Pride Week – A Time For Tolerance

It's currently World Pride Week (with the main march happening this year in Toronto), and a time in which many local gay pride marches also take place around the world. Such parades are well-known, at least in the west, for their fun atmosphere, with dancing, drinking, colorful clothing, and people getting sprayed with water pistols. But Pride Week also offers us an opportunity for a deeper reflection on issues of morality and human rights.

It's not particularly controversial to say that many people around the world are not big fans of alternative lifestyles that include homosexuality, bisexuality, transgendered people, or any of the many other identities that fall under the Pride banner. In Russia, gay pride marches are often attacked by extreme right-wingers, with collusion from the police. But even in supposedly tolerant countries like the US, a large number of people in a significant proportion of the country are at best uncomfortable with LGBT people, and often actively hostile to them. Sometimes this is for religious reasons, sometimes because of arguments about morality, and sometimes simply because of a visceral personal feeling with no real reason to back it up.

Most people reading this blog live in free countries, where they allowed to think whatever they like about anyone they choose, and so holding these opinions is fine, even if it is unjustified. But we must always remember that our opinions are simply that – opinions, which should have no bearing on whether or not LGBT people receive basic human rights.

In places like Uganda (and, again, even the US and Russia) many gay people are in fear for their lives and can be sent to prison or even killed for their sexuality. Whatever your beliefs about LGBT people, this is undoubtedly wrong – nobody deserves to die simply because of who they have sex with. Lesser examples of discrimination also abound – gay couples being turned away by motels or inns, for example; or, of course, the struggle over allowing gay men and women to marry. Again, whether we officially call it marriage or not, it would be wrong to stop LGBT people from expressing their love for one another and receiving the many benefits that the state gives to married couples.

These are basic human rights to equal treatment and dignity that we are talking about, and we must support these rights for all people if we are to support them for anyone. If we start to say that some people are not worthy of such rights because of their sexuality, then we can have no complaints when others start saying we do not deserve the same rights – perhaps because of our race, our gender, or our religion.

Homosexuality is not a choice, nor is it a disease, and it is certainly not something we should fear or try to eradicate or hide from view. It has been a part of society since history began (read anything about the Ancient Greeks if you don't believe me!), and we need to start treating it in the sensible, mature manner which it deserves. We can start by saluting the tolerant countries and communities that have taken in gay Ugandan refugees who fear for their lives, who have worked with vulnerable young people to stamp out homophobic bullying, and who are happy to welcome and take part in the pride parades of their towns and cities. And we can wish everyone, gay, straight, or anything else, a happy World Pride Week and a tolerant, understanding future.

Strong action on biofuels – but can anything stop the rise of coal?

There’s both good and bad news coming through this week when it comes to energy news. On the one hand, we have some positive new EU rules on biofuel use; and on the other hand, we have some very bad news about the growing use of coal. Let’s have a look at both of them.

In Europe, the EU have agreed new targets for biofuels derived from food crops such as maize. There is a general target for 10% of all fuel to be from renewable sources by 2020, but from this year onwards, only 7% can be from food-derived biofuels – previously the entire target was expected to be reached from such fuels. Why is this good? Well, although making fuel out of renewable resources like food crops is a better option for our environment than continually digging up more fossil fuels, it is starting to have a damaging effect on food prices and hunger. By allowing food crops to be used as fuel, there was always a risk of pushing prices up and of prioritizing food for our cars over food for humans. This new target should help to avoid those problems, although it’s not as strong as the original 5% that was suggested.

What will be needed, however, is for more money to be invested in developing alternative biofuels from things like algae. These will have a much smaller environmental and social impact than using food crops, but are currently only in the developmental stage, and the EU is not yet providing enough incentives to encourage further research. They have set an informal target of sourcing 0.5% of their fuel from such sources by 2020, but this is both too small and non-binding.

Now for the bad news. Despite these alternative fuels, coal is now reported to be the fastest growing energy source in the world, and is currently commanding a greater share of the worldwide energy market than it has since the 1970s. The continued use of such an environmentally damaging fuel threatens to wipe out any gains that might be made from new energy technologies, and could push us ever closer to unstoppable climate change. The growth in coal usage is partially being encouraged by the needs of rapidly developing countries like China, but we cannot totally blame them – western countries are also increasing their usage of coal, and are not providing enough help for developing countries to green their energy systems and economies.

So on the one hand, we see politicians aiming for a more enlightened energy policy. On the other, we see market conditions (the high demand for energy coupled with the cheap price of coal) pushing us in the other direction. It leads us to conclude that a more coordinated international energy system may be needed – one which is based on political and social decisions rather than simply the whims of the market. We need to develop a system of international investment in researching and developing new energy technologies that can put an end to coal and oil once and for all. This isn’t going to happen without serious cooperation between states, and it isn’t going to happen if we leave things up to a capitalist market system – instead, cheap fossil fuels will simply continue to be extracted and burned.

The EU’s approach is a good start – they are working together to try to develop a system that benefits European citizens, people of other countries, and still leaves room for businesses to operate and grow within the confines of a planned energy policy. It needs to be extended and made stronger, and applied to all areas of our energy consumption, and similar moves need to be encouraged on a worldwide stage. If we are going to avoid climate change and dig ourselves out of the energy problems we have created, we are going to have to work together, consciously.

[ avoid climate change, biofuel use, capitalist market system, cheap fossil fuels, cheap price of coal, coal usage, damaging effect on food prices, developing alternative biofuels, developmental stage, encourage further research, energy consumption, energy news, energy policy, energy problems, energy systems, energy technologies, environmentally damaging fuel, European citizens, fastest growing energy source, food crops, food for cars, food for humans, food-derived biofuels, fossil fuels, growing use of coal, international energy system, international investment, new EU rules, new targets for biofuels, on worldwide stage, rapidly developing, renewable sources, social decisions, social impact, stop rise of coal, unstoppable climate change, western countries, worldwide energy market ]

Bursting the housing bubble

To read the newspapers in the UK, you might think that the housing market is both the most important thing in the country, and something that is of innate benefit to all citizens. There is constant jubilation over rising house prices, and that seems to be about the most important thing to publications like The Daily Mail. Think about things a little more deeply, however, and it’s becoming plain to see that the UK is in the midst of a housing crisis which is desperately hurting the lives of the poorest members of society.

For many people, rising house prices are not a good thing. Poorer people who have lived in London for decades are finding themselves increasingly unable to stay in the market in that city. In many cases they are renting from the local government, or from private landlords, and the increased value of the property means that the government wants to sell their house for a profit, or the landlord wants to charge double the rent. When that happens, and these people want to move somewhere nearby – it’s impossible, due to the high prices.

Worse, many of the new owners that are fuelling this bubble in house prices are absentee landlords living in other cities or countries. Many new developments in London are specifically targeting Chinese and Singaporean owners, advertising London housing as an investment in the future – buy the house now, rent it out for a few years, sell it when the prices go up. This creates a very unstable situation for the people who rent, and further prices these new homes out of the reach of ordinary Brits.

In many cases, the potential benefits of such expensive housing are also not realized. Local governments can collect something called ‘council tax’ from each household, but the way in which this is arranged means that any apartment-style building is considered low value, and pays very little tax  compared to a normal house. This is the same even if the cost of the building is higher – one apartment owned by a Ukrainian millionaire in Hyde Park cost over £100m, but requires less council tax per year than a £200,000 home in a poor area. This means that many parts of London are not getting the tax income they need to provide services and housing for the poor.

Consequently, social housing for the poor is no longer being built in England, or is only being built very slowly. There is little money available to provide it, and even if such money was made available by increasing taxes or diverting money from other budgets, the government of the UK has essentially abandoned its responsibility to house its people over the past thirty years. It is now assumed that something as vital and as basic as shelter should be left up to the free market – this is the curse of neoliberal ideology striking again.

When combined with the outlawing of squatting – which in many cases was the last recourse of the poor and homeless who need somewhere to sleep – this is undoubtedly a crisis. The rich continue to profit from the rising prices and the desperation of the poor to have somewhere to stay; while the poor themselves suffer from uncertainty and exploitative rents, going to food banks because they can’t afford to eat after paying the rent, or simply becoming homeless when they can’t make ends meet. Once again, the policies we live with are backwards, and the poor suffer.

apartment-style building, becoming homeless, council tax, diverting money from other budgets, expensive housing, exploitative rents, food banks, free market, getting tax income, housing bubble, housing crisis, Hyde Park, increased value of property, increasing taxes, innate benefit, local government, neoliberal ideology, poorer people, poorest members of society, potential benefits, private landlords, provide housing for the poor, rising house prices, social housing, stay in the market, The Daily Mail, the poor suffer, UK housing crisis, Ukrainian millionaire, unstable situation

European Disunion

Well, after a seemingly endless campaign, the European Union election results are finally in – and many of us will be wishing they had stayed out, as they do not make very comforting reading for anyone who believes in a Europe of peace and unity. The big story of the night is the large number of anti-EU right wing populist parties that did extremely well in elections – particularly the Front National in France, the United Kingdom Independence Party, and the Danish People's Party. All three of these parties won their respective national votes, and all three of them could be called anti-immigrant, xenophobic, and perhaps even racist – in some case, directing animosity towards citizens from other members of the EU.

The voters of Europe (at least those who bothered to turn out, which in most countries was only a small percentage of the population) have spoken, and it seems that they have chosen hatred, division, and mutual suspicion. They have chosen to ignore the decades of cooperation that Europe has achieved under the EU, a state of peace that is almost unknown in the history of the continent. And they have chosen to blame foreigners for their problems – underemployment, the need for more social services, and cultural disruption – rather than looking to the true culprit of capitalism.

Truthfully, we should be against the EU in many ways, but it is the neoliberal capitalist aspect of the EU that we should be fighting. The part of the EU that pushes for privatization of services; that wants to create a common market in services across the continent, allowing companies from rich countries to take over things in poorer places; that subsidizes farmers to the tune of hundreds of millions of Euros a year to produce food that is simply wasted or which inflates prices on the world market; that negotiates unfair trade deals with poorer countries around the world, while colluding with the US to create ever more profit for itself.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the only country in the recent election that seems to be fighting this capitalist EU is Greece, where the left wing Syriza party came out on top of the polls. Greece has been at the epicenter of this neoliberal EU, having been forced to adopt an agreement to slash jobs and services, reduce wages and benefits, and destroy the social fabric of Greek society all to pay back European banks. The Greeks have seen the true face of the capitalist EU, and have responded accordingly by electing a party that specifically opposes that form of Europe, without rejecting the many benefits that greater European unity has given us (although it must be noted that the extremely right wing Golden Dawn party came in third place in the Greek election, so that country is not completely free of ridiculous racist ideas by any means).

It is time for the rest of us to take a lesson from the Greeks. Rather than voting for parties that offer nothing but hatred and which target relatively helpless groups of poor immigrants who are only trying to make a living, we need to develop our own versions of Syriza. Political parties which understand the frustrations of ordinary people, but which also identify the right causes for these symptoms. Political parties which understand that it is the neoliberal capitalism of the EU which is the problem that needs to be solved, not the open borders and freedom of movement. And ultimately, political parties that want a Europe based on equality, fairness, justice, and most of all, unity.

[ European Union election, election results, right wing populist parties, United Kingdom Independence Party, Danish People's Party, cultural disruption, privatization of services, left wing Syriza party, Greek election, freedom of movement ] 

The end of the road for Yasuni National Park

In the last week the news has finally come out that Ecuador has signed official agreements with regards to drilling for oil in the Yasuni National Park. We all knew this was coming after recent leaks telling us that the government was in negotiations, but this is still an extremely sad day for those of us who value the environment and look to promote cleaner energy sources. This drilling agreement reflects badly on all of us, not just the Ecuadorian government – it essentially represents a failure of imagination on the part of the international community.

Yasuni, on the eastern border of Ecuador with Peru, is considered one of the most biologically diverse regions on the entire planet – in fact, by many standards it is literally the most diverse place in the world. Even in terms of human beings, the area contains at least two completely uncontacted tribes, uncorrupted by modern human civilization. Unfortunately, as well as containing all sorts of plants, animals, birds, and humans, it also contains a lot of oil – something that we as a society seem unable to resist. Drilling could now take place as soon as 2016, destroying the pristine environment of this beautiful place.

The Ecuadorian government had initially tried to avoid drilling through a very modern method – essentially crowdsourcing the money required to make it worthwhile not to drill. They claimed that if they were paid a total of $3.6bn over a number of years by the other countries of the world, then Ecuador could enjoy the developmental benefits that the oil would bring without having to actually extract it – allowing the rest of the world to benefit from the continued biodiversity of the region and the huge levels of carbon emissions that would not be released if the oil was kept in the ground. This was a potentially revolutionary idea, taking in concepts of climate justice and sustainability, and encouraging the world to work together to protect our natural environment.

Of course, it didn’t work. Despite a large amount of press when President Rafael Correa first announced the initiative, very few countries showed any serious interest in it – with Norway being the main honourable exception. Unfortunately, Norway alone cannot carry the burden for the whole world, and in the recent announcement Correa claimed that only $13m had been procured. Ultimately, the lack of cooperation of certain countries was too great a barrier. The oil industries of the US and Europe stood to gain too much from the chance to drill in Yasuni, and would have attacked any politicians that agreed to provide funding. The growing Chinese demand for fuel and their difficulties with managing their rapid growth in the coming decades meant that they too wanted access to Yasuni. And none of the developed nations wanted to set a precedent for accepting their responsibility for climate change or helping poorer countries deal with the changes that need to be made to avoid it.

Ecuador is not completely without blame, of course. They could still have taken a different approach to development, deciding not to drill anyway, and focusing on the many alternative sources of energy they have access to – abundant sunshine, geothermal energy, huge potential for hydroelectricity, and so on. It is a shame that Correa’s imaginative ideas did not extend to providing this kind of example to the world. But ultimately, we must all take responsibility for what will happen in Yasuni – we had the chance to show a commitment to the environment, to sustainability, to alternative energy, to a different way of doing things in general. And we shamefully failed to take it.

abundant sunshine, alternative sources of energy, biologically diverse region, carbon emissions, Chinese demand for fuel, climate change, climate justice, destroy the pristine environment, developed nations, developmental benefits, drilling agreement Ecuador, drilling for oil, drilling in Yasuni, Ecuador president, Ecuadorian government, geothermal energy, helping poorer countries, huge potential for hydroelectricity, international community, modern human civilization, oil industries, promote cleaner energy sources, protect natural environment, provide funding, Rafael Correa, revolutionary idea, sign official agreements, sustainability, uncontacted tribes Ecuador, value environment, Yasuni National Park

Has carbon trading failed?

News reports suggest that Australia could become the first country to shut down its carbon trading scheme, essentially giving polluting industries the green light to continue with business-as-usual. The point of the carbon trading law was to put a minimum price on the emission of carbon dioxide, a kind of subsidy-in-reverse on industries and companies that release a lot of CO2, and an incentive for businesses to reduce their emissions as much as possible – after all, no carbon dioxide means no additional carbon payment, which potentially means more profit than your competitors. All of this has proved too forward thinking for the new right wing prime minister of the country, who seems to deny the fact that climate change even exists.

This will not come as a massive surprise to many of us. Australia has long been known as the villain in international climate negotiations, showing a thick-headed lack of responsibility for their own role in causing the problem (particularly through a very heavy use of coal), and refusing to countenance any possibility that they might have to change their ways to improve life for Australians and for the rest of the planet. Per capita, Australia is now one of the highest polluters in the world.

However, while it may be easy to criticize the Aussies for their decision to turn their backs on carbon pricing, we should also be critically examining similar schemes in the rest of the world and asking ourselves if they are really helping. Only a few countries have large, firmly in-place carbon trading schemes, and much of the evidence suggests that those that do exist have been poorly designed and are plagued with problems – the EU carbon trading platform being the primary example.

The EU platform has had a serious problem with a practice known as ‘grandfathering’. The argument was that existing industries would find it too difficult to cope with carbon trading if they had to start paying for all their emissions at once, so the EU agreed to provide a certain number of free carbon permits, with the idea that the companies would then pay for any pollution greater than the number of permits they were given. Unfortunately, and presumably due to corruption and lobbying, many big companies were given permits greater than the total amount of carbon they already emit – meaning they don’t have to pay anything to the trading scheme, and even have leftover permits to sell to other companies. The oversupply of free carbon permits has essentially collapsed the price of carbon in the European market, rendering the scheme useless.

If we are not going to take carbon pricing seriously – and the EU scheme most definitely does not take it seriously – then perhaps it is better if we all take the Australian route, give up on it, and start again with something better and more robust. One option is to severely limit the amount of carbon permits available, and making the punishment for over-pollution much more severe, rather than allowing the market to decide on how seriously pollution and emissions should be taken. Fines from the government for polluting could be considerably higher than the price for carbon on the open market has proved to be, and non compliance could easily be punished further by shutting companies down. This would be a brave move by any government, but brave moves are what we need right now. The market has clearly failed, and now it is time for governments to step up and show some commitment and strength by putting legal limits on emissions, rather than simply market limits.

Australia pollution, Australian route, carbon pricing, carbon trading failed, carbon trading law, carbon trading scheme, climate change, emission of carbon dioxide, EU carbon trading platform, European market, existing industries, free carbon permits, international climate negotiations, market limits, open market, polluting industries, price for carbon, punishment for over-pollution, putting legal limits on emissions, reduce emissions, right wing prime minister, thick-headed lack of responsibility

Services made with our hands and our hearts

There is a lot of election talk in the UK these days, which is unsurprising with the EU elections recently taking place and the next national election due in one year’s time. Current polls are starting to suggest that the lead the opposition Labour Party has held for a few years is beginning to slip, and the Conservatives may rebuild their base over the next year and win the election outright – rather than having to go into coalition with the Liberal Democrats as they did this time around.

All of this is very interesting, but only if you’re a bit of a geek for UK politics. What might prove more interesting to all of us in the long term, however, is that a particular topic seems to slowly be creeping onto the radar of the national discussion that will take place over the next year – and that topic is renationalization. The Green Party are explicitly arguing for the railways to be nationalized again, and some in the Labour Party are encouraging leader Ed Miliband to do the same, seeing it as a potentially very popular policy among voters from all sides of the political spectrum.

Many British institutions that were traditionally owned by the state – most notably the railways and the energy infrastructure – were sold off to private companies during the 18 years that the Conservatives were in power under Margaret Thatcher and John Major. The current Conservative government is following a similar path by slowly trying to sell off more and more of the much-loved National Health Service. However, such policies are seen by much of the public as a disaster – they have seen the ways in which energy bills and train tickets are permanently going up while service levels get worse and worse. A recent poll by YouGov found that 68% of the British public support handing the energy companies back to the state, 66% support nationalizing the railways, and a massive 84% believe that the health service should not be sold to private companies.

The railways, energy companies, and health service were built up by generations of hard work from the people of Britain. They were not created by private companies, and private companies did nothing to create the value they had when they were privatized. By selling them off, Thatcher essentially gave away decades of labor to her corporate friends at a price far below what it was actually worth. The companies running these services have proven that they do not have the same level of passion for them that the British people do, they do not care for the effects of their policies on the people, and they care only about profits rather than about providing an efficient service to those who need it. Things will be no different if the health service is given to private companies – indeed, they may be worse, as profit would then be taking precedence over what is literally a matter of life and death.

The damage privatization did to the UK was huge, and is ongoing – both in terms of the gradual decline of the railways and the energy companies, and in terms of the ideology of private profit and ‘free markets’ that it helped to spread. However, we still have time to reverse it if we act now, and consequently the upcoming election campaign needs to hinge around the issue of keeping the National Health Service in public hands, and returning the other services to the people who built them. The Green Party should be commended for making this part of their platform, and those on the left need to encourage Labour to follow suit – for the good of all working people in the UK.

British institutions, British people, British public support, Conservative government, Conservatives, damage privatization, Ed Miliband, effects of policies, efficient service, election talk, energy bills, energy companies, energy infrastructure, EU elections, free markets, gradual decline, Green Party, health service, in public hands, John Major, Liberal Democrats, Margaret Thatcher, national discussion, national election, National Health Service, opposition Labour Party, political spectrum, popular policy, private companies, private profit, railways to be nationalized, renationalization, train tickets, UK politics, upcoming election campaign, win election, working people, YouGov