity will benefit more by direct donation. If you've got a dream, work towards it - dreaming won't help!
In a large group, you can have babysitters, granny-sitters, dog-minders, specialists, and hearty entertainment - jam-sessions if you're musically minded! And how many cars do you need? Not many.
Comments:
http://quosac.blogspot.com/2007/07/housing-crisis-what-housing-crisis.html#comments
MEP Hits Out at Media over Climate Change Doubt
Green MEP Caroline Lucas has hit out at the media after a poll revealed that a majority of people in the UK believe that scientists aren’t agreed about the facts of climate change – or that it is being caused by human activity.
According to latest figures by pollsters Ipsos-MORI, some 56 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement: “Many leading experts still question if human activity is contributing to climate change”. Just 22 per cent disagreed.
Dr Lucas, who is a member of the European Parliament’s Environment and Climate Change committees, said: “This is very worrying. Politicians will never take the steps necessary to cut emissions unless voters demand that they do so, and they won’t demand it if they remain sceptical about their role in changing the climate in the first place.
“The media are, at least in part, to blame: their obsession with appearing to be balanced means discussions of climate change tend to have a naysayer arguing either that climate change isn’t happening, or that it isn’t manmade, as though there is a serious ongoing scientific debate about this.
“But the fact is that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change: almost every scientist in the world agrees that climate change is happening, that it is being fuelled by human activity, and that our best chance of ameliorating its worst impacts lies in dramatically cutting global greenhouse gas emissions.
“By suggesting otherwise the media is, albeit inadvertently, promoting dangerous scepticism about climate change – and undermining our chances of doing anything about it.”
Dr Lucas, who was named Politician of the Year in the recent Observer Ethical Awards 2007, likened climate change scepticism to holocaust denial.
“The media’s attempt to seem balanced is in fact distorting the public’s understanding of perhaps the most pressing issue facing us all today – and it’s tragic. It doesn’t make any sense: would the media insist on having a holocaust-denier to balance any report about the second word war? Of course not - but by insisting on giving so much airtime to climate change deniers, it is doing exactly the same thing.”
July 5th, 2007
And it's definately nothing to do with the Sun! Temperatures have been rising of late, while the Sun's output's been falling. See the Guardian reports at http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2119695,00.html
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2123448,00.html
According to latest figures by pollsters Ipsos-MORI, some 56 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement: “Many leading experts still question if human activity is contributing to climate change”. Just 22 per cent disagreed.
Dr Lucas, who is a member of the European Parliament’s Environment and Climate Change committees, said: “This is very worrying. Politicians will never take the steps necessary to cut emissions unless voters demand that they do so, and they won’t demand it if they remain sceptical about their role in changing the climate in the first place.
“The media are, at least in part, to blame: their obsession with appearing to be balanced means discussions of climate change tend to have a naysayer arguing either that climate change isn’t happening, or that it isn’t manmade, as though there is a serious ongoing scientific debate about this.
“But the fact is that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change: almost every scientist in the world agrees that climate change is happening, that it is being fuelled by human activity, and that our best chance of ameliorating its worst impacts lies in dramatically cutting global greenhouse gas emissions.
“By suggesting otherwise the media is, albeit inadvertently, promoting dangerous scepticism about climate change – and undermining our chances of doing anything about it.”
Dr Lucas, who was named Politician of the Year in the recent Observer Ethical Awards 2007, likened climate change scepticism to holocaust denial.
“The media’s attempt to seem balanced is in fact distorting the public’s understanding of perhaps the most pressing issue facing us all today – and it’s tragic. It doesn’t make any sense: would the media insist on having a holocaust-denier to balance any report about the second word war? Of course not - but by insisting on giving so much airtime to climate change deniers, it is doing exactly the same thing.”
July 5th, 2007
And it's definately nothing to do with the Sun! Temperatures have been rising of late, while the Sun's output's been falling. See the Guardian reports at http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2119695,00.html
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2123448,00.html
Global Warming Swindle? Don't Believe It!
We are using fossil fuel at a phenomenal rate.
Millions of years ago Earth had an unbreathable atmosphere, with no oxygen and rampant ‘greenhouse effect’. Life, especially plants, evolved to cope with that; take CO2 out of the air and replace it with oxygen. Over time they evolved into the plants we have now, able to manage on low concentrations of CO2 and in cooler weather.
Now, within decades, we’re ploughing through millions of years’ worth of buried carbon. Natural systems can’t absorb it all. (They currently produce 150 GT/y CO2, while man produces 7; but they absorb 154, leaving 3 in the air. So small tips to the 150 or 154 figures will make big differences to the atmosphere.)
The Earth's temperature is rising fast, and its blamed on our CO2. Past evidence shows that when the climate warms, nature releases CO2: that could mean that if we push our luck to far with man-made CO2, nature will take over and no amount of back-pedalling by mankind will pull us out of climate chaos.
The new climate is expected to be bad for us, with floods, gales and crop failures, but worse for those in poorer countries. Their desire to acquire the trappings of the west is mistaken. Poverty was caused by unfair trade; left alone communities can manage on local resources. Poverty could be alleviated if we in the west stopped paying slave wages for imported goods, and threw less in our bins.
And then there are the problems relating to running out of fuel, increasing numbers of people chasing decreasing amounts of fuel - the poor suffer again. And the way energy is currently used endures we eat through our resources and dump them into landfills, or incinerators.
We’ll also suffer the side-effects of world-wide strife. Cutting our emissions is an easy option – avoiding flying, minimising travel, buying local, conserving energy, avoiding wasted industrial effort, renewable energy and eating less meat. No sweat!
Millions of years ago Earth had an unbreathable atmosphere, with no oxygen and rampant ‘greenhouse effect’. Life, especially plants, evolved to cope with that; take CO2 out of the air and replace it with oxygen. Over time they evolved into the plants we have now, able to manage on low concentrations of CO2 and in cooler weather.
Now, within decades, we’re ploughing through millions of years’ worth of buried carbon. Natural systems can’t absorb it all. (They currently produce 150 GT/y CO2, while man produces 7; but they absorb 154, leaving 3 in the air. So small tips to the 150 or 154 figures will make big differences to the atmosphere.)
The Earth's temperature is rising fast, and its blamed on our CO2. Past evidence shows that when the climate warms, nature releases CO2: that could mean that if we push our luck to far with man-made CO2, nature will take over and no amount of back-pedalling by mankind will pull us out of climate chaos.
The new climate is expected to be bad for us, with floods, gales and crop failures, but worse for those in poorer countries. Their desire to acquire the trappings of the west is mistaken. Poverty was caused by unfair trade; left alone communities can manage on local resources. Poverty could be alleviated if we in the west stopped paying slave wages for imported goods, and threw less in our bins.
And then there are the problems relating to running out of fuel, increasing numbers of people chasing decreasing amounts of fuel - the poor suffer again. And the way energy is currently used endures we eat through our resources and dump them into landfills, or incinerators.
We’ll also suffer the side-effects of world-wide strife. Cutting our emissions is an easy option – avoiding flying, minimising travel, buying local, conserving energy, avoiding wasted industrial effort, renewable energy and eating less meat. No sweat!
YOUR CARBON EMISSIONS IN A FLASH
Your Carbon Tally
We each produce too much Carbon Dioxide in this country – about 11 tons each per year. The only safe way not to upset the balance of nature is to reduce that – drastically, and now! Could we manage on 1 ton each by 2050? See how you and your household scores now: enter figures for your whole household then divide by the number of people therein –
One Ton of CO2 is about:
Domestic Fuels
Coal - 8 sacks
Gas - 5000 kWh
Oil - 350 litres, 80 gallons
Electricity - 2000 kWh
Wood - 2/3 ton (unless sustainable/rescued from waste)
LPG - 2/3 cubic metre, 670 litres
Travel (1000 miles = 4 miles per day commute)
Car miles
Small Car (37mpg) - 3600 miles
Medium Car (29mpg) - 2800 miles
Large Car (24mpg) - 2300 miles
Small Diesel (64mpg) - 5300 miles
Large Diesel (53mpg) - 4300 miles
Passenger miles (these are per person: a family of 4 holidaying in Spain would incur 4 tonnes in total)
Train - 10,000 miles
Bus - 6,000 miles
Coach - 10,000 miles
Air - 1600 miles (ie Spain and back)
(UK – Miami return = 5 tons; to East Australia return 11 tons)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total
--------------------------------------------------------------
Number of household members
--------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore tons CO2 per person per year:
===========================================
Notes
This is a rough and ready reckoner, we suggest you enter CO2 no closer than to ½ ton. With 31% of UK energy used in the home, and 26% in transport, the general public has a lot under its control. (2001 figures.) It neglects contributions from industry, services, farming and landfill gas.
For mainland distances see http://www.viamichelin.com/
Air flights: www.futureforests.com/calculators/newflight4.asp, gives CO2 emissions without a factor for radiative forcing. For that see http://www.chooseclimate.org/
References: See "How We Can Save the Planet", by Mayer Hallman with Tina Fawcett, Penguin, ISBN 0141016922.
There are plenty of more detailed exercises available on the internet. Try www.earthday.net/Footprint/index.asp, www.bestfootforward.com/carbonlife.htm, www.carboncalculator.com/newaccount.php, www.resurgence.org/carboncalculator/
For an excel spreadsheet, visit http://www.vren.btik.com/documents/1518611134.ikml
For the above calculator on an A4 sheet, see http://www.vren.btik.com/documents/1518613816.ikml
We each produce too much Carbon Dioxide in this country – about 11 tons each per year. The only safe way not to upset the balance of nature is to reduce that – drastically, and now! Could we manage on 1 ton each by 2050? See how you and your household scores now: enter figures for your whole household then divide by the number of people therein –
One Ton of CO2 is about:
Domestic Fuels
Coal - 8 sacks
Gas - 5000 kWh
Oil - 350 litres, 80 gallons
Electricity - 2000 kWh
Wood - 2/3 ton (unless sustainable/rescued from waste)
LPG - 2/3 cubic metre, 670 litres
Travel (1000 miles = 4 miles per day commute)
Car miles
Small Car (37mpg) - 3600 miles
Medium Car (29mpg) - 2800 miles
Large Car (24mpg) - 2300 miles
Small Diesel (64mpg) - 5300 miles
Large Diesel (53mpg) - 4300 miles
Passenger miles (these are per person: a family of 4 holidaying in Spain would incur 4 tonnes in total)
Train - 10,000 miles
Bus - 6,000 miles
Coach - 10,000 miles
Air - 1600 miles (ie Spain and back)
(UK – Miami return = 5 tons; to East Australia return 11 tons)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total
--------------------------------------------------------------
Number of household members
--------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore tons CO2 per person per year:
===========================================
Notes
This is a rough and ready reckoner, we suggest you enter CO2 no closer than to ½ ton. With 31% of UK energy used in the home, and 26% in transport, the general public has a lot under its control. (2001 figures.) It neglects contributions from industry, services, farming and landfill gas.
For mainland distances see http://www.viamichelin.com/
Air flights: www.futureforests.com/calculators/newflight4.asp, gives CO2 emissions without a factor for radiative forcing. For that see http://www.chooseclimate.org/
References: See "How We Can Save the Planet", by Mayer Hallman with Tina Fawcett, Penguin, ISBN 0141016922.
There are plenty of more detailed exercises available on the internet. Try www.earthday.net/Footprint/index.asp, www.bestfootforward.com/carbonlife.htm, www.carboncalculator.com/newaccount.php, www.resurgence.org/carboncalculator/
For an excel spreadsheet, visit http://www.vren.btik.com/documents/1518611134.ikml
For the above calculator on an A4 sheet, see http://www.vren.btik.com/documents/1518613816.ikml
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)