lukegreen.co.uk

living life one day at a time!

So below is the first ever bit of political correspondence I have felt the need to write. At the time of posting this America of all places (yes that country with some of the most aggressive foreign policy and single minded pursuit to secure Oil and access to Oil at all costs around the world) is currently accusing the UK Brown/Blaire government of shady oil deals!

America accuses the UK government of releasing Megrahi (the man charged with the Lockerbie Pan-Am flight bombing) to secure oil interests with Libya. Now maybe there is a connecting strand here, but it strikes me as completely hypocritical and cynical of America to try and take the moral high ground on this. It’s widely thought that the Lockerbie bombing was in response to America shooting down Iran_Air_Flight_655 as neatly highlighted in Christine Grahame (MSP) sturdy Newsnight response.

Here’s the email I sent her…

Christine

I have never felt the need to contact a political figure before, but have been so angered by America’s recent hypocritical stance on the Megrahi release, shady BP Oil deals accusations, that I had to send my congratulations to you for your robust response to John Bolton on Newsnight. I find America’s position particularly reprehensible given their foreign policy and decisions over the past, many motivated by Oil and access to Oil. Thank you for showing a high degree passion and backbone in your response to another American, drunk on the idea that when his country grumbles everyone else should cower.

Yours Sincerly Luke

You can watch the news night interview while its available on the BBC iPlayer

Each nation must find the best use of its resources to sustain civilisation for as long as they can, argues James Lovelock. Published in The Independent, 16 January 2006.

Imagine a young policewoman delighted in the fulfillment of her vocation; then imagine her having to tell a family whose child had strayed that he had been found dead, murdered in a nearby wood. Or think of a young physician newly appointed who has to tell you that the biopsy revealed invasion by an aggressive metastasising tumour. Doctors and the police know that many accept the simple awful truth with dignity but others try in vain to deny it.

Whatever the response, the bringers of such bad news rarely become hardened to their task and some dread it. We have relieved judges of the awesome responsibility of passing the death sentence, but at least they had some comfort from its frequent moral justification. Physicians and the police have no escape from their duty.

This article is the most difficult I have written and for the same reasons. My Gaia theory sees the Earth behaving as if it were alive, and clearly anything alive can enjoy good health, or suffer disease. Gaia has made me a planetary physician and I take my profession seriously, and now I, too, have to bring bad news.

The climate centres around the world, which are the equivalent of the pathology lab of a hospital, have reported the Earth’s physical condition, and the climate specialists see it as seriously ill, and soon to pass into a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years. I have to tell you, as members of the Earth’s family and an intimate part of it, that you and especially civilisation are in grave danger.

Our planet has kept itself healthy and fit for life, just like an animal does, for most of the more than three billion years of its existence. It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics.

Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longer serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 percent of the Earth’s surface we have depleted to feed ourselves.

Curiously, aerosol pollution of the northern hemisphere reduces global warming by reflecting sunlight back to space. This ‘global dimming’ is transient and could disappear in a few days like the smoke that it is, leaving us fully exposed to the heat of the global greenhouse. We are in a fool’s climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.

By failing to see that the Earth regulates its climate and composition, we have blundered into trying to do it ourselves, acting as if we were in charge. By doing this, we condemn ourselves to the worst form of slavery. If we chose to be the stewards of the Earth, then we are responsible for keeping the atmosphere, the ocean and the land surface right for life. A task we would soon find impossible – and something before we treated Gaia so badly, she had freely done for us.

To understand how impossible it is, think about how you would regulate your own temperature or the composition of your blood. Those with failing kidneys know the never-ending daily difficulty of adjusting water, salt and protein intake. The technological fix of dialysis helps, but is no replacement for living healthy kidneys.

My new book The Revenge of Gaia expands these thoughts, but you still may ask why science took so long to recognise the true nature of the Earth. I think it is because Darwin’s vision was so good and clear that it has taken until now to digest it. In his time, little was known about the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans, and there would have been little reason for him to wonder if organisms changed their environment as well as adapting to it.

Had it been known then that life and the environment are closely coupled, Darwin would have seen that evolution involved not just the organisms, but the whole planetary surface. We might then have looked upon the Earth as if it were alive, and known that we cannot pollute the air or use the Earth’s skin – its forest and ocean ecosystems – as a mere source of products to feed ourselves and furnish our homes. We would have felt instinctively that those ecosystems must be left untouched because they were part of the living Earth.

So what should we do? First, we have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realise how little time is left to act; and then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilisation for as long as they can. Civilisation is energy-intensive and we cannot turn it off without crashing, so we need the security of a powered descent. On these British Isles, we are used to thinking of all humanity and not just ourselves; environmental change is global, but we have to deal with the consequences here in the UK.

Unfortunately our nation is now so urbanised as to be like a large city and we have only a small acreage of agriculture and forestry. We are dependent on the trading world for sustenance; climate change will deny us regular supplies of food and fuel from overseas.

We could grow enough to feed ourselves on the diet of the Second World War, but the notion that there is land to spare to grow biofuels, or be the site of wind farms, is ludicrous. We will do our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of emissions. The worst will happen and survivors will have to adapt to a hell of a climate.

Perhaps the saddest thing is that Gaia will lose as much or more than we do. Not only will wildlife and whole ecosystems go extinct, but in human civilisation the planet has a precious resource. We are not merely a disease; we are, through our intelligence and communication, the nervous system of the planet. Through us, Gaia has seen herself from space, and begins to know her place in the universe.

We should be the heart and mind of the Earth, not its malady. So let us be brave and cease thinking of human needs and rights alone, and see that we have harmed the living Earth and need to make our peace with Gaia. We must do it while we are still strong enough to negotiate, and not a broken rabble led by brutal war lords. Most of all, we should remember that we are a part of it, and it is indeed our home.

Taken From James Lovelocks Personal Website

Taken from an artical By MILES GOSLETT published on the Mail on Sunday 25th January 2010

Vital evidence which could solve the mystery of the death of Government weapons inspector Dr David Kelly will be kept under wraps for up to 70 years.
In a draconian – and highly unusual – order, Lord Hutton, the peer who chaired the controversial inquiry into the Dr Kelly scandal, has secretly barred the release of all medical records, including the results of the post mortem, and unpublished evidence.

The move, which will stoke fresh speculation about the true circumstances of Dr Kelly’s death, comes just days before Tony Blair appears before the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War.

It is also bound to revive claims of an establishment cover-up and fresh questions about the verdict that Dr Kelly killed himself.

Whistle-blower: Dr Kelly died after casting doubt on Government claims about Saddam’s weapons
Tonight, Dr Michael Powers QC, a doctor campaigning to overturn the Hutton findings, said: ‘What is it about David Kelly’s death which is so secret as to justify these reports being kept out of the public domain for 70 years?’
Campaigning Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who has also questioned the verdict that Dr Kelly committed suicide, said: ‘It is astonishing this is the first we’ve known about this decision by Lord Hutton and even more astonishing he should have seen fit to hide this material away.’
The body of former United Nations weapons inspector Dr Kelly was found in July 2003 in woods close to his Oxfordshire home, shortly after he was exposed as the source of a BBC news report questioning the Government’s claims that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, which could be deployed within 45 minutes. Lord Hutton’s 2004 report, commissioned by Mr Blair, concluded that Dr Kelly killed himself by cutting his wrist with a blunt gardening knife.

It was dismissed by many experts as a whitewash for clearing the Government of any culpability, despite evidence that it had leaked Dr Kelly’s name in an attempt to smear him. Only now has it emerged that a year after his inquiry was completed, Lord Hutton took unprecedented action to ensure that the vital evidence remains a state secret for so long.

A letter, leaked to The Mail on Sunday, revealed that a 30-year ban was placed on ‘records provided [which were] not produced in evidence’. This is thought to refer to witness statements given to the inquiry which were not disclosed at the time.

In addition, it has now been established that Lord Hutton ordered all medical reports – including the post-mortem findings by pathologist Dr Nicholas Hunt and photographs of Dr Kelly’s body – to remain classified information for 70 years.

The move will stoke fresh speculation about the true circumstances of Dr Kelly’s death

The normal rules on post-mortems allow close relatives and ‘properly interested persons’ to apply to see a copy of the report and to ‘inspect’ other documents.

Lord Hutton’s measure has overridden these rules, so the files will not be opened until all such people are likely to be dead.

Last night, the Ministry of Justice was unable to explain the legal basis for

Lord Hutton’s order.
The restrictions came to light in a letter from the legal team of Oxfordshire County Council to a group of doctors who are challenging the Hutton verdict.
Last year, a group of doctors, including Dr Powers, compiled a medical dossier as part of their legal challenge to the Hutton verdict.

They argue that Hutton’s conclusion that Dr Kelly killed himself by severing the ulnar artery in his left wrist after taking an overdose of prescription painkillers is untenable because the artery is small and difficult to access, and severing it could not have caused death.

In their 12-page opinion, they concluded: ‘The bleeding from Dr Kelly’s ulnar artery is highly unlikely to have been so voluminous and rapid that it was the cause of death. We advise the instructing solicitors to obtain the autopsy reports so that the concerns of a group of properly interested medical specialists can be answered.’

Tonight, Dr Powers, a former assistant coroner, added: ‘Supposedly all evidence relevant to the cause of death has been heard in public at the time of Lord Hutton’s inquiry. If these secret reports support the suicide finding, what could they contain that could be so sensitive?’

The letter disclosing the 70-year restriction was written by Nick Graham, assistant head of legal and democratic services at Oxfordshire Council.
It states: ‘Lord Hutton made a request for the records provided to the inquiry, not produced in evidence, to be closed for 30 years, and that medical (including post-mortem) reports and photographs be closed for 70 years.’
Nicholas Gardiner, the Chief Coroner for Oxfordshire, confirmed that he had seen the letter.

Order: Lord Hutton has secretly barred the release of all medical records, including the results of the post mortem
Speaking to The Mail on Sunday today, he said: ‘I know that Lord Hutton made that recommendation. Someone told me at the time. Anybody concerned will be dead by then, and that is quite clearly Lord Hutton’s intention.’
Asked what was in the records that made it necessary for them to be embargoed, Mr Gardiner said: ‘They’re Lord Hutton’s records not mine. You’d have to ask him.’

He added that in his opinion Lord Hutton had embargoed the records to protect Dr Kelly’s children.
The inquest into Dr Kelly’s death was suspended before it could begin by the then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer. He used the Coroners Act to designate the Hutton Inquiry as ‘fulfilling the function of an inquest’.

News that the records will be kept secret comes just days before Mr Blair gives evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry on Friday.

To date, Dr Kelly’s name has scarcely been mentioned at the inquiry. One source who held a private meeting with Sir John Chilcot before the proceedings began said that Sir John had admitted he ‘did not want to touch the Kelly issue’ .

A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: ‘Any decision made by Lord Hutton at the time of his inquiry was entirely a matter for him.’
A spokesman for Thames Valley Police said yesterday that it would not be possible to search their records during the weekend.The Mail on Sunday was unable to contact Lord Hutton.

As the dust settles on a bit of UK political and TV history pundits and politicians are all trying to guage it’s effect on the election. For me it was facinating stuff, I consumed this bit of TV not in front of my TV but like millions of you, on my computer while simaltaneously plugged into Facebook, Twitter and The Worm!!!

I found the whole experience facinating, connected and also even exciting (politics = exciting yeh I know!!!). I think it upped the ante for political debate and brought a kind of roman gladiator like feel to proceedings. Even though the audience wasn’t really allowed to clap and jeer, the social networks were alive with comments, which I bet if they had came attached with sound would have all the rawkus noise of a wined up roman public, baying for blood.

I joined the dabate about 20 minutes in and for me within the first couple of minutes Nick Clegg was in his element coming accross as a confident fresh speaker. It wasn’t long before both the Twittersphere and Facebook posts were too confirming Clegg was “doing well”, with the “just for fun” polls putting him in the lead on popularity and a close second on the economy.

I think for many people he was a little bit of a revelation having been consigned by the last few weeks of satire as the unknown outsider. Undoubtably Clegg had the most to gain during the debate and traded blows effortlessly as the fresh faced “ready for change” leader.

My instinct (and I suspect also the wider electorate) is that people are keen for change and reform at Westminster and Clegg seems to have alot to offer, a party that’s never governed and seemingly remaining unscathed by the recent sleaze alegations making them much more than just the tactical vote of past elections.

Brown I thought did well obviously not in his element but again seemed to rise to the challenge. Almost all of his answers were characterised not by the effervesance and optimism of Clegg but by a pragmatic and thoughtful approach, that I suspect comes from the realities of being in government for 10 years. Brown defined himself as the safe pair of hands. The biggest loser in this I feel was Cameron, who was expected to do well in this debate, infact came accross less convincing and at times he seemed lost. Both the ITV polls and general social networks assesment he was last on almost every issue.

I would consider my self a floating voter so I’m very keen to see what each party wants to do with our country, also as a business owner I want to see innovation and leadership at one of the most important junctures in this countries last 30 years. I think the future of the UK as a competitor in the world is at stake and if we elect the wrong party or even worse create a hung parliment it will effect us financially and socially for years to come.

So what’s the impact of the debates, for me I think they will be critical on influencing mainstream opinion, we are a personality driven society, we love celebs and by forcing our future leaders I to this arena webare judging them on the same level, we are projecting ourselves to them and if either of them hit a rich vein of mainstream agreement it could be decisive.

I for one have been engaged and will try hard to dig behind the personalities, and understand the policies but in the end this is the election and right now we need someone with global vision, ideas and the qualities of a true leader.

The Age Of Stupid
if this is the reality of climate change then we better fucking start sorting it out right now!