BNP's Beacon track

With the Beacon & Bents ward in their sights, BNP activists are trying to draw in more voters. BNP top man Nick Griffin goose-stepped into South Shields and was seen leafleting along with local BNP stormtroopers, among them Regional Secretary and former National Front member Ken Booth. In an apparent attempt to move into 'respectable' politics, the party having allegedly "undergone major changes in the last few years to improve its image", the BNP is eager for portrayal as both anodyne and proactive, attempting to annexe the 'working class' as it's own heartland. But this soothing image is all a lie.

Possibly Griffin would like us all to forget his previous ode to democracy: "The electors of Millwall did not back a Post-Modernist Rightist Party, but what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan 'Defend Rights for Whites' with well-directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate."

However, I'm sure that many of the BNP's coprophilic supporters will claim that was in all the past and point out to us that Things Are Different Now. Okay then. To get a real feel of this new image of the BNP, we should look closely at what they've been up to lately, and shockingly, it includes a remarkable diversity of assault, fraud and general dishonesty. A peruse of 'white power' website Stormfront fills in the gaps to give enough flavour of what the BNP is all about.

So no real change in BNP attitudes there then, a kind of 'BNP's not Working'.

Nevertheless, on his jackboot tour of Beacon & Bents 'Commandant' Griffin was quite positive, saying, "We are getting a great deal of support on the doorsteps in the area, so we're hoping for a breakthrough at the next election."

But apparently the breakthrough doesn't include the honesty and openness of it's own members though, as one BNP volunteer didn't want to be identified 'because he was a social worker'. Whether the BNP volunteer was ashamed of being a BNP canvasser or a social worker is hard to tell, but if the BNP's own foot soldiers can't bring themselves to be publicly associated with the party, then why should voters?

A Little Haven for the environment

South Shields MP David Miliband chaired Friday's climate change conference, which was kindly sponsored by Nexus, and Mr M has promised another conference in a year's time. Mr Miliband, who described doing nothing about climate change as "playing Russian Roulette with the Earth", proved an excellent chairman, and gamely took snipes about government inaction over climate change and Tony Blair's addiction to air travel. He started with the ethical high ground, accepting that the UK had an obligation to lead the way in climate change as "the richer you are, the more you contribute to the problem."

After Mr Miliband's introduction first up was Bernard Garner, the Director General of Tyne and Wear transport organiser Nexus. His main thrust was that to meet the challenges of not just global warming, but also congestion and sustainability. Public transport needed more investment and more regulation, and he pointed to the success of London's regulated public transport system as an example.

Then Tony Juniper, Chief Executive of Friends of the Earth gave an impassioned and inspiring talk, putting climate change in the context of people. Global warming wasn't just about temperatures and hockey stick graphs or economic reports on the cost/benefit of combating climate change. It was people's lives - massive food shortages due to environmental degradation and climatic instability. Mass migration and the inevitable social impacts.

He built upon Mr Miliband's suggestion of the UK's moral obligation to lead the way, as "we enjoy the benefits of a society which is built upon fossil fuels, the impacts of which being reason we are here today. It's not fair to expect developing nations not to want that, and as a nation we are rich enough to help these countries enjoy their own industrial revolutions, but built upon clean renewable energy. At the same time the UK will be reaping the economic benefits and advantages of being innovators in sustainable development."

In a nod to Tyneside's industrial heritage, Mr Juniper said that we could harness local shipbuilding skills (what's left of them anyway) to form the basis of "a massive development in our marine renewable energy resources".

I have a correction to make. In my previous post I stated that Woking council had achieved a 77 per cent cut in CO2 emissions. When Woking council's Chief Executive Ray Morgan got up to speak next, he announced that during his time at Woking:

- CO2 emissions have been cut by 82 percent
- energy consumption have been cut by 52 percent
- sustainable energy generation has increased by 82 per ent
- self generated energy (heat and power) has increased by 11 percent

All of these changes have not had a negative impact on local council tax bills.

We know that South Tyneside Council is doing very little (a target of only 5 percent reduction over five years) but Woking's achievements illustrate that, as Ray Morgan put it, "climate change is not just a challenge - it's an opportunity". Sadly, no officer from South Tyneside council raised any comments during the Q&A sessions.

Finally, Chris Bywell, Head of Innovation & Integration at One North East got up to speak. Despite his apparent enthusiasm for sustainable business and decoupling growth from emissions (straight from the green handbook), no one was convinced with his assertion that North East business was environmentally sustainable. He failed to solve the contradiction between North East business demands for more road space and the inevitable additional emissions that more cars filling that space would bring.

One of the main themes of comments from the floor (and Mr Morgan) was that government wasn't taking enough action, failing to provide councils and business with an adequate framework and objectives. The planning system will go to pot under the Barker Report (Mr Morgan's point) and the government was ignoring the warnings of the Stern Report. Fortunately the over-used 'hot air' analogy wasn't used too much.

The final question of the conference took us back to the moral and ethical theme, but not quite as I suspect as Mr Miliband expected. The question, from a young woman from Apna Ghar, hung in the air, unanswered. It was deceptively simple and naive but was full of power, because it brought us back to the most human part of the debate. Why does the government "sponsor an arms industry which brings so much death and misery, and contributes so much to environmental destruction."

The same could be said for the government's support for road building, airport expansion and it's failure so far to reduce the UK's emissions. Why?

Hopefully next year we won't need to ask these questions.

Time to stop drifting like a cork on the river

The location of the conference on climate change in South Shields on Friday 12th January reminded me of something that Edward de Bono said about feeling powerless. That feeling of pointlessness that leads to apathy and inaction. At South Shields riverside's Little Haven Hotel, the conference will hopefully not just be a talking shop for 'people of note', but will provide some motivation for South Tyneside Council.

The conference will feature a very special speaker. Not Friends of the Earth gaffer Tony Juniper; not mild mannered MP Mr Miliband (but they'll be there too); but Woking council's chief executive Ray Morgan. He was one of the drivers behind Woking council's 77 per cent cut in CO2 emissions, and his council's achievement is proof that major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can be made, even by councils working on their own initiative. Other councils have also done really well, such as Kirklees and Aberdeen, showing that with the right combination of ambition, initiative and urgency, councils can have an important role not just in reducing emissions, but as champions of sustainability.

South Tyneside Council, with it's feeble emission reduction target of only 5 per cent over 5 years, could gain a lot from Mr Morgan's advice, even if it's just to learn to say 'It can be done!' and be more ambitious in challenging climate change.

However, it's not just our council that should take something positive from what councils like Woking have achieved. Mr Miliband regularly reminds us that everyone has a role in reducing CO2 emissions. He's right.

As Edward de Bono said,"Everyone can be constructive in tiny ways".

Fish 'n' Chips, Miliband slips?

In South Shields MP David Miliband's dismissal of organic food as a"lifestyle choice" is he really missing the point about organic farming?

The Sunday Times covered Mr M's interview in South Shields fish and chip shop Colman's, which apparently uses "wild fish from sustainable fishing grounds". He was quoted as saying that for organic food, in health terms "there isn’t any evidence either way that’s conclusive." That doesn't mean there's no positive health benefit, just that there hasn't been enough research in this area. It would take a brave government to fund such research. It would no doubt cause consternation to the agri-chemical industry and giant farming concerns who do well out of unsustainable farming practices. There's no worry for them though, as Mr Miliband's DEFRA has been cutting it's agricultural research budget.

However, considering the regular discoveries of pesticide residues on supermarket fruit and veg, his claim is reminiscent of views held by climate change deniers poo-pooing man's effect on the environment and tobacco companies rubbishing the links between smoking and cancer. Or indeed those who denied the links between BSE and CJD.

His comments paint environmental issues as a consumer choice. This is only partly right. Many people view choosing organic as a serious concern and an obligation to ensure safety for farmers and themselves by mostly eliminating the chemical element in their food, and try to instill some kind of respect for the livestock which provides them with their meat and dairy products.

The alternative to organic, the current "conventional" is a food industry which has brought us salmonella, BSE and foot and mouth. The same industry is also responsible for the pollution of water supplies, the destruction of farmland biodiversity, the regular poisoning of farmworkers and the 'blooms' of lung diseases at spraying time.

The cynic in me asks, could it simply be an attempt by Mr M to target his response to the Time's traditionally environmentally sceptic audience? Possibly; every ministerial statement is carefully judged for effect and he would have known his opinion on organic farming would be closely scrutinised, at least by green groups, hence the essentially ambiguous phrasing. He could always fall back on his nod to sustainable farming at last year's Royal Show when he asked farmers to develop "one planet farming which minimises the impact on the environment".

There's a certain whiff of irony in Mr Miliband's choice of a 'sustainable fish and chip shop' as a venue for his comments about sustainable farming. Mr Miliband will be speaking at a climate conference this Friday at the Littlehaven Hotel. It will be interesting to see if anyone asks him if he enjoys the organic food on offer.

However, his statement sounds most like the cautious business-friendly noises you would expect from a DTI or Treasury minister rather than an environment minister. Perhaps Mr Miliband's comments could be saying more about positioning for a future ministerial seat in a Brown government than his understanding of organic farming?

A drowning man will catch a straw

South Tyneside's loosely formed coalition group of independent councillors and hopefuls are watching the start of the slow wind up to the forthcoming May local elections, heralded by the growth in touchy feely council "we're listening" consultations and positive press pieces. Traditionally it's difficult for non Labour parties to get their voices in the local press, which is exacerbated by many council press releases heavily featuring Labour councillors. Added to this the Labour Party gets free party political advertising in the Shields Gazette in the form of regular opinion pieces by South Tyneside Labour MPs David Miliband and Stephen Hepburn, with Councillor Paul Waggott, the Leader of the Council, telling us we ain't had it so good. I've yet to read an opinion piece by an opposition councillor (or opposition anything) in the Shields Gazette.

However, it seems that press bias is becoming the least of the independent worries. Some of the independents councillors and hopefuls are concerned that the local Labour Party will stand a notional 'independent' straw man (or woman) in several of the wards, particularly those where an independent councillor already stands, or where Labour consider a seat loss to be likely. If true, it means that the local Labour party is cynically attempting to dilute the independent vote, hoping that voters will mistake their chap for the real independent. This tactic has been used since the time of the Ancient Greeks, so who said democracy is dead?

The local BNP is planning a big push this year, having already targeted leafleting in several local areas and nationally the BNP is in the middle of an initiative to canvass and encourage expired party members to rejoin. It's anyone's guess where the votes will come from - protest from former Labour voters, traditional right wingers or even those wanting anything but Labour - but chances are it will also erode the independent vote.

Another addition to the opposition brew is the recently formed South Tyneside Green Party, which is planning to field candidates for wards in Jarrow and Hebburn, and in South Shields the wards of Cleadon, Harton, Horsley Hill and Beacon and Bents.

Sure, it's no surprise that politics is dirty, but are Labour really that worried that they'll lose their dominant position in South Tyneside that they'll go to the bother of fielding straw men whilst there's so many opposition vehicles out there? It'll be an interesting game to try and spot the true affiliations of some of the independent candidates.

Warm resolve

In a heart-warming 'New Year resolution' piece in the Shields Gazette on New Year's Day we had our MP David Miliband reassuring us all that South Shields remains his number one priority. And hoping the Gunners do well. On a bit of a down note, Mr Miliband, who is currently keeping the seat warm as Secretary of State for the Environment, failed to use the 'E' word, or even mention global warming/heating. Despite Mr M's woeful omission on emissions, let's hope the Government can start to actually do something to reduce greenhouse emissions, instead of just solemnly talking about 'the greatest challenge we face' whilst enthusiastically supporting road building and airport expansion.

At least South Tyneside's green champion, Council Leader Paul Waggott, managed to get the environment into his resolution by wanting to make "South Tyneside a cleaner, greener and safer place". Then again, perhaps he's hoping people have forgotten about his council's plans to build on greenbelt, it's support for more road building at the Tyne tunnel and on the A19, and his council's pathetic CO2 emissions reduction target of only 5 per cent over 5 years. It would be cynical to suggest that such political amnesia signals that we're winding up to May's local elections already.

DM to A-list?

South Shields MP David Miliband, a strong supporter of gay rights in the House, may be becoming something of a gay icon. His voting record on gay rights is regularly used by pink news to contrast against Gordon Brown's voting history.

Now, seasoned current affairs commentator Julian Clary has admitted in Heat magazine as having "a bit of a thing for David Miliband". This is further to Mr Clary's article in October's New Statesman, when he summoned all of his razor sharp political perception to consider a next possible leader for the Labour Party:

"The only contender my eye lingers on is David Miliband. Quite attractive, especially when he undoes his top button at fringe meetings. Puts me in mind of a bit of rough from Liverpool." Now that Julian Clary has mentioned Mr Miliband, there will be no more 'David who?' from readers of the celeb mags.

Mr Miliband is not alone in enjoying the attentions of Julian Clary, who in 1993 at the British Comedy Awards commented "As a matter of fact, I've just been fisting Norman Lamont", but it's apparent that Mr M has finally arrived as a pop culture tidbit.

I hope Mr Miliband's new celebrity status will do for South Shields (and climate change, by the way) what Kylie did for cancer sufferers.

Mili's silly target trouble

When in Nairobi on the recent round of climate talks to try and start the ball rolling on the replacement for the Kyoto protocol, South Shields MP and Environment Secretary David Miliband dismissed annual targets for reducing carbon emissions as 'silly'. His conclusion is worth exploring, or exploding.

"I don't think that binding annual targets are necessary."

For a government addicted to targets, his is an odd assessment. We have targets for health, crime, education and a host of other areas. But these are seen as a necessary motivational tool in order to gain improvements. Why not annual carbon targets?

"We think binding annual targets are silly"

It's interesting who this 'we' is, but I doubt it includes just about every successful company on the planet which has an annual business plan with - guess what - targets. Even the management-speak acronyms have the elements of goal orientation - Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic, Time-bound, or better, Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic, Time-bound, Ethical, Recorded. I think I'd rather be SMARTER annually about climate change than silly over 5 years.

"because if the weather is bad in one year it doesn't make sense to change your policies."

Now that is a silly statement. If you fail to reach your target one year, it makes perfect sense to adjust your initiatives and targets to do better the next year. Flexibility is key, and having annual targets doesn't preclude flexible plans. Besides, if we don't do something about our emissions now, we are guaranteeing ourselves and our children plenty of bad weather in the future.

"You don't just have to take my word for it - the international community at Kyoto in 1997 didn't think annual targets were sensible."

This justification is predicated on the assumption that the Kyoto protocol is perfect. It isn't - it has serious flaws. The cuts of only 4.8% of greenhouse gas emissions based on 1990 by 2012 are dangerously pathetic, it ushered in the fallacy of offsetting, and excluded air travel from the CO2 emissions measuring mechanism. The Kyoto Protocol was based partly upon the climate change science available at the time. We now know a lot more, and that we have underestimated the scale and speed of climate change. Instead of centuries, we are looking at decades. We could have as little as 25 years to drop our emissions by 90 percent. In such short timescales, 5 years is too long.

The whole point of Mr Miliband's visit to Nairobi was to try and get a Kyoto replacement off the ground. I would expect him and the other delegates to learn from Kyoto's flaws - and a lack of challenging targets was definitely one of them.

If we don't have annual targets, government will have no real impetus to take the drastic action needed on climate change. We haven't had challenging climate targets, and what have we seen? An increase in the UK's greenhouse gas emissions since the Kyoto agreement. Not having annual targets means the government can leave the worry about emissions reductions to the next year, or the next government, or even the next decade. But by then it will be too late.

Targets work. They mean business. They provide motivation to get things done. In dismissing targets Mr Miliband is arguing for complacency and low expectations.

Winners have targets. Leave the silly loser talk to others Mr Miliband, and try being a true champion of emissions reduction - with annual targets.

Credit due

On Friday the manager of South Tyneside Credit Union, Sylvia Hudson, was winner of Woman Social Entrepreneur, in the North East Woman Entrepreneur of the Year Awards. This recognises Sylvia as one of the main drivers of the credit union from it's early days as The Nook Credit Union to South Tyneside's biggest community based credit union.

If you're not in the Credit Union, it's worth joining. Not only to enjoy a truly local savings and loans service, but to help provide financial services to members of the community, who through poverty or circumstances beyond their control are left behind by the big banks and building societies. Anyone can join.

The recent Farepak scandal illustrates just how many people are dependent upon savings schemes just to put something by for Christmas. Unfortunately Farepak wasn't regulated, but credit unions are regulated by the Financial Services Authority. The credit union doesn't charge monstrous loans rates like 'doorstep lenders', who prey on those with low incomes and tend to live a hand to mouth existence. The credit union has helped people out of the clutches of these sharks and given them a real hope to get their financial health back. So if you're looking for somewhere to save for next Christmas - try the credit union.

Even though South Tyneside Credit Union employs a small core of administration staff (funded by sponsorship and grants), most of the work is done by volunteers, including the board and executive. So if you have some spare time to give, the credit union would like to hear from you.

South Tyneside Credit Union can be contacted on (0191) 454 7677, and the main office is at:

119/121 Prince Edward Road
South Shields
NE34 8PJ

It's not often that someone who works hard for the community is recognised, especially as an entrepreneur. My congratulations go to Sylvia for an award well deserved.

Labour's burning us

South Shields MP David Miliband's regular party political puff piece in the Shields Gazette (Now's time to reflect on the achievements of Labour's nine years in government, 11th October) examined Labour's 'achievements' after nine years in power. Whilst he praised his party for low interest rates (despite them being set by the independent Bank of England), record employment and increased education spending, he forgot to mention one particular area of Labour policy. No, I don't mean the war in Iraq. Despite being Secretary of State for the Environment, he didn't have anything to say about Labour's environmental record.

This implies that Labour is embarrassed by it's performance on the environment, and on further consideration, it's not surprising.

Since 1997 Tony Blair has been warning us about the threat of climate change. Unfortunately, since 1997 the UK's greenhouse gas emissions have increased. This increase is set to continue with Labour's plans for airport expansion and massive new road building schemes. Indeed, whilst only about £2.5m has been committed to the low carbon buildings program to support micro renewables, the government is willing to throw £3.7bn at widening 250km of the M1. That's 1,500 times more money is being put into one scheme that will encourage the increase of CO2 emissions than is being spent on reducing them.

But instead of investing massively in emission reduction schemes and developing new initiatives to cut greenhouse gases, Labour has used the concern over climate change and energy to cynically resurrect the nuclear power industry. It seems that when it comes to Labour and the environment, it's business as usual - that is, as usual Labour's relationship with business is more important than it's record on the environment.

Now we hear whispers that the Government will back the Climate Change Bill, perhaps making it a feature of the Queen's Speech in November. That would be great news. But we are still 9 years late on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

If the rumours about the Bill are true, I hope that it isn't watered down to make it politically safe. The planet doesn't have time for more talking shops and protracted bargaining. We have a limited time to get things moving and that means we need a social and political determination that we haven't seen since the Second World War. This isn't something that's 100 or 1000 years away. If you're under 40, you're likely to see what's coming in your lifetime, and your children certainly will.

What we do over the next few years will decide if our children will see countries disappear under the sea, food riots on the streets of Britain and wars, not over oil, but water.

Blair's cross to bear

While some suggest that Tony Blair owed the spark for his finale speech to John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath , perhaps his real inspiration came from something higher. Craig Brown's excellent satire piece in the Telegraph, hints further at Mr Blair's true calling.

In his speech, Tony told us in almost Last Supper piety, "You can't go on for ever. That's why it's right this is my last conference as leader" and finished off with the truly heart rending "Whatever you do, I'm always with you. Head and heart."

Is he looking forward to a twilight career as the Son of God?

Green guns

BAE Systems, the arms firm from over here that makes weapons to kill people over there, is in the news again after the announcement that it intends to develop environmentally-friendly weapons. When I first read this I thought it a marvellous hoax, or some Mark Thomas wheeze. Oh, what sweet satire it would be.

However, truth is more extraordinary than fiction.

I'm sure the folk hit by the lead free bullets which "can harm the environment and pose a risk to people", will be happier knowing that at least they won't get lead poisoning. And those living in war zones will be able to sleep and breathe easier with the "proposed quieter warheads to reduce noise pollution and grenades that produce less smoke".

Of course, it is preferable that any organisation should do it's utmost to reduce and minimise its impact on the environment. But for BAE to try and score some moral and ethical points over it is a measure of extreme cuntitude. It's doubtful BAE's customers will be checking the energy and environment label before buying. A kill efficiency label might be more useful.



To fit in with this new cuddly image, perhaps BAE should offer a free return and recycle bag with their weapons?

Don't worry, BAe happy

Robin Cook wrote in his 2003 autobiography, "I never once knew Number 10 to come up with any decision that would be incommoding to British Aerospace."

On the face of it, Swan Hunters' loss of the Lyme Bay to BAe in July after alleged overrun of nearly £309 million and two years late, seems reasonable (see Curly's Corner Shop for a bit of background). This is despite the landing ship project "being largely managed and supervised by 20 BAE Systems staff on-site in Newcastle" in it's last years. Obviously an inquiry is needed to clear matters up.

However, the MoD is not so punitive when it comes to Britain's favourite arms manufacturer.

The National Audit Office has reported that the contract for the new Nimrod MRA4 aircraft is £966m over cost and nearly a decade late. This is despite the fact that the Nimrods will not be new, but refurbished bodies with new wings, engines and systems. The original contract for 21 planes should have been completed in 2003. However, after 'restructuring' of the project in 2003, the number of planes went down to 18 and now only 12 planes will be renewed, and delivery is not expected until 2010 at the earliest.

The MoD's punishment for BAe's poor performance? Award the arms company with a £65m contract to maintain the current aging Nimrod fleet until the 'new' ones are finally ready.

Why does BAe get such preferential treatment?

We need goals, not gas

Conservative Party leader David Cameron's recent announcement of his support for the Climate Change Bill, shows that Labour has a long way to go both nationally and locally to catch up in the 'carbon credibility' stakes.

The Climate Change Bill, which would oblige the government to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by at least 3 per cent each year, would form the basis of a framework of policies to reduce greenhouse emissions. Whilst Mr Cameron and Friends of the Earth have called for the Bill's entry into the forthcoming Queen's Speech, the government (and our South Shields MP David Miliband) has so far failed to comment on it, despite the Bill enjoying the support of 380 MPs across the house.

Equally alarming is that South Tyneside Council's Labour cabinet has chosen to adopt a policy which aims for a reduction in its carbon emissions of only 5 per cent over 5 years. The target, set out in the Council's Carbon Management Strategy and Action Plan, is well below what other councils have already achieved.

I suppose a nice low target is easy to achieve, and once met can show the voters just how 'great' the Council is at dealing with climate change.

In typical spin-tastic style, the South Tyneside council leader Councillor Paul Waggott, whose cabinet rubber stamped the pathetic Carbon Management Strategy and Action Plan, has tried to claw back some credibility with a feeble claim that the council already uses a (single) "council vehicle powered by electricity." This is hardly ground breaking technology, which can be attested by the many milkmen in the area who have used electric floats for years.

Of course, South Tyneside Council has made significant inroads into reducing it's greenhouse emissions, with the Middlefields wind turbine and the Temple Park centre energy savings, but to achieve real reductions there needs to be a realistic and challenging target to aim for. The planet doesn't have time for political apathy.

We need big cuts in carbon dioxide. Correspondingly, we need big targets.

Digging the dirt

It seems that the East Boldon and Cleadon by-election is reaching fever pitch with the local Labour candidate desperate to rubbish political opponents. Lewis Atkinson, the new Labour 'strong local voice' candidate, has done little more than use his voice to criticise Conservative councillor David Potts (who isn't actually standing) and Lib Dem / Independent (dependent on which day of the week it seems) Alan Mordain.

Mr Atkinson is busy collecting a petition which demands an apology from the Conservatives over the recent expenses shenanigans. He says on his blog that "This is not a party-political issue." Who is he kidding? He's already trying to score political points with it, and all the signatories would make useful canvassing targets. The giveaway phrase on his petition is, "It may be used by me or the Labour Party to contact you."

Apart from the negative electioneering, I wondered, where have I heard the 'strong local voice' line before? Then it came to me, the last local election. Chris Haine of South Tyneside Green Party used it in a piece back in April when he commended Bryan Atkinson's fight to stop the second Tyne road tunnel. Although the 'strong local voice' concept is not a new one in politics, it has long formed one of the core values of the Green Party and had a place in the Party's national local election strategy in May.

So who is really going to be a strong local voice?

Church gets it in the Privates

The controversy of South Tyneside's Fellgate greenbelt and the church has reached the national press (see Church sinning green), featuring in an article in this week's Private Eye magazine. The magazine said of the Church's plans that it is "happy to make a fat pile cash out of it".

Church sinning green

A recent announcement by the Church of England that contributing to climate change is a sin should spark an immediate change in the Church's attitude to South Tyneside's Fellgate greenbelt.

The Church, in the guises of the Chapter of Durham Cathedral and the Church Commissioners for England, is pressing for the deletion of the farmland at Fellgate from the greenbelt to pave the way for a massive new industrial estate.

Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, who chairs the bishops’ environment panel said, “There is now an overriding imperative to walk more lightly upon the earth and we need to make our lifestyle decisions in that light." This was supported by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who said, "We make choices of moral significance and our relation to the environment is no exception.”

Whilst the Church should be commended for encouraging its members to lead a greener lifestyle and minimise their carbon emissions, it should put it's own house in order if it wants to maintain some credibility.

The Church owns most of the greenbelt at Fellgate, and is backing South Tyneside Council's plans to build a giant industrial estate on the site, from which the Church will no doubt make a handsome profit.

The planned industrial estate fails on all measures on environmental sustainability. The project will erode South Tyneside's greenbelt and lose ancient farmland forever. The selection of this site is specifically aimed at access by road so will only further contribute to the growth in carbon dioxide emissions by encouraging more travel by car.

The only way for the Church to avoid accusations of hypocrisy is to change its position on the Fellgate greenbelt, from being backers of environmental destruction for speculative financial gain, to champions of sustainability and conservation.

RSS consultants must fess up

South Tyneside environmental campaigner Bryan Atkinson has won an important Freedom of Information decision from the Information Commissioner regarding a complaint he made against Environmental Resources Management Ltd (ERM), related to work that ERM carried out on behalf of the North East Regional Assembly.

The Information Commissioner has ruled in favour of Mr Atkinson in a complaint that was brought on his behalf by Friends of the Earth’s Rights & Justice Centre.

The complaint resulted from ERM’s refusal to supply environmental information relating to work they carried out on the Sustainability Appraisal of the North East Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). The RSS will dictate all major planning decisions made in the North East over the next 15 years. ERM had initially refused to release the information on the grounds that as a private company it was exempt from the Environmental Information Regulations of the Freedom of Information Act.

Bryan Atkinson, who is a member of South Tyneside Friends of the Earth, said:

“This landmark ruling has positive implications for campaigners and communities up and down the country. It means public bodies such as councils and regional assemblies will not be able to suppress environmental information by sub contracting their responsibilities to the private sector.”

Phil Michaels, Head of Legal at Friends of the Earth said:

“This is an important decision. Members of the public are often unable to access important environmental information because the information is not held by a traditional public authority but by a private body carrying out an essentially public function. This decision should open the way for members of the public to get important environmental information from a range of private entities.”

The planning system is already weighted in favour of developers and their policitical backers. When public authorities employ private companies they have often protected relevant information by hiding behind 'commercial confidentiality'. This decision will at least make that a little bit harder.

Environmental justice has a cost

On Thursday, June 1st, both the Shields Gazette and Newcastle Journal reported comments by Andrew Sugden of the North East Chamber of Commerce, who criticised the granting of Legal Aid to green campaigner Bryan Atkinson for his legal challenge against the murky goings on behind the Environmental Impact Assessment for the second Tyne road tunnel.

Instead of moaning about the meagre funding granted for Bryan Atkinson's action, Andrew Sugden should aim his ire at the Tyne & Wear Passenger Transport Authority for squandering millions in public money on a folly which would prove to be an environmental catastrophe. In criticising the use of Legal Aid, the NECC is effectively declaring that access to justice should be the preserve of the rich.

Rather than being an "essential transport development", the tunnel would prove to be an environmental burden to local residents, exacerbating health problems in an area already blighted by A19 and tunnel traffic. The tunnel fails on sustainability terms - the extra traffic attracted will further contribute to the UK's growing carbon dioxide emissions at a time when we should be trying to reduce them.

The TWPTA and Government argue that the tunnel shouldn't be subject to a fully rigorous and detailed Environmental Impact Assessment. However, it's clearly in the public interest to resolve the issues behind the case, which will impact on future large-scale developments, from roads to nuclear power stations. It's paradoxical that the bigger the project, the less expectations there be from the EIA.

The TWPTA enjoys massive financial resources courtesy of the public purse, whilst a citizen without money can only oppose this juggernaut by relying on limited Legal Aid funds to cover the high cost of barristers and solicitors.

The tunnel case is a grossly unbalanced environmental David and Goliath showdown. Hopefully Legal Aid will be the sling to Bryan Atkinson's pebble.

Blair's Nuclear Legacy

Tony Blair's announcement tonight that nuclear power is "back on the agenda with a vengeance" reveals several interesting facets of his leadership.

For an issue of such national importance, he chose to reveal his pro-nuclear position to the employers' club, the CBI. Blair's last major announcement on energy in November 2005 was coincidentally at another CBI shindig. The message to the people is clear. Blair couldn't care less about the opinion of the public when it comes to important issues like energy and the environment, but makes sure that the interests of big business are pandered to.

By pre-empting the conclusions of the energy review, Blair is also saying that consultation is useless in the face of his own personal opinion. The Sustainable Development Commission has worked hard in producing a way forward in solving our energy problems without resorting to nuclear power. Jonathon Porrit must feel somewhat let down. Perhaps by being close to government Porrit felt he would have an opportunity to convey a green influence over government policy. This doesn't seem to be the case.

The drive to change the planning process to speed up the delivery of new nuclear power stations represents a shift of power from local planning authorities to the government. The planning system is already heavily weighted in the favour of developers. So much for David Miliband MP's 'practice of empowerment'.

Recent commentaries over Tony Blair's accession planning have hinted that he wants to leave a lasting legacy. Given that waste from nuclear power stations will be around in a radioactive state for tens of thousands of years, it seems that Blair's Legacy will still be here long after the Pyramids have turned to dust.