An Idiot’s Guide to the Environment
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on July 6th, 2010
You may have heard a lot about being ‘environmentally friendly’ or of the advantages of recycling, or even about the poor ozone layer. But do those phrases leave you cold? Do you wonder whether the ‘environment’ is one issue or several? Well sit back as I try to make clear for you something that is really important, but that can be difficult to research without being bamboozled:
The Ozone Layer
People of a certain age will know that the ozone layer was in peril in the late 80s and early 90s. This was due to a particular gas used in aerosols and some refrigerators and similar electrical appliances that damaged this layer of the atmosphere. The ozone layer protects all living things from the harmful effects of the sun’s light. The gases that were the cause were CFCs. The sun’s light that was being let through was those rays in the ultraviolet.
What do I need to do?
The Ozone layer problems are largely historical and are not related to global warming or the need for recycling. If you have an old fridge or freezer (or even if it’s reasonably new) make sure it is disposed off legally and recycled!
Recycling
Recycling is important because there are finite amounts of some materials. For example, on Earth there is only a limited amount of each type of metal and metal cannot be created from anything else. Recycling is the only sensible way to manage these genuinely limited resources. So when you recycle a drinks can, a battery, tin foil or a tuna can, you are helping to stop the human race from running out of these metals. Recycling batteries is especially important as they contain mercury which is a rare metal and also extremely poisonous. The metal in domestic appliances is largely recycled these days as a result of the EU’s WEEE rules.
Plastic recycling is similar to metal recycling in that plastic is made of a material that there is a limited amount of (oil). When we run out of oil (even if that is centuries from now), we will not be able to make all the plastics that currently rely on fossil oil (that is, oil derived from long dead trees as opposed to oil that can be extracted from recently alive plants such as sunflower oil etc.) Another reason to recycle plastic is because of something that happens to the chemicals when they are made into plastic: they are made almost completely impervious to rotting.
Paper recycling is nowhere near so clear cut. The best argument is actually one about global warming, so I have left that to that section.
The main thing to note is that the main reasons for recycling are not related to global warming. There are serious environmental reasons to recycle, but the majority of them are not to do with global warming.
Global Warming
This is the daddy of the environmental causes. For this reason, like evolution in biology, it is often attacked by people who want to attack environmentalists generally.
Carbon Dioxide (or CO2 to use its chemical symbol) and some other gases have an effect on the atmosphere which helps it to absorb more of the sun’s energy. This has the effect of causing the atmosphere generally to warm up. There are other effects of a change to the chemical make-up of the air, but they are reasonably subtle and not worth mentioning in this initial guide.
The trouble with heating the atmosphere is that it causes ice in some parts of the world to melt. And when it melts, the colour of these areas changes from light to dark. This may sound like a small thing but it has the unfortunate effect of stopping sunlight from being reflected back out into space, further heating the Earth.
The main thing when considering how to manage global warming (more properly, global climate change) is what causes an increase in the overall amount of CO2. The easy answer is burning things, but that is not always the case. If you plant a tree, it absorbs an amount of atmospheric carbon. When you burn that tree, you release some of that carbon back into the air. But what you have not done is contributed much to climate change. The real problem is when carbon that has been buried for a long period of time is released. That is mostly carbon trapped in coal and fossil oil and gas.
There are arguments about the benefit of using the bus or train over your car, and there are some odd results of different activities, but the principle is simple — if you can be more efficient when using electricity or your car, you will be helping.
The odd results are things like local vs. foreign farming. Some research has found that even with the fuel burning required in shipping a fruit product from Africa to England, there are fewer emissions attributable to the African product because of the greater mechanisation of English farms. It is difficult to legislate for that sort of effect, but it’s best not to worry about that sort of thing.
Some people will also point out that the climate is not usually stable and that it may not be human activity that is causing the changes in climate we can all now see. While that may be true to some extent, very little harm is done by trying to reduce our use of limited resources such as fossil fuels. So why not be more efficient anyway?!
I mentioned earlier that paper recycling could be considered a global warming mitigating environmentally friendly activity. I said this because when paper goes into landfill, it will decompose in a way that causes the greenhouse gas, methane, to be released. Unfortunately for the environment, methane is actually even more effective at trapping the sun’s energy than carbon dioxide. The same thing happens when food waste is binned, so do consider whether there is some way you can compost.
Conclusion
Next time someone says that they are doing something environmentally friendly, I hope this has helped you understand how that activity is environmentally friendly; I hope, too, that it has helped you understand that there is a difference between the environmental causes.
If you would like to learn more, or take part in discussion, take a look at the Green Living Grog
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Electoral reform
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on July 2nd, 2010
“At no point in the last X years has anyone approached me and said: ‘We must have electoral reform’”.
This was a near verbatim quote on BBC Radio 4 this morning. Unfortunately, while it is a good way of suggesting that those of us who are in favour of electoral reform (replacement of our current voting system with one that reflects the people’s choices) are out of touch, it is a little dishonest.
For in that same period, he must have had people approach him and ask “Why did Labour get such a large majority of seats in government if they only received thirty-something percent of the votes?” Because if he hasn’t he must also be unique!
Electoral reform is a phrase that will miss most voters, so instead we must refer to next year’s referendum as an election on Fairer Votes. And who would like to cast a ballot against fairer votes?
I am pleased, incidentally, that Nick Clegg is about to announce the referendum date. It would have been easy for this to have been done later in the term, leaving insufficient time to implement the changes before the next general election. And if that were to happen, one could imagine the momentum being lost. Once more, a win for the coalition.
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| | | | |
Clegg on VAT
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on June 26th, 2010
I enjoyed Nick Clegg’s efforts on BBC News the other day. He was trying to defend the government’s 20% VAT proposal, increasing it from today’s 17.5%. And, of course, he did very well.
But the truth he couldn’t say, was that the VAT increase would not have been his choice. It cannot be right, in my opinion, to raise sales taxes that affect everyone, when there are income taxes that could be amended to affect only those able to pay. From a personal point of view, a local income tax in place of Council Tax, set at a level that would raise just a little more money from the well-off and taking about the same from those in the worst situations, would have been a fairer way.
But Clegg, if he doesn’t support the VAT increase, cannot say so. He has to compromise on some things much as the Conservatives have compromised.
The government’s doing a good job — I just hope it does as many of the good things that it can, before the next elections when, unless electoral reform is carried out, the old parties will regain power.
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| | | | |
Update on Eastbrook
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on June 6th, 2010
I am currently organising a location in which to run regular surgeries in the ward. In the meantime, as some of you already have, please write to me using the address and phone number on the Adur website, or email me using the email address on the ‘About Me’ tab above.
I hope you’ve been enjoying the beautiful weather as I have!
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| | | | |
A Perfect Coalition
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on May 12th, 2010
The coalition agreement on the Liberal Democrat website is a masterpiece.
For a Liberal Democrat, it delivers key, sensible and important policies including those on taxation, pensions, civil liberties, electoral reform (including an elected, proportional, House of Lords, fixed term parliaments and alternative vote and the West Lothian question) and, most amazingly, the environment (go Chris Huhne!)
For Conservatives, on the left of the party, it delivers policies that they may well have sympathised with and ensures that fairness is central to the way the country runs.
I cannot overstate how pleased I am with the agreement (which is a short and very readable document) and I am excited about how this will continue.
This is all national politics, however. Locally, I shall fight the ruling Adur Conservatives hard — we need to move on from this tired administration and improve the service that our excellent and loyal officers are asked to provide.
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| | | | |
Welcome, Prime Minister Cameron
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on May 11th, 2010
According to the BBC, the Conservatives have agreed to increase the income tax threshold to £10,000 and to scrap their tax breaks for married couples. These are two extremely positive first steps as is the agreement to have a referendum on the alternative vote system.
These are exciting times.
For those who are curious, the alternative vote system requires voters to rank the candidates in order. So, for example, you may have seen the following for the Shoreham and East Worthing constituency:
| Candidate (Party) | Rank |
|---|---|
| Benn, Emily (Labour) | 5 |
| Board, Susan (Green) | 4 |
| Doyle, James (Liberal Democrat) | 1 |
| Glennon, Mike (UK Independence Party) | 6 |
| Loughton, Tim (Conservative) | 2 |
| Maltby, Clive (English Democrats) | 3 |
with numbers entered truly at random.
If the candidate with the most first choices does not receive more than half of the votes, the second choices are then applied. The affect that this would have on the result really, really cannot be known.
On 6 May, Tim Loughton received 48.5% of the vote which means second choices would have been needed. Assuming that all the UKIP candidates had put the Conservatives as their second choice, that would be enough to make Tim the winner in any case… But we just may not know for sure! And this is a reasonably safe seat — the results elsewhere could change extraordinarily!
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| | | | |
A tale of two counts
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on May 7th, 2010
Last night saw the electoral system used to elect people to the United Kingdom parliament creak and fail under the demands of the electorate. The votes we cast were in no way reflected by the seats won. In Hove, for example, the Liberal Democrats took votes from Labour and the Conservatives won. The new Liberal voters were lost in the system.
This travesty was repeated up and down the country; with an electorate of some 45 million people, the vote difference between Labour and the Liberal Democrats was 1.5 million. The ratio of votes cast for the two parties was 1.26 in favour of Labour. The ratio of seats won (at the time of writing) is 4.5 in favour of Labour.
I take back “travesty”, that’s just wrong and “travesty” doesn’t cover it.
And Conservatives at the local election count today accepted that that was true while clinging to their beloved — and sometimes beneficial — first past the post system.
But another election happened in Adur last night; as well as electing an MP (where James Doyle pushed the Labour party’s Emily Benn into third by some margin), elections were also held to half of the Council seats. I am delighted to report that Richard Burt retained his seat, and similarly pleased to acknowledge the votes of the people of Eastbrook to elect me.
Starting tomorrow morning I am going to do something a little different. I am going to start post-election ‘canvassing’. I shall attempt to speak to most people in the ward and understand their concerns and interests. I am excited about the possibility of spreading the fairness that Liberals stand for, to the people of Adur.
Adur’s results
Unusually, the BBC have not used the previous election results to show the number of seats held and the number gained, but instead used the number of Councillors as at the time of the election. So, while there was only one Liberal Democrat in 2006, by the time of the election, there were three following my defection, and the defection of my colleague, Carl English. The BBC page implies that we lost a previously Liberal Democrat seat when, in fact, we have gained one seat from the Conservatives.
Eastbrook has been Conservative and Labour for a long time and I believe I’m right in saying this is the first seat won by the Liberal Democrats on the east of the river since 1998.
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| | | | |
Election night!
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on May 7th, 2010
An interesting day and night so far. Time for bed now but I think I need to tell you more about today at length! Stay tuned.
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| | | | |
The first debate — confirmation
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on April 17th, 2010
I have delayed posting since Thursday’s debate because I did not want to accidentally get caught up in any over-excitement I felt at the clear result.
It was agreed unanimously amongst some friends and myself who all watched it live, that Nick Clegg ‘won’ (I am uncomfortable with that word, but it’s what the media are using), Gordon Brown came second, and David Cameron came last. David Cameron’s placement was a genuine surprise to me as I retain some sympathy for the supposed underlying ideology of liberal Conservativism.
While, obviously, I am delighted that Nick Clegg’s performance has received such widespread publicity, and while I am delighted that this means (at least for now) that we may achieve greater success than ever before, I still have concerns about how this is being covered.
I heard, on Radio 4 and BBC News, several commentators suggest that the debate has caused the public to treat the pollsters as X Factor voting lines and to give Nick Clegg their support because of his polished performance. The reason “confirmation” is in the title of this blog post, is because I believe this change in support for the LibDems is fundamentally about more than personality.
During the last year, I (a political anorak compared to Joe Public) was doing some soul searching. I knew that Cameron was no longer making sense to me and that there was a need to change my allegiance. I also knew that I had changed a little under the surface and that I recognised problems with the pure free market view of the world that I had previously held. You could find, if you were minded to, evidence of this in the archives of this website.
So I researched in detail the options available to me. This process eventually led to me approaching the Liberal Democrats and my subsequent defection.
What the debate on Thursday has done, is share with a much wider audience, the good common sense that liberal ideology and Liberal Democrat policy makes. Where before people considered themselves Labour or Conservative, all people have now had to question whether the party they support because they always have done, now delivers what they want it to.
I have, you will not be surprised to hear, had strong conversations with friends, family and colleagues about Thursday’s events. One of these conversations descended into name calling by the other person in frustration at not being able to justify in his own mind, his support for David Cameron; and one conversation ended in failure to persuade only because the taxation policy, while fair, hurt this particular person more than the vast majority.
The overriding result of my entirely unscientific, personal conversations with people in my life, is that the Liberal Democrats’ policies are right for almost everyone and will definitely improve the lives of absolutely everyone — they will make the lowest paid better off, they will help those trapped in a cycle of crime, they will clean the souls of those who currently do not pay their dues and they will make everyone who currently complains about the fundamental unfairness of X or Y happy by their resolution.
I failed, as it happens, to stop being excited about Thursday’s debate when writing this, but I think you can forgive me that. The bottom line? I was right to switch parties, and my reasons for switching can now be seen by so many more people — those people who now make a graph show 51% Liberal Democrat support on the Guardian website, now understand my decision in November last year!
Vote Liberal Democrat at all levels on 6 May 2010
The Liberal Democrat Party logo
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| | | | |
Debate 1
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on April 15th, 2010
“I don’t know about you, but the more they argue, the more they sound the same…” Nick Clegg about David Cameron and Gordon Brown
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| | | | |
