Buenos Dias amigos e amigas!

So, it was out with the “Learn Spanish” books and CDs again for me and Jan’s jaunt to Club Cojimar on Cayo Guillermo in Cuba. It was one of those all inclusive beach type holidays, not my preferred type of holiday, but I must say it was very enjoyable.

Cuba is a desperately poor country that has not had its troubles to seek, especially over the last 20 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Embargoes imposed by successive US governments since 1959, and supported by its allies, have eroded Cuba’s economy, but still the resilient Cubans struggle on.

These holiday resorts along the cayos, or keys, in the north of the country are providing necessary income for the Cuban economy. They are also providing relatively good jobs for many people from local towns and villages. However, the wages are not great for many of these folk, and they rely quite heavily on tips from holiday-makers. You can eat and drink as much as you want as part of the deal, so, if you go there carry some dosh to tip those who provide you with service.

Any unwanted clothes (in good nick) are very welcome as the costs of such things can really dig in to their income. These will always be gratefully received. Make-up for women is a luxury so if you have some lying around stick it in a bag and your chamber maid will be very pleased with you. You could stick an extra couple of new toothbrushes and a tube of toothpaste or some nice fragrant soap in your bag; again these are luxuries in Cuba and are always welcome.

The local people you meet in these resorts are not well off, but they are not desperate either. These small gifts are very welcome and can help make their day. I have to say that many of the local folk I met there were extremely likeable. Mickey, who worked in reception, is a good looking and amiable guy with a good sense of humour. Alex the rep is an excellent guy, helpful and always funny. A really nice young local fellow called Eddie was serving us at breakfast one morning and we got chatting. He apologised for his poor English … which was far better than my Spanish, let me tell you. Eddie is a student studying Tourism, a good subject for a local lad when you consider the future for that industry in Cuba. I have to say all the people who waited on us in the restaurant were really nice and were never overbearing considering they all would want a tip. I can honestly say that I never experienced anyone pressurising me for one (you know, that strained smile, or always hanging over you), that was never my experience – a friendly greeting and a handshake once they knew you – you were left to enjoy your lunch or dinner with frequent top ups of your water or wine.

The sun is very strong in Cuba (well, it is the tropics). I burned my lower legs in just a few minutes walk to the pool, thinking I would just put on the sun block when I got there. So don’t take the chance if you burn easily. I was in some pain for the next few days. Oh, don’t forget the mosquito spray, another crucial piece of kit.

The bar staff – there are two main bars in Club Cojimar, the main bar in the foyer of the hotel and the pool bar. The guys in the main bar were always entertaining, but unfortunately, some of the female bar staff were dour and not a little bit intimidating, especially the older woman at the pool bar. Her demeanour and attitude verged on the extremely rude. Going to the pool bar when she was serving became a bit like going home to my ex-wife with a tenner short in my wage packet – it just wasn’t worth the beer. What made it worse was that when Spanish folk came to the bar she would laugh and fawn over them, but when it came my turn to be served her gaze would turn in what seemed like slow motion and I swear the glasses along the bar began to frost over as she passed them by. I have no idea what I did to annoy her, but in the end I just stopped going there. As it turned out I was not the only one who felt like that.

Having a quiet beer in the foyer meant we met Stuart and Julia from Carlisle. These two helped make our holiday as they were good fun and we shared the same sense of humour. In general we had our own days but met up after dinner for some drinks or to go and watch the evening show in the amphitheatre (usually a music and dance show by the hotel’s excellent dance group). Then back to the foyer to end the evening with a couple more drinks. We also met Jacqui, a nice soft spoken Ulster woman who had been to the hotel a few times before. Jacqui has just moved to a new place in Spain and generally travels on her own.

Me and Jan went on a few of the paid excursions. We went on a snorkelling trip out into the mangroves on Cayo Coco. We had never actually used a snorkel before and I found it a bit of nuisance at first and so did Jan who says she is “a nose breather” … not good if you want to snorkel. She just went and floated around the mangrove while I abandoned the snorkel and just took a big deep breaths and stuck my head under the water. Ooooooo, all those wee fish …. Beautiful!
“Come and see the barracuda!” called the guide.
“No effing chance!” says I.
“S’okay, they’re well fed here! says he.
Yeh, on stupid fat tourists”, methinks.

I also went on the deep sea fishing trip accompanied by two other lads from another hotel, Chris and Richard, and their girlfriends, Kim and Katie. They were good fun and helped make the trip better.
The fisherman guy, I think his name was Pancho, has to snag the fish when it bites then give the rod to you.
The first catch was a large barracuda that my shipmate, Chris, caught.
Then, boy, didn’t I just get the proverbial “one that got away”?
Well, when the fish bit Pancho came over and did the snagging thing, then I sat in the chair and took the rod. Oooooh, it almost bent double so we could see that this was pretty big.
“Barracuda? “ I asked.
“Marlin”, said Pancho and the skipper started parping the boat’s horn. You don’t get to keep the fish you catch on these trips, they belong to the boat – you only pay for the fun and experience, so a marlin can be a big pay day for the guys on the boat.
I had this thing on the line for about a minute, slowly trying to bring it in, hoping for that glorious leap out of the water that you see in movies or the discovery channel … suddenly the line went slack … big disappointment all round. You know, all things considered, I am glad it got away, though I would loved to have seen it leap before it went. Ah well, at least I can say I had one on the line.
The next fish I caught was a barracuda, these things are the snarling pit-bulls of the sea. After Pancho gave it a whack, I got my photo taken holding it. It was quite a big bugger and I was glad to see the back of it when he put it in the bunker on the deck.
I think Chris had the biggest catch of the day, another really big Barracuda. Kim, Chris’s girlfriend, asked to have her picture taken with it. Pancho gave it a whack and handed it to her. I took a picture, but as Chris took his snap, the fish woke up and flapped itself from her hand. The picture (and I wish I had a copy) has the fish wide mouthed with all its huge teeth a few inches from Kim’s screaming face.
When this one was put in the bunker it went bananas and Richard went and stood on the lid of the bunker while the fish banged against it. Aggressive? Strong? And that was it out of the water and that nutcase at the snorkelling trip wanted me to go over and get up close and personal “in” the water!
I’m a fat guy, the bloody thing would’ve thought its Christmases had come all once.
“Hey, is that a barracuda bitin’ to your butt?
“Yep!”
While I was doing my Ernest Hemmingway on the high seas, retitled Fat Man and the Sea! Jan was away on a Spa Day getting pampered by massages and all sorts of stuff like that. We met up about 2 o’clock and we were both highly delighted by our day’s events.
Jan also went horse riding, and we both did some archery, were we were looked after by Gleiver, who runs the tennis courts and the archery place. He is a really nice big guy. Good looking lad too, which is probably why there seemed to be lots of young women there too when we went.

The accommodation was comfortable and we had no complaints about it at all. My only real complaint was the lack of variety of food. Our diet is essentially vegetarian, but we do eat fish occasionally. Cubans have absolutely no concept of vegetarianism. So if you are a strict veggie, you might starve as there is no jumping a fence to go to a local eatery – there are none. This meant we ate fish more often than we would have liked. No cereal for breakfast either, but this is a third world country and in such a resort it can be easy to forget that.

All in all, though, I really enjoyed being there. I got chilled and relaxed which was just what I wanted. I drank more beer and wine than I should have, but hey, I met some really nice people, English and Cuban, not many Scots there I have to say. Oh, yeh, like most other countries in the world, to Cubans, Britain/UK is England! No such places as Wales, Ireland or Scotland. They just don’t understand.
You are English?
No, Scottish.
Blank look.
Scotland … Scottish … Escocés? … Scottish … Mel Gibson … Braveheart!
Ah, Braveheart, great movie, we love that here.
Yes, Scottish!!
Blank look.
Ah well, never mind!

This latest flame!

Hi, been busy of late and not been able to write anything on the blog for a while. Working 2 part time jobs and a full time one is a bit tiring, though I did get out for a couple of beers with my cousin on Friday. Enjoyed it Tommy! Shame you couldn't make it Jim.

I have just read that China is a bit miffed at being demonised in the world. Just not fair, is it? Or is it? Let me think: 200,000 folk killed by government militias in Darfur in the last 4 years – that's nearly 1000 a week, not to mention the rapes, brutal beatings, starvation and severe injury, all of which could be stopped almost overnight by China, who have a great political influence on the affairs of Sudan ... if they wanted to. Ah, but why bother when the oil and money are pouring in? If it keeps the Sudanese government happy, just let them get on with it, eh? Why rock the gravy train?

Then, of course, there is the Tibet issue. Tibet, according to Fu Ying, the Chinese ambassador to London, is a "land "loved" by the Chinese people". Of course they love it, that's why they invaded it and made it part of their own Motherland! As you would imagine, Tibet is a land "loved" even more by the Tibetants themselves and they probably wish China would love it from afar.

"Many of those who protest have probably not been to Tibet", says Fu Ying. Of course we haven't, China makes it difficult for anyone to go visit there.

We need to be honest here, China is a country with a very poor human rights record, and it rings hollow when people who should know better bemoan the protests during the Olympic flame jaunts around the world. "It is a symbol of peace and unity", they cry, "it should be respected!"

Absolutely, my very thoughts on it too!

That's why countries with dreadful human rights records should never be allowed to hold up such a beacon, and hide their atrocities behind it. Shame on the Olympic Committee for allowing that to happen!

Keep politics out of sport, they cry. Jeez ... let me think ... sport = money => money = business => the business of money is ... "politics"! Ergo, sport "is politics", always has been, always will be!

Now we've got that straight, let us not talk of it again. Keep drugs out of sport ... now that's worth shouting about. When they sort that one out the olympics might just be worth watching.

Damn Yankies II

So, an historic agreement has been reached, according to Hilary Benn, on replacing Kyoto in 2012? It seems to me the only agreement reached was to not to agree on too much in case the American economy was damaged. The agreement is a fudge so that America, once it has had time to work out is the least they need to do, can say, "hey, look, we're doing our bit!" while actually doing very little.

The French ecology minister says: "It's a framework that is quite weak but which still moves forward ... The public can understand that we brought the United States into the negotiations." Well, did they, really?

America, Russia, Canada and Japan all need to feel some shame here. They talk about sustainability, but they obviously do not understand the basic tenets of it. Environment, Society and Economy. Politicians the world over, only serve the economy. I've said it before and I'll say it again: without a suitable environment there will be no society; without a society economy is pointless. If politicians cannot get their head round that simple fact should they be in the job? There are too many lawyers, too much business interest in politics, we as voters really need to seek out other folk who may think differently to the current lot of ne'erdowells if we are all to survive on this world with any real degree of comfort. When the crops fail; when the land we live and grow on disappears under the sea we cannot eat dollar bills (apologies to Chief Seattle).

it is still the same mantra we hrear from these guys: "technologies will save us". A greater mind than most said (I paraphrase, of course) "there is no point using the same mode of thought to solve a problem as that which created it". Relying on technology to save us is known as weak sustainability. Doing what needs to be done, even though it is difficult, is considered strong sustainability. We have been left in no doubt on which side of that little maxim our world leaders stand.


Readers interested in exploring further the issues raised may wish to reference:
“Small is Beautiful”, E F Schumacher, 1973
“On Being the Right Size”, J B S Haldane, 1928
“Goldilocks & the Three Bears”, traditional

Police Strike?

Now the police in England are looking for the right to strike over their pay award, wouldn't it be a delicious irony if their picket lines were supervised by out-of-work miners?

Damn Yankies!

Is it not time to isolate the Americans and their crass attitudes to the rest of the world? The idea that we all have to watch our planet hurtle towards catastrophe so their rotten economic system can continue to fester is ridiculous. Their behaviour, once again, in destroying consensus on environmental issues should not be tolerated. Don't think this is just another Bush idea, during Clinton's presidency there was a vote on Kyoto which was unanimously voted out of congress by 99-0 – voters included democrats. Under no circumstances will Americans allow through any binding legislation that might affect their economy. Even though America itself is being hit severely by the early and growing effects of climate change.

I believe there is no longer any point inviting Americans to any Environmental discussion table. We know their views. We must as people with the wit and wisdom to change things for the better leave America to its own devices. Yes, Americans are creating the largest impacts, but they are also reaping the negative side of environmental change more than most. I believe it won't be long before they will have no choice but to acquiesce, so let's waste no more time on them. In the meantime, we must do what we need to do and not allow America to dictate to the world anymore.

Why do we treat America and Americans differently from everyone else? A few years ago, when France resumed nuclear testing many shops, pubs and restuarants in Glasgow made a point of not selling French goods in protest – beers, wines, food etc. When the yanks said they were going to resume their nuclear tresting I asked some of the same shop, pub and restaurant owners if they were now going to stop selling coca-cola, hotdogs and budweiser etc.? They looked at me as if I was daft.

So, what is the difference? Why does the rest of the world accept so much crap from America, why do we always allow them to be treated as a special case just because they demand it? We really need to stop doing that. The future of the planet depends on it.

Don't kid yourself, what is in front of us now in the form of climate change is probably the most serious situation the human race has ever faced – I mean ever! Let us also understand that we cannot, nor will not destroy, this planet. It was here over four billion years before we arrived and it will most likely be here for around another five billion years. What is so easily destroyed is the fragile systems that allow us to live on the planet. We cannot reproduce them on the necessary scale, and when they are gone there is nowhere else for us to go.

Is the way we have chosen to live on this planet – and we can choose differently – more important than that? Is the western lifestyle worth that much? I believe there is still time to mitigate the worst effects of global warming, but I also believe that the time to do so is limited.

GOOD PLANETS ARE REALLY HARD TO FIND,

SO LET US DECIDE, ONCE AND FOR ALL,

TO LOOK AFTER THE ONLY ONE WE HAVE!

Global Warming and Climate Change: causes and possible effects

With the Summit on Climate Change being held in Bali this week here follows a few of the issues concerning causes of and possible effects of climate change due to global warming.

Weather and Climate
A distinction must be made at the outset in the difference between climate and weather as it is a common fallacy to confuse the two.

Weather is the day to day atmospheric conditions at a location or region: temperature, precipitation, wind, humidity etc.

Climate is the atmospheric conditions of a location over a much longer period of time. Changes in weather can be dramatic, but changes in climate are usually more subtle. Climate is determined by long term weather patterns in a location or region by values of certain atmospheric elements. These are:

• Air temperature
  
• Humidity
  
• Type and amount of cloud


• Type and amount of precipitation


• Air pressure


• Wind speed and direction
  

A change to one weather element may provide the impetus for changes in other elements. A change in average temperatures in a climate region, for example, may increase cloud cover and precipitation. If these changes are prolonged over a period of time it will change the climate values for that element. Simplistically, Global Climate is the mean of long term local weather patterns around the world. So, while weather and climate are different, they are inter-related and changes in weather patterns over time can indicate a change in climate in that region.

Global Climate Change is a process brought about by prolonged changes to the values of atmospheric elements on a global scale. Increases or decreases in the mean temperature of the Earth will affect most weather elements and is a trigger for climate change.

Scotland and its Climate
Scotland is a small country with a population of around 5 million people; more than half the population live around the central belt. The country has a temperate climate due to the North Atlantic Oscillation which flows to the west and north from The Gulf of Mexico to Iceland. January and February are usually Scotland’s coldest months with average daytime temperatures of 5 to 7°C (Meteorological Office, 2005). It is the exception for temperatures to fall below -5 or -6°C, and then it is usually inland and away from the moderating coastal areas. In recent years winters have been less severe and shows a falling trend over the last six years in the twenty-year mean of the Hospital Degree Day calculations (18.5°C).

The Greenhouse Effect, Global Warming and Climate
Greenhouse Effect
In 1824, the Frenchman Jean-Baptiste (Joseph) Fourier predicted an atmospheric Effect which keeps the mean temperature of the planet higher than it would normally be. This Effect later became known as the greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse analogy is a simplified view of a complex process. However, the balance of gases in our atmosphere (Table 1) creates a state “similar” to that of a greenhouse; the glass (atmosphere) allows solar radiation through, mainly in the visible end of the spectrum, but it traps the redirected longwave infrared radiation allowing the greenhouse (Earth) to heat up; temperature, humidity are regulated and the environment created within is right for things to grow which is likely why the term “greenhouse effect” was used to describe it.

However, the term “greenhouse effect” used in this context is a misnomer. Although the commonly understood mechanism of trapping longwave radiation by the glass does occur, greenhouses heat up mainly due to the sunlight warming the earth inside the greenhouse, and the glass enclosure prevents heat loss by convection. However, because there is no convection from planet Earth to outer space, the major heating effect in a greenhouse cannot apply. So, while “Greenhouse Effect” is not a correct term, it is the most commonly used one and it will continue to be used here.

Changes to the balance of gases in the atmosphere are believed by many scientists to be responsible for the noted increase the global temperature, though this is still a contentious issue in some quarters. This has become known as an enhanced, or anthropogenic, greenhouse effect and the resultant increase in the mean global temperature is a driver for Climate Change. Various constituents of the Earth’s atmosphere, notably carbon dioxide, are responsible for absorbing longwave radiation. In 1750 the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was 278ppm and by 1998 this had risen to 365ppm (IPCC, 1998); in 2007 it stands at 381ppm (IPCC, 2007). Due the length of time between these reports, there are some scientists who believe the level is much higher than this now (they may be correct).

Greenhouse Gases (a little of the science)
The natural gases in the atmosphere affecting the Greenhouse balance are: Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Water Vapour and Ozone (O3). Other contributing gases are: Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6) and Chlorofluorocarbons (CFxCLx). Greenhouse gases are not limited to this list, and it is significant to note in Table 1 that they are all trace elements in the atmosphere. The major constituents of our atmosphere, Nitrogen and Oxygen do not contribute to the greenhouse effect because homonuclear diatomic atoms such as N2 and O2 do not absorb infrared. The reason for this is that there is no net change to the dipole moment of these atoms.

If the natural greenhouse gases did not exist in our atmosphere then the temperature at the surface of the Earth would be much lower than it is now. The total quantity of solar radiation (Qs) the surface of the planet receives is given as:

[1] Qs = πR^2•S(1-A)
where R is the radius of the planet (6380 x 10^3m) S is the solar constant(1.37kW/m^2) and A is the albedo of the earth (reflection of solar energy from atmosphere, clouds, icefields, deserts etc.) which is around 29% of all solar energy reaching the Earth (Kushnir, 2000). The albedo effect referred to here is the "Bond" Albedo which is the total radiation reflected from an object compared to the total incident radiation from the Sun. This is different from the "Geometric" Albedo which is defined as the amount of radiation relative to that from a flat Lambertian surface which is an ideal reflector at all wavelengths (de Pater and Lissauer, 2001). The Bond Albedo is probably a truer representation of the Earth’s reflective properties.

Our atmosphere notwithstanding, the received solar radiation heats the surface of the earth to what is known as the Effective Temperature (Te). We may assume that the Earth acts as a black body emitting radiation in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which states that all radiation emits according to:

[2] Qr = σ • Te^4

where Qr is the total emitted radiation (W/m^2);
σ = Boltzmann Constant = 5.670 x 10^-8 J K^-4 m^-2 s^-1

This means that the total emission of infrared radiation (Qr) for the planet’s surface is given by:

[3] Qr = 4πR^2•σ•Te^4

The radiation emitted is a function of the surface temperature, and the temperature at the Earth’s surface is primarily in the infra-red region. However, in steady state there is a balance between incoming and emitted radiation, and by combining equations [1] and [2] we get:

[4] Te= [(S(1-A)/4 σ)] ^1/4

The result is, Te = 253K (-20°C). This would be the temperature of the Earth without a Greenhouse Effect – too cold for life as it has evolved on Earth. Fortunately, Earth has an atmosphere that provides the planet with an effect that absorbs some of the infrared radiation emitted from the surface, which raises the mean temperature of the planet to 288K (15°C) mainly due to the CO2 component.

Global Warming/Cooling
Throughout the 20th century an appreciable increase in global temperatures from the 288K (15°C ) has been detected by climatologists and other scientist. There are some disagreements as to the value of the increase, but the general consensus is that it is between 0.4-0.7°C (IPCC, 2004). There are two main periods during that time where the temperature increase was at its greatest: 1910-1945, and from 1976 till the present (Gore, 2006).

The first period appears to correspond to a dramatic increase in steel production mainly for armaments for two world wars, but there was also a massive increase in steel construction for ship building, bridge building, office, retail and domestic buildings and rail infrastructures. Coal mining was at its peak during this period. Indeed Sallie Baliunas (1998), in contradicting the consensus view of climate change, points out that some climate models show a greater increase in global temperatures before 1940 than after, when there was a greater increase in greenhouse gases. There have been major changes in the world economy since the 1960s. At the height of the Cold War, the birth of the petro-dollar saw a massive increase in manufacturing output (Elwood, 2001). Demand for cheap consumer goods in the affluent north helped drive new industries. The huge increase in car ownership and the decrease in quality of public transport may all have contributed to a huge rise in emissions of CO2, NOx and SOx from the combustion of fossil fuels. While Baliunas may be correct in highlighting the differences in temperature changes before and after 1940, it would be prudent to show caution when using short term models to identify long term changes in global temperatures.

Opposing Views on Climate Change
There are few who would challenge the current view that the mean global temperature is increasing (Mann et al., 1998, 1999), and the scientific consensus is that the change is due to anthropogenic interference (IPCC, 2004). Opposing views, however, which cite Nature as the main contributor to the variability of the present climate are many (Soon and Baliunas, 2003; Michaels, 2005; Singer, 1998; Lomborg, 1998). The aforementioned, among others, cite long term cycles of the sun as a radiative forcing which can increase solar output thereby increasing the solar budget of the Earth (Baliunas, 1998). For instance the Science and Environmental Policy Project when outlining the key environmental issues declares:

“Computer models forecast rapidly rising global temperatures, but data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever. Nevertheless, these same unreliable computer models underpin the Global Climate Treaty, negotiated at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro "Earth Summit," and are the driving force behind United Nations efforts to force restrictions on the use of oil, gas, and coal” (SEPP, 2006).

What it fails to address is that while data from satellites do show less warming than data from surface measurements, these satellites gather data from different slices of the atmosphere, including the stratosphere where ozone depletion creates a cooling effect. However, surface thermometers take temperature readings from the air close to the ground. Also, surface records exist from around 1860 while satellite records exist from only 1979. Over such a short period of time trends can be greatly affected by extreme conditions e.g. eruptions like Mount Saint Helens or Mount Pinatubo which can lower global temperatures for short periods (UCS, 2002).

Scientists such as those working with the IPCC agree that there is still much uncertainty, but urge a precautionary approach to the problem of global warming. Those who disagree or doubt that global warming is caused by increases in greenhouse gases appear to show more concern for the global economy. They believe that reducing emissions may cause more harm through economic depression. For this reason, many proclaim that there is little need for reducing CO2 and other greenhouse emissions (Baliunas, 1998). This researcher takes the precautionary view and supports the IPCC claims for the need to reduce emissions of such gases.

Reason for Caution
While temperature changes of 0.4°C and 0.7°C appear very small, it should be understood that the Little Ice Age experienced by Britain and parts of northern Europe between the 14th and 19th centuries occurred with less than 1°C reduction in mean global temperature. The mean global temperature during the last full ice age that saw thousands of metres of ice-cover across the northern hemisphere was less than 6°C lower than today. So it can take relatively small increases or reductions in mean temperatures to create significant climate change. Some scientists believe that a rise of 2°C could bring the planet to the climate “Tipping Point” (Hansen, 2006) resulting in accelerating temperature rises with catastrophic effects for humans and many other species.

Climate Change
Past, Present and Possible Futures
Arguments and disagreements over contemporary climate models notwithstanding, geologists have thrown up some dramatic theories on the historical instances of rapid climate change and its impact on life on the planet. Some geologists have ascertained that increases of this magnitude have occurred before with devastating effects.

Excessive increases in CO2 in the past have been shown to affect the Greenhouse balance hugely, as have excess emissions of Methane (CH4). CH4 is 21 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Increased CO2 levels in pre-history are attributed to volcanism. However, the sharp and continuing rise since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is seen as too much of a coincidence to be anything other than anthropogenic.

Changes in one aspect of the atmosphere can have impacts elsewhere. Increases in land and ocean temperatures can create positive feedback loops, which continue to amplify the initial effect, which could possibly result in the release of methane from tundra or ocean floors.

Methane is stored in tundra permafrost, and the ocean floor as methane hydrate. An organic hydrate is a fixed composition, or a stoichiometric compound, that has water molecules as an integral part of the crystalline structure. For such compounds a definite formula can be written. However, a definite formula cannot be written for an organic structure such as methane hydrate because there may be other “guest” gases contained within the structure. For that reason, natural gas hydrates are more suitably classed as non-stoichiometric compounds known as clathrates. A clathrate is, essentially, where the molecules of one substance are contained within the crystalline structure of another; usually consisting of gas molecules, normally methane, each surrounded by a cage of water molecules. The deposits of ice-like crystals trap natural gases under conditions of high pressure and low temperature and are found mainly in sea-floor sediments and permafrost.

It is interesting to note that in the Earth’s ancient atmosphere there was very little or no oxygen, and a lot of carbon dioxide. Under the influence of sunlight (UV and visible) reactions, similar to photosynthesis, among various organic molecules produced oxygen as a by-product – or in real terms, as a pollutant. O2 concentration increased as CO2 concentration dropped. As this change to the atmosphere came about, other reactions occurred using up the oxygen until eventually a balance was struck between O2 and CO2. This balance appears to be a delicate one. Life on Earth as we know it has evolved to survive within an arrangement of biomes all of which together create the greater ecosystem that gives the Earth the ability to support such a complex system of living organisms which includes homo-sapiens – us. It is a little odd then, that most life forms now depend on the pollutants created from the initial solar-radiation inspired chemical reactions within the “primordial soup”.

Possible Temperature Rises in the Next Century
There is a scientific view that a “methane burp” from the oceans in the late Palaeocene epoch, around 55 million years ago, caused a mass extinction of life on earth (Lynas, 2004). The Palaeocene extinction was not as great as the one 251 million years ago which brought the Permian epoch to an end – geological evidence from the earliest Triassic period, which immediately followed the Permian, shows a series of massive volcanic eruptions in what we now know as Siberia (Benton, 2003). Massive releases of CO and CO2 led to a rapid warming of the planet which appears to have destabilised the superconcentrated clathrates leading to the release of methane into the atmosphere. The black mudstone which forms the Permo-Triassic border is evidence of anoxia, or the lack of oxygen (Benton, 2003) which may have been responsible for the largest extinction in the history of the planet. This may have been the result of normal negative feedback systems* being overwhelmed or reaching a tipping point which allowed the release of methane on a massive scale due to heating of the oceans through global warming. The rise in global temperature at that period, which lead to a positive feedback loop, is estimated to have been 6°C (Benton, 2003) – the IPCC predicted in its early Assessment Reports an increase in global temperatures of between 2-6°C in the 21st century (IPCC, 1990,1995). These first reports concluded that “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernable human influence on global climate.”

• * In nature, Negative Feedback maintains stability within a system – one operator within a system tends to negate another e.g. natural pest control: predator feeds on pest keeps pest numbers down; eating too many pests reduces food-stock; reduces predator numbers maintaining homoeostasis. Positive feedback creates imbalances in a system and can create serious problems, this works similar to a microphone and speakers system where the feedback of sound creates a sound loop (known onomatopoetically as wow) which rises until either the microphone or amplifier is removed from the system. Positive and negative in this sense are the antithesis of how the words are used in everyday English.

The IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (IPPC, 2001) predicted an increase of around 10°C by 2100 and stated: “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the Earth's warming observed in the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” The report is one of the more comprehensive studies of global warming to date and was approved unanimously. Scientists at the International Annual Conference and General Assembly of the Climate Alliance in Berlin in June 2003 appeared to agree with the IPCC’s model and concluded that temperatures could rise by between 7-10°C in the same period. If this is so then a release of a huge amount of methane could be possible. There are a number of estimates as to the amount of gas hydrates there are. The Benfield Hazard Research Centre (BHRC) point to the “consensus value” of several independent estimations of 10,000 gigatonnes (Gt). However, others estimate the value that best reflects current knowledge of submarine gas hydrate to be in the range of 500-2500Gt (Milkov and Sassen, 2002; Milkov, 2004).

Possible Implications for Human Societies
As previously mentioned, clathrates form under conditions of high pressure and low temperature and are usually stable in deep ocean floor sediments. These hydrates can cement and support loose sediments on the ocean floor in a surface layer hundreds of meters thick. If the hydrates are released these layers may collapse or slip causing tsunamis not unlike the one in the Indian Ocean on 26 December 2004. Geologist point to the Storegga Slide, a similar occurrence around 7,000 years ago, on the ocean floor between Iceland and Norway. An area of continental shelf, around the size of Wales with a total volume of 5,600km3 slipped causing a 20m tsunami which wiped out Neolithic communities on the north-east coast of Scotland (Maslin, 2004), and most likely the west coasts of Scandinavian countries as well. If such a slide happened today the damage to life and the environment would be colossal.

Temperature may have an effect on gas hydrates, but a more efficient way of destabilising gas hydrates on the sea floor is to remove pressure from it (Maslin, 2003). For instance, when a land-based icesheet melts and is removed, the underlying crust begins to move upwards as the weight is removed. This would be the same for a huge icesheet in shallow waters sitting and exerting its weight on the sea floor, but not for icesheets where the weight is supported by deep water. This upward movement is known as isostatic rebound and this can be seen in Britain where the north of Scotland is rising at a rate of around 3mm a year while the south of England is sinking at around 2mm per year. In short, the British mainland is tilting from the NW to the SE. This rebound will affect the continental shelf, and as offshore isostatic rebound occurs the sea level above the continental shelf becomes lower. This means that there will be less weight and pressure on the marine sediment, therefore the possibility exists of huge amounts of methane being quickly released. We are, at present, witnessing huge areas of icesheet melting on Greenland and Antarctica, and if these assumptions are correct on historical environmental occurrences, then it may be time to look seriously at how to reverse the effects of wasteful societies.

References
Baliunas S (1998) Hot Times or Hot Air: The Sun in the Science of Global Warming, George C. Marshall Institute, Washington, D.C.
Benton, M.J (2003) When Life Nearly Died, the greatest mass extinction of all time, Thames and Hudson, UK
de Pater, I, Lissauer, J, (2001) Planetary Sciences, Cambridge University Press, UK.
Elwood, W (2001) No-nonsense Guide to Globalization, New Internationalist Publications Ltd., UK
Gore, A (2006) Earth in the Balance: ecology and the human spirit, Rodale Books, USA
Hansen, JE, (2006) Can We Still Avoid Dangerous Human-Made Climate Change?, Social Research: An International Quarterly of Social Sciences, Volume 73, Number 3, 949 – 974, USA
Hill, L. Griffiths, O.W, Flack, M (1916) The Measurement of the Rate of Heat-Loss at Body Temperature by Convection, Radiation, and Evaporation, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Containing Papers of a Biological Character, Vol. 207, pp183-220. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0264-3960%281916%29207%3C183%3ATMOTRO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C (accessed 17 May 2007)
IPCC – International Panel on Climate Change (1990) First Assessment Report, International Panel on Climate Change, Switzerland
IPCC – International Panel on Climate Change (1995) Second Assessment Report, International Panel on Climate Change, Switzerland
IPCC – International Panel on Climate Change (1998) Radiative Forcing Report 1994, updated (1998) by IPCC
IPCC – International Panel on Climate Change (2001) Third Assessment Report, International Panel on Climate Change, Switzerland
IPCC – International Panel on Climate Change (2004) Workshop on Climate Sensitivity, held on July 26-29, Paris.
Kushnir, Y (2000) Solar Radiation and the Earth's Energy Balance, Columbia University, USA
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~kushnir/MPA-ENVP/Climate/lectures/energy/index.html (last accessed May 2007)
Lomborg, B (1998) The Skeptical Environmentalist, Cambridge University Press, UK
Mann, M.E. Bradley R.S. and. Hughes M.K (1999) "Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations". Geophysical Research. Letters, Vol.26, pp.759-762.
Maslin, M.A.. Owen, M, Day, s, Long, D (2004) Linking continental Slope Failure to Climate Change: testing the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis, Geology, 32, No.1 pp53-56
Meteorological Office (2005) Office of UK Meteorological Studies,
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/ climate/uk/location/scotland/index.html (last accessed May 2007).
Michaels P.J. (2005) Shattered Consensus, Rowman and Littlefield, USA
Mikov, , A.V, Sassen, R (2002) Economic Geology of Offshore Gas Hydrate Accumulations and Provinces, Marine and Petroleum Geology, 19, pp1-11
Milkov, A.V, (2004) Global estimates of hydrate-bound gas in marine sediments: how much is really out there? Earth-Science Reviews, 66, 183-197.
PEFEX (2005) NHSScotland Property and Environmental Forum Annual Report for 2004, Glasgow, Scotland, Gt. Britain
SEPP – Science and Environmental Policy Project (2006) Key Issues http://www.sepp.org/ (accessed 13 august 2007)
Singer S.F. (1998) Hot Talk Cold Science: global warming’s unfinished debate, The Independent Institute, USA
Soon W and Baliunas S, (2003), Lessons and Limits of Climate History: was the 20th Century climate unusual? George C. Marshall Institute, Washington, D.C. USA
UCS – Union of Concerned Scientists (2002) Fact v Fiction on Climate Change, UCS, Cambridge MA, USA.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/fact-vs-fiction-on-climate-change.html (last accessed May 2007).

BBC Your Views

After the BBC website moderators "rejected for publication" my questioning of the competence of some of the people in charge of important institutions in Britain (see my last post), the moderators thought the statement below concerning the episode of the bear named Mohammed was fair comment. The fact that 53 people sympathised with this viewpoint quite saddens me.

Added: Saturday, 1 December, 2007, 18:18 GMT 18:18 UK

Bomb Sudan!


Delia Smith, Danzig

Recommended by 53 people

Lessons to be Learned?

The following is a note I sent to "Have Your Say" on the BBC website and was rejected as unsuitable by the moderator.

The question asked was: "Menezes: what lessons should be learned".
The phrase, "Lessons Will Be Learned", appears to me to be a modern catchphrase to offset criticisms of those who have responsibility for public health and safety. It is a phrase that makes everything all right, no matter how severe or damaging the failure of those in authority. I don't buy it any more. The same things keep happening over and over again. Lessons are not learned! However, the BBC thinks we should not voice such views.


My, rejected, view on this was:

Every time a child dies under social work supervision ...lessons will be learned; people dying through incompetent management of our rail system ...lessons will be learned; incompetent bankers costing the UK billions ...lessons will be learned; innocent civilians killed by armed police ...lessons will be learned; pollution through incompetent senior management ...lessons will be learned.
Do we actually employ anyone in Britain at senior level capable of knowing what their job actually entails?

I thought it was fair comment.

Burma

I said some time ago that people have more power than they think they have, and that we can affect change just about anywhere in the world if we really wished to. In a world were we are encouraged to feel hopelessly inadequate to changing anything without the support of politicians this may sound far-fetched. However, let's look at China. If it really wanted to, China could, overnight, put an end to the brutality and injustices inflicted on the Burmese people by an unelected military junta. However, it refuses to do so as it suits them to have the junta in power there. So, we can all go jump in a river ... what you gonna do about it anyway?

If those in power will not confront the problems we want them to then us ordinary folk have the power to force the issues. If we really want people to be free to decide their own fates within their own countries, to have real power and self-determination, then we need to offer them our help. You don’t actually need to go on marches, you don’t need to gather outside the gates of embassies, though these always help send the message to brutal dictatorships that their actions are being watched.

All governments, whether elected or dictatorial regimes, need money, lots of it, and much of that money is ours, is in our pockets and bank accounts and we can spend it anyway we want! China is an emerging economy, potentially a great one, but it requires people around the world to purchase their goods and services to drive that emerging economy. If China won’t use its power to return self-determination to those people who suffer under regimes supported by them then we can easily put pressure on China by refusing to buy, even for just one month, goods with “Product of" or "Made in China” on the label.

If enough people agreed to do this then I suggest China will begin to listen to these requests very quickly. I mean, do you really need that new television today, that new fridge now, can the old ones last a month or two more? That’s all it takes, enough people just to put off buying particular goods and services for a relatively short period of time to affect economies of countries and regimes who don’t want to listen to the majority view, who threaten and treat people with contempt. Their power is only that which we give to them, through our fear, our money and our compliance. China is only a point in question now, it could be any country, or even a transnational company. We have the power, if we wish, to dictate to them.

Just so you know, I am not against the idea of a global economy, I am simply against how the present model of a global economy works and is used. It is unfair, the strong abuse the weak, and it is used to create powerful elites.

I want to see a true global economy where the strong cannot dictate to the weak, where the International Monitory Fund is abolished and a true World Bank is brought into existence to allocate funds to struggling economies without them having to be subservient to western interest; a Bank which would isolate cruel dictatorships so they could not survive for long. We actually have the power to make these things happen by spending our money wisely and not supporting dictatorships just so we can have the latest gizmos today.

Ballot boxes aside, how we spend our money, our consumer power, gives us a real say if we choose to stick together on these kind of issues. It all depends, I suppose, in just what kind of world we want to live in.

1984? Orwell could never have guessed!

As a life-long socialist I was overjoyed when Labour ousted the tories in 1997. The "New" bit on the party name worried me a little, but "things could only get better", yes? Ah, naivety, for could they have gotten any worse?

How could we have allowed such an erosion of civil liberties in Britain? Blair and his sheep have presided over some of the most right-wing assaults on British culture. for instance, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) allows the government to access anyone's electronic communications with very little restrictions. This infringes the privacy of correspondance in a way most of us would not tolerate if it was normal paper mail. This Act allows the government to:

• demand that an ISP provides access to a customer's communications in secret;
• mass surveillance of communications in transit;
• demand ISPs fit equipment to facilitate surveillance;
• demand that someone hands over keys to protected information;
• monitor people's internet activities

This Act runs counter to Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights were: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence".

We can have our phones tapped but MPs are to remain immune to this; they now also want their business as MPs to be excluded from freedom of information rules. A woman was arrested for reading out the names of members of the armed forces killed in Iraq; you're not allowed to demonstrate against the government within 1km of parliament without permission, which is not usually given these days. If you are given permisson to demonstrate, and even if you are being peaceful, you can be herded into a sidestreet, cordoned off by a ring of police so you can't leave without being arrested ... for hours on end ... no chance of your granny or your kids going to the toilet. Yes, that'll teach us! Thatcher at her worst never went that far, though she would probably have liked to.

We are now the most watched population on the planet. One camera for every 14 citizens, the like doesn’t exist anywhere in the world. Banks have been given sovereignty over our money. Almost no-one can be paid for their honest toil without having a bank account, even if you don't want one. Those on benefits can only be paid if the have a bank account, and will soon have to pay banks from their pittance to withdraw that money. Now we will have to pay many hundreds of pounds to own an ID card that will have incredible amounts of personal information on it (DNA, fingerprints and so on) with assurances that it will be secure, even though almost every computer system this government has introduced has been atrociously inept.

ID cards can and will be forged so they will not protect anyone from anything, but will produce an incredible database with information on everything about everyone in Britain ... well, those that are daft enough to give that information. Of course there are idiots who say: "if you've got nothing to hide why worry?" Well mate I do have something to hide, my privacy! If you think my privacy is something I should lay open to the world then I suggest you walk naked into the middle of your own street squat down and have a dump! Then go back to your home and rip the curtains and shutters from your windows, let the neighbours watch you pick your nose while watching tv or have sex with your partner on the sofa with all the lights on ... you're right, of course, these things are no-one's business but your own. Well, so too is my bloodtype, DNA, fingerprints, bank details, debt information, friends past and present, and all the silly things I may have said and done as a boy (or man). You can't cherry-pick what parts of some-one's life can or can't remain personal to them. The government may ask me for them but I demand the right to say they can or can't have it! Orwell himself could never have guessed that 1984 would have become the hidden manifesto of the Labour Party?

The idea, it is said, is to keep us safe from terrorists. ID cards did not stop acts of terrorism in countries that legally enforce the carrying of such documentation and they will not stop it here either. All they do is give those in power vast databases of information on the populace. Even if those in power now who advocate this were the most reasonable folk in the world, and they certainly are not, who knows who will be in power on 10-20 years from now?

I've had a few run-ins with the BNP in the past. I certainly would not like those fascist bastards to have access to my personal information should the English ever vote them into power ... not likely, but no beyond the bounds of possibility either.

Also, am I the only one to find it a bit weird that the guy who almost pathologically pursued the camera on every street corner policy is a blind man?

This is a government who sent our young people to war illegally on lies. Then tried to excuse it by saying that a dictator had been removed (from the powerful position the west had put him in). They ignored his brutality while it suited them, and made use of it when it did not. There are other more brutal dictatorships in the world that they choose to ignore. Are we to continue to accept their lies and ignore their foul deeds?

In February 2003 over a million people marched on the streets of London in protest; on the same day over 100,000 marched on the streets of Glasgow (equivalent to the London march per capita). What I can never forgive Blair for was that he brought forward his talk to a conference in Glasgow that day so that he would be gone by the time the Glasgow march arrived at the conference centre. What an act of political cowardice, especially when he demanded my son and thousands of others put their lives at risk to be in Iraq based on his lies. Incidentally, I will never forgive the BBC either for using cutaways of the protest march during the showing of his speech on the evening news to make it look like he was inside the building talking when we were outside. Another diabolical lie! That day the Labour party also ejected members from the conference who wore protest badges and sashes (which was their democratic right to do), and we all watched 2 years later when Walter Wolfgang was also forceably removed from the annual conference for telling Jack Straw he was talking nonsense. It seems the truth is anathema to the Labour party these days. What a disgrace the party has become.

Who can forget the ring of tanks around Heathrow weeks before the decision to go to war? Even if there was a terrorist threat, which it turned out there wasn't, what would a ring of tanks have done. Ah, but scare the populace and you can get anything you want, even an illegal war! Don't be surprised that Brown has chosen to continue Blair's Iraq fiasco. After all, he was the man who found all the money for him to do it!

Add to all of that the number of Blair's cronies who have been sacked for fraud, corruption, lies, ineptitude (some more than once) and now those who are being primed for appearances in court for cash for honours scandal; maybe even Blair himself once he is no longer protected by Prime ministerial privilege. The depressing thing is, those who would replace him are no better, whatever party they come from.

Ten years on, I am more glad to see the back of Blair than I was to see the front of him. I am so fed up with the condescending halfwits that demand we allow them to run our lives, even those who can't make a decent go of their own.

Politics is dead in Britain. It is the domain of the inept, the greedy and the corrupt. Maybe it is time for a huge amount of decentralisation, a devolvement of power and determination to local communities. Oh, but of course, we're too stupid to make decisions for ourselves, aren't we?

Musical blogs

Hey, did you see the new music bloggy thing in the right hand panel. I've got some albums uploaded to it and you can play them by selecting the relevant playlist. There's some Bob Dylan, Neil Young; Carol King and Joni Mitchell. there's also some ZZ Top for the more heavy minded and yes the great Cat Stevens. You need to click the library flyout above the albums to use it. Click on the radio or click on a playlist, clicking on the album covers doesn't work.
I have stuck a whole pile of classical stuff on my radio. If I can get my microphone to work I might try my hand at creating wee radio shows just for fun.

Joe

not been here for a while!

Been a wee while since I wrote anything for this, mainly because I had nothing much to say. Got really fed up with my PhD and kind of made up my mind to quit. Someone must have let my supervisor know because he got me more teaching work to do to get me back into the uni. I began to get my head back into it and now I am nearly at the end, which is proving to be the hardest bit of all. I am still regretting the lost time, though.
Last week it was all quite clear in my head what I wanted to write for my last main chapter, but this week ... it just won't come out.
Add to that, the fact I have suddenly become hooked on Shania Twain albums and can't get the woman's voice out of my head, and you just know things have taken a weird turn. Still, there are many more horrible things to have in your head than the gorgeous Shania Twain. Funny thing, though, except for a few songs that cross the boundary, I always had a dislike of country music, but for some bizarre reason it seems to soothe my fevered brow at the moment. Och, I suppose it's easy to listen to.

My poor MP3 player doesn't know what is going on: Pink Floyd, Led Zep, The Who, The Doors ... all gone and Shania says she's "keepin me forever and for always". Oooooo!
Jan gave me a funny look the other day as I "two-stepped" into the kitchen while listening to music on my MP3. She knows my normal musical taste and must have thought, "how you dosy-doh to shine on you crazy diamond?" Ah, stress ... isn't it a wonderful thing!
Oh well, need to get back to work, and thanks, Shania, you are correct I can only go UP from here!

What is Sustainable Development?

I was asked the other day just what is sustainable development, how does it affect me?

What follows is a basic look at what sustainable development is where it came from and why it is important.
The 1987 United Nations Commission on Environment and Development, sometimes referred to as the Bruntland Commission, highlighted the fact that economic development often meant deterioration in the quality of many people's lives, not improvement. The Commission's Report, Our Common Future, states that Sustainable Development is:

development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs.

It is intended to highlight that sustainable development is not about aiming for huge profits, that what we should aim for are higher standards of living for all, not the few. In essence, take what we need without exceeding the natural capacity for renewing the resources we use, and not polluting the planet beyond what nature can absorb.

The Commission's Report prompted the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro where the nations of the World agreed the Global Action Plan for the 21st-century: AGENDA 21.

Agenda 21 recognises that humans depend on the Earth to sustain our lives. This might appear obvious, but human behaviour over the last few centuries seems to indicate that we have forgotten this important fact.

Think Global :: Act Local

Agenda 21 also recognises that environmental stress is linked to human activity and that if we act at a local level to rectify matters collectively local actions will have global impacts.

Another important feature of sustainable development is social inclusion; local people must be involved in local decision making pertaining to the development of their own communities otherwise these developments will not be sustainable. In Scotland, every local authority has, or should have, a Local Agenda 21 officer.

Key Issues
Depleting and degrading natural resources. In time, nature will renew important resources. Using resources more quickly than they can be renewed is unsustainable. Many of the natural resources important to us rely on the planet's biological diversity to aid the natural cycles, therefore a diminishing biodiversity is not conducive to sustainability. Protecting biodiversity is crucial to sustainable development.

There are many key issues pertaining to development that need to be resolved:

• Use of Energy Resources
• Water Resources and stress through pollution and mismanagement
• Land Use and Soil degradation
• Fisheries, aquatic and marine
• Minerals and Extraction
• Forest and Timber issues

Pollution is another key issue; this affects:

• The Atmosphere
• Land and Soil
• Rivers, Lakes and Groundwater Aquifers
• Oceans.

Pollution has many sources most of which are anthropogenic (man made), and it can have direct health effects on humans too.

There are Social Issues that also need to be addressed such as:

• Population Growth
• War and Social Unrest
• Poverty and Hunger
• Water Stress
• Impacts of Globalisation (Free Market Economy)
• Social Justice
• Education
• Urbanisation
• Disease

These are all huge problems some must be resolved at a global level; many others locally.

There are three main pillars to sustainable development: Environment, Society and Economy. Each of the three is required to serve the other two equally if sustainability is to be achieved and all of us are to live in relative comfort. Too often, however, economy appears to take precedence over the other two. It needs to be reiterated that sustainability and affordability are not the same. Economically, one may not follow the other. The economist, Lester R Brown, puts it quite succinctly in his book, Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth.

Ecological Footprinting (EF) as a sustainability tool uses economic terms of reference such as Capital and Interest. Earth's resources are the natural capital and the renewability of these resources are the interest we get from them. Mathis Wackernagal and William Rees (originators of EF) use the analogy of the water barrel. The full barrel of water being Earth's natural capital which is renewed by natural precipitation – rain. If we put a tap on the barrel to drain off the water for our own use, then where the tap is situated will determine whether or not or use of the water is sustainable. For instance if we put the tap near the bottom of the barrel we will take out more water than nature puts in. However, if we put the tap near the top we would be restricted to use only what nature can replace and therefore get sustainable use of the water – the barrel won't run dry, especially if we maintain and look after it so it doesn't leak.

This is just a simple and basic view of economics, but it does highlight how we approach our use of natural resources. We must re-learn to live off the interest on our capital, not the capital itself.
Sustainability requires us to pass on, at least, the same amount of natural stock we inherited to the next generation. Wherever possible we must seek to enhance this natural capital stock as the next generations will be larger than ours.

Today we are witnessing more and more the effects of being unsustainable: changing climates due to carbon releases, increased frequency and intensity of storms, hurricanes and typhoons, photochemical smogs in cities, land, waterways and seas poisoned by agricultural chemical runoff, desertification of land, soil erosion, famine, water stress in many countries, wars for oil – wars over water rights are not far away; large scale species extinctions and huge reductions in biodiversity; greater urban sprawls, poverty, lack of social and environmental justice; oceans under stress, and the complete collapse of fisheries.

All of the above are caused by humans and our societies. Too often we may say to ourselves: “it’s only me, no-one will notice”. Well, there are six and a half billion “only me’s” on the planet and we are all beginning to notice.

We have many of the answers, we just need to act on what we know and live our lives in a sustainable manner.

Think Global :: Act Local

Questioning My Reaction to the Naqib

Lately I have been asking some questions of myself about how I feel about some of the recent issues on Islam. 30 years ago I lived in a community with a large Asian population in the west end of Glasgow; it was a vibrant and reasonably integrated place to live, at least that’s how I saw it. I now live in another similar community south of the River Clyde and, unfortunately, the feeling in this community is not the same.

The reason I have had to ask questions of myself and my attitudes to some of these issues is this: I am in my 50s now, and having lived closely with many people from many places (even Edinburgh), I had only seen the naqib on very few occasions. In the last year it is appearing much more in my community, and before Jack Straw intervened I was having a problem with “the veil”.

It made me uncomfortable even when I did not know the person wearing it. Why was this? What is it about the veil that made me uncomfortable? Other religious symbols and clothing have never bothered me. If fact, they highlight welcome changes in our communities. So why was I reacting to the naqib in a negative way?

There are many arguments now about this; barriers between peoples etc. While we westerners may believe there to be a case for that, the people who wear the hijab do not feel that it is a barrier. They see it as a symbol of their religion and culture and so should we; maybe there should be a case for that too in any tolerant society. As someone who believes himself to be open to, and tolerant of others’ cultures I had to think long and hard about this and I can only say now what my feelings are about it.

First of all my reaction to the naqib has nothing to do with religion, this was clear to me from the start. The first thing that occurred to me was that we in the west have a culture of using other people’s facial expressions to establish trust, to “read” the person we are interacting with. It is in our psyche to distrust people who hide their face. It is the same reaction society had to the “hoodie” culture of recent years. People who intentionally hide their face frighten or worry us in the west. Our cultural story-telling has baddies such as bank robbers and the like in gangster and cowboy/westerns movies etc. hiding their faces behind masks. I am not saying, or even insinuating, that Muslim women are untrustworthy; I have not met many who were. However, to bring this to its simplest form I feel that the problem is more about how we of western culture feel about the hidden face – I believe, for the majority of people, it has nothing to do with religion.

That said, I still saw the naqib as a barrier. It seems that Muslim women wear the naqib to hide their faces from men other than their husbands or family members – if so, it is a barrier between sexes. This to me signifies woman as possession – other men must not look at you. Such an attitude is anathema to me in a world where I consider women as equals.

This is not the whole story, however, because many Muslim women born in Britain also rightly consider themselves as equals, but in these recent and troubled times may wish to wear the naqib to signify their Islamic faith. I asked myself why there was a recent upsurge in the wearing of the naqib. It appeared to be quite simple, but again this is only my view.

It may be that due to the actions of a few fundamentalist extremists (not the sole property of Islam), Muslims are under attack in the western media. Muslims, men and women, may be reacting by wishing to make a visible statement their faith. If this is the case then it should be seen as an understandable act. If another country was to belittle and threaten Britain, we would immediately see Union Flags everywhere – on T-shirts, hats, brollies etc. It is an understandable reaction to threat, and I think Muslims have the right to do the same in such circumstances, and this may be the reason why so many Muslim women are suddenly wearing the naqib when they did not do so before. On the other hand, Muslim women may just have decided to wear it for no other reason than they want to. I must respect their right to choose.

I do not know whether I am right or wrong in any of this, but having had to think about it, I understand that I am responsible for how I react to things, that my reaction to the naqib , or anything else for that matter, is my problem – maybe that is why I have begun to feel differently about the naqib. It still makes me feel uncomfortable, but less so every time I see someone wearing one. Hopefully, in a short time, it will cease to bother me at all. I suppose this is how we learn to get along with each other.

Feeding Bread to Birds

Many people think that it is a good thing to feed bread to birds. While it makes folk feel better to do so, it does the birds very little good, in fact in many cases it is bad for the birds.
The reason being is that there is hardly any nutritional value in bread for birds and whilst the bird may feel satisfied at the time, the bread provides no real nutritional benefit.  

If a small bird fills up with bread on a cold winters evening it may not survive till morning as it will not have gained enough energy from the bread to fend of the cold.
It can also be potentially dangerous if too much bread been eaten by a bird as their digestive tracts were not designed to cope with bread, and dry bread in particular can swell up inside a bird and cause blockages preventing them from absorbing much needed nutrients. These blockages can sometimes be fatal. 

Doves and Pigeons produce a milk-like substance in their crops to feed to their young.  Bread may become impacted in their crops and can lead to infection and death. “Crop Stasis” is a condition where the crop in the oesophagus, stops emptying and becomes distended with fermenting food and fluids. This is a serious, and life-threatening condition in birds.

You can buy food for wild birds at pet shops quite cheaply and this is so much safer and better for the birds. 

Why not put a bird feeder in the garden or on nearby trees and feed them with seeds and nuts (absolutely no salted nuts). These will attract all sorts of smaller birds.

Remember also that feeding birds can become a long term job as birds can become dependent on you and may stop their natural foraging. If you suddenly stop feeding them they may have difficulties feeding themselves. That said, birds are more in need of feeders these days as there is a huge decline in natural fruits and seeds in the wild due to intensive farming and the removal of natural green space such as hedgerows etc. So, feeding birds is a good thing if you do it properly, and everyday.

joe

North Korea and that Explosion!

Why, one would ask, does a country that has most of its people in penury, spend all it's money on arms? Let me think on that. Maybe because they are STILL AT WAR WITH AMERICA?

Contrary to popular belief the Korean War has never ended. The conflict may have ceased and the ceasefire holds, but the USA has steadfastly refused to sign any peace agreement. That agreement, if signed in 1953 would have resulted in elections being held in both the north and the south of Korea with the ultimate aim of reuniting the country after a bitter civil war. Korea, up to the end of WWII, was a colony of Japan, and was split in two along the 38th parallel by the USA and USSR in 1945; a decision oppposed by almost all Koreans.

Since the cessation of the armed conflict (1950-53), North Korea has never made any sign of attacking any other country, but still the USA has had nuclear weapons installed along the North Korean border with the South. No other country has lived under the threat of nuclear attack by the USA longer than North Korea, almost 56 years. That being so and while, technically, still at war with the USA, is it any wonder that a "military first" attitude exists in North Korea?

North Korea has made many requests to bring the USA to the table to resolve the issues, but to no avail. However, after Korea set out to build a graphite nuclear reactor program, the Clinton administration threatened nuclear attack in 1993 as part of the "Team Spirit" military exercises along the border between North and South Korea. North Korea ceased its nuclear programme as under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty countries without nuclear weapons cannot be threatened by those who have them. When Team Spirit ceased the North Koreans rejoined the non-proliferaton treaty and in 1994 Clinton made an "Agreed Framework" with North Korea within which North Korea would abandon their nuclear programme and accept two light water reactors (from which no weapons grade materials can be extracted) to provide much needed power generation. In the meantime, 3.3 million barrels of oil a year would be supplied for energy production. The ultimate move here was to normalise relations between the USA and North Korea, and end the war.

In 1999 the Democrat Clinton left office, the Republican George Bush junior took over. Republicans had always opposed the Agreed Framework, and Bush immediately set about dismantling it. He cut off the oil and left Korea with little ability to generate power. Bush went on to label the country part of an axis of evil, and in March 2002 a leaked memo reviewed it a "potential nuclear target". In November that year James Kelly, assitant Secretary of State, claimed that North Korean "officials" admitted to having reinstated their nuclear programme. Of course at the time North Korea strongly denied this. However, the claim by Kelly led to the collapse of the Framework. No political analyst can come up with a reason why the North Koreans would have made such a claim, even if it were true, given the threat to themselves at that time. It seems beyond doubt that Korea had kept its side of the Framework, but the USA reneged on almost every aspect of it, abandoning any attempt to normalize relations between the two countries.

When it abandoned its nuclear programme North Korea became completely dependant on energy imports. When Bush Embargoed these it was no surprise that this energy starved country would renew its nuclear programme.

Having just watched Iraq (which had no weapons of mass destruction) being pulverised by the USA, is it any wonder that North Korea went on to use that programme to develop a weapon of mass destruction as a bargaining chip against the same treatment? North Korea has lived under numerous threats of nuclear attack for over fifty years. It is well known that it was only the USA's fear of possible nuclear reprisal by the USSR that saved North Korea from that very fate during the Korean War.

Being already a desperately poor country, if enforced isolation and trade and economic sanctions have driven North Korea to develop "the bomb" after it had mothballed its plants and allowed its plutonuim control rods to be locked away under the watch of the IAEA in favour of light water reactors for electricity (which it never received), would not further isolation and sanctions drive them closer to the possibility of using it?

No longer a communist state, North Korea, has become pretty much an cult induced monarchy with Kim Jong Il at its head. No-one is denying that Kim Jong Il is a brutal dictator, but he knows only too well he must open out to the rest of the world. After the death of his father, Kim Il Sung, in 1994 he made attempts to do so . It was a big move for Kim because it created a great difficulty: how to open up the country, but keep a hold on his power.

Why does Bush behave in the way that he does towards North Korea? The Korean problem was created by America, it has been sustained by America, and when a solution was in sight the whole problem was reset to the beginning by America. Why?

Because America needs North Korea to be a problem in South East Asia if it wants to maintain its control of the region. If there was no North Korean threat then South Korea and Japan would no longer require American protection. If that were so there would be no reason for having American bases on their soil; this is not the way to maintain a global miltary hegemony. The cynics among us may see the behaviour of the USA in all of this as a deliberate tactic, forcing North Korea into making itself a legitimate target once more.

What also puzzles me is why intelligent journalists who know all these things do not relate all the facts, instead tell us lies by omission, masking the depravity of the American government, and our own here in Britain? Don't they and their children live in this more dangerous world along with the rest of us?

It is the stuff of 1984 and all that ... some rulers need to rule by keeping us all frightened of boogiemen and the media is their main tool of implementation. That being the case, am I more worried about Bush and Blair and what they do in the world than all the so-called terrorists put together? Well, I am a bit worried about the latter now, but in the same way I would be bothered if someone took a stick to wasp byke in my back garden where my kids were playing!

Paris: a lad in Seine!

Me and Jan went to Paris for the 1st time the other week. Man, what a great city. It was only for a few days, but I really enjoyed myself.

I was a wee bit apprehensive, as we don't speak much french; I heard Parisians are a bit aloof and can be a bit offish if you can't parley the lingo. Nothing could have been further from the truth, Parisians were very helpful and pleasant to me and Jan, and they made the effort to try and understand our poor attempts to communicate. Une café est une croissant se vous plais, and, deux birres por favour madame, were about it for me. Still, they put up with this idiot and set me right (sympathetic looks aside).

We did all the touristy things: the Louvre, Eiffel Tower all that sort of stuff. Eating out is a great passtime of ours (if heaven doesn't have great cafés and restaurants I don't want to go). It seems in Paris eating out can be good but very expensive; poor and very expensive; cheap and skwidgey bottom time or, relatively inexpensive and excellent. We were lucky to find the latter 3 nights in a row.

It turned out that the hotel we booked over the internet was in the red light district of Pigalle where the Moulin Rouge is. It was obvious who was doing what, with which and to whom, so except for the signs on the bars nobody accosted us or was in our faces about it therefore it was quite a lively and interesting place. The red light area seemed to peter out just around where our hotel was situated and walking south away from Place Pigalle towards Trinity things seemed to get better.

As it was when we first arrived at Pigalle Metro there, surrounded by sleazy strip joints (which I have to admit took me a while to notice), was a great looking seafood restuarant called Café Leon, which had a reasonably priced menu. We decided that it was close enough to our hotel for us to come back later and eat and we could work out our plan for that evening and next day.

I had the salmon and vegetables which was pretty good, not brillant, but pretty good. I must say though, the sweet was excellent: fresh pineapple with coconut sorbet and a red fruit coulli the taste of which was out of this world. The service was very good; friendly and quick.

The next evening, still in Pigalle but nearer Montmarte, we went to a sushi restaurant as that was what Jan fancied. To be honest it didn't look much from the outside, not very inviting, and I wasn't looking forward to it. Walking through the door, however, was pleasantly surprising. Outside Pigalle, inside a small piece of Japan. We both had sushi, mine had a really nice mackerel sushi. I was watching Rick Stein the tv seafood chef on telly the other day waxing lyrical about mackerel sushi (discovered it already mate!). Again the service was attentive, friendly and quick. The Maitre D was as attentive when we left as when we came in and she shook our hands thanking us and welcoming us back.

For our last evening we decided we would go somewhere really nice and have a good slap-up meal as it was close to our anniversary. We had spotted the Deux Théatres restaurant down the road from our hotel which had a good menu for 33 euros including wine, but we decided against it as it was in the kind of seedy end of town and we wanted something a bit special.

On the Friday we were looking at the restaurant guide in the Penguin book on Paris to try and pick one when we came across Deux Théatres again and the book gave it a great write-up. Well, it was just two minutes for the hotel so we decided that when we got back to Pigalle we would go along and book a table.

When we arrived at 8pm the restaurant was very busy. We were warmly welcomed and shown to our table. The staff were mostly young, but attentive and friendly without being over bearing.

Apperitifs arrived as soon as we were comfortably seated.

Jan had escargot for starter. "I'm in France for the first time", she said, "so I'm going to try it!"

Way to go Jan! I was so horrified with watching Jan eat snails I've forgotten what I ordered for starter. There was a reasonable choice of wines as part of the menu; we ordered a very nice claret. For the main course Jan had bouillabaisse which she loved, I had cod in a cream sauce, cooked to a turn with garlic and cod champed potatoes with seasonal vegetables. It was wonderful. I had small nougat pieces in ice-cream for dessert and Jan had sorbet. We had coffees to round off what was a very good meal in a very nice restaurant and the bill came to 66 euros. That's equivalent to around £50. I liken the quality of the meal, suroundings and service to the Regano in Glasgow where the bill for the same kind of meal is around £80. At £30 cheaper the French restaurant gives real value.

We rounded off the evening with a short walk along towards Gare St Lazare in the Parisian moonlight and stopped off for a beer for me and a green tea for Jan at the little café I took coffees in each morning.

Stupidly, we left the Musée D'Orsay till the last day as we had a late flight out. I noticed when at the Louvre that people were able to put their bags in while perusing the museum, so we took our bags with us to save going back to the hotel for them. Ooops! Musée D'Orsay does not have a place to store your bags so and they wouldn't let us in with them. There are no left luggage facilities in Paris now due to threats of terrorism so we had to carry our bags around with us for the rest of the day. It was effing roasting, too! So we just bought the ticket for the hop on boat again and drifted along the Seine for the rest of the day, getting off to have beer and see some other stuff.

One thing that strikes you very quickly in this very busy city is the quality of the public transport. It puts Glasgow's to shame. On the first evening while eating at Café Leon I watched buses arrive at the stop outside every 10 minutes on the dot for nearly 2 hours. On the Metro we never waited more than 2 minutes for a train to arrive. You can travel from one end of the city to the other in a very short period of time (that includes changing trains); Metro stations are just slightly less in abundance than street corner cafés in Paris. Paris is a fast town without the freneticism of other places like Milan or even London. Fast, but chilled, that's Paris. We came upon a traffic jam in a narrow side street in the city centre where a van had stopped to deliver blocking the whole street; the driver was no-where to be seen and a woman from the car behind the van was beeping on his van's horn everyone else just seemed resigned to waiting till he came back so there wasn't all the honking and swearing you would expect in a Glasgow street. Walking along the jam we came upon a car with no driver... he was sitting in the sunshine at a café as he had decided he might as well have a coffee while he waited.

All-in-all, Paris is a wonderful place. I will certainly go back and next time, as we've done the touristy things, it's the cafés and restaurants for me. Oh, and the Musée D'orsay, of course!

bonjour!

What a Waste

Way to go the Women’s Institute. They’ve started a campaign to reduce packaging on goods in supermarkets. The amount of rubbish wrapped around a lot of the things we buy is becoming so ridiculous you’d think that the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (94/62/EC) was never brought into force.
This group of women in the past (or even today) were seen as middle class conservatives who were good at baking and making jam. However, in the last few years in particular, they have thrown off their stuffiness and shown that they have a very good social conscience. Their nude photos for charity, and their public berating of Tony Blair have shown they are also a force to be reckoned with.
Let’s hope that their new found notoriety helps bring this important waste problem to wider public notice and more people force the removal of all this useless packaging.
When a waste tax was brought in Germany some years ago and consumers were being charged for disposing of their waste many simply unwrapped their shopping in the store and left the packaging for the supermarket to pay for its disposal. It did not take long for the message to get across.

So Why don't the Scots Support England in the World Cup?

it is just a little sad to listen to the moanings of the English media, mainly tabloids, at the fact that Scots refuse to support England's bid to win the World Cup.

It does of course force us Scots to ask questions of ourselves:

Q. do Scots really hate the English?

A. No (well some do, but it's usually a sad individual who hates anybody)

Q. Do we really not want them to win anything?

A. if truth be told I think most Scots don't really care that much ... however ...

in 1966, when England did win the World Cup I was a boy of 12, I remember many Scots people watching the game and supporting England; all seemed happy enough when they won. What we did not know at the time was the unrelenting triumphalism within the English media that would ensue from then on, and it has finally removed any feeling of supportiveness many Scots, Irish and Welsh might have previously held for the English at sports.

The main reason Scots football fans want England to go out of any tournament early is so we can watch the rest of that tournament in peace. TV commentaries are usually given by partisan English presenters; that means when we are watching a game between the likes of say Brazil and Italy, commentators very often think that it is okay to spend much of the game discussing the England team.

If England wins at anything, any live tv programme that evening, no matter the subject, will have references made to the win completely disregarding the fact that England is just one of four countries that make up Great Britain. Don't we all remember the day they beat Germany 5-1?

Why does it bother us? The UK is an invention of the English, the way it has been set up has suited England in so many ways. England is the biggest country on these islands and the English can have no idea what it is like to be dominated, and at times even bullied by a larger cousin the way Scots, Irish and Welsh do. When it comes to celebrating good fortune it can all be a bit unfortunate for ordinary English folk. Most other nations would celebrate in the same manner when they win something without annoying their neighbours, but it is difficult for England to do that due to the way the United Kingdom is set up. The other countries in the British Isles have their own national tv, radio and printed media and can go over the top in their celebrations without affecting anyone else. The English media by design is pervasive within the UK and does affect all the other nations, and it may well be they are paying for that now.

I've heard it said that we Scots are a bit jealous that England has actually won the World Cup. What nonsense, we know that winning the World Cup is a bit beyond us. We just love being there and we would be happy to stay there longer by getting to the second round ... boy would we celebrate then. So, roll on 2010.

What is also a bit sad about this little stramash is that it has brought to the fore some real English resentment, especially the feeling that we Scots are ungrateful for all the English have done for us. One writer and historian on tv the other day reminded us that England pays all our bills. He does of course have a very clouded view of how Britain operates politically, but then that's historians for you. One would need to ask why one nation would spend hundreds of years pursuing the domination of another sovereign state just to pay its bills. If that was all they wanted they just had to say and we could have been spared all that blood and gore. As it is, and as Robert Burns quite rightly wrote, the Scots were: "bought and sold for English gold",

and cheaply bought at that.

All that said I, like many other Scots, have relatives such as nephews and nieces, and also friends who are English and whom we love dearly. They will be gutted when England get beaten and we don't want them to feel like that. There are also a few English players who I like and admire as people, as well as for their footballing skills, and I would like to see them get just rewards for their skill and hard work, but the thought of another 40 years of gloating by the English media and football pundits is just too much to bear. So, sorry to my English friends and loved ones, but I hope youse get gubbed!

C'mon Trinidad and Tobago!

Catching Up

It’s been a while since I even thought of the blog. Just sitting here musing and fretting about my thesis. Ground to a halt again. My supervisor is waiting for the last bits so he can take them away on holidy with him … what a strange fellow! Most folk would rather have the latest airport blockbuster to read on their hols. Still, if that’s what he wants I’ll try and provide.
The world cup is upon us and you’d think the fate of the world depended on it. I like football, but Jeeez, and it hasn't even started yet!
Seems the world has just cottoned on the the fact that climate change is for real. Okay so we better just deal with one problem at a time, eh? It seems if you try and put forward two potential problems people’s brains go into stasis.
Sure global warming is crucial, but so is soil erosion, water stress, diminishing biodiversity, abyssmal world politics which lead to conflict, and the human miseries of poverty, inequity, displacement, hunger and starvation.
Much of these things are ignored by most people except when they are confronted with them in the media, but it is all happening in faraway land and most of the folk are alien to us, so they are as easily forgotten when the tv is switched off as the fictional dramas broadcast yesterday –
we see them and we feel guilty, we don’t see them and we forget; I am as guilty as the next guy.
However, we are not powerless in all of this. The Make Poverty History campaigns have showed us that politicians do take notice if enough people speak out. Yes, little changed, but that was because ordinary folk did not keep up the pressure. So politicians are allowed to wriggle off the campaigners’ hook. We should look at it all more positively, like just how quickly they were forced to climb onto that hook in the first place.
A lot of the time it appears that big business think they can do what they like and the cash-fodder (the wider public) will just go along with it and separate themselves from their money. However, these boardroom jockeys are very vulnerable to the vagaries of public perception.
Here’s a novel idea, let’s take as an example the huge transnational company Exxon (Esso) one of the most powerful in the world. Many people around the world take exception to this company. It’s anti-climate change stance has apparently hindered political will, in the USA in particular, to facing up to this challenging task of reducing the environmental impacts of burning fossils fuels (Exxon’s stock in trade). Now, if a few years ago everyone, or even nearly everyone, for just one week of every month bought alternative products to Exxon’s, how many months might it have taken before the board had a change of heart?
There are ongoing campaigns against illegal logging, and palm oil plantations in Indonesia.
There are plenty of alternatives, but these are cheaper. If enough of us cash-fodder let manufacturers know that we won’t buy their products just to save a penny or two they will use the alternatives.
Why do we bemoan the state of the earth and still believe it is politicians' and big business’s problem to fix it when it is obvious that they don’t want to. We have individual responsibility and we have the power to change things without having to do very much except be consistent in saying what we want and in demanding the powerful be held to to account. If a gasfitter made a botch job of your heating system and blew up your house you'd certainly want him/her to be held to account why not politicians and CEOs?
I suppose the main question in all this is: why are we so insistant in handing over our personal responsibility to people, many of whom we would not invite to our house for tea?
Ultimately, those we put in charge only have the power we give to them, or allow them to have –Really. So we must ensure they use that power, first and foremost, for the proper protection of the environment that allows us to live in some degree of comfort on this planet. We all know by now they will only do that if we force them to do so. So join Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth and or join your local community council or forum and make your voice heard. Get involved, it only takes only a few hours a week.

hasta luego (trying to learn Spanish)