We have warned on many occasions previously how successive governments are in the pockets of the globalist bio-tech corporations. It’s encouraging, therefore, to see Gordon Brown and the Government given a blunt warming about their support for genetically-modified (GM) crops and food by no less a person than the head of the Government’s own countryside and wildlife agency.

In a recent letter to The Independent newspaper, Sir Martin Doughty, the chairman of Natural England, is quoted as warning against: “rushing headlong to embrace GM crops as the solution to rising food prices”. Sir Martin added that they can cause harm to wildlife, and there is little evidence that the present generation of biotechnology crops will help in reconciling surging global food demand with protecting the environment. His letter comes as a timely response to the Government’s reopening of the GM debate earlier this month, with ministers from Mr Brown down indicating that the time has come for Britain and Europe to relax GM restrictions in the face of the new concern about world food supplies and prices.

It was Natural England’s predecessor, English Nature, which initially voiced concerns over the damage the available suite of GM crops, many specifically engineered to be tolerant of powerful weed killing chemicals, could do to wildlife on British farmland. That concern led to the official farm-scale evaluations of GM beet, oilseed rape and maize, which reported in 2003 that the weed killers used with the first two were far more damaging to wildlife than conventional herbicides. Indeed, the GM maize regime was found to be less damaging, although the conventional weed killer it was compared to, atrazine, was itself so harmful it was later banned in the EU.

English Nature’s insistence upon trials has neither pleased the Government nor the Government’s friends in the bio-tech industry, hoping to profit immensely from this questionable technology.

Sir Martin further warned: “We need to be mindful of the lessons of the past before rushing headlong to embrace GM crops as the solution to rising food prices. The evidence of field-based trials on GM crops previously proposed for commercial release in England demonstrates that they can have a detrimental indirect impact on farmland biodiversity.”

Natural England’s own policy document, Biotechnology in the Natural Environment, will be put before its board for approval on Wednesday. It says: “Because GM can be used to develop organisms with radically different properties, we are particularly concerned about potential impacts on biodiversity that could be caused by changes in crop, tree or animal husbandry.”

Government determination to pollute the environment with GM products follows on from a huge reduction in farmland wildlife in the past 30 years due to the intensification of agriculture.

One key fact about GM crops that needs to be firmly grasped is that they have not been manufactured with a prime objective of feeding the world. They are nothing more than a product in development that large international corporations want to make money from - a lot of money in fact! They plan to make their fortunes by marketing a GM monoculture crop with their own mix of pesticides, fungicides and herbicides. The resultant seed is “owned” by them and sold by them, annually, with no seed saving.

In theory, you subscribe to your annual harvest from a global corporation in much the same way as you pay your licence. It is not local or sustainable - but it is potentially very profitable. And profit, of course, is what it is all about.

As one environmentalist recently wrote: “GM product development is simply a way to make a shed load of money from hungry people in far off countries.”

In it’s own way GM is no more a solution to a problem than is nuclear power. Both will leave a legacy that could blight mankind for thousands of years to come. Often the same corporations tried exactly the same scam in the pre-GM years with exclusive monocultures. It failed then (as did the crops) and caused poverty and famine - leaving the bio-tech corporations as the sole winners.

Common sense and good scientific practice suggests that you do not trial GM outside of a lab, as the potential “downside” could have devastating consequences for generations to come, not least from cross pollination.

Once, there was a total ban on GM material being released into the wild but unscrupulous government political parties, such as Labour here in Britain, can be guaranteed to put bio-tech corporate bribes ahead of public safety. Are we really to believe that those who hope to profit from GM have the best interests of humanity at heart? No,. of course not, they have the best interests of their shareholders to consider. Do they really understand the nature, extent and consequences of GM pollution? No. Like they didn’t understand tobacco, asbestos, radiation, lead in paint, DDT or all the poisonous chemicals they used to spray on food that is now banned. Remember thalidomide anyone?

Clearly GM material should exist outside of a laboratory except under the most restrictive of licenses for purposes where there is no realistic alternative. There are plenty of better alternatives to GM food that will feed the world but, of course, they’ll neither make GM product owning corporations rich or help fill Labour Party coffers.

If this Labour governments is stupid or corrupt enough to permit the growing of GM crops then they should also ensure that all derivative products are clearly labelled so as to be avoided. If ever there was a product that demonstrates how corrupt this government is (and their Tory predecessors), and how closely and unethically they snuggle up to big business, and how many difficulties scientists have with the wider ethical ramifications of their work, then this is it!

According to the media 7,000 wind turbines are to be erected on the hills and around the coasts of Britain by 2020. Apparently they will be the highly visible symbols of what the Prime Minister called “the most drastic change in our energy policy since the advent of nuclear power” �“ a shift to producing at least a third of Britain’s electricity from carbon-free renewable sources, compared to under 5% cent today. That, of course, is the government spin �“ with the actual number being built likely to be considerably less than that.

The objective, as set out in a consultation document that claims to lead to a formal new strategy, is to cut down the greenhouse gas emissions from conventional power stations that are causing climate change, reduce Britain’s reliance on foreign energy supplies, and meet the demanding climate target agreed by EU leaders last year, of providing 20% of Europe’s total energy use from renewable sources by 2020.

According to the experts, Britain’s share of this works out at a 15% renewable energy target, split between electricity, heating and transport, with electricity being the largest element: This means that between 30% and 35% of Britain’s power will need to be renewable by the target date, compared with a mere 4.5% today

But even those naïve enough to accept government proposals at face value concede that the investment programme and timetable needed to achieve this in a mere 12 years are demanding

Realistically, hitting these targets means at least trebling the current scale of wind-farm construction, adding 4,000 more onshore turbines to the 2,000 already in place, and installing 3,000 turbines in the sea, at a rate of two every three days between now and 2020, Christmas and bank holidays not excepted. Questions were raised as to whether or not Britain has the manufacturing capacity, or the number of engineers necessary to carry out the installations.

Yet the Government claims it can be done �“ the same Government that promised us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty that is!

It was clear from his speech recently that after a long time being more or less apathetic about renewable energy, Gordon Brown has himself, it would appear, undergone a damascene conversion to the real merits of the wind turbine and its related technologies.

And there would appear to be two reasons for this.

One is growing concern about the security of Britain’s energy supplies, thrust into sharp focus by the soaring oil price in the past six months, which Brown reminded the country was worse than the two oil shocks of the 1970s. Britain needs to kick its coal, oil and gas habit, and Brown reminded everyone that he also feels nuclear power sits alongside renewables as the way to do this.

The other is the realisation that the development of low-carbon energy technology, which is taking off across the world, represents a potential employment bonanza for Britain. Calling it “a green revolution in the making,” Brown said it could provide 160,000 new jobs �“ a figure he has yet to fully explain!

Suddenly, jobs and a stable economy, with which Brown has always concerned himself, fit into the scheme of things alongside helping the environment �“ and they all go forward as one package. Yet, like most things Labour turns it hands to, the most likely outcome will be a failure to meet targets �“ hence, who can blame the sceptics for believing that this is just so much more hot air and spinning windmills from Labour?

It is reported that the authorities are considering restricting the importation of plants from the United States to protect Britain’s oaks from a disease that could depopulate our ancient woodlands.

The problem is a fungus-like disease known as “Sudden oak death” which was initially brought in by plants imported from Asia. It is so potent that it can kill oaks within a few weeks of infection. Concerns are now being raised about imports from the USA where a second form of the disease has been diagnosed. This variant also attacks ash, beech and other species including bilberry and Scottish heather.

Already outbreaks of the disease, also called phytophthora ramorum, have been identified at over 600 sites in England and Wales and many others in Scotland.

The infestation normally begins to manifest itself with brown and black blotching on the leaves and twigs, before developing into oozing cankers on the trunk, leading to rotting and death. Experts fear it is spreading so fast that it could have the same impact as Dutch elm disease, which is estimated to have killed 25 million elms during the twenty year period beginning 1965

This week a report from the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) is to be released. This will warn that the number of disease outbreaks on all types of plant is up 60% on last year. It claims this is linked with the surge in imports of exotic foreign plants. British consumers spent £870m on them in 2005

The RHS report adds: “Alien pests and diseases, inadvertently imported on exotic plants, are threatening the plants in our gardens and across the countryside. Increased global plant trade, coupled with evidence of rapid climate change, suggests that the problem will only get worse”.

One option in countering the threat of sudden oak death is said to be extending the existing “plant passport” system controlled by the EU, which restricts the import of vulnerable species, especially rhododendrons, from infected parts of America.

Simon Thornton-Wood, the director of science and learning at the RHS, said: “This disease is hard to control. It has killed a lot of trees in America and we need to take it very seriously”.

Land & People agrees �“ we have already seen what the importation of the North American grey squirrel has done to our indigenous red, we need to ensure that our oaks and other native species are protected from alien species of flora.

According to the Government and independent academic demographics experts, Britain is about to witness unprecedented population growth, ranging from five to ten million, over the next twenty-five years.

With the birth rate of indigenous Britons just about at “replacement” level at best, it is clear that almost all this future growth will be down to either immigration or births within migrant communities already established here. We would refer sceptics to both the government’s Office of National Statistics (OS) site or to Migration Watch UK’s highly informative site, for confirmation.

The impact of population growth is already manifesting itself in many undesirable ways. Quite apart from the growing pressure on homes, education, health services, employment, social welfare, water availability, policing, energy demand, traffic congestion and landfill sourcing, is environmental destruction to provide the development land needed for the homes required to facilitate further immigration.

For some years now the availability of homes, for either purchase or rental, has been “drying up” �“ with demand increasingly exceeding supply. As a consequence both rents and mortgages have been pushed beyond the reach of many. This, in particular, has affected our young couples - resulting in many having to live at home with mum and dad and put off having a family of their own. The latter, of course, contributing to the stagnation in the indigenous birth rate.

Yet despite the obvious fact that the millions of migrants who have arrived in Britain over recent decades have had a massive negative impact on affordable home availability, a succession of governments have failed to take the obvious step �“ halting immigration �“ to prevent matters from getting even worse.

Instead of halting immigration the Labour regime has announced that it wants to build over two million new homes in Britain over the next twenty years �“ whilst, at the same time, allowing in anywhere between five to ten million more migrants! Clearly Labour’s mammoth house building programme has only one objective �“ providing the homes needed to facilitative their nation-wrecking immigration programme!

But all these homes have to be built somewhere. And although a significant proportion of them will be built on brown field sites in urban areas, the fact remains that the bulk of them will have to go on green field sites �“ resulting in the destruction of tens of thousands of acres of pristine countryside and green belt!

Only this week it was reported, in the regional media, that the Labour regime is to “pressurise” local authorities in the West Midlands into building almost 500,000 new homes in that region between now and 2028. This is partly in response to a regional baby-boom fuelled largely by births within the huge migrant communities already established in that region, but mainly to provide homes for the waves of migrants expected to settle there over the next two decades!

But why, the BNP asks, do we need to sacrifice our precious countryside to facilitate immigration that is neither wanted nor needed? We should slam the immigration door firmly shut and build homes only for our own people on brown field sites. In other words - follow through on the BNP’s “Sons & Daughters” home building programme. That way not only do we preserve our irreplaceable countryside from unnecessary destruction, provide affordable homes for our own people but also protect the quality of life of all our people from the dire environmental consequences of engineered gross overpopulation.

Yet - as with homes, education, health services, employment, social welfare, water availability, policing, energy demand, traffic congestion and landfill sourcing - the destruction of our countryside is an issue that arises directly out of overpopulation. And overpopulation is, without a shadow of a doubt, fuelled almost entirely by immigration!

Is this why the Green Party, for instance, refuses to recognise immigration as the greatest threat to this country’s habitats, our countryside and our quality of life? Is this why they campaign against the symptoms, rather than the predominant cause of these critical environmental threats?

So, once again we ask: Immigration - what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

Scientists report that five years without fishing around Lundy Island, off the coast of north Devon, have brought a significant revival in marine life.

As proof of this it is claimed that lobsters are now seven times more abundant within the protected zone than outside. The eastern coast of Lundy is Britain’s only “no-take” zone, where fishing is completely prohibited. Now conservation groups say Britain needs more of them, but the government’s recent Marine Bill promises only the much vaguer “marine conservation zones”.

The Lundy Island zone was set up five years ago by Natural England in consultation with the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee, which administers fishing along the county’s coasts. Scientists, representing Natural England, claim the zone should help Devon’s lobster-potters by providing a refuge where young lobsters can grow to maturity, then migrate into areas where commercial fishing is permitted. One marine biologist says: “The main result we have seen is an increase in the number of large lobsters in the no-take zone compared to areas where fishing is on-going.”

In addition recent surveys have discovered that lobsters above the minimum landing size are between six and seven times as abundant within the zone as outside. Furthermore, recent years have also seen an increase in the number of small lobsters within the zone and adjacent to the zone.

Scientists are now tagging the lobsters they catch. Fishermen are being encouraged to report catches of tagged animals, in order to show how far they are migrating out of the no-take zones. However, fishermen are said to be generally cautious about no-take zones. One fisherman commented: “It’s difficult to say whether it’s helped us - we didn’t used to fish in there much anyway, except close to shore, but it was always good for lobsters.

When we were asked about it we were all for t. but we couldn’t afford to have the zone made any bigger because it would completely ruin our business, and I think you’d find that with a lot of fishermen around the country - it would make it totally uneconomic.”

It should be recalled that Natural England’s main reason for wanting the zone closed was not to help fishermen, but to return a tiny fraction - 0.002% - of Britain’s seas to the state they were in before the era of modern fishing. Indeed, the site wasn’t just set up to protect lobsters, it was created to protect the whole environment - including the fish, sponges and the coral.

It is also believed that a unintentional by-product of the project could be an increase in the tourist trade. A full analysis has yet to be done, but anecdotally the numbers of divers visiting Lundy has risen. However, the views of fishermen are likely to be highly influential when it comes to deciding how many of the new marine conservation zones; which are several years away from being proposed - will actually enjoy the full protection awarded to the Lundy zone.

It is reported that some 700 scientists are attending a major conference in Brazil for the purpose of drawing up an action plan to protect the world’s wetlands. Conference organisers say a better understanding of how to manage the vital ecosystems is urgently needed. The conference has been called due to concern over rising temperatures, which are not only accelerating evaporation rates, but also reducing rainfall levels and the volume of melt water from glaciers.

Although only covering 6% of the Earth’s land surface, they store up to around 20% of terrestrial carbon.

The five-day conference, which is co-organised by the UN University and Brazil’s Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, will examine the links between wetlands and climate change.

Conference co-chairman Paulo Teixeira says: “Humanity in many parts of the world needs a wake-up call to fully appreciate the vital environmental, social and economic services wetlands provide. These included absorbing and holding carbon, regulating water levels and supporting biodiversity.

Meanwhile Konrad Osterwalder, who is the rector of the UN University, said that people in the past had viewed the habitats as a problem, which led to many being drained. he added: “Yet wetlands are essential to the planet’s health,” he explained. “With hindsight, the problems in reality have turned out to be the draining of wetlands and other ’solutions’ we humans devised”.

The conference follows a growing number of scientists warning that if the decline of the world’s wetlands continues, it could result in vast amounts of carbon being released into the atmosphere and compounding the global warming problem significantly. Critically, It is estimated that drained tropical swamp forests release 40 tonnes of carbon per hectare each year, while drained peat bogs emit between 2.5 to 10 tonnes. Yet data suggests that about 60% of wetlands have been destroyed in the past century, primarily as a result of drainage for agriculture.

It therefore makes sense to reduce the stress on wetlands caused by pollution and other human activity, as this will improve their resilience and effectiveness as “carbon sinks”. Wetlands should be considered “natural sponges” and their role as sources, reservoirs and regulators of water is largely under appreciated. In addition they also cleanse water of organic pollutants, prevent downstream flood inundations, protect river banks and seashores from erosion, recycle nutrients and capture sediment.

The conference organisers claim the ecosystems, many of which have biodiversity that rivals rainforests and coral reefs, were in need of complex long-term management plans. They hope, as one conference objective, to highlight the range of measures needed, such as agreements that covered the entire catchments of the wetlands.

There are fears amongst environmentalists that the proposed new generation of nuclear power stations could be built in flood-risk or supposedly environmentally protected areas of the country. This is because green safeguards are listed merely as “discretionary” amongst criteria, which government ministers intend to use to decide where to site the reactors, whereas commonsense should dictate that these are precisely the sensitive areas that should be ruled out!

Under Labour’s so-called Strategic Siting Assessment system, nominations for “credible” sites - crucially “backed by nuclear firms” - will be sought early next year. They would then be evaluated against a set of criteria before being put forward for planning permission - possibly using a the controversial planned “fast-track” approach that disregards public opinion.

It is claimed that although sites at risk of earthquake or near heavily populated areas will be instantly ruled out, this will not be the case where sites prone to flooding, coastal erosion or environmentally protected are concerned. Leaving the door open for the construction of the power stations, for which work is likely to begin around 2013, on environmentally valuable sites is seen as yet further evidence of this government’s apathetic attitude towards the environment.

A Government spokesman said: “Nuclear power is an essential part of our future energy mix. And, alongside a ten-fold increase in renewables and investment in clean coal technology, it will help wean us off our dependency on oil and protect us against the politicisation of energy supplies. So, we must do everything we can to remove any remaining barriers and open up the UK as the most attractive place in the world to invest in nuclear power. The strategic siting assessment is the next step towards a Nuclear National Policy Statement. This will help to speed up planning applications while making clear that safety and engagement with local communities are key.”

Not surprising then that some commentators are wondering whether the provision of investment prospects for nuclear programme speculators is higher up the Government’s agenda than environmental protection!

Details of a planned environmental assessment of the nuclear new-build project were also published today, which showed it would examine “the likely significant effects on the environment including biodiversity, population and human health, fauna and flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage and landscape.” All of which sounds fine in theory but when taken in the context of the Government’s stated evaluation priorities, amounts to very little - hence its perception by many as a piece of political posturing.

There will also, we understand, be a Habitats Regulations Assessment to monitor the potential effects on areas protected as part of the European Union’s Natura 2000 project. Interestingly, the Government’s Department for Business dismissed reported a few weeks ago that it had already drawn up a list of sites alongside existing reactors - including Sizewell, Hartlepool, Heysham, Dungeness, Hinkley Point, and Bradwell - as the most suitable places. Despite the denial the truth will only emerge next year - an announcement that Land & People is awaiting with much interest.

Speaking at the Euroscience Open Forum in Barcelona, a scientist representing the European commission’s Institute for Energy, claims that it would only require the capture of just 0.3% of the light falling on the Sahara and Middle East deserts to meet all of Europe’s energy needs. It is therefore perhaps no surprise that scientists are calling for the creation of huge arrays of solar farms - generating electricity either through photovoltaic cells, or by concentrating the sun’s heat to boil water and drive turbines.

It is further believed that a massive new direct current (DC) supergrid could transmit electricity along high voltage direct current cables to allow countries such as the UK and Denmark to export wind energy generated electricity at times of surplus supply, as well as to import electricity from other green sources. With energy losses on DC lines being far lower than on the traditional AC ones, transmission of energy over long distances is not only feasible but economic.

The grid proposal, which has won political support from a number of European leaders, answers the perennial criticism that renewable power will never be economic because the weather is not sufficiently predictable. However, its supporters argue that even if the wind is not blowing hard enough in the North Sea, it will be blowing hard enough somewhere else in Europe, or the sun will be shining on a solar farm somewhere.

Interestingly scientists also claim that harnessing the Saharan sun would be particularly effective because the sunlight in this area allows for around three times the electricity generation capability - compared with similar panels in northern Europe.And, to state the obvious, there are far fewer cloudy days in the Saharan area than in northern Europe!

It is also claimed that much of the cost would come in developing the public grid networks of connecting countries in the southern Mediterranean, which do not currently have the spare capacity to carry the electricity that the north African solar farms could generate. Even if high voltage cables between North Africa and Italy would be built or the existing cable between Morocco and Spain would be used, the infrastructure of the transfer countries such as Italy and Spain or Greece or Turkey also needs a major re-structuring.

The idea, of course, is not new and a number of southern Mediterranean countries - including Portugal and Spain - have already invested heavily in solar energy. In addition, Algeria has begun work on a vast combined solar and natural gas plant which will begin producing energy in 2010 - leading to that country being able to export 6,000 megawatts of solar-generated power to Europe by 2020.

We can but hope that this warning will prove to be an exaggeration, but the signs are not good.  Make sure you check out our advice on keeping warm this winter:

EUREFERENDUM Blog 29.7.08

A political black hole.

“Will they empty the jails for those who can’t pay gas bills? “

Very often it is The Sun which has its finger on the political pulse of the nation, leaving the politicians (and many of the more self-important political bloggers) floundering.

It is of some significance, therefore, that today this paper should run a major story on the energy crisis, pointing out the implications of spiralling energy costs for the less well off.

Thus, under the headline illustrated above, the paper notes that, “It’s odd to talk about heating bills in the hottest spell of the year, but many Sun readers must be scared about the coming winter.” Last week’s rises of 22 percent for gas and 17 percent for electricity are terrifying, it adds, then predicting: “There’s worse to come. Prices are sure to rise AGAIN in the winter, and by Christmas families could be paying £30 a week or more for light and heat �” nearly double last winter’s bill.”

Later in the story, we see the political slant, with the observation that, “The Government appears clueless. Labour have been asleep on the job as the rest of the world has been busy building nuclear power stations. Our own nuclear stations are years away.” The paper adds: “Thanks to Labour inaction we can store only 13 days’ worth of gas compared to 122 days in France. That leaves us at the mercy of sudden global price changes.”

Then we come to a damning, if not muted conclusion that: “Instead of plotting to remove Brown, Labour ministers should be plotting how to avert misery for millions this winter,” with the payoff line, “Lives will be at stake. It is as serious as that.”

It is indeed as serious as that, and the final point is well taken, but should have wider application. We have noted how the chatterati have been obsessed with the political theatre, relentlessly pursuing soap opera narrative of Brown’s supposed impending demise, all built on the thinnest patina of idle speculation.

Yet, in the here and now, we have an energy crisis of massive proportions building up which, in time, will become the main political issue of the day. But, at a time when �“ even at this eleventh hour �“ urgent and well-founded action could at least mitigate some of the worst effects, the political classes are silent. Energy simply is not on the political radar as a mainstream issue.

Part of this is due to the neglect of the main opposition, the Conservatives in what, as we remarked yesterday is not a technical issue but a politically induced crisis. By pursuing its soft, social agenda �“ and letting its “green” obsession overtake it - the Party has dropped the ball on something of far more importance and much greater urgency: the impact of spiralling energy prices and impending energy shortages, which as The Sun points out will affect most those who can least afford it.