<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Global: George Monbiot | guardian.co.uk</title>
    <link>http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot</link>
    <description>George Monbiot is the author of the bestselling books The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order and Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain, as well as the investigative travel books Poisoned Arrows, Amazon Watershed and No Man's Land</description>
    <language>en-gb</language>
    <copyright>&amp;copy; Guardian News &amp; Media Limited 2009</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:00:00 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <docs>http://www.guardian.co.uk/webfeeds</docs>
    <ttl>15</ttl>
    
    <atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/CommentIsFreegeorgeMonbiot" type="application/rss+xml" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com" /><item>
      <title>I, too, mourn good local newspapers. But this lot just aren't worth saving | George Monbiot</title>
      <link>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/09/local-newspapers-democracy</link>
      <description>&lt;div class="track"&gt;&lt;img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.3/86778?ns=guardian&amp;pageName=I%2C+too%2C+mourn+good+local+newspapers.+But+this+lot+just+aren%27t+worth+savi%3AArticle%3A1302739&amp;ch=Comment+is+free&amp;c3=Guardian&amp;c4=Media%2CLocal+and+regional+newspapers%2CLocal+government+%28Society%29%2CAdvertising+%28media%29%2CPolitics&amp;c6=George+Monbiot&amp;c7=09-Nov-09&amp;c8=1302739&amp;c9=Article&amp;c10=Comment&amp;c11=Comment+is+free&amp;c13=&amp;c25=Comment+is+free&amp;c30=content&amp;h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2Fblog%2FComment+is+free" width="1" height="1" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p class="standfirst"&gt;The idea of democratic flag-bearers died decades ago. I can count on one hand those brave enough to speak truth to power&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;They are the pillars of the&amp;nbsp;community, champions of the underdog, the scourge of corruption, defenders of free speech. Their demise could deal a mortal blow to democracy. Any guesses yet? How many of you thought of local newspapers?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But this is the universal view of the national media: local papers – half of which, on current trends, are in danger of going down in the next five years – are&amp;nbsp;all that stand between us and creeping dictatorship.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Like my colleagues, I mourn their death; unlike them I believe it happened decades ago. For many years the local press has been one of Britain's most potent threats to democracy, championing the overdog, misrepresenting democratic choices, defending business, the police and local elites from those who seek to challenge them. Media commentators lament the death of what might have been. It bears no relationship to what is.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I'm prompted to write this by a remarkable episode in my home town, Machynlleth, which illustrates the problem everywhere. A battle has been raging here over &lt;a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/7617005.stm" title="Monbiot.com: Texo-opted"&gt;Tesco's attempt to build a superstore on the edge of town&lt;/a&gt;. Its application received 685 letters of objection and five letters of support, but the town council, which appears to believe everything Tesco says, supports the scheme. The local paper, the Cambrian News, appears in turn to believe everything the council tells it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A couple of weeks ago consultants hired by Powys county council published a retail impact assessment which supports the arguments put forward by the objectors. If the new store is built, the assessment says, it will cause trade in the centre to decline and generate longer and less sustainable shopping trips. How did the Cambrian News respond to this devastating blow to Tesco's application? By running a smear job on its front page.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;According to the town clerk, the consultants had fabricated a complaint by the local butcher. They had claimed to represent his views in their assessment, saying that he feared he would be forced out of business by Tesco – "but they haven't even spoken to him!". The Cambrian News, ironically, ran this story without speaking to the butcher, the consultants, or, apparently, performing even the briefest check. Its only informants were the town clerk and the councillors, who lined up to say that the behaviour of the consultants was "disgusting", that they were "scaremongering" and that they should apologise to the butcher. It took me 30 seconds to discover that the story was completely untrue: the assessment says nothing about the butcher or his shop.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I asked the editor of the Cambrian News to tell me whether her reporter had read the assessment before filing his story, or whether anyone at the paper had checked it. Her response was priceless. "Any information that we obtain, we keep exclusively for the Cambrian News and do not pass it on to rival newspapers." I pointed out that I wasn't trying to steal her non-story, but asking her to defend her decision to publish it. She has not replied.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This petty affair is a synecdoche for the state of local journalism. Most local papers exist to amplify the voices of their proprietors and advertisers and other powerful people with whom they wish to stay on good terms. In this respect they scarcely differ from most of the national media. But they also contribute to what in Mexico is called &lt;a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/87819/caciquism" title="Encyclopaedia Britannica: caciquismo"&gt;&lt;em&gt;caciquismo&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;: the entrenched power of local elites. This is the real threat to local democracy, not the crumpling of the media empires of arrogant millionaires.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Since May, Roy Greenslade, professor of journalism at City University, has been running a series on the Guardian's website called "&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/oct/13/press-freedom-medialaw" title="Guardian: Why local papers count"&gt;Why local papers count&lt;/a&gt;". It's a brave effort, but it demonstrates the opposite of what he sets out to show. In six months he has managed to provide just one instance of real journalism: a report by the Kentish Express on the inflated costs of upgrading a local road. Otherwise he appears to have found no example of local papers holding power to account.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;There's one respect in which the local press is confronting power: by campaigning against &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/27/council-newspapers-mps" title="Guardian: MPs accuse councils of producing 'propaganda' newspapers"&gt;the free papers published by local authorities&lt;/a&gt;. These, the papers say, are propaganda sheets, which provide a biased view of council business. Does that sound familiar? In his book Flat Earth News, Nick Davies cites a survey of press releases issued across two months by Northumberland county council. Ninety-six percent of them were turned into stories by local papers. In many cases the papers copied the releases verbatim; in no case did they add any information. They might as well have been published by the council.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The failures of the local press are often blamed on consolidation by the big media corporations, which have squeezed as much money out of their collapsing possessions as they can, leaving no funds for real journalism. Davies, for example, asked a reporter on a regional paper to keep a diary for a week. In just five days the reporter published 48 stories. He came across one original story in that period, but he didn't have time to pursue it, so he let it drop. Otherwise he just recycled old copy, lifted stories from other papers or simply concocted them.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But this is not the whole reason for the failure of the local press. The Cambrian News, for instance, is owned by the man who is universally hailed as the only success story in local publishing: Sir Ray Tindle. His company, which runs 230 papers, is independent, free from debt and booming, but it suffers from many of the diseases that afflict the rest of the press. When the Iraq war began, Tindle ordered his editors "to ensure that nothing appears&amp;nbsp;in your newspapers which attacks the decision to conduct the war". His letter was reproduced in the Totnes Times, with the following comments. "In a brave move, which could easily be seen by some as censoring the news, Sir Ray ordered that once war in Iraq was declared his newspapers would not carry any more anti-war stories … As editorial manager of eight of Sir Ray's titles, I am proud to say I totally agree with his decision."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's true that the vacuity and cowardice of the local papers has been exacerbated by consolidation, profit-seeking, the collapse of advertising revenues and a decline in readership. But even if they weren't subject to these pressures, they would still do more harm than good. Local papers defend the powerful because the powerful own and fund them. I can think of only two local newspapers that consistently hold power to account: the West Highland Free Press and the Salford Star. Are any others worth saving? If so, please let me know. Yes, we need a press that speaks truth to power, that gives voice to the powerless and fights for local democracy. But this ain't it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/local-newspapers"&gt;Regional &amp; local newspapers&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/localgovernment"&gt;Local government&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/advertising"&gt;Advertising&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="guRssAdvert"&gt;&lt;a href="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/click.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Commentisfree&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308329583450990809646823143"&gt;&lt;img src="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/image.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Commentisfree&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308329583450990809646823143" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="author"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot"&gt;George Monbiot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;div class="terms"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk"&gt;guardian.co.uk&lt;/a&gt; &amp;copy; Guardian News &amp; Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our &lt;a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html"&gt;Terms &amp; Conditions&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds"&gt;More Feeds&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p style="clear:both" /&gt;</description>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media">Media</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media">Regional &amp; local newspapers</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society">Local government</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media">Advertising</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics">Politics</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/publication">The Guardian</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone">Comment</category>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/09/local-newspapers-democracy</guid>
      <dc:creator>George Monbiot</dc:creator>
      <dc:subject>Comment is free</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-11-09T20:00:00Z</dc:date>
      <dc:type>Article</dc:type>
      <dc:identifier>355367600</dc:identifier>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>We cannot change the world by changing our buying habits | George Monbiot</title>
      <link>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/06/green-consumerism</link>
      <description>&lt;div class="track"&gt;&lt;img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.3/21770?ns=guardian&amp;pageName=We+cannot+change+the+world+by+changing+our+buying+habits+%7C+George+Monbio%3AArticle%3A1301547&amp;ch=Environment&amp;c3=GU.co.uk&amp;c4=Environment%2CConsumer+affairs+%28Money%29%2CMoney%2CEthical+and+green+living+%28Environment%29&amp;c6=George+Monbiot&amp;c7=09-Nov-06&amp;c8=1301547&amp;c9=Article&amp;c10=Blogpost%2CComment&amp;c11=Environment&amp;c13=&amp;c25=George+Monbiot+blog%2CCif+green%2CGreen+living+blog&amp;c30=content&amp;h2=GU%2FEnvironment%2Fblog%2FGeorge+Monbiot%27s+blog" width="1" height="1" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p class="standfirst"&gt;Small actions allow people to overlook the bigger ones and still claim they are being environmentally responsible&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;How many times have you heard the argument that &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/12/we-are-what-we-do"&gt;small green actions lead to bigger ones&lt;/a&gt;? &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I've heard it hundreds of times: habits that might scarcely register in their own right are still useful because they encourage people to think of themselves as green, and therefore to move on to tougher actions. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A green energy expert once tried to convince me that even though &lt;a href=" http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/10/renewableenergy-windpower"&gt;rooftop micro wind turbines are useless&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jan/13/wind-turbine-efficiency-postlethwaite-cameron"&gt;worse than useless&lt;/a&gt; in most situations, they're still worth promoting because they encourage people to think about their emissions. It's a bit like the argument used by anti-drugs campaigners: the soft stuff leads to the hard stuff. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I've never been convinced by this argument. In my experience, people use the soft stuff to justify their failure to engage with the hard stuff. Challenge someone about taking holiday flights six times a year and there's a pretty good chance that they'll say something along these lines: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;I recycle everything and I re-use my plastic bags, so I'm really quite green.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;A couple of years ago a friend showed me a cutting from a local newspaper: it reported that a couple had earned so many vouchers from recycling at Tesco that &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/ethicallivingblog/2009/aug/20/mobile-phones-air-miles"&gt;they were able to fly to the Caribbean for a holiday&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The greenhouse gases caused by these flights outweigh any likely savings from recycling hundreds or thousands of times over, but the small actions allow people to overlook the big ones and still believe that they are  environmentally responsible. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Being a cynical old git, I have always been deeply suspicious of the grand claims made for consumer democracy: that we can change the world by changing our buying habits. There are several problems with this approach: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;• In a consumer democracy, &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jul/24/comment.businesscomment"&gt;some people have more votes than others&lt;/a&gt;, and those with the most votes are the least inclined to change a system that has served them so well. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;• A change in consumption habits is seldom effective unless it is backed up by government action. You can give up your car for a bicycle - and fair play to you - but unless the government is simultaneously reducing the available road space, the place you've vacated will just be taken by someone who drives a less efficient car than you would have driven (traffic expands to fill the available road-space). Our power comes from acting as citizens - demanding political change - not acting as consumers. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;• We are very good at deceiving ourselves about our impacts. We remember the good things we do and forget the bad ones. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I'm not saying that you shouldn't always try to purchase the product with the smallest impact: you should. Nor am I suggesting that all ethical consumption is useless. Fairtrade products make a real difference to the lives of the producers who sell them; properly verified goods - like wood certified by the Forest Stewardship Council or fish approved by the Marine Stewardship Council - are likely to cause much less damage than the alternatives. But these small decisions allow us to believe that our overall performance is better than it really is. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;So I wasn't surprised to see &lt;a href="http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0911/full/climate.2009.107.html"&gt;a report in Nature this week&lt;/a&gt; suggesting that &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/22/brain-food"&gt;buying green products can make you behave more selfishly than you would otherwise have done&lt;/a&gt;. Psychologists at the University of Toronto &lt;a href="http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/newthinking/greenproducts.pdf"&gt;subjected students to a series of cunning experiments (pdf)&lt;/a&gt;. First they were asked to buy a basket of products; selecting either green or conventional ones. Then they played a game in which they were asked to allocate money between themselves and someone else. The students who had bought green products shared less money than those who had bought only conventional goods. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The researchers call this the "licensing effect". Buying green can establish the moral credentials that license subsequent bad behaviour: the rosier your view of yourself, the more likely you are to hoard your money and do down other people. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Then they took another bunch of students, gave them the same purchasing choices, then introduced them to a game in which they made money by describing a pattern of dots on a computer screen. If there were more dots on the right than the left they made more money. Afterwards they were asked to count the money they had earned out of an envelope. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The researchers found that buying green had such a strong licensing effect that people were likely to lie, cheat and steal: they had established such strong moral credentials in their own minds that these appeared to exonerate them from what they did next. Nature uses the term "moral offset", which I think is a useful one. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;So perhaps guilt is good after all. Campaigners are constantly told that guilt-tripping people is counterproductive: we have to make people feel better about themselves instead. These results suggest that this isn't very likely to be true. They also offer some fascinating insights into the human condition. Maybe the cruel old Christian notion of original sin wasn't such a bad idea after all. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.monbiot.com"&gt;www.monbiot.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs"&gt;Consumer affairs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/ethical-living"&gt;Ethical and green living&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="guRssAdvert"&gt;&lt;a href="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/click.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Environment&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=1257830832961693351916134899815"&gt;&lt;img src="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/image.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Environment&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=1257830832961693351916134899815" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="author"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot"&gt;George Monbiot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;div class="terms"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk"&gt;guardian.co.uk&lt;/a&gt; &amp;copy; Guardian News &amp; Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our &lt;a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html"&gt;Terms &amp; Conditions&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds"&gt;More Feeds&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p style="clear:both" /&gt;</description>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Environment</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/money">Consumer affairs</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/money">Money</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Ethical and green living</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/publication">guardian.co.uk</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone">Blogposts</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone">Comment</category>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:59:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/06/green-consumerism</guid>
      <dc:creator>George Monbiot</dc:creator>
      <dc:subject>Environment</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-11-06T12:59:37Z</dc:date>
      <dc:type>Article</dc:type>
      <dc:identifier>355263451</dc:identifier>
      <media:content height="84" type="image/jpeg" width="140" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/pictures/2007/10/15/ShopDavidSillitoe3.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">David Sillitoe/Guardian</media:credit>
        <media:description>A supermarket shopping basket. Photo: David Sillitoe</media:description>
      </media:content>
      <media:content height="276" type="image/jpeg" width="460" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Lifeandhealth/Pix/pictures/2008/08/27/shopping1.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">Martin Godwin/Guardian</media:credit>
        <media:description>The 'licensing effect': Researchers have found that buying green can establish the moral credentials that license subsequent bad behaviour. Photograph: Martin Godwin</media:description>
      </media:content>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Clive James isn't a climate change sceptic, he's a sucker - but this may be the reason | George Monbiot</title>
      <link>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/02/climate-change-denial-clive-james</link>
      <description>&lt;div class="track"&gt;&lt;img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.3/91310?ns=guardian&amp;pageName=Clive+James+isn%27t+a+climate+change+sceptic%2C+he%27s+a+sucker+-+but+this+may%3AArticle%3A1299521&amp;ch=Comment+is+free&amp;c3=Guardian&amp;c4=Clive+James%2CEnvironment%2CClimate+change+%28Environment%29%2CClimate+change+scepticism+%28environment%29%2CWorld+news&amp;c6=George+Monbiot&amp;c7=09-Nov-04&amp;c8=1299521&amp;c9=Article&amp;c10=Comment&amp;c11=Comment+is+free&amp;c13=&amp;c25=Comment+is+free&amp;c30=content&amp;h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2Fblog%2FComment+is+free" width="1" height="1" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p class="standfirst"&gt;My fiercest opponents on global warming tend to be in their 60s and 70s. This offers a fascinating, if chilling, insight into human psychology&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is no point in denying it: we're losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href="http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming" title="people-press.org: Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming"&gt;survey last month by the Pew Research Centre&lt;/a&gt; suggests that the proportion of Americans who believe there is solid evidence that the world has been warming over the last few decades has fallen from 71% to 57% in just 18 months. Another survey, &lt;a href="last month by the Pew Research Centre" title="conducted in January by Rasmussen Reports"&gt;conducted in January by Rasmussen Reports&lt;/a&gt;, suggests that, due to a sharp rise since 2006, US voters who believe global warming has natural causes (44%) outnumber those who believe it is the result of human action (41%).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A study by the website &lt;a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/" title="Desmogblog"&gt;Desmogblog&lt;/a&gt; shows that the number of internet pages proposing that man-made global warming is a hoax or a lie more than doubled last year. The &lt;a href="http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx" title="Science Museums Prove it!"&gt;Science Museum's Prove it!&lt;/a&gt; exhibition asks online readers to endorse or reject a statement that they've seen the evidence and want governments to take action. As of yesterday afternoon, 1,006 people had endorsed it and 6,110 had rejected it. On Amazon.co.uk, books championing climate change denial are currently ranked at 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 in the global warming category. Never mind that they've been torn to shreds by scientists and reviewers, they are beating the scientific books by miles. What is going on?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It certainly doesn't reflect the state of the science, which has hardened dramatically over the past two years. If you don't believe me, open any recent edition of Science or Nature or any peer-reviewed journal specialising in atmospheric or environmental science. Go on, try it. The debate about global warming that's raging on the internet and in the rightwing press does not reflect any such debate in the scientific journals.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;An American scientist I know suggests that these books and websites cater to a new literary market: people with room-temperature IQs. He didn't say whether he meant fahrenheit or centigrade. But this can't be the whole story. Plenty of intelligent people have also declared themselves sceptics.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;One such is the critic Clive James. You could accuse him of purveying trite received wisdom, but not of being dumb. On Radio 4 a few days ago he delivered an &lt;a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8322513.stm" title="essay about the importance of scepticism"&gt;essay about the importance of scepticism&lt;/a&gt;, during which he maintained that "the number of scientists who voice scepticism [about climate change] has lately been increasing". He presented no evidence to support this statement and, as far as I can tell, none exists. But he used this contention to argue that "either side might well be right, but I think that if you have a division on that scale, you can't call it a consensus. Nobody can meaningfully say that the science is in."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Had he bothered to take a look at the quality of the evidence on either side of this media debate, and the nature of the opposing armies – climate scientists on one side, rightwing bloggers on the other – he too might have realised that the science is in. In, at any rate, to the extent that science can ever be, which is to say that the evidence for man-made global warming is as strong as the evidence for Darwinian evolution, or for the link between smoking and lung cancer. I am constantly struck by the way in which people like James, who proclaim themselves sceptics, will believe any old claptrap that suits their views. Their position was perfectly summarised by a supporter of &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/sep/01/heaven-earth-answers-plimer" title="Ian Plimer"&gt;Ian Plimer&lt;/a&gt; (author of a marvellous concatenation of gibberish called Heaven and Earth), commenting on a recent article in the Spectator: "Whether Plimer is a charlatan or not, he speaks for many of us." These people aren't sceptics; they're suckers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Such beliefs seem to be strongly influenced by age. The Pew report found that people over 65 are much more likely than the rest of the population to deny that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming, that it's caused by humans, or that it's a serious problem. This chimes with my own experience. Almost all my fiercest arguments over climate change, both in print and in person, have been with people in their 60s or 70s. Why might this be?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;There are some obvious answers: they won't be around to see the results; they were brought up in a period of technological optimism; they feel entitled, having worked all their lives, to fly or cruise to wherever they wish. But there might also be a less intuitive reason, which shines a light into a fascinating corner of human psychology.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In 1973 the cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker proposed that the fear of death drives us to protect ourselves with "vital lies" or "the armour of character". We defend ourselves from the ultimate terror by engaging in immortality projects, which boost our self-esteem and grant us meaning that extends beyond death. More than 300 studies conducted in 15 countries appear to confirm Becker's thesis. When people are confronted with images or words or questions that remind them of death they respond by shoring up their worldview, rejecting people and ideas that threaten it, and increasing their striving for self-esteem.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;One of the most arresting findings is that immortality projects can bring death closer. In seeking to defend the symbolic, heroic self that we create to suppress thoughts of death, we might expose the physical self to greater danger. For example, researchers at Bar-Ilan University in Israel found that people who reported that driving boosted their self-esteem drove faster and took greater risks after they had been exposed to reminders of death.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A recent &lt;a href="http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/articles/2849.html" title="paper by the biologist Janis L Dickinson"&gt;paper by the biologist Janis L Dickinson&lt;/a&gt;, published in the journal &lt;a href="http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/" title="Ecology and Society"&gt;Ecology and Society&lt;/a&gt;, proposes that constant news and discussion about global warming makes it difficult to repress thoughts of death, and that people might respond to the terrifying prospect of climate breakdown in ways that strengthen their character armour but diminish our chances of survival. There is already experimental evidence that some people respond to reminders of death by increasing consumption. Dickinson proposes that growing evidence of climate change might boost this tendency, as well as raising antagonism towards scientists and environmentalists. Our message, after all, presents a lethal threat to the central immortality project of western society: perpetual economic growth, supported by an ideology of entitlement and exceptionalism.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;If Dickinson is correct, is it fanciful to suppose that those who are closer to the end of their lives might react more strongly against reminders of death? I haven't been able to find any experiments testing this proposition, but it is surely worth investigating. And could it be that the rapid growth of climate change denial over the last two years is actually a response to the hardening of scientific evidence? If so, how the hell do we confront it?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/clive-james"&gt;Clive James&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change"&gt;Climate change&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change-scepticism"&gt;Climate change scepticism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="guRssAdvert"&gt;&lt;a href="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/click.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Commentisfree&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308329653680412231449018732"&gt;&lt;img src="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/image.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Commentisfree&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308329653680412231449018732" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="author"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot"&gt;George Monbiot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;div class="terms"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk"&gt;guardian.co.uk&lt;/a&gt; &amp;copy; Guardian News &amp; Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our &lt;a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html"&gt;Terms &amp; Conditions&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds"&gt;More Feeds&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p style="clear:both" /&gt;</description>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture">Clive James</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Environment</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Climate change</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Climate change scepticism</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world">World news</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/publication">The Guardian</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone">Comment</category>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:30:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/02/climate-change-denial-clive-james</guid>
      <dc:creator>George Monbiot</dc:creator>
      <dc:subject>Comment is free</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-11-04T09:19:47Z</dc:date>
      <dc:type>Article</dc:type>
      <dc:identifier>355058987</dc:identifier>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Why growing virgin vegetable oil to burn is crazy | George Monbiot</title>
      <link>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/oct/29/oil-climate-change</link>
      <description>&lt;div class="track"&gt;&lt;img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.3/45683?ns=guardian&amp;pageName=Why+growing+virgin+vegetable+oil+to+burn+is+crazy%3AArticle%3A1297851&amp;ch=Environment&amp;c3=GU.co.uk&amp;c4=Oil+%28environment%29%2CEnvironment%2CClimate+change+%28Environment%29%2CFarming+%28environment%29%2CEnergy+%28Environment%29&amp;c6=George+Monbiot&amp;c7=09-Oct-29&amp;c8=1297851&amp;c9=Article&amp;c10=Blogpost&amp;c11=Environment&amp;c13=&amp;c25=George+Monbiot+blog&amp;c30=content&amp;h2=GU%2FEnvironment%2FOil" width="1" height="1" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p class="standfirst"&gt;The chief executive of &lt;a href="http://www.guprod.gnl/environment/2009/oct/27/blue-ng-electricity-vegetable-oil"&gt;Blue-NG implies he's greener than the Greens&lt;/a&gt; – but the argument for his grotesque trade falls flat&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;What makes more sense, burning virgin vegetable oil in car engines, or burning it in power stations? The answer is neither. In both cases you are snatching food from people's mouths. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But Andrew Mercer, chief executive of Blue-NG, the company which owns the UK's first power station running on vegetable oil, &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/27/blue-ng-electricity-vegetable-oil"&gt;appears to believe that he is doing the world a favour. &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In arguing the case for his grotesque trade, Mercer begins by maligning the Green party. He contends that "The Green party toured the country this summer during the European elections campaign in a bus fuelled by UK-sourced rapeseed biodiesel". Because this is a less efficient use of virgin rapeseed oil than burning it in power stations, he is greener than the Greens (or so he says). That someone else has allegedly done something even more damaging is hardly a persuasive justification. But is it true? &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I spoke to the Green party this morning, and discovered that Mercer had left out a crucial piece of information. The biodiesel used in its bus was made from waste cooking oil, not virgin oil. As I've been arguing since &lt;a href="http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/"&gt;I first started attacking the practice of feeding cars rather than people&lt;/a&gt;, used cooking oil is currently the only sustainable feedstock for biofuel: once it is unfit for human consumption it can only be dumped or burned. It makes sense to burn it in place of fossil fuels. The Green party has now published a response in the comment thread and is requesting a correction. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Burning virgin vegetable oil is an entirely different matter. In doing so, you are directly commissioning farmers to do one of two things: divert cropland which would otherwise have been used to grow food, or break land which would otherwise have been left fallow. In either case you are harming people or the environment. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mercer says: "There are millions of hectares of land lying idle across the EU". Another way of putting it is that there are millions of hectares currently supporting wildlife and storing carbon. If farmers bring them back into production to fuel power stations like his, there would be dire consequences for wildflowers, butterflies, songbirds and other wildlife. Were it a choice between preserving this wildlife and feeding the hungry, I could understand the need for a pay-off. But the only reason that it's commercially viable to burn virgin vegetable oil in power stations in this country is that the government is perversely offering a massive subsidy. It gives generators two renewable obligation certificates for every megawatt hour of electricity they produce, which is twice as much as you get for onshore wind. I refuse to accept that the EU's wildlife must be sacrificed for what looks like a grant-harvesting operation. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;As two papers published last year in Science show (&lt;a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1152747v1"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;), the carbon released by ploughing idle farmland to grow biofuels takes many years to repay. If we're to have a high chance of preventing climate breakdown, the major cuts must be made today, so this policy makes no sense at all. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;When you consider the other greenhouse gases produced by growing crops it looks even dafter. The Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen has estimated that &lt;a href="http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11191/2007/acpd-7-11191-2007.pdf"&gt;emissions of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas arising from the use of nitrogen fertilisers – wipe out all the carbon savings biofuels produce (pdf)&lt;/a&gt;, even before you take the changes in land use into account. It's significant that Andrew Mercer talks only about CO2. Even then he doesn't say how he has produced his figures – I strongly suspect that he doesn't take land use change into account. Were he obliged to consider all greenhouse gases from all sources, I suspect he would discover that burning virgin vegetable oil is far more polluting than burning fossil fuel. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mercer then contends that oilseed rape is roughly the same price as it was 10 years ago. This isn't true either, &lt;a href="http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=rapeseed-oil&amp;months=300"&gt;as you can see from the IMF figures reproduced here&lt;/a&gt;. In October 1999, oilseed rape cost $398/tonne. Last month the average price was $857. Prices this year have consistently been about twice those of prices ten years ago. The idea that oilseed rape is just a "break crop" is risible. It is a major international commodity, grown because it makes money. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The notion that you can draw any conclusions about commodity trends from a single year's production in one small country is equally daft. It's as stupid as saying, for example, that a cold snap in the United Kingdom shows that global warming isn't happening. And &lt;a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/8048075/Global_warming_Al_Gores_convenient_untruth_freezes_over/"&gt;no one would be dumb enough to do that, would they? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The reality is that whenever there's a global shortfall in rape production, as there was last year, palm oil helps to fill the gap. Compare&lt;a href="http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=palm-oil&amp;months=120"&gt; this graph of palm oil prices&lt;/a&gt; to &lt;a href="http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=rapeseed-oil&amp;months=120"&gt;this one of rape oil prices&lt;/a&gt; and you'll see that the price trends are almost identical. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;So while Mercer boasts that he is not burning palm oil in his power station, whenever his trade helps to cause a shortfall in rapeseed stocks, the result is likely to be an increase in the sales of palm oil. Growing rapeseed to burn is crazy, growing oil palm to fill the gaps is madness on a different scale altogether, in view of the massive impacts on climate, indigenous people and wildlife when the forests of Indonesia and Malaysia are cleared to plant it. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Like &lt;a href="http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/"&gt;Biofuelwatch&lt;/a&gt; and other green groups, I will keep putting pressure on the government to drop its perverse subsidies. I'm offering Andrew Mercer a £10 bet that if we succeed, Blue-NG will stop burning virgin vegetable oils. This is what happened in the Netherlands: as soon as the Dutch government stopped paying companies to make electricity from food, the business ground to a halt. Let's bring this obscene, subsidised trade to an end here too. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://monbiot.com/"&gt;Monbiot.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/oil"&gt;Oil&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change"&gt;Climate change&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/farming"&gt;Farming&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/energy"&gt;Energy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="guRssAdvert"&gt;&lt;a href="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/click.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Environment&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308329686399145784158890429"&gt;&lt;img src="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/image.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Environment&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308329686399145784158890429" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="author"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot"&gt;George Monbiot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;div class="terms"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk"&gt;guardian.co.uk&lt;/a&gt; &amp;copy; Guardian News &amp; Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our &lt;a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html"&gt;Terms &amp; Conditions&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds"&gt;More Feeds&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p style="clear:both" /&gt;</description>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Oil</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Environment</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Climate change</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Farming</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Energy</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/publication">guardian.co.uk</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone">Blogposts</category>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:58:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/oct/29/oil-climate-change</guid>
      <dc:creator>George Monbiot</dc:creator>
      <dc:subject>Environment</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-10-29T17:47:09Z</dc:date>
      <dc:type>Article</dc:type>
      <dc:identifier>354896583</dc:identifier>
      <media:content height="84" type="image/jpeg" width="140" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/07/23/oilseed2.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">Christopher Furlong/Getty</media:credit>
      </media:content>
      <media:content height="276" type="image/jpeg" width="460" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/07/23/oilseed3.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">Christopher Furlong/Getty</media:credit>
        <media:description>Growing rapeseed oil for power stations harms people and the environment. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty</media:description>
      </media:content>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Making this ruthless liar EU president is a crazy plan. But I'll be backing Blair | George Monbiot</title>
      <link>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/26/making-blair-eu-president-crazy</link>
      <description>&lt;div class="track"&gt;&lt;img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.3/94686?ns=guardian&amp;pageName=Making+this+ruthless+liar+EU+president+is+a+crazy+plan.+But+I%27ll+be+back%3AArticle%3A1296514&amp;ch=Comment+is+free&amp;c3=Guardian&amp;c4=Tony+Blair%2CEuropean+Union+%28News%29%2CWorld+news%2CIraq+%28News%29%2CLaw+%28News%29%2CPolitics%2CSociety%2CMargaret+Thatcher%2CEstonia+%28News%29%2CLatvia+%28News%29%2CMI6+%28News%29%2CSaddam+Hussein+%28News%29%2CJack+Straw&amp;c6=George+Monbiot&amp;c7=09-Oct-26&amp;c8=1296514&amp;c9=Article&amp;c10=Comment&amp;c11=Comment+is+free&amp;c13=&amp;c25=Comment+is+free&amp;c30=content&amp;h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2Fblog%2FComment+is+free" width="1" height="1" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p class="standfirst"&gt;If the man who waged an unprovoked war in Iraq gets this job, it could be the chance to hold him to account for his crimes&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tony Blair's bid to become &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/25/leader-tony-blair-european-union" title="Observer: Europe needs a president we can all trust. Blair is not the man for the job"&gt;president of the European Union&lt;/a&gt; has united the left in revulsion. His enemies argue that he divided Europe by launching an illegal war; he kept the UK out of the eurozone and the &lt;a href="http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l33020_en.htm" title="Europa: The Schengen area and co-operation"&gt;Schengen agreement&lt;/a&gt;; he is contemptuous of democracy (surely a qualification?); greases up to wealth and power and lets the poor go to hell; he is ruthless, mendacious, slippery and shameless. But never mind all that. I'm backing Blair.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's not his undoubted powers of persuasion that have swayed me, nor the motorcade factor that &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/25/miliband-backs-blair-president-eu-new-post" title="Guardian: David Miliband backs Tony Blair for EU president"&gt;clinched it for David Miliband&lt;/a&gt; – who claims that no one else could stop the traffic in Beijing or Washington or Moscow. I have a different interest. You could argue that I'm placing other considerations above the good of the EU. You'd be right, but this hardly distinguishes me from the rest of Blair's supporters. I contend that his presidency could do more for world peace than any appointment since the second world war.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Blair has the distinction, which is a source of national pride in some quarters, of being one of the two greatest living mass murderers on earth. That he commissioned a crime of aggression – waging an unprovoked war, described by the &lt;a href="http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/docs_swi.php?DI=1&amp;text=overview" title="Harvard Law School: Nuremberg trials project "&gt;Nuremberg tribunal &lt;/a&gt;as "the supreme international crime" – looks incontestable. I will explain the case in a moment. This crime has caused the death – depending on whose estimate you believe – of between 100,000 and one million people. As there was no legal justification, these people were murdered. But no one has been brought to justice.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Within the UK, there is no means of prosecuting Blair. In 2006 the law lords&amp;nbsp;decided that the international crime of aggression has not been incorporated into domestic law. But, elsewhere in the world, it has been. In&amp;nbsp;2006 the professor of international law Philippe Sands warned that "Margaret Thatcher avoids certain countries as a result of the sinking of the&amp;nbsp;Belgrano, and Blair would be advised to do likewise".&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Has he? I don't know. Blair's diary and most of his meetings are private. He has no need to travel to countries where he might encounter a little legal difficulty. So he goes about his business untroubled. He seldom faces protests, let alone investigating magistrates. His only punishment for the crime of aggression so far is a multimillion-pound book deal, massive speaking fees, posh directorships and an appointment as Middle East peace envoy, which must rank with Henry Kissinger's receipt of the Nobel peace prize as the supreme crime against satire.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I have spent the past three days trying to discover, from legal experts all over Europe, where the crime of aggression can be prosecuted. The only certain answer is that the situation is unclear. Everyone agrees that within the EU two states, Estonia and Latvia, have incorporated it into domestic law. In most of the others, the law remains to be tested. In 2005 the German federal administrative court ruled in favour of an army major who had refused to obey an order in case it implicated him in the Iraq war. The court's justification was that the war was a crime of aggression.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A study of the constitutions of western European nations in 1988 found&amp;nbsp;that if there's a conflict, most of them would place customary international law above domestic law, suggesting that a prosecution is possible. President Blair would also be obliged to travel to countries outside the EU, including the other states of the former Soviet Union, many of which have now incorporated the crime of aggression. He would have little control over his appointments, and everyone would know when he was coming.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's just possible that an investigating magistrate, like &lt;a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3085482.stm" title="BBC: Profile: Baltasar Garzon"&gt;Baltasar Garzon&lt;/a&gt;, the Spanish judge who issued a warrant for the arrest of General Pinochet, would set the police on him. But our best chance of putting pressure on reluctant authorities lies in a citizen's arrest. To stimulate this process, I will put up the first £100 of a bounty (to which, if he gets the job, I will ask readers to subscribe), payable to the first person to attempt a non-violent arrest of President Blair. It shouldn't be hard to raise several thousand pounds. I will help set up a network of national arrest committees, exchanging information and preparing for the great man's visits. President Blair would have no hiding place: we will be with him wherever he goes.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Here is the case against him. The Downing Street memo, a record of a meeting in July 2002, reveals that Sir Richard Dearlove, director of the UK's foreign intelligence service MI6, told Blair that in Washington: "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." The foreign secretary (Jack Straw) then told Blair that "the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran". He suggested that "we should work up a plan" to produce "legal justification for the use of force". The attorney general told the prime minister that there were only "three possible legal bases" for launching a war: "self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC [security council] authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case." Bush and Blair later failed to obtain security council authorisation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This short memo, which should be learned by heart by every citizen of the United Kingdom, reveals that Blair knew that the decision to attack Iraq had already been made; that it preceded the justification, which was being retrofitted to an act of aggression; that the only legal reasons for an attack didn't apply, and that the war couldn't be launched without UN authorisation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The legal status of Bush's decision had already been explained to Blair. In March 2002, as&amp;nbsp;another leaked memo&amp;nbsp;shows, Jack Straw&amp;nbsp;had reminded him of the conditions required to launch a legal war: "i) There must be an armed attack upon a State or such an attack must be imminent; ii) The use of force must be necessary and other means to reverse/avert the attack must be unavailable; iii) The acts in self-defence must be proportionate and strictly confined to the object of stopping the attack."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Straw explained that the development or possession of weapons of mass destruction "does not in itself amount to an armed attack; what would&amp;nbsp;be needed would be clear&amp;nbsp;evidence of an imminent attack." A third memo, from the Cabinet Office, explained that "there is no greater threat now than in recent years that Saddam will use WMD … A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to Law Officers' advice, none currently exists."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's just a matter of getting him in front of a judge. The crazy plan to make&amp;nbsp;this mass murderer president could be the chance that many of us&amp;nbsp;have been waiting for.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/tonyblair"&gt;Tony Blair&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/eu"&gt;European Union&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iraq"&gt;Iraq&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/law"&gt;Law&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/margaretthatcher"&gt;Margaret Thatcher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/estonia"&gt;Estonia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/latvia"&gt;Latvia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/mi6"&gt;MI6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/saddam-hussein"&gt;Saddam Hussein&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/jackstraw"&gt;Jack Straw&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="guRssAdvert"&gt;&lt;a href="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/click.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Commentisfree&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308329754629732948964681504"&gt;&lt;img src="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/image.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Commentisfree&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308329754629732948964681504" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="author"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot"&gt;George Monbiot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;div class="terms"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk"&gt;guardian.co.uk&lt;/a&gt; &amp;copy; Guardian News &amp; Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our &lt;a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html"&gt;Terms &amp; Conditions&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds"&gt;More Feeds&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p style="clear:both" /&gt;</description>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics">Tony Blair</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world">European Union</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world">World news</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world">Iraq</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk">Law</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics">Politics</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society">Society</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics">Margaret Thatcher</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world">Estonia</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world">Latvia</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world">MI6</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world">Saddam Hussein</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics">Jack Straw</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/publication">The Guardian</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone">Comment</category>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/26/making-blair-eu-president-crazy</guid>
      <dc:creator>George Monbiot</dc:creator>
      <dc:subject>Comment is free</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-10-26T20:30:00Z</dc:date>
      <dc:type>Article</dc:type>
      <dc:identifier>354769560</dc:identifier>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>How our senior libel judge stamps on free speech – all over the world | George Monbiot</title>
      <link>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/19/eady-libel-tourism-free-speech</link>
      <description>&lt;div class="track"&gt;&lt;img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.3/97062?ns=guardian&amp;pageName=How+our+senior+libel+judge+stamps+on+free+speech+%E2%80%93+all+over+the+world+%7C+%3AArticle%3A1293414&amp;ch=Comment+is+free&amp;c3=Guardian&amp;c4=UK+news%2CUS+news%2CTrafigura%2CLaw+%28News%29%2CHuman+rights+%28News%29&amp;c6=George+Monbiot&amp;c7=09-Oct-23&amp;c8=1293414&amp;c9=Article&amp;c10=Comment&amp;c11=Comment+is+free&amp;c13=&amp;c25=liberty+central%2CComment+is+free&amp;c30=content&amp;h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2Fblog%2Fliberty+central" width="1" height="1" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p class="standfirst"&gt;Mr Justice Eady's rulings amplify the democratic world's most illiberal laws – enabled by 12 years of utterly feeble leadership&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Friday 23 October 2009&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This column referred to a recent decision by the court of appeal. The science writer Simon Singh had applied to the court to allow him to challenge an earlier high court finding by Mr Justice Eady, who ruled that the writer – who is being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association – could not defend an assertion he made in a Guardian article as fair comment because it was stated as fact. But the appeal court, our column said, "struck Eady's ruling down, deciding that his interpretation was 'legally erroneous'". This was incorrect, as was an earlier news story that used "legally erroneous" without qualification. The appeal court did not overturn the earlier ruling, but rather gave Simon Singh leave to appeal. In explaining his decision, Lord Justice Laws said: "I give no finding as to the end result. I only give reasons why the appeal ought to be allowed to go forward." One of these reasons, he said, was that "It is arguable that [Mr Justice Eady's] approach to the issue of whether something that was objectively verifiable could be a comment was legally erroneous"&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;hr size="1" /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/18/mps-superinjuction-debate-to-goahead" title="Trafiguras super-injunction"&gt;Trafigura's super-injunction&lt;/a&gt; is weird for lots of reasons. But the strangest fact is this: it has nothing to do with the Honourable Mr Justice Eady. The company's lawyers injuncted the Guardian, injuncted their injunction, and tried to injunct reports of parliament's proceedings. And they did all this without enlisting the help of the hanging judge of the Queen's Bench Division, the legal censor who appears to be fighting a one-man battle against freedom of speech. That's quite an achievement.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But even as the Trafigura case was being discussed in parliament, the court of appeal was handing down yet another damning ruling on Sir David Eady's judgments. Last May Eady presided over the case brought by the British Chiropractic Association against the science writer &lt;a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.479.html?s=news_rss" title="Simon Singh"&gt;Simon Singh&lt;/a&gt;. Writing in the Guardian, Singh maintained that the BCA, which claimed that its members "can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems … happily promotes bogus treatments". The association sued him for libel. Despite the prospect of massive costs, Singh bravely chose to defend himself.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;To the astonishment of lawyers, journalists and scientists, Eady – England's senior libel judge – decided that &lt;a href="http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/bca-v-singh-official-ruling.html" title="Singh was accusing the BCA of being consciously dishonest"&gt;Singh was accusing the BCA of being consciously dishonest&lt;/a&gt;. This meant that he didn't have a legal leg to stand on, as the libel laws, uniquely, place the burden of proof on the defendant. To win the case, Singh would have to prove that the BCA knew the treatments were bogus and was acting fraudulently. He didn't believe this and it hadn't been his intention to suggest it. But now he had to prove to the jury that he could see inside the BCA's collective mind and discern that it was knowingly promoting false information.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Though this meant that his costs – which had already reached £100,000 – would climb even higher, Singh appealed. Last week the appeal court struck Eady's ruling down, deciding that &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/14/simon-singh-chiropractors-appeal %C2%A0" title="his interpretation was legally erroneous."&gt;his interpretation was "legally erroneous".&lt;/a&gt; (Sadly this doesn't conclude the case.) Its judgment hasn't yet been transcribed, but people who were in court claim that it damns Eady as fiercely as any previous ruling. That's saying quite a lot.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;During the libel case brought by Richard Desmond, pornographer and proprietor of Express newspapers, against the investigative author Tom Bower – who had claimed that Desmond acted on grudges – Eady refused to allow the court to hear evidence that Desmond had done just this in another instance. In July the appeal court found that &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/24/richard-desmond-tom-bower-mr-justice-eady" title="Eadys decision was plainly wrong"&gt;Eady's decision was "plainly wrong"&lt;/a&gt; and risked "a miscarriage of justice". In 2004, during a case brought by a Saudi businessman – Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel – against the Wall Street Journal, Eady decided that the newspaper's story that the Saudi central bank was monitoring the accounts of certain businesses in case they were being used (unwittingly or otherwise) to channel funds to terrorists was not responsible journalism. Among his justifications was the fact that the US government hadn't published this information: Eady appeared to see the interests of the state and the interest of the public as the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The law lords decided that Eady was "hostile to the spirit" of the public interest defence and that he had "rigidly applied the old law" in a way that was "quite unrealistic … unnecessary and positively misleading". In one amazing passage, Lord Hoffmann compared Eady's approach to that of the Communist party censors in the Soviet Union.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But perhaps the gravest judgments against the Honourable Mr Justice Eady are those made by legislators in the United States. Such is the reach and severity of his illiberal rulings that four states have so far passed what are, in effect, Eady laws, and Congress is currently considering a federal bill whose purpose is to defend US citizens from his judgments, and the English law he interprets. The Eady laws arise from his encouragement of libel tourism: allowing cases with only the most tenuous connection with this country to be heard in London, and using them to stamp on free speech all over the world.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In 2004, the Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz applied to the high court to sue the US author &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/mar/27/freedom-of-speech-al-qaida" title="Rachel Ehrenfeld"&gt;Rachel Ehrenfeld&lt;/a&gt; over her claim that he had funded al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. Ehrenfeld's book was not published in this country and not obtainable from UK bookshops, but 23 copies had been bought here over the internet. This was sufficient for Eady to decide that Mahfouz's case could be heard. Ehrenfeld refused to recognise the English court's jurisdiction. In her absence, Eady ruled in Mahfouz's favour and ordered that Ehrenfeld retract her claims, apologise and pay Mahfouz $225,000 in costs and damages. This is despite the fact that Mahfouz could scarcely be said to have a reputation to defend after he was fined $225m (exactly 1,000 times Ehrenfeld's punishment) for his role in the BCCI fraud. (I can say this without being dragged before Eady's star chamber only because Mahfouz is now dead, and dead men can't sue).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Eady's clerk tells me that the judge doesn't want to comment, but I expect he would answer that he was merely applying the law. And, though his interpretation is draconian, the sad truth is that he would be right. Long before Eady's reign of terror began, gangsters such as Robert Maxwell were using the defamation laws to sue the backside off anyone who tried to investigate their crooked affairs. Such are the perversities of this law that the English courts can be used by criminals to prevent exposure of their crimes. With &lt;a href="http://pcmlp.socleg.ox.ac.uk/sites/pcmlp.socleg.ox.ac.uk/files/defamationreport.pdf" title="pdf: A Comparative Study of Costs in  Defamation Proceedings Across Europe "&gt;average costs 140 times higher than those of other European countries&lt;/a&gt;, libel proceedings here can be defended only by people – like the admirable Mr Singh – who have a lot of money and a lot of guts. Until the law is changed, men like Mr Justice Eady will continue to hold free speech to ransom.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;So read &lt;a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcumeds/uc275-x/uc27502.htm" title="Jack Straws testimony"&gt;Jack Straw's testimony&lt;/a&gt; before the commons culture, media and sport committee and weep. Every time an MP put forward a firm proposal for reforming the law, the justice secretary responded in a manner so vague and nebulous that as you read the text his words become invisible, camouflaging themselves among the letters of which they are made. He fended off reform not with arguments but with ambiguities, until the fizz and ambition had faded from the MPs' questions and they became almost as absent and grey as he is. Straw's abstractions meant what we knew already: nothing will change if he can help it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the real target of this column should have been Straw, whose determination to preserve this bookburners' law means that all of us are forced to share his terror of upsetting the rich and powerful. Through 12 years in power, a government of frightened little men has done nothing to reform the democratic world's most illiberal laws, which permit an old-fashioned judge to punish us for holding power to account.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa"&gt;United States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/trafigura-probo-koala"&gt;Trafigura&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/law"&gt;Law&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/human-rights"&gt;Human rights&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="guRssAdvert"&gt;&lt;a href="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/click.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Commentisfree&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308329808634260156029755034"&gt;&lt;img src="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/image.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Commentisfree&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308329808634260156029755034" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="author"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot"&gt;George Monbiot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;div class="terms"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk"&gt;guardian.co.uk&lt;/a&gt; &amp;copy; Guardian News &amp; Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our &lt;a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html"&gt;Terms &amp; Conditions&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds"&gt;More Feeds&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p style="clear:both" /&gt;</description>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk">UK news</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world">United States</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world">Trafigura</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk">Law</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world">Human rights</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/publication">The Guardian</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone">Comment</category>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/19/eady-libel-tourism-free-speech</guid>
      <dc:creator>George Monbiot</dc:creator>
      <dc:subject>Comment is free</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-10-23T08:51:26Z</dc:date>
      <dc:type>Article</dc:type>
      <dc:identifier>354477244</dc:identifier>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>I'd choose nuclear power over a climate crash. But will the government grow up and clean its mess up | George Monbiot</title>
      <link>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/oct/19/monbiot-nuclear-waste-economy</link>
      <description>&lt;div class="track"&gt;&lt;img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.3/11376?ns=guardian&amp;pageName=I%27d+choose+nuclear+power+over+a+climate+crash.+But+will+the+government+g%3AArticle%3A1293052&amp;ch=Environment&amp;c3=Guardian&amp;c4=Nuclear+waste+%28environment%29%2CNuclear+weapons+%28News%29%2CUK+news%2CNuclear+power+%28Environment%29%2CCoal+%28environment%29%2CEnvironment%2CItaly+%28News%29%2CSomalia+%28News%29%2CWorld+news%2CCarbon+capture+and+storage+%28CCS%29%2CCarbon+emissions+%28Environment%29%2CEnergy+%28Environment%29%2CEnergy+bills%2CNorway+%28news%29%2CClimate+change+%28Environment%29%2CBusiness&amp;c6=George+Monbiot&amp;c7=09-Oct-20&amp;c8=1293052&amp;c9=Article&amp;c10=Blogpost%2CComment&amp;c11=Environment&amp;c13=&amp;c25=George+Monbiot+blog%2CEnvironment+blog&amp;c30=content&amp;h2=GU%2FEnvironment%2FNuclear+waste" width="1" height="1" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p class="standfirst"&gt;Unlike some Guardian colleagues I have no problem with shoring up a carbon price to make nuclear - or any other low-carbon technology - become viable&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;There's little doubt that nuclear power could be produced safely and cleanly. There's also little doubt that it seldom has been. The contrast between the way things are and the way they should be threatens to split the environmental movement from top to bottom.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The movement has many roots, but one is the terror of nuclear weapons in the 1960s, and the recognition that the atomic power industry in its early days was little more than a cover for weapons manufacture. "Nuclear power – no thanks" was the defining slogan of the older generation of greens. It a rational response to the greatest threat to life on Earth. Their continuing repulsion was justified by a shocking series of accidents and leaks, not only at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but also at Dounreay, Sellafield and many other sites.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Today, while the threat of nuclear war hasn't disappeared, it is less urgent than the prospect of climate breakdown. The two industries – weapons and power – were split up (though in reality long after it came into force) by the &lt;a href="http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_euratom_en.htm" title="Euratom Treaty"&gt;Euratom treaty&lt;/a&gt; and modern reactor designs are much safer than their predecessors. As nuclear energy produces less carbon dioxide per unit of electricity than coal or gas, and as uranium mining, though hideous, causes less damage than opencast coal, the argument has changed. Now the issue comes down to this: whether the nuclear waste will be disposed of safely, and whether it can it be done without the massive use of state funds.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Until the government chooses a site and produces detailed plans for a nuclear waste repository, neither question can be answered. To commission a new generation of nuclear power stations before we know what will happen to the waste we already have offends the most basic environmental principle: you don't make a new mess before you've cleared up the old one.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;There's no mystery about how it should be done. No argument against a deep repository in a geologically stable rock formation withstands examination. The notion that some future generation might accidentally dig up our nuclear waste pile is preposterous: if our descendants possess the knowledge and technology required to mine through thousands of metres of backfill and break through all the layers of defence to find this worthless treasure, they would also possess the knowledge and technology required to understand the warning signs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Nor do I have a problem, &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/19/nuclear-power-energy-government-costs" title="unlike colleagues on the Guardian"&gt;unlike some Guardian colleagues&lt;/a&gt;, with the notion of shoring up the carbon price, to allow this or any other low-carbon technology to become viable. The price of carbon has always been an artefact of policy, and the absence of a floor price – below which it cannot fall – is a persistent impediment to green investment of all kinds. If the government really intends to guarantee that the price will be &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/19/nuclear-tax-on-power-bills" title="30 or more, as reported in yesterdays Guardian"&gt;€30 or more, as reported in yesterday's Guardian&lt;/a&gt;, this is something we should welcome: it cannot assist the nuclear industry in this way without also assisting the renewable and energy-saving industries.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ideally it would simply set the carbon floor price, lay down the wider environmental criteria, then let the different technologies fight it out.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But the persistent trouble with nuclear power – like any other potentially polluting industry – is that doing things the right way is expensive, while doing them the wrong way is cheap. My newfound complacency about nuclear power – it's ugly, but not nearly as bad as a global climate crash – was shaken by the discovery last month of a &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/shipwreck-waste-mafia-italy" title="shipwreck in 480 metres of water off the coast of Italy"&gt;shipwreck off the coast of Italy&lt;/a&gt;. The ship was one of 42 believed to have been scuttled by the 'Ndrangheta, the Calabrian mafia. Most were sunk off the coast of Somalia.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The wreck appears to be stuffed to the gunwhales with Norwegian nuclear waste, despite the fact Norway has some of the strictest environmental regulations on Earth. The &lt;a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/10/2008109174223218644.html" title="United Nations has pointed out"&gt;UN has pointed out&lt;/a&gt; that it costs roughly 400 times as much to dispose of dangerous waste legally as it costs to look the other way. The temptation to cut corners often proves overwhelming. I would choose nuclear power over coal, and nuclear dumping over climate breakdown, but I would rather have neither.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://monbiot.com/" title="Monbiot.com"&gt;Monbiot.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/nuclear-waste"&gt;Nuclear waste&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/nuclear-weapons"&gt;Nuclear weapons&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/nuclearpower"&gt;Nuclear power&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/coal"&gt;Coal&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/italy"&gt;Italy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/somalia"&gt;Somalia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/carbon-capture-and-storage"&gt;Carbon capture and storage (CCS)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/carbon-emissions"&gt;Carbon emissions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/energy"&gt;Energy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/energy"&gt;Energy bills&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/norway"&gt;Norway&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change"&gt;Climate change&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="guRssAdvert"&gt;&lt;a href="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/click.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Environment&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308329883606753215621289247"&gt;&lt;img src="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/image.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Environment&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308329883606753215621289247" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="author"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot"&gt;George Monbiot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;div class="terms"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk"&gt;guardian.co.uk&lt;/a&gt; &amp;copy; Guardian News &amp; Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our &lt;a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html"&gt;Terms &amp; Conditions&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds"&gt;More Feeds&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p style="clear:both" /&gt;</description>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Nuclear waste</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world">Nuclear weapons</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk">UK news</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Nuclear power</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Coal</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Environment</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world">Italy</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world">Somalia</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world">World news</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Carbon capture and storage (CCS)</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Carbon emissions</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Energy</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/money">Energy bills</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world">Norway</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Climate change</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business">Business</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/publication">The Guardian</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone">Blogposts</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone">Comment</category>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:29:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/oct/19/monbiot-nuclear-waste-economy</guid>
      <dc:creator>George Monbiot</dc:creator>
      <dc:subject>Environment</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-10-20T13:20:52Z</dc:date>
      <dc:type>Article</dc:type>
      <dc:identifier>354450512</dc:identifier>
      <media:content height="84" type="image/jpeg" width="140" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2009/10/19/1255947985974/nuclear-waste-004.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">ECKEHARD SCHULZ/AP</media:credit>
        <media:description>Nuclear waste in an underground depot below Morsleben, Germany, at a cost of €2.2bn (Photograph: AP/Eckehard Schulz) Photograph: ECKEHARD SCHULZ/AP</media:description>
      </media:content>
      <media:content height="276" type="image/jpeg" width="460" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2009/10/19/1255947981833/nuclear-waste-001.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">ECKEHARD SCHULZ/AP</media:credit>
        <media:description>Nuclear waste in an underground depot below Morsleben, Germany, an operation costing €2.2bn (Photograph: AP/Eckehard Schulz)</media:description>
      </media:content>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Plight of the honeybee stung by chemical industry funding | George Monbiot</title>
      <link>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/oct/14/bees-scientific-research</link>
      <description>&lt;div class="track"&gt;&lt;img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.3/22971?ns=guardian&amp;pageName=Plight+of+the+honeybee+stung+by+chemical+industry+funding+%7C+George+Monbi%3AArticle%3A1291031&amp;ch=Environment&amp;c3=GU.co.uk&amp;c4=Insects+%28environment%29%2CEndangered+species+%28Environment%29%2CEnvironment%2CWildlife+%28Environment%29%2CConservation+%28Environment%29%2CScience&amp;c6=George+Monbiot&amp;c7=09-Oct-14&amp;c8=1291031&amp;c9=Article&amp;c10=Blogpost&amp;c11=Environment&amp;c13=&amp;c25=Environment+blog%2CGeorge+Monbiot+blog&amp;c30=content&amp;h2=GU%2FEnvironment%2FInsects" width="1" height="1" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p class="standfirst"&gt;Syngenta produces a pesticide linked to bee deaths. So why has it been allowed to contribute towards research into the collapse of bee colonies?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Why are honeybee colonies collapsing? One hypothesis is that bees are bringing into their hives traces of pesticides called neonicotinoids, whose use has expanded greatly in the past few years. Some scientists believe that these damage the development of the bee larvae, and inhibit the queen's production of eggs. As a result, these pesticides have already been withdrawn from sale in France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But there are, as yet, no certain answers, and most people agree that several factors are likely to be involved. So a new study by Warwick University, which hopes to unravel the "complex of interacting factors" should sort it all out. Or so you would imagine, in view of the fact that the researchers have been given £1m to do so by the government's &lt;a href="http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/"&gt;Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council &lt;/a&gt;(BBSRC). &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But while the university says it will investigate "parasitic diseases caused by the varroa mite" and the "link between these diseases and the quality of pollen and nectar that the bees are feeding on", &lt;a href="http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/1631m_award_to/"&gt;there's no mention of pesticides in its press release&lt;/a&gt;. When I phoned Dr David Chandler, one of the Warwick researchers leading the study, he confirmed that there is "no pesticide component in it at all."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Odd, you might think. Slightly less odd perhaps, when you see that the award has been granted by the BBSRC "in partnership with Syngenta", which has provided 10% of the project's funding. As Private Eye notes today, Syngenta is the chemicals company that manufactures a neonicotinoid called thiamethoxam, sold as Actara, which has been fingered by a study in Washington state as responsible for incidents of honeybee deaths.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Warwick's press release goes on to promote the company's Operation Pollinator, "a 5-year €1M programme in seven European countries (and the USA) to boost pollinating insects by providing wildflower strips". It looks to me like greenwash. The university also describes Syngenta as helping to "protect the environment and improve health and quality of life" - which seems like an unusual way to describe a pesticides company. When I asked Dr Chandler whether there might be a conflict of interest, he told me, "I honestly do not believe that's the case."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The BBSRC no longer publishes the CVs of the committee members who decide how public money should be spent.&lt;a href=" http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/10/06/the-enemies-of-science/"&gt; But in 2003, when this information was available on its website, I found that the committees were stuffed with executives &lt;/a&gt;from Syngenta, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme, Pfizer, Genetix plc, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Celltech and Unilever. The funding decisions it made appeared to reflect their priorities rather than the wider public interest. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The potential for conflicts of interest is likely only to worsen, because in April this year the research councils introduced a new requirement for people seeking grants:&lt;a href=" http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/05/12/captive-knowledge/"&gt; from now on they must describe the economic impact of the work they want to conduct&lt;/a&gt;. This is likely to drive scientists to work even more closely with corporations. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The big problem with commercial partnerships is not that the corporations might lean on scientists to edit the results (though as Ben Goldacre has shown, this sometimes happens in medical research) it's that they help to set the terms of reference for the research. You would need the self-abnegation of a saint not to recognise that some research topics are more likely to get funded by certain companies than others. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I don't know whether or not Syngenta's involvement has affected the framing of the honeybee topic, but wherever scientists are financially dependent on companies, the question arises. Given how little money corporations contribute to British science (Syngenta's 10% is about average), wouldn't we be better served by keeping them out of it, so that we can be sure they can't guide the way research is framed? And while we're at it, how about reducing their influence over the way that public money for science is allocated? &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.monbiot.com"&gt;monbiot.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/insects"&gt;Insects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/endangeredspecies"&gt;Endangered species&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/wildlife"&gt;Wildlife&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/conservation/"&gt;Conservation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="guRssAdvert"&gt;&lt;a href="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/click.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Environment&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308329921558947402873087468"&gt;&lt;img src="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/image.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Environment&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308329921558947402873087468" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="author"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot"&gt;George Monbiot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;div class="terms"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk"&gt;guardian.co.uk&lt;/a&gt; &amp;copy; Guardian News &amp; Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our &lt;a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html"&gt;Terms &amp; Conditions&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds"&gt;More Feeds&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p style="clear:both" /&gt;</description>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Insects</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Endangered species</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Environment</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Wildlife</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Conservation</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science">Science</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/publication">guardian.co.uk</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone">Blogposts</category>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:47:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/oct/14/bees-scientific-research</guid>
      <dc:creator>George Monbiot</dc:creator>
      <dc:subject>Environment</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-10-14T14:47:11Z</dc:date>
      <dc:type>Article</dc:type>
      <dc:identifier>354239266</dc:identifier>
      <media:content height="84" type="image/jpeg" width="140" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/pictures/2009/1/28/1233141689903/A-bee-collects-nectar-fro-003.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">MIGUEL VIDAL/REUTERS</media:credit>
        <media:description>A bee collects nectar from a flower in a garden in Pontevedra in this July 15, 2007 file photo. A parasite common in Asian bees has spread to Europe and the Americas and is behind the mass disappearance of honeybees in many countries, says a Spanish scientist who has been studying the phenomenon for years. REUTERS/Miguel Vidal (SPAIN) Photograph: MIGUEL VIDAL/REUTERS</media:description>
      </media:content>
      <media:content height="276" type="image/jpeg" width="460" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/pictures/2009/1/28/1233141397815/A-bee-collects-nectar-fro-001.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">MIGUEL VIDAL/REUTERS</media:credit>
        <media:description>Research into the collapse of bee colonies is being funded by Syngenta. Photograph: MIGUEL VIDAL/REUTERS</media:description>
      </media:content>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Britain has the world's best climate policy: that's good news, and bad news | George Monbiot</title>
      <link>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/oct/12/climate-change-policy-committee</link>
      <description>&lt;div class="track"&gt;&lt;img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.3/48613?ns=guardian&amp;pageName=Britain+has+the+world%27s+best+climate+policy%3A+that%27s+good+news%2C+and+bad+n%3AArticle%3A1289895&amp;ch=Environment&amp;c3=GU.co.uk&amp;c4=Climate+change+%28Environment%29%2CEnvironment%2CCarbon+emissions+%28Environment%29%2CCarbon+offsetting+%28Environment%29%2C10%3A10+%28environment%29%2CUK+news&amp;c6=George+Monbiot&amp;c7=09-Oct-12&amp;c8=1289895&amp;c9=Article&amp;c10=Blogpost%2CComment&amp;c11=Environment&amp;c13=&amp;c25=George+Monbiot+blog%2CCif+green&amp;c30=content&amp;h2=GU%2FEnvironment%2FClimate+change" width="1" height="1" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p class="standfirst"&gt;Even if every other nation followed suit we'd still be likely to hit catastrophic climate change with a global 4C temperature rise&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;First the good news: the UK has the world's strongest policies for tackling climate change. Now the bad news: the UK has the world's strongest policies for tackling climate change. Although this is the first nation on earth to set legally binding emissions targets, and although the targets here are as tough as anywhere else, if every other nation followed the UK's example, we'd still be likely to hit a catastrophic 4C of global warming.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In its new progress &lt;a href="http://www.theccc.org.uk/reports/progress-reports" title="report"&gt;report&lt;/a&gt;, the &lt;a href="http://www.theccc.org.uk/" title="Committee on Climate Change"&gt;Committee on Climate Change&lt;/a&gt; shows that carbon emissions in the UK fell between 2003-2007 by only 0.6% a year. They should soon be falling, the committee says, by 2.6%. Even this annual target, which would require a very sharp shift in government policy, bears no relation to the ultimate aim: preventing more than 2C of warming.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;As work by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research shows, &lt;a href="http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/3863" title="global cuts of 3% a year, starting in 2020, are unlikely to avert even four degrees"&gt;global cuts of 3% a year, starting in 2020, are unlikely to avert even 4C&lt;/a&gt; by the end of the century. As the UK has higher emissions than most nations, it has to cut carbon by more than the global average. If we really want to avoid more than 2C of warming, we need to start with a 10% cut next year, as the &lt;a href="http://www.1010uk.org/" title="10:10 campaign"&gt;10:10 campaign&lt;/a&gt; demands.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But as David MacKay, chief scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change has pointed out, even the cuts the UK has made so far are illusory. If you count the &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/01/carbon-emissions-david-mackay" title="emissions outsourced to countries like China"&gt;emissions outsourced to countries like China&lt;/a&gt;, as industry has moved abroad while continuing to supply our markets, you find that our greenhouse gases have been rising, not falling.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/12/recession-threatens-global-warming-measures" title="committee points out that the recession has helped to put us on track, but that emissions"&gt;committee points out that the recession has helped to put us on track, but that emissions&lt;/a&gt; are likely to bounce back up as soon as growth resumes. The government, it says, should avoid the temptation to let the recession do the work, then bank the cuts it causes as if they were the result of policy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The downturn also has the unfortunate effect of reducing the carbon price, and therefore the incentive to make cuts. The carbon cap under the European emissions trading scheme was already set too high. Now, the committeee says, the recession ensures that the carbon price is likely to be closer to €20 in 2020 than the €50 it predicted before.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The progress report makes the obvious point that the market alone won't deliver the necessary cuts: either the EU must lower the carbon cap, or the government must impose new taxes or new obligations on electricity providers. The low carbon price and the risks of an uncertain market mean that electricity companies would rather to splash out on expensive new gas plants than build renewables. This would cancel out a big chunk of the UK's cuts.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;So what will the government do: abandon its commitment to free-market mayhem, or break its own legally binding commitments? It won't find either option attractive.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="www.monbiot.com" title="monbiot.com"&gt;monbiot.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change"&gt;Climate change&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/carbon-emissions"&gt;Carbon emissions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/carbon-offset-projects"&gt;Carbon offsetting&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/10-10"&gt;10:10 climate change campaign&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="guRssAdvert"&gt;&lt;a href="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/click.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Environment&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308329966413203597576795127"&gt;&lt;img src="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/image.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Environment&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308329966413203597576795127" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="author"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot"&gt;George Monbiot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;div class="terms"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk"&gt;guardian.co.uk&lt;/a&gt; &amp;copy; Guardian News &amp; Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our &lt;a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html"&gt;Terms &amp; Conditions&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds"&gt;More Feeds&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p style="clear:both" /&gt;</description>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Climate change</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Environment</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Carbon emissions</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Carbon offsetting</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">10:10 climate change campaign</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk">UK news</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/publication">guardian.co.uk</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone">Blogposts</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone">Comment</category>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:42:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/oct/12/climate-change-policy-committee</guid>
      <dc:creator>George Monbiot</dc:creator>
      <dc:subject>Environment</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-10-12T11:03:23Z</dc:date>
      <dc:type>Article</dc:type>
      <dc:identifier>354136614</dc:identifier>
      <media:content height="84" type="image/jpeg" width="140" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/05/14/power10a.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">John Giles/PA</media:credit>
      </media:content>
      <media:content height="276" type="image/jpeg" width="460" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/12/16/1229431063588/Coal-power-station-001.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">Phil Noble/Reuters</media:credit>
        <media:description>The UK's emissions are higher thatn those of most nations  Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters</media:description>
      </media:content>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Welsh scallop dredging ban is a victory for common sense | George Monbiot</title>
      <link>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/oct/09/scallop-dredging-banned-cardigan-bay</link>
      <description>&lt;div class="track"&gt;&lt;img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.3/4885?ns=guardian&amp;pageName=Welsh+scallop+dredging+ban+is+a+victory+for+common+sense+%7C+George+Monbio%3AArticle%3A1287858&amp;ch=Environment&amp;c3=GU.co.uk&amp;c4=Environment%2CFishing+%28Environment%29%2CFood+%28Environment%29&amp;c6=George+Monbiot&amp;c7=09-Oct-09&amp;c8=1287858&amp;c9=Article&amp;c10=Blogpost&amp;c11=Environment&amp;c13=&amp;c25=George+Monbiot+blog&amp;c30=content&amp;h2=GU%2FEnvironment%2Fblog%2FGeorge+Monbiot%27s+blog" width="1" height="1" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p class="standfirst"&gt;The decision to halt scallop dredging in Cardigan Bay is a rare case of environmental concern trumping raw greed. Enjoy it while it lasts&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are you sitting down? I have something shocking to tell you. The people who run our fisheries have been struck down by an unprecedented attack of good sense. I expect them to recover soon, but while the sickness persists, anyone who values the ecosystem has something to celebrate.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;On 1 November, the fleet of nomadic scallop dredgers that moves around the country trashing the sea floor was due to resume its assault on Cardigan Bay off the Welsh coast, near where I live. Partly because it harbours one of the only two large populations of bottlenose dolphins in the UK, most of the bay's coastal waters are classified as special areas of conservation – the strictest protection available under EU law. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But until now, dredgers from all over the country have been allowed to drag their steel hooks and chain mats over the seabed between November and May, trashing everything that lives there: all the sessile animals, the fish, their spawn, and any features that might harbour life. &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/01/george-monbiot-marine-fisheries-law"&gt;The damage they inflict is out of all proportion to the catch&lt;/a&gt;, and they probably cost other fisheries far more money than they make themselves. Banned from other sensitive areas, they have poured into Cardigan Bay, where as many as 70 boats have been working at once. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Until now, the regional fisheries committee, which is supposed to defend the marine ecosystem, has wrung its hands and &lt;a href="http://endoftheline.com/blog/archives/334"&gt;claimed there is nothing it can do&lt;/a&gt;. But a vocal campaign by local people, led by the Friends of Cardigan Bay, has prompted it at last to act. This month, the county's Fisheries Committee announced &lt;a href="http://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/c/5/i/1122/"&gt;it has banned scallop dredging in the bay indefinitely&lt;/a&gt;, pending the results of an ecological assessment by scientists at Lancaster University. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;There are two remaining problems. The first is that, amazingly, an assessment hasn't yet been conducted. The dredgers have been the subject of huge controversy for years, but the fisheries committee has allowed them to keep operating without bothering to discover how much damage they are doing. Divers' photos and research from other parts of the UK suggests it is likely to be horrendous. But the scallop dredgers might challenge the ban on the grounds that their impact hasn't yet been assessed. Why wasn't this research carried out before? &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The other problem is that the dredgers aren't going to give up: they will just move to another part of the UK, where they haven't yet been banned, and start trashing the marine ecosystem there. Isn't it time this practice is banned all around the UK, and even throughout Europe? &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But don't let me spoil this rare moment, in which a concern for the health of the ecosystem has been allowed to trump raw greed and plunder. Enjoy it while it lasts. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.monbiot.com"&gt;www.monbiot.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/fishing"&gt;Fishing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/food"&gt;Food&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="guRssAdvert"&gt;&lt;a href="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/click.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Environment&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308329992658847087026185522"&gt;&lt;img src="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/image.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Environment&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308329992658847087026185522" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="author"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot"&gt;George Monbiot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;div class="terms"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk"&gt;guardian.co.uk&lt;/a&gt; &amp;copy; Guardian News &amp; Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our &lt;a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html"&gt;Terms &amp; Conditions&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds"&gt;More Feeds&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p style="clear:both" /&gt;</description>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Environment</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Fishing</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Food</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/publication">guardian.co.uk</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone">Blogposts</category>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/oct/09/scallop-dredging-banned-cardigan-bay</guid>
      <dc:creator>George Monbiot</dc:creator>
      <dc:subject>Environment</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-10-09T06:00:00Z</dc:date>
      <dc:type>Article</dc:type>
      <dc:identifier>353937837</dc:identifier>
      <media:content height="84" type="image/jpeg" width="140" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/10/7/1254932324279/Monbiot-blog--scallop-dre-005.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">Mychele Daniau/AFP/Getty Images</media:credit>
        <media:description>Fishermen unload scallop shells from their boat on November 14, 2008 at Port-en-Bessin harbor, France. Photograph: Mychele Daniau/AFP/Getty Images</media:description>
      </media:content>
      <media:content height="276" type="image/jpeg" width="460" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/10/7/1254932321466/Monbiot-blog--scallop-dre-002.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">Mychele Daniau/AFP/Getty Images</media:credit>
        <media:description>One man banned … a scallop fisherman unloads his catch. Photograph: Mychele Daniau/AFP/Getty Images</media:description>
      </media:content>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>When the army's in the dock, Justice  swaps her crown for a bandana | George Monbiot</title>
      <link>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/05/army-dock-justice-crown-bandana</link>
      <description>&lt;div class="track"&gt;&lt;img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.3/23504?ns=guardian&amp;pageName=When+the+army%27s+in+the+dock%2C+Justice++swaps+her+crown+for+a+bandana+%7C+Ge%3AArticle%3A1287039&amp;ch=Comment+is+free&amp;c3=Guardian&amp;c4=UK+news%2CMilitary+UK%2CLaw+%28News%29%2CPolitics%2CPolice+%28politics%29%2CDefence+policy&amp;c6=George+Monbiot&amp;c7=09-Oct-06&amp;c8=1287039&amp;c9=Article&amp;c10=Comment&amp;c11=Comment+is+free&amp;c13=&amp;c25=liberty+central%2CComment+is+free&amp;c30=content&amp;h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2Fblog%2Fliberty+central" width="1" height="1" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p class="standfirst"&gt;Britain can hardly pass the democracy test when government and military police collude to prevent murderers being tried&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Robert Ouko was the Kenyan foreign minister with a fatal tendency to speak his mind. In February 1990 he was bundled into a car that allegedly contained the country's permanent secretary for internal security. &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ouko" title="His body was found shortly afterwards"&gt;His body was found shortly afterwards&lt;/a&gt;. His leg had been broken in two places, there was a bullet hole in his head and his corpse had been burnt. The Kenyan police conducted a thorough investigation and came to the obvious conclusion that Dr Ouko had committed suicide. This was the beginning of the cover-up that persists to this day, involving police and officials at every level of government.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I was reminded of Dr Ouko after reading the judgment on the case brought to the high court in London by &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/06/basra-deaths-independent-inquiry" title="Khuder al-Sweady"&gt;Khuder al-Sweady&lt;/a&gt; and other Iraqis. They were seeking a public inquiry into the events of May 2004, when, they claim, they or their relatives were &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/18/iraq.iraq" title="taken to a British army camp and tortured or killed"&gt;taken to a British army camp and tortured or killed&lt;/a&gt;. The judges published their findings on Friday and ordered a proper inquiry. It is the most damning judgment on official collusion and concealment written since Labour came to power. Total coverage in British newspapers so far amounts to &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/02/ministry-of-defence-shamed-iraq" title="one short article in the Guardian"&gt;one short article in the Guardian&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The claimants say that after a battle at a checkpoint in southern Iraq, some of the survivors, including farmers cowering in nearby fields, were taken by the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment to Camp Abu Naji. Witnesses say that up to 20 prisoners were jumped on while their hands were bound, hit with rocks, had their eyes gouged out and their genitals crushed and mutilated and were then hanged or shot. They claim that the corpses were then handed to their families as battlefield casualties.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The royal military police were supposed to have investigated these claims, but as a recent &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/26/iraq-conflict-army-torture-inquiry" title="report on their methods by Greater Manchester police shows"&gt;report on their methods by Greater Manchester police shows&lt;/a&gt;, they messed it up with panache, appointing unqualified detectives, losing evidence and failing to interview witnesses. The military police concluded that no one had done anything wrong, that 20 Iraqi corpses and nine live captives were brought to the camp and all were released without further injury. The Ministry of Defence has stuck to that line like a holy creed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reading the high court judgment, you have to pinch yourself and remember that this isn't Kenya under &lt;a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2161868.stm" title="Daniel arap Moi"&gt;Daniel arap Moi&lt;/a&gt;, but good old Blighty, where the police are impartial, the civil service disinterested and a minister's word is his bond. In a civilised country, at least half a dozen senior officials would now be charged with perjury, the secretary of state for defence would be facing impeachment hearings and a number of soldiers would be on trial for torture and murder. But in the United Kingdom, where we see only what we choose, the judgment sinks without a ripple. We carry on believing what we have always been told: that unlike other countries, we do things properly here.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The judges found that civil servants working for the Treasury solicitor had repeatedly lied to the court, claiming that there were no further documents to disclose that might have cast light on the case. They found that the defence secretary, Bob Ainsworth, "consistently and repeatedly failed to comply" with the obligation to disclose the documents the claimants were seeking. He also slapped a public interest immunity certificate on some of the evidence, preventing it being revealed to the court. It turns out that he signed this certificate "on a partly false basis", seeking to suppress facts that were already in the public domain. This abuse, the judges say, has caused the PII process "potentially very serious damage". Ainsworth's lack of candour about the evidence meant that he had wasted "the whole of the cost of these proceedings".&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But the judges were harshest about the Royal Military Police. They found that "the RMP investigation in 2004-5 was not thorough and proficient". It was blocked for five weeks, its procedures were risible, and none of the nine surviving captives was interviewed. Worse was the quality of the evidence presented to the court by Colonel Dudley Giles, who is the deputy head of the military police and was the secretary of state's principal witness. Giles, they found, "was overall a most unsatisfactory witness". The excuse he gave for not disclosing key evidence was&amp;nbsp;"wholly without foundation"; "we are all firmly of the view that he lacked the necessary objectivity, proficiency and reliability". They suggested that if ever he was presented as a witness for similar purposes again, the court "should approach his evidence with the greatest caution."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most important was what the judges found in some of the documents they eventually prised from the grubby hands of the state. They were, the court found, "consistent with the contention that more than nine live detainees" had been taken to the camp. As only nine came out alive, these papers support the claimants' contention that prisoners were killed there. No wonder the government pretended that the documents didn't exist.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;At the Labour party conference last month, the home secretary rightly observed that "social justice means nothing without criminal justice … We&amp;nbsp;need to support victims and subject perpetrators to the full range of enforcement powers". But this admirable principle does not extend to military justice, where the army, the military police and the government collude to prevent torturers and murderers being tried. Friday's judgment relates to one of several cases of alleged British war crimes in Iraq. Just one – that of the hotel receptionist Baha Mousa, who was beaten to death by British soldiers – has so far resulted in a conviction. Thanks to an apparently botched investigation and an army cover-up, only one soldier has been convicted of any crime in relation to his killing, and that was merely inhumane treatment, for which he was jailed for one year.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Even when soldiers appear to murder people on their&amp;nbsp;own side, the&amp;nbsp;cases are passed to the specialist investigations division of the Keystone Kops. Of the four young recruits who died &lt;a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/features/deepcut.shtml" title="in suspicious circumstances at the Deepcut training barracks"&gt;in suspicious circumstances at the Deepcut training barracks&lt;/a&gt;, one had been shot with a bullet to each side of his head and&amp;nbsp;another had five bullet wounds in his chest: the ballistics expert sent to the barracks maintains that four of them&amp;nbsp;were fired from a distance and one&amp;nbsp;at close range. After the army destroyed crucial evidence, Surrey police decided that all four had taken their own lives. The ghost of Dr Ouko hovers into view again.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;One of the tests of a functioning democracy is the extent to which its public servants are subject to the same laws as everyone else. By this measure, the United Kingdom is a failed state. When the army is in the dock, Justice swaps her crown for a bandanna, her sword for a Kalashnikov and her blindfold for a pair of dark glasses. The state has tried to cover up the crimes of the armed forces since the Peterloo massacre and long before. But surely, in 2009, it can do better than this?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/military"&gt;Military&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/law"&gt;Law&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/police"&gt;Police&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/defence"&gt;Defence policy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="guRssAdvert"&gt;&lt;a href="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/click.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Commentisfree&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308330042341985098868958514"&gt;&lt;img src="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/image.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Commentisfree&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308330042341985098868958514" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="author"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot"&gt;George Monbiot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;div class="terms"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk"&gt;guardian.co.uk&lt;/a&gt; &amp;copy; Guardian News &amp; Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our &lt;a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html"&gt;Terms &amp; Conditions&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds"&gt;More Feeds&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p style="clear:both" /&gt;</description>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk">UK news</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk">Military</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk">Law</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics">Politics</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics">Police</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics">Defence policy</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/publication">The Guardian</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone">Comment</category>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:00:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/05/army-dock-justice-crown-bandana</guid>
      <dc:creator>George Monbiot</dc:creator>
      <dc:subject>Comment is free</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-10-06T13:51:00Z</dc:date>
      <dc:type>Article</dc:type>
      <dc:identifier>353855445</dc:identifier>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>How British nationalists got their claws into my crayfish | George Monbiot</title>
      <link>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/oct/01/crayfish-bnp</link>
      <description>&lt;div class="track"&gt;&lt;img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.3/57510?ns=guardian&amp;pageName=How+British+nationalists+got+their+claws+into+my+crayfish+%7C+George+Monbi%3AArticle%3A1285416&amp;ch=Environment&amp;c3=GU.co.uk&amp;c4=Food+%28Environment%29%2CEnvironment%2CWildlife+%28Environment%29%2CBNP+%28Politics%29%2CFishing+%28Environment%29%2CPolitics%2CFar+right%2CWorld+news&amp;c6=George+Monbiot&amp;c7=09-Oct-02&amp;c8=1285416&amp;c9=Article&amp;c10=Blogpost&amp;c11=Environment&amp;c13=&amp;c25=George+Monbiot+blog&amp;c30=content&amp;h2=GU%2FEnvironment%2FFood" width="1" height="1" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p class="standfirst"&gt;Crude analogy between invasive US crayfish and immigrants treads fine line between lawfulness and racial incitement&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;What demons we unleash in our sleep! On Wednesday I posted up &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/gallery/2009/sep/30/george-monbiot-crayfish"&gt;a photo guide to catching the red signal crayfish&lt;/a&gt;, an introduced species from the US which is trashing the aquatic ecosystem and killing our indigenous crayfish. By catching as many as you can, you can help to control this invasive species, while getting a great meal for nothing. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Innocent enough you might think. Well it was until it got picked up by the British National party. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I think you can probably guess how this story pans out, but here's the BNP's legal officer, &lt;a href="http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2009/09/george-monbiot-death-to-usurper.html"&gt;Lee John Barnes, in his own words&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;/p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;The North American Crayfish is the Mike Tyson of crayfish. It is a diseased, psychotic, evil, illegal immigrant colonist who displaces the indigenous crayfish, colonises their territory and then reproduces until it totally devastates the indigenous environment and indigenous crayfish. I am saying nothing governor.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But theres a phrase of his [George Monbiot] that I believe should be the motto of the Eco-Xenophobes everywhere. I intend to use it more and when I do I will accredit it to George Monbiot; DEATH TO THE USURPERS !&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Subtle, isn't it? Without necessarily contravening the laws on incitement to racial hatred (and we can expect the BNP's legal officer to know just where the line is drawn), Mr Barnes appears to be comparing the American red signal crayfish to human immigrants, whom he apparently wishes to put to death. "I'm saying nothing governor" means: you know exactly what I'm saying, but if you do your worst I can't be held responsible. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Barnes is not the first person to make an analogy between invasive species and immigrants, though these days it is seldom spelt out in such stark terms. The analogy suggests that people from other parts of the world belong to a different, non-human species. Perhaps he's been &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/03/district-9-review"&gt;watching District 9&lt;/a&gt;, where the alien asylum seekers do look a bit like crayfish. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Unlike Mr Barnes, I don't know exactly where the line is drawn, but is it possible that he has not been quite as clever as he thinks he is? Is there a legal-minded person out there who can offer some advice? &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.monbiot.com"&gt;www.monbiot.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/food"&gt;Food&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/wildlife"&gt;Wildlife&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/bnp"&gt;BNP&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/fishing"&gt;Fishing&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/far-right"&gt;The far right&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="guRssAdvert"&gt;&lt;a href="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/click.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Environment&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308330082622077437640171622"&gt;&lt;img src="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/image.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Environment&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308330082622077437640171622" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="author"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot"&gt;George Monbiot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;div class="terms"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk"&gt;guardian.co.uk&lt;/a&gt; &amp;copy; Guardian News &amp; Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our &lt;a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html"&gt;Terms &amp; Conditions&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds"&gt;More Feeds&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p style="clear:both" /&gt;</description>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Food</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Environment</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Wildlife</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics">BNP</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Fishing</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics">Politics</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world">The far right</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world">World news</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/publication">guardian.co.uk</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone">Blogposts</category>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:38:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/oct/01/crayfish-bnp</guid>
      <dc:creator>George Monbiot</dc:creator>
      <dc:subject>Environment</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-10-02T10:44:38Z</dc:date>
      <dc:type>Article</dc:type>
      <dc:identifier>353695697</dc:identifier>
      <media:content height="84" type="image/jpeg" width="140" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/9/28/1254132753572/Fishing-Crayfish-George-M-005.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">George Mombiot</media:credit>
        <media:description>Following George Mombiot the best way to help control invasive crayfish is to catch and eat them. Photograph: George Mombiot</media:description>
      </media:content>
      <media:content height="276" type="image/jpeg" width="460" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/9/28/1254132750685/Fishing-Crayfish-George-M-002.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">George Mombiot</media:credit>
        <media:description>George Monbiot's invasive crayfish story was caught by the BNP. Photograph: George Monbiot</media:description>
      </media:content>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>In pictures: George Monbiot shows you how to catch and eat the invasive signal crayfish</title>
      <link>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/gallery/2009/sep/30/george-monbiot-crayfish</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;George Monbiot&lt;/strong&gt; shows you how to catch and eat the invasive American signal crayfish&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="author"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot"&gt;George Monbiot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;p style="clear:both" /&gt;</description>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Food</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Fishing</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Ethical and green living</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Wildlife</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Environment</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle">Food &amp; drink</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle">Life and style</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk">UK news</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/publication">guardian.co.uk</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone">Editorial</category>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/gallery/2009/sep/30/george-monbiot-crayfish</guid>
      <dc:creator>George Monbiot</dc:creator>
      <dc:subject>Environment</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-10-01T07:45:22Z</dc:date>
      <dc:type>Gallery</dc:type>
      <dc:identifier>353517533</dc:identifier>
      <media:content height="390" type="image/jpeg" width="630" isDefault="true" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/9/25/1253898557341/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-002.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">George Monbiot/Guardian</media:credit>
        <media:description>&lt;b&gt;Step one:&lt;/b&gt; Get permission to go crayfishing from the Environment Agency: it's trying to ensure that no one accidentally traps the white-clawed crayfish.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;

Go to a bike shop and ask for some old scrap wheels. If the wheel comes with a rubber rim tape, remove it and put it to one side. If you're very patient, unscrew all the spokes. If not, cut them off with boltcroppers or heavy-duty wire cutters. Cut close to the hub so that they're easier to bundle up and recycle</media:description>
        <media:thumbnail url="http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/environment/gallery/2009/sep/28/1/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-002-1147-thumb.jpg" width="68" height="68" />
      </media:content>
      <media:content height="390" type="image/jpeg" width="630" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/9/25/1253898558426/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-003.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">George Monbiot/Guardian</media:credit>
        <media:description>&lt;b&gt;Step two:&lt;/b&gt; Lay out a sheet of garden netting on the ground. Any kind will do. Place the wheel rim on top of it and cut out a circle about 40cm wider than the rim.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;

Cut a 4m length of string, cord or twine (preferably rot-proof). Poke it through the valve hole and tie it to the wheel rim, leaving a tail of about 10cm.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; 

Then fold the edge of the netting over the wheel rim, so that it overlaps the netting below by about 2cm. Pass the string over the net and through the first spoke hole in the rim. Keeping the string tight, carry on until you're a quarter of the way round the rim</media:description>
        <media:thumbnail url="http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/environment/gallery/2009/sep/28/1/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-003-1320-thumb.jpg" width="68" height="68" />
      </media:content>
      <media:content height="390" type="image/jpeg" width="630" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/9/25/1253898559633/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-004.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">George Monbiot/Guardian</media:credit>
        <media:description>&lt;b&gt;Step three:&lt;/b&gt; Fold the netting over itself to make a pleat about 5cm wide. This ensures that you end up with a smoothly curving basket, rather than an uneven drop and a clump of loose netting when you get back to where you started. Put in a pleat at every quarter.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; 

When you get back round to the valve hole, pass the string through it twice then tie the end to the tail you left when you started.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; 

You should end up with a net about 30cm deep. Any less than this and the crayfish might scoot off when you are raising it; any more and it could get trapped in obstructions on the river bed.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; 

If the wheel came with a rim tape, put it back on now, over the netting. This takes some of the pressure off the netting where it crosses the rim</media:description>
        <media:thumbnail url="http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/environment/gallery/2009/sep/28/1/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-004-1394-thumb.jpg" width="68" height="68" />
      </media:content>
      <media:content height="500" type="image/jpeg" width="333" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/9/25/1253898560884/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-005.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">George Monbiot/Guardian</media:credit>
        <media:description>&lt;b&gt;Step four:&lt;/b&gt; Take a length of strong cord (about 1.8m) and tie it to one side of the rim with a reef knot, avoiding the pleats. Tie the other end to the opposite side of the rim.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; 

Tie on another length of cord, at one of the two remaining compass points. Wind it twice round the opposite point, then pull or loosen it until the two loops are of equal length and the net hangs horizontally. Tie it off.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; 

Hang the net off your finger with both loops in order to find the point of balance, then bring the two loops of cord together with an underhand knot, leaving a fixed loop about 10cm high.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;

You've made your net. If you have time, make several of them</media:description>
        <media:thumbnail url="http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/environment/gallery/2009/sep/28/1/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-005-1456-thumb.jpg" width="68" height="68" />
      </media:content>
      <media:content height="500" type="image/jpeg" width="334" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/9/25/1253898562219/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-006.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">George Monbiot/Guardian</media:credit>
        <media:description>&lt;b&gt;Step five:&lt;/b&gt; Get some scraps from your local butcher or fishmonger. Almost anything will do, but the best bait is an oily fish head or skeleton. A chicken carcass is OK, and easy to tie on. Meat bones, fat and bacon are fine: you can use any carrion which can be tied onto a piece of string.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; 

Pack the bait, the nets, a penknife, some cloth bags (or better still a hessian sack), some string and some stout cord or rope (or old washing line or telephone cable). Get to the river an hour before dusk. Peak fishing is an hour either side.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;

Tie a short piece of string to each side of the rim, then use the two lengths to tie on the bait, which should be positioned in the middle of the net. Tie the rope to the fixed loop with a bowline, sheepshank or half-bloodknot, and lower the net into the water beside the bank (vertically if possible).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;

If you've made more than one net, drop them a few metres apart. If you're clever and are next to a pub, grab yourself a pint</media:description>
        <media:thumbnail url="http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/environment/gallery/2009/sep/28/1/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-006-1535-thumb.jpg" width="68" height="68" />
      </media:content>
      <media:content height="390" type="image/jpeg" width="630" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/9/25/1253898563548/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-007.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">George Monbiot/Guardian</media:credit>
        <media:description>&lt;b&gt;Step six:&lt;/b&gt;. By the time you've got your pint, the first net will be ready to lift (they need be left for only five-10 minutes).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; 

Pull it up gently and smoothly and swing it onto the bank. If you're in a good spot it should contain half a dozen or more; sometimes I've pulled up 20 or 30 crayfish at a time.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;

You should have made sure the spot you've chosen is not &lt;a href="http://www.jncc.gov.uk/publications/JNCC312/species.asp?FeatureIntCode=S1092"&gt;one of the few where the white-clawed crayfish still lives&lt;/a&gt;</media:description>
        <media:thumbnail url="http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/environment/gallery/2009/sep/28/1/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-007-1605-thumb.jpg" width="68" height="68" />
      </media:content>
      <media:content height="390" type="image/jpeg" width="630" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/9/25/1253898564599/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-008.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">George Monbiot/Guardian</media:credit>
        <media:description>&lt;b&gt;Step seven:&lt;/b&gt; Wet a cloth bag or sack, then pick the crayfish up by gripping them behind the thorax (the swollen part of the shell). If you hold them anywhere else, they will nip you. Their claws are very sharp and strong: they can cut straight through the ball of your thumb. The smaller the crayfish are, the more flexible they are and the better able to get you.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; 

If any cling onto the net, don't try to pull them off: they will just cling on tighter. Hold the net upside down until they fall off. Drop them into the sack and fold the top over, otherwise they'll climb out. Spare none of them, however small: in this case all the usual ecological rules are reversed.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; 

Red signal crayfish are distinguished by the scarlet underside of their claws</media:description>
        <media:thumbnail url="http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/environment/gallery/2009/sep/28/1/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-008-1686-thumb.jpg" width="68" height="68" />
      </media:content>
      <media:content height="390" type="image/jpeg" width="630" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/9/25/1253898565933/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-009.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">George Monbiot/Guardian</media:credit>
        <media:description>Hard work, this crayfishing ...</media:description>
        <media:thumbnail url="http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/environment/gallery/2009/sep/28/1/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-009-1772-thumb.jpg" width="68" height="68" />
      </media:content>
      <media:content height="390" type="image/jpeg" width="630" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/9/25/1253898567047/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-010.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">George Monbiot/Guardian</media:credit>
        <media:description>&lt;b&gt;Step eight:&lt;/b&gt; When you've caught as many as you want, catch some more for your friends and neighbours – preferably for the whole street.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; 

Wrap them up carefully in the wet sack or bags. As long as the fabric remains damp, they'll live this way for up to three days; they would die very quickly in a bucket of water.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; 

When you're ready to eat them, wash them in the sink and boil up a large pot of salted water. Drop just a few in. This way the water temperature doesn't fall very far, so they die within 10 seconds. Cook them for no more than five minutes: generally for only as long as it takes for the water to return to the boil. Scoop them out and drop in the next batch</media:description>
        <media:thumbnail url="http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/environment/gallery/2009/sep/28/1/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-010-1851-thumb.jpg" width="68" height="68" />
      </media:content>
      <media:content height="390" type="image/jpeg" width="630" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/9/25/1253898568397/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-011.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">George Monbiot/Guardian</media:credit>
        <media:description>&lt;b&gt;Step nine:&lt;/b&gt; Break off the tail, then break the scutes sticking out at the sides along one edge. Pull the flesh out</media:description>
        <media:thumbnail url="http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/environment/gallery/2009/sep/28/1/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-011-1916-thumb.jpg" width="68" height="68" />
      </media:content>
      <media:content height="390" type="image/jpeg" width="630" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/9/25/1253898556154/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-001.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">George Monbiot/Guardian</media:credit>
        <media:description>&lt;b&gt;Step 10:&lt;/b&gt; With your thumbnail (or a knife if you don't have any nails) open up the flesh along a line in the middle of the back (it peels open naturally). You'll expose the 'black vein' – really the gut. Pull it out and discard it.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; 

If the crayfish has big claws, crack them open with an empty wine bottle, then pull the smaller mandible off. If the flesh doesn't come out easily, use the small mandible to winkle it out</media:description>
        <media:thumbnail url="http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/environment/gallery/2009/sep/28/1/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-001-2068-thumb.jpg" width="68" height="68" />
      </media:content>
      <media:content height="390" type="image/jpeg" width="630" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/9/25/1253898569446/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-012.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">George Monbiot/Guardian</media:credit>
        <media:description>&lt;b&gt;Step 11:&lt;/b&gt; Pull up the thorax to see if it contains any roe: the firm red eggs are good to eat.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; 

You can eat all this just as it is. The flesh has a sweeter, more delicate flavour than either lobster or prawns. Or you can eat it with mayonnaise, or make a bisque (a thick soup) or a crayfish salad. But my favourite dish is …</media:description>
        <media:thumbnail url="http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/environment/gallery/2009/sep/28/1/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-012-1995-thumb.jpg" width="68" height="68" />
      </media:content>
      <media:content height="390" type="image/jpeg" width="630" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/9/25/1253898570727/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-013.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">George Monbiot/Guardian</media:credit>
        <media:description>… crayfish paella. Bon appetit, and death to the usurper.</media:description>
        <media:thumbnail url="http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/environment/gallery/2009/sep/28/1/George-Monbiot--How-to-ca-013-2165-thumb.jpg" width="68" height="68" />
      </media:content>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Stop blaming the poor. It's the wally yachters who are burning the planet | George Monbiot</title>
      <link>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/28/population-growth-super-rich</link>
      <description>&lt;div class="track"&gt;&lt;img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.3/9282?ns=guardian&amp;pageName=Stop+blaming+the+poor.+It%27s+the+wally+yachters+who+are+burning+the+plane%3AArticle%3A1283515&amp;ch=Comment+is+free&amp;c3=Guardian&amp;c4=UK+news%2CEnvironment%2CClimate+change+%28Environment%29%2CClimate+change+%28Science%29%2CCarbon+footprints+%28Environment%29%2CCarbon+emissions+%28Environment%29%2CEconomic+policy%2CSociety&amp;c6=George+Monbiot&amp;c7=09-Sep-29&amp;c8=1283515&amp;c9=Article&amp;c10=Comment&amp;c11=Comment+is+free&amp;c13=&amp;c25=Cif+green%2CComment+is+free%2CGeorge+Monbiot+blog&amp;c30=content&amp;h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2Fblog%2FCif+green" width="1" height="1" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p class="standfirst"&gt;Population growth is not a problem - it's among those who consume the least. So why isn't anyone targeting the very rich?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's no coincidence that most of those who are obsessed with population growth are post-reproductive wealthy white men: it's about the only environmental issue for which they can't be blamed. The brilliant Earth systems scientist &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/20/geoengineering-royal-society-earth" title="James Lovelock"&gt;James Lovelock&lt;/a&gt;, for instance, claimed last month that "those who fail to see that population growth and climate change are two sides of the same coin are either ignorant or hiding from the truth. These two huge environmental problems are inseparable and to discuss one while ignoring the other is irrational." But it's Lovelock who is being ignorant and irrational.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A paper published yesterday in the journal &lt;a href="http://www.sagepub.com/journalsProdSoc.nav?prodId=Journal201733" title="Environment and Urbanization"&gt;Environment and Urbanization&lt;/a&gt; shows that the places where population has been growing fastest are those in which carbon dioxide has been growing most slowly, and vice versa. Between 1980 and 2005, for instance, sub-Saharan Africa produced 18.5% of the world's population growth and just 2.4%&amp;nbsp;of the growth in CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;. North America turned out only 4% of the extra people, but 14% of the extra emissions. Sixty-three percent of the world's population growth happened in places with very low emissions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Even this does not capture it. The paper points out that about one sixth of&amp;nbsp;the world's population is so poor that&amp;nbsp;it produces no significant emissions at all. This is also the group whose growth rate is likely to be highest. Households in India earning less than 3,000 rupees (£40) a month use a fifth of the electricity per head and one seventh of the transport fuel of households earning 30,000 rupees or more. Street sleepers use almost nothing. Those who live by processing waste (a large part of the urban underclass) often save more greenhouse gases than they produce.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Many of the emissions for which poorer countries are blamed should in fairness belong to the developed nations. &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/30/oil-royaldutchshell" title="Gas flaring by companies exporting oil from Nigeria"&gt;Gas flaring by companies exporting oil from Nigeria&lt;/a&gt;, for instance, has produced more greenhouse gases than all other sources in sub-Saharan Africa put together. Even deforestation in poor countries is driven mostly by commercial operations delivering timber, meat and animal feed to rich consumers. The rural poor do far less harm.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The paper's author, David Satterthwaite, points out that the old formula taught to students of development – that total impact equals population times affluence times technology (I = PAT) – is wrong. Total impact should be measured as I = CAT: consumers times affluence times technology. Many of the world's people use so little that they wouldn't figure in this equation. They are the ones who have most children.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;While there's a weak correlation between global warming and population growth, there's a strong correlation between global warming and wealth. I've been taking a look at a few super-yachts, as I'll need somewhere to entertain Labour ministers in the style to which they are accustomed. First I went through the plans for &lt;a href="http://www.superyachttimes.com/editorial/8/article/id/2721" title="Royal Falcon Fleet's RFF135"&gt;Royal Falcon Fleet's RFF135&lt;/a&gt;, but when I discovered that it burns only 750 litres of fuel per hour I realised that it wasn't going to impress Lord Mandelson. I might raise half an eyebrow in Brighton with the Overmarine Mangusta 105, which sucks up 850 litres per hour. But the raft that's really caught my eye is made by Wally Yachts in Monaco. The WallyPower 118 (which gives total wallies a sensation of power) consumes 3,400 litres per hour when travelling at 60 knots. That's nearly a litre per second. Another way of putting it is 31 litres per kilometre.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Of course, to make a real splash I'll have to shell out on teak and mahogany fittings, carry a few jetskis and a mini-submarine, ferry my guests to the marina by private plane and helicopter, offer them bluefin tuna sushi and beluga caviar, and drive the beast so fast that I mash up half the marine life of the Mediterranean. As the owner of one of these yachts I'll do more damage to the biosphere in 10 minutes than most Africans inflict in a lifetime. Now we're burning, baby.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Someone I know who hangs out with the very rich tells me that in the banker belt of the lower Thames valley there are people who heat their outdoor swimming pools to bath temperature, all round the year. They like to lie in the pool on winter nights, looking up at the stars. The fuel costs them £3,000 a month. One hundred thousand people living like these bankers would knacker our life support systems faster than 10 billion people living like the African peasantry. But at least the super wealthy have the good manners not to breed very much, so the rich old men who bang on about human reproduction leave them alone.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In May the Sunday Times carried an article headlined "&lt;a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6350303.ece" title="Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation"&gt;Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation&lt;/a&gt;". It revealed that "some of America's leading billionaires have met secretly" to decide which good cause they should support. "A consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat." The ultra-rich, in other words, have decided that it's the very poor who are trashing the planet. You grope for a metaphor, but it's impossible to satirise.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;James Lovelock, like Sir David Attenborough and Jonathan Porritt, is a patron of the &lt;a href="http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.aboutus.html" title="Optimum Population Trust "&gt;Optimum Population Trust&lt;/a&gt;. It is one of dozens of campaigns and charities whose sole purpose is to discourage people from breeding in the name of saving the biosphere. But I haven't been able to find any campaign whose sole purpose is to address the impacts of the very rich.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The obsessives could argue that the&amp;nbsp;people breeding rapidly today might&amp;nbsp;one day become richer. But as the&amp;nbsp;super wealthy grab an ever greater share and resources begin to run dry, this, for most of the very poor, is a diminishing prospect. There are strong social reasons for helping people to manage their reproduction, but weak environmental reasons – except among wealthier populations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Optimum Population Trust glosses over the fact that the world is going through demographic transition: population growth rates are slowing down almost everywhere and the number of people is likely, according to a paper in Nature, to&amp;nbsp;peak this century, probably at about&amp;nbsp;10 billion. Most of the growth will take place among those who consume almost nothing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But no one anticipates a consumption transition. People breed less as they become richer, but they don't consume less – they consume more. As the habits of the super-rich show, there are no limits to human extravagance. Consumption can be expected to rise with economic growth until the biosphere hits the buffers. Anyone who&amp;nbsp;understands this and still considers that population, not consumption, is the big issue is, in Lovelock's words, "hiding from the truth". It is the worst kind of paternalism, blaming the poor for the excesses of the rich.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;So where are the movements protesting about the stinking rich destroying our living systems? Where is the direct action against super-yachts and private jets? Where's Class War when you need it?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's time we had the guts to name the problem. It's not sex; it's money. It's not the poor; it's the rich.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change"&gt;Climate change&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/scienceofclimatechange"&gt;Climate change&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/carbonfootprints"&gt;Carbon footprints&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/carbon-emissions"&gt;Carbon emissions&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/economy"&gt;Economic policy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="guRssAdvert"&gt;&lt;a href="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/click.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Commentisfree&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308330206515015774802076275"&gt;&lt;img src="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/image.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Commentisfree&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308330206515015774802076275" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="author"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot"&gt;George Monbiot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;div class="terms"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk"&gt;guardian.co.uk&lt;/a&gt; &amp;copy; Guardian News &amp; Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our &lt;a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html"&gt;Terms &amp; Conditions&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds"&gt;More Feeds&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p style="clear:both" /&gt;</description>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk">UK news</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Environment</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Climate change</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science">Climate change</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Carbon footprints</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Carbon emissions</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics">Economic policy</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society">Society</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/publication">The Guardian</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone">Comment</category>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/28/population-growth-super-rich</guid>
      <dc:creator>George Monbiot</dc:creator>
      <dc:subject>Comment is free</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-09-29T08:37:57Z</dc:date>
      <dc:type>Article</dc:type>
      <dc:identifier>353537362</dc:identifier>
      <media:content height="84" type="image/jpeg" width="140" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/6/16/1245138636129/Abramovich-mega-yacht-004.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">Marcus Brandt/EPA</media:credit>
        <media:description>Abramovich mega yacht Photograph: Marcus Brandt/EPA</media:description>
      </media:content>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Bhopal being poisoned all over again | George Monbiot</title>
      <link>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/sep/27/bhopal-poison</link>
      <description>&lt;div class="track"&gt;&lt;img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.3/86565?ns=guardian&amp;pageName=Bhopal+being+poisoned+all+over+again+%7C+George+Monbiot%3AArticle%3A1283162&amp;ch=Environment&amp;c3=GU.co.uk&amp;c4=Environment%2CPollution+%28Environment%29%2CIndia+%28News%29&amp;c6=George+Monbiot&amp;c7=09-Sep-28&amp;c8=1283162&amp;c9=Article&amp;c10=Comment%2CBlogpost&amp;c11=Environment&amp;c13=&amp;c25=George+Monbiot+blog%2CCif+green&amp;c30=content&amp;h2=GU%2FEnvironment%2Fblog%2FGeorge+Monbiot%27s+blog" width="1" height="1" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p class="standfirst"&gt;Twenty-five years after the Bhopal gas leak killed thousands, there has been no cleanup of the site – and Indians continue to die horribly&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We all know what the world's worst industrial disaster was: the &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/30/india.pollution"&gt;gas leak from the Union Carbide factory in Bhopal&lt;/a&gt; in central India. On the night of 2 December 1984, the creaky pesticides plant, which was lacking a number of basic safeguards, released a cloud of methyl isocyanate, phosgene and other gases over a densely populated city. This poison gas killed thousands of people – some immediately, many others in the years that followed. The death toll so far appears to be around 25,000. Hundreds of thousands of others were harmed, in many cases permanently. The 25th anniversary falls in just over two months.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/21/global-fly-tipping-toxic-waste"&gt;I mentioned it in my column last week&lt;/a&gt;, in relation to the Trafigura waste dumping scandal. But until I received a letter about it last week, I had no idea just how little had been done to ensure that the remaining poison spread no further. You might have imagined that after the global outrage this disaster caused, and the way in which Bhopal has become shorthand for corporate malfeasance and insouciance, that the site of this great crime would have been cleaned up and sorted out as quickly as possible. That the plant, which was closed after the gas leak, would either have been demolished and removed or cleaned up and turned into a memorial for the victims. You'd be wrong. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://bhopal.org/index.php?id=104"&gt;As the Bhopal Medical Appeal reminds us&lt;/a&gt;, the plant has instead simply been abandoned. Hundreds of tonnes of deadly chemicals have been left there – in open pits or just piled on the ground – to leach into the water supply, where they continue to poison people to this day, causing cancer and foetal malformations, among other horrible effects. &lt;a href="http://www.bhopal.net/contamination.html"&gt;The chemicals include deadly pesticides and their even deadlier precursors&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;After drinking half a glass of water that the people of the city drink every day, &lt;a href="http://www.amazon.com/Five-Past-Midnight-Bhopal-Industrial/dp/0446530883"&gt;the author Dominique Lapierre reported that&lt;/a&gt; "my mouth, my throat, my tongue instantly got on fire, while my arms and legs suffered an immediate skin rash. This was the simple manifestation of what men, women and children have to endure daily, some 18 years after the tragedy." Seven years on, nothing has changed. There has been no cleanup, no attempt to prevent the leakage from the site that takes place during every monsoon. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In 1994, Union Carbide (owned by Dow Chemical since 2001) sold the company's Indian subsidiary, and hence (or so it claims) divested itself of all responsibility for the plant, the disaster and its aftermath. The Indian government also appears to have washed its hands of the plant. The people of Bhopal, who have already suffered so hideously, are being poisoned all over again.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Has nothing been learned? Are Indian lives considered so cheap that even the people of Bhopal, who are owed so much, can be treated like vermin? For how much longer will we stand by and let this horror continue? &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.monbiot.com"&gt;www.monbiot.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/pollution"&gt;Pollution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/india"&gt;India&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="guRssAdvert"&gt;&lt;a href="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/click.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Environment&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308330231464764141717107233"&gt;&lt;img src="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/image.ng/richmedia=yes&amp;site=Environment&amp;spacedesc=rss&amp;system=rss&amp;transactionID=12578308330231464764141717107233" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="author"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot"&gt;George Monbiot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;div class="terms"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk"&gt;guardian.co.uk&lt;/a&gt; &amp;copy; Guardian News &amp; Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our &lt;a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html"&gt;Terms &amp; Conditions&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds"&gt;More Feeds&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p style="clear:both" /&gt;</description>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Environment</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment">Pollution</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world">India</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/publication">guardian.co.uk</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone">Comment</category>
      <category domain="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone">Blogposts</category>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:29:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/sep/27/bhopal-poison</guid>
      <dc:creator>George Monbiot</dc:creator>
      <dc:subject>Environment</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-09-28T13:07:30Z</dc:date>
      <dc:type>Article</dc:type>
      <dc:identifier>353498588</dc:identifier>
      <media:content height="84" type="image/jpeg" width="140" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/9/28/1254136620369/Monbiot-blog--pollution.--007.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">Emmanuel Dunand/AFP</media:credit>
        <media:description>The wreckage of Union Carbide pesticide plant stands against a blue Bhopal sky, 30 November 2004. The pesticide plant from which a deadly gas leaked in 1984, stands decrepit, empty and boarded up but is still an enormous environmental hazard, polluting ground water and soil, rights activists warned. Photograph: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP</media:description>
      </media:content>
      <media:content height="276" type="image/jpeg" width="460" url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/9/28/1254136617556/Monbiot-blog--pollution.--004.jpg">
        <media:credit scheme="urn:ebu">Emmanuel Dunand/AFP</media:credit>
        <media:description>Crime site ... the wreckage of the Union Carbide pesticide plant continues to leach deadly chemicals into the water supply. Photograph: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP</media:description>
      </media:content>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
