<DIV>Thanks very much for that Jillian. </DIV>
<DIV>On Saturday I am going to a meeting about the newly formed Campaign Against Climate Change in a pub room next to Euston Station. </DIV>
<DIV>My particular interest is in making public transport so good (convenient, pleasant, reliable, extensive, cheap/free, etc) that most people would be desperate to sell their cars before the market became completely gutted with cars for which people no longer had any real use. We nearly had this situation in Sheffield with the cheap fares before Thatcher stuck her oar in and Labour crumbled. </DIV>
<DIV>As I now have a serious mobility problem (knee) I'm starting to take these matters even more seriously.</DIV>
<DIV>If somebody jogs me, I will do a report back from the meeting.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You may well be aware that we now have a new Circular bus (No 10) partly replacing the No 8. This came about because I had just returned from a 3 day international psychology conference (Transactional Analysis) in Edinburgh to find that the Circular was being scrapped. Being more than usually fired up (by the conference) I rang SYPTE to complain, got the person's name to whom people should complain, made some posters with her name and phone no on and stuck them on local bus stops, asking people to complain. I also did an email to the Nether Edge Against War e-list. </DIV>
<DIV>The next day SYPTE rang me to ask me to please desist from giving out the phone no as they were snowed under with calls. And 2 of us did a petition which we put in many local shops and took out on the street for an hour which turned into two and a half hours because we had such a good time with it. After 2 or 3 days we had 500 signatures (just from Nether Edge) which we took down to SYPTE - and they had already decided to reinstate some of the service due to the weight of phone calls. There is more to do, but its a good start. </DIV>
<DIV>Ultimately I believe that all public transport should be free (at the point of use). This might sound a bit extreme, but so does cities and low lying countries being flooded and major ocean currents being switched off. </DIV>
<DIV>Needless to say, we also need to rethink much of our way of living in other respects too. </DIV>
<DIV>I am particularly interested in a new tide power machine which (alone) could supply all the energy Britain needs if the sort of resources which were put into the attack on Iraq were put into it. </DIV>
<DIV>There are answers! </DIV>
<DIV>Ian<BR><BR><B><I>g8-sheffield-request@lists.aktivix.org</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Send g8-sheffield mailing list submissions to<BR>g8-sheffield@lists.aktivix.org<BR><BR>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<BR>http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/g8-sheffield<BR>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<BR>g8-sheffield-request@lists.aktivix.org<BR><BR>You can reach the person managing the list at<BR>g8-sheffield-owner@lists.aktivix.org<BR><BR>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<BR>than "Re: Contents of g8-sheffield digest..."<BR><BR><BR>Today's Topics:<BR><BR>1. Climate Change to be discussed in Full Council 2pm Wed 7th<BR>Sept (Jillian Creasy)<BR>2. Related article in Guardian Today... (dan@aktivix.org)<BR>3. Declaration of African civil society on the road to 6th<BR>Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation in Hong<BR>Kong (Chris
Malins)<BR><BR><BR>----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR><BR>Message: 1<BR>Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:22:34 +0100<BR>From: "Jillian Creasy" <JCREASY@ONETEL.COM><BR>Subject: [g8-sheffield] Climate Change to be discussed in Full Council<BR>2pm Wed 7th Sept<BR>To: "graham wroe" <GRAHAMWROE@DSL.PIPEX.COM>, "steve foe"<BR><STEVEG@DOCTORS.ORG.UK>, <GP-SHEFF@YAHOOGROUPS.COM>, "g8"<BR><G8-SHEFFIELD@LISTS.AKTIVIX.ORG><BR>Message-ID: <007701c5ae37$d979ce40$0ac6f9d5@sys03><BR>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<BR><BR>Dear all<BR>(please forward to sympathetic lists/people, Graham can you put the announcement below on the Green party website?)<BR><BR>SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL TO DISCUSS CLIMATE CHANGE ON WED 7TH SEPTEMBER<BR><BR>Full Council (meeting in Town Hall) will receive presentations by:<BR><BR>George Munson, Regional Climate Change Co-ordinator at the Yorkshire and Humber Govt Office on the implications of Climate Change
<BR>&<BR>Andy Nolan, Head of Environmental Strategy on the Council's strategy for action.<BR><BR>There will then be an opportunity of Cllrs to ask questions.<BR>There is a slot for "public questions and communications" immediately before this (at 2pm), so although the public can't ask questions during the "debate" anything asked from the gallery would be hard to ignore in the session which followed. <BR><BR>So ... I'm putting out an appeal for <BR>1. People to attend Full Council on that day. Just turn up at about 1.50pm and tell the ushers you want to ask a question from the gallery - you will be shown upstairs and called to speak by the Mayor after any petitioners have spoken (which can take a while!)<BR>2. AND/OR feed any questions to me and I will try to put them - I only get one slot for questions and possibly a second one for comments (actually comes to much the same thing in politics, I've noticed!). It would be very helpful for have your ideas. Should I focus on
transport, industry, energy saving in housing, localising the economy, the incinerator, the airport(s)? So much room for improvement I'm in danger of being overwhelmed!<BR><BR>I need your ideas and your support. I want to be as well informed as possible and to represent you, the green-thinking, no-blood-for-oil community. I also want to show SCC, especially Labour, that the people of Sheffield regard climate change as a really important issue and that we are GLAD they have timetabled this session.<BR><BR>Notes<BR>1. Y&H Region produced a Climate Change Action Plan in Feb/March of this year ... you could find it on the web: the thing the Green Party picked out of it was the recommendation to appoint a cabinet level "champion" for climate change. This hasn't quite happened - though they did create a cabinet member for "environment and transport" (Terry Fox).<BR>2. Andy Nolan has moved from a similar role at Sheffield Uni - only taken up post a few months
ago.<BR><BR>Thanks!<BR><BR>Cllr Jillian Creasy, Central ward, Sheffield Green Party<BR><BR>-------------- next part --------------<BR>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<BR>URL: http://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/g8-sheffield/attachments/20050831/f1a5e0e3/attachment-0001.html<BR><BR>------------------------------<BR><BR>Message: 2<BR>Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:32:42 +0100<BR>From: dan@aktivix.org<BR>Subject: [g8-sheffield] Related article in Guardian Today...<BR>To: Jillian Creasy <JCREASY@ONETEL.COM><BR>Cc: graham wroe <GRAHAMWROE@DSL.PIPEX.COM>, gp-sheff@yahoogroups.com,<BR>g8 <G8-SHEFFIELD@LISTS.AKTIVIX.ORG>, steve foe <STEVEG@DOCTORS.ORG.UK><BR>Message-ID: <1125502362.4315cd9abd044@www.aktivix.org><BR>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<BR><BR>Hi,<BR><BR>Have you seen this?<BR><BR>http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,1559070,00.html<BR><BR>All planned out<BR><BR>If public services took green issues seriously they could make a huge
difference<BR>to the environment. But progress is patchy and painfully slow, finds John<BR>Vidal<BR>Wednesday August 31, 2005<BR><BR>Guardian<BR>Five years ago, 62 pioneering local authorities signed what was called the<BR>Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change, committing themselves to reducing<BR>energy and addressing what the prime minister called "the greatest threat<BR>facing humanity". But within three years the scheme had stalled, and had to be<BR>relaunched by a disappointed Michael Meacher, then the environment minister.<BR><BR>"How can we expect the public to take action if we are not committed to doing so<BR>ourselves?" he pleaded with local authorities. "The government cannot do it<BR>all. Ultimately it is up to everyone to build appropriate protection into their<BR>own plans and decisions."<BR><BR>Since 2003, official and public awareness of climate change has rocketed and<BR>tens of thousands of local authorities around the world have pledged to try to<BR>meet or
exceed national targets on climate change. In Britain, however, only<BR>about 30 more local authorities have taken the Nottingham pledge. Others have<BR>come up with their own plans to conserve energy, but only about 200 of almost<BR>500 councils even have a specialist energy officer - a prerequisite, says the<BR>Energy Saving Trust, to any action being taken at a local government level.<BR><BR>It would be unfair, however, to suggest that local government in Britain is<BR>blind to the future and reluctant to grapple with the environmental problems of<BR>the age. Some authorities, such as Woking or Merton, are racing away on climate<BR>change, developing ambitious, even visionary, technological and social<BR>initiatives that are being picked up around Britain and the world.<BR>Nevertheless, many others seem quite unconvinced there is a problem and are<BR>ignorant about what they can do - or reluctant even to lift a finger.<BR><BR>It is not just climate change. When central government
came up with its<BR>ambitious integrated transport policy in 1999, it depended heavily on local<BR>authorities to implement it and to reduce traffic levels and emissions. The<BR>policy is widely seen now as an environmental disaster.<BR><BR>Given few resources, the policy met considerable confusion and ill-will among<BR>authorities. According to the Commission for Integrated Transport, which<BR>surveyed their progress in 2002, three kinds of authority were emerging: the<BR>"champions", "the tacticians" and - the majority - "the sceptics". The<BR>complaints were that central government was giving them mixed messages, there<BR>was a plethora of confusing targets and indicators, and not enough money or<BR>resources to do the job.<BR><BR>But then compare waste, the third great plank that defines the public services'<BR>modern environmental agenda. A decade ago, most local authorities saw recycling<BR>as an expensive option indulged in mostly by Germans. They considered a hole in<BR>the
ground the best place to chuck everything from old fridges to waste food.<BR>Britain was at the bottom of the European recycling league, and most local<BR>authorities wanted to stay there.<BR><BR>Since then, central government has been forced by Europe to set local<BR>authorities difficult targets under the Landfill Directive to reduce and<BR>control waste. Coerced by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural<BR>Affairs, and threatened with heavy penalties for not reducing and recycling -<BR>but also encouraged with generous incentives to earn money if they waste less<BR>and recycle more - even the most ecologically illiterate local authorities are<BR>now doing something.<BR><BR>As with transport and climate, there are immense differences in performance on<BR>waste between the best and the worst authorities, but the change in public<BR>attitude towards waste has been spectacular and there is barely a household or<BR>business in the country that has not learned to put its
rubbish in different<BR>bins.<BR><BR>The enormous differences in how local authorities have tackled the environment -<BR>one of the key components of the government's overarching agenda on sustainable<BR>development - suggest that targets, timetables, incentives and sticks can get<BR>results, but there is growing concern among many local authorities that they<BR>are becoming the battleground of central government departments wanting to<BR>micro-manage their policies.<BR><BR>So many instructions are being handed down about how to implement central<BR>government policy on the linked areas of environment, planning, public health,<BR>food, waste, transport, energy efficiency and economic growth, that councils<BR>say they are being overwhelmed and semi-paralysed into doing nothing.<BR><BR>When it comes to the environment, local authorities now have to steer between a<BR>dozen or more increasingly detailed national, regional and local planning<BR>policies, strategies, guidelines and
principles. They must take into account<BR>sustainable development policies and try to make sense of the Office of the<BR>Deputy Prime Minister's flagship Sustainable Communities Plan, which, some<BR>critics feel, has little to do with the environment or sustainability. They are<BR>also required to listen to business and communities but respect the limits of<BR>the planet, too. The departments of the deputy prime minister, transport, trade<BR>and industry, environment, health and the Treasury all have a say in how local<BR>authorities work.<BR><BR>"We now listen to so many songs sung from so many choir sheets", says David<BR>Sparks, leader of the Labour group on Dudley council and chair of the<BR>environment board of the Local Government Association. "Elliot Morley - the<BR>environment minister - bangs away on climate change, but he is part of a<BR>government still not seeing the bigger picture. Quite simply, there are too<BR>many strategies. There has been an unprecedented
propensity to plan the future<BR>without building it," says Sparks.<BR><BR>It is now so serious, he says, that it is hindering local government, which<BR>having been keen to implement environmental policies now wants the easy life.<BR>"People in local authorities are becoming cynical and this can poison the whole<BR>system. Frankly, we have too many plans. Some local authorities are lost. They<BR>end up doing nothing about the environment."<BR><BR>The irony is that public awareness and goodwill towards the environment is at<BR>its highest level in 15 years and the global stakes have never been higher. The<BR>latest evidence from surveys and opinion polls suggests strong underlying<BR>levels of public support for clear, consistent environmental action.<BR><BR>In fact, much has been done. "Compared to a few years ago, huge strides have<BR>been made and the awareness of local authorities is higher. But many<BR>authorities still do not equate the local with the global. They do not
realise<BR>that their actions are having a global effect," says Sparks.<BR><BR>"There is a lot more awareness now," agrees Chris Church, a founder of the<BR>Community Development Foundation and an experienced sustainable development<BR>adviser to local authorities. "Even the worst authority is far ahead of where<BR>it was in 1995. Central government's target-setting has been invaluable, but<BR>when that turns into micro-management you get people who only want to meet the<BR>targets and go so far.<BR><BR>"What has happened is that the environment has not been mainstreamed. Local<BR>authorities' role in implementing national strategy is now clear but local<BR>governments are struggling to meet targets," he adds.<BR><BR>According to Church, many of today's problems with local authorities go back to<BR>the 2000 Local Government Act, when there was a vociferous debate about whether<BR>authorities should be given a power to promote the economic, social and<BR>environmental wellbeing of
their citizens (which makes it all optional and<BR>easily avoided), or be given a duty (which makes it mandatory and unavoidable).<BR>"As ever, the compromisers won the day. 'Power' went in, 'duty' lost out, with<BR>the majority of local authorities backsliding on their sustainable development<BR>responsibilities as a direct consequence", he says.<BR><BR>"I don't see much evidence so far that many local authorities are looking far<BR>beyond the 'clear and green' litter and graffiti agenda. There's good practice<BR>everywhere, but there's a lot of duff work as well".<BR><BR>Environment groups such as Friends of the Earth, Transport 2000 and the Campaign<BR>to Protect Rural England, which are now deeply engaged in the nitty-gritty of<BR>planning and sustainable development issues, are broadly sympathetic to the<BR>problems of local authorities. "We are becoming more and more centralised in<BR>Britain. Local authorities are in a different league now to what they were<BR>before but
sometimes the guidance they get is so vague as to be meaningless",<BR>says parliamentary campaigner Martyn Williams.<BR><BR>On the other hand, he says, they must raise their game on the environment<BR>urgently because most of of the key indicators are going in the wrong<BR>direction. Traffic is getting worse, air pollution is not improving, carbon<BR>emissions are increasing, the amount of waste being landfilled has only just<BR>started to decline, consumption is growing rapidly and national housebuilding<BR>strategies are chewing up the countryside.<BR><BR>"There are colossal differences between local authorities," says Meacher. "The<BR>good ones really are pushing ever skywards and the rest are being dragged<BR>kicking and screaming to higher standards but are definitely moving. A huge<BR>amount more could be done, though, especially with things like energy<BR>efficiency. It hasn't really been attempted yet." <BR><BR>------------------------------<BR><BR>Message: 3<BR>Date: Wed,
31 Aug 2005 17:49:49 +0100<BR>From: Chris Malins <C.MALINS@SHEFFIELD.AC.UK><BR>Subject: [g8-sheffield] Declaration of African civil society on the<BR>road to 6th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation in<BR>Hong Kong<BR>To: G8 Sheffield <G8-SHEFFIELD@LISTS.AKTIVIX.ORG><BR>Message-ID: <4315DFAD.5030104@shef.ac.uk><BR>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed<BR><BR>thought this might be of interest<BR><BR>Declaration of African civil society on the road to 6th Ministerial <BR>Conference of the World Trade Organisation in Hong Kong<BR><BR><BR><BR>**pour lire la declaration en français, cliquez-ici<BR><BR><BR>From the 16-19 of August, 2005, organisations of civil society from <BR>across Africa, comprising trade unions, farmers organisations, women’s <BR>organisations, faith-based organisations and non-governmental <BR>organisations, met in Accra under the umbrella of the Africa Trade <BR>Network to deliberate upon the challenges posed to
African countries in <BR>the on-going negotiations at the WTO, particularly in the preparations <BR>for the December Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong. We adopted the <BR>following conclusions and demands.<BR><BR>We affirm as primary our right to pursue autonomously determined <BR>policies for the development of our economies, and to fulfil the social <BR>and human rights and livelihood needs of our people. Over the past two <BR>decades, this right has been severely undermined by external agencies <BR>like the World Bank and IMF. The policies of economic liberalisation and <BR>deregulation imposed by these agencies has led to serious economic <BR>collapse and social and environmental stress. An attempt is being made <BR>to continue this process in even more severe forms in the WTO.<BR><BR>It is four years since the launch of the WTO much-touted Doha <BR>“development” agenda. In that period there has been no progress in <BR>tackling the developmental concerns of African and other
developing <BR>countries which were proclaimed as pivotal to the success of the Doha <BR>agenda. The powerful members of the WTO have frustrated all attempts at <BR>redressing the fundamental imbalances of the WTO regime which have <BR>contributed to wreak havoc upon African and other developing country <BR>economies and their people. Instead they have persisted with their <BR>attempts to impose the needs of their own economies and corporate <BR>interests on the rest of the world.<BR><BR>Two years after the resistance of developing country governments to this <BR>situation, culminated in the dramatic collapse of the 5^th Ministerial <BR>Conference in Cancun, the arrongance and double-standards of the <BR>powerful still remains the characteristic pattern of the WTO <BR>negotiations. As is evident from their proposals, the rich and powerful <BR>industrialised countries of the WTO continue to pressurise African and <BR>other developing countries to undertake further and deeper
<BR>liberalisation commitments in their industrial, agricultural and <BR>services sectors, and lock them permanently into the system. At the same <BR>time, the developed countries remain intent on maintaining their <BR>advantages and protection.<BR><BR>As the Hong-Kong Ministerial approaches, these countries are set to come <BR>under even more intense pressures, and will be subject even more <BR>intensely to the manipulative, untransparent and undemocratic methods <BR>always employed by the developed countries to get their way.<BR><BR>We reject these attempts to undermine the policy autonomy of our <BR>countries, and cause further calamity to our economic development, and <BR>the fulfilment of our social rights. In furtherance of this, we state <BR>the following.<BR><BR>*Non Agricultural Market Access (NAMA)*<BR><BR>Africa’s industries have been devastated by two decades of World <BR>Bank/IMF imposed policies of trade liberalisation. Negotiations in NAMA <BR>will make this worse if
the developed countries succeed in imposing <BR>drastic reductions in tariffs, as well as the restrictions of the levels <BR>to which African and other developing countries can in future raise <BR>tariffs. This will remove tariff policy as an important tool of <BR>industrial development, at a time when many other policy tools have <BR>already been removed under the agreements in the WTO.<BR>We therefore demand that African countries should not accept and they <BR>must not be pressured into accepting the proposals on tariff being <BR>promoted by the advanced industrial countries. Instead they must be <BR>allowed to determine the definition and employment of tariff instruments <BR>and related policies.<BR><BR>*Agriculture*<BR><BR>Agriculture is central to the food security, rural development and <BR>livelihood needs in African countries. In the on-going negotiations <BR>African and other developing countries face the danger of being forced <BR>to open their markets to agricultural
exports from the developed <BR>countries while the latter continue to protect theirs. Worse, the <BR>African and other developing countries will be exposed to the unfair <BR>subsidies of the developed countries, with artificially cheapened <BR>products being dumped in their markets, their own farmers displaced, and <BR>their livelihoods disrupted.<BR><BR>We demand that African countries must not undertake any further <BR>reduction in their tariffs for agricultural products; and they must also <BR>not bind their tariffs at current levels. In addition, they must have <BR>the right to use measures to further strengthen their ability to protect <BR>their domestic producers as they judge necessary, including the special <BR>safeguard mechanism and the right to desginate special products.. At the <BR>same time, the developed countries must eliminate all their subsidies <BR>which enable them to dump artificially cheap products in our markets and <BR>in global markets, and devastate our
economies.<BR><BR>Services<BR><BR>Services are crucial for our economic development. In addition, <BR>services, especially essential services like health, education, water, <BR>are fundamental rights, the access to which must be guaranteed to all.<BR>IMF and World Banks imposed policies of liberalisation and deregulation <BR>have already transformed some of these essential services into <BR>operations for profit, and taken them out of the reach of the vast <BR>majority of the citizens in African countries. At the same time, <BR>deregulation and liberalisation have placed services in the hands of <BR><BR>=== message truncated ===</BLOCKQUOTE>