Good causes?

I’ve been pondering getting a little more active in the real political scene, rather than just sitting at my PC grumbling. But for what cause and to what end?

When I came out of the RAF 15 or so years ago, I got involved in a variety of pressure groups; environmental, political, peace you name it I had the t-shirt. Or mug (Nuclear Power? No Thanks!) or car sticker (Save the Seals) or badge (Cole Not Dole), whatever. I tried to reconstitute the CND group at Leeds University when I went there in 1993 but was beaten back by a wall of apathy. Me and a sweet thing called Hannah tried for a semester or so but you can only do so much. It was also obvious by then that Hannah was never going to fall for my dark charm and ready wit, but that had nothing to do with it. Honest. Then after four years of ‘study’ and grotesque overindulgence I graduated, I was 30 and I suppose life got in the way. My political passions subsided as I returned to the 9-5 and started to worry about the rent and all that other mundane stuff.

Now that I have a bit more time and a bit more inclination I find that although my political passions remain, a great bulk of my motivation to act has been either consumed by my cynicism or and this came as quite a surprise, has been dampened by the fact I am better read and more critical. My first passion back in the early 90s was to save the planet. So let’s have a think about global warming and just what we’re doing to the place we call home.

There is no doubt that it’s getting hotter. Life on this funny little planet is threatened with rising sea levels, higher temperatures and more unpredictable weather systems. But why and to what extent is really in some doubt. I’ve spent the last hour searching Google for global warming facts and the only fact I am now sure of is that everyone who writes on the subject has a different opinion. Many also have drums to bang. I’m sure the scientists at the American Petroleum Institute are proud of their research and take it very seriously, but is it really going to be as objective as an independent academic study? By the same token could Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth similarly be accused of cherry picking the bits of research that back up their campaigning objectives? Probably.

It also seems to be true that some of the warming is due to the fact that on the big scale we are still coming out of the last ice age. There are plenty of scientists looking at CO2 levels from core samples and the like, who see nothing out of the ordinary, except maybe the warming is happening a little faster that 100 or so years ago. Can we fight nature then? Very doubtful. I hardly need to point out that nature is massive do I?

So what can we do to help save the environment? Recycle maybe? I used to recycle everything. Really seriously and passionately. Now though I’m more convinced by the re-use and repair argument. My newspapers get re-used as litter tray liners. It saves me buying the ludicrously priced plastic ones from the supermarket and saves the little bit of oil that went into their production. My supermarket carrier bags get re-used as bin liners. I have a lovely comfy pair of leather slippers that have perfect uppers but were worm out on the soles, so I went to Woolworth and bought some new soles. Glued them on and I’ll get another couple of years out of them easy. Saves me a few quid and the power consumed in making me a new pair of slippers has been saved.

Anyone over 30 will probably remember when you could take your lemonade bottles back to the shop from which you bought them and receive a refund. It was only 2p but take back five bottles and you had 10p. When I was a small boy 10p bought you 2 Mars bars, so we actually hunted out bottles to return for sweets. We all used to have a milkman deliver out milk. You’d leave your empty bottles out and he’d take them away, leave you some full ones and the empties were cleaned and filled with milk for the next delivery. I know that the plastic containers we buy our milk in now say ‘”Recyclable” but I bet the majority of you just chuck them in the bin don’t you? If you do they simply go off to the landfill with all of your other rubbish.

What about recycling bottles and glass? The primary reason for recycling is surely to conserve natural resources. But isn’t glass made out of sand? Are we about to run out of sand? According to Virtual Globe, in the region south of the Sahara Desert, 1.5 million hectares of land turn into desert every year. I have absolutely no idea how big a hectare is, but a million and a half of them must cover quite an area. To melt bottles down and make them into new bottles takes energy. It is two processes and uses more energy than just making new bottles from all the sand we have laying around. You see my point? But if all 1 litre bottles were the same size and shape, we could return them to a central place for re-use. What was a bottle of Pepsi last week could be a bottle of fabric conditioner next. I am aware that increasingly imaginative uses are being found for old bottles – ground down a little they make an excellent, hard wearing road surface of all things and this also is the direction we should be going in.

I have low energy light bulbs in all my light sockets, and I never leave my television or PC on standby. Taking measures to reduce electricity consumption is probably the most effective way for all of us to prevent unnecessary discharge of greenhouse gas. Electricity isn’t stored anywhere, it is generated as and when it is required. So by turning the TV off if you’re not watching it you instantly reduce the amount of electricity that needs to be generated. It’s also better for your brain – read a book or a newspaper instead, maybe call your mum. (Hello mum, I’ll phone in the week).

The second most effective way to make a difference is to think about your car a bit more. Do you really need to drive to the corner shop? Can’t your fat kids walk to school for a change? We are slaves to the motor car. Remember those idiots following petrol tankers up and down the motorways during the fuel protests a few years ago? Did that strike anyone else as just bizarre? Using scarce, expensive petrol to follow a tanker so that you could replace the fuel used err following a fuel tanker.
When did you last check your tyre pressure? Properly inflated tyres will last 20-50% longer than under-inflated ones (precise statistics are impossible to find that’s just the most common range I’ve seen). As about 100,000 tyres a day get discarded in this country, most going to landfill, that could make a huge difference. It will also reduce your petrol consumption by 5%. That’ll save you a few quid and if we all had our tyres at the correct pressure it would conserve hundreds of thousands of litres of petrol a day. You’d be sticking it up the petrol companies as well who have all recently announced obscene profits. That’s why there is no co-ordinated government information campaign about saving petrol. Big profits equal big tax revenues.

And therein lies the real problem with environmentalism. It gets in the way of business interests and the creation of wealth for chief executives and their shareholders. One of the criticisms of both the peace and environmental movements 15 years ago was that they were full of Marxists wanting to bring down capitalism. Now the popular press and governments will say they are full of anti-globalisation protesters and anarchists like it is somehow a bad thing to hold an alternative point of view. I’m certainly not going to argue the case for and against capitalism and I’m not totally against it by any means.

So what, as Lenin once asked, is to be done?

There’s an old saying - all things in moderation. BP and Shell recently announced combined profits of £18 billion for the previous 12 months. That’s £570.78 profit every second of every hour of every day of the year. Remember them telling us that it was taxation that made petrol so expensive at the pump? Still believe them? Would say, £9 billion not be enough for them? Then they could spend the other £9 billion researching alternative fuels. These alternative fuels could still be sold for a profit I’m sure. That’s not so unreasonable is it?

The long awaited implementation of the Kyoto Convention on Climate Change received more press coverage than it (possibly) deserved. It is certainly a worthy agreement, as the countries signed up produce about 55% of the ‘greenhouse gasses’ presently released into the atmosphere. But the US and Australia haven’t bothered as it would be too expensive for their economies. China, India and other similarly developing countries are excluded. And I believe quite correctly. What right do those of us in the ‘developed’ world have to turn round to developing nations and say “Sorry guys, but we’ve messed things up really badly over the last few years, but you are the ones who have to pay”? It’s not really on is it?

The simple measures I’ve spoken about above would if we all acted, slow down global warming more than any global treaty could hope to. But there seems to be no will amongst governments to either provide low energy appliances at a reduced cost, publicise their importance and their simplicity or take on the major corporations who genuinely have the power to make significant changes. In two generations time our grandchildren will be turning to us and saying, screaming even “You had all the facts and you did nothing!!” What will we say in reply?