Before I attempt to answer the question posed by this latest Blog entry, I think I need to sketch out a little bit of background first in order to help you understand where I'm coming from!
---
Whenever I hear a generic Conservative politician, barmy Republican Presidential candidate or Climate Change Denier say they find Wind Farms ugly (or even £150,000-a-year BBC Arts Editors for that matter*), I despair.
Not necessarily because they are wrong (I think they ARE wrong by the way, but beauty is subjective and they are entitled to their opinion)... but more because I believe they think (a) everyone must think the same, (b) that it is simply a given FACT... and (c) that that in someway then helps strengthen an argument they might be in the middle of making as to why we don't need them in general.
I disagree with that side of things more than with any insignificant artistic debate!
Wind Farms undeniably take up space, and by their nature are also very visible, so therefore they are hard to hide. But that does not necessarily mean they "ruin views" or are eyesores as a result. It befuddles me that some people seem to think turbines are ugly, but the rape fields in front of them are acceptable. Or that we must not build these things simply because they devalue the views... but electricity pylons or mobile phone masts are more tolerable because they are arguably indispensable.
I often wonder what such people would have thought of windmills when they first started appearing in the countryside, buildings that people NOW concede can (and do) add value to a landscape.
And so, there is conflict here. People who say they love the countryside taking issue with modern machinery that has to be placed in the more wild areas we have in order to function. They often ask (fence sitting) people things like: "would you want to live underneath a windmill then?" and so on.
But I say that such people have selective memories... or, rather, cherry pick when to attack something and when to keep quiet.
Here's a quick fact to consider then: mobile phones, televisions, washing machines, showers, trains, whatever... need (expendable) energy in order to function. And that energy has to come from either a finite or renewable source. A battery, the mains, whatever. If you want to use electricity, you must sacrifice something along the line to make it.
For example, if people say electric trains are 'cleaner' than diesel ones, they might be right... but we must still not forget that the power that propels said clean trains still has to come from somewhere... i.e. a power station. And if that power station belches out just as much (or more) fumes than the former diesel trains did, have these trains actually been improved?**
But most people don't live near power stations and so "out of sight, out of mind" creeps into the debate. So all we see if we don't think about it, are new electric trains moving along cleanly, without the spewing out of ugly smells, dirty liquids and dangerous fumes of before.
----
So... with all this in mind, I am still going to declare my love for the powering of all things in a renewable fashion... and I think that such people who argue against such an approach, from whatever angle, can be easily countered!
This renewable energy must be produced using natural sources, namely: wind, sun and water.*** Each has its own resulting type of power "station"... but regardless of their scale or footprint, I would argue that they are in no way worse than the nuclear or fossil fuel power stations they might replace, regardless of whether you don't happen to like how they look, or the noises they make and so on.
BUT...
I believe there is another possible conflict here. And one that is harder to pick sides on or argue for a definitive solution. And this question (finally!) is the one I proposed as the title of this latest Blog entry...
Wildlife versus Sustainable Energy - is there a conflict?
I see this conflict as between those renewable power stations/installations and the wildlife they might even be said to help protect.
Taking each of the three standard renewable energy sources, we have three potential types of power station:-
1. Wind Farms (of turbines)
2. Solar (Power) Farms (of solar panels)
3. Hydro-electric power (either by river damming OR by tidal power)
And, bearing in mind the above example above about the electric trains, and things often being "out of sight and therefore out of mind", this results in three potential (and different) conflicts with 'nature' and the wildlife that it imbues...
These conflicts are usually direct: obvious and on view... rather than being something more subtle that is harder to detect at first, or further down the line before it takes impact.
These are undeniable problems:-
1. Wind Farms kill birds.
2. Solar Power Farms take up a lot of space.
3. (Freshwater) Dams prevent fish movement and (Estuary-based) Dams affect the feeding grounds of wading birds.
I think some pro-renewable energy fans keep quiet about this in just the same way as those people who hate wind farms mentioned above do... and that is a problem.
In order to continue the push towards moving over to renewable sources (or rather, moving AWAY from non-renewable sources), we must acknowledge the problems and consider them in all cases.
I think that, in the grand scheme of things, we may reach a point where we have to admit that renewable/sustainable energy sources are not heavenly solutions... without sin. They are not. They are merely the lesser of two evils.
When we are able to say that, and admit its truth. we may then move on to the, arguably better, task in hand... and that is not using more renewable energy at all - and actually simple using less energy full stop. That is, even, knowing when not to use it AT ALL.
This is a harder test, but it is arguably easier to achieve!
For example, instead of wearing uncomfortable office clothes in summer, managers could consider allowing their staff to wear less and switching off the expensive air conditioning.
Or, in winter, not putting on the heating when putting on a jumper will suffice.
It doesn't matter to some people whether the energy heating their rooms comes from the sun or from coal... as long as it does the job. So, how do we encourage this moral duty without making energy so expensive that it forces peoples' hands?
To be honest, I don't know! I fear it will only happen when we've run out of fossil fuels completely and are in the process of a forced conversion of all energy-hungry equipment to more renewable sources. At this point, people might start thinking that saving energy starts in the home... and not at the power station that you can, or maybe cannot actually see.
Cheers,
ZeeOx
N.B. This is a first draft... I'll tidy it up (typos, interesting links, etc.) in due course!
*I saw Will Gompertz, former media director at the Tate group of museums, and BBC's chief Arts Editor say on Have I got News for You that Wind farms are undeniably ugly. 1. How can someone who thinks Damien Hirst is "one of the greatest exponents of creative thinking today” be listened to? And 2. How can someone be so old-fashioned in their view of something very modern in design and presence? Shouldn't they, rather, be right up his street? (Or hedgerow.)
**Yes, they probably still have, but that's a separate argument!
***I know that wave power, biofuels, biomass, geothermal methods, etc. produce energy too and could also be added to this division, but we'll ignore all these for now too!
Friday, 7 August 2015
Sunday, 28 June 2015
Missed Opportunity!
This year represents the second consecutive season for Swifts, an Amber-status summer-visiting bird in the UK, to successfully breed in the (now 4 years-old) Swift Tower on Riverside, north Cambridge.
Designed for 100 nesting pairs, this tower courted controversy when it was built due to its overall cost (during the early months of the post-2010 General Election austerity crisis) and coincidental (or not!) poor timing with the redundancy of Cambridge City Council's only full-time Local Nature Reserves Warden(/Nature Conservation Officer).
Currently used by nesting Starlings in the main (which is actually a Red-status bird!), about half a dozen Swifts are using the tower this summer, stopping miserable cynics like me from saying it was a complete failure. So: now it's here then, and working, let's hope the numbers of nesting birds continue to rise, year-on-year!
(The back of the tower, with Riverside Bridge's long adjoining, pre-river crossing, section behind.)
The tower is currently situated in a field undergoing radical change. In actual fact a flood plain, the field is separated from the adjoining River Cam by a narrow stretch of mature trees, including Weeping willow, and a newly cut 'relief-channel'- style stream (but more on that later). This field (and the neighbouring field beyond the bridge) used to contain sports pitches for the employees' use of the (now long-closed) Pye Electronics' Factory, and today also continue to provide (council-run) football pitches for public use.
Also alongside the field (on its western edge) is a Local Nature Reserve - Logan's Meadow: www.lnr.cambridge.gov.uk/reserves/logans_meadow/default.asp
Logan's Meadow is (quote, from the Council's website) "an oasis for nature within a recently developed area of the city", which is a bit of an odd summary really as the mainly Ash trees there are tall and old, and the surrounding road network and adjoining riverside infrastructure are well established. True, there are relatively new houses both beneath nearby Elizabeth Way and at the flats immediately behind it, but what I mean by odd is that it is not a new wild space for nature in the sense of those often created from scratch for new housing developments.
Indeed, Logan's Meadow has long been an important, albeit oft overlooked, integral part of northern Cambridge's overall biodiversity and its small network of (genuinely) wild spaces, and, due to neglect, abuse and lack of support, evolved into a bit of a lost treasure.*
(A BBQ and loud music in a nature reserve? - As observed from the other side of the river.)
But that is probably about to change...
After some work tidying up and adding new features to the reserve about 10 years ago, Logan's Meadow has now been linked up (by formal path access) with said adjoining field containing the Swift Tower and, at long last, additional work has taken place to try and improve the whole area along this stretch of the river, with wildlife specifically in mind.
You can now cross the fancy-looking Riverside Bridge and easily access both the reserve proper and the new field with the tower, stream and continuously developing and mature wild areas, along with access to open-access gardens to flats immediately to the east of the bridge as well.
(The River Cam passing underneath Riverside (Cycle and Pedestrian) Bridge. Note the gate-able 'cut-off' stream in the foreground.)
So... where am I going with this? Why have I called the Blog Entry "Missed Opportunity!"?
After all, the Swifts are nesting, a wild flower meadow and new reed beds have been planted, and Logan's Meadow has been re-invigorated...
(Shortly after the first meadow ploughing session. Note the dog!)
Well, because I believe Cambridge City Council, for want of a more mature term, have chickened-out of doing something really special here. Also, with what they have done, a few mistakes have been made... and these really undermine the current and future functionality of the place as an 'oasis for nature'.
What could they have done?
So, aside of the initial expense on the Swift Tower, with its artistic rather than practical slant**, and the loss of an excellent custodian of the City's wild places at the same time, the council have only used a small percentage of the available flood plain for the new wild spaces. My argument is that they should have used the WHOLE FIELD!
(Artist's impression? - The new site map for the whole site... doesn't it look good?)
The new stream cutting that will, in time, provide both shelter away from the river for fish fry, other marine animals, plus the birds and mammals that feed on them, could have been extended much further into the field, and have various channels and pools leading off it.
The reeds that will now grow alongside the stream will hardly be the most extensive, and the wild flower meadow will have a width of no more than 10 or so metres. Using the whole field could have created a significant stronghold for riparian wildlife in the city... and perhaps entice back the Otters and Kingfishers which once 'denned' and nested here not so long ago.
(Early doors: the reed and other water-loving plants' sectors.)
If the whole field had been turned over to reedbed, who knows what could have been encouraged in? Imagine Bearded Tits establishing themselves in Cambridge City for example! (Or even a passing Bittern in winter!) There is a site just outside of the city where you can see Bearded Tits occasionally, and Bitterns have also been seen at nearby Milton Country Park too, so I don't think it's within the realms of extreme fantasy personally.
You would also have had a valuable flood relief opportunity, on a part of the river that often floods its banks... and the houses on the opposite side of the river. The field, as it stands, often has open standing pools of water in the winter, and grass that is often so saturated after rain that you wouldn't want to walk on it, let alone engage in sport.
Lastly, imagine the educational potential of such a site, if properly thought out! Perhaps the construction of a couple of hides would have worked wonders, or maybe even just one, tall raised viewing platform or hide at the northern-end of the site that allowed the new (normally) hidden pools and channels (and their residents) to be viewed from a height and at distance... and perhaps even to enable the tower's Swifts to be seen flying past at eye level!
Why did they not do this then?
As far as I know, it was not an economic decision. At least, in terms of using the entire field. The argument apparently, was that the football pitches were still needed as there were no nearby pitches for the local community.
But I am sorry to say: this is poppycock (and I'm sorry for the use of another immature term in this entry!). For starters, the nearest football pitches are literally just 5 minutes walk away at the Chesterton Recreation Ground... and there is also the massive Stourbridge Common to the east for those wanting a more casual kick-about. Yes, there may be dogs there (see my point below)... but that's just an occupational hazard for playing 'free' football anywhere in Cambridge I'm afraid. Stourbridge Common is easily accessible using the new Riverside Bridge... or the Green Dragon Bridge just 5 minutes further along opposite the pub on Water Street.
Just how much organised football is played in this part of Cambridge then? Well, judging by the site's use currently, not that much, let's be honest!
What's wrong now?
So, you might think that a small start is better than none. And I guess you're right, if you just measure things at a macro level...
How is the site currently used then?
In short, it's used for dog walking. Every evening I walk home past the field, which is quite often, I might see some joggers, or maybe even the occasional informal kick-about (and even more rarely, Scouts, Guides, etc. on some sort of formal activity)... but, without a doubt, the biggest use of the place is for people exercising their dogs.
(Moorhen and dog prints.)
Combining walking dogs with observing wildlife is a massive activity in the UK, and I would say it challenges sports fishing in terms of overall numbers of regular participants... so I do know how carefully I have to tread here (pun intended)... But, regardless, this is not the site we should be endorsing this kind of activity! How can a place used primarily for dog walking truly combine with being an 'oasis for nature'?
Most dogs are off the lead as soon as they are led off the adjoining bridge, with its odd out-of-scale wheelchair slope that often leads straight into saturated mud! (see below, with attractive trolley cameo!). This leaves them loose to disturb wildlife straight-away (I'm worried about the nearby Water Vole - see below!), and also: to soil the football pitches.
What is it with this country doubling-up formally marked-out football pitches with places to exercise dogs? Not everyone 'poops and scoops' (and of those who do, I've lost count of the then non-disposed black bags thrown into nearby bushes)... and even those that do do it properly, what is left behind on the grass is not pleasant if you, say, happen to make a fine header in a football game and then land in a place that was recently popped and scooped by hand. Dog-owners are not clinical 'crime scene' cleaners after all!
(A discarded poo-bag... thrown in the water of the new stream's reedbed area.)
I have seen dogs of all descriptions attacking any bird that happens to be on the ground at the site, and also dogs going through the badly maintained wire fence around the new stream and into bushes and tree understories where interesting birds like Blackcap, Grey heron, etc. like to nest or take refuge.
If you're thinking dogs have to exercised somewhere... well, as I've pointed out already for the footballers, Stourbridge Common is nearby, and a large place full of lovely endless fields for standard dog-related activities... and from the north of town, the new bridge gets you there in no time!
On top of this, Logan's Meadow used to have an occupied Otter Den, or Holt, and a well-maintained Kingfisher nesting bank. But not now. I have seen the latter nest there, but not for while... and both the nesting bank and 'secret' Holt have overgrown and seen much neglect of late. I have also yet to see an Otter on the River Cam, despite their increasing numbers nationally after long-years of persecution... and, indeed, increasing numbers of them on the Cam's tributaries not far to the south of the city.
Personally, I think these Otters are put off by boats (rowers!) that use the small and narrow Cam for intense practice all-year-round. The rowing boats are environmentally friendly of course, and quiet too, but the associated noise of on-board - and mic'd-up - coxes and the cycling coaches that accompany them, put an end to the river being quiet until it's gone dark.
Regardless of this then (a rant for another day perhaps!), wouldn't it have been great if the whole 'Pye' field had been turned over to quiet backwaters and reedbeds for the Otters to re-discover and make a new, quieter, home away from the main river course? And also, how about a new, fully set-back, Kingfisher nesting bank too? (Perhaps right opposite a hide like at RSPB Rainham Marshes?)
(The old Kingfisher nesting bank - photo'd in early April, 2015... now even more overgrown!)
***
(Pointless wire fencing.)
I am not going to predict anything about these concerns here but, for once, I will try and look at the glass half-full as the place matures and more wildlife arrive...
The new meadow space has only just been turfed up, but I look forward to it maturing. I am also very much looking forward to seeing how many reeds grow alongside the stream and whether they manage to succeed in enticing in migratory reed specialist warblers like Reed and Sedge warbler to nest.
One thing's certain, I expect the sightings of the endangered Water Vole (Arvicola amphibius) to go up. The adjoining field, with its small, but slightly longer and well-established stream, now has an easily observed full-time resident (along with several rats!) and I hope to see its future broods link up with those that hopefully also discover the new stream, and Logan's Meadows' ponds.
It's true that dogs will occasionally kill Water Voles (if they spot them!)... but I would say their main enemy is the Mink and the lack of suitable habitat.
***
One thing's certain, I expect the sightings of the endangered Water Vole (Arvicola amphibius) to go up. The adjoining field, with its small, but slightly longer and well-established stream, now has an easily observed full-time resident (along with several rats!) and I hope to see its future broods link up with those that hopefully also discover the new stream, and Logan's Meadows' ponds.
(Water Vole and Brown Rat highways!)
It's true that dogs will occasionally kill Water Voles (if they spot them!)... but I would say their main enemy is the Mink and the lack of suitable habitat.
***
HOWEVER... all that said, my underlying point will always remain though: it was a missed opportunity.
A big one.
Cheers,
ZeeOx
P.S. I welcome responses to this piece. It could be that people will completely disagree with my evaluation and so, for balance, I will happy (sort of!) to see any decently-put arguments posted under the comments... as long as they're not rude!
--------
* Indeed, a recent report has shown its ponds to be a bit of a strong spot for the Smooth newt, Lissotriton vulgaris.
**... and a tower which took ages to entice the birds in through the use of a tape loop that only seemed to play in late summer when the Swifts had already migrated back to Africa (I am assuming it was solar-power triggered?).
Further interesting Swift Tower Links
http://actionforswifts.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/modifications-to-cambridge-swift-tower.html
https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/news/2014/07/11/the-swifts-have-landed
https://www.facebook.com/cambridgenews/posts/10152322106533031
(And yes, that's a Daily Mail link in there at the top of this entry... I am working on my absolutist Lefty bias!)
Cheers,
ZeeOx
P.S. I welcome responses to this piece. It could be that people will completely disagree with my evaluation and so, for balance, I will happy (sort of!) to see any decently-put arguments posted under the comments... as long as they're not rude!
--------
* Indeed, a recent report has shown its ponds to be a bit of a strong spot for the Smooth newt, Lissotriton vulgaris.
**... and a tower which took ages to entice the birds in through the use of a tape loop that only seemed to play in late summer when the Swifts had already migrated back to Africa (I am assuming it was solar-power triggered?).
Further interesting Swift Tower Links
http://actionforswifts.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/modifications-to-cambridge-swift-tower.html
https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/news/2014/07/11/the-swifts-have-landed
https://www.facebook.com/cambridgenews/posts/10152322106533031
(And yes, that's a Daily Mail link in there at the top of this entry... I am working on my absolutist Lefty bias!)
Monday, 20 April 2015
Heading for a Hung Parliament...
A super-belated Happy New Year.
I have left behind the urgent need to finish my entry on Fracking for the moment to point out a quick fact: it's a UK Election Year!
On May the 7th, the Coalition Government of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formally ends and voting takes place across the country in order to determine what will replace it.
It's highly unlikely to be a repeat scenario... and for the first time in a good while, the result is really hard to predict.
This is arguably mainly down to the presence of UKIP, and their success in the May 2014 European Elections has without doubt scared the established mainstream parties. Also, despite the failure of the SNP to secure independence after the Scottish Referendum on 18th September, 2014, the party has found itself in a strong, indeed arguably stronger, position ever since, and it is possible they may hold the balance of power come the morning of May the 8th.
Whilst, as I said, it's hard to predict the outcome, and despite the occasional spats taking place in the various televised Leaders' Debates currently taking place, it is relatively easy to consider who may work with who (and who may not) in the case of there being no overall victor after it.
Labour have made it clear they are targeting an overall majority and do not wish to work with the SNP, but UKIP have said they would consider a partnership with the Conservatives... and Nick Clegg (as LibDem Leader) still has faith that his party will prove the Kingmaker, regardless of who that main (but not overall) victor is.
As a Greens' supporter for 2015, I have been happy with what I have heard from Natalie Bennett et al. Whilst a lot has been said of her "interviewing skills", she has performed well enough in the debates, and we must remember that, either way, we don't vote for people, we vote for parties. This is not The Voice, after all.
I suppose what really annoys me right now is that a lot of detractors (who, at best, 'skip read' the various Party Manifestos), are attacking the Greens for being potentially economically disastrous...
Now, no matter what you might think about that, or indeed whether you think it was US sub-prime mortgages, Gordon Brown selling gold or just plain bad luck that caused the economic crash of 2008 in the first place, you must admit that it is rather sloppy to worry about the Greens creating an economic mess when we are already in one.
I say: give them a chance! If they fail then we can at least all say that they had a go. It gets me down when people say "it's time for something different"... and then don't see it through.
Of course, saying that, I'd rather people voted Labour than UKIP... but then, I'm not bonkers.
So: 1. Remember to vote! It CAN make a difference no matter what Russell Brand might say as there is always a wide-range of options on a ballot paper. The last day to register to vote IS MIDNIGHT TONIGHT!
And: 2. Read the manifestos rather than just relying on TV performances to help make up your mind.
Cheers,
ZeeOx
I have left behind the urgent need to finish my entry on Fracking for the moment to point out a quick fact: it's a UK Election Year!
On May the 7th, the Coalition Government of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formally ends and voting takes place across the country in order to determine what will replace it.
It's highly unlikely to be a repeat scenario... and for the first time in a good while, the result is really hard to predict.
This is arguably mainly down to the presence of UKIP, and their success in the May 2014 European Elections has without doubt scared the established mainstream parties. Also, despite the failure of the SNP to secure independence after the Scottish Referendum on 18th September, 2014, the party has found itself in a strong, indeed arguably stronger, position ever since, and it is possible they may hold the balance of power come the morning of May the 8th.
Whilst, as I said, it's hard to predict the outcome, and despite the occasional spats taking place in the various televised Leaders' Debates currently taking place, it is relatively easy to consider who may work with who (and who may not) in the case of there being no overall victor after it.
Labour have made it clear they are targeting an overall majority and do not wish to work with the SNP, but UKIP have said they would consider a partnership with the Conservatives... and Nick Clegg (as LibDem Leader) still has faith that his party will prove the Kingmaker, regardless of who that main (but not overall) victor is.
As a Greens' supporter for 2015, I have been happy with what I have heard from Natalie Bennett et al. Whilst a lot has been said of her "interviewing skills", she has performed well enough in the debates, and we must remember that, either way, we don't vote for people, we vote for parties. This is not The Voice, after all.
I suppose what really annoys me right now is that a lot of detractors (who, at best, 'skip read' the various Party Manifestos), are attacking the Greens for being potentially economically disastrous...
Now, no matter what you might think about that, or indeed whether you think it was US sub-prime mortgages, Gordon Brown selling gold or just plain bad luck that caused the economic crash of 2008 in the first place, you must admit that it is rather sloppy to worry about the Greens creating an economic mess when we are already in one.
I say: give them a chance! If they fail then we can at least all say that they had a go. It gets me down when people say "it's time for something different"... and then don't see it through.
Of course, saying that, I'd rather people voted Labour than UKIP... but then, I'm not bonkers.
So: 1. Remember to vote! It CAN make a difference no matter what Russell Brand might say as there is always a wide-range of options on a ballot paper. The last day to register to vote IS MIDNIGHT TONIGHT!
And: 2. Read the manifestos rather than just relying on TV performances to help make up your mind.
Cheers,
ZeeOx
Tuesday, 23 September 2014
Giving a Frack...
(WORK IN PROGRESS - PLEASE IGNORE FOR NOW!)
I seem to have a rather predictable writing style... which is that I set-up my line on something and then attempt to justify or prove it...
But I then tend to fizzle out and give up before my argument gets convincing.
I suppose I should state facts, conclude and leave any decisions up to the reader... but then, what's the point of a Blog if it is not personalised?
I am not writing academic essays here (although, no doubt, I'd make the same failing with those as well!).
Anyway, so on to Fracking.
A Mystery...
Fracking is getting some pretty bad press right now so I don't really need to set up much in the way of a rant to underpin my idea that it is a bad thing.
Unsurprisingly, it is probably getting the worst reports in the U.S.A. right now, as (a) that is where it is being developed the most and (b) the States has a firmly established and active Environmental Movement that provides vocal opposition, at least at a local level.
For me, I am worried about the recent tests that have taken place here in the UK, particularly in Sussex and Lancashire, where an evil seed is being tempted to germinate and grow... a seed that may be very hard to kill off in the future once it established itself.
Unlike many large-scale, dirty industrial methods and techniques, Fracking is not as selective in where it is undertaken. Indeed, it is quite unbiased in that it does not care if the area is affluent or poor, flat or hilly, pretty or ugly... sites can potentially pop-up anywhere if conditions beneath the ground are conducive...
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty? Perhaps.
A highly-urbanised spot in the Home Counties? Maybe.
A flood plain in the midst of an important agricultural area? Why not?
http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/issues/fracking_background_information_33157
The Government gets to call the shots with these kind of projects and Vetos any NIMBY interests with a heavy-hand.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23730308
http://www.foe.co.uk/get_involved/fracking_petition_41121?ic_number=45953882&m_sourcecode=LM1401131&product=CAMP&utm_source=lyris&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email&MID=2976764&hq_e=el&hq_m=2976764&hq_l=4&hq_v=c7e9779773
Earthquakes?
xx
Desperation? Are there alternatives?
xx
////
I'LL GET BACK TO THIS LATER! SORRY!
Thursday, 18 September 2014
Scottish Independance... why it's a bad thing. (A last minute opinion!)
Just a quick few, badly thought out, comments regarding the Scottish independence referendum, which is taking place today as I write this.
Basically, I'm not for it.
Not, of course, that I have a say in the matter... but a 'No' result WILL have an impact on my life in some form AND, in a sense, will also change my current/future attitude towards the country and influence the possibility of me taking future trips there.
My last three holidays have all been to Scotland. I love the place and also have many Scottish friends... But what's interesting there I suppose is that these passionately Scottish friends aren't allowed to vote in the referendum because they no longer live there!
Anyway, without going too deep, I'll just say that my main reason for thinking the Union is worth keeping is because the 'Yes' cause has got the wrong target in their sights.
The problem with the political infrastructure in this country right now, and its Local, Regional, Devolved and National Governments, is not that 'England' is too dominant...or that the Conservatives don't care for the average child born in The Gorbals... (even if that might be true!)... it is the dominance of the capital of London. And.... the shackles that the Casino gaming-like world of stockbrokers and big banks has us ALL tied to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29238037
True, Scottish 'Yes' campaigners are encouraging their (possibly soon-to-be-ex)partners in the North, or Cornwall, or Wales to follow their suit and try and break free too, but let's be realistic about this: that is silly talk.
Cornwall does not need independence, it just needs help.
And Scotland does too.
These last minute 'MaxDevo' offers do smack of desperation, but the tactic might just actually win it for the 'No' vote as I type this... with more devolved powers than ever before given to Scotland to help them manage their own affairs.
I admit, I quite like devolution in principle. But surely it only comes about because we are useless at keeping a highly centralised, unitary government focused and organised?
But all that aside, I'm much more simplistic in my view about all this...
I think it's a storm in a teacup really and that we shouldn't in this day and age be saying things like "the Scottish are One People!" and that we, south of the border, are another. We are all the same and I hate seeing people drawing lines in the sand, whether it's trendy, tourist friendly 'Yes' campaigners in kilts or nasty, poorly-educated EDL marchers.
Indeed, and pathetic though this sounds, I personally long for a future where we all come together as one, with no fences between us... rather than a world where we retreat behind fences that we should never have built. I know that is basically the contextual and historical setting for the Star Trek universe, but so be it!
Further, I find it interesting to see how some, wildly contrasting, people have come together in support of the 'Yes' vote.
We all know that the 'Better Together' team is a very shaky partnership of various Tories, Labour MPs, Social Democrats, ASDA-Walmart bosses, environmentalists... even George Galloway... and so on, but just think about the various right-wing elements joining up with your Russell Brands and your Vivian Westwoods as well. It's just as odd a bunch!
Off topic, I wonder if Russell Brand has ever given any thought that his consistently-aired 'Trews' YouTube channel philosophy of suggesting that humans need to break down the corporate* and political walls and live in small communes world-wide is merely a semantic shift (plus a swapping of some Eastern Spirituality and falafels for some fundamental Christianity and guns) from what most Libertarians and Tea Party activists in the USA are also saying right now? "Just sayin'!"
(* I note with interest that his YouTube account is fully 'monetised'... so why is that? N.B Here's an interesting angle from Private Eye.)
Anyway, what I'm saying is that you cannot look at the whole background story and compare it to that of other historical struggles - for example, say, the Québécois movement in Canada... even if the story of the political campaigns are VERY similar.
Scottish people are British people. English people are British people. They speak the same language in the main, and they look the same, and they like the same things.
Quick question:
I'm not going to Google this to cheat so hopefully someone out there reading this can inform me:
Has Alex Salmond ever spoken (at length) in Scottish Gaelic during any Scottish Parliament debates? I'm interested to know...
***
Talking of mixed(up)-cultural heritages, Braveheart is just a film by the way - and (although I think most people know) is wildly inaccurate (and I love it by the way)... so it still amazes me that some people cling to it as an inspiration for all this.
Moreover, the Union of 1707 is proof that Scotland and England has been tied by a friendship (of sorts, true) rather than the normal story of British Colonialism and land-grabbing that we see elsewhere. Indeed, one mustn't forget that England/Britain bailed out Scotland after its disastrous attempt at colonial expansion itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme
What's amazing is just how many Scottish people have contributed to or enriched the country AS A WHOLE over the past 300-400 years. From inheriting a Scottish king in 1603, to having three consecutive Prime Ministers in recent times with strong Scottish bloodlines.
True, if they had stayed inside Scottish borders they may have helped their home nation just as well, if not more... but who's to say they wouldn't have left anyway?
***
There are so many un-addressed economic concerns (and not just with currency questions, oil reserve estimates and nuclear submarine bases) with the independence movement that I feel a 'Yes' vote would do more harm to the Scottish people overall than do good... but I do hope I'm wrong, whatever the outcome.
Oh... and one last thing...
I don't want the inescapable prison of consecutive future Conservative Governments, which may be the result of Scottish independence for us in what is left of the United Kingdom after the referendum.
Scotland brings balance to the political game in the UK, even if it doesn't quite do enough to break the current Centrist tumor of the two party domination due to the first-past-the-post scheme.
As much I believe that the SNP are just Scotland's version of UKIP (yuk!)... we need them... in a full and whole United Kingdom, rather than a broken one.
ZeeOx.
Basically, I'm not for it.
Not, of course, that I have a say in the matter... but a 'No' result WILL have an impact on my life in some form AND, in a sense, will also change my current/future attitude towards the country and influence the possibility of me taking future trips there.
My last three holidays have all been to Scotland. I love the place and also have many Scottish friends... But what's interesting there I suppose is that these passionately Scottish friends aren't allowed to vote in the referendum because they no longer live there!
Anyway, without going too deep, I'll just say that my main reason for thinking the Union is worth keeping is because the 'Yes' cause has got the wrong target in their sights.
The problem with the political infrastructure in this country right now, and its Local, Regional, Devolved and National Governments, is not that 'England' is too dominant...or that the Conservatives don't care for the average child born in The Gorbals... (even if that might be true!)... it is the dominance of the capital of London. And.... the shackles that the Casino gaming-like world of stockbrokers and big banks has us ALL tied to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29238037
True, Scottish 'Yes' campaigners are encouraging their (possibly soon-to-be-ex)partners in the North, or Cornwall, or Wales to follow their suit and try and break free too, but let's be realistic about this: that is silly talk.
Cornwall does not need independence, it just needs help.
And Scotland does too.
These last minute 'MaxDevo' offers do smack of desperation, but the tactic might just actually win it for the 'No' vote as I type this... with more devolved powers than ever before given to Scotland to help them manage their own affairs.
I admit, I quite like devolution in principle. But surely it only comes about because we are useless at keeping a highly centralised, unitary government focused and organised?
But all that aside, I'm much more simplistic in my view about all this...
I think it's a storm in a teacup really and that we shouldn't in this day and age be saying things like "the Scottish are One People!" and that we, south of the border, are another. We are all the same and I hate seeing people drawing lines in the sand, whether it's trendy, tourist friendly 'Yes' campaigners in kilts or nasty, poorly-educated EDL marchers.
Indeed, and pathetic though this sounds, I personally long for a future where we all come together as one, with no fences between us... rather than a world where we retreat behind fences that we should never have built. I know that is basically the contextual and historical setting for the Star Trek universe, but so be it!
Further, I find it interesting to see how some, wildly contrasting, people have come together in support of the 'Yes' vote.
We all know that the 'Better Together' team is a very shaky partnership of various Tories, Labour MPs, Social Democrats, ASDA-Walmart bosses, environmentalists... even George Galloway... and so on, but just think about the various right-wing elements joining up with your Russell Brands and your Vivian Westwoods as well. It's just as odd a bunch!
Off topic, I wonder if Russell Brand has ever given any thought that his consistently-aired 'Trews' YouTube channel philosophy of suggesting that humans need to break down the corporate* and political walls and live in small communes world-wide is merely a semantic shift (plus a swapping of some Eastern Spirituality and falafels for some fundamental Christianity and guns) from what most Libertarians and Tea Party activists in the USA are also saying right now? "Just sayin'!"
(* I note with interest that his YouTube account is fully 'monetised'... so why is that? N.B Here's an interesting angle from Private Eye.)
Anyway, what I'm saying is that you cannot look at the whole background story and compare it to that of other historical struggles - for example, say, the Québécois movement in Canada... even if the story of the political campaigns are VERY similar.
Scottish people are British people. English people are British people. They speak the same language in the main, and they look the same, and they like the same things.
Quick question:
I'm not going to Google this to cheat so hopefully someone out there reading this can inform me:
Has Alex Salmond ever spoken (at length) in Scottish Gaelic during any Scottish Parliament debates? I'm interested to know...
***
Talking of mixed(up)-cultural heritages, Braveheart is just a film by the way - and (although I think most people know) is wildly inaccurate (and I love it by the way)... so it still amazes me that some people cling to it as an inspiration for all this.
Moreover, the Union of 1707 is proof that Scotland and England has been tied by a friendship (of sorts, true) rather than the normal story of British Colonialism and land-grabbing that we see elsewhere. Indeed, one mustn't forget that England/Britain bailed out Scotland after its disastrous attempt at colonial expansion itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme
What's amazing is just how many Scottish people have contributed to or enriched the country AS A WHOLE over the past 300-400 years. From inheriting a Scottish king in 1603, to having three consecutive Prime Ministers in recent times with strong Scottish bloodlines.
True, if they had stayed inside Scottish borders they may have helped their home nation just as well, if not more... but who's to say they wouldn't have left anyway?
***
There are so many un-addressed economic concerns (and not just with currency questions, oil reserve estimates and nuclear submarine bases) with the independence movement that I feel a 'Yes' vote would do more harm to the Scottish people overall than do good... but I do hope I'm wrong, whatever the outcome.
Oh... and one last thing...
I don't want the inescapable prison of consecutive future Conservative Governments, which may be the result of Scottish independence for us in what is left of the United Kingdom after the referendum.
Scotland brings balance to the political game in the UK, even if it doesn't quite do enough to break the current Centrist tumor of the two party domination due to the first-past-the-post scheme.
As much I believe that the SNP are just Scotland's version of UKIP (yuk!)... we need them... in a full and whole United Kingdom, rather than a broken one.
ZeeOx.
Monday, 4 August 2014
Posts coming soon!
Hello there.
This is just a quick post to say that I have overdue blog entries on several topics and that they are coming soon.
I know the correct nature of Blogging is to post regularly, like a diary, and not to go so deep into each entry as if one were writing a deeply researched thesis every time... but I don't want to just throw poorly thought out work onto this space.
Anyway, so, with that in mind... I apologise for the slow return here.
I am going to be adding my thoughts on HS2 (again!)... Densification... Garden Cities... Fracking... very soon. So watch this space! (Eventually!)
There are some horrible things happening out in the world right now... in South Sudan, Syria, Ukraine... Gaza... but we should never give up hope in finding solutions to problems, no matter how big or how small those problems may be.
Remember: we are all of the same flesh and can do great things if we work together. And we can also share enjoyable experiences...
Cheers,
ZeeOx.
This is just a quick post to say that I have overdue blog entries on several topics and that they are coming soon.
I know the correct nature of Blogging is to post regularly, like a diary, and not to go so deep into each entry as if one were writing a deeply researched thesis every time... but I don't want to just throw poorly thought out work onto this space.
Anyway, so, with that in mind... I apologise for the slow return here.
I am going to be adding my thoughts on HS2 (again!)... Densification... Garden Cities... Fracking... very soon. So watch this space! (Eventually!)
There are some horrible things happening out in the world right now... in South Sudan, Syria, Ukraine... Gaza... but we should never give up hope in finding solutions to problems, no matter how big or how small those problems may be.
Remember: we are all of the same flesh and can do great things if we work together. And we can also share enjoyable experiences...
Cheers,
ZeeOx.
Monday, 30 December 2013
How much space do we have?
This interesting December article from the BBC's website gives a little statistical background behind the claim that there could be a 'plague' of golf courses sweeping through the nation:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24378868
It focuses on the plight of the county of Surrey and a particularly hot debate over the need to create its 142nd(!) golf course at Cherkley Court... within its (just) 1662.5 square miles of land.
It then goes on to list the counties with the most percentages of land covered by golf courses and the number of 'holes' the courses contain.
Unfortunately, it does not then go into detail about how other land uses compare... because the figure of the largest 'offender', Merseyside (at 2.82% coverage*) is arguably very low if not given context. Some people may think that a figure of 2.82% is very little, and they'd be right really... so what was then needed was some other big 'offenders' listed just so we can have an idea of what impact these golf courses truly have.
Golf is a popular (or at least growing) sport no doubt, and the article presumably attempts to draw out the needs of its golfers by mentioning how many holes they get as well as land. It mentions the average figure per hole as 2.5ha and that a metropolitan area in Florida, USA has just 212 people per hole (http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/mar/08/study-collier-marco-tops-national-leaderboard-for/?print=1).
Oddly, the charts then do not then give equivalent figures for the British counties... but a quick trip to Wikipedia gives me 1,381,200 for the population of Merseyside alongside its 729 holes... therefore giving us 1895 people per hole.
So, so far nothing helps the people arguing against having more golf courses. But what is interesting is the mention of the plight of Bermuda, where just under 10% of the whole (and very small) country is given over to golf courses! And the article does well at making one question just how much golf a place needs. It does not take sides.
For the record, I am not a big fan of golf courses. I like playing it from time to time, and don't think it is a good walk spoiled, so don't think I am really biased here. However, it is still an elitist sport in my opinion, and not the best type of 'sport' that should be supported by Governments to keep people healthy and happy. Also, they are a very good 'chameleon' at convincing people that they are 'good for the environment', because they are 'pretty', have nice big trees and lots of lovely green grass. What people do not know is that they are potentially very bad for the environment, if built in the place of true natural landscape**, and do not encourage/support the kind of biodiversity one might think. They also require a hell of a lot of water in maintenance... which we can't always afford.
Anyway, what the article also points out is that the percentages do not include the driving ranges, pitch and putts, and non-affiliated to Golf England courses. So... many of the places where 'ordinary folk' first encounter the game are not even covered.
For the record, the UK has 23.43% of its land defined as 'cultivated', but has over 70% of all land in agricultural use in total. It also has 11.65% under forest and woodland (DEFRA figures)... leaving very little left for the (subtracted) category of 'urban and other land', which golf courses (as well as housing, transport, sand dunes, inland waters...) must sit within.
This figure is 14.43% of all land for the whole of the UK... and therefore represents a truer aspect of what amount of the country is actually on the front line for potential change.
If we take the very rough figure that 1% of the UK is covered in golf courses, this actually represents a figure nearer 7% of the actual living space that we have given over to golfing. And, interpolated for Merseyside, gives a figure close to 20%.
In my humble opinion, that is enough for now. We don't have any virgin forest to hack away for the easy creation of more courses, and too many other land uses and needs in the areas where most people (who may want to then play golf) actually live. Golf courses are big creatures, and selfish. By definition, they don't allow many people to enjoy the sport at the same time in the way that other, more communal, sports do.
And I just can't understand how we can live in an era where we sell off school playing fields for housing but are happy to let new golf courses keep nibbling away at incredibly precious and fragile land. It's almost as if we care more for the needs of rich retired people as opposed to our children.
So... if you are desperate to play golf, then get out the Xbox, or take a holiday in Scotland.
Or Bermuda.
* Surrey is third, with a mere 2.65%
** http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-fails-to-deliver-on-golf-resort-jobs-pledge-8693854.html
P.S. If you are still in any doubt as to whether a figure of 2.82% can be a lot in terms of land use, read this similarly BBC-based article from way back in 2012 which suggests that there is a myth, an urban myth if you like, that the UK is "concreted over": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096.
It suggests a very tidy figure of 2.27% of for the proportion of England's landscape (not the UK's) which is "built on" and whilst, like a lot of such investigations, one can find a way to pick (golf?) holes in the statistics, it is both scary and fun to suggest that some parts of England could now be defined as more golf course than urban built-up space!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24378868
It focuses on the plight of the county of Surrey and a particularly hot debate over the need to create its 142nd(!) golf course at Cherkley Court... within its (just) 1662.5 square miles of land.
It then goes on to list the counties with the most percentages of land covered by golf courses and the number of 'holes' the courses contain.
Unfortunately, it does not then go into detail about how other land uses compare... because the figure of the largest 'offender', Merseyside (at 2.82% coverage*) is arguably very low if not given context. Some people may think that a figure of 2.82% is very little, and they'd be right really... so what was then needed was some other big 'offenders' listed just so we can have an idea of what impact these golf courses truly have.
Golf is a popular (or at least growing) sport no doubt, and the article presumably attempts to draw out the needs of its golfers by mentioning how many holes they get as well as land. It mentions the average figure per hole as 2.5ha and that a metropolitan area in Florida, USA has just 212 people per hole (http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/mar/08/study-collier-marco-tops-national-leaderboard-for/?print=1).
Oddly, the charts then do not then give equivalent figures for the British counties... but a quick trip to Wikipedia gives me 1,381,200 for the population of Merseyside alongside its 729 holes... therefore giving us 1895 people per hole.
So, so far nothing helps the people arguing against having more golf courses. But what is interesting is the mention of the plight of Bermuda, where just under 10% of the whole (and very small) country is given over to golf courses! And the article does well at making one question just how much golf a place needs. It does not take sides.
For the record, I am not a big fan of golf courses. I like playing it from time to time, and don't think it is a good walk spoiled, so don't think I am really biased here. However, it is still an elitist sport in my opinion, and not the best type of 'sport' that should be supported by Governments to keep people healthy and happy. Also, they are a very good 'chameleon' at convincing people that they are 'good for the environment', because they are 'pretty', have nice big trees and lots of lovely green grass. What people do not know is that they are potentially very bad for the environment, if built in the place of true natural landscape**, and do not encourage/support the kind of biodiversity one might think. They also require a hell of a lot of water in maintenance... which we can't always afford.
Anyway, what the article also points out is that the percentages do not include the driving ranges, pitch and putts, and non-affiliated to Golf England courses. So... many of the places where 'ordinary folk' first encounter the game are not even covered.
For the record, the UK has 23.43% of its land defined as 'cultivated', but has over 70% of all land in agricultural use in total. It also has 11.65% under forest and woodland (DEFRA figures)... leaving very little left for the (subtracted) category of 'urban and other land', which golf courses (as well as housing, transport, sand dunes, inland waters...) must sit within.
This figure is 14.43% of all land for the whole of the UK... and therefore represents a truer aspect of what amount of the country is actually on the front line for potential change.
If we take the very rough figure that 1% of the UK is covered in golf courses, this actually represents a figure nearer 7% of the actual living space that we have given over to golfing. And, interpolated for Merseyside, gives a figure close to 20%.
In my humble opinion, that is enough for now. We don't have any virgin forest to hack away for the easy creation of more courses, and too many other land uses and needs in the areas where most people (who may want to then play golf) actually live. Golf courses are big creatures, and selfish. By definition, they don't allow many people to enjoy the sport at the same time in the way that other, more communal, sports do.
And I just can't understand how we can live in an era where we sell off school playing fields for housing but are happy to let new golf courses keep nibbling away at incredibly precious and fragile land. It's almost as if we care more for the needs of rich retired people as opposed to our children.
So... if you are desperate to play golf, then get out the Xbox, or take a holiday in Scotland.
Or Bermuda.
* Surrey is third, with a mere 2.65%
** http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-fails-to-deliver-on-golf-resort-jobs-pledge-8693854.html
P.S. If you are still in any doubt as to whether a figure of 2.82% can be a lot in terms of land use, read this similarly BBC-based article from way back in 2012 which suggests that there is a myth, an urban myth if you like, that the UK is "concreted over": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096.
It suggests a very tidy figure of 2.27% of for the proportion of England's landscape (not the UK's) which is "built on" and whilst, like a lot of such investigations, one can find a way to pick (golf?) holes in the statistics, it is both scary and fun to suggest that some parts of England could now be defined as more golf course than urban built-up space!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)